http://www.drmalpani.com/book/chapter25c.html

http://www.infertilityny.com/embryotransfer.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantation

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456…

I quoted your comment above on another thread for Kattenburg's benefit.
Hope you don't mind.

Ya see…. This is what “The Moderate Voice” should be all about. Not the infighting of neo-cons and liberals – but actual solutions. I love it!

On side A we have people who believe the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should be the province of the person whose body is pregnant, meaning it should be her choice. Those who support such an arrangement are obviously “pro-choice”.

On side B we have those who believe the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should not be the province of the person who is pregnant, meaning it should not be her choice. Those who support such an arrangement are obviously “anti-choice”.

It doesn't get any simpler than that folks. These are not inherently pejorative terms, only descriptive, albeit more accurate than much of the commonly used terminology.

That's part of it — risk-free, responsibility-free living, cradle-to-grave security and a related entitlement, demanding mentality. More broadly, it's an infantilism trend associated with radicalism and how personal behavior is involved. I.e., consequences not only shouldn't even matter, they shouldn't even enter into the picture or situation at all…

Oh, you can make the distinction between how you view abortion itself and what the legality of it should be, or what is practical or realistic, and more frequently you can view it with respect to the amount of degree of support or opposition. That is why I have said that most people (which is true) are not “100% absolute anti-abortionists.” (The same is true for the truly extreme and wacky 100% “pro” people, who don't even want limitations on minors, parental notification for minors, etc., and who typically insist on an unlimited federal government entitlement, to have this be provided at public expense on demand, as well as silly related demands such as that if abortion were restricted, society should be “obliged” to pay for raising any children than are born as a result.)

What you can say can be additionally be elucidated by noting that often the phrase “abortion rights” is how the relevent issue of the time is described. (Whether or not you like or approve of the action or not, it's actually a separate issue whether or not it should be legal, and if so, what restrictions it may face, etc.)

No company yet exists that focuses on this research but in their defense the technology did not become realistic until the last 5-10 years and would still take 5-10 years of research but I am a believer in technology(also I have not heard anyone but me discussing it so the “meme” will need to get rolling as well but I am trying to get the message out). Religion saves your soul, the government saves themselves and technology saves the masses has become my bumper sticker phrase. Many good avenues exist though, even cloning research since the cell manipulations and DNA research will be needed to move the science forward.

The water makers already exist though and they do cost 1k, we now are creating printers that print 3d objects like say buildings which are estimated to be ready at the consumer level in the next 20-30yrs and that is not even touching the reality of nanites and the science behind them. The tech is new and in its infancy but if you see a use for it investing in the research will just bring it into reality more quickly. We truly live in an amazing age, in fact as a child my idea of heaven was a place where I could learn everything their was to know about anything. We are not there yet but I now know its name was the internet and I now live everyday in my childhood version of heaven. Tends to give a guy a bounce to his step and hope for the future. Also tends to send a guy off to college in his mid 30's with plans to stay in college for the next 20 yrs to help in any way I can.

Do you know of such companies?
HOLY COW! I'd invest or even donate to a company like that!!!!!!!!!
I'd even help to direct other Christians to invest in such an endeavor.

That is an ingenious idea. Why haven't I heard that before!!!!!!???????
Wow. That would work for everyone, would it not?

I think we've been over this, Spence.
The opponents are for the “choice” not to have sex to avoid pregnancy – or at least safer sex to avoid it. The proponents are for “choice” after the fact to negate irresponsible behavior.

If I steal a car – I will most likely get thrown in jail. Prognosis: Don't steal cars.
If I touch a hot stove – I will get burned. Prognosis: Don't touch hot stoves.
If I have unprotected sex – I will most likely get a child or a disease. Prognosis: Don't have unprotected sex or obstain altogether.

The bottom line is personal responsibility. It is something that the ultra-liberal crowd has been against from the beginning. It's not the criminal's fault – it's society's fault, etc.

As far as the insurance thing goes I actually like the basic structures being discussed currently though I think many things will need to be addressed in the future, for instance the tort reform that is so needed and lowering guards that block insurance companies from insuring people in all states but to me the fix is to have federal laws that impose realistic and good minimums instead of the race to the bottom we saw with credit cards in the early 80's which I think would actually make healthcare worse though it would cost less since it would do less and cost you more out of pocket. This is why I poll as a “conservative” though, I prefer incrementalism as a rule and minimal approaches and actually am waiting for Repubs or the conservative side to take the same approach. Meaning welfare is bad is a good bumper sticker but just melting it or cutting it does not resolve the real issue, what cheaper or better methods can they offer(charities for procedures are a good idea as they are more rare than say food and shelter). I do like for instance soup kitchens funded by the gov instead of food stamps and the like its just that the current Repub offers tend to be “charity” which I tend to find laughable or me-toisim where they do not try new ideas to solve old problems and those new ideas tend to be what I want to vote for since the old ones have failed or their would be no discussion. I also greatly prefer work programs to unemployment extensions and also to welfare since I respect and see value in work. I really think the future of the Repub party is in ideas like “they cant afford their water bills, dont pay the bills for them buy them a 1k subsidized water maker that gives them more then enough for survival and then leave them alone.” When I hear that I will vote for that guy. It will save us money shrink our costs and put us back on our self sufficient legs that were destroyed largely by industrialization all while not ignoring the needs of the least among us.

The correct terms with respect to abortion have always been “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion.”

Doesn't quite work that neatly, many folks on the “Pro Choice” side are not Pro abortion, they are pro-abortion as an option to a point. Some in that camp oppose late term abortions, I call myself “Pro Choice” in a very loose sense as I support abortion rights of the mother until about 8-9 weeks when a mental synapse becomes possibe (the point where I believe the life of a distinct human being begins) and then I switch over to the other side. “Anti-abortion” is also not fully accurate since the majority of that side is not opposed to abortion in the case of danger to the mothers health, incest, and rape.

To be really accurate I think you'd have to call the two sides “Mother's rights advocates” and “Fetus rights advocates”rights”

Turn left or right, or proceed straight, at an intersection? Red or blue tie? Coke or Pepsi? McD's or BK?

We have plenty of choices we face and make every waking hour.

The correct terms with respect to abortion have always been “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion.”

Ignorant, evasive, cowardly, or debilitated language, and users of such, are corrected again. [sigh]

Both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are euphemisms. Almost everyone is for life and for choices in a broad sense. It's inconsistent to have trouble with one term and not the other, as they both are equally inexact. Really we need better terms to describe the issue.

but it would take away certain healthcare choices hence anti-choice.

Nope. There is no choice at present to use taxpayer money to fund abortions, the Hyde Amendment forbids it. You can't take away what isn't there.

There is even a ready made easy fix, why not start a charity to help pay for abortions for women that cant afford them? Two birds ladies and gents with one meager stone. And as an added bonus the Dems will be able to point out on a regular basis that they have given more to the pro-life movement(JSpencer is right about pro-choice/anti-choice as far as technical truth but I will use the old vernacular to avoid that debate) than the GOP has since the 1970's with a single bill. Which could hurt the GOP with those voters that stayed away from Dems purely on the abortion stance.

Well said. I agree 100% with your plan. It is so refreshing to see a Democrat come up with a solution that involves personal responsibility, using their own resources to to carry out their agenda and not forcing it on others and without being intolerant of the view of others. I want to hug you right now TheMagicalSkyFather. Its like I just saw a pig fly.

Anyhow, I wish you all the luck in the world convincing other Democrats, and once more I salute you.

I strongly believe in keeping abortion legal so that we can keep track of and regulate it but the procedure offends me on multiple levels, though not as deeply as a lack of personal control over half of the populations own bodies. Having said all of that not only do I think this should not be allowed to kill the bill I think it is the best option that Dems could ever dream of. From a political calculation point of view the Dems will have passed the most sweeping anti-choice(it would not be pro-life but it would take away certain healthcare choices hence anti-choice) legislation since Roe V Wade. The Pro-choicers have no where else to go and by separating the healthcare debate from the abortion debate it will in my opinion protect both from one another which is also important. From where I sit this is not about selling out women but good policy and good politics though it greatly infringes on the rights of consumers but you will not hear that argument made since it would come from the Repubs and they cant make it on that issue. There is even a ready made easy fix, why not start a charity to help pay for abortions for women that cant afford them? Two birds ladies and gents with one meager stone. And as an added bonus the Dems will be able to point out on a regular basis that they have given more to the pro-life movement(JSpencer is right about pro-choice/anti-choice as far as technical truth but I will use the old vernacular to avoid that debate) than the GOP has since the 1970's with a single bill. Which could hurt the GOP with those voters that stayed away from Dems purely on the abortion stance.

Careful Leonidas, now everyone's going to say that the Gallup poll showed 55% of Americans in favor of this bill, since Republicans and Independents are too small a minority to make a difference.

They have made such false claims before:

Liberal Ad Misleads with Poll Numbers
http://factcheck.org/2009/06/liberal-ad-mislead…

Are we back to name-calling again? Anti-choice? LOL. Funny, you called Tidbits out on another thread for using the term “pro-life,” for goodness sakes, because it implied that their opponents are “pro-death.” But no such subtlety with your labels, just put it out there: “anti-choice.” Sigh…

Well lets just follow his example and call the other side anti-life =P