TV star and "wife" switch embryos

From Strollerderby, the following is quite the twist on sexual and reproductive "freedom." Click to enlarge...

strollerderby.jpg

To answer the question, I think this is neither silly nor sweet. Doubting the odds that both women were infertile, I expect simple artificial insemination would have sufficed....

So to pull-off their embryo trade stunt, the Coras sacrificed many embryos along the way. Those surviving the fertilization, defect evaluation, and implantation process will either die of neglect in frozen animation or be killed in the name of science. Upwards of 75% of embryos don't ultimately survive IVF.

Never mind the havoc these two wrought on their own bodies by injecting themselves with synthetic female steroids over the course of many weeks.

[HT: proofreader Angela]


Comments:

Are these children who are a gift as a result of a loving, totally self-giving act, or are these a product to be owned and created in the most obscure, creative, and perverse way? I have no doubt that we will soon see all sorts of bizarre situations, like a daughter carrying her mother's embryo or a grandmother freezing her eggs, and then fertilizing them and implanting them in her granddaughter so that we have a niece carrying her aunt. And we haven't even gotten into all the strange situations that could arise with who donates the sperm. This isn't slippery slope because we're already there. It will just continue to get more and more perverted. At what point will the general public say enough is enough? Sadly, it is probably only when on has "too many" children, as we have seen the past couple months.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 16, 2009 10:00 AM


no doubt these pregnancies are wanted!

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 10:38 AM


Asitis, these wanted pregnancies caused more death than 5 unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 10:41 AM


Oh who cares? You are way too focused on what strangers do with their genetic material. These ladies aren't hurting anyone. Mind your own business.

Posted by: reality at March 16, 2009 10:45 AM


hmmmm.Well I could say "whatever!" lauren but that would be disrespectful to you so instead I will ask you this: how would you feel about this story if only one embryo were created ineach case and implanted?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 10:46 AM


Reality, right they're not hurting anyone except for the dozens of embryos who were destroyed in order for them to be the mommy to the other's child.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 10:46 AM


Asitis, thought I wouldn't personally agree with it as something I would do for myself or recommend someone else do, I don't really care what another person does if it they're not killing anyone to do it.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 10:49 AM


Bobby,

I agree. This bizarreness turns reproduction into games of self-gratification instead of the fruit of a loving relationship, without regard to the children's future. Like abortion in attitude.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 16, 2009 10:58 AM


Psycho mommies.

Selective abortions.

Talk about confusing the boys. My mommy is your mommy too! I've got two mommies - no really.

Want even more confusion - let them have a fight, and one of them abort!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 16, 2009 10:59 AM


More celebrities doing freakish stuff. Makes perfect sense.
Leave it to a celebrity to take things to a new low.

Posted by: Mike at March 16, 2009 11:10 AM


Chris, that's a good point re: abortion that I never considered.

What happens if a surrogate aborts? Her body, her choice, right?

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 11:10 AM


"Mind your own business."

Really! Am I my brother's keeper?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 16, 2009 11:24 AM


Lauren - what you'll find is that there is a legal contract in place to assures that such an abortion will not be performed.

However Roe, (Casey) assures the marriage contract doesn't cover such protections for men.

Yes - these contracts exist, and no the woman doesn't get to change her mind.

Only in the topsy-turvy world of legalized abortion will you find such contradictory legal agreements.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 16, 2009 11:31 AM


Hollyweird again rears it's ugly head. God bless the little boys who will need a male figure SOMEDAY ...

Posted by: Bevy at March 16, 2009 11:31 AM


60-80% of naturally conceived embryos don't make it, either. What's the difference? Reproduction is extremely wasteful no matter how you do it.

Posted by: reality at March 16, 2009 12:12 PM


And at one point, there was an infant mortality rate of over 50%. So at that point, children weren't humans until 1 year.

Or maybe none of us are human, because almost all people die.

Maybe cancer patients aren't people. Maybe people's worth should depend on how close they live to medical care--everyone knows that poor people in third-world countries aren't worth as much as Americans.

Reality, stop demeaning my children.

Posted by: YCW at March 16, 2009 12:22 PM


Reality, are we really going to have this converstion?

There is a difference between natural death and unnatural death. I know it seem simple, but apparantly it has to be spelled out for some people.

We have a 100% mortality rate as a species. Does that mean it's ok to kill anyone we want since they'll die anyways?

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 12:27 PM


"60-80% of naturally conceived embryos don't make it"

Do you happen to know how they came up with this statistic reality?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 16, 2009 12:45 PM


And how many times do I have to tell you that we aren't utilitarians. You can have the same ends, but the different means, and that is an important distinction in our worldview. Either show us why utilitarianism is a correct worldview or give us an argument that isn't in direct contradiction with our worldview.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 16, 2009 12:49 PM


Bobby @ 12:49pm Yes!

as for miscarriage rates the figures I've heard and read are anywhere from 15 to 30 percent.
Likely the proabortion crowd likes this number to be higher as one of their many justifications for aborting babies early on.

Posted by: angel at March 16, 2009 1:14 PM


Reality: "60-80% of naturally conceived embryos don't make it, either. What's the difference? Reproduction is extremely wasteful no matter how you do it."

You know, as a woman who has suffered a miscarriage, it's so comforting to know that my baby's death is used by the pro-abortion crowd in an attempt to justify intentionally killing babies. Women suffer in silence from pregnancy loss, as it seems society doesn't take the death of their child seriously and expects them to get over it as one would get over having the flu. It's especially great how the word "wasteful" is used in this comment - so compassionate towards women who have lost a child!

Posted by: Janette at March 16, 2009 1:31 PM


Oh Janette, I'm so sorry for the loss of your little baby. I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but I very much believe that you have a little treasure in heaven waiting for you. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 16, 2009 1:38 PM


I don't see lesbian IVF any worse then heterosexual IVF. Like Jill said, however, it seems like a lot of work, when AI would have done the trick.

Posted by: Hal at March 16, 2009 1:49 PM


here's a question for you prolifers: if you are a woman who has had multiple miscarriages and continue to have sex without birth control knowing you might miscarry again, do you see a problem with this? Just curious.

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 1:50 PM


Janette,
I am so sorry. I hear every word of what you have written and echo it with the experiences of my miscarriages as well.

The proaborts don't like it that we grieve our children. Dismissing a grieving mother makes more sense in their world. If it wasn't a baby why the grief??

Asitis,
Your question is in very poor taste. Answer it yourself.

Posted by: Carla at March 16, 2009 1:56 PM


Asitis, those miscarriages would be natural deaths. It would be a tragic situation, and I would recommend she see a doctor to see if they could find out why she kept miscarrying, but there is a vast difference between natural death and calculated killing.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 1:58 PM


Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 1:50 PM


Yes, we are sad that we've lost a baby. Beyond that no, we are not intentionally terminating a pregnancy. Honestly, I think you probably already knew that answer.

Posted by: Kristen at March 16, 2009 1:59 PM


why is it bad taste carla? It was not asked with malice.

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 2:01 PM


kristen I am not comparing it to abortion but rather IVF.

I can't answer it myself. I don't know if you see a prblem with this. That's why I asked you prolfers

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 2:04 PM


You know, as a woman who has suffered a miscarriage, it's so comforting to know that my baby's death is used by the pro-abortion crowd in an attempt to justify intentionally killing babies. Women suffer in silence from pregnancy loss, as it seems society doesn't take the death of their child seriously and expects them to get over it as one would get over having the flu. It's especially great how the word "wasteful" is used in this comment - so compassionate towards women who have lost a child!

Posted by: Janette at March 16, 2009 1:31 PM

I'm sorry for your loss Janette.


Posted by: angel at March 16, 2009 2:09 PM


I should think it very evident how repeated miscarriages are different from IVF and IVF reduction and abortion.
To imply this is similar to termination is in very poor taste and demonstrates a complete lack of sensitivity for women suffering from miscarriage.

Posted by: angel at March 16, 2009 2:11 PM


asitis,
You asked because you have your own preconceived notions about it, so just spill your opinion and be done with it.
Asking prolifers what they think was your way of trying to be sincere.

Posted by: Carla at March 16, 2009 2:13 PM


Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 2:04 PM

I have the same problem with IVF that I do with abortion so that distinction doesn't matter.

Posted by: Kristen at March 16, 2009 2:14 PM


Astitis,

When I was first married we suffered a miscarriage. They way I look at it is that God creates people to love, serve and know Him. He calls some souls to be with him after 100 years, and some after a few weeks. We never know why.

However, after I suffered a number of miscarriages, I certainly would try to find out why.

Answer your question?

Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 16, 2009 2:35 PM


Pansy, if you were told you had a problem that couldn't be solved and that you were at high risk for miscarriage, but that there was a chance you might evenetually carry a pregnancy to term would you continue to have sex without birth control?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 2:41 PM


Carla, fyi I have no "preconcenived nothing" on this. The thought just came to me and I am wondering what you prolifers think.

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 2:42 PM


I should think it very evident how repeated miscarriages are different from IVF

Posted by: angel at March 16, 2009 2:11 PM

But "Angel" can you think of how they might be similar?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 2:53 PM


asitis @ 2:53,

The only similarity is a dead baby. However, with IVF, children are destroyed because parents want a child no matter how many children are destroyed. With miscarriages, the couple suffers greatly with each loss, and may risk the woman's health to try to bring a child into the world.

Women who suffer from multiple miscarriages carry a real cross and often contend with feelings of inadequancy, especially when the number of failed pregnancies grows. With IVF, dozens of their children will probably die/be destroyed and the couple may never know about it, much less care.

Posted by: Michael at March 16, 2009 3:14 PM


Janette, I am sorry for your loss. *hugs*

And my reaction to this story about the chefs: Oh gag me.....


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 16, 2009 3:21 PM


so michael you are saying that in both cases embryos die but the difference is that in the case of misscarriage this loss is grieved?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 3:28 PM


For a miscarriage, the embryo must implant or there is no pregnancy. You are missing the large number of eggs that are fertilized but do not implant and are then lost in a normal or even slightly delaayed menstrual cycle with a woman being none the wiser unless she examines every napkin or tampon with a microscope.

Posted by: apples and oranges at March 16, 2009 3:31 PM


No, asitis, the difference is that the couple who experiences several miscarriages are not doing anything other than obeying God's command for married couples. It would be sinful for them to withold themselves.

If you want to take God out of the equation, it is because the couple having repeat miscarriages are not taking any actions to specifically create and destroy their children. They are simply having normal marital relations.

The couple or individual who chooses IVF is specifically creating children who will be killed in order to perhaps create one who will survive. The intent and actions are vastly different.

Again, one is a natural death and one is an unnatural death. The two are similar only in the way that murder and natural death of a 8 year old would be similar.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 3:34 PM


Janette, Carla, Kirsten, Angel, Pansy: amen.

Asitis:
You are being extremely insensitive and mean. Maybe you know it and maybe you're really obtuse and so don't, but now you know.

I do suffer from recurrent very early miscarriage. I do not know why exactly. I am trying to figure out how to stop it because I love my children--all of them--very much. I also have a healthy ten-month-old.

I believe that God is in complete control. He has a reason for what is happening to me.

I did not kill my children. Thus there is a difference between me and someone who kills her child. I do not think that they would have been better off not to have existed. I prayed that God would save them. I pray that if I conceive again God would save my next child. You have no right to imply that this is at all similar to choosing to kill them; it is not.

Don't think you're bothering me, asitis. You aren't. I know there are people out there who are evil, and encountering one online doesn't phase me. I am protected by a mighty God who loves me just as he loves all of my children. I'm only responding to tell you that you are wrong. I don't hate you, either. I am called by God to love you.

asitis, you have given my family and me a grave insult, and in return I give you this:
Jesus died so that you might have life. In Him everything about you that is mean, rude, and corrupt can be swept away, and you can be made new. All that you need to do is accept his free gift--the awful gift of his death on the cross, through which sin itself and death were slain--and you can be made new. You don't have to be hateful and bitter. You don't need to seek out people to combat. He is calling you, asitis, because you are His daughter, and He loves you and wants you to turn to Him in your fears and worries. He wants to restore your heart. You can be free and happy. He doesn't require that you give up your views or your politics, though that will come. He only requires that you turn to Him, just as you are. He will be faithful.

God took me in when I was an angry and bitter young woman. He showed me love when I had shown Him only scorn and doubt. As I followed Him and prayed for His will, He performed a miracle to take away the depression that had plagued me all my life. He has given me all I have wanted, and if He gave me nothing more and took all that I had, He would still be good, because I will always have Him, and He will never leave me or forsake me.

Think about it--God bless you.

Posted by: YCW at March 16, 2009 3:36 PM


apples and oranges,

The children who are lost before implantation are no less humans than those lost at any time after implantation. The fact that their lives only progressed to a certain point does not invalidate their humanity.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 3:37 PM


YCW, I thought of you when Asitis started this whole conversation. You handled it with much more grace and love than I probably would have. You are a wonderful testimony to God's mercy.

I am so sorry for your losses.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 3:41 PM


Unlike abortion, IVF does not CAUSE the death of embryos. The embryos are tranfered and some do not implant. IVF did not cause these deaths. Not all embryos implant regardless of how they are conceived. IVF may have enabled the conception of these embryos, but it did not cause them to not implant. I'm not refering to selective reduction or discarding embryos that aren't transfered. These would be examples of causing the deaths of embryos/fetuses, but not all IVF cycles involve this.

Posted by: Kate at March 16, 2009 3:41 PM


So it would be sinful to abstain ? As the Church Lady used to say, well isn't that convienent!

But yes, taking God outt of the equation ... Isn't it true that in both cases the loss of embryos is risked for the sake of having a child?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 3:43 PM


No, asitis, because in one case the intent of the act is to create children with the knowledge that you WILL kill in order to conceive.

Having normal marital relations doesn't guarntee anything. You aren't setting off specifically to create children nor are you planning on "discarding" the extras.

For the 3rd time. A natural death is not the same as an unnatural death.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 3:48 PM


ycw and others , I did not mean to be insulting. Remember to me I do not see IVF as murder and I see nothing wrong with it. So for me to see a similarity between it and someone trying to conceive who is at high risk for miscarriage does not mean that I am trying to insult you. Though you yourselves do that constantly to people who need IVF.....

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 3:49 PM


Oh, and asitis, speaking as someone who has had multiple miscarriages it definitely is NOT convienant to return to marital intimacy knowing that you might lose another child.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 3:51 PM


lauren in both cases there is a heightened risk that an embryo might die

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 3:54 PM


no I am sure it's not convienent Lauren. In all honesty I can appreciate your pain knowing how you feel.

And I think I should it at that. Clearly by bringing up this issue I have touched a nerve. And I honestly do not want to hurt amyones feelings anymore than I may have already

Peace

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 4:00 PM


"Oh who cares? You are way too focused on what strangers do with their genetic material. These ladies aren't hurting anyone. Mind your own business.

Posted by: reality at March 16, 2009 10:45 AM"

As usual, you are woefully wrong. They are hurting the Creator unimaginably because of their rebellion.

Posted by: HisMan at March 16, 2009 4:02 PM


No, in the case of IVF there is a certainty. I might never have a miscarriage again.

If someone wants to go into IVF and create 1 embryo and use that embryo not matter what, fine. However, if someone knowingly creates embryos that they have no intention of using in order to better their chances of having a living child, they are intentionally killing.

Someone who naturally experiences miscarriage is not making a direct action to kill in order to continue a pregnancy.

Once again, a natural death is different than an unnatural death.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 4:04 PM


having sex when there is a chance of conceiving is not a direct act lauren?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 4:08 PM


Thanks to all who offered their sympathy. I haven't been able to keep up with the ongoing conversation because, 2 months after my miscarriage, I became pregnant with my baby boy who I've been taking care of all day :)

asitis: "here's a question for you prolifers: if you are a woman who has had multiple miscarriages and continue to have sex without birth control knowing you might miscarry again, do you see a problem with this? Just curious."

I did think about this after my miscarriage. The doctor assured me that I was probably healthy and this was just an unfortunate but random event, but I was terrified that perhaps something was wrong with me and by trying to conceive again I may be gambling with my future children's lives. Not the most rational way to look at things, definitely, but that's how things seemed through a lens of grief. If I had been diagnosed with a condition that I knew could cause more miscarriages, I would probably have looked into adoption. While I don't see a moral problem with this at all, I wouldn't have the emotional strength to keep trying. That's my honest answer.

Posted by: Janette at March 16, 2009 4:21 PM


Ohhh Herman, how sweet. Worrying that your imaginary skybuddy got widdle feelings hurt.

So much for omnipotent.

Posted by: not a theist at March 16, 2009 4:30 PM


Having sex when there is a possibility to become preganant makes you responsible for any life conceived by your acts. It is not, however, a direct act of conception like IVF. Look at it like this.

Having sex is like placing a bet. You take respnosiblity that if the cards fall a certain way, you will get pregnant.

IVF is like going to the bank and making a withdrawl. There is a certainty that embryos will be created.

Your responsible for the children with either scenerio, but making the withdrawl from the bank is a much more direct way to get your money than placing a bet.

Of course,the analogy isn't perfect. This is especially true because there is no moral imperative to gamble like there is to have sex within a marriage, but I think it gets the general idea across.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 4:33 PM


What an incredibly perverted and self-centered thing to do! Children have become nothing but a commodity to be disposed of or to obtain by any means possible -- just so we can have whatever we want. No wonder our economy is tanking -- we are reaping what we have sown. It was built upon the blood of innocents. It is all about our physical comforts and material wealth. God is irrelevant. We must scrap for as many things as we can before we die because that is all there is...


Well, it has been the same throughout the ages.. let us fast and pray for many conversions this Lent.

Posted by: Eileen at March 16, 2009 4:47 PM


Not a theist:

Please explain how the capacity for pain causes a deity to lose omnipotence.

Posted by: Lauren at March 16, 2009 4:47 PM


Asitis, just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower, there you go. I have congenital hypothyroidism which makes it very difficult for me to carry a pregnancy to term. I have suffered through multiple miscarriages due to this condition.

Because of it, I am extremely careful about treating my thyroid condition and monitor my pregnancies and thyroid levels closely. I take very, VERY good care of myself and mourn deeply when despite all efforts, my child goes early to the Lord. I look forward to meeting the rest of my children someday.

If you cannot see how a child conceived in love and lost despite a parent's best efforts to care for it is different than a child essentially tossed in the dustbin, I cannot help you. Only God can, you are obviously beyond all bounds of human compassion.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 16, 2009 5:53 PM


For these 2 women it's a big show at the expense of the children. This is a perverted joke.

Posted by: Jasper at March 16, 2009 6:36 PM


ycw and others , I did not mean to be insulting. Remember to me I do not see IVF as murder and I see nothing wrong with it. So for me to see a similarity between it and someone trying to conceive who is at high risk for miscarriage does not mean that I am trying to insult you. Though you yourselves do that constantly to people who need IVF.....

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 3:49 PM

asitis, why don't you just apologize for what you've done on this thread?

YCW, I am sorry for your losses. You handled this situation with grace and you are a wonderful witness to God's loving grace.

Posted by: angel at March 16, 2009 7:25 PM


Elixabeth, you misunderstood me. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and I already apologized it I had.

And while, I myself have never needed IVF, I recognize that those children are also conceived in love.

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 9:31 PM


Uh "Angel" I did already say that it was not my intent to be hurtful.

Perhaps you missed that?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 9:34 PM


That's an apology? Here's a hint. Apologies usually contain the words: "I was wrong" and "I'm sorry"... not, gee, I didn't mean to be insulting, I'm just doing what I think you do!

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 16, 2009 10:01 PM


Okay, how's this Elisabeth: I am sorry that your feelings were hurt. This was not my intent.

As for how you treat others who struggle with fertility issues and choose IVF, perhaps you can understand, given what you say about them, how I did not appreciate that you might be sensitive to my question.

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 10:08 PM


Arent you an adult Asitis? How can you really be so dense to human emotion? I call BS. You knew what you were stirring up when you started it. Another indication that you are nothing but a troll. You refuse to state your own stance on abortion and do nothing but insult everyone here.

Posted by: Oliver at March 16, 2009 11:09 PM


For these 2 women it's a big show at the expense of the children. This is a perverted joke.
Posted by: Jasper at March 16, 2009 6:36 PM

Expense of the children? They'll be fine. They get to be born, etc. Just like you guys want. The children are not victims here. They're the blessings.

Posted by: hal at March 17, 2009 12:46 AM


Asitis... find ONE THING I have said about IVF on this forum, or anywhere for that matter. I haven't competely formulated my thoughts on the subject and therefore I haven't spoken to it.

But hey, who needs facts when we can just use snark?

Again, I call bull on you being in the least bit apologetic.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:23 AM


"Elixabeth, you misunderstood me. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and I already apologized it I had.

And while, I myself have never needed IVF, I recognize that those children are also conceived in love.

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 9:31 PM"

Asitis:

It is very wasteful to have to spend so much time correcting your distorted sense of morality (and your lack of real geological knowledge). I know it's frustrating, when confronted with the truth, to realize that you've been lied to and you've believed the lie, however, you can still recover. (When you have a few moments I'll educate you on the "father of modern false geology, Sir Charles Lyell, a friggin' lawyer).

I posted on the death pose issue found in fossils all over the world and you haven't commented. You know it's not very wise to ignore the truth.

To continue...it is not an act of love to "manipulate" the natural process of conception by two women of reprobate mind. To the contrary it is an act of utter hatred.

It is obvvious that these two women are so morally corrupted that they subconsciously rebel against the Creator by doing this perverted and twisted show of independence.

What's more tragic is that you haven't got a clue about how wrong this is.

And Hal....my, my, my. Yes, these children are blessings but will be turned to to "sons of hell" by their "parents" who will teach them the Liberal Gospel of humanism and moral relativism....they are screwed. We can only pray earnestly that they escape from this hell-hole of gross delusion and perversion.

"Matthew 23:14-16 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." These are the words of Jesus Christ.

Hal, the Pharisees rejected Christ and in their rejection they turned their converts into hell-bound disciples. Doesn't matter that they were religious or secular, the effect and consequence were and are the same. What we teach peopel has eternal ramifications.

Oh by the way Hal, if you are not leading your kids to Christ, well, you're doing the same thing, i.e. turning them into "sons of hell".

Posted by: HisMan at March 17, 2009 1:31 AM


Okay, I checked myself to make sure by clicking on the topic IVF in the sidebar and then checking each post with a CTRL-F for my name.

I did make ONE comment. It was that it was important to take baby steps and remove those aspects of IVF that are the most damaging to life... such as creating too many embryos, thus causing the dilemma of what to do with them, and limiting the number implanted at one time.

Oh.. yes, I'm so cold and heartless and deserve your veiled jabs in the name of an apology.

You were rude. Own up to it and give a real apology, if you're capable of such behavior. It's called being a grown-up.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:35 AM


BTW, I have preschoolers who are capable of giving a more caring, reasonable apology than you have demonstrated to be. We have rules in our house about that.

An apology must contain the words I'm sorry, it cannot in any way use the other person's actions as a justification, and it must own up to personal responsibility by listing precisely what it was about one's owns actions that were unacceptable. As children often get into two sided spats, we often have two apologizing over the same incident, but neither one has the right to list the other's behavior as justification for their own actions.

Therefore, "I'm sorry I pinched you but you were being annoying and I couldn't help it!" would not be an acceptable apology in our home.

Even the three year old can say, "I'm sorry I pinched you. Pinching hurts. I'm sorry I hurt you."

Which may very well be followed up with by the four year old, "And I'm sorry I pulled your hair. That hurts too and I'm sorry I hurt you." No reference may be made by the 4 year old that she pulled her sister's hair because she got pinched.

And you wonder why I find your statements rude? My PRESCHOOLERS have more common courtesy than you exhibit in this forum.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:43 AM


Uh "Angel" I did already say that it was not my intent to be hurtful.

Perhaps you missed that?

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 9:34 PM

I'm in agreement with Elizabeth here: you never apologized and do not have anywhere near an apologetic tone to your comments.
(Hint: Just say it like this:I am sorry that my comments caused hurt and pain to those here (name them) who have had miscarriages. I realize now that my comments were insensitive.)

Not cool. NOT. COOL. AT. ALL.

Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 7:13 AM


Elizabeth: your comments are well articulated.

Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 7:16 AM


my lack of real geological knowledge Hisman? That's rich! I didn't comment on the death pose because it could be due to anything! And do you know how long ago dinosaurs lived? Do you realize it was long before man? It's pointless to even get into this with you because you can't accept the science because it contradicts your belief that the bible is absolutely and literally true. I've already acknowledged this.

And Oliver call bs but it's simply not true,

Elisabeth I don't know if you were ever insulting about ivf but others certainly are.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 8:34 AM


Okay, so you get to say THIS at 10:08

"As for how you treat others who struggle with fertility issues and choose IVF, perhaps you can understand, given what you say about them, how I did not appreciate that you might be sensitive to my question."

That is personal. That is directed towards me, someone who has NEVER said ANYTHING about people who struggle with fertility issues (NEWSFLASH: Struggling with frequent miscarriages IS struggling with fertility issues!) You get to make a personal comment and then follow up at 8:34 with:

"Elisabeth I don't know if you were ever insulting about ivf but others certainly are."

That gives you the right to insult, belittle and degrade my feelings? And I note that you still have YET to articulate a mature, grown-up apology. (Nuts to that, I'll take an immature apology as good as the ones my preschoolers give. Can you try that? Can you try to be as mature as my three year old???)

What other people do or say does not give you the right to put words in my mouth. Once again, who needs facts when you have snark???

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 10:01 AM


"angel" I did apologize and once I realized just how sensitive people were to this issue on a personal level I backed off.

Elizabeth i did not bring up how some prolifers here insult those who need/have used IVF as justification for my unintended insult. I brought it up as an explanation for how it had not occurred to me that prolifers would be so sensitive. Clearly I was wrong. And once I realized this I stopped.

But hey, if you want to believe the worst I can't stop you.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 10:01 AM


Really? You didn't think women who have frequent miscarriages... children dearly wanted, deeply prayed for, and yet gone too quickly to heaven... might, they just might be... GASP sensitive to that???

Really, that could not possibly have occurred to anyone. Why on earth would prolifers (people who believe in the sanctity of life from conception on) actually mourn their children? No, that makes no sense at all. Prolifers don't care about their unborn children... do you even hear what you're saying???

BTW... still waiting on that apology thing. One that owns up squarely without trying to shift blame to others.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 10:05 AM


Asitis: I don't comment very often, but I often read the conversations going on between everyone. And I honestly do not understand why you are here, besides to try to upset others. I'm not suggesting that you should leave or trying to "bait" you to confess your elusive pro-choice reasoning; I'm genuinely confused as to what compels you to come back day after day and pick apart people's comments (and sometimes make personal accusations). I realize you're not the only one who does this, but most others are either pro-lifers on a pro-life blog or pro-choicers willing to explain themselves.

I answered your loaded question about how prolifers feel about trying to conceive with a miscarriage problem and how it relates to IVF, although I felt the question was in poor taste and seemed to play on people's grief to make a point. But still, I humored you. So could you do the same for me and tell me why you're here, since it's not to articulate the particulars of your pro-choice position?

Posted by: Janette at March 17, 2009 10:31 AM


"As for how you treat others who struggle with fertility issues and choose IVF, perhaps you can understand, given what you say about them, how I did not appreciate that you might be sensitive to my question."

That is personal. That is directed towards me, someone who has NEVER said ANYTHING about people who struggle with fertility issues (NEWSFLASH: Struggling with frequent miscarriages IS struggling with fertility issues!)

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 10:01 AM


Elisabeth, while I myself have not had to struggle with miscarriages, I honestly can appreciate that it IS a struggle. Similarly, I can appreciate that for people who have to use it, IVF is a struggle.

I thought you were one of the ones who have regularly insulted those who use IVF when I read this comment:

If you cannot see how a child conceived in love and lost despite a parent's best efforts to care for it is different than a child essentially tossed in the dustbin, I cannot help you. Only God can, you are obviously beyond all bounds of human compassion.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 16, 2009 5:53 PM

If you did not mean to insult IVF users there, than I am sorry to have misread that.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 10:38 AM


Really? You didn't think women who have frequent miscarriages... children dearly wanted, deeply prayed for, and yet gone too quickly to heaven... might, they just might be... GASP sensitive to that???

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 10:05 AM

And you don't think that women who dearly want children and have to use IVF to have them might be sensitive to some of things said here? It appears not, which makes me think that you (that's a general you BTW) aren't sensitive.

And BTW I did apologize. And BTW I did stop once I realized people were deeply hurt.

Go ahead and keep thinking the worst Elisabeth.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 10:42 AM


Jannete, I've answered this question several times before .... basically to be one voice for the other side, learn something myself about how others think and what they believe, and for some amusement.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 10:49 AM


Honestly, I think it's immature and utterly pointless to get all bent out of shape over a point someone on the internet was trying to make. Rather than debate in a logical manner, many of you have turned into cry babies. Astis never said that women who have miscarriages are murderers. He merely said that having recurrent miscarriages and trying again is no different than undergoing IVF with the knowledge that not all the embryos will implant. In both cases neither parents caused the death of their embryos/fetuses. They merely enabled the conception knowing the possibility of death. As I have said IVF itself doesn't cause the death of embryos. Many people transfer all the embryos they create(though not necessarily at the same time). This gives them the chance at life(just like conceving through intercourse does). Whether they implant or not is out of our control. I don't fault couples in either situation for trying to have a child.

Posted by: Kate at March 17, 2009 12:12 PM


that's it exactly Kate. Thank you.

And btw I'm a "she". :)

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 12:18 PM


one correction: I wouldn't say the IVF couple KNOWS all of the embryos won't implant. They dont know if all or any or none will implant. They take their chances.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 12:26 PM


Actually, the process of IVF includes screening embryos for defects and then not implanting those embryos. Those embryos ARE tossed in the dustbin, and I don't see that a process that deliberately creates multiple embryos in order to weed out the "imperfect" and "undesired" is ethical.

That being said, that has NOTHING to do with the women who are so desperate as to try it, and everything to do with the process itself, of which, I daresay, many are not educated on the details. Hence Jill's efforts to bring those detalis to the surface. IVF is something I had never really thought about and had no idea of the complexity until I started researching it due to Jill's reports.

I have never once impugned infertile women... they aren't the ones tossing the babies in the dustbin, now are they? But this very dichotomy is what is causing the issues with higher order multiples... once implanted, these women (quite rightly) cannot bring themselves to kill one of their children. I think if more of them knew what was going on "behind the scenes" so to speak, they might reconsider their options.

I save my disgust for the scientists who know what they are doing and simply do not care how many human beings they waste in their quest for "success".

And no, you still haven't apologized. You've continued justifying yourself and your rudeness.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 12:44 PM


The process you describe is PGD, and a couple has to request it. Many choose against it because it costs extra and can slightly reduce the chance of pregnancy.

As for high order multiples, these are very rare with IVF. Transfering no more than two or three embryos at a time is the norm. Fertility drugs are responsible for most multiple births because there is little control over how many eggs a women will release.

Posted by: Kate at March 17, 2009 12:57 PM


yes I did elisabeth. Go on believing the worst though, if that is your inclination.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 1:00 PM


At what time did you offer a true apology that did not use justification to weasel out of any true responsibility... or namecall against those you supposedly apologized to? Trust me, if you did it, I missed it and would love to see a timestamp.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:09 PM


Kate, what does PGD stand for? As I have been quite clear, this is a very new area of research for me, so I would appreciate as much information as possible.

My concerns at this time are not primarily with those embryos that are not successfully implanted... that most certainly can happen during any pregnancy. At this time, my concern is for embryos that are created for the purpose of destruction, either because they weren't "good enough" or the right gender or simply because so many were created that they can not all be implanted prior to degradation (which seems to happen at some point according to sources on both sides, I am just unsure of how long that takes).

I have been very clear about how new I am to this subject and certainly appreciate hearing factual information about how the process works. Thank you for your contribution. Might I inquire as to your sources and/or experience? Do you perhaps work in a fertility clinic or have had IVF? Feel free to tell me that's none of my business, but I would expect that there would be slightly different types of information available from different viewpoints, if you kwim...

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:17 PM


last night 10:08 pm.

You won't accept that though because you believe I intended to insult and as such, you think the second part is a justification. As I have already explained this morning that is not the case. apology is sincere.

So.... Go on thinking the worst if it's your inclination, but I have already apologized

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 1:23 PM


Like I said... maybe someday you'll grow up and honestly own up to your own actions.

In the meantime, at least you know why I made the comment on the other thread about being rude. And that would be because you make rude statements.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:36 PM


Ahh.... but I did not intend to be rude Elisabeth and once I realized it was taken that way, I stopped the discussion. Which I think is actually quite the opposite of rude.

Own up to my own actions? Huh? What are you suggesting? That I lie and say I intended to insult?????? What? Well, like i said.... go on and think the worst if that's your inclination Elisabeth.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 1:40 PM


PGD stands for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. It is the process of screening embryos for birth defects before transfering them. Not all IVF cycles involve this. Many people end up with ten or so embryos and transfer them two or three at a time without discarding or screening any. I know this because my Aunt went through the IVF process.

Posted by: Kate at March 17, 2009 1:41 PM


Thank you. As I have an ethical issue with children being aborted for being "less than perfect", such as the fact that large numbers of children with Down's Syndrome are aborted (which saddens me, as I cannot imagine my life without my dear SIL... she is such a dear and a love.)...

... I feel that PGD is just another form of the same thing. I have a definite ethical objection to that process. Thank you for giving me the proper term.

I will continue to research so that I may form a coherent viewpoint of the issue as a whole.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 17, 2009 1:50 PM


Jannete, I've answered this question several times before .... basically to be one voice for the other side, learn something myself about how others think and what they believe, and for some amusement.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 10:49 AM

except the problem is that you never do actually explain your pov with a logical argument.
In fact, you refuse to back up statements, you refuse to explain your positions and as soon as the discussion becomes difficult you back out.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 17, 2009 3:32 PM


Nope. Nice try.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 3:53 PM


Jannete, I've answered this question several times before .... basically to be one voice for the other side, learn something myself about how others think and what they believe, and for some amusement.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 10:49 AM

If you are intending to be a voice for the other side, it's a rather incomplete one. From what I've read, you dissect other's comments and ask hypothetical questions meant to prove a point. That's all fine and dandy, but it gives me absolutely no insight into the mindset of the "other side," unless that mindset is without sound arguments of it's own and is therefore constantly on the aggressive.

Posted by: Janette at March 17, 2009 4:48 PM


Sometimes I ask hypothetical questions Janette, but no more so than some others do here. Sometimes I point out some misconception or misinformation, unappreciated though it may sometimes be ;). There's lots I say about my beliefs, my life, myself that should give you insight into one "mindset" of the other side, if you care to listen to it. But no one forces you to. Ignore my comments if you want. No one forces you to read them or to listen to what i have to say or to see my logic. It's your choice.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 5:12 PM


here's a question for you prolifers: if you are a woman who has had multiple miscarriages and continue to have sex without birth control knowing you might miscarry again, do you see a problem with this? Just curious.


The woman who has had multiple miscarriages does not *know* that she will miscarry in a future pregnancy. A woman who uses IVF or abortion *knows* at least one child will die.

Therefore, I have no problem with a woman with a history of miscarriage conceiving again, while I am opposed to to abortion and IVF.

I'm curious, too. How would we determine when a woman should have to stop trying to conceive? After one miscarrige? Two? Three? And who gets to decide, "You've had enough miscarriages; you'll need to be sterilized now." (Sterilization is the only way to prevent a pregnancy; your suggestion of using contraception is *not* enough.)

And I'm really curious to hear if you believe we should apply this same logic to women who have abortions -- after a certain number of abortions, it's time to be sterilized, no more deaths. What do you think?

Posted by: DA at March 18, 2009 3:21 PM


Hi DA.

"if you are a woman who has had multiple miscarriages and continue to have sex without birth control knowing you might miscarry again, do you see a problem with this?"

No, because they are not directly and willfully killing. There is all the difference in the world between a direct abortion where you kill someone and 100 miscarriages where you would love and welcome a new baby, but your body simply isn't allowing it.

"How would we determine when a woman should have to stop trying to conceive? After one miscarrige? Two? Three?"

Never. Like I said above, she could have 100 miscarriages. It's all about the fact that she isn't doing any killing. Now after a while, she may realize that if she becomes pregannt again, she will have a miscarriage. But that is not her intent. Her intent is to go through a healthy pregnancy, but her body naturally is having some sort of problems sustaining life for the embryo. Her body simply is either creating an embryo that has so many genetic problems that it never was a human being (so I shouldn't have used the word embryo), which is very possible, or there is another reason why her body is constantly rejecting the embryo.

"And I'm really curious to hear if you believe we should apply this same logic to women who have abortions -- after a certain number of abortions, it's time to be sterilized, no more deaths. What do you think?"

Again, here I say no. If one believes that sterilization, especially forced, is immoral, then one can never do an evil means (sterilization) to bring about a good end (less abortions). So for me, it's all fairly cut and dry. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 18, 2009 3:31 PM


intent is important: the woman miscarrying has the intent to carry to term a baby - she desperately wants that baby

the woman with IVF and 8 embryos really only wants one or two babies
the excess were implanted with the intent of having one or two
when more than one or two are implanted the intent is still to have one or two survive but the means to achieve this is to kill of some of the other babies - this is using a morally illicit action (murder) to achieve a good end

of course the problem is that since unborn children have no rights before birth, we can essentially do whatever we want with them even if it means euthanizing them in the womb or experimentation on them.

Posted by: angel at March 18, 2009 5:54 PM


Sometimes I ask hypothetical questions Janette, but no more so than some others do here. Sometimes I point out some misconception or misinformation, unappreciated though it may sometimes be ;). There's lots I say about my beliefs, my life, myself that should give you insight into one "mindset" of the other side, if you care to listen to it. But no one forces you to. Ignore my comments if you want. No one forces you to read them or to listen to what i have to say or to see my logic. It's your choice.

Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 5:12 PM

Of course I don't want to ignore your comments or feel forced to read them - your comments are the exact things that I chose to bring up. And I don't mind the hypothetical questions and I'm not accusing you of being the only one - I was merely noting a technique that you often use. There's a lot that you allude to about your life and beliefs, yes, but there's a definite pattern of you stopping short of fully explaining yourself and your positions. Regarding most subjects discussed here, when one lays out their pro-life or pro-choice reasoning (sometimes repeatedly and in different terms, which is kind of necessary on a blog like this with so many readers coming and going) and then uses that logic to support their position on various topics, the reader understands the entire argument. But you don't want to lay out your pro-choice reasoning, so it's difficult to follow your logic and fully understand your points. It's a bit counter-productive to the debate experience. Other pro-choicers that frequent this site willing to talk openly about their reasoning make it possible for me to see things from their point of view. I may disagree with it, but I understand why they feel like they do and I feel I've learned something from them.

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to tell you what to do. That's entirely your decision. I'm just telling you how things seem from my perspective, and you're free to use this information or dismiss it.

Posted by: Janette at March 18, 2009 6:06 PM