Woman prepares to give birth to Katrina-rescued embryo

[Buckle Up]

I thought this was a nice uplifting story from Katrina, all too rare.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/...cued_embryos_4

Markham is about to give birth via Caesarean section, nine months after being implanted with an embryo that nearly thawed when the flooded hospital lost electricity.

Lt. Eric Bumgarner, one of seven Illinois Conservation Police officers and three Louisiana state troopers who sloshed through floodwaters to remove the embryos...said he has often wondered what happened to the embryos: "One of these embryos could be the next president."

That last quote reminded me of the glurge discussing great figures' mothers who might have had an abortion.

[eeriespawnsybil]

I think its wonderful that all those embryos could be saved but wonder if some of those resources could have been better used to save people who were already alive. Not that I don't think the embryos deserved to be saved or recognize the importance they hold to their parents to be . I just remember all of the people who died while waiting to be rescued.

If I am confused about the circumstances of the rescuing of the embryos some please clarify it for me.

[wanderwoman]

Originally Posted by eeriespawnsybil

I think its wonderful that all those embryos could be saved but wonder if some of those resources could have been better used to save people who were already alive. Not that I don't think the embryos deserved to be saved or recognize the importance they hold to their parents to be . I just remember all of the people who died while waiting to be rescued.

If I am confused about the circumstances of the rescuing of the embryos some please clarify it for me.

I'm glad for these parents, but I share your mixed feelings.

I realize it was probably a lot easier to save frozen embryos than it would have been to save a number of bedridden elderly people, and rerouting the resources that saved these embryos probably wouldn't have saved many of the people who died. But...oh, this kind of makes my head hurt. And it makes me sadder than it does happier.

BTW, welcome to the board, eeriespawnsybil.

[eeriespawnsybil]

Thanks Wanderwoman

[Mickey Blue]

Well if you believe that abortion is wrong* then all of these embryos would be the equivilant of children, so it sorta makes sense people would want to save them.

I'm going to regret saying this next part, and I may end up starting a huge flame war I cannot win and totally derailing the thread.. But here I go anyway..

But if the embryos had thawed, each woman who wanted another baby would have had to undergo another expensive round of fertility drugs, egg harvesting, and in vitro fertilization. Markham estimated her first pregnancy cost $12,000; the second $2,000. Her husband's insurance covered that, but had a lifetime cap of $15,000.

Or.. They could just adopt one of the tons of needy kids, yes including very young ones, that are already available. I mean yes, I realize that people who do not need specialized treatment have that option as well and oftentimes don't do it, but I guess I get sick of hearing the "we had to go through this if we wanted a child" thing.. No.. You had to go through this if you wanted a biological child of your own blood.. Which is fine, lots of people want this, but lets not pretend that this is the only way to have a baby.

The Markhams, who live in suburban Covington, have not picked out names yet. But if the baby's a girl, she won't be called Katrina.

"There's nothing good associated with that name," the mother-to-be said.

Well thats mean.. I mean surely somebody out there named Katrina has done something valuable.. Hope a hurricane called "Mike" dosn't level a city somewhere..

[Auntie Witch]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

Well thats mean.. I mean surely somebody out there named Katrina has done something valuable.. Hope a hurricane called "Mike" dosn't level a city somewhere..

YOMANK

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to feel that way about the name Katrina. Which is fine by me, because it means that my (now 3yo) Katarina won't be in a class full of similarly-named peers!

[Artemis]

By that rationale, one can only hope that we get a rash of bad weather that includes Hurricane Ashlee, Brittanny, and Madison.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Mixed feelings? Uh. No. This is quite ridiculious. I saw it yesterday, and felt like beating those parents over the head with the dead and rotting arm of an actual human that was, um, alive and didn't get rescued.

This article reeks of the highest sense of entitlement and classism, and is, unfortunatly, quite emblimatic of the entire Katrina debacle.

[kismet]

Now hold on, these embryos weren't even rescued until Sept. 11, 2 weeks after Katrina. It was not a choice between bedridden elderly people and the embryos, because bedridden elderly people had either been rescued or it was too late by then!

And the couple in the OP wasn't calling the National Guard demanding their embryos, they were just happy that the embryos were saved. Having gone through what it takes to make such an embryo, why should they be anything but happy that the embryo happened to be saved.

And Mickey Blue, I know I would have had to go through a lot to have any child, because my options were infertility treatment or adoption. Neither is easy, I'd say adoption is even harder from my research. So I went through a lot for my baby (though not as much as if we'd successfully done adoption), I would have been heartbroken if she had been lost due to a hurricane, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by kismet

\ It was not a choice between bedridden elderly people and the embryos, because bedridden elderly people had either been rescued or it was too late by then!

At which time, there were still stranded people, as well as many stranded pets, who, once again, are alive. And, even if it only took ten people, it still took money and resources (which are still needed by the actual victims of the hurricane) to recover something that does no one any real good whatsoever.

Originally Posted by kismet

And the couple in the OP wasn't calling the National Guard demanding their embryos, they were just happy that the embryos were saved. Having gone through what it takes to make such an embryo, why should they be anything but happy that the embryo happened to be saved.

Granted. I'll change that to the Dr. who called her legislative buddy, who used political clout to get this done, when resources could have been allocated elsewhere.

[kismet]

Well, I'll grant you that. As long as there were living people stranded who could be saved as easily as these embryos, this does seem like a bad use of resources.

When it comes down to pets, there are some for whom the dog trumps the embryo and some who would go the either way, I don't think we can rightly be angry at a rescue team who chose embryos over pets. An embryo is alive. Actually, I'd say pet and embryo rescue would be equally bad if there were still people stranded and dying!

And while I would be sad if I had lost an embryo, I wouldn't be angry if rescue efforts went to existing humans above potential humans. Of course people should come before embryos.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by kismet

Well, I'll grant you that. As long as there were living people stranded who could be saved as easily as these embryos, this does seem like a bad use of resources.

Seriously, the whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. I have to wonder if the fertility doc would have lost money if the embryos had been rendered non-viable?

[Cervus]

Originally Posted by kismet

When it comes down to pets, there are some for whom the dog trumps the embryo and some who would go the either way, I don't think we can rightly be angry at a rescue team who chose embryos over pets. An embryo is alive.

...and pets aren't?

Why do you say we can't rightly be angry over a rescue team who chooses an embryo over stranded pets? I know which one rightly deserved my time and resources.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Cervus

...and pets aren't?

Why do you say we can't rightly be angry over a rescue team who chooses an embryo over stranded pets? I know which one rightly deserved my time and resources.

Which I also quite agree with (but with my posting record today on this thread and the Dolphin thread, I'm really wondering it I shouldn't check myself into a mental ward or something.)

[wanderwoman]

Originally Posted by kismet

Now hold on, these embryos weren't even rescued until Sept. 11, 2 weeks after Katrina. It was not a choice between bedridden elderly people and the embryos, because bedridden elderly people had either been rescued or it was too late by then!

And the couple in the OP wasn't calling the National Guard demanding their embryos, they were just happy that the embryos were saved. Having gone through what it takes to make such an embryo, why should they be anything but happy that the embryo happened to be saved.

And Mickey Blue, I know I would have had to go through a lot to have any child, because my options were infertility treatment or adoption. Neither is easy, I'd say adoption is even harder from my research. So I went through a lot for my baby (though not as much as if we'd successfully done adoption), I would have been heartbroken if she had been lost due to a hurricane, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

I thought my post was pretty clear that I understood it wasn't a choice between bedridden elderly and frozen embryos. However, I am sadder about the bedridden elderly than I am happy about the frozen embryos.

Certainly this couple has every right to be happy. But many people lost loved ones and all their worldly possessions in this hurricane. Thinking about those people, I just can't get ecstatic because this couple gets to have a second child.

[kismet]

Originally Posted by Cervus

...and pets aren't?

Why do you say we can't rightly be angry over a rescue team who chooses an embryo over stranded pets? I know which one rightly deserved my time and resources.

I wasn't saying pets aren't alive, I was repsonding to Ryda's comment that we should save pets because THEY are alive. My comment is that both are alive, and one could make a legitimate argument to save pets or embryos if only one could be saved.

Whereas if there are people that need to be rescued, the government should obviously use its resources to save them above embryos and pets.

Cervus, I think it's great that you use your resources to help animals. I love animals, and I think everyone should get to choose where to put their efforts. But I think a government rescue agency should not be attacked for making a call between embryos and pets, that's not a clear-cut ethical decision and there are many rational people on both sides of that divide. I do think the ethical choice between people and frozen embryos is pretty clear, however.

Wanderwoman, you made it clear you didn't think it was a choice between bedridden elderly and the embryos, but Ryda wanted these parents to be hit over the head with the rotting arm of a corpse. That response made me suspect that she did see it as a choice, and held these parents personally responsible for the deaths of others.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by kismet

I wasn't saying pets aren't alive, I was repsonding to Ryda's comment that we should save pets because THEY are alive. My comment is that both are alive,

Which is very, very arguable. Embryo's are viable, meaning they might develop and become alive, but, as they are, they are about as live as your common slime mold, and less so than your local grasshopper. They aren't even considered fetuses yet......

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Which is very, very arguable. Embryo's are viable, meaning they might develop and become alive, but, as they are, they are about as live as your common slime mold, and less so than your local grasshopper. They aren't even considered fetuses yet......

Many would disagree with you on that...

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Many would disagree with you on that...

True, but I'm thinking very few would disagree that the stranded people and pets weren't alive.

[Mickey Blue]

And Mickey Blue, I know I would have had to go through a lot to have any child, because my options were infertility treatment or adoption. Neither is easy, I'd say adoption is even harder from my research. So I went through a lot for my baby (though not as much as if we'd successfully done adoption), I would have been heartbroken if she had been lost due to a hurricane, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't be sad or that invitro fertilization is wrong, just the generic attitude of "I can't have a baby on my own and the only way to have one is to go through this procedure" is kinda a slap to all the orphan kids out there.. If you want a kid who is "your own flesh and blood" then yea, adopting wont help, if you want to actually carry the baby then yea, adoption wont help, but if you just want a child to raise adoption not only can help but there are already kids out there who need homes.

Many would disagree with you on that...

Perhaps, but nobody who had even the vaugest notion of medical science or anatomy/physiology.

An embrio is only marginally more "alive" then a sperm or an egg is, considerably less so then a fetus is, and far far less so then a neonate is.

Whether that puts them above, below, or equal to pets is a matter of opinion, which is certainly fair enough, but to call them "alive" is the same kind of passive inaccurace as people who call fetuses "babies" (at least politically speaking).

True, but I'm thinking very few would disagree that the stranded people and pets weren't alive.

I don't recall anybody suggesting pets werent alive, though I imagine a number would feel they are not worth saving over embryos, and many would say embryos are not worth saving over pets, after that it all depends on who makes the decisions out there.