Across the pond: Showing compassion for embryos
This December 30 Times Online article was both upsetting and encouraging.
It stated that in the last 14 years, 1.2 million embryos fertilized for in vitro fertilization have been destroyed, due to overproduction or damage:
As many as 40 eggs can be [retrieved] in some treatments and all are fertilised in IVF.
The embryos are then assessed for viability, with only about 20% usually considered strong enough to implant successfully in a woman.
I’m not crazy about IVF and there’s a new reason why….
I didn’t realize the percentage of weak or injured embryos was so high. No wonder doctors are overfertilizing them.
The upside of the story were the solutions mentioned: decrease the number of eggs fertilized; work harder to promote embryo adoption. Not once was embryonic stem cell experimentation mentioned. Refreshing.
Also helpful is news that the success rate of freezing unfertilized eggs is increasing.
Other good news is the IVF industry is said to be reanalyzing the invasive and potentially dangerous drug/hormone injection regimen it puts women through as well as entering “an era of single-embryo transfers,” which will ease complications of manufactured pregnancies with multiples.
[HT: moderator Valerie]
These are indeed positive signs. When we were experiencing infertility, my husband and I decided right at the beginning of our medical treatment that we were not going to do IVF. This decision lead us to leave medical treatment after only five months and adopt when we were still in our 20s (our doctors thought we were crazy!) We believe that life begins at conception, and we could not enter a procedure knowing that embryos would almost certainly be destroyed in the process.
I have known people who did choose IVF and have been explicit with their doctors about the number of eggs fertilized and implanted, and the fact that they would carry all implanted eggs to term (rather than use selective abortion) if they were expecting multiples. They met nothing but opposition from their doctors, who reluctantly complied. I am happy to see the medical community re-examining the way they do IVF, which does not HAVE to be as thoughtless about embryo creation as it is.
Imagine if the rapacious hucksters who provide IVF had to be brutally honest about this “procedure”. Their sales pitch might sound something like this:
Give us thousands of dollars and you may — or, more likely, may not — get pregnant! And, assuming you do get pregnant, we’ll end up killing several of your children that we’ve helped you produce in a most unnatural and grossly immoral manner. And as for the rest? We’ll put them in cold storage and keep them there for a uterus-to-be-implanted-in-later!
Very encouraging!
I also feel hopeful about the adoption of embryos like the ones in the Snowflake program.
http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm
“Compassion for embryos.” Just shows you the different perspectives people can have.
So much for the technology vs. spiritual side of things.
Since Adam and Eve, when we decided to take life and death matters into our own hands, things have gotten continually messed up and we get farther and farther away from God.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do research, however, all research should be governed by moral principles and with fasting and prayer, seeking God’s guidance, since we now have the “knowlege of good and evil” in our grasp.
I know this is wishful thinking, however, imagine how much better off we would all be if we followed this discipline.
Isn’t anyone worried about people not knowing who they are related to if embryos are always being adopted?
HisMan:
all research should be governed by moral principles and with fasting and prayer, seeking God’s guidance,
There are two major problems with this theory of yours.
(1)Not everyone has the same morals as you do. You can not shove your morals down another person’s throat and make them do your bidding either. EX: I see no problem with pre-marital sex. Many people on here do.
(2)Not everyone believes in the same God as you do, if they even believe in God. You can not force someon who is Presbyterian or Methodist to follow your Catholic Doctirne (or any other religous ideas).
This “theory” of yours will never work, b/c there are two many loops holes in it.
“Isn’t anyone worried about people not knowing who they are related to if embryos are always being adopted?”
I briefly looked into embryo adoption before deciding on infant adoption, and it seems that openness is encouraged for embryo adoption in the same way as traditional adoption. As with traditional adoption, it would be optional. I think embryo adoption would be harder to explain to a little one, but that doesn’t mean that birthparents couldn’t still be disclosed and even involved as they would be in a traditional open adoption.
EH,
Sorry, I didn’t explain what I meant very clearly. I mean aren’t people worried about people dating people they are related to without knowing they are related.
YAY! This week’s nightmare!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Twin brother, sister marry one another
BY ELLEN TUMPOSKY in London
and JONATHAN LEMIRE in New York
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, January 11th 2008, 2:26 PM
In a remarkable and disturbing twist of fate, British twins who were separated at birth met, fell in love and married without knowing they were brother and sister.
After their true identities were revealed, the star-crossed bride and groom were granted an annulment that ended a marriage that defied staggering odds of at least a billion-to-one.
The bizarre tale has gripped the U.K. since a London newspaper lifted the shroud of secrecy.
The twins were separated soon after birth and were adopted by different families in England, The Evening Standard reported.
It was not immediately known how the pair met, and the couple did not learn of the real nature of their stunning relationship until weeks after their wedding date. The twins’ identities have not been revealed in an effort to protect them, a government official said.
A special High Court Family Division hearing allowed them to receive an annulment, which decreed their marriage never validly existed.
Chris Atkins of the organization Adults Affected by Adoption said that although such cases are unusual, the attraction between the twins is not surprising.
“There is a phenomenon called genetic sexual attraction,” Atkins said, noting that people tend to be attracted to people with similar likes and dislikes, sense of humor and even looks.
“That happens with people who are not related,” she said. “If siblings meet who are not aware they are biologically related, to all intents and purposes they’re going to think, ‘This is my ideal match.’ ”
The extraordinary case also could reignite a long-simmering debate in Britain over the right of adopted children to know the identity of their biological parents, the Evening Standard reported.
“There will be more causes like this if children are not given access to the truth,” said Prof. Lord David Alton, who uncovered the twins’ case last month.
jlemire@nydailynews.com
I’m with the religionists on this one. Natural selection makes sense. If God/nature deems you undesirable to reproduce, you need to accept it. God/nature doesn’t ‘owe’ anyone viable sperm, ovum, or the ability to gestate the possibility of the two combining.
Just out of curiosity … why do antichoicers insist that if a woman is pregnant then it must be ‘god telling her’ she is supposed to have a baby … but if a woman cant get pregnant its NOT god telling her that he doesnt intend for her to have children? why is it ‘wrong’ to go against ‘the will of god’ in one situation and not the other?
TexasRed—
You’re on to something here.
First, it’s important to point out that many pro-lifers do, in fact, believe IVF is wrong. For those of us who are Catholic, this is open-and-shut, as the Catholic Church clearly teaches that IVF is seriously sinful. She holds this teaching because she also teaches that children have a right to be conceived in the way that children are naturally conceived, and with IVF, children are conceived in a most unnatural manner.
It’s also worth emphasizing that IVF is by no means the only sort of reproductive technology available; it just happens to be the most famous (infamous?) one. There are other techniques in the area of reproductive technology that aren’t morally objectionable.
Red said,
**************
Just out of curiosity … why do antichoicers insist that if a woman is pregnant then it must be ‘god telling her’ she is supposed to have a baby …
************
You got it wrong Red, if a woman gets pregnant we woulod say God gave ger a baby because God is the autho of all life. Once she has the baby in her womb we tell her not kill the baby because
abortion is an affront to herself and to humanity, not to mention the death of her baby.
Midnight
Hi. How are you. Hope you had a great day.
I wanted to comment on part of your post:
2)Not everyone believes in the same God as you do, if they even believe in God. You can not force someon who is Presbyterian or Methodist to follow your Catholic Doctirne (or any other religous ideas).
I just want to say that Catholics and Prostestants are all Christians, they are just different denominations. I say this, bc it is a fallacy that the central tenants of the Christian Faith ie The Trinity, Virgin Conception, Crucification, Death, Resuurection, Assention, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and Salvation and Redemption comes from Him and Him alone.
There are many differences in othjer dotrines and traditions, but both agree on the important issues.
Just an interesting side note – The US Government structure is based on the Presbyterian form of government.
Red said,
**************
Just out of curiosity … why do antichoicers insist that if a woman is pregnant then it must be ‘god telling her’ she is supposed to have a baby …
************
You got it wrong Red, if a woman gets pregnant we woulod say God gave ger a baby because God is the autho of all life. Once she has the baby in her womb we tell her not kill the baby because
abortion is an affront to herself and to humanity, not to mention the death of her baby.
Posted by: Truthseeeker at January 15, 2008 6:44 PM
………………………………………
If god is the ‘author’ of all life, putting babies in wombs is completely unnecessary.
I have said it here before: you can’t be “pro-life” and in favor of IVF without being a hypocrite.
As for the “snowflakes,” show me one million women willing to bear someone else’s child and ready to pay for the implantation, and then we’ll talk.
Sally says:
************
If god is the ‘author’ of all life, putting babies in wombs is completely unnecessary.
Posted by: Sally at January 15, 2008 8:20 PM
************
all life exists only by the grace of God