HuffPo: We Must Regulate Fertility Industry

Progressives are all about "reproductive rights."  These mythical rights are not just about terminating life in the womb, but about putting life there any way possible.  It really doesn't matter if mass producing human life in a dish is healthy for the children that result; it is all about what the parents want.  After all, the parents have a "right" to reproduce.

IVF has become human manufacturing to specifications.  Make as many embryos as possible, implant more than one woman could safely carry in one pregnancy and when things work too well, just get rid of the extras with "selective reduction."

The total disregard for human life, both of the mother and the children, is staggering.

And while other countries have regulations in place that control the fertility industry to protect women, children and families, the United States has none.  Italy and Germany have laws that prohibit fertilizing more than three eggs at a time and require that any resulting embryos be transferred to their mother's womb.  Belgium only allows at single embryo be transferred in women under 36.  And the UK and Canada, women under 40 are limited to 2 embryos.  (Interestingly enough, Sweden has probably the most strict regulations on IVF.  Single women are not allowed to get IVF in Sweden.  A couple has to be married or a in stable relationship for over 2 years.  Using donor eggs is prohibited and so is surrogacy.)

In the U.S. we expect the medical professionals in the fertility industry to regulate themselves.  That means we have Octomom.

It is time the United States caught a clue and realize that regulating the fertility industry is not about infringing on "reproductive rights."  It is about safety.  We continue to allow doctors to use vulnerable women and the children that result from IVF as guinea pigs.

A Huffington Post writer agrees.  Dr. S. Lochlann Jain writes in her piece "We Must Regulate Reproductive Technology" about the dramatic increase of premature births and long term health problems that have resulted from a laissez faire fertility industry:
With the U.S. fertility industry worth an estimated three billion dollars, IVF is a major income generator for medical institutions. To generate business, fertility specialists publicize their statistics on live births rather than thriving babies. After the embryos are implanted though, these doctors walk away -- too often from difficult pregnancies, ill babies, and the life-long struggles of the children and parents resulting from prematurity.

This unregulated free-market approach to fertility is nothing short of human experimentation based in financial incentive and medical hubris.

As my kids would say, "Booyah!"  Thank-you Dr. Jain.  I have been saying that IVF is human experimentation for years.  And now someone else has said it.  And at the Huffington Post no less!

Now of course the mere suggestion of regulating the fertility industry by Congress did not go over well at the HuffPo.  Comments reveal that while progressive are fine with government taking over health care in general, they are not fine with the feds regulating IVF.  That would be much too dangerous.  Much too much governmental intrusion.

This is surreal of course because the Church has warned society for years that conceiving children in a dish is not good for them.  They deserve to begin their lives from an act of love between their genetic parents and in the safety of their own mother's womb.  Anything less and their inherent dignity is compromised.

Which is why the Holy Father recently urged research into the causes of infertility so the human manufacturing of IVF would not be needed.  From Catholic Culture:
Proper treatment on infertility, the Pope said, should be “most respectful of the human condition of the people involved.” He decried the current approach, dominated by “scientism and the logic of profit,” and said that the heavy promotion of in vitro fertilization is restricting research on more promising techniques.
Dr. Jain also decried the lack of respect for children and the profit motive in the fertility industry.  She profoundly ended her piece with this:
Congress must regulate the number of embryos fertility specialists can transfer through IVF.... the people with the most to lose from its unregulated use are those least able to consent: the potential children produced. 
It is nice to see that at least someone at the Huffington Post is moving in the right direction.

Comments

  1. “scientism and the logic of profit,” The Catholic Church has named the monstrosity of human experimentation: "Scientism", and the name fits the fraudulent act of using "science" as an excuse or cover to violate the laws of nature and the laws of science. Thank you, Rebecca Taylor. and God bless

    ReplyDelete
  2. From the post: "Dr. Jain also decried the lack of respect for children and the profit motive in the fertility industry."

    Be careful when thinking that putting something into government control removes/decreases the profit motive. We've seen time and time again where the profit motive remains, but now some representative or senator is getting a cut whether it be in money or votes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Comments reveal that while progressive are fine with government taking over health care in general, they are not fine with the feds regulating IVF. That would be much too dangerous. Much too much governmental intrusion."

    This is what happens when government no longer follows any type of Constitutional limits or higher truths. Laws just become arbitrary as they try to craft your laws to please/bribe a voter block rather than adhere to a set of guidelines and principles. Basically, you start to change laws according to what well-connected group screams the most. Government then starts granting exemptions and accommodations, but again, in a very arbitrary way based on political strategy.

    And this is why Catholics pose such a difficult problem for government since our moral laws are not something where we can compromise or use as bargaining chip.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dude, not everyone pursuing pregnancy via IVF is as unethical as your first few paragraphs would insinuate. True they don't consider the embryo a child, which even PJPII said he wasn't sure when ensoulment occurred, but best to treat all stages of life as human and ensouled, and gravely immoral . . . My point is there are many pursuing this transferring single embryo if they only intend to have one, and only transferring two if they would accept two babies. Then they pay rent on whatever embryos are left over because if they had their way everyone of their embryos would result in a child. For the 6 of 8 couples that are fertile we think, "Hey why not adopt," but it isn't that easy. But for the 2 of 8 that are aching and grieving monthly over the children they don't have, ethical IVF is hard to ignore and does produce miracle children. Haven't you any friends that have done this? Not everyone using IVF, ART is unethical goat willing to use selective reduction (ABORTION). I do stand with you that is WRONG. I just would not be sitting here judging a couple that have done the requisite conjugative and unitive ad nauseum without the hoped for child and then pursue as ethically and conservatively as possible after trying every other church blessed option of fertilizing small number of embryos and transferring 1 or 2 at a time. Some of my favorite young people are from IVF.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The author is female--not a dude-- and she's being accurate about what the choice for IVF entails. Just because someone means well doesn't mean that they're doing the right thing, or will get good results.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And of course it's tempting-- there are few desires on par with that of wishing to have a child. That's the rub-- I want my child this way, rather than the kid being a person with their own rights and desires.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (On a side-- I have a friend that was conceived via rape. The moral status of a person's biological origin doesn't have a lot of bearing on what kind of person they are, and the other way around.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. The last comments on how pushing IVF restricts money and attention to actually fixing the infertility issues to begin with is so very apt! My sister has poly-cystic ovaries and for years doctors have just been pushing one hormone pill after another on her rather than trying to find out exactly what in her system is causing the cysts to form and fixing the root cause. So much of our OBGYN care and technology is focused on taking a pill or artificially manipulating a woman's body instead of actually discovering the hormonal or physical sources of the problems to begin with. This needs to be paid more attention to if we are to claim that reproductive care is truly in the best interests of a woman's health.

    ReplyDelete
  9. IVF is totally unnecessary, in a world where there are so many children waiting to be adopted. Infertile couples who'd rather pay thousands, just so they can be sure their child shares their genes, are fundamentally no different from people who marry cousins to keep their bloodlines "pure".

    Honestly, though, it's not even barbaric, because barbarians had the sense to treat adopted children as their own. No, it's our "scientific" civilization that's invented this grotesque superstition that worships bloodline.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rebecca, sorry I called you a dude. I assumed wrongly this was written by one of the brothers.

    Foxfire, the mistake I see on yours and Rebecca's part is assuming for all who use IVF that it is about their presumed right to reproduce and in disregard to the rights of the little humans that are created in the process.

    My point is that knowing and loving someone that has decided to use IVF is more reliable way of understanding the actual reasoning that went into the decision. This is actually the more Christlike approach too, to understand the pain, grief, loss that leads to the decision.

    Do you know someone that has had a child by IVF? Does that person fit the construct Rebecca laid out in the first couple paragraphs? Does that person's doctor fit the mold of profiteer without concern for little human or mother? My answers after the Lord led me to know and love someone on this path is know. That is why I was so disturbed to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Colleen, your mistake was not realizing that the first paragraph (and the entire piece) was about PROGRESSIVES and their mentality that the "reproductive right" trump all including the health and wellness of children. It is also a comment on an unregulated fertility industry that can and does produce Octomom. There is no comment on the individual couples that use IVF at all in the piece. I never said we should not love infertile couples or try and understand their pain and suffering. You inferred something I did not imply.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Colleen @ ID-
    if you are going to lecture on proper Christian behavior, you may want to try not reading what is actually written instead of what your emotions read into it.

    For that matter, you might want to read the very first response I posted, and lay off attempting to emotionally manipulate people. It's not flattering, and it is not relevant to the facts if I know someone who has had IVF or not.

    It's not news to anyone here that trying to conceive and not being successful is heart-rending. The love of babies is one of the good things about how humans are hard-wired.
    The problem is that responding to that pain and desire by choosing to put your child at risk before they even exist doesn't become any more right just because you're hurting.

    Many people weren't even told about the risk. Some people were lied to if they asked about it. Many Catholics don't know about the teachings involved, and put their trust in doctors.

    Incidentally? I do know folks who've used IVF. Intimately. It doesn't change a blessed thing about this human experimentation and placing of having a kid as desired ahead of that kid's rights.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Progressives is still a group, and it is still blanket judgement of a group. Yeah, I did catch that word, but I can't jump on the us vs. them progressives bandwagon to make my conscience feel better against the directive, "do not judge". You know who said that, not me, or the Pope. Just the King of Kings. I am defending against blanket judgement and whether motivated emotionally or not. If you want to say it is gravely wrong because the church teaches it is gravely wrong . . . fine see your faithfulness is the issue. If it is to judge those supporting or seeking a child via IVF as fine with human experimentation and oblivious to a little kid's rights, then no I disagree with you and Rebecca, and sure you disagree with me.

    Not trying for emotional manipulation either.... that is your judging again, Foxfire. Just pointing out that when you know someone you start to understand that you can't put couple sentences together in a couple of paragraphs and lock-up their rationale and decision-making process.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rebecca, if we stick to the reason why legislating against abortion makes sense--because we are protecting from violent act, then yes, I think there is a case for putting legislation in place to AT MINIMUM and along the same lines as making abortion on demand illegal, outlawing selective reduction. I think that step alone would stop the transferring as many as possible viable embryos. Since getting sweeping legislation passed is unlikely I would think the first step is to include and explicitly call out selective abortion in a bill outlawing abortion on demand. As far as number of eggs fertilized and limiting that, I would like to see us follow the model of Italy and Germany but knowing someone intimate with the statistics only fertilizing 2-3 embryos vs up to 10 really reduces the number of strong embryos for transfer. I am all for outlawing the unethical practice of selecting mass producing embryos for desired traits. I know some perform testing to ensure a hereditary disease is not passed on. This is all the slippery slope that the "gravely evil" and Pope Benedict's recent statements to find something better, more clearly moral to help infertile married couples conceive in the the woman's body instead of the petri dish was supposed to prevent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, I did catch that word, but I can't jump on the us vs. them progressives bandwagon to make my conscience feel better against the directive, "do not judge".

    That's not what it says.

    Not trying for emotional manipulation either....

    Really? Then why demand to know if I know someone who has done a thing, rather than rational defense of the matter?

    If you want to say it is gravely wrong because the church teaches it is gravely wrong . . . fine see your faithfulness is the issue.

    Not what we've said.
    I can't speak for Ms. Taylor, but I say it's wrong because it involves treating HUMANS as objects, non-people whose very lives are lower than the desires of those with power over them.

    As far as number of eggs fertilized and limiting that, I would like to see us follow the model of Italy and Germany but knowing someone intimate with the statistics only fertilizing 2-3 embryos vs up to 10 really reduces the number of strong embryos for transfer.

    Hey, who cares if there are seven dead kids, instead of two, the adults got the child they wanted!
    *shudder*

    ReplyDelete
  16. Foxfier, are you aware that in within the body cycles there are often fertilized embryos that fall through and do not implant for similar reasons that embryos are not selected for transfer; for example cell division didn't occur optimally. Are you calling those embyros kids too, or weren't you aware of that reality? If you want to argue "rationally" then why are you assuming dehumanization. There is no rational disagreement than an embryo is human life. There is legitimate doubt, in my opinion, that the embryo is a kid. Morally, rationally, it is optimal to assume that the embryo may be an ensouled human and better, in Church's teachings and my own opinion to not put human life in the hands of an embryologist that might not feel as morally responsible or as loving toward the offspring than I as a parent would, or God as all our parent would.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Colleen, are you aware that every day, people die of natural causes? And yet, somehow, it's a crime for me to recklessly endanger their lives, much less actively kill them!

    If you want to argue "rationally" then why are you assuming dehumanization.

    Because you're arguing for treating living biological humans as things?

    There is no rational disagreement than an embryo is human life.

    That's a relief-- I've had those arguments often enough.

    There is legitimate doubt, in my opinion, that the embryo is a kid.

    And there are doctors who say the same of "newborns." That would be where the dehumanization comes in; to deprive of human qualities or attributes; divest of individuality.

    They're just choosing a different point for what we all admit is a human life to become a person.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We don't know when the human life becomes a person, and neither does anyone without a direct line to God. It is a fallacy to bring in point that some doctors say newborns aren't humans.

    No, I would not argue for treating living biological human as a thing. Sorry you need to look for someone else to argue that.

    Only point I would want to argue is not to judge individuals that have made this decision condemning them en masse as progressives or disregarding the rights of the human embryos. I know right or wrongness of a moral act is intention can only decrease culpability but not make a moral wrong right.

    The Catechism's arguments are not explicit enough to provide guidance other than NO! The arguments in blogs and publications fall into this blanket judgment, hostile speech that is also not helpful, when one's experience says otherwise. If you know that fertilized embryos fall through more often than they implant, and this little fact is left out of the catechism and any and all articles and blogs I've read from the Catholic, anti-IVF perspective, then you tend to think this is an open case right now. I haven't had to deal with infertility, and horrible odds at adoption to know what that does to one's reasoning. Even if there was one visionary at Medjugorie or something that got definitively from our Lady, "yes the soul is their at conception, or the soul is there at implantation", then I would not give the individuals the benefit of a doubt that the path to having a baby by IVF is extremely self-sacrificing, and the woman has little to no control. It doesn't pass the smell test of sin. So, I tend to think this is between her and her Savior, especially if she only transferred one, or two --- with an abhorrence to reductive abortion, and that she was paying to keep the remaining viable embryos for either donation, or future transfers. In short I don't agree that the people supporting this, labeled progressive or not, calling it reproductive rights or not (and I don't) are accurately understood as dehumanizing the embryos. I don't think I will persuade you of that, and it is really not that important if I do.

    ReplyDelete
  19. well one other thing, the reason I brought up the question, do you know someone that has had a child by IVF is because before i did I would not have questioned the logic of the arguments in the catechism. It is easy when you fall on the comfortable side of Catholic teaching. When you fall on the other side either personally, or through empathy, sympathy, seeking first to understand than be understood it changes your perspective. For one thing you argue more respectfully.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We don't know when the human life becomes a person, and neither does anyone without a direct line to God. It is a

    That depends on how you define "person;" the primary definition is a human. Probably because of the historical nastiness when people try to say "that human, over there, isn't really a human like us, he's a non-person."

    No, I would not argue for treating living biological human as a thing.

    Yes, you did; that's exactly what your calculus about how many small, young humans one must create to have a good chance of a "strong" one entails. Incidentally trampling all over their god-given rights; small surprise you dislike the arguments in the CCC.

    If you know that fertilized embryos fall through more often than they implant, and this little fact is left out of the catechism and any and all articles and blogs I've read from the Catholic, anti-IVF perspective, then you tend to think this is an open case right now.

    Again, the vast majority of humans die, yet it's illegal to endanger or kill them.
    Let me spell it out for you:
    it is "left out" because it is not relevant. Would you accept a drunk driver's defense that people die every day? How about a murder's?
    Incidentally, it is not known if most embryos fail to survive-- there are a lot of estimates, but the only studies that have been done are with IVF itself, where a number of embryos are introduced and the number of surviving children can be tallied. (Only way that it could be reliably studied, really- you have to know how many are fertilized to know how many fail.)

    well one other thing, the reason I brought up the question, do you know someone that has had a child by IVF is because before i did I would not have questioned the logic of the arguments in the catechism.

    So you're admitting that you were trying emotional manipulation, since you couldn't offer one on the merits?

    It is easy when you fall on the comfortable side of Catholic teaching.

    For someone so quick with accusations of blanket statements and judgements on insufficient information... oh, heck. It's not like it's even the biggest "do you listen to what you write" thing you've done here; the entire 11:40PM post is breaking irony meters for miles around.

    ReplyDelete
  21. For those looking for more information on IVF and the Church, there's Ms. Taylor's blog, and things like this:
    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/isnt-the-churchs-teaching-on-in-vitro-fertilization-unfair-to-couples-who-cannot-conc
    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-the-church-deny-the-right-of-women-to-use-ivf-if-they-cannot-conceive-a-child
    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/would-killing-a-human-conceived-in-a-test-tube-still-be-considered-murder

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is a fallacy to bring in point that some doctors say newborns aren't humans.

    Your "evidence" was that you doubted the embryonic human was a kid; thus, that there are others who hold the same view of newborns is equally sound evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hmm, not sure I should keep checking back here. I didn't say I didn't like the arguments in the CCC and I've quoted them earlier in the comments.

    I have argued this based on the merits. There is a difference between a kid and a few cells together in a human life blastula---unless that blastula is ensouled.

    If you believe the blastula is ensouled, then it follows correctly for you that the blastula is a kid.

    If you aren't sure when the blastula is ensouled, and the fact that there are fertilized embryos that fall through without implantation leads a person considering IVF to doubt that the blastula is a kid because makes you wonder why God would co-create a soul into a blastula that wasn't willed by him to implant, then it follow that person considering IVF would not agree with you that the blastula is a kid.

    If a person considers obedience to Church teaching as paramount to obeying Christ, then whether that person has doubts or not as to the blastula being a person, the person would obey and defend the Church's teaching. If this were you Foxfier I think we might have had a friendlier conversation.

    I would defend both I think. I have highest respect for women, infertile couples who accept infertility as the cross they are willed and blessed to carry in following their Lord. I also have high respect, for someone that is carrying, voluntarily the cross of pursuing a family with help from ART, following their conscience illuminated by their heart and prayer life along the way. I do not have disdain for these people, even though I think, in their place I would pursue adoption, or . . . I don't know work in an orphanage or open a daycare or something as much as I love children before i would go against the teaching of the church.

    Not sure why you are so hostile, or maybe it is just the way I am processing your messages. Have you been emotionally manipulated before, because I am pretty sure that is more involved than a couple of lines in a blog comment. Seems like there might be some baggage there, but maybe I'm guilty of crossing the line this time!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't say I didn't like the arguments in the CCC and I've quoted them earlier in the comments.

    Where did you quote it?
    You said: "The Catechism's arguments are not explicit enough to provide guidance other than NO!"

    You also keep coming back to the screwy argument that, because some people of a certain age die, then it's reasonable to assume that they aren't really people.

    If this were you Foxfier I think we might have had a friendlier conversation.

    Doubtful. I don't agree with you, you keep doing exactly what you accuse others of, and you seem to be having an entirely different conversation anyways.

    Why do you avoid making actual arguments in support of your claimed beliefs?
    Why do you keep trying to make this a matter of emotion?
    Why do you keep trying to change the subject?
    Why do you keep trying to go on the offensive, while decrying how hostile I am?
    Why don't you practice what you preach?

    ReplyDelete
  25. (For those following along at home: blastocyst is a blastula for mammals; Britannica has a pretty good article on it, for the best price ;^p )

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment