Question for pro-life community. . .?

Fertility treatments that allow a couple to conceive a child the usual way (through intercourse) are a-okay with me -- and my Church, btw.

IVF is NOT okay.

My husband and I went through 2 years of infertility, and the church we were attending at that time didn't give us any guidance at all. After we investigated the process very thoroughly, we realized how horrible it is for the embryos themselves. We calculated that an embryo has less than 9% chance of surviving in the long run. And we realized that no GOOD parent would put their offspring -- or any child -- through a process that had a 91% chance of killing them.

The problem is that the fertility clinics do not help couples work through this, and most churches are silent about it. The desire for a baby can be so desperate and so intense, a couple may not think clearly. They allow themselves to be blinded by the promises of the clinics (which usually boast a 25% success rate, but they are defining that as "pregnant woman" not the odds of each individual embryo surviving). They are bamboozled into creating many embryos, under the promise that they'll be perfectly safe while frozen (which isn't true - - many die in the freezer or cannot survive after being 'thawed').

For this reason, I don't think they are quite as culpable as the people who voluntarily seek abortions, knowing that they are killing their own offspring.

I should add, though, that most of the women who seek abortions are being forced to by their partners or parents...sometimes by financial problems, their careers or something else, too. Society in general pressures pregnant rape victims to abort. These women are not as culpable, either, because they think they have no other choice.

A person's a person no matter how small.

There is nothing immoral in the procedure itself, the only problem arises in the destruction of the "excess" embryos. (How horrible to characterize a person as "excess"!)

Now, the destruction of embryos that occurred in the research for the procedure isn't relevant at this point. What's done is done. It is similar to the question of "can we morally use the data collected by the Nazis in their immoral experiments"? In that case the use of the data is not an endorsement of the methods by which it was obtained, so it would not be immoral to use it. Data is data, science is science, what makes it moral or immoral is how it is used... like any other tool.

So simply using the technique would not be immoral.

The only immoral act would occur if you allowed "excess" (oh I hate that) embryos to be created and destroyed.

If you were to have a discussion with the doctor who would be administering the procedure, and expressed your concerns, and explained that you don't want "excess embryos" to be created and destroyed, I don't think there would be any moral concerns. I'm sure it would require a deviation from normal procedure, and perhaps some extra expense, but it would relieve any moral problems.

There is however one other issue to consider, and that is the "opportunity cost" of the procedure. (Opportunity cost is an economic term that expresses the value of the next best choice that one gives up when making a decision. If you spend $5 on lunch at McDonalds you don't have that $5 to spend on a lipstick later.)

There are millions of already existing children on this planet that are need of adoption. I think there may be a moral... I'd say "concern" rather than "problem" with the issue of spending so much money and difficulty on the IFV procedure when there is an oversupply of children who need adopting. Before going to all the trouble and expense of IFV in order to have "our" child, one might want to consider adoption, and if that might not be a better use of resources.

The first thing that I have to say is that it should be mandatory that the woman be married.I think that fertility treatments should be the way to go. That would remove entirely the dispute of embryonic stems cells. Umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells are proved methods of scientific means to bring healing.

I don't really see anything wrong with it as an embryo itself is not a living thing that will grow and be born if given the chance. A child already conceived, is going to be and in order to get rid of it you have to actually kill it----meaning it was alive. That's just my opinion.

I'm not in the 'pro life community' but I do believe that there shouldn't be abortions after the baby's brain synapses begin to function (approx 9 weeks gest) and preferably not at all.

I've no problem with IVF. To me it's not a person till there is brain function. That's when there becomes a potential for pain receptors and personality development.

They aren't even embryos yet.

They are blastula.

I know, because I'm in the egg donor registry. You should try it, I fetch a nice 11 thousand for my perfect looks and genetically inherent IQ. You would probably fetch around 1500, and the donor's information would be left anonymous.

I wish people would like you would look beyond the media, and see the vast ocean of information that you, too could have a cup of sweet knowledge from.

We are playing God.