Michael and Brandon Keilen Part 3

[infooverload]

I immediately thought the baby myself for a variety of reasons. One, as others pointed out an already existing human. Two, do we know what part of the building the fire started in, there is a possibility it started in the embryo storage location. If this is the case several could be damaged before a rescuer could get to them. Then there is the issue of how quickly could you get them to another storage location. Does anyone know how long an embryo can be out of storage before implantation has to occur? Then there is the fact several women would have to be readied for implantation on a massive scale. Side note what were the reasons given for rescuing a cat? Assuming said cat wouldn't be running away from a stranger or hiding in a dangerous location for the rescuer and cat.

[AtlanticTug]

12 hours ago, meee said:

That's if they believe that transferring an embryo counts as giving it a chance of life regardless. I know the Andersons at least believe that any transferred embryos that don't end in live births count as murder

That's because they are idiots.

By their logic, every month that they have an egg fertilize but not implant, they've also committed murder. Which is probably most months.

[SilverBeach]

Bill Gothard actually lived in the same suburb as me! It it a hipsterish place, not unusually religious or conservative. I had no idea the IBLP headquarters was just a few miles to the west. I was discomfited when I found this out, although I had moved away, I lived there for ten years. I bet I saw cult members at area malls and restaurants. You never know who your neighbors might be. 

 

[Jess]

1 hour ago, infooverload said:

Side note what were the reasons given for rescuing a cat? Assuming said cat wouldn't be running away from a stranger or hiding in a dangerous location for the rescuer and cat.

She really likes cats and really hates children. 

19 minutes ago, AtlanticTug said:

That's because they are idiots.

By their logic, every month that they have an egg fertilize but not implant, they've also committed murder. Which is probably most months.

I believe they think it had a chance and it was gods will. 

[VelociRapture]

I saw a better version* of that question recently. I think it was a comedian who came up with it, but the premise is this:

Theres a fire in a building and you’re heading for the exit when you hear a child crying from behind a door. You open the door and see a scared two year old in one corner and a container with one hundred embryos in the other corner. The container is too big for you to carry it and the child at once and the fire is too close for you to make two trips without dying. You have two choices - save the scared child or the container of embryos. There is no third option because the third option is death. 

He said he’s asked this question to prolifers for years and none of them have given him an answer. He said the reason why is because they know saving the baby is the only valid answer, but they can’t admit to being wrong. 

*I say better because the version with the cat offers a “funny” answer that someone could use to jokingly avoid the question. This one leaves far less wiggle room and forces people to actually confront their beliefs. 

[elliha]

Would they perhaps be OK with not freezing embryos and only eggs? If they would collect and fertilize a number they would be OK with for one pregnancy and then only freeze any "leftovers" as eggs. I know that makes it trickier for it to work but I assume that they don't think eggs in themselves are people. That means they would have to mourn any unsuccessful fertilizations or transfers as miscarriages but if it leads to a living baby they might think it is worth it. 

[J'Lurker]

I can't believe this burning building paradox is actually a question... I mean, I can, but I'm drowning in the irony. 

[AtlanticTug]

11 hours ago, Jess said:

I believe they think it had a chance and it was gods will. 

So did every embryo transferred into the uterus, they all had a chance...

The Andersons are particularly hateful with respect to IVF. It's like a personal mission - very strange for super fertile people with children now approaching double digits. They can fuck right off.

[Jess]

Just now, AtlanticTug said:

So did every embryo transferred into the uterus, they all had a chance...

The Andersons are particularly hateful with respect to IVF. It's like a personal mission - very strange for super fertile people with children now approaching double digits. They can fuck right off.

Yes but not every embryo can be transferred into a uterus. If you make more then you can use in one cycle which often happens they get frozen. Some fail during the freeze unfreeze process that is murder to them. And what happens if one of you dies before you can use them? What happens if the storage fails? Or any other number of things. Most people don't really worry about those remote chance things but if you actually feel your committing murder it's a big deal to you.

4 hours ago, elliha said:

Would they perhaps be OK with not freezing embryos and only eggs? If they would collect and fertilize a number they would be OK with for one pregnancy and then only freeze any "leftovers" as eggs. I know that makes it trickier for it to work but I assume that they don't think eggs in themselves are people. That means they would have to mourn any unsuccessful fertilizations or transfers as miscarriages but if it leads to a living baby they might think it is worth it. 

 I could see that working if it can be done that I way. Interesting it would be more expensive I assume to freeze them separately and I think eggs are more likely to not work then fertilized embryos but it's a good idea for people who really hold strong beliefs.

[AtlanticTug]

2 hours ago, Jess said:

Yes but not every embryo can be transferred into a uterus. If you make more then you can use in one cycle which often happens they get frozen. Some fail during the freeze unfreeze process that is murder to them. And what happens if one of you dies before you can use them? What happens if the storage fails? Or any other number of things. Most people don't really worry about those remote chance things but if you actually feel your committing murder it's a big deal to you.

You can avoid most of that, and religious people DO, and there are actual entire countries out there whose reproductive laws act in the same way. Essentially what is allowed is "natural" IVF, in which you are not stimulated at all, and the same egg that you would have ovulated is retrieved and fertilized, then returned to uterus without freezing. Or you do very mild stimulation that would only produce 2-3 eggs which would be retrieved, fertilized and then all embryos returned and none being frozen. If you produce more than x number, they cancel the cycle so you'd never be discarding embryos or freezing them or storing them.

But anyway, like I said, they are very hateful people speaking from a position of extreme fertility privilege and I ascribe zero value to their views.

As for freezing eggs, they do not hold up as well when they are frozen so you have to freeze a lot more as they have a high failure rate. And you would still need the man to provide a sample for in vitro fertilization once the egg is thawed.

[Kelsey]

1 hour ago, AtlanticTug said:

 

As for freezing eggs, they do not hold up as well when they are frozen so you have to freeze a lot more as they have a high failure rate. And you would still need the man to provide a sample for in vitro fertilization once the egg is thawed.

We were actually told that there is a higher success rates with frozen embryos than with fresh. About 5 years ago so it might have changed.

[AtlanticTug]

20 minutes ago, Kelsey said:

We were actually told that there is a higher success rates with frozen embryos than with fresh. About 5 years ago so it might have changed.

More and more clinics are recommending frozen embryos nowadays. One thing that is certain is that if you have a day 6 blastocyst (so a slower grower than your "optimal" day 5 blastocyst), it is advised to transfer it in a frozen cycle because your embryo is developmentally really a day behind and now you have a mismatch between that and your uterine lining which reduces receptivity. Day 5 transfers fresh vs. frozen are about even, but many people will freeze to avoid OHSS or to get the embryos genetically tested, or because their lining isn't perfect, etc.

[singsingsing]

4 hours ago, Jess said:

Yes but not every embryo can be transferred into a uterus. If you make more then you can use in one cycle which often happens they get frozen. Some fail during the freeze unfreeze process that is murder to them. And what happens if one of you dies before you can use them? What happens if the storage fails? Or any other number of things. Most people don't really worry about those remote chance things but if you actually feel your committing murder it's a big deal to you.

Their logic is so transparently faulty, though. What happens if you get pregnant 'naturally' but miscarry? What happens if you get hit by a bus when you're pregnant? What happens if you successfully give birth to a live infant, but then your child gets cancer? Gets kidnapped? A tree falls on him? You brought him into the world and then failed to protect him from every possible eventuality, so is that murder?

Of course the answer is no, but fundies can't or won't think through the logical conclusions of their positions on these issues.

[llg1234]

New selfie:

 

[Italiangirl]

Yestarday we was spelling with a friend about out dogs and i since his at the park use to try to have sweet fellowship with preatty much ever y other dog we remember an old slogan use to be sew on the nightgown of the newly bride "non per piacer mio ma per dar un figlio a Dio" (not for my pleasure bit to give vive a child to God) and i think that our fundie would live something like this and it also summerize a kit of their ideas in metter

[VineHeart137]

@Italiangirl They sewed that on to the bride's nightgown? I feel like that would be such a mood killer lol.

[Italiangirl]

Yeah it was often sewed like a reminder of their "duties" you know to remember why. God forbid someone could think you might do it for your pleasure. It was also to remark how  godly they was, it was a sacrifice they made, again not for them but bit for God, 'cause for the Church there wasn't another reason  to do it.

I think it stop to be use around the 20 of the last century, bit i'm not sure, i just know that my greatgranny dosen't have on any of her nightgown that she left me, bit she se was quite a strong woman, she use to keep asking you to try something even if of you decline just to tell i told you, you want it, when you give up and try  she refuse to trow away an umbrella, just because it was red (it was forbidden during the fascismo) and Made so much noise that the Police have to let her go...

[Melissa1977]

13 hours ago, Italiangirl said:

Yestarday we was spelling with a friend about out dogs and i since his at the park use to try to have sweet fellowship with preatty much ever y other dog we remember an old slogan use to be sew on the nightgown of the newly bride "non per piacer mio ma per dar un figlio a Dio" (not for my pleasure bit to give vive a child to God) and i think that our fundie would live something like this and it also summerize a kit of their ideas in metter

I remind being told about blanckets with a hole, so man could penetrate his wife without touching her skin or watching her naked. I think it was used only in arranged rich marriages, where sex was a duty, not a pleasure.

I really love sociological anecdotes like the sentence you posted. This little examples help understanding history and old times real life.

[Marly]

5 hours ago, Melissa1977 said:

I remind being told about blanckets with a hole, so man could penetrate his wife without touching her skin or watching her naked. I think it was used only in arranged rich marriages, where sex was a duty, not a pleasure.

Isabel Allende's novel Ines of my Soul depicts something similar. The story is set in the 16th century, and at a certain point the narrator describes the first marriage of her husband. Her husband, a Spanish nobleman, marries a woman from another noble family (it is an arranged marriage). They haven't been married for very long when it becomes clear to the man that his wife is very adverse about sex. Whenever they go to bed, she wears her heaviest, longest nightgown, and cannot be moved to take it of. When he tries to take off her nightgown, she completely freezes. The man, a rare example of a considerate husband during those days, does not want to force his wife, and contemplates about options to make it easier for her. He believes his wife dislikes sex because she is such a very godly woman, and therefore seeks advise about what to do from a priest (he also sends his wife to talk about the matter with some nuns and other rich, married ladies). The solution: a nightgown with a large, cross-shaped cut-out in the front. The cross is to remind the woman that it is not a sin but rather her godly duty to have intercourse with her husband.
This type of nightgown, which really existed and was used during that time period, allows women to protect their modesty, as they are not completely naked, while simultaneously allowing (and reminding) them to fulfill their godly duty.

[elliha]

Naked sex wasn't really the standard for much of human history. Either people shared a bed and got around to having sex in other places and didn't have the possibility to easily remove all clothes and even if they did have their own bed or bedroom it might be too cold to be without clothes or people simply didn't think of it too much since they were not used to being completely naked very often. Both men and women using a long or longish night shirt made it the easiest to just pull it up and get down to business. 

[klabourdeth]

With the ethics question baby vs embryos I wonder if the % of responses may have change. After the last couple of years I feel like tide would switch to the embryos over the toddler.

[VBOY9977]

Michael just posted on her Instagram that Brandon asked her to be his girlfriend 5 years ago today.. but according to their story on their website it was a few weeks after erin’s Wedding, which was 4 years ago.

i thought it was a weird mistake

 

ETA: she corrected it lol

[Oh_Dear!]

has anyone else noticed that all Micheal/Brandon selfies are pretty much the same picture with slightly different clothes and slightly different backgrounds?  At least they figured out their best angles... 

[JillyO]

14 minutes ago, Oh_Dear! said:

has anyone else noticed that all Micheal/Brandon selfies are pretty much the same picture with slightly different clothes and slightly different backgrounds?  At least they figured out their best angles... 

For sure. It's the same picture over, and over, and over again. It's actually kind of a skill to look THIS similar in every single picture.

[JesusCampSongs]

I'm probably venturing into BEC land, but their insta posts are so similar to the ones the teenagers I used to work with would post, it's not even funny. I find it pretty cringey when people who are well into their twenties and married refer to their spouses as "my hottie" (Michael did this a while back). I guess it goes to show how all the weird cutesiness belies how immature and socially stunted they are?