posted
I'm probably one of the strongest proponents of psychology on the board and the idea that psychologists can or should determine who is fit to be a parent chills me to the bone.
I'm all for propogating a culture meme that parenting should be restricted to people who are not total screw-ups and that there's a lot of preparation that should go into to having a child, but I don't think that it's ever going to be a good idea to use force to limit reproduction to only the people that some group deems worthy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, that's interesting. From my perspective, the fertilized eggs that fail to implant would be similar to the many naturally fertilized eggs that fail to implant. Is it the human intervention that makes it different?
That's a huge part of it, for reasons I've never fully articulated well. The best I've been able to approach it is via the running from bears analogy.
Beyond that, though, is the sheer difference in success rate. I'd have to work the numbers, but last I researched this, IVF produced pregnancy in 30% of attempts. Almost all or all of those involve multiple attempts. Even though multiple births are more common with IVF, they do not tip the numbers anywhere close to the successful implantation rate of in vivo fertilization.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The success rate is so low that trying one on one will simply minimize the number killed prior to success, although some will succeed on the first try.
Considering that parents who try to have children for years without success are likely making zygotes every month that don't implant and then die, I don't have much problem with creating a bunch of zygotes at once in hopes that at least one will survive.
Now, if it appears that several *are* going to survive and a mother purposefully killed the others so that only one survived, I would have a problem with that (not that that is medically possible--more hypothetical.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why the natural element v. human intervention is relevant. I wish I could articulate it better.
But I'm not sure your supposition is correct. If the problem is fertilization, not implantation, then this doesn't apply. I don't know if IVF is used more often in cases where fertilization or implantation is at issue.
Apparantly the rate of of failed implantation of fertilized eggs is something like 40-60%, so there's no doubt that the overall "death" rate of fertilized eggs is higher in in vitro cases.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the problem is fertilization, not implantation, then this doesn't apply.
Yup. But there are plenty of cases--particularly in couples that *are* fertile but just take awhile for pregnancy to "take hold", that it seems pretty certain that fertilization is taking place on a regular basis, but then something breaks down.
One of the reasons *I* personally have come to this conclusion is that of the 6 times I have allowed myself unprotected sex at a fertile time, 5 of those times I wound up preggers (one miscarriage). It seems silly, to me medically, to assume that Porter and I are just that good at hitting bullseyes. It seems more likely to me that fertilization is something that happens far more easily than we realize--but that the breakdown happens later for those who *don't* get preggers.
This is not a scientific declaration, it is my belief based on my observation and understanding of medical science. Anyone who knows more, feel free to correct me and I will graciously consider your explaination.
IVF is probably used in cases of fertilization problems since the implantation still must happen naturally and on its own. We don't yet have the technology to help the implantation process.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the implantation problem is what is being addressed with the multiple embryos. If you can't improve the rate of implantation, you can still improve the chances of pregnancy by increasing the number of potential implantations.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps... but wouldn't you get the same effect by trying to get pregnant over a period of a year? And spend a lot less money as well?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of the details, I hope I've answered Squicky's question (although, of course, this is not necessarily the answer the person he originally posed it to would have given).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, certainly. But for someone having trouble conceiving, over that same year you could have either 12 chances or 96 or more chances.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I understand your thinking, but I think you have to take into account other possibilities:
1. The man's sperm might be defective in some way that makes it unable to reach and/or fertilize an egg. Many defects could probably be found through testing, but I'm not sure all possible defects could be (with current technology and medical knowledge, at least).
2. The woman's egg might be defective in some way that prohibits fertilization that is not easily detected via tests.
3. There might be some incompatibility that prevents a specific couple from getting pregnant, but wouldn't necessarily prevent either partner from conceiving with someone else.
So while your supposition seems intuitive, I don't think there is really enough data. A couple trying to have a baby is basically having sex and waiting for signs of pregnancy, for the most part. When no such signs come, no one knows why reproduction failed in that specific attempt. Could have been fertilization. Could have been implantation. To know for sure, wouldn't you have to check ejected eggs to see whether they were fertilized or not? Has this ever been done, or done enough to have reliable data?
Like you, though, bev, I'm just throwing out what seems logical to me based on my limited scientific knowledge. (and I know in my case the issue is lack of fertilization, not lack of implantation. )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, it is pretty clear that some women (and some men) are more fertile than others.
I guess we'll just call you Myrtle.
(Also, every time a woman starts off one of these discussions by saying something to the effect of, "Every time I had unprotected sex I got pregnant," I want to respond with, "Well, if don't give God many opportunities, He has to take all the ones you present!")
Your logic -- that just because every time you could have gotten pregnant, you did -- is seriously flawed. The simple fact is, no one really knows why some women get pregnant very easily and some do not. There are theories, and we know some things that seem to contribute.
But no one can say, "This couple will get pregnant if they have unprotected sex on this date." And I seriously doubt that we ever will be able to do so. Nailing down the different contributions of the many variables is simply too difficult (or in some cases would require some seriously unethical research).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I didn't know there could be cases where the gametes are consistently defective. I mean, I can understand it happening temporarily--one bad egg, damage to the testicles causing a temporary bout of swimming-impaired sperm. But I guess there is still so much we don't know.
I freely admit that the situation I put forth isn't likely to be the case with every couple, but that it would be the case more than we realize.
I've just heard so many "trusted" sources say that women sluff off zygotes quite often with their monthly period. I don't know if they are speculating or if there has been actual research done. The above "claim" is used as a defense in favor of some kinds of contraception and very early abortion.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are many zygotes made that do not implant? Probably so. But how would one actually go about testing such a claim?
Are such non-implanting zygotes a primary reason for not getting pregnant? No idea. Again, how on earth would one test such a thing?
My gut tells me that failing to create a viable zygote happens more often than you seem to think. But again, no way to test that . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand saying that it is bad science to use my own example to build a theory. But at the same time, my experience *does* count for something.
You see, when I was younger I got the impression that it was really hard for the sperm and egg to *find* each other. Since our sperm and egg seem to have no problem, I assume that it is *other* things that differ between us and other "trying" couples. This is assuming that 1) the egg is present and 2) there are healthy, normal amounts of sperm. If those two things aren't there, then obviously that is where the problem lies. But if they *are* there, why would they find each other so easily in me and not in someone else? I really am curious about possible reasons for this.
As I said, I am open to possible explainations. KarlEd provided some: eggs and sperm that are consistently defective. I expressed my feeling that while that might happen every so often, I didn't know of a situation where it happened *consistently* and couldn't be detected.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are many zygotes made that do not implant? Probably so. But how would one actually go about testing such a claim?"
Not directly testing, but there's been some indirect testing that puts the number of naturally aborted fertilizations at around 70% (which includes failure to implant, and miscarrages), with about 75% of that being zygotes that do not implant.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since our sperm and egg seem to have no problem, I assume that it is *other* things that differ between us and other "trying" couples.
But implantation is no problem to you, either. Why couldn't fertilization be the problem for the others?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my point is, if fertilization *is* a problem, it is usually easy to diagnose. Then it is known and those cases can be ruled out.
Check the man's sperm count. Is it normal? Are the sperm normal? Have the woman take an ovulation test. Is she ovulating? There is an egg there. If those are both in place, what stops the sperm from fertilizing the egg? It is an honest question.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess my point is, if fertilization *is* a problem, it is usually easy to diagnose.
This is NOT true. There are many things that could cause a problem with either sperm count or ovulation that are extremely difficult to diagnose. I've known women who never, ever got a diagnosis - they just remained infertile and the doctors never could tell them why.
quote:Check the man's sperm count. Is it normal? Are the sperm normal? Have the woman take an ovulation test. Is she ovulating? There is an egg there. If those are both in place, what stops the sperm from fertilizing the egg? It is an honest question.
Many things. Women can have cervical mucus that is not hospitable to the man's sperm, there can be problems with her fallopian tubes and the eggs never fully descend to where they can meet the sperm, the egg may become fertilized but then not remain viable after the first cell division, there are many, many factors to a successful pregnancy.
Forgive me beverly, because I'm sure you don't really mean to project this - but the vibe I'm getting from you right now is "I got pregnant really easy so it's probably easier for people than they think it is" and that's pretty hurtful to me, since I've been through the pain and struggle of infertility.
Infertility is very complex, there are so many different things that have to work together and go exactly right for a successful implantation. It's not always a fertilization problem and it's not always an implantation problem, I would venture a guess that many times it's combinations of factors.
Edit: For example - my case involved three factors
1. anovulation due to polycystic ovarian disease 2. endometriosis - which seems to reduce fertility though no one is sure why 3. adenomyosis which makes the uterine wall not as receptive to implantation
Diagnosing all that took years (actually the adeno wasn't diagnosed until after my hysterectomy but it was suspected before then) and a sum total of three surgeries. Not so simple.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. I think there are some small groups of people we could mostly agree "shouldn't" be parents- pedophiles or rapists, for example.But what about the mentally ill? What about the children of pedophiles or the mentally ill, who may carry their genes? It frightens me that people even think that way, that any one thinks they could predict parenting outcomes or that two cold, distant parents are better than one loving, attached one. (Or that a distant man and woman are better than two loving men or two loving women).
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've known women who never, ever got a diagnosis - they just remained infertile and the doctors never could tell them why.
Then might it be conceivable that the problem happens *after* fertilization? The term "infertility" does not mean that there is no zygote. It refers to the inability to carry a pregnancy full term.
quote:"I got pregnant really easy so it's probably easier for people than they think it is"
I apologize. That was most certainly *not* my intent. I am simply putting forth the idea that in the great variety of infertility problems, there may very well be many zygotes created that then die--therefore it doesn't bother me when someone in an effort to create life risks killing zygotes.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then might it be conceivable that the problem happens *after* fertilization? The term "infertility" does not mean that there is no zygote. It refers to the inability to carry a pregnancy full term.
I should have been more precise in my language - I meant women who suffered from anovulation - the inability to ovulate normally - and never learned why. That had nothing to do with implantation, they never even got to that stage.
No need to apologize, I acknowledged that I knew that was not your intent, because I feel like I know you and you wouldnt do that purposefully. If my responses were a little curt, I wanted you to know why.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Or that a distant man and woman are better than two loving men or two loving women).
I agree. While because of my religious beliefs I do not believe that this is the ideal situation for children, I still think that children should be loved and that is the first and MOST important part of a family life for children. I was horrified when Texas barred homosexuals from being foster parents-- they have far too few qualified foster parents and an overwhelmed system to begin with, they should most emphatically NOT be excluding anyone who has never harmed a child and could give a child a loving home.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I meant women who suffered from anovulation - the inability to ovulate normally - and never learned why.
Yes, that was in the category of "easily diagnosed". (Anovulation.) "Easily diagnosed" is not the same as "easily cured" or even "easily understood". They don't ovulate. No one knows why or what to do about it, therefore they are obviously not in the group of people who create zygotes that never make it.
quote:No need to apologize, I acknowledged that I knew that was not your intent, because I feel like I know you and you wouldnt do that purposefully. If my responses were a little curt, I wanted you to know why.
OK, Belle. I forget sometimes that this is a sensitive subject. I do not ever want to come across as bragging about fertility.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Question for Republicans: This is smaller government...how?
Huh? What do Republicans have to do with smaller government? Don't tell me you actually believe that slogan? They want government to meddle every bit as much as the Democrats. Well, almost as much, anyway. They just have a different list.
But you could turn it around just as easily. Since Democrats are all about the government sticking its nose in, why not go all the way and let the government dictate such things as bodily functions?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle addressed some of the issues I was going to point out. Another major factor is age.
The majority of couples who experience infertility are those who waited to have children until their mid-thirties and beyond. (I know these aren't the ONLY people with infertility by any means).
The man may have good healthy sperm and the woman may be ovulating. The problem is that the quality of a woman's eggs deteriorates rapidly after ~age 27. The egg may often not be viable to start out with or the corpus luteum (the lady-in-waiting cells that go with the ovum) may not be functioning which would result in a lack of adequate hormones to sustain the pregnancy.
None of this means that this couple might not get pregnant eventually from an ovulation with an egg that is unaffected by aging. The works are all okay but it will take longer and the longer it takes the less likely it is to work. It's a difficult problem that is not easy to diagnose.
Edit: I type too slow... this was intended to be about 6 posts up.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also... it sounds like if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the law would require her to have an abortion. Though I don't suppose they considered that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before we tar "Indiana" or "Republicans" because of this is one or several people in Indiana who proposed this, not an entire state or an entire party.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I keep seeing that statement bandied about: "Most fertilized eggs never implant and are flushed during menstruation." Has anybody seen an actual study that measures this? Without evidence, I don't buy it.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by kmbboots: Question for Republicans: This is smaller government...how? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? What do Republicans have to do with smaller government? Don't tell me you actually believe that slogan? They want government to meddle every bit as much as the Democrats. Well, almost as much, anyway. They just have a different list.
Yes, dear, that was my point.
I hear the "smaller, less intrusive, government" argument from Republicans all the time . These days, it seems that they only get riled when you mess with their money. Intrusion into other areas is fair game.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both the R and D parties are slowly changing all the time. I remember OSC addressing this, that he considers himself a Democrat, but a Democrat of the previous generation.
It may be that Republicans used to be about small government. But I don't think that is true anymore.
Edit: Thanks for the interesting info, Miriya. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It may be that Republicans used to be about small government. But I don't think that is true anymore.
Neither do I. Sadly though, a lot of "old school" Republicans (and I used to be one - most of my family still is) don't recognize this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh, I'm not American so the repuplican/ democrat thing doesn't apply to me but it seems like any party in Canada that embraces "small government" gets tarred with the "radical" brush.
Maybe it's like that everywhere.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it really IS a lot harder to get pregnant than people think. A woman's body is actually quite hostile to sperm, and those things die pretty easily anyway, from what I understand.
Sure, some people get pregnant on the first try. But let's say that it's true that 75% of the time, zygotes don't implant. Now, taking away the factor of sperm dying before they reach the egg, that means that there's only a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant PROVIDED that you had sex during the proper time frame (although I don't know how long of a time frame that is; I've heard some people say a week and some say only 72 hours). Also keep in mind that this 1 in 4 chance applies every single time you try. What I mean is, just because you've had sex 3 times at the proper time of the month doesn't mean that you'll get pregnant on the 4th because probability doesn't work that way.
Does anybody know how long it typically takes for the sperm to reach the egg? And how long after that for implantation? I guess what I mean is, how long after unprotected sex would someone be considered "pregnant?"
quote:Does anybody know how long it typically takes for the sperm to reach the egg? And how long after that for implantation? I guess what I mean is, how long after unprotected sex would someone be considered "pregnant?"
I think the actual fertilization is supposed to happen within a few hours. Implantation happens up to a week later. Well, that's when it begins. Implantation is a process.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sperm die within hours unless it is during the days leading up to ovulation, when the cervical fluids change and allow access to the utuerus. Then sperm can live for several days. Within four days after ovulation, the cervical fluids change back to the infertile state and sperm cannot even enter the uterus and die within hours.
Intercourse must take place within that window (usually around a week, but can be shorter or longer) for fertilization to have a chance of occuring. The greatest chance of fertilization will generally be when intercourse occurs just before ovulation.
This is the typical pattern. Some forms of infertility will show a different pattern.
I still want to see the research that shows that most fertilized eggs don't implant.
posted
Like I said, it's the typical pattern, not "the pattern that is set in stone and you're a mutant if you're different." However, research with thousands of women has shown that it is pretty typical.
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I see it too. I guess I meant that the government should not decide who should and should not have children based on their marital status. I think only a thorough psycho analysis can really say that you are qualified to be a parent.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Completely ignoring the idea that psychoanalysis is anywhere near precise enough to pin-point specific qualifications for anything, this idea is still horrifying in itself. "Qualified to be a parent" is a very vague term and I bet we could find a different definition for every single registered poster at Hatrack. Who is going to determine what constitutes qualified to be a parent? I think this question even applies to the proposed (and thankfully now un-proposed) law.
If it's valid to argue that two parents is better than one and therefore it should be criminal for a single woman to bear a child why is it not also valid to argue that the "ideal" home is one where the dad makes $75K/year and the mother stays at home with the kids and make it illegal for women to work and for any couple to reproduce until the man makes the minimum income?
I really hate the mentality that holds up a narrow ideal and uses it blindly to judge the worthiness of others. I might agree that it's better to have two parents. I might agree that having those two parents be opposite sex is the ideal, all other things being equal. But the government is not here to enforce the ideal. The government is here to enfore the bare minimum, if anything. That leaves us free to interpret for ourselves what is "ideal".
Heaven help us if we reach a point where one narrow minded view of the perfect life is enforced on the rest of us. Talk about hell on earth.
Oh, I don't mean that parenting should be allowed only to those who make a minimum amount. I meant the psycho analysis thing so that people like serial killers and those with completely twisted minds cannot have any children. Did you ever see the Cell with JLo? Remember the little kid's dad? I mean people like those. You know, your everyday sick in the head bastard. Just those, any other factors cannot and should not determine your parenting abilities.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Mutants" aside , I believe that the accepted maximum life span of sperm in "hospitable" fluid is 5 days. That doesn't mean that all or most women actually produce "hospitable fluid for that long though. So in theory fertilization can occur any time between a couple hours to five days after intercourse depending on when ovulation occurs.
Edit: Implantation would commence (like bev said it's a process) approximately 8 days after fertilization.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
