So let me get this straight, RE: abortion and fertility clinics.

[Inland]

If a woman has an embryo inside her uterus, and wishes to abort the pregnancy, the anti-abortionists say that she is committing murder and want the law to punish her criminally.

If a woman has fifty embryos in storage at the fertility clinic and wishes to dispose of them as medical waste, the anti-abortionists have no problem with that.

If the supreme court says that a right to privacy prevents putting the first woman in prison, then the Fristians must take control of the entire federal government and change the court to eliminate that right.

But even though the supreme court would not prevent any state or fed government from forbidding the destruction of embryos outside of a woman's body, and even though the Fristians have the entire fed government, they don't bother to save all those embryos at the fertility clinic.

Not a single supposed right to lifer has suggested the equivalent of state adoption, orphanages, foster homes, whatever, for all those embryos at the clinic. But for embryos in the womb, the only alternative they would allow is just that--if you don't want the child, you have to give to the state.

The culture of life doesn't apply to life in a culture.

The only possible explanation is that the Fristians see the embryos at the clinic as, well, expensive. The cost of embryos in the womb are on the woman carrying them. But who pays to bring the embryos in the clinic to term? Conservatives won't even pass the plate at church for those embryos, much less provide tax dollars.

The contradiction of the conservative positions show that they are not pro-life, but anti-woman: they are against abortion as long as the woman carries the burden alone. And of course, consistent with that, the right to life ends at birth.

Why can't Bush be called on the contradiction? Why can't some smart ass democrat propose an embryo foster care system and let the republican majority quash it?

[notadmblnd]

1. They want those embryos in the petri dishes so they can SELL them

do a search on snoflake babies in the GD discussion group. you'll get a better understanding of what the agenda is.

[Inland]

2. Not being sold.

It's my understanding that the embryos can't be sold.

[notadmblnd]

3. well read the link... and then decide if they are being sold or not

What would you estimate the entire cost for the adoption to be?
For this program you have either two or three separate fees depending on where you live:

If you live outside of Southern California:
1. Our program fee of $4000 (includes homestudy).
2. Fees from the agency performing your homestudy, ranging from $1000-$2500. A $1,600 credit is applied if you have already completed a homestudy with another agency.
3. The fertility clinic's fee for a frozen embryo transfer (FET), usually ranging from $800-$2500.

If you live in Southern California:
1. Our program fee of $5600 (includes homestudy).
2. The fertility clinic’s fee for a frozen embryo transfer (FET), usually ranging from $800-$2500.

What does the program fee cover?
We perform a homestudy for local families who need one (see enclosed “What is a Homestudy?”), match you with a family, maintain files, facilitate communication between genetic and adopting families, prepare contracts, relinquishments and other legal paperwork, provide counseling for both sides, facilitate communication between clinics and doctors to ensure that requirements are met for the transfer of the embryos between states, and coordinate shipping of the embryos. Medical expenses are not included.

Does the program fee include medical expenses?
No. Adopting parents need to pay the clinic to thaw and transfer the embryos. Because medical expenses vary by provider, we encourage you to research clinics in your area. We have heard quotes from $800 to $2500 for an embryo transfer. Be sure you are comparing apples to apples with services included in a quote and the costs of subsequent transfers.

What additional out-of-pocket expenses can we expect?
Shipping embryos via Federal Express (approx. $200-300), potential shipping container rental, if necessary ($150-300), and lab work are usually the only other costs incurred in this program. A full accounting of the expenses will be provided. If we are preparing your Homestudy, there will be additional costs.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202212905/nightlight.or...

[Inland]

4. Since the parents aren't being compensated, not.

It's the parents who own the embryos. The fertility clinic is in the business of being a fertility clinic. Homestudy costs are the same for any adoption, i would think.

So unless the parents are taking bids for embryos, it isn't selling.

[rodeodance]

6. the Right wants these "extras" to be adopted.

...If a woman has fifty embryos in storage at the fertility clinic and wishes to dispose of them as medical waste, the anti-abortionists have no problem with that.........

[notadmblnd]

25. the biological donors may not be compensated

but don't try to tell me that this organization does not benefit monetarily from the "adoption" of these embryos. If they did not make money.. they would not be in the business.

[Inland]

27. I wouldn't tell you that, but that isnt selling the embryos.

The parents have the choice to allow adoption or not, and they don't take money. In this sense, all adoption is the same: the agencies take money, demand money, but the birth parents don't sell the child.

[notadmblnd]

29. why do you refer to the donors as parents?

there is nothing to parent. It is a frozen embryo that has the potential to become a human being. But I have never known anyone who has parented an embryo.

[Inland]

30. Lack of a word, and because I am

using the logic of the anti-abortionist that makes the embryos babies, and lack of time to qualify every statement with all the provisos that occur in a debate like this.

[woodsprite]

31. I think only certain IVF clinics (with ethics) prohibit selling. n/t

[Inland]

37. I wouldn't consider it "selling"

unless the parent did it, and I presume they cant' in the same way that an organ donor can't.

And like organ donation, every one else can charge for their services. So there is money to be made, but it isn't selling.

[LynneSin]

5. Actually they do have a problem with it

and in the world of "I'm not fucking kidding" there are anti-abortionist groups that want to 'adopt' those embroynic cells and are even willing carry those cells in their own uterus to term.

Seriously - it's out there.

[rodeodance]

7. a caller in to c-span just said to adopt them--not KILL them.

[rodeodance]

9. the congressman on c-span does not want the frozen embreyos

destroyed. I have not caught his name

[bklyncowgirl]

8. Good for them if that's their choice

Frankly, if that's their belief, I don't have a problem with it.

Just don't force me or anyone else to do the same and we'll all get along fine.

[rodeodance]

10. got his name now-Christopher Smith Rep NJ--a Repub.

[rodeodance]

11. he was a supporter of the cord blood bill (2 bills passed yesterday)

[rodeodance]

13. cord blood can be an alternative for some--but has limited

capacity--not as versitile as embryonic stem cells which can differenciate into all types of cells/organs in the body.

[LynneSin]

16. They want to adopt OTHER folks unused embryos

Say you just completed fertility treatment and there are a few leftover embroyees from the process. These are the DNA made up of yourself and your significant other (whoever fertilized the egg).

Even though you're no longer in need of the cells, do you want the product of your DNA being raised by some nut job who wants to adopt all the unused embroyees and try to breed them through their program.

[Inland]

26. But the parents have the choice to allow or destroy, still

Same as before.

So why do the anti-abortionists leave it to the parents when the embryo is in a petrie dish to terminate or allow adoption but would deny the same choice when the embryo is in utero? The embryo isn't any different. It must be that the cost of denying choice to the in utero mother is born by the mother and not the taxpayer.

Why isn't the anti-aboritonist demanding that all the unwanted embryos be turned over to the state? Because they don't care THAT much. Culture of dollars and anti-woman trumps this supposed culture of life.

[Coexist]

12. Yes. I had a rant about this yesterday.

Drive me nuts. Adopt the kids who need adopting, then come crying to me about snowflake babies.

Idiots.

"an embryo cannot consent" - caller on CSPan - "they deserve a Christian burial"

what a bunch of loons.

[rodeodance]

14. the "Snowflake" adoption program is the solution to 'spare'

embryos per Smith.

[rodeodance]

15. Smith claims he works on human rights issues in Congress

including torture issues.

[rodeodance]

17. WI caller--embroyoes being wasted--need laws to protect them.

[rodeodance]

18. Smith saying Bush deserves an enormous amount of credit

for preseving life--

[rodeodance]

19. I think this is the 3rd caller now that supports bush positon!! -a

woman caller---applauding Smith and Bush.

[rodeodance]

20. Smith--embreyos will be KILLED--unless we protect them.

[Coexist]

21. where are the darn phone numbers

"an abortion increases a woman's risk of future miscarriage by 50%"

FLAT. OUT. LIE.

[notadmblnd]

22. phone numbers

support Democrats 202-737-0002
support bush 202-737-0001
others 202-737-0205

[Coexist]

23. thanks - busy - busy busy so far.

[Inland]

28. "Embryos deserve a christian burial" isn't exactly a stand for life, is it

After all, its the anti-abortionists who consent to parents destroying the embryos, and all they can do is demand a burial?

A burial as if they were humans, but no protections? Because a burial is cheap and Chrisitan, and preserving the life of embryos is expensive?

These right to lifers aren't. If the life isn't burdening a woman, they don't care one way or another.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. It's because IVF is a popular technology. They ARE philosophically opposed

just like the majority of "pro-life" organizations support criminalization of most forms of birth control... they just soft-pedal- for now, at least- some of the parts of the agenda that they know may alienate people.

If you define a fertilized egg as a human being with rights under the 14th amendment- as the HLA Amendment as proposed in the GOP platform for 3 decades does- invariably you reach an alice-in-wonderland situation where fertility clinics routinely engage in mass murder, women with IUDs can go to jail for carrying a concealed weapon, and the pill is a controlled substance.

Believe me, abortion is just the first part of the agenda. Then they'll go after fertility clinics as well as all forms of safe, legal contraception.. (Which people won't have a right to use anymore, because the "right to privacy" established in Griswold v. Connecticut that Rick Santorum doesn't think exists will have been swept away by Bush's judiciary)

Don't worry, in a few years you'll be churning your own butter and getting put in the public stocks for showing your ankle on sunday.

[Inland]

32. Hmm. Maybe. But then its our duty to bring the ultimate goal to the fore.

That's what bringing up the contradiction does. They either have to admit the ultimate result of that way of thinking (jail terms for pregant women, billions for frozen embryos or banning IVF) and lose as people refuse to go down the road OR be shown up as hopeless hypocrites.

I am thinking of Poppy Bush being asked in a debate what the penalty for an abortion should be, since he wanted to make it illegal. He was stumped. He didn't get back to it until the next day, because if you say, "abortion is murder, give them the chair", the majority doesn't vote for you. If you say, "abortion is a sin, but not a huge deal, make it a ticket", the right wing goes nuts. In the meantime, they nibble around the edges, making aboartion more difficult without expressly ending it.

Same with embryos. "Do you think destroying them should be illegal?"

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I think it always does well to point out that we are talking about single

cells or clumps of just a few cells.

The right wing has been very effective in conflating the words "baby" and "abortion" in the public's mind. And who doesn't love babies? But the reality is that most abortions take place in the first trimester.

I think it is always important to remind people that they want to grant constitutional rights to SINGLE CELLS. If that's the case, why stop there? Sperm swim around and display a great deal of ingenuity in their pursuit of a hot date.. Why aren't we giving THEM 'rights'?Unfertilized eggs? Really, the christian right has it as gospel that life "begins" at the moment of fertilization, but the exact same essential genetic material and the exact same potential is present in the sperm and egg, separately, before they meet. Certainly UNLESS the sperm and egg meet they won't develop into a baby, but UNLESS the fertilized egg is in the womb of a (hopefully willing) woman, it won't, either. I consider the "life begins at conception" line particularly arbitrary. It's fine if people want to have it as a personal opinion, writing it into law is another matter.

For the record, whenever I talk about conservative opposition to stem cell research I mention the peculiar hypocrisy and blindness around IVF and the fact that the embryos are being destroyed anyway.

[ultraist]

33. Actually, there is a difference

Once a fertilized egg has been implanted, it's one step closer to actualizing into a fetus. Of course, there are no guarantees. Early miscarriage, which is medically termed "spontaneous abortion" is very common.

The key is to keep the existing viability rule as established by Roe.

I think their move to to protect the petri dish blastocysts, is not as much about the petri dish blastos as pushing back the line of when abortion is legal from 6 months gestational age to 6 weeks, the time the embryo is clearly implanted and has a heartbeat. This effectively eliminates abortion because it's not really medically possible to have an abortion prior to six weeks.

This is their technique, push the line so far right, that by the time they get a "compromise," it's still a big win for them.

Bush and his Klan can't have it both ways though. They can't say on one hand, it's OK to destroy a petri dish embryo but it's not OK to use it for research before it's destroyed. Either they believe the petri dish blastocyst has rights or they don't.

[Inland]

34. But wait, Roe said

that the right of privacy of the mother outweighs the state interest in viability.

Therefore remove the mother, there is no bar to the state acting to preserve the fetus. It doesn't matter if the embryo is viable. The fetus outside the womb may just be one of those things the state likes to preserve, like cats or historical architecture, and that law would be upheld on the rational basis test.

But these embryos aren't valued as much as cats or historical architecture, individually or in mass, and nobody, even the most hysterical prolifer, feels differently.

[ultraist]

35. The line is at viablity

Right to privacy ends when it begins to infringe on another's right. This line is when the fetus becomes viable, thus is no longer part of the woman's body, but a seperate entity.

I don't think they will be able to throw out right to privacy, but I do think they may have some success at throwing out the viablity definition. They need to make the embryo a seperate entity---with rights. Medically, it's not until viablity, but they don't care. That's why the petri dish BS works for them to make their point.

If they throw out right to privacy, then MALES do not have rights over their own bodies. Theoretically, the State could impose/force life saving medical care on males. (Forced life supports, forced treatment for terminal illness, etc).

[Inland]

36. There is no line, because Roe is irrelevant.

There's no woman's body involved, anymore, and no privacy right implicated. There isn't any balancing going on.

Therefor the legislature could, legally, require preservation of the embryos whether they are human or not, alive or not, viable or not, whatever. The constitutional power to preserve them is the same as the const. power to preserve a cat, or a tree, or drainage.

But nobody does it because it's a bad idea, and because the "prolife" people aren't pro life if they have to pay to bring the embryo to term. If its some woman's problem, they are all for life, but make them spend a buck, and it isn't important.

[Coexist]

38. that's correct Roe states that an fetus has no constitutional rights

that's why states can have their own laws on late-term abortions, but cannot restrict first term.

[Dorian Gray]

40. Just a quick note here, too...

As this was being discussed on Randi Rhodes, also. The Catholic Church (the anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem cell reasearch institution) is ALSO anti IVF. They believe, just for that reason, that IVF is an abuse of life. So, not all anti-choicers are pro-IVF.

(I am personally opposed to In Vitro Fertilization. That doesn't mean that I think that the people who choose that route to having a baby are evil. I just think that there are many moral and ethical questions about the process that don't add up... FOR ME... and I would choose to adopt rather than go through IVF.)