• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women should be betting embryo transplants

Blue Donkey said:
Safety is of utmost importance to researchers when they try new ideas.
Click to expand...
Why did you answer with such a thing when Mas specifically asked you about genetic parents providing for them?
 
Lursa said:
Why did you answer with such a thing when Mas specifically asked you about genetic parents providing for them?
Click to expand...

I was explaining that stuff is thinking too far ahead. Study first, then worry about who pays for what.
 
Blue Donkey said:
I was explaining that stuff is thinking too far ahead. Study first, then worry about who pays for what.
Click to expand...
Which then brings it back to what does that have to do with the increase to the orphan/foster child population if such were to go into effect?

This was the original question:
Blue Donkey said:
How would this add to the number of orphans in foster care?
Click to expand...

You have strawmaned into issues of safety.


Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Well, I guess few other people would be interested in a study on embryo transplants.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Well, I guess few other people would be interested in a study on embryo transplants.
Click to expand...
You are conflating different things (and forgetting your quote feature again). The idea of being able to transplant a ZEF is a highly desirable one in and of itself. Essentially it would be adoption at the earliest of points, and allows a women who could otherwise not get pregnant, do so.

However, the issue of artificial wombs (AW) were also brought up, and automatically transferring ZEF's into them instead of terminating them, if no woman was wanting to take it at that time. Following that was a concern that doing so would result in an increase in the orphan population. You then asked how such would increase the orphan population. When told how that would work, you then take a side tangent into safety. Do you see where you went completely off point?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Blue Donkey said:
All this time infertile couples are going to fertility clinics for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, embryos are being aborted because other women decided they either don't want or can't take care of children.

Is there any reason embryonic transplants should not be attempted?

Edit: betting should be getting.
Click to expand...

It’s over thinking.

Abortion in all forms should be illegal and harshly punished and those who wait too long for children should adopt.

And also high schools should assist in a propaganda campaign discourages childless living
 
Blue Donkey said:
If fertility clinics did this kind of research, it would be so one woman would get a child who would otherwise be aborted very early. Are you calling the nine months of gestation foster care?
Click to expand...

An embryo is not a child. An abortion is not a tragedy that must be fretted over. And, women who can't bear children can still care for the existing ones.

To waste time, money and research facilities trying to indulge female narcissists and various Jesus freaks is the worst use of these resources. We, as a people, have bigger problems.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Abortion in all forms should be illegal and harshly punished and those who wait too long for children should adopt.
Click to expand...

Not sure if sarcasm or not.

But if not, are you saying that a procedure that transfers a ZEF live from one womb to another should be illegal?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
D_NATURED said:
An embryo is not a child. An abortion is not a tragedy that must be fretted over. And, women who can't bear children can still care for the existing ones.

To waste time, money and research facilities trying to indulge female narcissists and various Jesus freaks is the worst use of these resources. We, as a people, have bigger problems.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with researching into ZEF transplanting. If for no other reason, a mother who is in danger of miscarrying her offspring can then have it transplanted into a surrogate or an artificial womb, if that technology is up to snuff. Furthermore a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, but whose personal choices would make her not want an abortion, would now have an option to end her pregnancy without terminating the ZEF. Ultimately the woman still gets the choice of what procedure she goes through.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Blue Donkey said:
All this time infertile couples are going to fertility clinics for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, embryos are being aborted because other women decided they either don't want or can't take care of children.

Is there any reason embryonic transplants should not be attempted?

Edit: betting should be getting.
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding IVF technology and how it could apply.

In IVF, eggs are harvested. They are fertilized outside the womb - they look at these for viability and possibly even genetic issues. At this point they are implanted in the womb,

What you seem to be suggesting is an already pregnant woman have her embryo or fetus transferred to another womb in place of abortion.

Can you explain the procedure/technology that is available to easily and safely remove an embryo or fetus and implant it into a new womb?
 
year2late said:
I think you are misunderstanding IVF technology and how it could apply.

In IVF, eggs are harvested. They are fertilized outside the womb - they look at these for viability and possibly even genetic issues. At this point they are implanted in the womb,

What you seem to be suggesting is an already pregnant woman have her embryo or fetus transferred to another womb in place of abortion.

Can you explain the procedure/technology that is available to easily and safely remove an embryo or fetus and implant it into a new womb?
Click to expand...

Insert tube veginally through the cervix, collect the embryo, and transfer it to the mother's sister.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Insert tube veginally through the cervix, collect the embryo, and transfer it to the mother's sister.
Click to expand...

If it is that easy there should be an accepted procedure for it.

Explain how you get a tube large enough through the cervix to safely find a collect the embryo. Sounds like a major procedure that will be of considerable risk and expense to the pregnant woman.

But first and foremost show me this easy transfer and how it will be a replacement for abortion.

Also, why do you specifically state "to her mother's sister?"
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It’s over thinking.

Abortion in all forms should be illegal and harshly punished and those who wait too long for children should adopt.

And also high schools should assist in a propaganda campaign discourages childless living
Click to expand...

Thank God the lawmakers and constitution disagree.
 
year2late said:
If it is that easy there should be an accepted procedure for it.

Explain how you get a tube large enough through the cervix to safely find a collect the embryo. Sounds like a major procedure that will be of considerable risk and expense to the pregnant woman.

But first and foremost show me this easy transfer and how it will be a replacement for abortion.

Also, why do you specifically state "to her mother's sister?"
Click to expand...

Because for safety reasons the initial studies would have to be done on twins.
 
maquiscat said:
There is nothing wrong with researching into ZEF transplanting. If for no other reason, a mother who is in danger of miscarrying her offspring can then have it transplanted into a surrogate or an artificial womb, if that technology is up to snuff. Furthermore a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, but whose personal choices would make her not want an abortion, would now have an option to end her pregnancy without terminating the ZEF. Ultimately the woman still gets the choice of what procedure she goes through.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There IS something wrong with it. It's an act of vanity, not medical necessity. If the population becomes dangerously low, sure, let's figure out how to preserve every embryo. At this point, however, it's just an absurd exercise in human over consumption.

It would be better for our species to develop a way to electroshock the emotional need out of women than to learn how to make the infertile fertile. Some people, like the Duggars, for instance, are too selfish and wrapped up in their own entitlement to give a **** about the millions of existing, unwanted chidren. Bitches like Octo-mom and others have a mental illness that should disqualify them from parenthood. They should be ashamed to pollute the Earth with their DNA when so many existing children go through their lives unloved.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Because for safety reasons the initial studies would have to be done on twins.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There's no law keeping researchers from removing an embryo from a consenting woman and implanting it in another consenting woman. Or a test environment.

Why do they have to be twins again? Why not just several different embryos like with other research subjects?

and I'm still not clear on the safety issue. Explain?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It’s over thinking.

Abortion in all forms should be illegal and harshly punished and those who wait too long for children should adopt.

And also high schools should assist in a propaganda campaign discourages childless living
Click to expand...

I disagree. There should be an abortion machine in every 7-11 that operates for free. Furthermore, those who choose to be childless should get a tax incentive.

If the human population ever shrinks to an appropriate size to be sustainable, the machines will be unnecessary and life will again be precious. As it stands now, poor, ignorant women around the world have no life path outside motherhood. That's the biggest waste of life there is.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Because for safety reasons the initial studies would have to be done on twins.
Click to expand...

Why not write to the American College of OBGYN and see what they think about the safety and feasibility of your idea - as it relates to abortion replacement.
 
Lursa said:
Not at all. There's no law keeping researchers from removing an embryo from a consenting woman and implanting it in another consenting woman. Or a test environment.

Why do they have to be twins again? Why not just several different embryos like with other research subjects?

And I'm still not clear on the safety issue. Explain?
Click to expand...

Because if 100% of the donor's DNA and recipient's DNA match, there is a much lower chance of an autoimmune response.
 
year2late said:
Why not write to the American College of OBGYN and see what they think about the safety and feasibility of your idea - as it relates to abortion replacement.
Click to expand...

Because I am not a gynecologist, of course.
 
D_NATURED said:
I disagree. There should be an abortion machine in every 7-11 that operates for free. Furthermore, those who choose to be childless should get a tax incentive.

If the human population ever shrinks to an appropriate size to be sustainable, the machines will be unnecessary and life will again be precious. As it stands now, poor, ignorant women around the world have no life path outside motherhood. That's the biggest waste of life there is.
Click to expand...
You seem the type to be hoping the COVID virus is the next Black Plague

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

A lesson I was taught in seventh grade biology snd ninth grade health, that's what. A zygote splits so two embryos form out of the same fertilized owum.

Can you post an article without a paywall?
 
Blue Donkey said:
A lesson I was taught in seventh grade biology snd ninth grade health, that's what. A zygote splits so two embryos form out of the same fertilized owum.

Can you post an article without a paywall?
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read the article that shows that such is not the case? Highly similar, but not actually genetically identical

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Did you bother to read the article that shows that such is not the case? Highly similar, but not actually genetically identical.
Click to expand...

I can't read New York Times articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom