|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 5:53:55 GMT
A few posters on this board have said they believe human life begins at conception, and have spoken out against abortion. But I have seen no similar outcries about IVF, and I wonder why? 1 million embryos destroyed in UK clinicsOkay, the figure covers a 14 year period, but at my (very rough) estimate, the number of embryos destroyed through IVF probably amounts to about 50 per cent of those destroyed via abortion. OK, the aborted foetus is at a later stage of development, but I doubt if that is the reason for the relative silence of the Pro Life lobby on this point. I've asked the question a couple of times on abortion threads, but have had no response. So I ask again: why not divert some of your energies away from complaining about abortion to protesting about the deliberate creation of embryos, most of which will be discarded? I won't try to second guess your reasons. I really am interested.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 4, 2009 18:35:16 GMT
A few posters on this board have said they believe human life begins at conception, and have spoken out against abortion. But I have seen no similar outcries about IVF, and I wonder why? 1 million embryos destroyed in UK clinicsOkay, the figure covers a 14 year period, but at my (very rough) estimate, the number of embryos destroyed through IVF probably amounts to about 50 per cent of those destroyed via abortion. OK, the aborted foetus is at a later stage of development, but I doubt if that is the reason for the relative silence of the Pro Life lobby on this point. I've asked the question a couple of times on abortion threads, but have had no response. So I ask again: why not divert some of your energies away from complaining about abortion to protesting about the deliberate creation of embryos, most of which will be discarded? I won't try to second guess your reasons. I really am interested. From conception is the American definition. "George Tiller, a Kansas physician and abortion doctor, was shot and killed while he attended church on Sunday." Incidents such as this make me realise how lucky we are that the puritan influence was removed.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 4, 2009 20:46:50 GMT
A few posters on this board have said they believe human life begins at conception, and have spoken out against abortion. But I have seen no similar outcries about IVF, and I wonder why? 1 million embryos destroyed in UK clinicsOkay, the figure covers a 14 year period, but at my (very rough) estimate, the number of embryos destroyed through IVF probably amounts to about 50 per cent of those destroyed via abortion. OK, the aborted foetus is at a later stage of development, but I doubt if that is the reason for the relative silence of the Pro Life lobby on this point. I've asked the question a couple of times on abortion threads, but have had no response. So I ask again: why not divert some of your energies away from complaining about abortion to protesting about the deliberate creation of embryos, most of which will be discarded? I won't try to second guess your reasons. I really am interested. Skylark, I can't answer for anyone else on this board but I DO care passionately about this wanton murder. I HAVE protested about it on other forums and some people HAVE taken the same view as me. I've no idea why it isn't arousing the same degree of outrage as abortion. Why do I oppose both abortion AND the IVF murders? For the same reason I oppose murder, torture, human rights abuses and vivisection of animals - because I honestly feel it's WRONG!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 5, 2009 2:29:50 GMT
Life does not 'begin' at conception. Life and non-life are our own interpretations. There is only the Universal Unknowable that sets the scenarios like a playwright seeing how many will stay in character and how many break through to realise that they are only playing a part, and they are a part of What wrote the whole play, but their obsession with acting their part has made them forget that they are only actors, not the parts they play.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2009 5:49:33 GMT
Lin, thank you for your answer. it is just that I never see people on the this board protesting about IVF, just endless threads and comments about abortion.
I'd love to know if the Pro Life lobby treat people with babies created by IVF in the same way as they regard women who have had abortions. When hearing of a friend who conceived through IVF do they think "what wonderful news?" or "how many innocent lives were destroyed in the process"?
Ratarsed, there are all kinds of ways of deciding when "life" as a person begins. Some might say conception, others on implantation in the womb. I suppose you could draw a line at the point at which cells stop dividing and an embryo becomes a foetus, or when a foetus becomes capable of survival outside the womb, or at birth....each is arbitrary to come extent.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 6, 2009 5:43:31 GMT
Skylark, I may not be as well informed about IVF as you are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVFAs i understand the procedure the egg and not the foetus is fertilized outside of the body and implanted! I have no problem with this if i'm correctly informed! Many woman may not be able to conceive otherwise..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 7:19:24 GMT
I know little about IVF either, other than the fact that it involves the destruction of embryos.
Conception is the process of fertilising an egg, and if this creates a human life, then surely it is irrelevant whether it takes place inside or outside the body?
I have a feeling that IVF usually involves implanting more than one fertilised egg then removing some embryos at a later date.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 6, 2009 14:55:22 GMT
I know little about IVF either, other than the fact that it involves the destruction of embryos. Conception is the process of fertilising an egg, and if this creates a human life, then surely it is irrelevant whether it takes place inside or outside the body? I have a feeling that IVF usually involves implanting more than one fertilised egg then removing some embryos at a later date. Most people would say that fertilized eggs are implanted and not embryos. I don't have a problem here, although i believe "hard liners" would. The motive of IVF is to give a child the gift of life and bless a family with a child and not kill a child.. Motives are important in my eyes. True the fertilized eggs that are not accepted by the mothers body go the way unfertilized eggs do. I would congratulate a mother who bears a child with this IVF method just as warmly and lovingly as i would a mother who gave birth without medical aid. This does throw the hard liners a curve ball so to speak! I would also say the "morning after pill" is the "least wrong" of all the abortion methods too, and rape victims, etc. are not wrong in using this option.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 15:35:26 GMT
The "morning after" pill is a contraceptive, and does not induce abortion! There is a suggestion that it prevents a fertilised egg from implantation in the womb but so far as I know that is unproven.
As for the idea that killing embryos (and they are embryos) is justified in the interets of giving someone a child - well, of course I agree. But if you think life begins at conception, it seems odd to say it is okay to kill a baby deliberately created in the interests of providing another, but not okay to kill if the mother doesn't want it.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 6, 2009 18:15:44 GMT
Skylark, I'm certainly not a moral absolutist! There are shades of grey, close calls and exceptions to the rule! But i'm overjoyed when a baby is born healthy!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 18:33:46 GMT
Anna - of course. Aren't we all!
But the saddest thing is when a baby isn't wanted. That is one reason why I'm in favour of abortion.
But the one thing that lifts my heart more than anything is when people - perhaps those who can't have children of their own - reject IVF and adopt. Sometimes they adopt disabled children, perhaps children with Downs, who have been rejected by their natural parents.
|
|
|
Post by mindy on Jun 7, 2009 3:01:08 GMT
Anna - of course. Aren't we all! But the saddest thing is when a baby isn't wanted. That is one reason why I'm in favour of abortion. But the one thing that lifts my heart more than anything is when people - perhaps those who can't have children of their own - reject IVF and adopt. Sometimes they adopt disabled children, perhaps children with Downs, who have been rejected by their natural parents. If a baby isn't wanted, then a woman should not get pregnant! There are plenty of forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy, especially birth control pills which are 99% effective if taken correctly. Regular birth control pills actually made me sick, so I had to switch to a low estrogen level pill, which are for people who have problems on a regular birth control pill. I've yet to get pregnant, except when I've "wanted" to. Except in cases of rape, or if advised so by a doctor because of fatal health risks for the mother or child, there's no excuse for abortions just because the woman doesn't "want" the baby that she made. Somebody else might love to adopt that newborn. If a woman wants to have careless sex and she isn't prepared for a baby, she should own up to her actions, carry the baby in her for 9 months, then hand it over to one of the many couples who can't conceive and will love that baby. But that wouldn't be a convenience, would it? Oh well, people have to live with what they do, and for some women, having an abortion is no big deal. After all, it's just an embryo, right? Just somebody's soul, the beginning of their life...
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 7, 2009 4:52:46 GMT
Anna - of course. Aren't we all! But the saddest thing is when a baby isn't wanted. That is one reason why I'm in favour of abortion. But the one thing that lifts my heart more than anything is when people - perhaps those who can't have children of their own - reject IVF and adopt. Sometimes they adopt disabled children, perhaps children with Downs, who have been rejected by their natural parents. If a baby isn't wanted, then a woman should not get pregnant! There are plenty of forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy, especially birth control pills which are 99% effective if taken correctly. Regular birth control pills actually made me sick, so I had to switch to a low estrogen level pill, which are for people who have problems on a regular birth control pill. I've yet to get pregnant, except when I've "wanted" to. Except in cases of rape, or if advised so by a doctor because of fatal health risks for the mother or child, there's no excuse for abortions just because the woman doesn't "want" the baby that she made. Somebody else might love to adopt that newborn. If a woman wants to have careless sex and she isn't prepared for a baby, she should own up to her actions, carry the baby in her for 9 months, then hand it over to one of the many couples who can't conceive and will love that baby. But that wouldn't be a convenience, would it? Oh well, people have to live with what they do, and for some women, having an abortion is no big deal. After all, it's just an embryo, right? Just somebody's soul, the beginning of their life... Excellent post Mindy! Society also has to stop judging women, who do allow their unborn child to live and be adopted by a family that will love that child! I'm really shocked by the number of women who say they would rather have their unborn child killed than give their child up for adoption.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2009 5:46:17 GMT
Well, all I can say to Mindy is that if your contraception has worked, lucky you! I agree that we shouldn't judge women who give up babies for adoption, but the rest of it leaves me speechless....
....except to ask Mindy what she feels about destroying embryos (and they are embryos!) during the IVF process.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 7, 2009 9:46:35 GMT
The "morning after" pill is a contraceptive, and does not induce abortion! There is a suggestion that it prevents a fertilised egg from implantation in the womb but so far as I know that is unproven. Skylark Surely a contraceptive is something which prevents the sperm fertilising the egg, and the morning after pill is designed to remove the fertilised egg, not prevent the fertilisation process? (ditto the coil.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2009 10:51:09 GMT
I thought that, riotgrrrl, but a retired chemist on another board corrected me. She claims there although some people believe that the morning after pill prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb, the theory has never been proved. More suprisingly, she says the same applies to the coil. here's a link explaining how the morning after pill works the emergency pillApparently no-one i absolutely certain how the coil works but it seems to do so on a number of levels, depending on the type. how the coil works
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jun 7, 2009 12:46:08 GMT
Oh right Skylark. Thanks for that.
I love that 'nobody' knows how the coil works - it's like some great mystery! I know that Arab traders used to put pebbles in the wombs of their female camels before long desert treks to prevent them becoming pregnant on the journey, so maybe it's some kind of deep folk knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2009 14:18:07 GMT
It is strange, though, that both you and (I think ) Anna had thought that the morning after pill works in a different way. Am I being paranoid by thinking that the myth was spread about by the moral right to try to turn public opinion against it?
More importantly, if women who are opposed to abortion believe it works that way, they may not seek it when they should, thus lumbering them with an unwanted (or unplanned!) pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jun 7, 2009 23:07:39 GMT
Except in cases of rape, or if advised so by a doctor because of fatal health risks for the mother or child Why does that make a difference? If you believe that a child becomes a child at conception and has rights, then what matter does it make if that baby was the result of a rape? Surely it is no less a human because its father comitted a rape?
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jun 7, 2009 23:09:45 GMT
I'd been told that it prevents implantation and your article suggests that as one possibility if the non-release has not effected. I hadn't heard of its having that effect but I've only come across it once, following a mishearing at an unfortunate moment. I do remember somebody whose wife managed to lose 'coils'. I can't imagine that wearing that permanently is a good idea at all, on the basis that permanent irritants rarely are. The only friends I've ever known who had been tested for such a thing found it as impossible as I did contact lenses for vaguely similar reasons.
According to Germaine Greer, the best combination of (most contraception) times (least side-effects) is a Dutch cap still manufactured from real rubber to an 19th century design by one London company. Later designs are not as good. Failing that, she advises half a lemon though I hope the lady doesn't have any abrasions! All of which anyway, does not address the potential for VD, likely to be her giving him gonorrhea in exchange for his AIDS.
|
|