8) If you are pro life. It follows that you should be anti death penalty and war etc
and if you a pro choice, then you should be pro death penalty and war etc.
But that logic does not seem to work.
trying to figure out why,because the religous right seem to be the ones that push
the pro life stuff, but support the death penalty.
Just a thinking/talking point
I see no difficulty in being both pro-abortion and also being able to be pro-death sentence. There are just some crimes that make you too disgusting to live.
/abortion's for women anyway. Let them decide.
//her body her choice
8) If you are pro life. It follows that you should be anti death penalty and war etc
and if you a pro choice, then you should be pro death penalty and war etc.
But that logic does not seem to work.
trying to figure out why,because the religous right seem to be the ones that push
the pro life stuff, but support the death penalty.
Just a thinking/talking point
It doesnt follow those lines.
Im Athiest and PROCHOICE , believe in the DEATH PENALTY ( for some crimes ) and im not opposed to war TO PROTECT OUR HOMELAND
The objection to abortion by the* looney right *is based on teaching in the bible ( there version of it ) thats all .
Death by execution for a convicted murderer is based on mans law ... as is the right to fight to protect youre homeland from agressors .
The religious right of course can justify anything by * the bible * take that equasion out of the picture and it becomes clearer .
Everybody has a right to live there lives in peace therefore any agressor "by murder or war is *wrong* according to the laws of our society and therefore should be punished /executed in the case of taking a fellow human life / MURDER or repelled and distroyed as in the case of war
As far as abortion goes ive heard all these religious arguments about ( souls / life before birth )etc and it seems to me to be very contraditory when ive never heard any of the same voices argue against * in vitro fertilization * in which many a egg / embryo is distroyed to achieve the abjective which is of course a healthy pregnancy by the reciever of this procedure .
It may something to do with the fact that MOST abortions accur within the lowest paid or less priviledged citizens, where as in vitro fertilization is an expensive procedure undertaken MAINLY only by those who can afford it ..
To follow up on my point about IN vitro fertilization .
this explains it and the last pharagraph says it all .
The egss / embyros not used can be disposed of (distroyed ) same as abortion but is a procedure that helps rich infutile( usually god believing ) women to give birth so the WASTING of other unwanted embros is justified .
Twisted thinking be those who support this procedure but oppose abortion .
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF-ET)
History
In Vitro Fertilization Pre-Embryo Transfer (IVF-ET) is a fertility procedure which first succeeded as recently as 1978 by Dr. Edwards (an embryologist) and Dr. Steptoe (a gynecologist) in England. Since then the technology has been further refined and developed by physicians and embryologists, with over 20,000 babies born worldwide.
The possibility of a continuing pregnancy being achieved by IVF has improved from practically nil to one chance in 4 to 6 at IVF centers worldwide.
The possibility of a pregnancy being achieved for any one patient cannot be predicted, as it depends on many variables - such as age and the reproductive health of both the wife and the husband. Although the chance of success varies from case to case, a thorough evaluation is required to predict the probability of pregnancy in any given situation.
IVF Without Surgery - Transvaginal Oocyte Retrieval
Due to improvements in ultrasound imaging, surgery is no longer necessary for most In Vitro Fertilization patients. A technique for recovery of eggs from the ovary is described below. It uses a sonographically-guided needle to replace the surgical procedure which previously was used to recover oocytes (eggs). This procedure, called Transvaginal Oocyte Retrieval, requires neither hospitalization nor general anesthesia.
In order to prepare a proper environment in the woman and to increase the chances of recovering several healthy and mature eggs, the woman will undergo about two weeks of intensive preparation. This will include hormonal therapy with "fertility drugs." Blood tests and ultrasound scans of the ovaries are used to determine the optimal time to retrieve the eggs from the ovary. This optimal time is just before ovulation when the oocytes are almost ready for fertilization.
At the proper time, an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia will allow the female's eggs to be visualized by ultrasound and retrieved from the ovary by placing a needle through the vaginal wall. The mild discomfort that the patient feels has been described as similar to a Pap smear or endometrial biopsy. After a short rest, the patient will be able to go home and resume normal activities.
The fluid from the follicles is examined under the microscope by the embryologist, who locates the eggs and keeps them in the laboratory under physiologic conditions. The embryologist will place the sperm with the eggs when they are ready for fertilization. Usually, the eggs will develop into cleaving pre-embryos, whose cells divide 2 or 3 times to become preimplantation embryos (pre-embryos). They are maintained in laboratory dishes, in a nutrient mixture which acts as a substitute for the environment that would otherwise have been provided by the fallopian tubes.
Using a special catheter, the couple's pre-embryos will be passed through the vagina and into the uterus at the time the pre-embryos would normally have reached the uterus (2+ days after retrieval).
After the pre-embryo placement in the uterus, the patient will lie quietly in a bed for about an hour, and then will return home.
IVF-ET- Questions and Answers
Q Will the IVF technique damage my ovaries?
A There is no evidence to suggest that either normal laparoscopy or ultrasound egg retrieval damages the ovaries. In fact, some reports in the medical literature suggest that following ovarian biopsy, pregnancies occur in couples with a long-term history of infertility.
Q Will scar tissue around my ovaries make it impossible to retrieve the eggs?
A Not ordinarily. The surgeon must be able to see the follicles in order to guide the needle to the proper spot for retrieval of the eggs whether by sonographic (ultrasound) or surgical methods.
Q What if I ovulate before oocyte (also called egg or ovum) retrieval?
A Once ovulation has occurred it is impossible to retrieve the eggs. The entire team of physician, nurse and embryologist will monitor your cycle very carefully to avoid premature ovulation.
Q If an egg is not retrieved or if the technique does not produce a pregnancy on the first attempt, how soon can the procedure be repeated?
A This depends on the individual. The primary reason for delay is to allow the patient's normal menstrual cycle to resume, which may take 2 to 3 cycles.
Q How many times will IVF be repeated per couple?
A There is no specific number. This is determined by the couple together with the physician.
Q Can we have intercourse during the two-week period before an IVF procedure is performed?
A Most definitely. We recommend that the husband refrain from ejaculation for at least 48 hours, but for no more than 5 to 6 days preceding egg retrieval. This precaution assures that the semen sample obtained for IVF will contain a maximum number of healthy, motile sperm.
Q After the IVF procedure, how long must we wait to have intercourse?
A Although a definite time of abstinence to avoid damage to the pre-embryo has not been determined, most experts recommend abstinence for two to three weeks. Theoretically, the uterine contractions associated with orgasm could interfere with the early stages of implantation. However, intercourse the night before pre-embryo transfer is acceptable. Some physicians will advise intercourse before transfer as they feel that this will improve the chances of a pregnancy.
Q What about other activities? How soon can I resume my normal routine?
A The IVF team recommends that the patient be sedentary for a full 24 hours following pre-embryo placement in the uterus. Strenuous exercises such as jogging, horseback riding, swimming, etc. should be avoided until pregnancy is confirmed. Otherwise, the patient is free to return to her regular activities.
Q How soon will I know if I'm pregnant?
A Pregnancy can be confirmed using blood tests about 13 days after egg aspiration. Pregnancy can be confirmed by ultrasound 30 to 40 days after aspiration.
Q I had my tubes tied (tubal ligation) several years ago. Would I be a candidate for IVF?
A Perhaps, in certain situations, IVF may be cheaper and physically less demanding than surgery to repair you fallopian tubes.
Q Is IVF covered by insurance companies?
A Unless your health insurance policy provides infertility coverage it is unlikely that IVF coverage is provided. Frequently insurance policies will cover infertility but exclude IVF. This has been successfully challenged in the legal system. Consultation with your lawyer may be necessary to review you insurance companies refusal to provide IVF coverage. If, however, IVF is combined with surgical procedures used for diagnosis, insurance carriers may pay for much of the procedure. However, coverage will depend on the terms of your policy. For infertility alone, most insurance policies will not provide
coverage.
Q What drugs are given to stimulate the ovarian follicles and to maintain the lining of the uterus prior to implantation of the pre-embryo?
A Four to five medications normally are given
1. Leuprolide acetate (Lupron), an injectable drug that blocks secretions of the pituitary gland, thereby optimizing the number of oocytes retrieved;
2. Human menopausal gonadotropin (Pergonal or hMG) or Follicle Stimulating Hormone (Metrodin or FSH), hormones that stimulate ovarian activity, are injected daily for about 6-10 days prior to the procedure;
3. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone that mimics the action of the hormone which naturally induces ovulation, is injected 34 to 36 hours before retrieval and may be used after retrieval to supplement natural progesterone production;
4. Progesterone, a natural hormone that enables the uterus to support pregnancy, may be used as a daily injection after egg retrieval; and
5. Serophene, a pill used to promote egg development.
Q What side effects, if any, can these drugs cause?
A No pronounced side effects have been associated with any of these drugs. However, the patient should inform the physician of ANY allergies she has or of any previous adverse reactions to drugs.
Q Will I have an egg in every follicle?
A It varies from patient to patient . As many as half of the follicles may not contain an egg in some patients.
Q Is there a possibility of multiple births with IVF?
A Yes, when multiple pre-embryos are transferred. 25%. of pregnancies with IVF are twins. (In normal population, the rate is one set of twins per 80 births.) Triplets are seen in approximately 2-3% of pregnancies.
Q Is there an increased chance of birth defects if I become pregnant through IVF?
A There are no known ill effects. Abnormal pre-embryos, even those produced through normal fertilization, do not seem to mature. However, any long-term effects of IVF remain to be determined.
Q How much time does the entire procedure require?
A Approximately three weeks (all as an outpatient). Fertility drugs are administered to stimulate the ovaries. Then during the four to six days prior to ovulation, the patient is monitored by ultrasound as well as by hormone levels.
Q What happens to any extra pre-embryos?
A A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation. Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply****** dispose of them.**** Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done.
shock Yes it is funny John how society works, its not to long ago that the US used to sterlise people just because they classed them a simple etc.
That changed soon after WW2 cuz they realized it was the same thing Hitler was trying to do in creating a so called perfect race
My problem with pro-lifers is that they are selective. They generally don't target IVF treatment. And considering that most public statements made about stem-cell research are so factually off the mark you'd have to wonder why they don't go for IVF which is - by all accounts - closer to the complaint they make.
Anyone see the special yesterday on PBS? The absolute dumbness of the response to this question astounded me-
Interviewer - But don't you think that restricting people's ability to get birth control will cause teenage pregnancies to actually increase instead?
Response - Or they just won't have sex....duh!!!
Yes because before protection all women waited until they were 25 and married before having kids. Duh.
The religious angle on the whole pro-life pro-war anomaly is probably due to poor doctrine.
Someone said to me today "the good Lord giveth, and the good Lord taketh away". He couldn't tell me where it said that in the bible. I searched "giveth taketh lord" and found file 404.
People of religious background need to get themselves up to date with what actually stands in the good book.
People of religious background need to get themselves up to date with what actually stands in the good book.
That would,nt do any good cus they anly use what suits their purpose and reject anything else as *out of date ( old testament ) *.
What you need to learn is CUS its written dont make it true
roll East 17 is right in alot of respects, Alot of people throw around so called biblical phrases, but when challenged to show where thats actually is. They cannot,
They have just heard someone else say it and figure it must be right.
Same as all political groups really, you hear something on the radio and all of a sudden its gospel, but when you look into it. It never happened
8) If you are pro life. It follows that you should be anti death penalty and war etc
and if you a pro choice, then you should be pro death penalty and war etc.
Not really. In both cases it depends on your reasons for your beliefs.
If you are pro-life because all life is sacred then yes, you should also be ant-DP. But if your concern is with the protection of the lives of innocents who cannot speak for themselves, you may not feel this applies to recipients of the DP.
Alternatively, you may be pro-choice because you feel the foetus/embryo has no right to a life which has a detrimental effect on the host. This logic can also be applied to felons. Or you could hold the view that human lives should not be taken, but that an foetus/embryo does not qualify as a human until it is independent of the mother (or reached some other specific or vague milestone in it's development.)
So your "logic" does not really work.
lol I hear you monster and this is what makes it such a great question. If ALL life is sacred, after all we are said to be made in the image of god and thats why suicide and assisted suicide is also against religious teaching.
There for how can the death penalty be OK.
See this is where all the spin comes in. ITs ok to do this because of this and that, but surely its either one way or not, a black and white question with no gray.
Its only humans that put a gray field in to make us feel better.
Love these little debates lol
That would,nt do any good cus they anly use what suits their purpose and reject anything else as *out of date ( old testament ) *.
It's a question of relevance. A law was once written that black people had to drink from different fountains to whites. That law doesn't exist any more. But at the same time that a black person drunk from a different fountain, a murder was a murder. Same crime today, similar penalty. It was prophecy in the old testament, in the new testament it was stated clear as day: There is a new covenant and all the laws rest on just two: (1) Love God (etc) and (2) Love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
What you need to learn is CUS its written dont make it true
If you were not atheist you would know that His word is THE truth. As you are an atheist, by definition you cannot accept even the first verse. One verse in the new testament sums it up nicely:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I have the feeling I have gone over this before on this board and another like it.
1) The existence of an unbeliever does not make a subject unbelievable.
2) Faith is faith, and proof is proof. A biblical truth can only be proven by faith.
What you need to learn is CUS its written dont make it true
If you were not atheist you would know that His word is THE truth. As you are an atheist, by definition you cannot accept even the first verse. One verse in the new testament sums it up nicely:
.
Its not just athiest who doubt the words of the bible some religions question the teaching that jesus was the messiah ( jews ) and many folks who have a believe in god question the bible .
:lol: I hear you monster and this is what makes it such a great question. If ALL life is sacred, after all we are said to be made in the image of god and thats why suicide and assisted suicide is also against religious teaching.
There for how can the death penalty be OK.
See this is where all the spin comes in. ITs ok to do this because of this and that, but surely its either one way or not, a black and white question with no gray.
Its only humans that put a gray field in to make us feel better.
Love these little debates lol
um, NO.......
who said all life was sacred? Who said it has to be black and white with no grey?
While I have no wish to engage in religious debate, I feel compelled to question your rationale.
1) The existence of an unbeliever does not make a subject unbelievable.
Similarly, within the context of religion, the existence of a believer does not make a subject believable.
2) A biblical truth can only be proven by faith.
Faith is complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available. Religious systems are faith-based, therefore there can be no such a thing as "a biblical truth", except in the eyes of the believer. Religious doctrines may be accepted as "truth" by virtue of faith, but they cannot be proved by faith because faith is subjective.