Embryo Adoption: One Mother’s Story
12/28/2005
 |
Nightlight Christian Adoptions
714-278-1020
http://www.nightlight.org/
Posted on 12/26/2005 11:04:49 AM PST by Coleus
to be left out of the MSM. >>
AND WORSE IS THAT THE INFORMATION IS LEFT OUT OF THE CHURCHES, PULPITS, BULLETINS, RELIGIOUS NEWSPAPERS, ETC.
You know what I meant, you pompous piece of pious s***.........I am talking about the two embryos never registered heartbeats.......how the hell do you want me to say it to satisfy you? Never mind........you pontificate like you know it all, yet take what I said and try to twist it in order to prove I am some sort of barbarian.
Enjoy your Barcalounger and your PC........it seems as if that is the only place people (some) actually consider you to be of some value.
In the meantime, let me go put my "commodities" down to sleep........I'll give them an extra kiss and hope they never become like you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547241/posts?page=109#109
You need to re-read this post.
Yeah, keep telling yourself how very smart you are. I apologize to anyone offended be my language towards Coleus..........however, Coleus...........know that apology doesn't extend to you.
Finnish Study finds IVF Increases Risk of Deformity
What is the problem. The deformed ones are aborted anyhow, although they are called selective reductions.
Ever checked into the wait time for adoption
The waiting time for adoptions in the US is about 7 to 8 months for a healty newborn baby.
Yeah........On the black market maybe.........check some of the earlier posts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547241/posts?page=109#109
The IVF procedure is evil.
Embryo Adoption: One Mother’s Story 12/28/2005
|
|
You're letting old freedumb off easy, I'm afraid.
I'm familiar with OB's that have used a direct injection technique for father's with low motility. The sperm is injected directly into the egg and then IVF is used.
I'm also familiar with the actual analysis between IVF and natural births and the fact is that they cannot at this time tie ANY one cause to the rising incidence of birth defects in the US. My natural-born child is the one that came down with juvenile diabetes, for example. He was diagnosed at 19 months. One of the doctors involved in conducting a nationwide study on Juvenile Diabetes had a child with diabetes from the moment of birth. Very rate, but getting more common.
Fact is IVF isn't just a fertilize and re-insert type of affair. The female reproductive process, for some wonderful and unknown reason, will spontaneously abort any fetus with severe issues. In IVF, several eggs are fertilized and only embryos that have divided to 8 or 10 cells are candidates for reinsertion. From there, the female body still tends to abort the embryo if there is something seriously wrong in the development.
IVF is more only a substitution for the normal physical mechanics of mixing egg with sperm. It isn't cloning, chromsonal profiling or alteration, nor is it womb replacement.
It is no different than intervening surgically to remove a blockage in an artery 'naturally' created by some sort of arterial blockage. If you don't like IVF, then you certainly have to be against any kind of surgical intervention that repairs any sort of biomechanical anomoly.
IVF is also no magic that wards off nature being opposed to a certain man's sperm being mixed successfully with a certain woman's eggs. From experience I can tell you that if the chromosonal combination mitigates against cell division, then that will bear itself out and though you fertilize 23 eggs, you'll get no viable embryo with suitable 8 to 10 cell subdivision after 72 hours.
As for the remaining fertilized embryos - we put them up for adoption.
As for his comments on narcissism, I think that's more a reflection of his own feelings on having kids.
I'd point out though that anybody with kids who are committed to raising them correctly will sacrifice much toward achieving that end. There is a reason why couples refer to their married life in terms of BK and AK (before kids and after kids). Raising children is anything but a vain pursuit.
I could have put the brakes on the quest for children and lived childless and with a ton of money in the bank with my wife. Fact is we spend almost $60K total across the minimal stimulation phase, two IVF procedures and three adoption attempts. I have three kids five or younger, the one natural child with diabetes, so going anywhere is a production number.
I love my wife, and wanted to fulfill her dream of raising children. It wasn't particularly my dream, but I wouldn't trade being a father for anything. If you want vain, I know I'd be richer, happier, and much have a far better sex life had we not had children.
I think any married couple that overtly chooses not to have children because of the difficulty and expense is more guilty of narcissism than a mother trying to have a child through IVF.
We also have, as married US citizens, a certain societal responsibility to breeding future generations of Americans. Before you snicker at this notion, take a gander at France, the UK, Germany, and now Japan. All have declining birth rates with one notable exception - Muslims.
As such, I am trying to contribute three upstanding, moral, capable children to society who will someday no doubt be making critical decisions about our well being as we become senior citizens.
Well said..........congratulations. I liked the "production number" line! Just remember, Doctor Cardinal Coleus considers what we have done "evil". After all, isn't he sitting at the right hand of God?
You placed in one reply what I haven't yet in numerous ones. Guess I need to get a little more focused! LOL
The Good Doctor is afraid of the slope becoming more slippery. He's also afraid of the disposition of those viable embryos that were not selected for implantation, and he has a point.
It makes the entire abortion debate more complex, because the position of the Church of Rome is that conception marks the beginning of life.
So, you have two otherwise devout Catholics who are staunchly pro-life faced with the temptation of a procedure where the 'residue' of the process are several viable fetus' that are more easily disposed of down the drain than they are made available to other couples for adoption.
The other beef our Eminence has is that you may end up dating your sister someday if this gets out of hand. Again, a legit beef. In an age of pre-marital sex being the rule rather than the exception, the potential for serious complications becomes a more viable probability, and one that could actually be calculated if you had the time.
If IVF really became more popular, I can see the need for DNA mismatch verification being a standard service of the average dating service. You submit a mouth swab to the service, they profile your DNA, and only list mismatches.
That's why the Catholic Church, society, and the average person should be concerned about IVF. Like any other scientific advance, society has a responsibility to properly mitigate the downside risks posed by those advances. The Cardinal's pessimistic about societies willingness to do so, and its not unfounded.
Plastic surgery is a boon to burn victims, breast cancer patients, and porn stars - so what's the Church's stand on plastic surgery?
As with any emerging science the focus tends to narrow and get more streamlined. As for IVF getting more popular, you and I both know how expensive the procedure is. It's not like plasma TV's getting cheaper, so the price of an IVF cycle will remain substantial IMO.
His Pompousness has valid points, I don't deny that. However, how he goes about making them is where I take exception. Of course, he cannot say the same thing about our arguments (having valid points).........or chooses not to.
Agree, though you have to cut the Cardinal some slack - he's got Church Doctrine to uphold.
As for being the right hand of God, well, there is much about the Catholic Church that needs reform before they can start speaking authoritatively about what is moral. They can say plenty about what is Biblical. Living it is another matter altogether.
I think you need to seperate the morality of the IVF process from the morality of how it is most commonly practiced. I will agree that how it is most commonly practiced, it is a moral travesty, but that doesn't mean that everyone treats their embryos so recklessly. There are people who follow a strict policy of implanting every embryo they've created or donating those embryos to others. It's true that most people don't do this but that's a problem with how IVF is practiced, not a problem with the procedure itself.
What about all the embryos that don't make it? In the natural process, large numbers of embryos don't make it, either. And when you consider that people who turn to IVF are more likely to have problems that cause the natural process to fail, it's not surprising that the IVF process also often fails. While the IVF process adds certain dangers to the fertilized egg, it also can remove some of them. In the big scheme of things, whether a particular fertilized egg is suitable for maturity is in God's hands whether the fertilization was natural or via IVF. Based on my research, the 4 percent figure you cite is because of how IVF is commonly practiced (with parents discarding the extras, creating way more embryos than they'd ever use, genetic testing that damages the embryo, the ICSI process that forces an egg and sperm together that would never naturally join, etc) and not a product of the IVF process, itself, and an infertile couple who "keeps trying" to have a child the natural way may be creating plenty of non-viable embryos that never mature, too.
It's possible to ethically practice IVF by not practicing ICSI, not creating too many embryos, not subjecting them to tests that damage them or condemn them before they've been given a chance, and donating any extra embryos to other couples wanting children. Basically, it's possible to practice IVF ethically by treating the fertilized eggs as children from the start rather that biological samples. That can be done and I know of couples who practice it that way.
Is IVF more "risky" for a fertilized egg than natural fertilization? I'm not sure it is but it might be. Does that make it immoral? I don't think so. It's risky to put your child into a car and go for a drive. It's risky to bring your child to a hospital or have them immunized. Does that mean that parents who drive their children around in a car are immoral for taking that extra risk (usually based on convenience or some other unnecessary desire of the parent to travel somewhere) with their child? Are parents who bring their children to hospitals or have the immunized immoral? Risk is something that each person has to judge for themselves and it's often a matter of trade-offs rather than an easy choice.
Even when a child often does result from an IVF procedure, the travesty of having to create, freeze or destroy so many of that baby's brothers and sisters, your other children, your family, is morally reprehensible.
If you look into the natural fertilization process, you'll find that even naturally, not only do couples commonly suffer miscarriages (most of my friends have had them while trying to have children) but the best current guess is that maybe a third of the eggs that fertilize actually implant and produce a pregnancy. Being pro-life, I don't think that makes them any less human beings, any more than the death rate of children in Africa makes them less human beings. But don't pretend that the natural fertilization process isn't full of children who are created and destroyed before birth for a host of entirely natural reasons beyond the parents' control. I'm right there with you condemning the premeditated destruction of viable fertilized eggs and embryos, particularly for the entirely selfish reason than the parents just don't want to use them, and I'm also sympathetic to your concerns that widespread IVF devalues fertilized eggs and embryos, but that's a problem with how IVF is practices, not a problem with IVF as a procedure. And as much as the IVF process in particular and fertility treatment in general might erode the way people look at fertilized eggs, I think that they also create a countering enhancement effect in that every couple undergoing IVF is keenly aware of their child's existance going back to fertilization (they give parents pictures of the fertilized eggs and embryos), keenly aware of the entire pregnancy continuum as they see pictures and ultrasounds from before most women realize they are pregnant, and many parents feel the hope and dreams of having that child from the moment of fertilization. Yeah, bad things are done in the name of IVF but I think it has some benefits to the pro-life movement, as well.
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.