Did anyone watch The View this morning?

[galeteia]

Date: 8/3/2006 12:02:23 AM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 8/2/2006 11:50:27 PM

Author: Galateia

If anything, I'm surprised the women on here with conservative views didn't chastise her even more strongly for hurting their case.

Yes, according to YOUR views, they should have. To others, like RoseAngel, too much was made out of this woman's (or girl's, depending on how you look at it) reaction.


Again, I agree with you to some extent about her argument AND method of arguing. But comments like yours are what I was hinting at in the first place.

Fair enough, I've put my foot in it again.

The View has debated hot topics before, though. I don't remember hearing about any of them getting upset enough to wind up on YouTube, although I don't watch it regularly, so I'm out of the loop.

But tearing up your table cards?

And for the record (

) I think there still would be a big stink if Lisa Loeb had done the same things as Elizabeth did, even though she might have a pro-choice view.

One thing I'm genuinely curious about is what Elizabeth thinks of in-vitro fertilization. I wonder if she feels that fertilizing six eggs but using only one of them is morally wrong, since she said that she believes life begins at fertilization? I'm not being facetious, I really am curious to know where she draws the line, so to speak. She did say she believes Plan B should be available in certain circumstances, so there must be some gray area.

I am quite honestly curious about all the ins-and-outs of this debate, as I've found that people can have some very specific views. There is a really broad possible spectrum.


And I do feel that people can hurt their case by how they present it. For example, there is a local political candidate in my area, who shows up every for every debate but no one remembers what policies he avocates. All they remember is that he's the guy who threw chocolate milk at our past Prime Minister.

 

[RoseAngel04]

Date: 8/2/2006 11:50:27 PM
Author: Galateia
What I find interesting about her gestures was how they were all focused around cutting off other people and stopping them from talking. The clip shows a lot of chopping motions and her extending her arms over the table, as if to dominate the conversation by physically dominating the space.

And I think Barbara did the right thing by sitting her down. If anything, I''m surprised the women on here with conservative views didn''t chastise her even more strongly for hurting their case. If Elizabeth was the spokesperson for my POV, I''d be PO''d. Rather than arguing convincingly, she just threw a hissy fit. Not very good representation, IMO.

And all that garbage she said about about there being certain restrictions to help only those who need it? Stats show that it''s the girls who need help the most that don''t get it. The girl who has been impregnanted by her father (to use the View''s example today) isn''t exactly going to get much in the way of ''parental permission'' to get Plan B. Joy did bring up the holes in Elizabeth''s arguement, and Elizabeth did not take it well.

Unimpressed.

I''m not PO''d at Elisabeth for speaking her mind, or really the way she did it. She obviously got very much into this conversation and wanted her POV heard.

IMO ppl (like me) who believe that "life" starts at conception, sperm & egg unite, have a very tough time convincing a person who thinks it''s not at the stage of "life" yet. Just like it would be hard for ppl who believe "life" doesn''t start until later on during a woman''s pregnancy term would have a hard time convincing me, or other conservatives, that an implanted egg isn''t "life." It''s all a matter of opinion.

Now, while I do think that women/girls who experience the tradgedy of rape have a heavy burden if they do get pregnant, it''s hard for me to determine what the course of action should be. This is a very sticky and tough situation. On one side I think well life is life, irregardless "getting rid" of this life is IMO not the morally right thing to do. We all have our different beliefs...keep that in mind. But on the other side I see where this girl/woman didn''t choose to have intercourse and has now been given the burden on carrying some criminals child. It''s really just an impossible situation that''s a misfortune of today''s society.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 8/3/2006 12:42:33 AM
Author: RoseAngel04

I'm not PO'd at Elisabeth for speaking her mind, or really the way she did it. She obviously got very much into this conversation and wanted her POV heard.


IMO ppl (like me) who believe that 'life' starts at conception, sperm & egg unite, have a very tough time convincing a person who thinks it's not at the stage of 'life' yet. Just like it would be hard for ppl who believe 'life' doesn't start until later on during a woman's pregnancy term would have a hard time convincing me, or other conservatives, that an implanted egg isn't 'life.' It's all a matter of opinion.


Now, while I do think that women/girls who experience the tradgedy of rape have a heavy burden if they do get pregnant, it's hard for me to determine what the course of action should be. This is a very sticky and tough situation. On one side I think well life is life, irregardless 'getting rid' of this life is IMO not the morally right thing to do. We all have our different beliefs...keep that in mind. But on the other side I see where this girl/woman didn't choose to have intercourse and has now been given the burden on carrying some criminals child. It's really just an impossible situation that's a misfortune of today's society.

I agree that it's a sticky moral area, and that convincing someone to switch beliefs on such a potent subject is nearly impossible. Unfortunately that doesn't stop people from trying! Do you feel that it's just as important to convey the passion on the subject at hand as the POV?

I do recognize that people have different beliefs, and hence that was why I was objecting not to what she said, but instead how she said it. I really feel that when it comes to hot-button topics where everyone knows that it's something people tend to be passionate about, people need to exercise extra care and restraint when discussing it.

For example, at work this week I was on shift with a woman who is what I would consider (yes, in MY opinion) very passionately religious. It so happens that she is a pagan. She feels very strongly about it, so much so that she was very offended at the idea of me getting married in a church and speaking oaths in front of a "false deity". She furthermore went on to read an article to me off her screen that denounced all organized religious for "waging wars in the name of your false gods", and expected me to agree with her. She smugly pointed out that comments were closed on the article, because the author had been flamed by religious people, in a tone that was clearly dismissive of them.

I didn't agree with her. But knowing that religion is a very personal and passionate thing for many people, I felt extra tact was required in replying to her.

I agreed that while it is true there have been many wars fought in the name of religion, I felt that the author had obscured his message with his delivery, and no one was interested in his points, only in addressing his rudeness. The forest was lost for the trees. I also said that I felt marriage was also about family, and I wanted to respect his family's wishes in this matter. All of this was said mildly and calmly, and while she seemed itching for a fight, all she could do was 'Hmph' and walk off to work somewhere else.

Since you said that you 'believe that 'life' starts at conception, [when] sperm & egg unite', would you indulge me by telling me your views on eggs fertilized in a lab for the purposes of in-vitro? I'm really curious about this, but have never had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone.

 

[dani13]

Date: 8/2/2006 10:12:56 PM
Author: Munchkin
Just to reiterate something very important that Dani wrote: Plan B will NOT abort a fetus. It kills me when opponents of the med take a pro-life standpoint without (clearly) researching the actual method of action for the med! (ETA: Just in case I didn't make myself clear initially, if someone is pro life AND anti condoms, OCPs, etc. then I understand their view. I get mad when people who are pro-life and pro preventing pregnancies speak out against Plan B.)

Basically, it is a last minute, high dose BC pill. Most pregnancies do not happen in the midst of 'the moment,' rather hours or days later. Because of that, there is time for an oral contraceptive to sneak in and prevent a pregnancy. If a woman is already pregnant, nothing will happen to the fetus.

One of my concerns about making it over the counter is that its cost may make it inaccessible to some women who need it. As my adolescent health rotation preceptor explained, an Rx copay is often far cheaper than an OTC option.

Also, Dani, I doubt they would issue it with an age restriction. I practice in CT and here, females are able to seek reproductive health care without parental consent at the age of 14. Other states have similar age requirements (often 16 yo) I can not see the FDA requiring an age minimum that is in conflict with state minimum requirements and the med itself is safe for females under 18. Obviously if it were off label for adolescents, I would hope they would impose a minimum!

Climbing off my soapbox....
Munchkin

Hey Munchkin!

I can see your point re: the parental consent issue. I agree with you- if females are able to seek repro health care without parental consent at 14-16 yrs, they should have the med available to them...The FDA potentially requiring parental consent for women under 18 if they change the morning after pill to OTC status was just my personal opinion because this was brought up in SO MUCH in the literature when I did the research on this issue just a few months ago...

I think it is a controversial topic, and although it is a safe and effective method to prevent pregnancy for young women, the public (especially parents) will not be completely comfortable with it...you know? So I believe that this is just one way the FDA can get around the controversy- they would be making it readily available, but still controlling its use indirectly...

 

[ephemery1]

Ugh... there was another thread a while back where I mentioned that Elizabeth drives me insane with her seemingly half-formed opinions on things. While she obviously feels very passionately about certain issues, and is educated on many of them, she just gives off the impression to me that she never truly thinks anything through... and when she''s stumbling around in circles trying to prove a nonexistent point, it just makes me cringe for her.

I think she often comes across as a petulant, naive child... and her opinions would carry a lot more weight and reach more people if she were able to back them up with rational, solid arguments.

My example before was her insistence that a guy is cheating if he feels attraction toward anyone else, regardless of acting on it. Joy asked "so we''re walking down the street and he notices a beautiful woman walking by, that''s cheating?" And Elizabeth was forced to respond "welllll, yesss..."

You could see in her face that the loophole hadn''t occurred to her before. Same with the recent argument... she starts to acknowledge "well, in those cases"... sees her own loophole... and rather than explore that, just gets louder and more insistent to try and cover it up.

*I think it is CRUCIAL to learn how to think about your own beliefs objectively (religious, political, or otherwise) in order to fully understand and appreciate their meaning in your life.* Even MORE important if you plan on sharing those beliefs with the general public on a talk show! Unfortunately, it seems Elizabeth hasn''t quite figured out how to do that yet.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/2/2006 11:30:03 PM
Author: RoseAngel04

Date: 8/2/2006 10:18:00 PM
Author: TravelingGal

But as far as ''losing'' it...I wonder if people would think the same thing if she was that passionate about pro-choice?

Thank you TravelingGal for this wonderful statement. IMO no, people wouldn''t be thinking the same thing if she were speaking so passionatly about pro-choice. Should Elisabeth have controlled herself better, probably. I am honestly glad to see a younger woman on a talk show with conservative views. I agree with most things Elisabeth says, maybe not the way she speaks them, but the overall message I agree with. It irks me that Barbara made such a HUDE deal about it, when it wasn''t everything people made it out to be.

Oh...and for the record I''m pro-life.

Ditto except I am pro-choice. What burns me is that anyone who takes the "conservative" point of view is usually deemed a loon, uninformed, never an academic, etc. It''s a prevailing theme in our culture - everyone has to be politically correct.

Also, BC is part of our ACC. While they could be Catholic, Christian, it is NOT a pre-requiste to attend BC.

 

[Rhino]

Thank you for the input. This is very informative. I can understand how certain conservative viewpoints could be split on this issue. (Conservatives who believe in birth control and those who don''t).

Even comiing from that perspective, with this particular drug, no life is being terminated. Kind of like a "late birth control" pilll if you would except its taken after the fact instead of before. Interesting. Fire & Ice, I totally hear you about the conservative point of view being portrayed as loons etc. Early on in life it painted a picture for me that influenced me to think the same.

All the best,

 

[larussel03]

Date: 8/2/2006 11:30:03 PM
Author: RoseAngel04

Date: 8/2/2006 10:18:00 PM

Author: TravelingGal


But as far as 'losing' it...I wonder if people would think the same thing if she was that passionate about pro-choice?

Thank you TravelingGal for this wonderful statement. IMO no, people wouldn't be thinking the same thing if she were speaking so passionatly about pro-choice. Should Elisabeth have controlled herself better, probably. I am honestly glad to see a younger woman on a talk show with conservative views. I agree with most things Elisabeth says, maybe not the way she speaks them, but the overall message I agree with. It irks me that Barbara made such a HUDE deal about it, when it wasn't everything people made it out to be.


Oh...and for the record I'm pro-life.

I think that people maybe would think she was losing it if she conducted herself in the way that she did in that segment. I mean, she was interrupting everyone and pointing her finger and at one point sounded almost in tears, I mean I dont think she was ="losing it" but I think she was not making her point in a clear way and people tend to respond better, IMO, to opinions stated rationally, than ones that seem more pushy. It really seemed like no one could say anything b/c she really wanted to impress her opinion on everyone, and she has every right to her opinion, and I feel like she did have a thoughtful and informed one, but she has to understand that other people have opinions too that they feel just as strongly about. That's the beauty of opinions--everyoe's got one.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 8/3/2006 9:34:36 AM
Author: ephemery1
Ugh... there was another thread a while back where I mentioned that Elizabeth drives me insane with her seemingly half-formed opinions on things. While she obviously feels very passionately about certain issues, and is educated on many of them, she just gives off the impression to me that she never truly thinks anything through... and when she''s stumbling around in circles trying to prove a nonexistent point, it just makes me cringe for her.

I think she often comes across as a petulant, naive child... and her opinions would carry a lot more weight and reach more people if she were able to back them up with rational, solid arguments.

My example before was her insistence that a guy is cheating if he feels attraction toward anyone else, regardless of acting on it. Joy asked ''so we''re walking down the street and he notices a beautiful woman walking by, that''s cheating?'' And Elizabeth was forced to respond ''welllll, yesss...''

You could see in her face that the loophole hadn''t occurred to her before. Same with the recent argument... she starts to acknowledge ''well, in those cases''... sees her own loophole... and rather than explore that, just gets louder and more insistent to try and cover it up.

*I think it is CRUCIAL to learn how to think about your own beliefs objectively (religious, political, or otherwise) in order to fully understand and appreciate their meaning in your life.* Even MORE important if you plan on sharing those beliefs with the general public on a talk show! Unfortunately, it seems Elizabeth hasn''t quite figured out how to do that yet.

Hear hear!

 

[larussel03]

Date: 8/3/2006 2:55:15 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 8/3/2006 9:34:36 AM

Author: ephemery1

Ugh... there was another thread a while back where I mentioned that Elizabeth drives me insane with her seemingly half-formed opinions on things. While she obviously feels very passionately about certain issues, and is educated on many of them, she just gives off the impression to me that she never truly thinks anything through... and when she''s stumbling around in circles trying to prove a nonexistent point, it just makes me cringe for her.

I think she often comes across as a petulant, naive child... and her opinions would carry a lot more weight and reach more people if she were able to back them up with rational, solid arguments.


My example before was her insistence that a guy is cheating if he feels attraction toward anyone else, regardless of acting on it. Joy asked ''so we''re walking down the street and he notices a beautiful woman walking by, that''s cheating?'' And Elizabeth was forced to respond ''welllll, yesss...''

You could see in her face that the loophole hadn''t occurred to her before. Same with the recent argument... she starts to acknowledge ''well, in those cases''... sees her own loophole... and rather than explore that, just gets louder and more insistent to try and cover it up.


*I think it is CRUCIAL to learn how to think about your own beliefs objectively (religious, political, or otherwise) in order to fully understand and appreciate their meaning in your life.* Even MORE important if you plan on sharing those beliefs with the general public on a talk show! Unfortunately, it seems Elizabeth hasn''t quite figured out how to do that yet.

Hear hear!

Date: 8/3/2006 2:55:15 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 8/3/2006 9:34:36 AM

Author: ephemery1

Ugh... there was another thread a while back where I mentioned that Elizabeth drives me insane with her seemingly half-formed opinions on things. While she obviously feels very passionately about certain issues, and is educated on many of them, she just gives off the impression to me that she never truly thinks anything through... and when she''s stumbling around in circles trying to prove a nonexistent point, it just makes me cringe for her.

I think she often comes across as a petulant, naive child... and her opinions would carry a lot more weight and reach more people if she were able to back them up with rational, solid arguments.


My example before was her insistence that a guy is cheating if he feels attraction toward anyone else, regardless of acting on it. Joy asked ''so we''re walking down the street and he notices a beautiful woman walking by, that''s cheating?'' And Elizabeth was forced to respond ''welllll, yesss...''

You could see in her face that the loophole hadn''t occurred to her before. Same with the recent argument... she starts to acknowledge ''well, in those cases''... sees her own loophole... and rather than explore that, just gets louder and more insistent to try and cover it up.


*I think it is CRUCIAL to learn how to think about your own beliefs objectively (religious, political, or otherwise) in order to fully understand and appreciate their meaning in your life.* Even MORE important if you plan on sharing those beliefs with the general public on a talk show! Unfortunately, it seems Elizabeth hasn''t quite figured out how to do that yet.

Hear hear!

True that!

 

[codex57]

That's it? That's not losing it. It was her on the way to maybe losing it, but that's about it. Since her view's not popular with about half the women in this country, I suspect that most of her critics simply disagree with her view and saw more than what actually happened. She didn't really flail her arms about. She used hand motions that lots of people do when talking.

But yeah, that consolation thing was retarded. Most of it was very fakey, particularly on the part of Elizabeth.

Still, what's the point of the View? Is it supposed to be a bunch of ladies just casually chatting up topics? Or do you expect a full on Hardball debate where you've got expert debaters sparring over some issue? Seems like the format is one where it's more casual (like arguing with friends) where not everyone has prepared an outline of what to say.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 8/3/2006 12:42:33 AM
Author: RoseAngel04

IMO ppl (like me) who believe that ''life'' starts at conception, sperm & egg unite, have a very tough time convincing a person who thinks it''s not at the stage of ''life'' yet. Just like it would be hard for ppl who believe ''life'' doesn''t start until later on during a woman''s pregnancy term would have a hard time convincing me, or other conservatives, that an implanted egg isn''t ''life.'' It''s all a matter of opinion.

RoseAngel, I''m confused. You say that it''s hard to convince you and other conservatives than an implanted egg isn''t life. So what is the conservative viewpoint on the Plan B pill then? It prevents implantation if the egg has already been fertilized and prevents fertilization if it hasn''t been. Since it doesn''t abort an implanted fertilized egg, a conservative who believes that an implanted egg is ''life'' should be pro-Plan B since it prevents a pregnancy that might otherwise be aborted, no?

If you meant to say that you and other conservatives will never be convinced that ''life'' doesn''t start at fertilization, what do you feel is the conservative view on in-vitro fertilization? The Catholic Church is unabashedly against it. Do conservatives feel the same way? Or perhaps they feel that women should undergo a complete IVF cycle each time they try to become pregnant, with only one egg fertilized each time, rather than freeze embryos that may end up being destroyed? Or are conservatives not concerned about IVF? (It''s never a campaign topic, so I''ve always wondered.)

 

[RoseAngel04]

Date: 8/3/2006 8:35:32 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 8/3/2006 12:42:33 AM
Author: RoseAngel04

IMO ppl (like me) who believe that ''life'' starts at conception, sperm & egg unite, have a very tough time convincing a person who thinks it''s not at the stage of ''life'' yet. Just like it would be hard for ppl who believe ''life'' doesn''t start until later on during a woman''s pregnancy term would have a hard time convincing me, or other conservatives, that an implanted egg isn''t ''life.'' It''s all a matter of opinion.

RoseAngel, I''m confused. You say that it''s hard to convince you and other conservatives than an implanted egg isn''t life. So what is the conservative viewpoint on the Plan B pill then? It prevents implantation if the egg has already been fertilized and prevents fertilization if it hasn''t been. Since it doesn''t abort an implanted fertilized egg, a conservative who believes that an implanted egg is ''life'' should be pro-Plan B since it prevents a pregnancy that might otherwise be aborted, no?

If you meant to say that you and other conservatives will never be convinced that ''life'' doesn''t start at fertilization, what do you feel is the conservative view on in-vitro fertilization? The Catholic Church is unabashedly against it. Do conservatives feel the same way? Or perhaps they feel that women should undergo a complete IVF cycle each time they try to become pregnant, with only one egg fertilized each time, rather than freeze embryos that may end up being destroyed? Or are conservatives not concerned about IVF? (It''s never a campaign topic, so I''ve always wondered.)

Thanks Maria for the question....I realized I did say the wrong word. I meant "fertilized" egg...not "implanted." My fault.

I honestly don''t know a lot about IVF. From watching TV shows I''m under the impression that health care professionals fertilize multiple harvested eggs with sperm, and then put each of those eggs into the woman with the hopeful expectation that at least one will attatch?!? If this is the case then myself individually am not against IVF. I can''t speak for the conservative community as a whole or the Catholic Church (I''m Baptist). I''ve never heard conservatives outside the CC put down IVF procedures. How this helps?!

 

[tawn]

Date: 8/3/2006 10:27:56 PM
Author: RoseAngel04


Thanks Maria for the question....I realized I did say the wrong word. I meant ''fertilized'' egg...not ''implanted.'' My fault.

I honestly don''t know a lot about IVF. From watching TV shows I''m under the impression that health care professionals fertilize multiple harvested eggs with sperm, and then put each of those eggs into the woman with the hopeful expectation that at least one will attatch?!? If this is the case then myself individually am not against IVF. I can''t speak for the conservative community as a whole or the Catholic Church (I''m Baptist). I''ve never heard conservatives outside the CC put down IVF procedures. How this helps?!

I don''t know if you read the post I had made earlier...but I''ll just mention it again just to save you having to go back through all the posts! It takes 6-12 days, and sometimes even longer for a fertilized egg to actually implant itself in the womb after ovulation...so if the morning after pill is taken within 72 hours of intercourse, it''s not doing anything different than the BC Pill or an IUD is.

 

[RoseAngel04]

Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.

This was taken from http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx


I deceided to do a little more research. The only issue I have with Plan B are the words in red. It's just really tough for me to fight the urge inside me that says "This is the first stage of life." I have never previously been against BC and plan on using when my FF get married. Oh...decisions!!

 

[Maria D]

Date: 8/3/2006 10:27:56 PM
Author: RoseAngel04
Thanks Maria for the question....I realized I did say the wrong word. I meant ''fertilized'' egg...not ''implanted.'' My fault.

I honestly don''t know a lot about IVF. From watching TV shows I''m under the impression that health care professionals fertilize multiple harvested eggs with sperm, and then put each of those eggs into the woman with the hopeful expectation that at least one will attatch?!? If this is the case then myself individually am not against IVF. I can''t speak for the conservative community as a whole or the Catholic Church (I''m Baptist). I''ve never heard conservatives outside the CC put down IVF procedures. How this helps?!

Thanks for clearing up the fertilization vs. implantation confusion, RoseAngel.

I also have never heard conservatives or pro-lifers put down IVF procedures. This is weird to me because there are said to be millions of excess embryos produced that are destroyed and there are definitely 400,000 frozen embryos in this country, the vast majority of which will never be implanted.

I''ve never gone through it, but from what I understand the IVF cycle is very stressful and can be painful for the woman. Many eggs are collected and fertilized and only the "best" embryos are transferred to the womb with the hope of implantation by, as you say, at least one. (Hopefully not more than one because multiple births are considered a serious risk.) If they are fortunate enough to get more "good" embryos than needed, a couple can choose to freeze embryos for later use rather than have to go through the egg collecting procedure again. Many times implantation does not occur so it would make sense for a couple to freeze embryos rather than go through the whole stressful procedure each time. I''m sure these couples have to feel that the embryos they keep as "back-up" in case pregnancy doesn''t occur, or as future siblings, are not yet ''life.'' Because if they believed the fertilized but unimplanted embryos were sacred ''life'' how could they rationalize the procedure? It''s the same thing with women who are OK with Plan B. They do not feel that the fertilized but unimplanted egg is sacred life.

I cannot think of a logical reason why conservatives and pro-lifers are trying to get in the way of Plan B contraception. It prevents abortion, the very thing they rail against. IVF wastes away fertilized eggs all the time and they (conservatives) are not concerned about it -- so that tells me that can''t be it.

I think true conservative pro-lifers should be rallying for Plan B; it may prevent abortion!

 

[RoseAngel04]

Date: 8/3/2006 11:16:02 PM
Author: Maria D

I think true conservative pro-lifers should be rallying for Plan B; it may prevent abortion!

I think you''re onto something here!

 

[galeteia]

Date: 8/3/2006 4:12:47 AM
Author: Galateia

I wonder if she feels that fertilizing six eggs but using only one of them is morally wrong, since she said that she believes life begins at fertilization? I'm not being facetious, I really am curious to know where she draws the line, so to speak. She did say she believes Plan B should be available in certain circumstances, so there must be some gray area.[/b]

--snip--

Since you said that you 'believe that 'life' starts at conception, [when] sperm & egg unite', would you indulge me by telling me your views on eggs fertilized in a lab for the purposes of in-vitro? I'm really curious about this, but have never had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone.

Roseangel, thank you for commenting on the subject.

It's not easy to speak up if your opinions may be at odds with the group you're speaking with, and I respect you for doing so. I was hoping you might tell me about your views on the abovementioned question in bold, as you said that you aren't against IVF? Is there a difference between the eggs fertilized in a lab for the purposes of implantation, and those fertilized the, um, 'old-fashioned way' that are still pre-implantation?



ETA: What Emphemery said about people carefully thinking over their views (and Roseangel's post) has me appreciating those people who don't passively accept views from others, and who sit down, do the research, and really figure out where they stand on their own. It takes a lot of strength to step back from the things you have absorbed as you've grown up, look at them ojectively, and form your own views on your own terms. I've certainly been working on undoing a lifetime of assumptions (on one thing in particular

) and I really respect that when I see it in other people. I'm not just specifically talking to you/singling you out, Roseangel, I'm just being generally appreciative of people who do this.

ETA the 2nd time: For better tone. Man, I am SO bad at this whole tone-of-posts thing!

 

[RoseAngel04]

Date: 8/3/2006 11:20:56 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 8/3/2006 4:12:47 AM
Author: Galateia

I wonder if she feels that fertilizing six eggs but using only one of them is morally wrong, since she said that she believes life begins at fertilization? I''m not being facetious, I really am curious to know where she draws the line, so to speak. She did say she believes Plan B should be available in certain circumstances, so there must be some gray area.[/b]

--snip--

Since you said that you ''believe that ''life'' starts at conception, [when] sperm & egg unite'', would you indulge me by telling me your views on eggs fertilized in a lab for the purposes of in-vitro? I''m really curious about this, but have never had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone.

Roseangel, thank you for commenting on the subject.

It''s not easy to speak up when your opinions are at odds with the group you''re speaking with, and I respect you for doing so. I was hoping you might tell me about your views on the abovementioned question in bold, as you said that you aren''t against IVF? Is there a difference between the eggs fertilized in a lab for the purposes of implantation, and those fertilized the, um, ''old-fashioned way'' that are still pre-implantation?

Hm...see this is where it get''s so tough! Like I mentioned earlier, it''s hard for me to not think/believe that once the egg is fertilized that this is the first "stage" of life. I understand that without the attatchment, the "life" will not grow into an embryo then to a fetus. If I remember correctly from a class I took a few years back this is still the "germinal" stage (Isn''t that such an awful name?!).

So..my conscience wants to say that those other 5 fertilized eggs are life and shouldn''t be treated asif they are trash, but I also see your POV. You all may have been able to sway my opinion...can you believe it?!

 

[TravelingGal]

I think of this drug as a form of birth control too...preventative.

It''s a very sticky situation. Personally I am pro-life. By that I mean that if I were to get pregnant, I think it would be irresponsible for me to abort it. Would I have felt that way if I got pregnant at 18? I can''t honestly say that I would.

It''s largely because of that reason that I am pro-choice overall. I''d be a hypocrite if I wasn''t. Many conservatives would say on this issue that certain measures (abortion, morning after pill, etc) are acceptable for victims of rape, incest, etc. But whose shade of gray is correct? And if you were to go hard line all the way and not make any exceptions, most people would think you are devoid of a heart. Hard to win as a pro-lifer.

My theory on God, if that is a factor for some, is that we were given free will. I would rather let people have to make a decision (albeit a hard one) than to realize there is not a choice. Whether it is "right or wrong" can be decided by a higher power...not by me. I for one really am uncomfortable with forcing my views upon someone else. What if we lived in a society where women HAD to have abortions and were not allowed to have children? It''s the same to me as people telling me that you have to give birth to a child if you become pregnant.

As for:

"I also have never heard conservatives or pro-lifers put down IVF procedures. This is weird to me because there are said to be millions of excess embryos produced that are destroyed and there are definitely 400,000 frozen embryos in this country, the vast majority of which will never be implanted."

My guess is that it''s because IVF is a procedure where the intention is to create life, vs the others where the intent is to "terminate" it. It''s one of those shades of gray where people pick and choose what is OK for their individual beliefs.

Bottom line for me: I am a pro choicer who hopes people choose life...if that makes any sense at all. Sounds contradictory, I know!

 

[RoseAngel04]

I completely understand you TG!!

I don''t think most ppl are completely pro-life or completely pro-choice. Most ppl aren''t OK with killing babies, along with most ppl want their freedom to do what they feel is right for THEM. A majority of ppl are somewhere in the middle and/or lean to one of the two sides. I lean more to the pro-life.

I am completely against abortion all together. I am young and have always asked myself "What If?!" I couldn''t bear to get rid of a growing person inside me. I am a strong believer that everything happens for a reason, and that in the end my faith in God will get me through even the toughest of times.

 

[tawn]

Date: 8/3/2006 11:14:02 PM
Author: RoseAngel04

Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.

This was taken from http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx


I deceided to do a little more research. The only issue I have with Plan B are the words in red. It''s just really tough for me to fight the urge inside me that says ''This is the first stage of life.'' I have never previously been against BC and plan on using when my FF get married. Oh...decisions!!

That''s exactly what an IUD does...stops a fertilized egg from implanting because something else is already in the womb. For an egg to implant, the lining has to be just right, and taking the MAP will mess up the hormones, which in turn will mess up the phase of the lining, making implantation unlikely. I wonder what huge number of fertilized eggs must be that never get to implant.

If someone is going to go after the MAP, then they''re going to have to be against BC Pills and IUD''s and other forms as well.

It seems like a fine plan to me...but if some girl got pregnant and didn''t want to keep the baby, I''m ready for one!

 

[divergrrl]

Ok, this is sooo frustrating. It's very easy to actually PINPOINT when "life" begins with our current levels of medical diagnostics.

It takes more than 72 hours for a "fetus" to form. Eggs live for about 24 to 48 hours & sperm up to 5 days. Now if they all got in the same zipcode on the same day...its a long swim for a little guy. A few days for sure. And then he has to successfully overtake the egg, divide some cells, and find a nice spot to implant. BOOM! It begins. You've got about a week.

I used to be prochoice, but I am wavering since I had a baby. I still think abortion should be legal, but...I no longer hold any convictions that a first trimester fetus is not a baby. This is only because I saw my son's heartbeat (he did look like a long bean alien) at 7 weeks, and then I counted all his fingers and toes & watched him suck his thumb at 10 weeks. That kinda threw me for a moral loop. But it's my loop & I don't want to tell others how to live their lives. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes I say.

weird thing is, the "gestation clock" of 40 weeks begins at the first day of your period. So Week 1 you are having a period, Week 2 you edge into your "fertile" state, and about day 14 (assuming you have a normal 28 day cycle) you might be ovulating. Then if your egg & partner's sperm tango on Cycle Day 14 through 18 you will be in Week 3 as the sperm penetrates the egg & begins cell division. So, "technically" you are 4 weeks pregnant by the time you miss your period. But...truly, no one was really pregnant weeks 1-2 and most of 3.

Buuut...I digress...you can't immediately get pregnant a few hours after doing the deed. It takes a wee bit, and I think EC is a viable option that does not end a life.

Hope I don't offend, but it always irks me when people believe things that are simply not possible, like..you get colds from being cold. Its a VIRUS people!

Jeannine

 

[divergrrl]

Date: 8/3/2006 10:58:52 PM
Author: tawn

Date: 8/3/2006 10:27:56 PM
Author: RoseAngel04


Thanks Maria for the question....I realized I did say the wrong word. I meant ''fertilized'' egg...not ''implanted.'' My fault.

I honestly don''t know a lot about IVF. From watching TV shows I''m under the impression that health care professionals fertilize multiple harvested eggs with sperm, and then put each of those eggs into the woman with the hopeful expectation that at least one will attatch?!? If this is the case then myself individually am not against IVF. I can''t speak for the conservative community as a whole or the Catholic Church (I''m Baptist). I''ve never heard conservatives outside the CC put down IVF procedures. How this helps?!

I don''t know if you read the post I had made earlier...but I''ll just mention it again just to save you having to go back through all the posts! It takes 6-12 days, and sometimes even longer for a fertilized egg to actually implant itself in the womb after ovulation...so if the morning after pill is taken within 72 hours of intercourse, it''s not doing anything different than the BC Pill or an IUD is.

I''m Catholic, and pro-choice, but not a fan of IVF (i''m not anti..since I don''t tell folks how to live) (and again, a bad bad birth control using Catholic) since i think it has long term consequences (higher risks of fatal ovarian cancer) and a takes a big toll on the mother emotionally & physically.

I do know, from holding my best friend from college''s hand through 7 years of infertility & 4 rounds of invitro, that they harvest MULTIPLE eggs that are fertilized. She went through 2 rounds of "harvesting" and 4 of implantation..and she only had one baby. But she does have 16 more fertilized eggs in the freezer at her RE (fertility doc) waiting for her to try for baby #2. She''s only going to implant 3 eggs, so the other 13 go in the trash if they aren''t used, or just sit there until she knows they are done trying.

Interesting tidbit: her SIL (married to her DH''s brother..I just think these guys'' boys can''t swim) just did IVF for baby #2 and wound up with 3 fetuses!

She''s thinking of doing "selective reduction" where they take one or two of the "extra" fetuses to reduce the number of children. (she''s 8 weeks along). I don''t know what I think of all this. Feeling how I do about IVF, I know I''d just adopt..but then I have a child of my own, and can''t think or feel for anyone else.

its just something to consider.

Peace...

Jeannine

 

[galeteia]

Date: 8/4/2006 3:05:39 AM
Author: divergrrl

I'm Catholic, and pro-choice, but not a fan of IVF (i'm not anti..since I don't tell folks how to live) (and again, a bad bad birth control using Catholic) since i think it has long term consequences (higher risks of fatal ovarian cancer) and a takes a big toll on the mother emotionally & physically.


I do know, from holding my best friend from college's hand through 7 years of infertility & 4 rounds of invitro, that they harvest MULTIPLE eggs that are fertilized. She went through 2 rounds of 'harvesting' and 4 of implantation..and she only had one baby. But she does have 16 more fertilized eggs in the freezer at her RE (fertility doc) waiting for her to try for baby #2. She's only going to implant 3 eggs, so the other 13 go in the trash if they aren't used, or just sit there until she knows they are done trying.


Interesting tidbit: her SIL (married to her DH's brother..I just think these guys' boys can't swim) just did IVF for baby #2 and wound up with 3 fetuses!

She's thinking of doing 'selective reduction' where they take one or two of the 'extra' fetuses to reduce the number of children. (she's 8 weeks along). I don't know what I think of all this. Feeling how I do about IVF, I know I'd just adopt..but then I have a child of my own, and can't think or feel for anyone else.


its just something to consider.


Peace...


Jeannine

Oh my. What a difficult place to be in. As far as I know the risks, especially for an IVF pregnancy, drastically increase with multiple fetuses? What a hard choice: save just one (or two, I guess) and lose the other(s) or risk all three and perhaps the mother as well? What a hard, hard choice for the parents. My heart goes out to your friend.

One of the most frustrating misconceptions for me about pro-choicers is that they don't value life. In my experience, all of the pro-choicers I know do value life very highly, and especially the lives of children. Children are precious, and they should be welcomed and taken care of. I think being a parent is the most challenging role a person can take on, and sadly I think there are many people who become parents with less thought than the purchase of a car. This saddens me.

I also feel that if choice exists, even if someone wasn't planning on being a parent, if they can choose to keep the child, they are accepting that child and it becomes wanted. But that just my view.

On another note, I wish BC methods were safer, more reliable, easily accessible, and widely accepted. I feel this would go a very long way towards eliminating the issue. I know how foolish that wish is, but I can't help wishing it anyway!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/3/2006 11:20:54 PM
Author: RoseAngel04

Date: 8/3/2006 11:16:02 PM
Author: Maria D

I think true conservative pro-lifers should be rallying for Plan B; it may prevent abortion!

I think you''re onto something here!

These are my thoughts too as I read this thread RoseAngel. No life is being terminated, simply prevented as in the case with birth control pills.

 

[dani13]

Bumping this thread- Did anyone see in the news that the FDA approved Plan B (morning- after pill) for over-the-counter use for women age 18 or older with proper ID?? My prediction (which I stated earlier in this thread was right)!!

I am happy with this decision- it is nice to see women''s reproductive rights acknowledged.. Hopefully, they will be able to get rid of the age requirement though. Regardless, it''s a big step!!!!

 

[winyan]

Hello,

I''m a long time member of Pricescope, but life has taken me away from it for a very long time.

First of all, I''m an EMT, so I see saving life as a duty. However, I''ve been pro-choice for as long (or longer) than Roe v Wade has been in existence.

I am very conversant w/Catholicism, and am always surprised when an edict overules one of the Doctors of the Church, namely St.Thomas Aquinas who stated life began at ''quickening'' (first movement). This is well after (generally) the time an abortion can safely be done; at about 4-5 months.

As far as Elizabeth H. goes, she never appealed to me, too snotty about herself and her perfect life.

win