Why people like the Duggars kill the most embryos

[Rachel333]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/why- ... t-embryos/

I know we've talked about this subject before, but I thought this article today was interesting. Though I'm pro-choice myself, I get why many believe that fetuses are people, but it just baffles me that they can consider embryos as fully people as well. Are they expecting Heaven to be full of people who were never even born? I posted about this earlier, but someone with a blog I've read a few times is planning to do an embryo adoption ( thehelpmates.com/embryo-adoption-vs-ivf/ ) and seems to think they're saving these kids from being frozen and "waiting for reanimation that may never come." She references Russell Moore ( russellmoore.com/2010/02/22/is-embryo-adoption-immoral/ ) who says that, "These so-called “snowflakes†are brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus are stored in cryogenic containers in fertility clinics as the “extras†of IVF projects. They already exist, and they already exist as persons created in the image of God. And there are Christians called to adopt them, to bring them to birth through pregnancy, and to raise them in love." It's all so bizarre to me.

But back to the topic of the article, I really would like to hear people like the Duggars address the fact that, according to their beliefs, they are letting far more babies die than could ever be "killed" by someone on birth control.

[Coldwinterskies]

I would expect the Duggars to respond to that by pointing out that they make a moral distinction between a human being intentionally killing someone vs. the unavoidable reality that many people die of natural causes, even at the earliest stage of life (or as they would probably see it, people who die of natural causes die because of God's will, for reasons that humans may not understand).

I personally think that this article's argument is not very persuasive for that reason.

It makes me think of this: Up until the 20th century, born infants and young children sadly had a very high mortality rate just due to all the diseases and poor nutrition, etc. back then. Even though we have thankfully found ways to prevent many childhood deaths due to modern medicine, I don't think anyone would say that it was by any means the parents' fault if they had lost many of their born children to natural causes back then when it was more common for children to die young - or that those children's lives didn't matter because of the high rate of deaths from natural causes.

(Incidentally: When I look at death portraits from the 1800s of families with their children who died, I am blown away when I think about the reality those poor people had to live with - that many families lost multiple children from illnesses that today we can easily treat. Even if it was "expected" then, it must have been horrible for the parents who lost kids. I think sometimes our current society takes for granted how fortunate we are to have modern medicine and to no longer consider it "normal" for children to die).

Anyway, I would not expect even the most extreme fundie to consider a natural miscarriage to be "murder" or anything close to that. I don't think they should, logically.

[Rachel333]

I agree that they wouldn't and shouldn't consider it murder. The article does say that, but that's why I purposely worded my own comments so as not to imply they are actively killing their embryos.

I do think it's very hypocritical though that they condemn birth control for making miscarriage more likely (even a lot of Christians who are just conservative, not fundie, believe this; barrier methods are fine, but they believe hormonal birth control is wrong) when, even if that were true, a woman on birth control isn't trying to have a miscarriage either, just doing something that makes it more likely... very similar to what they are doing.

There are also lots of Christians who are very conservative and pro-life but do not consider non-implanted embryos to be equivalent to people. It's the ones that do that I find so bizarre, though. Does it bother them that because of the biology that God designed, up to 80% of people die before they even get a chance to be born? I know I found that very troubling when I still believed it and I wasn't even considering embryos that fail to implant, just miscarriages.

(Incidentally: When I look at death portraits from the 1800s of families with their children who died, I am blown away when I think about the reality those poor people had to live with - that many families lost multiple children from illnesses that today we can easily treat. Even if it was "expected" then, it must have been horrible for the parents who lost kids. I think sometimes our current society takes for granted how fortunate we are to have modern medicine and to no longer consider it "normal" for children to die).

Oh I know, I can't even imagine how hard it was for so many people back then. I was researching my own genealogy and I was stunned at how many kids died very young. There was one family that had 12 children, only 2 of whom survived childhood. They had one boy's name and one girl's name that they used about four times each because the children kept dying. Horrible.

[roddma]

This is spot on. They never think about all the unfertilized eggs that die. saw no reason to break link since it is Alternet..

http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-righ ... st-embryos

[txmommyof4]

Unfortunately, their answer to this would be just like everything else they do that makes zero sense. It's god's choice, god's will. All things are for a reason. We are not supposed to know and question. Blah...blah..It's always the same.

[Muriel]

My very own great-great-grand-mother who lived a very long life herself (she died in 1937 at 86 years old) had 11 children and only 4 made it to adulthood :cry:

It was in poor French countryside, Morvan for those who know France well :)

[August]

I would expect the Duggars to respond to that by pointing out that they make a moral distinction between a human being intentionally killing someone vs. the unavoidable reality that many people die of natural causes, even at the earliest stage of life (or as they would probably see it, people who die of natural causes die because of God's will, for reasons that humans may not understand).

I personally think that this article's argument is not very persuasive for that reason.

This argument is logically inconsistent with their claim of a powerful god, though. If me taking the pill can actually thwart their gods will over life and death, then why is it still able to kill/not kill other embryos through manipulation of the mother's hormone levels?

[salex]

This argument is logically inconsistent with their claim of a powerful god, though. If me taking the pill can actually thwart their gods will over life and death, then why is it still able to kill/not kill other embryos through manipulation of the mother's hormone levels?

That is the thing I always wonder about... Preordained will of an omnipotent God thwarted by a condom?

[ILoveJellybeans]

That is the thing I always wonder about... Preordained will of an omnipotent God thwarted by a condom?

Youd think seeing as God got Mary pregnant without having sex with her, if God wanted someone to have a ton of kids, he could easily make any form of birth control fail. Even if they were using a condom as well as another form of birth control as back up.

[gustava]

Good article. Thanks for posting. For some reason, the link didn't work, but I finally found the article.

[BrownieMomma]

Tarico states this:

Most fertilized eggs spontaneously abort during the first weeks of life. Estimates of death before implantation range as high as 80 percent and bottom out around 45. More than thirty percent of those that do implant later die on the vine. This means that unprotected sex produces more dead fertilized eggs than live babies.

The referenced Good Egg article says this;

Although the statistics on the failure rate of human fertilization are not entirely robust, given the biological and ethical delicacy of conducting research in this area, the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort.

You can't be a responsible journalist and ignore the facts that don't support your idea. Tarico represents this as fact, but the fact is the statistics are "not robust", a nice way of saying the statistics are unreliable.

Yes, how does a scientist conduct research on this?

It's kind of amazing and sad that a lot of posters on this site grasp at any Internet article to further a hate agenda without stopping to look if the article is even reporting correct information.

If it is true that a high number of fertilized eggs are lost very early in the process, what does prove? How does this mean the Duggars kill the most babies? They aren't consciously choosing to lose the eggs. Likely no one is even aware when it happens.

And if I recall correctly, when a woman is pregnant she no longer releases eggs? Given Michelle Duggar's copious amounts of time spent pregnant, this would not even apply to her?

There's no correlation/causation here, just someone with a hate agenda and a willingness to bend/overlook facts to promote it.

Edited because it's a site, not a size.

[doggie]

If it is true that a high number of fertilized eggs are lost very early in the process, what does prove? How does this mean the Duggars kill the most babies? They aren't consciously choosing to lose the eggs. Likely no one is even aware when it happens.

.

this only really means the duggers like other anti abortionists think life begin with a fertilized egg. so with that way of thinking they have killed a lot of babies. not saying this is accurate but going by their way of thinking thats what you get.

[Johanna25]

If they sincerely believe life begins at conception they would refrain from sex once they knew they were pregnant. They know, in that case, that fertilized eggs will not be able to implant. Surely they would refrain from sex merely for their own pleasure.

[August]

Brownie, IIRC they recruited sexually active women and blood tested them monthly. Particularly if you choose a population who are ttc there are no ethical problems.

ETA: sorry, urine tests daily

A report on the findings appears in Thursday’s issue (June 10) of the New England Journal of Medicine. Lead author is Dr. Allen J. Wilcox, chief of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ epidemiology branch and adjunct professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health. Co-authors are Drs. Donna Day Baird and Clarice Weinberg, both also of NIEHS and UNC-CH.

"This is a very basic piece of reproductive biology that will probably find its way into the textbooks," Wilcox said. "It’s a step forward in terms of what we understand about pregnancy. Eventually, it could have an impact on patient care, but it is not going to change the way physicians treat their patients immediately."

Researchers collected daily urine samples for up to six months from 221 healthy N.C. women attempting to conceive after stopping contraception, he said. Of 199 conceptions, enough information was available on 189 for analysis.

Of those 189 pregnancies, 141 lasted at least six weeks past the last menstrual cycle, and the other 48 ended in early loss, the scientist said. Among pregnancies lasting six weeks or more, the first detectable rise in the level of a hormone known as chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) -- an indicator of successful attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus wall -- occurred six to 12 days after ovulation.

"The risk of early loss was strongly related to the time of implantation," the authors wrote. "Early loss was least likely when implantation occurred by the ninth day (13 early losses among 102 pregnancies, or 13 percent) rising to 26 percent (14 of 53 pregnancies) when implantation occurred on the 10th day, 52 percent (12 of 23) on the 11th day and 82 percent (9 of 11) with implantation after day 11."

Three pregnancies in which the first rise in hormone occurred after day 12 ended by themselves.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

If they sincerely believe life begins at conception they would refrain from sex once they knew they were pregnant. They know, in that case, that fertilized eggs will not be able to implant. Surely they would refrain from sex merely for their own pleasure.

:shock: surely, you're joking

[Rachel333]

I will admit I don't like the title of the article. It's obviously just meant to grab attention. The author says, though, that estimates vary from 45-80%. She's not giving a hard figure and the low of 45% is actually significantly less than "the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort," even if the data isn't "robust."

I know personally I don't hate the Duggars or any other fundies, and I don't think many others here do either. I merely disagree with them.

If fundies left other people alone and just procreated the way they believe is right it wouldn't be such a big deal, but people like the Duggars are constantly telling others that they're killing babies by using birth control. That makes those numbers of dead fertilized eggs (I don't really think they're babies, of course, but they do) very relevant. Even without the issue of birth control, I think people who believe life starts at conception would find these figure very relevant, even concerning, theologically.

[Johanna25]

:shock: surely, you're joking

Of course I'm joking. I think sex is more important for reinforcing the pair-bond than it is for reproduction, so I would never endorse such a practice. It points up, however, the hypocrisy of their views.

[Firiel]

[search][/search]

Of course I'm joking. I think sex is more important for reinforcing the pair-bond than it is for reproduction, so I would never endorse such a practice. It points up, however, the hypocrisy of their views.

I'm not sure that's what Babycakes was referring to...

Are you saying you think that sex while pregnant can result in fertilized eggs?

[LittleOleMe]

J'chelle consistently got pregnant shortly after she started ovulating again after having a baby. Most women don't ovulate while fully nursing because the same hormone is responsible for both ovulation and lactation. Given that most of the children are less than 18 months apart and they practice the whole "can't have sex 40/80 days after childbirth" mantra, I'm going to call bullshit on the possibility that they have lost a bunch of fertilized but not implanted embryos. Jessa and Jinger are 13 months apart. That means she's conceived Jinger when Jess was only 4 four months old, approx 120 days. Since they couldn't have sex for the first 80 days of Jessa's life, that means J'chelle likely conceived the first time she ovulated post pregnancy.

[LittleOleMe]

[search][/search]

I'm not sure that's what Babycakes was referring to...

Are you saying you think that sex while pregnant can result in fertilized eggs?

Just for the sake of information, this is actually possible. There are cases of women having two babies inside them at once that are weeks apart in gestation. It's rare, but it happens. And most multiples are conceived days apart, but since sperm can live inside a women for a few days, I guess that doesn't really count. Unless, of course, you count the cases of twins who have different fathers because mom slept with two different men within days of each other.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Of course I'm joking. I think sex is more important for reinforcing the pair-bond than it is for reproduction, so I would never endorse such a practice. It points up, however, the hypocrisy of their views.

It is extremely rare to ovulate during pregnancy. I think in the rare cases that it happens, it's usually early in pregnancy. They aren't being hypocrites by having sex during pregnancy, as she would not be releasing eggs every month during that time.

[August]

The average woman who has two planned children would on average ovulate about 12 times in her life while not using birth control.

J'chelle consistently got pregnant shortly after she started ovulating again after having a baby. Most women don't ovulate while fully nursing because the same hormone is responsible for both ovulation and lactation. Given that most of the children are less than 18 months apart and they practice the whole "can't have sex 40/80 days after childbirth" mantra, I'm going to call bullshit on the possibility that they have lost a bunch of fertilized but not implanted embryos. Jessa and Jinger are 13 months apart. That means she's conceived Jinger when Jess was only 4 four months old, approx 120 days. Since they couldn't have sex for the first 80 days of Jessa's life, that means J'chelle likely conceived the first time she ovulated post pregnancy.

Not true. The odds of ovulating are reduced while you're nursing a baby under the age of six months every three hours round the clock, but prolactin,the milk-producing hormone soon drops, and in women nursing long term prolactin levels are barely even elevated, if at all.

http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/milkproduction/

Elevated prolactin levels can inhibit ovulation, and elevated progesterone levels inhibit milk production (you can have supply isssues the week before your period, and during pregnancy), but they key is that in normal women prolactin levels drop rapidly after birth.

The hormones responsible for ovulation are called estrogen and leutenising hormone. They do not interfere with nursing. Progesterone does, but it's produced by the empty follicle and the placenta and is thus a consequence of ovulation, not a cause of it.

*pushes glasses up, relatches baby*

[Johanna25]

[search][/search]

I'm not sure that's what Babycakes was referring to...

Are you saying you think that sex while pregnant can result in fertilized eggs?

That's what I understood, that ovulation continued, but checking myself, I find I've been wrong; ovulation shuts down. Though it can continue for a short time and new embryos are prevented from implanting. There have been instances of a fraternal twin found to be 3 weeks behind their sibling.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I have a friend who is a twin that was conceived a few weeks after his brother. Its interesting and I never realised it could happen before.

[roddma]

I also dont believe the author is trying to promote a 'hate' agenda. They are just pointing out they hypocrites and how most Fundies dont apply the logic or science to anything.