Her name is Maya ("God's Creative Power") Grace ("Gifts Received At Christ's Expense") and she is the best gift my husband and I have ever gotten from God. :*)
Posted on 01/03/2006 5:19:21 PM PST by Coleus
MADRID, January 3, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Spanish researchers have found that mice conceived using sperm exposed to E.coli bacteria before artificially inseminating a mouse egg, retain the genetic code of the bacteria in their DNA.
The finding raises new concerns for in-vitro fertilization as an alternative to natural procreation, especially as IVF has become increasingly popular for couples experiencing difficulty in conceiving a child.
Scientists from Spain’s agricultural research agency, INIA, used a method of IVF known as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), to inject a single sperm directly into an egg – a method used for men with low sperm count or poor sperm motility. The method is used in approximately half of all IVF procedures, according to a BBC report.
Sperm that was frozen and later implanted was found to transmit the E.coli DNA to the embryo 19% of the time, whereas of those embryos that successfully implanted into female mice, only 6% retained the genetic material.
The scientists, led by Pedro Nuno Moreira, warned that “semen samples collected in human infertility clinics are frequently contaminated with bacteria,” according to their report that appeared in the journal Human Reproduction. The title of their research, Inadvertent Transgenesis by Conventional ICSI in Mice, highlights the crux of the problem: that DNA from the bacteria actually alters the genetic structure of the DNA in the resulting embryos.
The term transgenesis refers to the altering of an organism’s genetic code by the transfer of a gene or genes from another species or breed. Mixing sperm with foreign DNA has also been proposed as a way to intentionally alter the genetics of the offspring.
See extensive LifeSiteNews.com coverage of in-vitro:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/invitro/
Many of the drugs used for in vitro fertilization (IVF) to overcome infertility put women's health and lives in jeopardy. Various drugs used to facilitate ovulation or regulate its timing have serious side effects. Thousands of women are taking these drugs annually, and many are unaware of the dangers they face.
Additionally, the risk for having a baby with birth defects is higher when children are conceived through IVF. Unfortunately, physicians are all too ready to turn to IVF as the means to address infertility. Women should be very cautious before taking this very serious step. Beyond the serious health risks posed by IVF, the procedure involves the killing of embryonic human beings in its attempts to create embryos suitable for implantation.
When science and technology open doors that should not be opened, a Pandora’s box spews forth evils that menace humanity. Scientists have opened a perilous door: they are manufacturing human life and using their product as an object of experimentation.
Science without the compass of ethical restraints is taking us on a path towards dehumanization in the name of progress. Modern scientific advances have so much to offer, but they must be guided by ethical principles which respect the inherent dignity of every human being. When science embarks on a Promethean quest, fueled by greed and commercialization, our own humanity is placed at risk.
In the IFV procedure, a woman is given fertility drugs to ensure that she produces several ova which are collected to be fertilized in a petri dish creating several embryos. The healthiest ones are chosen for transfer to the woman’s womb. Many embryos are discarded or frozen. Freezing kills some more. Some embryos are later used for experimentation, which is always lethal.
Recent estimates project that there are 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States laboratories. These embryos are human lives that, given the chance to grow, would develop into a man or a woman. The fate and disposition of these embryos represents a serious moral dilemma which has contributed to a coarsening of the public’s attitude towards the sacredness of human life.
During recent debates before Congress, a couple gave compelling testimony against embryonic stem cell research. The main arguments that they presented were their two young sons who had been frozen embryos that the husband and his wife adopted. We cannot pretend that these embryos are tadpoles. They are human beings with their unique genetic code, full complement of chromosomes, and individual characteristics already in place. Every person alive today started out as an embryo. These early-stage abortions are not morally acceptable. Unfortunately, many people of good will have no notion of what is at stake and simply focus on the baby that results from in vitro fertilization, not adverting to the fact that the procedure involves creating many embryos, most of which will never be born because they will be frozen or discarded.
We do not have a “right to have a child.” Such a right would be “contrary to the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered an object of ownership; rather, a child is a gift, ‘the supreme gift,’ and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason the child has the right to be the fruit of the specific act of conjugal love of his parents; and the child also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception”
For us, marriage and motherhood and fatherhood is a vocation, and children are a gift. However, even when procreation is not possible, married life does not for that reason lose its value.
When we stop buggerizing around with nature, nature will stop buggerizing around with us.
Does anyone remember the movie "The Fly"?
God may have known what he was doing! Ya Think
Her name is Maya ("God's Creative Power") Grace ("Gifts Received At Christ's Expense") and she is the best gift my husband and I have ever gotten from God. :*)
The immorality of the IVF procedure consists primarily in the destruction of the multiple extra embryos that are created in a laboratory along with the one or two that successfully come to birth. The moral principle violated by this procedure is the most fundamental of all moral tenets: one can never do an evil in order that good may come of it. Here, the sacrifice of the many babies in order to get one or two to grow into healthy children is so wrong that it overrides the infertile couple's right to have a child.
One baby created at the expense of dozens of others is a macabre tradeoff. We must stand squarely on the side of the dignity of the human person, and we can be grateful that the many God-fearing Christians and other Church denominations do not hesitate to speak out-oftentimes in the face of fierce criticism, in defense of the innocent from unprincipled actions.
She's a beautiful child! And one of over a million now BORN thanks to assisted fertility technology.
I got to wonder if some of these zealots propose holding funerals for used tampax.
You take care and hug that baby!
Upon re-reading this, I've seen several misstatements and out and out untruths. Someone needs to go back and do some serious research (like actually talking to IVF patients and doctors, etc.) before making statements like these and presenting them as FACTS, when they aren't.
No, it's the other way around. couples should do their research before they commit to IVF techniques.
"The immorality of the IVF procedure consists primarily in the destruction of the multiple extra embryos that are created in a laboratory along with the one or two that successfully come to birth. The moral principle violated by this procedure is the most fundamental of all moral tenets: one can never do an evil in order that good may come of it. Here, the sacrifice of the many babies in order to get one or two to grow into healthy children is so wrong that it overrides the infertile couple's right to have a child."
Obviously you have trouble reading and relating back what you have read, because I posted quite clearly those are pictures of my CHILD, not (plural) children--I see it is pointless to have a serious conversation with someone like that so I won't be posting to this drek anymore...but I would like to tell lurkers, DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ, NOT EVEN ON FREE REPUBLIC!!! >:-(
Thank you for sharing your story and saying what you said.
Creating wheelchairs, artificial limbs,ect does not destroy a human life. If the IVF practice was to take one egg and implant it and let nature work I would have zero problems with it.
Thank you. I am very deeply religious person, and I have learned the hard way what a miracle it is for a child (*any* child) to be conceived be it naturally or with help--so many things have to be in place at the perfect time, it's just incredible. My respect for human life is tremendous, especially after burying two unborn children who didn't survive without the help of doctors and by the Grace of God, like Maya did. :*(
Please, people, do your research if you need help with IVF and don't let the sort of ugly prejudice posted here spread further, presented as 'truth'. It's the farthest thing from the truth, but unfortunately, Satan is able to quote Scripture, mixing facts with untruths just to stir up trouble. :*(
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research? Frozen human embryos have recently become the focus of considerable media attention. Frozen embryos are a potential source of embryonic stem cells, which can replicate themselves and develop into specialized cells (e.g., blood cells or nerve cells). Researchers believe that such cells might be capable of growing replacement tissues that could be used to treat people suffering from a number of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Among the most contentious issues in the stem cell debate are whether frozen embryos should be used to produce stem cells for research purposes and whether it is appropriate to use federal funds for research involving human embryos. Many of the proposed resolutions to the embryonic stem cell debate are based on assumptions about the total number of frozen human embryos in the United States and the percentage of that total that is available for research. Accurate data on these issues, however, have not been available. Guesses on the total number of embryos have ranged wildly from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand. RAND researchers Gail L. Zellman and C. Christine Fair, together with the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) Working Group led by David Hoffman, MD, have completed a project designed to inform the policy debate by providing accurate data on the number of frozen embryos in the United States and how many of those embryos are available for research purposes. Their findings include the following: * Nearly 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s. * Patients have designated only 2.8 percent (about 11,000 embryos) for research. The vast majority of frozen embryos are designated for future attempts at pregnancy. * From those embryos designated for research, perhaps as many as 275 stem cell lines (cell cultures suitable for further development) could be created. The actual number is likely to be much lower. Vast Majority of Frozen Embryos Are Held for Family Building Pie Chart Graphic Designated Use of Frozen Embryos in the United States as of April 2002 The practice of freezing embryos dates back to the first infertility treatments in the mid-1980s. The process of in vitro fertilization often produces more embryos than can be used at one time. In the United States, the decision about what to do with the extra embryos rests with the patients who produced them. The RAND-SART team designed and implemented a survey to determine the number and current disposition of embryos frozen and stored since the mid-1980s at fertility clinics in the United States and the number of those embryos designated for research. The survey was sent to all 430 assisted reproductive technology facilities in the United States, 340 of which responded. Estimates for nonresponding clinics were developed using a statistical formula based on a clinic's size and other characteristics. The results show that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States. This number is higher than expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 200,000. Although the total number of frozen embryos is large, the RAND-SART survey found that only a small percentage of these embryos have been designated for research use. As the figure illustrates, the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 percent) are being held for family building, with just 2.8 percent of the total (11,000) designated for research. Of the remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death, abandonment, and divorce. Embryos Available for Research Do Not Have High Development Potential Although the 11,000 embryos designated for research might seem like a large number, the actual number of embryos that might be converted into stem cell lines is likely to be substantially lower. Because assisted reproductive technology clinics generally transfer the best-quality embryos to the patient during treatment cycles, the remaining embryos available to be frozen are not always of the highest quality. (High-quality embryos are those that grow at normal rates.) In addition, some of the frozen embryos have been in storage for many years, and at the time that some of those embryos were created, laboratory cultures were not as conducive to preserving embryos as they are today. Some embryos would also be lost in the freeze-and-thaw process itself. To illustrate how such laboratory conditions might limit the number of embryos available for research, the RAND-SART team performed a series of calculations. Drawing upon the few published studies in this area, they estimated that only about 65 percent of the approximately 11,000 embryos would survive the freeze-and-thaw process, resulting in 7,334 embryos. Of those, about 25 percent (1,834 embryos) would likely be able to survive the initial stages of development to the blastocyst stage (a blastocyst is an embryo that has developed for at least five days). Even fewer could be successfully converted into embryonic stem cell lines. For example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin needed 18 blastocysts to create five embryonic stem cell lines, while researchers at The Jones Institute used 40 blastocysts to create three lines. Using a conservative estimate between the two conversion rates from blastocyst to stem cells noted above (27 percent and 7.5 percent), the research team calculated that about 275 embryonic stem cell lines could be created from the total number of embryos available for research.[1] Even this number is probably an overestimate because it assumes that all the embryos designated for research in the United States would be used to create stem cell lines, which is highly unlikely. Conclusion The RAND-SART survey found that almost twice as many frozen embryos exist in the United States as the highest previous estimate. Only a small percentage of these embryos are available for research because the vast majority are reserved for family building. Among those that are in principle available for research, some have been in storage for more than a decade and were frozen using techniques that are less effective than those that are currently available. [1] It should be noted that these conversion-rate estimates are based upon the conditions under which cryopreserved embryos were frozen as well as current techniques to create stem cell lines from such embryos. It is possible that as freezing procedures and laboratory techniques to create stem cell lines improve, the conversion rate could increase over time. View the print-friendly version: PDF Order This Document Now RAND research briefs summarize research that has been more fully documented elsewhere. This brief summarizes RAND-SART research reported in the following article: Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz, JG, Gibbons WE, and Turner TG. May 2003. Cryopreserved Embryos in the United States and Their Availability for Research. Fertility and Sterility 79 (5): 1063-1069. RAND's Law & Health Initiative brings together policy researchers with expertise in civil justice and health care issues to analyze the resolution of health care disputes and the effects of law and litigation on health care quality, cost, and access. Law & Health materials are available online at http://www.rand.org/icj/ and http://www.rand.org/health/. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark.
I know how difficult it actually is to create embryos and to bring them to birth. I know how respectful most doctors and clinics are of patients born and unborn.
I also know that many couples who sucessfully conceive choose later to have excess embryos implanted in her womb which is not chemically stimulated to support them, knowing that they will then "die" naturally, as do billions of natural embryos every year.
Fear not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.