CNN.com President Bush issues the first veto of his presidency [Archive] - Page 2

Sarah

07-25-2006, 03:38 PM

I think this is revisionist history, in order to appear like you had some sort of revelation when really, you just weren't ever committed to choice. At least own that.
Dude, this is a jerk thing to say. And it's not true. I just meant i gave speeches in high school at debates we had about it, at assemblies. I wasn't trying to say I was an activist or some wonderful thing, just that I was very committed to the cause. I think it's ignorant of you to not believe that a person could have a change of heart about something- I am willing to believe that a very stauch prolifer could become a prochoicer advocate. Why is this so unbelievable? There's no revisionist history (ie lying) going on here. Honestly. I went with friends to have abortions, I gave money to abortions rights groups, and I was very outspoken about it. It was a position I had thought about a lot and felt was right. I changed my mind after much thought and prayer and discussion, and it's really ridiculous for you to keep saying that I never really was prochoice.

kam

07-25-2006, 03:50 PM

Okay, that's it. You're calling someone else a jerk? Or sorry - you called her statement jerkish? How about this:

This is a POV I simply cannot fathom. I don't understand it at all. Abortion, IMO, is one of two things. It is either killing a life which has equal value to a born person (immoral), or it is not, and it is fine to do as one wishes. If it is the former, it should be stopped in every case and is horrifying. If it is the latter, it should be no more serious than an other minor surgical procedure, albeit it might be more emotional because of the potential for a child. I cannot understand a person who says it's wrong but won't legislate it. I think that's a cowardly stance, actually.

Yeah. Talk about jerkish.

I've been holding off on this for a while. I thought it best to not respond because it was so off-base that I thought it wasn't even worth it. I've tried, but your nasty remarks about others being the thread police and your unwillingness to indicate exactly how on earth you were a PP escort (by the way, just going on rides with friends to PP doesn't make you an "escort") just weakened me. So I'm responding.

First, I NEVER said my birthmother thought it was immoral to have an abortion. She was a clinical nurse and part of her job was to assist in abortions. She also was a field worker in trying to get people assistance when they were denied abortions (financial and emotional to support the family where they just didn't have the means).

Second, well, quite frankly with no other way to say this, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You made a judgement made on guesswork. You automatically thought that her decision to not abort had something to do with morality and that she somehow thought it was wrong. As I said, she was in the field. Not only did she understand what happens when people who have unwanted children (who selfishly think that being related will somehow be the cure-all), but she also understood that there were a lot of childless parents out there. So she made a decision to give my parents a child. I can't think of anything more brave and I'd think most of us wouldn't have the balls to give up a child even if we knew it was in the child's best interest. And if you can't understand her point of view, it doesn't make it cowardly, it just means you can't understand it. Your loss.

Ridiciulous and jerkish indeed.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 03:52 PM

I think that's right, on both counts. I think many pro-lifers (not speaking for or about Sarah in particular) think abortion kills babies (for lack of a more precise term). It's not a palatable sentiment, but it does not lead to crazy activities. Very few of them believe that abortion is murder, since murder is the illegal killing of a person, and abortion is not illegal, nor does the law recognize the embryo as a person. Those that do believe that abortion is murder, they tend to do crazy things: blow up clinics, kill doctors, stuff like that. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but sticks and stones and all that.
You may be right, in terms of actual definitions, but I have always thought of murder as the killing of an innocent life. Hence I wouldn't classify self defense as murder. I don't see the murder/kill debate as being about legality. I certainly would see a soldier as a murderer if he killed an innocent. I am not quite a pacifist, but I am rather close.

FWIW, I don't think you're right about the distinction between those who see it as "killing babies" (your words) and "murder." I know a ton of people who believe it to be both, and they don't commit crimes. My FIL went to jail for a while for nonviolent protesting at abortion clinics, and even he wrote letters to various men in prison for killing abortion providers, imploring them to change their ways.

msnicolea

07-25-2006, 03:55 PM

I was a PP escort, I gave speeches about it, I participated in debates about it. I think I would have died for the right to choose at one point.

You said you were a PP escort--that simply wasn't the case, was it? Being an escort and going with friends when they have an abortion are two very different things. And honestly, do you really want to talk about how much money you donated to pro-choice organizations before the age of 17? Come on now.

I stand by my statement.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 03:57 PM

(by the way, just going on rides with friends to PP doesn't make you an "escort"). I didn't say it did. I did do escort work at PP in Brooklyn. I don't know anything about the under 18 guidelines others have posted. I went there for my BC as a teenager, I asked if I could do the security thing (they didn't provide abortions there, but apparently still needed people to help) and would stand outside and help with it. I think I may have been lying about my age at the time, but they never asked for ID or anything.

And I never said that your mother is a coward. And I never assumed that your mother did anything for any reason. I was referring to the belief that abortion is wrong, but that it shouldn't be illegal. I wasn't even thinking about your example. It was a sentiment expressed by about a dozen people in the thread- "Well how dare you say it's wrong for everyone and foist your opinion on me?" and I was responding.

I have nothing but respect for women who choose to keep their children and give them up for adoption.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 03:59 PM

And honestly, do you really want to talk about how much money you donated to pro-choice organizations before the age of 17? Come on now.
This is silly. How am I supposed to defend these accusations? I worked a lot in HS, I went to PP for BC, and I couldn't afford much. I appreciated what they did so I would donate money when I could.

How would you feel if I questioned your even having an abortion? Ridiculous, right? Disagree with me all you want, but I cannot defend these assumptions and accusations that I am lying. It's silly, especially online. I have no vested interest in claiming I used to do these things, I was just sharing personal experience. I don't want credit or to prove some point. I used to be strongly prochoice, now I am prolife. Is that so unbelievable that I must be lying? Do I get points somewhere for having escorted, but fewer points for only going with a friend? Do I get points for giving money? Does the number of people in attendence for a speech matter?

msnicolea

07-25-2006, 04:06 PM

I know many people who have changed "sides" over the years, on a variety of issues. I don't find that part hard to believe at all. I just find your story to be shaky. Perhaps if you hadn't claimed to have been an escort, I wouldn't have even questioned it, but honestly, I find your "I would have diedfor the movement" comments to be disingenuous at best. But only you know for sure.

And yeah, lots of women lie about having abortions--you won't believe the positive attention I get from telling that little gem at cocktail parties! I'm hoping to run for polticial office someday so I can lie about it some more, too--I'll surely be elected then!

Sarah

07-25-2006, 04:10 PM

I just find your story to be shaky. Perhaps if you hadn't claimed to have been an escort, I wouldn't have even questioned it, but honestly, I find your "I would have diedfor the movement" comments to be disingenuous at best. But only you know for sure.

And yeah, lots of women lie about having abortions--you won't believe the positive attention I get from telling that little gem at cocktail parties! I'm hoping to run for polticial office someday so I can lie about it some more, too--I'll surely be elected then!
Sheesh. I wasn't actually saying you are lying! I think it's clear from my post that I was simply saying it's the type of thing you can't prove online. Of course I believe you, I've never questioned it.

Fine, think I am disingenuous. Whatever. I was committed. Call that into question, it has nothing to do with my points.

msnicolea

07-25-2006, 04:18 PM

I didn't think you were calling me a liar. My point is that there have been MANY posts on these boards from anti-choicers talking all about how they used to be pro-choice but now they aren't, or how many people they know who have had 4-5 abortions, using aboriton as birth control, or how often someone comes to talk with them to seek guidance about abortion, and honestly, I've had enough. That's a convenient argument, meant to discredit those of us who haven't "outgrown" our pro-choice position or seen the proverbial light. It's an attempt to make yourself (general you) look goodthoughtful and like you came about this position through years of self reflection and discussion.

Saying I've had an abortion certainly isn't an attempt to do that, is it?

ejs

07-25-2006, 04:20 PM

Go back and read how this thread has deteriorated. People have said judgmental things, and backpedaled. It's turned this into a discussion about abortion instead of leaving it a discussion about saving lives through research. PLEASE go start an abortion thread if that's what you want to talk about.

ESCR is an important subject. And yet this thread has now turned into chaos involving abortion, lying, murder, killing, rape.

kam

07-25-2006, 04:27 PM

And I never said that your mother is a coward. And I never assumed that your mother did anything for any reason. I was referring to the belief that abortion is wrong, but that it shouldn't be illegal. I wasn't even thinking about your example. It was a sentiment expressed by about a dozen people in the thread- "Well how dare you say it's wrong for everyone and foist your opinion on me?" and I was responding.

I have nothing but respect for women who choose to keep their children and give them up for adoption.

So you might have wanted to quote something other than what I said about her choice, eh? Nothing else was quoted - just what I had said about her choice. So what was on your mind if you were quoting it but not thinking about it? And per the request of ejs, I'll bow out.

msnicolea

07-25-2006, 04:30 PM

ejs

07-25-2006, 04:30 PM

So you might have wanted to quote something other than what I said about her choice, eh? Nothing else was quoted - just what I had said about her choice. So what was on your mind if you were quoting it but not thinking about it? And per the request of ejs, I'll bow out.
Kam, please don't leave because of what I said. I'm just frustrated that we can't stay on topic. But I understand that some people somehow view research on ESCs the same as they do an abortion. I also understand that once a thread has headed down a road, there's no stopping or controlling it, or turning back. And with the way this one has gone, it might be easier for another ESCR thread to be started as opposed to trying to rein this one in.

ejs

07-25-2006, 04:32 PM

I think it's difficult to seperate the two issues, ejs, especially when those opposed to the research often cite their anti-choice stance as the reason/justification for their opposition, and then make comparisons between stem cell research and abortion.

But I'll try to be good ;->
I posted at the same time as you. I understand that some people see a connection. And I respect that. I'm just frustrated that the posts about the connection have disappeared and the debate over abortion is raging.

As has been made clear, nobody here is the thread police. I know that I'm not. I'm just frustrated. I should probably step away for a bit and see where things go here.

kam

07-25-2006, 04:47 PM

Sarah

07-25-2006, 04:48 PM

I won't post anything else, because it's going nowhere, and I already tried to step out but was called back.
That's a convenient argument, meant to discredit those of us who haven't "outgrown" our pro-choice position or seen the proverbial light. It's an attempt to make yourself (general you) look goodthoughtful and like you came about this position through years of self reflection and discussion.
I don't see how it's "convenient" or an "argument." There was no argument. I simply used to be prochoice. I understand the argument, since I used to believe it. Just as a formerly devoted Christian would understand the Bible better than one who didn't know anything about it. Whether I used to be prochoice has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, it was just an aside. I certainly did not come to my position by years of thought or discussion, I came to it suddenly.

I think you're being defensive and attacking whatever comes out of my mouth, because you are so angry and hurt about what I've said and what my opinions are.

And Kam- I apologize, I shouldn't have highlighted your post, you're right. It was after a bunch of people expressing that sentiment I was talking about, and I was skimming and I grabbed it as an example, not remembering that your mother had a different take.

ejs

07-25-2006, 04:52 PM

I think you're being defensive and attacking whatever comes out of my mouth, because you are so angry and hurt about what I've said and what my opinions are.
Why, why, why would you even say this? Everybody here has been pretty vocal about their feelings. I don't think it's up to any of us to decide how someone else is feeling.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 04:52 PM

Kam, please don't leave because of what I said. I'm just frustrated that we can't stay on topic. But I understand that some people somehow view research on ESCs the same as they do an abortion. I also understand that once a thread has headed down a road, there's no stopping or controlling it, or turning back. And with the way this one has gone, it might be easier for another ESCR thread to be started as opposed to trying to rein this one in.
I don't think it's fair that you are basically saying that you have to see things your way to participate. For those people who are prolife, this issue and abortion are inextricably linked, because they both deal with when a person becomes defined as a person, and the rights of the various parties involved. This isn't some totally random discussion about larceny or flooding in Topeka, it's a perfectly relevent and related discussion.

I was learning more about the issue at hand (see my question about the way the system works now) when I was called back in to defend myself, actually. I won't post anymore unless someone else chooses to call me out.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 04:54 PM

Why, why, why would you even say this? Everybody here has been pretty vocal about their feelings. I don't think it's up to any of us to decide how someone else is feeling.
Because I state something that happened in my life in a sort of pointless aside and it is attacked as though I claimed to be Betty Friedan. No matter what I say it is taken the wrong way and the anger coming from some posters is pretty clear. I am not deciding how anyone feels, but I am stating my perception of their feelings, from the tone of their posts.

ejs

07-25-2006, 04:56 PM

I don't think it's fair that you are basically saying that you have to see things your way to participate. For those people who are prolife, this issue and abortion are inextricably linked, because they both deal with when a person becomes defined as a person, and the rights of the various parties involved. Do you want a thread where everyone comes in and agrees that ESC research is grand? This isn't some totally random discussion about larceny or flooding in Topeka, it's a perfectly relevent and related discussion.

I was learning more about the issue at hand (see my question about the way the system works now) when I was called back in to defend myself, actually. I won't post anymore unless someone else chooses to call me out.
Sarah, where did I say that only people who agree with ESCR should be posting here? Please point that out because I'd really like to see it. Even though I disagree with her, I think that Heather posted her thoughts in a very intelligent, well-thought out, respectful, on-topic way. Did I ever say that she shouldn't post here?

Sarah

07-25-2006, 04:59 PM

No, I (i edited that part, because I realized I said it wrong)meant that for those who are prolife, the issue of abortion and this are linked, and if we bring it up as part of our reasoning for believing ESCR is wrong, it's not considered okay. Am I making sense? It's late.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 05:00 PM

Oh and FTR Heather was duly lambasted, IIRC, for bringing up umbilical stem cells as a valid alternative for ESC. Although you're right, she wasn't told she was OT.

I guess it's the nature of message boards. I just can't imagine telling people IRL their take on the issue was OT and telling them to start another discussion. [shrugs]

jenahdawn

07-25-2006, 05:24 PM

I won't post anything else, because it's going nowhere

Then, to save more hurt feelings and arguments, I think you (and those who are getting very heated and upset about this) should heed this.

ejs

07-25-2006, 05:26 PM

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said that only people FOR ESCR should be posting here. Please back your accusation up.

And FTR, people commented (not your hyperbolic lambasted) on Heather's comments about USC because of SCIENCE.

You can't imagine telling people to take their posts elsewhere, but you have no qualms about telling people that they are killers, that they are being snarky when they weren't, that they're being the thread police, and many other things that have riled people up.

I have no problem with abortion being here as long as it's related to the TOPIC. Go back and see how many of your posts on abortion included talk of ESCR and the President's veto of it.

But, please, go ahead and act like you're an innocent here and people are trying to drive you away. Go back and see when this thread started to deteriorate. The timing is interesting.

prudies

07-25-2006, 05:28 PM

I'm sorry, but I also think Sarah was unfairly treated here. Especially calling her a liar.

ETA: But I'm also heading out.

Katy

07-25-2006, 06:07 PM

Any chance this thread can be saved and you guys can go back to discussing ESCR? You're more than welcome to debate the prochoice/prolife options in another thread since the issue as it's being debated is not about ESCR.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 06:47 PM

Sure, sorry Katy for digressing. And thanks again, Prudies.

msnicolea

07-25-2006, 08:12 PM

I'm really not sure that you can discuss ESCR without getting into the topic of Choice/abortion views, etc. . . The issues of life and when it begins and autonomy/rights over one's own body are an integral part of the ESCR debate.

As for my felings being hurt--no. I'm a grown ass woman, completely comfortable in my skin and with my choices. You can use words like "murder" to describe a choice I made--but you will never make me regret or question that choice.

You don't have any power over how I feel, nor does your opinion on my "choice" matter to me in the slightest. I am simply responding to your posts, which had some shaky content--content you yourself have now backpeddled from.

And I find it laughable that posters want to comment on how Sarah is being picked on when she is the one calling abortion murder and saying that people who have had abortions have "killed (their) babies." That is RICH.

Now, as to the topic at hand, that are some very interesting links here:
http://bioethics.od.nih.gov/

MLA

07-25-2006, 08:17 PM

And I find it laughable that posters want to comment on how Sarah is being picked on when she is the one calling abortion murder. That is RICH.

Here! Here! She even stated in her responses in the last page or two that she equates abortion w/murder, so no one can try to say that she really means it's "killing babies" which is different from murder the way that a soldier killing people is different from murder. It pisses me off to no end, but like you, I am perfectly comfortable with the choice I made. I've never once regretted it.

ejs

07-25-2006, 08:20 PM

I'm really not sure that you can discuss ESCR without getting into the topic of Choice/abortion views, etc. . . The issues of life and when it begins and autonomy/rights over one's own body are an integral part of the ESCR debate.

As for my felings being hurt--no. I'm a grown ass woman, completely comfortable in my skin and with my choices. You can use words like "murder" to describe a choice I made--but you will never make me regret or question that choice.

You don't have any power over how I feel, nor does your opinion on my "choice" matter to me in the slightest. I am simply responding to your posts, which had some shaky content--content you yourself have now backpeddled from.

And I find it laughable that posters want to comment on how Sarah is being picked on when she is the one calling abortion murder and saying that people who have had abortions have "killed (their) babies." That is RICH.
As I've said, perhaps not clearly enough, I understand that some people feel a connection between ESCR and abortion. My issue was that the conversation was losing the content of ESCR. That's what I was trying to say. Hopefully Katy's "policing" got that across since nobody else's did.

Delta

07-25-2006, 08:38 PM

ejs

07-25-2006, 08:42 PM

I don't think Sarah's (or anybody who believes similar to what she believes, such as myself) point was/is to make anyone regret or question their choice in discussions like this. If you can own it, then own it. And if you do own it, I don't get the defensiveness.

Rather than beating around the bush, Sarah was simply being straightforward about what she sees abortion to be - the taking of an innocent life, also known as killing, also known as murder. That's basically what the pro-life argument comes down to. As someone else said in this thread, I don't think this is a novel concept so I don't see why Sarah is getting lambasted for it. :confused:
Delta, I mean this with all due respect, but please stop speaking for Sarah. A few times you've come in to re-explain what you think she was saying. Sarah has proven more than capable to speak for herself.

She explained what she thinks murder is and what she thinks killing is. And if you really think that she's getting lambasted for her beliefs, you're mistaken. Sometimes HOW someone says something is much more offensive and gets more of a reaction than WHAT they say.

Delta

07-25-2006, 08:57 PM

ejs

07-25-2006, 09:04 PM

Of course she is more than capable. My point is not to re-explain what she is saying, but rather to point out the fact that the responses she is getting are unfair and overly-defensive. It's annoying me, frankly. And I still don't think that HOW she is saying it is that terrible either. Again, on a larger scale, should we just beat around the bush in topics like this? Why can't people who are pro-life say what they think without worrying about offending people when what we say is not meant to be personal in the least. People may not LIKE what we believe, or like to hear it (as is obvious in this thread), but it is the truth as we see it.
Delta, go back and look on your posts. Many times you've said, "What I think Sarah was trying to say...." To me, that's re-explaining what she is saying.

Speak your own beliefs, not what you think she was saying.

And do you really think Sarah was worried about offending anyone? I certainly did not get that impression.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I think you've completely missed the point of why people were getting upset. But that's ok.

Sarah

07-25-2006, 09:07 PM

Yes, I think that most people who think abortion is wrong and is the taking of a human life think it's killing/murder/taking innocent life. It's basically the whole belief there in a nutshell. Thank you, Delta.

I am not going to argue about it any more, and it was never my intention to cause anyone to question their choice or make them feel bad for it. I tried my best to use language which was not labelling anyone anything, but there is no neutral language here. It makes me just as ill to hear you all say "destroying embryos" as it makes you ill for me to say "killing babies" or whatever. I don't think there's much common ground, and I also think these types of discussions are much better off in private IRL. It wasn't my intent to offend anyone, but I feel that it's silly for us to tiptoe around usinng euphemisms and softening things so as not to offend people. I will do/have done my best not to call anyone the M word, because I don't think of them as such, but I see death of horrific proportion happening in this country, and I can't be worried about offending people in the process of discussing it, kwim?

MLA

07-25-2006, 09:23 PM

If you can own it, then own it. And if you do own it, I don't get the defensiveness.

This is not an issue of "owning" anything. If I didn't own it, I wouldn't share my experience on a public message board. I have no shame in my choice. I'll tell you where my defensiveness comes from. I share my story of abortion. Sarah quotes it and then brings up the "M" word in reference to abortion. Sorry, I get defensive when someone implies that I've participated in murder -- whether or not I'm being called a "murderer" is irrelevant. If you can't get that, I don't get why.

Here's what I'm referring to:

Quote:
You know, this has been bugging me all night. The fact that for you, it was obvious that abortion was wrong, doesn't mean that you get to make that choice for everyone. I got pregnant at 18. The moment I found out, I knew that I would terminate the pregnancy. It was the absolute right decision for me. I knew incontrobertably that bringing a child into what was my world at the time would be the wrong thing to do (for myself as well as for the child). I made the right decision for me. However, I would never try to force the same decision on other girls in my situation -- "You're 18 and pregnant with no real prospects, and you want to keep the baby? Sorry, that's not acceptable. I don't think that's the right decision. You're going to have to get an abortion."

I've answered this multiple times. I disagree. I don't believe in moral relativity. If something is wrong on a life or death level, it's wrong. There's no qualifiers, no "for me" or "for you" added on. To me, this is murder. Murder is okay to legislate against, IMO. We only differ on our definition of life here.

Delta

07-25-2006, 09:29 PM

Delta

07-25-2006, 09:35 PM

wendalah

07-25-2006, 09:35 PM

Sarah was simply being straightforward about what she sees abortion to be - the taking of an innocent life, also known as killing, also known as murder. That's basically what the pro-life argument comes down to. As someone else said in this thread, I don't think this is a novel concept so I don't see why Sarah is getting lambasted for it.

Exactly--I don't get it. I haven't had an abortion, but I would think this would be something one would expect when making the decision to have one--that one is partaking of a decision that some people feel very negatively towards.

I am not saying anything about the decision; not my judgment call. I'm just saying: This is news?

ejs

07-25-2006, 09:36 PM

No problem, Sarah. And I apologize if my 're-explaining' annoyed you in any way.

ejs - My point was still that the responses she was getting were unfair. That WAS my belief. And it matters to me because it was frustrating (though not surprising) to watch a very well-stated minority view here on CC get the overly-emotional and defensive reaction that it got. And I think people were getting upset because of the use of the word murder...I don't think I've missed that point.
Delta, we both know that you're free to think that the responses were unfair. That was NOT my point. If your posts would have said, "I think the responses Sarah is getting are unfair," that's understandable. My point was that your posts said, "I think what Sarah was trying to say was...." I can't explain it any more clearly.

Have you stopped to wonder why Heather didn't get the same reaction to her posts that you and Sarah are getting? She has the same opinion as you. Curious, isn't it?

wendalah

07-25-2006, 09:37 PM

Have you stopped to wonder why Heather didn't get the same reaction to her posts that you and Sarah are getting?

I don't think Heather was handed a bouquet of roses in this thread either, seriously.

Delta

07-25-2006, 09:38 PM

Have you stopped to wonder why Heather didn't get the same reaction to her posts that you and Sarah are getting? She has the same opinion as you. Curious, isn't it?No, not really.

Jazz

07-25-2006, 11:22 PM

I've been thinking about this thread way too much, but here's what it boils down to, for me: the only reasonable argument against ESCR is that you believe an embryo is a human.

And that argument is not even a terribly sound one to base public policy on. Like ejs explained much more clearly, even though I'm very pro-choice, I can respect the pro-life argument because without an abortion, an embryo/fetus is going to develop into a baby. But with frozen IVF embryos, that is not at all the case. It's not even just that you need permission for them to be donated for adoption, not all implanted embryos even develop into a viable pregnancy (hence, the extras). And in any case, most are going to be destroyed. Maybe someday we will be able to grow embryos into babies, but that is such a hugely complex process that it is very difficult to imagine happening in any of our lifetimes.

What are the other arguments?
-Adult stem cell / cord blood -- both have promising applications, but neither have the pluripotentcy of embryonic stem cells.

-Lack of scientific promise -- laughable at best, given that the science hasn't had time to work (not to mention funding).

-"Only" stops federal funding -- I think when we discussed this earlier, I said it was a double whammy (due to the fact that you have to have separate lab space). It's actually more like a triple whammy given that the foundations (MJFF, CRPF) that can and do want to fund ESCR don't pay "overhead". <Insert boring discussion of why overhead is important to academic research.> End result, additional discouragement in pursuing ESCR.

-Don't want tax $ spent on something controversial -- yeah, we don't get to nitpick where our money goes (for good reason). If you want to do that, donate to your alumni fund and designate your dorm, sports team, department, etc.

-Slippery slope -- not really applicable. A separate bill specifically outlawed creating embryos/fetuses for research*.

etc.

I do, really do, appreciate that some of you have heartfelt reasons why you are against this research. But just like the vaccines created using aborted tissue, you have the right to refuse these treatments. The embryos in question for this research are not likely to ever become human beings. They are being destroyed. Why shouldn't parents be allowed to make the decision to donate them to research if they wish?

Okay, I can't really understand it, but perhaps your beliefs are so strong that you still don't want research being done on embyros. But doesn't it anger you that, despite this veto, Bush wants credit for supporting this research? From batgirl's post #235, yesterday's press conference, Tony Snow:
The president certainly does not oppose stem cell research. But he does find -- he does have objections with spending federal money on something that is morally objectionable to many Americans. I will go ahead and apologize for having overstated -- I guess, overstated the president's position.

But on the other hand, I think it's also important in this particular case to keep in mind that when it comes to stem cell research this president was the first to allow the use of embryonic stem cell lines, and he has supported -- more than any other president in American history -- research into embryonic stem cell research, and also shares the goals that Sen. [Bill] Frist and others have talked about, which is unlocking the possibility of pluripotent cells.

*Here, in the US, of course. One final very good reason to allow federal funding is that our science system is outstanding. If we are leaders in the field, we can define the boundaries of how this research is allowed. If we choose not to participate, we lose that voice.

Delta

07-25-2006, 11:41 PM

MLA

07-26-2006, 07:05 AM

OK, but MLA, she stated numerous times before you posted your own experience that she believed abortion was killing or murder or what have you. I don't understand what you would have wanted her to say after you posted that? She was being consistent in her point.

I guess you're right. She was consistent. What I would have wanted her to say is irrelevant. What she did say is that basically I committed murder (even though she then said I'm not a murdererer - whatever). What I would expect in a community is that we would be respectful enough of each other's decisions and values not to start throwing nasty accusations around. If I'd wanted to be nasty, I could have said a lot of things about Sarah and the lack of a scientific basis for her position. I could have called her intelligence into question. I could have called into question her ability to empathize or sympathize with another human being. I could have called her cold-hearted for wanting to save a bunch of cells over a real, living, breathing human being. I could have used the "b" word which, she, herself decided to throw into the mix. Oh, I could go on and on. But I didn't call her any of those things, and I didn't accuse her of heinous crimes. Respect goes a long way, and I think I showed her at least some respect. She showed me very little.

MLA

07-26-2006, 07:07 AM

I think Bush should not have vetoed the bill. His reasoning for doing so was not sound relative to what the bill does and how it came to be. Perhaps he made some sort of promise to certain interest groups that he didn't want to break, I honestly don't know. But I think the veto was based more on politics than principle.

As a conservative, I can think of a few other things he should have used a veto on (namely, spending.)

Now this is interesting. I would have liked some spending vetoed as well (and don't get me started on tax cuts), but I have a question. Wasn't most of the spending that was passed, spending that he had wanted? I don't pretend to know, but I was under the impression that he instigated a lot of the spending bills. Is that wrong? Did he, instead, just let the spending happen?

LyLMyssChaos

07-26-2006, 07:37 AM

Trying to get back on topic, I have a few more questions about stem-cells and some of the procedures involved. I guess I could just google this, but I'd rather try to learn from the people that we have here that seem to be fairly knowledgable on the subject instead of trying to determine which side a website is promoting, so here goes:

1. If a couple decides to not donate their fertilized eggs, is there anything that can be done to avoid them being simply "disposed of?" I mean, can they be frozen or preserved in case the couple changes their mind and wants to donate them later? And if they can be preserved, how long can they be preserved for? Will they start to decompose at some point?

2. I know that I looked into donating cord blood in my last pregnancy because even if it's not as viable as ESCR, I still would like to do what I can to help support alternative research options. The reason I couldn't donate was because my doctor wasn't a "participant." I suppose I could have asked for a different doctor, but I was told that it would rather costly to involve a seperate doctor just for that purpose and unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money. Does anyone know if any of the banks have volunteer doctors in any areas that will collect the samples?

msnicolea

07-26-2006, 07:41 AM

MLA

07-26-2006, 07:55 AM

I know that I looked into donating cord blood in my last pregnancy because even if it's not as viable as ESCR, I still would like to do what I can to help support alternative research options. The reason I couldn't donate was because my doctor wasn't a "participant." I suppose I could have asked for a different doctor, but I was told that it would rather costly to involve a seperate doctor just for that purpose and unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money. Does anyone know if any of the banks have volunteer doctors in any areas that will collect the samples?

You might want to check out the program LIZNKEITH posted about. Not sure if it answers your question:

I know one poster mentioned she wanted to donate umbilical cord blood, but her hospital wasn’t a participant in the program. They don’t have to be, as mine wasn’t either. I used Cryobanks International who sent a courier to pick it up. I just had to clear it with my OB in advance who was more than enthusiastic to collect it.

MLA

07-26-2006, 08:00 AM

Oh, poor me--all I did was say MLA and msnicolea murdered their babies and now everyone's being mean to me.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, though, right? :rolleyes:

batgirl

07-26-2006, 08:20 AM

I do see how ESCs have been linked to abortion, so I guess I am not surprised at how this thread has progressed. I guess the christian conservatives (since I can't say the GOP, since many of them voted in favor of federal funds for stem cell research) have done a good job linking the two, as they did with Plan B... even if its a leap.

I also find it interesting that Sarah, who was very pro-choice until she got pregnant, struggled with the huge decision of an unplanned pregnancy at 17 (at least I think she posted this...) and making her choice (choosing to keep her baby). Sarah, its sad that you, yourself, were given the choice of whether or not to keep your baby, but are now so adamently opposed to others in this very situation. This is why people are pro-choice and not "pro-abortion". I am glad that you lived in an era (or state) that gave you this choice and didn't make the decision for you...

Back to stem cells... this quote struck me...

For those people who are prolife, this issue and abortion are inextricably linked, because they both deal with when a person becomes defined as a person, and the rights of the various parties involved.

I, and others have explained why stem cells are considered "potential" life and not simply "life". For example, these blastocysts (which are comprised of approximately 150 cells) are created in a petri dish in the laboratory. They are frozen at -150 degrees where they can remain indefinitely. No organism on this earth can live at -150degrees C. These 10 day old blastocysts have no metabolism, no cell division, nothing that indicates "life". If they are removed from the freezer and set on the bench, they deteriorate (quite rapidly), set them at 37degrees, they deteriorate quite rapidly.

Prove to me that these frozen blastocysts are, in fact, alive.

jenahdawn

07-26-2006, 08:21 AM

The reason I couldn't donate was because my doctor wasn't a "participant."

Hmmm...I didn't realize they had to be a part of a program.

MSNICOLEA: You are (or were) near here...you think the hospitals in Mad-town participate? (Would that be a big old DUH?)

Sarah

07-26-2006, 08:29 AM

I, and others have explained why stem cells are considered "potential" life and not simply "life". For example, these blastocysts (which are comprised of approximately 150 cells) are created in a petri dish in the laboratory. They are frozen at -150 degrees where they can remain indefinitely. No organism on this earth can live at -150degrees C. These 10 day old blastocysts have no metabolism, no cell division, nothing that indicates "life". If they are removed from the freezer and set on the bench, they deteriorate (quite rapidly), set them at 37degrees, they deteriorate quite rapidly.

Prove to me that these frozen blastocysts are, in fact, alive.
Well I shouldn't speak for her, but BTB is a doctor and I believe she has posted numerous times why she feels that embyros are alive, so it's not like I am some crazy science ignoring idiot over here. PLenty of people with lots of scientific knowledge agree with me.

LyLMyssChaos

07-26-2006, 08:33 AM

Hmmm...I didn't realize they had to be a part of a program.

My doctor said that they were not able to collect the samples because it was not part of their "package" that I would need to find a participating doctor and pay them seperately to come in to collect the sample. I don't know if it was just a doctor being lazy or what, but I think that more people would donate if they knew that their doctor would do it.

Sarah

07-26-2006, 08:34 AM

How about I start a thread called "people who have babies despite being on welfare" and say that Sarah abuses the system but that she isn't a "system abuser," and we'll see how that plays out. I'll say I think she's morally wrong for bringing children into the world she clearly can't afford, but then say I'm not judging her. Because that makes it ok, right? You can call someone a murderer but then say "oh, but that's between you and your conscience."

What is so difficult to understand? Yes, we have different opinions about Choice/abortion--but MY opinion doesn't condemn you to burn in Hell, does it? My opinion doesn't call you a murderer or question your morality.

I am so sick of the anti-choice posters on this website crying "persecution" when met with vehement opposition to their posts. Oh, poor me--all I did was say MLA and msnicolea murdered their babies and now everyone's being mean to me.

Cry me a river.
Look, I don't know what you want. Yes, I think abortion of any type is killing a human. Is there I was I can phrase that that feels more respectful? It is what it is. I was discussing this in the abstract until you brought your life into it, I have no interest in labelling or judging anyone on an individual level.

I never said I was persecuted, I never cried, and I never said I don't understand why your feelings would be hurt. I really am sorry if I hurt you, but as I said, I am more concerned with the millions of people I think are dying, than the feelings of those who have had abortions.

I've PMed you about the other issue, which I feel was out of line and rude, and factually untrue.

MLA

07-26-2006, 08:34 AM

I found a very interesting article on the web about this. I'd like to know what the folks who believe embryos are living things think of this.

Between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.

So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated? Consider the claim made by right-to-life apologists like Robert George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, that every embryo is "already a human being." Does that mean that if we could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway?

"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb122204.shtml

batgirl

07-26-2006, 08:35 AM

I work with cell lines all the time, but have no experience with IVF (except what I read), but I'll give it a go...

1. If a couple decides to not donate their fertilized eggs, is there anything that can be done to avoid them being simply "disposed of?" I mean, can they be frozen or preserved in case the couple changes their mind and wants to donate them later? And if they can be preserved, how long can they be preserved for? Will they start to decompose at some point?
Cell lines and bacteria can be kept almost indefinately at -150degrees, so I assume that blastocysts can, also. Granted, it does get harder to get these cells growing again after being in the freezer for long periods of time (lots of bacterial cell death, for example), but enough usually survive to get them started again. Blastocysts certainly would last longer than the couple would be alive, and longer than that couple's children would be alive...

If the couple is very wealthy, I would imagine they could make arrangements to keep the blastocysts stored in liquid N2 way past their death. Whether or not these could ever be implanted... I doubt it, since there would be cracks in the cell membranes, etc. There is always some freeze-thaw injury associated with this type of storage.

2. I know that I looked into donating cord blood in my last pregnancy because even if it's not as viable as ESCR, I still would like to do what I can to help support alternative research options. The reason I couldn't donate was because my doctor wasn't a "participant." I suppose I could have asked for a different doctor, but I was told that it would rather costly to involve a seperate doctor just for that purpose and unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money. Does anyone know if any of the banks have volunteer doctors in any areas that will collect the samples?

I know in Japan almost all cord blood is stored and put in a large public bank to help whomever might need it. This has not happened in the US because there is too much money to be made by the big cord blood banking companies... (Viacord, etc). If people who truly believe that cord blood is superior to ESCs, they should be fighting to expand the public bank in the US. Until then, it will always be a challenge to donate your baby's cord blood.

Sarah

07-26-2006, 08:36 AM

The president certainly does not oppose stem cell research. But he does find -- he does have objections with spending federal money on something that is morally objectionable to many Americans. I will go ahead and apologize for having overstated -- I guess, overstated the president's position.

But on the other hand, I think it's also important in this particular case to keep in mind that when it comes to stem cell research this president was the first to allow the use of embryonic stem cell lines, and he has supported -- more than any other president in American history -- research into embryonic stem cell research, and also shares the goals that Sen. [Bill] Frist and others have talked about, which is unlocking the possibility of pluripotent cells.

BACK ON TOPIC:
Yeah, I think this is ridiculous. He can either be in favor of it or not, not have it both ways.

MLA

07-26-2006, 08:37 AM

I am more concerned with the millions of people I think are dying, than the feelings of those who have had abortions.

Please see my post above. What are your thoughts on that?

jenahdawn

07-26-2006, 08:37 AM

LMC, I'm thinking I won't have a problem, seeing as Madison was the where all this research started...I guess I just never thought it would/could be an issue for others.

batgirl

07-26-2006, 08:38 AM

Well I shouldn't speak for her, but BTB is a doctor and I believe she has posted numerous times why she feels that embyros are alive, so it's not like I am some crazy science ignoring idiot over here. PLenty of people with lots of scientific knowledge agree with me.

So you can't prove it, then...

And BTW, an MD does not have nearly the research knowledge/experience that a PhD does.

msnicolea

07-26-2006, 08:38 AM

I will check both the Madison and Milwaukee area hospitals for their programs and post! The little I know about the program at my current workplace/insurance site in Milwaukee is that it is offered but prohibitively expensive.

Sarah

07-26-2006, 08:40 AM

So you can't prove it, then...

And BTW, an MD does not have nearly the research knowledge/experience that a PhD does.
Honestly, I have no clue whether these blastocysts or cell lines or whatever in your freezer are alive. But it is my belief that they once were alive. And should not have been caused not to live.

batgirl

07-26-2006, 08:44 AM

Honestly, I have no clue whether these blastocysts or cell lines or whatever in your freezer are alive. But it is my belief that they once were alive. And should not have been caused not to live.

With the passion that you believe blastocysts=life, you should really be able to come up with something! It really weakens your argument...

jenahdawn

07-26-2006, 08:46 AM

MSNic, thanks!

Delta

07-26-2006, 08:47 AM

MLA - WRT the spending bills, there have been a few out of control bills with an absurd amount of pork (a highway bill, emergency spending, etc.) He's threatened to use his veto on them but never did.

And back to the topic at hand -- There is a big, big difference between the creation and destruction of embryos by natural causes vs. by human effort.

I think that people who keep asserting that because these embryos are frozen or are created in a petri dish they don't really meet the definition of 'life' are missing the point. Once sperm meets egg and begins dividing - no matter where it may be - that is the point at which 'life' must be respected. I'm sure it sounds absurd to you scientists (and others), but really, at what other point could the line be drawn and not be ambiguous when this is such a complex process?

MLA

07-26-2006, 08:53 AM

And back to the topic at hand -- There is a big, big difference between the creation and destruction of embryos by natural causes vs. by human effort.

But why? If we know that millions of lives are being lost every year, isn't it our moral imperative to do something about it? If embryos are, indeed, human lives, and they're dying by the millions, I would think you'd want to do everything in your power to stop those deaths -- and by doing nothing, isn't society complicitly participating in those tragic deaths?

And for those of you who believe embryos are life, what do you think about heaven? Is heaven full of embryos? And if they're life why would god destroy so many of them? What kind of god would do that?

LyLMyssChaos

07-26-2006, 08:57 AM

LMC, I'm thinking I won't have a problem, seeing as Madison was the where all this research started...I guess I just never thought it would/could be an issue for others.

I didn't expect to have a problem either (especially because the hospital I deliver at is rated as one of the top 5 units in the country, they specialize in neonatology and high risk procedures, etc.) but I am glad to know that there are some areas where it can be done more easily. That is at least a step in the right direction, IMO.

batgirl: Thank you for answering my questions. I am trying to become as educated as possible on this so that perhaps I could find a way to get my conscience to be okay with the practice because I do think it's a shame that there could be cures out there that we might miss if we can't explore this type of research.

msnicolea

07-26-2006, 09:02 AM

Some Resources:

For Donating:
Here is a link to the list of participating hospitals, from the National Marrow Donor Program:

http://www.marrow.org/cgi-bin/NETWORK/nmdp_cord_blood_hospitals.pl

You can look by state.

For Banking for your child:

http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com/content/usa/banklists/index.shtml?navid=8

LyLMyssChaos

07-26-2006, 09:05 AM

Ohhh, thanks MsNicolea! My hospital is listed(actually, the group that they are associated with are the ONLY ones for our state,) so perhaps they have changed since I had my son!

msnicolea

07-26-2006, 09:10 AM

Ohhh, thanks MsNicolea! My hospital is listed(actually, the group that they are associated with are the ONLY ones for our state,) so perhaps they have changed since I had my son!

No problem. There's A LOT of information out there and I'm finding it a bit confusing. It seems that programs involving donating are much more accessible than those involving banking.

Jazz

07-26-2006, 09:13 AM

An embryo implanted in uterus will become a baby. When it's at the blastocyst stage, I don't consider it a human, but I acknowledge that some do, and that it will develop into one (assuming no problems with the pregnancy). When exactly a sperm+egg becomes a human is fuzzy for many people.

An embryo in a petri dish? Far different.

I think that people who keep asserting that because these embryos are frozen or are created in a petri dish they don't really meet the definition of 'life' are missing the point. Once sperm meets egg and begins dividing - no matter where it may be - that is the point at which 'life' must be respected. I'm sure it sounds absurd to you scientists (and others), but really, at what other point could the line be drawn and not be ambiguous when this is such a complex process?

Look. Sperm meets egg in petri dish and starts dividing. Let's keep this blastocyst at the proper temperature, and what happens? Does it turn into a baby? No, it doesn't. It is a very complex process that requires a mother's womb to happen. It is not at all clear (and neither am I missing the point) that sperm+egg = human life.

I guess that must seem cold if you believe they equal life, but you at least have to acknowledge that at a minumum you need sperm+egg+successful implantation in the uterus. And you don't have that with frozen blastocysts.

ysolde

07-26-2006, 09:13 AM

Sarah

07-26-2006, 09:19 AM

I think that people who keep asserting that because these embryos are frozen or are created in a petri dish they don't really meet the definition of 'life' are missing the point. Once sperm meets egg and begins dividing - no matter where it may be - that is the point at which 'life' must be respected. I'm sure it sounds absurd to you scientists (and others), but really, at what other point could the line be drawn and not be ambiguous when this is such a complex process?
ITA. Whether it weakens my argument or not, when those two things hit and become one with a specific DNA code and begin dividing, it is a new human life which is separate from the mother or the father. It is no longer either of them, it is a new being. That's what I believe.

Sarah

07-26-2006, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Delta
I think Bush should not have vetoed the bill. His reasoning for doing so was not sound relative to what the bill does and how it came to be. Perhaps he made some sort of promise to certain interest groups that he didn't want to break, I honestly don't know. But I think the veto was based more on politics than principle.

As a conservative, I can think of a few other things he should have used a veto on (namely, spending.)Can you talk more about what you mean, about "relative to what the bill does..."? I would like to know more about that.

wine_o_girlie

07-26-2006, 09:29 AM

Sarah

07-26-2006, 10:04 AM

guess that must seem cold if you believe they equal life, but you at least have to acknowledge that at a minumum you need sperm+egg+successful implantation in the uterus. And you don't have that with frozen blastocysts.No, I don't have to acknowledge that, and neither do many people. Many people believe that fertilization=life, not implantation. That is why many prolifers do not use HBC, which can prevent implantation, or don't use IUDs, which can do the same thing. I don't see why where something is changes its value, importance, or ontology. It's fine if you don't think that an embryo or fetus is a life until a certain point, but that point being implantation doesn't make sense to me- whether something is adhered to a wall or just floating in space, it's the same thing.

Jazz

07-26-2006, 10:25 AM

I don't think life begins at implantation, I think it's later but I don't have a good answer for when. My point is there is no way (with any currently conceivable (ha) technology) for a blastocyst in a petri dish to become a human without implanting it in a woman.

As for using IUDs etc., in that case "you" are actively preventing an embryo from implanting.

Is there really no difference to you between an IUD preventing implantation and frozen blastocyst that requires many precise steps (careful thawing, precise timing for implanting) to even have a chance at implanting?

jnettie

07-26-2006, 10:37 AM

1. If a couple decides to not donate their fertilized eggs, is there anything that can be done to avoid them being simply "disposed of?" I mean, can they be frozen or preserved in case the couple changes their mind and wants to donate them later? And if they can be preserved, how long can they be preserved for? Will they start to decompose at some point?
If the couple is very wealthy, I would imagine they could make arrangements to keep the blastocysts stored in liquid N2 way past their death. Whether or not these could ever be implanted... I doubt it, since there would be cracks in the cell membranes, etc. There is always some freeze-thaw injury associated with this type of storage.
I can ask again later, but here's how I understand it...

Most IVF clinics just don't have the capacity to store embryos indefinately, but there are some privately run cryogenic labs that do (DH worked at one of these before he moved to IVF). Batgirl is right...it's very very expensive to do this. Usually, it's only done in certain cases, like if one partner has cancer and embryos are saved for after cancer treatments. That was most of the patients at the cryo lab.

The other point batgirl makes is also correct...freezing embryos is very difficult and often results in detroying them, simply in the process. It is much much easier to freeze unfertilized eggs and sperm. So, long term storage of embryos for the purpose of later implantation is not very practical.

Regardless of process, what's the point of long term storage if the couple gives permission for neither research nor adoption? To keep embryos frozen just for the sake of not destroying them is kind of silly.

prudies

07-26-2006, 10:39 AM

Look. Sperm meets egg in petri dish and starts dividing. Let's keep this blastocyst at the proper temperature, and what happens? Does it turn into a baby? No, it doesn't. It is a very complex process that requires a mother's womb to happen. It is not at all clear (and neither am I missing the point) that sperm+egg = human life.

I guess that must seem cold if you believe they equal life, but you at least have to acknowledge that at a minumum you need sperm+egg+successful implantation in the uterus. And you don't have that with frozen blastocysts.

But you need more than implantation in a uterus to have a baby too. A 6 week old fetus or zygote or whatever the proper term is, is more "potential" than not. I support stem cell research, but I can understand the argument and the logic behind thinking life begins at fertilization. It's not beyond disbelief to me at all. I just disagree.

What's odd to me is that I know there are plenty of people who want to adopt embryos via IVF. So how is that there are also embryos that go unused?

ETA: jnettie, I posted before I saw your post. I think that partly answers my question

ginadc

07-26-2006, 10:47 AM

I am trying to become as educated as possible on this so that perhaps I could find a way to get my conscience to be okay with the practice because I do think it's a shame that there could be cures out there that we might miss if we can't explore this type of research.

LMC, can I say something? You and I have been on the opposite sides of pretty much every issue here, and when I first encountered you on CC, I thought "There's no way this woman and I would ever get along." I still strongly disagree with you on a lot of subjects, but I have to say that I really respect the way you ask honest questions and really try to keep an open mind and learn more about issues that concern you. We'll never see eye to eye on something like abortion, but I really admire your willingness to listen and inquire.

jnettie

07-26-2006, 10:47 AM

Yeah, Prudies, partially. I've said it a few times in this thread...but it keeps getting lost in all the drama... a couple must give permission to allow their embryos to be adopted OR used in research. Most couples do NOT want their embryos donated for adoption.

prudies

07-26-2006, 10:53 AM

Thanks, jnettie. I completely understand that the decision to donate emrbyos is a difficult decision, but there is something crazy about having an argument over unused embryos, when so many couples would glady have them.

ginadc

07-26-2006, 10:56 AM

Also, many people who can't bear children biologically are limited by more than just fertility, but also by the woman's ability to carry a pregnancy to term. In many cases, an embryo can implant just fine but there are other medical issues, sometimes clearly understood and sometimes unknown, that make a healthy full-term pregnancy impossible or nearly so. So for those couples/individuals, embryo adoption simply wouldn't work, and that takes a lot of potential parents out of the equation.

Hey, random question that just occurred to me as I typed "couples/individuals"--does anyone know what this Snowflake embryo adoption group's policy is regarding either single parent embryo adoption, or lesbian couple embryo adoption? I'm fairly certain they're a religious-based group, so my guess is that they would have a problem at least with the latter, but wouldn't they want as many embryos adopted as possible? Would they choose not to "save" an embryo because the only prospective "adoptive" parent was a single mother or a lesbian couple?

Answered my own question. I looked the program up; it's run by "Nightlight Christian Adoptions," and it sounds as if you must be a married couple to adopt through them.

ysolde

07-26-2006, 11:06 AM

Well, I know several legally married lesbian couples. May they adopt through the Snowflake Program?

ThreeYell

07-26-2006, 11:12 AM

Are there really so many couples who would want to adopt them? With IVF success rates as low as they are, especially with frozen embryos, it would seem like a couple would have to really, really want to have a pregnancy and not just a baby to choose embryo adoption. I imagine you'd have to spend lots of cash with either an embryo adoption or a private domestic adoption so why not go for something that gives you a better chance of a baby at the end of the day?

I really don't know the statistics on how many people want to adopt embryos. I do know that my sister and her husband, who got one little girl out of 3 IVF cycles, decided on regular adoption for their second child. She knew she could carry a pregnancy to term and loved being pregnant but at the end of the day they wanted a baby and regular adoption is what got them one.

ETA: Plus, don't they usually implant the best embryos? So the ones left over are of lesser quality, so less likely to result in a successful pregnancy.

prudies

07-26-2006, 11:24 AM

I know there are waitlists at embryo adoption programs.

jnettie

07-26-2006, 11:27 AM

You're welcome, Prudies! It just goes to show how complex the whole issue is. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the idea that another woman might birth a child that is genetically mine and DH's. Other couples have no problem with this.

Are there really so many couples who would want to adopt them? With IVF success rates as low as they are, especially with frozen embryos, it would seem like a couple would have to really, really want to have a pregnancy and not just a baby to choose embryo adoption. I imagine you'd have to spend lots of cash with either an embryo adoption or a private domestic adoption so why not go for something that gives you a better chance of a baby at the end of the day?
There are many many people out there that don't feel they could "love" an adopted child as much as they would love one that they gave birth to. We actually had a heated discussion with one of DH's very good friends from the IVF lab. She insisted that she would use a donor egg and sperm before she'd adopt a baby born to someone else because she couldn't love a child unless she gave birth to it.

Sarah

07-26-2006, 11:35 AM

She insisted that she would use a donor egg and sperm before she'd adopt a baby born to someone else because she couldn't love a child unless she gave birth to it.
Wow.

ThreeYell

07-26-2006, 11:48 AM

Create your family in whatever way works for you but, yeah, wow. I think my sister would have a lot to say to someone who didn't think they could love an adopted child as much as a biological child.

A couple things I'd like to know:
1) What percentage of embryos in storage are of sufficient quality that doctors would implant them?
2) What quality does an embryo need to be to be useful for research?
3) What percentage of genetic parents who have extra viable embryos are willing to make them available for adoption?

jnettie

07-26-2006, 11:49 AM

Wow.
Yeah, I know. We were rather shocked, because she's really a wonderful person in most every way. I think her possition is extreme, but obviously not unique when you consider the lengths many couples go to in order to birth a child, yet never consider adoption.

coquelicot

07-26-2006, 12:38 PM

She insisted that she would use a donor egg and sperm before she'd adopt a baby born to someone else because she couldn't love a child unless she gave birth to it.
Wow is right. I'm glad my adopted parents didn't feel that way. Otherwise, who knows where I would have ended up.

Sarah

07-26-2006, 01:26 PM

I suppose it's better she realize that now, though, and not after adopting a kid and making it feel shitty. :(

ginadc

07-26-2006, 01:47 PM

That's sad to hear, but not surprising. What I've heard more from people who are reluctant to adopt is not that they want to have carried the baby (or had their partner do so), so much as they want a child that is genetically related to them. Some of them are so adamant about it that they absolutely won't adopt; for others, it's just more of an adjustment process, getting past the assumptions they've always had about having "their baby."

It was a bit of an issue for my husband--not that he didn't want a child that wasn't genetically his, or that he would love a child who wasn't "part of him" any less, but that he wanted the experience of having a biological child at least once. He explained it as wanting there to be a child who was part him and part me, wanting to see my smile on a baby or his eyes, just wanting to know that some part of "him/me/us," genetically speaking, would live on. I didn't really care so much; I would have liked to have had that, sure, but it wasn't a huge thing for me that required an adjustment process.

It took time, but DH did adjust. And he'd lay down his life for Annika. Seriously, if somehow my chemo-fried ovaries still have any life in them at the age of 39 and we do randomly get pregnant, I know without a doubt that any child biologically born to us could never be loved any more than she is, by either of us.

Lots of people have blind spots for lots of reasons, but I really am sorry for those who can't get past this particular one.

HeatherFL

07-30-2006, 07:22 PM

Hi everyone.

I just got back and I had read a few posts addressed to me before I left. I haven't read anymore. I figure this will be my last entry in this thread, because I did want to write two things, (eta: but not keep beating a dead horse or going around in circles.)

The first thing is someone asked me a "what if" question. If Bush hadn't taken his position on this, what would I do or what would I think? I can still disagree and not like it. I am not one of those people who stands outside of places with picket signs yelling and screaming calling people horrible names. If someone else does that, it's their right and prerogative to do so, but it's just not me. I would live with the decision and hope that changes would be made. I'd still try to educate myself on the topic. I am not without compassion or empathy for people on all sides of this issue. I'd also hope that the use of embryos for research was kept to an absolute minimum.

I didn't feel it necessary to get into an extensive description of what I went through when I was sick. But I can write this and I will because it's not like I don't know what other people are writing about. I've lived it myself. I've known illness. I've known three different types of cancer. I've known things that I don't need nor want to get into in this thread. The details aren't necessary for anyone here, but I will tell you I've known ugly, painful and downright awful treatments to get myself into remission. I am 30 years old. I have lived with cancer as a part of my life since I was 18. That is my ENTIRE "legal" adulthood. I have had the chemo. The bone marrow pulls, the daily shots to stabilize white blood cell counts... The drugs you wish you could just stop taking for a day. I live with knowing that although I've never had a desire for children IF I ever change my mind, it wouldn't matter because I can't have them anyway. Cancer made that choice for me. I know what it is to be 21 years old and told I wouldn't live to see 22 because my body turned on itself. Again. To get my "affairs in order." I know what it is to wish for an end no matter what form that end came in because I couldn't take it anymore. I know what it is to be 30 years old and live doctor appointment to doctor appointment. I live with permanent nerve damage which has caused hearing loss. I live with permanent heart damage. I have entered the beginning stages of chronic kidney failure which I take medication for, for now. ALL things that ESCR could potentially treat. I live with knowing tomorrow I can relapse. So the person I have to look in the eye and say, "I am sorry. Your life isn't worth more than a few cells (as some have so simply put it?)" That person is me. For some reason, I made it. To some people I'm nuts, to others they get it. BUT if people don't think I don't understand, they're wrong. And while others may vehemently disagree with me *I* am the one who has to look myself in the mirror as a patient, as a survivor and as a human being who has lived it and who has had friends and loved go through similar situations (some who did not make it.) And pardon me for seeming a bit narcissistic, but quite frankly, that is good enough for me. It's not a decision I made lightly. The person I have to live with is myself. And I can and I do.

So I'm going to respectfully leave it at that with the idealistic hope that other methods of treatment and cures can be found in alternative ways.

Best,

Heather