• 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:
Because if 100% of the donor's DNA and recipient's DNA match, there is a much lower chance of an autoimmune response.
Click to expand...

They're embryos already being sacrificed to research. We can learn more about such autoimmune responses and tolerances by testing the success of the implantations, etc.

Your point is exceedingly specific and seems barely relevant. How would you like to continue the discussion?
 
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...

Blue Donkey said:
Because I am not a gynecologist, of course.
Click to expand...
Perhaps find one and they can tell you why this would not be a great option for most pregnant women - even if it existed as a real procedure.
6omen who choose abortion are too rich barely making ends meet. They are under resourced and may be too rich for Medicaid and too poor for self pay. Losing a day of work can mean eviction. If such a procedure existed, think what it would REALLY take to remove that embryo or fetus.

First think of woman first finds out she is pregnant. Is it the day after conception? Or perhaps closer to 6 weeks? Then she has time to make decisions and consider her resources.
Soon enough you are probably transferring a fetus, not an embryo. Then ask yourself....what will it really take to remove an intact an unharmed fetus and placenta? How large of an instrument do you think could be placed through a woman's cervix in order to complete the procedure? Does that sound like a procedure that would come with minimal risks for the pregnant woman? And keep in mind the "implantee". Sounds like it would make the cost of IVF look trivial. IVF already is cost prohibitive to many (most?) infertile couples that lack insurance to cover all the cycles. Now they likely would have to shoulder the huge cost of the healthcare of the donor. Sounds like, even if it is a possible procedure....it is a procedure for rich well connected people - who likely would rather go through IVF.
 
Blue Donkey said:
I can't read New York Times articles.
Click to expand...
I see you did an edit after I posted, or while. I won't pay it either, but you can usually see a teaser of the beginning of the article.

But according to new research, though identical twins share very similar genes, identical they are not. The discovery opens a new understanding of why two people who hail from the same embryo can differ in phenotype, as biologists refer to a person’s physical manifestation.
Click to expand...

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...

Aborting an embryo is not deciding to not care for her children, for god's sake. :roll:
 
Lursa said:
As long as the women that produce the embryos offer them completely of their own volition and consent, I dont care.

And that once the embryo is implanted in another person, then the bio-mother should have zero legal rights to that embryo or later stages, unborn or born.

Dont feel like addressing the technical aspects.
Click to expand...

I bet the new non-bio parents would still go after the bio dad for Child Support though...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I bet the new non-bio parents would still go after the bio dad for Child Support though...
Click to expand...

Dont start....you've been playing so nicely with others recently.
 
maquiscat said:
You seem the type to be hoping the COVID virus is the next Black Plague

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

No, I reserve hope for the Longshot that humankind will wake up up and trade in their juvenile traditions of faith for a more mature future.

The plaguest are a given, only our future is a maybe.
 
D_NATURED said:
No, I reserve hope for the Longshot that humankind will wake up up and trade in their juvenile traditions of faith for a more mature future.

The plaguest are a given, only our future is a maybe.
Click to expand...
Atheist women might well like to experience pregnancy as well, so what does faith have to do with researching into ZEF transplanting?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Atheist women might well like to experience pregnancy as well, so what does faith have to do with researching into ZEF transplanting?

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

It's not the atheists subjugating women and wor king to undermine science.
 
D_NATURED said:
It's not the atheists subjugating women and wor king to undermine science.
Click to expand...
Strawman. What does that have to do with the validity of ZEF transplanting research?

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...

Because there's no good reason to do it, when we have in-vitro?
 
Tlrmln said:
Because there's no good reason to do it, when we have in-vitro?
Click to expand...
In vitro is great for creating a zygote from the parents. But what if one or both are sterile? Plus, if a couple is willing to adopt at this stage and experience pregnancy as well, why not? Options are good. To have the option of no longer being pregnant but not terminating the offspring might be a big draw to many women.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Strawman. What does that have to do with the validity of ZEF transplanting research?
Click to expand...

That comment was a correction of which religious group would oppose embryo transplants. Obviously it is Catholics. The reason for that is IVF and artificial insemination are "playing God."
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
In vitro is great for creating a zygote from the parents. But what if one or both are sterile? Plus, if a couple is willing to adopt at this stage and experience pregnancy as well, why not? Options are good. To have the option of no longer being pregnant but not terminating the offspring might be a big draw to many women.

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

Sounds great. When that's possible, let us know.
 
Tlrmln said:
Sounds great. When that's possible, let us know.
Click to expand...
Just checking. You do realize I was making arguments as to why such research should occur, as opposed to another saying why such research was a waste of time, right?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Someone suggested on another forum this type of research should be done for women with ectopic pregnancies. In this scenario, the pregnant woman does not need to know she is pregnant before implantation.

As it is now, all a gynecologist can do is cut out the ovary and fallopian tube, then close the hole in the uterus on that side, killing the embryo.
 
maquiscat said:
Just checking. You do realize I was making arguments as to why such research should occur, as opposed to another saying why such research was a waste of time, right?

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

I see. So you think it's a good idea to spend massive amounts of money on what would essentially be human experimentation, because the end result would be a "nice to have" alternative to what's already available?
 
Tlrmln said:
I see. So you think it's a good idea to spend massive amounts of money on what would essentially be human experimentation, because the end result would be a "nice to have" alternative to what's already available?
Click to expand...

We are talking about preventing abortions, of course. There is no "nice to have" when an embryo is going to die without being transplanted into another woman's body.
 
Blue Donkey said:
We are talking about preventing abortions, of course. There is no "nice to have" when an embryo is going to die without being transplanted into another woman's body.
Click to expand...

You're assuming there's anything even remotely negative about killing an embryo.

But hey, it's a matter of personal preference. Maybe you should contact the Catholic Church to fund the research, and force their female members into volunteering for the research, you know, on pain of eternal damnation.
 
Blue Donkey said:
We are talking about preventing abortions, of course. There is no "nice to have" when an embryo is going to die without being transplanted into another woman's body.
Click to expand...

Embryo transplant (not even close to possible yet) is not a solution to abortion, the legal issues are the same. If a woman chose to give up the embryo, fine. If not, the govt cannot force her to give it up without her consent. All the same rights violated by banning abortion are in play. And the transplant would be much more invasive.
 
Tlrmln said:
You're assuming there's anything even remotely negative about killing an embryo.

But hey, it's a matter of personal preference. Maybe you should contact the Catholic Church to fund the research, and force their female members into volunteering for the research, you know, on pain of eternal damnation.
Click to expand...

I am sure the Catholic Church would oppose it because of their belief that marital sex should always be natural. (They think IVF is immoral.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom