From Stem Cell Research Opponents, an Embryo Crusade

NY Times ^ | June 2, 2005 | PAM BELLUCK

[neverdem]

Randy and Julie McClure had three children who were long out of diapers and no plans for more when they heard about a program called Snowflakes, which arranges for women to become pregnant with embryos left over at fertility clinics.

"We really felt like the Lord was calling us to try to give one of these embryos, these children, a chance to live," Ms. McClure said.

Mr. McClure, though, disliked the fertility business, which he felt created extra embryos that were often destroyed or aborted. He feared that paying fees to receive the embryos would be helping an industry "that I have real problems with."

He consulted a Southern Baptist church elder, who advised him, " 'If you want to free the slaves, sometimes you have to deal with the slave trader,' " Mr. McClure said.

With that, the McClures, who are in their 40's and live in Bellevue, Wash., decided to take 13 embryos from a fertility clinic in Austin, Tex. They had a son 10 months ago and became part of an unexpected alliance that conservative Christians have been forming with the world of test-tube babies.

That alliance was on prominent display last week when, to protest a bill supporting the use of embryos for stem cell research, President Bush appeared with the McClures and 20 other Snowflakes families, kissing the babies, some of whom wore T-shirts that said "former embryo," or "this embryo was not discarded." Federal and state lawmakers have held similar appearances.

People on this part of the political spectrum have begun calling the process "embryo adoption," echoing the phrase that Snowflakes uses instead of "embryo donation." The Health and Human Services Department has termed the process embryo adoption in certain grants. Bills that would formally call it "embryo adoption" have begun to filter into...

[neverdem]

Next Article in National (1 of 8)>

This is more than likely on the Times front page tomorrow, sans pics.

Peter Yates for The New York Times
From left; Niles, Julie, Randy, and Asa McClure, who is a product of a clinic embryo.

John Loomis for The New York Times
Angie Deacon with her children, Ely and Hannah, 5-year-old twins, donated 13 embryos.

[neverdem]

ping

[Coleus]

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeslanding.asp

[Jaded]

Interesting.

NYT refers to Mrs. McClure as Ms. McClure. How PC.

[aposiopetic]

Look how cute those former embryos are!

As for conservatives' political embrace of Snowflakes, Mr. Stoddart, who has sent state legislators a proposed embryo adoption bill, says that he is happy to oblige.

"The best way to increase awareness of embryo adoption is controversy," he said. "The embryonic stem cell research debate has done more to publicize this than anything. Nobody's going to put pictures of the president kissing a child in your paper just to publicize an adoption program."

Wise as serpents indeed!

[neverdem]

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[Mrs. Don-o]

In-vitro fertilization (IVF) is an injustice to the child conceived in this manner to begin with. Laboratory methods entail laboratory attitudes: the embryonic child is degraded from being a person to being a product.

I'm not criticizing the adoptive families here --- not at all. To the contrary, they are doing all that they can do, at a personal sacrifice, so that the children are saved, are loved, are re-accepted as children.

When I say that IVF is wrong, I mean that every child has a right --- in accord with his or her dignity as a human being and a child of God ---- to be conceived in the loving embrace of parents who are committed for the long term (married) and who accept the child as the fruit of love.

Many, many children, of course --- besides IVF children --- are conceived in a way that violates their dignity from the start. Children are conceived in acts of rape, of seduction, of adultery, of prostitution, acts of contraception tha went awry (the child as "contraceptive failure"), insemination by "donor" (actually vendor), and other demeaning situations.

This does not make the child less human or less valuable. But he was deliberately deprived of something that was his birthright: the knowledge that it was the sacred love of a man and a woman in the intimacy of their embrace which brought him --- like a miracle --- into being.

However well-intended, IVF is degrading to the dignity of the human being. The long-term consequences will be seen in the next steps: human cloning, the genetic engineering and assembly-line mass production of human embryos: the total depersonalization and dehumanization of human fertility. This is horrendous. It should not be legal. Its common precursor steps (like IVF) should not be allowed.

Shame on those who make embryos like commodities.

And God's blessings upon those who adopt these frozen embryos, these "snowflake babies," who carry them in the womb "with love beyond all telling," who give them their chance to live.

[The Iguana]

Well said.

[ellery]

Flawed argument. IVF children of infertile couples are not deprived of their birthright through IVF. They would be deprived of their existence without IVF. No one does IVF for fun.

[jwalsh07]

Ah, God bless these good and true people.

[Jaded]

I have 2 cousins that were IVF babies. I don't think their parents think they were in anyway degraded.

Back in the day.... When Louise Brown was the first Test-Tube baby... A friend of mine who was starting her own family remarked that children created from IVF would have no soul. These children would see neither heaven nor hell because God would not recognize the person since they were conceived separate from Him outside of a woman's body. I had always thought that a bizarre remark from someone who had an infant.

Fast forward, we've come to a point where some segments of society have determined that these babies have no soul. They have assumed the role of God Almighty and have disregarded Him.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Flawed argument. IVF children of infertile couples are not deprived of their birthright through IVF. They would be deprived of their existence without IVF. No one does IVF for fun.

No, I never said or implied that people do IVF for fun. They do it to heal their fertility problem, because they want children. Both of those intentions are morally upright and entirely innocent. And we love to see babies born to parents who wanted them so much.

The problem is that the means they have chosen is sub-personal. It wouldn't matter if we were talking about veterinary medicine, the breeding of cows or dogs. But for human beings, baby-having is more than breeding: it has layers of meaning which specify us as humans, and which protect what it means to be human.

You can see it very clearly in this article, where the IVF provider --- in fact, thewhole "Reproductive Health" industry ---seems to be offended and aghast that the "Snowflake Adoption" people want to use the word "Adoption" rather than "transfer" or "acquisition" or "purchase" or something of the sort.

This is because the IVF providers know that if the embryo is recognized as a human person fully endowed with human dignity, then what they are doing is immoral. They are bringing human beings into existence under elevated-risk conditions. They are discarding (killing) many human beings. They are freezing many human beings (this also impose on them an elevated risk.) They will eventually kill many of the human beings they have frozen. And the selected, vetted salable ones, they will sell.

The total commoditization of human beings. Down the line, you will see this: the cloning, genetic engineering, and industrial biotech "manufacture" of human embryos. The reification, thing-ification of persons. The transformation of the the germ line into a product line.

You don't intend this. The people who are choosing IVF to have their babies don't intend this. But it's happening. In its initial stages, it's happening right now.

To adapt the wisdom of Edmund Burke, "The true danger is when human dignity is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. " -

[ellery]

That's a different argument, though. Your original argument stated that IVF children's birthrights were being stolen. My objection to that argument is that it presents a false choice by implying that these children's parents could have chosen to concieve them the traditional way, but instead stole their birthright by choosing IVF. My point is that with IVF children, there would be no birthright to steal without IVF, because they would not exist.

In response to your second post -- I share your concerns about cloning and manufacture of human beings. I contend, though, that the slippery slope did not begin with IVF (and artificial insemination, about which I assume you are also concerned). Things like organ transplants (which are likewise bought and paid for using spare parts from other humans) and traditional adoption of already-born children (also the commoditization of human beings) are part of that slide as well.

And yet these practices provide miracles, if practiced ethically. And these practices can be obscene, if practiced unethically. I consider it the same with IVF -- IVF itself is not inherently evil, just as organ transplant and adoption are not. But IVF can be practiced evilly. One idea: Mexico, which prohibits abortion, permits IVF -- as long as all embryos are either grown by the biological parents or adopted by other couples.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "... IVF itself is not inherently evil, just as organ transplant and adoption are not."

Interesting points, Ellery. Let’s look into this.

There's a crucial difference between adoption, on the one hand, and IVF on the other: namely, adoptive parents have not caused the birthmother to become pregnant. Nor have they encouraged women to conceive children out-of-wedlock (the usual source of adoptable babies in the USA.)

IF THEY HAD--- if they had actually intended and facilitated the conception in a wrongful way --- then the adoption would really be unethical.

If you'll be patient with me, let me set up an analogy. I once got a newsletter from an adoption outfit in California which contained something like the following:

"Remember Brenda, the birthmother of Mr. & Mrs. Smith's lovely adopted daughter Irene? The Smiths have had a wonderful relationship with her ever since her first pregnancy. [Note: California law evidently allows prospective adoptive parents to meet with and “bond” with the birthmother, and pay for her pregnancy-related expenses. The Smiths had evidently done a lot of meeting, bonding, paying.] Well, Mrs. and Mrs. Smith decided they're ready for Irene to have a little brother or sister, and they've just received the wonderful news that Brenda is pregnant again! They're back in touch, making plans for the second adoption. Isn't that great?!"

I thought: Good Lord. They shower this out-of-wedlock mom with a lot of attention, affirmation, praise, and "pregnancy-related" goodies, and bingo, Brenda comes through again. I think you can see what's going on here, on an emotional and psychological level.

Wouldn’t you agree this is unethical?

Now, there’s nothing wrong with adoption per se, if it’s a matter of responding to the needs of a child who’s already conceived in the context of an untimely or difficult pregnancy. But to set up a woman to conceive out of wedlock: that’s crossing the line.

IVF shares this aspect of unethical behavior: it’s deliberately setting up a human conception in a wrongful manner. It’s actually changing the way human beings reproduce.

And this is not a good thing.

You get tens of thousands of IVF’s and the result is people who can’t even grasp that embryos are human beings, because they are handled as laboratory products. In fact they are handled as consumer products. People assume they have a right to have a baby by any means because they want one. I have right to it because I want it. That’s a consumer mentality.

We want the IVF babies, but we don’t want the inescapable next step: the bio-lab “factory” production of children.

But thanks to IVF, you can see it from here. We're not just at the top of a slippery slope, we're doing 50 on the on-ramp of a logical 4-lane superhighway.

We already have the consumer mentality. We are already spiritually retrofitting ourselves for species-dehumanization. The bio-lab baby-hatchery: what argument could you possibly raise to stop it, granting that embryos are now products, not progeny? The hatchery is just tomorrow’s technical improvement.

This has got to stop.

Required reading: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. And C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Too much alcohol in the blood surrogate...

[ellery]

I think where you and I disagree is whether medically-assisted conception of children (including fertility medications, artificial insemination, and IVF) is inherently evil. I believe that if happily married infertile couples seek medical help in order to conceive, it is ethical as long as all viable embryos are transferred to the bio parents or adoptive parents.

I agree that your anecote is an excellent example of adoption being used unethically. But that's my point -- by the same reasoning you're applying to IVF, traditional adoption is a slippery slope and should be illegal because, when practiced unethically, it makes products out of children.

[livius]

We are already spiritually retrofitting ourselves for species-dehumanization.

An excellent way of putting it. And it is true, we are "retrofitting." We are reaching back into the past and changing the terms of the argument and morphing the meaning of the words in which it was couched.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "But that's my point -- by the same reasoning you're applying to IVF, traditional adoption is a slippery slope and should be illegal because, when practiced unethically, it makes products out of children."

But my point is this: sexual intercourse is the only human action which is personal enough --- that has sufficient dignity --- to be a respectful way to achieve human procreation. In every IVF, you are "setting up" human conception in a wrongful way, as a laboratory product.

The maddening thing is that the development of real cures or real therapies for infertility has been, in practice, stalled by the availability of IFV. By "real" cures or therapies I mean drugs, devices, behavioral changes or surgery that would enable the couple to conceive via intercourse. Any such intervention that actually addresses and heals the underlying disease, injury, or abnormality-- and restores intercourse as the effective way to procreate a child -- is a legitimate use of the medical arts: there's no moral objection to that at all.

But IVF doesn't address the underlying disease, injury or abnormality that caused the infertility in the first place. Thus it doesn't heal or cure or strengthen sexual intercourse and the other physiological processes that achieve conception. It replaces intercourse. It's not a cure: it's a substitution.

[ellery]

Let me say first that I'm very much enjoying discussing this with you!

Would it be correct to say you oppose to artificial insemination on the same grounds?

In my view, medical intervention for infertility is more of a continuum than I think it is in your view. For example, even when an infertile couple is using infertility medications only, there is constant testing and ultrasound to find out when the woman is ovulating. The couple must then refrain from intercourse until directed to have it on-demand by a doctor. It's definitely not anything like the conceptions that happen spontaneously and naturally. Since one is paying for the drugs and doctor visits, plus joining together solely on instruction by medical professionals, there's an element of commodity there, too.

I don't know if I agree that medical intervention that preserves intercourse as the means of conception is being overlooked. Surgeons and pharma companies are coming out with new therapies all the time, mostly because IVF is so difficult and expensive.

The problem is, human reproduction continues to be poorly understood, mostly because it is so complex and most of the vital processes are impossible to observe/monitor inside the body. Many people move on to IVF because they're given an unexplained "diagnosis" (what an oxymoron). This is because, in the absence of IVF, there's just no way for doctors to, for example, look at egg quality, detect whether sperm is fertilizing egg, detect whether embryos are growing but not implanting vs. dying before implantation, etc.

Even with IVF, success is only 50% at best. I tend to believe that IVF still can't work without the intervention of a miracle from God (I understand we disagree on this, and I absolutely respect your views). It's interesting: I've known very liberal infertile people who have gone through IVF and all of a sudden see embryos as babies (because the couples have worked so hard to concieve, all of a sudden that so-called ball of cells is a precious child that they name and honor with bedside photos). They put 8-cell embryo pictures in their baby books under the heading of "baby's first picture." They're monitored much more closely than in other pregnancies, so if they do conceive suddenly they understand just how early those little hearts start beating.