pajarito

Yeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing.

That was fun. I hardly ever post replies to forums (i.e. newbie) but I couldn't help but get in with this one. Most are trivial, boring, and not really worth your time. I didn't mean to sound like an ass if I did. I just like a good argument and hate not getting the last word.

Elfanie: My wife is an OB/GYN Physician. She found several inaccuracies in your statements. > In response to: Nope...the 25% of miscarriages includes failed implantation, genetic abnormalities, blighted ovums, etc etc etc... there is no other 60%... In other words...for every 4 embryos created naturally, one will fail. Approximately 70% of human conceptions fail to achieve viability. Most occur before the first missed menstrual period. (Fertility & Sterility, 1982) Study done by H. Leridon also gives similar results. Natural wastage was 69%. (Human Fertility, 1977) Billvon was more correct about this! * By the way, your clinic must be VERY good because an 80% success rate is almost unheard of. > In response to: IUDs main job is not to prevent conceptions. We are now offering hormonal IUDs....but still, the #1 way that they prevent pregnancy is by preventing implantation of fertilized embryos.... The main mechanism of action of copper bearing IUD’s is as a spermicide. Because of the increased number of leukocytes, you get phagocytosis of sperm. Copper also slows sperm transport and viability in the cervical mucus. Because of the spermicidal action, very few sperm actually reach the oviduct at all. Therefore, the main purpose of IUD’s is to prevent conception. NOT to prevent implantation. (However, occasionally, it does occur.) Still, this is off the subject of stem cell research.

Just kidding. I love my kids. Having kids changed my views on this and related subjects years ago.

> Ah...but an embryo, left alone, won't grow up to be another person... we haven't been able to get them past the blastocyst stage without a woman and a uterus. I’m not an expert on this but are you telling me that an embryo left alone attached to a woman’s uterus won’t grow up to be a human fetus? > And they aren't talking about killing a 26 week old fetus for stem cell research and cloning. What a 26 week fetus can do is irrelevant to the conversation... I’m talking about development potential at any stage. I'm saying that an embryo, fetus, and baby are all human at different developmental stages. You're also trying to compare and therefore legitimize the problems associated with stem cell research with birth control methods. That still doesn't make it right. How birth control works should be another discussion. I obviously don't know how it all works yet. I've got three kids. :0

> I agree there, but as I mentioned, people will travel to where it is legal if it could save the life of their child. And once it's a proven procedure, no politician alive will take a position that their opponents will describe as "letting children die." Like I said, if other countries do it, it still doesn’t make it right. Abortion is a “proven” procedure and there are politicians who oppose it. > IVF, IUD's, even natural processes do just that - they cause (or result in) failure of development after conception. Like stated before, IVF can freeze remaining embryos. IUD’s prevent conception in the first place so that’s not the issue. Natural processes are just that. Natural. No human intervention.

A “potential” human being is a lot different from your spleen in a mason jar. Your spleen in a mason jar, if left alone, won’t grow up to be another you. I hope it is argued for a very, very, very long time. It’s that important. You’re putting your criteria on when life begins by saying that it must be able to think, feel, and move. Again, I’m talking about humans and not ants. A 26 week old fetus can move fingers and suck its thumb. It can’t think on the level of a 3 year old yet, though. It will eventually if left alone to develop and there aren’t subsequent problems. Also, a 2 year old can’t live “on its own.” Does that make him not human? Hormonal forms of birth control prevent ovulation. Conception can’t occur if there’s no egg. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

O come on...we're not talking about spiders, cows, or giraffes. We're talking about human beings. You can’t say that we make that kind of decision every day and equate what we’re talking about to stepping on an ant bed. I'm not by any means the PETA type. I'm talking about killing humans or potential humans. You can't deny, however small and underdeveloped, that it is a human embryo. I don't care what it might look like. The DNA is human.

> Let me put it a different way - the morals involved in letting your 3 year old son die will win over more vague morals concerning the rightness or wrongness of a procedure. Your first statement isn’t correct. Medical ethics plays a big roll in determining the legality of procedures. It’s not legal in this country. Not yet. What’s vague about whether it’s right or wrong to kill one in order to save or improve the life of another? > 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? I have no problem with using discarded material. I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were given. > The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. You’re exactly right about IVF. Same issues apply. Many do, however, consider it a travesty depending on how it’s done. The eggs that don’t “take” could be frozen for future use. How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life?

Moral considerations are never secondary. That's a very short term view. If the procedure kills the embryo in the process, a potential life is lost. What makes the life of the 3 or 12 year old any more valuable? Some argue that these pre-implantation embryos are only 8 or so cells in size and are, therefore, not human yet. Who are we to say that? There's not a scientist on the planet who can say exactly when life begins. How is it right to kill another in order for your 3 year old to walk again? We were all embryos at one time and are still a "clump of cells." We’re all at different levels of advancement. I agree that it will eventually happen. The moral decline of our culture will ensure that. That will never make it right. I also believe that it is any politician’s basic responsibility to stand up for his or her principals whether or not that costs them their jobs.

It's great to see my "good looking" uncle in the spotlight again. He deserves the recognition. Congratulations Buddy! Jaybird