tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19806725607037010352024-03-07T13:14:39.999-05:00Children Have Rights - Say No to Repro Tech"The child...shall have the right from birth...as far as possible...to know and be cared for by his or her parents."
(Article 7, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-34898190592830277782014-12-19T23:25:00.002-05:002014-12-19T23:26:22.164-05:00Closing TimeI am once again officially closing this blog, as I do not have time to devote to this project at present. Thank you for reading and commenting. Sorry not to respond to your comments, but please let the debate continue.<span class="fullpost"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-40487259479197634622013-10-15T01:20:00.001-05:002013-10-15T01:24:09.269-05:00The Pain of Those Affected Is Too Much to BearHave you ever read <a href="http://dearhiccup.livejournal.com/">Dear Hiccup's Journal</a>? It is an online journal from a surro mom to her son, whom she gave up shortly after his birth. I have never read a more heart-rendering account than this. All surrogates, especially you traditional ones, read this and weep! This will be you if you don't turn back now. The woman who keeps this journal has been at it for 8 years. And each year her entries have been just as heartbreaking. Here is a piece of her latest post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;">8 years ago, in these
hours, like tonight.. I was asking myself "How in the world will I live
without this boy in my life every day?" Those hours after you were born
were some of the best and worst of my entire life. I loved you so
fiercely. I felt so protective over you. I needed you. I wanted you. I
needed you.. But.. I knew I had to let you go. I knew that my heart was
going to break, my soul was going to be hundreds and hundreds of miles
away.. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;">...I don't know what you like, what you don't like. I don't
know what you love, or what you are afraid of. I don't know your touch,
or your voice, or your smell.. Oh, but how I know you. I know the feel
of your soft hair against my cheek. I know the feel of your limbs when
you were tiny, thumping against my heart. I know the sound of your
newborn whimpers.. and the feel of your bum beneath my hand, your heart
against my heart. Is this enough? It has to be, for me.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #073763;">...I
love you so fiercely.. today. Just as much as I did as you grew in my
belly.. and you emerged from my body into my arms, into my life. I'll
love you this way, and even more and more.. as the day goes by. May your
8th year be as amazing as the short few before.</span></span></span></blockquote>
She started the journal a month before he was born, while her unborn baby was still hiccuping merrily in her pregnant belly. Her love for him was already evident; she obviously fell for her unborn baby, as any mother naturally does and should, while he was still hidden from the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
She doesn't ever spell out her circumstances, but I strongly suspect that she was a traditional surrogate, and that the baby was her own biological son - at one point she refers to the fact that on photographs, he inherited her lips and her smile - clearly a genetic connection:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica; font-size: small;">I got a picture of your
smile. My gosh, you have a beautiful smile. I can't help but look at
your mouth and notice we share the same lips. My lips have always been
my favorite characteristic of myself and I am very proud to pass them on
to you. My aunt always used to tell me that I should go into lipstick
modeling. I guess you're lucky!</span></span></blockquote>
It also seems from some of her references that the father of the baby was, as is typical, the commissioning Dad (she most likely conceived either through sperm injection or IVF).<br />
<br />
Further, some of her early posts mention the fact that this surro already has two of her own sons, one of whom was 8 years old about the time when the baby was born. Interesting, because surrogate providers tend to look for women with children to be potential surrogates (often, having existing children is a requirement for would-be surrogates). Perhaps this is because of the fear that surrogates would bond too strongly with first-time babies, and the expectation that their bond with later babies may be weaker due to the fact that they already have their own babies at home. Well, this blog obviously shatters that view, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
It's evident that as her due date approached, this poor woman felt a great love for her unborn son swelling up within her. She struggled with her feelings, and a big part of her wanted to keep him. And yet, the ball that had been set in motion by this awkward and painful situation proved to be too heavy for her to stop, and despite her mountain of doubts she couldn't stop herself from proceeding with the plan to give him up to the commissioning couple.<br />
<br />
Surely, a big part of the problem was the fact that the newborn son's commissioning father was in fact his biodad, who was married to the commissioning Mother, and with whom the surrogate had no relationship. The surrogate's memory of the moment she gave away her son after his birth is almost too much to bear:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-size: small;">I thought about sitting on the bed with you while your mommy
and daddy waited for me to come out of that room. I was remembering the
words I told you.. the words I whispered in your ear that evening. I
said "I love you, baby. I love you so much. I'm sorry that I brought you
into this mess and I hope you forgive me." Then I said.. "We did it,
sweetheart. I know it was hard, but we did it." Then I kissed your soft
little forehead and stood up.. as ready as I could ever be to give you
up.<br /><br />I was thinking, last night, about opening that door.. and how
your mommy and daddy's hearts must have jumped in their chests. I was
thinking about the tears streaming down my face and the sobs filling my
body as I hugged your mommy first, still holding you to my heart.. I
told your mommy and daddy that they weren't sad tears I was crying, but
they were happy. I lied. They were tears so full of sadness and emotion
that no words could ever describe them. I cried for you, I cried for me,
and I cried for our family.<br /><br />I hugged your daddy and he cried
against my shoulder, feeling you to his heart at the same time I felt
you to mine. We shared a connection there that will never be forgotten.
Then I handed you to him. I put thought into who I would give you to
when I walked away.<br /><br />I decided to place you in your daddy's arms
because as much as I love your mommy, I brought you into the world for
him, for your daddy. The gift I gave was to him. Together, you and I...
we made his dreams come true.<br /><br />I hope he does the same some day and allows you to come back to me.</span></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
Another part of the problem was evidently the brainwashing she had undergone, whereby she believed in the need to be altruistic and help a needy infertile couple by surrendering her own child to them, because after all, they had wanted a baby for so long, they had gone this far, and this baby would not exist if it weren't for their commissioning it. She writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica; font-size: small;">Today is supposed to be
the day that you and I become legally separated, but I know it's not
going to happen today, but has been put off for a short time.<br /><br />...It's something that I would love to fight and remain your mother
forever, but I'm so confused as to if it's the right thing to do or not.
Do I fight the termination and allow you to remain there with Daddy and
Mommy Jo or do I try to keep my rights so I am forever your mommy?</span></span> <br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica; font-size: small;">...But, sweet love, I don't want you to hate me when you grow
older. I don't want you to feel like I sold you or gave you away for
money or that money was more important to me than my son. Such is not
the case. If it would work, I would give them every penny back and bring
you home with me, but that is not the right thing to do.</span></span></blockquote>
Yet another part of the problem was probably her fear of the fury that would be unleashed were she to buck the anticipated course of events.<br />
<br />
She obviously felt bad about the whole arrangement even as she was in the process of giving up her son, writing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-size: small;">"<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;">I'm so angry with myself, little boy. I'm so mad that I put us into this situation and set us.. or myself.. up for so much pain."</span></span></span> </blockquote>
What a terrible agony crying all the way up to heaven! A mother groaning for her son, whom she gave up in a moment of misguided altruism to infertile strangers. The poor woman! The poor son!<br />
<br />
For one thing, she had no right to give him up. She didn't know that of course. She didn't do it with bad intent; on the contrary. Nonetheless the fact remains that she had no right. He wasn't hers to give up!<br />
<br />
Belonging is not a one-way street. Her son belonged to her, just as much as she belonged to him! She has a right to be his mother. He has a right to be her son. Even if she signed away her right to be his mother, he still has a right to be her son! He has not consented to being given away!<br />
<br />
His rights were violated in all this, and he is as much of a loser as his tragic mother. She moans and weeps for her lost son, she can't move on with her life because she misses him and feels incomplete. Well, how is he supposed to feel, having been robbed of his own mother?<br />
<br />
Once again I am reminded of the blog post I once came across by Serra at umbilicly challenged. I reproduced it on my blog, which was a good thing because it has since disappeared from cyberspace. But here it is, <a href="http://childrenhaverights-saynotoreprotech.blogspot.ca/2007/01/another-young-woman-mourns-for-her.html">as found in my old post</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h3 class="post-title">
<span style="color: #073763;">A Grief not allowed </span></h3>
<span style="color: #073763;">
I am very sad
today, with a grief that is not talked about. It is not allowed. Because
I had two loving parents. I am not granted asylum. I am not allowed
reprieve. Well...what the fuck are you complainin' about ?? You got
everything you wanted. You had so many presents at Christmas and your
birthday that it was supposed to buy your happiness. You were supposed
to forget about your mother. You had everything. Why would you want
more? WE GAVE YOU EVERYTHING.<br /><br /><b>I had everything....everything but my mother. You just can't fix that. Sorry.</b></span></blockquote>
Words are not enough, are they. There is so much pain and grief here on both sides of the equation. The mother's cries rise to the skies with unrelenting agony. The child is left with a deep-seated grief that it is not supposed to feel, that is not allowed to be manifested in its happy life with benevolent strangers.<br />
<br />
Never, ever,<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">never, ever,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">never, ever</span><br />
give your own child away. <br />
<span class="fullpost"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-8650865923457324062013-09-17T00:42:00.003-05:002013-09-17T00:52:08.768-05:00Thanks Olivia! The End of Anonymous Sperm Donation in British Columbia While this blog was sleeping, on May 19, 2011, the ground shook in British Columbia. Not literally, though there is a risk of earthquakes there. This time the earthquake came in the form of a judgement by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, striking down the provincial legislation that had protected donor anonymity.<br />
<br />
The lawsuit had been brought by Olivia Pratten, about whom I have written here before - a young Canadian woman who had long sought in vain to find her anonymous sperm donor father. Olivia went to NYU and got a law degree, and she came back to Canada with the torch ablaze, ready to torch our antiquated laws through her luminous lawsuit. Thankfully the judge heard and listened, and agreed. Here is the <a href="http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/06/2011BCSC0656cor1.htm">wonderful, detailed verdict.</a><br />
<br />
The verdict lists mounds of research, expert testimony and personal stories, all of which build a very convincing case against anonymous donor conception. To any person who is considering anonymous donor conception to build their family: please read the verdict above and consider the evidence! <br />
<br />
In fact, if you read between the lines, this verdict makes a very convincing case for ending donor conception altogether.<br />
<span class="fullpost"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-58552508082006339982013-08-30T08:53:00.000-05:002013-09-17T00:14:41.576-05:00Let's Roll! The Blog is BackDear Readers,<br />
<br />
Thank you for your patience. This blog has received thousands of visits over the last four years of inaction, and the comments have continued to trickle in. And now, after a four-year pause this blog is ready to roll again!<br />
<br />
I am back from my "mat leave" of sorts, and ready to continue our discussion about everything Repro Tech related and the rights of the child. Over the last four years, things in the the area of reproductive technologies have gone still further downhill and there is so much to comment on.<br />
<br />
Over the next few weeks and months I will also be reviewing, updating and editing/adding the links on this blog, many of which are now dated. I will also be performing other changes to the blog to bring it up to speed. Please bear with me as this blog undergoes a needed renovation and updating. <br />
<br />
Keep an eye out for upcoming posts!<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-30671450330691243952009-11-07T19:37:00.000-05:002009-11-07T19:38:46.779-05:00Blog UpdateFor the time being, this blog is on hiatus, as I am not able to devote much time to it at present. I am still very interested in the issues, and expect to return to this blog in the future. Thank you for visiting!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-62723559438562646712009-02-18T09:16:00.003-05:002009-02-18T09:23:08.828-05:00IVF Children are a Living ExperimentAn <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/health/17ivf.html?emc=eta1">article in the New York Times </a>on Monday admits that children conceived with IVF are basically living human experiments. Scientists suspect that embryos that have developed in petri dishes are slightly different in some ways from embryos that develop in the womb, but they are still working out the specifics. They have some indications that IVF embryos are more likely to have certain genetic diseases and developmental problems. but they still need more data. The article says: <br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"></span><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);">"following babies born after IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not easy. And if problems emerge from epigenetic changes, they may not be apparent until adulthood or middle or old age."</span></blockquote>In other words, if you're an IVF child, then you are a walking human experiment. Scientists are waiting to see what will happen to you as you get older, so that they can complete their data collections on the effects of IVF on people.<br /><br />Sounds really ethical, doesn't it?<br />.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-42551913143540705192009-02-11T15:24:00.004-05:002009-02-11T16:01:42.277-05:00Somerville says that Adoption and Donor Conception Are Two Birds of a FeatherA <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Health/Examining+society+role/1275699/story.html">great article by Margaret Somerville</a> in today's <span style="font-style: italic;">Ottawa Citizen</span>, the daily newspaper of Canada's capital city.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the article is when she writes:<br /><p></p><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><p>First, we need to distinguish between natural conception and conception where there is reliance on technology. It is one matter, ethically, not to interfere with a person's decisions regarding conceiving a child when that is a purely personal and private decision as it is with natural conception; it's quite another when society provides its resources to facilitate that outcome and the institution of medicine is involved.</p><p>With rare exceptions, such as the prohibition on incest or under-age sexual relations, when natural conception unassisted by technology is involved, personal autonomy and personal and family privacy must be given priority. In short, as Pierre Trudeau famously said, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."</p>When technology is involved in conceiving a child, we are, however, not in the bedrooms of the nation, but the laboratories, hospitals and clinics of the nation. And the creation of new human life is not an outcome of private love-making, but of actions undertaken by health-care professionals using research and facilities paid for with taxpayers' money. That means the state has ethical obligations, in particular, to ensure the protection and wellbeing of the future children who will result from those activities.</blockquote>I like the distinction that Somerville makes between natural conception and ART conception. Of course, infertile couples and others who "need" ART will gripe here - it's "not fair" that they should be singled out in this way for more government regulation in their so-called "private" childbearing decisions, when all those fertile bunnies get the government to turn a blind eye to their often irresponsible childbearing behavior. Treating donor-gamete childbearing like adoption may seem like yet another slap in the face for the long-suffering infertile couples, yet another indignity to be borne simply because they can't reproduce naturally.<br /><br />That kind of objection makes some sense, admittedly, on an emotional level - no, it's not entirely "fair" that the fertile and infertile should be treated differently in terms of childbearing. But unfortunately, life is rarely fair (to begin with, it's not fair that some people should be fertile and others not). And infertile people are treated differently when it comes to adoption too - fertile couples who reproduce naturally don't have to prove to the government that they will be good parents, while infertile couples who try for children through adoption have to undergo home studies, etc., and prove that they will be good parents. Is it really "fair"? Maybe not, but who will argue that it should be otherwise? Who will argue that those who apply for adoption should be given the green light without any kind of investigation into their fitness as parents? It's obvious that focusing only on the fairness aspect is very limiting, inadequate and self-centered. After all, isn't the main point supposed to be, as Somerville points out, the "best interests" of the child?<br /><br />Somerville is entirely right to point out the glaring similarities between adoption and donor-gamete conception (which is, in effect, a form of adoption). This is why she writes:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);">At the least, especially when the future child will not be genetically related to one or both parents, as happens when donated gametes are used, the conditions for having access to reproductive technologies should not be any less demanding than those for adoption.</blockquote>I can't say I entirely agree with Somerville, only to the extent that I think donor conception should be outlawed entirely. In my opinion, despite the similarities between adoption and donor conception, there's a very big and fundamental difference between there two which Somerville has chosen to leave out of her analysis, at least for the time being. This is the central issue of INTENTIONALITY.<br /><br />It's one thing for the state to allow adoption as a way to help a child that is already existing and in need. It's a completely different thing for the state to allow the creation of a child who will be permanently separated from one or both genetic parents. The former is an ethically good thing, but the latter is in my opinion a very unethical enterprise - in effect, the state is allowing the manufacture of adoptees - children who will face lifelong struggles due to the fact of their separation from biological parent(s) - merely to satisfy the market demand of childless adults. THAT is where the similarities to adoption come to a screeching halt and frankly, drive right off the cliff.<br />.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-240956897599713392009-02-02T09:32:00.002-05:002009-02-02T10:00:48.412-05:00Octuplets Mother - Single and Obsessed with BabiesAs the glitter begins to settle around the supposedly wonderful story of a California mother named Nadya Suleman delivering octuplets, the story behind the story is beginning to emerge.<br /><br />It turns out that Suleman, at 33 years old, already has 6 children who are under the age of 7. I would congratulate her for that, if she was raising these children responsibly in a marriage with their father. But it also turns out that she is still living at home, unmarried, and she depends on her mother and father to support her and her children.<br /><br />And now, Suleman's own mother has been <a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090131/world/octuplets">interviewed in the media</a> and has revealed that her daughter has never wanted to get married, has always been obsessed with having children, and has had all (now 14) children via IVF using the same sperm donor. What's more, it seems that Suleman may have been paying for the IVF procedures by "donating" her eggs. Now that's a real "Single Mom By Choice"!<br /><br />I find this story an absolutely appaling example of how we have completely lost our minds in this society. Our culture supports adults in becoming so narcissistic and self-centered that the results are absurd, as in this case.<br /><br />For Suleman, having children seems to be similar to collecting pets - some people have a houseful of cats or dogs, but she has decided that her hobby is to breed children. And it's easier breeding children than breeding pets! No need to enter into complicated "stud" arrangements with other pet-owning families. There's no need to seek out a father anymore and enter into real human relationships - human sperm is cheap and available online.<br /><br />Suleman now has 14 children with one man. He is not held responsible for these children in any way simply because he "donated" (read: sold) his sperm away. Suleman also possibly has who knows how many children with other men, the result of her own egg "donations" - and yet she is not held responsible for these other children simply because she sold her own eggs away.<br /><br />Theoretically, there is no limit to Suleman's ability to have children via sperm donation. If she won the lottery tomorrow, she could hire a harem of surrogates and keep popping out her progeny via sperm donation for as long as she could produce viable eggs. Hey, if some sperm donors are known to have produced hundreds of children, why should single mothers by choice be deprived of that delight? These days, polygamy/polyamory is not required if you want to produce dozens and dozens of your own offspring. (and hey, if you can't support them all, there's always mom and dad - or at least social assistance, which Suleman will very likely be applying for very soon. Society can't wait to pay for these progressive results of unlimited "reproductive choice").<br /><br />Who's the big loser here, aside from Suleman's mom and dad? Oh yeah - it's those eight cute "bundles of delight" that are currently spending several weeks in the hospital, having been born premature and fatherless - and of course, their six siblings at home.<br /><br />Unbelievable.<br />.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-77229057332266403192009-01-13T13:30:00.003-05:002009-01-13T13:36:44.321-05:00New Blog by Donor-Conceived AdultsA great new blog has just started. It is called <a href="http://donorconceived.blogspot.com/">Donor-Conceived Perspectives: Voices from the Offspring</a>. Very worth visiting. For all those people who are considering using donor gametes to have children, please read the entries on that blog first, and listen to the voices of the actual children who resulted from donor insemination.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of parents who used donor insemination say: "well, my child is just fine with it! My child is happy!" This new blog is a nice wake-up call. A lot of the parents who say their children are fine with being conceived using donor sperm have children who are toddlers or young kids. But what about when those same children become teenagers? And what about when they become adults? And what about when they have their own children? Nothing in the world can guarantee that your children will be happy/okay about being donor-conceived for their entire lives. Even when they were previously happy or not interested in their origins, something can trigger a deeper reflection for them and cause them to start mourning their biological father (see the entry by Damien Adams).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-41270458929853022632008-11-20T15:49:00.003-05:002008-11-20T15:52:34.465-05:00Another cry of painJo Rose, a 36-year-old donor-conceived woman, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/14/family-genetics">writes of her pain</a> of not knowing who her biological father is. She asks a very good question:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">It's not that I don't feel for people who have fertility issues. If people genuinely want to have a child and can't, that is tragic. But on the other hand, should you have a right to access somebody else's reproductive capacity without even knowing them, and with no thought for the identity of the human being who is produced?</blockquote>She also points out the hypocritical double standard of donor conception:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">One of the most upsetting things for me about the way I was brought into the world is the blatant double standard involved. My mother's need to have a genetic link to her child was valued, while my need to know, love and understand the father with whom I have a genetic link was not.</blockquote>Thanks for speaking up, Jo Rose.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-20188606930023959402008-10-30T14:25:00.003-05:002008-10-30T14:30:02.459-05:00Baby NewsWell, I am happy to report that the reason why I have not been blogging much lately is because my surgery this summer has been successful. My husband and I are now expecting! It was a happy surprise for both of us, as we were not given a high probability of success. But here we are, over the moon. So I guess that makes us no longer infertile...but still very concerned about what is happening in the infertility industry.<br /><br />Some more excellent news - on October 24, Olivia Pratten, a donor-conceived Canadian journalist, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of all donor conceived children of that province. She argues that donor anonymity violates these children's fundamental rights, and that they are wrongly treated differently than adopted children, which amounts to discrimination. Go Olivia! This historic lawsuit has already grabbed national headlines, and people are starting to debate the issue once again. Change may finally be coming to Canada!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-48544166532446252142008-08-11T10:49:00.003-05:002008-08-11T11:02:02.927-05:00They're girls? Oh, then we don't want them...A while ago, a news story came out about a British couple of Indian heritage who had just had twin girls. The 72-year old man and the 59-year old woman went through all the trouble of IVF to have babies - but apparently, it was all to have male babies. It turns out the doctors made a booboo, and the babies were girls! So the couple dropped them like hot potatoes right there in the hospital (the exact words in the article: they were not going to "accept" the babies, as if they were just products on offer), and the husband even had the nerve to inquire as to how soon his wife would be ready to go through IVF again to try for boys. (<a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23777134-2,00.html">Read the story here</a>).<br /><br />Now, some may brush this incident off as a mere reflection of ignorant traditional culture that devalues girls. Partly true, but there is more to it. It is also undeniable that the whole process of IVF merely reinforces this kind of mentality, where newborn babies are treated like damaged merchandise based on their characteristics. This is why similar "wrongful birth" incidents are starting to pop up all over the place. In Australia recently, there have been at least two that I recently wrote about, where the parents are upset with the IVF doctors for "messing up" their order and are suing for compensation. Who cares if the characteristic is the gender, or genetic predispositions, or physical characteristics? The point is, IVF has sounded the death knell of unconditional parenal love, an incredibly important foundation for healthy child development.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-29160237545842386872008-03-12T20:37:00.004-05:002008-03-12T20:46:05.148-05:00DI children are speaking - are infertile people listening?DI-conceived Mywfany Walker recently said it very well in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23219950-28737,00.html">an interview for The Australian</a>. She says of the DI-child which does not know its genetic father: "The child does not really know who they are". She also says of her genetic father (whom she eventually found), whose name is Michael:<br /><blockquote>"I know lots of facts about Michael, but I can't really 'know' him until I have a relationship with him."</blockquote>Even though eventually she did find her father and now has a relationship with him, she says: "But there was a massive amount of loss there for me," she says. "There were 20 years I could never reclaim, coupled with the realisation that I could never have the genetic relationship with my own dad."<br /><br />Here is what she says about gamete donation in general:<br /><p></p><blockquote>"Basically my problem is with the ethics of the practice. It doesn't protect the rights of the child. Once people understand the issues they probably wouldn't choose to conceive via donor. And also once the Government is aware of the issues I think they will inevitably either legislate against it or strictly govern its practice, that is, treat it as an adoption....It should be a question of whether it's in the interests of the child," she says. "You can't negate that, you really can't."</blockquote> <p></p> <p> </p> <p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-19606070872608811032008-03-07T10:14:00.006-05:002008-03-16T18:27:51.895-05:00We deserve to be conceived in loveA wonderful new blog has caught my attention (thanks to a comment here by its owner). Lindsay, a donor-conceived young woman has started a blog called <a href="http://cryokidconfessions.blogspot.com/">"Confessions of a cryokid,"</a> and it is an incredibly worthwhile read. She is open and frank, and goes into detail. For all those infertile adults (and other adults) who are considering using donor gametes in their quest to have a child, this blog shoud be compulsory reading.<br /><br />Lindsay begins the blog, appropriately, with her own personal story. I was deeply touched by her description of her own conception:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(102, 0, 204);">"On May 24th, 1984 in a small town in Northeast Ohio I was conceived. There was no candlelit dinner or even conversation between my parents that day. In fact, they had never even met. My father was probably sitting through a college lecture in Georgia and had no idea that 1,000 miles away his own biological daughter was being conceived in a doctor’s office."</blockquote>What a wistfully sad description of the most sacred moment in a person's life, their own beginning. It is obvious even from these three first sentences that this lovely young woman feels a regret that her own, biological parents never loved each other, and never even knew each other. Rather than a loving and special act by her parents, her conception was a mere technical procedure performed in the cold, sterile environment of a doctor's office. There is also an obvious sadness that her own biological father did not even register the fact that his own child was coming into being.<br /><br />The infertility industry may say what it will, but the children speak for themselves. It is clear to me that the human heart longs to be conceived in a special way that, above all, involves love between the biological parents. This is not the first time I have read such descriptions from DI-conceived people. I remember reading something similar from Katrina Clark and from Narelle in Australia. Conception does not necessarily require intentionality by the parents, but where love is missing, where the parents do not even know each other, one feels that the "specialness" of their beginning had been somehow violated. We long to be conceived from love!<br /><br />The infertility industry tries to twist this fact around. They say, "My child was indeed conceived from love, because I loved this child - even before it was conceived!" Of course, they are fighting straw tigers with this argument. The child is not asking that it be loved before it was even conceived. This does not even make sense - after all, how could the parents really love *that* child, before it was even conceived, before they knew who it would be? More truthfully, they loved the idea of having a child, any child, whoever would come into being through their efforts. The fact is, we desire to be conceived from love between our parents, not love "for us" before we are conceived.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-18807588752950270902008-02-21T10:10:00.006-05:002008-02-21T12:19:54.281-05:00Responses VI: 12-13<span style="font-weight: bold;">(12) "Children being put up for adoption are most times very much wanted by their biological parents! Adoption plans are made not because firstparents don't "want" the child but because they feel they cannot give the best care."</span><br /><br />This refers to my saying that I would not adopt a child whose biological parents did want to raise that child - in other words, I would not want to take a child from parents who are willing to raise it!<br /><br />If parents are giving up their child, whom they love and want to raise, only because they "feel they cannot give the best care," then we need to look at why they feel that way. Is it because they don't have the money? Because they don't know how to parent? Because they are too focused on their own lives?<br /><br />Lots of people feel overwhelmed by the needs of a baby. That's not enough reason to give a baby away. There are programs to help parents to feel less overwhelmed - and there should be more of such programs. There are programs to help people with low incomes to be able to raise their children - and there should be more of those programs.<br /><br />Our society should not take children away from their parents marely because the parents are scared of the new responsibility ahead of them. If the fears can be resolved with some concrete assistance, then we should offer the assistance, not take the child away. We should do all we can to help parents raise their own children, because adoption remains in my mind a true second and less perfect solution.<br /><br />There might be a lot less babies up for adoption if we help biological parents in these ways - and in my opinion that is a good thing. Obviously not good for the infertile couples who want to adopt, but again, this is not about them - this is about the children, and what is best for those.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(13) "You presume that ART (repro tech) children are hurt by definition. I don't agree with that view. They exist, whereas they wouldn't have otherwise....I'm sure you could find a Jack or Jill out there who IS happy, though conceived through donor sperm...</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Happiness or unhappiness is not predetermined by the manner of conception alone. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">"</span><br /><br />True, I'm sure lots of DI children are fairly "happy." After all, they are usually loved, "wanted," and given everything they could ever want (except their own biological families). Nonetheless, I do belive that underneath their happiness there is often a deep sadness...a loneliness and a longing to know something they may never be able to know - who they really are. Moreover, a "snapshot" of their happiness at any one point in their lives does not tell the whole story, since the gravity and reality of it "hits" people at different times in their lives, and the same DI-conceived people who are laughing today might be dealing with many DI-related issues tomorrow.<br /><br />More than anything else, though, the happiness that they may experience witnesses to the indestructability of the human spirit and character. Human beings have an incredible ability to bounce back after being beaten down and damaged, don't they? For example, people who survived concentration camps sometimes went on to do great things in their lives - though some also spent the rest of their lives in the shadows, unable to get past the trauma.<br /><br />Ultimately, even if some children/adults are seemingly unaffected by having been born of repro technologies, this does not speak to the ethics of those technologies. We make the best of whatever situation we are given. Children play in the streets even in war-torn countries, and life goes on even in the midst of tragedy. However, that does not mean this is not a tragedy, that it is an injustice, that it is a suffering and a trauma.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-86573905257735360142008-02-20T11:45:00.001-05:002008-02-20T11:47:06.342-05:00Responses V: 10-11<span style="font-weight: bold;">(10) "...since no one elected you 'God', your truth is not THE truth....I am choosing to follow my own truth and am creating my family in a way that my husband and I feel is right for us."</span><br /><br />You: purely subjective viewpoint - everyone has his/her "own" truth - in other words, there is no "truth", since the ethical reality of everything depends on perspective<br /><br />Me: objective viewpoint - there is one truth, and we can't twist reality based on our own desires<br /><br />This is a philosophical debate that could go on for a long time. Is there such a thing as objectively applicable morality, or is ethical truth purely subjective? Is it always wrong to do certain things, or does the morality of an act truly depend on whom you ask?<br /><br />Our culture has lately leaned towards the latter rather than the former. Many people now believe that morality is subjective, and that "you have your truth and I have my truth," and all we really need to do is be "tolerant" of each other and not step on each other's toes.<br /><br />If you beat your wife in your own home, and if that is not unethical in your culture, then all the more power to you, right?<br /><br />Not quite.<br /><br />The problem with the view that morality is subjective, and with the claim that "truth is in the eye of the beholder", is that this view is absolutely nonsensical and cannot stand up in real life. If truth is merely subjective, how could we have laws? The murderer, the thief, the drunk driver, the wife beater, the child molester, the racist, the bigot...these may all claim that in their world, their actions are not wrong. They are simply following "their truth," and it may even be backed up in some cases by their own cultures.<br /><br />So should we just agree to disagree, turn a blind eye and be "tolerant" to their ways? Should we just say that hey, no one elected us God, so who are we to say that they are wrong to do what they are doing? What gives us the right to impose OUR morality on them, when they claim to see things differently?<br /><br />The fact is that life in a civilized society demands the objective viewpoint. By having laws we recognize that ethical rules are objective and must be obeyed by everyone, regardless of their personal "truth." The opposite viewpoint, that truth is purely subjective, would bring us anarchy.<br /><br />Moreover, imagine that kind of world - where everyone humbly "minds their own business" because they are not God, so what right do they have to meddle with the actions of others. Would you want to live in a world like that? In a world like that, no one would stand up for you if you were abused, violated, injured, threatened or attacked, because they would have no "right" to impose their own morality on the aggressor. In a world like that, you would live in utter confusion, because there would be no "truth," no "right," and no "wrong" - anything would go, and there would be no basis for ever saying "no" to anyone. In the end, the winner would be brute force, since rational argumentation would have run out of steam.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(11) "Tell me this, what do you think about donor frozen embryo transfers (FETs)? Those embryos are already made, for better or for worse. Without couples willing to undergo an IVF procedure, they have no other options but to be destroyed or given over to research. It's still "repro tech" but that procedure gives the only option for life in that situation."</span><br /><br />In my opinion, Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) is a good thing as a way to save the lives of the embryos who have been frozen and who are waiting, in effect, to be able to live their lives.<br /><br />That does not mean I support the creation of frozen embryos in the first place. However, once the deed is done, even though it was unethical, it creates a dilemma - lots of frozen little human beings who are not given the chance to live their lives. I've read that by some estimates, there are up to 500,000 of these beings in limbo in clinics in the U.S. What should be done with them?<br /><br />One good solution, in my opinion, is to let them live!<br /><br />For that reason I also strongly support embryo adoption. Those who adopt embryos are giving life to children who would otherwise probably lose their lives. Embryo adoption shares the characteristics of other adoption - it is an act of help towards a child in need - a child that already exists, a child whose problems the adoptive parents did not create but rather, they now want to help alleviate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-57415829272294891872008-02-15T12:04:00.000-05:002008-02-15T12:05:18.387-05:00Responses IV: 8-9<span style="font-weight: bold;">(8) "No one is trying to say that biological parents don't MATTER, just that biology is not ALL that matters and sometimes biological parents can not or choose not to parent their children."</span><br /><br />True, sometimes biological parents simply CANNOT parent their children, and that's certainly always been recognized as a handicap for the children. Foster parenting and adoption has never been seen as a "first best" option for a child that is born into this world. If the biological parents are not abusive and if they have ability and means to raise their own children, then that has always been seen as the preferred alternative.<br /><br />As far as biological parents CHOOSING not to parent their own children, that is a much newer phenomenon - and it is by no means decidedly ethical. Our society and law have traditionally believed that parents couldn't just disregard their parenting responsibilities towards their biological children, whether or not their children were created intentionally. Many people would prefer to just ignore the fact that they've created children, and to have no responsibilities towards these needy little creatures. And yet, our laws go after "deadbeat dads", and men can end up paying child support even when the pregnancy resulted from a one-night stand. Parents also end up paying child support after a divorce, even though many parents would find it more convenient to simply "choose not to" parent their children anymore once the marriage ends.<br /><br />The law has always recognized that parental responsibility is not dependent on the parents and their wishes. It's always been about the children and their RIGHT to be parented and supported by those who created them.<br /><br />However, this age-old law of parental responsibility is now colliding with the new development of gamete "donation", where men and women agree to give up their own biological children before these are ever created. These people are not giving up their own children because they have to, or because they are forced to, or because they are abusive parents. They are doing it simply because they claim this is their autonomous reproductive right. Apparently, "reproductive rights" aren't just about using contraception and having "wanted" children -- they also include the right to create an "unwanted" child in order to give (sell) it away to strangers! The biological parents even claim that just because they do not recognize these "unwanted" biological offspring as their own children, then they are not in fact their children! Now that's a boggling example of "mind over matter" - kind of like the ostrich sticking his head into the sand and thinking the world has disappeared.<br /><br />Of course, the "unwanted" child is given absolutely no say as its real, able and perfectly good parents exercise their "reproductive choice" to give it away to one or two complete biological strangers. It is assumed, expected and even demanded that the child will accept this strange situation as equally good to being raised by its own biological parents. In fact, the child should rejoice at being with these strangers because they "want" the child - whereas its real, biological parent(s) never wanted the child at all.<br /><br />Both in terms of ethics and in terms of rights, there is a universe of difference between parents who CANNOT and parents who CHOOSE NOT to parent their own children. While it has always been recognized that parents sometimes cannot do what they ought, they have never had a right to simply "choose not to" when they could. That's because the children have rights to their own parents, too.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(9) "You will never be affected by my choices so your "opinion" is not relevant in this matter."</span><br /><br />How can you be sure I will never be affected by your choices? In a society where gamete donation is becoming increasingly common, my own life could very well be affected by your actions. Imagine that one day, my child (should we have any) marries a gamete-donation child. My grandchildren won't ever know half of their family tree! Yes, my family could be directly affected by your choices.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-60004113003902737422008-02-14T11:10:00.003-05:002008-02-14T11:13:39.184-05:00Responses III: 5 to 7Thanks to the anonymous comments yesterday. Normally I would answer them in the Comment section but since I am currently making a list of objections and responses in the main Blog, I am answering them here. I can only deal with a couple of arguments a day, so please be patient.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(5) "So I guess you think that I would have been better off with my violently abusive bio father rather than in a home that loved me?"</span><br /><br />No. A child is definitely better off in a home where the child is loved than in a home with an abusive father - biological or non-biological. -- Incidentally, various studies have shown that children are much more likely to be abused by a non-biological father-figure than by a biological father. Yes, biological fathers do sometimes abuse their children, but it is also a fact that men are naturally much LESS inclined to abuse their OWN biological children.<br /><br />This question is certainly important for adoption or foster parenting. Children are better off with adoptive or foster parents than with abusive biological parents.<br /><br />However, when it comes to gamete donation, I fail to see the relevance of this question. When it comes to gamete donation, there is no question of the donor being abusive. In fact, the donors advertised by most sperm banks are exactly the type of men who are very UNlikely to abuse their children. They are often responsible, mature, professional, well-rounded, high achievers, educationally, athletically, socially and financially successful...you name it. Many of them have families of their own and their children are just fine.<br /><br />So in gamete donation, there is no concern of "rescuing" the child from a bad, abusive father. It would be nice if gamete donation were motivated by something so altruistic, but in reality the child would probably have been quite happy with its gamete donor parent. In fact, it might be have been better off than with its "adoptive" replacement parent, who can often be rather less of a "star".<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(6) "As far as children's rights go there are SO more pressing issues to deal with like the many many abused and neglected kids in bio families. I don't get why repro tech is such a focus for you if what you care most about are children's rights. I don't really "get" why you are so focused on reprotech as being such an issue in the midst of today's societal breakdown...You have every right to your opinions, I just fail to see the point of your blog if children's rights are you main cause. ....Isn't divorce a bigger problem than sperm donation??" </span><br /><br />Yes, on the overall scale of things, more children are affected by divorce than sperm donation, and there is definitely a societal breakdown in many important areas that affect children and the family. But people with limited time have to "choose their battles." This is my battle.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(7) "Repro tech is not the problem, lack of basic human kindness, responsibilty, etc., is the much bigger problem."</span><br /><br />The use of reproductive technologies today actually demonstrates and is fuelled by the "much bigger problem" that you mention: the lack of basic human kindness and responsibility. I would also add that the use of reproductive technologies today also shows a deep selfishness, self-centeredness and lack of empathy on the part of many parents, attitudes that continue to be strongly fostered by our materialistic and individualist culture.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-4805207124363590662008-02-13T12:24:00.002-05:002008-02-13T12:26:55.294-05:00Responses IIMy responses to arguments continue:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(3) "I don't think you have the right to tell others that "repro tech" is wrong for anyone who has chosen that path."</span><br /><br />False. That right is called free speech. It would be a sad state of affairs indeed if we could not express our opinion on ethics simply because someone might be "offended," which really means that their feelings could be hurt.<br /><br />Notice, this argument doesn't even try to address whether or not I could be right. Clearly, rationality, logic, ethics and the truth do not matter here. It's all based on protecting the emotions of those who use repro tech. I should not have the right to argue, to even bring up the possibility that someone who uses repro tech could be doing something unethical - not because that is the truth, but because they could be offended and hurt by my words.<br /><br />Well, if you're going to do unethical things then you should not be surprised if someone calls you on it. There IS a right to free speech. But there is NO "right" to have your feelings protected and to have your critics silenced when you do something that is unethical.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(4) "IVF has bio parents raising bio children and in the case of donor gametes many couples are chosing donors who are willing to have contact, similar to open adoption."</span><br /><br />Yes, families who used donor gametes also sometimes choose to have contact with their donors. And indeed, this points out the similarities between donor-conception and adoption. Those who use donor gametes are, in effect, CREATING a child that they will then ADOPT, because the child is NOT naturally, biologically and fully theirs.<br /><br />It is a good development that donor gamete families choose contact with their donors. But WHY did they choose it?<br /><br />These developments, the "open" gamete donation and the "open" adoption, are both fairly recent. For many decades, the collective wisdom was that all links to biological parents should be cut forever. Studies have shown that most donor-gamete children were never even told that they were conceived using a third person's gametes! So the social/ intended parents were not exactly jumping at the chance to have contact with the donor and to have the donor become a part of their lives. The social/intended parents did NOT cause this revolution in "openness." They would have been fine with silence, with just forgetting the whole thing ever happened because these are "their" children now.<br /><br />But over time, the parents realized that their children NEEDED this contact. The children of earlier generations grew up and still felt lost, and needed to search for their missing "halves." They want to have contact with the very biological parents, and families, that were taken away from them by their social/intended parents under the "enlightened" theory that love is all that matters. These children, who always had it drummed into their heads that biology doesn't matter, started logging onto the Donor Sibling Registry and searching for each other and for their biological parents.<br /><br />Why did these "very, very LOVED" children still long to know those darned DNA donors, their biological parents? Why did their yearning cause this shift towards "open" gamete donation? Because the children have shown us that no matter how much they are "loved," their BIOLOGICAL PARENTS MATTER!!!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The very development of "open" gamete donation should show anyone who is considering the use of donor gametes just how important biological parents really are.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-14999224461403866882008-02-12T09:18:00.000-05:002008-02-12T09:21:29.633-05:00Some responses to reader argumentsSome of my recent posts have resulted in a flurry of arguments from those in favor of repro technologies. The permutations of these arguments are quite interesting. I am in favor of rational argument and debate on the facts, not based on emotion - and as such, I wish to deal with each of these arguments seriously. Because there are lots of these arguments, I will answer them in a few subsequent blog entries as well. Today I will start with two of these arguments.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(1) "Save a life? Spare a life? Create a life? What's the difference?"</span><br /><br />The difference is in the INTENTION of those who are saving or creating the life. Intention matters. Where morality and ethics are concerned, intention is king. Intention is often what makes the difference between guilt and innocence - before the law, and in our own conscience too. Most of our criminal law is built around intention. For instance, if you really did not intend to kill someone and it happened accidentally, you get off with manslaughter. If you premeditated it, you get slapped with the 1st degree.<br /><br />When we adopt a child that we did not help to create, we are helping the child. Our intention was not to rip that child away from its biological parents. Our intention is to help a needy little person who is already abandoned by its own biological parents and who needs to be adopted. This is why in some ways adoption is an act of charity, even though the adoptive parents also want a child of their own.<br /><br />On the other hand, when we intentionally create a child who will not know or be raised by its own biological parent(s), we are in effect creating challenges for that child. We are making that child's life more difficult from the outset. We are no longer fully "innocent" in relation to that child's difficult situation. We helped to create that situation. Our action in raising that child can no longer be viewed in any way as an act of charity. Rather, it is clearly an act of our own selfishness: we wanted a child for ourselves, regardless of the negative consequences for the child. We can say to ourselves, "well, who doesn't have difficulties in life?" That is true, but it is also true that WE have created this important difficulty for the child - a difficulty that the child may struggle with for a lifetime, and that will also affect the child's own children and grandchildren.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(2) "I see no difference between IVF and adoption, all though I could make a successful argument that IVF is more biblical. It does say to go forth and multiply."</span><br /><br />Quite funny. Since the Bible says "go forth and multiply," then I guess that any way of "multiplying" is biblical! That would justify rape, incest, sexual slavery, anything. Any way of getting a woman pregnant is, I guess, "going forth and multiplying," so it is biblical! This argument is transparently simplistic and false - but I am dealing with it here anyway, just because I am trying to address them all.<br /><br />More arguments and responses to follow in the next blog entry.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-67224117909067683312008-02-11T15:45:00.000-05:002008-02-11T15:49:16.497-05:00Seeking Surrogates in India<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/31/health/main3658750.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_3658750">Growing and giving away children is becoming a "respectable" business in some places, it seems.</a> Could this perhaps be called "exploitation," or is it merely another legitimate free-enterprise way of making money and escaping poverty? Are Western couples preying on poor Indian women, or are they giving them a way out of their misery? As with many questions, it all depends who you ask.<br /><br /><div><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/31/health/main3658750.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_3658750"> </a><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Sarah J. Flashing, MA, says it very well in her <a href="http://www.cbhd.org/resources/reproductive/flashing_2008-02-01.htm">new essay at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity:</a></span></div> </div> <div><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></div> <div></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><blockquote>"The problem with commercial surrogacy...is that at its very foundation it rejects human dignity, the inherent aspect of what it means to be human, having been made in the image of God. ...Her dignity is violated by exploiting her financial vulnerabilities. Her dignity is violated by viewing her womb as a piece of factory equipment that can be utilized over and over again for the production of a product, or fixed when it breaks down from continued use. Her body is not a piece of property that can be monopolized for nine months by a child she may grow to love but cannot be held. She is a human being created in the image of God, and to treat her as such would mean to be generous to her without consideration of her procreative capacity, not to use this capacity as a means for her survival."</blockquote></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-71797458435869224132008-02-07T10:13:00.000-05:002008-02-07T10:17:54.500-05:00"We the infertile people"Yesterday I received a comment on this blog, where a woman demanded that I cease speaking out against reproductive technologies because, until I have walked a mile in her (infertile) shoes, I can't possibly imagine the hell of infertility, and therefore I can't appreciate how any and all means of getting out of that hell - including repro tech - are clearly acceptable.<br /><br />She assumed that if I am speaking out against repro tech, then my knowledge of infertility and repro tech must be purely academic. And if my knowledge is purely academic, then I have no right to express my opinion, which is so offensive to those who have actually walked the "road of hot coals".<br /><br />I thought about this comment for some time. In the past, I have not made personal comments on this blog about myself, and part of me did not want to get into that. I disagree with the view that a person is not entitled to speak about something just because he or she has not experienced it himself. That kind of mindset would lock us in narrow and separate worlds.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I finally decided to clarify a bit about my own situation, because it just so happens that I do know for myself the pain of infertility. My husband and I have been trying to have children for many months now. We have watched other couples we know - friends, family, coworkers - have babies, and more babies, and more babies...while we are still coming home to our two pets.<br /><br />No, it is not easy. In fact, it can be very difficult, and yes, I have cried a lot.<br /><br />In our own case, I still have hope. We are now being seen by a fertility specialist, and we are undergoing tests to find out what the problem is (or are - if they can be found). It is stressful, embarassing, awful...every time I go into that clinic I completely tense up and hate every minute of it, and yet it is our hope.<br /><br />However, my views on repro tech remain the same. If in vitro or other repro technologies turn out to be our only hope, then we won't do it. We will try to adopt. That can, of course, be long and difficult and expensive too. Well, we may try to be foster parents too, I am open to that.<br /><br />And whatever else happens...we trust in God and what he has planned for us. I do believe that things happen for a reason, and that everything, even pain and suffering, can be made to work for the good. My husband has been incredibly supportive through it all, he is truly a solid and great man.<br /><br />It is certain that infertility is a great suffering. Sometimes I feel like a social outcast because I struggle with having children. Sometimes I feel like a leper...and I wonder, if it is my fault, am I ruining my husband's life, do I even deserve to be with him? What will my mother in law, who is eager for more grandchildren, think of me if she finds out that it is me? I just want to hole up and hide.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is good to put things into perspective. I am currently reading a book about Africa by a Polish journalist who lived there for 40 years. He describes the terrible poverty, the wars, the famine, the dire living conditions. Those still exist today. People struggle with so many things in the world. In the West, people's suffering is mostly hidden within big houses, behind smiling faces, and we do not see it. Everyone seems happy, and we feel like the only ones who aren't. But the fact is, suffering is a fact of life.<br /><br />In my opinion, the best way to deal with suffering is to take a step back and to realize that our suffering is NOT worse than a lot of other people's. People all over the world are terminally ill, they are dying, they are divorcing, they are losing their loved ones, they are losing their homes, their countries, they are hungry, they are persecuted, they are in war-torn countries fearing for their lives...in fact, in comparison with most of the world, WE are the lucky ones, in many other ways.<br /><br />I still believe that the answer to the pain of infertility is NOT to transfer the suffering onto the children who are created - that is NOT our right, even as "infertile people".Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-89827567390892909982008-02-06T08:52:00.000-05:002008-02-06T08:58:15.838-05:00Bone marrow can become spermA few days ago I wrote about how the British government wants to take out the reference, in their laws, to children needing a father. My question was, are men passé?<br /><br />Well, it turns out that again in Britain, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=511391&in_page_id=1965">scientists have discovered how to turn women's bone marrow into sperm cells!</a><br /><br />This is no longer mere science fiction. Men and women appear to be losing any need for each other. We have already lost a need for each other in almost every way in normal life, and now, we are losing a need for each other in the most elemental aspect of all, human reproduction.<br /><br />I view this is a very sad development indeed. Not just for the sake of men, but especially for the sake of the children who will not have fathers - due to parenting by lesbian couples or single women, or, perhaps one day, due to the fact that even their own genes come only from two women.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-1211668269822168342008-02-05T12:59:00.001-05:002008-02-05T13:02:41.226-05:00Mommy 1, Mommy 2 and Daddy<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7227861.stm">A team of doctors have created a human embryo with three biological parents. </a>They planted the nucleus of an embryo (formed in the usual way with egg and sperm) into another egg whose nucleus had been removed. The embryo began to grow as normal.<br /><br />This of course leads to the disturbing question: do we want to create people with three genetic parents? What are we doing to our children? And does anyone even care about the impact on children, since the overriding concern in all these technologies seems to focus on the desires and "needs" of the adults?<br /><br />A rather disquieting tangent along these lines is the door that such an experiment opens to polygamy. If children have three "natural" parents, then why can't these parents all get married and live in the home, and share in the raising of their child? Any other arrangement is arguably unfair to the child, who is forced to choose between parents and see less of one than the two others.<br /><br />It is also interesting that for this experiment, the scientists used the "defective" embryos left over from IVF. And with this little "transplant," the embryos got a second wind and started developing as normal. Thus, there may now be a way to "save" some of those embryos that were previously written off as too damaged to use in IVF.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1980672560703701035.post-66954136598087471722008-02-04T09:53:00.000-05:002008-02-04T09:55:43.060-05:00Britain - blazing the way to the new dark agesHow lovely, <a href="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/feb/08020107.html">the National Health Service in the U.K. is debating whether to use taxpayer money to cover the cost of renting surrogate wombs.</a> Couples or individuals - whether heterosexual or homosexual (or, presumably, "other") - would be able to get their babies from rent-a-wombs free of charge, with taxpayers footing the bill.<br /><br />I am constantly amazed at the repro tech stuff that is coming out of the U.K. these days. It's a train out of control. Can it get any more crazy, any more appalling, any more disturbed and disturbing?<br /><br />WIth the government picking up the tab, the surrogate business is liable to increase to a veritable "cottage industry". Some women could even begin to specialize in being live baby incubators. It could become a whole new career field, perhaps even supported by courses in local community colleges.<br /><br />Perhaps women like Jill Hawkins are visionaries and pioneers of the future after all. The question is, what kind of future are they harbingering? Jill Hawkins, on antidepressants as she plans the surrender of her eighth baby...the pioneer of a future:<br /><ul><li>where children belong to no one by nature and anyone by law;</li><li>where children have no right to their biological parents, siblings, relatives, families or cultures;</li><li>where adults have the right to give life or inflict death and to "assign" babies to whomever they choose;</li><li>where adults commission the manufacturing of their children based on preferences and specifications, and can seek damages where these specifications are not followed or the child is an "inferior" product;</li><li>where even adults are used and exploited for their sperm, eggs, and wombs, especially adults that are young and not fully informed or cognizant of the consequances, financially or emotionally needy, or who live in developing countries;</li><li>where being an adult means having might - and might makes right, and contains all rights - and where being a child, especially unborn - means having no rights at all...</li></ul>A grand old future. Britain is blazing the way of progress and enlightenment, that much is sure.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0