By: Mike McMonagle, President, Pro-Life Coalition of Pennsylvania
Today, I'm writing to address why contraception remains the root of the Culture of Death with its launching of a War on Children.
I do so by again linking my HV55 article (below) that morally, medically and logically connects contraception with promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality and "same-sex marriage," in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and transgender ideology.
This correspondence also addresses, in some detail, the 2024 mostly negative developments regarding IVF, in the Church, in medicine, and in the public square. I argue that these developments resulted from the Church's and the pro-life movement's failure to confidently and zealously present the case against IVF, which began when we failed to articulate the case against the practice of and mentality behind contraception.
Nevertheless, this correspondence does provide reasons for realistic hope for some positive developments regarding IVF by recalling our movement's recent success regarding ESCR. This success mainly resulted from identifying the harms done to recipients of ESCR and the tremendous benefits achieved by adult stem cells.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute (www.lozierinstitute.org) provides documentation of the amazing advancements - and even cures - for patients using adult stem cells.
The Alabama Supreme Court Decision and Its Impact
The 2024 IVF developments began in February with an Alabama Supreme Court (ASC) decision that held IVF providers civilly liable for negligently destroying some frozen human embryos. This decision did not ban IVF. However, this Court ruled that such destruction of a human embryo carried the same civil liability as the negligent killing of a born human being.
As expected, pro-abortion forces quickly realized that this decision undermined their fundamental argument that children in the womb had no legal rights. Pro-abortion forces also cleverly and successfully framed their arguments against the ASC decision as being for the conception and birth of ("wanted") children.
However, this decision rapidly yielded significant negative developments, which became the extensive public square and legislative support, from advocates and legislators with previously pro-life records, for protecting the IVF industry from civil liability for negligence. All Republican U.S. Senators and almost all Alabama legislators voted to provide this protection. Even staunch anti-abortion advocates, such as Ben Shapiro and Dr. James Dobson, expressed their support for IVF, as long as "excess embryos" were not created, which is quite similar to "I support swimming as long as you don't get wet."
Through political cowardice, intellectual laziness and/or support for contraception (which rejects the human being's creation in God's Triune image), they fell prey to the argument that this protection was needed to "help infertile couples have children." As I will discuss later, in addition to ignoring that IVF necessarily creates "excess embryos" and its assault on human dignity, this argument fails to recognize
- the physical harm done to women by this IVF process;
- the high failure rate of IVF; and
- IVF's financial predation on infertile couples.
The arguments for IVF also ignore the tremendous success of natural and medically safe treatments for infertility, which I discuss later.
In addition to Catholic organizations, to their great credit, some pro-life organizations (such as Live Action and Created Equal) and some non-Catholic religious organizations (such as the Southern Baptist Convention and Rev. Al Mohler) have insightfully and courageously articulated their opposition to IVF in the Church and in the public square.
What's Wrong with In Vitro Fertilization?
Live Action has prepared an excellent five-minute video (available at www.LiveAction.org/is-ivf-pro-life) by Lauren Rubal, M.D., that, with words, diagrams and animation, cogently and powerfully summarizes the harms of IVF. As much as I would like recipients to complete reading this email and its attachments, viewing this video is more important and effective to enhancing our IVF education.
The moral, ethical and medical harms of IVF include the following:
1. Human dignity is assaulted by children being manufactured in a petri dish by a technician with a pipette, rather than created in God's image through the conjugal relationship of husband and wife.
2. The injection of Pergonal to stimulate egg production, often causes severe medical harms to women.
3. Because of the costs and pain involved in egg retrieval, "excess" human embryos are created with some implanted, some frozen and some destroyed.
4. IVF involves pre-implementation "genetic diagnosis" to eliminate some human embryos based on sex and/or other qualities or conditions.
5. If successfully implanted, many human embryos spontaneously abort.
6. IVF promotes the use of sperm and egg donors and children conceived through IVF suffer a significantly higher rate of premature birth and birth defects and are usually legally prevented from knowing the identity of their biological mother or father.
7. IVF fuels the surrogacy industry, which exploits poor women.
8. IVF has resulted in the placement of thousands of human embryos in "cryogenic orphanages" - all of whom will eventually die - if not "thawed" for implantation. Some human embryos then die when implantation is attempted through "snowflake adoption."
9. IVF has fueled ESCR, where human beings are treated as material for spare parts or "medical research."
10. The promotion of IVF has increased the difficulty of ethical and medically sound research into the causes and cures for infertility.
I am attaching a February 28, 2024 National Catholic Register article by Catholic ethicist Father Roger Landry with additional analysis of IVF.
While acknowledging the sadness of - and IVF temptation for - infertile couples, Fr. Landry concludes his article with the following.
"Relatively few have had the courage to confront these issues. No one wants to offend the dignity or hurt the feelings of the 8 million children made through in vitro worldwide. Everyone feels immense compassion for couples struggling with infertility. Yet, now, the artificial reproductive technology (ART) industry is increasingly being employed to manufacture made-to-order children for otherwise fertile couples who prefer to use surrogates, for single women who want to choose sperm donors and sometimes egg donors from catalogs, by same-sex couples, and others who look to IVF as option A, not as a reluctant last resort.
"The ethical and legal logic of the Alabama Supreme Court decision is simple and clear. It recognizes the humanity of the human embryo and applies the protections that the Alabama law and Constitution say must be granted to unborn children.
"In response, many are trying to duck the issue of the humanity of the embryo. Abortion supporters are dusting off their exhausted euphemisms to dehumanize the human embryo, recognizing that if the humanity of the embryo is conceded extra utero, it will have enormous consequences for how embryos are treated in utero.
"But some pro-life champions who know well the humanity of the human embryo are also ducking the issue, expressing their support for "family values" and "children" without addressing any of the ethical issues involved in freezing and destroying innocent human life, not to mention the abortion-supporting logic that embryos are the "property" of parents who have absolute legal rights to let them live, die, or be put in the freezer.
"The Alabama Supreme Court decision, no matter its long-term legal impact, has begun a long-overdue conversation. Catholics need to have the courage to speak about it: first internally, since many Catholics, too, have had recourse to IVF either in ignorance or defiance of moral teaching; and then globally, so that, as disciples of the One who said whatever we do to the least of his brothers and sisters we do to him, we may evangelize the wild west with the gospel of life."
Reason for Hope: The Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate
From about 2000-2009, our nation engaged in an intense public square, medical, ethical and legislative debate regarding ESCR (and a related, albeit less intense, debate regarding human cloning). The most prominent controversial aspect of this debate was whether governments (at the state, local and/or national levels) should fund such research. The motivations for seeking such funding included
- a genuine belief that such research might help mitigate and/or cure many diseases or conditions;
- the many organizations seeking such cures and/or treatments would have access to a large amount of government funding, while they spent most of their privately raised funds on other research, such as adult stem cells; and
- abortion advocates could claim "moral justification" for killing some children in the womb and accuse ESCR opponents of being "callous" toward those suffering with certain diseases or conditions and/or being "anti-science."
The pro-life side argued that human beings, including frozen human embryos, should not be treated as a source of "spare parts" for other human beings because such treatment (as with abortion) violated the fundamental ethic of the medical profession to "do no harm."
In 2005, ESCR advocates nearly won a veto override of President Bush's veto of ESCR funding in the U.S. House and, in 2006, these advocates won several state referenda for such funding. Television ads by a visibly shaking Michael J. Fox, who intentionally temporarily ceased his Parkinson's medication to induce these shakes, contributed to the success of these referenda.
Yet, by about 2012, the pro-life movement won this debate, as advocates of ESCR ceased their efforts for two principal reasons:
1. the use of ESCR often made conditions worse and induced cancers; and
2. the use of adult stem cells (which are readily and ethically available) were yielding some amazing results, including allowing some previously paralyzed patients to walk.
The Bad News: In Vitro Fertilization
The pro-life movement can reduce support for IVF by widely revealing the vast harms of the IVF to women. Such a lengthy (29 pages) report from The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network (CBC) is available at cbc-network.org.
Here are some highlights from the CBC report.
(IVF) Risks include, but are not limited to: Ovarian Hyper Stimulation syndrome (OHSS) due to superovulation, loss of fertility, ovarian torsion, stroke, kidney disease, premature menopause, ovarian cysts, and in some rare cases, death. Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) is a life-threatening condition that can also cause stroke, ovarian torsion, organ failure, and psychological distress. Risks of OHSS are serious and grossly underreported. Current estimates of the occurrence of OHSS are at 10%, but again, that number is inaccurately low as OHSS is not always reported or documented.
More specifically, all IVF pregnancies had significantly increased risk of blood transfusion at delivery, a significantly increased risk of 3rd or 4th degree lacerations at delivery, and higher rates of gestational diabetes.
Data show that children conceived via IVF have an increased risk for insulin-resistance and high blood pressure and suffer from significant increases in preterm or very pre-term births, stillbirths and perinatal mortality, low and very low birth weights, small for gestational age, fetal anomalies (including congenital malformation), higher blood pressure, and Beckwith-Wiedemann and Angelman syndrome, according to studies published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the Journal of Perinatology, the American Journal of Human Genetics, and Fertility and Sterility. Another study found "that children born via ART conception have a higher risk of any type of childhood cancer, as well as leukemia and hepatic tumors, compared with children born via either natural conception or parental subfertility."
Of the frozen embryos that are used for IVF, one study found that these babies conceived from frozen embryo transfer were more than twice as likely to develop childhood cancer, particularly leukemia and neuroblastoma, a type of brain cancer. At best, research cannot exclude the possibility that irreparable damage to the child-to-be will not result from being frozen for some time, therefore it is ethically problematic to proceed with creating children by these means.
The Good News: NaPro Technology
The pro-life movement can also project optimism by sharing the wonderful news of enhanced fertility by NaPro Technology, which identifies and often successfully treats the underlying causes of infertility. I am attaching a document that describes NaPro Technology (and a NaPro facility) and a chart about NaPro Technology.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I repeat my recommendation that you watch the five-minute video on IVF at Live Action's website (www.LiveAction.org/is-ivf-pro-life).
Resources
Comentários