For first time, scientists grow two-week-old human embryos in lab


#1

reuters.com/article/us-health-embryos-idUSKCN0XV260

Although I don’t approve of In Vitro Fertilization, couldn’t this also help in finding a possible solution to having embryos that mother’s don’t want to survive outside of the womb?

God bless,
D.


#2

I personally don’t like the international scientific community to decide something as important as this.The limit should be 0 days.

Sarah Norcross, director of the Progress Educational Trust, a charity which campaigns for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions, agreed that the research raised questions around the 14-day limit and said the international scientific community should “decide whether it is necessary and desirable” to extend it, and if so, by how much.


#3

+1
Calling it the “next limit” implies that the “limit” is and will be moveable. These poor precious souls. What is the next limit? 21 days? 28days? 20 weeks?

So who approves and signs away the child’s rights to be part of a science experiment?


#4

So, the scientists can create new human beings but must not allow them to live beyond 14 days? This whole idea seems wrong to me. Human beings ought not to be created in a petri dish, but in a woman’s womb. But ultimately this sort of thing could lead to sex for procreation being old fashioned and obsolete. Babies will come from factories.


#5

Did you even read the article?
“Scientists had previously only been able to study human embryos as a culture in a lab dish until the seventh day of development when they had to implant them into the mother’s uterus to survive and develop further.”
They aren’t killing all of these embryos…
I still don’t support it, but it makes me wonder.

God bless,
D.


#6

Not directly, no. But they are intentionally putting them into situations that they know with a very high degree of probability will lead to the child’s death. Kind of like dropping a baby out of an airplane without a parachute. Sure, they didn’t directly kill the baby, but they knew very well the likely outcome.

Disgusting. And this is why I’m strongly against IVF. IVF attempts typically implant multiple children, hoping at least one “catches” and knowing the others likely will not. And if they all implant and begin to grow, doctors often suggest a culling to reduce the number of children.


#7

Evil. Simply Evil. :mad:


#8

IVF is against natural law. I’m against it.


#9

Basically, the opening chapter of Brave New World.


#10

Human lives created and then destroyed. Awful.


#11

While I agree with you, I think we are on track to creating people in labs, ‘grown’ in liquid vats, and engineered to be the way they want, example would be soldiers, workers, etc.

I wonder though if God would allow mankind to do this ultimately, Im not sure if the created being would have a soul or not, If that is not trying to overthrow Gods position, I dont know what is!!


#12

Would the principal of double effect not apply here? I’m not Catholic, so pardon my ignorance in this question.


#13

One formulation is:
A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

[LIST=1]
*]that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
*]that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
*]that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
*]that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect”
[/list]
From here.

I’m unsure what the good end might be. Advancing research? But I see no good even closely proportional to the foreseen end.


#14

Terrible. :frowning: A fine example of how science has been contaminated by the Culture of Death.


#15

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.