"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ster.com...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Pete C. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> It's not homophobic to say that something is weird,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Care to tell me what is "weird" about a couple wanting to have
>> >> >> children
>> >> >> and using medical technology to overcome fertility issues? It's
>> >> >> only
>> >> >> "weird" if you are biased against the couple for some reason i.e.
>> >> >> you're
>> >> >> homophobic.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not weird to want children. It *is* weird to use medical
>> >> > technology
>> >> > to
>> >> > overcome fertility issues, regardless of whether the people involved
>> >> > are
>> >> > straight or ***. Your hyperreactivity shows a bias on your part --
>> >> > or
>> >> > maybe
>> >> > you just don't know what the word "weird" means. Here, let
>> >> > Merriam-Webster
>> >> > help you: "of strange or extraordinary character"
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it your stance that the practices of female couples using the
>> >> > same
>> >> > sperm
>> >> > donor and swapping embryos occur in a large portion of the
>> >> > population?
>> >> > Female couples don't even comprise a large portion of the
>> >> > population!
>> >> > Therefore, Cat Cora's situation is BY DEFINITION weird. It is in no
>> >> > way
>> >> > an
>> >> > adverse reflection on her sexual preferences; it's a simple and
>> >> > obvious
>> >> > commentary on her outlying status in the demographics.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. That in vitro process was done for no other reason than to
>> >> swap
>> >> embryos since each woman had born a child through insemination. The
>> >> in
>> >> vitro process cost each of them about 10 grand. A mighty pricey way
>> >> to
>> >> make
>> >> a baby when it was simply not necessary. That shows me a very
>> >> conceited,
>> >> narcissistic and self absorbed person. Couples resort to IVF because
>> >> they
>> >> can't impregnate any other way. Those two had a choice.
>> >>
>> >> That is weird to me.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >
>> > Your ignorance is showing now. Perhaps you need to look at what IVF
>> > actually means.
>> >
>> > In IVF, eggs and sperm are harvested from the donors, and they are
>> > combined in the test tube and then monitored for proper fertilization
>> > and cell division. When they have progressed in cell division for a
>> > certain period, the embryo is then implanted in the woman who will
>> > carry
>> > the child, be it the egg donor or a surrogate.
>> >
>> > In very simple terms for your feeble mind, the "embryo swap" involved
>> > no
>> > more effort than selecting the test tube with the embryos from the
>> > other
>> > egg donor for implantation.
>>
>> One more time:
>>
>> IT WAS OPTIONAL. They have fully functioning reproductive systems as
>> proven
>> by their previous children not conceived by IVF. It was an optional
>> procedure done FOR THE PURPOSE of swapping embryos. It was also a very
>> expensive procedure. It was obviously done for vanity as in "hey let's
>> be
>> the coolest ******* couple and like swap our embryos, wouldn't that like
>> ya
>> know be so cool?" If you can give me one explanation about how
>> *swapping*
>> embryos between female partners is a method of overcoming infertility, I
>> will withdrawal my conclusion as to you IQ.
>>
>> I apparently know much more about not only IVF but the subject which you
>> cannot seem to follow with a roadmap and a GPS.
>>
>> Paul
>
> You are still proving that you are a clueless homophobe and probable
> religious loon.

Me, a religious loon? Yeah, OK. I guess my buddhist parents raised a jesus
freak?

Paul