BROOKE SHIELDS' PREGNANCY TRAUMAS
 |
Posted on 07/25/2004 10:03:03 PM PDT by Coleus
The world just learned that "Catholic" actress Brooke Shields is the proud mother of a new baby girl. For a long time infertility problems made it impossible for her and her husband to conceive, and after many failed attempts to conceive naturally she resorted to the technological solution: in vitro fertilization (IVF). Now she is pictured on the covers of glamorous magazines with a smiling beautiful baby girl, but some have questioned her decision to use IVF. I am one of them. Was this star wrong to have a "test tube" baby?
Yes. Dead wrong.
While recognizing the pain of infertile couples and their natural desire to have a child, the Church reminds us that childbearing is a natural end of marriage, but it is not a guarantee. In the course of my ministry, I have met so many couples who were not blessed with children and humbly accepted this reality by offering their marriage for another generous end such as adoption or fostering children. I have also known couples who solved a fertility problem by prayer - yes, prayer! God is not limited by natural barriers to conception: He just wants us to find our happiness in His Will. Some couples seek happiness in something that is not overtly the Will of God and are willing to tempt God to achieve it. Brooke Shields and her husband could have humbly accepted their situation and become the national advocates for adoption instead of IVF, but they chose instead to tell God that they were going to have a child at any cost. This is both immoral and dangerous.
The very first in vitro baby, Louise Brown, was born in 1978. She was perfectly "normal" in every way except that she had a different origin than all other human beings at the time: she was conceived in a laboratory not in a womb. Her mother's egg and her father's sperm were united in a Petri dish, and after that the human embryo was implanted in the mother's womb resulting in Louise's birth nine months later. Louise is now a young woman and hopefully living a normal life, but her creation in a Petri dish caused the Church to look more carefully at how technology impacts human reproduction.
We need to be clear that for the Church the baby is not the problem. Babies are never problems, they are gifts. Rather, it is the procedure used to produce the baby that is the problem. Think of it: this poor girl was conceived in a Petri dish! And in case you are wondering: yes, God did give her a soul in the Petri dish. God's creative love is not limited by human immorality; He just wishes that we would do it His way. In God's plan no human being should ever be created in a laboratory. He has given us the perfect environment in which to come into being; namely, marriage. The couples' cooperation in God's creative act is called "pro-creation" as if to emphasize that the one Creator has allowed human beings to participate in so sublime an act. The institution of marriage itself was intended by Him to be the perfect matrix of life, and all technological intrusion into this sacred space for reasons other than health is a sin.
Does the Church shun all medical technology in relation to infertility? By no means. Technology, when used morally, is in fact a solution to many problems. In cases where medical technology can repair or heal damaged reproductive organs it is of great value. In cases where fertility drugs can augment the woman's natural capacity to produce eggs (when used conscientiously and with regard to possible consequences of multiple pregnancies) the Church blesses the technological solution. But technology that usurps the natural biological functions for no legitimate health reason is immoral.
Why is the fertilization procedure in itself immoral? Doctors "create" multiple embryos at one time in order to increase the chances of success of implantation. Normally dozens of embryos are created and never used. These littlest human beings are then frozen or destroyed. The success rate of the in vitro process is abysmally low: only 4 percent of all the embryos created ever see the light of day as a newborn baby. Human beings, no matter how small, should never be the subject of sloppy high school science projects.
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 is morally reprehensible. One baby created at the expense of dozens of others is a macabre tradeoff. Our Church stands squarely on the side of the dignity of the human person, and we can be grateful that the Church does not hesitate to speak out-oftentimes in the face of fierce criticism, in defense of the innocent from unprincipled actions.
Brooke Shields' baby is a precious, beautiful child, but I am afraid that the procedure her mom and dad used to bring her into existence is an advertisement, not for famous designer jeans, but for designer babies. Immorality dressed up as technology is still immorality.
Recently I had the pleasure of meeting a couple who were asked to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) as a solution to their very real infertility problem, and they chose not to use it. They did not reject it because of its exorbitant cost, although that in itself was prohibitive; they rejected it as a matter of conscience and principle. The practice of IVF is unfortunately so common nowadays that they were ridiculed by the doctor for their moral scruples and made to feel as if something were wrong with them. But they had many good reasons to go against IVF.
As mentioned in my previous column about IVF, the immorality of the 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. There are an average of 24 embryos destroyed or frozen in order for one IVF baby to be born. 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 24 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. The couple I met was aware of that moral principle and could not in conscience participate in such an act.
The other dreadful moral problem spawned by the use of IVF is the reality of multiple pregnancies. This is a problem common to the use of fertility drugs (which are not immoral in themselves like IVF). If it should happen that two or more embryos successfully implant in the womb and become viable pregnancies, it is common for irresponsible doctors to recommend aborting one or more of those babies that are not "desired." This atrocious practice is called "fetal reduction," a sanitized term for selective killing, and is much more common than we think. The inevitable uncertainties of IVF put the vulnerable couple in an occasion of sin for abortion if they entered into the process with the expectation that they wanted only one child. Even if they accept all the children conceived in this way, they still participate in an immoral procedure because of the other embryos that die in the process.
The worst effect of IVF, however, is its power to strip the embryonic child of dignity under the guise of really wanting children. If we do not recognize the intrinsic dignity of that several-cell human being, then we erode the very principle whereby we fight for the dignity of every other human being, born or unborn. This recognition of human dignity is what makes Catholics so firm in our defense of the poor, the enslaved, the handicapped, the elderly, the unborn and the embryo. All are equal in dignity simply because all were created in the image and likeness of God.
Americans were shocked to find out that we have tens of thousands of human embryos in cryogenic storage in laboratories around our country and even more shocked to see that scientists wanted the government to give them money to experiment on these embryos and kill them for their valuable stem cells. There was all kind of money to be made by selling these tiny human beings for spare parts.
Why do we have so many embryos in cold storage in the first place? Because of IVF, of course. IVF produces all the "spare" embryos that the scientists told us were just going to die anyway and that therefore should be put to some useful purpose. Bush bought the logic part of the way, and a whole bunch of Americans who have lost their ability to think morally about it, too.
Many of us at the time made the parallel with Dr. Mengele and his human experiments during the Nazi era: were not these experiments for the purpose of the advancement of medical science, too? Yes, and our opposition to them is the same: the human person is not a means to anything else but an end in himself, no matter how small. But this line of reasoning was lost on most of those involved in the debate.
The more our culture blindly accepts killing, organ harvesting and treating other human beings as mere property, the further we slide into moral relativism, and it will be very difficult for us some day to make the argument that our own killers should respect our human dignity. IVF manipulates, destroys and dehumanizes the tiniest human beings and should be opposed on principle like the valiant couple I met last week. Perhaps it is relevant to note that this same couple was able to adopt a little baby boy a few months ago after much prayer and anxiety. Need I tell you that they consider that precious child well worth the wait?
BROOKE SHIELDS' PREGNANCY TRAUMAS |
|
Movie actress BROOKE SHIELDS was shocked she and husband CHRIS HENCHY had to resort to IVF treatment to conceive, as she assumed getting pregnant would be easy. THE BLUE LAGOON star and her SPIN CITY writer spouse turned to IVF in late 2001, following six months of trying for a baby without success. And, following a miscarriage three months later, it took six further attempts with the treatment before the 38-year-old finally conceived. Speaking of the miscarriage, Brooke says, "In a way, it was a blessing that I'd started with a positive result. I told myself that if it happened once, it can happen again. "I thought simply because it was time and I wanted to have a baby it would work out. "I've always believed that if I did my homework, if I worked hard enough, I'd get the results I wanted. "But you can't ensure success unless you're God, and you're not. Neither are the doctors. "But it made me understand the difference between wanting to have a baby and truly wanting to be a mother."
|
Brooke thanks biotech for baby AP [ FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 2004 01:49:08 AM ] |
|||
|
Abortion the 6th Commandment
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.
Respect for the person and scientific research
2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.
2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.
2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.
2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.
The gift of a child
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.162
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Stepping away from God’s law always introduces chaos into our lives. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of in vitro fertilization. The reproductive revolution has had the ability to separate genetic parenting from gestational parenting and from social parenting; and the agent who brings it all about, a biotechnician, will be still another person.
In other words, we can arrange from the outset that one or more of the genetic parents are different from the woman who will carry the child, or the couple who will bring the child up. One or both of the donors might be deceased, for even the eggs might be extracted from aborted fetuses or a recently deceased woman.
Sperm and eggs are being bought and sold and wombs are being rented. Typical prices for ova are $6,500, sperm $1,800 and surrogate motherhood $45,000. In California there is a Nobel Prize Winners’ sperm bank where someone can purchase “genius sperm” in the first step towards the “designer baby.” Anyone who has enough money can contract for the production of human beings according to the desired specifications.
Scientists are already testing the embryos in the petri dish or in the womb to determine whether the child has desirable characteristics. One common reason for these tests is sex selection. Those Feminists who favor abortion should know that the embryos destroyed on this account are usually on the distaff side.
The legal problems that arise from in vitro fertilization are legion. The number of persons who might assert parental rights is now expanded to five: the sperm donor, the egg donor, the surrogate womb mother, and the couple who raise the child. One wag has observed that the prospect of children with multiple parents is a marketing dream for the greeting card industry, and it is certainly a bonanza for lawyers.
As problems of infertility and sterility become more common, people are turning to science for solutions. Modern science has developed various techniques such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. In addition, there are also ancillary techniques designed to store semen, ova, and embryos.
The fact that these techniques have been developed and have a certain success rate does not make them morally acceptable. The ends do not justify the means. In this case, the ends are very noble: helping an infertile couple to become parents. The Church, however, cannot accept the means.
MARRIAGE:
The Sanctity of Life
The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is the only morally acceptable framework for human reproduction. Marriage and its indissoluble unity are the only venue worthy of truly responsible procreation. Accordingly, any conception engineered with semen or ova donated by a third party would be opposed to the exclusivity that is demanded of a married couple. Such a procedure would be a violation of the bond of conjugal fidelity. It is also an anomaly for a donor to contribute to the conception of a child with the express intention of having nothing to do with that child’s upbringing.
Donation of semen or ova, and the use of surrogate motherhood to bear the child are both contrary to the unity of marriage and the dignity of the procreation of the human person. All of these procedures face a further difficulty in that they lend themselves to commercialization and exploitation when people are paid for donating their semen or ova, or for surrogate motherhood.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” quoting from the Vatican document Donum Vitae, (Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation) asserts: “Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus) are gravely immoral. These techniques infringe on the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him, and bound to each other by marriage; moreover, these methods betray the spouses’ right to become a father and a mother only through each other” (#2376). Indeed, in the act of procreation the spouses are called to cooperate with God; therefore, the Church teaches that a child’s coming-to-be should be sought only as a fruit of the spouses’ personal loving union in the marital act.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” also addresses those cases where the techniques employed to bring about the conception involve exclusively the married couple’s semen, ovum, and womb. Such techniques are “less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable.” They dissociate procreation from the sexual act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons (husband and wife) give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of the doctors and biologists, and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children” (#2377).
The Church has always taught that there is an “inseparable connection established by God between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (Humanae Vitae12). In this sense in vitro fertilization, by doing away with the unitive meaning, is the mirror image of contraception which suppresses the procreative meaning of the conjugal act.
God created man and woman in His own image and likeness and gave them the mission “to be fruitful and multiply.” This fruitfulness in marriage is part of their being made in the image of God. The marital act is one of mutual self-giving and mutual acceptance of two persons in love. It reflects the inner life of God in the Holy Trinity, a communion of love.
Conjugal love is at the service of life and at the service of God, the Creator. Pope John Paul wrote in his “Letter to Families” that “in affirming that spouses as parents cooperate with God the Creator in conceiving and giving birth to a new human being…we wish to emphasize that God Himself is present in human fatherhood and motherhood. Indeed, God alone is the source of that ‘image and likeness’ which is proper to the human being, as it was received at Creation. Begetting is the continuation of Creation” (“Letter to Families” 9).
“I formed you in the womb, I knew you and before you were born, I consecrated you” (Jer 1:5). Pope John Paul II, commenting on this Scripture passage, writes: “the life of every individual, from its very beginning, is part of God’s plan...”(Evangelium Vitae #44). Expressions of awe and wonder at God’s intervention in the life of a child in its mother’s womb occur again and again in the Psalms and in the Gospel of St. Luke. In the light of God’s loving regard for life in the womb, the Holy Father raises the terrible question: “How can anyone think that even a single moment of this marvelous process of the unfolding of life could be separated from the wise and loving work of the Creator and left prey to human caprice?” (E.V. #44). Human life is precious from the moment of conception; but, sadly enough, the biblical respect for human life is being eroded in our contemporary society. Without a deep reverence for the sacredness of human life, humanity places itself on the path of self-destruction.
When science and technology open doors that should not be opened, a Pandora’s box spews forth evils that menace humanity. We invented the atom bomb and germ warfare. These inventions are now part of human history forever. Scientists have opened another 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. The Vatican Document, Donum Vitae, expresses this well: “By defending man against the excesses of his own power, the Church of God reminds him of the reasons for his true nobility; only in this way can the possibility of living and loving with that dignity and liberty which derive from respect for the truth be ensured for the men and women of tomorrow” (Donum Vitae p. 39).
Theoretically, it might be possible to use in vitro fertilization without destroying any embryos. The grave moral problems concerning the rights of the child, unity of marriage, and the integrity act would still militate against the morality of in vitro fertilization. However, typically, in in vitro fertilization 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 100,000 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.
In vitro fertilization puts a great number of embryos at risk, or simply destroys them. 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.
The Church’s teaching on the respect that must be accorded to human embryos has been constant and very clear. The Second Vatican Council reaffirms this teaching: “Life once conceived must be protected with the utmost care.” Likewise, the more recent “Charter of the Rights of the Family,” published by the Holy See reminds us that: “Human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception.”
Two corollaries of this principle follow very logically. First, pre-natal diagnosis and therapeutic procedures are licit and moral if they do not involve disproportionate risks and are directed toward healing or the survival of the embryo. Secondly, living embryos must never be used for experimentation which is not directly therapeutic to that human embryo. The Pro-Life Department of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops has published a question and answer document on respect for human embryos which explains: “No objective, even though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to science, to other human beings, or to society, can in any way justify experimentation on living embryos or fetuses, whether viable or not, either inside or outside the mother’s womb. The informed consent ordinarily required for clinical experimentation cannot be granted by the parents who may not freely dispose of the physical integrity or life of the unborn child.”
This unequivocal teaching of the Church has important implications, not only regarding the morality of in vitro fertilization where so many embryos are sacrificed, but also in the area of embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of the living human embryo.
Many scientists are anxious to employ “spare” embryos that result from the in vitro fertilization for research purposes. They point to the huge supply of frozen embryos that will eventually be discarded. As in the case of the production of clones for research purposes, the harvesting of the discarded embryos for research represents a conscious choice to use living human beings as mere research material. Sadly, some people would have pragmatism trump morality. It is encouraging that many states have legislation in place which protects the embryo and makes embryonic stem-cell research a felony. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the law forbids using embryos, “whether before or after expulsion from the mother’s womb, for scientific, laboratory research, or other kinds of experimentation” (M.G.L. Ch. 112 para. 12).
The New York Times, on Aug. 26, 2001, reported that at fertility clinics the job that nobody wants is that of discarding the spare embryos. Most centers charge a yearly fee that ranges from a few hundred dollars to more than a thousand; but many embryologists do not discard embryos, even when clients cease to pay, “even if years go by”, the news article goes on to say. The director of one laboratory stated that he has to destroy the embryos himself because so many of his staff found the task distasteful. The embryos are thawed as though they will be used, just in case the patients change their minds. It is obvious that many of the medical staff involved in the in vitro fertilization process are aware of the grave responsibility they have for destroying human life. They have witnessed how these embryos have grown into healthy children. In discarding these embryos, the medical staff become their unwilling executioners, but executioners nonetheless.
The Vatican document Donum Vitae clearly stated that the destruction of embryos harvested from in vitro fertilization procedures is tantamount to abortion. By voluntarily destroying human embryos, “The researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death, and kills defenseless human being” (Donum Vitae, 1987).
FROZEN EMBRYOS:
Children on Hold
During the already cited congressional hearings concerning stem-cell research, John Borden stood before the panel with both his sons in his arms and asked, “Which one of my children would you kill?” John and his wife, Lucinda, unable to have children of their own adopted frozen embryos that were “left over” from in vitro fertilization. Their striking testimony demonstrated that embryos are human beings in an early stage of development and therefore should not be sacrificed for embryonic stem-cell research.
The action of this couple and many others raises the question, “What should be done with the frozen embryos?” Dr. Edward Furton of the National Catholic Bioethics Center published a fine article recently: “On the Disposition of Frozen Embryos.” The Church has not taken an official stand on what should be done. It is clear that in vitro fertilization is not an ethical practice. Nevertheless, the children born of this process are human beings, with the full rights and dignity of all members of the human family, and the frozen embryos produced are human and need to be respected as such.
The most acceptable solution for the disposition of these embryos is that they be implanted in their mother’s womb and brought to term. This is the best option in a highly ambiguous situation since the embryos should not have been created in the first place.
If the parents of the embryos are unable or unwilling to implant the embryo in the mother’s womb, what can be done with the frozen embryos? Moralists are beginning to debate this question. Theologians of the status of Dr. William May and Dr. Germain Grisey and Dr. John Furton, editor of Ethics & Medics of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, are of the opinion that it is preferable to place the frozen embryos up for adoption rather than to let them perish in a frozen gulag. Other moralists hesitate to countenance this approach because of the problem of surrogate motherhood. Nevertheless, we agonize over the predicament of these embryos. It is similar to the Church’s pastoral response to children born out of wedlock. While the Church cannot approve the circumstance of their birth since the children have already come into being, the Church must be concerned about their spiritual and material welfare.
No one wants to encourage in vitro fertilization in any way; yet, there is a desire to rescue these innocent human beings that are in the words of Donum Vitae: “exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival that can be licitly pursued” (D.V. I.5). We are hopeful that in the near future the Holy See will offer some authoritative pronouncements on this very complicated issue.
CHILDREN:
A gift not an entitlement
Professor Stanley M. Hauerwas, in his testimony on in vitro fertilization before the Ethics Advisory Board of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, states: “Christians must surely be doubtful of any moral defenses of in vitro fertilization that claim this technique as an extension of freedom from natural necessity. From our perspective, such a claim involves the pretentious assumption that there is no limit to the right of people to perpetuate themselves.”
Hauerwas’ assertion is certainly taught by the Church: 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” (Donum Vitae, 8).
One of the greatest absurdities of contemporary society is that our country has approved of people aborting all unwanted children and at the same time permits an immoral technique (in vitro fertilization) that allows a few women to have the experience of a pregnancy. In both of these circumstances the fate of the children is subordinated to the convenience or the personal aspirations of the parents.
In the Old Testament, sterility was seen as a curse and a shameful condition. In part, immortality was understood as living on in your children and in their children. Childlessness then meant to be doomed to extinction and oblivion.
The New Testament teaching on celibacy indicated to believers that not everyone needs to have children. It is a matter of vocation. The example of the consecrated virgins in the early Church testified to the importance of spiritual fruitfulness and gave witness of the Church’s firm belief in the Resurrection. Their lives, like the first martyrs, proclaimed to the world that in Christ we are all called to eternal life. It is therefore not necessary for everyone to have children to taste immortality.
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. As our Holy Father writes in Familiaris Consortio: “Physical sterility, in fact, can be for the spouses the occasion for other important services to the life of the human person; for example adoption, various forms of educational work, and assistance to other families, and to poor or handicapped children” (#14).
All of us know childless couples whose goodness and generosity have been directed toward service of the parish, the community, and those in need. Often it is said of such a couple “what wonderful parents they would have been” because their marriage is so faith-filled and so loving.
Adoption:
A loving solution
The plight of a couple who have difficulties in conceiving a child is something that concerns the Church community. We are pleased that the scientific community has developed some morally acceptable procedures that assist the conjugal act and not replace it: certain fertility drugs, micro-surgery, and treatments aimed at correcting defects in the reproductive organs, and Natural Family Planning techniques that allow couples to know when they have the best chance of conceiving. The Church does urge scientists “to continue their research with the aim of preventing the causes of sterility and of being able to remedy them so that infertile couples will be able to procreate in full respect for their own personal dignity and that of the child to be born” (D.V.8).
Given the Biblical injunction to care for widows and orphans and to welcome strangers, the childless couple might in the spirit of our faith consider adopting a child. It is a decision that should be made after prayer and reflection. We have the example of so many wonderful couples who have taken on this commitment and made a loving family for children who lost their parents or whose parents were unable to raise them.
One of the main factors contributing to the 1.5 million abortions in our nation every year is the poor attitude that Americans have toward giving up a child for adoption. Each year, around two million infertile couples try to adopt a baby in the United States, yet only about 50,000 adoptions take place. There are waiting lists for Down’s Syndrome and Spina Bifida babies and for infants with AIDS. Many couples go to Korea, Russia, Romania, Guatemala, China and other countries at great expense and make many sacrifices to adopt a baby.
It is tragic that each year 1.5 million mothers in the United States opt for an abortion. Somehow they reach the point of making a decision to kill the child in their womb rather than allowing that child to live and to be adopted into a family that ardently desires to make a home for the fruit of an unwanted pregnancy. Even though a pregnancy might be unwanted, or ill-timed, there should never be an unwanted baby. In fact, as the figures show there are enough families seeking to adopt babies so as to provide a home for all of the children aborted in our country.
Those who embrace the Gospel of Life must be enthusiastic supporters of adoption. Some parishes have had special liturgies to celebrate the generosity and love of mothers who have put their child up for adoption, as well as for those families that have received those children lovingly as if they had been born into their family.
This year in our own diocese, in order to underscore the importance of adoption in the Gospel of Life, we are having a diocesan Pro-Life celebration on the Feast of St. Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus. The fact that in the Holy Family there was an adoptive father should be a source of encouragement to those who give their children in adoption and those who receive them.
Other countries also experience the sad refusal of so many mothers to choose life by giving their children in adoption. Italy is witnessing a negative population growth that has given rise to serious concerns about the future of the Italian people. One parliamentarian has asked the government to support pregnant women by helping them to carry their baby to term so as to put the child up for adoption rather than let that child be lost to abortion.
In our own diocese, and in dioceses throughout the nation, we have made the same offer of help. We stand ready to aid any woman with a difficult pregnancy who wishes to seek an alternative to abortion.
We urge adopted children to help us promote adoption. Their mothers did not abandon them; but rather gave them life and the chance to live. The decision to entrust your child to another person is a difficult one, at times frightening; yet we are sure that it is the right decision. The Bible records the dispute of the two mothers before Solomon. The true mother is willing to give the child away rather than allow the king to kill the baby. When a mother lovingly entrusts her baby to an adoptive family, she has chosen life for her baby and will always be that child’s true mother, even as she shares that vocation with the adoptive parents.
Pope John Paul II writes in Familiaris Consortio: “Christian families, recognizing with faith all human beings as children of the same Heavenly Father, will respond generously to the children of others, giving these children support and love, not as outsiders, but as members of the one family of God’s children. Christian parents will thus be able to spread their love beyond the bonds of flesh and blood, nourishing the links that are rooted in the Spirit…(F.C. 42).
In the rapidly changing culture of today, where everything is seen as experimental or obsolete, it must be growing clearer to believers that the Church’s commitment to the defense of innocent human life and the dignity of the human person is the firm centerpiece of our social Gospel. The very future of our society is contingent on the success of this enterprise: Life will be valued and protected or manipulated and destroyed.
The culture of death can muster armies of celebrities to promote its positions. The media speaks with a roar, the Church in a whisper. The Church’s whisper, however, communicates a very consistent message that can never be silenced.
The issue of in vitro fertilization is complicated. We all sympathize with childless couples who are desperate to have children, but the ends do not justify the means. There is much more at stake here than the public realizes.
The Church’s teaching on in vitro fertilization is very clear and quite consistent with the Church’s teachings on marriage, on the dignity of the human person, and on the life ethic. A lack of knowledge about the ethical implications of this procedure has resulted in many couples having recourse to in vitro fertilization and has given further impetus to public support for embryonic stem-cell research.
St. Paul once commented that people will not respond to an uncertain trumpet blast. I assure you there is nothing uncertain about the Church’s teaching on in vitro fertilization. We have only to turn up the volume of the trumpet.
"She was trying to HAVE A baby ,,,"
"Using the troubled logic above male masturbation would be equivalent to genocide."
The more our culture blindly accepts killing, organ harvesting and treating other human beings as mere property, the further we slide into moral relativism, and it will be very difficult for us some day to make the argument that our own killers should respect our human dignity.
Stem Cells Not the Priority for Alzheimer's
Adult Stem Cell Research More Effective Than Embryonic Cells
Embryo Vivisection and Elusive Promises Act--California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative
Stem Cells Not the Priority for Alzheimer's
The Stem Cell Cover-Up By Michael Fumento
Lies About Fetal Stem Cell Research [Free Republic]
Stem cells without benefit of embryos
Michael Foment Interview [DDT, Global Warming, Fuel Cells, Stem Cells, AIDS, Biotech, AD/HD, Etc.]
SELLING LIES (Stem Cell Myths exposed by Michael Foment)
FREE Book on Stem Cells and Cloning in understandable language
Unborn Children May "Cure" Mothers' Diseases Via Fetal Stem Cells
| Alzheimer's gene therapy trial shows early promise | Drug slows advanced Alzheimer's disease |
*In 2000, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.
This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and Mail. Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand.
They have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.
Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life to be more comfortable with that.
*In another Parkinson's case, a patient treated with his own brain stem cells appears to have experienced a substantial remission with no adverse side effects. Dennis Turner was expected by this time to require a wheelchair and extensive medication. Instead, he has substantially reduced his medication and rarely reports any noticeable symptoms of his Parkinson's. Human trials in this technique are due to begin soon.
*Bone marrow stem cells, blood stem cells, and immature thigh muscle cells have been used to grow new heart tissue in both animal subjects and human patients. Indeed, while it was once scientific dogma that damaged heart muscle could not regenerate, it now appears that cells taken from a patient's own body may be able to restore cardiac function. Human trials using adult stem cells have commenced in Europe and other nations. (The FDA is requiring American researchers to stick with animal studies for now to test the safety of the adult stem cell approach.)
*Harvard Medical School researchers reversed juvenile onset diabetes (type-1) in mice using "precursor cells" taken from spleens of healthy mice and injecting them into diabetic animals. The cells transformed into pancreatic islet cells. The technique will begin human trials as soon as sufficient funding is made available.
*In the United States and Canada, more than 250 human patients with type-1 diabetes were treated with pancreatic tissue (islet) transplantations taken from human cadavers. Eighty percent of those who completed the treatment protocol have achieved insulin independence for over a year. (Good results have been previously achieved with pancreas transplantation, but the new approach may be much safer than a whole organ transplant.)
*Blindness is one symptom of diabetes. Now, human umbilical cord blood stem cells have been injected into the eyes of mice and led to the growth of new human blood vessels. Researchers hope that the technique will eventually provide an efficacious treatment for diabetes-related blindness. Scientists also are experimenting with using cord blood stem cells to inhibit the growth of blood vessels in cancer, which could potentially lead to a viable treatment.
*Bone marrow stem cells have partially helped regenerate muscle tissue in mice with muscular dystrophy. Much more research is needed before final conclusions can be drawn and human studies commenced. But it now appears that adult stem cells may well provide future treatments for neuromuscular diseases.
*Severed spinal cords in rats were regenerated using gene therapy to prevent the growth of scar tissue that inhibits nerve regeneration. The rats recovered the ability to walk within weeks of receiving the treatments. The next step will be to try the technique with monkeys. If that succeeds, human trials would follow.
*In one case reported from Japan, an advanced pancreatic cancer patient injected with bone marrow stem cells experienced an 80 percent reduction in tumor size.
* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent about the research involving adult cells.
Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful one?
* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are already healing human illnesses.
*In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune systems.
“‘This [isolating stem cells from fat] could take the air right out of the debate about embryonic stem cells,’ said Dr. Mark Hedrick of UCLA, the lead author. The newly identified cells have so many different potential applications, he added, that ‘it makes it hard to argue that we should use embryonic cells.’” -- Thomas H. Maugh II, “Fat may be answer to many illnesses,” Los Angeles Times, 4/10/01
“With the newest evidence that even cells in fat are capable of being transformed into tissue through the alchemy of biotechnology, some scientists said they are beginning to conclude they’ll be able to grow with relative ease all sorts of replacement tissues without resorting to embryo or fetal cells…‘It’s highly provocative work, and they’re probably right,’ said Eric Olson, chairman of molecular biology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas…Like many biologists, Olson believes that adult, fetal and embryonic stem cell research all merit support…it’s heartening, he said, that almost “every other week there’s another interesting finding of adult stem cells turning into neurons or blood cells or heart muscle cells. Apparently our traditional views need to be reevaluated.’” --Rick Weiss, “Human Fat May Provide Stem Cells,” The Washington Post, 4/10/01
“In a finding that could offer an entirely new way to treat heart disease within the next few years, scientists working with mice and rats have found that key cells from adult bone marrow can rebuild a damaged heart—actually creating new heart muscle and blood vessels…Until now researchers thought that stem cells from embryos offer the best hope for rebuilding damaged organs, but this latest research shows that the embryos, which are politically controversial, may not be necessary. ‘We are currently finding that these adult stem cells can function as well, perhaps even better than, embryonic stem cells,’ [Dr. Donald] Orlic [of the National Human Genome Research Institute] said.” --Robert Bazell, “Approach may repair heart damage,” NBC Nightly News, 3/30/01.
“[Dr. Donald] Orlic said fetal and embryonic stem cell researchers have not been able to show the regeneration of heart cells, even in animals. ‘This study alone gives us tremendous hope that adult stem cells can do more than what embryonic stem cells can do,’ he said.” --Kristen Philipkoski, “Adult Stem Cells Growing Strong,” Wired Magazine, 3/30/01
“Like several other recent studies, the new work with hearts suggests that stem cells retrieved from adults have unexpected and perhaps equal flexibility of their own, perhaps precluding the need for the more ethically contentious [embryonic] cells.” --Rick Weiss, “Studies Raise Hopes of Cardiac Rejuvenation,” The Washington Post, 3/31/01
“Umbilical cords discarded after birth may offer a vast new source of repair material for fixing brains damaged by strokes and other ills, free of the ethical concerns surrounding the use of fetal tissue, researchers said Sunday.” --“Umbilical cords could repair brains,” Associated Press, 2/20/01.
"PPL Therapeutics, the company that cloned Dolly the sheep, has succeeded in ‘reprogramming' a cell -- a move that could lead to the development of treatments for diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. The Scotland-based group will today announce that it has turned a cow's skin cell into a beating heart cell and is close to starting research on humans... The PPL announcement...will be seen as an important step towards producing stem cells without using human embryos." --"PPL follows Dolly with cell breakthrough," Financial Times, 2/23/01
“Because they have traveled further on a pathway of differentiation than an embryo’s cells have, such tissue specific [adult] stem cells are believed by many to have more limited potential than E[mbryonic] S[tem] cells or those that PPL hopes to create. Some researchers, however, are beginning to argue that these limitations would actually make tissue-specific stem cells safer than their pluripotent counterparts. University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Glenn McGee is one of the most vocal critics on this point: ‘The emerging truth in the lab is that pluripotent stem cells are hard to reign in. The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after a stem cell transplant might turn out to be the Pandora’s box of stem cell research.’” --Erika Jonietz, “Biotech: Could new research end the embryo debate?” Technology Review, January/February, 2001.
"I don't consider a zygote to have enough of a human nature to be deserving of any legal protections."
Great post. Thank you for taking the time to present this pertinent info.
We all need to pray for many of those who replied - they are satan driven and serve no purpose other than to bash you and your message. You are only answering His call and are an apostle in our perverted world.
God bless you and your family.
"Do you believe it was God's will that a man and wife be incapable of bearing children?"
While I do not know Brooke's history and never will, I am willing to suggest that it could be birth control or abortions earlier in her life that rendered her unable to bear children.
God works in mysterious ways.
I am appalled.
This is really part of a larger discussion which no one seems to want to have. Why the rampant infertility? In my day, we certainly did not have any trouble conceiving and bearing children. Perhaps that is because we were much younger. Indeed, we had the opposite problem, and that is why we are seeing this problem now.
Today, society is shocked if a couple marries before 30 (they're so young) and further shocked if the wife gives up her career to bear children before 38, or older. No wonder they are infertile! Our next "problem" will be how to handle a generation children orphaned at 15, when their 65 year old mothers and fathers suddenly pass away.
Why do couples wait so long to start their families? Several reasons:
1) society requires more education to launch a career
2) society is highly upwardly mobile -- unwilling to settle for anything except the finest weddings, houses, cars, furniture, etc.
3) the economy requires both members of the marriage to work full time -- indeed modern society looks down on homemakers and soccer moms as useless appendages
4) the pill and other forms of birth control (as well as popular mores and public school education) have removed the shame and embarrassment out of pre-marital sexual activity
5) the "pill" and the "patch" does not protect women from STDs, thus rendering many young couples infertile before they ever decide to have children
Anybody around here remember the old TV commercial where a voice booms over the background music, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature..."
Modern generations have been trying to "fool" Mother Nature for the last 40 years -- and the results are definitely NOT NICE.
I won't get into the merits of this particular post, but I have to point out the illogic of this comment.
You have introduced an artificial distinction between the disposal of "extra embryos" resulting from IVF, and the disposal of "extra embryo(s)" by means of abortion. Why is the disposal "sick and wrong" in one instance, and perfectly OK in the other?
For 1 baby to be born, grow, learn to know and love god, and become saved, with 1 embyro lost in the process of IVF........or for the 1 baby to never have existed at all?
This is precisely the logic used to defend various forms of "abortion for convenience."
Thanks for PING...
Why the rampant infertility?>>
Most likely complications from abortions and STD's, both leave scar tissue and waiting too long to conceive, many couples, would rather wait until they are financially stable.
There was a medical study in the past few years which theorized long term use of hormonal birth control immunizes the body against pregnancy. Even though a woman may stop using in order to get pregnant, the body has been trained not to get pregnant.
A plausible theory IMO.
Judging by your unthinking reaction, and defensive reaction, I wonder.
Said by a person judging his heart out, without even taking the time to think. What if God judges people by your strict, self-righteous actions. Do you tell you children top never think about the consequences of their actions, just do what's easiest?
It's the same embryo in both cases! How can abortion be ''sick and wrong" in one case, but okay in the other. The exact same bthing is being done.
You are en engineer and yet you know nothing about science? I hope you aren't at Lockheed.
There is a difference between and egg, and an embryo that is the result of an egg fertilized by an sperm. Apparently many people on this thread are confused. An egg will never become a baby, unless it is fertilized and an egg is no longer an egg after fertilization, and can never become one again.
If science can't be debated in the public square, that is sad. I don't know what being an atheist has to do with not acknowledging science.
So you believe it is right to kidnap someone and steal their organs, if you need a transplant?
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.