|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 9:37pm by Sandra Ostapowich
|
|
 Pr.
Petersen's blog over at Cyberstones
alerted me to this
criticism of a recent LCMS ethical position. It is deserved. I
never did understand how the LCMS could be so silent on the issue of in vitro
fertilization (IVF) and now be so wishy-washy about the beginnings of
life. I have been on the inside of this issue. Here are my thoughts
(WARNING - graphic anatomical language ahead - do not read if this offends you):
The popular assumption is that a couple not intentionally using artificial
(or natural for that matter) contraception will inevitably reproduce willy-nilly
like rabbits, and images like that from Monty Python's movie, "The Meaning
of Life", with a house overflowing with children are brought to mind.
It is as though we are taught to believe that couples who have intercourse are
very likely to conceive every time unless the woman is already pregnant.
While this is theoretically possible I suppose, it is not as easy to get
pregnant as we are led to believe. Not every couple will conceive so
easily, some may only have 1-2 children even though they have intercourse
without any contraceptive just as frequently as another couple who conceive 12
children in the same period of time. Some may never conceive on their own
at all.
(Incidentally, let's clear up another misconception. Infertility is
a couple's issue. Women are not the only ones with reproductive organs or
hormones that can malfunction. However, regardless of which party's organs
are the problem, treatment methods are much easier to carry out and monitor on
women and they will be the ones undergoing the bulk of any artificial
reproductive technology (ART) assistance. How to control male reproduction
(sperm production in particular) remains something of a mystery to medical
science.)
There are a few options for couples who desire to be parents at this point.
1. Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) (a.k.a. "The Turkey
Baster Method"): The sperm is "collected", washed (I guess
they're dirty), centrifuged (to get rid of any duds), and then collected in a
syringe. A narrow tube is inserted through the woman's cervix and into her
uterus, where the sperm are essentially "released" to go find an
egg. Usually, the woman has taken drugs to increase her egg production
(from 1 to about 5) so that the sperm have an easier time finding a
target. This method may utilize "donor" sperm for couples in
which the man does not have adequate or any healthy sperm production, or it is
also used by single women.
2. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) (a.k.a. "Test Tube
Babies"): Sperm is collected as above. The woman takes even
stronger drugs to suppress natural ovulation and increase egg production (from 1
to about 15), but the eggs are harvested directly from the ovaries when they are
nearly ready to be released. The sperm and egg are essentially put into a
small, closed, controlled environment to do their thing. Another method,
Intracytoplasmatic Sperm Injection (ICSI) involves a sperm being injected
directly into an egg. The fertilized eggs are separated out and allowed to
develop for a few days. The healthiest 3-5 are injected back into the
woman, and the rest are put on ice in case none of the first batch
"take" or for subsequent fertilization attempts a few years down the
road.
3. Adoption: Adoption is not anything like it once was,
nor are the horror stories from the news so many people fear at all
common. These days, adoption is much more friendly toward the potential
birthmother. Unless there are seriously extenuating circumstances, most
agencies allow the birthmothers to choose the adoptive parents for their unborn
children. The young women get to "shop" for just the right
family, even interview and meet them prior to the birth. More open
adoptions are common as well, with letters and pictures being exchanged
following placement, some even have more contact than that with phone calls and
even visits (Isaac's is that way). Adoption laws vary from state to state,
but are very clear. Adoptions, once finalized, are only overturned if
something seriously wrong, like fraud, took place in the process.
4. Remaining "Child-Free": Many couples opt for
this option as well, choosing to focus on their marriage, travel, hobbies and
careers. Sometimes they satisfy the urge for parenthood by babysitting,
volunteering, having careers that are in contact with children (teacher, coach,
daycare...) etc.
But this was supposed to be a post about my thoughts regarding IVF...
I am opposed to it. I think it is unnatural, immoral and selfish.
 Unnatural:
There is nothing natural about IVF, especially ICSI. Massive amounts of
ovulation-suppressing and egg production hormones are taken to allow the doctor
to manipulate the reproductive cycle and ripen as many eggs in a given cycle as
possible. At least with IUI, conception takes place where it naturally
would, the sperm just get a little help to get there. With IVF, conception
takes place not in the warm, welcoming environment created just for it, the
uterus, but in a sterile laboratory while strangers monitor the process.
 Immoral:
IVF creates more babies than will be implanted, collateral conceptions, extras
to have on hand just in case none of the babies conceived in the lab survive and
implant once injected back into the proper environment. Nevermind that the
thawed babies' chances of surviving are even more slim than the first
never-frozen batch. Thee are freezers full of abandoned unborn,
free-floating babies who may never be born at all, or even worse, may have their
barely-developed live bodies donated to science.
 Selfish:
I question the goal of a couple choosing to undergo IVF. Is it more
important to GET PREGNANT no matter the cost, the effort, the humiliation, the
depersonalization of conception or to be parents to a child or children?
The only reasons I can come up with to go to such extents to achieve pregnancy
are self-serving ones -- for the experience of being pregnant, for thinking your
gene pool to be so important that it must be propogated at all costs.
There are thousands of already-conceived children in the world, in your state,
in your county, just waiting and praying for parents to love them.
Whether test tube babies should be used for stem-cell research is a
no-brainer. No. I have great respect for organizations like Snowflakes
Embryo Adoption that are trying to offer another opportunity for these
frozen children to live and be loved in families.
Edited on: February 28th, 2006 1:15 pm
|
|
Posted On: December 08th, 2005 at 12:26am by Bloghardt
|
must you always use the "s" word?
|
|
Posted On: December 08th, 2005 at 8:19am by Emily
|
Thank you! That was wonderful. I wish more people would speak on such issues.
|
Posted On: December 09th, 2005 at 1:52pm by ms pickled eggs [ + ] |
Not sure how much notice you'll take of this, seeing as I'm one of the selfish people who has used IVF, but I'd like to point out two things:
Firstly, embryos (not babies) are transferred to the uterus, not implanted, you seem to be slightly confused by the terminology. And most pregnancies, even those conceived naturally, will miscarry. Every time we conceive we have a 50% chance of creating a pregnancy that will miscarry, often before a pregnancy test would show positive. Should we stop trying to conceive on the off chance that we will create a miscarriage?
I can't really speak on the experience of having frozen embryos as, like the majority of couples, my cycles didn't result in any. However, the embryos that don't survive are usually the abnormal ones. You can't make a good pregnancy out of a bad embryo. And I'm not all that keen on Snowflakes. Whilst in principle I support the idea of finding potential parents for unwanted embryos, Snowflakes charges a ridiculous amount of money. I'm not convinced that a profit making organisation is the right body to be handling such a scheme. Should only the rich be allowed to have children?
Secondly, adoption isn't always an option. In many countries it's very expensive, far more expensive than a cycle of IVF for which many people have at least some insurance coverage. And many people want to experience pregnancy and birth. And why shouldn't they? Why is it more selfish for someone with fertility problems to want to give birth than it is for a fertile woman? Why is it selfish for someone who wants kids to try to have them? Surely it's more selfish for someone who doesn't really want them and who won't take good care of them to reproduce?
And I trust, that if you don't already have children, you'll be adopting rather than conceiving bio kids? Because after all, there are so many kids out there just waiting to be adopted...
|
|
Posted On: December 09th, 2005 at 7:08pm by Madre
|
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, babies are transferred from the lab to the uterus where they may or may not implant.
And yes, they are most definitely babies. The genes from the parents have been combined since the moment conception to create a brand new human being - it's just a very, very young one.
I'm not as confused about the terminology as it sounded. For the "lay" readers not familiar with ART, I was trying to avoid too much jargon and get through the explanation quickly. I did so a bit too quickly on the issue of transfer v. implanation.
Yes, many naturally occuring pregnancies miscarry on their own and no one ever knows the difference. It's pretty silly to suggest that a couple stop having intercourse at prime times in the cycle because they just might conceive and that baby may be miscarried. Doing what husbands and wives do to possibly conceive (let the reader understand) is entirely different from what goes on for an IVF cycle.
I don't know how much Snowflakes charges, but I support with what they're doing, in principle. If they're a for-profit agency, that's pretty sad.
Pragmatically, it doesn't even make sense to me to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a cycle of IVF that MIGHT result in a pregnancy that MIGHT go to term just to have the personal experience of being pregnant when you can spend less than the cost of a cycle to adopt a child who is already born and needs a family to love him or her. One might make you a mother, ojne will. To insist on the "maybe" route just to have a personal experience, strikes me as having only selfish motivations at play. If your goal truly is to be parents, then you would acknowledge that pregnancy is not the only way to achieve that goal.
Secondly, I believe adoption is always an option. It doesn't have to be expensive at all. It all depends on how "picky" you are about the child(ren) you would adopt. IVF is not often covered by insurance, but the IRS gives up to $10,000 in tax credits for adoptions. In many cases (again, depending on how "picky" you are), you may not even spend that much to adopt.
And yes, it is selfish for women who don't want kids and can't/won't take good care of them to reproduce. It's even more selfish of those women to kill their babies just so that they won't be inconvenienced by the being a parent or the "experience" of pregnancy.
And one more "yes", I am a mother via the miracle of adoption, following two years of infertility treatments. And yes, my son is one that was just waiting to be adopted. And yes, I do long for the experience of pregnancy and childbirth I'd be lying if I said I didin't, but not as much anymore as I did while going through treatments. But far more importantly than being pregnant, I have been given a son to mother and have been SO very blessed to do so.
|
Posted On: December 10th, 2005 at 1:33pm by ms pickled eggs [ + ] |
Although I don't necessarily agree with all your points, thanks for taking the time to respond. However, I have one last question, I still don't get why it is more selfish for an infertile couple to want to reproduce than for a fertile couple. They both want the same thing, why is one group selfish and the other not?
Oh and in case you're interested, here's a link to the snowflake programme: http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes_faqs.asp The info on costs in about half way down. They charge a minimum of just under $7000, non of which goes to the genetic 'parents'. I'd say that's a pretty big profit margin. Not all that Christian, IMO.
|
|
Posted On: December 10th, 2005 at 2:15pm by Madre
|
Thanks for sticking around!
I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything, though if they were smart they would. It would make life SOOO much easier. ;)
Why is it selfish for an infertile couple to try to reproduce and not for a fertile couple? First off, I'm not saying that the infertile couple should not want or try to reproduce - within reason. But clearly, they are not able to reproduce through the "usual" means of sexual reproduction. Thus the term "infertile", i.e., not capable of reproducing. Wanting to do something you are not given to do and going to excessive lengths to do it anyway is not something based in considering another more important than yourself. It is based in one's own wants and desires. In this case, it is the overwhelming desire to be pregnant, to be a normal woman, to do what so many other woman just do - often accidentally! I understand that urge, I've been there.
God didn't forget about me and my desire to be a mother. He knew about all the poking and prodding and sticking and probing and hoping hoping hoping and having it all crash down into smithereens. He heard every single one my prayers to "Please make it work THIS time...." Finally, after He had to tell me "No" 24 times, I came to terms with the fact that I would likely never be pregnant. But that didn't mean I couldn't be a mother. And in less than 90 days, I was! He knew that for my own good, for my son, for his birthmother, for all of us, that THIS was the best for all of us and made it happen. What a sight, to have our little family, friends, Isaac and his birthmother gathered around the font for his first adoption by Baptism into God's family and celebrating the ways God has blessed us all in Christ through Isaac.
As for Snowflakes, they are a non-profit organization and are basically doing things as an adoption agency, even though there are no laws on the books now to regulateembryo adoption. It would appear that a lot of the costs involved are with the medical end of things. Storage, transfering, legal issues, labs, etc. It doesn't look like they make very much at all on these. I'm taking a wild guess that you're from Canada ("programme" was the clue, having spent 10 years married to a Canadian). Most insurance plans don't cover IVF (I don't know if the health plans up there do or not), nor would they cover the expenses involved with embryo adoption, so these would be out-of-pocket costs.
|
Posted On: January 13th, 2006 at 11:45pm by Walter Snyder [ + ] |
Hey, dear heart. Why don't you go over to prolifeblogs.com and get yourself listed on their blogroll? For the cost of a reciprocal link, you'll have a much wider audience exposed to your excellent offerings on various life subjects.
|
Posted On: February 27th, 2006 at 5:40pm by Orycteropus Afer [ + ] |
Hey, it's an Aardie for Madre.
|
Posted On: March 01st, 2006 at 8:53am by Lora Horn [ + ] |
Ms Pickled Eggs wrote:
They charge a minimum of just under $7000, non of which goes to the genetic 'parents'. I'd say that's a pretty big profit margin. Not all that Christian, IMO.
I would have to say that is not an assumption that I can make just from the sheer amount itself. I would have to look at the cost. When my reproductive endocrinologist was trying to talk me into IVF (despite the fact that when I actually could conceive, I couldn't stop miscarrying), using a non-related embryo was one of the options that he provided, and it was expensive.
First of all, is $7000 just the cost of the embryo, and not for the transfer also? How much did it cost them to acquire the embryos (REs don't usually just dump them out after a while, and there possibly is cost to locate the gamete donors)? How much does it cost them to preserve them until they can be transferred? What are their operating costs to maintain facilities, keep qualified workers on staff, to maintain training for such staff, legal costs, advertising costs so that people know about them? How many transfers do they do to spread out over their operating costs?
I don't have the answers to these questions, the website is down....but these are all things that need to be considered in the cost. I certainly don't expect them to do the whole procedure for $50.00
Thank you, Madre for continually referring to an embryo as a very young baby....not a consumer product like a pack of seeds that might sprout into a carrot or a morning glory in the end.
Lora - with three very young babies in Heaven and two growing children on earth
|
Posted On: March 17th, 2006 at 5:37pm by Rev. Richard Zeile [ + ] |
Thank you for your thoughts on this sensitive subject. I agree with most of what you write and my only reservation is that I am not entirely certain that I comprehend the entire subject. But what I really am concerned with is the desires of the heart. The story of Thumbilina took on a new power for me after one of my sisters adopted a child and became a single mother. I had counseled her against it, on the grounds of both her strength (count the cost!) and that a child really deserves a whole family. I guess I supported the philosophy of those adoption agencies that seek to place children in optimal situations. But my sister reasoned that she could love a child and provide a home better than many. And I am aware of many broken individuals whose hopes of a normal family life, that is of having people around you love and whom you love, is pretty dim.
Infertle couples face many issues that tempt them to go the immoral path on reproductive issues. Some are infertle due to earlier sexual sin. Some are infertle due to earlier choices made which they repent of now. Some have expectations of the child/relationahip/experience which I am not sure can ever be met (just as in getting married).
I recently saw an interview of the Saginaw man who is contesting child support on the grounds that he had no reproductive choice (i.e. abortion option) as the mother did. His lawyer kept claiming that mere biology does not make him the father of this child, and that "when he chooses to become a father he will make a good one."
God needs to straighten out our thinking on these questions...
|
Comment on entry entitled "Baby, It's Cold Inside..."
|
|
|
|
