Slashdot Mirror

Either way, eggs and sperm used for IUI/IVF undergo testing for genetic defects, so I could argue that babies concieved via either of these methods are more likely lower the rate of birth disorders.

Actually, usually not. The parents are checked for certain genetic defects, but it is rare for the embryos to be checked, and the eggs/sperm are never checked.

You can't check an egg or a sperm without essentially destroying it. Sperm are divided by motility (how well they move) and morphology (remove those with multiple heads and tails, etc) but again, you can't do any genetic testing without destroying the sperm.

In some cases, fertilized embryos are tested using PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis). In this procedure, the embryos which live until they've got around 8 cells have one cell cut off, and that cell is tested. The test involves checking the value of something like 9 of the 23 chromosome pairs, looking for non-paired chromosomes - for example, having 1 or 3 or 4 where there should only be 2. This can't be done until the embryo has enough cells to lose one for testing without being harmed. It isn't covered by insurance in states which cover IVF, and is usually only used when doctors have some reason to expect that the genetic makeup of the embryos is causing (previous) cycles to fail (e.g., spontaneous abortion by 10 weeks).

There has been some question about whether ICSI allows genetically unhealthy embryos where nature would not, but studies show that the risk is small. In ICSI, the doctor picks one sperm that looks good, and injects it into the egg rather than allowing multiple sperm to "do their best." Since there is no correlation between the way the sperm looks and its genetic health, the worry was that it would allow genetically unhealthy embryos which would not otherwise happen. The consensus seems to be that genetically unhealthy embryos happen both in nature and via ICSI, and that nature deals with them the same - they are non-viable and terminate themselves. (See my other post in this thread documenting that 50% of all pregnancies terminate prematurely in both nature and IVF.)

If an embryo is already infused with a human soul that, unconsciously on its part at first, somehow plays a part in directing the formation of the body and mind, then the embryo is already an end of creation and a person in that sense. An end of creation is not to be used or abused by another man, for the embryo has some right to develop.

Spontaneous abortion (that is to say, the pregnancy terminating itself without outside cause) rates are 50% among the general population (some studies actually say 75%). For every two children that is naturally conceived and granted a soul, one of them dies before being born. This is the way that the normal human system works. 7 out of 10 of these spontaneous abortions occur before the pregnancy is "clinically recognized." Many women never realize they were pregnant; their period is only a few days late and there is no noticeable difference when it comes.

Among young women, the spontaneous abortion rate for IVF and other technologies is equivalent to that of natural conception (50%, with ~15% being after "clinical recognition.").

(Among older women using their own eggs, the rate climbs up to 30% or more after clinical recognition. Unlike sperm, eggs suffer from entropy and their quality rapidly declines after age 30).

An article describing a study which explored this area is here.

Although it is too early for statistics, it is possible that technologies like PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis) will lower the "death" rate by ensuring that the genetically healthiest embryos are used and clearly defective ones will not be used. "Genetically healthy" does not mean Gattaca-like perfection; it means that for 9 or so of the 23 chromosomes that we can test for today, there are two of each as their should be. XX or XY, not XXY, not X, not ''. No disorders that guarantee that the child may make it to birth, but will die of a heart defect by 3 months at the latest.

If every fertilized egg has a soul, then why does God let half of them die?

If a couple gets drunk, has sex, and gets pregnant with a child they don't want, does the church oppose that?

If a couple sacrifices (yes, it is a sacrifice) their time, money, energy, health, and sanity to have a child that they want more than anything else in the world, why would the church oppose that?

> Think I'd hit can 800 before opening the bulkhead?

Nope, scurvy (or other effects of malnutrition) would do you in long before that. ;-)

Beans alone break the first rule of food combining; Don't eat carbs and proteins together.

I'm familiar with the "rules of food combining" ideas, though I don't really think it works. But in any case, you're misinterpreting it. Let me quote directly from A Complete Guide to Nature Cure's chapter on food combining:

"The most important rule for combining foods is to avoid mixing protein and carbohydrate concentrated foods. Although every food contains some protein , those regarded as protein concentrated foods demand the longest digestive time."

By these rules, what you are avoiding is meals where you are eating both protein concentrated and carbohydrate concentrated foods. Key word is "concentrated." Beans aren't protein concentrated. They have high carbs and are low in protein. They don't "rot" inside your body. They are in general a great source of carbs and very good for you.

It sounds to me like you read a lot of questionable information and took it as truth. Don't believe everything you read. Give beans a try again, they really are good foods.

I never have gas because of any kind of beans, even refried beans. I usually eat raw vegatables (spinach, carrots, lettuce, etc) with my meals which seems to help digestion. Just out of curiosity, what is your diet like?

BTW That nature cure book I linked to has a chapter on amino acids.

Beans alone break the first rule of food combining; Don't eat carbs and proteins together.

I'm familiar with the "rules of food combining" ideas, though I don't really think it works. But in any case, you're misinterpreting it. Let me quote directly from A Complete Guide to Nature Cure's chapter on food combining:

"The most important rule for combining foods is to avoid mixing protein and carbohydrate concentrated foods. Although every food contains some protein , those regarded as protein concentrated foods demand the longest digestive time."

By these rules, what you are avoiding is meals where you are eating both protein concentrated and carbohydrate concentrated foods. Key word is "concentrated." Beans aren't protein concentrated. They have high carbs and are low in protein. They don't "rot" inside your body. They are in general a great source of carbs and very good for you.

It sounds to me like you read a lot of questionable information and took it as truth. Don't believe everything you read. Give beans a try again, they really are good foods.

I never have gas because of any kind of beans, even refried beans. I usually eat raw vegatables (spinach, carrots, lettuce, etc) with my meals which seems to help digestion. Just out of curiosity, what is your diet like?

BTW That nature cure book I linked to has a chapter on amino acids.

Beans alone break the first rule of food combining; Don't eat carbs and proteins together.

I'm familiar with the "rules of food combining" ideas, though I don't really think it works. But in any case, you're misinterpreting it. Let me quote directly from A Complete Guide to Nature Cure's chapter on food combining:

"The most important rule for combining foods is to avoid mixing protein and carbohydrate concentrated foods. Although every food contains some protein , those regarded as protein concentrated foods demand the longest digestive time."

By these rules, what you are avoiding is meals where you are eating both protein concentrated and carbohydrate concentrated foods. Key word is "concentrated." Beans aren't protein concentrated. They have high carbs and are low in protein. They don't "rot" inside your body. They are in general a great source of carbs and very good for you.

It sounds to me like you read a lot of questionable information and took it as truth. Don't believe everything you read. Give beans a try again, they really are good foods.

I never have gas because of any kind of beans, even refried beans. I usually eat raw vegatables (spinach, carrots, lettuce, etc) with my meals which seems to help digestion. Just out of curiosity, what is your diet like?

BTW That nature cure book I linked to has a chapter on amino acids.

Keep in mind that the planet earth has an awful lot holding it in place, while us fragile humans don't suffer that same benefit. Therfore when a stranglet hits a person it's not like hitting a tightly held sheet of paper. However, we're mostly water, and to a strangelet we're interchangable for water in terms of how easily it can pass through us. Unlike water though we can't just fill in the hole it bores through us, and bone might be sufficently dense enough to cause an exchange of energy.
I'm thinking that a stranglet would transfer enough force to shatter any bone it passed through, as well as make a microscopic hole through any organs it passes through.
Based on this article I'd say it's safe to assume that any damage caused by a strangelet would entirely depend on how much force it could transfer into the body while making any holes, especially while hitting any bones. Since obviously the two recorded strangelets transfered a sizemic force the size of several thousand tons of TNT. If that much force was transfered into a human all at once the only image that comes to mind is that of a paintball grenade exploding.
Hopefully though since the earth's crust is miles thicker and much more dense than a human that the amount of force applied at any given moment would only be slightly more than the amount needed to make a hole.

BTW, does anyone else here wonder if the person who named this was chewing a pack of chicklets when trying to think up a name?