Scientists hail stem cell breakthrough

[Quijote]

So what do you suggest they DO with them if they don't want/can't have more? Freeze them for eternity at their own expense? Have an embryo frozen orphanage?

Hint: Most people would not give them away to another couple.

You make a good point. Why create life only to destroy it and then justify that destruction claiming that "it is for the greater good" or "it would be to expensive to keep them alive"?

I like the "frozen embryo orphanage" idea. Why would most people not give them to another couple?

cheers

 

[Quijote]

What people fail to understand is that even if you consider these things to be alive they're as good as dead anyways. Unless you want to have one of them stuck in you then they're going to remain frozen until the power fails or somebody does some housekeeping. Face it, you're saving them from the cooking pan just to toss them in the fire.

What you said is a great argument for not doing embryonic stell testing.

cheers

 

[Quijote]

They're frozen, and *could* be alive, but only if they were successfully implanted.
Why would anyone else want someone else's 'child' implanted?

Perhaps to allow that "child" to grow.

cheers

 

[ForeRunner]

Perhaps to allow that "child" to grow.

cheers

Grow where?

 

[ForeRunner]

I like the "frozen embryo orphanage" idea.

And who is going to pay for it?

Why would most people not give them to another couple?

I wouldn't want other people to raise my biological children, would you? Not to mention the fact that there are a whole lot of embryos, you are talking several embryos per person, there are simply not enough women to act as surrogates, not nearly enough.

 

[wowbagger]

You make a good point. Why create life only to destroy it and then justify that destruction claiming that "it is for the greater good" or "it would be to expensive to keep them alive"?

I like the "frozen embryo orphanage" idea. Why would most people not give them to another couple?

Here's the scenario: In IVF, the doctors get as many eggs to fertilize as they can. They can't predict exactly how many will turn into healthy blastocysts (8-9 cells in a dish). Sometimes none do and sometimes they all do. Inevitably, there will be some that are left over from this process. Now, the question is, what do you do with those?

Do you really think most couples are comfortable with the idea that their biological child may or may not exist somewhere? Most are not.

Do you really think it's a good idea to try to get 400,000 full brothers or sisters running around unaware of their biological ties? What if they date each other?

Do you really think that a couple wants to implant a possibly gentically defective donated embryo and bring it to term? (this is because some IVF couples do it to screen for genetic diseases they know they can pass down, but the process is not 100%).

And how long do you want to keep them frozen? Forever?

The fact remains, most couples would choose to discard them eventually (doesn't matter if you don't like it). Now, what do you want to do with those blastocysts? Discard them in the trash? or use them for possible life saving research?

Please think through all of the ramifications.

 

[Yitzchak]

I had no idea that these things were going on with IVF. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I don't think I would want to make use of IVF after knowing all this.

 

[Quijote]

Grow where?

Inside of a surrogate mother.

cheers

 

[Quijote]

I like the "frozen embryo orphanage" idea.

And who is going to pay for it?

Same people that are already paying for their existence now. All they would have to do is "branch out" their business to allow their embryos to be used for IVF's. Most insurances cover IVF's procedures. Whatever they don't cover, the couples will.

Why would most people not give them to another couple?

I wouldn't want other people to raise my biological children, would you? Not to mention the fact that there are a whole lot of embryos, you are talking several embryos per person, there are simply not enough women to act as surrogates, not nearly enough.And who is going to pay for it?

People give up their biological children up for adoption all the time. I don't want other people raising my children, that's why the wife and I have a "one income" family. About the number of surrogate mothers, just keep the embryos frozen till one is found.

cheers

 

[Quijote]

Here's the scenario: In IVF, the doctors get as many eggs to fertilize as they can. They can't predict exactly how many will turn into healthy blastocysts (8-9 cells in a dish). Sometimes none do and sometimes they all do. Inevitably, there will be some that are left over from this process. Now, the question is, what do you do with those?

Do you really think most couples are comfortable with the idea that their biological child may or may not exist somewhere? Most are not.

Do you really think it's a good idea to try to get 400,000 full brothers or sisters running around unaware of their biological ties? What if they date each other?

Do you really think that a couple wants to implant a possibly gentically defective donated embryo and bring it to term? (this is because some IVF couples do it to screen for genetic diseases they know they can pass down, but the process is not 100%).

And how long do you want to keep them frozen? Forever?

The fact remains, most couples would choose to discard them eventually (doesn't matter if you don't like it). Now, what do you want to do with those blastocysts? Discard them in the trash? or use them for possible life saving research?

Please think through all of the ramifications.

I agree with all of your objections. This is why I'm also opposed to IVF. I only advocate it for use of those embryos already out there.

About your "fact" that most couples would choose to discard their embryos, I disagree with it.

cheers

 

[wowbagger]

I agree with all of your objections. This is why I'm also opposed to IVF. I only advocate it for use of those embryos already out there.

About your "fact" that most couples would choose to discard their embryos, I disagree with it.

Well, they discard them if they don't need them. From what I've read only about 2% would be willing to donate to another couple. That is a pretty small percentage. (there are already pro-life groups that facilitate this process)

Even if 20% or 30%, or even 40% donated, my statement would still hold true and there would still be a massive surplus, and a growing one at that, of embryos which are slated for discard. Now, what do you want to do with those? Still want to throw them away?

You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend the surplus embryos aren't there or that IVF shouldn't be legal. They are. And it is.

regards,
wowbagger

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

After reading these posts it seems that the "pro-life" people have a problem with IFV more than stem cell research. That's where these cells are coming from because they have nowhere else to go. The stem cell researchers simply see an oppurtunity to use something that nobody else wants for the benefit of mankind.

You have to realize that there are literally tens of, if not hundreds of thousands of these things created. You won't find surrogate mothers to carry even 1% of them. Nobody wants them. Unless the pro-life movement intends on having them implanted into them or outlawing IFV then you're really not doing anything but criticizing. You're not looking at the root of what you percieve to be a problem.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

The funny thing is that the pro-life movement isn't going to come out against IVF, they're just going to be silent about it because they were only told to make noise about abortion and stem cell research.

The probably will lose a lot of their ranks if they start coming out against IVF becaise what they really will be saying to couples is, "Stay barren or adopt."

But from a functional standpoint of maintaining these frozen orphanages, embryos don't last forever, so viability of the cells decreases over time, that's why specimens are discarded, an fertilized egg can only last so long.

 

[Quijote]

Well, they discard them if they don't need them. From what I've read only about 2% would be willing to donate to another couple. That is a pretty small percentage. (there are already pro-life groups that facilitate this process)

Even if 20% or 30%, or even 40% donated, my statement would still hold true and there would still be a massive surplus, and a growing one at that, of embryos which are slated for discard. Now, what do you want to do with those? Still want to throw them away?

You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend the surplus embryos aren't there or that IVF shouldn't be legal. They are. And it is.

regards,
wowbagger

My objection with IVF is that, to use a cliche, it "creates life to destroy life". As such, I oppose it and wish that couples would find other ways of having kids (either NaProtechnology or adoption).

Massive surplus of embryos could be frozen for many years to be used by couples. I suppouse as a last resort one could allow them to decay and "die".

cheers

 

[Quijote]

After reading these posts it seems that the "pro-life" people have a problem with IFV more than stem cell research. That's where these cells are coming from because they have nowhere else to go. The stem cell researchers simply see an oppurtunity to use something that nobody else wants for the benefit of mankind.

You have to realize that there are literally tens of, if not hundreds of thousands of these things created. You won't find surrogate mothers to carry even 1% of them. Nobody wants them. Unless the pro-life movement intends on having them implanted into them or outlawing IFV then you're really not doing anything but criticizing. You're not looking at the root of what you percieve to be a problem.

Well, the root, IMHO, goes waaayy back when common sense was left for nuances and "gray areas", but that's another story.

cheers

 

[Quijote]

The funny thing is that the pro-life movement isn't going to come out against IVF, they're just going to be silent about it because they were only told to make noise about abortion and stem cell research.

The probably will lose a lot of their ranks if they start coming out against IVF becaise what they really will be saying to couples is, "Stay barren or adopt."

But from a functional standpoint of maintaining these frozen orphanages, embryos don't last forever, so viability of the cells decreases over time, that's why specimens are discarded, an fertilized egg can only last so long.

The Pro-life movement is against IVF (at least the Catholic part of it).

cheers

 

[Ninja Turtles]

The Pro-life movement is against IVF (at least the Catholic part of it).

cheers

Are they active in trying to shut down fertility clinics, or is it just passive opposition?

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Nothing is accomplished unless you are able to outlaw IVF. Even if you manage to outlaw embryonic stem cell research you have effictively accomplished nothing except setting back science ala the dark ages. Not a cause worth fighting for IMO. The cells will still be created and destroyed by IVF, only no good will come of it.

A ban on IVF was already defeated by congress in 1980's, so good luck with that.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Nothing is accomplished unless you are able to outlaw IVF. Even if you manage to outlaw embryonic stem cell research you have effictively accomplished nothing except setting back science ala the dark ages. Not a cause worth fighting for IMO. The cells will still be created and destroyed by IVF, only no good will come of it.

A ban on IVF was already defeated by congress in 1980's, so good luck with that.

The thing is they know they can't get a ban on IVF, and also in part because they don't even want to go up against IVF.

The people pushing the politics on embryonic stem cell research are complete hacks when you look at the whole picture. Because what Bush is basically saying is, throw the eggs because life is so precious.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

The thing is they know they can't get a ban on IVF, and also in part because they don't even want to go up against IVF.

The people pushing the politics on embryonic stem cell research are complete hacks when you look at the whole picture. Because what Bush is basically saying is, throw the eggs because life is so precious.

Haha, sad but true. They're not going to beat IVF, they already lost that battle decades ago. I suppose this is just a way of trying to get any kind of victory they can. Although, the ironic thing is that by not outlawing IVF and setting back embryonic stem cell research the pro-life movement is in fact destroying the lives of people this technology may have saved. So in their attempt to be pro-life, they are in fact anti-life. Oh cruel irony!