Posted on 11/08/2011 9:26:42 AM PST by surroundedbyblue
In the Carpenter home, every meal begins with a prayer. Robin and his wife, Emily, are devout Christians. But they part ways with many other Christians over a measure that would expand the legal definition of human life.
Their son, Luke, now 4 years old, was born through in vitro fertilization.
The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law.
"I don't really want or need anybody else getting involved in trying to limit how that works for us, or stopping it," said Robin Carpenter. "We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No, “conception” and “implantation” are two different concepts. “Implantation” takes place several days after conception. Conception is still and will always be the moment the egg and sperm meet.
“This means that our souls enter our bodies at conception.”
I am a Protestant but I thoroughly agree with that sentence.
Agree in full.
So, then, when is that?
I understand that. The vast majority of people understand that conception & fertilization are one and same. Historically it has always been so. However, the word conception as a “medical” term was somewhat redefined by gynecological organizations during arguments for the legalization of contraception. This is the splitting of hairs so loved by the pro-abort crowd — does life begin at “fertilization” or “conception”, i.e. when the fertilized egg implants. It also allows “Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi to claim some kind of debate in the Church over the morality of abortion.
Agreed. The whole “snowflake kids” concept brings out one of the major ethical problems with ivf. It also seems to turn children into commodities rather than human beings.
It is when things get applied to us personally that the rubber hits the road.
If we believe that human life begins at conception, we should not be doing in vitro stuff, even if we desperately want kids - at least at this juncture, because, as I understand it, many people in the embryonic stage of development are killed or frozen during the procedure.
Yes, even if it means never getting to be pregnant. It is a bit of a sacrifice.
I personally believe that couples who can’t get pregnant and desire children are being providentially called to adopt. I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it. There are children out there who need parents.
People are against abortion until their daughter gets pregnant, they have a baby in the womb with a defect, or they want in vitro with all of its negatives. Then, they get iffy.
Just like we tend to be against welfare until we qualify, hard on criminals until someone we love gets in trouble, etc.
It is all hypocrisy, and we need to call it out.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If you go to Satan for directions, can you not expect a roadmap to hell?
That’s CNN for you.
In the process of in vitro fertilization, more than one egg can become fertilized when sperm is introduced. If person is defined as the time of fertilization, then the process of in vitro fertilization creates more than one person.
If one fertilized egg (person) is implanted into a woman's uterus, what becomes of the other fertilized eggs (persons)?
The law would limit, if not prohibit, this approach to fertility.
Actually, I think that in current medical terminology, conception is what you refer to as implantation.
What you refer to as conception is now considered fertilization.
Obviously provided to imply that 'real' devout Christians should be against Mississippi's amendment.
“I personally believe that couples who can’t get pregnant and desire children are being providentially called to adopt. I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it. There are children out there who need parents.”
ITA. I was in a work situation a few years ago where a lesbian manager and her “wife” were “having” an ivf child. I was really annoyed by the pressure they put on us to think this was “wonderful”. I wanted to say “I don’t approve of 2 women purposely bring a child into this world who didn’t ask to be born in this situation to begin with and deliberately depriving him of his father on purpose. If you truly believe you are lesbians, then maybe that’s a sign not to reproduce in the first place since human reproduction can only happen heterosexually.” But of course, I would’ve been fired immediately for stating an obvious truth.
Agreed. And they also imply all who are for the personhood amendment are “heartless brutes”.
A distinction without a difference.
Fertilization = conception
No. Currently it goes like this: Fertilization is the sperm meeting egg. This fertilized egg then implants and *voila* the woman “conceives.” Thus begin all the arguments regarding ensoulment/personhood with which the pro-abort crowd likes to distract.
I thought that’s what I said, but who knows...
“a lesbian manager and her “wife” were “having” an ivf child.”
It does put us in a weird response mode. The child him or herself is a wonderful thing and should be celebrated. But the whole structure around him or her is so violently wrong it is hard to know how to respond.
If an IUD kills a "fertilized egg", that's abortion, not "birth control". Life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg and fertilizes, that's conception. "Morning after" "birth control" is the same thing - abortion, not birth control at all.
Thanks for the ping.
I asked my pastor for advice about this. When she brought the child to work, all I said was he was very cute. I said nothing about the “two moms” or about their wisdom(or rather, lack thereof) in bringing him about. I told my pastor I figure I was reacting in the same way I would if Abraham and Sarah brought Ishmael to work. Be kind to the child(who is ultimately God’s creation regardless of how he got here) but gave no approval to the means of his conception.
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.