Comments | stupid_free: #Every sperm is saaaacred....#

paraxeni in stupid_free

#Every sperm is saaaacred....#

Apr 12, 2007 18:08

Tiny but potentially mindblowing stupid at
( Read more... )

booju_newju

Comments 111

thetathx1138 April 12 2007, 17:51:10 UTC

...

Yeah. No.

edgyspice April 12 2007, 17:54:03 UTC

To me life begins at conception. Deal.

And there are people who disagree with you. Deal.

cash_or_credit April 12 2007, 17:58:24 UTC

While I also believe life begins with conception, I also understand that 5-year-old frozen embryos are not the same as 5-year-old living children. Destroying an embryo may present a moral/ethical dilemma, but I can't understand how she can equate a child with a frozen embryo. I might understand her point of view if we were talking about a fetus, but even still...

There's also this to consider: If the woman was able to use the embryos, she might have had to destroy the "leftovers", anyway. I certainly don't think (and I may be wrong) that a doctor would implant all 5-7 (or however many she had) embryos inside her at the same time. And if s/he did, and all 5-7 embryos took, in all likelihood, they'd have to terminate some of them, anyway, due to complications/risk. I don't think this situation could possibly have ended in a way that would satisfy staunch "life = conception" people.

smartypantsnyc April 12 2007, 18:07:51 UTC

I don't know the lab procedures for this, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did a run of a couple hundred fertilizations.

<3
R

teddybear115 April 12 2007, 18:48:19 UTC

Dr's doimplant 5+ eggs at a time. Not all are expected to stick however. Sometimes they all do hence we have the 8tuplets and the quintets (I cant spell) on Maury. The procedure is VERY expensive. and so the more eggs one puts in, the higher the likely hood that atleast ONE will stick. Sometimes two/three stick and thats *okay*, no one expects all 4+ eggs. How many the Dr' puts in is a discussion between the Dr and patient.

*excuse typing. I am on a broken keyboard*

rocza April 13 2007, 14:27:31 UTC

Not in the UK. (And not much longer in the US.)

Thread 6

jesheckahlynn April 12 2007, 18:05:14 UTC

Owww, that hurt.

smartypantsnyc April 12 2007, 18:10:55 UTC

LMAO. Yeah, that's the same as murdering children, sure.

What I want to know is, why would anyone want to have their EX-BOYFRIEND'S kids, anyway?

<3
R

ems April 12 2007, 18:14:14 UTC

She had cancer and lost her ovaries - the eggs were taken out and fertilized so they could be implanted in her after she recovered from cancer. So those eggs were her only chance to ever have biological children. I guess she could look past the ex-boyfriend part.

smartypantsnyc April 12 2007, 18:17:44 UTC

Oh, well I guess that does make some difference, then. But, nevertheless...that's some good stupid.

<3
R