Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    If Bush is so rattled about "fetal farming," he should ponder the how-did-they-get-here facts of all those "snowflake" kids he was fondling shamelessly yesterday for the cameras.

    Assuming that Nightlight's (the "snowflake" adoption agency) numbers (and my math) are correct:

    Of 1191 embryos thawed, 635 were viable for transfer -- that's 556 embryos gone, right off the bat.

    Of the 635 viable embryos, 118 babies were produced. That's another 517 embryos gone.

    By my calculations, 1,073 embryos have been destroyed in the process of making 118 babies. If one resolutely believes that life begins right at conception, ***how*** are these numbers justified? Again, if one believes that life starts at the moment of conception, isn't it possible that all those lost embryos could have remained frozen until thawing and implantation success rates have improved through the, ahem, advancement of medical research?
    http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakefaqsap.htm#Frozen
    Nightlight Christian Adoptions

    Frequently Asked Questions by Adopting Families

    FROZEN EMBRYO TRANSFER (FET)

    Revised 3.24.06
    <snip>
    What is the success rate for thawing and viability of embryos?
    1191 embryos have been thawed for transfer of which 635 were viable, therefore the overall thawing success rate of Snowflakes is 53.3%. However, the success rate for frozen embryo transfer varies by each clinic. The national average overall thaw success rate is 51%.

    -snip-

    What is the success rate of pregnancies among Snowflakes families who have had embryo transfers?
    To date, 146 families had completed 222 transfers resulting in 104 pregnancies.
    99 children have been born (71 families: 22 sets of twins, 3 sets of triplets and 5 siblings), and 15 more moms are due with 19 babies (4 sets of twins). Several recent transfers are awaiting pregnancy test results and more transfers are scheduled in the next few months.

    -snip-

    As for costs, a "snowflake" will run a family somewhere between $10,500 and $22,600:

    What would you estimate the entire cost for the adoption to be?
    For this program you have either two or three separate fees depending on where you live:

    If you live outside of Southern California:
    1. Our program fee of $5000
    2. Fees from the agency performing your homestudy, ranging from $1000-$2500
    3. The fertility clinic's fee for a frozen embryo transfer (FET), usually ranging from $2,000 and $7,500

    If you live in Southern California:
    1. Our program fee of $6600 (includes homestudy). A $1,600 credit is applied if you have already completed a homestudy with another agency.
    2. The fertility clinicís fee for a frozen embryo transfer (FET), usually ranging from $2,000 and $7,500

    What additional out-of-pocket expenses can we expect?
    Any lab work your clinic requires of the genetic family prior to the shipping of the embryos ($500-$1000), shipping embryos via Federal Ex.

    -snip-

    Does the program fee include medical expenses?
    No. You will need to pay the clinic of your choice to thaw and transfer the embryos. Since medical expenses vary by provider, we encourage you to research clinics in your area. We have heard recent quotes from $2,000-7,500 for an embryo transfer. This may or may not include any necessary medications needed to prepare the adoptive motherís body for the embryo transfer. Be sure you are comparing apples to apples with services included in a quote and the costs of subsequent transfers.

    -snip-
  2. #2  
    I got a question.

    What does W think happens to all the little spirits of all the frozen embryos across the United States? Do their little soul's get frozen too?
  3. #3  
    I think the comparison improperly merges two questions:

    1. What do we do with embryos already created?
    2. Should the Federal Government get involved in funding embryonic stem cell research?

    Some argue that the answer to question 2 should be "yes" given question 1 even exists. However, answering question 2 with "yes" means that the scenario that necessitates question 1 is perpetuated.
  4. #4  
    The situation that leads to question 1 will be perpetuated, regardless of the answer to question 2. Thousands of embryos are created, and destroyed, every year in fertility clinics all over this country. Whether they are used for stem cell research, or just flushed, doesn't change the fact that they are destroyed.

    And no one, not even the most ardent of the Christian right, are seriously proposing that we outlaw in-vitro fertilization techniques. The backlash would be overwhelming.

    I'd love to see how many of those apposed to abortion and fetal stem cell research have themselves taken advantage of in-vitro. They would be the ultimate hypocrits.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    The situation that leads to question 1 will be perpetuated, regardless of the answer to question 2. Thousands of embryos are created, and destroyed, every year in fertility clinics all over this country. Whether they are used for stem cell research, or just flushed, doesn't change the fact that they are destroyed.

    And no one, not even the most ardent of the Christian right, are seriously proposing that we outlaw in-vitro fertilization techniques. The backlash would be overwhelming.

    I'd love to see how many of those apposed to abortion and fetal stem cell research have themselves taken advantage of in-vitro. They would be the ultimate hypocrits.
    Indeed. Oversimplication on my part.

    I don't like the argument that "we should fund the research because the embryos are there any way"

    I do like the argument, "this research has the following potential with the following risks and here is the mitigation strategy for those risks"
  6. #6  
    You do bring up a good point, shop. It seems as though we, as a society, have reduced the value of an embryo with our views on in-vitro ferilization. We've said that one born child is greater in worth than five or six embryos. We have already institutionalized mass embryo production and wastage through our desire to have children. A sad irony.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #7  
    We're talking about funding, folks. Not whether or not research will continue.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #8  
    Some people would rather see IVF embryos get flushed down the toilet than actually be used to try to help people. Its as simple as that. Nancy Reagan knows it as well as I do and the majority of Americans.

    If you have a problem with IVF, go work on that. This bill does nothing to increase or decrease IVF, except in someone's vivid imagination.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Some people would rather see IVF embryos get flushed down the toilet than actually be used to try to help people. Its as simple as that.
    I don't think its that simple at all.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    We're talking about funding, folks. Not whether or not research will continue.
    What is the reason for vetoing this bill then?
  11. #11  
    For all the reasons that Bush (and his supporters) gave for vetoing this bill, he should immediately outlaw IVF.

    Anything else is hypocracy and political expediency.

    Are there ANY true "conservatives" who have advocated banning IVF? If so, I respect their views (but disagree with them).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  12. #12  
    Well, there have been no successful results from fetal research. There has been successful results from adult stem cells. Next, why should the government fund this? The federal government is not saying no to research, just that it is not going to fund it.

    With all the hype about fetal stem cell research, one over looks that the research indicates that fetal stem cells grow rapidly and are not easily controllable, giving results that are far from satisfactory for practical use. Not the safe with adult stem cells.

    So, does anyone have any sites we can visit that show actual results? or from what I have seen, the sites say .... this will... and that is a big difference there.

    Ben
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #13  
    A note: Treo sighting at Bush's signing ceremony.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    What is the reason for vetoing this bill then?
    How wonderful it would be if the rationale was fiscal responsibility. The rhetoric, though, suggests it is a "moral" decision.

    I share the moral stance. I agree that the stance applies to IVF (despite having dear friends who have sought child-birth through such).

    However, I think the stronger stance is that the dollars could be bettr invested elsewhere. Certainly, there is enough private money available for various causes. If the private industry hasn't ponied up, that is a least a suggestion that the body of research currently is not perceived as being promising.

    Granted, "promising" to the private sector is code for "profitable." But, then that is telling as well, because, if the current state showed as much medicinal promise as touted potential, the profitability would not be hard to ascertain.
  15. #15  
    Doesn't this logic apply to all NIH grants? Should the Govt. get out of funding all healthcare research?

    That would be a bad thing, IMO.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16. #16  
    NRG, do you sit around "Bush bashing" all day long?
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Granted, "promising" to the private sector is code for "profitable." But, then that is telling as well, because, if the current state showed as much medicinal promise as touted potential, the profitability would not be hard to ascertain.
    There is more money in treatment, than there is in a cure.
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by bigthrust
    NRG, do you sit around "Bush bashing" all day long?
    Is his stance on this issue not hypocritical, or at a minimum, very flawed in logical reasoning?
  19. #19  
    I do ALS research using stem cells obtained from 23-25 year old embryos which died from pulmonary development failure/complications. These cells were taken from the brain and are INCREDIBLY useful for the research I conduct, and from what you write you seem to be writing off the myriad uses that such cells may provide. The field of stem cell research is relatively young which is why there is so much hope and potential in the minds of scientists who favor SC funding. It may not be a magic bullet but stem cells are an increasingly useful and powerful tool. If you want more info I have sources I can provide you with, but first start with "Isolation and Characterization of Neural Progenitor Cells from Post-Mortem Human Cortex" by Schwarz et al. (J. Neuro Res): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum


    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Well, there have been no successful results from fetal research. There has been successful results from adult stem cells. Next, why should the government fund this? The federal government is not saying no to research, just that it is not going to fund it.

    With all the hype about fetal stem cell research, one over looks that the research indicates that fetal stem cells grow rapidly and are not easily controllable, giving results that are far from satisfactory for practical use. Not the safe with adult stem cells.

    So, does anyone have any sites we can visit that show actual results? or from what I have seen, the sites say .... this will... and that is a big difference there.

    Ben
  20. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I share the moral stance. I agree that the stance applies to IVF (despite having dear friends who have sought child-birth through such).
    Im not sure I understand, are you suggesting IVF be made illegal? I know so many people that have had babies through IVF where they would not be able to because of fertility problems. What right does any politician have telling these people they cant have families?
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions