Stem Cell research and Fertility Clinics.

[yeartolate]

I didn't read through the whole thread, so If I missed something important forgive me, but I think people oppose Fed. funds for stem cells, while there is no public funding for fertility clinics whatsoever.

I think people are placing alot of false hope in embryonic stem cells. There have been no postive outcomes in any research done with them, if there was so much evidence that there could be, we wouldn't need Fed. money, private corporations would be all over it. Adult stem cells on the other hand have been miraclous in so many areas. It is sad that the media, interest groups ect. aren't pushing more funding in that area. Even umbilical cord blood is more promising than embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research is alive and very promising'

Labs are having to jump through hops to comply with the feds. If a lab recieves ANY federal funds, they are made to totally separate their facilities. So if a non embryonic side of the lab uses a highvpriced whatchamacallit the embryonic stem cell side is not allowed even a minute on the high priced whatchamacallit ---- doing so would endanger all federal funds to the non embryonic side of the lab. Science should not be about seclusion and separation, it should be about working together for the sake of science.

The only reason umbilical and adult stem cells may be more promising would be because scientific advancement is being prevented through a series of hoops the scientists must jump through in order to comply with federal guidelines. Federal support is essential for alot of major research - it is amazing that research is able to continue without it. I am glad California is helping the cause.

 

[LisaB]

Actually there are places that wil defray the cost of an abortion. I consuled a 18 year girl who want an abortion. I gave her all her options and wasn't judgemental because that is what a pro choice person is PRO CHOICE. She wanted the abortion anyways and there was an agency that would help with the cost. I was very lucky when I had my theraputic abortion I was under my father's health insurance which paid for it. It was done in a hospital by my GYN.

 

[yeartolate]

Actually there are places that wil defray the cost of an abortion.

There are many - the thought of abortion clinics being "big business" is propaganda from the pro-life side at best.

 

[Saxsoon]

Didn't someone say they paid around 4000 for it, or was that just under certain conditions.

 

[yeartolate]

Didn't someone say they paid around 4000 for it, or was that just under certain conditions.

If you go to a private doctor and have the procedure in a hospital or surgery center, with anesthesia and a private anesthesiologist the fees could be that high. But planned parenthod aboretion clinics really whittle doen the cost and have sliding scale options.

 

[Disney Doll]

So God doesn't want us and countless other couples to have a baby.

Well, God isn't a big old man with a long beard sitting up there in Heaven deciding from moment to moment what's going to happen to every one of the billions of beings in the universe. That's a rather "elementary" view of God. As a person of faith, as I have matured, my view of God has matured from one of a "Father" figure doling out reward and punishment to one of an orchestrator.

If the God part is getting in your way, then call it the Universe.

The Universe unfolds as it should. We don't always like the unfolding, but there is nothing that happens by chance. Everything that happens is in some way interrelated, and it all happens for a reason.

Believe me when I tell you that I went through 6 years of infertility treatments, and many years after that dealing with the knowledge that the thing I wanted most in the world (other than the health and happiness of my loved ones) was not going to happen. Those of us who have been through this grieving process understand it, those of us who haven't have no way of understanding. I did not arrive at my current mindset overnight, but after much reflection, discussion, and prayer...years worth.

If you want to simplify it down to "So God doesn't want us to have a baby" then I guess I could answer yes. For whatever reason, the "plan" for you (whether it is God's, the Universe's, Allah, Xenu's or whatever other deity you may believe in) may very well not include a child. It may include many children who are not physically yours, but bound to you by love.

Keep something in mind...at any given time, you may not have any idea just how important you are in the life of a child. Children cannot have too many people loving them, so while you may not be a parent, you may be a very important part of some child's life.

 

[Disney Doll]

They followed here pregnancy? Did they deliver the baby?

They followed her pregnancy by setting her up with a physician. She went to the physician and also went to PP for visits to monitor how she was doing. The physician they set her up with ended up delivering the baby. Her financial & life situation improved after the rocky start she had, and she met and married a great guy and used the same MD that PP had referred her to as her physician to deliver her next 2 children.

So, yes, I would say PP did her a world of good.

 

[cardaway]

Well, God isn't a big old man with a long beard sitting up there in Heaven deciding from moment to moment what's going to happen to every one of the billions of beings in the universe. That's a rather "elementary" view of God. As a person of faith, as I have matured, my view of God has matured from one of a "Father" figure doling out reward and punishment to one of an orchestrator.

My response was to somebody who obviously feels differently, somebody who believes there is a one by one choice. Personally I don't agree and I feel strongly about it because many that feel differently wouldn't hesitate to make certain treatments illegal because they believe God doesn't approve.

 

[jgmklmhem]

My response was to somebody who obviously feels differently, somebody who believes there is a one by one choice. Personally I don't agree and I feel strongly about it because many that feel differently wouldn't hesitate to make certain treatments illegal because they believe God doesn't approve.

Lets take this a step further and throw God out of the equation for a minute. Isn't nature/evolution/biology saying something similar at least when it comes to those who cannot have children. I believe in God but don't believe he is up there making decisions on things like this topic. From a science point of view those who cannot have children "naturally" have been effected on a biological level either since birth or due to environmental inteferences. Or the combination of person A and person B just isn't what nature/evolution/biology intended. Putting God in the equation makes it moral looking at it from just the biology side you can still arrive at the same conclusions without the moral component.

 

[cardaway]

Lets take this a step further and throw God out of the equation for a minute. Isn't nature/evolution/biology saying something similar at least when it comes to those who cannot have children. I believe in God but don't believe he is up there making decisions on things like this topic. From a science point of view those who cannot have children "naturally" have been effected on a biological level either since birth or due to environmental inteferences. Or the combination of person A and person B just isn't what nature/evolution/biology intended. Putting God in the equation makes it moral looking at it from just the biology side you can still arrive at the same conclusions without the moral component.

Unless you view the ability to overcome these conditions as a natural part of evolution like I do.

People are either playing God (and many wanting them to stop) or you see it as people doing what God gave them ability and know how to do. I go with the later.

 

[AllyandJack]

Lets take this a step further and throw God out of the equation for a minute. Isn't nature/evolution/biology saying something similar at least when it comes to those who cannot have children. I believe in God but don't believe he is up there making decisions on things like this topic. From a science point of view those who cannot have children "naturally" have been effected on a biological level either since birth or due to environmental inteferences. Or the combination of person A and person B just isn't what nature/evolution/biology intended. Putting God in the equation makes it moral looking at it from just the biology side you can still arrive at the same conclusions without the moral component.

By that same logic, some 3 year old with cancer was apparently rubbed out by evolution, as well. I guess they were just never meant to be a part of this world and their birth was a mistake that nature is taking care of with the cancer.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Unless you view the ability to overcome these conditions as a natural part of evolution like I do.

People are either playing God (and many wanting them to stop) or you see it as people doing what God gave them ability and know how to do. I go with the later.

In instances such as IVF I tend to agree with you but I think we can push that envelope too far such as cloning and or designer babies. I think there needs to be a balance and I feel we are heading slowly towards tipping that balance again cloning being an example. Just because science allows us to do something doesn't mean we should. Hopefully not bringing a global warming argument in to this but many people believe that even though the warming trend is a natural cycle we through pollution have thrown that cycle into overdrive with possibly disasterous results. Will the same thing be said later on a genetic level due to us tampering with nature in that regard whether it be IVF (people having babies that nature didn't allow to occur) on one end or cloning on the more extreme end. Again coming from a purely science point of view and not throwing God in to it at all. There are definately not easy answers because the reason person A and B couldn't have kids may be due to artificial interference and nature would have normally allowed them otherwise.

 

[Galahad]

They followed her pregnancy by setting her up with a physician. She went to the physician and also went to PP for visits to monitor how she was doing. The physician they set her up with ended up delivering the baby. Her financial & life situation improved after the rocky start she had, and she met and married a great guy and used the same MD that PP had referred her to as her physician to deliver her next 2 children.

So, yes, I would say PP did her a world of good.

That's Great! Certainly sounds like they did do her a world of good!

 

[AllyandJack]

In instances such as IVF I tend to agree with you but I think we can push that envelope too far such as cloning and or designer babies. I think there needs to be a balance and I feel we are heading slowly towards tipping that balance again cloning being an example. Just because science allows us to do something doesn't mean we should. Hopefully not bringing a global warming argument in to this but many people believe that even though the warming trend is a natural cycle we through pollution have thrown that cycle into overdrive with possibly disasterous results. Will the same thing be said later on a genetic level due to us tampering with nature in that regard whether it be IVF (people having babies that nature didn't allow to occur) on one end or cloning on the more extreme end. Again coming from a purely science point of view and not throwing God in to it at all. There are definately not easy answers because the reason person A and B couldn't have kids may be due to artificial interference and nature would have normally allowed them otherwise.

I agree so much with that. It annoys me to no end that people are using technology like PGD to choose sexes. That technology was created so people can find out if their embryos have inherited their genetic illnesses like Cystic Fibrosis so no child has to suffer with that illness. It was created to help couples who suffered multiple losses due to genetic problems. Now, it's being used to make sure Susie and Mitch get the boy they want since they already have a girl and they want the "perfect" family. It's a useful tool to make sure a woman doesn't miscarry due to a genetic problem or to make sure a child isn't brought into the world with a terrible illness like CF - it doesn't prevent everything, of course, but it has helped many couples have children they wouldn't otherwise be able to have due to genetic problems. It's not supposed to be used by people who don't want boys and don't want girls. How far will it go? Will hair color and eye color be sorted someday so we have an entire world full of blond haired/blue eyed people? So, there is a definite trend forming that can get to be scary if it's left unchecked. This technology is used by fertile people, as well, which is messing with nature just as much as an infertile couple using IVF.

 

[jgmklmhem]

By that same logic, some 3 year old with cancer was apparently rubbed out by evolution, as well. I guess they were just never meant to be a part of this world and their birth was a mistake that nature is taking care of with the cancer.

That would make the issues black and white. The cancer could be due to something completely artificial (chemical exposure in the child itself or in the parents). There are many people out there (not myself) that feel that by treating that 3yo and possibly curing the kid might actually be a bad thing because assuming that the cancer was not artificially caused that child might grow up and pass that gene etc on to future generations whereas if the child had died then that line would have stopped. Some draw this conclusion as God's plan others see it as evolution taking effect. Like I said in another post the answers are not easy, but I could see us at some point coming to a tipping point where we have artificially screwed up the genetic chain with terrible consequences.

This is all coming from someone who had a child born with both a cleft palate and craniosynostosis which have both hopefully been fully repaired, but 100 years ago probably would have caused her death.

 

[cardaway]

I'm sure to get heat on this but I don't see a problem with people using technology to their advantage, inlcuding many genetic advances. Sure there is a line, but we passed that line so long ago when we starting using atomic energy. Does it get worse than the atomic issues? Not IMO.

And personally I trust science a hell of a lot more than I trust people who argue against it.

 

[jgmklmhem]

I'm sure to get heat on this but I don't see a problem with people using technology to their advantage, inlcuding many genetic advances. Sure there is a line, but we passed that line so long ago when we starting using atomic energy. Does it get worse than the atomic issues? Not IMO.

And personally I trust science a hell of a lot more than I trust people who argue against it.

I tend to agree with you again but we definately don't know right now at what cost these tech advances are going to possibly cost us in the long run as a species especially from the genetic point of view. These advances are also in the hands of humans and yes even scientists make mistakes. I can see us pushing the envelop too far and causing great harm

 

[AllyandJack]

That would make the issues black and white. The cancer could be due to something completely artificial (chemical exposure in the child itself or in the parents). There are many people out there (not myself) that feel that by treating that 3yo and possibly curing the kid might actually be a bad thing because assuming that the cancer was not artificially caused that child might grow up and pass that gene etc on to future generations whereas if the child had died then that line would have stopped. Some draw this conclusion as God's plan others see it as evolution taking effect. Like I said in another post the answers are not easy, but I could see us at some point coming to a tipping point where we have artificially screwed up the genetic chain with terrible consequences.

This is all coming from someone who had a child born with both a cleft palate and craniosynostosis which have both hopefully been fully repaired, but 100 years ago probably would have caused her death.

Healthy people bring handicapped and ill children into the world all the time - somehow nature missed them for the infertility. Now, I don't believe that one bit, but if the world was meant to be filled full of healthy, perfect people those people would be infertile, as well. Nature would have either made them infertile, aborted the babies, or caused them to die early on in their life. But, that's just my opinion....I respect everyone who believes that God controls or that nature controls. Part of me is envious of the ability to have a "reason". Somehow, it would seem easier to me if I could say, "God has a plan."

But, I definitely agree that this technology has the potential to be abused by both infertile and fertile people - thankfully, it's so darn expensive that most people can't afford to use it. I know my insurance doesn't pay for gender sorting and it would be a scary day if it did. I think the REAL risk of the technology is created a society of people who were selected as embryos for their traits - hair color, eye color, height, weight, intelligence, etc. The risk isn't with people who need a little help having regular babies.

The Internet is a wonderful thing....but, it also brought along with it easy access for child predators and identity thieves. All technology can be abused in some way and, even as someone using the technology, I can see that it does have a point where it works against society.

 

[cardaway]

I tend to agree with you again but we definately don't know right now at what cost these tech advances are going to possibly cost us in the long run as a species especially from the genetic point of view. These advances are also in the hands of humans and yes even scientists make mistakes. I can see us pushing the envelop too far and causing great harm

I can see us having to accept something in the future (that we currently reject) to survive as a species, including the "horrors" of genetic engineering. It will get real interesting to see who continues to not take advantage of things because it is "wrong".

 

[JennyMominRI]

Didn't someone say they paid around 4000 for it, or was that just under certain conditions.

I did,but that was at a very well known hospital in RI .I am way to high risk for PP