Destruction of embryos intended for IVF...

I don't think it's a problem at all as it stands. I just wonder why the pro-life folks aren't giving any fucks about these embryos.

There's only so much time in a day and they're busy.

This kind of philosophical question could not be posed, without a million dollar facility which extracts an egg, provides a cozy meeting place for it and some sperm cells, and then slaps it in the freezer, and of course, someone to pay for the service.

If there is a practical answer to your question, it probably lies in the land of "what if?"

If a pro-choicer prevents an abortion, the baby is someone else's problem. It's much too easy to hand off a frozen embryo, or at least hand off the storage bills. Then our sign waver is faced with a few choices of their own. They can keep paying the bill, or recruit a woman to carry these very tiny people to full term. Who's going to pay for that?
 
Although I do agree with many of the crirpticisms of R-wingers in general, I wouldn't be so paranoid about it, in this particular situation:
Imo, it has more to do with the fact that we're dealing with "a bunch of cells" as opposed to a more developed lifeform.
 
Although I do agree with many of the crirpticisms of R-wingers in general, I wouldn't be so paranoid about it, in this particular situation:
Imo, it has more to do with the fact that we're dealing with "a bunch of cells" as opposed to a more developed lifeform.

What's the difference?
 
What's the difference?

From my pov, it's the difference between the two theories:
- "life begins at the moment of conception"
- versus "when does the fetal brain start developing?" (a few weeks later).

This is what makes me not care much about the discarded embryous, while it also makes me more ambivalent about abortion (although I'm pro abortion overall and against the intrusion of all those R-wing males upon women's lives and bodies).

I don't quite know how a R-winger would think on these issues. But I wonder if their reasoning might be similar.
 
Although I do agree with many of the crirpticisms of R-wingers in general, I wouldn't be so paranoid about it, in this particular situation:
Imo, it has more to do with the fact that we're dealing with "a bunch of cells" as opposed to a more developed lifeform.

Clearly that's not the case or they would be at least silent over Plan B.
 
From my pov, it's the difference between the two theories:
- "life begins at the moment of conception"
- versus "when does the fetal brain start developing?" (a few weeks later).

This is what makes me not care much about the discarded embryous, while it also makes me more ambivalent about abortion (although I'm pro abortion overall and against the intrusion of all those R-wing males upon women's lives and bodies).

I don't quite know how a R-winger would think on these issues. But I wonder if their reasoning might be similar.

It's just a line and anyone can draw their line anywhere they please. Some people feel better if they can say they don't object to abortion because it's not the end of a life. This way they can still believe life is sacred.

It's not really a question of when life begins. Life begins at conception. The real question is whether it's right to end a life, or not.

We do it all the time, whenever it seems expedient. There's no reason to think it makes a difference just because the person hasn't been born yet.
 
Let me note that as much shit as I give Republicans/Conservatives (and I do try to keep the categories separate when possible) and also not hold them responsible for what they are not saying at any given moment the could quietly ignore Plan B. Just not say it, the fact that they do tells me something and it's the same something that is told to me when I see them fighting against the HPV vaccine that could have prevented certain kinds of cancer because making sex safer would make their daughter's slutty.

While it's not exclusive to the Republicans it is primarily a religious thing that keeps our sex ed from being much more in depth and Europe and Asia demonstrate with this as with so many other things that yes the method works. Even just comparing state to state differences in sex ed are generally reflected in unwanted/teen pregnancy stats as well as the abortion stats.

So short answer if your school's teachers taught the girls how to put condoms on bananas orally your daughters would put condoms on boys orally. Sure she'd still be riding the ole trouser trout but she was going to do THAT regardless of anything you did. People have been figuring out how to insert tab a into slut B (see what I did there!) since before they were even people. No force on earth is changing that but the smart ones make better choices and you can't REALLY get but so upset with someone making a bad choice when you didn't arm them with knowledge.
 
Wouldn't that logically have a lot to do with how old the person is at the point of being adopted? I can't imagine anybody below the age of say six bring sufficiently versed in their native culture to be but so effected. Now there are OTHER issues out there but I don't really see that one as insurmountable.

Logically, it would seem so, but a lot of the sense of loss develops as the person develops. A child adopted from Korea or Ethiopia (or even Ireland), realizes they are different. By adulthood, it's not uncommon for them to think, "You took me from my mother, my family, my country. I lost my native name and language—everything." And even the most perfect, successful adoption in history cannot fill that inevitable sense of loss.
 
Logically, it would seem so, but a lot of the sense of loss develops as the person develops. A child adopted from Korea or Ethiopia (or even Ireland), realizes they are different. By adulthood, it's not uncommon for them to think, "You took me from my mother, my family, my country. I lost my native name and language—everything." And even the most perfect, successful adoption in history cannot fill that inevitable sense of loss.

I think it varies a lot depending on the individual. I know several adoptees who were very happy and pleased that they were adopted with no sense of loss.
 
I think one of the -ethical- differences resides in their stage of development :

"Embryo transfer can be performed after various durations of embryo culture, conferring different stages in embryogenesis. The main stages at which embryo transfer is performed are cleavage stage (day 2 to 4 after co-incubation) or the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6 after co-incubation)."
[Wikipedia]

"A termination of pregnancy is best done between eight and 12-weeks of pregnancy.
Before this the gestation sac is so small that it can be missed, and later than this the procedure is more complicated."

This would be relevant if the pro-life axiom wasn't "Life Begins At Conception". The circle doesn't square.
 
I think it varies a lot depending on the individual. I know several adoptees who were very happy and pleased that they were adopted with no sense of loss.

Not that they expressed to you. Do you know any adult adoptees with horror stories? Neither would likely talk about it in casual conversation.

Everyone's story is unique, and I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else. But in twenty years of floating through the adoption community, I would say the sense of loss is always there, even if well below the surface.
 
Not that they expressed to you. Do you know any adult adoptees with horror stories? Neither would likely talk about it in casual conversation.

Everyone's story is unique, and I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else. But in twenty years of floating through the adoption community, I would say the sense of loss is always there, even if well below the surface.

I know several adult adoptees with widely varying stories and I know many families with adopted children, mostly international adoptions. They are normal families, not perfect (what's perfect, anyway). I don't know any who would rather have been left in the conditions into which they were born or left. People do talk about these things.

I'm sure a sense of loss exists for adoptees. They would also feel that loss staying abandoned where they were, right? Perhaps some would, I guess. But I can't imagine that would be the majority response. I'm going to read up on this; I'm sure there a blogs and sites devoted to the topic.
 
I know several adult adoptees with widely varying stories and I know many families with adopted children, mostly international adoptions. They are normal families, not perfect (what's perfect, anyway). I don't know any who would rather have been left in the conditions into which they were born or left. People do talk about these things.

I'm sure a sense of loss exists for adoptees. They would also feel that loss staying abandoned where they were, right? Perhaps some would, I guess. But I can't imagine that would be the majority response. I'm going to read up on this; I'm sure there a blogs and sites devoted to the topic.

In an effort to help their adopted daughter keep her identity, friends of mine took her back to her birth country several times once she was a teen......until she asked them to stop.
As far as she is concerned, she is Australian, and her birth country makes zero difference.

I'm sure there are many adopted children who feel a sense of loss, but there are also many that assimilate completely into their new family with no ill-effects.
 
This article raises interesting questions about the parallels of destroying an embryo intended for IVF and elective abortion. The main question is valid, why are we not hearing outrage over these embryos? Do their lives matter less because their parents didn't conceive them via, gasp, irresponsible sex?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?postshare=4171448943277042&tid=ss_fb

Good Question. My best guess there are two types of pro lifer's. The first group believes life begins at conception and the 2nd believes it's human when physical features are identifiable.

#Humanlifeischeapthesedays :rolleyes:
 
Not that they expressed to you. Do you know any adult adoptees with horror stories? Neither would likely talk about it in casual conversation.

Everyone's story is unique, and I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else. But in twenty years of floating through the adoption community, I would say the sense of loss is always there, even if well below the surface.

These were intimate conversations. I know/knew these people quite well and they spoke very candidly about their adoption and family life.

Yes, I have known some horror stories too, but I know those among the non-adopted as well.

Not everyone who is adopted is part of the adoption community, many don't identify themselves as such unless there is a medical reason or such to do so.
 
Imagine how cheap it will be when the worlds population is 2x what it is now. :D

Scary thought.

Can there be consensus between the Hatfields and the McCoys on preventing pregnancy? I have to believe that the abstinence stance is the weakest link on that so-called Conservative chain. There has to be a way to fund Planned parenthood for pregnancy prevention so there are no unwanted pregnancies. (ya - i know there will be some but that would be the public policy goal).

(Sort of off topic Brooke, but it sort of fits because I think shooting IVF scientists and defunding the National Science Foundation is the next frontier for the so-called Conservatives)
 
I know several adult adoptees with widely varying stories and I know many families with adopted children, mostly international adoptions. They are normal families, not perfect (what's perfect, anyway). I don't know any who would rather have been left in the conditions into which they were born or left. People do talk about these things.

I'm sure a sense of loss exists for adoptees. They would also feel that loss staying abandoned where they were, right? Perhaps some would, I guess. But I can't imagine that would be the majority response. I'm going to read up on this; I'm sure there a blogs and sites devoted to the topic.

Well as Tolstoy famously wrote: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

"Abandonment" is an extremely rare situation, by the way, though one frequently utilized as an explanation.
 
These were intimate conversations. I know/knew these people quite well and they spoke very candidly about their adoption and family life.

Yes, I have known some horror stories too, but I know those among the non-adopted as well.

Not everyone who is adopted is part of the adoption community, many don't identify themselves as such unless there is a medical reason or such to do so.

Well you obviously have more experience with the subject than I do.
 
Well as Tolstoy famously wrote: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

"Abandonment" is an extremely rare situation, by the way, though one frequently utilized as an explanation.

The sense of abandonment could be caused many ways, including the death of one's parents. The sense of abandonment and loss is what you were referring to earlier, right?
 
Well you obviously have more experience with the subject than I do.

I have no idea of your experience and mine is only the people I know or have known. Your mileage may vary which is all I was saying in the beginning.
 
Back
Top