The Tangled Web We Weave When We Artificially Conceive

Creative Minority Report ^ | July 10, 2015 | REBECCA TAYLOR

[NYer]

I have acquaintances that a decade ago decided to adopt some “leftover” frozen human embryos created with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Presuming they were essentially adopting children, the couple first consulted an adoption attorney. Imagine their surprise when he referred them to a property-rights lawyer. In our state, human embryos are considered to be “property,” not people.

Back in 2002, a Rand Corp. report revealed that there were 396,526 frozen embryos in the United States. There are certainly many more today, and in many states, these little lives have no more legal worth than a house or a car.

This situation where we can legally own human life is a direct result of creating life outside of the body — outside of the loving embrace of husband and wife. Once human life is created in a laboratory, in bulk, ownership is suddenly an issue.

So who owns human embryos once they are created? The people who commissioned their existence. But what happens when those people disagree on how to dispose of their “property”?

Such a dispute has recently hit the headlines. Nick Loeb, an American businessman, and Sofia Vergara, an actress known for the T.V. show Modern Family, are locked in a legal battle over two female embryos the couple created together when they were engaged to be married. They created four embryos, with the intent of using surrogates to bring their children to term. Two attempts at impregnating surrogates failed. The couple then split up, leaving the lives of the last two girls in limbo.

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>

[NYer]

Thirty years of studying hormonal changes in a woman’s cycle and the underlying causes of infertility have culminated in an alternative way to treat infertility that does not create life outside of the body. NaPro Technology has great results as well. Couples who’ve failed with IVF have succeeded with NaPro Technology, and since it treats the underlying cause of infertility, it allows for couples to get pregnant again and again.

Today, it’s very easy to forget the moral issues with IVF, especially when we see the adorable face of an IVF success story. There is no doubt that new life is beautiful and compelling.

But we cannot continue to ignore the injustice borne by the embryos who aren’t lucky enough to make it into their mother’s wombs. Considered property, not people, many of these frozen embryos continue to be stuck in a very tangled web indeed.

Read the entire article; it is mind boggling!

Catholic ping!

[I want the USA back]

This is an abomination. No one owns them. They are little humans-in-development.

[Tax-chick]

Loeb desperately wants a family and has offered to take complete financial and legal responsibility to hire a surrogate and raise the girls on his own.

I applaud his desire to do right by his children, although it's unfortunate that (a) a gestator would have to be hired and (b) the children would be forever deprived of their own mother.

It would all have worked out better if his desperate desire for a family had led him to marry a virtuous and healthy woman, instead of the course of action he chose.

[Salvation]

I’m finding some of my old posts so maybe I will find the In-vitro one along the way.

Wiping one’s computer and putting it all back together is not fun. But I’m surviving.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I remember the landmark Marysville TN frozen human embryo case: when they are wanted, they are more priceless and precious than anything in the world; when they are unwanted, they are like a can of paint in the back of the garage: a disposal problem.

It makes me sick that Catholics get involved in this ugly IVF thing, totally unknowing or uncaring that the practice is completely forbidden in Catholicism. Ignorant or heedless, they involve themselves in situations which are a total affront to Almighty God and which grieve any honest heart.

Let me add my salute to Naprotechnology, which really DOES honestly address the challenge of female infertility, which is much more successful that IVF, which costs a whole lot less, which never treats the embryonic child as a product, but always as a person; and which no religion or ethical system on earth has any objection to.

There is now hope for husbands and wives who long to have a baby naturally, through their own loving embrace. Women suffering from infertility have a right to know about Naprotech./a>

[Marie]

I don’t understand the religious problem with surrogacy. It’s in the Bible.

But then, so is polygamy and that’s also frowned upon.

I don’t get it.

[Tax-chick]

There is no case in the Bible of a woman’s gestating another woman’s biological child, artificially implanted in her uterus.

All the situations sometime described as “surrogacy” were something entirely different: cases of natural, sexual conception. The child, while remaining with his mother, was supposed to take on a legal status in addition to his natural inheritance.

[DuncanWaring]

As an aside to this issue, the rise in homosexual “marriage” will also add to this problem in that pairs of male homosexuals are arranging for surrogate women to produce the children they themselves obviously cannot produce, furthering the commoditization of humans.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

This is an abomination. No one owns them. They are little humans-in-suspended-development.

There...fixed!

Regards
GtG