Thread: Fertility treatments

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Well, if an embryo is not a "child" (which if I recall correctly, we have debated and will likely never agree), then there is 0% risk of any adverse impact to a child if the embryo is "selectively reduced' (A euphamism of course).

If it IS, then at what point would the abortion be mercy? If the odds (I am making these up) are 90% that the child would be born to a short life of unimaginable pain? Is that the line? 50%? Pretty bad pain? Bad itchy feet? If there is a line...what is it? Or if life, no matter how miserable, is ALWAYS prefereable to termination of a 3 day old embryo, well...once again, we will never agree.

Yes, I imagine that there is slim chance we can come to agreement on that. Have you been able to figure out at what point your child actually became your child? Was it only upon exit from the womb?

In the case of the woman here, she did not terminate any of the embryoes (non-children?), and guess what!?

They all became children!

Hmmm.......was it some type of alchemy? Did they change from one thing into another? Now THAT would make some news!



For the second portion, how about this (and please forgive me for any offense):
Some day that beautiful child of yours is going to die. It is inevitable, it happens to all of us. It may happen in a horrific, painful acident, injury, or disease. Should we therefore be "merciful" and end her life right now?, and get it over with?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

By the way....I found the article that states she had them all implanted, not simply using the shots...
Mother of octuplets has six other children - CNN.com
Second paragraph....now, is this accurate? What does this do for anyone's opinion?

From my understanding that is the standard proceedure the fertility docs use. They implant a number of viable embryoes, assuming that not all will "take", and if multiples do occur, they can easily enough reduce the number. Implanting multiple embryoes greatly increases the fertility treatment success rate, which is why they do it.

Great questions
1) No, I have not figured that out yet. But I do, in my most deeply searched heart, believe that there was a point. I do believe she became a child, a human life (not a POTENTIAL human life) at some point inside the womb. That she eventually became a child does not mean she was a child when she was a couple of cells in early embryonic stages.
2) Of course she will die, as we all shall. She is NOW a human. Should we kill a non-suffering human because there will someday be suffering? I find that nonsensical. CURRENT HUMAN LIFE has value. I believe ALL current human life has value, and ought not be eliminated without its consent…hence my opposiiton to the death penalty. BUT, should a terminal ill person be allowed to MAKE THE CHOICE to end their own suffering? Of course! (though we might diagree about that as well!)
3) Yes, in IVF (as opposed to simply using fertility drugs) they implant multiples to increase the possibiltiy of success. Many people, however, will refuse to have more than two or three implanted, because they do not want to take those terrible health risks for their potential future children, or themselves. Or maybe they don’t want to have an unnaturally large litter of children. If one is categorically against the destruction of embryos, one must be against the practice of IVF, where many non-implanted embreyos are destroyed, no?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

By the way....I found the article that states she had them all implanted, not simply using the shots...
Mother of octuplets has six other children - CNN.com
Second paragraph....now, is this accurate? What does this do for anyone's opinion?

The grandmother also said the mother didn't know she was pregnant with more than one baby? The grandmother sounds like she may not have had her coffee that morning, or maybe I am just misunderstanding. The woman hasn't been publicly identified and the hospital has refused to say how she got pregnant, so I only speculate.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

3) Yes, in IVF (as opposed to simply using fertility drugs) they implant multiples to increase the possibiltiy of success. Many people, however, will refuse to have more than two or three implanted, because they do not want to take those terrible health risks for their potential future children, or themselves. Or maybe they don’t want to have an unnaturally large litter of children. If one is categorically against the destruction of embryos, one must be against the practice of IVF, where many non-implanted embreyos are destroyed, no?

Not necessarily.

As the woman in the article gives proof of herself. She left none out (from a quick google, they usually implant only 3 or so), and termineted none. She took responsibility for what she was doing, and is that why people have such a hard time understanding what she did?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Not necessarily.

As the woman in the article gives proof of herself. She left none out (from a quick google, they usually implant only 3 or so), and termineted none. She took responsibility for what she was doing, and is that why people have such a hard time understanding what she did?

I meant with the industry, because of the destruction of embryos in most cases. Usually, they "pick" from the viable embryos and implanmt the "best" (I have no idea what qualifies thema s such).

I think people have a hard time 1) Understanding why she would have 8 embryos implanted when she has 6 children. Why do two and a half (or so) times the normal number? Don't have them CREATE that many if you don't want them destroyed! 2) Why, if having done so, she would not selectively reduce in order to give as many of thos embryos a BETTER chance to growing into a healthy fetus and eventual child. She has placed 8 of her 14 children at terribly increased risk. Why?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I meant with the industry, because of the destruction of embryos in most cases. Usually, they "pick" from the viable embryos and implanmt the "best" (I have no idea what qualifies thema s such).

I think people have a hard time 1) Understanding why she would have 8 embryos implanted when she has 6 children. Why do two and a half (or so) times the normal number? Don't have them CREATE that many if you don't want them destroyed! 2) Why, if having done so, she would not selectively reduce in order to give as many of thos embryos a BETTER chance to growing into a healthy fetus and eventual child. She has placed 8 of her 14 children at terribly increased risk. Why?

Why do 2 1/2 times the normal number, etc:
Because the doctor gets paid for having "sucess".
Have you every talked to your doctor,when he says "Take two of these antibiotics every 24 hours.."

"Nah" you reply "that sounds like alot, I'm only going to take one..."

One, in fact, may be enough, but they give you two just to be sure.

I would imagine 8 viable embryoes were created, and she did not perhaps want any to be "discarded", so she chose to have them all implanted.



And as for why not "selectively reduce" the embryoes:

Perhaps she realizes that all of those embryoes also have a chance to become healthy and happy people.

and furthermore:
Why not wait until they are born? And then you can take a good look at what you've got and selectively reduce then? You may even be able to help others by selling off organs and such at that point from the unwanted ones.....They were delivered via cessarian section, and so technically had not left the womb, and in some interpretations that means they are not yet something that they would be if they had. Open it up, take stock of what you find, keep what you like and run experiments, or just dispose of the rest.

I think, perhaps, that IVF and fertility treatments are not only for older couples who put having children on the backburner in order to accumulate material wealth. They are just the ones the media fixate on and thus we form an incorrect, or incomplete, association.

I know a lot of couples who, for one reason or another, require fertility enhancement techniques to conceive a child or children. Some of their stories are quite pathetic and tragic actually, and the outcomes sometimes equally, if not more, so.

It is like most things. The technology is there and was developed for a (usually) genuine and good reason. But in a free, democratic and capitatlist society, people have the right to choose and money talks. You cannot have it both ways.

James.

They can create as many as they want, or as few. they generally create many, so they can then pcik and choose embryos. if this woman did not want to make those choices, she could have told the doctor this. She likely made these choices from the beginning.

As for selective reduction of days old embryos vs. murdering children…well, I see them as different, you do not. This much is clear.

Oh, andd I am pretty sure the doctor gets paid either way. IVF is brutally expensive. Each ATTEMPT is multi-thousands of dollars. this could be why she did it...she'd rather risk the health of herself and her future children than have to go through IVF again. MAYBE. I do not claim to know her mind. I have no information about this woman, and can not claim to have enough information to judge her, nor the right do do so if I did (probably).

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

They can create as many as they want, or as few. they generally create many, so they can then pcik and choose embryos. if this woman did not want to make those choices, she could have told the doctor this. She likely made these choices from the beginning.

As for selective reduction of days old embryos vs. murdering children…well, I see them as different, you do not. This much is clear.

Just trying to illustrate a point of view in light of a discussion. No offense intended.