Why doesn't Bush and the fundies push a ban on in vitro fertilization?

[xray s]

The fundies do not have a problem with in vitro fertilization, a process where millions of embryos are frozen, never to be born.

I would think their heads would explode from their logical inconsistencies.

I mean, in their world of eight cell embryos being "living, distinct human beings", aren't they endorsing a procedure that condemns millions of souls to an icy hell?

The fundies even sell the "snow flake babies". Just how frickin' sick is that?

[JerseygirlCT]

1. You are correct about the huge inconsistencies in the position

of those opposed to research but accepting of many methods of treating IF. The Catholic Church, however, DOES have a problem with IVF, if I remember correctly.

That said, the scariest stuff I heard listening today was from those opposed, who seemed to treat every embryo as a life, and the woman's role in bringing that embryo to life as inconsequential. I truly wondered how many steps we are from forced incubation to "save" the "lives" of all the embryos sitting in cold storage right now.

[Solly Mack]

2. Now there's a nightmarish thought

"I truly wondered how many steps we are from forced incubation to "save" the "lives" of all the embryos sitting in cold storage right now."


I can see the right wing advocating such a position.

[coloradodem2005]

3. Eyyore for President?

That sounds cool.

[Solly Mack]

5. Well, he is a donkey

:)

[noiretextatique]

8. nah...remember their supposed 'culture of life' ends at birth

:scared: and what if some of those embryos produce 'undesirables'?

[Solly Mack]

9. They'll pray over the "undesirables" and tell them they can change

if they just find Jesus.

[Turn CO Blue]

12. They could go further...

When they finally realize that we women are already born with millions of eggs that won't ever even make it to the fallopian tubes...

But think about it, if the Catholic Church believes that condoms are wrong because the sperm goes to waste (abortion before the fact) - why not take that argument even further to include the eggs? These zealots just keep pushing it further and further.

[Solly Mack]

13. A murder charge for each sperm ejaculated - if - engaging in

1 - masturbation
2 - pre-marital sex
3 - extra-marital sex


on edit: (Just to be clear)This is an exercise in extremes.

[xray s]

4. thanks for correcting me

I thought I had read somewhere that the Catholic Church had no problem with IVF, and I was wrong. At least the catholics are consistent.

[seabeyond]

6. give em time. i have heard

some talk about it when talking about exactly this all the embryos wasted

[bettyellen]

7. It bothers the shit out of me that people don't talk about this........

i really think the catholic church needs to get a list of these people and make sure they don't give them communion. c'mon pope, make some noise.

[asjr]

10. I think I read somewhere that Jenna and Barbara Bush

were in vitro babies. Has anyone else heard that? I believe I read it in 2000 when Shrub was the Repub nominee.

[nankerphelge]

11. Abandon logic and reason...

That's the secret of the fundie mentality. 8 cells in a petri dish and a brain dead woman in Florida are more important than helping thousands of people with functioning brains in Iraq, Africa, South America, the United States, etc.

[Sapphire Blue]

14. These excess IVF embryos are targeted for destruction no matter what

IVF creates thousands of excess embryos which are targeted for destruction whether or not they are used in stem cell research. A ban on embryonic stem cell research will not prevent the destruction of these embryos... it would only prevent them from being used in stem cell research. IVF is responsible for the destruction of embryos, not stem cell research. Where is the outcry against IVF?

The cells extracted from excess IVF embryos to be used in stem cell research could be compared to organs harvested for transplants... the cells/organs are removed prior to removal of life support, or upon the death of the ‘patient’... the ‘patient’ dies, regardless of the harvesting of cells/organs... the question is whether or not the ‘patient’s’ death benefits another life.

A couple of interesting articles...


The forgotten embryo - Fertility clinics must store or destroy the surplus that is part of the process

excerpt...

Despite the national soul-searching stirred up by stem cell research, human embryos are discarded all the time in fertility clinics - and hardly anyone seems to mind.

At one Bay Area clinic, they are flushed down the drain in a metal sink. At another, a technician drops them into a medical waste bin, to be picked up and incinerated by hospital staff.

At still another, a "quiet area" is set aside in the lab, where frozen embryos are thawed and allowed to live out their last days - usually no more than three or four at most.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/08/20/MN58092.DTL


Stem Cell Foes Answering The Wrong Question

excerpt...

But in stem cell research, that decision has already been made. Stem cells are taken from spare embryos created during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments. IVF requires the production of more embryos than the parents will ever use. These embryos are ultimately discarded. So the choice to destroy or not to destroy has already been made. The only question that remains is whether or not to waste the embryos' stem cells. I fail to see how placing stem cells in a petri dish is morally reprehensible, but placing them in a medical waste disposal container is acceptable. I also fail to see how benefiting from destruction that happened before August 9 is any different from benefiting from destruction that happens after that date. Bush's distinction makes sense only if blocking funding would prevent further destruction of embryos, which is clearly not the case.

<snip>

Bush's decision was not about IVF. It is a basic fact of the matter that IVF is legal, and no decision on stem cell research will change that. It is worthwhile to ask, should IVF continue? However, given that IVF is occurring, and stem cells are being created and discarded, we must ask, should we use those stem cells or allow them to go to waste?

If stem cell research is morally wrong because it involves the destruction of embryos, then IVF is equally repugnant. But blocking stem cell research will do nothing to address this problem. The only way to prevent the destruction of the embryos is to ban IVF. But as long as IVF remains legal, it would be morally repugnant to waste the resource that embryonic stem cells represent.

http://www.brunchma.com/users/acsumama/com/com083101.html

[Zookeeper]

15. That's the question I was shouting at the TV during the debate...

today! And toward the end of the call-in period on C-Span one woman said that she thought that all (non-natural) creation of embryos was wrong.

We need to make sure this question is heard, because there WILL be people who decide that in vitro fertilization isn't OK after all, which is bound to throw a scare into people who need the services of a fertility clinic. Let's encourage the "compassionate conservative" right-wing to show their true colors!