To my fellow Coloradans RE: Amendment 62

[ape descendant]

I agree with you, Kotan.

I think that abortion as birth control should be used as a last resort... like in the case of the pill failing or a condom breaking. I do however think its pretty retarded to write that in to law, because it just creates a whole quagmire of laws for people to have to slog through the courts just to get a safe, legal abortion.. also the time it takes to do such a thing would cause more people to have to wait longer, instead of being able to take care of it during the first trimester, without being hassled by people who don't know, care about or even agree with them.

[Fruitbat]

AD - I wonder where they draw the line, at what stage in the early phases of cell division does it become a human.

The reason I ask this is that IVF usually goes to day 5 division if the eggs are strong enough - can't remember the scientific name, (blastocyst?).

So if a women went through IVF and had one or more frozen embryos, then the embryos would have a right to be gestated? (posing the question).

{which I think is incredibly stupid if you forced someone to have a baby that they weren't ready to have}

Kontan - people will always do whatever they want to do, even if it is illegal. People need safe choices. I just always thought the girl at school, should have used her brain and found a safer/better/more reliable form of contraception (but who knows what her mental state was like - maybe she was doing it for attention?)

(sorry my spelling sucks this morning)

[ape descendant]

They are potential humans from the moment of fertilization, they have human DNA. I think an excellent line to draw is birth (as a standard for every one), nice and clear... if the child can survive outside of the mother then we have a new person.

I personally don't think that embryos should have rights, considering that they need another person's body to develop in, when two people occupy the same body one of them needs to be in charge and I'd prefer it to be the one who has a fully developed brain and body.

What thinkest thou, O Batty one?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

The reason I ask this is that IVF usually goes to day 5 division if the eggs are strong enough - can't remember the scientific name, (blastocyst?).

So if a women went through IVF and had one or more frozen embryos, then the embryos would have a right to be gestated? (posing the question).

{which I think is incredibly stupid if you forced someone to have a baby that they weren't ready to have}

There's people out there who certainly think so. I remember Bush prancing out "snowflake children" at the White House, they were frozen embryos that were "adopted" and implanted in couples other than the ones the ova and sperm came from. They were campaigning against using human embryos for experimentation as life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized.

Oh, there's a wikipedia page about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children

[Fruitbat]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

They are potential humans from the moment of fertilization, they have human DNA. I think an excellent line to draw is birth (as a standard for every one), nice and clear... if the child can survive outside of the mother then we have a new person.

I personally don't think that embryos should have rights, considering that they need another person's body to develop in, when two people occupy the same body one of them needs to be in charge and I'd prefer it to be the one who has a fully developed brain and body.

What thinkest thou, O Batty one?

Well this is argument is pretty close to my heart, having had to go through IVF to have babybat and having frosties (as we call them over here - frozen blasts - five days past fertilization).

Personally for me, I think that it should entirely be up to the parents. I don't want anymore children because one is enough and I don't want to be one of those women you see walking around the malls that obviously has had one too many children (vacant staring eyes, kids being ratbags or else they are screaming their tits off at their kids).

But the thought that I 'should' have more because some idiot put in legislation saying that they can't be kept on ice anymore is wrong on so many levels. I don't want to end up being the octo-mum (not that I have eight blasts on ice).

I agree AD about once a baby is born then it should have equal rights BUT even then it's not a open and shut case.

A Girlfriend of mine had a placenta come away from the uterus during labour. Ended in an emergency caeser and a brain dead baby. They had to switch off life support a day or so later.

Saya I think gifting frosties is different to actually choosing not to have them yourself. It's pretty difficult to go through something as fucking horrible as IVF and then think that your embryos will be destroyed after 5 years.

There are also a lot of people out there who don't have their own eggs and sperm to use, and for some, it's like sharing the lottery with those who cannot have children of their own (if that makes sense).

With IVF they make you go through menopause, then fill you full of their hormones, so they can monitor your hormone levels and harvest more than one egg.
I got every side effect of the drugs. Honestly I think drug companies would love to have me on their drug trials, if there is a side effect, I'll have it.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

Well this is argument is pretty close to my heart, having had to go through IVF to have babybat and having frosties (as we call them over here - frozen blasts - five days past fertilization).

Personally for me, I think that it should entirely be up to the parents. I don't want anymore children because one is enough and I don't want to be one of those women you see walking around the malls that obviously has had one too many children (vacant staring eyes, kids being ratbags or else they are screaming their tits off at their kids).

But the thought that I 'should' have more because some idiot put in legislation saying that they can't be kept on ice anymore is wrong on so many levels. I don't want to end up being the octo-mum (not that I have eight blasts on ice).

I agree AD about once a baby is born then it should have equal rights BUT even then it's not a open and shut case.

A Girlfriend of mine had a placenta come away from the uterus during labour. Ended in an emergency caeser and a brain dead baby. They had to switch off life support a day or so later.

I take it we pretty much agree, then. Choice should be left to the parents.

I don't see how taking a baby off of life support is a blur of the lines. If I'm not mistaken, next of kin have the right to make medical decisions for some one if they are unable to give consent themselves, regardless of age.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

Saya I think gifting frosties is different to actually choosing not to have them yourself. It's pretty difficult to go through something as fucking horrible as IVF and then think that your embryos will be destroyed after 5 years.

The idea is that they should do that will all frozen embryos and never use them for stem cell research, its pretty rare they are adopted (less than two hundred children were born this way in what, twelve years?) and I'm sure some parents would rather that their embryos be used to further medical research that might save thousands of lives later down the road than leave them on the shelf for years. But no, because a lot of anti-choicers think personhood begins at conception.

[Fruitbat]

AD -Maybe not bluring the lines in a brain dead baby, but if the child was severely disabled due to some misfortune at birth, and there was that choice of does a severely disabled baby have the right to a life?

Saya - They can also get stem cells from umbilical cords. Mr Bat and I looked into it before babybat was born and there were no options for us to donate it to anyone to do research on (which sucked). The only option we had was to pay $4000 and put it on ice for down the track.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

AD -Maybe not bluring the lines in a brain dead baby, but if the child was severely disabled due to some misfortune at birth, and there was that choice of does a severely disabled baby have the right to a life?

Saya - They can also get stem cells from umbilical cords. Mr Bat and I looked into it before babybat was born and there were no options for us to donate it to anyone to do research on (which sucked). The only option we had was to pay $4000 and put it on ice for down the track.

The difference between umbilical and adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are that umbilical and adult stem cells are not pluripotent, they can only be made into a few of the 220 different types of cells that are in the human body, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and can develop into most of them. There is a type of cell called iPS which is artificially made by making multi-potent cells into pluripotent cells, but the technique has a lot of problems.

Sucks about the donation though, although I don't think Australia has the restrictions other countries do, so maybe they didn't need it?

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

AD -Maybe not bluring the lines in a brain dead baby, but if the child was severely disabled due to some misfortune at birth, and there was that choice of does a severely disabled baby have the right to a life?

I really don't understand what you're getting at with this. Killing a disabled baby would be equal to killing any disabled person regardless of age, disabled people are people like any other people same rights and what not. Once the line of birth is crossed, there's no going back.

Its not like they're going to stuff the baby back into his/her mom.