How would you ever know if you could conceive naturally but were having trouble and used IVF, vs. you are infertile and can't conceive without ivf?

Because a doctor could tell you. He could look at your body and do tests and say "everything works fine" or maybe "you don't ovulate as often but you still have eggs" etc.

There are a LOT of things that can make becoming pregnant difficult but still possible naturally WITHOUT resorting to IVF! Some couples become frustrated however and decide to use IVF to speed things up.

Sorry to be so obtuse. I get it now. Thanks for the answer.

Lol, it's okay. Sometimes it's important to have it lined out word by word.

My personal opinion:

I agree fully and taking it a step further I wish there was the option for women who are terminating the pregnancy the ability to donate as well. I know full well that if the choice was offered to me I would check that box, sign the paper, do what I could but I know that I am not like others and that's ok.

That's very generous of you, and maybe your embryo could be donated for some kind of purpose, but it wouldn't work for embryonic stem cell research (escr).

ESCR only uses embryos that are a few days old.

I believe it was Sam Harris who pointed out that a three day old zygote consisted of mere one hundred cells, in comparison, the brain of a fly consists of 10 000 cells.

Besides, what would be best? Use the unused embryos to save millions of lives or throw them away?

I'm for it 100%

I'm looking at this from a lesser evil point but one z/e for the lives of many, is more than worth it, especially if it give those people a quality of life they probably never would have had.

Deep stuff, my friend. I love it! See how cool life is outside the box?

Absolutely yes on the original question! Life is for the living. I think about my loved ones and realize that there is very little I wouldn't approve of to keep them safe and happy. If my daughter needed some stem cells for any reason (and if she's needing stem cells, things would probably be pretty bleak) and there were none available, her dad and I would get to making her some. That's how much I love my child. I would massacre her unborn sibling to save her life. Why? I don't know that kid, 'cause it's not alive yet! She is, and deserves every my measure to keep her alive and healthy!

So many pro choicers think of embryos as parasites I wonder how many of the people that feel as though embryos are disgusting feel as though these same embryos should be used to save their or someone they love's butt?

*funny*

My first option would be to donate the embryos to a family who wanted a baby and allow the cord blood (which is much more useful) to be donated.

I don't think embryos are "disgusting" or "parasitic" but my (born) daughter is worth about a gazillion of them, so I'd be happy to sacrifice any number of POTENTIAL humans for her sake. Anyone who believes otherwise should really examine their priorities.

In that case you could donate as many eggs as you wish to be fertilized and be used to save your daughter.

No on has a right to use someone else's DNA to save their own life even when it isn't being used for themselves.

I didn't mean to suggest that we should just go around taking other people's embryos without their permission. If the need should ever arise, I'd be more than happy to create whatever stem cells were needed with my own DNA, which would probably have a better chance of working anyway.

I think you're wrong to say that "no one has a right to use someone else's DNA to save their own life even when it isn't being used for themselves." Perhaps you should have added "without their permission," because if you meant that the way it sounded, I'm gonna have to call you a whackaloon. People donate body parts to each other all the time to save lives. I'm sure many couples would gladly give up their unused embryos to a noble cause if they no longer needed them.

A right means that you don't need another person's approval/permission. You have a right to an abortion and the man who impregnated you nor the fetus inside has a say. You don't need permission because its your right. People NEED blood and orgnas but your child nor anyone else's has a right to organs of anyone even the dead who are perfect matches. They CAN however use it with strict permission but without it they die and such is life. You have no right to another person's body (fetus-parent or living to dead) for the sake of saving your own.

I'm mostly in agreement with you on your points. Nobody should steal anything from anyone, but stealing something non-essential from someone to save your own life is forgivable, even though it IS wrong.

I think that taking organs from the dead should be an assumed right unless the person (not the grieving family, except if it's a minor) has specifically stated that they don't want to be "harvested." A lot of people simply DON'T CARE enough to sign up for organ donation or refuse it. In Alabama, they ask you if you want to and put a little heart on your ID/DL if you do, but Texas doesn't. If a person doesn't care, then they won't mind. If someone has religious beliefs or a sense of selfishness preventing them from giving life, then they could have the right to refuse.

I believe that once your spirit vacates your body, it isn't really yours anymore. What was once your temple then becomes our garbage and people salvage through trash all the time. It's called recycling, and we should take the concept more seriously.

I don't agree with harvesting organs from the dead. Its wrong and because its somethingt hat can't be undone in my opinion its unforgiveable. There are other ways though those other ways may not turn out the optimum results for each case. Most people don't want to donate organs. My mother has told me countless times she wants ALL of her organs unless one of her children or grandchildren needs them.

Your body is yours, you don't share a body with anyone except your mother, an unborn child, or conjoined twin in life or death.

People have a right not to give life to another person, ie abortion. Giving an organ to save a stranger is a wonderful thing to do but you have a right not to do it and no one ahs a right to use your organs dead or alive unless you give permission or volunteer. No one can nor should force you into organ donation in life or death.

That has nothing to do with selfishness it has everything to do with having control over your body and your organs.

I never said the procedure should be forced on everyone. It should be assumed as the default decision. Those who choose not to donate organs - for whatever reason - could carry a card, wear a piece of jewelry, or some other means of identifying that they don't want their organs disturbed.

You talk about having control over your body and your organs, but I think the very definition of death is losing that control. When you die, your body is not your own anymore. It becomes trash for the rest of humanity, a mere thing to be disposed of in very specific (and expensive) fashion.

If you're indigent (meaning that you have no money, insurance, or relatives willing to pay for the disposal of your corpse) then I'd say it's pretty got-dang selfish to expect the public to dispose of you respectfully without offering squat in return.

I'm all in favor of people having absolute power over their own bodies, but only while they're alive. When you're dead, your body is no more precious or sacred than a picked vegetable - less so, in my opinion, since a decaying human is much more bio-hazardous (and funky) than its weight in rotting turnips.

I think the way we have it now is best. Assumptions are horrible. Either you care enough about donating to make it a point to let it be known or you don't care enough to let it be known and nobody knows and you don't donate. Its extremely simple.

As far as poor people are concerned are you kidding me? Human bodies are biodegradable if they weren't we would have all died by now due to the corpses in the rivers and above ground that have not yet been buried. It doesn't do anything to harm the environment to place a dead person in a wooden casket and then put the casket and its content in a hole in the ground. How does that bother you or anyone else for that matter? if you need an organ go to your family, don't have enough family well thats a decision your parents and you made and unless a stranger decides they want to give you an organ or an organ donor dies you're SOL. Just how the world works. Nonone life is more valuable than the next and no one has a right to organs that aren't their own whether the its being used or not.

You can't be homeless and go into a home that isn't being used and live there or take things from rich people because they aren't using them even if its health insurance that would save your life. Your right to live extends as far as no one being allowed to kill you not someone allowing you to die via not saving your life with organ donation, money or any other possession.

The public pays for abortions the public pays for people's hospital stays why can't they spend significantly less money to not have a decaying body lying around for you, your kids or someone else's to find? Cremation is even cheaper and hastens that whole turning into dust thing. Corpses are buffets for plenty of insects and animals no matter how "respectfully" they are buried.

Why would you put stipulations on when a person has control over their bodies? What makes you think that line of thinking wouldn't become a slippery slope? When it comes to personal privacy and rights over your body its more of an all or nothing gig hence why abortions had to be made available to everyone not just rape , incest victims and mothers whose health and lives were in danger.