Comments for Blasphemous Blogging

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by Mark

Mark — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:17:32 +0000

There’s no guarantee that any of the frozen embryos would survive a thawing process. It’s likely that many would but no guarantee. The baby however is quite alive and well so you’d be playing the odds so to speak. Imagine the same scenario with 50 people on life support and one dude with a broken ankle. You’d feel immediate guilt about the one person but much better if the other 50 ended up recovering.

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by =8)-DX

=8)-DX — Wed, 23 May 2012 12:22:55 +0000

the 145 embryos or the baby?

Not 147? What happened to the other 2? Oh I guess the person dropped them when their reality-check kicked in and they will rush off to save the baby instead!

Either way this is a bit odd, a law like this wouldn’t change how people think of babies vs embryos, it would just place absurd restrictions on women and medical personnel, and I don’t think even the proponents would want the law to add 9 months to your legal age.

Sad this stuff is still a matter of debate. I want my futuristic Utopia: forget the jetpacks and hovercars, what about the universal societal rejection of religion!

Comment on Just Say “NO” by prochoice

prochoice — Wed, 23 May 2012 07:58:48 +0000

As in -
you have got your widget, and do need a collection of them?

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by Neeroc

Neeroc — Wed, 23 May 2012 02:32:54 +0000

I frame my answer as an infertile who has undergone 8 rounds of IVF. Even if those frozen embryos were my own (and crap what I wouldn’t give for 147 frozen embryos!) I would save the child. I would then probably burn to death going back in for the embryos, but they aren’t a child.

It truly saddens me to see Canadian legislators jumping on this bandwagon now too.

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by inflection

inflection — Tue, 22 May 2012 22:29:35 +0000

Also as mizuko kuyo, water children, in Japan, where the name is applied to children who died before birth, such as miscarriages, abortions, etc. There are shrines for them, basically memorial graveyards.

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by Samphire

Samphire — Tue, 22 May 2012 22:16:42 +0000

While you guys were squabbling over your eggs, if you had looked up for a moment you might have seen me sneaking out carrying that young blond pretty nurse. Boy, was she grateful?

And she was carrying about 1,000 eggs, none of them fertilised though. Yet.

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by theschwa

theschwa — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:24:23 +0000

Won’t work. The container holding the proto-babies is a 20 gallon fish tank (for some reason). It takes 2 hands to carry and there is no room for a baby to fit inside it, either.

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by Art

Art — Tue, 22 May 2012 06:49:54 +0000

Hmmm … so can we start sending out demands for child support to fathers of embryos? That dewar of liquid nitrogen isn’t going to refill itself. Start charging rent for storage space and bill the parents.

That guy that made beer money donating sperm may be getting surprise. Two hundred kids at twenty dollar a month each might put a crimp in his style.

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by Edwin Kagin

Edwin Kagin — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:59:08 +0000

They are known, by the religiously insane, as “Snowflake Children.”

Comment on Should You Save 147 Frozen Embryos Or One Living Baby? by Edwin Kagin

Edwin Kagin — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:49:18 +0000

Thank you for your comments. But you have misconstrued the facts as set forth in the essay, and you have almost certainly committed manslaughter, if not murder.

Please recall that this choice of options is far different from your idea that the embryo have “the potential of becoming human.”

Under the laws of the state in question, the people of the state have passed an amendment to the constitution of their state defining a “person” as being extant at the moment of conception. “Person” means “human.” Excepting of course the odd ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court making a corporation a human.

So, in light of your new perceptions about the law, which would you choose? The baby or the embroys? Both, under the proposed amendments, are equally living humans.