Reproductive Technologies - Mary Meets Dolly

Monday, April 18. 2016

Uterus Transplants are "Supremely Risky"

It was a first in the United States. A woman, only identified as Lindsey, received a uterus from a deceased woman. Lindsey was born without a uterus, and she was hoping this transplant would enable her to get pregnant. At a press conference at the end of February, Cleveland doctors announced it was the first successful uterus transplant in the United States. Only days later, Lindsey suffered complications and had to undergo another surgery to remove the organ.

The Cleveland team of doctors has been given permission to experiment with uterus transplants in nine other women, and a few other clinics will also attempt the procedure.

In Sweden, doctors have performed nine uterus-transplant surgeries on women who were missing wombs, and these have resulted in four births. All of these organs came from live donors. All of the children were premature and were delivered by cesarean section.

In every case, whether successful or not, uterus transplants are only temporary. The women have to take immuno-suppressive drugs to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. The plan is to only allow one or two pregnancies before the women undergo a final surgery to remove the organ. This is to minimize their exposure to the immune-suppressing drugs.

Also, in all of the uterus transplants to date, the Fallopian tubes are not connected. This means that conception cannot take place naturally; in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the transfer of embryos to the transplanted uterus, is required. The women can use their own eggs or use donated eggs from another woman to create embryos.

Many Catholics are wondering if uterus transplants are ethical. As they stand right now, the answer is: No, simply because IVF is required to create embryos, and the Catholic Church teaches it is morally unacceptable to separate procreation from the marital act. But what if the uterus transplant can be modified to link the Fallopian tubes to the ovaries, allowing natural conception to take place?

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 08:20 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Friday, January 8. 2016

Sherri Shepherd Surrogacy Tragedy Not Over

Sherri Shepherd, celebrity host of The View, and her now-ex-husband, Lamar Sally, hired surrogate Jessica Batholomew to carry a child conceived with Sally’s sperm and a donor egg. Before Bartholomew could give birth to Lamar Jr., however,

Shepherd filed for divorce and abandoned the boy both socially and financially. Batholomew was legally considered Lamar Jr.’s mother. She was left to cover her own medical expenses and was on the hook for child support.

After a long legal battle, Shepherd was officially placed on the child’s birth certificate and ordered to pay monthly child support.

Shepherd is not happy with that and is appealing her case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. TMZ reports:

Sherri Shepherd is going all the way to the Supreme Court ... of Pennsylvania to get off the financial hook for the kid she and estranged husband Lamar Sally had last year through a surrogate.
According to legal docs obtained by TMZ, Shepherd's asking the highest court in the state to relieve her from paying up to $4,600 a month to Sally until their son turns 18. Her reason? She says the first judge overstepped his boundaries in using a surrogacy contract to make her the mom ... even though she's not biologically related to the child.
Lamar tells TMZ ... it's ridiculous Sherri spent nearly $100k to bring their kid into the world, yet wants nothing to do with him. He says it's unfortunate one day the baby will be able to read the lengths Sherri went to in order to be out of his life.
The Supreme Court has yet to make a decision on whether or not to hear Sherri's appeal.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 09:32 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, December 1. 2015

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Death of the Birth Certificate

The news on the day the U.S. Supreme Court released Obergefell v. Hodges was filled with same-sex couples standing in front of microphones expressing their joy at the court’s decision to redefine marriage in all 50 states. One interview struck me more than the others: two women making a statement on how they could finally change their children’s birth certificates to include both women’s names — and only their names.

In the months that have followed, I have noticed more and more mention of something I have honestly thought little about — the birth certificate. There is a push to revise birth certificates to legally institute two men or two women as birth parents. An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times argued that, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, “The battle over LGBT equality is far from over.” Douglas Nejaime regrets that “marriage equality doesn’t immediately erase all attachments related to biological, dual-gender child-rearing.”

Traditionally, states have made the assumption that any child born to a married woman was fathered by her husband. So married couples automatically had their names placed on a birth certificate as biological parents to a child born to a married woman. Of course, there were certainly cases when a woman’s husband was not the genetic father, but it was a reasonable assumption by the state that a woman’s husband was the father of her children.

Nejaime contends that because married same-sex couples are not automatically placed on a child’s birth certificate in every state, this is relegating same-sex couples to “second-class status.” He points out that this “marital presumption is emerging as a battleground.”

Nejaime is right that marital presumption for same-sex couples is developing into a battleground.

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 15:01 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Monday, September 28. 2015

Secret Confessions of Surrogate Mothers

The Catholic Church is perceived to be anti-science. That perception is completely false, of course. The Church is one of the few institutions left that actually looks at human biology and acknowledges the facts. And I am not just talking about the fact that a new genetically distinct human organism is created when fertilization is complete. (In layman's terms, new life begins at conception.)

In our hook-up culture, the Church also acknowledges that it is called the "reproductive" system not the "recreation" system for a reason. Biologically speaking, sex is not a recreational activity.

The Church is also one of few voices that warns about the dangers of surrogacy. Even if done altruistically, surrogacy turns women and children into objects: the woman is just an oven; the child is just a bun.

And yet, the biology of carrying a child in your womb simply cannot be denied. Those precious months are designed to have mother bond with child, even if the woman knows the child is not hers. The damage of severing that bond at birth can last a lifetime.

The UK's Daily Mail has published some anonymous confessions of surrogates that are quite illuminating. Even though these women know that they have to give the child away, they cannot help but become attached.

Continue reading at Creative Minority Report>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 08:56 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, August 19. 2015

Baby Dev's Story Illustrates Surrogacy's Incredibly Dark Side

The hidden camera footage reveals the Indian restaurant is crowded, and the ambient noise of fellow diners all around makes it hard to hear. But Gianna Toboni, an investigative reporter from HBO’s documentary show VICE, slowly begins to understand what is being offered to her by a woman sitting across the table.

Toboni is in India to get a firsthand look at the country’s booming international surrogacy industry. She has heard rumors of “extra” Caucasian babies for sale, so she meets a surrogacy broker for dinner. On camera, the broker, holding a swaddled infant, tells Toboni she can take the baby home tonight — for a price.

The source of these “extra” babies is beyond horrifying. Western couples are taking advantage of the discounts international surrogacy offers. They get a baby gestated for them at a low price, and the women in third-world countries get more money than they could make in several years.

To make the process more efficient, doctors often transfer more than one embryo to a surrogate. If she gets pregnant with multiples, sometimes the commissioning couple is not told. Nine months later, they fly in and get the one baby they paid for. The “extras,” however, are peddled on the black market. While the couple thinks they’re getting a miracle at a bargain price, they are unaware that their “extra” children are being sold to whoever is willing to pay.

Continue reading the National Catholic Register>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 12:39 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, July 7. 2015

Children’s Rights? Anyone? :o(

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage for the entire United States, I have read a lot of commentary. None of it spoke to me as loudly as this post at AnonymousUs.org by a daughter of a lesbian mother and anonymous sperm donor. I post it in its entirety because I simply cannot bring myself to edit her raw emotion:

Children’s Rights? Anyone? :o(
Submitted on: June 28, 2015

Ok. Now since gay people got their rights and can marry in the United States can we please start talking about children’s rights? Where are they? My mom is taking me to downtown NY for pride fest on Sunday. I’m going to be supportive that she can marry a woman if she wants. There’s going to be lots of gay dads and gay moms celebrating that they get the same rights as straight people but is anyone going to be talking about MY rights too?

Continue reading at Creative Minority Report>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 10:42 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Thursday, June 18. 2015

Why "Leftover" IVF Embryos Are Now "Unused" IVF Embryos

The New York Times has a piece this week about the conundrum of what to do with all of the "leftover" embryos created with IVF that are in the deep freeze waiting to get a chance to finish their lives. The Times estimates that there maybe over a million by now. A million lives on ice created as surplus children in a mass-human manufacturing campaign.

Except "leftover" is no longer the most appropriate word to use to describe frozen IVF embryos. Why not? Well "left-over" implies that the embryos were created in a batch for a particular couple and the couple now has more embryos than they want to use. Kinda like leftover lasagna. Some of it gets eaten and then rest it put in the freezer. (The callous comparison is on purpose because frankly many people think nothing more of putting their embryonic children in anti-freeze and then into cold storage than they would freezing their left-over lasagna.)

"Unused" is a better term because some of the frozen embryos are not "left-over." These embryos are intentionally created from desirable sperm and egg donors and then sold. They are not "left-over." They are the primary merchandise. The Times has the details:

At Dr. Ernest Zeringue’s IVF clinic in Davis, Calif., a program he calls California Conceptions goes beyond embryo donation to embryo creation.

The clinic buys eggs and sperm from donors whose profiles are likely to have broad appeal — like those who are tall, thin and well educated — then combines them to make embryos that are doled out to three or four families. Both the donors and the would-be parents know the embryos will be used by multiple families

For $12,500, patients get three tries, from a different batch of embryos each time — and a money-back guarantee for those who do not achieve a 12-week pregnancy.

“Our clients are typically people at the end of the line in terms of having a baby,” Dr. Zeringue said. “We used to have a regular donor embryo program, but the waiting list kept getting longer and longer, and in six years, we had less than a dozen donors.”

Who says IVF has not turned procreation into a major life purchase like a house or car? Money back guarantee? On children?

I agree with this guy:

“Make no mistake, this is commodification,” Andrew Vorzimer, a Woodland Hills, Calif., fertility lawyer, posted in his blog. “These are not donated embryos. Rather, they are embryos created from donors hand-selected by California Conceptions. It is one step removed from a mail-order catalog. The only difference is that the product being sold is nascent human life.”

And he is part of the industry!

I cannot help feeling sorry for the kids who will have likely have several siblings, maybe in their own area, that they will never know. Tragic. I truly hope the news that they were created in bulk from the gametes of total strangers and then sold will not devastate them. I know it will crush some.

It really is time for society to stop turning its back on the abuses of the fertility industry. We think we are making the world a better place because a precious few actually get born. We can celebrate the lives of IVF children, but we cannot ignore how the industry has totally cheapened procreation and turn it into human trafficking.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 10:28 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, April 1. 2015

International Surrogacy Selling "Extra" Babies on the Black Market

International surrogacy is often touted as a win-win situation. Western couples get a baby gestated for them at a low price, and the women in third world countries get more money than they would normally see in a lifetime.

But all we rich western countries have to do is look a tad bit closer and the whole facade falls apart. The women are exploited by signing contracts they cannot read, are kept under lock and key, forced to deliver by cesarean section, and then not paid the full amount they are promised. Some women die. Many of the contracting western couples simply do not care, since they are getting a baby at a discount.

But the exploitation does not stop there. In a shocking piece of investigative journalism, HBO’s documentary show VICE has uncovered even more disturbing details. To maximize results, these surrogates are often implanted with multiple embryos. If the couple only wants one child, any “extras” born are sold on the black market, and these couples have no idea their children are being sold to the highest bidder.

Continue reading at LifeNews>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 12:04 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, March 17. 2015

Japanese City Will Pay for Egg Freezing

Despite cries that the world is overpopulated, some nations are encouraging their citizens to procreate. This is due to a dismissal reproduction rate that threatens to collapse economies.

Japan is one of those nations that is facing a demographic apocalypse. It is estimated that by 2050 Japan may lose a third of its population. In response one Japanese city is going to pay women to freeze their eggs. Mark Hay at Good Magazine has the story:

Late last month, the city of Urayasu, in Japan’s Chiba Prefecture, decided to one-up the nation’s public medical insurance scheme by offering to subsidize egg freezing for local women. Dubbed the Urayasu Oocyte Cryopreservation Program, the plan is an apparent global first by any municipality. The local government has promised to allocate 90 million yen (about $750,000) to the local Juntendo University Hospital to promote research on the process, which involves encouraging local women to utilize the procedure. Normally, including 10 years of storage, egg freezing costs about a million yen ($8,250). The first round of cash from the government will reduce the cost of egg freezing by 70 percent for local women between the ages of 20 and 34 at the time of egg collection and under 45 by the time of egg use.

Hay reports that so far there is only a 5% chance for each egg that it will be successfully retrieved and will be viable after freezing. Each egg only has a 5% chance of producing a child. 5%!

Of course, if a women is stimulated enough with drugs she might be lucky enough to produce 10 eggs. That may increase her chances to 50%. Maybe.

Three-quarters of a million dollars to pay for a procedure that is likely to fail more than half of the time. Sounds like sound public policy to me.

Beyond the sure financial madness of it, what about the health risks to women? Hay does not report on those, but women have lost their fertility and some have died from this invasive procedure. Some claim it has given them cancer. It does not seem that this is actually giving "women more choice in their reproductive options." It sounds to me like a misguided research project that downplays the real risks involved.

And I still cannot get over the 5% statistic. Are women really so disposable that a government can fund something dangerous to a woman's health despite the horrible odds of success?

I know a better use for the $750,000. How about an education campaign alerting modern women about their fertility? Real truths about how beautiful it is; how fragile and fleeting it can be. That way women can make informed choices about their reproductive lives, not simply become guinea pigs for procedures that are risky and unproven.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 13:58

Wednesday, March 11. 2015

More Heartbreak from Children of Anonymous Donors

Every once and awhile I visit the Anonymous Us Project website to see the posts of the children of anonymous gamete donation. I am always shocked and surprised at the amount of heartbreak pouring out in nearly every post. This forum so necessary. It has totally opened my eyes to the pain felt, but not always openly expressed, by the children of donor ART. Here are a few recent excerpts:

My very own father

My whole life is based off of some hasty generalization that one day ill be able to meet my own father.

But what if my own father doesnt want me?
What then?

YOU are not alone. YOU are not a freak.

I just randomly came upon this site. I am a female. I'm 30. I am donor conceived. And I understand. I have been angry, confused, sad, felt like a freak, pretended not to care, curious, felt guilty, and hated myself. Sometimes I would feel a little normal and start to forget, but then I would be asked about my heritage, or have to do paperwork at the doctors office where they ask about my father's health history. I hate that. I hated homework on heritage. Ugh. It was weird having my son and wondering if he looked like his grandpa. Sorry son, I don't know who your bio grandpa is. No one really knows I am donor convinced. Just my husband, mom, dad, and a couple friends. I had to keep that secret. I still to this day have to act like I don't know I'm donor conceived around my dad because he doesn't know I know. Keeping secrets is dangerous. It gets to you. You learn to keep more secrets about yourself. I learned to hide an eating disorder. Both my secrets made me feel lonely. And like a freak.

Lost.

I am a 40 yr.old single Mother who just found out that I am the product of artificial insemination. My Mother can provide me with absolutely NO information on my donor Dad. I am struggling with this revelation...tremendously. The Father I grew up with was abusive on many levels; a cruel man. Approximately 3 years ago my Mother begged me to come back home and help her care for my Father who suffered a severe brain injury during a fall. I felt that I couldn't say no; so, I made the decision to leave my job, sell my house & help her. The last 3 years were horrible. The emotional and psychological abuse picked right back up. I can't even go into all the things he said. He passed in June 2014; and for some unknown reason this is when my Mother decided to drop the bomb regarding my conception. And, although this does explain why my Father seemed to laser point me with his wrath; I am not sure that she should have ever told me?!?! The pain he put me through my entire childhood, & the sacrifices that I made in the last few years were huge! Sacrifices made for a cruel, sadistic man who wasn't even my biological Father!!! I am beyond angry. To make the situation worse, my Mother cannot provide me with ANY information on my sperm donor Dad. I don't know how to navigate through this...

I'm sorry, what?

From the age of 3, I knew something in the house was different. Something wasn't right, something was missing. At the age of 6, I figured it out. My father was no where in sight. I asked my mom, and all she gave me was " you don't need to know, it doesn't matter now." At age 8, she finally told me I was donor conceived.

It didn't hit me until 6th grade. The numb feeling. Every time I saw a child with their dad, I went numb instantly. I couldn't move. I just stared, as if I was watching a movie and I couldn't press pause. I began to wonder what donor conceiving meant, and started researching almost every time I could.

From 6th grade to now-2015, I have tried so hard to let all emotions go when it comes to my dad. When it comes to being the only other person in the house other than my mom. It was like I had to be the dad. Be the more mature one. I had no brothers or sisters, and it was so hard to keep sane when all I wanted was to scream out "tell me who my dad is. Just tell me something so I don't go crazy! WHO IS HE! Who AM I?!?!" The science project in middle school with all the heredity talk, I couldn't do the project with half of a family tree. I didn't have the guts or the pride to tell my teacher, I don't know who my dad is. Back then, I thought I would be considered a freak for not.

All my life, I've just wanted to know the simple answers. "Who am I? Why did my mom feel as if she had to PAY her way to having me? Why do I have a receipt?" and Most importantly..."Who is he? Does he have any of my features, likes, interests... anything? Am I anything like my daddy"?

When I was 17, I asked my mom if she knew where I was from. Her reply? " I don't remember, and besides, it doesn't matter. You don't need to know." My reply? "IM SORRY, WHAT DID YOU SAY?"- we had a fight and are no longer talking.

I Feel Alone Scared and Confused

Yeah, it bugs that I was conceived out of money, and I was some lab-science freak, but it hurts more knowing my parents will probably curse at me for wanting to know my birth-dad. Why is it fair for adopted people to want to know their dad, but it's bad if I want to? I don't get it... Why does it seem like everything is revolved around the parents and what they want?

If I had a kid, I would just want them to be happy. I wouldn't want them to do what I want. I want them to have everything they need to feel like they need to fill whole.

I don't get this hypocrisy, the people who are saying that not knowing my dad is no big deal are people who are not donor-conceived, they KNOW both their parents, even if their dad was not the best dad in the world. They still KNEW their dad, and he didn't trade them in for money....

Its like everyone else wants to feel bad for my dad and mom, but I have to suck it up and get over the fact that my dad abandoned me for money, and my parents made him anonymous so I can never meet him....

And this one I find particularly heartbreaking:

Just figured out my uncle is actually my father, and my mother is my aunt

I'm female and 16-ish. I have gay moms (well had, they're divorced and remarried, but they're still cool and all). They wanted to basically pretend (in a sense?) they had a biological child together since it's impossible for gay couples to have kids. So they asked my uncle (father?) for sperm and he donated. I always knew I came from donated sperm, but I thought (hoped) it was some stranger or something , so then I could find him, meet him, and seek him for mentorship from him in my college years. And it can be like when adoptees meet their birth parents. I had no idea it was a relative. When I asked my mom for info about my donor, she said it was. It feels weird and incestuous and NOT cool. My mom tried to make it seem "cool" but it just seems wrong and gross. Who the hell does this? Just ew. How could he just pretend I wasn't his? We have family reunions and stuff, and he just calls me "niece". I'm his daughter. How can people just pretend their kids aren't theirs when they decide they don't want them? Is that how it works now?...

For all you complainers, at least your donor didn't just flaunt around in your life and pretend he wasn't your dad. At least he didn't spoil his daughters, and post pictures of them on Facebook, but not show up to your graduations and school functions and Father's Day because he's basically disowned you to make his sister happy. "The people who want you are your parents" is just bulls***. It's just s*** people say so they can have an excuse to give away their children. You can't just decide you want to raise some of your kids, and donate the others. What the f***? What about me?

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 20:52 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, December 16. 2014

Shut Up and Be Grateful for Your Life

Last year, Bruce Feiler wrote a piece for The New York Times in which he began by regretting the bad behavior of his family at a reunion. He wondered whether his family was “falling apart.” That question prompted him to research what makes for a happy family.

Feiler found the work of Marshall Duke, a psychologist at Emory University. Duke came up with a questionnaire for children called the “Do You Know?” scale, which contained 20 questions about the child’s family history. Children were asked, among other things, if they knew where their mom and dad went to high school, where their grandparents grew up and which person they looked most like in their family.

What Duke found was surprising. The single best predictor of emotional health and happiness in children was how well they performed on the “Do You Know?” scale. Feiler wrote, “The more children knew about their family’s history, the stronger their sense of control over their lives, the higher their self-esteem and the more successfully they believed their families functioned.”

This finding may not be so surprising, considering the popularity of websites like Ancestry.com, where the creators invite visitors, “Join us on a journey through the story of how you became, well, you.” Even TLC has a genealogy show called Who Do You Think You Are? — which implies that our very identity is rooted in those people who not only begot us, but those who begot our parents and grandparents, as well.

And yet society has embraced, without question, creating children who will intentionally be denied part, or all, of their family history.

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 09:05 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, December 9. 2014

I Paid $50,000 for a Girl

I think future generations will look back on our insane notion of "reproductive rights," and they will be horrified. Back in the 70s reproductive rights meant terminating a life you already started. Today it also means creating life however you see fit and tossing out whatever doesn't suit your desires. So not only have we killed tens of millions of our own offspring in the name of these "reproductive rights," but we have also turned children into accessories, completing our idea of a perfect family, like a well-appointed scarf completes the perfect outfit.

Case in point, this admission of Australian mother, Jayne Cornwill. She proudly proclaims she "paid $50,000" for her girl, Emmerson. After having three sons, Jayne and her husband, healthy and fertile, were "forced" to travel to America and pay fertility doctor, Daniel Potter, to finally give them a girl. See most other civilized countries in the world think that choosing the sex of your child is barbaric and so have outlawed the practice, but here in the Brave New United States, whatever pays, plays.

Continue reading at Creative Minority Report >>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 13:24 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, November 19. 2014

"Free" Sperm Donation A.K.A. Sex With a Total Stranger

Good grief. That is nearly all I can say about this growing trend of "free" sperm donors. If you are a woman looking to get pregnant and cannot afford to go to a sperm bank, then there are men out there willing to impregnate you for free. That is if you are fine with having sex with a complete stranger. Medical Daily has the story:

Joe considers himself to be a sort of Superman, except instead of flying around saving lives, he travels the UK making lives. Joe is a free sperm donor — that is, he has sex with women free of charge in order to impregnate them. While the service may sound a bit unorthodox, Joe claims he’s conceived more than 30 offspring and is far from the only man to tap into this hot business.

"Joe," who like Superman, chose to keep his identity a secret, jets around England to impregnate women through "natural insemination," the Daily Mail reported.

"I have a Clark Kent life. Then, I have the Superman life," Joe told ABC News' 20/20. "People might want to have millions of dollars in the bank, and then, you know, some of us might want to have dozens of children out there."

Surprisingly, Joe is married with three legitimate teenage children and also makes a living as a successful Internet entrepreneur. As for his side venture, business is booming because Joe estimates that he has slept with close to 100 women via his service....

His reason for wanting to offer his DNA free of charge? "I'm unable to have as many children as I want in my relationship. … I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have another descendant out there."

And just in case you think Joe is the only one out there, there are "free" sperm donor websites with thousands of members.

Setting aside the health risks and the fact that Joe is a serial adulterer, this trend really does illuminate how disconnected our society has become regarding sexual intercourse.

Naturally sex has two aspects. There is the love and bonding part between two potential parents and then there is the procreative part, the part that produces offspring. They are two parts of the same whole. One without the other and the act is only a shadow of what it was meant to be. I like to think of sex like a pair of scissors. Together the scissors work together beautifully. Separate the two parts and you could probably cut something, but it sure won't work as as well as when the two parts are joined together.

We unnaturally separated these two parts of sex when we decided that sex should only be for recreation and embraced widespread contraception use.

Then, with artificial insemination and IVF, we separated procreation from the sex act altogether bringing human reproduction into the sterile atmosphere of the laboratory.

Now we have come full circle and "free" sperm donors are providing the procreation the natural way without the bonding part. Now it is just sex with a stranger to make babies.

Babies that are going to ask where their father is. Babies that will likely have a innate desire to know and love their biological father. Imagine the devastation when these kids find out their mother had sex with a total stranger to bring them into existence. I cannot even imagine. Those poor children.

Have I said good grief yet? If not, GOOD GRIEF!

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 10:44 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, November 11. 2014

The One Way Street Called Sperm Donation

Creating children with sperm donation has gone on for a long time. In fact, the first documented case of a woman becoming pregnant by donor insemination was in 1884. A Quaker woman and her merchant husband, not able to conceive, approached Dr. William Pancoast of Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia. When Dr. Pancoast presented this couple's case to his medical students, one of the students suggested:

… that semen should be collected from the "best looking" member of the class, and used to inseminate the woman. Dr. Pancoast agreed to the experiment. Without informing either the woman or her husband of his intentions, he called the merchants wife back under the pretense of doing another examination. The woman was anesthetized, and the procedure was carried out. It wasn't until it became evident that the woman had actually conceived that her husband was informed.

The woman was never told what was done to her. It seems somethings never change. Today's billion dollar fertility industry regularly uses woman desperate for children as guinea pigs for whatever new procedure a doctor can think up.

Over a century later and the practice has become even more bizarre and convoluted. Last week I stumbled upon this piece at the New Republic by Stephanie Fairyington. Stephanie fell in love with her lesbian partner Sabrina, and they were married. Visiting Sabrina's newborn niece, Del, brought out something unexpected in Stephanie:

Del planted an impossible desire in me: She made me want to corporealize my love for Sabrina, to create a biological record—a baby—of the fact that we were here and we loved one another.

Unable to conceive on their own, they needed sperm, but just any sperm donor would not do. For both women to have a biological connection to the "corporealization of their love" a relation would have to provide the sperm. So Stephanie asked her brother to be their donor.

Continue reading at Creative Minority Report>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 11:18 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, October 14. 2014

Why I Think Uterus Transplants Are Bad

Last week doctors in Sweden announced the birth of a baby after a uterus transplant. The baby is so far healthy being born at only 31 weeks gestation.

I am very happy that mother and baby are healthy enough to leave the hospital and I wish them continued health. I also wish that this procedure is quickly rejected by the greater medical establishment.

You might ask why a pro-life person would ever be against a procedure that brings life into the world. I am against the uterus transplant because I believe it is bad medicine.

Many people, including prominent bioethicist Father Tad Pacholczyk who compared a uterus transplant to a kidney transplant, believe that this is just like another other organ transplant and so a worthwhile endeavor. I have to respectfully disagree.

Kidneys are an organ that are necessary for life. A uterus is not. A woman is not going to die if she does not have a uterus. This is purely an elective procedure.

Elective procedures are not necessarily bad medicine, but when they put multiple lives at risk then we must call foul. In this case a live donor was used to obtain the uterus. Her life was put at risk for a very invasive procedure, the removal of her uterus. Then the woman who received the uterus also underwent invasive surgery and put her own life at risk. Then the child who was gestated in a donated womb had his or her life put at risk during the most critical part of human development. What if the mother began to reject the uterus? What does that mean for the fetus whose very life depends on the perfect functioning of that organ?

I am not the only one raising these important flags. Dr. Antonio Gargiulo, a specialist in infertility and reproductive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, was interview by the Boston Globe and he lays it all out:

A live donor would have to undergo a radical hysterectomy, he said, which would remove a larger portion of the tissues surrounding the uterus than in a typical hysterectomy, so that those tissues could be connected with tissues of the recipient.

Such a surgery could cause excessive bleeding or injury to the bowel or the ureters, he said, and could lead to an infection that could develop into sepsis.

“It’s a major abdominal surgery,” he said.

There would be similar risks for the recipient, Gargiulo said, who would also require ongoing treatment with immunosuppressants to ensure that her body did not reject the transplanted organ, increasing her risk of cancer.

Finally, any fetus in the transplanted womb would be in potential danger because of the risk of rejection for the transplanted organ and the difficulty of properly connecting the complex web of blood vessels that support the uterus, which could affect the formation of the placenta.

“There are major doubts,” Gargiulo said.

So three lives put at risk during an elective procedure for a non-life threatening condition: the desire to experience pregnancy.

When it be enough? When will we draw a line and say "I am very sorry for the pain and anguish you experience because of your infertility, but this is a length to which we just cannot go."

I also see abuses in the future. When kidney and other organ transplants began I doubt anyone realized the massive demand that would result. A demand that fuels a black market organ trade which exploits the poor in third world countries. When surrogacy began, I bet no one envisioned hundreds of poor women in Asian countries being paid paltry amounts to carry the offspring of rich westerners.

I fear if uterus transplants become commonplace this is just one more way the rich will exploit those living in poverty not just overseas but in our own communities. If we can pay a woman to carry a child for us, then how much more would we pay for her uterus so that we can carry the child ourselves?

The chance for massive exploitation of poor women willing to sell their functioning uterus to the highest bidder scares me. Call me alarmist if you will, but considering the world we live in, I feel this is a real possibility.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 15:24 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Monday, October 6. 2014

Lesbian Sperm Bank Mix-Up: Real Story Not About Race

Jennifer Cramblett (Mark Duncan/AP)

There has been much commentary on the story of the lesbian couple that went to sperm bank, asked for sperm from a Caucasian, and ended up with a mixed race child. The women are now suing the sperm bank because they accidentally gave the couple the wrong sperm.

So far the debate has been whether or not the lesbian couple is racist. I will not address that issue because I believe there is something much larger at issue here. I want to instead highlight the legacy that decades of artificial reproductive technologies has left us: a society that sees children as products, no different then cars and fast food.

Here is a small sampling of actual comments I have read on this case. There are hundreds of others. Read them and tell me that many people in our society do not now see children as something that can be bought and paid for:

You should get what you paid for. It's not racist, pay for white baby, get white baby.

she asked and paid for a specific "product" and got something completely different. It's simple breach of contract....no racism.

She didn't get what she paid for; I don't think she's racist.

Bottom line is they purchased a service and it wasn't what they paid for period.

If you order a cheese burger at the drive thru and you end up getting McNuggets,. That doesn't mean that you hate chicken,it means you ordered a freaking cheese burger!

She's right..she didn't get what she paid for. I'd be upset too.

It's like getting a color TV delivered open the box and it's black and white. Ha ha. I guess u would be pissed.

she didnt get her order filled correctly

If I ordered a blue car and got a red one I would think you would want them to fix the problem

I say she should win the case she paid for a certain product and got something that wasn't what she paid for she's not racist at all if I pay for a Dr pepper I don't want a mountain dew

If people can go to fast food restaurant and get a burger however they choose, they should be able to decide if the baby they plan on having is black, white, etc.

Yes, she paid for a Caucasian baby!

This is the real story. It isn't about race. This is about an industry that has tricked us into believing human beings can be ordered, paid for, and evaluated like any other purchase.

We have made the most precious gifts the world has to offer into something that can be seriously compared with a fast food order. That is the real tragedy. Unfortunately, it is the children that will pay the price.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 15:19 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, August 27. 2014

Prominent Stem Cell Researcher Opposes Three-Parent Embryo Technique

Paul Knoepfler is a stem cell researcher in California. His work focuses on the reasons pluripotent stem cells (both induced and embryonic) form tumors. He is also a writer and a blogger which is unusual for a research scientist.

Knoepfler does not oppose embryonic stem cell research or therapeutic cloning, but he does oppose the three-parent embryo technique also called mitochondrial replacement. On a recent blog about three-parent babies at the New York Times, Knoepfler wrote this comment:

I'm a stem cell researcher and one of the more vocal opponents of this technology....

It comes down to 2 key issues for me.

First, I don't believe that we have discussed the ethical and societal implications of human genetic modification sufficiently to move forward with actually doing this in people. It's a big deal and could be a first step toward eugenics as well.

Second, evidence suggests if we do this kind of embryo tinkering that inevitably there will be children born with chromosomal defects, developmental problems, and other issues that we just cannot predict. We also have no idea what this might mean for future generations.

Paul Knoepfler
Associate Professor
UC Davis School of Medicine

Dr. Knoepfler is correct. We have not truly discussed the implications of this procedure or how it will lead us further down the eugenics road we are already on. Make no mistake, this technique does not just screen out embryos, it engineers them.

Also, such an invasive intervention on the egg (or embryo) may lead to serious problems that we cannot predict. Knoepfler wrote on his blog:

In the hypothetical context of real-world assisted reproduction, moving one oocyte nucleus into the enucleated oocyte of another person could trigger all kinds of devastating problems (most likely through epigenetic changes) that might not manifest until you try to make a human being out of it.

Then it’s too late.

And it is also too late for every generation after. Is that really a chance we want to take? Do we have the moral authority to purposefully and intentionally inflict such abnormalities on future generations?

Dr. Knoepfler is telling us we should not proceed; we need to listen.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 09:24

Thursday, August 7. 2014

Thai Surrogacy Scandal: The Difference Between Begotten and Made

A surrogacy story gone wrong has recently made headlines all over the world: David and Wendy Farnell, an Australian couple, contracted with a Thai woman, Pattharamon Janbua, to carry their in vitro fertilization (IVF)-created embryos. Pattharamon gave birth to twins, a boy with Down syndrome and a girl. The Farnells took the girl home to Australia and left the boy, named Gammy, in Thailand.

The Farnells say that they were told that Gammy was going to die, so they left him behind. It is telling that nowhere in the couple’s statements do they mention going back to get him. Pattharamon is now committed to raising Gammy as a part of her family. In an ominous twist to an already tragic predicament, David Farnell is a sex offender who spent three years in jail for sexually molesting two 10-year-old girls. Now, Pattharamon wants the baby girl back, too. She has said, “Because she is my baby; she was in my womb.”

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano ran an op-ed commenting on Gammy’s story, stating, “In reality, there’s little to be indignant about: If you accept the logic of a child as a product, this is the obvious consequence.”

It is no secret that the stance of the Catholic Church — which categorically rejects the “logic” of regarding any child as a mere “product” — is wildly unpopular. In a society that thinks any way to make a baby is the right way to make a baby, the Church is often seen as a backward institution that rejects and shames infertile couples. We are labeled as “haters.”

In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 08:59 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, August 6. 2014

US: Destination for Sex-Selection

There are dozens of countries around the world that have banned sex selection. Unfortunately, the United States is not one of them. That makes the U.S. a destination spot for couples who want just the right number of girls and boys in their family.

The United Kingdom is one of those places where selecting the sex of your embryos in the IVF process is prohibited. The Daily Mail reports that more and more Brits are coming to America to “choose” the sex of their next child.

Continue reading at LifeNews>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 10:53 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, July 15. 2014

Dear Hobby Lobby Haters: Birth Control is not Medicine

There is one argument against the Hobby Lobby decision that is driving me crazy maybe because it is going unchallenged on Facebook pages and comboxes all over.

It goes like this: if Hobby Lobby can deny health insurance coverage for birth control, then what will stop a company owned by other religious nut jobs from denying blood transfusions, chemotherapy, or inhalers for asthma?

This one seems to make sense and I am sure many people do not see where it falls short. I am not expert on Constitutional Law or on health insurance in general but this seems pretty obvious to me.

Blood transfusions, chemotherapy, and inhalers are medicine. They are therapeutic in nature needed for those who are sick. These are exactly the kinds of things health insurance is supposed to pay for. Any employer religious or otherwise is going to have a very tough time having a legitimate claim for not including well-known therapeutic measures for their employees because these are actually "health care."

Birth control is different. Of course there are cases where the pill is prescribed for medical reasons, but I speak only about birth control for the prevention of pregnancy. In this case birth control is not medicine nor is it therapeutic. Birth control actuals takes something that is normal, fertility, and makes it not work properly. Birth control is not even remotely in the same class as blood transfusions, chemotherapy or inhalers.

Really birth control is something that allows people to engage in baby-making behavior without making babies. That is not medicine; it is a life style choice no different from condoms, other barrier methods or even permanent sterilizations. Employers are not required to cover life style choices like condoms in their policies because they are not something health insurance should cover.

I have not heard a single man shouting about how his employer is denying him access to his condoms. Why? Probably because when it comes to men's reproductive systems we can still engage in calm and clear reasoning without hysterical hyperbole.

If a man wants to engage in baby-making behavior without making a baby we make him pay for it.

Ladies, we want equality do we not? Or is this really about getting more than "health care" and making someone else pay for it?

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 09:35 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, April 8. 2014

Dr. Keith Ablow: Outlaw Anonymous Sperm and Egg Donation

The Church has always been against third-party reproduction and that is because the Church has always been focused on the needs of the child and not on the wants of the parents.

Humans have a universal desire to love and be loved by our biological parents. That requires that we know and be known by our biological parents; a scenario purposefully denied those children of anonymous sperm or egg donation.

The Church knows that connection to our biological parents is part of the rights of a child. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.

This right is ignored by the fertility industry in order to grease the wheels of profit and give desperate parents what they want. After decades of creating children that can never know their biological progenitors, the cracks are beginning to show as more and more donor-conceived adults are speaking out. Here are just two snippets from AnonymousUs.org:

I look at history, and there are dads, I look at wildlife, there are dads, I look at society and there are dads. Dads are everywhere, maybe its media but I feel like I'm missing out. I feel like I will never know what it's like to be in the arms of a man who loves me unconditionally in a innocent non-sexual way, and who will be my other half. I will never know what it's like to bond with my other genetic parent, I will never know what it's like to look at the rest of nature and know I was conceived the way I was suppose to be...you know, outside a science lab....and not on a dish to be shoved into a refrigerator.

And:

I have a tape of my donor's voice, answering questions. Some are deep queries about his personal beliefs, but others are trivial. Those are the ones that make me cry. Questions like 'what's your favorite movie?' He gave the same answer as me and it confused and delighted me. After hearing in him all the traits in me the rest of my family doesn't understand, I felt like i'd missed out on something spectacular, to be understood by the person partially responsible for my existence.... It seems odd and horrorible at the same time that two people who have never even laid eyes on each other have a child. I hate that my dad got paid. I hate that he was probably just some guy who was broke and needed a little bit of pocket cash. No matter how great of a guy he was, he just wanted the money. And even though I think about him all the time, he has no idea I that exist.

Now, Dr. Keith Ablow has thrown down the gauntlet. In an opinion piece at FoxNews, Ablow calls for anonymous sperm and egg donation be outlawed. Why? Because it violates the rights of the very children it creates:

Without seemingly having given it much thought at all, our society now allows tens of thousands or more of men and women to create children who will never know one or sometimes both of their biological parents, because states allow these anonymous donations. And this policy inherently presupposes that bearing children who have no opportunity to know their biological fathers or mothers does not deprive them of anything that is inherently theirs – as a fundamental human right.

I disagree. I believe that it is morally wrong to put in place a social architecture that means millions of children will not know their biological parents.

Am I saying it would be better that these children not be born? I am.

Anonymous sperm and ova donation presupposes that the biological connection between parents and children is without much value at all – since in a wholesale (or shall I say, retail) manner, we sanction an ever-increasing number of kids being born who have no idea who their biological fathers and mothers are and can never find out, period.

Harsh? Yes. True? Another yes.

Ablow makes the necessary distinction between adoption, which is an attempt to solve a problem and anonymous gamete donation which creates and perpetuates a problem:

Anonymous sperm and ova donation solves no problem of any child. It is a convenience to adults who are encountering fertility problems and would prefer the convenience of jettisoning part of their child's true life history in order to commandeer that child from its true biological father or mother.

Thank-you Dr. Ablow for speaking the uncomfortable truth. It is time our society put the health and well-being of children over the desires of perspective parents.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 10:04 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, October 9. 2013

Genetics Company Awarded Patent for System to Create Designer Babies

This week the genetics world exploded with discussion about a new patent just issued by the U.S. Patent Office to a California company, 23andMe. 23andMe is a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company that offers genetic information to anyone who sends in a saliva sample and a fee.

23andMe was offered a patent on their inheritance calculator, a feature where prospective parents can figure out the likely traits their children will have. The controversy surrounds the patent's extension into the fertility industry where this technology could be used to screen donor egg and sperm to create a child with desired physical attributes.

Nature reports some of the options listed in the patent:

Figure 4 of the patent application lists the following alternative choices: “I prefer a child with”: “longest expected life span”/“least expected life cost of health care”/“least expected cumulative duration of hospitalization.” Figure 6 visualizes a choice between the “offspring’s possible traits” of “0% likely endurance athlete” and “100% likely sprinter.”

Continue reading at LifeNews>>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 16:19 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Friday, September 20. 2013

Orphaned at Conception

Earlier this year, Dr. Robert Sparrow published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "In Vitro Eugenics." In it, Sparrow explores the possibility of creating generations of human beings in the laboratory.

He explains that the stem cells from embryos could be used to make egg and sperm cells, which, in turn, could create more embryos.

This would bring human reproduction into the laboratory not just for one generation, but for generation after generation. Sparrow explains that these embryos would be "orphaned at conception." They "would have no genetic parents: There would be no living individual … who could be described as the genetic progenitor of such embryos."

Sparrow calls this new possibility in human reproduction "in vitro eugenics."

While this sounds like something that could only happen in science fiction, producing egg and sperm from stem cells is now a reality. Scientists have already accomplished this in mice and are discussing doing the same in humans.

Why would anyone want to create multiple human generations in a laboratory?

Sparrow suggests it could become a "method to bring into existence children with a desired genotype."

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register >>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 12:19 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Monday, June 10. 2013

Child of Anonymous Sperm Donor: Right to Know Biological Parents

It is undeniable that we humans have an innate desire to know from whom we came. Many people who are adopted or have only one parent will tell you that they feel they are missing a piece of a puzzle. Genealogy websites like Ancestry.com exist because of our fascination with our genetic ancestors. Every time I see an ad for Ancestry.com, a place where you "Find your ancestors’ stories" and "Discover yours," I feel that tug to find out more about my grandparents and great-grandparents. My daughter's junior year project for high school was a presentation and paper on the immigration of both sides of her family to America.

Now imagine if you were purposely denied one half of your story by a powerful industry that runs on anonymity. And what if when you pointed out the intentional injustice, you were told that you should shut-up and simply be grateful for your life.

This is the experience for many a child conceived from anonymous donor gametes. The following is a excerpt from testimony that Alana S. Newman, founder of AnonymousUs.org, gave to the California Assembly Committee on Health regarding AB460, a bill in the California legislature that would require insurers to offer coverage for infertility treatments even to same-sex couples where the relationships are, by nature, not fertile. Such treatments often require donor gametes. Alana is bravely standing up for the rights of those intentionally denied what she believes is a fundamental right: the right to a relationship with one's biological parents. She writes:

The facts of my conception are that my father was paid to abandon me. There is no dignity in that. I suffered from debilitating identity issues, mistrust of the opposite sex, hatred and condemnation of the opposite sex, feelings of objectification – like I only exist as a play – toy for others, and feeling like a science experiment.

If people can take away something so precious as a mother or father and make us feel like we should be grateful for the loss, what else can people take away from us? How do you expect the next generation to fight for things like freedom, democracy, clean air, clean water, when something as precious and basic as your mother or father is stolen from you? Removed by the state… Removed by a fertility industry that forces you into existence and then doesn’t return your calls when you grow up and start banging on their doors asking for records… Removed by a commissioning parent, often your other biological parent who vowed to protect and provide for you, but only on the contingency that you show gratitude for your life and don’t ask questions about the other missing parent....

One of the United State’s most famous civil rights leaders was Malcolm X. The “X” he used to replace his last name was a direct criticism of slave – owners removing slaves from their spouses, parents and children, and being disconnected from their ancestry and heritage. “Who do you think you are” is a popular TV show where celebrities have their genealogy investigated. Rosie O’Donnell herself expressed a craving to “discover her family as fully fleshed out people and learn about their journeys”. The sheer existence of a term and concept like genealogy demonstrates that it is unfair to minimize and marginalize donor – conceived people’s curiosities about our genetic kin, and dismiss our desire for connection.....

Having a bloated industry where medical and legal professionals profit from separating children from their biological parents is problematic.

Very few people like to hear that their choices have devastating consequences for others. If there is a place where voices like Alana's need to be heard, it is the fertility machine. Both infertile couples and the fertility industry must hear what she is saying. The desire for a child does not trump the right of a child to know his or her biological parents.

Wait a minute. I have heard that before. Oh yes, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 11:29 | Comment (1)

Friday, May 17. 2013

Uterus Transplant Baby Lost

This is so incredibly sad for so many reasons. There is really nothing else to say. (I have already expressed my concerns about uterine transplants here.) From the UK's Daily Mail:

A woman who was the first to have a successful womb transplant from a dead donor has had her pregnancy terminated after the embryo showed no heartbeat, doctors in Turkey have said.

Derya Sert, 22, who was born without a womb, had been receiving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment after the transplant in August 2011.

Her pregnancy was announced in April.

But in a statement released today by Akdeniz University Hospital in Turkey's Mediterranean city of Antalya, it read: 'Derya Sert's pregnancy was terminated after her end of eight weeks examination showed no embryo heartbeat.

'The general health status of the patient is fine.

'IVF will be continued when she is ready, in appropriate conditions.'

I mourn the loss of this little one. Eternal rest grant unto him or her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him or her. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Reproductive Technologies at 13:27 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

(Page 1 of 5, totaling 111 entries) » next page