who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

Yah, I'm sure all those eggs get through screenings and qualifies. What about the couples that don't qualify?

So first there was no solution for the embryos that weren't implanted. Now you just don't like the solution.

I don't completely understand your question about "the couples that don't qualify." That don't qualify to be an adoptive couple? That doesn't affect the embryo; it only affects the couple.

[snuffy65 1]

So first there was no solution for the embryos that weren't implanted. Now you just don't like the solution.

I don't completely understand your question about "the couples that don't qualify." That don't qualify to be an adoptive couple? That doesn't affect the embryo; it only affects the couple.

I'm saying there is a huge amount of eggs created and not enough people who would use the donated eggs. So eventually they will die.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm saying there is a huge amount of eggs created and not enough people who would use the donated eggs.

Do you know this for a fact or is this just a guess? It's not something I've ever searched for information on, but I certainly could try. I'm just wondering where you got the information that there aren't enough people looking for donated embryos. I think it might be tough to figure out, because you'd have to find out how many couples were seeking donated embryos and didn't find any available, not how many embryos were destroyed or otherwise disposed of (because not everyone donates them). I don't know if these types of numbers are kept, or even if once the programs became more widely known those numbers would see significant change. :w00t: Now I'm curious!

[luluc 6]

Do you know this for a fact or is this just a guess? It's not something I've ever searched for information on, but I certainly could try. I'm just wondering where you got the information that there aren't enough people looking for donated embryos. I think it might be tough to figure out, because you'd have to find out how many couples were seeking donated embryos and didn't find any available, not how many embryos were destroyed or otherwise disposed of (because not everyone donates them). I don't know if these types of numbers are kept, or even if once the programs became more widely known those numbers would see significant change. Now I'm curious!

In doing In Vitro, after 3 failed attempts hubby and I decided to discontinue. With 2 other embryos, we had a choice: donate, destroy, save (keep frozen) for a fee. We donated.

I'm really not interested in finding out if they were used at all - there actually are quite a few that are donated from my experience.

Not sure where I read in this thread that some Christians are against in vitro, that's not true. I'm Catholic & my church actually has a support group for families going through fertility treatments.

Won't get in a debate about why I donated vs why I'm pro choice. I just am - period.

[gadgetlady 4]

In doing In Vitro, after 3 failed attempts hubby and I decided to discontinue. With 2 other embryos, we had a choice: donate, destroy, save (keep frozen) for a fee. We donated.

I'm really not interested in finding out if they were used at all - there actually are quite a few that are donated from my experience.

Not sure where I read in this thread that some Christians are against in vitro, that's not true. I'm Catholic & my church actually has a support group for families going through fertility treatments.

Thanks for your perspective on this, luluc. Would you say the donating process was easy? Or did you have to jump through hoops to do it? Or pay anything to do it? I'm really curious about this now, because it was always my impression that donating was relatively easy and there were plenty of couples to accept them.

I haven't known any Christians that are against in vitro either -- or any that think sex is only for procreation, which is the other thing that was said in the same post.

[luluc 6]

Thanks for your perspective on this, luluc. Would you say the donating process was easy? Or did you have to jump through hoops to do it? Or pay anything to do it? I'm really curious about this now, because it was always my impression that donating was relatively easy and there were plenty of couples to accept them.

I haven't known any Christians that are against in vitro either -- or any that think sex is only for procreation, which is the other thing that was said in the same post.

Gadget it was extremely easy to donate (our preference would have been to donate for stem cell research - I know, another topic, but that was not an available choice).

No fees, we paid enough to go through the process which I find a reason some don't donate. Many couples try to find a suitable surrogate, which takes a LOT of time, so therefore they hold on to their embryos longer than some would think/expect & never think to donate.

In Vitro is extremely costly & a LOT of families aren't willing to part easily - none I know have destroyed.

I'm not overly familiar with the demand side of these donor embroys; I'm guessing they're wanted.

All we had to do was sign legal forms to donate and we were done.

No kids for us now (niece miscarried) - Animal only house, which has set in & comfortable with at this time. Have my eye on another pup, but that might take some extra convincing:)

[snuffy65 1]

Thanks for your perspective on this, luluc. Would you say the donating process was easy? Or did you have to jump through hoops to do it? Or pay anything to do it? I'm really curious about this now, because it was always my impression that donating was relatively easy and there were plenty of couples to accept them.

I haven't known any Christians that are against in vitro either -- or any that think sex is only for procreation, which is the other thing that was said in the same post.

Me and my wife went through the process. It was easy. However the nurse assured us that the donation place cannot guarrantee the eggs would be used. We did this not for the eggs but in case somone else could use them.

[gadgetlady 4]

I just read this article -- even though it's old -- very potent stuff out of the UK:

Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion - Times Online

A few excerpts -- but the entire article is worth reading!

A GOVERNMENT agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions.

Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.

“They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,” he said. “I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.”

The number of terminations carried out in the 18th week of pregnancy or later has risen from 5,166 in 1994 to 7,432 last year.

The issue will be highlighted by Gianna Jessen, 28, who survived an attempt to abort her. She is to speak at a parliamentary meeting on December 6 organised by the Alive and Kicking campaign, which is lobbying for a reduction of the abortion limit to 18 weeks.

Jessen, a musician from Nashville, Tennessee, was left with cerebral palsy but is to run in the London marathon next April to raise funds for fellow sufferers.

“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were my rights?” she asked.

Edited April 27, 2008 by gadgetlady

[BJean 16]

Oh good grief, here we go again.

[gadgetlady 4]

You can express grief over hearing about it, but you can't deny that it happens.

If you want to talk about grief, imagine the grief the poor babies who survive the abortion feel -- especially when they grow up (IF they grow up) and learn that their mother tried to kill them. Your grief at hearing about it pales in comparison.

[BJean 16]

Any botched medical procedure causes grief. I'm just tired of all the links that you post that are put here to disgust people in an effort to get them to change their minds about wanting women to have control over their bodies and to be able to make a choice when they are faced with insurmountable problems as they relate to pregnancies.

When my DIL and DS learned that they were having identical twins from their doctor who was a high risk ob/gyn, they conferred with several other doctors who were experts in handling the complications that they were faced with (I won't go into detail here). All of the doctors told them that they should abort and "start over". There was a very high likelihood that one or both of the babies would die in utero and that in any case, the odds were very great that if either of them survived, they would be handicapped and probably their handicaps would include, but not be limited to, cerebal palsy. If they had listened to the people who were experienced in cases like theirs, we would not have 5 year old, healthy, wonderful twin boys today.

My point is that it was a personal decision. One that only they could make. They were the ones who had to decide whether to risk bringing severely handicapped children into the world and to watch those children children possibly suffer the horrible consequences of that decision. They were the ones who had to find the personal courage and the money it would take to do right by their 2 children who might well be severely handicapped, if they even survived the pregnancy.

It would not have been right for the state to have intervened and told them that they MUST, by law, abort them. Although many people believed that it should be their only choice. Neither should they have been told that they MUST, by law, have those children.

They were babies that belonged to my DIL and DS, not the state. We should not be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for each other. There are too many variables, too many statistics, too many exceptions. One law that governs every scenario isn't possible or even desirable.

Many of us have stories, some beautiful, some gut-wrenching, but there are as many possibilities and decisions that can be made as there are stories. The law should not force people to have abortions or to have children.

Besides, whether you understand or believe it or not, there are things that are worse than death.

[gadgetlady 4]

Any botched medical procedure causes grief.

It's just priceless that the term "botched" here means "failure to kill".

When my DIL and DS learned that they were having identical twins from their doctor who was a high risk ob/gyn, they conferred with several other doctors who were experts in handling the complications that they were faced with (I won't go into detail here). All of the doctors told them that they should abort and "start over". There was a very high likelihood that one or both of the babies would die in utero and that in any case, the odds were very great that if either of them survived, they would be handicapped and probably their handicaps would include, but not be limited to, cerebal palsy. If they had listened to the people who were experienced in cases like theirs, we would not have 5 year old, healthy, wonderful twin boys today.

It appears you would have preferred that they kill your grandchildren?

"Abort and 'start over'" -- isn't that just a perfect description for a scenario where we view human beings as disposable? If we didn't make a good dinner, we can just toss it and start over. If we didn't wallpaper the room right, we can just tear it down and start over. If our children aren't or might not be perfect, we can just kill them and start over.

They were babies that belonged to my DIL and DS, not the state.

We don't "own" our children, and if we want to or try to kill them, the state has the right to intervene. As they do on a daily basis when they take children out of the care of their biological parents and put them in foster care. The reasoning is precisely because they are not owned entities with whom we have a right to do whatever we want -- including dismemberment.

[BJean 16]

When our children are in utero, we do in fact own them. You don't see the state intervening in pregnancies if we don't don't eat well or if we drink or if we smoke crack cocaine. You do see the state making an effort to educate pregnant women about the dangers of not eating properly, or smoking or drinking. That's what we should do with women who are impregnated against their wishes. We should educate them about the healthy ways that they can deal with the pregnancy. No body should be forced to have babies against their wishes. Nobody should be forced to abort if they don't wish to abort, even if they are carrying a cocaine addicted, extremely deformed or retarded baby. (Our grandchildren had no such exposure to drugs - I'm sure you'll be assuming that they were from what you're reading into my posts.)

As for your remark, "it appears that you would have preferred they kill your grandchildren..." you should be ashamed to imply that. There was nothing in what I said that would indicate I would have preferred any such thing. In fact, I preferred that they make their own decisions - I had no desire or reason to force my preferences on them one way or another.

I am thankful that they made the decision that they made - to not listen to the medical profession and to go through the procedures that they did that saved the babies. My DIL had serial amniocentises, constant monitoring through vaginal ultrasounds, and a surgery done by the one doctor in the U.S. who is qualified to do that kind of life saving surgery. Please don't make light of or degrade our experience with your own bias.

[gadgetlady 4]

I was just reading this to my dh and I said, "I wonder how a person gets to a place where they're so pro-abortion that reading about aborted babies who survive the procedure doesn't affect them."

Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered.

So that way you you don't get all that pesky crying when they survive.

[BJean 16]

You're the one who is sounding insensitive. In fact, I'm so sensitive, I can no longer stand this exchange with you. You're grossing me out.

Go for it. I'm sure you're winning friends and influencing people. Or um, maybe not.