I don't know why Nadya Suleman opted for single, poverty-stricken motherhood on steroids, pun intended, undergoing the in vitro fertilization procedure several times to produce 14 children since 2001. The last eight were born Jan. 26....
But in one fell swoop Suleman has spotlighted problems with unregulated IVF and turned public opinion against unregulated IVF.
Now is the time for pro-lifers to introduce legislation in their states regulating IVF and with it regulating the creation and care of embryos.
There is perfect model language, introduced in the Georgia Senate last week, The Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act, SB169.
SB169 limits the number of embryos implanted to the same number fertilized, up to a maximum of 3, which will stop the practice of freezing human embryos and curtail selective reductions.
The bill defines ex utero embryos as human beings with inherent rights, so court disputes must be decided in the best interest of the embryo, not either parent fighting over the embryo.
SB169 goes much further, outlawing all forms of human cloning, creation of chimeras, etc. David Prentice of the Family Research Council has endorsed SB 169.
Importantly, the wording of SB169 attempts to take Catholic concerns about IVF into account. Crafters are hoping for the endorsement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, even today....
Continue reading my column today, "Octomom's gift to the pro-life movement," at WorldNetDaily.com.
I see a problem. The reason for the excess embryos is reliability - make a few more than needed, and just implant the best ones. If US clinics can't do that, they can't provide as good a treatment as overseas clinics - their success rate will be lower. Given the expense and inconvenience of IVF treatment, I imagine this would just result in a lot of people traveling overseas to seek the clinics with the highest birth percentages.
The same will happen with the research bans - it'll just send research overseas.
Sorry, they'd have to skip Europe in their quest, which already has IVF regulations in place.
Suri,
What you say is true--the reason they fertilize many is due to cost, and people will travel overseas for lower prices per chance. However, it is just and correct to regulate it, as the practice itself is wrong. It is wrong to freeze human beings, it is wrong to delete human beings. Making it more costly and more difficult to obtain is a deterrent. Also, maybe if the U.S. and Britain team up, they can convince the UN of the horror of freezing children, and shut out the practice elsewhere.
I’m in my early 30s, grew up Catholic and worked for the Catholic Church. I continue to pay for COBRA benefits while now working for a different nonprofit. I pay $446 per month for health insurance which covers no infertility diagnosis or treatment. Being one of a large family myself, it is devastating to be unable to become pregnant again naturally. I had never taken birth control pills before beginning treatment for infertility. How many obese, diabetic, alcoholic or otherwise unhealthy people am I supporting monthly by my health insurance payment, many whose health problems are their own fault? I have no other regular medical needs, save periodic eye exams.
I have read about Catholics advocating for the Creighton Model System of natural family planning for treating infertility. What answer does natural family planning offer to men who lack vas deferens or women with fallopian tube damage? Until the Catholic Church comes out in full force in support of funding for research in reproductive organ transplant (not including ovaries or testes) the general public can assume The Church is not serious about supporting natural family planning for those who have reproductive challenges that prevent them from conceiving through sexual intercourse.
The Catholic Church response to families experiencing infertility has turned me away from the Catholic Church, in that it is so willing to advocate funding (private and public) for everyone else's children's needs, regardless of how many they have, how fit they are to act as parents, or whether they are contributing to providing for their own families, but I have been told in person by a prominent Catholic bioethicist that to conceive children through IVF is a grave evil, a sin for which I'd have to make a good confession. (Then, assumedly, all would be forgiven, seemingly on par with repentant women confessing to aborting their child). “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. I have procreated with my spouse using the two embryos we created. And I'm actually happy about it.” Does that sound Christlike?
It is hilarious to read about how many Catholics are ignorant about IVF and believe that for any couple to undergo the procedure at least one embryo must be destroyed. And how many Catholics willingly give up the possibility of becoming biological parents, to follow “Church teaching” while how many others undergo IVF or other unnatural procedures but still fill the pews on Sunday? (I have close experiences with families in both categories). Reading public opinion about IVF regulation and adopting guidelines similar to those for parents seeking to adopt, I truly wonder whether the adoption industry feels threatened by infertile couples being able at last to procreate, and whether taxpayers fear that if infertile couples are helped to become parents, then taxpayers will end up footing more expenses for children in the foster care system who otherwise might have been adopted by infertile couples.
Isn’t it illogical that the Catholic Church would prefer me to adopt frozen embryos that have no biological connection to my son and his father, over creating embryos that would be our biological offspring? Why should any Catholic that might need IVF to procreate be stigmatized and told their only moral options are to adopt someone else’s child, whether born or in embryo state? Isn’t that akin to punishing the infertile for the irresponsibility of other parents who created more embryos, or children, than they could, or would, provide for as parents? If Catholics are so gravely concerned about all the embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen, why isn’t the Church recruiting Catholic women by the thousands to donate womb space to bring these embryos to life as infants? How many Catholic husbands would support their wives’ selfless decision to become surrogate mothers to these life-suspended embryos? And then who will raise all these babies?
If the U.S. government wants to regulate how many embryos are implanted in each IVF cycle, they should mandate that all private insurance cover the procedure. I find it amusing to read about people advocating for mental health screening of women undergoing IVF but I’ve read no one suggesting mental health screening for all women, regardless of current number of children, marriage status or income, before they chose to become pregnant. Truly, doesn’t all reproduction represent a facet of narcissism, whether parents have one or fourteen children?
While we have our hope and change president in office, I hope he acknowledges, along with the thousands of women seeking to destroy their fetuses, the thousands of women and men in this country that could become loving, self-sufficient parents, and would only create embryos that they would transfer to the womb for a chance at life, but who lack $12,000 to randomly spend on repeated IVF cycles. Having worked for years advocating for the rights of the poor, and thus finding myself primarily in that income bracket, I have become more and more cynical about our country and how public funds reward irresponsible behavior, with women, and men, knowing they can naturally procreate on the governments’ dime without having to seek permission from anyone. (And how many government jobs are built upon people making poor choices, such as social workers and prison staff? How many more teachers could countries employ if they didn't have to pay for staff at welfare offices and prisons?)
Personally, I think a new parent needing government assistance should have the right to choose guaranteed childcare over guaranteed housing and food, as with stable childcare, a parent prioritizes their child’s physical and developmental needs and stability over the parent’s comfort. And, we assume, most parents had something to eat, and somewhere to lie at night, before they became parents. For just one example of benefits abuse, check out the Times UK article February 14, Obama Warned Over Welfare Spendathon:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5733499.ece
"In Wisconsin, the state that forged a pioneering path in welfare reforms in the 1990s, residents were astonished by a newspaper investigation that disclosed that a $340m (£236m) programme offering taxpayer-financed child care to low-income working parents was riddled with fraud and expensive loopholes.
In one case, a family of four sisters who had 17 children between them put all of them together, took it in turns to babysit them and over the past three years claimed $540,000 (£374,000) in perfectly legal state childcare subsidies."
"Perfectly legal" for taxpayer funds to pay low-income women to stay at home with their own children. How many mothers in two-parent households would love to stay at home with their own children but must actually work outside the home to help provide for their families?
While the Nadya Suleman case in many respects is tragic, it does bring to glaring light the desperation of women, even those of low-income, to become mothers through such an expensive procedure, and the reality of the basic injustice shown by those who advocate for taxpayer funding of abortions but not taxpayer funding of fertility treatments for women that meet certain basic requirements for health and income.
"Also, maybe if the U.S. and Britain team up, they can convince the UN of the horror of freezing children, and shut out the practice elsewhere."
When Hell, like the embryos in question, freezes over.
You probably want to be *very* careful about discouraging freezing though... the alternatives are usually destroying or sending to be used for research.
I've never met a person so infertile that they couldn't conceive of adopting a child.
LJ - Please offer more context.
THANK YOU Jill as always! I often think of you, because of your words on Pres Obama (still can't believe I 'have' to say those words). People needed to listen! He is very cold. All you anyone had to hear was his words on 'it's above my pay grade.' I just said to my mother today, the words one has for him are not fit for polite company. Yet he is forced upon people (and babies) who did not vote for him. I agree 100 % on this misled woman. I believe she has understood, as only a mother can, what has been done to her children. People think she lives in a fantasy land? Then how is she the only one in her world to realize what she did to her children when they were frozen? on Dr Phil, her searing honest and honest appraisal of what she had done to them before 'implantation' was what I think will be a LANDMARK in this country. Just today I was thinking of how SHE and her CHILDREN NEED to be adopted by the pro-life movement in a big way. Yes, perhaps she endangered herself in a serious way, and her children, but the only thing acceptable so such a mother would be someone else adopting the frozen embryos. I think she has much to confront in herself, but so do we. I try to tell people all the time that IVF is TERRIBLE if you say you love children! You're killing MANY!!! WOmen really don't understand, or care. This warm-hearted woman does. I grew up in a LARGE family. I know what it's like to have a lot of kids around - the work. I think that she as an only child really does not. What I do think is sad is that she could not find a man to love, to work things out the right way. THAT needs to be addressed in our crazy sex-starved society. IT IS HARD TO FIND GOOD MEN. Traditional men. Finally, if this were Oprah who had been married (or single, hey she's Oprah), and gave birth to 8 children - wouldn't everyone want to be in on it? She's being punished for giving birth to live children! One shudders at the way the word 'reduction' is thrown around. GOD BLESS.
I get SO upset when I think about this freezing stuff. It CANNOT be good. IVF should never have been allowed to be legal, I think. I remember the 'first test tube baby.'
CL, have you seen Dr Hilgers' site? I believe he can help repair some fallopian tubes. Or endo can be removed if that's the problem. Sorry if I am wrong. But I do understand your pain. In some ways. Pray for those who are so misguided and for our insane world.
I think the site is naprotechnology.com
There are other NFP surgeons, such as Dr Stegman in PA and Dr Yeung in NC.
By the way, it is NOT illogical in any way - re your statement 'Isn’t it illogical that the Catholic Church would prefer me to adopt frozen embryos that have no biological connection to my son and his father, over creating embryos that would be our biological offspring?'
Do you understand the Church theology on children being created out of love? Do you want to affect your marriage, your body, in such a way with intent, knowing that creating a child in this way is wrong? Any child is a gift from God, but in some ways, it's akin to rape. If a man wants a child, he is not supposed to go out and rape a woman. Or vice versa.
yet children are conceived through rape or incest or one night stands or anything that does not resemble the loving ideal act in marriage. A woman who gives birth to a child who was not perhaps conceived in an act of love and then offers the child to a couple for adoption is would be similar to your adopting 'frozen' embryos. She is saving a life.
Dr Phil said sometimes you take a situation that is not right and you make it right. There is no moral evil in anyone adopting a 'frozen' baby and giving birth to the baby. You are making it right by saving the child's life.
It is not illogical for the Church to see the difference and to point it out. A child is not a commodity. If a married couple set out to 'create' a child in a lab - what have you done to the child? What was their intent?
Finally, sadly, Oprah herself has pointed out (and as a doctor pointed out on the radio today), that IVF babies have more health problems. This is a scary thing. IVF should be illegal, but at the least far more regulated. This situation has really brought serious problems out into the open. Every person who has tsked tsked over this mother needs to realize she didn't do anything illegal. And many IVF goings on operate in a shady world. It is a HUGE money making world, as I have found when going to RE's for certain health problems.
And THAT is why it is wrong for Catholics to get involved in that sinful world. Even the idea of IVF affects peoples' decisions, because they put off having a baby (as they contracept and save up money) because somewhere in the back of their mind they 'can always do IVF.'
Many women have endo, and instead of going to a doctor who can help with excision surgery, they go straight to IVF. Sacrificing the lives of their children in the process, because endo is affecting the 'success' of the ' pregnancy.'
Finally, a pet peeve is when people call the unborn baby 'it.' He or she is a he or she. When people use the word 'it,' it dehumanizes the child. I am not an 'it,' nor is the unborn child.
(and what the heck do people think anyway, that this embryo 'can become' human? I have heard that!! I mean seriously....What do people like Celine Dion think, as they go to perform in concert after concernt, and leave a frozen child somewhere? And all the while talk about how happy they are to have the one child, and might one day want to have another one? What is happening with the world?!)
Would it be considered God's will for a woman to become infertile through an act of rape? What about the Catholic women who do not have thousands to spend, out of pocket (as no insurance through a Catholic organization will fund infertility diagnosis, much less treatment), seeking out NFP doctors out of state and taking off weeks or even months of work to relocate to where they are to have their infertility diagnosed? What if they are counseled by their local RE o have their fallopian tubes removed, to prevent tubal pregnancy were they to undergo IVF? Once again, it is low-income women who suffer here. Does the Catholic Church refuse to support lung transplants for smokers who, say, made the decision to smoke? Of course they don’t. And the risks of smoking are well-known. Yet the Catholic Church is not at the forefront of reproductive organ transplant to restore fertility for those whose organs are damaged by genetics or environment.
I’m sorry to have such trouble understanding how the Catholic Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions – literally have innocent life ripped out of them – and welcome them back to church, and whomever they choose to bring with them (current spouse, children who may never know about their murdered sibling), yet one of the Catholic Church’s prominent bioethicists tells me my siblings who with their spouses have a number of children through IVF, utilizing all the embryos they created, have committed “a grave evil” and need to make a “good confession”. Forgive the murderers and pedophiles and self-sterilizers and welcome them back into the fold. In the broader picture, where is the pro-life uproar over starving children in Africa? Does the Catholic Church have a well-recognized NFP presence in third world countries? Is it God’s will that destitute parents continue to procreate and divide the precious few resources they have to feed more new babies? Why aren’t they being investigated for child abuse if they can’t even feed their own children? Why don’t international authorities remove those children from their homes and redistribute them to people with financial resources?
And, on the snowflake situation end, what is to keep a couple from creating dozens of embryos solely for the selfish purpose of placing them up for adoption? Where does the line of narcissism get drawn? If we understand Suleman’s situation as media has reported it, she transferred 36 embryos, of which 14 grew into children. On record she said she has given a chance at life to all embryos she created. Wouldn’t it seem like the Catholic Church, in promoting embryo adoption, may also encourage future embryo creators to attempt to create, and donate, as many as they can for purposes of spreading their own DNA further than the amount of children they themselves want to raise and financially support?
"LJ - Please offer more context."
Put it in the context of an orphan. While obsessed wanna be parents persue a child by means of endless medical manipulations, hundreds of thousands of orphans go unwanted.
That makes sense. But why lay the responsibility for adopting orphans solely on couples experiencing infertility? Why not recruit naturally fertile couples to forgo having their own biological children to instead adopt orphans? Wouldn't that reflect the most selfless option of all? It would seem from your post that you have adopted children yourself, which is absolutely a noble choice.
One reason it is so easy for the Catholic Church to advocate infertile Catholics adopt instead of having their own children is that so many children, born or suspended in liquid nitrogen, are available for adoption. If the supply of available children was depleted, would it still be so easy for the Catholic Church to deny infertile Catholic couples their own biological children?
Has any Diocese in the United States taken it upon itself to recruit Catholic women to donate their womb space to bring unwanted frozen embryos to life?
"But why lay the responsibility for adopting orphans solely on couples experiencing infertility?"
I didn't do that. Adoption should be widely encouraged, not just among infertile couples.