Not sure where to put this one, since I’m definitely pitting people, but there is also a genuine question here too. But given the road this could easily go down, I’ll start it off in the pit…
Anyway, the recent pathetic crash-and-burn of crybaby troll ted_baskerville raises a question in my mind.
It would seem obvious to me that killing an embryo by throwing it in the trash is morally “worse” than using that same embryo for research that could save many lives. Yet, fertility clinics have been throwing embryos in the trash for what, almost 30 years now? And I don’t recall any outcry about trashing embryos, ever. (If there was such an outcry at the beginning I’m too young to remember it.) Why is there no effort to ban this practice? It just seems totally backwards. For years, nobody says a word about throwing embryos out. Then, when scientists come up with a way to use those embryos for something beneficial, people go nuts and cry on message boards about the “holocaust.”
Where were theted_baskervilles 10 years ago, weeping for the embryos headed for the trash? And what are they trying to accomplish now? Don’t they realize that if they are successful in banning research on these embryos, they are going to be thrown in the trash? At least it would make some sense if they were trying to ban throwing embryos in the trash. At least then they would be taking some kind of consistent position, with which I could respectfully disagree. As it is, I can’t even figure out what they’re trying to do. Because what they’re fighting for is throwing embryos in the trash.
And since we’re in the pit, fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
I think that 10 years ago they were putting their efforts into trying to keep the embryos from being taken out of their hosts. Since they haven’t been able to convince people on that point, they’re trying a different tack: if they can convince people to stop doing research on the removed embryos, it might give them some traction on that whole abortions=bad idea. Next thing you know, they’re going to be trying to convice us that unprotected sex is bad, because it kills the embryos before they’re even conceived. I mean, think of all the wasted eggs!
My impression, which may be totally wrong, but not as wrong as our friend ted’s*, was that for years and years fertility clinics had been freezing the blastocytes sort of indefinitely, to prevent just such an outrage. I think they’ve been very, very quiet until now about the fact that sooner or later, the freezer’s full and you have to toss out the specimens. In fact, I think it was the hue against stem cell reserch that made it clearer to everyone that the blastocytes were being destroyed at all - before that, it was quietly assumed that they were all still frozen in some lab somewhere.
*which I still think was a total put on, by the way. Up until today he was a supporter of DNX abortions, suicide and bonobo fucking, and now he’s Mr. Christian? What. Ever.
IMO, its because stem cell research and the fate of embryos is the fundie issue de jour and the fundie masses hadn’t until recently been told about this latest threat to western civilization, the fabric of time and the future existance of all mankind, not to mention puppies.
If you follow the ‘leading’ fundie news you can pretty well predict what the loons will be raving about in places like the SDMB.
As someone about to start my second IVF cycle what really annoys me is their ignorance. For example the reason so many embryos are produced during an IVF cycle is not to bother fundamentalists. The reason so many embryos are produced is because most eggs simply don’t have a chance in hell of implanting. So all this bullshit about “discarding embryos = discarding life” is just ignorant nonsense. Most frozen embryos will not survive freezing.
The only thing almost as ludicrous is the notion that a woman would undergo IVF just to donate embryos. IVF is very tough thing to endure emotionally and physically. The needles used are painful. You have multiple early morning ultrasounds that also aren’t exactly fun.
I sometimes think what they really want to do is just basically ban all forms of sex that don’t involve man on top missionary position. Single women shouldn’t have sex. Infertile women should just adopt. And everyone else better get their ass in church on Sundays or they are headed for hell.
Some of us are old enough to remember when all IVFs were referred to as “test tube babies” and the process was considered “playing God” by some.
For a while when I was quite young, I thought that the babies would actually be grown to full size in huge test tubes if they ever mastered the procedure.
I have an aquaitance who had IVF. They implanted 5 embryos, IMS, and the decision was made to only have two continue gestation, or some such phrase. No one (except her SIL) thought much about the “sacrificing” of these three lives. This same woman underwent IVF twice, and has two sets of twins to show for it. I dont’ know if the second IVF involved “selective gestation” (I made that phrase up; I made up ‘lactivist’, too–I like to make up pseudo-scientific phrases in my spare time, it’s less costly than a lot of bad habits).
In practical terms, the above procedure seems sensible. I too wonder where the outrage has been. whynot brings up a good point. Perhaps it’s something the pro-birth contigent never considered?
It’s because IVF works, and has given a measure of hope to otherwise infertile couples.
Once we actually start seeing some working treatments* from stem cells, we’ll see the problems people have with them start to dissolve. Values tend to take a hike if you’re offered a choice between them and a cure for dreadful neurological diseases.
and the thing is, they aren’t really BABIES. It’s more the potentional for a baby.
It’s a cell for which all things are possible but nothing is promised. God, for all the fundies know, most of them would have been geneticly programmed to self destruct with a 100% totally incompatible with life genetic defect!
As Zoe wrote, there were religious based protests against various fertility treatments back when they first began. But essentially, the religious groups lost that battle and the procedures became accepted by the mainstream. Like most organizations, these groups try to focus their efforts on the areas where they feel they have the best chance of success.
The thing is they are more “BABIES” that what is stopped if the morning after pill is used. That group is being fairly successful in trying to keep that out of drug stores and pressuring Dr.s not to provide it. At least they are sort of consistant.
Now THAT would be funny. “Oh, we’ve got this system down so we only really have to plant two to get two, but it really chaps the Fundies that we’re Playing God here, so…”
I once asked one of the biggest anti-abortionists I know what should be done with “Petrie dish embryos,” and he said it was okay to toss them. When I asked why, he said “Well, it doesn’t really seem like a baby till it’s in the mother.”
I was nonplussed, not knowing if I should laugh or cry.
No, no! Infertile women should allow their husband to take other, more nubile wives.
The older wives can be retained since they may have superior housekeeping skills. It’s more humane to keep them since, they cannot make their own way in the outside world. Being women & all.
Even wives who produce progeny do tend to age–especially if they have produced many progeny in few years. So the Male may need younger wives to encourage his waning sex drive.
Weeeelllll…no, they’re most likely very much less developed. Although the details depend on what “morning after pill” you’re talking about. If you’re talking about RU-486, then they’re quite a bit less developed. In the body, the egg is fertilized in the fallopian tube and then travels down as a blastocyte for about 7-12 days before implanting. If you take RU-486, it will still fertilize and develop on its way down, but it won’t implant, so the blastocyte that is excreted in the menses is about 7-12 days old, generally. Petri dish blastocysts are about 4-5 days old when stem cells are collected. cite
“Emergency contraception” (Plan B) almost certainly prevents ovulation, not implantation, although there is still a bit of controversy over this issue, mostly flamed by anti-abortionists. Theoretically, if you were to be only a few days pregnant and take EC prior to implantation, you might be able to shed that blastocyst along with the uterine lining - more likely, you wouldn’t abort, and would be listed as one of the “failure” statistics for EC (21-25%). If you weren’t pregnant but about to be (due to a broken condom in the last 72 hours), you would not become pregnant because EC would prevent you from ovulating in the first place. So most of the time, EC will prevent the formation of a blastocyst in the first place. The only time EC could theoretically be “an abortion pill” is when you were already pregnant while you had unprotected intercourse and didn’t know it. In this case, the blastocyst could be up to 12 days old, as well, older than the petri dish blastocyst. I keep saying “theoretically”, because this theory has not been scientifically observed in vivo, mostly because we can’t yet detect a fertilized egg that early, but the theory is indeed possible.
It may sound like I’m picking nits here, but I’m all for having the facts crystal clear in controversial debates. It’s too easy for the other side to ignore your entire argument if even one fact is questionable.
Seven days is a huge developmental difference. The stuff we’re talking about throwing out or collecting stem cells from is far *less *developed than the stuff many women abort chemically, or naturally with their cycle and never know it.
It’s called “selctive reduction” and isn’t any different than an standard abortion, excepct that one or more embryos are involved and not all are aborted. Why should someone express particular “outrage” at this procedure, if that person already expresses outrage at abortion in general?