I guess I have to be the first to ask!
PICTURES!!!
Um, okay.
Posted on 11/01/2005 1:53:27 PM PST by Coleus
Los Angeles, California (AHN) - Brooke Shields, who has currently been criticized by fellow Hollywood actor Tom Cruise for using anti-depressants after her first birth, is pregnant again. She is expecting a child with a screenwriter husband Chris Henchy.
The news follows the announcement from three weeks ago that Katie Holmes is also expecting a child with Scientologist Tom Cruise. Cruise has recently been on a media debate over postpartum depression therapies.
In an interview, the actor expressed his dismay towards Shields for using drugs to remedy the depression she felt after giving birth to her first child. With the help of Scientology, Cruise recommends a healthy diet and exercise to fend off the baby blues.
Shields lashed out back at Cruise, stating that he has no first-hand knowledge of what it feels like to suffer from postpartum depression.
Shields, 40, wed Henchly in 2001, and their daughter Rowan, was born in 2003. The actress is currently wrapping up her Broadway run of Chicago this week.
Brooke Shields Follows Celine Dion With Second Baby
By Terry Venderhaven
HOLLYWOOD, October 31, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Movie star Brooke Shields is pregnant with her second child. She already has a daughter with her husband, TV writer Chris Henchy, conceived by in-vitro fertilization. Presumably this second child is also an IVF baby, although news sources did not reveal this information.
Shields wrote about her experience of severe depression following the birth of Rowan Francis in 2003 in her book Down Came the Rain: My Journey Through Postpartum Depression. Australian researchers revealed in August that women who conceive through IVF are four times more likely to suffer from post-partum depression and early parenting difficulties as compared to women who conceive naturally.
IVF creates children outside of the loving union of a man and a woman. Furthermore, the lives of the embryonic children conceived by the IVF procedure are under severe threat since the latest statistics have revealed that over 85% of embryos transferred in the procedure die in the process. With over a million children having been born via IVF, that would amount to nearly six million embryonic children killed with the procedure.
See LifeSiteNews.com coverage of the loss of life and medical risks of IVF:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/invitro/
Study: IVF Mothers More Prone to Postpartum Depression and Early Parenting Difficulties
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05082504.html
Tommy Scientologist has cruised past his 15 minutes.
I agree with you. There are many wonderful people who were blessed with childrent through IVF. Like anything there are those who abuse the procedure, but there are so many who have truly benefitted by IVF.
Yeah, and some people accidentally get killed in traffic, while others are deliberately pushed in front of a bus.
SD
How is placing an embryo into the uterus the equivalent of pushing someone in front of a bus?
I guess I have to be the first to ask!
PICTURES!!!
Um, okay.
"not the children flushed down the toilet or frozen indefinitely in gulags or those used in human experiments for embryonic stem cell research."
This is exactly the kind of thing a DU troll would post, to make it seem like pro-life FReepers are extremists that shouldn't be taken seriously. "Gulags," give us a break. You can't be serious.
"there are so many who have truly benefitted by IVF."
Well, of course. Not only have the parents been blessed, so have the children who were born into a family that truly wanted them. Wanted so much so, that many thousands of dollars were spent just to bring them into the world.
and what exactly happens to these embryos if you knwo it all?
Please educate yourself. You seem to know nothing on this subject.
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.
At the UCSF clinic, Dr. Marcelle Cedars took a look recently and counted about 3,300 embryos in storage, all cryopreserved in thin "straws," receptacles that resemble extra-long coffee-stirrers, in tanks of liquid nitrogen.
Critics of federally financed stem cell research maintain tax dollars should not be used for anything that results in deliberate destruction of an embryo. On the other side, people with diseases that might be treated using stem cells argue that research is a more noble use for unwanted embryos than the alternatives otherwise being offered.
http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html
Using a special catheter, the couple's pre-embryos will be passed through the vagina and into the uterus at the time the pre-embryos would normally have reached the uterus (2+ days after retrieval).
Do I need to tell you what happens to women every month? Or can you figure it out?Those embryos in the uterus go somewhere. In most cases the embryos don't implant on the uterine wall and pass. Me using the term "flushed down the toilet is less graphic", guess some people like you just can't figure things out for themselves.
She's beginning to look like she needs a solid meal.
"A Gulag for embryos. What would you call it?"
A cryogenic center? Maybe I was wrong to doubt your sincerity. It's just that the term gulag seems to be used to invoke emotion. As if the embryos are somehow suffering some kind of torture, like in a real gulag. Just plain facts and clinical terms would serve you better. I'm sure the embryos feel no pain and are incapable of knowing their plight. A fertilized egg isn't what I would call human being. No more than than eggs in the grocery store can be called chickens. No, I'm not equating chickens to people like some kind of PETA nut.
The crux of the argument hinges on whether or not life begins at conception. That's one of the true mysteries of the ages. Honest citizens, scientists, and clergy come down on both sides of the debate. Most people fall into the middle somewhere. They don't support late term abortions, nor do they think a lump of cells is a baby.
It is my humble opinion, that staking out an extreme position such as yours, does more to distract from (discredit) the pro-life movement than it does to help. Just like the radical pro-abortion folks who stridently support partial birth abortion.
Carry on as you will... :)
I agree with you. There have been other threads where these DU trolls hang out and gang up on anyone that disagrees with their Whahabbi world views. Be careful.
Some children would never have seen the light of day if it werent for IVF. This whole polemic strikes me as unseemly.
"I agree with you. There have been other threads where these DU trolls hang out and gang up on anyone that disagrees with their Whahabbi world views. Be careful."
Or maybe Eric Rudolf is posting from his prison cell?
Thanks, I think you've nailed it.
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.