Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Homeless babies
A new study, conducted with 1,020 patients at U.S. fertility clinics, showed that couples were unsure about what to do with their fertilized embryos that would not be used in pregnancy.
Only 7 percent of the respondents said they were “very likely” to donate the embryos to another couple trying to conceive and just 6 percent said they were “very likely” to thaw and dispose of the embryos.
These embryos are either human life or potential human life, depending on who you are, and so it’s not easy knowing what to do with them. For some, to destroy them is just another kind of abortion, a kind of murder. For others, it’s just tossing out garbage. One solution – and this is quite clever – is to put the embryos “back in the woman’s body at a time she’s not likely to conceive.” Some also suggest throwing out the embryos, but having a “ceremony at the time of disposal,” which makes sense, but then also seems a little weird and out of place. About the homeless embryo, one fertility therapist says this:
It’s special. It’s endowed. It has life potential. It’s meaningful … It’s important in some way. It’s kind of like even when you have a stillbirth or you have a miscarriage, sometimes people want to name it and do a ceremony around that.
What do you think?
back to top10 Comments to “Homeless babies”
It seems to me that when couples make the choice to have all these eggs fertilized, they already know that they most likely won’t be using all of them. It’s not as if they just found themselves in this situation–with a bunch of embryos that won’t be carried to full term. They planned it that way. If the couples had any scruples about creating babies only to destroy them, they wouldn’t have had in vitro fertilization in the first place. So why are they suddenly finding themselves with this dilemma on their hands, as if they’d never thought of it before?
Report comment to moderator
I think it is possible to do ethical IVF (only create the number of embryos you are committed to implanting–and only implant the number that you could carry and raise if all “took”). But it’s expensive, so people tend to hedge their bets with extras.
Report comment to moderator
Whether an embryo is human life or potential human life does not depend on who we are, as HSK claims. It depends on what the embryo is. Reality is in the stubborn habit of being what it is, regardless of our opinions or preferences.
So what is an ambryo? It’s clearly human (human genes, not dog or cat or anthrax or fern genes), and clearly alive (nutrition, respiration, etc.) By what stretch of logic can we imagine it’s anything other than human life?
Are we not simply playing semantic games in our own minds, in order to justify our own choices?
Report comment to moderator
Which costs less and entails less risk/liability: a trip to China to pick up an unwanted newborn or having an IVF embryo emplanted?
Report comment to moderator
a time she’s not likely to conceive
Conception has already occurred. It’s not like it has much if anything to do with ovulation, the time most likely to conceive. The baby could implant in her uterus. Even during menstruation.
I think it is just silly. If they are going to do a sloppy job, not really intending for the child to survive, they may as well just flush it. Either it is a human life, in which case it should be given every reasonable chance, or it is not.
I would save the child for future adoption. Who knows, with declining fertility there may come a day when these children are very wanted.
http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm
It is amazing to me that these couples have not thought this through.
Report comment to moderator
An analogy would be a person stuck in a mine due to the carelessness and thoughtfulness of others. Add to that the fact that this person has been rejected by pretty much everyone, especially by those who are responsible for him being in mortal peril, who happen also to be those who would make the decisions related to his rescue.
Why don’t we dig a few token holes, but otherwise just leave him down there. Then have a ceremony.
Yes, this is harsh. It is dark down there.
People Need To Think Before They Act.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
They’re probably about equal in time, money, effort, and risk.
TJ and I won’t do IVF, but we’ve seriously looked at international adoption.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Although I realize that this is a very personal decision, they do have what I think they call “Snowflake Adoptions”. That is where you adopt one of these embryos that the couple cannot/will not use and carry the child to term yourself.
Another possibility for couples to consider.
Report comment to moderator
BethD,
Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
The answer to this false dilemma, as noted in #1 and 2 above, is to fertilize only those eggs you’re willing to have implanted. It’s a matter of comfort and finance, though. IVF cycles are expensive and painful, so patients want to minimize the number of cycles they undergo.
Much better than embryo freezing is egg freezing. The success rate is lower but it comes with no ethical baggage.
And, ethically, “…put[ing] the embryos ‘back in the woman’s body at a time she’s not likely to conceive’” is hardly different from throwing them in the trash.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!