Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

What is the fate of leftover frozen embryos?

Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:13 AM EDT
health, news, science, obama, only-on-msnbc-com, her, she, couples, embryos, parenting--family
msnbc.com News — Laura Bell, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com
Advertise | AdChoices

— By the time she was in her 40s, Andrea Cinnamond was afraid she'd never be a mother. Then came the day in 2005 her daughter was born through in vitro fertilization, followed two years later by twin sons. Today, Kaitlin, Jack, and Aidan bounce around like Ping-Pong balls through their Boston home. Cinnamond, now 49, and her husband are grateful for their healthy children and the medical science that helped create them. Yet she's haunted by the three embryos that were left over.

Like many women struggling with infertility, Cinnamond was delighted when a laboratory took sperm and egg and provided five chances for a second child after Kaitlin's birth. In many ways, infertility is a numbers game — more embryos created means more tries for success. She was asked in the beginning about the matter of surplus embryos, but how could she think about those she might not want when her thoughts were consumed by the children she longed for?

When the time came to decide about the extras, she says, "I thought I was going to be calm and casual." And she was, until the first bill arrived to keep the embryos frozen. "I was petrified," she says. "There was no practical reason to keep them. I just wasn't ready to make the decision not to keep them." She paid the $600, hoping that her thoughts would crystallize as time passed. This year, she's paying the bill again.

Michelle DeCrane of Austin, TX, has also been paying for embryo storage for two years. She has a 2-year-old daughter — and six frozen embryos. "I would love to have another baby, if I were younger — I'm 40 — and if money was not an object." She finds herself trapped in a mental loop; while she doesn't have the same mind-blowing love for the embryos as she has for her daughter, neither does she consider them anonymous laboratory tissue. And there's another wrinkle: One of the six embryos is biologically hers and her husband's; the other five were created with donor eggs and his sperm. "What do people do?" she asks. "You have all of these embryos in all of these labs. Are people going to keep doing what I'm doing and pay the $40 a month ad infinitum?"

Some will. Experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of embryos have accumulated in fertility clinics throughout the country, some awaiting transfer but many literally frozen in time as parents ask themselves questions few among us ever consider with such immediacy: When does life begin? What does "life" mean, anyway? In a recent survey of 58 couples, researchers from the University of California in San Francisco found that 72 percent were undecided about the fate of their stored embryos. In another study last year of more than 1,000 fertility patients from nine clinics, 20 percent of couples who wanted no more children said they planned or expected to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely. Couples have held on to embryos for five years or more, waiting on an epiphany that never comes. Nadya Suleman, the now-famous mother of octuplets, told NBC News that she had all eight of her embryos implanted because she couldn't bear to dispose of any of them.

"When you're pouring your money, your heart, and your soul into creating an embryo and creating a life, the last thing you want to think about is how you're going to dispose of it," says Anne Drapkin Lyerly, M.D., a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center. Until the storage fee comes due. At that point, couples generally have to choose among four options:

Donating to other infertile couples
The first thing many parents want, once they've finished forming their own families, is to let another infertile couple have the embryos. "On the face of it, it's one of the most beautiful, altruistic things in the world," says Bill Petok, Ph.D., a Baltimore psychologist who specializes in counseling infertile couples. Yet, he adds, donating your embryos can be an emotionally fraught process, and depending on the state you live in and your clinic, it can be legally complex as well. The process may be as simple as filling out paperwork or as involved as hiring an attorney to navigate a legal labyrinth and locate a recipient family.

Many couples find they can't cope with the unknowns. Will other parents love the siblings of your children as much as you love your own kids? Would you ever stop worrying about them? Would you want to stay in contact with the family? Deborah Bohn, whose children are 6 and 8, knew she wanted to donate her five unused embryos to another couple to give them a chance at birth, but she didn't want to know anything more. "I couldn't take the thought of knowing I had another child," she says. "I knew my heart couldn't handle it. We're all better off not knowing." Though she now lives in Nashville, her embryos were stored in a California clinic, which was set up to handle the donation. She and her husband were able to stipulate basic terms, such as the education level and religion of the parents receiving the donated embryos, and they accomplished the entire transfer just by filling out forms and sending them to their clinic. "It was probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make," Bohn says. "I cried tons." Yet she has no regrets, and today, no sadness.

Donating to medical research
Stephanie Smith of Odessa, MO, would have liked more children through in vitro, but complications from the birth of her twin girls two years ago left her unable to get pregnant again. She had five embryos left and spent more than a year reconciling her choices with her religious convictions. Those five clusters of cells forced her to think, almost daily, about how she defined life. She considers herself pro-life, so donating to another infertile couple felt natural. The more she and her husband thought about it, however, the more unsettled they became. The questions she had were too big to be left unanswered. She didn't know if she'd ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers. "It's a life-altering decision," she says.

They eventually decided to donate the embryos for medical research, as a gesture of gratitude to a system that had given them their dreams. "We were ultimately still giving life, just not for those particular five embryos," she says.

Many couples find donating to research a middle ground that gives the embryos a status somewhere between born children and simple clumps of cells. Although the embryos will not survive, giving to science can be a very caring act, says Dr. Lyerly, who has studied the issues surrounding frozen embryos. Couples who donate to research, she says, "feel like they were helped by science and they want to give back."

Thawing without donating
Some couples find themselves unable to escape the shadows of infertility without allowing their embryos to pass on naturally and with respect. Dr. Lyerly knows of a few women who've found a doctor willing to perform a "compassionate transfer," implanting the embryos into the woman at a time pregnancy is unlikely — envisioning it as a way to return the embryos to their keeping. Other couples want to perform a ceremony of some sort during the thawing and disposal to show their reverence.

Some parents who want other choices besides thawing discover that they have none. Kelly Damron of Phoenix was hoping to donate her three embryos to science after she'd had her twins through in vitro. "Our clinic said that wasn't an option," she says. She wishes now she had asked about the possibilities for unused embryos before choosing a physician. "I asked every other imaginable question," she says. "I didn't even think to ask that one." So she paid for another year of storage; it was too hard to let go at that moment. But, eventually, she did. "Some days I wish they were still there," Damron says. "I wouldn't say that I grieved for them, but I definitely had feelings about the loss."

Postponing the decision
Many parents find they are simply unable to decide. But experts caution that stalling too long might unintentionally shift the dilemma onto someone else. Parents die. Marriages end. People move and forget to tell the clinic, leaving fertility-center staff with unpaid bills and their own difficult choice. "Not making a decision is clearly making a decision," Petok says. One Houston couple, after filing for divorce, fought a legal battle for more than five years over custody of their frozen embryos. She wanted them implanted in herself so that she could have a baby; he wanted them destroyed. In 2008, the woman lost the case.

And sometimes, couples decide the mental paralysis will never go away. "I don't think anybody knows what their opinion is until they're in this situation," says Ginny Scott of Austin, TX. She had one embryo left after giving birth to her children, now 7 and 6. After two years of deliberating possibilities that never seemed right, she and her husband decided to use it to have another baby — her now 3-year-old daughter. One unused embryo, she says, "changed my whole life." She's thankful for her daughter, but also thankful she had only one embryo remaining.

Consider the predicament of Kim Maksymuik, a mother of twins who lives near Toronto and who has stored five embryos for more than five years. "Every time that bill came in the mail, I couldn't say 'Just let them go,'" she says. Today, at 48, she's decided to have more children, even, if necessary, through a surrogate. "It's a very emotional journey," she says — a journey to a place she thought she'd left behind.

The promise of stem cell research
Fewer than two months after taking office in January, President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, reversing a policy that had put surplus embryos at the crossroads of science, ethics, and religion for eight years.

Researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells because they have the unique potential to become any type of cell in the body and may hold promise for treating conditions such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injuries, and others that involve the death of brain cells and other nerve tissue. But research had been greatly impeded because scientists were limited to using stem cell lines that were created before August 2001.

The lifting of the ban means that eventually more parents should be able to donate unused embryos for this research. "The reason this kind of donation is so appealing is that it doesn't just end with the embryos," says Cecily Kellogg of Philadelphia. "The cells have a good chance of being used for years and years." After the birth of her daughter three years ago through IVF, Kellogg had eight unused embryos; a placental abruption after that birth and a life-threatening complication with a previous pregnancy meant that future pregnancies were not recommended. Because her mother-in-law has Alzheimer's, she and her husband found it heartening that they might be able to help research. At the time she and her husband were making their decision, Kellogg was told that she couldn't donate her embryos from her home state; but because they were created across the border in New Jersey, donation was possible and rather easy.

The new law won't necessarily end the patchwork nature of stem cell research funding. Almost immediately following the March announcement from the Obama administration, some state governments moved to restrict such research. So the laws — and simplicity of donation — may still vary from state to state, and could change as states ease or tighten restrictions. The full impact of the policy won't be clear until the National Institutes of Health issues new guidelines on embryonic stem cell research. To learn more, visit stemcells.nih.gov.

Getting more help
The professionals at fertility clinics may be supportive about the issue of leftover embryos -- but couples shouldn't be shocked if they aren't, says Barbara Collura, executive director of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. Clinic staff often don't want to discuss options they aren't set up to handle, or they don't want to be seen as advocating one choice over another. "They don't want to be in a position where someone says, 'You advised me to donate my embryos and it was a huge mistake,'" she says.

If your clinic isn't providing the help you need, there are heavily trafficked blogs, chat rooms, and other places online to find more information. Some examples:

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (asrm.org) can help you locate a counselor trained to help undecided couples explore their options and sort through the legal and emotional complications. Click on the link for "Mental Health Professionals."

Creatingafamily.com Lawyer and radio host Dawn Davenport's website has a list of resources for couples. You can also listen to a series of radio shows she produced on the issue in May and June 2008.

The American Fertility Association (theafa.org) has a fact sheet on choices, and a toll-free number couples can call for support.

The RESOLVE website (resolve.org) provides info on donating embryos to other couples and locations for workshops on the legal, medical, and mental-health aspects of this topic, both for prospective donors and for recipients.

Laura Beil regularly writes about health and science. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, and Self. She lives with her family in Dallas.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Laura Bell's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (41)
Peter Merel

Look, it's actually very simple. Donate them to the Catholic church.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:18 AM EDT
Elaine Elias

This is a joke. Right?

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:17 PM EDT
Dragonwagon5

Send them to the Pope....(C.O.D.)......

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:05 PM EDT
Reply
stampoutsophistry

A very interesting article. This is something I've never thought about. A very difficult decision for anyone to have to make.

    Reply#2 - Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:14 PM EDT
    mary smallwood

    after listening to the pros and cons of frozen embryos, what if a person donated them to another couple and after they have grown they would meet and marry one of their siblings and not know that they were from the same donors. that would lead to birth defects in their children. i can' t even imagine having to make a decision as to what to do with the embryos, but in my opinion, no matter how bad you want to have children, don't mess with mother nature.

      Reply#3 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:35 AM EDT
      Elaine Elias

      Mary, Have you been watching "As The World Turns" again?

        #3.1 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:27 PM EDT
        Reply
        Welcome to ObamaNationDeleted
        Beebobby

        4 posts in and a whiner mentions the President. Go away and infect some other vine.

        • 6 votes
        Reply#5 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:22 PM EDT
        Dawn M-1300213

        Empryos are future children. If you have a child that you do not want you give that child up for adoption. Why not do the same for the embryos?

          Reply#6 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
          Beebobby

          Equating frozen embryos with living, adoptable chidren is quite a stretch.

          • 2 votes
          #6.1 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:54 PM EDT
          LanaD

          Whats next? Are you going to say all left over frozen sperm should be given up for "adoption"? Same thing for frozen eggs?

          Sperm even move, unlike embryos, and need nourishment to survive but not necessarily a host. They even "know" to swim towards the egg. But it is ridiculous to think that every sperm is sacred.

          • 2 votes
          #6.2 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:07 PM EDT
          Stu-4803409

          What do you mean? Its one of the best Monty Python songs out there!

          All kidding aside I think they put them in the paper cartons and label them liquid eggs.

            #6.3 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:49 PM EDT
            Reply
            Mommy of Two-062004

            My concern was the same as Mary's - what if you donate them to a couple and then 2 kids who were produced from these embryos met and became a couple without knowing they were actually 'siblings". That causes another mess of problems. I think lots of research needs to be done on this subject to find the best method of dealing with frozen embryos. If you donate them, it should be done almost like an adoption process.

              Reply#7 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
              Get The Point

              conservatives are usually idiots.... narrow, closed minds poisoned with fear and self-importance.

              however, after years of oscillation on this issue, i can not agree wiht the liberal assertion that life begins at week 20 -25.

              when i saw that little black and white photo of my 14 week only daughter... i knew at that point it was a child ---- and no amount of rationalization could deny that! i could not have lived without the support of my parents both before and after my birth...

              casting a vote for a democrat is often very difficult for htis reason... a vote is always the lesser of 2 evils where the lesser usually means the theoretical lives of unborn children.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#8 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
              LanaD

              Weather it is a child or not does not give it the right to use someones body against their will. Not you or me could even take someone elses blood against their will. I don't see how someone could be forced to give up their whole body and life for an unconscious nonviable fetus when totally functioning humans with feelings don't have anything close to that right.

              No one and nothing has the right to life at the expense of anothers body. Our bodies are our own and we should not be forced to sustain anyone (adult, child, embryo whatever) with our bodies. We are the property of no one.

              • 3 votes
              #8.1 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:15 PM EDT
              Stu-4803409

              Even at 14 weeks it would not live on its own. Its like getting sentimental about a loaf of bread still in the oven, comparing it to loaves that are fully cooked and complete. There is just too much that can go wrong and you shouldn't count your eggs until they are hatched.

                #8.2 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:54 PM EDT
                Get The Point

                LanaD,

                usually it's neo-cons but.... aren't you forgetting something here? it was the woman's CHOICE and RESPONSIBILITY to engage in intercourse. ignorance is not a valid excuse but there isn't even ignorance here... this is a very poor rationalization. yes, the child does have right becasue the woman chose to enter into this biological contract!

                Stu,

                i don't think there's much of a difference in value between either loaf -- you know it's coming out of the oven and are wiling to pay for it aren't yoiu! another very poor rationalization.

                jeeze, the conservatives are right about liberals on this!

                • 1 vote
                #8.3 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:04 AM EDT
                Stu-4803409

                you know it's coming out of the oven and are wiling to pay for it aren't yoiu

                No I am not. It is not the greatest example but there are dozens of things that can ruin it before it is done and an embryo is basically nothing but the raw ingredients mixed together. Until it is born, it is a fetus nothing more nothing less. It has no emotions or rational thought, it does feel pain but so do countless animals that you no doubt feast on daily. It deserves whatever consideration the mother is willing to give it, but as it is fully dependant there is no way to give it rights without removing them from the mother.

                  #8.4 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:35 PM EDT
                  Get The Point

                  dozens of things that can ruin it before it is done...

                  there are dozens of things that can happen to any of us any day... you're drawing a line based on an event... little more.

                  embryo is basically nothing but the raw ingredients mixed together. Until it is born, it is a fetus nothing more nothing less.

                  if it looks like a tree - it's probably a tree! i don't believe there is ANY res each to CONFIRM what you're saying here! beating heart, arms, genitalia... some people claim memory from the womb. the subject is gray and for THAT very reason it should not be treated as if we know for certain!

                  It has no emotions or rational thought, it does feel pain but so do countless animals that you no doubt feast on daily.

                  It deserves whatever consideration the mother is willing to give it, but as it is fully dependant there is no way to give it rights without removing them from the mother.

                  consideration??? i prefer the word responsibility. again, all of this is highly debatable... would you drive a car down the highway if someone told you there was a 50 percent chance of death???

                  abortion is killing a dependent living entity. the implecations of this are disastersous but rationally your arguments are not concrete enough to justify the outcome. period.

                    #8.5 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:58 PM EDT
                    Stu-4803409

                    Agreed but I could say the same about your counter arguement. That is the reason it is still so divisive and unsettled after so many years, and probably will continue to be.

                      #8.6 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:45 PM EDT
                      LanaD

                      it was the woman's CHOICE and RESPONSIBILITY to engage in intercourse

                      Yes it was her CHOICE to engage in sex for PLEASURE not REPRODUCTION. We all have a right to have sex without reproducing.

                      yes, the child does have right becasue the woman chose to enter into this biological contract!

                      No it doesn't. Not unless the woman signs a contract saying she is having sex for the purpose of reproduction your straw man argument has no base. Your biological contract does not exist. You won't get anywhere arguing with that. Especially if you use contraceptive that goes to show the only contract you are entering is the one that consists of orgasm ONLY. No one FOR ANY REASON has the right to use someone elses body against their will.

                        #8.7 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:32 PM EDT
                        Get The Point

                        LanaD -

                        "We all have a right to have sex without reproducing."

                        - says who??? not nature! otherwise it would have provided an abortion cave down the stream... we "choose" to have sex for please and MUST take responsibility for the possible outcomes! the constitutionality of abortion remains in question to this day...

                        we do not have the right to risk the lives of others (risk is the valid term here without an absolute definition of life) for our personal pleaseure! while there is no written or verbal contract there is no straw man here either. both parties are fully aware of potential outcomes and therefore WILL is determined.

                        when an outcome is common knowledge, it is very difficult to argue criminal violation or civil damage. the outcome of intercourse is common knowledge. people are responsible for their actions even if it wasn't what they wanted!

                        we need to remember that "abortion" (not miscarriage) is a human creation. whatever is out there did NOT create this as a natural alternative. it is violent; it is ugly; it requires human intervention on an otherwise natural process.

                        my only agenda is the truth and objectivity. we are both educated poeple but i think you are failing at making an effort at beign objective here. i've been where you're at.

                        * if there is a question as Stu acknowledges then we should not be assuming anything where the potential of a lost life is involved. this validates the assertion that the aborion argument is indeed rationalization.

                          #8.8 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:09 PM EDT
                          LanaD

                          "We all have a right to have sex without reproducing."

                          says who??? not nature

                          Nature also doesn't say we should be able to remove tumors or brush our teeth. These are things we learned to do with our intelligence.

                          we "choose" to have sex for please and MUST take responsibility for the possible outcomes

                          And being responsible is having a kid you neither want nor can afford? Responsibility is a matter of opinion. Taking responsibility could also be saving up the money for the abortion and taking time off work for the procedure. Just because someone isn't taking "responsibility" the way YOU want them to doesn't mean they aren't.

                          we do not have the right to risk the lives of others (risk is the valid term here without an absolute definition of life) for our personal pleaseure!

                          At the time of the pleasurable act you are not risking anyones life. The sperm and egg have not even met to make the "life". People have a right to have sex without giving up all rights to their bodies.

                          We also do not have the right to life at the expense of another persons body. Not you, not me, not an embryo, not a child, NO ONE. We can not be forced to give up our body to sustain anyone let alone an unconcious unviable fetus for ANY REASON

                          it is violent; it is ugly

                          Once again your opinion. You know abortions up until 9 weeks can be done with a pill?

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.9 - Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:06 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          deacondeelo

                          When mankind decided to take it upon himself to mess around with the natural process of life creation through laboratory reproductive technology, this was the inevitable consequence. How could it be any other way? I guess it depends upon our worldview. Should we respect every human life as sacred and created in God's image? Or...are we all just accidents and the results of random evolutionary processes with no true value or purpose in this temporal life? What we believe will determine the fate of these tiny lives. Remember that just as every tree was once a seed, every one of us was once an embryo. If we believe that life begins at conception, adoption is the only option. With all of the beautiful orphaned children around this world looking for someone to adopt them, and all of the childless couples looking to share their love with a child, it's sad that we even have to have this discussion.

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#9 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:03 PM EDT
                          LanaD

                          Should we respect every human life as sacred and created in God's image?

                          Maybe every living breathing thinking feeling human life. Created in God's image? No.

                          are we all just accidents and the results of random evolutionary processes with no true value or purpose in this temporal life?

                          Accidents, maybe. Results of random evolutionary process, absolutely. No true value or purpose? Absolutely NOT. We can assign as much value and purpose to our lives as we choose. Living a life of value and purpose has nothing to do with being created in God's imagine, or whatever religious spin you want to put on it. If you live life as a good person and help your fellow man your life will have value and purpose.

                          • 1 vote
                          #9.1 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:21 PM EDT
                          deacondeelo

                          No true value or purpose? Absolutely NOT. We can assign as much value and purpose to our lives as we choose. Living a life of value and purpose has nothing to do with being created in God's imagine, or whatever religious spin you want to put on it. If you live life as a good person and help your fellow man your life will have value and purpose.

                          That's an interesting prospective, LanaD. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it. If we all are free to decide what values are righteous individually, that would make those values situational and baseless. There would be no absolute standard for what is right or wrong (like the 10 Commandments) and therefore we can all do as we choose as long as it feels good individually. So if Hitler chose to exterminate millions of people because it supported his individual agenda and values, that's okay because he was free to decide right and wrong on his own?

                          I can appreciate your thoughts about trying to be a good person and helping your fellow man. I wonder where along the so-called evolutionary chain did man acquire this 'good' conscience and why? No other creature has this and it's completely contrary to the 'survival of the fittest' theory that Darwin proposed. Could it be that it was imprinted on our hearts by God when we were created? Throughout history and in all parts of the world no matter how primitive the culture, man has always had a sense of what's right and what's wrong. We don't always follow this sense and we can see the results all around us. Whenever man decides on his own what values are righteous to suit his own selfish nature, disaster is sure to follow. History has proven this to be true.

                            #9.2 - Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
                            LanaD

                            I appreciate your responseand civility. You may have misunderstood what I ment but that's ok I can see how you might get confused. Like for one, I do believe we all have an instinctual knowledge of what is good and bad without being need to be told by others. For example, I know anything I do that may harm another person is under the bad category. I am sure everyone knows that too. But will they always do whats good or will they make their own exceptions on what is good? Your Hilter reference doesn't work because he washarming other living breathing thinking feeling humans which is always bad. Something everyone, religious or not, can agree on even without the help of the 10 commandments. Sure there will always be those who try to blur or outright earse the line but the majority will still have that instincual knowledge and the wrong doer will be put in place. We all have some sort of built in common sense on things like that.

                            I have to disagree with you that humans are the only one with a sense of good and bad and right and wrong. If my German Shepherd does something bad while I am gone, like chew a left out dressing bottle to oblivian, I can tell the moment I see him even before I see the mess. He knows he did something bad and will get time out. He also knows when he does something good like being a good boy in the pet store. I swear he looks at the dogs being bad and is thinking "What is wrong with them?" Its, cute he tilts his head and has even been known to "sigh". I could go on. This also applies to my cats.

                            Watch animals in a pack sometimes. Don't even try to say they don't know the difference between right and wrong. They even obey leaders and cooperate to hunt and raise pups. Ever heard of a serial killing wolf?

                            Whenever man decides on his own what values are righteous to suit his own selfish nature, disaster is sure to follow

                            If your values do not hurt another person then there is nothing wrong with deciding your own. If man can't decide that on his own then someone telling him won't change it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

                              #9.3 - Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:57 AM EDT
                              deacondeelo

                              Ever heard of a serial killing wolf?.

                              No my dear, and as a fellow animal lover (8 cats) I'm sure thankful about that...lol! The good news is that since animals are not spiritual beings like ourselves they're not capable of sin.

                              I have to disagree with you that humans are the only one with a sense of good and bad and right and wrong. If my German Shepherd does something bad while I am gone, like chew a left out dressing bottle to oblivian, I can tell the moment I see him even before I see the mess. He knows he did something bad and will get time out. He also knows when he does something good like being a good boy in the pet store. I swear he looks at the dogs being bad and is thinking "What is wrong with them?" Its, cute he tilts his head and has even been known to "sigh". I could go on. This also applies to my cats.

                              Your German Shepherd has a strong desire to serve and please you since you love him and are his caretaker and master. The guilty look isn't really showing an awareness through reason of any kind of sin or wrongdoing, but rather a reaction to your behavior upon discovering the misdeed. He can't actually appreciate a misdeed for what it is, but is able to sense your pleasure or displeasure through your reaction. Animals have an amazing ability to sense fear, anger, and of course love.

                              I think we're on the same page about this instinctual knowledge (conscience) Lana. As the crowning glory of God's creation, we were given a free will which enables us to love and forgive, but also to sin and hate. We we also endowed with a moral compass that defines right and wrong for everyone. If we are just cosmic accidents and glorified apes, where did this come from and what is its purpose? Doesn't this point toward an intelligent designer?

                              Every human being who has ever lived or will ever live has asked, is asking, or will ask, 4 basic questions about our existence.

                              1. Who am I?

                              2. Why am I here and how did I get here?

                              3. What is wrong with the world and why?

                              4. How can what is wrong be made right?

                              There are answers to all of these questions from He who created us. Have a great weekend, Lana!

                                #9.4 - Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
                                LanaD

                                8 cats? Aw! The entertainment must be nonstop. I have 4 cats (well 3 and one foster cat) and I could only imagine double the fun LoL

                                since animals are not spiritual beings like ourselves they're not capable of sin.

                                The only thing I believe is holding them back are their brains. If they had the brain power to even comprend such things I bet they would be like us. I am glad they don't, though!

                                Your German Shepherd has a strong desire to serve and please you since you love him and are his caretaker and master

                                Wow sounds a lot like some christians I know. To the dog I am "god" because it can't comprehend anything else to be god. Some humans feel the need to serve and please a god that loves them and takes care of them too. Just like the dog looks to serve and please we also have that need. Some choose "god", some choose their partners, some choose society, some choose friends. Both dog and man feel the need to please and serve. This might be an evolutionary thing to ensure we can all coexist.

                                The guilty look isn't really showing an awareness through reason of any kind of sin or wrongdoing, but rather a reaction to your behavior upon discovering the misdeed. He can't actually appreciate a misdeed for what it is

                                Once agian I blame this on him being of a lower intelligence. It is about as close as it gets. Just a few steps away from actually being able to reason.

                                We we also endowed with a moral compass that defines right and wrong for everyone. If we are just cosmic accidents and glorified apes, where did this come from and what is its purpose?

                                I really think it is from our intelligence and ability to reason. It came from millions of years of evolutionary mistakes and wins. This intelligence we have developed has been being perfected over a very long period. The purpose could be to benefit our species. If we can work together our species can shine. I am sure evolution figured that out early and honed in on it.

                                All four of your questions would be asked by anything of higher intelligence. Without the ability to even think those questions how can something ask them?

                                • 1 vote
                                #9.5 - Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:39 PM EDT
                                deacondeelo

                                8 cats? Aw! The entertainment must be nonstop. I have 4 cats (well 3 and one foster cat) and I could only imagine double the fun LoL

                                Bless your heart, Lana. Cats make wonderful pets and are truly misunderstood by many. They try to compare them with dogs although they're completely different animals. They can sure provide a lot of company and enjoyment. Living here in the farm country of the Williamette Valley in Oregon provides a true earthly paradise for cats (and dogs) since they aren't bound by the usual restraints of the city. They can hunt, climb trees, and nap in the sun, and do all things that are consistent with their nature. Last week the 'grand matron' (almost 18 years old) strutted up to the porch with a big barn rat in her jaws. After showing it off and claiming due recognition (despite having some arthritis) for her hunting skills, she took it under the car and ate it. That's the first time that I've ever seen a cat eat a rat. Mice are common dinner fare but not rats or shrews. We just wrote it off since her taste buds have probably eroded some due to her advanced age. Not being a spring chicken myself made that quite easy to relate to!

                                I really think it is from our intelligence and ability to reason. It came from millions of years of evolutionary mistakes and wins. This intelligence we have developed has been being perfected over a very long period. The purpose could be to benefit our species. If we can work together our species can shine. I am sure evolution figured that out early and honed in on it.

                                Ouch! That's a very generous statement, young lady. One only has to read some of the replies on Newsvine to realize that human nature hasn't advanced at all since the beginning of creation lol! Since we are actually physical/spiritual beings, made up of body and spirit/soul, intelligence and reasoning are only part of what makes us tick. The physical brain and mind haven't really grown or expanded at all in time. Only knowledge has. There is a constant conflict between the spirit and the flesh. It's not really a matter of intelligence, but rather a spiritual battle between good and evil. Without God...the difference between good and evil becomes subjective and situational. Today's post modern culture is more about MEology than theology. No matter what our beliefs are, that fact is that all of us are going to die. Most faiths except for atheism believe in life after death. Eternal existence either with God or separated from Him. If you haven't already, read Revelation some time, Lana. Whether you choose to believe or not is your choice, but it's a fascinating read.

                                  #9.6 - Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:05 PM EDT
                                  deacondeelo

                                  I am sure evolution figured that out early and honed in on it.

                                  Wow that evolution guy sounds like a pretty smart cookie. Kinda like God?

                                    #9.7 - Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:41 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Elaine Elias

                                    How about making smoothies with them?

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#10 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:51 PM EDT
                                    Elaine Elias

                                    How about making smoothies with them?

                                    • 1 vote
                                    Reply#11 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:03 PM EDT
                                    Dragonwagon5

                                    What is the fate of leftover frozen embryos?

                                    They get thrown into an Irish stew with the peas, carrots, corn, and anything else in the back of the freezer....

                                    • 1 vote
                                    Reply#12 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:04 PM EDT
                                    Dragonwagon5

                                    Next thing you know, republicans will what to start counting them on the census...

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#13 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:11 PM EDT
                                    JoMan

                                    They're killin' the babies, they're killin' the babies!

                                    I find this amazing. The people making these decisions for fertility and now making this hard decision about the unwanted embryos are usually the same people raising the anti-abortion out cry. You know, the same ones who tell the rest of us it's a sin to play God? They play God all through these fertility programs and now with this situation.

                                    They are such hypocrites.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    Reply#14 - Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:31 PM EDT
                                    BILLO, NOT THAT ONE

                                    For the religious and the nut jobs out there, it is not a democratic thing. If it can be frozen and live, it ain't human.

                                      Reply#15 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:04 PM EDT
                                      Nancy43

                                      So what is it after it is implanted, carried full term and is born if it is not human? You don't implant a human embryo and give birth to an iguana. Although from some of these posts, I'm not so sure that if wouldn't have been better if the poster's mothers HAD given birth to an iguana....

                                        #15.1 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:06 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        Nancy43

                                        When society tries to play God, there are always going to consequences. IMO, if a person isn't able to conceive a child naturally, that ought to tell them something. Perhaps its part of God's plan for their lives that there is an unwanted child that they are meant to adopt. Or perhaps as God knows the future, that children are not part of his plan for their lives because of various reasons.

                                        I can understand people wanting their own children but there are so many beautiful children in orphanges in need of loving parents. Why not give these children a loving home and not open yourself up to self inflicted pain and suffering about what to do with the 'embryos' AKA babies that are 'leftovers'?

                                          Reply#16 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
                                          breelaboyDeleted
                                          Leave a Comment:
                                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                          FUN STUFF:
                                          • Leaderboard |
                                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                                          • Top of the Vine |
                                          • Newsvine Live |
                                          • Newsvine Archives |
                                          • The Greenhouse
                                          COMPANY STUFF:
                                          • Code of Honor |
                                          • Company Info |
                                          • Contact Us |
                                          • Jobs |
                                          • User Agreement |
                                          • Privacy Policy |
                                          • About our ads
                                          LEGAL STUFF:
                                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com