Creation of Humans to Provide Spare Parts for Another

A British Court ruled it’s ok to “create babies” to cure sick siblings and get the embryos checked for a tissue match prior to invitro fertilization. This is just sickening. These people create life, and then toss it away if it’s not quite what they want. And because a government said it was ok, people are going to think they are doing nothing wrong. :crying:

i don’t even have words to describe the disgust I feel, especially as I infer this is to destroy the created one for use by their other child.

[quote=MistyF]And because a government said it was ok, people are going to think they are doing nothing wrong. :crying:
[/quote]

Its sad that so many people make legality the basis of their morality. The majority of Americans were against abortion right up until Roe vs Wade, then opinion shifted. This is why we should never allow drugs to become legal. :nope:

[quote=alyssa]i don’t even have words to describe the disgust I feel, especially as I infer this is to destroy the created one for use by their other child.
[/quote]

No, but close. If the tissue doesn’t match, so the baby can’t donate tissue of some sort to the sibling, the invitro fertilization never takes place, the embryo is destroyed. If there is a match, the invitro fertilization does take place, and the baby is born, but with the intention that the baby will donate tissue of some sort (depending on the “need”). The baby with the match is not destroyed, though.

It is just so wrong to create a life, supposedly to save another, and then judge that created life not worthy and destroy it. The next step is “designer babies” where the parents check to see what color eyes or hair the baby will have before deciding to keep it. If destroying the life because there’s no tissue match is an ok thing to do, then destroying the life because the baby won’t be a blonde would be ok too, by that reasoning. Sick. :frowning:

Anybody read any of Peter Singers so-called works?He is very highly admired and he feels and advocates that not only that should happen but also you should be able to have a baby deliver the baby and if a sibling needs a heart take it:mad: Sick and evil is what it is:mad:

[quote=MistyF] The next step is “designer babies” where the parents check to see what color eyes or hair the baby will have before deciding to keep it. If destroying the life because there’s no tissue match is an ok thing to do, then destroying the life because the baby won’t be a blonde would be ok too, by that reasoning. Sick. :frowning:
[/quote]

Hitler would be dancing with joy at the prospect.

[quote=rastell]Hitler would be dancing with joy at the prospect.
[/quote]

**What is sad is they would deny the connection between the two:nope: **

besides the obvious immorality of the whole issue…do people realize that these creations would not have a soul?

[quote=beverly30]besides the obvious immorality of the whole issue…do people realize that these creations would not have a soul?
[/quote]

Huh? Why wouldn’t they have a soul? I don’t know the Church’s teaching on whether an embryo conceived this way, but is never implanted would have a soul, or not. But, I think I remember reading that it does. But the ones that are implanted, and come to full term, and are born - they definitely have a soul. And they don’t kill these babies. But, they do kill the ones that they don’t implant.

my apologies, I wasn’t thinking . I guess I was just thinking more about man’s interference and how that might disrupt God’s plan. I was a little off in my statement.:o

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.