Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

[temporal1]

The idea that it's okay to stuff a human baby into a freezer until some day it is unceremoniously tossed in a rubbish tin
is one of the more disturbing artefacts of the modern era.

Having read statements like this from you for years, when i saw the above IVF article, i was in disbelief this could happen!
Or even that the dialogue would hit mainstream.

Dialogue is important.
Esp following science EXPERIMENTS on human life. EXPERIMENTS.

EXPERIMENTS are meant to be reviewed and considered. Ended, when results indicate.

EXPERIMENTS should be openly labeled as such, hopefully, with PLANNED reviews, and EXIT STRATEGIES, in event of failure.

Too much is passed off as “settled science,” not questioned, but expanded+funded without question.

When CORPORATE PROFITS are involved, count on it!

Christians are to pray for wisdom and guidance in all matters.

There are some heart-wrenching stories, that’s a fact.
Unfortunately, there is exploitation of vulnerable women and their infants. Commodifying wombs.
And, as you say, all that abandoned, or destroyed, frozen human life.

Lobbies. Organized political blocs. $$$$

Life on earth can be tough.

- - - - - - -

We experienced 3 early miscarriages, no human intent involved, and 2 healthy full term infants.
There were years when i was pretty sure we wouldn’t have a living child. i still do not understand the why of any of it.

In recent years, i’ve read, science has discovered, every conception “leaves a microscopic beneficial impact” on the mother’s health.
Even if miscarried. So. Those 3. Will we meet one day?!

There is so much unknown. We are called to faith.

Example:
2015 / “Fetal cells influence mom's health during pregnancy — and long after”
https://news.asu.edu/content/fetal-cell ... long-after

[Neto]

I read this BBC article this morning, about the controversy stirred up by the Alabama ruling.

Global perspectives on the Alabama ruling, IVF and when cells become a person

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2024 ... ivf-ruling

What did you think about the article?

It is an area of science of which I am largely unknowledgeable. I didn't know that quantities of embryos are fertilized for this process. Sperm is apparently kept in sperm banks - can unfertilized eggs not be kept in the same way?
When I was translating Genesis (an abridgement, not the full text) and got to the part of where God forms Adam out of the dust, my translation helper said (before I got to the part of God breathing life into him) "It was just a body - there was no soul." Adam was a one-off, so we cannot make too many conclusions based on that, but it was a fully formed adult body. (Actually, I make no conclusions from that, in regards to this question.)

But maybe you meant what did I think about the way the article was written, the tone of the presentation. It has now been some time since I read it, but I tend to think that it may have been designed to suggest that the pro-life position is untenable, and/or to pit Christian against Christian. Based on what little I still know now, I think that if the process cannot be carried out without fertilizing multiple (i.e., more than the one that will be implanted) embryos, then those who believe that life is sacred should not participate. I do not know at what precise moment God puts a human soul into this new life. Nor can anyone else know (I think). So abstaining from it is the best course of action. There are many instances in the Scripture where it says that "God had closed the womb of ___." As sad as it is for a married couple who really want children, to be denied that blessing, that is a hard choice.

Similar questions are asked about end-of-life matters. I have asked these questions myself, having seen severely comatose patients who were kept alive with various life support tubes and so on. (This was back in the mid 70's, and I suspect that by using brain activity meters as the determining factor, this kind of thing is no longer so common.)

[temporal1]

This passage tells me life begins before conception.

i realize, human science will be caught up on physical “conception,” but, i believe God. He knows us before conception.
All the contributing “pieces,” including intercourse, are part of the whole created design.

Jeremiah 1:5
https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/1-5.htm

4The word of the LORD came to me, saying:

5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

We are more than POC (products of conception) and, we are known human beings before conception.
Which makes the idea of frozen embryos unnerving. Souls artificially suspended in (space)?

i realize the world is not about to entertain any such esoteric questions.
definitely not good for profits. $$$$

[temporal1]

A non scriptural comical reference to the idea:

“twinkle in one's father's eye” (plural twinkles in their fathers' eyes)
(idiomatic, colloquial, humorous)

A notional look of anticipation or hope (either for sex or a child) in one's father's eyes at or around the time of one's conception.

Used to refer to a person when discussing things which existed at or before the time that person was conceived.

This is comical, i believe God when He said .. He wasn’t mincing words.

[Ken]

It is an area of science of which I am largely unknowledgeable. I didn't know that quantities of embryos are fertilized for this process. Sperm is apparently kept in sperm banks - can unfertilized eggs not be kept in the same way?

Yes, they can and it is a common procedure. Women do it before undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy when faced with cancer. And some women just do it because they are getting older and feel that their biological clock is ticking.

It is, however, a much more invasive and expensive procedure than sperm banking because the medical process of harvesting single eggs from a woman's ovary is much more complex and complicated than simply ejaculating in a cup and then freezing the contents. Men also produce millions of sperm whereas women produce much fewer eggs. In fact, they are born with all the eggs they will ever have.

When I was translating Genesis (an abridgement, not the full text) and got to the part of where God forms Adam out of the dust, my translation helper said (before I got to the part of God breathing life into him) "It was just a body - there was no soul." Adam was a one-off, so we cannot make too many conclusions based on that, but it was a fully formed adult body. (Actually, I make no conclusions from that, in regards to this question.)

But maybe you meant what did I think about the way the article was written, the tone of the presentation. It has now been some time since I read it, but I tend to think that it may have been designed to suggest that the pro-life position is untenable, and/or to pit Christian against Christian. Based on what little I still know now, I think that if the process cannot be carried out without fertilizing multiple (i.e., more than the one that will be implanted) embryos, then those who believe that life is sacred should not participate. I do not know at what precise moment God puts a human soul into this new life. Nor can anyone else know (I think). So abstaining from it is the best course of action. There are many instances in the Scripture where it says that "God had closed the womb of ___." As sad as it is for a married couple who really want children, to be denied that blessing, that is a hard choice.

Similar questions are asked about end-of-life matters. I have asked these questions myself, having seen severely comatose patients who were kept alive with various life support tubes and so on. (This was back in the mid 70's, and I suspect that by using brain activity meters as the determining factor, this kind of thing is no longer so common.)

The scriptures are ambiguous on the subject of when life begins. Biologically speaking it doesn't actually ever begin. All living cells come from previous living cells through the process of cell division. All of us can trace our lineage back through an unbroken cycle of life for as long as we want to.

[Neto]

It is an area of science of which I am largely unknowledgeable. I didn't know that quantities of embryos are fertilized for this process. Sperm is apparently kept in sperm banks - can unfertilized eggs not be kept in the same way?

Yes, they can and it is a common procedure. Women do it before undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy when faced with cancer. And some women just do it because they are getting older and feel that their biological clock is ticking.

It is, however, a much more invasive and expensive procedure than sperm banking because the medical process of harvesting single eggs from a woman's ovary is much more complex and complicated than simply ejaculating in a cup and then freezing the contents. Men also produce millions of sperm whereas women produce much fewer eggs. In fact, they are born with all the eggs they will ever have.

In what sense is it more invasive than when they are taking eggs in order to fertilize them outside the womb? Isn't that what the article is talking about? I don't think it was concerning artificial insemination.

[temporal1]

As usual, every heart-tugging example will be exploited to prevail.
i suspect the “real” money+power behind the controversy will be from the homosexual bloc, which has turned the matter into a profitable international business.

They have law degrees and they know how to use them. Morality is not primary.
As with abortion, convenience, self-indulgence, not morality, are primary.

The public is deliberately misled.

[Ken]

It is an area of science of which I am largely unknowledgeable. I didn't know that quantities of embryos are fertilized for this process. Sperm is apparently kept in sperm banks - can unfertilized eggs not be kept in the same way?

Yes, they can and it is a common procedure. Women do it before undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy when faced with cancer. And some women just do it because they are getting older and feel that their biological clock is ticking.

It is, however, a much more invasive and expensive procedure than sperm banking because the medical process of harvesting single eggs from a woman's ovary is much more complex and complicated than simply ejaculating in a cup and then freezing the contents. Men also produce millions of sperm whereas women produce much fewer eggs. In fact, they are born with all the eggs they will ever have.

In what sense is it more invasive than when they are taking eggs in order to fertilize them outside the womb? Isn't that what the article is talking about? I don't think it was concerning artificial insemination.

People have their eggs extracted and frozen all the time. That is the first step in the process of IVF. It is the same exact process whether one is trying to do immediate IVF or delay the IVF for some future date. Once eggs are extracted from a woman the ONLY way to do anything with them is to proceed with IVF. There is no technological way of putting the frozen eggs back into a woman's ovaries and continuing with fertilization the natural way with sex.

When I said it is a more invasive and complex procedure I was comparing it to sperm donations, not IVF.

Artificial insemination is simply inserting a tube into a woman's uterus to inject stored sperm directly into the uterus when she is ovulating and fertile. It doesn't involve extracting eggs from the woman's ovaries.

[Ken]

As usual, every heart-tugging example will be exploited to prevail.
i suspect the “real” money+power behind the controversy will be from the homosexual bloc, which has turned the matter into a profitable international business.

You would be wrong in your suspicions. I looked up the actual numbers and only about 5% of IVF patients are gay or LGBT. About the same percentage as the overall population. The vast majority are married straight couples who have found they are infertile for some reason.

If you are gay and want children there are a LOT of cheaper and easier ways to do it than IVF. IVF is a treatment for infertility, not gayness. And gay people are no more likely to be infertile than straight people.

Gay women who want to get pregnant have no need for the time consuming expense of IFV. They can simply find a sperm donor from a sperm bank or an acquaintance and do normal artificial insemination. Or just get pregnant the traditional way. Gay men who want children can hire surrogate mothers. Both of those options are more reliable than IVF. In fact there would be absolutely no reason for gay men to ever use IVF.

[temporal1]

yes, i was confusing surrogacy with IVF.

however, regarding the power of the blocs+lobbies, i still suspect involvement, because, that’s the point of organized political blocs.
organizing for political muscle.

and, also, i’ve seen some related reports to this effect. i’m not going to search for them. mostly because searches are construed to indicate interest. i don’t want to invite more.

i’m not in favor of organized political blocs.
i don’t believe they convey the spirit of democracy, the U.S. Constitution, or the NT.

i see the temptation. i believe it’s not a long term good path.