Posted on 07/25/2004 10:03:03 PM PDT by Coleus
My wife and I did seven invitros too. No luck now we have two beautiful adopted kids. Our embryos never had a chance. Life is lived forwards...understood backwards.
Thank God she had a child.
These are the kooks that bring us all down.
But people who criticize people who are Trying to Have Children in terms of the extra embryos? You need to rechannel your energy into something less crazy.
Lovely. This thread seems to be bringing out both the "guilty conscience" brigade and the "didn't bother to read the article" brigade.
Put her in the scalding dunk tank and use leeches! She has the devil in her, and we can beat it out using our medical science!
YEP.....
And what is the natural method in which a woman's body disposes unused human eggs?
Nevermind...I already know.
I'm not sure what "church" you're referring to? Are you a papist or something?
Semantics make everything very, very tricky. You see "it" is not merely an "embryo" but a "baby." So, lets rewrite that sentence like this:
What's better?
For 1 baby to be born, grow, learn to know and love god, and become saved, with 1 baby lost in the process of IVF........or for the 1 baby to never have existed at all?
Hmmm, in other words, in order to make a baby, you have to kill a baby.
Well, on a Catholic thread in the last few days, there was a lot of worry and bother about the doctrine of "co-redemption," and Mary dropping by recently on several occasions to spread the good news. All rather difficult for this near Atheist to relate to. Different strokes for different folks. Some things are not subject to reasoned debate in the public square. All one can do is just move on.
Vanities such as this do not belong anywhere but the bloggers forum. Please don't castigate us poor slobs that ain't smart enough to follow such a long article so late at night.
Kudos to anyone who got past the title.
Do you?
What are "unused human eggs" Oh, you mean the unfertilized ones? They aren't babies are they?
This is the whole objection to the procedure. Notice they say embryos not unfertilized eggs, fertilizing eggs and hence making a new human with an unique soul only to be tossed away is simply abortion without the womb.
No...they're not babies. Did you think so?
Lovely. This thread seems to be bringing out both the "guilty conscience" brigade and the "didn't bother to read the article" brigade. >>>
I've noticed. Some people can't bear to read the truth and the truth seems to bother some people. Now we know why there is so much confusion regarding the embryonic stem cell issue. Just create them, experiment with them, use them freeze them, burn them and then disgard them. Sounds nice, we sure are a civilized people. Americans must know when life begins and must realize that we can not harvest babies for their parts. Looks like moral relativism is already the norm.
lol....
GET REAL.
She was trying to HAVE A baby ,,,
She had over 140 of them, one of them made it, the others were killed.
2) There are some folks here who are castigating the author in a manner which indicates that they either didn't bother to even browse the article much less read it, or else they have ZERO knowledge of reproductive biology. But that's OK. Not knowing Jack Squat never stopped folks from regurgitating stupid opinions on this forum in the past. Why should this thread be any different?
you asked: And what is the natural method in which a woman's body disposes unused human eggs?
It is fine to dispose of unused human eggs. It's not fine to dispose of fertilized eggs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.