From passive/aggressive to downright hostile

in 2 seconds flat. Yep, that's been me lately.

It must be the hormones, maybe the lack of sleep too. You'd think the promise of my impending escape from that painful little company would have me all bright and cheery.
Especially since the weather's absolutely beautiful and the Igg-els are playing in the Superbowl (certain members of the team better pray for a win. Considering some of the trash they've been talking, I think there are some very big men from New England looking to do some potentially career ending damage to those birds).

Kazan's spaz about the evil mutilation called circumcision and how his lack of foreskin makes it impossible to enjoy the ultimate in sexual satisfaction irked the shit out of me. I was less than appreciative of the slammage that I was being emtional as opposed to logical because I said that knowing my own family medical history (DM & PVD), I would have my sons (were I to have any) circumcised as infants (mind you, not by Rabbi Fischer). I've never known anyone so obsessed, let alone so angry, about something they're sure they're missing that must be exponentially more gratifying when they have no control group for objective and legitimate comparison.

I then went on to peruse CNN for some lighter fare to come across 2 teenaged girls losing a lawsuit for the great cookie caper of 2004. This is an example of the sort of frivolous lawsuit that tort-reform should address. I guess it's true, no good deed goes unpunished.

Eggs are put to hatch on a chance
As sad as it is, a "promising" blastocyst does not mean it will definitely implant, let alone make it past the first trimester and go to term. Many of my friends (way too many, come to think of it) are well aware of this sad fact. What confuses me most is how someone who believes life begins at conception and that an unimplanted embryo is, indeed, a himan being with a right to life, could consider utilization of IVF. I feel for this couple who feels they've lost a chance at parenthood due to an error, but if they really believe that life begins at conception, they should be filing suit for wrongful death of all the discarded embryos (if they were all discarded and, if not, they should proceed with attempted implantation of any remaining ones).

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A couple whose frozen embryo was accidentally destroyed at a fertility clinic has the right in Illinois to file a wrongful-death lawsuit, a judge has ruled in a case that some legal experts say could have implications in the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

In an opinion issued Friday, Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence said "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb."

He said the couple is as entitled to seek compensation as any parents whose child has been killed.

The suit was filed by Alison Miller and Todd Parrish, who stored nine embryos in January 2000 at the Center for Human Reproduction in Chicago. Their doctor said one embryo looked particularly promising, but the Chicago couple were told six months later the embryos had been accidentally discarded.

In his ruling, Lawrence relied on the state's Wrongful Death Act, which allows lawsuits to be filed if unborn fetuses are killed in an accident or assault. "The state of gestation or development of a human being" does not preclude taking legal action, the act says.

Lawrence also cited an Illinois state law that says an "unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person."

"There is no doubt in the mind of the Illinois Legislature when life begins," Lawrence wrote.

Another judge had thrown out the couple's wrongful-death claims, but Lawrence reversed that decision, partly because that judge did not explain his decision at the time.

An attorney for the fertility clinic said an appeal would likely be filed.

The decision could curb reproductive research, said Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Chicago.

Connell expects the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

"It may be groundbreaking, but it's the wrong decision," Connell said. "No appellate court has ever declared a fertilized egg a human being in a wrongful-death suit."

Stem cells can potentially grow into any type of human tissue. Many scientists believe they could someday be used to repair spinal cord injuries and treat some diseases. Anti-abortion groups oppose such research because it involves destroying embryos, and the Bush administration has severely restricted federal stem cell funding.

Abortion opponents praised Lawrence's ruling. "Life begins at fertilization, not implantation," Pro-Life Action League director Joe Scheidler said.

While the ruling likely is too narrow to affect abortion law, it increases legal risks for fertility clinics, said John Mayoue, a family attorney in Atlanta and specialist on in-vitro law.

Mayoue said court rulings on the treatment of embryos have been contradictory.

"We are considering embryos to be property for certain purposes and life for others, and that's the incongruity," he said.

This suit and the IL law (like the VA law) defining a fetus incorrectly from the point of conception and stating that life begins at conception is dangerous on so many levels. If life begins at conception in the state of IL, how is it that elective abortion is legal there and how soon before IL has proposed legislation like the one original proposed amendment in VA that could have made not reporting a miscarriage a crime? Additionally, if the state of IL legally defines conception as the start of life, shouldn't criminal charges of felony homicide/recklaess endangerment be filed in the case above (and murder 1 charges be filed for any destroyed/discarded embryos even when the parents consented)? Either life begins at conception for all, or it does not, you can't have it both ways.


I stand outside this woman's work, this woman's world. . .
The Vatican recently praised a 41 yearold woman for refusing treatment for cancer that was diagnosed the same time she found out she was pregnant.

"She was aware that if she gave birth she wouldn't have had any hope of surviving," the Vatican newspaper wrote. "Despite that she went through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the cost of her own death."

The baby was born 6 months into the pregnancy, the mother died 3 months later. She is survived by her husband, who supported her decision, and 2 other children aged 10 & 12. It'll be interesting to see how her children feel about her decision when they grow up (especially the baby who may grow up with survivor guilt). Most of those I know who oppose abortion, would not expect any woman to make the decision to try to go to term in these circumstances, especially considering how early in term she was, that the cancer was treatable and she has two living children who deserved to have their mother much longer than they did. A case in which the pregnancy was further along and the cancer was most likely terminal would make the decision to go to term more understandable for most people. The point, of course, is that ultimately the decision was hers to make in accordance with her religious beliefs and her conscience. This points to the dangers of allowing religious ideals of morality dictate legislation in this country as unlike the Catholic Church, some religions would actually dictate a decision to terminate in this woman's situation.

What was she thinking? Jurors have recommended a sentence for a Houston man convicted of the aggravated sexual assault of a six-week-old baby. The child's mother, Eugenia White, 28, has been charged with failure to report child abuse because she failed to take her daughter to the hospital and then claimed she had accidentally scratched the baby while changing a diaper.

"I was really upset, and I was crying," White testified. "I didn't know what to do. He was begging me not to take her and not to tell them that he did it."

Tags:gay marriage;abortion;Pro-Choice;IVF;circumcision

Sphere: Related Content