Late to this story:
The New York Times published a story last weekend about the practice of what is euphemistically known as ‘reducing’ a pregnancy. It’s the barbaric practice of killing one or more babies in a multiple-birth pregnancy, usually through lethal injection, and leaving the dead sibling(s) with the living until birth.
The practice was initially engaged during IVF when four or more embryos implanted and a certain number were culled in order to produce more robust survivors with the least complications for the mother. As with all depravity, there are no absolute limits, just a series of yellow lights. We now have a debate about reducing pregnancies of twins to what are called ‘singletons’. Listen to one mother in the article and her rationale:
If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner – in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me – and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.
What we glimpse here is the underlying malignancy of IVF, and the reason why we ought not allow our sympathy for the childless to cloud our reason and judgement.
Regina and I both lived the bitter and sorrowful disappointment of not being able to conceive for over four LONG years. We went into our marriage agreeing that, come what may, we would abide the teaching of the Church. We would not do IVF, nor would I see my wife juiced up with ghastly levels of cancer-inducing hormones, all in the name of having a biological keeper.
It was after we stopped trying and agreed to proceed to adoption that our first child was conceived.
That said, the grotesqueness that the desperate swallow in the pursuit of biological progeny is evident in this article. The euphemistic reductions are the most noticeable tip of the iceberg.
In the process of IVF, several eggs are harvested after pumping women full of hormones to stimulate hyper-ovulation. The consent to this by any husband ranges between ignorance to unspeakable selfishness.
Then, the husband is handed a specimen cup and shown a room where he must manually produce a semen sample. At this point, the procreative work is no longer that of husband and wife, but rather that of a team of lab technicians who will facilitate the union of egg and sperm. Husband and wife are relegated to the sidelines as mere observers.
Once the clutch of eggs is fertilized, the embryos are sorted and graded according to ‘viability’. At this point, a cell may be taken from the embryo to test for genetic and potential developmental anomalies. The poorer candidates are thus tossed away, the best implanted, and the rest frozen at -320 degrees F in liquid nitrogen. This process is abortion on steroids.
Thus, the entire process of IVF treats the child as an accessory in the lives of he parents, with little to no regard for that child’s weaker siblings who are simply thrown away, or immersed in liquid nitrogen indefinitely, a process that kills half of all who are frozen. No amount of desperation can ever justify this hideous mockery of God’s wise design. The experience that Regina and I had shows the value of respecting and obeying the Church as a matter of habit, so that when the storms hit, one has a safe refuge.
People may ridicule the Church and the teaching handed down by our celibate bishops, but as this article demonstrates, perhaps it takes a celibate to help the rest of us weather the storms.
Once science starts down a slippery slope, people just don’t know when to stop. Just because we CAN do something, does not mean we should!!
My husband and I also went through 3 or 4 years of infertility before we had a living child, and had started the process of adoption when our daughter was conceived. I am not a Catholic, but the Roman Catholic Church is absolutely right on contraception and destructive reproductive technologies (as opposed to some technologies/medicines which can help repair what is broken). Now we have 2, ages 3 and 1 1/2, by God’s grace–and we have decided that now is the time He is calling us to adopt. It is so hard to speak out against IVF because it may sometimes give life to children who couldn’t otherwise exist, and those children are precious. The embryos who did not implant, who were destroyed for genetic anomalies, and who were killed by freezing or thawing are just as precious–and IVF kills them (or may kill them, in the case of those who do not implant). As a woman who has experienced quite a few miscarriages between 10 and 21 days, I find the biased suggestion that the life of a 7-day-old baby does not matter particularly repugnant.
http://www.naprotechnology.com or http://www.popepaulvi.com This is the scientifically and ethically superior solution to IVF…
[…] proabort definitions of when life begins, etc., and took strong exception to my statements from the post linked here. What follows is Maria’s response, and my […]
…perhaps it takes a celibate to help the rest of us weather the storms…
I think you’ve hit on something very significant here. As a non-Catholic, I’ve often pondered the concept of celibates guiding married couples; how can they do so when they’ve never experienced marriage?
Now I finally “get it.” In this situation particularly–the conception and bearing of children–the celibate priest is able to view God’s plan and purpose without the emotional baggage that clouds the minds of married couples. The priest is able to focus on God’s expressed will and design, not the wants and desires of human beings, influenced as they are by the merchants of reproductive technology. The priest is able to articulate and point to God’s Word as THE standard in this (and all) situations.
We ought to thank God, literally, for the Church.
Interesting stuff. Also found some other opinions in cyberspace. Whereas the arguments regarding the destructions of human life are very understandable, the arguments (I must confess) regarding the husband and wife harmed by “sitting on the sidelines” is less intuitive for me. As expressed by the commentator whose piece is linked below, it is difficult for me to see them completely on the sidelines. Also, in most cases, they have tried the natural way quite exhaustively, and IVF can be seen by them as an extension of this process, rather than a recusal from it. Anyway, I’ve heard of IVF procedures where all the embryos were used or simply “did not make it” during the initial process, i.e., prior to being frozen; in those instances, no embryos were thrown away intentionally or not implanted. I realize that may not mitigate entirely the objections, but I’ve heard of such happening nonetheless. Anyway, like I said before, interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/church-must-accept-ivf-is-reciprocal-act-of-love/2009/01/19/1232213536672.html
I am part of an email group of women who have sought spiritual healing because of their choice to abort their children. Every woman or man has a unique but somehow same story to tell. However, this silent group of parents are just beginnijng to crawl out of their cave of silence and shame and confusion and vioce their utter horror at what they had been advised to do.
The rocks truly are beginning to cry out…enough…stop…
NaPro Technology: Moral and Better than In Vitro
…………………Just the facts
Some astonishing facts about NaPro are:
•It is more effective than IVF. Success rates are said to range from 40% to 60% vs. the IVF rate of 32.3% per cycle.
•It costs only a fraction of what IVF costs.
•It is almost 80% effective in bringing about childbirth after several miscarriages.
•It is 95% successful in treating premenstrual syndrome.
•It is 95% successful in treating postpartum depression.
•It cuts the rate of premature birth by almost 50%, thus lowering the frequency of birth-related injuries.
•With NaPro, you can have more children after the first without paying the same large cost again.19
The list of benefits seems to go on and on. The only thing lacking now is getting the word out. NaPro has a great future.20 http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7810
FertilityCare™ Centers of America is a dynamic, growing group of affiliated centers that provide professional instruction in the CREIGHTON MODEL FertilityCare™ System which features the new women’s health science, NaProTECHNOLOGY…. NaProTECHNOLOGY-trained physicians can be found at “Find a Medical Consultant Section http://www.fertilitycare.org/ FertilityCare™ Centers of America is a dynamic, growing group of affiliated centers that provide professional instruction in the CREIGHTON MODEL FertilityCare™ System which features the new women’s health science, NaProTECHNOLOGY…. NaProTECHNOLOGY-trained physicians can be found at “Find a Medical Consultant Section http://www.fertilitycare.org/
What are the Medical Risks of Infertility? Infertility is associated with a group of diseases that affect not only the reproductive status of women but also their very health…..In women, one of the main difficulties with infertility and the organic diseases and hormonal dysfunctions that are associated with it is that these same diseases can also cause both short- and long-term disability, impairment of one’s quality of life and even potentially the shortening of one’s life…….
http://www.unleashingthepower.info/PDFs/IA-MedRisksInfertility.pdf
Ladies if you are dealing with infertility please read the above pdf & find out what the root cause is!
The Founder of NaproTechnology is Dr Hilgers~
Spirit Catholic Radio presents “Your Fertility Care Consult” with Dr. Thomas Hilgers
23 Shows and Pope Paul the VI Institute Minutes
Some of the Shows~
Show 3: Disturbing Trends in the Health Care for Women, Children and Families – Part 1
Show 4: Disturbing Trends in the Health Care for Women, Children and Families – Part 2
Show 5: Creighton Model System and NaPro technology – Care versus Control
Show 6: Cerebrocentric vs. Genitocentric Sexuality
Show 7-9: Contraception – Part 1-3
Show 10: Abortion – Part 1
Show 11: Abortion – Part 2
Show 12: Teens and the Birth Control Pill
Show 13: Artificial Reproduction Technology
Show 14: Women Healed – Infertility
Show 15: Women Healed – Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion
Show 16: Women Healed – Endometriosis
Show 17: Women Healed – Polycystic Ovarian Disease
Show 18: Women Healed- Premenstrual Syndrome
Show 19: Women Healed- Postpartum Depression
Show 20: Women Healed- Prematurity
http://bit.ly/pA3OGN
[…] Nadell, a fellow blogger, couldn’t have said it any better. In his blog post “Pregnancy Reduction: IVF’s Logical and Diabolical End,” dated August 16, 2011, he says: “…In the process of IVF, several eggs are harvested after […]
The article was disturbing. I’m glad you wrote a post about this horrible practice.