Dick Cheney Was Right

[Onceler]

"If the child is within its mother, then I will save them both. If the child is on its own because its liberal mom left it there because it was inconvenient to save it, then I will save the baby. I would also try to save the 500 as well. Because no matter how many games you idiots play, nothing will change the fact that they are still human."

This is fascinating. You don't really have an answer.

I'm sure you understand the reason for the question. The answer can't be, "Well, I'd save the baby, and then do everything I can to save the 500 embryos." There is a clear delineation there.

You understand the difference; I have no doubt of that. You just realize how much it undermines everything else you have stated on this thread.

 

[Damocles]

"If the child is within its mother, then I will save them both. If the child is on its own because its liberal mom left it there because it was inconvenient to save it, then I will save the baby. I would also try to save the 500 as well. Because no matter how many games you idiots play, nothing will change the fact that they are still human."

This is fascinating. You don't really have an answer.

I'm sure you understand the reason for the question. The answer can't be, "Well, I'd save the baby, and then do everything I can to save the 500 embryos." There is a clear delineation there.

You understand the difference; I have no doubt of that. You just realize how much it undermines everything else you have stated on this thread.

Except it doesn't, because his answer took reality into question. If there were a certainty that the 500 would be allowed to continue through the stages of life then he'd save the 500, but reality dictates that the only way to save any of them is to save the 1, because in reality all 501 will die if you "saved" the zygotes.

Again, the scenario is problematic and causes these types of misconceptions about ideation, because people talk back and forth mixing reality with the magical.

 

[Onceler]

Except it doesn't, because his answer took reality into question. If there were a certainty that the 500 would be allowed to continue through the stages of life then he'd save the 500, but reality dictates that the only way to save any of them is to save the 1, because in reality all 501 will die if you "saved" the zygotes.

Don't be so intentionally dense. You clearly understand the intent of the question.

Let's change it: there are 2 detonators within 100 yards of each other. One goes to exposives that will demolish a building with one baby, and one is tied to a building that has 500 embryos. You only have time to get to one and defuse it; which do you go for?

If that isn't realistic enough, I can think of about 1,000 others. I think you get the point.

 

[Damocles]

Don't be so intentionally dense. You clearly understand the intent of the question.

Let's change it: there are 2 detonators within 100 yards of each other. One goes to exposives that will demolish a building with one baby, and one is tied to a building that has 500 embryos. You only have time to get to one and defuse it; which do you go for?

If that isn't realistic enough, I can think of about 1,000 others. I think you get the point.

Again, if the 500 were guaranteed to be allowed to live rather than killed for convenience or "study" then I'd save the 500 and agonize about the 1. As it is, in reality, the 500 are unlikely to survive even without a bomb. I agonize about them regardless.

 

[Topspin]

these rightwingers are the christian version of the Taliban.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"If the child is within its mother, then I will save them both. If the child is on its own because its liberal mom left it there because it was inconvenient to save it, then I will save the baby. I would also try to save the 500 as well. Because no matter how many games you idiots play, nothing will change the fact that they are still human."

This is fascinating. You don't really have an answer.

I'm sure you understand the reason for the question. The answer can't be, "Well, I'd save the baby, and then do everything I can to save the 500 embryos." There is a clear delineation there.

You understand the difference; I have no doubt of that. You just realize how much it undermines everything else you have stated on this thread.

Again you fucking moron, it does not undermine one thing. Asking to choose between the lives does not dehumanize the one or ones that you choose not to save. If I choose the 500, does it dehumanize the baby? No it doesnt. Nor does it dehumanize the 500 to save the one.

You continue to try and create these scenarios where you think you can dehumanize a child to justify killing it. Keep at it. Nothing will change that they are unique human lives. Nothing. The fact that the artificially created ones will likely die does not change the fact that they are human.

 

[Onceler]

Again you fucking moron, it does not undermine one thing. Asking to choose between the lives does not dehumanize the one or ones that you choose not to save. If I choose the 500, does it dehumanize the baby? No it doesnt. Nor does it dehumanize the 500 to save the one.

You continue to try and create these scenarios where you think you can dehumanize a child to justify killing it. Keep at it. Nothing will change that they are unique human lives. Nothing. The fact that the artificially created ones will likely die does not change the fact that they are human.

Look, the question clearly makes you uncomfortable; you can't give it a straight answer, because you know exactly what you would do in the scenario. You would save the baby, period.

A zygote is not a 4-year-old, and it is not a baby. On some level, you understand this, which is why you refuse to give a straight answer. There is merit to the viability argument.

 

[Cancel7]

It's interesting all of this overwrought testimonial about how anguished certain people would be if they couldn't "save" 500 zygotes.

What a country we might live in if those same people, and the organized anti-choice movement, were to agonize over the high infant mortality rate in the United States. You know, a little of that anguish to spare for the living might drastically lower the infant mortality rate in this country.

I'd like to live in that country.

Instead I live in one where the infant mortality rate goes largely unnoticed, unmentioned, and unlamented, while a bunch of idiots wring their hands about fucking zygotes.

"Most peculiar mama".

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Look, the question clearly makes you uncomfortable; you can't give it a straight answer, because you know exactly what you would do in the scenario. You would save the baby, period.

A zygote is not a 4-year-old, and it is not a baby. On some level, you understand this, which is why you refuse to give a straight answer. There is merit to the viability argument.

""If the child is within its mother, then I will save them both. If the child is on its own because its liberal mom left it there because it was inconvenient to save it, then I will save the baby. I would also try to save the 500 as well. Because no matter how many games you idiots play, nothing will change the fact that they are still human."

How is that not a straight answer moron? It tells you exactly the order I would attempt to save them in.

Yes, a zygote is not a 4 year old, a 4 year old is not teenager, a teenager is not an adult. I am glad you understand such complex issues.

No matter how hard you try, even in your little staged scenario, NOTHING will change the fact that it is a human child. NOTHING. Yes, we are going to be more emotionally attached to a child we can see vs. a child that is frozen in a dish.

if anything you have demonstrated why it is we should not be artificially creating life. Because in the case of a fire there is no way they can survive (other than in your fantasy gotcha scenario). They cannot survive on their own, there would be no way to keep them frozen. They would die.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's interesting all of this overwrought testimonial about how anguished certain people would be if they couldn't "save" 500 zygotes.

What a country we might live in if those same people, and the organized anti-choice movement, were to agonize over the high infant mortality rate in the United States. You know, a little of that anguish to spare for the living might drastically lower the infant mortality rate in this country.

I'd like to live in that country.

Instead I live in one where the infant mortality rate goes largely unnoticed, unmentioned, and unlamented, while a bunch of idiots wring their hands about fucking zygotes.

"Most peculiar mama".

This is such a bullshit comment. Why do you pretend that those who wish to protect the childs life and are in anguish when they die are somehow uncaring when it comes to high infant mortality rates?

Yes, in the US we bring more children to full term in the attempt to save them. That increases our 'official' infant mortality rates compared to other countries that simply kill the kid early enough for it not to 'count'.

 

[Onceler]

"If the child is on its own because its liberal mom left it there because it was inconvenient to save it, then I will save the baby. I would also try to save the 500 as well."

You would choose one baby over 500 embryos. Because you know that an embryo is not a person in the same way that a person is.

 

[Socrtease]

Very interesting information on Human Embryo Cryopreservation.

http://www.ivf.com/cryoperm.html

BACKGROUND
In the course of an IVF treatment cycle, more viable embryos may be produced than are desired for embryo transfer in that same cycle. If so, these "excess" embryos can be preserved by freezing and stored for future use. In addition, there are conditions under which the physician managing your treatment will recommend that all embryos be frozen and that no embryo replacement be performed during your IVF treatment cycle. One such reason for this recommendation would be if the patient were at high risk for hyperstimulation syndrome at the time of your oocyte retrieval. Hyperstimulation syndrome is exacerbated by pregnancy and is easier to manage if the patient is not pregnant. In this situation, all viable embryos will be frozen and the replacement of thawed embryos will be performed only after the patient has recovered from the hyperstimulation.

Embryos may be frozen immediately after fertilization at the pronuclear stage, during early cleavage (2 to 8 cell stage) and after 5 to 7 days of culture at the blastocyst stage. If the patient and spouse consent to cryopreservation, the stage at which any embryos are frozen will be determined by laboratory personnel in conjunction with the physician managing your treatment.

The embryos will be stored in the frozen condition until the patient and spouse request their use and the physician responsible for your care determines that appropriate conditions exist in the patient for transfer of the embryos into the patient's uterus. At that time, some or all of the embryos will be thawed. Each embryo will be examined to determine whether it is potentially viable, and if so, the transfer into the patient's uterus will occur.

The pregnancy success rate with frozen embryos transferred into the human uterus is approximately the same as with non-frozen embryos. However, some embryos do not survive the freezing process. Potential benefits of embryo freezing are an increased opportunity of achieving a pregnancy without undergoing multiple egg retrievals, a reduced risk of a multiple pregnancy (twins or more) by reducing the number of embryos transferred during the IVF treatment cycle, and better management of complications associated with the IVF treatment cycle such as hyperstimulation as described above.

RISKS AND LIMITATIONS

* Establishing an IVF pregnancy using frozen thawed embryos cannot be guaranteed for any woman.
* Some or all embryos may not survive freezing and thawing.
* Additional expenses are associated with the use of embryo freezing.
* Embryo freezing has been successfully used in animals with no known adverse results. There is, however, relatively limited experience with human embryos. Although no increased rate of birth defects have been reported from the relatively limited number of births from frozen human embryos, the risks associated with human embryo freezing, thawing and transfer are not well established at present.
* Failure of storage containers can result in the loss of liquid nitrogen and damage or kill all of the embryos. Embryos are stored in industry standard cryo storage tanks, that are monitored regularly for liquid nitrogen level and maintained at greater than 75% of their capacity. Also the tanks are monitored by an alarm system that will signal laboratory personnel should liquid nitrogen levels become dangerously low. Even so, there is the potential that a tank might fail due to a spontaneous loss of vacuum or rupture of the vessel. Also disasters such as fires and storms as well criminal acts could damage the building housing the tanks and/or the tanks themselves. Any such event could result in the loss of the specimens.
* You must agree to and accept future disposal of any remaining unused frozen embryos. You must determine prior to your IVF cycle whether you will in the future consider donating your remaining frozen embryos to a known couple or to GRS to offer to another couple for anonymous adoption or if you think there may be a need for a gestational carrier in the future in order to begin testing required by the FDA. I/We have been counseled by my/our physician on the FDA regulations and have had the opportunity to have all questions answered.

So my question to SF is this, KNOWING that some embryos do not survive the freezing process, should we then consider making IVF using frozen embryos against the law to keep the prospective parents and the medical staff from committing homicide?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"If the child is on its own because its liberal mom left it there because it was inconvenient to save it, then I will save the baby. I would also try to save the 500 as well."

You would choose one baby over 500 embryos. Because you know that an embryo is not a person in the same way that a person is.

No, because I know the one baby would survive. The 500 embryos would not. Not to mention the 500 are not inside of a woman growing and developing. So yes, if forced to choose, I would choose the one that is growing, developing and that could be assured of being saved.

Your bogus example does not create a magic fairy that takes away the humanity of the embryo.

 

[Onceler]

"No, because I know the one baby would survive. The 500 embryos would not."

No, no - the scenario is that the 500 embryos WOULD be saved.

Rightly, you would choose the baby, because you understand that embryos are not babies, even though you have referred to them as such, and as kids, and as people. If they were 500 babies, and they could be saved, it would be a no brainer for you: you would save the 500 over the 1.

You understand that there is a difference, though you will not admit to it openly. It's a big step for you, though.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Very interesting information on Human Embryo Cryopreservation.

http://www.ivf.com/cryoperm.html

BACKGROUND
In the course of an IVF treatment cycle, more viable embryos may be produced than are desired for embryo transfer in that same cycle. If so, these "excess" embryos can be preserved by freezing and stored for future use. In addition, there are conditions under which the physician managing your treatment will recommend that all embryos be frozen and that no embryo replacement be performed during your IVF treatment cycle. One such reason for this recommendation would be if the patient were at high risk for hyperstimulation syndrome at the time of your oocyte retrieval. Hyperstimulation syndrome is exacerbated by pregnancy and is easier to manage if the patient is not pregnant. In this situation, all viable embryos will be frozen and the replacement of thawed embryos will be performed only after the patient has recovered from the hyperstimulation.

Embryos may be frozen immediately after fertilization at the pronuclear stage, during early cleavage (2 to 8 cell stage) and after 5 to 7 days of culture at the blastocyst stage. If the patient and spouse consent to cryopreservation, the stage at which any embryos are frozen will be determined by laboratory personnel in conjunction with the physician managing your treatment.

The embryos will be stored in the frozen condition until the patient and spouse request their use and the physician responsible for your care determines that appropriate conditions exist in the patient for transfer of the embryos into the patient's uterus. At that time, some or all of the embryos will be thawed. Each embryo will be examined to determine whether it is potentially viable, and if so, the transfer into the patient's uterus will occur.

The pregnancy success rate with frozen embryos transferred into the human uterus is approximately the same as with non-frozen embryos. However, some embryos do not survive the freezing process. Potential benefits of embryo freezing are an increased opportunity of achieving a pregnancy without undergoing multiple egg retrievals, a reduced risk of a multiple pregnancy (twins or more) by reducing the number of embryos transferred during the IVF treatment cycle, and better management of complications associated with the IVF treatment cycle such as hyperstimulation as described above.

RISKS AND LIMITATIONS

* Establishing an IVF pregnancy using frozen thawed embryos cannot be guaranteed for any woman.
* Some or all embryos may not survive freezing and thawing.
* Additional expenses are associated with the use of embryo freezing.
* Embryo freezing has been successfully used in animals with no known adverse results. There is, however, relatively limited experience with human embryos. Although no increased rate of birth defects have been reported from the relatively limited number of births from frozen human embryos, the risks associated with human embryo freezing, thawing and transfer are not well established at present.
* Failure of storage containers can result in the loss of liquid nitrogen and damage or kill all of the embryos. Embryos are stored in industry standard cryo storage tanks, that are monitored regularly for liquid nitrogen level and maintained at greater than 75% of their capacity. Also the tanks are monitored by an alarm system that will signal laboratory personnel should liquid nitrogen levels become dangerously low. Even so, there is the potential that a tank might fail due to a spontaneous loss of vacuum or rupture of the vessel. Also disasters such as fires and storms as well criminal acts could damage the building housing the tanks and/or the tanks themselves. Any such event could result in the loss of the specimens.
* You must agree to and accept future disposal of any remaining unused frozen embryos. You must determine prior to your IVF cycle whether you will in the future consider donating your remaining frozen embryos to a known couple or to GRS to offer to another couple for anonymous adoption or if you think there may be a need for a gestational carrier in the future in order to begin testing required by the FDA. I/We have been counseled by my/our physician on the FDA regulations and have had the opportunity to have all questions answered.

So my question to SF is this, KNOWING that some embryos do not survive the freezing process, should we then consider making IVF using frozen embryos against the law to keep the prospective parents and the medical staff from committing homicide?

If they are deliberately creating embryos to destroy them, then yes, that should be illegal. If they create them and try to keep them viable, then I it is the same as an egg being fertilized and not implanting. It dies.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"No, because I know the one baby would survive. The 500 embryos would not."

No, no - the scenario is that the 500 embryos WOULD be saved.

Rightly, you would choose the baby, because you understand that embryos are not babies, even though you have referred to them as such, and as kids, and as people. If they were 500 babies, and they could be saved, it would be a no brainer for you: you would save the 500 over the 1.

You understand that there is a difference, though you will not admit to it openly. It's a big step for you, though.

Yes, again, in your magical world they would survive. In your magical world, the embryos have had their humanity taken away by the magic baby fairy. In your magical world the magic baby fairy makes the child human again when it is born. Lots of things happen in your magical world that do not exist in reality.

Again, do what you have to to dehumanize the child so that you can sleep better when someone scrambles its brains or severes its limbs. Hitler did it. So can you.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, again, in your magical world they would survive. In your magical world, the embryos have had their humanity taken away by the magic baby fairy. In your magical world the magic baby fairy makes the child human again when it is born. Lots of things happen in your magical world that do not exist in reality.

Again, do what you have to to dehumanize the child so that you can sleep better when someone scrambles its brains or severes its limbs. Hitler did it. So can you.

See? You can't confront it. You have to fact-check the scenario. I gave a different one to Damo before, and I could come up with 1,000 others if you'd like. You try to distract by dissecting irrelevant information from the scenario presented, when you know full well what the question is.

It's extremely telling. You've been exposed on this thread - badly.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

See? You can't confront it. You have to fact-check the scenario. I gave a different one to Damo before, and I could come up with 1,000 others if you'd like. You try to distract by dissecting irrelevant information from the scenario presented, when you know full well what the question is.

It's extremely telling. You've been exposed on this thread - badly.

Well, since we are playing that fantasy scenarios that will never happen should be treated in a realistic manner, then I shall swoop in cape flapping behind me, put the fire out with a single breath and rescue the 500, the baby and the cute nurse who was also trapped that you ignored. Then I will hunt down the liberal mother who so abandoned her child and make her write 10000 times on a blackboard.... 'I shall not ever again selfishly put my life ahead of my childs for the sake of convenience'.

See, I can create fantasy scenarios too.... so go ahead and deal with that.

You can make believe all you wish, but in reality you know your scenario will NEVER happen. So do tell us all again who is trying to duck the issue.

you are scared because you realize that an abortion is indeed ending a human life. So rather than admit that, you run off creating little fantasy scenarios in an attempt to again try to justify your dehumanization of the child and its subsequent murder. You then turn from abortions and try to talk about how mankind is able to artificially inseminate eggs, creating life and that in the process a lot of them will die so that somehow means the fertilized eggs/embryos/zygotes/children are not really human after all.

 

[Onceler]

"You can make believe all you wish, but in reality you know your scenario will NEVER happen. So do tell us all again who is trying to duck the issue."

Clearly, you are. The point is not to create a scenario in "reality." The point is to create a scenario that forces you, or anyone, to consider the differences between an embryo and baby.

You have stated that you would save the baby first. You understand that there is a difference. If there was no difference, and embryos really were babies, you'd save 500 before 1.

The issue has become too politicized for you. You have dug your heels in so often on "zygote = baby = 4-year-old" that you can't back off it, even when confronted with a very obvious choice that clearly makes you reconsider your estimations of what the differences are between a zygote and baby.

This is also why many pro-lifers reject viability. They think it's too arbitrary, and can't confront the complexity of it, so it HAS to become a very rigid definiton based on the 1st merging of sperm and egg, with no differentiation thereafter. It's not logical, as you have proven.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"You can make believe all you wish, but in reality you know your scenario will NEVER happen. So do tell us all again who is trying to duck the issue."

Clearly, you are. The point is not to create a scenario in "reality." The point is to create a scenario that forces you, or anyone, to consider the differences between an embryo and baby.

You have stated that you would save the baby first. You understand that there is a difference. If there was no difference, and embryos really were babies, you'd save 500 before 1.

The issue has become too politicized for you. You have dug your heels in so often on "zygote = baby = 4-year-old" that you can't back off it, even when confronted with a very obvious choice that clearly makes you reconsider your estimations of what the differences are between a zygote and baby.

This is also why many pro-lifers reject viability. They think it's too arbitrary, and can't confront the complexity of it, so it HAS to become a very rigid definiton based on the 1st merging of sperm and egg, with no differentiation thereafter. It's not logical, as you have proven.

There are differences between a new-born and a unborn child. Congrats! you have discovered something no one else knew. But the fact that you continue to ignore is that just because one will consider the viability of a child when forced to choose between saving one over another, that does not mean viability somehow determines whether a child is human or not.

The only one who is illogical is you, who create fantasy worlds devoid of reality and then expect others to make choices so that you can pretend that is what would realistically happen.

I have never said zygote or baby = 4 year old. Obviously they are at different developemental stages. But yes, their lives are worth the same to me. I know your tiny little mind will never grasp this fact because you have already dehumanized the unborn so that you can justify killling them. Once you have done that, nothing can be done or said to bring you back to reality.... because then you would have to own up to what you have allowed to occur.