Intellectuelle

I agree and it saddens me (accidental rhyming--not intended to be the limerick for Samantha's contest).

What is difficult in terms of policy is that fertility treatment which creates "waste" embryos is legal. So you have embryo's being thrown away, whether you allow research on them or not. I agree that Frist's statement is the type of political BS I expect. However, to be totally consistant, you need to outlaw this type of fertility treatment. As long as it is legal, I don't know that I oppose people using the "scrap" embryos. My prefrence would be for it to be illegal to create these "waste children" in the first place. The whole issue is disgusting to me. If you disagree with Frist and yet you take "The Pill" you are a total hypocrite.

I am in the mood to see if I can rile someone up, by the way! :-)

Annie, we're even more alike than I realized ;) ...but I totally agree with your point, although when I brought this up on my blog, someone mentioned that it's possible to do in-vitro and not waste any eggs. Taking the pill, though, is a kind of abortificient roulette. And most of the Christian women I know have been or are on it. I'm too chicken to confront them.

I agree with you both (Marla, Annie) on IVF...but you are correct to note that it is possible to do IVF without the left over eggs. However, this doesn't mean there is no risk to the embryos that are implanted. In my opinion, creation of embryos outside of the uterus should be illegal.

As far as the pill and abortifacient roulette, you're right about that too, though this isn't as cut and dried as IVF. We have a book available through the Center called "The Pill" if anyone is interested.

Sarah - I am suprised that you say the pill IS NOT as "cut and dried" as IVF. I am of the opposite postion (I refer people to Randy Alcorn's book "Does the pill cause abortions"). As Marla said, you can use all the embryo's you creat IV. My dear cousin and close friend went through it and she and her husband committed themselves to use all the embryos created. They did, every single one whether it was likely to be viable or not. Can you explain to me where the unethical action lie in this? It is not clear to me so I ask honestly.

All I'm saying is that there is not universal agreement between Christian ethicists on the nature of "the pill." And let's be clear, I'm speaking of the contraceptive pill, not the "morning after" pill which prevents the implantation of the conceptus.

My concern with IVF is that the amount of risk there is to the embryo. Many couples try multiple times to conceive because the embryo doesn't implant. Not only does this cost a great deal financially, it costs the life of the embryo everytime the process needs to be repeated.

There isn't universal agreement between "Christian ethicists" on homosexualtiy or abortion or wife abuse either. The contraceptive pill has the same hormone and function in the morning after pill, progesterone. This causes your uterous to shed embryos. The does is just higher in the morning after pill.

I would not personally chose IVF, I would adopt (although we seem to be as fertile as rabbits) However, the ethical difference to me, for those like my cousin who went about it considering every embryo precious, is that the couple and doctors are all doing everything they can to get the embryos to LIVE. The pill does everything it can to prevent them and then if necessary to get them to DIE quickly. That is a big, obvious difference to me.

Sorry if I sounded "snarky" ;-) I was just reading "spunky homeschool" and it made me feel spunky! :-) Also - sorry for the spelling errors. I am hoping that when I teach spelling to my children, I will learn too!

Another thought on IVF - it would be hard to allow it to be legal ONLY for those who use all the embryo's. People would argue that is forcing risks and costs on patients. For example, my cousin had 4 embryo's planted each time. She could have had, theoretically, quadruplets, which carries with it certain risks. Or she could have done the procedure more often with less embryos, at quadruple the cost.

If God is soverign over which embryo's implant naturally, He was also soverign over which embryo's implanted and lived in the IVF procedures. What is important, to be repetitive, is that those people involved are doing everything they can to preserve the life created in either circumstance.

I think most of us who have taken the pill were/are blissfully unaware of how it works.

Back to Frist: I have already called my Senator, twice, about ESR. Kay Bailey Hutchison is one of the Republicans who wrote to Bush asking him to "relax" his policy on stem cell research. I keep calling to protest. And now Frist! I guess that's what happens when Senators try to stake out running-for-president grounds.

Italy's solution to IVF was to remove three, and only three eggs; fertilize all three; and reimplant all three even if a birth defect was possible or even certain. That is an IVF solution.

In the meantime, on cell research. The South Koreans have not used embryos (as we are proposing). They are using unfertilized eggs and replacing the nucleus with skin cells - no sperm involved and no fertilization involved. It is against the law in Korea to implant the egg so treated in a human - stopping reproductive cloning. This methods creates T-cells; but the eggs so treated are most likely not able to grow to children anyway.

There will be fertilized eggs flushed down the drain as a by-product of IVF up to now even if we had the Italian law tomorrow. What is the difference between organ donation and parents allowing left over embryos to be used to save lives?

Why wouldn't a Christian use depo-provera - which stops ovulation. Again, no fertilization involved

What the South Koreans are doing is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (scnt), otherwise known as "therapeutic cloning." What's the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning? Nothing...except the step of implantation. If the next step, after scnt, were to be implantation, this would produce a human. The moral of the story? There is no difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning except where therapeutic ends the life of the embryo. Both are, from the onset, reproductive.

JCHfleetguy - Thanks for the info on Korea and Italy. Good solutions.

I wouldn't use deop-povera because I don't like foreign, extra chemicals or synthetic hormones in my body at all. I have a sneaking suspicion that the dramatic increase in the last 100 of chemical birth control/sterilization and the dramatic increase in the last 100 years in breast and ovarian cancer just might be related, but I am an "organic" girl, so what do you expect? :-)

I haven't researched depo-p - I will ask my OB/GYN next visit (monthly now) - he won't prescribe the pill and is very researched on the subject.

I watched an interview last night with the scientist leading the charge in South Korea - and while stem cells are produced he doesn't believe the technique can lead to a viable human being. He doesn't believe the constructed cells would ever even come to term if implanted. The sheep cloned in England did of course come to term; but were a horrible genetic mess. God can protect His reproduction.

Of course, he is morally opposed to reproductive cloning (and it is a jailable offense in Korea to just implant even if no birth or pregnancy occurs) - so he will never try. Some human of course will at some point. However, that is true no matter what at this point.

Oh, the he in that second paragraph was the scientist in Korea - not God.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer has been used successfully in animal cloning. The most notable example was the first cloning of an endangered mammal - a mouflon (extremely cute too).

It is really a technical difference - although with SCNT of course one activates. So you could argue that without either the electrical or chemical activation an embryo has not been created. But then of course it would be of no scientific use - so yes, technically a living embryo is created by activating.

The biggest ethical problem I have with regard to IVF is that embryos are wasted, or created with the knowledge that they will not all be viable. Even if they are all implanted, it seems to me to be going through the motions if one already knows they will not be viable. Yet at the same time when I see photos of children whose parents used IVF I struggle with my thoughts on it. The bottom line for me is embryo wastage and there is far too much of that in the reproductive industry.

On the pill - the scientific evidence for it being an abortifiacient isn't there - I mean in the literature. Older types of pill were, but newer types shouldn't be. I've found one scientific review which was good. Having said that, there is a minute chance that it does not function as it should and an embryo is affected (as opposed to the expected hormonal peturbation). Given that very rare possibility, I totally understand those who choose not to use it. I haven't used it myself. I also understand those who do choose to use it. I know that not everyone agrees with me on that and am not trying to change anyone's mind - I'm just not for one particular position myself.

Enjoy your posts Sarah!

Forgot to comment and say that I find Frist's position bizarre. Where is he at?

He's a senator from Tennessee.

Catez,

I have heard numbers all over the map about the number of naturally occuring embryos that either do not implant, or implant but are not really viable, or lead to birth defects. Let's say 1/3 to 1/2.

The Italian model really models God's. God allows eggs to be fertilized that are not viable. Some of them even implant (and then miscarry) and some of them even are born - but have serious defects.

What is interesting is that the Italians REQUIRE you to accept the reimplantation of an embryo even if it is certain that if it survives it will lead to birth defects. You therefore take the same chances God gives you when you elect to become pregnant. Some live, some die, and some are damaged.

Catez

And why is his position bizarre? Embryos are flushed down the toilet all of the time at IVF clinics. They are killed. Certainly deal with THAT process if you like and you would be attacking the real point.

Given the current reality though:what is the moral difference between the parents allowing research on those doomed embryos; and organ donation for doomed humans.? Why isn't that less morally abhorant than simply destroying the embryo?

I do not get this.

Hi JCH,
I'm not sure what you are trying to impute to me in your comment above. I wasn't approving of IVF wastage - I was disagreeing with it.
Frist's position is bizarre to me because, as Sarah's post points out, he believes the embryo is a living human being (not just a clump of cells or organic biological material) and yet is ok with destroying a living human being.
My position is that creating embryos in order to destroy them (by "harvesting" stem cells) is unethical. It's a huge debate and I'm not sure I have the time or inclination to go into all right now. I agree with the premise underlying Sarah's post.
I can mention the importance of Imago Dei, the purpose of the creation of life, and the resposibility to nurture and protect human life wherever posible as baselines that inform my position. To pick up on a previous post by Sarah, it is going to be about worldview - although interestingly I have talked with a number of scientists who do not agree with creating embryos for the purpose of destroying to harvest.
I'm not sure why you seem to think I split ethically on IVF and ESCs - I haven't. As I said re:IVF, for me the bottom line is wastage. Hope that clarifies it more.

Re: the Italian model being the same as God's. Not really the same. In God's model, when an egg is fertilised a chemical is released which actually prevents fertilisation of other eggs. There are rare exceptions - resulting in twins from two fertilised eggs. Triplets are rarer and so on. But mostly th physiology is working normally and so one egg is fertilised and there is then a shut down on further fertilisation.
In IVF many embryos are created - the in vitro process itself causes this and thus also causes both viable and unviable embryos. Several as opposed to one (or in rare cases more than one). So it is not the same numerically. IVF starts with the premise that there will be several and not all will be viable.
God's method starts with one and the prevention of others - although as I said there are exceptions when physiology departs from the norm. However exceptions do not make a rule - the Italian method as you describe it is not the same as God's.

Catez,

or created with the knowledge that they will not all be viable. Even if they are all implanted, it seems to me to be going through the motions if one already knows they will not be viable

Frist is a physician. They make life and death decisions all the time. I would think a physician would have a hard time not weighing and balancing one life against another in those numerous situations where only one can be saved. Especially in a situation like this where a life will be wasted regardless - the question is whether a positive, perhaps life-giving, use will come of that.

And of course for Frist, this isn't about the South Korean SCNT (creating an embryo to destroy it); but using an embryo created, but not used, for another purpose to further life in some way; rather than just be killed.

He is also committing Republican Party political suicide - so at least his reasons are not political but scientific and/or moral.

I really do not see this as being so bizarre.

Catez - could you site some evidence for saying that the pill isn't abortificient. If it includes progesterone, the purpose of that hormone is to deteriorate the lining of your uterus. Some women DO get pregnant on the pill, prooving that embryos get through the other functions of the pill (mucus thickening and supressing ovulation). If you can get pregnant, than the progesterone and uterine thinning can abort fertilized embryos (why else would the lining thin other than for the very purpose of aborting them??). The progesterone only pill, the pill given to you if you are breastfeeding, ONLY functions by sloughing off these embryos. Cite me evidence that says otherwise. From what I have read, there is a 5% estimate of aborted embryos with use of the pill. Would it be ok for only 5% of women to have abortions, since then it coud be called rare? I think most women and couples like the bliss of ignorance so they don't have to restle with this tough issue.

Hi Aniie,
This will be short due to time constraints - I don't recommend the POP (progesterone only) at all - there is a real risk of it acting as an abortifacient (meaning it works post-fertilisation). I was meaning POPs when I referred to the older types.

Yes, I can cite something - keeping in mind that I said:
"On the pill - the scientific evidence for it being an abortifiacient isn't there - I mean in the literature. Older types of pill were, but newer types shouldn't be. I've found one scientific review which was good. Having said that, there is a minute chance that it does not function as it should and an embryo is affected (as opposed to the expected hormonal peturbation). "

I don't want to appear rude but right now I have to go. I will come back to this.

I haven't looked into the subject of the birth control effects of the pill in a long time--and I am not familiar with the progesterone/estrogene combinations that are being used today--so I am speaking from my experience and past remembered knowledge.
First of all I DO NOT recommend the use of the pill for birth control---for a multitude of reasons--including the most important one discussed here. However, years ago, in young ignorance, I began taking a progesterone/estrogen combination that was designed to prevent ovulation. It worked so well for me that I went through a 2 year period of anovulatory infertility after going off the pill. I had severe PMS effects while on the pill, as well. It effected my moods, my job performance, and made life miserable for me for half the month for the 3 years I was on it--not to mention the 2 additional years waiting and hoping to get pregnant. I know there are some pills with hormone combinations designed to not only act as contraceptives but as abortifacients, as a back up---but my recalled research and personal experience proved that some really do act simply as contraceptives. Having said that I reiterate that, given what I now know, I would never recommend playing around with artificially tampering with your body's biochemistry on a regular basis--it can lead to all sorts of serious unintended and undesirable consequences and side effects.

Just thought I would mention the Snowflakes program for adoption of IVF-leftover embryos. I'm sure you all know about it, especially after Pres. Bush brought some of the "former Snowflakes" adopted children to the White House. (Eliciting -- as Marla says -- "snarky" comments).

Wishful thinking: that IVF would be limited to something like the Italian model, and in the meantime all IVF-produced but unused embryos would be adopted.

I really dislike the "they were going to be discarded anyway" argument. Essence of pragmatism.

Birth control pills have changed in the last 30 years because of "After the Pill had been on the market fifteen years, many serious negative side effects of estrogen had been clearly proven. These included blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches, increased incidence of breast cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, some of which led to fatalities.[2]" - so the dose of estrogen was lowered by 2/3 on average to reduce these side effects and as Debra mentioned, the chemical dangers on women's health. The lower the does of estrogen, the more likely that an embryo will escape and be "caught" by the back up mechanism. As far as my research, and that of my very respected, goes to the Texas congress to testify on the issue OB/GYN, the 'modern' pill increases the risk of aborting embryos. any combination pill carries that danger. As far as my preliminary research goes, it includes depo-povera and norplant, I will still investigate that further.

Doctors and couples don't want to hear the evidence becasuse the former makes money from it and both would have to deal with the guilt of past actions. I am someone who not only has taken the pill but also the morning after pill, so I am not passing judgement on those who have as well, but urging people to look at the evidence, numbers, statistics for themselves with an open heart and mind.

I don't know how you can criticize Frist and then justify taking something that, like IVF, also sometimes discards embryos.

Catez - i am asking for a link to that review and for some numbers and scientific info, not general assertions, when you have the time, of course.

"The Pill is used by about fourteen million American women each year and sixty million women internationally. Thus, even an infinitesimally low portion (say one-hundredth of one percent) of 780 million Pill cycles per year globally could represent tens of thousands of unborn children lost to this form of chemical abortion annually. How many young lives have to be jeopardized for prolife believers to question the ethics of using the Pill? This is an issue with profound moral implications for those believing we are called to protect the lives of children."

Alcorn - http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

It is wise to consider whose scientific conclusions you are reading. The "Pill" is a very lucrative buisness, is it not? Politicians aren't the only ones who line their pockets.

Gray - yep, the Snowflakes program is an excellent alternative to "well they're just going to be destroyed anyway." You're correct to point out the pragmatic nature of that argument.

We need to also point out that of the 400,000 plus embryos in frozen storage, only around 5% (and I think the number is less) that are availabe (i.e. signed over by the parents) for research.

Hi Annie,
I don't take a position either way with the pill - (except POPs) as I said. I was thinking of posting something as this is off the topic of Sarah' post I think. But to be honest I don't really want to debate from one position or the other. I was commenting on whether or not the pill is abortifacient. I think if you say it is then the literature (scientific journals) need to back that up. So can you point to any journal articles?
I'll be back soon - when I've decided whether to post on it or just give the stuf here.

Catez

You posted on the God's method of fertilization while I was writing my response to the other.

I have never heard of that hormone. I knew the ovum hardened against further sperm penetration - but would have never guessed anything was there to stop whatever eggs were present from being fertilized.

I have read through this process alot while coming to my positions on the issues of birth control, abortion etc and never saw this.

What is the name of the hormone? Do you have a linkable source?

Would you then be opposed to IVF entirely?

Of course, all good things come from God: our scientific curiosity and skill included. Perhaps IVF is exactly God's method for bringing children to those incapable of having them. He does primarily use people to bring much of His mercy and grace into people's lives. The evil corruption could be in waste. What do you think?

Ok. I've posted on the Pill. I've basically taken my thoughts from different discussions and cited the review as well. I've kept it in terms that are understandable:

Oral Contraception and the Sanctity of Life (Is the Pill Abortifacient?

I would prefer not to get into the "quiverfull" debate there. It's just a science perspective in laypersons terms for those interested ( and too long to post here).

JCH - I have to look up the chemical as it's been a while. I don't need to cite it - it's undergrad textbook stuff. Will do but need to attend to my own blog first.

Not having looked into the scientific literature on the hormonal effects of the pill on the entire reproductive process--from preventing conception to possibly preventing implantation, I can't weigh in on that one with an informed opinion. I would think, in theory, that if one had 'breakthrough ovulation' there would be some chance that the hormonal effects of the pill would cause the unterine lining to be less prepared for implantation. This would be more or less likely depending on the particular hormone combination of the Pill.

How all this ties into the original topic is this:

Christians need to make sure they are informed on issues pertaining to important decisions that effect health and reproduction. They should also be aware that in order to be truly informed they will have to 'dig' a little and not just accept the quick and often biased and/or uniformed answers of the 'professesionals'. Critical reading of even published scientific literature is essential.

Lastly, Christians need to make sure that even their informed decisions are morally consistant with their beliefs.

As for Frist's position, I'm afraid a decision based on 'well, they're doomed/dead already, so we might as well get some positive use out of them' just doesn't strike me as a very strong moral argument for doing something. Let's put it this way--I've heard the Chinese are harvesting organs from executed prisoners and making them available, internationally, for transplantation. Could a pro-life Christian, in good conscience, take advantage of these available organs to save their life or the life of a loved one--based on the argument that the donors were doomed and dead anyway?
Frist is not commiting political suicide (the Republican Party may be) he is merely following the trend of moving to the middle--but to claim he is being morally consistent with his pro-life beliefs is just typical political 'doublespeak'.

Debra,
As a quick response - it's fine to say Christians should critically assess the scientific literature but unless they understand the technical terms, know how to look at the data, and understand something of what is practically involved in the methods, they will be lost - it requires some knowledge first.

"I would think, in theory, that if one had 'breakthrough ovulation' there would be some chance that the hormonal effects of the pill would cause the unterine lining to be less prepared for implantation. This would be more or less likely depending on the particular hormone combination of the Pill."

This is hypothesis rather than "theory" - and we can't really say it's more or less likely. Anyway, I've posted on it. You may not like or agree with the Pill, but it can't be said it's "likely" - at least not on what I've seen in the literature (medical/scientific).

And very quickly - the implantation aspect is very speculative I think . If you look at how the progestin/estrogen works - then implantation is not factually demonstrated as being effected. I don't usually do this - but I will point you to my post. (BTW - I think I called it progesterone previously - sorry).

• Lo Ovral contains a combination of hormones that are used to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). The pills contain a form of estrogen and a form of progesterone, which are both female hormones involved in conception. Lo Ovral also has other effects that inhibit pregnancy. They cause the cervical mucous to thicken, which makes it harder for sperm to move toward the uterus, and they prevent the attachment of an egg to the uterus.

http://www.drugs.com/lo_ovral.html

I don't know if all birth control pills have all three of these "effects", but it would be worth checking out.

"...and they prevent the attachment of an egg to the uterus." I wonder if that is a worldview-driven mistatement on the part of some pharmaceutical company. That sounds so innocuous. I'm pretty sure that what they should have said is "fertilized egg," blastocyst, or something of the sort.

Debra,

to claim he is being morally consistent with his pro-life beliefs is just typical political 'doublespeak'.

I said his decision was a scientific/moral one; and not one driven by political gain. This did not enhance his position within the Republican Party; or in Tennessee. Pro-life, and Conservative Christian, groups are already saying he is a target.

Saying his decision is a scientific/moral one wasn't to say that his position was consistant with a pro-life position. Some broadening of the definition of pro-life may be required if embryonic stem cell research actually brings life-saving cures for some of the worst genetic diseases.

I truly think there is not a simple scriptural answer for IVF, ESC, or birth control - well, actually no scriptural answer; but even the principles here are not that clear to me. Do we really believe that all scientific advance in these areas are Satan's corruption of a scientific good. I think we need to think out a little better what it means that God is in control; that the whole universe is subject to Him; and that all things work together for the good.

I do not know an answer here; but I think Senator Frist (who has shown himself to be a staunch supporter of pro-life issues) did not make this decision lightly - or without both scientific and moral grounds.

Hi Ellen,
I looked at that site. It is describing physiological responses - and all three are possible. But where is the actual data saying number three happens? Because if the first two happen number three isn't even needed.

From my own post:
1. The Pill contains a higher concentration of progestin and a lower concentration of estrogens - known as a combination pill. The combination of hormones causes a decreased secretion of other hormones from the hypothalamus (in the brain). This prevents follicular development (eggs do not develop in the ovaries), and ovulation (eggs are not released from the ovaries). Consequently there is no egg to be fertilised. There is no abortion of life as there is no egg and sperm union - as there is no mature and released egg to be fertilised.

2. If by some chance ovulation occurs, there is no fertilisation as the Pill also alters the level of cervical mucus - which makes it hostile to sperm. In the remote possibility that follicular development and ovulation have taken place there is no fertilisation as the sperm is destroyed. Again there is no abortion of life. The mucus thickening is extremely relevant to this discussion. In essence it adds a second step if necessary:
1. No ovulation
2. Major back-up: destruction of sperm

What I'm asking is - has it actually been shown that the implantation is affected? Or are they just conveying the possibility. Because it reads pretty much like these are the physiological responses - but obviously all three won't occur - and as step 1 is where it should happen, and step two is the back-up, then step three is purely theoretical, to quote the literature:

"However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. "

The conclusion from the literature is that there is a rare possibility. If some-one can show me numbers and ratios, and data that actually demonstrates that implantation is affected I'll be interested. The drug company stuff is describing how it can work - but not what actually happens - as I said all three aren't going to happen if no.1 happens etc.

...unless they understand the technical terms, know how to look at the data, and understand something of what is practically involved in the methods, they will be lost - it requires some knowledge first.

I agree. And this gets back to something I posted about on Sarah's earlier post on the myth of 'neutrality'. If we don't have enough expertise in a certain area to fully understand the issues, it becomes critical to find reliable sources that can explain and interpret the information for us. However, one of things that even a layman can do as far as critical reading of scientific literature is to check into the funding of the research involved. It is very interesting to see how often various research is backed by parties with vested $ interests in the outcome of the studies.

And, Sarah, I think you are dead on with regards to the "attachement of the egg to the uterus" line. It is clear from the context that they are talking about a fertilized egg. But I think their choice of words may be as much (or more) marketing(i.e $)-driven as world-view driven.

In the absence of a Christian worldview, $$$ interest drives nearly everything....including most of the stands politicians take on the issues.

"The conclusion from the literature is that there is a rare possibility..."

I rarely beat my children and steal from my employer...

(just kidding, but you get my point).

Part of the problem (as I understand it) with the lower dose pills is that you must take them at the same time every day. If you are not faithful about that (and I know that *my* ADHD self was not), the other two "effects" need to be in place.

I'd be a lot more leary of taking the pill (if I were actually fertile and doing something that I'd need to be taking it) if I were confident of my ability to take the thing every single day, at the exact same time every day.

including most of the stands politicians take on the issues.

Let me soften that a bit. It came out slightly more cynical and judgemental than I intended. Let me change that to "including many of the stands politicians take on the issues."

Hi Ellen,
Yes, adhering to the regimen is important. Soa person would need to consider that.

Debra - I would also caution about being suspicious about research just because it's scientific. I've mentioned a review and it's a good one in my opinion. Have you read it?
I see your point, but on this particular issue I would highly doubt a conspiracy. I think it's too convenient to dismiss scientific findings on that basis - funding doesn't guarantee results will come out the way the funders want. As scientists know.
I would say, not look at the funding, but look at where the article is published, and how it is cited.

BTW - blastocyst is an acceptable term - it means a fertilised egg. If they just say "egg" they are just being shorthand I expect and assuming one figures it's fertilised.

jchfleetguy,
I agree that we sure do need some sort of defining of terms with regards to 'pro-life'. The label is not really that descriptive of an individual's beliefs, anyway. I tell people that I am anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia (euthanasia being defined as actively seeking to end a life for medical reasons).
With regards to abortion, 'pro-life' used to mean regarding life as human life from conception--and acting according to that regard. But without getting into that debate, I have another reason why, from a moral perspective you don't want to get into human embryonic research. Do you really think that if some life saving or even just life enhancing inovation were to come from embryonic stem cell research that there would not be a market driven, unstoppable push to create human embryos in huge quantities to supply the demand? Is this what we want, either as Christians or civilized human beings, to be improving the quality and length of our lives at the expense of unborn human beings? Even if we don't accord the unborn quite the same status as the born (a slippery slope)--do we really want to go there--to use the unborn for medical treatment of the born? You can say all you want that that won't happen and that we can have laws to prevent it .....I'm sorry but the $$$$ eventually drives the law, these days.

People don't seem to notice that we're slipping further down the slope--because we just keep redefining the slope.

JCH,
I've looked it up. I worded it poorly before. I had the two mechanisms in one which is not correct (I was going on distant memory though).
There are two things which effectively determine one fertilisation, i.e only one egg and one sperm. (physiology working to the norm).

1. Before ovulation one follicle outgrows the others and the remainder begin to involute (that's called atresia) - thought to be because the one follicle outgrowing the others secretes more estrogen. Results in a positive feedback loop in the single follicle -- exploded secretion of hormones resulting in growth -- more secretion of hormones resulting in growth etc. At the same time, the extra estrogen acts on the hypothalamus and depresses secretion of FSH (Follicular stimulating hormone) - blocks growth of other follicles.
Direct quote from Guyton and Hall's Physiology:
"This process of atresia is important in that it allows only one of the follicles to grow large enough to ovulate".
So the hormonal feedback system, both locally and from the hypothalamus, is designed that only one egg will be available, as only one follicle grows large enough to ovulate.

OK part 2 - one sperm fertilises the ovum (egg). As you pointed out. Reason, and this is where the chemical release comes in, is that a few minutes after the sperm (just one) gets through the zona pellucida (outside layer of egg), calcium ions are released (chemical release) which in turn causes exocytosis ( transport out) of cortical granules. The granules contain substances (don't know what those are) which permeate the zona pellucida and prevent binding of additional sperm.

In short - the design is that one egg comes down and one sperm gets in. Isn't nature wonderful!

And... the Italian method is not God's method.

Check out any Physiology text. Ok - I can't believe I looked all this up. It's not my field and it's been quite a while. I can't believe I'm discussing this - lol.

Hi Debra,
I agree with you. (It had to happen with this much commenting - law of returns). I think the potential profits of ESC research are a factor - and I would add that in America (sorry but it is true) the pressure from lobby groups and perceived consumer demand. However - another reason as far as scientists are concerned comes back to worldview. Those who consider it unethical will go the harder but still promising route of adult SC research. Those who don't have an ethical issue go with ESCs because of the pluripotency and less complication with immune compatibilty. So there's anumber of factors I think.

If Frist's position is ethical - one can create human life solely for the purpose of destroying it to provide therapeutic measures for other humans, then my question is: where do you draw the line. i.e. why would you stop at harvesting cells from embryos. By the same principle you could use babies for hearts. livers, and other organs. Or would you let them grow older and then harvest?
If creating a living human for harvesting is ethical - then it would be ethical at all developmental stages surely?

I have a HUGE amount of empathy, sympathy and every other -thy with your concern both about the profit driving it; and the possibility on the human side that we will use women like chickens - paying them to lay eggs (fertilized or not)

I can live with inching down slippery slopes - but I want WALLS BUILT somewhere down that slope (in advance) to stop the slippage where we have agreed in ADVANCE it will stop.

IF it turns out that most of the advances are the sort where to cure YOUR illness they must take YOUR skin cells and insert them into an unfertilized egg to get tcells for YOU alone then this slope may not be so bad. You could use your own eggs (if a women) or get ovum donations (like blood) for your procedure.

If it turns out to be able to create mass market products - the slope could be immensely ugly. I have no answers to all this.

Catez

Thanks for the information.

Frist is not supporting the creation of embryo simply to destroy it in order to save another. This is not what the bill allows either.

It allows the current 21 cell lines that the Feds will fund research on to be expanded by the use of new cell lines created from embryos due to be killed by fertility labs.

This is already legal - but must be funded from state or private sources.

I would love to have this discussion in a cafe with you guys. Ok, she finally answers the question:

"The evil corruption could be in waste. What do you think?"

That was on IVF. It's the wastage that bothers me - and I don't see a way around that doing it in vitro.

Two responses to your above comment:

Frist has stated that he considers them living human beings. So he is advocating that one can create a living human being with the view to destroying it. Cell lines are created for research which aims to save lives. I've worked with cell lines there are several kinds. For example, I've used HeLa cells from a cell line derived from an adult womans tumour. If you destroy embryos to create cell lines then you are effectivly destroying human life to use it to try and save life. The point of the research, using cell lines, is to find ways to save life. For example - you might use the cell line to introduce a gene therapy vector, to introduce and study the effects of a viral protein, or to observe responses to a drug on the DNA replication.
So it's the same principle - and again, at what point do you cut off if in principle it's ok?

To clarify - embryos are created for IVF - with the knowledge that some will be wasted. If you create embryos for IVF and believe they are living humans, and also agree that they will either just be destroyed, or destroyed in the process of creating cells lines - the position is one can create human life and destroy it. The latter option - cell lines - leaves the position one can create life to destroy it to try and save other lives.
In principle then why stop with embryos?

The fertility clinic that I go to will only will only fertilize enough to implant at one time - unless it is arranged prior to donate the embryos to a couple with one or both partners unable to supply sperm or egg (or both).

It is run by Christians, will only treat married couples for infertility and will not destroy embryos.

My issue is not fertility, but I felt very comfortable going there.

I thnk we agree that wastage is a bad thing - hence I like Ellen's clinic; or the Italian law.

If Frist opposed an Italian type law because it there were no leftover embyros for stem cell research - you and I would be entirely on the same page. If he supported harvesting ovum; and clearing out sperm banks - and creating embryos for stem cell research we would be on the same page.

I have no real problem with the feds not funding this at all - but that doesnt stop the process going on now with state and private funds

So, in our real world, what to do with the current surplus of IVF embryos? Make them keep them? They eventually die in cold storage. Are there human baby uses for 400,000 embryos? I doubt it.

Well, I have drained my brain.

A couple of things I'd like to comment on:

Regarding the fertility clinic..."It is run by Christians, will only treat married couples for infertility and will not destroy embryos." -- the problem is that the procedure is not guaranteed. Many couples spend thousands and thousands of their own dollars to conceive in this manner and very often it doesn't work the first time. I realize the intent is the survival of the embryo, but often that just isn't the case. I don't think Ellen's clinic wants to see embryos die. If I haven't already said it, I'm against IVF. This is a whole 'nother topic of discussion, but its worth talking about the need vs. want distinction in having children.

Secondly, I'm not sure what "human baby uses" means, but of the 400,000 or so babies in frozen storage, only between 3-5% of them are available for research (Rand study). I think I may have offered that info once already.

"but of the 400,000 or so babies in frozen storage, only between 3-5% of them are available for research (Rand study)."

5% is 20,000 babies. 3% is 12,000 babies. Available for "research"

I can live with inching down slippery slopes - but I want WALLS BUILT somewhere down that slope (in advance) to stop the slippage where we have agreed in ADVANCE it will stop.

jch,
History has shown that slippery slopes just don't work that way. They're called 'slippery' for a reason. You can't inch down them. You either stay off them or you slide. There's no way you're going to agreement on a wall (even if that were desirable-- to build a wall on a slope when you belong at the top, not somewhere between the top and the bottom). And even if you did, history shows that such agreements are worthless. These things are driven by forces that quickly get out of control.

Ooops, time for me to clarify - I'm not suggesting that any amount of ESCR is permissible. I reported the percentages to establish that the hullabulloo (is that how you spell that) is for a small amount in storage. The argument that there are hundreds of thousands in storage that are just going to die anyway is not totally accurate.

JCH,
From the way you've described the Italian method it still predicts wastage though.

Hi Ellen,
The fertility clinic that I go to will only will only fertilize enough to implant at one time

How many is enough? Of those they implant do they know that they are all viable? Some questions there because I see the issue of wastage still. JCH hasn't convinced me on the Italian method - they still create embryos that aren't going to make it - and since it's more than one it's different to the physiological norm I think.

Just probing with that by the way.

Catez,

Only somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of naturally produced embryos are viable. If the Italians implant 3, and only 1 or 2 survive this is not that far outside the 1 1/2 to 2 which naturally survive.

They certainly could do one at a time; but this makes the cost prohibitive. And over time, there is no real difference.

Further, this is being done to give life - to give a couple who wants a child a chance to have one from their own genetic makeup. Perhaps they should adopt one of those previous IVF embryos; or a already born child. This is one of those uses of science that I do not believe is a corruption of the scientific gifts God gave us.

I think if this is a issue with you you would just have to oppose IVF entirely.

How many is enough? Of those they implant do they know that they are all viable? Some questions there because I see the issue of wastage still. JCH hasn't convinced me on the Italian method - they still create embryos that aren't going to make it - and since it's more than one it's different to the physiological norm I think.

I believe they said "3". Triplets are not outside the natural possibility and if all three survive - for a couple that will have probably one shot at parenthood - three is good.

Considering my own personal case (no IVF), I've had 5 confirmed pregnancies, 7 confirmed babies. Two of them survived to be born. From where I'm sitting, the 1/2 - 2/3 number that survive is pretty high. If IVF hits around that number, they're doing better than my own body did.

Hi guys,
I think this will have to be my last comment, as much as I've enjoyed it!

JCH - I'm just being cautious. If you can point me to the literature or cite something on those viability ratios it would help. I'm cautious because takig overall figures differs from combining them into one set of implantations. So I'm weighing that.

Ellen - triplets are not outside the natural possibility - true. But rare and not the norm. As I was just saying to JCH, I'm being cautious. But it is interesting food for thought.

By the way, a medical doctor who is also a Christian read my post on the Pill and commented that he agrees with what I've said. Just had to mention that!

Sarah thanks for the post and the discussion. Hard to find a good discussion on a blog actually. This was a good one.

Wow, I missed a long debate! Anyway, late though I am to the party, I thought I'd mention the Catholic position on IVF, which is that it is illicit, even between married couples and even with a single egg and no intentional embryo 'wastage'.

Contraception is illicit through attempting to have the unitive aspect of sex while intentionally preventing the procreative. IVF is illicit for the opposite reason: it attempts to have the procreative without the unitive.

A long discussion is here:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

which is part of the document Donum Vitae:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.htm