Life at Conception

[AGENT J]

Yet you're perfectly fine with having your belief forced on someone else, in the form of allowing an innocent human being to be murdered in the name of that belief.

there factually is no force and there factually is no legal murder, once again your post is completely false and facts destory it. If you disagree please by all means bring any facts to the table that supports you

 

[Steve Ja]

I guess the question is whether an unborn fetus is actually a human being. I don't think anyone can say for sure, yet that doesn't stop both sides from getting wound up about it.

It is def a emotional topic

 

[Steve Ja]

there factually is no force and there factually is no legal murder, once again your post is completely false and facts destory it. If you disagree please by all means bring any facts to the table that supports you

Fact in that the woman is not forced to have an abortion. Force in that we are forced to accept it as a legal form of birth control. There are instances where I support abortion, even if I do not agree with all those I support.Fact it is not legal murder, in that the courts accept it and do not consider it murder. Fact in that a human being is indeed killed by the act of abortion, when used on a live fetus, depending on which of the 5 criteria for human being you use.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

Great read someone else posted earlier

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Fact in that the woman is not forced to have an abortion.
2.)Force in that we are forced to accept it as a legal form of birth control.
3.)There are instances where I support abortion, even if I do not agree with all those I support.
4.) Fact it is not legal murder, in that the courts accept it and do not consider it murder.
5.) Fact in that a human being is indeed killed by the act of abortion, when used on a live fetus, depending on which of the 5 criteria for human being you use.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

Great read someone else posted earlier

1.) correct but some want to force the woman to give up all her rights and froce her to risk her life against her will
2.) this is factually wrong on multiple levels
A.) you dont have to accept "anything"
B.) Birth control PREVENTS pregnancy so by definition abortion is not birthcontrol
3.) good thats awesome, middle ground is the only way to be for people that care about equal/human/civil/legal rights

this is the most important thing there are plenty of things i may not agree with but im simply educated enough and rational enoug to understand how the counrty works, freedom works and how my personal feelings/morals/ethics are for me and not for others nor should be forced on them.

4.) well theres no such thing as legal murder so you are right its no murder

5.) this is NOT a fact, a human life does typically end because the super vast majority of abortions are done before viability or done in away to protect the mother.
there is no fact that all the stages of preborn are human beings, let in development yes id agree early not so much and thats not MY opinion thats the science community and the definition of the word human being.

Human life and human being are not eve close to the same, a sperm is human, a sperm is human life, it is not a human being though

also at the foundation of the abortion debate when a person thinks life exists or what they call the ZEF, zygote, embryo, fetus, preborn, baby, kid etc etc is all completely meaningless because they dont change or have any impact on the challenge and debate.

the only facts that exicst in the abortion topic is that there are factually TWO lives we are dealing with and there is factually ZERO WAY to grant them equal rights, we can only try.

ANybody who wants unlimited abortion or mostly banned abortion can not use a human/civil/legal/equal rights argument.

One life will ALWAYS be a lesser, ALWAYS it only a matter of where you choose to pick one over the other, i try my best to get as close to equal as possible and thats at 20/21 weeks (viability and half of pregnancy).

Before 20 weeks totally 100% pro-choice, after im about 90% profile

but back on topic to what you actually with quoted pro-life there is factually no force and abortion is factually not murder.

 

[Steve Ja]

1.) correct but some want to force the woman to give up all her rights and froce her to risk her life against her will
2.) this is factually wrong on multiple levels
A.) you dont have to accept "anything"
B.) Birth control PREVENTS pregnancy so by definition abortion is not birthcontrol
3.) good thats awesome, middle ground is the only way to be for people that care about equal/human/civil/legal rights

this is the most important thing there are plenty of things i may not agree with but im simply educated enough and rational enoug to understand how the counrty works, freedom works and how my personal feelings/morals/ethics are for me and not for others nor should be forced on them.

4.) well theres no such thing as legal murder so you are right its no murder

5.) this is NOT a fact, a human life does typically end because the super vast majority of abortions are done before viability or done in away to protect the mother.
there is no fact that all the stages of preborn are human beings, let in development yes id agree early not so much and thats not MY opinion thats the science community and the definition of the word human being.

Human life and human being are not eve close to the same, a sperm is human, a sperm is human life, it is not a human being though

also at the foundation of the abortion debate when a person thinks life exists or what they call the ZEF, zygote, embryo, fetus, preborn, baby, kid etc etc is all completely meaningless because they dont change or have any impact on the challenge and debate.

the only facts that exicst in the abortion topic is that there are factually TWO lives we are dealing with and there is factually ZERO WAY to grant them equal rights, we can only try.

ANybody who wants unlimited abortion or mostly banned abortion can not use a human/civil/legal/equal rights argument.

One life will ALWAYS be a lesser, ALWAYS it only a matter of where you choose to pick one over the other, i try my best to get as close to equal as possible and thats at 20/21 weeks (viability and half of pregnancy).

Before 20 weeks totally 100% pro-choice, after im about 90% profile

but back on topic to what you actually with quoted pro-life there is factually no force and abortion is factually not murder.

We do tend to wander off topic a but when talking, but I enjoy reading what others are thinking. I try not to be closed minded.
I see it as forcing legal abortion on those that don't want it. All pro-lifers have different views on what they can support when it comes to abortion. Some want an outright never acceptable. I do not go that far. And through discussions and education I'm developing on the subject. Like my OP says just a danger to the mother.. However I realize I can support a wider range then that now..
I can understand your 50/50 stand too. 50% of the development.. Also most people will agree around that time frame is where the fetus becomes viable. Could another 50/50 stand be where 50% of abortions take place (roughly 6 weeks or so) and where the other 50% take place which is after 6 weeks.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)We do tend to wander off topic a but when talking, but I enjoy reading what others are thinking. I try not to be closed minded.
2.) I see it as forcing legal abortion on those that don't want it.
3.) All pro-lifers have different views on what they can support when it comes to abortion.
4.) Some want an outright never acceptable.
5.) I do not go that far. And through discussions and education I'm developing on the subject.
6.) Like my OP says just a danger to the mother..
7.) However I realize I can support a wider range then that now..
8.) I can understand your 50/50 stand too. 50% of the development..
9.) Also most people will agree around that time frame is where the fetus becomes viable.
10.) Could another 50/50 stand be where 50% of abortions take place (roughly 6 weeks or so) and where the other 50% take place which is after 6 weeks.

1.) nothing wrong with that
2.) but there factually is no force if you dont want an abortion nobody is forcing you to get one so id love for you to explain the logic of what is forced on you
3.) has do pro-choicers
4.) yes SOME do and luckily this type of nonsense will never happen in a country that has rights and freedoms for its citizens
5.) this is also good, its always good to take in new info
6.) this is fine but technically there is factually always a danger to the mother, every single case is a threat. SOmetimes the threat is very small but sometimes its huge.

and also be clear im totally fine with anybodys PERSONAL views the only issue i have is if people are trying to force those views on others and even worse is the people that are vastly uneducated or extremely dishonest and use human/civil/legal/equal rights arguments as reason to want banning or abortion unlimited. Those arguments are complete hypocritical, inaccurate failures.
7.) this is great but from my stand point understand you dont "have too" nobody has to change to my views ever they just cant force their views on others thats where the issue comes in

just like equal rights for woman and minorities and gays etc. Nobody has to SUPPORT them but as soon as they stop them they are wrong

8.) thank you
9.) well its good if people agree but this is factually where it happens so whether they agree or not is irrelevant. 20/21 weeks is the earliest possibility for viability it will never be earlier.
10.) no i could NEVER go that low again for the same reasons, i cant take away rights of women for something that isnt viable yet but a new reason is many woman dont even know they are pregnant that fast!

also for accuracy 50% is closer to 7/8 weeks than 6 and just for more info of my 20/21 week pick, only 1.5% of abortions happen after 21weeks and most involve extreme circumstances.

but anyway like i was saying another reason why 6 would be totally unacceptable to me is many women dont know at that point especially women whos birth control failed. Many of those women have irregular, extremely light or no periods at all so at 4-6 weeks they have no need to be concerned so at 6 weeks youd be taking away her choice before she even knew there was one to make.

I think the earliest i could ever go is 16 weeks. i wouldnt be happy about it but i could accept that low. I would never vote for it though and would fight against it. But thats meaningless because this isnt a vote-able subject and never should be.

 

[Steve Ja]

1.) nothing wrong with that
2.) but there factually is no force if you dont want an abortion nobody is forcing you to get one so id love for you to explain the logic of what is forced on you
3.) has do pro-choicers
4.) yes SOME do and luckily this type of nonsense will never happen in a country that has rights and freedoms for its citizens
5.) this is also good, its always good to take in new info
6.) this is fine but technically there is factually always a danger to the mother, every single case is a threat. SOmetimes the threat is very small but sometimes its huge.

and also be clear im totally fine with anybodys PERSONAL views the only issue i have is if people are trying to force those views on others and even worse is the people that are vastly uneducated or extremely dishonest and use human/civil/legal/equal rights arguments as reason to want banning or abortion unlimited. Those arguments are complete hypocritical, inaccurate failures.
7.) this is great but from my stand point understand you dont "have too" nobody has to change to my views ever they just cant force their views on others thats where the issue comes in

just like equal rights for woman and minorities and gays etc. Nobody has to SUPPORT them but as soon as they stop them they are wrong

8.) thank you
9.) well its good if people agree but this is factually where it happens so whether they agree or not is irrelevant. 20/21 weeks is the earliest possibility for viability it will never be earlier.
10.) no i could NEVER go that low again for the same reasons, i cant take away rights of women for something that isnt viable yet but a new reason is many woman dont even know they are pregnant that fast!

also for accuracy 50% is closer to 7/8 weeks than 6 and just for more info of my 20/21 week pick, only 1.5% of abortions happen after 21weeks and most involve extreme circumstances.

but anyway like i was saying another reason why 6 would be totally unacceptable to me is many women dont know at that point especially women whos birth control failed. Many of those women have irregular, extremely light or no periods at all so at 4-6 weeks they have no need to be concerned so at 6 weeks youd be taking away her choice before she even knew there was one to make.

I think the earliest i could ever go is 16 weeks. i wouldnt be happy about it but i could accept that low. I would never vote for it though and would fight against it. But thats meaningless because this isnt a vote-able subject and never should be.

2. I thought I explained it, in that I'm forced to accept it as law that it is legal in most circumstances up to I think it's 22 weeks now after Parenthood v Casey. due to how the courts interpret the constitution.
10. Yea after I typed 6 I realized it was closer to 7-8 weeks. something like 38% 6 and under and another 17% at 7-8. after that it tails off. I've been floating around just for kicks a compromise involving after 12 weeks. This would exclude roughly 90% of abortions. and after 12 weeks. the exceptions would be danger to a mothers life/fetuses life. deformities/defections in the fetus that would make life impossible to nearly impossible. and rape and incest.
10A In a round about way it is a vote-able subject, since we vote our lawmakers in and they have the power to enact laws and place in judges that will vote their way. Personally i feel abortion should be a state issue, as with marriage.. but that's my take on a lot of things. Federal government has gotten too big and needs to be scaled back
10B I also understand the interpretation of the constitution today protects abortion, however that can change over time too. Some 200 plus times the SCOTUS has over ruled itself.
Extra I dunno I'm big on compromise in our govt to find a happy medium where nobody is 100% happy but a vast majority are content. Which some will argue is the case in abortion, since 70% support keeping Roe V Wade, even though like 50% really don't care about the issue and some 47% think its immoral. So are they content, or just saying well what else is there? who knows and I cant argue on what someone else is thinking.

 

[Lursa]

you mean if the crack whore and alcoholics were held accountable for their actions.
I understand your experiences, still does not change my stance on abortion.

How would you hold the crack whores and alcoholics accountable?

 

[Lursa]

It didn't, she chose to

Not really...because you still seem to believe that people would choose to 'adopt' an embryo rather than use their own (unless you made it illegal until all the 'extras' were gone).

People do IVF because it gives them the opportunity to use their own genetic material....if they didnt want that, they *could* be spending the same $$ on adoption.

 

[Steve Ja]

How would you hold the crack whores and alcoholics accountable?

If their substance abuse/taking can be proved to have caused harm to the development of the baby. Make them pay a fine, charge them with neglect. I do not think legally that can happen right now. I'd love to see something done about that very issue.

 

[Steve Ja]

Not really...because you still seem to believe that people would choose to 'adopt' an embryo rather than use their own (unless you made it illegal until all the 'extras' were gone).

People do IVF because it gives them the opportunity to use their own genetic material....if they didnt want that, they *could* be spending the same $$ on adoption.

I thought it was so they can get the feeling of what pregnancy is.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I thought I explained it, in that I'm forced to accept it as law that it is legal in most circumstances up to I think it's 22 weeks now after Parenthood v Casey. due to how the courts interpret the constitution.
2.)Yea after I typed 6 I realized it was closer to 7-8 weeks. something like 38% 6 and under and another 17% at 7-8. after that it tails off. I've been floating around just for kicks a compromise involving after 12 weeks. This would exclude roughly 90% of abortions. and after 12 weeks. the exceptions would be danger to a mothers life/fetuses life. deformities/defections in the fetus that would make life impossible to nearly impossible. and rape and incest.
3.) In a round about way it is a vote-able subject, since we vote our lawmakers in and they have the power to enact laws and place in judges that will vote their way.
4.) Personally i feel abortion should be a state issue, as with marriage.. but that's my take on a lot of things.
5.) Federal government has gotten too big and needs to be scaled back
6.) I also understand the interpretation of the constitution today protects abortion, however that can change over time too. Some 200 plus times the SCOTUS has over ruled itself.
7.) Extra I dunno I'm big on compromise in our govt to find a happy medium where nobody is 100% happy but a vast majority are content.
8.) Which some will argue is the case in abortion, since 70% support keeping Roe V Wade, even though like 50% really don't care about the issue and some 47% think its immoral. So are they content, or just saying well what else is there? who knows and I cant argue on what someone else is thinking.

1.) but there is factually no "force" you are free to not accept it and you dont, theres zero force
you do not have to accept it and you prove by posting that you dont, there is no force

where do you see "force"

2.) there are a handful of countries that use 12 but again thats still early for me, to even consider it id have to have the details about the 10% of abortions that happen between 13-21 weeks. Thats roughly 120,000 women thier would have to be a damn good reason to deny that many abortions.

what im getting at is say 90% of those 120k were abortion due to sever risk to the mother etc then it might be an easier sell but if a large percentage is still women deciding then i could be on board with it.

3.) no its just simply not unless we want to ignore the constitution. Individual rights are not to be voted on.
4.) again see 3 individual rights are not to be voted on especially marriage thats not how the country works nor should it. Should some states be allowed not to let women vote? to say blacks can merry whites? states dont get to violate individual rights
5.) this may be true but not on these two issues this is exactly what the fed is supposed to do, protect individual rights.
6.) this is true but typically the reasons for overruling can be seen. For example many of those reasons is simply because not granting rights to people or groups of people was just ok. Women, slaves, minorities etc etc
7.) majority doesnt matter when talking about rights.

for example 80% of people were against letting whites marry blacks, didnt matter because it was a human/equal/civil rights issue and it was properly changed. This is the perfect way to do things because what if all of a sudden the majority just tried to take away rights of others? all whites wanted minorities to lose rights, all christians wanted no other religions etc etc

compromise is great but peoples happiness is no the way to go when talking about rights/freedoms unless you want to design a whole new country

8.) again its nice IMO that the majority support it but they arent needed for a rights issue.

same thing with morals, since morals are subjective they are meaningless to people rights

 

[Lursa]

1.) correct but some want to force the woman to give up all her rights and froce her to risk her life against her will
.

Over and over again, he complains that he is being 'forced' to accept that abortion is legal.

And has no trouble ignoring the *fact* that if abortion were illegal as he wishes....it would FORCE (real force, not some *voluntary offense with no physical harm attached*) women to remain pregnant with all the pain and risks attached to it. And yet he claims he does not disrespect women.

Personally empathizing with the fetus is a 'choice' and I can understand it. But that is a personal choice and I dont understand how some people believe it's their right to tell others they must do the same. The reality is, many of us do not recognize that fetus as having any rights or any value at all *except* for to the mother. Certainly no rights that supersede those of the woman. So the opposite side does not have that 'empathy', at least not in our overall views (altho personally we may).

 

[Steve Ja]

1.) but there is factually no "force" you are free to not accept it and you dont, theres zero force
you do not have to accept it and you prove by posting that you dont, there is no force

where do you see "force"

2.) there are a handful of countries that use 12 but again thats still early for me, to even consider it id have to have the details about the 10% of abortions that happen between 13-21 weeks. Thats roughly 120,000 women thier would have to be a damn good reason to deny that many abortions.

what im getting at is say 90% of those 120k were abortion due to sever risk to the mother etc then it might be an easier sell but if a large percentage is still women deciding then i could be on board with it.

3.) no its just simply not unless we want to ignore the constitution. Individual rights are not to be voted on.
4.) again see 3 individual rights are not to be voted on especially marriage thats not how the country works nor should it. Should some states be allowed not to let women vote? to say blacks can merry whites? states dont get to violate individual rights
5.) this may be true but not on these two issues this is exactly what the fed is supposed to do, protect individual rights.
6.) this is true but typically the reasons for overruling can be seen. For example many of those reasons is simply because not granting rights to people or groups of people was just ok. Women, slaves, minorities etc etc
7.) majority doesnt matter when talking about rights.

for example 80% of people were against letting whites marry blacks, didnt matter because it was a human/equal/civil rights issue and it was properly changed. This is the perfect way to do things because what if all of a sudden the majority just tried to take away rights of others? all whites wanted minorities to lose rights, all christians wanted no other religions etc etc

compromise is great but peoples happiness is no the way to go when talking about rights/freedoms unless you want to design a whole new country

8.) again its nice IMO that the majority support it but they arent needed for a rights issue.

same thing with morals, since morals are subjective they are meaningless to people rights

I can see if I can find some info on the 120,000 that occur after 12 weeks and even prior to that. I think that would be some great info to get out there

 

[choiceone]

Attempting something does not guarantee the perfect result.

There was no sneaking.

At least one person on this or some other thread has argued that the body of the woman consents to zygote formation even though the woman's mental will does not. It would be just one step to say that the woman unable to prevent a man from raping her was an example of her mind not consenting while her body was, because her efforts did not guarantee the perfect result of stopping the rape.

I don't agree with that, of course, but I do not see how consensual sex with contraception is consent to pregnancy while rape that one was not able to stop perfectly is not consent to pregnancy. In both cases, the woman actually took action to prevent an occurrence of an event and failed to prevent it. If you want to punish her with failure of contraception is consent to pregnancy in one case, what is the exact basis of not punishing her with failure of the attempt to stop rape is consent to rape and rape pregnancy?

 

[Lursa]

If their substance abuse/taking can be proved to have caused harm to the development of the baby. Make them pay a fine, charge them with neglect. I do not think legally that can happen right now. I'd love to see something done about that very issue.

Are you serious? Alot of these babies are born *while they are in jail.*

There's no money, no threats. Charge them with neglect? The kids are taken away to foster care, all the time. Do you KNOW any drug addicts or alcoholics???

And again...who's paying for corralling them all to babysit them while they're pregnant? Not only that, it would just enable them. How about sterilization?

@_@

Do you have *any* practical, workable, legal solutions for anything? (Here's one: abortion)

 

[Lursa]

I thought it was so they can get the feeling of what pregnancy is.

@_@

I have no words.

 

[Steve Ja]

Are you serious? Alot of these babies are born *while they are in jail.*

There's no money, no threats. Charge them with neglect? The kids are taken away to foster care, all the time. Do you KNOW any drug addicts or alcoholics???

And again...who's paying for corralling them all to babysit them while they're pregnant? Not only that, it would just enable them. How about sterilization?

@_@

Do you have *any* practical, workable, legal solutions for anything? (Here's one: abortion)

I know plenty of addicts. The rest I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Lursa]

I know plenty of addicts. The rest I have no idea what you are talking about

You said you wanted a way to control those addicts/alcoholics while pregnant. I asked how? Who's paying for it? How is that any different than the welfare that you DONT want to pay for for the babies *already born?*

And there is no way to 'compel' those women to stop their addictions during pregnancy otherwise...yet you suggested fines, jail, etc. They have no money, they dont WANT to quit....and many are already in jail. It's pretty black and white.

 

[Steve Ja]

You said you wanted a way to control those addicts/alcoholics while pregnant. I asked how? Who's paying for it? How is that any different than the welfare that you DONT want to pay for for the babies *already born?*

And there is no way to 'compel' those women to stop their addictions during pregnancy otherwise...yet you suggested fines, jail, etc. They have no money, they dont WANT to quit....and many are already in jail. It's pretty black and white.

I said I wanted to control them? No i said accountable for their actions, through fines, criminal charges, one i didn't mention rehab. I understand if someone wants to do something they are gonna do it. You provided me with info saying they already take legal actions int hey take the baby away from the mother.

 

[Lursa]

I said I wanted to control them? No i said accountable for their actions, through fines, criminal charges, one i didn't mention rehab. I understand if someone wants to do something they are gonna do it. You provided me with info saying they already take legal actions int hey take the baby away from the mother.

You dont know they take away the babies born to women in jail? You think they leave them in there with them?

You dont know that kids are taken away by the state all the time due to neglect and abuse from addicts?

You said you wanted 'programs' to prevent them from abusing themselves while pregnant....care to tell me what you have in mind? Esp. since they would have to be 'involuntary?' (er...controlled)

Seriously?

 

[AGENT J]

I can see if I can find some info on the 120,000 that occur after 12 weeks and even prior to that. I think that would be some great info to get out there

I agree it would be interesting

 

[choiceone]

I also will say if there is no home, by home i mean womb for them, then they should not be created. I do not support storing them, as you said earlier. i know that is not what I said earlier in that it's better then killing them, which it is BTW and I'm speaking of current embryos/fetuses . I support making them, and inserting them. i know failures happen, but nothing says you can not try again.
I would say stop it all together until the 400,000 can be donated, then do it on a need basis, where you have donors on call and can make arrangements for implantation that way. This should prevent the need for freezers. Now it says some like to store embryos for their own use later. I do not support that, when you are ready do it the old fashioned way.
Hope this clears a little up. I do have troubles sometimes getting exactly what I'm trying to say across and it takes 3-4 tries, but int he end I think I do fairly good of explaining myself.

You do not understand IVF.

IVF procedures are to harvest sperm from a particular male and ova from a particular female, then make a whole bunch of zygotes with them in the lab, and then grow them to an appropriate point in the blastocyst stage and freeze them. It is illegal to grow a human blastocyst longer than 14 days, and that is too long for proper implantation anyway. The blastocysts are frozen because scientific implantation is an invasive medical procedure requiring scheduling, etc. There is probably no way an IVF clinic could just make the zygotes just before the operation.

They make more zygotes than are needed for the implantation, because there's no guarantee that they will all grow properly to the right point in the blastocyst stage. These blastocysts/embryos are not made for later implantation: they are extra embryos. They would grow to the end of their short life span and die if they weren't frozen. So there will always be a need for extra embryos and freezers.

They also implant more blastocysts/embryos than are desirable, because not all of them may successfully stay implanted. If they all do, however, some of them will be culled. A few years ago, some woman who had an IVF baby successfully wanted to have another one, but 7 or 8 embryos successfully stayed implanted and when the clinic asked her which they should cull, she said she couldn't do that because God gave her all of them. She gave birth to 7 babies in the one pregnancy, I think. It's very dangerous for the babies, and some were sure to have serious physical problems in childhood, so this clinic and some others around the country said they were going to make it a precondition in the contract that a woman could not carry more than three of the implanted embryos, but they usually implant a few more.

The frozen embryos already existing are under the control of the original people who made the contract, usually the sperm and ova sources. No one can force them to donate their frozen extra embryos, and they may want to save them for five years or more.

Doing it the old fashioned way means having sexual intercourse. Most IVF couples are incapable of sexually reproducing that way with each other even though the woman produces ova and the man produces sperm. They don't want someone else's ovum or sperm. More rarely, the woman needs donor ova because hers are too old. The point is that you can't really have donors on call come in to donate at a time when the process can proceed without the freezing.

Did I misunderstand your actual knowledge?

 

[Steve Ja]

You dont know they take away the babies born to women in jail? You think they leave them in there with them?

You dont know that kids are taken away by the state all the time due to neglect and abuse from addicts?

You said you wanted 'programs' to prevent them from abusing themselves while pregnant....care to tell me what you have in mind? Esp. since they would have to be 'involuntary?' (er...controlled)

Seriously?

Seriously?

 

[Steve Ja]

You do not understand IVF.

IVF procedures are to harvest sperm from a particular male and ova from a particular female, then make a whole bunch of zygotes with them in the lab, and then grow them to an appropriate point in the blastocyst stage and freeze them. It is illegal to grow a human blastocyst longer than 14 days, and that is too long for proper implantation anyway. The blastocysts are frozen because scientific implantation is an invasive medical procedure requiring scheduling, etc. There is probably no way an IVF clinic could just make the zygotes just before the operation.

They make more zygotes than are needed for the implantation, because there's no guarantee that they will all grow properly to the right point in the blastocyst stage. These blastocysts/embryos are not made for later implantation: they are extra embryos. They would grow to the end of their short life span and die if they weren't frozen. So there will always be a need for extra embryos and freezers.

They also implant more blastocysts/embryos than are desirable, because not all of them may successfully stay implanted. If they all do, however, some of them will be culled. A few years ago, some woman who had an IVF baby successfully wanted to have another one, but 7 or 8 embryos successfully stayed implanted and when the clinic asked her which they should cull, she said she couldn't do that because God gave her all of them. She gave birth to 7 babies in the one pregnancy, I think. It's very dangerous for the babies, and some were sure to have serious physical problems in childhood, so this clinic and some others around the country said they were going to make it a precondition in the contract that a woman could not carry more than three of the implanted embryos, but they usually implant a few more.

The frozen embryos already existing are under the control of the original people who made the contract, usually the sperm and ova sources. No one can force them to donate their frozen extra embryos, and they may want to save them for five years or more.

Doing it the old fashioned way means having sexual intercourse. Most IVF couples are incapable of sexually reproducing that way with each other even though the woman produces ova and the man produces sperm. They don't want someone else's ovum or sperm. More rarely, the woman needs donor ova because hers are too old. The point is that you can't really have donors on call come in to donate at a time when the process can proceed without the freezing.

Did I misunderstand your actual knowledge?

No, appreciate you taking the time to explain. Not a topic I've ever given much thought to. It was brought up a couple days ago. Thank you.