Cory Heidelberger can't see any difference between a kid and a kidney

What happened to the other 1,399 frozen embryos?

Steve, the in vitro fertilization process always leads to the destruction of human embryos. Do you support ending IVF? I’m assuming you consider it murder to destroy any of these embryos. Who should get the prison sentence for destroying them? The parents who initiated the creation of those embryos? The fertility physicians?

Erin H - I don't know what happened to the other 1,399 frozen embyros but I'd guess there are more babies coming forth somewhere. I understand not all embyros survive the IVF process and no I don't consider it murder or punishable. If two are potentially going to die and only one can be saved the moral thing was done. There is a difference between intentionally destroying embryos and not all embryos surviving.

But the IVF ALWAYS results in intentionally destroyed embryos. In IVF treatment, more embryos are always created than will be implanted in the woman seeking to get pregnant. Those embryos are then kept frozen but if not implanted eventually get destroyed.

So what I'm hearing you say is that you don't have a problem with the inevitable destruction of embryos that IVF results in. Is that right?

What you hear me saying is that there is a moral difference between lost embryo's from in vitro attempts to fertilize which are, in my view, legitimate attempts to procreate and lost embryo's from experimentation and research. What you hear me saying is that human life begins at conception and major moral and ethical considerations, in addition to Constitutional rights come into play at conception and a society that does not respect human life in one form, will not respect it in another.

I haven't been able to get Cory to answer this question - is abortion wrong? I suspect you will hesitate to answer this one… Erin, when do you believe a human life begins?

Please don't say it's above your pay grade : )

To be honest, Steve, for this discussion it doesn’t really matter when I think human life begins. I’m not in favor of IM 11. You are trying to get that law passed. IM 11 says, “That the State of South Dakota possesses a duty to protect the life of all human beings within the state, and it is a legitimate exercise of the state’s power to protect the life of all human beings within the state . . . ”

You say in this post that a frozen fertilized embryo is a human being. So, when frozen embryos are destroyed, who should be punished for murder? Please note that I am NOT talking about embryos that are implanted and then are lost. I’m talking about embryos that are frozen, never transferred to the woman, then allowed to expire or are destroyed. Is this not murder? Who then should be punished for these murders? And what should be done with the frozen embryos that currently exist in South Dakota?

Another related question. If a woman becomes pregnant with multiples as a result of fertility drugs, and her physician recommends selective abortion to save the lives of at least some of the fetuses, would that be outlawed under IM 11? There's the so-called exception, of course, for the health or life of the mother, but not for other fetuses in the same womb.

Ummm, Erin:

The IVF does not have to lead to destruction of embryonic humans. There is a movement in the church to adopt these babies or "snowflakes" - truly "The least of these" that Jesus talks about - as in "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto Me."

The very idea that Christian woman would chose to nurture a stranger's baby to birth, rather than have that discarded baby thawed and destroyed or worse, bastardized into a stem cell line, is a prime example of walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

What do you have to offer in response to this kind of selfless love, Erin?

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm

Only 134 babies have been born since 1997 from the 400,000 frozen embryos. That still leaves hundreds of thousands of what you consider human beings left to expire or be destroyed. Clearly something more drastic than waiting to adopt them out needs to be done, wouldn't you say? Like a law protecting them maybe?

But you didn't really answer my questions about these embryos from my previous comment. And what about the selective reduction abortions for multifetal pregnancies? Does IM 11 address that situation?

Oops, sorry–I was responding to Amy there and not Steve. Still curious to know your response, though, Steve.

Erin:

Please cite the actual number of "selective" abortions associated with IVF, i.e. percentage of necessary therapeutic abortions to prevent fetal demise of all babies. Now, I don't mean when the doc says you would probably be better off not carrying all six of those babies, but the number of abortions that have been necessary to save the life of an IVF baby.

I sense you going down the well-worn path of Planned Parenthood hyperbole in your trying to bait Steve to answer your question. I would be very interested in your statistical information. Surely the data will tell us how common this situation is, especially here in South Dakota, where it is very difficult to even OBTAIN IVF.

Disingenuous. Again.

Erin — are you saying that since 1997 only 134 babies have been born via IVF? Because a quick google search says that IVF births account for 1% of births as of 2005 - over 33,000 in 2005 alone.

But all of this is completely side stepping the original reason for this post - and since you wouldn't answer Steve's question I will… Hey, Life begins at Conception.

Why must those who oppose IM 11 try to distract from the real topic at hand? Is it because they don't have a leg to stand on otherwise?

On the contrary. I’m not disingenuous at all–I’d sincerely like to know what the ramifications of IM 11 will be.

It doesn’t really matter how many selective abortions associated with fertility treatment (or not associated, for that matter) are done. What I want to know is does IM 11 outlaw it?

Why would it matter how difficult it is to obtain IVF in South Dakota? Abortion is difficult to obtain in this state, too, and that’s not stopping IM 11 proponents from attempting to ban it. And actually, Sanford Women’s Health in Sioux Falls offers IVF.

No, Nikole, using Nightlight’s own data (go ahead and check the link Amy provided—it’s right there), I said that since 1997, 134 babies have been born from the 400,000 frozen embryos that have resulted from IVF.

OK, if life begins at conception, then frozen embryos are people, right? So if they’re left to expire or be destroyed, as most of them will be, is that murder and who should be punished for those murders? I don’t think this is a distraction at all. If life begins at conception, it begins at conception regardless of whether or not that life is in the body of a woman, right?

Side note: I can see the difference between a kid and a kidney. However, a potential kidney donor and a pregnant woman hold the same autonomous status: neither should be forced by law to submit his or her body to the physical sustenance of another living being.

But hey — looks like you'd better focus on Erin's argument first. IM11 could mean the end of in vitro fertilization as we know it in South Dakota. I hadn't thought of that….

Oh, and "zeal to abort"? What planet did that mischaracterization come from? Feel free to show me the text where I declare my eagerness to perform abortions or even see abortion rates increase. Not assumptions, not inferences: actual text…

…but you can wait until you've saved in vitro fertilization from IM11.

Cory-

You wrote the following "However, a potential kidney donor and a pregnant woman hold the same autonomous status: neither should be forced by law to submit his or her body to the physical sustenance of another living being."

What about the baby? The child is submitting its life on the decision of another person. How is that right?

Erin - this is your answer to your question. Will you and Cory answer my question? No. You won't. The answer comes from today's Vote Yes Blog response to your deceitful ad. http://voteyesforlife.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/pro-abortion-forces-deliberately-misleading-south-dakota-voters-about/

The ad implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has “Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome” is illegal under the law. That claim is not only false, but a shameful exploitation of the mother shown on the ad who lost her child. Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero. However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children.

If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11. The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.

There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice. Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited – unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions. An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.

Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor’s act is “with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being.” Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited. Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:

“Medical treatment … that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act.”

It is offensive that the abortion proponents would use this personal tragedy to mislead the public, and it is exploitive of a mother who suffered a tragic loss.

Amy -
Just to clarify: when IVF occurs, they do not simply hand the embryos to the first person who comes through the door. It is medically unethical to do anything else with the embryos without permission of the woman. So, they could be donated to science, but could not be given to another woman. Typically they are destroyed after a period of time.

Steve,

You have really jumped to a conclusion that has no merit. While I do not support IM 11, I am not currently actively involved (haven’t been in the past either) in the SD Campaign for Healthy Families other than signing their petition opposing further abortion ban legislation. So, their ad is not “my” ad as you state in your comment. I assure you I had absolutely nothing to do with this ad. Please do not spread falsehood about my activities.

TTTS is not the only scenario where a selective reduction abortion may be done. But you did make it clear that any selective reduction abortions done to decrease the risk to any of the fetuses in a multifetal pregnancy would be outlawed by IM 11.

I still didn’t get an answer on the frozen embryo question from you, though. I’ll ask it again: If life begins at conception, then frozen embryos are people, right? So if they’re left to expire or be destroyed, as most of them will be, is that murder and if so, who should be punished for those murders?

Erin - You and Cory have held nothing back in terms of publicly jumping to false assumptions about me so I'm hardly concerned here to have perhaps overstated your involvement in the campaign for unhealthy families. Whether you admit it or not, you guys are major apologists for the campaign to kill and they are counting on you. And you have said you support that campaign and so I'll say it again, it's your ad.

I'll get right on your question when you and Cory first answer mine.

None:

You say: " So, they could be donated to science, but could not be given to another woman."

You really should do your research before you answer. There is a movement to legally adopt the embryos and implant them rather than "discard" them and this is HAPPENING ALREADY. (Side note here - they obviously are persons if they are adoptable, so that would explain why the pro-choicers don't want to talk about this option). Did you even bother clicking the link provided above, or are you just giving an uneducated opinion? Your statement, in light of the information at that link, is really not correct.

What I have been noticing on this blog and others is that "pro-choice" people would rather drive a stake in the ground of ignorance and strap themselves to it, than come into the new century of medical advancement and other technologies that are life-affirming. It seems that most pro-choicers are stuck in the medical science of 1973 or earlier. For instance, they don't like sonograms because the technology shows the mom an actual, living, separate, unique human being versus a "blob of tissue." At the very least, their fighting the informed consent laws requiring a sonogram be shown to the mom before an abortion indicates that they don't like this technology.

Those who are trumpeting a woman's right to "privacy" are using bad logic and bad law, but it is the supposed medical professionals at Planned Parenthood pleading ignorance about when life actually begins - at conception, an accepted biological and medical fact since early this century by the way - which really bugs me, especially since I am forced to give my tax dollars to help fund their intentional ignorance to the tune of over 300 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Now the abortion advocates are spouting biased, undereducated blather about twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and inferring that one of the babies has to be "aborted" to save the other, suggesting that the doctor and mom would somehow be violating IM 11, etc., etc. The truth is, there are now medical advances in procedures being done to save BOTH babies in this EXTREMELY RARE situation. If tragedy does occur and one of the babies dies in the procedure, that is NOT AN ABORTION. Again, all one has to do is a little research and the truth is there. COME ON PEOPLE, think for yourselves! Get off your lazy butts and get some real knowledge, check out the facts - don't believe everything you are told just because it shores up your philosophy of a woman's right to choose to kill her own baby.

God help us if we take as factual truth what is being fed through these groups who are trying to preserve the right to kill a baby as a form of birth control. That is what IM 11 is about folks, it is a measuring eliminating the use of abortion for birth control. If you are pro-choice, what is your motivation? I cannot, for the life of me, understand the thought process that makes it okay to kill another human being, no matter where that person is located. It would be great if you all could take a hard look at the facts and figure out why you think it is okay. Why does one person have more rights than another? Law and medical fact has established the uterine-dwelling being as "A separate, unique, living human." So where are those human's rights? If it is okay for the mother's rights to trump the baby's, then I guess the Woman's Suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement of the last century really don't mean anything, because those were also about individual human rights, and all humans being created equal. The only difference is women and blacks had voices that could be heard. All the aborted infant has is a silent scream.

It would also appear from the "pro-choice" rhetoric that many of those who are embracing "new science" limit themselves to embracing destructive technologies. For instance, a lot of people who are pro-abortion are so gung-ho for embryonic stem cell research - which has yet to offer a cure for anything and is plagued by uncontrolled tumor growth. Yet adult stem cell and cord stem cell research is much, much closer to many cures without the problem of those pesky tumors cropping up. In fact a quick internet check finds that these technologies are being used now to cure and correct diseases, which YOU CAN FIND FOR YOURSELF.

Think, research, examine. Find Truth. When you find Truth, it will make you free.

Steve, let me be clear about this. I have never, ever made a comment about you on any blogs–Cory's or anyone else's. I've never said anything about you publicly. What you are doing here is bearing false witness against me.

I believe Erin answered the question of when does life start and she isnt even aware that she did.

Erin - Another related question. If a woman becomes pregnant with multiples as a result of fertility drugs, and her physician recommends selective abortion to save the lives of at least some of the fetuses, would that be outlawed under IM 11? There's the so-called exception, of course, FOR THE HEALTH AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, BUT NOT FOR OTHER FETUSES IN THE SAME WOMB.

Erin, do you believe those fetuses have the same right to protection as does the mother when concerning their lives? Did their lives start at conception?

Forgive me Erin for the technicality of assuming you two were in agreement with what gets posted at Madville Times - headlines that falsely represent me. LOL here at you skipping over the thou shalt not kill commandment and throwing the false witness one at me. Whatever. Oh the selective morality of the left. I'm reminded of cartoon which I'll find after a couple meetings that I need to go to now and will drop in later. Stay tuned.

I stated

"Those who are trumpeting a woman's right to "privacy" are using bad logic and bad law, but it is the supposed medical professionals at Planned Parenthood pleading ignorance about when life actually begins - at conception, an accepted biological and medical fact since early this century by the way - "

This should be "since early LAST century." Either way, still a biological and medical fact.

Here's the cartoon http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Shelton_C20070904.jpg