Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: who had children or grandchildren concieved with IVF? & destroyed some of the human beings in the petri dish?

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 29, 2012, 2:13 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney,
who recently had twin grandsons conceived through in vitro fertilization, has said it is okay for couples to "destroy' humans conceived through in vitro fertilization if they do not want to implant those human beings in a womb.

On May 4, Romney’s son Tagg announced by Twitter the birth of the twin boys, David Mitt and William Ryder, who were gestated by an unnamed surrogate mother. Tagg’s wife is Jennifer Romney and they have four other children, one of whom was also gestated by the same surrogate mother, according to The New York Times.

In general, with IVF, several eggs from the woman are placed together with the man’s sperm in an environmentally controlled chamber where hopefully at least one, and sometimes more, of the eggs are fertilized, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The human being or beings are then placed into a woman’s womb where they grow and are delivered approximately nine months later.

As the NIH states, “More than one embryo may be placed into the womb at the same time, which can lead to twins, triplets, or more. The exact number of embryos transferred is a complex issue that depends on many factors, especially the woman’s age. Unused embryos may be frozen and implanted or donated at a later date."

In a Fox News Sunday interview on May 22, 2005, host Chris Wallace asked then-Gov. Mitt Romney about his views on IVF and the practice of killing surplus humans so their stem cells can be used in research. Part of the interview went as follows:

Wallace: “But if I may ask you, governor, specifically, you don’t see, as I understand it, you don't see the use of these leftover human embryos in fertility clinics as destroying life?”

Romney: “That's right. I believe that when a couple gets together and decides that they want to bring a child into the Earth, and they go to a fertility clinic to do so, and if they're going to be through that process a leftover human embryo or two, that they should be able to decide whether to preserve that human embryo for future use or to destroy it; to have it put up for adoption or potentially to be used for research and experimentation, hopefully leading to the cure of disease. And so for me, that's where the line is drawn. Those surplus human embryos from fertility clinics can be used for research."

Wallace later asked Romney: "Isn't your support for using these left-over human embryos from fertility clinics, isn't that going to hurt you with some conservatives?"

Romney responded that he thought it was a "positive thing" for parents to donate a human embryo to scientific research.

"You know, I think fundamentally people look at this issue on a very personal basis," Romney said. "My family's been touched by a very serious disease ... I think at the same time we look at ethical issues, and say, 'Where is the line to be drawn?'

"For me and my family, it's very clear," said Romney. "If you're creating new life, simply to destroy it, you've gone across a bright red ethical boundary, and we shouldn't go there. If, on the other hand, embryos are going to be destroyed following a fertilization process, that's something which shouldn't be done without the parent of that particular embryo being able to be brought into the decision. And if they want to give that embryo to science for the potential cure of disease, that that's a positive thing.

"And I can't imagine politics or ambition for anyone would stand in the way with doing what they think is right for the family of humankind on an issue like this," said Romney.

In a Dec. 16, 2007 interview with on NBC's "Meet The Press" with Tim Russert, Russert also asked Romney about his views on using human embryos created through IVF in stem cell research. Russert pinned Romney down on the question of whether he believed life began at conception and that human embryos were therefore living human beings.

Russert: “Do you believe life begins at conception?”

Romney: “I do. I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception. I, I don't, I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. But...”

Russert later explored this question with Romney in the context of destroying embryos for stem cell research.

"These are embryos, these are, in your mind--words--human beings because they are, as life begins at conception, and these are surplus embryos from in vitro clinics that are used for research," said Russert. "They are destroyed. Do you still support that?"

Romney said: "I, I have the same position. Let me describe it, because there are two parts to it. One is what I think should be legal in our society, and the other is, where should we devote federal funds. With regards to what should be legal in our society, as you, as you know, embryonic and stem cell research generally is a very broad term, and so we have, of course, the adult sources of embryonic cells, we have so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and then we have new development of, of stem cells through cloning or through embryo farming. And from a legal standpoint, I would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and I would outlaw embryo farming.

"I would allow, on a private basis, the use of surplus embryos, so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines," Romney said. "So from a legal--and I faced that in Massachusetts. I, in the bill there, I said I would continue to allow the use of surplus embryos from IVF."

Russert later followed up, "But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed."

"Yes," said Romney.

"For research, and you support that," said Russert.

"The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose," said Romney.

"You wouldn't outlaw it," said Russert.

"I would, I would not outlaw it," said Romney. "I would allow, I would allow private laboratories and private institutions--as we currently do, and as the president does as well--to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded.

"Let me note as well, Tim, in that regard," Romney said, "that, that I think before we, we move too far down that road that we establish a provision for parents to have authority over their own embryos and to have adoption procedures so that they might be able to provide these embryos, as some call them, snowflake babies to allow them to be adopted by others and to be implanted and become human beings. That's the, that's the course I'd prefer. But I would not outlaw the use of these, of these surplus embryos if the parents so directed. And, at the same time, for federal dollars I would focus it on the, the alternative methods."

The Romney campaign did not respond to questions from CNSNews.com about Romney's position on destroying human embyros created through IVF.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Betsy? 1sea,,? Where are you! I ain't heard the right wing religious wackos complainin? Seems a bit hypocritical.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

I know that people like me are beyond your comprehension, but we do exist. People who don't agree with every single position of any candidate and are perfectly willing to admit that the candidate we choose can't possibly be perfect or please us 100%. Romney's stance on IVF isn't news to me.

People like you don't understand that I can HATE/LOATHE/be disgusted by abortion as a whole, but STILL feel sympathy and understanding for a woman's right to choose it in cases where rape, incest, or the life of the mother are involved. But those babies are just as innocent and filled with life as the ones who are conceived in love and desire for a family and my heart aches for them as well. People like you don't understand how someone can love the people on BOTH sides of a position while still hating the position itself.

You mention below the beautiful babies that your family and friend now have. Let me ask you this, and I want a sincere answer if you can handle one...if they had carried those babies for 2 months, or 4 months, or even 8 months and then lost them to still birth, would you be telling them "Hey! Stop crying! It was just tissue anyway! It wasn't really "alive" yet!" As crass as I think you are, even I don't think you are that cold hearted or insensitive.

NOW-take all of yours and others plentiful and exuberant declarations here that "it's not alive", or "it's just tissue" and THINK for a moment about how such things SOUND and FEEL to the millions of women on this planet who have carried a baby that died before birth, or whose heart's desire is to bear a child and for whatever reason she cannot.

Have you EVER even stopped to THINK ABOUT what your "pro woman" and "supportive to women" comments DO to all the "other women" on the planet? Or are they just less important than your cause?

You tell me how understanding and compassionate you sound to the women who have FELT their own child move within them-who have heard it's heartbeat-who have SEEN it's foot or hand pressed to tightly against her abdomen that she can outline it from the outside. Who have been awakened at night by hiccups (a living thing that cannot breathe air but still has the hiccups???) or the stretching of her baby against her ribs. And then lost that child before it could be born.

One of my best friends lost her baby three weeks before her due date. She went in for her normal prenatal exam and there was no heartbeat. They rushed her into surgery (my God...such a waste of money and time to perform emergency surgery on something that isn't "alive") and performed a C-section to find the chord had strangled her beautiful baby girl.

She called and asked me to come to the hospital. How could I not? I went and was a bit stunned to enter her room to find her and her husband holding their baby, still pink and normal looking, wrapped in a fluffy pink blanket, saying "goodbye". I'd never experienced anything like it before, but I wasn't about to insult or hurt my friends any more on the hardest day of their lives.

That baby could have been just sleeping. She was PERFECT. BEAUTIFUL. NORMAL. She was completely and utterly HUMAN. And she had BEEN that completely and perfectly formed since the end of her mother's first trimester. I MOURNED for their loss right along with them.

This happens to millions of women and the people who love them every year. I can't shut you up, but I can ASK you to think about them before you so smugly declare that "it's just tissue" and that it's "not A LIFE" in the future.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I never said "it's just tissue" or "not A life"

So your rant was not for me. I've experience the whole gamut of your examples.

Your claim that "she had BEEN that completely and perfectly formed since the end of her month's first trimester." is not true. There is a big difference between a 3 mo old fetus and a 8 1/2 month old fetus.

I wish no one had abortions. I simply say let a woman decide. Not the govt and not church.

All your melodrama is irrelevant. All the insults against me are misplaced.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago


Sonogram image of 12 week old fetus moving in the womb. Is that not a child (and in your own words it's not a child until it's born) then what in the hell is it? A donkey? A toaster?

I have no problem with you advocating for women. I AM ONE. But you have a problem with ME ALSO advocating for the innocent, fragile life that has no voice.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

It's not a child until it's born.. As you said it is a "12 week old fetus".

I support a womans right to choose. Not the govt, not the church.

You don't speak for me. I'm don't wanna say I have a problem with you.

If we agree with allowing a woman to choose and not govt or the church I could leave it there. It certainly doesn't have to get personal between us.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

IVF that results in the intentional death of developing human beings is wrong. This practice, employed for the most part by the rich, is particularly selfish when there are tens of thousands of children waiting for adoption.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I know a middle class family member who did it and another middle class friend as well. They both now have beautiful babies.

So in fact it was not wrong. It was RIGHT! YOU are wrong!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

One cycle of IVF averages $12,400 and many women go through 3 - 4 cycles before a successful birth. The entire process up to and after birth typically runs to $ 125,000. This is an option for the wealthy.

Currently there are 136,000 children in the US alone waiting for adoption. Killing dozens of children, particularly through selective killing of developing children (the weak brothers and sisters are culled one at a time until only the strongest remains), is barbaric. The IVF business is a multi-billion $ industry mainly run by large corporations. These corporations coin euphemisms like selective reduction to convince desperate parents to destroy their children. It is all about profit to them. Profiting from killing their fellow man while tens of thousands of kids that need parents languish in foster homes. This practice will be seen by future generations as a high water mark in our inhumanity to man.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

No one is killing anyone in the IVF process.

Embryos are NOT people!

Sorry you are applying your personal (not scientific) extremist views on everyone else.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

Every medical school in the US teaches that human life begins at conception. The scientists agree that human life begins at conception. That is the consensus. Why do you deny settled science? Are you also a global warming denier?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

WRONG! Every medical school teaches that the DEVELOPMENT of human life begins at conception.

THAT is the Consensus!


[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

Finally we agree. I was pleased to see you write the words "human life begins at conception". That is what the current science teaches.

After conception it is all human development; the operative word being human. Human development starts with a fertilized egg and continues with steps including development from infant into a toddler, from adolescent into a teenager, from adult into middle age, and so on?

If you let them justify killing other human beings based on a convenient classification who will be left to stop them when they come for you?



[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago


Development of human life. Is not human life.

Please don't misquote me out of context.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago


".....the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

  • M Teresa
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Not a child until it's born. Sorry.

I'm for a womans right to choose, not the govt or the church.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

Webster's Medical Dictionary:


  1. : an unborn or recently born human
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Webster and I disagree.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

The US population is about equally divided on this issue. Have you ever thought about the consequences if it turns out you are wrong?


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Nope. What are the consequences?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

BTW, why do you expect that there has been such a drop over the last 20 years in the number of voting age people that claim to be pro-choice (56% to 41%)? What began to happen 20 years ago?


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

So what are your views on the three trimester law?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Whassat? No abortion in 3rd trimester? I'm ok with that.

What do you think of it?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

My position is that if they are going to say that its not a baby until its born, then why do they not allow abortion after the sixth month? Seems to me that law should not be there.

That being said, plenty of early pregnancies are successfull, so mabye it is a babay at some point while still in the womb.

I dont know what to think about this sometimes, its very complicated, and very emotional topic.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I can't speak for "them" I ain't heard them say it is a baby only after it is born, I believe that but I don't know what "they" say.

Maybe "they" mean if it is viable outside the mother it should be born.

Beats me.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Thats the gov saying that on day 179 you can have an abortion, but on day 180 you cannot. Obviosly, its up to the doctor, but nevertheless its the gov telling women what they can or cant do with their body.

I always wondered what was the science behind them stating that on day 179 it is not a baby, but in the next week it is so you cannot abort.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

It's not right damn it.

What's your position?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

But you know, maybe they're right. If an "unborn child" isn't really a life, and there's no reason to attach any sentiment or emotion to something that is just "tissue" and "isn't a live" in the first place, why on earth should we have the SLIGHTEST concern or even think twice about all the "unborn generations" they keep ranting about when it comes to the climate, or the economy, or the debt, or ANYTHING?? They aren't ALIVE yet. Some of them aren't even eggs or sperm yet-so they are even LESS "alive" than embryos or fetuses are.

Whew. What a relief!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

Don't you think that it is all part of the same ethos? We live in a culture that is "me" centered from the time we receive the first self esteem training, to the high school minimum grade, and to the trophy given out for eighth place. We have produced now several generations of narcissistic, the-world-owes-me-malcontents that think community service is something you are paid to do after college to help build your CV.

In the US we kill off 1,300,000 of the next generation every year, 3600 a day. Americans are famously indifferent about the fate of people in the future. We are the most selfish generation in the last 500 years. That will be our legacy. It is embarrassing.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

I agree with you. I'm trying to make a sarcastic point about the logic of destroying ACTUALLY DEVELOPING human life and saying it's fine while screaming at other people that they are destroying "not actually developing yet" human life and declaring it a crime against humanity.

They don't want to view themselves as selfish or even as bad as their opponents, so they HAVE to convince themselves that what is being destroyed doesn't really matter. It's not real. It's not "alive".

Yet these are the same people trying to convince the world that THEY are the selfless ones, the ones concerned about their fellow man, about the planet, about women. And ALL THEY NEED to take care of all these things is for someone else to put up the MONEY, someone else to establish the PROGRAMS, someone else to make all the crap go away so they don't have to look at it, or feel it, or watch it happen.

It makes them feel bad. Bad enough to stand outside for hours/days and yell about it. Bad enough to point fingers and blame at everyone who doesn't agree with them or do exactly what they want. Bad enough to sit inside for hours/days and write about it. But not badly enough to take someone into their own home, or feed them their own food, or dedicate their own labor to taking care of others personally.

I don't kill babies. I don't advocate for war. I don't ignore the earth, and I don't want people to starve. I FEED my neighbors, clothe them, help them, and comfort them. We share our trials AND our joys together. We believe in "WE THE PEOPLE" rather than "YOU THE GOVERNMENT".

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 8 years ago

The really sad part is that some people today care more about a baby seal than a baby human.

These views are taught, I can't believe that people develop them on their own. No one wakes up one day and decides that humans are a disease on the planet (U Cal Berkeley), a boy is the same as a dog or a pig or rat (PETA), we should kill disabled children (Princeton U), or that a baby is not a baby until it makes it home from the hospital (B Boxer).

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 8 years ago

A few may think the Fourteenth Amendment may be out of date, but it is the law.

If every embryo developed completely and was born wouldn't the earth be overpopulated with humans?

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 8 years ago

Good Post

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

so if you spent $100,000 on an IVF medical procedure and have to murder a few left over humans - thats ok
but if your uncle raped you at age 12, that is just a gift from God. enjoy!


[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago


I truly feel sorry for the people of this planet.