pajarito 0 #51 February 12, 2004 > I agree there, but as I mentioned, people will travel to where it is legal if it could save the life of their child. And once it's a proven procedure, no politician alive will take a position that their opponents will describe as "letting children die." Like I said, if other countries do it, it still doesn’t make it right. Abortion is a “proven” procedure and there are politicians who oppose it. > IVF, IUD's, even natural processes do just that - they cause (or result in) failure of development after conception. Like stated before, IVF can freeze remaining embryos. IUD’s prevent conception in the first place so that’s not the issue. Natural processes are just that. Natural. No human intervention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #52 February 12, 2004 Quote>Estimations are that one out of four embryos will spontaneously abort (miscarry). Ageed. An additional 60% will simply never implant at all. Nope...the 25% of miscarriages includes failed implantation, genetic abnormalities, blighted ovums, etc etc etc... there is no other 60%... In other words...for every 4 embryos created naturally, one will fail. Quote > IVF reduces the odds further; even with multiple embryos, none implant about 70% of the time. (link here ) Yes...IVF rates are much lower than naturally occuring rates for many reasons.. first off, you're hormonally hyperstimulating the ovaries. then you're fertilizing in a petri dish then you're trying to make sure to keep all conditions optimum while they cleave and divide if you're trying to get them to blastocyst stage, you have a two-stage culture medium which can lose some then you have poor quality embryos that happen because many of the women are older then you have to somehow try to transfer them into the woman who may or may not have a good endometrium due to many factors.. when looking at IVF..you're already looking at women with fertility issues...so with just that you're going to look at a higher failure rate. Quote >difference being that nature is doing it...not humans. I agree that there is a difference in intent even if there's no difference in outcome. That intent difference is at the heart of the abortion argument, and I'll leave that alone for now. Heh...knew you were a wise man, Bill. Me? I'm an idiot..and I always get in trouble with both sides of the debate...because I understand both sides. So when someone attacks prochoicers I step in..and when someone attacks prolifers I step in. People USUALLY can't figure out which side I'm on. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #53 February 12, 2004 Quote IUD’s prevent conception in the first place so that’s not the issue. Natural processes are just that. Natural. No human intervention. IUDs main job is not to prevent conceptions. We are now offering hormonal IUDs....but still, the #1 way that they prevent pregnancy is by preventing implantation of fertilized embryos.... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #54 February 12, 2004 IUDs do work to prevent conception. however, they ALSO work to prevent implantation, should conception take place, just like hormonal forms of birth control. An IUD slows down or stops sperm from moving and makes the egg travel faster down the Fallopian tube. This keeps the egg and sperm from meeting so that the egg is not fertilized. An IUD changes the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg will not attach to the wall of the uterus. How it works The main way both IUDs work is by not allowing sperm to fertilize the egg, probably because the substances released by the IUD immobilize sperm. Also, each type has its own ways of preventing pregnancy. ParaGard: The copper changes the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation. That means that even if a sperm does fertilize the egg, the embryo cannot attach itself to the endometrium. Mirena: Levonorgestrel thickens cervical mucus, which makes it difficult for the sperm to enter the uterus. Also, like the ParaGard, it prevents implantation by changing the uterine lining. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=contraception&refid=015 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #55 February 12, 2004 bah! Elf, I just need to stay out of this debate, cause you beat me to the answer every time! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #56 February 12, 2004 > Ah...but an embryo, left alone, won't grow up to be another person... we haven't been able to get them past the blastocyst stage without a woman and a uterus. I’m not an expert on this but are you telling me that an embryo left alone attached to a woman’s uterus won’t grow up to be a human fetus? > And they aren't talking about killing a 26 week old fetus for stem cell research and cloning. What a 26 week fetus can do is irrelevant to the conversation... I’m talking about development potential at any stage. I'm saying that an embryo, fetus, and baby are all human at different developmental stages. You're also trying to compare and therefore legitimize the problems associated with stem cell research with birth control methods. That still doesn't make it right. How birth control works should be another discussion. I obviously don't know how it all works yet. I've got three kids. :0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #57 February 12, 2004 >IUD’s prevent conception in the first place so that’s not the issue. No, IUD's cause nonimplantation of embryos _after_ conception. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #58 February 12, 2004 Just kidding. I love my kids. Having kids changed my views on this and related subjects years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoshi 0 #59 February 12, 2004 it would be very interesting to do zome experiments (of course not very PC) about nature vs nurture. take a couple clones in different environments and finally put that to rest.._________________________________________ this space for rent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #60 February 12, 2004 >take a couple clones in different environments and finally put that to rest.. How would that be different than the studies on identical twins? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #61 February 12, 2004 Quote>take a couple clones in different environments and finally put that to rest.. How would that be different than the studies on identical twins? *does her arnold horshack impression* Ooo...ooo...I know..I know... the difference is that the twin studies weren't identical twins for one thing.. and the other thing is that the twin studies were SO SKEWED as to make them scientifically invalid. in other words...they fit the study to satisfy their desired outcome. they asked tens of thousands of questions of the Minnesota twins during the study.. then published the similarities to prove that nature was bigger than nurture. Problem was when meta-analysis were done they found that the stimilarities weren't statistically different than similarities found between any random two people.... but they've already looked at identical twins in the same household and been alarmed at the differences identical twins even being raised in the same home have (although being raised in the same family does NOT mean you have the same experiences and such) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #62 February 12, 2004 >but they've already looked at identical twins in the same household > and been alarmed at the differences identical twins even being > raised in the same home have . . . Those are the studies I'm talking about. You can't do a truly controlled experiment unless you put one clone (or twin) in a red jail cell and the other in a blue one; living a normal life exposes one to so many different experiences that it's impossible to make a determination what affected who to what extent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #63 February 12, 2004 Quote...after all, a giraffe can think, and feel, and move, and react Giraffes can think? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #64 February 13, 2004 Elfanie: My wife is an OB/GYN Physician. She found several inaccuracies in your statements. > In response to: Nope...the 25% of miscarriages includes failed implantation, genetic abnormalities, blighted ovums, etc etc etc... there is no other 60%... In other words...for every 4 embryos created naturally, one will fail. Approximately 70% of human conceptions fail to achieve viability. Most occur before the first missed menstrual period. (Fertility & Sterility, 1982) Study done by H. Leridon also gives similar results. Natural wastage was 69%. (Human Fertility, 1977) Billvon was more correct about this! * By the way, your clinic must be VERY good because an 80% success rate is almost unheard of. > In response to: IUDs main job is not to prevent conceptions. We are now offering hormonal IUDs....but still, the #1 way that they prevent pregnancy is by preventing implantation of fertilized embryos.... The main mechanism of action of copper bearing IUD’s is as a spermicide. Because of the increased number of leukocytes, you get phagocytosis of sperm. Copper also slows sperm transport and viability in the cervical mucus. Because of the spermicidal action, very few sperm actually reach the oviduct at all. Therefore, the main purpose of IUD’s is to prevent conception. NOT to prevent implantation. (However, occasionally, it does occur.) Still, this is off the subject of stem cell research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #65 February 13, 2004 Quote Approximately 70% of human conceptions fail to achieve viability. Most occur before the first missed menstrual period. (Fertility & Sterility, 1982) Study done by H. Leridon also gives similar results. Natural wastage was 69%. (Human Fertility, 1977) Billvon was more correct about this! Far be it from me to be afraid to admit that I am wrong when I'm wrong. My mistake..must have been 25% of implanted embryos fail to achieve viability... I do have to wonder, however....how they know the failure rate of conceptions. the failure rate of IVF can't be counted like the failure rate of naturally occuring fertilization... so I wonder how they figured out the implantation failure rate of embryos.... I wonder. Quote * By the way, your clinic must be VERY good because an 80% success rate is almost unheard of. Yup...considered one of the best in the world. Dr William Schoolcraft..one of three RE's who founded the ability to do blastocyst transfers. here is their 2002 success rates (although we used them in 1998, stats were about the same) http://www.colocrm.com/rates26f6.html Notice that I was in the donor egg IVF program. Quote The main mechanism of action of copper bearing IUD’s is as a spermicide. I misspoke...and should clarify. I stand by the fact that ONE OF the main mechanisms is preventing fertilization. Copper IUDs, like paragard, do inhibit the sperms ability to get to the egg... and other IUDs, like Mirena, contain hormones that work similar to other hormonal birth control pills...inhibiting ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and preventing implantation of fertilized embryos. Is it the desired effect of the IUD? No...not any more than it is the desired effect of birth control pills. Is it one of the effects that helps make it so effective? Yes...it is...it is one of the ways that it prevents a pregnancy... Quote Still, this is off the subject of stem cell research. but only barely. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #66 February 13, 2004 That was fun. I hardly ever post replies to forums (i.e. newbie) but I couldn't help but get in with this one. Most are trivial, boring, and not really worth your time. I didn't mean to sound like an ass if I did. I just like a good argument and hate not getting the last word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #67 February 13, 2004 Quote I have to ask, though, which side are you really on? wouldn't you like to know. seriously...I have very strong feelings when it comes to this issue, but (like you said) I can see both sides and can understand both. If I shared which side I was really on, the other side would automatically invalidate everything I say.. I used to be STRONGLY on one side when I was younger...now I'm STRONGLY on the other side. However, which side I am on is irrelevant when discussing the issues and such... would I make a good politition? (if you are really really really dying of curiosity...PM me.) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #68 February 13, 2004 Quote> Ah...but an embryo, left alone, won't grow up to be another person... we haven't been able to get them past the blastocyst stage without a woman and a uterus. I’m not an expert on this but are you telling me that an embryo left alone attached to a woman’s uterus won’t grow up to be a human fetus? My sperm, if left alone inside a woman's vagina could potentially form a human life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #69 February 13, 2004 Yeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #70 February 13, 2004 QuoteYeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing. Define "by itself". Neither will an embryo without receiving nutrients from the mother. My sperm won't grow into a baby without contacting an egg from the mother. Either way, neither can exist by itself. My opinion is that a fetus is a life when it can exist on its own, without being parasitic to the mother. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #71 February 13, 2004 QuoteYeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing. As much the same thing as the embryo. the sperm needs the egg. the embryo needs the uterus/woman/endometrium. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #72 February 13, 2004 Quote My opinion is that a fetus is a life when it can exist on its own, without being parasitic to the mother. You mean current viability of 22 weeks? Or do you mean previous viability, which was 28 weeks? (not that long ago) or viability a few years from now of 18 weeks? And does it have to be able to sustain its own life without assistance from machines and physicians before it is "a life"? The #1 reason that viability is where it is is due to lung development... so is an adult who loses the ability to breathe on their own no longer a life? We can shoot them in the head? And going back to the embryo debate..the embryos are living inside a petri dish, no help from a host woman. Are they 'a life' until such a point as they are placed into a woman...where they stop being a life until they could survive being removed? Just wanting you to clarify your position... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #73 February 13, 2004 Damn, you're good. I was thinking about that one for a few minutes. Yours sounds better. I salute you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #74 February 13, 2004 A sperm in a dish won’t grow into anything. It will just swim around and die. You’ve got to mix the ingredients in the first place to have a starting place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #75 February 13, 2004 QuoteA sperm in a dish won’t grow into anything. It will just swim around and die. You’ve got to mix the ingredients in the first place to have a starting place. And if you're going back to the dish... an embryo in a dish won't grow into anything, either. After it becomes a blastocyst it WILL DIE, unquestionably, unless placed into a host uterus. A sperm, in a host woman at the right time of the cycle, will grow into something. In other words..sperm/egg/embryo....each one needs the right environment to continue on... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
elfanie 0 #67 February 13, 2004 Quote I have to ask, though, which side are you really on? wouldn't you like to know. seriously...I have very strong feelings when it comes to this issue, but (like you said) I can see both sides and can understand both. If I shared which side I was really on, the other side would automatically invalidate everything I say.. I used to be STRONGLY on one side when I was younger...now I'm STRONGLY on the other side. However, which side I am on is irrelevant when discussing the issues and such... would I make a good politition? (if you are really really really dying of curiosity...PM me.) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #68 February 13, 2004 Quote> Ah...but an embryo, left alone, won't grow up to be another person... we haven't been able to get them past the blastocyst stage without a woman and a uterus. I’m not an expert on this but are you telling me that an embryo left alone attached to a woman’s uterus won’t grow up to be a human fetus? My sperm, if left alone inside a woman's vagina could potentially form a human life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #69 February 13, 2004 Yeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #70 February 13, 2004 QuoteYeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing. Define "by itself". Neither will an embryo without receiving nutrients from the mother. My sperm won't grow into a baby without contacting an egg from the mother. Either way, neither can exist by itself. My opinion is that a fetus is a life when it can exist on its own, without being parasitic to the mother. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #71 February 13, 2004 QuoteYeah, but by itself, it won't. Not the same thing. As much the same thing as the embryo. the sperm needs the egg. the embryo needs the uterus/woman/endometrium. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #72 February 13, 2004 Quote My opinion is that a fetus is a life when it can exist on its own, without being parasitic to the mother. You mean current viability of 22 weeks? Or do you mean previous viability, which was 28 weeks? (not that long ago) or viability a few years from now of 18 weeks? And does it have to be able to sustain its own life without assistance from machines and physicians before it is "a life"? The #1 reason that viability is where it is is due to lung development... so is an adult who loses the ability to breathe on their own no longer a life? We can shoot them in the head? And going back to the embryo debate..the embryos are living inside a petri dish, no help from a host woman. Are they 'a life' until such a point as they are placed into a woman...where they stop being a life until they could survive being removed? Just wanting you to clarify your position... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #73 February 13, 2004 Damn, you're good. I was thinking about that one for a few minutes. Yours sounds better. I salute you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #74 February 13, 2004 A sperm in a dish won’t grow into anything. It will just swim around and die. You’ve got to mix the ingredients in the first place to have a starting place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #75 February 13, 2004 QuoteA sperm in a dish won’t grow into anything. It will just swim around and die. You’ve got to mix the ingredients in the first place to have a starting place. And if you're going back to the dish... an embryo in a dish won't grow into anything, either. After it becomes a blastocyst it WILL DIE, unquestionably, unless placed into a host uterus. A sperm, in a host woman at the right time of the cycle, will grow into something. In other words..sperm/egg/embryo....each one needs the right environment to continue on... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
