You did not consider any of these possibilities? //

Yes I did, and why it would take 5 more seconds to decide the same thing. Not quite thought provoking, but certainly more time consuming to read through them..But you are getting closer and closer, keep em coming. I have had a lot of F&^k, Marry, kill scenarios that provoked more thought than this one... (-;


Hilary Clinton
Janet Reno
Maxine Waters


Here you go, what you got? Bet this causes all kind of provoking thoughts in your brain right now...(-;

No different outcome in your hypothetical. Live persons take priority over embryos in just about every scenario you can dream up (a person with a terminal condition or otherwise catastrophic affliction adds an important variable to consider). But I take your point, and yes, If I forced to choose which person I had to save, the very young would take priority over the very old, as would a younger child over an infant or newborn.

Well aware of that. It's an assumption I would make, and not really an essential distinction, though meaningful.



My firstborn son was conceived and spent three months as a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic as well. Were it not for that pregnancy it's likely that my second born wouldn't exist, either. It doesn't change the calculation one bit. I'd let every last one of our embryos perish if it meant I could save one actual person.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Easy one. I turn the gun on myself.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Agree 100%

Dog.

I agree it's not a gotcha moment. Abortion supporters attempting to make pro life'ers look like hypocrites while ignoring the nuances of the scenario. Failing to differentiate between a naturally occurring pregnancy and doctors fertilizing eggs outside of the human body is foolish. IVF, and the treatment of embryos presents a complex moral issue for many people.

I think it is immoral for doctors to take the shotgun approach where they fertilize a lot of eggs, implant some into a woman and then "selectively reduce" the embryos that are growing. Doctors have made light of the issue and people want a biological child so badly that they rarely stop and question the moral implications.

Doctors have made light of the issue and people want a biological child so badly that they rarely stop and question the moral implications. //

I think people think about the moral implications, but you forgot to mention the financial ones that go along with this type of treatment. I have had 3 friends go through this and it is very expensive for a working couple that fall into ordinary circumstances. One couple had 3 failures before success, another 2, and one got lucky on the first go round. All of them opted for more fertilized eggs rather than one, because it just becomes a numbers game in success and failure at that point. You have to figure out how many times can you do this thing before you go broke and have to quit at one egg per. So if finances are backing you into a corner, then most will go with higher odds, culling once they have a good chance at viability.


All of the couples are happy parents, two of them to twins. I talk to them about this and there is no focus whatsoever on the culled eggs, just the faces that are in front of them now..

My wife and I miscarried twice and we have several friends that struggled with infertility. I can empathize with their position and understand why people take that approach. However, I really struggle with the moral implications and I do not think they should be overlooked because of the cost of the procedures. Many clinics allow you to put your embryos up for adaption, but I don't think I could handle wondering if I had a child out in the world being raised by someone else.

No dilemma for me, but there are some crazy animal people out there. I was curious where these yahoos would draw the line on what is "life".

In the first scenario, the child lives. In the second the child dies, that train could be carrying ten 5 year old children or worse 5 pregnant mothers.

 I really struggle with the moral implications //

Fine, that is you. But are you presuming that everyone should feel as you do and act accordingly? Is it you assertion that people that play the numbers game are wrong to do so? Or not have the right to do so?? I give you your right to struggle with your moral implications of these situations and do what you feel best under out laws, do you wish others the same courtesy?

I re-read my posts and I think it's very clear that they are expressing my opinions and beliefs. Do you feel that you are very open to opposing beliefs? Lastly, not everything that is lawful is moral.

Do you feel that you are very open to opposing beliefs? Lastly, not everything that is lawful is moral. //

On this topic, absolutely. But that really is the problem isn't it, one side wants their to be a choice for everyone, the other wants to dictate that choice to those that dont necessarily agree with their positions. So my side is absolutely in favor of others choosing their paths and using their morality/religious beliefs as their guide. Do you believe the other side has the same feelings towards the folks that don't agree with them?


And most morals that fall on sides of the law are usually open to interpretation, thus the reason for the law in the first place...

So there we have it. 1000 embryos > JSA. QED.

Yup and Drs definitely push you to toss your morals aside in favour of finances. It isn’t right.

However I certainly understand why people choose to go that route.

We didn’t but we aren’t ‘normal’.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Yup and Drs definitely push you to toss your morals aside in favour of finances. It isn’t right.

However I certainly understand why people choose to go that route. //

Or is it that they are just giving people the information and a choice in spite of their morals? What wouldn't be right in my mind is to knowingly put in one egg at a time, figuring that they could get 3,4, or more paychecks out of this vulnerable couple, using a moral argument to push them that way. I would hope that finances and morals are part of the discussion, then the ultimate choice are the couples to make.


And neither decision would be considered wrong..

Having been through it here’s how it goes...

They give you the information. I have no issue there. You tell them that you only want to fertilize two eggs not all four. They question you and point out the cost factor.

You insist. They question you further and tell you that nobody does this.

You insist. They remind you of how much money you are wasting.

You tell them that your morals have no price. They make you sign a waiver for this nonsensical behaviour.

So yeah, it’s no wonder that for most, morals go out the window under that kind of pressure.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Been through several rounds of IVF, two ectopics (not me personally obviously), failed surrogacy. Not once did a doc push anything on us.

Now have a happy, healthy 2yo adopted daughter and couldn't be happier.

---

_______________________________________________

Did you tell the Dr. not to freeze any extra embryos?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

We froze all extras and attempted to use each and every one.

---

_______________________________________________