The referendum is over. Those discussions werent about the rights and wrongs of abortion or about convincing people. That ship has sailed.That seems a bit odd TBH - how could convincing people not be relevant to the discussion when there has just been such a massive rejection of your view of the subject? If it were me, I would think it urgent to consider why my views had been so resoundingly rejected, to see whether I had got something wrong somewhere.
Of course I am happy to discuss any aspect of abortion but in an orderly fashion not with someone butting into other discussions before those debates have concluded.
I already gave a reason - in 9 months an embryo will still be an embryo - its not the same as actively preventing a baby from being born - that said if there are practical options that would avoid that dilemma they should be explored.You're making my point for me here. Would you care to hazard a guess as to why prolifers just don't care about IVF embryos being destroyed, to the extent that most people don't even think of them when discussing protection of the unborn?
Now you tell me - If its the slam dunk you seem to think it is why werent prochoicers bringing it up in the debates?
No it isnt. Short of forced implantation what do you suggest? Banning ivf would eliminate the dilemma but then parents would be denied the opportunity of having a child. Other options would reduce the chances of success - im Not a cheerleader for ivf but perhaps society views the dilemna of unused embryos as acceptable to be able to give people the opportunity to have children they otherwise couldnt.This seems to be a variant of the "it's natural" argument, but we intervene to help or to hinder nature all the time. If you had a cancer, I don't imagine you would be impressed by a doctor who refused to intervene actively because it was unnatural, would you?
Well no, the law could require that a couple undergoing IVF should first agree to have all the fertilised eggs implanted or donated to someone else who will have them implanted. If they don't agree they don't have IVF. Just like if they don't pay their medical bills.
My position is that it is wrong to intervene to end a human life except in life and death situations.Could you explain why you think that please? Clearly, and preferably in steps.
Because it seems completely incomprehensible to me that someone can ground their objection to a first trimester abortion for a raped child in a belief that a new life begins at fertilisation, but that allowing destruction of IVF embryos, or practices like multi-foetal reduction, do not completely contravene this belief.
You finding examples where the law permits destruction of embryos doesnt Change that - there are reasons why the moral dilemma of the disposal of unused embryos is considered acceptable for the greater good of allowing people to be parents who otherwise couldnt.
There are clear distinctions between the treatment of frozen embryos that will still be frozen embryos years from now and the deliberate ending of a pregnancy that would result in a baby in 9 months.