stem cell research

[gambit]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i think those with that position would respond similarly to how i responded. there's a fundamental difference between death by nature and death by intent.

I think you're right.

---------------------------------

I particularly like this statement, "IVF clinics don't fertilize just one egg... they take several, and the leftovers are usually frozen for a few years and then discarded. Those embryos are fated to die anyway, so why not do some research good with them?" This has been my practical opinion. We can certainly argue the merits of IVF, but the fact is that no one (as far as I know) is proposing it should be outlawed. It happens, and several embryos are left over.

If we agree that every embryo is meaningful and special in its own way, then creating these embryos with the knowledge that the majority of them are going to be destroyed takes away their meaning. These embryos' "lives" become meaningless, and, I would argue, stem cell research gives their "lives" meaning.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

And I'm heartbroken.

darling, i would love to see you participate in the actual discussion. but all you do is post random bits and then say something like "i'm drunk."

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by gambit

If we agree that every embryo is meaningful and special in its own way, then creating these embryos with the knowledge that the majority of them are going to be destroyed takes away their meaning.

ageed. which is why i personally don't support the methodology. but a bigger issue for me is that there are all those pro-life groups out there trying to take away my rights as a woman, but supporting IVF when ultimately abortion and IVF create the same outcome. except with abortion you destroy one embryo at a time. with IVF you can create a dozen and discard them all at once later.

[gambit]

Oh, the hypocrisy! Too bad they'll never see it. Even if we (not you and me, but me and the right) disagree on this issue, it would be nice if they could be consistent.

[gambit]

I asked my friend a couple follow-up questions, namely a clarification on the "h" and whether the original lines are still in use. He also addresses federal funds for research.

Yeah, hESC = human embryonic stem cell. To my knowledge the five (not eight, I was mistaken) original lines are still in use, although I think some are used more than others. I seem to recall that one or two that are predominantly used, while at least one or two of them are kinda poorly behaved and not really used at all. I'm looking for more info online but not finding it.

Bush's ban was only on deriving new lines because that destroys additional embryos. It was basically a pro-life law. Also, I should clear up that the ban is only against using federal grant money to derive and research new lines. Private funds can still be used, but honestly the US federal government is the largest research sponsor in the world, so cutting that out presents a huge obstacle to the research. People in the US have derived new hESC lines using private grants, for example Jamie Thomson derived two new lines in defined, animal-free media. However, labs can't touch those lines unless they can demonstrate that not one dime of federal money will support their work on those lines (which is very, very difficult).

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by cacophony

darling, i would love to see you participate in the actual discussion. but all you do is post random bits and then say something like "i'm drunk."

yeah, yeah, yeah.

My favorite part of "When Doves Cry" is when Prince sings the darling lyric part.

Like that? j/k

[Rog]

jOHN, you are a fookin nutter....but that's not particularly wrong......ish

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by cacophony

ageed. which is why i personally don't support the methodology. but a bigger issue for me is that there are all those pro-life groups out there trying to take away my rights as a woman, but supporting IVF when ultimately abortion and IVF create the same outcome. except with abortion you destroy one embryo at a time. with IVF you can create a dozen and discard them all at once later.

which is why IVF is a very iffy iffy thing to me. i wouldn't want to ever take away a person's last chance at having a child, but it does seem like an awful waste of life.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

which is why IVF is a very iffy iffy thing to me. i wouldn't want to ever take away a person's last chance at having a child, but it does seem like an awful waste of life.

this seems like a fairly wishy washy position on the issue, considering how strongly you spoke out against abortion.

IVF is becoming more and more common in spite of the fact that true infertility is not more common. it's becoming a tool used by people who have difficulty conceiving, not absolute infertility. in a way, IVF has become a method of convenience (i use that term loosely because it's not actually convenient per se) because people know it can be effective and see no reason to try to conceive for years before turning to medical intervention for help. so because people don't want to wait or run the entire gamut of options before finally trying IVF as a last resort, thousands of embryos are created and subsequently die.

each IVF treatment results in multiple embryo deaths. a single person who partakes of IVF is like a dozen people having abortions.

so why is abortion bad and IVF is this sympathetic, "oh i don't want to deny people the chance to have a child" issue?

my theory is that it's all about the sin of sex. if you have an abortion, you were out slutting it up. but if you want to have a child you're engaged in something virtuous. killing dozens of embryos in the name of virtuous procreation is apparently okay. but killing one embryo because you were an ammoral whore is not.

[cacophony]

IVF info:

Success Rates

Success rates for IVF vary depending on a number of factors, including the reason for infertility, where you're having the procedure done, and your age. The CDC compile national statistics for all assisted reproductive technology procedures performed in the U.S. The statistics group together all procedures that constitute assisted reproduction technology (ART), including IVF, GIFT and ZIFT, although IVF is by far the most common. The most recent report from 2000 found:

• Successful pregnancy was achieved in 30.7% of all cycles.
• About 69% of the cycles carried out did not produce a pregnancy.
• Less than 1% of all cycles resulted in an ectopic pregnancy.
• About 11% of these pregnancies involved multiple fetuses.
• About 83% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth.
• About 17% of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, induced abortion, or a stillbirth.

if successful pregnancy was aciheved in 30% of all cycles, then 70% of all cycles resulted in no pregnancy, meaning the embryos died.

To increase the chances of pregnancy, most IVF experts recommend transferring three or four embryos at a time.

so those cycles that resulted in no pregnancy could have lost up to 4 embryos.

what i want to know is, why isn't the pro-life community concerned with tihs?