Gingrich

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm not. They're not concerned with the 'kids' - they're concerned the wimmins is having sex. Since the ones going to IVF clinics are obviously all married and denied God's birthright of lots of kids, it's ok if a few thousand embryos every year get dumped. Let it be a single woman who enjoys sex, though, and Katie bar the fucking door.

Serioussy dude, you should seek help. It would totally suck to live life in your head. I hope you get better man, I really do.

[Harlowe]

Seriously, they don't have a problem with 400,000 stored embryos? There are what, 100,000 abortions a year and they aren't giving any attention to frozen kids? Seems to me a pretty hypocritical stance, one scenario suits them and the other doesn't. Much like being against abortion, but also against just about any social program that assists needy children.

Partha isn't crazy, he has a point.

[Ddrak]

I didn't get that from the article. I think he is more concerned with what happens with the excess embyros. Nothing new for Republican candidates.

Yes, but the only logical end game there is to shut down IVF. The very nature of the procedure is to generate significant numbers of embryos in order to maximize the chance of a successful implantation.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Seriously, they don't have a problem with 400,000 stored embryos? There are what, 100,000 abortions a year and they aren't giving any attention to frozen kids? Seems to me a pretty hypocritical stance, one scenario suits them and the other doesn't. Much like being against abortion, but also against just about any social program that assists needy children.

Partha isn't crazy, he has a point.

You're not that stupid Harlowe.

Partha is attempting to conflate moral aspertions on promiscuity with abortion. Surely you can see his "point", if you want to call it that.

[Kulaf]

I didn't get that from the article. I think he is more concerned with what happens with the excess embyros. Nothing new for Republican candidates.

Yes, but the only logical end game there is to shut down IVF. The very nature of the procedure is to generate significant numbers of embryos in order to maximize the chance of a successful implantation.

Dd

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

[Ddrak]

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

You can't if you want decent results. You'd have to change the very nature of a uterus.

Dd

[Harlowe]

You're not that stupid Harlowe.

Partha is attempting to conflate moral aspertions on promiscuity with abortion. Surely you can see his "point", if you want to call it that.

He has a point under that snark and there is some uncomfortable truth in it. You can continue calling people stupid every time they disagree with you or say something that makes you bristle, but it's meaningless.

[Kulaf]

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

You can't if you want decent results. You'd have to change the very nature of a uterus.

Dd

I'm pretty sure the uterus is used to one egg at a time.

[Partha]

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

You can't if you want decent results. You'd have to change the very nature of a uterus.

Dd

I'm pretty sure the uterus is used to one egg at a time.

Ignorance of the science. They implant multiple embryos at a time to increase the odds that one will 'catch'. They also keep bunches in storage because lots of days, the people using the IVF have an 0fer at the plate.

And yeah, Embar, convince yourself I'm crazy. If life begins when sperm hits egg, then there's no difference between a snowflake baby that gets thrown out in the trash and one that's aborted. Well, except for the fact that in one case, the woman has to have sex. It's telling that abortion clinic protesters never hit IVF clinics. But keep deluding yourself - after all, woman-haters worldwide have managed to convince themselves that women have less rights than a fetus in every case.

[Ddrak]

I'm pretty sure the uterus is used to one egg at a time.

Yes, and the chances of implantation being successful are around 1 in 4 at best (healthy 20 yr old) down to 1 in 50 or so once you're 40+. Egg harvesting is also a difficult and painful process that you don't want to repeat and fertilization isn't anywhere near completely successful as you can't easily tell if an egg or sperm is good at a chromosomal level. Then add to this the fact that it is infertile couples that you're dealing with and the chances of success are actually quite small.

So, to avoid repeated surgery and significant expense (it's expensive enough already) the do what they can to increase the odds of successful implantation by making lots of zygotes, selecting four or more and planting enough for a fair chance at viable pregnancy.

Short of redesigning the uterus to give implantation a better chance to work you are constrained by probability, economics and danger to the mother to sacrifice thirty or more conceptions for every attempted IVF course.

Dd

[Torakus]

Infertility is nature's way of telling you that your DNA is not welcome. Ban IVF!

/em Torakus slips back under the bridge to await the next billy goat......

[Embar Angylwrath]

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

You can't if you want decent results. You'd have to change the very nature of a uterus.

Dd

I'm pretty sure the uterus is used to one egg at a time.

Ignorance of the science. They implant multiple embryos at a time to increase the odds that one will 'catch'. They also keep bunches in storage because lots of days, the people using the IVF have an 0fer at the plate.

And yeah, Embar, convince yourself I'm crazy. If life begins when sperm hits egg, then there's no difference between a snowflake baby that gets thrown out in the trash and one that's aborted. Well, except for the fact that in one case, the woman has to have sex. It's telling that abortion clinic protesters never hit IVF clinics. But keep deluding yourself - after all, woman-haters worldwide have managed to convince themselves that women have less rights than a fetus in every case.

Now that's something we can agree on. I see the hypocrisy of calling a fertilzed egg a human life, but only targeting abortion clilnics.

[Kulaf]

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

You can't if you want decent results. You'd have to change the very nature of a uterus.

Dd

I'm pretty sure the uterus is used to one egg at a time.

Ignorance of the science. They implant multiple embryos at a time to increase the odds that one will 'catch'. They also keep bunches in storage because lots of days, the people using the IVF have an 0fer at the plate.

Necessity being the mother of invention an all.......so why improve the science if there is no need. Right?

Something tells me if they were only allowed to use 1 embryo at a time.....the science would improve to match the need. Or should I say......demand.

[Partha]

Or.....you change the very nature of the procedure.

You can't if you want decent results. You'd have to change the very nature of a uterus.

Dd

I'm pretty sure the uterus is used to one egg at a time.

Ignorance of the science. They implant multiple embryos at a time to increase the odds that one will 'catch'. They also keep bunches in storage because lots of days, the people using the IVF have an 0fer at the plate.

Necessity being the mother of invention an all.......so why improve the science if there is no need. Right?

Something tells me if they were only allowed to use 1 embryo at a time.....the science would improve to match the need. Or should I say......demand.

Hey, genius! It's not like the person's original uterus was using one embryo at a time, right?

[Torakus]

This quote tree has reached maximum density.

[Ddrak]

Something tells me if they were only allowed to use 1 embryo at a time.....the science would improve to match the need. Or should I say......demand.

Probably, but I'd argue that you're doing unnecessary experimentation that could easily create birth defects and the like given the nature of what you're going to be screwing around with.

Then again, I don't believe destroying excess zygotes and blastocytes is any sort of problem at all. If it was then you'd have to go after infertile women unsuccessfully attempting IVF over and over for serial homicide.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Dd... how many cell divisions before its a human? Zygote and blastocysts refer to embryonic development in general, regardless of the source of the embryo (frog, bird, mammal, human).

So tell me, when does that unique set of new human DNA get elevated to personhood?

[Ddrak]

In my opinion here, naturally:

Human? As soon as it's fertilized.
A person? Much more difficult question - probably around the time the neural tube starts differentiating into an early brain which is 6 weeks-ish after LMP if I recall correctly.
Has the right to life? As soon as it can be sustained outside the womb.

I don't mean to belittle anyone else's beliefs on the matter here - those are just my own thoughts. For now.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

So a right to life is pretty much technology driven in your opinion?

[Ddrak]

Sort of. I believe the mother has the right to tell the baby to get the hell out of her uterus. I also believe that in conjunction with that if the baby has any chance of surviving the eviction then the mother (and medical staff attending) have a duty to attempt to preserve the life.

To put it a different way, I believe one of the limits of someone's right to life is someone else's physical body.

It's a very difficult area. I think the "viable birth" point is an absolute end to the point where the mother's rights could trump the child's. I think conception is far too soon given most fertilized eggs fail implantation and we're not about to arrest every woman alive for involuntary manslaughter.

I also think there's some very strong moral arguments in play that don't necessarily translate to legal obligations.

Dd