Why is the destruction of a blastocyst (3 day old embryo) immoral?

Question

Because honestly, I dont see anything wrong with it.

Im against abortion (the destruction of a human fetus) but Im not against the destruction of a human embryo. Is this hypocritical?

Can we argue this without invoking the bible? I already know what christians think what "God" thinks. I want ot know what YOU think.

Thank You!

Answer 1

I don't think a blastocyst is much different than a mole one might have removed...

Answer 2

What you have done is simply drawn the line between what you consider human life and what is not. I would like to take this idea further so we might look at it like this with a different perspective. another way to put it is You have decided to impose your free will to chose over the out come of something that does not yet have the ability to do so. You have made the choice to say I believe this is not life. But if you let it go would it have been?
Remember at one point you your self where in that state. So every thing you are today was at one point not life when it was a Blastocyst. However it did become you because of the free will of your parents continue to Grow. Ask your parents if when you where a Blastocyst would they have thought you were life.

I believe life starts when the sperm meats the egg and the potential is there for the rest of its history. if Naturally the baby dies then so be it, but if I or any one Else deliberately interferes with that we have destroyed what might have been some one just like your self.

So I might ask you, what is it when someone takes their ability to chose and uses it to remove the possibility of something that will have the ability to choose?

Just because it does not look like you, think, or move like you does not mean it is not like you. Every one was a Blastocyst at one point. And now they are just like you and I. I will not chose to remove that opportunity from anyone, if man is to do this the line can always move further ahead. But I also will not tell you you cant because I try not to impose my will upon others.

There are many ways to keep life from starting, but I think if it has started we must let it become what it could become with out our interference. Maybe a Churchill, Einstein, me, or you.

Answer 3

So the only difference between the two is 24 hours? What difference is that? You can name it what you want but a fertilized egg is just that. Life has been conceived. The problem is not the language we use. It's what we are doing with it. Harvesting cells from new born for science. Where does it go from here is even more of a moral issue. The farther you step across the line the easier it is to keep going.

Answer 4

I know it doesn't seem like it on the internet, but most people in the world who are pro-life are only against the destruction of fetuses, not embryos.

Of course, in some cases, it's really hard to say which is which. At 5 1/2 months, most fetuses could live independently, outside their mother, so a lot of people say that abortion is wrong at this point (since you're killing something that could live separately from its mother).

The belief that life begins at conception, and the opposite belief that partial birth abortions are okay are both fringe beliefs that are located at either side of the abortion debate, and almost no one believes either of them.

Answer 5

A blastocyst is an embryo, is a fetus, is an unborn child, is a born child. In other words, if you believe that life begins at conception, then it is just as wrong to kill the child in the womb, no matter at what stage, as it is to kill the child after birth.

Whereas your parsing of the 2 stages of development are incongruous, I don't think you're a rotten person for it. You simply haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion.

Contrary to Cody C's assertions, believing that a child is a person from the moment of conception is hardly a fringe stance. On the contrary, it goes to the very heart of the matter. If the child is a child in the womb, just as human as you or me, then they deserve our protection, regardless of the arbitrary stage they are in. If you believe that they become human at some other point within the gestational period, then you are drawing an arbitrary line for personhood, a line that can be moved, depending on your capriciousness.

Answer 6

I kind of agree. It is not even yet an embryo, yet alone a fetus. I think destruction of a fetus is immoral; destruction of an embryo is controversial; but destruction of a Blastula? Nahh, it's just a small clump of cells with no internal structure different than any other cells.

Peace.

Answer 7

Technically yes it is hypocritical. While maybe not as bad, it's still a viable human life.

I recognized the importance of the issue and hope for a better way.... I guess cloning or blastocyst formed oustide a human would be more palatable

Answer 8

I guess it depends on when you believe life begins. For some, it begins at conception, for others, it can be as late as third trimester (when the physician stabs the soft spot in the brain and crushes the skull of the baby).
Is it possible the blastocyst can be a preborn monkey, giraffe or new evolved species? Why isn't it a human?

Answer 9

(((I'm against abortion (the destruction of a human fetus) but I'm not against the destruction of a human embryo. Is this hypocritical?))

You do realize that a "baby" is classified as an embryo up until the 8th week of development. Yes it is slightly hypocritical.

Pro-choice.

Answer 10

then you too are a sinner - you allowed those fertilized eggs that did not implant to in simple terms cruelly and callously get flushed down a bathroom, wiped away on a tissue. One in 3 fertilized eggs by no skill implant, yet there you're, you probably did not something to maintain them. you have permit extra embryos of your own (or your woman's) die and additionally you probably did not die to maintain them. How hypocritical of you to nevertheless be alive. call others out on their habit while yours has reached comprehensive and absolute perfection.

Answer 11

What would that 'embryo' become? Suppose you wanted the embryo, and someone told you you could never have one, would it still be considered an embryo? The way you describe a child is ridiculous. It's only an embryo if you don't want it.
If there is a medical reason only, I think abortion should be legal. Only then. Not if you just simply don't want him, or something silly. Sorry, should of thought of that earlier. Birth control is easier and easier to obtain by the years. Use it.