[[[***EDIT: Anyone mess around in my thread -- we all know what I mean -- and I'll delete the whole thing and repost an edited version at my discretion. And I'll do my best to sic Kathy on your unsweet patootie. ]]]
It was a primary issue for this US election.
Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
This is a correct assessment of the view of those Hatrackers here who oppose the morning-after pill and all other abortions, yes?
[I won't press for reasons or a defense of the position, promise. I just want to be sure I am clear in my understanding.]
[ November 04, 2004, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
Yes, this is my position. I do not oppose the Pill, as it's abortificient properties are not proven.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, a lot of people say that it matters on what it's purpose is....birth control has another use, but the morning after pill has no other use, so a lot os people object to it compared to the pill.
As mentione in every single one of he many pharisy threads , the pill has many uses, ad almost 1/3 of the women on it are taking it for non-birth control reasons.
Kwea
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
It's a finer line than I actually prefer to use in dividing the sides. It also deals with a process outside of the body, which does present a somewhat different set of circumstances.
If I am correct, the effort in creating these embryos comes from a desire to create at least one child. Many of the embryos created are not viable, a number do not "take hold" and become non-viable, and generally more are created than is thought necessary to help insure a viable pregnancy.
The moral implications of what to do with the unused ones is, at least right now, beyond my capabilities to make an informed decision.
However, I don't feel that it is on the same level as the decision to abort a fetus that has cleared all of the early hurdles simply because the mother chooses not to carry the pregnancy to term.
I guess that in my mind's eye, I am still seeing the petrie dish specimens as possibles more than probables. But an otherwise healthy child in the womb is very close to a definite.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm not struggling with birth control issues, just issues of abortion. I specified opposing the morning-after pill because it clarifies that the earliest possible abortions are still at issue.
I'm trying to get my head around committing an action that will result in the death of a week-old embryo (if that) being immoral because it is murder, but then not being immoral, even if it results in murder.
Help me, Sopwith?
(I am trying to get it, I promise. I won't hound ya, cross my heart. )
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Hey, I'm still wrapping my head and heart around this to see if I can find a place to stand on the subject that I am comfortable with, too.
Dang, work's over.. gotta go home. I'll sleep on it tonight and give it my best shot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm trying to get my head around committing an action that will result in the death of a week-old embryo (if that) being immoral because it is murder, but then not being immoral, even if it results in murder.
I didn't follow that. Are you trying to determine if some people oppose the morning after pill but support in-vitro fertilization?
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Okay, if you feel like it. No worries if you want to table it for awhile.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah, Dag, that's about it.
I'm looking at 400,000+ embryos that are unlikely to be used, thinking of the importance of family to the religious right -- and, in the context of growing infertility issues in this country, trying to make sense of what is going to happen with this.
I don't expect anyone to address all of this for me. Abortion=murder is clearly a watershed issue, though, and I'm trying to get the other perspective.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, then I guess I can't help. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(So -- not to poke you -- you are okay with both? Or not okay with either? Thanks! Very much. )
[Edit: of course you answered this above. Sorry. I "get" your position, for what it is worth.]
[ November 03, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not OK with either. Sorry, I realized my first post wasn't clear enough.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
No, I'm just an idiot. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks too, BTW, for some emails that have been sent. I'm cool with trying to work this out on email (that is, to work out my grasp of it). No points to score here. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I am FOR all forms (that I can think of) of Pregnancy Preventative measures. You have a slew of choices available to every woman/girl who chooses to engage in sexual relations to prevent that from happening.
If you have sex, you are gambling plain and simple. You have the possibility of becomming pregnant. That should be on your mind before you engage in that activity.
Once a "separate" human being is created (with a separate genetic code and identity and human traits) I believe that child is valid and has rights as a "human being". Geography doesn't make it not have the rights of a human being. Dependancy doesn't make it not have the rights of a human being.
Just because science makes it possible to "escape" the responsibility for our actions, doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility for them.
Everyone wants to make stupid mistakes and have NO consequences for them. Abortion provides that currently.
IMHO (and this is just my opinion) Except for cases of Rape, Incest or substantial health risks to the mother (possible mortallity) that Human Being has made no decisions justifying a death sentence.
I believe a woman's body is HER body and she has domain over it.
However, no human has a right to use their body to harm another human being or end the life of another human being. Especially a child.
I believe a woman or man who has stewardship over a child and fails to feed that child or provide basic life they are guilty of neglect. If that mother simply refuses to "breast feed" their baby due to "my body" I don't want to use my breasts to sustain it's life (assuming no other option for life sustaining sustenance is available) and that child dies, that is also negligence.
As soon as that fetus has it's own major "Human" attributes (brain, heart, etc. etc.) it is a Human Being. When that heart starts pumping should be the cut off for when abortion is legal or not.
It's not based on "morals" of religion. It's based of the scientific research that is currently available with regards to fetal development.
If that baby can think, dream, feel pain or be "viable". It's a human being and deserves such rights.
I may be stupid and choose to drink and drive, and that may kill someone, but just because I made a mistake, doesn't make me innocent. I have to pay a price. It's not 1st Degree Murder, but it's Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide and I should pay the price for my mistake.
I may sound like an A-hole for holding these opinions. Sorry, but Abortion is one of those things I can't for the life of me believe ever became legal. I don't know how it was possible. It still boggles my mind.
Everyone has a right to their body. But you also have responsibilities that accompany the decisions you make regarding that body.
Abortion has proven to be a complete failure in preventing teen pregnancy or unwanted pregnancy. None of those numbers are down from where they were Pre-Row v. Wade. They are astronomically HIGHER with Abortion legal in just about ALL occasions where it is wanted.
All it's done is give a pass for stupidity and bad decision making.
It's an out from responsibility.
Again, that is just my opinion, and is probably not shared by many, but that is it.
There are of course "religious" reasons as well, but those are personal to me alone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, I didn't see here where you talked about in-vitro fertilization. Is it safe to say that because you believe a child is a protected being from the moment of conception -- the moment it gets its own genetic material -- that you oppose in-vitro methods?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Not at all Tom, I specified it later on in the Post. Separate Heartbeat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sorry. I didn't know how to reconcile that with this quote:
quote: Once a "separate" human being is created (with a separate genetic code and identity and human traits) I believe that child is valid and has rights as a "human being".
Or this one:
quote: If that baby can think, dream, feel pain or be "viable". It's a human being and deserves such rights.
You meant "has a heartbeat," though, right?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Okay, thanks Chad. To summarize for your point of view (again, this is because I'm having an idiot day):
- morning-after pill not a problem, at least not on grounds of murder - in vitro fertilization not a problem
Thanks! FWIW, I "get" your position, too, if this is it.
[I am reading "human traits" in the section Tom quoted to be = "has a heartbeat"]
Not to say that the ones that I don't "get" are wrong or lesser. Just that I am in the dark about them -- I'm not sure how to make sense of it.
[ November 04, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Tom: Sorry it looks contradictory. I mean that by the time you get a brain formed and the heart begins to beat, the chances of a successful pregnancy go way up. Successful Major Organ formation is a huge factor in viability of the fetus. Before that all kinds of problems can occur.
I've seen babies formed without brains, without lungs, without necessary viable Life Sustaining organs. If that is the case, then by the time the heart is formed and beating, with today's technology, you can be pretty sure if it's going well or not.
When I say "viability" I don't mean as in taking the baby OUT of the mother then, but as in it being a successful pregnancy.
When that heart starts beating the body of the baby starts to function, it's a Human Being.
[ November 04, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't know much about in vitro...but as others have mentioned, I thought that doctors try to implant them, but sometimes they simply don't take. So it is not the doctor who kills the embryo...but simply the fact that it did not implant (like a miscarage).
I don't mind birth control, is it prevents a life from forming...it does not take a life.
If birth control fails, there is always adoption.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I thought that doctors try to implant them, but sometimes they simply don't take."
Multiple embryos are made and discarded if not needed.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I don't know much about in vitro...but as others have mentioned, I thought that doctors try to implant them, but sometimes they simply don't take. So it is not the doctor who kills the embryo...but simply the fact that it did not implant (like a miscarage).
About 400,000 currently in storage, estimated. Most couples choose not to donate extra embryos to strangers after they have brought a child to birth, regardless of whether that was what they initially intended when they allowed those embryos to be created.
It costs $500 a year per embryo to maintain it in cryopreservation. The likelihood of a successful gestation decreases with passing years, although it looks like some are still viable at 10 years. The likelihood of mutations and other damage does increase with passing time.
When clinics dispose of these embryos (they are reluctant to do so without the couple's express approval, BTW, although maintaining them is expensive -- see above), they are often defrosted and allowed to grow through cell division for a day or so until they "die." Sometimes there are small ceremonies by the staff.
[ November 04, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am generally against abortion, and consider it wrong.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the morning-after pill. I'm uncomfortable enough that I refuse to use certain birth control methods that might do the same thing by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching.
But even though I am uncomfortable with it, I haven't decided I think it's wrong in general. I just don't know.
I have far less problem with the process of invitro fertilization, but am not sure why.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: When that heart starts beating the body of the baby starts to function, it's a Human Being.
Out of curiousity, when in the development of the baby does this occur?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have an idea why it might be different for you....or for some people at least...
In-vitro is for people who WANT life for their child but haven't been able to achieve it otherwise, where abortion is deliberate removal of life form the fetus for personal reasons.
Not that personal = uni,portant, as pointed out in other threads, it just means private. Some people have them for selfish reasons, some for other reasons, but one way or another the reasons for having an abortion usually remain privte.
In-vitro fertilization is costly and time consuming, but there is one reason to have it....creation of a new life that otherwise might not be possible. What happens to those surplus fetuses isn't ideal, but isn't much different from what happens in nature...they fail to develop.
Kwea
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point. One shows a love for and a desire for life. The other... Well, the other doesn't do that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: When that heart starts beating the body of the baby starts to function, it's a Human Being. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiousity, when in the development of the baby does this occur? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctally it happens within the second trimester, somewhere in the middle of it. It varies quite a bit from pregnancy to pregnancy though.
Kwea
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
But it is still murder on the grounds of life at conception. Or at least manslaughter, no? Like when someone is unintentionally killed, but someone else is still repsonsible for the action that caused the death, even if that wasn't the direct intent?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Are you responding to me? I never said that I believe that human life begins at conception. I think it probably doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Sorry, mph! (Really seriously) This is a tight topic, and I should be more careful about phrasing stuff.
I was addressing it to Kwea, and not as a challenge but more a puzzling through of things. I should have been more careful in being clear that it wasn't a challenge to him, too. (Kwea, I'll clarify in the morning, I promise. My hubby is already waiting in bed, though, and I have a vested interest in marital stability right now. Plus, he offered a backrub.)
I "get" your position, mph, FWIW. Of course, again, I don't hold those I "don't get yet" to be evil, silly or wrong -- I just can't get my head around a piece of it that is -- for me -- cognitive dissonance. No worries! Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: About 400,000 currently in storage, estimated. Most couples choose not to donate extra embryos to strangers after they have brought a child to birth, regardless of whether that was what they initially intended when they allowed those embryos to be created.
So they would rather they be killed than let someone else raise them? This just doesn't make any sense to me at all. To answer your question, I would consider this to be morally wrong.
[ November 04, 2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I should have been more careful in being clear that it wasn't a challenge to him, too
Don't worry about it, Sara...the only way I could take offense from you questions here is if I was looking for a reason...and I am not.
If you believe in life from conception, yes...the end result would be the same, but the intent makes all the difference....at least in Christianity it does.
Also, a lot of religions started off very much against any type of scientific reproductive techniques. However, even most of those organizations have bowed to public pressure and admitted that intent matters, and that many embryos die in the regular course of life.
If you have to decide which child to save in a womb because you can't possibly carry both to term, it is a horrible situation, but not a mortal sin. It is just the way things are...not a perfect situation, but a real life one that happens often. You choose the one that looks the healthiest and do what you have to do.
However, if you have a chance to save both and don't save either one of them, then it is different...or if you kill both because having them doesn't fit into your current lifestyle....
See the difference? It is all in the differences in the shades of gray, not just in black and white.
In order to help create life doctors have to keep options open, and so create more fetuses than necessary (in most cases)....but they are trying to create life, not extinguish life that previously existed before they became involved.
None of this is really what I personally believe, although I have had these thoughts before... ...
There are as many answers to these questions as there are people that face these situations every day, and I am not sure there is one right answer for each and every situation.
Kwea
[ November 04, 2004, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
When Kristine and I were going through fertility treatments, we had decided not to continue if artificial insemination didn't work. The cost was much greater and there was that whole moral question. We weren't sure what we would do if faced with the question of any remaining embryos. If we hadn't had Ryan on the last in-utero attempt, maybe we would have rethought things. I don't know. If I had known then what I know now about having a child, I can't imagine how I wouldn't have done everything in my power to get him.
It's my understanding that some doctors collect and inseminate as many eggs as possible to provide the greatest number of viable embryos. Our doctor was also concerned with the moral implications and would only inseminate as many eggs as he thought necessary to provide that one or two viable embryos. He told us that sometimes, more embryos than expected took and the question was still there. Sometimes, unfortunately, none of them took and the couple had to try again just to get the embryos. He was good, though, and his clinic has one of the highest success rates in the country.
To answer the question, I do have a problem with destroying remaining embryos. Although I understand that intent matters, it still doesn't seem much different than abortion to me. If we had gone down that path, I would have wanted to give any remaining embryos to another couple. It would have seemed strange knowing that I had another child out there that I would never know, but the alternative wouldn't be acceptable.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I am a little confused as to why fertility doctors could not take multiple eggs, fertilize them one at a time, and attempt to implant them one at a time. It would presumably take longer, but I can't see any other reason why it would be less successful. If it is known that single eggs are less likely to implant, then I will retract that one; I have not heard that.
I am not inherently opposed to fertility treatment, although it seems to me that with present world population standing above six billion it is not a great idea. Though I understand that many people want children, surely at some point the greater good should come into play.
So, to state it right out--yes, I think that in vitro fertilization, as currently practiced, is not right. In fact, I wrote to religioustolerance.org about it (they wanted to know why pro-life activists had so little to say about it). So far, as far as I know they have not added anything on the subject but their site is very large and I have not been there lately.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks. (Fervently thanks, Kwea. )
I'll work on processing this today. Thanks so much for the heartfelt responses. I want to do them justice by additional active reading -- you've given me something to chew on.
Mabus, especially:
quote: In fact, I wrote to religioustolerance.org about it (they wanted to know why pro-life activists had so little to say about it). So far, as far as I know they have not added anything on the subject but their site is very large and I have not been there lately.
Really? This question is getting asked in the broader world? That's awesome. I hope they address it with an accurate representation of what they heard back.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Sara probably can answer that Mabus, but I thought each time an egg was frozen and thawed, there was a chance it would be damaged.
quote:I am not inherently opposed to fertility treatment, although it seems to me that with present world population standing above six billion it is not a great idea. Though I understand that many people want children, surely at some point the greater good should come into play.
If you still believe that when you're told you can't have a child through the fun way, let me know.
[ November 04, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: zgator ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
Not okay with either, either. Unless those embryos are guaranteed to be gestated!
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Sent my response to Sara by e-mail. I'm just a little gunshy.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks again guys. A lot of trust going on here -- I "get" that, too. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: (I am trying to get it, I promise. I won't hound ya, cross my heart. [Smile]
Sara -- I don't think it is YOU that some are afraid of being hounded by. That is why some who probably could comment on your original question choose to stay out of this thread. You personally have no control over who posts in it, thus it could become a flame war beyond your control.
FG
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Oh, Farmgirl, I have no issues with using the big delete button. *grin
I'll add a disclaimer at the top to this effect.
Emails are appreciated, too. I'm pretty good with the confidentiality thing. On the other hand, I also promise not to assume anything about those that don't feel inclined to tell me personal stuff. Not my style.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Re heartbeat detection, this study seems to be saying that it's about 6 weeks:
quote:A gestational sac could be identified at 5 weeks' gestation; embryo heartbeat was imaged when the mean gestational sac diameter measured 2 cm, and embryo body movements could be seen when the mean gestational sac diameter reached 3 cm. In the present study, embryo heartbeat was identifiable after 6 weeks and 4 days with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 93.1%, positive predictive value of 96.9%, and negative predictive value of 100%. The embryo body movements, which were absent before 7 weeks' gestation, were observed after 8 weeks' gestation with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 92.8%, positive predictive value of 94.3%, and negative predictive value of 100%. With identification by transvaginal sonographic evaluation, the following can serve as markers of normal embryo growth: a mean gestational sac diameter greater than 2 cm in the presence of the embryo heartbeat, or a mean sac diameter measurement greater than 3 cm in the presence of embryo movement.
I'm not totally secure in my interpretation of the language, but I think this says heartbeat at 6 weeks 4 days, movement after 8 weeks. Both are in the first trimester, right?
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Here's what I sent. I entered the discussion openly and it would be disingenuous to hide now. Also, learning the flaws in one's own reasoning isn't the worst thing that can happen.
Sara, Like I said before, this is a tough one on the fertilized eggs and what to do with those that are not used. First, I think we need to separate it from the Morning After Pill and other forms of birth control. Something about it just makes me think that it is apples and oranges... both fruit, but different in nature. So, let's toss RU486 out. (BTW, I always thought that was an odd choice for a name for the Morning After Pill... I read it as Are You For 86 -- and to 86 something in the restaurant business is to tell the wait staff that something on the menu is no longer available... seemed slightly ironic and sinister to me).
Okay, on to my thoughts. I'll preface this by saying a couple of things. My fledgling religious beliefs will affect my views on this, they are as much a part of me as my right arm, I cannot and will not separate myself from them. And this is why I am answering by e-mail rather than by posting on the forum. To be honest, I fear, slightly, having to get into some extended argument with some over the most miniscule aspects of my faith and my poor human abilities to articulate them fully. Also, in the same vein, while I do have immense respect for you, I did feel, however slightly, that there was a chance that this was going to be a tripwire question that could explode a bit of a flamewar. Secondly, I have no degree in philosophy. I have no degree in the sciences. On the religious front, I'm only on my second trip through the Bible, and my attendance at church has been spotty, but is getting better. I have no expertise and honestly, little experience. Take what I say with a grain of salt, for I only know what I feel and what I have been able to sit down and reason out. Okay, on to the question at hand.
400,000+ embryos that are unlikely to be used and what should we do with them? Will destroying them be murder if abortion is?
First off, that's a huge overstock of embryos. They need to look at their policies to see if they are, by policy, creating more viable embryos than is necessary to accomplish most fertilizations. Seems like their success rates are good, but they have really been hedging their bets... I wish that some could be turned over to impoverished, infertile couples who are unable to afford the initial steps for in vitro, sort of adopt an embryo. But that's only going to be a drop in the bucket.
So... the moral dilemma continues. I had a similar dilemma over the idea of human cloning, that humans could create a form of life without the help of God, but then I realized that God puts the souls into people and that by cloning, we are only creating vessels. To think we would create a soul, an individual, would be like the jar manufacturer claiming that it had made the jelly in the jar... Sorry, rambling there, back on subject.
Your medical knowledge is encyclopedic while mine is of the hydrogen peroxide and band-aids variety. But if I understand correctly, these embryos are right at the moment of conception, basically just fertilized eggs, frozen and suspended in time before very much cellular development begins. They are at a state that in nature is at the very beginning and most tenuous point in development. From what my wife and I learned, at this stage in natural conception, a very large percentage of these embryos become non-viable for a variety of very normal reasons -- they don't nestle against the wall of the womb, or the pH levels aren't perfect, or some slight genetic defect causes them to abort. That sounds like it is simple to say, well, then they aren't necessarily viable then, but we must remember that at one point in each of our lives, we were one of those embryos waiting on the roll of the dice.
An egg and sperm separate are the components for a new life. A fertilized egg is a potential life. An early fetus developing in the womb is a probable life. A child finishing its term in the womb is an inevitable life. The further along the line we go, the easier it is to determine if abortion is murder. I've always been most comfortable setting the dividing line between the fertilized egg stage and the fetal development. I wish I could say there was some magical moment that I knew for sure, some sign like finger and toe development, but I really can't.
Hmm, maybe I can. The embryos in your dilemma are able to do something that a normal human can't. They can be frozen, thawed out and are still viable for creation of a child. There comes a point in fetal development where the process can't be stopped and put on ice, so to say. Whatever that point is, in our medical capabilities of this time, is the point at which the development of a life cannot be put on hold, when potential becomes probable. Where the line between medical procedure and murder can be drawn, or at least I am comfortable with (slightly) at this stage in my own development. If the collection of cells is still so simple that we can freeze it and thaw it out while still retaining its viability, then it may very well be that it is still just the components of life, rather than life itself. I can freeze all of the ingredients that go into making a soufflé`, but once I start the delicate process of putting all of the ingredients together I can't just stop at any point along the line and freeze what I have to work on it later at my leisure, so to say.
That sounds so simplistic and rough around the edges, but I believe that's really the best I can do with it at this time. I'm just one of God's uglier little kids, making mudpies and thinking I'm a genius. There are so many people much smarter than I, and even more who are wiser. There are definitely droves of folks more educated. So, like I said, please don't read too much into my reasoning. The flaws there are probably catastrophic.
But thanks for taking the time.
Greatest regards,
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I haven't checked the link, but that sounds about right, Dag. Seems like there were no false negatives (100% sensitivity) but a few false positives (92.8% specificity).
For what it's worth, most abortions in 2000 were before there was a heartbeat in the embryo. This was a slim majority -- 57% -- but a majority nonethelesss. At that time, the embryo and its surrounding fluid and all encasing tissue layers measured 2 cm or less.
quote:In 2000, for women whose weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported, 57% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at [less than]8 weeks of gestation, and 87% at [less than]13 weeks (Table 6). Overall, 23% of abortions were known to have been performed at [less than]6 weeks of gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 17% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were at 16--20 weeks, and 1.4% were at [less than]21 weeks. --CDC Abortion Surveillance Information for the US in 2000 [I had to substitute "<" with "less than" for html reasons]
I cite this not to make any point other than for those of us for whom heartbeat is a demarcation, this might be encouraging, and it might offer an area of possible coalition. It is also useful and accurate information for anyone involved. The CDC gathers this information yearly (all legal abortions must be reported), and I think 2000 is the most recent online published data.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Indeed it would be awesome, Sara. Unfortunately it seems that what is going on is more along the lines that it is not being discussed (much) in the larger world and a relatively small number of people, mostly pro-choice, are puzzled by it.
Actually, Zgator, I have been told that (though not by any government, just my religion), and I have accepted it without much trouble. (When, or rather if, I ever get married, I will be allowed--but I do not know if that day will ever come.) But all I am saying is that we are having more than enough children by purely natural means and there is no good reason to help matters along with technology, unless one counts personal desires.
[ November 04, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, Sopwith. I'll save it and reread it when I am able to concentrate better. I really appreciate it! (Right now I'm smelling poo everywhere, secondary to a sinus infection, and my voice sounds like Marlene Dietrich. Dave thinks it's rather attractive (the voice, not the "I smell poo everywhere" issue), but I am currently desirous of a fluffy novel and warm blankies. Owie. Too much for me. But I'll watch the thread for flaming, no fear. )
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
My personal belief (and I don't even know if my church/religion holds this same belief -- I have never asked them) is to me, a child is created as soon as the egg is fertilized.
So I guess I do have a problem with in-vitro, in as much as I do consider each fertilized egg to be a child.
Whether or not my views would be different if I was barren and trying to have a child and desparately wanting one, I don't know. That is a possibility.
I personally have often thought about the mental dilemma I would have in an ectopic pregnancy. The egg is fertilized, it is a viable fetus - yet it can kill both the mother and child if not removed. Fortunately, I have never had to make that decision, but I have often wondered WHAT I would do in that situation.
And since, at the time of the Bible, they did not address the day that man would have the ability to mix sperm and eggs in a test tube, I guess there are lots of different interpretations.
Farmgirl
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, Farmgirl. I reiterate my vow to be the Delete police, should it be needed.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Mabus, personal desires count for a great deal. I do understand what you're saying, but if overpopulation is a consideration, why are we fighting to save the lives of those with heart problems, cancer, what have you? If nature should run it's course with regards to having babies, why not let it run it's course with regards to disease?
Sopwith, I'm glad you decided to post that.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
MontyPython had it right: it's all about protecting SacredSperm.
[ November 04, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It seems to me that if you think a fertilized egg is a person, then you must consider this practice to be wrong - killing a person. It is especially bad because these 'people' were created not by accident, but for convenience.
I have no idea if a fertilized egg is a person, but it could be.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
zgator, I see a difference between helping to protect people who already exist and trying to bring more into existence (the same, really, as pro-choicers, except that we disagree on where to draw the line). I suppose if the situation were bad enough, I would say yes, we have no choice but to let some people die (a triage situation, of sorts) but I do not think we are there yet.
Xaposert, it's ironic, but a large part of my ability to see a fertilized egg as a person has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with my constant reading of science fiction and fantasy. I gave up the idea that a person has to look "human" before I was five--watching Star Wars, of all things.
[ November 04, 2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[You really don't want me whispering "I smell poo" in your ear. Trust me on this one.]
[ November 04, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I'm not meaning to sound snarky, Sara. I'm just trying to tell Mabus where I'm coming from.
Mabus, I've also wondered why abortion is always viewed as a religious issue. No where in the Bible does it say that life begins at conception. My personal view on it is based more on the fact that I don't know exactly when life begins, so I think you should err on the side of caution. If it is life, then abortion is murder. I can understand the arguments that it isn't a human life, but until someone can show me certain proof that an embryo isn't human life, I have to assume it is.
If one believes as I do, then it doesn't matter whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, etc.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
No, I was just keeping my eye on aspectre and practicing my husky-voiced side. We all posted at about the same time, that's all.
I think things are cool here. Actually, I'm tremendously impressed. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just to answer the original post - when I underwent fertility treatment, my husband and I both agreed up front we would stop short of in vitro, because each of us was uncomfortable with the idea of creating multiple embryos and then only implanting some of them.
If I could have guaranteed that all the embryos created would have been implanted, then maybe, but I know it's common practice for fertility clinics to create more than "necessary", and I would not have say, implanted eight or nine because selective reduction was also out of the question.
I have been wrestling with this question for many obvious reaons. Part of me tends to follow along with the idea that life begins at implantation, because at that time, the embryo transmits hormones and begins to assert its individual existence. And an embryo doesn't just require sperm and egg union to survive, it also requires an interface with a human host - so can one say then, that implantation is the moment life begins and not conception? If so, then embryos created during in vitro fertilization are not humans and it doesn't matter if they're flushed down the drain.
I'm not however, completely comfortable with that belief. It makes things easier for me, as far as reconciling my beliefs, but should I go with the belief that makes me more comfortable or the one that is truly right? That's an easy question to answer.
The main objection that I have heard against those that believe life begins at conception is, then why don't we try to prevent spontaneous abortions? Or try to save fertilized eggs that don't implant during a woman's cycle? Estimates are that up to 30 percent of conceptions are never implanted, and of those, a significant percentage never result in live births.
So, the reasoning is - why aren't we trying to "save" all those humans?
Well, my answer to that is - there is a significant difference between committing murder and interfering in natural death. Allowing a peson who has a living will to die without putting them on a ventilator isn't murder. Taking out a knife and cutting the throat of that same person, however, is. Those conceptions that never implant or result in live birth are natural deaths. However, abortion - the removal of an existing, viable pregnancy, is altogether different.
Ectopic pregnancies are another hard case. Should we not remove them, since removing them kills the embryo? The answer to that is easy - of course we remove them because if we don't they result in the both the death of the embryo and the death of the mother. Ectopic pregnancy is always fatal to the embryo - we cannot save its life, so by removing it we preserve the life of the mother.
To sum up - I'm still thinking and praying about the issue. I can't tell you whether I think for sure destroying frozen embryos is murder or not. I know that I would never do it, but then I also would not have created them in the first place if it were my choice.
That doesn't mean however, that I am against fertility treatments - I am most assuredly for them. Three of my four children are a result of fertility drugs. I believe passionately that any couple that wants to have children should be abe to pursue that desire. In vitro fertilization goes beyond my personal comfort zone - but I'm not going to say I think the whole procedure should be stopped. It has given many childless couples the answer to their prayers and has resulted in the births of many beautiful, wonderful children in the world.
I don't have all the answers. I wish there were tighter controls on the numbers of embryos created. I really don't like the idea of creating a dozen or so embryos when the couple only wants one or two children. I know the rationale behind it - the more they create the higher the chances are of achieving a live birth - but I don't like creating embryos just to pad the odds.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The *heartbeat* idea is an interesting one. I kind of like it.
Personally, I'm very ok with the morning after pill. I actually have more objections in a lot of ways to in vitro rather than the morning after pill, even though I was seriously considering becoming an egg donor for a while. In some ways I do see it as a horrible waste of time energy and resources that rich people indulge in, when there are other, already living children that that money could be spent on. Very much like Mabus' greater good proposition. Yes there are personal emotions involved in wanting your own child. But an adopted child isn't any less ones own than a biological child IMO. But do people have the right to pursue in vitro, if it is their money etc. Yes. If the US was a socialized health care system I'd have much bigger issues with it.
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, Belle. Your post is so dense and thoughtful
I'm particularly interested in perspectives on in vitro fertilization and the morning after pill (although the rest is fascinating, too).
Where are you on the morning-after pill (preventing implantation)? That is, where you are on legislation, as well as personal beliefs?
My read is that you aren't fully decided on the morality of in vitro (it is troubling to you, but it is complicated enough that you are still puzzling through it). And I think I hear you as saying that you wouldn't advocate legislation against it, regardless of the fact that you wouldn't use the technique yourself.
Have I got it right, for you? (Thanks again.)
[Hey, AnnaJo! Thanks for the perspective. Got your message -- I am fine, apart from the sinus thing. Just going on with my life. No biggie. ]
[ November 04, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Zgator, I think most people are not saying "the Bible says human life starts at conception", although there are some passages about "you knew me even in the womb". They are simply making the (relatively natural, to me) assumption that human life is an unbroken line--as soon as your body exists, there is a person in it. Then what the Bible says about murder immediately applies. That is why many pro-lifers have so much trouble with the opposite side--they do not think they are pushing anything religious beyond "thou shalt not kill".
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am against the morning after pill, except in the cases of rape. I think giving a woman the morning after pill after she's been raped is an act of loving compassion toward that woman, and denying her it would be unnecessarily cruel. This is one case, like ectopic pregnancies, where the woman's well being must be considered.
I would not advocate legislation outlawing in vitro fertilization, but I would not be adverse to legislation that put tighter controls on it, such as limiting the number of embryos that could be created, etc.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I agree with AJ on in vitro fertilization...I think it's awfully wasteful when there are so many kids already born and in desperate need of loving homes. I think if, heavens forfend, the government ever outlaws surgical abortion, RU486, and/or the morning-after pill, they should outlaw IVF too. There'll certainly be enough unwanted babies up for adoption then.
I personally have no problem with abortion during the first few months of pregnancy, though of course earlier is better. At later stages of gestation I get more uncomfortable with it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
Sorry...I don't have time to read the whole thread, though I'd really like to.
Until you asked this question, I honestly had never thought about it, largely because I have zero experience with in vitro fertilization, but when I saw your post about the 400,000+ embryos, my gut reaction was grief. I thought I believed that life-at-conception means implantation...but apparently I don't.
My grief aside -- I know that homes could be found for these babies if they were allowed to be born, Americans are that generous -- I am not insensitive to the desires of infertile couples, and could not, despite my beliefs, say "You better have a plan for each of these embryos you sought to create, because they are your children."
So from a personal perspective, I'm against abortion, the morning-after pill and un-gestated embryos, but would be content from a legal perspective to limit abortion to maternal health risk, incest and rape cases, permit the morning after pill, and un-gestated embryos. I think it's a reasonable compromise.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
So is it just in-vitro, or any artificial means of pregnancy?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Were you asking me?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
You or AJ.
All the methods are means of helping a couple do what they can't on their own. In-vitro is one of the final steps before surrogate mothers, etc. The first steps usually involve drugs that encourage the development of more eggs from the ovaries and sometimes a drug that allows exact timing of when the eggs are released. Things proceed naturally from there.
I'm just wondering if you consider some help being reasonable.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I guess I don't really know where I'd draw the line on that. I don't know how much government money goes towards fertility treatments (including the R&D necessary to develop them), and how much of it is paid for by the individuals seeking such treatments. I suppose that as long as abortion is legal and our healthcare system isn't socialized, people can do what they want with their own money, just like they can choose to spend hundreds of dollars on a purebred cat or dog when the shelters are overflowing with pets that need homes. But if abortion is ever made illegal again, I think that at least the most expensive treatments such as IVF should be made illegal also. I'm not sure how I'd feel about the simpler treatments such as hormone shots.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
zgator and even Belle, you aren't going to like this, I know you love your children and that isn't the issue. I understand the fact that people want to have children of their own. It's if you will, the Darwinian (or God-Given) drive to reproduce. On an individual level with personal decisions, I do understand fertility treatments. When you go beyond hormonal treatments into the realm of IVF I think that it does add a huge dimension of cost due to the surgical processes involved (which I've researche pretty thoroughly) that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Costs escalate even more when you get to egg donation etc.
Do people have the right in our current society to pursue this? Absolutely. We generally put individual liberty over the greater good in this country for many many resons. Mrs. M in particular has a fascinating extenuating circumstance for why she is specifically pursuing fertility treatments and I support her in her quest. She hasn't to this point gone as far as IVF yet though and I would be interested to know if she would.
However *as a species* I don't necessarily think it is for the greater good *of the species* for infertile couples to reproduce. PCOS for example, which I have, is frequently passed on from generation to generation. I'm not asking whether it is fair to the child to pass on a genetic defect with regards to reproduction. It won't necessarily effect the child's quality of life. I'm asking if it is fair to the species?
We all have genetic flaws, and some get passed on and some don't. With modern medicine helping the weaker survive (which is a necessary goal from a moral and community standpoint)reproduction is the last stop our species has in limiting genetic defects, as long as we aren't actually tinkering with DNA and building bionic men.
I understand wanting children is a biological drive. But I think that adoption is probably the more unselfish option. (Note: I am NOT saying that selfishness is wrong in this sense, people have to judge for themselves what their family is capable of handling.) And that with the scarcity of adoptable babies, people who are selfishly insistent upon "babies" would then be forced to adopt older children that otherwise will be raised by institutions. And I think the people would find that their reservoirs of love are far deeper than they realize, and it *doesn't* matter whether it is a biological child, or a baby, or toddler, an older child is equally deserving of love.
Personally, at this point in my life, I very much don't want children, and I strongly doubt I ever will. But, if we did find out that I was infertile, adoption would be the only choice I would consider for myself.
AJ
[ November 04, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I don't want children either, and doubt I ever will. But if I change my mind, I'll definitely be adopting--I don't think the world needs another digestive tract.
Plus, with adopting I can bypass the infant and toddler stages I'll take one that's already walking and talking and, most importantly, toilet trained, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That sounds alot like China. Whether for good or bad.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Until you asked this question, I honestly had never thought about it, largely because I have zero experience with in vitro fertilization, but when I saw your post about the 400,000+ embryos, my gut reaction was grief. I thought I believed that life-at-conception means implantation...but apparently I don't.
jeniwren, this sort of information is so much a part of my life that it never even occurred to me that this might not be common knowledge [the 400,000 part]. Really -- never occurred to me. I forget that we all have specialized areas of information, and we all are working from different areas of familiarity with different things.
I've been trying to figure out what is going to happen in a country with decreasing fertility and increasing desire for babies. (I'm speaking in broad strokes, but I think that -- in broad terms -- the pattern of religious growth in the US is consistent with an increasing emphasis on having families.)
Knowing how many women have difficulty getting pregnant and how intensely private an issue this is for some, I find myself very sympathetic to the desire not to dictate the terms of what a couple may decide to do about their own fertility issues. It is highly private, highly personal, and highly charged with intense emotion -- so, even if there are some techniques that I might not choose to use myself, I wouldn't presume to say I can make that choice for others. I think I sense that many others feel the same, especially those I am trying to understand here (i.e., not willing to legislate against IVF but willing to legislate against the morning-after pill).
Some, of course, are in a less murky area -- either okay with allowing both or with legislating against both. I get that.
I have a harder time understanding why it is an intensely personal and private decision when it is IVF but not a morning-after pill, given the outcomes associated with each. Loss of an embryo at the earliest stages of cell division, prior to implantation. If this is horrendous and an outrage in one case, I have trouble seeing why it is not the same in the other case.
(I am not mocking the view that it is "horrendous and an outrage" in either case, BTW -- I just don't understand the lack of logical consistency, as it seems to me.)
I'll reread stuff from this thread later and keep thinking. Again, thanks to you all.
[I don't mean to come off as harsh or coming to judgments about this. I am trying to be creative about understanding, because I get that voluntary abortion of any sort is a real heart and soul issue for a lot of people. I just still need to work on getting more about the perspective, you know?]
[ November 04, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, correct me if I'm wrong Sara,...but isn't the "morning-after" pill kind of a crap-shoot?
I mean, you don't know for sure that you are actually getting rid of a fertilized egg when you take it -- there may or may NOT be one there -- but it is a "just in case I fertilized an egg" thing.
Whereas we KNOW that the egg/sperm pairs in IFV are already fertilized.
Don't read that as meaning one is okay and the other is not -- I'm personally not okay with the morning-after pill either. I'm just talking about how the two might be viewed differently in the mind of the general public -- one is seen as a sure "possible child" but the other is seen as an "i don't know".
FG
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I know my wife had some concerns when we were going through fertility treatments that she was somehow less of a woman because they were needed. Even though she knew in her head that it wasn't true, she still had it kicking around in her mind. That is one reason why she didn't discuss it much.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
AJ, you do realize, that if all of society didn't reproduce if there was a chance of passing along a genetic defect like PCOS we'd die out in a generation right? There's no such thing as a person who is "clean" genetically. We all carry something that might be viewed as harmful to the species.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[To Farmgirl:] So, it seems that, from that perspective, IVF with embryos created that are unlikely to ever be used is even more immoral than the morning after pill. Because one is only a possibility of an immoral outcome, the other is much more.
(Note again that most frozen embryos are not donated to other couples after the initial couple does carry to term, even if -- even if -- that was the firm intent before those embryos were created. That seems to be what happens. People are less comfortable with having their genetic information (or a child they are genetically connected to) out in the world without their supervision than they initially thought they would be.)
Farmgirl, I think I could make sense of that. It's still hard for me to make sense of the reverse.
I'm also now reminded of how personal this thread may be to Mrs.M, giving her own thread recently. I will delete it (of course) at any time, if she wishes. It is not directly pertinant to her, but I can see where there is enough terminology overlap that it could be uncomfortable.
Also, FWIW, I have no problems with either IVF of any sort or with use of the morning-after pill, if that wasn't already clear.
[Zan, I think that is a remarkably common feeling for people in this situation.]
[ November 04, 2004, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I find the thread to be highly educational. Because I wasn't aware that so many "possibles" were put together before being implanted in IVF, or that there are thousands of them out there still frozen and in limbo.
I did know that they do selective reduction. While I understand this, I also am glad I don't have to make that kind of decision myself. Because I don't know if I could..
Farmgirl
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah. I think it must be a really unimaginable situation to be in.
Especially given that the risk of so many problems goes up with multiples, most particularly the things associated with prematurity (lack of lung development, brain interventricular hemorrhage, retinal damage, and so forth). Don't get me wrong -- plenty of multiples do just fine. But there is a reason why multiples (even twins) are usually referred to high-risk OBGyn care.
To chose that increased risk for all or to chose to remove some from the possibility of a born life completely -- hard, hard stuff.
I'm glad to hear that some of this is new information, by the way. For me, this is all old hat, and it is a big part of why I see the issue as having many shades of gray. Perhaps some of the black-and-whiteness of other views that I found incomprehensible was in part due to coming to the issue with different information.
Not all, surely. But it would make sense of a few things for me.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
And remember that the 400,000 is just the estimated number of those still frozen. This is the tip of the iceberg in comparison to the total numbers of those created.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Years ago, didn't they generally implant most of the viable eggs instead of a couple? Wasn't that when you would hear stories of women on fertility treatments having 4, 5 and even 6 babies?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[Sorry, zgator, this wasn't directed at you! ]
Again, [the 400,000++] isn't a problem for me.
I didn't get why it wasn't a problem for some others. Or, if it was a problem for them, why they wouldn't be as adament about legislation agains this as they are against the morning-after pill or other early forms of abortion.
It didn't cause cognitive dissonance for me until this election, though. That was a two-by-four upside the head that yes, Sara, this Really Is Important to a lot of people.
Should have got that sooner.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'll pop in to give my opinion. I am beginning to realize that I am against a lot of things that I didn't know I was against. : ) A couple that have popped up recently in my realm are forms of birth control that have a higher than normal risk of resulting in an aborted embryo, and any fertilization technique that results in unused embryos.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Belle:
quote:AJ, you do realize, that if all of society didn't reproduce if there was a chance of passing along a genetic defect like PCOS we'd die out in a generation right? There's no such thing as a person who is "clean" genetically. We all carry something that might be viewed as harmful to the species.
I thought I addressed that in this that I wrote above. Quoting myself:
quote:We all have genetic flaws, and some get passed on and some don't. With modern medicine helping the weaker survive (which is a necessary goal from a moral and community standpoint) reproduction is the last stop our species has in limiting genetic defects, as long as we aren't actually tinkering with DNA and building bionic men.
Yes, I realize genetic defects do get passed on from generation to generation. That is a fact of life. There is no one with "perfect" DNA. But I also don't think we are in grave danger of all of society stopping reproduction by a long shot!
Sadly, I see more infertile couples, like some neighbors we had in CA, that only want little white babies that look like them in skin tone, than people like Dan_Raven and his wife, who are going to adopt a little girl from India next. In other words I believe there is in many instances (not all for sure) racial bias in why people go through the most extreme and expensive IVF treatments rather than adopting a child from elsewhere.
The hormonal treatments are borderline for me, personally. They certainly aren't as invasive, however I wouldn't personally choose them as an option, even if adoption was more expensive.
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
My understanding is fuzzy, Zan, as infertility itself is not a pediatric issue.
I believe the great numbers of multiples came both from implantation of large numbers of embryos and from the higher levels of hyperstimulation of ovaries that came with the drugs we used to use, and at what levels. I think the fertility drug treatments which lead to extra-stimulated ovaries are much more refined now.
Two different issues, and I don't know how much of each played into it.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Interesting on the racial bias thought.
In my particular case, I would have been glad to adopt, and in fact we were already discussing the options with some friends of ours who adopted a little girl from Korea.
But, in my case, I was told my poblem was easily dealt with - my pcos was not severe, and I had already had one child. So, a $100 worth of clomid was a lot easier than international adoption.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My cousin went through the process five years ago and received five embryos, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: and from the higher levels of hyperstimulation of ovaries that came with the drugs we used to use, and at what levels.
Ah yes. I had forgotten about that, but it does click now.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I actually really appreciate this thread, Sara. I'd never thought about the issue of "leftover" IVF embryos (I know that's probably a really awful way to describe it, but that's what it seems like). I suppose if I'd thought enough about IVF, I'd have realized that the likelyhood of unused embryos is quite high. I'm not sure how I feel about their destruction.
I am against abortion (falling into the camp of people who, not knowing when "life" begins and when a baby is a person, choose to err on the side of caution). I haven't firmly decided what I think of the "morning after pill", but I lean towards thinking that it is immoral. I approve of birth control, but I'm not sure what I think of IUDs.
Personally, I would never undergo IVF, for several reasons, but I don't think that my personal aversion to it should mean that it should be illegal. I wish there was a way it could be done so that there wouldn't even be the issue of extra embryos. I guess at the very least, I would hope that the extra embryos could be put to the best possible use - for other couples.
What about using them for stem cell research? Oh man, a whole 'nother can of worms and yet another issue I don't know what I think of....
[ November 04, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I'll pop in to give my opinion. I am beginning to realize that I am against a lot of things that I didn't know I was against. : ) A couple that have popped up recently in my realm are forms of birth control that have a higher than normal risk of resulting in an aborted embryo, and any fertilization technique that results in unused embryos.
PSI, this causes me no end of stress.
On the one hand, I think it is absolutely great always to know more about what you believe and why you believe it.
On the other hand, I have no desire at all to reduce in any way the access of couples with infertility to any resources. But given that this is such an intensely private issue and (I think, and there is data to back this up) rarely discussed with all one's friends and family, all of us likely know people who are using fertility treatment of one kind or another.
This is becoming quite common. I will try to look up some good references, but it is really remarkable how widespread fertility issues are. As of last year, I think fifteen states had passed laws requiring insurance companies to cover infertility treatments as basic medical care. I think Lousiana, Ohio, and West Virginia did not require IVF coverage in particular, but all other 12 did specify IVF as mandated coverage. And maybe one (Montana?) had some areas which did mandate IVF coverage and some which didn't.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yup Belle. Like I said, I understand the differences between hormonal issues that are easily fixed, and more serious stuff. PCOS itself has ranges of severity. It's definitely a grey area, and one I have been considering pretty carefully myself. The other thing that I look at in my family is what appears to me to be undiagnosed mental illness in varying severities in several generations. I'm not condemning your decisions whatsoever, just working out my own positions.
I reserve the right to change my opinions on the subject too Most people don't understand my complete *lack* of desire for a child. I support them in their choices to have children, but I honestly don't want any myself. Yes I know people say it is different when the kid is your own. But if I haven't got any desire for a child, even if I'm more than financially able to take care of one, why should I have one? For the experience? Now I also realize I am young (25) and biological clocks tick differently. It is possible in my mid 30s I will become filled with the desire to have a child as hormones start changing. So I do reserve the right to change my mind. But I'm hoping that working things out rationally now will help sway any crazy emotions I might experience then too.
But IVF in particular bothers me a lot more than the morning after pill, exactly the opposite of other people on this thread, because of the cost benefit analysis I guess.
AJ
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: people like Dan_Raven and his wife, who are going to adopt a little girl from India next.
Really? Very cool.
My take- I am not opposed to IVF, but I think greater effort should be made to not create more fertilized eggs than will be used. I think it is wrong to just dispose of them.
I am morally opposed to the morning after pill but don't wish to legislate against it. I think it's a lesser evil.
Sara- hope those sinuses feel better.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sara: I realize that the fertility thing is extremely important to many couples, and that's why I don't get into it very often. Personally, adopting a child would be just as good as having one myself, but I can sympathize with the pain that many couples feel at being unable to have a baby. I'm not sure I could jump in and fight against in-vitro fertilization and similar techniques for that reason. But it's something that I could not be comfortable with doing.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Thanks, we think its cool.
Of course, I need to get the money and time off together first.
Here is a thought--to lower abortions, fix the adoption system in the US.
Right now it favors the birth mother to the extent that adoptive parents live in fear that they will loose their child at any moment.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Personally, I would never undergo IVF, for several reasons, but I don't think that my personal aversion to it should mean that it should be illegal.
This so much reminds me of many of my pro-choice friends' positions on abortion. That is, they are pro-choice with regards to IVF, too, even if it is not a procedure they would do themselves.
Maybe this helps some who are pro-life understand some of the thinking of some of those who are pro-choice? This sort of dilemma of "I wouldn't do it, but I can't see my way to making it illegal because it is such a personal decision?"
quote:I wish there was a way it could be done so that there wouldn't even be the issue of extra embryos. I guess at the very least, I would hope that the extra embryos could be put to the best possible use - for other couples.
This was addressed in the articles about the national survey of infertility clinics that I linked to on Page 1. Many couples create embryos with the intent of donating, but they consistently tend to change their minds about that after they have born a child of their own. That is what happens, over and over, across the country. Not for all, but definitely as a general trend. It is a complex issue.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Right now it favors the birth mother to the extent that adoptive parents live in fear that they will loose their child at any moment.
At the time Ryan was conceived, we had begun to look into adoption. This is one of the things that scared the bejeebers out of me.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Sara: I realize that the fertility thing is extremely important to many couples, and that's why I don't get into it very often. Personally, adopting a child would be just as good as having one myself, but I can sympathize with the pain that many couples feel at being unable to have a baby. I'm not sure I could jump in and fight against in-vitro fertilization and similar techniques for that reason. But it's something that I could not be comfortable with doing.
Yeah. I think a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are in a similar position. I want to reassure you that I'm not speaking in a snarky tone or trying to score points -- I think it really is very similar in many ways, at least that feeling of being in that position regarding someone else making complicated decisions on a very highly charged matter.
True, the general intent is different. But the strongest arguments I see against abortion rest on the deliberate loss of those embryos. Here, too, we have embryos created that are destroyed, and to some extent, they are created in order for some of them to be destroyed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm curious (Sara I'll take this to another thread if you request so) How many times have children actually been given back to the birth mothers? I can think of two or three highly publicized cases, and a couple of surrogate mother type cases, but surely that is just a freak happening compared to the thousands if not millions of adoptive families out there. I can see this being a definite reason for an out of country adoption though, which saddens me.
Is there that much legal precedent in favor of the Birth Mother?
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Yeah. I think a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are in a similar position.
I figured this much. But I think our time is better used in trying to find a way to fertilize a woman without wasting an embryo than in trying to stop in-vitro all together.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, dpr.
Dan, my understanding is that this is often a primary drive for people to adopt internationally. It is so sad, but when the child's parents are unkown because he or she has been left to the care of a state orphanage, then there is no effective way for the child to be tracked down and taken back later.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I figured this much. But I think our time is better used in trying to find a way to fertilize a woman without wasting an embryo than in trying to stop in-vitro all together.
You make me smile, kinda wistfully. I think this, too, is where a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are: that our time and resources are better spent on trying to find a way to help women keep from getting pregnant unintentionally rather than in trying to stop abortion altogether. For pretty much the same basic reasons, too.
Remember in all of this that IVF coverage by insurance companies is now mandated in at least 12 states. I'm not sure (although I don't have the data to say decisively) that more embryos are lost through abortion than are lost through infertility treatments.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I think this, too, is where a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are: that our time and resources are better spent on trying to find a way to help women keep from getting pregnant unintentioanlly
Sadly, too many people who are pro-life lose sight of this. I still don't believe in abortion, but along with making it illegal, it needs to be made unnecessary as much as possible.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:This so much reminds me of many of my pro-choice friends' positions on abortion. That is, they are pro-choice with regards to IVF, too, even if it is not a procedure they would do themselves.
Exactly, the majority of people who are pro-choice are just that - for the right to choose it - not necessarily pro-abortion. Although I am against abortion, I don't know that I would support criminalizing it in its entirety. I do support placing greater restrictions on its access, however, and certainly greater education and efforts to prevent women from having to be in the position to decide to have an abortion.
quote:Many couples create embryos with the intent of donating, but they consistently tend to change their minds about that after they have born a child of their own. That is what happens, over and over, across the country. Not for all, but definitely as a general trend. It is a complex issue.
The fact that this happens really bothers me. I'm not quite sure why. Certainly people have a right to change their minds, but I'm curious as to why so many people do. It seems so....hmmm....stingy?
I wish adoption in the US could be improved so that it were easier for people that really want to adopt to adopt. Not that it's wrong or anything, but it makes me really sad that people have to look outside the US to adopt children. On a personal level, as much as I want children (at some time in the future, not right now), I honestly don't think we could afford to adopt (and certainly not afford the more expensive fertility treatments).
[ November 04, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I honestly don't think we could afford to adopt (and certainly not afford the more expensive fertility treatments).
ludosti, I don't know if this will be consolling or concerning to you, but if you were to move to one of the following states, whatever insurance company covers your basic care would be mandated -- by law -- to cover your infertility treatments, at least in part. (From Sereno Fertility Clinic.)
quote: Arkansas Mandates insurance carriers to cover IVF, and allows insurers to impose a lifetime benefit cap of $15,000. Health maintenance organizations are exempt from the law.
Hawaii Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover one cycle of IVF, only after several conditions have been met.
Illinois Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including various ART procedures, but limits first-time attempts to four complete oocyte retrievals, and second births to two complete oocyte retrievals. Insurance carriers are not required to provide this benefit to businesses (group policies) of 25 or fewer employees.
Louisiana Mandates insurance carriers to cover the "diagnosis and treatment of correctable medical conditions." Thus, insurers may not deny coverage for treatment of a correctable medical condition to someone solely because the condition results in infertility. Coverage is not required for fertility drugs; in vitro fertilization or any other assisted reproductive technique; or reversal of tubal ligation, a vasectomy, or any other method of sterilization.
Maryland Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover IVF after a two-year wait following diagnosis, with no wait required for certain diagnoses. Insurance carriers are not required to provide this benefit to businesses (group policies) of 50 or fewer employees. Religious organizations can choose not to provide coverage based on their religious views. A carrier may limit IVF benefits to three attempts per live birth, not to exceed a lifetime maximum benefit of $100,000.
Massachusetts Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover comprehensive infertility diagnosis and treatment, including ART procedures.
Montana Mandates HMOs (but not other types of insurers) to cover infertility treatment as a basic health care service. The law does not define "infertility services," and some HMOs exclude IVF.
New Jersey Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover comprehensive diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including assisted reproductive technology procedures, but limits attempts to four complete oocyte retrievals per lifetime. Insurance carriers are not required to provide this benefit to businesses (group policies) of 50 or fewer employees.
New York Mandates coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of correctable medical conditions. Requires coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility for patients between the ages of 21 and 44, who have been covered under the policy for at least 12 months. Certain procedures are excluded, including IVF, GIFT, reversal of elective sterilization, sex change procedures, cloning, and experimental procedures. Plans that include prescription coverage must cover drugs approved by FDA for use in diagnosis and treatment of infertility (including ovulation induction). The law does not apply to HMOs.
Ohio Mandates HMOs (but not other types of insurers) to cover infertility treatment as a "preventative" benefit. The treatment must be "medically necessary," and the Ohio Department of Insurance has ruled that GIFT, ZIFT and IVF are not medically necessary.
Rhode Island Requires insurers and HMOs that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover the cost of medically necessary expenses of diagnosis and treatment of infertility. The law defines infertility as "the condition of an otherwise healthy married individual who is unable to conceive or produce conception during a period of one year." The patient's copayment cannot exceed 20 percent.
West Virginia Mandates HMOs (but not other types of insurers) to cover infertility treatment as a preventative benefit. The law does not define "infertility treatment" and HMOs have interpreted the term as excluding IVF.
Insurers in these states must offer employers a policy that provides coverage of infertility treatment, but may also offer policies that don't provide this coverage. Employers are not required to pay for infertility treatment coverage. They may choose a policy that covers infertility treatment or one that does not.
California Mandates insurance carriers to offer group policyholders coverage of infertility treatment, excluding IVF but including GIFT. (Group health insurers covering hospital, medical or surgical expenses must let employers know infertility coverage is available.)
Connecticut Mandates insurance carriers to offer coverage of comprehensive infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF procedures, to group policyholders.
Texas Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to offer coverage of infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF, to group policyholders.
For more information about any of the mandates listed here (and to determine if your state has recently changed or enacted an infertility insurance mandate), you should contact your state's Department of Health or Department of Insurance.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
That's always good to know. I also know that our church offers adoption services (I read recently that it is the largest private adoption service in the world). I have no idea how much their services cost, but I would imagine it can't be astronomical, since a know a couple of similar economic status who have pursued adoption through them (she ended up getting pregnant right after they'd been aproved, so they didn't complete the process). Oh well, hopefully all this worrying will be for nothing and we'll do fine the natural way....
[ November 04, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah. There are probably a lot of things in this area (like your church's adoption service) that we may not know much about unless we need them.
Good luck. Have fun trying.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sara I was getting lost in the acronyms. I think I know what most of them mean but just to be sure can you define:
"various ART procedures" (Assisted Reproductive Technology?) "GIFT, ZIFT" What do the Z and G specifically stand for?
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Gamete IntraFallopian Transfer Zygote IntraFallopian Transfer
and you are correct on ART. There are important differences between some of the acronyms, likely relevant to many discussions of morality as well as of the medical aspect. I'll look for a good webpage.
This site looks both accurate and useful. I can't vouch for it, though, as I am not familiar with it.
quote:As its name suggests, GIFT takes advantage of a woman's fallopian tubes as a natural incubator for fertilisation. Aside from that difference, this procedure is identical to a standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment.
quote:ZIFT (Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer) is a similar procedure to GIFT, except that it is the newly fertilised egg (zygote) which is returned to the woman's fallopian tubes rather than the mixture of eggs and sperm.
[ November 04, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Whether or not abortion is legal may soon be a non issue - the new focus is access.
If enough doctors lose their licenses for their incompetence, or retire, and enough clinics get shut down because there aren't enough doctors to keep them open, then the pro-life movement doesn't even need to get it done in the courts.
A clinic recently shut down in Mississippi, taking the total number of abortion clinics in the state from 2 down to 1. The clinic closed because the doctor that was operating it had his license suspended, after a couple of deaths and some emergency hysterectomies due to perforated uteruses.
Mississippi suspended his license after Alabama suspended it - because you see, this guy is also the operator of the Summit Medical Clinic in Birmingham, AL where there were still more deaths and emergency hysterectomies. Now he's likely to have his license revoked. His hearing on the issue was Sept. 22nd and the decision should be handed down soon.
Yes, it would be best to make abortion unnecessary - I would love it if there were no unwanted pregnancies. But, both sides need to understand that it regardless of how you feel about it, abortion may soon be unavailable - no matter how legal it is you can't get one done if there are no doctors willing to perform them.
According to a study, more than half of all current abortion providers are approaching retirement. Young doctors don't seem eager to enter the field.
Here's some info from a pro-choice medical student site.
quote:Since 1982, the number of abortion providers in the U.S. has fallen by 37%
Over half (57%) of all ob/gyns who perform abortion are 50 years of age or older (7). Many of today’s abortion providers are approaching or have reached retirement age, and few doctors have been trained to replace them.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject - this is very interesting. What kind of situation would we have if abortion were still legal, but there were so few doctors that waiting periods were high and there was no way to get all of them performed until late into the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Or maybe not enough time to have them done at all?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
By the way, Sara - I can move that post to a new thread if you like - I just hated to start another front page thread on abortion, but the issue has been weighing on me for a while and I wanted to see other people's reaction to it.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Hey, no worries. I'm all for thread expansion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sara, are you ready for another twist?
I read somewhere (sorry I don't remember where) that some religious organizations were fighting against peoples right to donate those surplus embryos to medical research facilities, particularly for stem cell research.
Now, I understand the religious implications of that type of research, I really do, and I even sympathies with the people who have a problem with it...
But when they are fighting the parents, trying to legally deny them the right to donate them to research, they are in effect forcing the parents to dispose of them otherwise.
In a field where there is no other way to get the genetic materials to do this research, here is a fantastic oppertunity....the scientist would get the genetic material they need without "creating" it just for research, and the parents aren't disposing of it in other ways that don't benefit others...wasting the genetic material.
There are more surplus embryos in the US than the scientist could ever use, all created in search of life, and they are going to be disposed of, legally, one way or another. Why not allow the parents to donate them...not require it, or allow access to anyone not authorized by the parents...for the common good?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]]]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, the pill has many uses, ad almost 1/3 of the women on it are taking it for non-birth control reasons.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I "get" your position, for what it is worth.]![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
Oh man, a whole 'nother can of worms and yet another issue I don't know what I think of....