Posted on 01/02/2008 3:51:06 PM PST by wagglebee
LONDON, January 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following a UK Parliamentary question, data from a government organization showed that over one million human embryonic children were killed in the UK in the past 14 years as 'waste' embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) processes.
The acquired data showed that 2,137,924 embryonic humans were created using IVF between 1991 and 2005, but about 1.2m were never used. Scientists killed the embryos who were not deemed strong enough for implantation, and froze those not considered 'waste' embryos. Those that survived the freezing process will die in ten years if not implanted.
'Surplus' embryos were created because women responded differently to fertility drugs, doctors told the Times Online. As many as 40 IVF-fertilized eggs can be used in some treatments. The embryos are then assessed for viability, with only about 20% usually considered strong enough to implant successfully in a woman.
Lord Alton of Liverpool, an independent peer noted for his stance against abortion, tabled the question to parliament and obtained the statistics from the Department of Health. He said that embryos were being created and destroyed at "an incredible rate," and advocates embryonic adoption for those embryos that aren't used for implantation in IVF.
"IVF has ensured that a number of people have been given a chance to have children. But it is surprising how many embryos are being destroyed in the process," he said. "This is a rather unexpected aspect of IVF. If you could just create an embryo to implant, that would be fine. I think it would be much better if these embryos that are going to be destroyed were used for infertile couples. At least they would have a chance of life. The number of embryos used is expanding year after year."
Embryo adoption is legally permitted in the UK and United States, but is rare in both countries. Advocates of the process are also calling for the embryonic children to be given up for adoption, where all of them will be frozen and all the survivors used for infertility treatment, provided volunteers with the necessary money can be found within the ten year period.
"Lots of people do have surplus embryos and if people could think about donating embryos it would be wonderful," said a spokesman for Infertility Network UK. "Embryo donation is a much bigger thing in America; it is like adoption. It would be good thing to explore further."
In America, the Snowflakes charity arranges the adoption of embryos by couples who want children. This has, however, led to the birth of only 157 babies in the past 10 years.
The Los Angeles-based Snowflakes charity said it does not "discriminate" between embryos judged to be healthy or unhealthy and added that embryos it has used, which doctors had judged not to be viable, have still produced healthy babies.
The number of pregnancies that have occurred through embryo adoption remains low in the U.S. and the UK due to its high cost and controversial nature. To avoid twin and triplet pregnancies, embryo adoption agencies attempt to implant one and two embryos at a time, an expensive process that usually needs to be done multiple times before a frozen embryo survives in the womb of the adoptive mother.
Last month the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the regulator of IVF practice in the UK, called for a reduction of twin pregnancies in IVF, leading scientists and doctors to look for IVF methods that will use fewer embryos. The authority wants to see many women offered just one fertilised embryo, a step which would minimize the chances of a twin birth and would reduce the number of embryonic children being created and destroyed a few days later.
See LifeSiteNews Special Report on IVF:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/invitro/
See Previous LifeSiteNews Coverage:
Adoptive Parents of Girl Frozen as Embryo Battle Embryonic Stem Cell Research
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07041908.html
Canadian IVF Researchers Admit 80-90% of IVF-Created Human Embryos Doomed to Die
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112601.html
VATICAN SOLUTION TO LEFT OVER EMBRYO DILEMMA IS LITTLE KNOWN
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/dec/02120401.html
ABOUT 170,000 IVF EMBRYO DEATHS PER YEAR IN U.S.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/nov/02112202.html
Take me out and give my food to 4 billion starving, or perhaps better idea. do not bring anymore until you can make arrangements to feed us and the 4 billion.
You are now making statements that can only be described as socialist/leftist. Free Republic is a PRO-LIFE forum, I understand that some here are “pro-choice,” but even they do not push leftist agendas like you have on this thread.
xxxxxxxxxx
You are prolife. The FR form is an open form with a conservative backing where items like this canbe discussed.
I am a realist, practical engineer mind who realize that people who make decisions based on emotion generally forget the facts of life and make emotional decisions not based on the laws of physics.
Not enought food in USA or USA land to feed all the 6.6 billion people in world like we eat. what are you going to give up?
We’re not going to give ANYTHING up, only leftists like you propose making “sacrifices” when there isn’t even a problem.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Describe the problem you say can be solved?
That's the point, there is no food shortage problem to solve.
The fact that the population is growing worldwide DOES NOT mean that there is a food shortage. Nobody is disputing that there are more people today than there were a century ago, what you are being asked to provide evidence of is a food shortage.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
The ration of feed vs no feed (hungry) is 18-20 to one.
You can not tell me:
1. how large our annual production of wheat corn oats is?
2. how much (percentage) of this crop is used domistically?
3. how much more land can be put into productionu in USA?
4. how much corn, wheat grain is being shifted to ethanal to power your car? in billions of gallons.
If USA agricultural was in full production could we feed every mouth in the world. And with 90,000 souls added every day for how long?
This is the answer to your arguement?
You need to shift thru facts not emotions.
Actually, Jim Robinson has made it completely clear on numerous occasions that Free Republic is PRO-LIFE and not an “open” forum:
“Got news for all, I’m NOT fair and balanced. I’m biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.”
“As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family,”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
“NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914017/posts
The answers to your question ONLY matter if there are food shortages in the United States, no such shortages exist. Those are the FACTS.
The answers to your question ONLY matter if there are food shortages in the United States, no such shortages exist. Those are the FACTS.
xxxxxxx
Provide links like I did please.
Provide links like I did please.
Let me provide you one of the most basic fundamentals of logic, in nearly all cases it is impossible to prove a negative and this is certainly one of those cases.
The answers to your question ONLY matter if there are food shortages in the United States, no such shortages exist. Those are the FACTS.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thten your standards only apply in the USA and the rest of the world can go to hell. You are a selfish, greed person to take food from the mouths of souls outside of the USA to feed your over weight lifestyle. Yes?
The answers to your question ONLY matter if there are food shortages in the United States, no such shortages exist. Those are the FACTS.
Provide links like I did please.
Let me provide you one of the most basic fundamentals of logic, in nearly all cases it is impossible to prove a negative and this is certainly one of those cases.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is not a negitive. Either YES, we have enough food to feed the world or NO we do not.
What is your proof we have enought food to feed the world souls?
What is your proof we have enought food to feed the world souls?
You keep switching back and forth between talking about the United States and talking about the rest of the world. The FACT that people in the United States are not dying of starvation is prima facie evidence that we have enough food.
Of course there are hungry people on earth --- even food-surpus countries have hungry people --- but these are distribution problems, not production problems. You might want to refer to these resources:
The Mathusian problem answered:
http://reason.com/sullum/010500.shtml
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb112002.shtml
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb022603.shtml
On how poverty takes a lot of work on the part of politicians to sustain:
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091802.shtml
One of the big challenges ahead is the shift in the way people are using grains. If a lot of corn gets shunted off the ethanol production, that will have a big impact on food prices for people who don't have much leeway.
I personally would turn thumbs-down on ethanol unless and until its production can prove rationally profitable in response to the free market (and not governemnt subsidies and pressures).
And India, China and Japan, whose people traditionally ate lots of rice, vegetables, lentils, soy and fish, are eating dramatically more beef every year, which is hugely costly because of the unfavorable plant protein/animal protein conversion ratio.
But they're doing that precisely because they're now more prosperous than they've ever been in their history, largely because they're emerging from the stranglehold of socialism. Population, food, and freedom are perfectly capable of expanding simultaneously.
Something Al Gore has never been able to wrap his mind around.
You said
Hunger worldwide NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL have anything to do with food shortages, it has always been the result of failed economic and political policies.
xxxxxxxxxx
You keep switching back and forth between talking about the United States and talking about the rest of the world. The FACT that people in the United States are not dying of starvation is prima facie evidence that we have enough food.
xxxxxxxxxx
prima facie evidence tells me you are lawyer want be.
If you can not back up your statement below you have failed to convience the jury the facts as I stated are not valid.
“Hunger worldwide NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL have anything to do with food shortages, it has always been the result of failed economic and political policies.”
Bottomline is you bring them, in you figure out how to feed them, and the other 5.5 billion who are already here who go to bed every night.
Otherwise you are the problem, to world hunger, not the solution.
Sorry time for my tee time.
Are you purposely obtuse or is this your normal state? The "facts" you refer to is that there is some food shortage in the United States. You have not provided a shred of evidence that this is true and when such a claim that is so outrageous that it offends the very sensibilities of the average person is made, it becomes the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it.
Bottomline is you bring them, in you figure out how to feed them, and the other 5.5 billion who are already here who go to bed every night.
Like most socialists, I see that you are also a globalist. I have news for you it IS NOT the job of the United States to feed the world.
And if not, not.
They don't need you, ChicagoFarmer, or Al Gore or Greenpeace of Planned Barrenhood or anybody else to label them a global threat, bewail their fertility, disparage their babies or sabotage their pregnancies.
Like most socialists, I see that you are also a globalist. I have news for you it IS NOT the job of the United States to feed the world.
xxxxxxxxx
NO news for me. Glad your on board with me.
Thanks for your support.
If any married couple prudently believes they should limit childbearing for health or financial reasons or any other serious reason, they have the right and responsibiity to limit their sexual and reproductive behavior accordingly.
And if not, not.
They don’t need you, ChicagoFarmer, or Al Gore or Greenpeace of Planned Barrenhood or anybody else to label them a global threat, bewail their fertility, disparage their babies or sabotage their pregnancies.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Better to let the population explode to 10 billlion and tens of milllions starve to death every years. Yep you got the better solution, starve millions every year.
Socialists like you will never touch this radioactive discussion because it is not political correct to talk about who lives and who dies. Your solution is ok in your mind, and let millions die while you baby your narrow views and protected USA view..
How stupid of logic to let a problem go unaddressed.
Can you provide a link to a single news story about a single person starving to death in the United States in 2007 (with the exception of Terri Schiavo-style murders)?
By the way, your repeated use of the word "socialist" applied to me and to other prolifers who disagree with you, is irrational and abusive.
The phrase “population explosion” is a rhetorical panic tactic. Couples don’t have “population explosions,” they have babies. Only the married couples themselves have a moral right to decide when and if to conceive a baby. They don’t need immoral means such as state-sponsored “population control,” sterilization or abortion to do so,and they don’t need your permission or mine to do so
xxxxxxxx
Your arguement only carries water when married. Ten of thousands of in the moment of unprotected sex for that moment of scoring big tiem with my gal. IS this your idea of responsible decisions. 06 to 70% of the welfare population in our inter cites are NOT married un protected ssex with some unemployed stud getting his rocks off.
This is your idea of world population grow. Get real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.