"Pete C." > wrote in message
ter.com...
>
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>> Pete C. wrote about mutual surrogacy:
>>
>> >> One one hand they would have all rights as a spouse regards the
>> >> children
>> >> and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy contract because the
>> >> child
>> >> they carried to term was not genetically their own as they doubled as
>> >> a
>> >> surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the *** factor here and
>> >> imagine
>> >> trying to apply the same laws equally here between a straight couple
>> >> and
>> >> a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection isues here.
>> >>
>> >> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
>> > implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
>> > your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
>> > uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
>> > of a marriage they don't approve of.
>>
>> 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.
>

The weirdness was the embryo swapping. It was a completely unneccesary
indulgence for the sake of vanity. That is what makes things very very
complicated. Had they just each had a baby through IVF with their own eggs
in theri own wombs or artificial insemination or even sex with the donor
there would be no such complexities. Why that point has to be repeatedly
pounded into your skull does not bode well for your intelligence.

>> and it's not homophobic
>> to say that something is complicated.
>
> Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
> you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
> heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.

Pinhead, I said there were equal protection issues here. That means the ***
couple would be at a disadvantage and ESPECIALLY because in this case the
mothers are not only both surrogates they are both spouses. Got that? I am
ON THEIR SIDE in other words. It was purely a legal issue I was thinking
about. And the 4th amendment is a valid point because all the laws on the
books assume hetero marriages and have no provisions for embryo swapping
amongst ******* couples. Is either one of them a wife, a mother or a
surrogate. They seem to be all three at the same time and if the doo doo
hits the fans and things get ugly it will be a terribly hard case to
resolve. And I did say "if."

That is just asking a valid question and has nothing to do with homphobia.
Your very limted take on the subject coupled with your obstinant insistance
that any questions raised are automatically bigotry make it impossible to
discuss this with you. Just because they are *** dos not mean they are
beyond it all.

If you were correct I would only be homophobic against *******s because this
issue would never even be a possibility in a *** male marriage.

Paul
..

"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

"Pete C." > wrote in message
>
> 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.

Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see the
surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many women swap
embryos just for fun?

Why are we assuming this will end in a messy custody battle? It does
seem like an extrodinary length to go to protect the children's rights
in an unfriendly *** couple parental rights environment. A smart
lawyer must have suggeted the idea to them years ago. Good for them.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>
>> 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.
>
> Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see
> the surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many
> women swap embryos just for fun?

Aw, come on . . . it's just two folks that sent away for a packet of seeds
and shared the seedlings.You're trying to elevate a human life to something
special. Be a sport! 'o}
Janet

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> 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"

It may have been "weird" decades ago when the technology was in it's
infancy, but it is most certainly not "weird" now unless you are biased.

>
> 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?

"Infrequent" does not equate to "weird".

> Female couples don't even comprise a large portion of the population!
> Therefore, Cat Cora's situation is BY DEFINITION weird.

Nope, "Infrequent" or perhaps "uncommon", but not "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.

Nope, it's a biased pejorative comment based on your prejudice.

>
> >> and it's not homophobic to say that something is complicated.
> >
> > Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
> > you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
> > heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.
>
> Read what I wrote, and point out where I said anything about custody being
> less complicated for heterosexual couples. Can't do it, can you? You posted
> a knee-jerk reaction to what you THOUGHT I posted, without reading what was
> ACTUALLY posted.

I read what you actually posted and the bias was quite clear.

> But harking back to the post which prompted me to write,
> the potential custody situation *would be* more complicated because of the
> method of conception and carriage to term.

Nope, that is your bias creeping in again. Child or children, and
formerly married parents - that's all. If you think that it's more
complicated because the children were conceived with the assistance of
medical technology, that is your bias.

> Your inability to admit that
> indicates that you are either unable or unwilling to recognize that some
> complex situations are less complex than others. Since you probably *are*
> able to recognize that, then by default you must be unwilling, which means
> that your mind is closed, and YOU are the biased one.

Nope, I'm pointing out your bias which is quite clear, however you are
unwilling to recognize it.

I have stated my bias quite clearly in the past - I am a devout atheist
and therefore biased against religious zealots, which oddly enough
represent the bulk of the homophobic population.

>
> >> I ran across the following, and thought it applicable he
> >>
> >> http://i44.tinypic.com/dy7z0y.jpg
> >
> > Not interested.
>
> Of course you're not: Why would you be interested, when your mind is
> completely closed?

My mind is quote open to rational arguments, and I haven't heard any
here.

"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.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ter.com...
> >
> > Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete C. wrote about mutual surrogacy:
> >>
> >> >> One one hand they would have all rights as a spouse regards the
> >> >> children
> >> >> and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy contract because the
> >> >> child
> >> >> they carried to term was not genetically their own as they doubled as
> >> >> a
> >> >> surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the *** factor here and
> >> >> imagine
> >> >> trying to apply the same laws equally here between a straight couple
> >> >> and
> >> >> a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection isues here.
> >> >>
> >> >> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
> >> > implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
> >> > your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
> >> > uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
> >> > of a marriage they don't approve of.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>
> The weirdness was the embryo swapping. It was a completely unneccesary
> indulgence for the sake of vanity. That is what makes things very very
> complicated. Had they just each had a baby through IVF with their own eggs
> in theri own wombs or artificial insemination or even sex with the donor
> there would be no such complexities. Why that point has to be repeatedly
> pounded into your skull does not bode well for your intelligence.

It is only weird and complicated in your mind due to your bias. They are
each surrogates for their spouses biological child, there is nothing
weird, extraordinary or complicated about it.

>
> >> and it's not homophobic
> >> to say that something is complicated.
> >
> > Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
> > you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
> > heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.
>
> Pinhead, I said there were equal protection issues here. That means the ***
> couple would be at a disadvantage and ESPECIALLY because in this case the
> mothers are not only both surrogates they are both spouses. Got that?

Someone has to push equal protection issues through the courts or they
never get resolved.

> I am
> ON THEIR SIDE in other words. It was purely a legal issue I was thinking
> about.

Not, you aren't. You clearly indicated you thought they were selfish,
thoughtless, and should not have had the children due to your perceived
complications and presumption that they will invariably get divorced.

> And the 4th amendment is a valid point because all the laws on the
> books assume hetero marriages and have no provisions for embryo swapping
> amongst ******* couples. Is either one of them a wife, a mother or a
> surrogate. They seem to be all three at the same time and if the doo doo
> hits the fans and things get ugly it will be a terribly hard case to
> resolve. And I did say "if."

Yes, "if", and if so then perhaps the laws will get invalidated / fixed
to provide the constitutionally guaranteed equal protection. Without
such cases the unequal protection will remain.

>
> That is just asking a valid question and has nothing to do with homphobia.

You did more than ask a legal question, you attacked the character and
judgment of the couple having the children.

> Your very limted take on the subject coupled with your obstinant insistance
> that any questions raised are automatically bigotry make it impossible to
> discuss this with you. Just because they are *** dos not mean they are
> beyond it all.

Your homophobia and ignorance of IVF make it impossible for you to
recognize your bias.

>
> If you were correct I would only be homophobic against *******s because this
> issue would never even be a possibility in a *** male marriage.

No, your homophobia might be more prominent in this case, but we haven't
heard your thoughts on the case of a *** male couple having children
with their own sperm using egg donors and surrogates which is indeed
possible and would make each a biological parent of one of the children
just as in the case we have been discussing.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >
> > 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.
>
> Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see the
> surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many women swap
> embryos just for fun?

Swapping embryos is not weird at all. Technologically, it involves
nothing more than picking up the test tube containing the embryos from
the other egg donor for implantation. Emotionally it allows each partner
more complete participation in the birth of the children by carrying
their partners biological offspring.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
>>
>> Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see the
>> surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many women swap
>> embryos just for fun?
>
> Swapping embryos is not weird at all. Technologically, it involves
> nothing more than picking up the test tube containing the embryos from
> the other egg donor for implantation. Emotionally it allows each partner
> more complete participation in the birth of the children by carrying
> their partners biological offspring.

I've never met a mother that would not want to bear her own child as long as
they could. Sorry, but embryo swapping sure seems weird to me but I'll let
the mothers comment on that aspect.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>
>>>Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see the
>>>surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many women swap
>>>embryos just for fun?
>>
>>Swapping embryos is not weird at all. Technologically, it involves
>>nothing more than picking up the test tube containing the embryos from
>>the other egg donor for implantation. Emotionally it allows each partner
>>more complete participation in the birth of the children by carrying
>>their partners biological offspring.
>
>
> I've never met a mother that would not want to bear her own child as long as
> they could. Sorry, but embryo swapping sure seems weird to me but I'll let
> the mothers comment on that aspect.
>
>

Okay, I'll bite.

Any child you carry becomes your own.

I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
genetics.

And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
chosen life partner by swapping embryos.

How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
"normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".

Kathleen wrote:
>
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >
> >>>Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see the
> >>>surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many women swap
> >>>embryos just for fun?
> >>
> >>Swapping embryos is not weird at all. Technologically, it involves
> >>nothing more than picking up the test tube containing the embryos from
> >>the other egg donor for implantation. Emotionally it allows each partner
> >>more complete participation in the birth of the children by carrying
> >>their partners biological offspring.
> >
> >
> > I've never met a mother that would not want to bear her own child as long as
> > they could. Sorry, but embryo swapping sure seems weird to me but I'll let
> > the mothers comment on that aspect.
> >
> >
>
> Okay, I'll bite.
>
> Any child you carry becomes your own.
>
> I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
> genetics.
>
> And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
> chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>
> How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
> "normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".

Bingo.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
>> Any child you carry becomes your own.
>>
>> I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
>> genetics.
>>
>> And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
>> chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>>
>> How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
>> "normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".
>
> Bingo.

So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own without
the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss here. It
takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but it is still
the egg of the mother.

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> The weirdness was the embryo swapping. It was a completely unneccesary
> indulgence for the sake of vanity.

Perhaps you are operating under more information than the rest of us
have here. I saw only a little information posted in this thread about
the situation. Do you have cites or search criteria that would let us
all base our comments on the same facts?

> Pinhead, I said there were equal protection issues here. That means the ***
> couple would be at a disadvantage and ESPECIALLY because in this case the
> mothers are not only both surrogates they are both spouses.

Are they legally married? If not, equal custody of the children is very
difficult in "normal" cases.


> about. And the 4th amendment is a valid point because all the laws on the
> books assume hetero marriages and have no provisions for embryo swapping
> amongst ******* couples.

Is this the 4th amendment in Texas or California? I fail to see how the
4th amendment to the US constitution applies:

" * Fourth Amendment * Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And your second statement is not correct (all the laws on the books).
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is a Federal law in the US, which says
that despite any state laws (including the state constitutions) saying
otherwise, only marriages between one woman and one man will be
recognized under Federal law, for purposes of Federal law. Thus a ***
couple legally married under state law could file state income tax
returns as a married couple, but not US tax returns.

> If you were correct I would only be homophobic against *******s because this
> issue would never even be a possibility in a *** male marriage.

Disputed custody (and support) is often pretty nasty. I personally
don't think it makes much difference in the details. The only
difference is that *** males, as far as I know, cannot give birth.
Everything else is the same.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> Any child you carry becomes your own.
> >>
> >> I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
> >> genetics.
> >>
> >> And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
> >> chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
> >>
> >> How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
> >> "normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own without
> the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss here. It
> takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but it is still
> the egg of the mother.

My you're confused...

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> The weirdness was the embryo swapping. It was a completely unneccesary
>> indulgence for the sake of vanity.
>
> Perhaps you are operating under more information than the rest of us
> have here. I saw only a little information posted in this thread about
> the situation. Do you have cites or search criteria that would let us
> all base our comments on the same facts?

I assume what people said on message boards was true. Apparently each woman
bore a child through more or less normal means previously. I assume that
means insemination either by a live male or by a syringe.

>
>> Pinhead, I said there were equal protection issues here. That means the
>> ***
>> couple would be at a disadvantage and ESPECIALLY because in this case the
>> mothers are not only both surrogates they are both spouses.
>
> Are they legally married? If not, equal custody of the children is very
> difficult in "normal" cases.

Very few states have legalized *** marriages. So probably not. I think she
lives in Louisiana or some place on the Gulf coast.

>
>> about. And the 4th amendment is a valid point because all the laws on
>> the
>> books assume hetero marriages and have no provisions for embryo swapping
>> amongst ******* couples.
>
> Is this the 4th amendment in Texas or California? I fail to see how the
> 4th amendment to the US constitution applies:
>
> " * Fourth Amendment * Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Yikes, I meant 14th. Typo.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws

Paul

"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

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> I assume what people said on message boards was true. Apparently each woman
> bore a child through more or less normal means previously. I assume that
> means insemination either by a live male or by a syringe.

She's online now at her Myspace page. Why don't you friend her and find
out? ;-)

http://www.myspace.com/catcoracooks

--Lin

"Lin" > wrote in message
.. .
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> I assume what people said on message boards was true. Apparently each
>> woman bore a child through more or less normal means previously. I
>> assume that means insemination either by a live male or by a syringe.
>
> She's online now at her Myspace page. Why don't you friend her and find
> out? ;-)
>
> http://www.myspace.com/catcoracooks
>


Well I do like watching her cook. She's on my top 5 list. She is a
celebrity and probably quite well paid and that kind of thing can make
people pretty weird.

Paul

> My mind is quote open to rational arguments, and I haven't heard any
> here.

Your mind is quite closed to the subject. I diod a search on embryo
swapping and apparently it is not exactly the rage, shall we say. I found
this from 1997:

SANTA ANA, Calif., Sept 30 (LSN) - This morning, the Associated Press
reported that only one doctor of a team of three who were involved in an
embryo-swapping scandal, is facing trial. Dr. Sergio Stone, is being charged
with fraud and conspiracy.

However, the charges in this public trial make no mention of the egg- and
embryo-swapping that led to more than 100 lawsuits and cost $18.4 million so
far. Stone and his partners worked at the University of California-Irvine
Center for Reproductive Health, which was closed in 1995.

Dr. Ricardo Asch, the head of the operation has left the country and now
practices in Mexico City. Dr. Jose Balmaceda, the other party, has also
duped authorities by leaving the country and is practicing in Chile. The two
are accused of taking patients' eggs and embryos from storage and giving
them to other patients without their consent or knowledge. Authorities are
investigating at least 15 cases where babies were born of questionable
parentage.

---

Got that? Questionable parentage. And I can't see where *******s exhanging
embryos from their own ovaries has exatly been precedent setting in any
court of law in the last 12 years.

Paul

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>
>>>>Swapping embryos is not weird? If you can't carry a baby I can see
>>>>the
>>>>surrogate mother that has been used in the past, but how many women swap
>>>>embryos just for fun?
>>>
>>>Swapping embryos is not weird at all. Technologically, it involves
>>>nothing more than picking up the test tube containing the embryos from
>>>the other egg donor for implantation. Emotionally it allows each partner
>>>more complete participation in the birth of the children by carrying
>>>their partners biological offspring.
>>
>>
>> I've never met a mother that would not want to bear her own child as long
>> as they could. Sorry, but embryo swapping sure seems weird to me but
>> I'll let the mothers comment on that aspect.
>
> Okay, I'll bite.
>
> Any child you carry becomes your own.
>
> I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
> genetics.
>
> And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a chosen
> life partner by swapping embryos.
>
> How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
> "normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".

On an emotional level, it does not. But there are more things to consider
than one's "feelings" when planning a family. I wish Cat and her wife, or
partner or whatever a long and happy relationship. But I do worry about the
kids and how they will feel when they are old enough to know. And I
especially worry about them if things go sour and an ugly seperation occurs.
Being caught in the middle of something like that is no picnic.

Paul

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>
>>>Any child you carry becomes your own.
>>>
>>>I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
>>>genetics.
>>>
>>>And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
>>>chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>>>
>>>How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
>>>"normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".
>>
>>Bingo.
>
>
> So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own without
> the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss here. It
> takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but it is still
> the egg of the mother.

I can't decide if you're being deliberately thick here or not.

A male genetic donor masturbates into a cup.

An egg donor undergoes months of painful hormone injections with
multiple side effects, followed by egg harvest via transvaginal needle.

An egg donor's cycles are already synched for implantation. Her
decision to carry a pregnancy, her own or anybody elses, is an
incredible act of deliberate grace involving 9 months of her life in
addition to the weeks required to prime her body for the harvest of her
eggs via GIANT FRICKIN NEEDLE THROUGH THE VAGINA.

This is not a trivial, frivolous procedure, nor is implantation of the
embryos. Those who have undergone these procedures describe it as
walking through fire to make their children.

How dare you pass judgement?

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>
>>>>Any child you carry becomes your own.
>>>>
>>>>I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
>>>>genetics.
>>>>
>>>>And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
>>>>chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>>>>
>>>>How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
>>>>"normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".
>>>
>>>Bingo.
>>
>>
>> So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own without
>> the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss here. It
>> takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but it is still
>> the egg of the mother.
>
> I can't decide if you're being deliberately thick here or not.
>
> A male genetic donor masturbates into a cup.
>

It's a graduated cyliner with a blue plastic funnel. Don't ask.

> An egg donor undergoes months of painful hormone injections with multiple
> side effects, followed by egg harvest via transvaginal needle.
>
> An egg donor's cycles are already synched for implantation. Her decision
> to carry a pregnancy, her own or anybody elses, is an incredible act of
> deliberate grace involving 9 months of her life in addition to the weeks
> required to prime her body for the harvest of her eggs via GIANT FRICKIN
> NEEDLE THROUGH THE VAGINA.
>
> This is not a trivial, frivolous procedure, nor is implantation of the
> embryos. Those who have undergone these procedures describe it as walking
> through fire to make their children.
>
> How dare you pass judgement?
>

Nobody is judging. But after the way you describe it, why would anyone go
through it just to swap embryos? Seems to be not only very expensive but
rather unpleasant as well just to be romantic.

Paul
>

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Any child you carry becomes your own.
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
>>>>>genetics.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
>>>>>chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>>>>>
>>>>>How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
>>>>>"normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".
>>>>
>>>>Bingo.
>>>
>>>
>>>So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own without
>>>the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss here. It
>>>takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but it is still
>>>the egg of the mother.
>>
>>I can't decide if you're being deliberately thick here or not.
>>
>>A male genetic donor masturbates into a cup.
>>
>
>
> It's a graduated cyliner with a blue plastic funnel. Don't ask.
>
>
>>An egg donor undergoes months of painful hormone injections with multiple
>>side effects, followed by egg harvest via transvaginal needle.
>>
>>An egg donor's cycles are already synched for implantation. Her decision
>>to carry a pregnancy, her own or anybody elses, is an incredible act of
>>deliberate grace involving 9 months of her life in addition to the weeks
>>required to prime her body for the harvest of her eggs via GIANT FRICKIN
>>NEEDLE THROUGH THE VAGINA.
>>
>>This is not a trivial, frivolous procedure, nor is implantation of the
>>embryos. Those who have undergone these procedures describe it as walking
>>through fire to make their children.
>>
>>How dare you pass judgement?
>>
>
>
> Nobody is judging. But after the way you describe it, why would anyone go
> through it just to swap embryos? Seems to be not only very expensive but
> rather unpleasant as well just to be romantic.


Don't know. And given that I don't have to pay, I don't care.

None of my damned business.

Congrats to the both of them!

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Any child you carry becomes your own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
>>>>>>genetics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
>>>>>>chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
>>>>>>"normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your
>>>>>>baby".
>>>>>
>>>>>Bingo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own
>>>>without the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss
>>>>here. It takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but
>>>>it is still the egg of the mother.
>>>
>>>I can't decide if you're being deliberately thick here or not.
>>>
>>>A male genetic donor masturbates into a cup.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a graduated cyliner with a blue plastic funnel. Don't ask.
>>
>>
>>>An egg donor undergoes months of painful hormone injections with multiple
>>>side effects, followed by egg harvest via transvaginal needle.
>>>
>>>An egg donor's cycles are already synched for implantation. Her decision
>>>to carry a pregnancy, her own or anybody elses, is an incredible act of
>>>deliberate grace involving 9 months of her life in addition to the weeks
>>>required to prime her body for the harvest of her eggs via GIANT FRICKIN
>>>NEEDLE THROUGH THE VAGINA.
>>>
>>>This is not a trivial, frivolous procedure, nor is implantation of the
>>>embryos. Those who have undergone these procedures describe it as
>>>walking through fire to make their children.
>>>
>>>How dare you pass judgement?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody is judging. But after the way you describe it, why would anyone
>> go through it just to swap embryos? Seems to be not only very expensive
>> but rather unpleasant as well just to be romantic.
>
>
> Don't know. And given that I don't have to pay, I don't care.
>
> None of my damned business.
>
> Congrats to the both of them!
>

OK, let's get gossipy. I'm thinking the donor was that hunky guy on the
kitchen makeover show, Kitchen Accomplished. I swear sometimes she looked
like she wanted to jump him. Anyway, as it turns out she lives here in
SoCal and was recently married pre-prop 8. So she is and will always be
legally married even though it looks like prop 8 will stand. And trust me,
I hate what this state did. I think it was wrong on every possible level.

Paul

"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.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> > My mind is quote open to rational arguments, and I haven't heard any
> > here.
>
> Your mind is quite closed to the subject. I diod a search on embryo
> swapping and apparently it is not exactly the rage, shall we say. I found
> this from 1997:
>
> SANTA ANA, Calif., Sept 30 (LSN) - This morning, the Associated Press
> reported that only one doctor of a team of three who were involved in an
> embryo-swapping scandal, is facing trial. Dr. Sergio Stone, is being charged
> with fraud and conspiracy.
>
> However, the charges in this public trial make no mention of the egg- and
> embryo-swapping that led to more than 100 lawsuits and cost $18.4 million so
> far. Stone and his partners worked at the University of California-Irvine
> Center for Reproductive Health, which was closed in 1995.
>
> Dr. Ricardo Asch, the head of the operation has left the country and now
> practices in Mexico City. Dr. Jose Balmaceda, the other party, has also
> duped authorities by leaving the country and is practicing in Chile. The two
> are accused of taking patients' eggs and embryos from storage and giving
> them to other patients without their consent or knowledge. Authorities are
> investigating at least 15 cases where babies were born of questionable
> parentage.
>
> ---
>
> Got that? Questionable parentage. And I can't see where *******s exhanging
> embryos from their own ovaries has exatly been precedent setting in any
> court of law in the last 12 years.
>
> Paul

Yep, only a clueless loon would try quoting entirely unrelated material
to try to bolster their failing argument.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> > My mind is quote open to rational arguments, and I haven't heard any
>> > here.
>>
>> Your mind is quite closed to the subject. I diod a search on embryo
>> swapping and apparently it is not exactly the rage, shall we say. I
>> found
>> this from 1997:
>>
>> SANTA ANA, Calif., Sept 30 (LSN) - This morning, the Associated Press
>> reported that only one doctor of a team of three who were involved in an
>> embryo-swapping scandal, is facing trial. Dr. Sergio Stone, is being
>> charged
>> with fraud and conspiracy.
>>
>> However, the charges in this public trial make no mention of the egg- and
>> embryo-swapping that led to more than 100 lawsuits and cost $18.4 million
>> so
>> far. Stone and his partners worked at the University of California-Irvine
>> Center for Reproductive Health, which was closed in 1995.
>>
>> Dr. Ricardo Asch, the head of the operation has left the country and now
>> practices in Mexico City. Dr. Jose Balmaceda, the other party, has also
>> duped authorities by leaving the country and is practicing in Chile. The
>> two
>> are accused of taking patients' eggs and embryos from storage and giving
>> them to other patients without their consent or knowledge. Authorities
>> are
>> investigating at least 15 cases where babies were born of questionable
>> parentage.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Got that? Questionable parentage. And I can't see where *******s
>> exhanging
>> embryos from their own ovaries has exatly been precedent setting in any
>> court of law in the last 12 years.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Yep, only a clueless loon would try quoting entirely unrelated material
> to try to bolster their failing argument.

"Questionable parentage"

Paul

"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

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "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

I didn't specify what flavor of religious loon, they come in many
flavors.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ster.com...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> > My mind is quote open to rational arguments, and I haven't heard any
> >> > here.
> >>
> >> Your mind is quite closed to the subject. I diod a search on embryo
> >> swapping and apparently it is not exactly the rage, shall we say. I
> >> found
> >> this from 1997:
> >>
> >> SANTA ANA, Calif., Sept 30 (LSN) - This morning, the Associated Press
> >> reported that only one doctor of a team of three who were involved in an
> >> embryo-swapping scandal, is facing trial. Dr. Sergio Stone, is being
> >> charged
> >> with fraud and conspiracy.
> >>
> >> However, the charges in this public trial make no mention of the egg- and
> >> embryo-swapping that led to more than 100 lawsuits and cost $18.4 million
> >> so
> >> far. Stone and his partners worked at the University of California-Irvine
> >> Center for Reproductive Health, which was closed in 1995.
> >>
> >> Dr. Ricardo Asch, the head of the operation has left the country and now
> >> practices in Mexico City. Dr. Jose Balmaceda, the other party, has also
> >> duped authorities by leaving the country and is practicing in Chile. The
> >> two
> >> are accused of taking patients' eggs and embryos from storage and giving
> >> them to other patients without their consent or knowledge. Authorities
> >> are
> >> investigating at least 15 cases where babies were born of questionable
> >> parentage.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Got that? Questionable parentage. And I can't see where *******s
> >> exhanging
> >> embryos from their own ovaries has exatly been precedent setting in any
> >> court of law in the last 12 years.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Yep, only a clueless loon would try quoting entirely unrelated material
> > to try to bolster their failing argument.
>
> "Questionable parentage"

Yes, due to the embryo swapping being unauthorized, unrequested,
undocumented, etc. As I said, entirely unrelated.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:15:23 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>Any child you carry becomes your own.
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand the legal precedents, I understand the biology and the
>>>>>genetics.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I can understand deciding to cement your emotional bond with a
>>>>>chosen life partner by swapping embryos.
>>>>>
>>>>>How does this differ from chosing to carry the child created by the
>>>>>"normal" procreative acts of a hetero couple? "I wanna have your baby".
>>>>
>>>>Bingo.
>>>
>>>
>>> So the male can donate the egg too? He makes the baby on his own without
>>> the assistance of the mother? I think the "bingo" is a miss here. It
>>> takes two parts. You may want that man to be the father, but it is still
>>> the egg of the mother.
>>
>> I can't decide if you're being deliberately thick here or not.
>>
>> A male genetic donor masturbates into a cup.
>>
>
>It's a graduated cyliner with a blue plastic funnel. Don't ask.

No, it's a cup. All my children started out in cups.
>
>> An egg donor undergoes months of painful hormone injections with multiple
>> side effects, followed by egg harvest via transvaginal needle.
>>
>> An egg donor's cycles are already synched for implantation. Her decision
>> to carry a pregnancy, her own or anybody elses, is an incredible act of
>> deliberate grace involving 9 months of her life in addition to the weeks
>> required to prime her body for the harvest of her eggs via GIANT FRICKIN
>> NEEDLE THROUGH THE VAGINA.
>>
>> This is not a trivial, frivolous procedure, nor is implantation of the
>> embryos. Those who have undergone these procedures describe it as walking
>> through fire to make their children.
>>
>> How dare you pass judgement?
>>
>
>Nobody is judging. But after the way you describe it, why would anyone go
>through it just to swap embryos? Seems to be not only very expensive but
>rather unpleasant as well just to be romantic.
>

As I posted before, there are likely legal implications in all of this
that might be used to provide parental rights to both women for both
children.

Boron

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "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
>
> I didn't specify what flavor of religious loon, they come in many
> flavors.

OK, on the subject of loons I give you expert level knowledge.

Paul

Boron Elgar wrote:

> As I posted before, there are likely legal implications in all of this
> that might be used to provide parental rights to both women for both
> children.

If I understand this excerpt from the Cora's somewhat confusing press
release, multiple embryos were implanted in Jen and they aren't sure
whose egg she is carrying, and don't want to know:

"The Coras share a unique family story in which both women have carried
the other's biological child. Cat's pregnancy is a result of in-vitro
fertilization with Jennifer's embryo. The couple's sons, ages 5 years
and 23 months, were both carried by Jennifer. She was artificially
inseminated for her first pregnancy, but the second she carried to term
using Cat's embryo. In Jennifer's current pregnancy, both women's
embryos were implanted, so the biological mother is unknown. They do not
to plan to conduct DNA testing to determine the baby's biological mother."

And to think, we might have ended up with an Octo-Chef ... ;-)

--Lin (Who's yo mama?)

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
>
> I can't decide if you're being deliberately thick here or not.

Who made the "I want to have your baby" comment? A woman getting
impregnated in the normal way is far different than swapping embryos. I
think the swapping thing is weird in the particular situtation of Cat Cora
and her partner. It is not the same as a woman that want to have the child
of a particular male. It is not hte same as a woman th at has other
fertility problems.


>
> This is not a trivial, frivolous procedure, nor is implantation of the
> embryos. Those who have undergone these procedures describe it as walking
> through fire to make their children.
>
> How dare you pass judgement?

I'm not passing judgment (do what you want), I think it is weird. Your
information regarding the process just reinforces that. Please note that
there is a difference between judging and having an opinion.

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Are they legally married? If not, equal custody of the children is very
> > difficult in "normal" cases.
>
> Very few states have legalized *** marriages. So probably not. I think she
> lives in Louisiana or some place on the Gulf coast.

Try California, at least according to the cite originally posted. Cat
was raised in the South (of the US) and still has a considerable accent,
at least on ICA (Iron Chef America).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Pete C. wrote:

> It may have been "weird" decades ago when the technology was in it's
> infancy, but it is most certainly not "weird" now unless you are biased.

Yes, by the definition of "weird," it's still weird.


>> 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?
>
> "Infrequent" does not equate to "weird".

Yes, it does. That which is not frequent is strange. Is English perhaps not
your native language?



>> Female couples don't even comprise a large portion of the population!
>> Therefore, Cat Cora's situation is BY DEFINITION weird.
>
> Nope, "Infrequent" or perhaps "uncommon", but not "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.
>
> Nope, it's a biased pejorative comment based on your prejudice.

Ya know, I don't think you are REALLY as stupid as the things you post, so
you must just be trolling with the "homophobe" bait. Troll somewhere else,
loser.

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> It may have been "weird" decades ago when the technology was in it's
>> infancy, but it is most certainly not "weird" now unless you are biased.
>
> Yes, by the definition of "weird," it's still weird.
>
>
>>> 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?
>>
>> "Infrequent" does not equate to "weird".
>
> Yes, it does. That which is not frequent is strange. Is English perhaps
> not
> your native language?
>
>
>
>>> Female couples don't even comprise a large portion of the population!
>>> Therefore, Cat Cora's situation is BY DEFINITION weird.
>>
>> Nope, "Infrequent" or perhaps "uncommon", but not "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.
>>
>> Nope, it's a biased pejorative comment based on your prejudice.
>
> Ya know, I don't think you are REALLY as stupid as the things you post, so
> you must just be trolling with the "homophobe" bait. Troll somewhere else,
> loser.


Don't be so sure about that last part. I've seen worse. He could very well
be for real.

Paul

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:33:30 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> 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

not only are you knowledgeable about i.v.f., you apparently are an adept
mind reader as well. congratulations.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:33:30 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> not only are you knowledgeable about i.v.f., you apparently are an adept
> mind reader as well. congratulations.


I knew you'd say that.

Paul