8mm
Posted on 06/21/2007 4:31:25 PM PDT by wagglebee
Baltimore, MD (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll conducted by researchers at Duke University Medical Center and John Hopkins University has real concerns for the pro-life community. It found that 60 percent of Americans who are fertility patients would subject their human embryos to scientific research if they weren't going to birth them.
The poll asked patients what they would do with so-called "leftover" human embryos they had no desire to implant and give birth to in a full-term pregnancy.
The poll found that 22 percent would be interested in donating their embryos to couples who are looking for children to adopt. Pro-life advocates say that more should be done to promote the avenue.
Anne Drapkin Lyerly at Duke, talked about the study in a statement and indicated that it was published in the Science Express publication.
She appeared excited by the results and claimed that using so many of the frozen human embryos in existence would be a scientific boon.
"Previous research indicates that there are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos stored in the United States," she said. "If half of those belong to people who are willing to donate embryos for research, and only half that number were in fact donated, there could still be 100,000 embryos available for research."
Ultimately if that many human lives are taken, they would produce 2,000 to 3,000 usable stem cell lines, the researchers said -- which is 100 times the number currently allowed to receive federal funding.
In the study, some 1,020 people were questions who had human embryos frozen at fertility clinics in California, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
The only option we ever considered was storage of the embryos for future pregnancies. As it turned out, there were only two viable embryos produced, both of whom were implanted. Only one survived to full term.
She's now four years old and sang in church last Sunday.
I would expect no less from the McDonalds Motherhood customers.
This anti-reproduction mindset also made it easier for people to accept abortion.
All of this was warned about in Humanae Vitae (1968).
Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Indeed, nature's way of causing those who did not believe in survival of the species to not pass on their genes.
I hadn't thought of it quite that way before, I think you've really hit on something here.
Yeah, I don’t understand Mr. Hatch’s position on this - maybe a utilitarian argument or a difficult case within his family.
We are so far down the slippery slope, we’re gonna hit the rocks at any second, IMHO. These are indeed young humans, and God’s judgement on our country will not be withheld forever.
I agree 100% or more if possible.
Do you have any idea how incredibly heart wrenching infertility is? Do you have any idea how heart breaking it is to plan your life out with your soul mate (including the at least 6 children you both wanted) only to suffer 2 miscarriages? Do you have any idea how heart breaking it is to try for over 10 years to have give your one miracle son a sibling?
Until you do, keep your moralistic BS to yourself.
God would not have given doctors the ability to help people become parents if it were so immoral. Personally, I would never donate my embryos, and I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research. But just because a loving couple desires children, does not make them the evil beings you are describing.
Let's consider an alternate notion, one which assumes the embryos are alive human beings at an earliest age. You may not agree with that assessment, but let's just go with it for a sec. Let's further assume we could get at least one born baby we want out of every four born babies but we throw away the three not to our chosen specs. I will trust that such a thing would be abhorrent to you because killing human babies is not a good thing. We pro-life folks happen to believe the embryo-aged alive 'thingies' are actually human beings at earliest age and throwing them away or using them for experiments is, well, wrong.
Does something that is wrong become acceptable if it can yield some good despite committing wrong? ... And how good can that thing be in God's eyes if it is sourced in wrong?
Infertility is an extremely agonizing subject to me, and I may have over reacted. For this I apologize. But, I am a strong believer in Gods hand in all things, yet it is man that chooses to abuse that. I personally could never destroy my children (embryos or not), but I think that some opinions on this site tend to be quite judgmental (to say the least). One actually talked about the selfishness of people using their "faulty DNA" to produce children, and that is insulting. I think that someone who adopts a child is a wonderful person, but that doesn't automatically mean that someone who goes a different route in producing their own children are not also wonderful people.
I am pro - life because I did have two miscarriages in very early pregnancy. About the times that most first term abortions occur, and let me tell you that I lost a baby, not a fetus.
Thank you for your reasoned response to my ranting, I did think I was in for some big time flaming after I thought about my post, and Thank You for allowing me to explain it. As we all know, Free Republic does tend to be "my way or the highway", when it comes to moral issues.
The process as now practiced is designed to raise the odds for success with no thought to the alive beings sacrificed for the procedure ... and while the 'several embryos at a time' process perhaps relieves the woman from repeated harvesting of ova, it actually improves the clinics odds so they're disregarding the aliveness of the embryos to protect their bottom line.
Very much agreed. And the resulting consequences were obvious.
Good paragraph from Huminae Vitae. Thank you for posting it.
“After all, these are the same narcissists who would rather spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars perpetuating their own faulty DNA rather than adopt a needy child.”
Adoption of a healthy baby is very expensive and not as straightforward a proposition as some in the pro-life community would seem to suggest. It’s a long, bureaucratic process and there is no guarantee that a child awaits you at the end. A few rounds of IVF are actually less expensive.
True, there are older children who are more readily available for adoption but that’s not a cakewalk, either. It’s not like the bulk of these kids are up for adoption because they’ve been orphaned. They’re up for adoption because they’ve been abused. Or more accurately, tortured. The courts don’t remove children from abusive homes except in the most extreme of circumstances. I honor and respect the parents who take on the challenge of adopting one or more of these kids, but it’s truly not for everyone.
I think we in the pro-life community do ourselves a disfavor by not looking at the practical reasons why would-be parents choose IVF over adoption. Consider the fact that with IVF you don’t need to be fingerprinted, you don’t need to have a background check run, you don’t need to have some social worker evaluate your worthiness to be a parent, and you don’t need to wait two years or more for an answer. You also don’t need to live in fear that the birth mother of your child will have a change of heart and petition an overly sympathetic court system to return your child to them.
I find it fascinating that we in the pro-life community routinely criticize the courts, yet we implicitly expect adoptive parents to trust these same courts to do the “right” thing with regard to adoptions.
The simple fact is that IVF is a less expensive and more straightforward process for otherwise infertile couples to have children. We shouldn’t be surprised when people pick the cheap, easy, effective, but immoral over the long, miserable, expensive, but moral.
“As we all know, Free Republic does tend to be “my way or the highway”, when it comes to moral issues.”
It does at times, but you’ll also find that truth is usually forged in the crucible.
This is one of those issues where emotions run hot. It’s also an area where we pro-life folks tend to shoot ourselves in both feet. I don’t agree with IVF, however, I’m not as doctrinaire about it as many of my fellow pro-life friends, or even other Catholics.
Some thoughts:
1. Adoption is often touted as “the” alternative, yet the fact that it’s a miserable, expensive, time consuming process is glossed over.
2. As IVF is getting more refined, the success rates over time are increasing. I emphasize that I do not agree with the process and find it immoral in the extreme, especially in relation to it’s treatment of “excess” embryos. However, I don’t think it’s all that big of a leap to predict that the success rate of IVF will soon approach and perhaps surpass that found in nature.
3. Economics factors into the equation. IVF is getting less expensive. People are always tempted by the quick and cheap over the long and expensive. Regardless of the morality. If we want people to shy away from the quick and easy, we need to make the other alternatives more attractive.
Who said anything about adopting a 'baby'? There is no limit to the amount of money one can waste on legal fees vying for a perfect three minute old new born, but there are over a hundred thousand children available for adoption to good homes all over the US with only a few thousand dollars in legal fees.
It’s a long, bureaucratic process and there is no guarantee that a child awaits you at the end. A few rounds of IVF are actually less expensive.
I hope that you aren't contending that the average cost or success rate of IVF are greater than the average cost or success rate of adoption. If so, I challenge this assertion.
True, there are older children who are more readily available for adoption but that’s not a cakewalk, either.
Having a child naturally isn't a 'cakewalk' either. It also can be very expensive.
It’s not like the bulk of these kids are up for adoption because they’ve been orphaned. They’re up for adoption because they’ve been abused. Or more accurately, tortured.
Completely untrue. The "bulk of these kids" have not been "tortured."
The courts don’t remove children from abusive homes except in the most extreme of circumstances.
Also completely untrue. Most of the children available for adoption are not "removed from abusive homes" but rather expelled by uncaring or incapable parents. You are losing all credibility here.
I honor and respect the parents who take on the challenge of adopting one or more of these kids, but it’s truly not for everyone.
No, but neither is parenthood in general. In my experience, the adults who most often choose IVF are, despite their materialistic success, the ones least likely to be good parents.
I think we in the pro-life community do ourselves a disfavor by not looking at the practical reasons why would-be parents choose IVF over adoption.
No one in the pro-life community has overlooked the 'practical reason' why infertile people insisting on a perfect baby are choosing IVF: it is because the vast majority of perfect babies that would otherwise be put up for adoption are instead being murdered in the womb.
Consider the fact that with IVF you don’t need to be fingerprinted, you don’t need to have a background check run, you don’t need to have some social worker evaluate your worthiness to be a parent, and you don’t need to wait two years or more for an answer.
From you description it sounds like IVF is just an easier transaction for those looking to purchase another object.
You also don’t need to live in fear that the birth mother of your child will have a change of heart and petition an overly sympathetic court system to return your child to them.
I would hope that most parents much prefer that small fear of a very unlikely occurance over the very real fear of IVF's enormous miscarriage rate and the terrible living nightmare of having children deteriorating in a cryogenic tank in the basement of some officepark.
I find it fascinating that we in the pro-life community routinely criticize the courts, yet we implicitly expect adoptive parents to trust these same courts to do the “right” thing with regard to adoptions.
Almost every parents in America is trusting the courts right now to do the “right” thing in the event of a divorce related custody dispute. Furthermore, most states have relatively good statutes in this area and none of the courts I'm familiar with are fabricating rights in this area out of whole cloth as has been done with abortion.
The simple fact is that IVF is a less expensive and more straightforward process for otherwise infertile couples to have children.
Yet again I challenge your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to prove these because you made them.
We shouldn’t be surprised when people pick the cheap, easy, effective, but immoral over the long, miserable, expensive, but moral.
Sadly with so many selfish and morally bankrupt people in our society today, even the almost unforgivable sin of deliberately creating and then killing one's own children out of petty convenience should be no surprise to anyone.
“Who said anything about adopting a ‘baby’? There is no limit to the amount of money one can waste on legal fees vying for a perfect three minute old new born, but there are over a hundred thousand children available for adoption to good homes all over the US with only a few thousand dollars in legal fees.”
And again, we’re glossing over the fact that a large number of these kids have come from situations of extreme abuse and neglect. This isn’t Oliver Twist. I honor the folks who adopt older kids, but it’s naive to think that most or even many would-be parents are equipped to deal with children coming from abusive circumstances.
“I hope that you aren’t contending that the average cost or success rate of IVF are greater than the average cost or success rate of adoption. If so, I challenge this assertion.”
Challenge away.
If you’re talking about international adoptions (about half of all adoptions in the U.S.) the fees from start to finish start at about $20K on the low end (Ethiopia and China) and range to about $50K on the high end (Russia). And there is no guarantee that you’ll be actually be successful. One round of IVF is about $10K. Successive rounds are of course more expensive, but most clinics use frozen embryos to reduce the cost of subsequent attempts. Many clinics also offer shared cost arrangements: no pregnancy, no pay.
Adoption of older children domestically *is* less expensive, but by the time the dust settles you’re talking about $3-5K in fees depending on the state. Domestic adoption of infants is more expensive and it’s a lot harder to predict the costs. Because of “open” adoption arrangements, it really is a crapshoot as to when or if you’ll find a child to adopt. And that of course affects the cost.
There is a $10K tax credit available for adopting hard to place kids or orphans. So that mitigates some of the cost for international adoption and domestic adoption of older children. I don’t believe the credit is avaialble for domestic adoption of healthy infants.
“Having a child naturally isn’t a ‘cakewalk’ either. It also can be very expensive.”
Of course. But what we’re talking about here is not the cost of raising a child, it’s the cost of IVF versus adopting a child.
“Completely untrue. The “bulk of these kids” have not been “tortured.”
I guess you define beatings, burnings, and sexual abuse as something other than torture. That’s a semantics debate that I’m not going to bother with.
“Also completely untrue. Most of the children available for adoption are not “removed from abusive homes” but rather expelled by uncaring or incapable parents. You are losing all credibility here.”
Please cite statistics. The statistic that I remember indicated that the majority of children available for domestic adoption are there because parental rights have been terminated. I.e. they’ve been seized from abusive situations.
“In my experience, the adults who most often choose IVF are, despite their materialistic success, the ones least likely to be good parents.”
The cost of IVF has come down to the point where it’s accessible to folks of middle class means. I have a problem with casually dismissing folks who are considering IVF as being materialistic, poor potential parents, morally clueless, etc. What you’re saying may well be true, but it gets you nowhere. What have you offered to convince someone that IVF is not a good idea and that there are viable alternatives? Supporters of Opus Dei aren’t going to go into an IVF clinic in the first place.
You’ve hit on a real problem with the pro-life community in general. We’re very quick to provide lectures and moral judgments, but not so quick to provide workable solutions to quandaries that average people are facing.
“No one in the pro-life community has overlooked the ‘practical reason’ why infertile people insisting on a perfect baby are choosing IVF: it is because the vast majority of perfect babies that would otherwise be put up for adoption are instead being murdered in the womb.”
In most people’s minds, adoption is the last alternative after all other options have been exhausted. Including IVF. If we were to be so fortunate as to find infanticide made illegal tomorrow, I doubt it would have much of an impact on the IVF rate. I agree that it would make it a heck of a lot easier to adopt domestically if a person were so inclined.
“From you description it sounds like IVF is just an easier transaction for those looking to purchase another object.”
I doubt that anyone goes through IVF because they think it preferable to having a child through natural means.
“I would hope that most parents much prefer that small fear of a very unlikely occurance ...”
That’s one reason why international adoption has become so popular. The euphemism used is that the international process is “more straightforward.” Every would-be adoptive parent has heard horror stories about domestic adoptions being reversed after the fact. It’s something of an irrational fear in my view, but it’s a real one and it affects behavior.
“Almost every parents in America is trusting the courts right now to do the “right” thing in the event of a divorce related custody dispute.”
And their other choices are...? I wasn’t aware of a private alternative.
“Furthermore, most states have relatively good statutes in this area and none of the courts I’m familiar with are fabricating rights in this area out of whole cloth as has been done with abortion.”
They don’t need to create new law; American adoption laws already provide more rights to the birth parents than those of any other country that I’m aware of.
“Yet again I challenge your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to prove these because you made them.”
I’ve already met the burden of proof with data regarding the cost of adoption as opposed to IVF. Feel free to do a google search on “cost of IVF” if you want to check out the figures on your own. There is a clinic in the Chicago area which has a detailed list of costs IIRC. And then feel free to confirm the costs of adoption on any of the adoption websites. The figures I’m providing for adoption costs are ballpark, but are close. It depends on the agency you use. Bethany Christian has a good site.
What happened to your "bulk of these kids" [have been] "tortured". Either prove this absurd statement or retract it.
I honor the folks who adopt older kids, but it’s naive to think that most or even many would-be parents are equipped to deal with children coming from abusive circumstances.
You are doing nothing but fallaciously beating your own straw man argument.
Challenge away. If you’re talking about international adoptions...
None of the numbers you fabricated compare the expected cost and success rate of adoption versus IVF. Citations please if you want your words to matter.
“Having a child naturally isn’t a ‘cakewalk’ either. It also can be very expensive.” Of course. But what we’re talking about here is not the cost of raising a child,
My comment was in relation to the cost of actual child birth.
it’s the cost of IVF versus adopting a child.
You still haven't backed up your original statement with any actual facts.
“Completely untrue. The “bulk of these kids” have not been “tortured.” I guess you define beatings, burnings, and sexual abuse as something other than torture. That’s a semantics debate that I’m not going to bother with.
You need to back this insane straw man argument up with some citations or you will be ignored.
“Also completely untrue. Most of the children available for adoption are not “removed from abusive homes” but rather expelled by uncaring or incapable parents. You are losing all credibility here.” Please cite statistics.
This was in refutation to your absurd statement. The burder of proof is still on you for your prior claim.
The statistic that I remember indicated that the majority of children available for domestic adoption are there because parental rights have been terminated. I.e. they’ve been seized from abusive situations.
All you've done so far in this tread is fabricate unbelievable statistics to back your indefensible position. Your words are losing all meaning.
I have a problem with casually dismissing folks who are considering IVF as being materialistic, poor potential parents, morally clueless, etc.
I imagine you do since I fear this topic hits close to home for you.
You’ve hit on a real problem with the pro-life community in general. We’re very quick to provide lectures and moral judgments, but not so quick to provide workable solutions to quandaries that average people are facing.
Although I openly question your choice of the inclusive "we", adoption is a perfectly viable option in spite of all the false facts you have fabricated here against it.
In most people’s minds, adoption is the last alternative after all other options have been exhausted.
Although I challenge your assertion of a majority, I will agree that it would be at best the last alternative considered by the shallow narcissists I originally alluded to.
“From you description it sounds like IVF is just an easier transaction for those looking to purchase another object.” I doubt that anyone goes through IVF because they think it preferable to having a child through natural means.
The context was that it was easier than adoption.
“Almost every parents in America is trusting the courts right now to do the “right” thing in the event of a divorce related custody dispute.” And their other choices are...? I wasn’t aware of a private alternative.
Every patent of minor children in America lives under the threat of an invasive court system regardless of how they received their children.
They don’t need to create new law; American adoption laws already provide more rights to the birth parents than those of any other country that I’m aware of.
I would normally challenge this assertion but it is completely immaterial to this discussion.
“Yet again I challenge your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to prove these because you made them.” I’ve already met the burden of proof with data regarding the cost of adoption as opposed to IVF.
You haven't provided any data, only fabricated some fake numbers. When you posted to me using outside "facts" to bolster your weak argument in the midst of an ethical discussion, you opened yourself up to being called on them. I did so, and you still haven't provided any evidence to support your claims. You should either post some links that prove these "facts" or retract these totally unsupported statements you made. Otherwise you risk being branded as a liar.
Feel free to do a google search on “cost of IVF” if you want to check out the figures on your own.
I don't need to. You brought these statistics into this discussion so the burden is only on you.
The figures I’m providing for adoption costs are ballpark, but are close.
Without citation, they are merely lies made up by a poor debater with a losing argument.
That’s a load of crap. I am active on several infertility boards and most of the women are pro-life, for obvious reasons.
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.