medical experiments for the whole lot of you

hopefully not obscure

Oldiron_79: medical experiments for the whole lot of you

hopefully not obscure

Um, yeah. Let's hope that someone gets that one.

Medical experiments? Bad idea.

These things never end well.

I've read Firestarter. I've seen what can happen.

Give them to those QuiverFull people.

CravenMorehead: Oldiron_79: medical experiments for the whole lot of you

hopefully not obscure

Um, yeah. Let's hope that someone gets that one.



/every aryan sperm is sacred

Use them to feed the cat...

And by "children", you mean "frozen embryos". Nice try subby.

1/10

20,000? That's enough for an army...

There should be a severe limit on how many frozen embryos one is allowed to create in the first place.

Aldo, there is embryo adoption...if you have enough kids and don't want your embryo you can choose to let a childless couple implant and have it.

Soup!

why do i have a sudden urge for rice pudding?

Yet, for some reason you never seem to see the fundies protesting outside fertility clinics or the Catholic church condemning this practice. As if there were any true distinction between these "lives" and ones created naturally, but which have been aborted.

In fact, the two situations are treated entirely differently. The parents who go the abortion route are truly "monsters" who lack morals, ethics, etc., while the couple who create dozens/hundreds of fertilized embryos are heroes for going to such lengths to have children. My thought is that basically if you need to go to such lengths just so you can spread your seed, it's probably more about ego. If you can't find a child to adopt and love (when there are so damned many needing a loving home) you probably wouldn't be a very good parent in the first place.

Sent them to Mars?

See what happens in a million years or so?

The problem is a really complex one - you can limit the number of embryos created each attempt, but not all embryos are "equal." They are graded by how likely they are to actually survive implantation.

To get a couple of good embryos to implant, you actually end up needing to create a fair number of embryos. And a lot of the ones that are "saved for later" are actually of a fairly low grade.

I can only have more children if I go through an IVF. Its being unable to resolve these ethical issues for myself that has kept me from doing so.

What I do know is I want the government to stay the hell out of this. Its waaay too complex an issue for legislation (much like end of life choices should not be legislated).

Why not go find some people protesting a clinic and give them each an emryo sno-cone to take home and keep in their freezers? Then they can actually be contributing something to defend the lives of children that don't really exist.

personally I don't see why someone who views an embryo as human would do IVF. I mean it not like there is a shortage of anwanted kids that can be adopted.

I personally view it as alive after it has a heartbeat and brainwaves, the same criteria we use for establshing death.

moonscatter: What I do know is I want the government to stay the hell out of this. Its waaay too complex an issue for legislation (much like end of life choices should not be legislated).

It's going to happen, one way or the other. In fact, over the next 40 years, it will probably swing back and forth between 2 extremes: Absolutely no IVF, or mandatory someone else decides what to do with the left-over cells, and the parents get no say.

"How Rain transform'd by this prolifick Power,
Falls from the Clouds, an animated Shower.
He sung the Embryo's growth within the Womb,
And how the Parts their various Shapes assume."

- 'Prince Arthur. An Heroick Poem in Ten Books' by Sir Richard Blackmore.

Embryosicles!

Let them eat cake!

lawboy87: In fact, the two situations are treated entirely differently. The parents who go the abortion route are truly "monsters" who lack morals, ethics, etc., while the couple who create dozens/hundreds of fertilized embryos are heroes for going to such lengths to have children.

Of course. Because in their world, the abortion-seeker is a single woman who is sinfully having sex. The IVF-seeker is a married couple who are simply trying to obey the directives in the Bible to be fruitful and multiply.

Oldiron_79: medical experiments for the whole lot of you

hopefully not obscure



Look at 'em! Bloody Catholics!

lawboy87: My thought is that basically if you need to go to such lengths just so you can spread your seed, it's probably more about ego. If you can't find a child to adopt and love (when there are so damned many needing a loving home) you probably wouldn't be a very good parent in the first place.

Nice troll bro. But I'll bite anyway. You obviously have no idea how invasive and prejudicial the adoption process is. If these kids need a home so badly it wouldn't cost tens of thousands. It wouldn involve opening your life up to scrutiny that not even politicians are put to in a hotly contested campaign.

I started the adoption process and what I saw sickened me. It's not about protecting the children it's CYA theater for the agencies. I was a school teacher. I live in a 5000sqr ft 5 bedroom house. My wife and I have been married 10 years. You should be begging me to take your bastard child not shaking me down for 30grand. But you don't have to ask permission to get pregnant with your own child.

Oldiron_79: personally I don't see why someone who views an embryo as human would do IVF. I mean it not like there is a shortage of anwanted kids that can be adopted.

I personally view it as alive after it has a heartbeat and brainwaves, the same criteria we use for establshing death.

The reason this and abortion are so popular is partly due to unwillingness to adopt, it's pretty sad.

Also, I really don't see why we don't use the brainwaves to determine life, both for abortion and this. It's so simple and scientifically accurate, and yet morons insist that it's only a baby once it comes out the vagina. That's just as dumb if not dumber than thinking it's a full human the instant it's conceived; at least there's an actual significant change for the baby at conception, birth itself can be a month or more late/early and the baby can be fine.

Oldiron_79: personally I don't see why someone who views an embryo as human would do IVF. I mean it not like there is a shortage of anwanted kids that can be adopted.

I've never understood this either. I can honestly see why some people would feel conflicted on the issue, but I don't understand why those people would even go through with IVF when they know this is going to be a problem.

/Personally I'd just toss the extras in the trash

Darn, I was hoping this was about teenagers.

An embryo can split in two and grow to be 2 babies, or 3 and become 3 babies

2 embryos can fuse and grow to be one baby (medical term is "chimera").

embryo != baby

QED

The feds spend almost $4 million on 'awareness' programs? How many real children could that have helped?

lawboy87: In fact, the two situations are treated entirely differently. The parents who go the abortion route are truly "monsters" who lack morals, ethics, etc., while the couple who create dozens/hundreds of fertilized embryos are heroes for going to such lengths to have children. My thought is that basically if you need to go to such lengths just so you can spread your seed, it's probably more about ego. If you can't find a child to adopt and love (when there are so damned many needing a loving home) you probably wouldn't be a very good parent in the first place.

Of course a majority of parents who adopt are white and of course they want a white baby. Heaven forbid people think mommy slept with a black man or mexican. I've seen people going so far as to adopt from Russia and Yugoslavia, and they claim they are rescuing them from poverty. There are a lot of poor brown children looking for good homes here.

/I hate playing the racecard but sometimes it's true.

So.... can we have your liver?

Oh yeah,

And an embryo can partially split in two to grow to be a pair of conjoined identical twins.

If a partially split embryo grows its body to divide below the shoulders, then it grows into one child with 4 legs.

If a partially split embryo grows its body to divide above the shoulders, then it grows into two children who share a lower body.

And absolutely no one disagrees about this.

From this, what can we determine IS meant by the term "child"?

Ashtrey: Why not go find some people protesting a clinic and give them each an emryo sno-cone to take home and keep in their freezers? Then they can actually be contributing something to defend the lives of children that don't really exist.

That sounds great to me.

Steve Zodiac: moonscatter: What I do know is I want the government to stay the hell out of this. Its waaay too complex an issue for legislation (much like end of life choices should not be legislated).

It's going to happen, one way or the other. In fact, over the next 40 years, it will probably swing back and forth between 2 extremes: Absolutely no IVF, or mandatory someone else decides what to do with the left-over cells, and the parents get no say.

Quite possibly. And it will push some interesting areas of constitutional law.

Right now embryos are property and subject to contracts, at least in Texas. Which actually allowed a dad to force the destruction of embryos. Kinda funny in such a pro-life state (well, pro-life until you are born state)

OhioKnight: 2 embryos can fuse and grow to be one baby (medical term is "chimera").

I do believe I learned that from CSI.

I have a vial of sperm in one hand, and a vial of a couple million eggs in the other...

If you anti-abortion protesters don't go home I'll mix them together before I dump them, causing the conception and murder of millions of unborn babies.

Don't make me do it...

You guys aren't looking at the big picture here. Imagine the food that can be harvested if these things are grown properly, and if we find enough people in Africa hungry enough to get over the whole "human flesh" thing... which I'm sure we can..

And let's not forget government super-soldier projects! What could possibly go wrong?

We have a genetic gold mine on our hands.

Barakku: Oldiron_79: personally I don't see why someone who views an embryo as human would do IVF. I mean it not like there is a shortage of anwanted kids that can be adopted.

I personally view it as alive after it has a heartbeat and brainwaves, the same criteria we use for establshing death.

The reason this and abortion are so popular is partly due to unwillingness to adopt, it's pretty sad.

Also, I really don't see why we don't use the brainwaves to determine life, both for abortion and this. It's so simple and scientifically accurate, and yet morons insist that it's only a baby once it comes out the vagina. That's just as dumb if not dumber than thinking it's a full human the instant it's conceived; at least there's an actual significant change for the baby at conception, birth itself can be a month or more late/early and the baby can be fine.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person left on the planet who is rational enough to think brainwaves/heartbeat is a good stadard.

I swear the Mengeles that think till it pops out of the vag its just a bunch of cells even when its past the point if could survive if born prematurely are probably the only people on the planet more stupid and dogmatic than the abortion clinic bomber types that think its a full human the second sperm and egg meet (if not before)

They are to murderous sides of the same dumbasstic and dogmatic coin.

I have just pissed off like 99.999999% of the population.

2 words: Soylent Veal.

lawboy87: Yet, for some reason you never seem to see the fundies protesting outside fertility clinics or the Catholic church condemning this practice. As if there were any true distinction between these "lives" and ones created naturally, but which have been aborted.

Actually, the Catholic church condemns the whole "test tube baby" process, for this reason among many.

CheekyMonkey: 2 words: Soylent Veal.

Well if you pickle them soylent baloot.

Oldiron_79:
I swear the Mengeles that think till it pops out of the vag its just a bunch of cells even when its past the point if could survive if born prematurely are probably the only people on the planet more stupid and dogmatic than the abortion clinic bomber types that think its a full human the second sperm and egg meet (if not before)

I would tend to agree with you, although since I've never, ever heard anyone advocate that idea that you apparently made up, I really never thought about it.

OhioKnight

You have never heard of partial birth abortion?

clusterfrak: CheekyMonkey: 2 words: Soylent Veal.

Well if you pickle them soylent baloot.

I prefer mine tartar

Barakku:
Also, I really don't see why we don't use the brainwaves to determine life, both for abortion and this. It's so simple and scientifically accurate, and yet morons insist that it's only a baby once it comes out the vagina. That's just as dumb if not dumber than thinking it's a full human the instant it's conceived; at least there's an actual significant change for the baby at conception, birth itself can be a month or more late/early and the baby can be fine.

WTF???

This is the very first time I've come across this notion, and this is not my first abortion thread.

I've never heard anyone claim that a baby - say - in the last trimester is a clump of cells.

Barakku: Also, I really don't see why we don't use the brainwaves to determine life, both for abortion and this. It's so simple and scientifically accurate, and yet morons insist that it's only a baby once it comes out the vagina. That's just as dumb if not dumber than thinking it's a full human the instant it's conceived; at least there's an actual significant change for the baby at conception, birth itself can be a month or more late/early and the baby can be fine.

Well, part of what makes abortion a tricky situation is that, even if it was accepted unequivocally that a fetus (after brain activity begins) is a human life and deserves human rights, there's no particular legal compulsion for one person to continue to sustain another's life.

For example, say you had a very rare blood disorder and needed periodic transfusions to stay alive, and by a rare coincidence, I happened to be the only compatible donor on the planet. It would still be within my rights to withhold my blood from you. While ethically I would have a responsibility (and of course if this actually happened, I would voluntarily give blood) there's no legal option to compel me to do so against my will. If I chose to simply let you die, there would be nothing illegal about it. And in this case, we're both adults. There's no ambiguity at all that you have full human rights, but even your right to life doesn't translate into an obligation for me to sustain that life against my will.

That's why Roe v. Wade talked about fetuses below the point where they could survive outside the mother's womb -- beyond that point, the mother's decision to cease sustaining the fetus is not a death sentence, and so it's constitutionally permissible to ban such abortions.

Oldiron_79:
You have never heard of partial birth abortion?

Never heard anyone suggest the baby was a "bunch of cell". Heard it was medically necessary to kill the baby, which is the only reason anyone would attempt an abortion so late-term that the child has a chance at survival.

I believe that was dealt with in the specific reasoning of Roe V. Wade-- in the first trimester there is no hope for survival, so the state cannot restrict the practice because only the mother's life is at issue, in the 3rd trimester, the state can regulate.

Oldiron_79: OhioKnight

You have never heard of partial birth abortion?

Well, it didn't exist, until some politician invented it:

FTFWiki: "The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse - chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.[18] The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[6] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[19] This term was first suggested in 1995 by Congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.[20][21]"

Also, "Intact dilation and extraction (IDX)", as the procedure is scientifically called, "has had a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000" (also Wiki)

So get your straw man out of my internet.

clusterfrak: Well if you pickle them soylent baloot.

Soylent Caviar -- on a cracker.



You just cannot eat a few hundred thousand in a single gulp.

Okay, my wife corrects me -- SHE feels that way.

"Until it comes out the hole you can do anything you want to it"

Live and learn.

Oldiron_79: You have never heard of partial birth abortion?

In virtually every state, late-term abortions are only practiced if there's a serious risk to the mother's life or health.