Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Romney son has kids via surrogate
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
Wow. I work with a woman who was a surrogate earlier this year. I wonder how much she was paid...
They wanted more kids? Why does 0 or 3 kids matter? I'm of the just replace dh and me, but that is not all and I don't think people are selfish or crazy for not thinking their family is done at x number .
I think you can get like $30 grand plus medical costs through a reputable agency.
I mean that it matters to those who don't support him in that they think his son's choice makes Romney a hypocrite.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
I think it is a little premature to assume Romney's position on this based on his son's decisions. However, if Romney were to be elected and advocate for legislation that would prohibit this option for other families I would think it is problematic. Not in the sense that he is personally a hypocrite, but in general I think there is a perception that politicians don't have to live by the same rules that everyday americans do. This is on both sides of the aisle.
Not that I am aware of. I think there is a concern it could be a potential consequence if some of the personhood legislation is passed.
I always thought it was considered hypocritical for anyone who is pro-life to be okay with IVF, surrogacy, etc. If a fertilized egg is a person, then "people" are thrown away every time someone uses alternate methods of getting pregnant.
Romney is pro life. So if anyone should have a problem with his son using a surrogate, it should be other pro lifers. I personally don't care but then I'm very pro choice.
If I'm not mistaken one of our regulars (Caden) is pro-life and a mother through IVF. I think you can do IVF without discarding embryos. I would be interested in hearing her chime in on this.
Click me, click me!
This is not accurate.
Why should we? Not all of us
1. care what the church thinks
2. care to change what the church thinks
3. Like team sports.
What is accurate? Are there cases where they don't discard? I don't know that's why I'm asking. I was under the impression that discarding unused eggs was the norm.
HABI wasn't aware that there are people who are pro life who don't believe life begins at conception. I thought that was the whole stance. I've honestly never heard otherwise. Live and learn. It the whole personhood/life begins at conception belief that I've always disagreed with. Nice to see someone pro life who doesn't believe that.
IUI is an alternate method of getting pregnant and women doing that don't generally discard embryos. Taking clomid to stimulate ovulation is an alternate method of getting pregnant and women doing that don't generally discard embryos.
Also, discarding eggs is not discarding a person/baby. Discarding an embryo may arguably be so depending on when you think life begins, but I certainly hope we haven't regressed to the point that we are saying a woman's egg is a person/baby now.
Eggs, no. But fertilized eggs would be the same as discarding a baby to a pro life person, would it not?
I'm as pro choice as they come so I don't care. I just remember being on a forum years ago and there were pro lifers arguing among themselves about discarding fertilized unused eggs. The stance of some pro lifers who were okay with discarding was that it was okay because of the "greater good". The greater good being that a person was getting pregnant.
Whatever. I don't care what Romney's kid does. I have other reasons to not want Romney for Prez.
I don't care what his son does either and the answer to the bolded is maybe, as this thread has shown that not all anti-abortion people believe the exact same thing about when life begins.
I do think that IVF can be done in a way that does not discard unused embryos. How that happens I'm not sure of though.
I've never heard a pro-life person with that position. When does it begin?
Isn't that the whole premise of the pro-life argument. If it doesn't start at conception when does it start? I my pro-choice mind it doesn't start until the baby is viable outside the womb.
Above Us Only Sky
I have heard viability and once you can see heartbeat. Not too often, but I have here these.
I'm not sure actually. But traditional old school church doctrine as well as verses in the Bible suggest that life begins at the quickening, as it were or when you can feel your baby move.
I'm not sure when people/the church moved to an earlier time though. I just know that it makes sense to me. After all, isn't it the theory that first trimester miscarriage generally occur because there is something not quite right with the developing embryo? I know people don't like when you bring God into an argument but for me, it doesn't make sense that if life begins at conception, God has created a biological function by which embryos are lost in such numbers, often before the woman would know she was pregnant (were it not for the fairly new ability to test at 8 days past ovulation.)
Click me, click me!
I just had to know why this post was 50+ replies.
This has got to be near the very bottom of things I care about in a presidential candidate.
but if this is the case then shouldn't abortion be legal until 17-18 wks because that's when you start to feel the baby.
Above Us Only Sky
I'm cool with abortion being legal up to 14 weeks or so for any reason whatsoever. But again, I'm only speaking for myself, not for the pro-life community at large. I'm not even involved in the pro-llife movement outside of my personal position so I have no idea what the rumblings are there.
However, I do think that like everyone else, it's the vocal minority that gets the most play. I don't know anyone who believes life begins at conception or that all abortion should be completely illegal under every circumstances and I live in a pretty conservative community.
Also, I've been pregnant three times and it's never taken until 17-18 weeks to feel the baby. Maybe from the outside I guess but I know I felt mine move much, much sooner.
Click me, click me!