Life Links 2-27-12
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Wesley Smith notes a recent Journal of Medical Ethics article in which the authors argue that infanticide should be legal and label killing newborns “after-birth abortion.”
- Overheard: An Abortioneer describes her own clinic – and it doesn’t sound that nice:
I think some clinics have entire abortion appointments that last about two hours. At our clinic, it usually takes four. I mean, of course, the abortion only takes a couple minutes, but women are usually waiting around FOREVER. I often think there’s something wrong with how either we schedule people or how we organize the appointment flow since sometimes people are at our clinic for even more than five hours. Patients complain a lot about this and I can’t blame them. It’s not like our waiting room is super comfortable or welcoming (sadly, I find this is true in a lot of clinics).
- Nepal legalized abortion in 2002 and there are nearly 500 places where women can get legal abortion but illegal abortions still frequently occur in the country:
They found a place named Samrat Polyclinic while walking the streets of a busy neighborhood in the capital. The chemist said the procedure only takes 10 minutes to perform, which [patient Kalpana] Rai says she was elated to hear. She bargained the price down from 2,500 rupees ($32) to 2,200 rupees ($28).
Rai recalls entering a small room and feeling scared. The procedure took 30 minutes – not the promised 10 – and Rai says she was in unbearable pain. The chemist then gave her medicine and told her the procedure was over.
But when she got home, the bleeding wouldn’t stop. She thought this was normal until she started to periodically lose consciousness.
- Scientists have found stem cells in the ovaries of women which they used to create human ova (or at least cells that appeared to be human eggs):
“There’s no confirmation that we have baby-making eggs yet, but every other indication is that these cells are the real deal — bona fide oocyte precursor cells,” says [researcher Jonathan] Tilly. The next step, to test whether the human OSC-derived oocytes can be fertilized and form an early embryo, will require special considerations — namely, private funding to support the work in the United States (federal funding cannot by law be used for any research that will result in the destruction of a human embryo, whatever the source of the embryo) or a licence from the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to do the work with collaborators in the United Kingdom….
“That’s a huge ‘if’,” admits Tilly. But, he continues, it could mean an unlimited supply of eggs for women who have ovarian tissue that still hosts OSCs. This group could include cancer patients who have undergone sterilizing chemotherapy, women who have gone through premature menopause, or even those experiencing normal aging. Tilly says that follow-up studies have confirmed that OSCs exist in the ovaries of women well into their 40s.
More in the video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaKsfx8yh4[/youtube]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
From the video: “The prevailing dogma in our field for the better part of the last 50 to 60 years was that young girls were given a bank of account of eggs at birth that’s not renewable and as they mature and become a woman and they use those eggs up, uh, the ovaries will fail and they enter menopause.”
His statement is little incorrect. The naturally occurring limited egg production within a woman’s ovaries is not a dogma. It is a scientific fact. This fact has always been the case for more than the last 50 to 60 years!!! He seems to think that there was a conspiracy to stop ovaries from producing eggs! I thought scientists weren’t supposed to be politically motivated. At the end he accurately describes what it is: human-assisted reproduction.
A noble goal, but how do you get there without destroying human life in the process? (i.e. they have to see if one of these eggs can be turned into an embryo.)
Just because they create an embryo doesn’t mean the embryo has to die or be killed. I imagine a wealthy enough couple past accepted child-bearing years would probably invest a good deal of money into experimentation in this area, with a goal of seeing life through the entire way.
Yeah, what are they saying? The eggs in the ovaries are not being called eggs anymore? They are now called ovums?
I don’t get it.
SO they are now calling a baby killed outside a ladies womb, a post abortive abortion>
Well that certainly opens up the door for those at murder trials to plead their case:
“It wasn’t ‘murder,’ it was a post abortive abortion.”
So in Ohio, there weren’t shootings? It was just a kid aborting a bunch of other really inconvenient kids. Nice try. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The same goes for homicide.
xalisae,
As far as I am aware there is no way they will be testing if this works using an actual person. This will all be done in a petrie dish. I am certain that they will have to try a few times before they get success, so it is not like they will be saying “Presto! We now have an embryo so let’s go find a mother to carry the child to term.”
But perhaps there are others with more understanding of how the actual science works and will be conducted.
There are still some adults and mature couples who recognize that having children past a certain age is just irresponsible and not practical. Some people lose the desire to have children, male or female, once they reach a certain age. Their own mortality begins to weigh heavier on their minds.
Tyler, could they try with animals first? After all, other mammals also have ovaries.
Sydney, as far as I know, at some point they have to try it out with humans. The intention is good, but I think at the point they want to develop an embryo the whole issue changes from one about creating more eggs to IVF.
Tyler, IVF doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing that ends with the intentional death of embryos.
Jack, my understanding is that it does end with the intentional death of embryoes, and my faith (which has done the scientific research for me) tells me it does as well. Certainly, this may change in the future, but as it currently stands, IVF destroys a lot of human life before it creates it.
For just one example, it is very rare when they transfer only one embryo to a woman. The usualy transfer more than one, and a “reduction” is usually called for. There are other issues but I don’t want to get off topic.
There are other issues but I don’t want to get off topic.
Tyler, you’re all gunshy now? You don’t have to worry about discussing something you think is related, especially not after having addressed the thread topic and/or what somebody else said.
Doug, I’ve seen you argue a pro-choice position based on the fetus’ position in the personal space of another person; and therefore his/her rights are secondary to those of the other person. Curious then, if you have an opinion on “post-birth abortion”.
Eric, no – not for post-birth “abortion,” and not for late-term abortion, unless – in the admittedly very rare case – real danger to the pregnant woman.
admittedly very rare case — real danger to the pregnant woman
While I find it unnerving to accord 2nd class status to a human based on position, I appreciate your honesty on the rarity of “danger” pregnancies Doug. Too many others try and paint this as extremely common.
@Tyler: The reason IVF is so embryo-destructive is that the clinic doing it will usually create more embryos than they can possibly implant and implant more than can possibly be successfully carried to maximize the chances that one of them will “take.” The procedure itself doesn’t require embryo destruction, provided the people involved back off on how many embryos are created.
On a related topic, can I just say how much it boggles my mind that everybody loves IVF? It is the most expensive–on average–of all the “alternative fertility” methods, but has roughly the same chance (about one in four) of working as, say, ZIFT or GIFT transfer? Neither of which are embryo-destructive. Honestly, I just don’t see the draw. Pay lots of extra money for something that doesn’t work any better than the cheaper stuff and does have a lot of ethical issues. Whoo-hoo?
Medical Ethics authors argue and label killing newborns after-birth abortion??? Sounds like murder to me.
I think IVF is dangerous to women because of the amount of unnatural hormones that must be injected into her to stimulate her ovaries to go into overdrive. Not healthy. At all.
I don’t have a moral objection to IVF though if a woman understands the risks and if they only create embryos they will immediately implant (like 3) not 10 or more like they do. The problem is that IVF is never done ethically. And then there are the human errors like implanting the wrong baby in the wrong mother and then the woman aborts because its not hers.
Alice I appreciate your response. I am not 100% familiar with the IVF process and I have not heard about the two other methods you mentioned. With respect to IVF, would you happen to know if there is ever a problem with the quality of the embryos that are created? Are all the embryos considered “quality” embryos? What is done with the “poor quality” embryos that are created and not used? And what does the scientific community mean by a quality embryo? Does “quality” simply refer to the embryos that survive to the point of implantation?
Tyler, they examine the embryos before implantation to check for “chromosomal abnormalities”.
What do you think they do with the “poor quality” embryos?
They throw them away.
The “quality” embryos are the ones with no chromosomal abnormalities.
That’s the problem with IVF. They create LIFE in a petri dish, and if that life doesn’t appear “perfect” (genetically speaking), they throw the newly created life away.
In other words..they play God.
Thanks for clarifying Pamela.