September 22, 2009

Debating human embryo experimentation again in SD

Commenting on the latest attempt to amend out the prohibitions in SD law related to embryonic stem cell experimentation, Former State Senator Lee Schoenbeck said;

…under the new campaign reporting law, it will be interesting to follow the trail of money that is behind this.

Yep. It will.

$anford Health.  At $anford Health, embryo$ aren't just for babie$ anymore.  They are profitable. 

And it IS about money, not finding "lifesaving cures."  That's just another deceptive euphemism by the same people who brought us the "Campaign for Healthy Families." 

It's curious to me that those who made a huge stink in 2008 crying "voter fatigue" because we put yet another contentious LIFE bill on the ballot ARE THE VERY SAME ONES who are right back at the ballot with this latest attempt to destroy unborn human life.

But, like Cory at Madville, I too look forward to another opportunity to talk statewide about the humanity of the unborn.  Cory is already chompin at the bit to point out the "inconsistency" that many pro-life people don't seem bothered by discarded embryos in the in vitro fertilization process but they are bothered by those (driven by dollar signs) who want to experiment on human embryos. 

Since the debate has already ensued in our state on this subject, let's start talking about it again.  A couple related headlines are in the news right now.

First is the story about a women who was implanted with the wrong embryo.  When that baby is born she is giving it to it's biological parents. Who knows God's higher purpose in this but at high personal cost they are doing the right thing. Doctors advise this to be her last pregnancy and the couple is giving their remaining embryos other parents unable to conceive themselves. Good for them!

Last May a Welsh woman was also given the wrong embyro and she decided to abort the child after learning it wasn't her embyro. Unfortunately it was the last embryo of the biological mother and when she learned the couple aborted she said:

In less than 10 seconds our wonderful world was shattered when the senior embryologist stood in front of us and said, 'I'm very sorry to tell you, but there's been an accident in the lab. Your embryo has been destroyed.' We were both rooted to our seats. We were stunned and trembling. We held each other tightly, and sobbed and sobbed. It was like water from a tap. I kept thinking, 'They've killed our baby.'

On a related note, Parenting Magazine has an article in this month's issue on The Fate of Frozen Embryos. The article outlines these main outcomes for extra human embryos after in vitro fertilization. 

1. Donating to Other Infertile Couples.  These couples report "no regrets, and today, no sadness." The article provides the link to Resolve.org which provides info on donating embryos to other couples. Or Embryoadoption.com.

2. Donating to "Medical Research". Stephanie Smith of Odessa, MO decided not to donate to another infertile couple because…

 "she didn't know if she'd ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers." "It's a life-altering decision," she says. They eventually decided to donate the embryos for medical research, as a gesture of gratitude to a system that had given them their dreams. "We were ultimately still giving life, just not for those particular five embryos," she says.

Shockingly selfish and self-centered if you ask me. Rather than risk an uncomfortable moment seeing a kid that might be hers running around on some playground someday she decided spare herself that potential uncomfortable moment. And it's interesting to hear what people tell themselves to justify themselves and appease their guilt. We are ultimately still giving life… just not for those particular five embryos. Okay lady, if that helps you feel better, but have you ever been told there have been NO cures or benefits uncovered in ANY embryonic stem cell research EVER!

3. Thawing Without Donating - allowing their embryos to pass on naturally and with respect. A doctor does a "compassionate transfer," implanting the embryos into the woman at a time pregnancy is unlikely — envisioning it as a way to return the embryos to their keeping. Other couples want to perform a ceremony of some sort during the thawing and disposal to show their reverence.

4. Postponing the Decision Sounds like most people pick this option.

Permalink Print Comment

Comments on Debating human embryo experimentation again in SD »

September 23, 2009

caheidelberger @ 7:29 am

Option #3: please tell me you find implanting embryos with the intention of seeing them die "naturally" distasteful. And please tell me a "thawing" ceremony offends your pastorly sensibilities.

Steve @ 8:14 am

Question for you Cory… would a pet blessing ceremony offend your sensibilities? Personally I think a pet blessing ceremony (as we are seeing more and more in mainline churches) is fine as long as that church is also tangibly seeking God's protection and blessing on the unborn. I shake my head because it's usually the case that these folks bless pets and motorcycles and gay unions but curse the unborn. If you are going to bless anything and everybody why do the unborn get left out?

Now to answer your question. I get called in to minister and pray in the most unusual settings sometimes and I just go and serve. In this case, I'd encourage them to go for option one or four, not two or three. I suppose there are occasions where number three might be comparable to the times I'm with families who have to make the tough call to pull life support. But no, I'm not comfortable with a thawing ceremony if there are viable options like embryo adoption and even waiting. Although implanting them back in mom is far better than the dumpster behind Planned Parenthood, there seems to me no substantive difference between the two if they are done for elective reasons.

I keep getting this recurring envy-vibe on your part that I'm able to focus this blog on one thing and not bother with other tedious policy matters. You need to understand there is a great need in our day to keep ethics and policy/practice in dialog. Would you be surprised to know legislators contact and thank me for being one of those ethical voices? As I've said before here, Avera has the Presentation Sisters to serve as a moral anchor, whereas Sanford is fully adrift in the sea of profitability.

I hope you will soon be able to not focus so much on seeming pro-life inconsistencies with regard to IVP and embryonic stem cell research and help me make the case that we are dealing here with living biological human beings and that Sanford is fully adrift. Let's hammer Sanford in a bipartison way!

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting