E MBRYO ADOPT I ON Re pro duc tive T e c hno lo g y, I - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
E MBRYO ADOPT I ON Re pro duc tive T e c hno lo g y, I n-Vitro F e rtiliza tio n, a nd Whe the r Christia ns Sho uld Ado pt E mb ryo s 1. De fine T e rms 2. Sta tistic s/ Histo ry 3. Pub lic Po lic y 4. Mo st impo rta
1. De fine T
e rms
2. Sta tistic s/ Histo ry 3. Pub lic Po lic y 4. Mo st impo rta ntly – Se a rc h the Sc ripture s 5. Christia n E
thic s
6. Pa sto ra l Ca re a nd Pra c tic e 7. Que stio ns, Co mme nts, Co nc e rns, Disc ussio n
“Re pro duc tive T
e c hno lo g y e nc o mpa sse s a ll c urre nt a nd a ntic ipa te d use s o f te c hno lo g y in huma n a nd a nima l re pro duc tio n, inc luding a ssiste d re pro duc tive te c hno lo g y, c o ntra c e ptio n a nd o the rs.”
Assiste d Re pro duc tive T
e c hno lo g y tre a ts infe rtility a nd inc lude s:
Artific ia l inse mina tio n Clo ning Cyto pla smic T
ra nsfe r
Cryo pre se rva tio n o f spe rm, o o c yte s, e mb ryo s E
mb ryo tra nsfe r
F
e rtility me dic a tio n
Ho rmo ne tre a tme nt I
n Vitro F e rtiliza tio n
I
n Vitro g e ne ra te d g a me te s
Pre impla nta tio n g e ne tic dia g no sis
“F
uture c ha nc e s o f pre g na nc y, fa c ilita ting a n info rme d c ho ic e o f fa mily pla nning ”
Ma pping a wo ma n’ s o va ria n re se rve , fo llic ula r dyna mic s, a nd
a sso c ia te d b io ma rke rs
Se me n a na lysis
“A fo rm o f re pro duc tive te c hno lo g y tha t e na b le s pe o ple to
c o ntro l the ir fe rtility”
Artific ia l wo mb s: “a t the de ve lo pme nta l sta g e ” Ge rmina l c ho ic e te c hno lo g y = g e ne tic sc re e ning o f b la sto c ysts (e a rly
e mb ryo s), o r g e rmline e ng ine e ring (huma n g e ne tic e ng ine e ring use d to a lte r g e ne s in the first c e lls o f the b la sto c yst)
I
n Vitro Pa rthe no g e ne sis = spe rm trig g e rs the de ve lo pme nt o f the e g g c e ll into a n e mb ryo b ut ma ke s no g e ne tic c o ntrib utio n to the e mb ryo
Re pro g e ne tic s = “the use o f re pro duc tive a nd g e ne tic te c hno lo g ie s to
se le c t a nd g e ne tic a lly mo dify e mb ryo s with g e rmina l c ho ic e te c hno lo g y fo r the purpo se o f huma n e nha nc e me nt”
Sa me -se x pro c re a tio n = fe ma le spe rm (c o nta ins a n X c hro mo so me ) o r ma le
e g g s (fe ma le e g g s e mptie d o f g e ne tic c o nte nts a nd re pla c e d with ma le DNA), whe re two me n o r two wo me n c a n ha ve a c hild with e q ua l g e ne tic c o ntrib utio ns fro m b o th me n o r b o th wo me n
E
g g c e ll = fe ma le re pro duc tive c e ll (g a me te ) = Ovum = o o c yte (imma ture o vum
Visib le to the na ke d e ye , a b o ut 0.12mm in dia me te r K
no wn a s “o va ” in a nima ls
Ova ry (L
a tin: “e g g ” o r “nut”) = o vum-pro duc ing fe ma le re pro duc tive o rg a n
Usua lly, o vula tio n o c c urs in o ne o f two o va rie s, re le a sing a fe rtiliza b le e g g e a c h
me nstrua l c yc le
Ova ria n F
fe rtiliza tio n
T
e ste s = spe rm-pro duc ing ma le re pro duc tive o rg a n
Spe rm (“se e d”) = ma le re pro duc tive c e ll (g a me te ) Spe rma to zo a (“se e d” + “living b e ing ”) = 60 da y fully ma ture Se me n = fluid tha t ma y c o nta in spe rma to zo a Se me n Qua lity = me a sure o f the a b ility o f se me n to a c c o mplish fe rtiliza tio n;
ma le fe rtility – spe rm c o unt (usua lly 300-500 millio n spe rma to zo a o f typic a l he a lthy, physic a lly ma ture yo ung a dult ma le o f re pro duc tive a g e )
I
nse mina tio n = “de lib e ra te intro duc tio n o f spe rm into a fe ma le fo r the purpo se
F
e rtiliza tio n = (a lso kno wn a s c onc e ption) is the fusio n o f g a me te s to initia te the de ve lo pme nt o f a ne w individua l o rg a nism
Zyg o te (“to jo in, to yo ke ”) = fe rtilize d c e ll o f 2 g a me te s (1 e g g , 1 spe rm) E
mb ryo (“yo ung o ne ;” “g ro wing in”) = 1 (o r 3) we e k o ld, multi-c e llula r, fro m zyg o te sta g e to 8 we e ks (56 da ys)
Bla sto c yst (“put fo rth sho o ts;” “c a psule ”) = fro m 5 da ys a fte r fe rtiliza tio n,
until 11 o r 12 whe n impla nte d in ute rine wa ll
F
e tus (L a t. “o ffspring ”) = is a pre na ta l huma n (!) b e twe e n its e mb ryo nic sta te a nd its b irth; 11 we e ks g e sta tio n, 9 we e ks a fte r fe rtiliza tio n
I
n Vitro F e rtiliza tio n (I VF) = pla c ing o ne e g g in a sma ll ro und g la ss dish a nd smo the ring it with spe rm c e lls unto o ne pe ne tra te s a nd fe rtilize s the e g g to pro duc e the zyg o te ; ma y ta ke up to 30hrs
Dire c t E
g g Spe rm I nje c tio n (DE SI ) = spe rm a nd e g g s a re c o lle c te d sa me wa y a s I VF ; he re
se ve ra l ho urs
1. Ova ria n stimula tio n (supe ro vula to ry drug s suc h a s L
upro n o r Clo miphe ne Citra te )
2. Six to T
we nty-two o o c yte s a re re c o ve re d, c le a ne d, a nd re a die d fo r I VF
SI
3. Spe rm o f the husb a nd is re c o ve re d via ma sturb a tio n o r a spira tio n o f g o na d tissue s;
spe rm a re c le a ne d a nd c o unte d. T ho se tha t a re the mo st mo b ile a nd in “g o o d sha pe ” a re c le a ne d a nd ke pt fo r fe rtiliza tio n
4. E
mb ryo s g ra de d fo r the suita b ility fo r impla nta tio n & fre e zing
Cryo pre se rva tio n = pre se rve d b y c o o ling to sub -ze ro te mpe ra ture s, fre e zing in liq uid
nitro g e n to -321.0 F ; de ve lo pe d in la te 1970s
L
7%-57% o f tha we d huma n e mb ryo s die in the ra pid tha wing pro c e ss Cryo pre se rva tio n is suppo se d to re duc e the risk o f ma jo r multiple pre g na nc ie s,
inc re a se the numb e r o f e mb ryo tra nsfe rs, a nd, he nc e , pre g na nc ie s pe r stimula tio n a nd re trie va l c yc le , a vo id Ova ria n Hype rStimula tio n Syndro me , pre se rve future c hild- b e a ring c a pa b ility in wo me n fa c ing o va ria n surg e ry o r c a nc e r the ra py, a nd re duc e pa tie nt e xpe nse a nd risk fro m a dditio na l stimula tio n a nd re trie va l c yc le s
Surro g a c y = a rra ng e me nt o r a g re e me nt to c a rry a pre g na nc y fo r
inte nde d pa re nts
Ge sta tio na l Surro g a c y = E
mb ryo tra nsfe r c re a te d thro ug h I VF , so tha t the c hild is g e ne tic a lly unre la te d to the surro g a te
T
ra ditio na l Surro g a c y = Surro g a te is impre g na te d na tura lly o r a rtific ia lly, b ut the re sulting c hild is g e ne tic a lly re la te d to the surro g a te
OR, is surro g a c y a ny “sub stitute ? ”
“E
mb ryo do na tio n is a pro c e ss b y whic h c o uple s who ha ve c ryo g e nic a lly pre se rve d e mb ryo s re linq uish a ny a nd a ll le g a l rig hts to tho se e mb ryo s a nd g ive the m to a no the r c o uple with no g e ne tic tie s to the e mb ryo s.”
July 25 1978 – 1st “te st tub e ” (a c tua lly pe tri dish) b a b y, L
Oldha m, E ng la nd, 5lb s., 12o z.
1983 – 1st pre g na nc y fro m a c ryo pre se rve d 8-c e ll e mb ryo (te rmina te d a t 24
we e ks)
1986 – 1st live b irth in the Unite d Sta te s fro m a n in vitro fe rtilize d o o c yte
sub se q ue ntly c ryo pre se rve d, sto re d, tha we d, a nd the n tra nsfe rre d to the ute rus o f the g e ne tic o o c yte do no r
1990 – Unite d K
ing do m Pa rlia me nt rule s tha t g a me te s o r e mb ryo s sha ll no t b e sto re d fo r mo re tha n 10 o r 5 ye a rs, re spe c tive ly
1996 – Up to 6,000 British e mb ryo s de stro ye d (murde re d ) b e c a use pa re nts no
lo ng e r wa nte d the m o r pa re nts c o uldn’ t b e fo und
I
n re spo nse the Va tic a n pub lishe d re spo nse a sking ma rrie d wo me n to b ring a b a ndo ne d e mb ryo s to te rm: “pre na ta l a do ptio n”
1997: Nig htlig ht Christia n Ado ptio ns (fo unde d 1959) c re a te d first
pro g ra m in U.S. to a rra ng e fo r c o uple s to a do pt fro ze n e mb ryo s (Sno wfla ke pro g ra m); 426 Sno wfla ke c hildre n b o rn to da te
1998: first e mb ryo a do ptio n, Ha nna h, b o rn to Ma rle ne a nd Jo hn
Stre g e
2002: T
he U.S. De pa rtme nt o f He a lth a nd Huma n Se rvic e s funde d a E mb ryo Ado ptio n Awa re ne ss Ca mpa ig n b e g inning . A to ta l o f a b o ut 1,900 b a b ie s we re b o rn b e twe e n 2004 a nd 2009 a s a re sult o f the pro g ra m
F
ro m 2011 to 2012, the numb e r o f e mb ryo a do ptio ns ro se 25% in the U.S.
As o f Ja nua ry 2013 mo re tha n 4500 b a b ie s ha ve b e e n b o rn in the
U.S. thro ug h e mb ryo a do ptio n. T he pro g ra m ha d a $1.9 millio n b udg e t.
Ho w muc h do e s it c o st to unde rg o o ne ro und o f in-vitro
fe rtiliza tio n? Aro und $67,000
Ho w muc h do e s it c o st to sto re fro ze n e mb ryo s? $350-500/ ye a r Ho w ma ny ho me le ss fro ze n c hildre n in the U.S.? 600,000 Wha t fe de ra l re g ula tio ns a re the re re g a rding e mb ryo do na tio n o r
a do ptio n? No ne
Wha t is the infe rtility ra te in the U.S.? 10%, o r 6.5-10 millio n Ab o ut 12% o f wo me n o f c hildb e a ring a g e ha ve use d fe rtility
se rvic e s in the U.S.
Me dic a l Opinio ns re g a rding E
mb ryo Do na tio n
Ame ric a n Me dic a l Asso c ia tio n: “Ga me te pro vide rs sho uld b e
a b le to use the pre -e mb ryo s the mse lve s o r do na te the m fo r use b y o the r pa rtie s, b ut no t se ll the m.” [“Pre -e mb ryo is a n ill-de fine d te rm…a nd wa s intro duc e d in 1986 la rg e ly fo r pub lic po lic y re a so ns.”]
Ame ric a n Co lle g e o f Ob ste tric ia ns a nd Gyne c o lo g ists: “E
a c h I VF pro g ra m sho uld de ve lo p po lic ie s re g a rding the o ptio ns o f tra nsfe r, sto ra g e , do na tio n, re se a rc h, a nd disc a rd…[a n infe rtile c o uple ’ s] c ho ic e sho uld b e ma de in c irc umsta nc e s due to fina nc ia l o r o the r c o e rc io n.”
Ame ric a n So c ie ty o f Re pro duc tive Me dic ine :
3 type s o f c o urt c a se s so fa r:
Da vis v. Da vis (1992) – Mr. Da vis is o ppo se d to do na ting fro ze n e mb ryo s to a
c hildle ss c o uple a nd wa nts the m de stro ye d. Mrs. Da vis wa nts to do na te . T he Supre me Co urt o f T e nne sse e c o nc lude d tha t Mrs. Da vis’ inte re st in do na tio n wa s no t a s sig nific a nt a s the inte re st Mr. Da vis ha d in a vo iding pa re ntho o d.
“We c o nc lude tha t pre -e mb ryo s a re no t, stric tly spe a king , e ithe r ‘ pe rso ns’ o r
‘ pro pe rty,’ b ut o c c upy a n inte rim c a te g o ry tha t e ntitle s the m to spe c ia l re spe c t b e c a use o f the ir po te ntia l fo r huma n life . I t fo llo ws tha t a ny inte re st tha t Ma ry Sue Da vis a nd Junio r Da vis ha ve in the pre -e mb ryo s in this c a se is no t a true pro pe rty inte re st. Ho we ve r, the y do ha ve a n inte re st in the na ture
c o nc e rning dispo sitio n o f the pre -e mb ryo s, within the sc o pe o f po lic y se t b y la w.”
2nd type o f c o urt c a se so fa r:
Divo rc e with prio r c ryo pre se rva tio n c o ntra c t
K
a ss v. K a ss (1998) – T his c a se invo lve d a c ryo pre se rva tio n info rme d c o nse nt fo rm tha t sta te d tha t if b o th pa rtie s c o uld no t a g re e o n the dispo sitio n o f the fro ze n zyg o te s, the c o urt wo uld ma ke the ir de c isio n b a se d o n a ll c o urt do c ume nts, inc luding this info rme d c o nse nt fo rm. T he 5 fro ze n pre -zyg o te s we re turne d o ve r to the I VF pro g ra m o f the Jo hn T . Ma the r Me mo ria l Ho spita l fo r de struc tio n a nd re se a rc h.
“We no w a ffirm, a g re e ing with the plura lity tha t the pa rtie s c le a rly
e xpre sse d the ir inte nt tha t in the c irc umsta nc e s pre se nte d, the pre - zyg o te s wo uld b e do na te d to the I VF pro g ra m fo r re se a rc h purpo se s.”
Pre -zyg o te is de fine d a s “e g g s whic h ha ve b e e n pe ne tra te d b y
spe rm b ut ha ve no t ye t jo ine d g e ne tic ma te ria l.”
2nd type o f c o urt c a se so fa r:
Divo rc e with prio r c ryo pre se rva tio n c o ntra c t
A.Z. v. B.Z. (2000) – Any de c isio n re g a rding the dispo sitio n o f the fro ze n pre -
e mb ryo s wo uld b e b a se d o n divo rc e o f the c o uple , de a th o f e ithe r o r b o th spo use s, wife o r do no r re a c hing no rma l me no pa use o r a g e 45 ye a rs, o r pre - e mb ryo s no lo ng e r b e ing he a lthy. T he husb a nd a lwa ys sig ne d a b la nk c o nse nt fo rm. T he wife spe c ifie d a n a dditio na l a lte rna tive no t liste d o n the fo rm: tha t the pre -e mb ryo s we re to b e re turne d to he r fo r impla nta tio n “sho uld we b e c o me se pa ra te d.”
T
he Supre me Judic ia l Co urt o f Ma ssa c huse tts rule d tha t the c o nse nt fo rm sig ne d b y b o th pa rtie s in 1991 wa s no t e nfo rc e a b le . T he c o urt sa id tha t the husb a nd is no t b o und to the info rme d c o nse nt fo rm b e c a use the y a re no lo ng e r husb a nd a nd wife …he c a nno t b e fo rc e d into a fa mily re la tio nship tha t no lo ng e r e xists.
3rd type o f c o urt c a se so fa r:
Co uple s who se e k fina nc ia l c o mpe nsa tio n fo r fe rtility c linic s tha t “mista ke nly” de stro y the ir fro ze n e mb ryo s
Ye t mo re te rmino lo g y: the c o urts ha ve use d “e mb ryo ,” “pre -e mb ryo ,” a nd “pre -
zyg o te ” inte rc ha ng e a b ly to re fe r to the sa me de ve lo pme nta l sta g e o f the e mb ryo , the 4-7 da y o ld b la sto c yst. Pre -e mb ryo a nd pre -zyg o te a re ill-de fine d, a rb itra ry, no n- sc ie ntific te rms, a “po litic a l a nd sc ie ntific c o nstruc t” c re a te d fo r the so le purpo se o f justifying re se a rc h a nd fre e zing a nd to c irc umve nt the b io e thic a l dile mma s re g a rding the mo ra l sta tus o f the huma n e mb ryo .
T
he c o urts do n’ t vie w the pre -e mb ryo , e mb ryo , o r pre -zyg o te to b e a huma n b e ing , b a se d o n Ro e v. Wa de (1973), a nd the y a ppe a r to find dire c tio n in g o ing with the stro ng fe rtility lo b b y (Ame ric a n So c ie ty fo r Re pro duc tive Me dic ine ).
I
n e ve ry c a se the c o urts g a ve a b rie f re vie w o n the “mo ra l sta tus” o f the huma n e mb ryo to justify the ir c la im tha t it is ne ithe r pe rso n no r pro pe rty, b ut de se rve s “spe c ia l re spe c t” – whic h is a rb itra ry a nd pro vide s a n e mo tio na l e xc use fo r c o uple s wishing to de stro y the ir e mb ryo s. I t’ s a phra se o f re la tivism a nd va g ue ne ss. I t is pa rt o f the
Are e mb ryo s pe rso ns? Are e mb ryo s pro pe rty? Do e mb ryo s de se rve “spe c ia l re spe c t”? No ne o f the a b o ve – sho uld c o urts b a se de c isio ns o n c o ntra c t princ iple s? “Pro pe rty” = “de c isio na l a utho rity” re g a rding le g a l a va ila b le o ptio ns with
e a rly huma n e mb ryo s suc h a s c re a tio n, sto ra g e , disc a rding , do na tio n use in re se a rc h, a nd pla c e me nt in a ute rus, whe the r wife o r surro g a te
E
mb ryo s impla nte d in the ute rus a re a kin to the “pro pe rty” o f the pre g na nt wo ma n, while e mb ryo s within a pe tri dish a re no t…
T
he Ro e v. Wa de de c isio n wa s b a se d prima rily o n a wo ma n’ s rig ht to priva c y in c o nc e rt with the sta te ’ s inte re sts, suc h a s pro te c ting po te ntia l life . Do e s the rig ht to priva c y e nc o mpa ss a wo ma n’ s rig ht to de c ide the fa te o f he r fro ze n huma n e mb ryo s?
I
n g e ne ra l, pa pe rs tha t a ddre ss this issue c o nc lude tha t sinc e fro ze n huma n e mb ryo s re side o utside o f the wo ma n’ s b o dy a nd no t in he r ute rus, the rig ht to c o ntro l the inte g rity o f he r b o dy, a s g ive n in Ro e v. Wa de , is inva lid.
F
ina lly, the re is the po ssib ility o f “psyc ho lo g ic a l ha rm” tha t c o uld b e fa ll the mo the r if he r e mb ryo s a re do na te d o r a do pte d b y a no the r c o uple . And if a pa re nt ha s a rig ht to de c ide a g a inst impla nta tio n, the pa re nt sho uld a lso ha ve the rig ht to de c ide tha t the e mb ryo sho uld b e de stro ye d.
T
he truth a nd me a ning o f o ur huma nity is se e n in the inc a rna tio n o f Go d in the fle sh o f Je sus Christ, His So n, a nd o ur L
de vil.
“Who fo r us me n, a nd fo r o ur sa lva tio n, c a me do wn fro m he a ve n, a nd wa s inc a rna te
b y the Ho ly Spirit o f the Virg in Ma ry, a nd wa s ma de ma n…”
Ge ne sis 3:15 Jo hn 1:14 Philippia ns 2:5-8 He b re ws 2:14-18
I
f we sa y tha t we a re no t a huma n b e ing until the 14th da y (pre - e mb ryo la ng ua g e ) o r the re a fte r, we de ny the I nc a rna tio n o f Je sus Christ.
Psa lm 51:5 Psa lm 139:16 Je re mia h 1:5 Only a huma n b e ing is c o nc e ive d in sin, no t a “po te ntia l huma n.” T
he fe rtilize d o o c yte is a c o rrupte d b o dy a nd so ul. I t is sinful a nd unc le a n.
“No w Sa ra i wa s b a rre n; she ha d no
c hild.” Ge ne sis 11:30
“Go in to my se rva nt; it ma y b e tha t I
sha ll o b ta in c hildre n b y he r.” Ge ne sis 16:2
“And I
sa a c pra ye d to the L ORD fo r his wife , b e c a use she wa s b a rre n. And the L ORD g ra nte d his pra ye r, a nd Re b e ka h his wife c o nc e ive d.” – Ge ne sis 25:21
“Whe n the L
ORD sa w tha t L e a h wa s ha te d, He
Ra c he l sa w tha t she b o re Ja c o b no c hildre n, she e nvie d he r siste r. She sa id to Ja c o b , ‘ Give me c hildre n, o r I sha ll die !’ ” Ge ne sis 29:31, 30:1
“‘ Am I
in the pla c e o f Go d, who ha s withhe ld fro m yo u the fruit o f the wo mb ? ’ ” 30:2
Ma no a h’ s “wife wa s b a rre n a nd
ha d no c hildre n. And the Ang e l o f the L ORD a ppe a re d to the wo ma n a nd sa id to he r, ‘ Be ho ld, yo u a re b a rre n a nd ha ve no t b o rne c hildre n, b ut yo u sha ll c o nc e ive a nd b e a r a so n.’ ” Judg e s 13:2-3
“Pe ninna h ha d c hildre n,
b ut Ha nna h ha d no c hildre n…the L ORD ha d c lo se d he r wo mb .” 1 Sa mue l 1:2, 5
“But the y ha d no c hild,
b e c a use E liza b e th wa s b a rre n, a nd b o th we re a dva nc e d in ye a rs…But the a ng e l sa id to him, ‘ Do no t b e a fra id, Ze c ha ria h, fo r yo ur pra ye r ha s b e e n he a rd, a nd yo ur wife E liza b e th will b e a r yo u a so n, a nd yo u sha ll c a ll his na me Jo hn.’ ” L uke 1:7, 13
Pa re nta l re spo nsib ility b e g ins fro m the mo me nt pa re nts le a rn o f the ir
pre g na nc y. Ra ising a c hild in the instruc tio n a nd disc ipline o f the L
b e g ins in the wo mb .
F
re e zing a huma n e mb ryo de nie s Go d a s the Autho r a nd Cre a to r o f huma n c re a ture s. I t vio la te s the L
the ir c hildre n in His instruc tio n a nd disc ipline . I t pla c e s a c hild’ s life o n a c o urse with the Russia n ro ule tte o f ra pid tha wing : Will it live o r die ?
Our b o die s a re te mple s o f Go d’ s Spirit. We a re c a lle d to ta ke c a re o f
the b o dy tha t Go d ha s g ive n us. T he huma n e mb ryo is a symb io tic pa rt
Go d’ s will, b e b o rn, b e b a ptize d, he a r Go d’ s Wo rd, wo rship, pra y, study the Bib le , a nd re c e ive the L
1. re turn to the mo the r’ s wo mb 2. re ma in fro ze n until the y suc c umb to de a th fro m pro lo ng e d
fre e zing while the y lie in liq uid nitro g e n
3. a llo we d to tha w a nd b e le ft in the ha nds o f Go d’ s g ra c e unde r
the dire c tio n o f o ne o r b o th pa re nts
4. de struc tio n unde r the dire c tio n o f a fe rtility c linic due to
pa re nta l o r le g a l no tific a tio n
5. de struc tio n via e xpe rime nta l ste m c e ll re se a rc h 6. pla c e me nt into a fa mily via e mb ryo a do ptio n thro ug h the
Sno wfla ke E mb ryo Ado ptio n Ag e nc y
1. re turn fro ze n e mb ryo s to the mo the r’ s wo mb : Why do so me pro -life rs who de te st the 1.4 millio n e le c tive
a b o rtio ns e ve ry ye a r re ma in sile nt re g a rding re pro duc tive te c hno lo g ie s tha t re sult in e mb ryo de a th due to the pro c e sse s o f I VF a nd DE SI whic h inc lude the fre e zing a nd tha wing o f e mb ryo s?
Do e s the e mb ryo ha ve the sa me mo ra l rig hts a s a ny huma n
re g a rdle ss o f de ve lo pme nta l sta g e ?
2. ke e p the e mb ryo s fro ze n: Adult huma n b e ing s a re no t inte ntio na lly fro ze n in liq uid nitro g e n.
Why, the n, wo uld we fre e ze , o r le a ve fro ze n, e mb ryo nic huma n b e ing s?
3. a llo w fro ze n e mb ryo s to tha w: “L
e t the m tha w a nd die ; le a ve the m in the ha nd o f Go d’ s g ra c e .”
T
he y wo uld b e re mo ve d fro m the ir liq uid nitro g e n De wa r a nd a llo we d to tha w a nd die . F
unc la ime d b y the ir b io lo g ic a l pa re nts, the y wo uld b e b urie d with the ho me le ss in tha t se c tio n o f the c e me te ry.
Allo wing so me o ne to die o c c urs o nly whe n the pe rso n is dying . F
ro ze n huma n e mb ryo s a re no t dying . T he y a re in a sta te o f “suspe nde d a nima tio n.” Sinc e the y a re ne ithe r dying no r de a d, ho w c a n a nyo ne a llo w the m to die in the tha wing pro c e ss? T he y a lre a dy re side within the g ra c e o f Go d.
4. de struc tio n unde r the dire c tio n o f fe rtility c linic due to pa re nta l
5. de struc tio n via e mb ryo nic ste m c e ll re se a rc h E
mb ryo s a re no t a dult skin c e lls. T he y a re huma n b e ing s tha t a re b e ing de stro ye d unde r the hype o f “c ure ” a nd “tre a tme nt” o f g e ne tic dise a se s – ye t to b e e sta b lishe d.
Hippo c ra tic Oa th, 400 B.C.: “Do no t ha rm…b ut a lso to ke e p
a wa y injury o f he a lth a nd injustic e .”
E
xo dus 20:13 – “Yo u sha ll no t murde r.”
Ro ma ns 13:8-10; 1 Jo hn 3:17-18, 4:20
6. E
mb ryo Ado ptio n:
“E
mb ryo do na tio n is the mo re c o rre c t le g a l phra se . Ba se d o n c urre nt la ws, a do ptio n o nly re fe rs to the pla c e me nt o f a c hild with a fa mily fo llo wing the c hild’ s b irth.”
Nig htlig ht Christia n/ Sno wfla ke s Ado ptio n Na tio na l E
mb ryo Do na tio n Ce nte r, sinc e 1990 www.e mb ryo do na tio n.o rg
www.e mb ryo a do ptio n.o rg Suc c e ss ra te to b irth (39%), c o st, lia b ility, c o unse ling , g e ne tic
te sting o f e mb ryo s, do na ting fa mily, e tc .
Che a pe r tha n I
VF
SI : $7000-$10000 pe r impla nta tio n v. $67000 pe r impla nta tio n (I VF )
Ope n a do ptio n o r c lo se d a do ptio n Pe rmitte d in a ll 50 sta te s Pro vide s a n a do ptio n o ppo rtunity fo r the e stima te d 6.5-10 millio n
unfe rtile c o uple s
I
nvo lve s a tho ro ug h sc re e ning pro c e ss de sig ne d to e nsure tha t a ll e mb ryo s a re pla c e d with sta b le fa milie s me e ting the e xpe c ta tio ns o f g e ne tic pa re nts
Ag e nc y F e e * *Additiona l tra ve l e xpe nse s ma y be inc urre d for c e ntra lize d prog ra ms. $2,500- $10,000 Ma y or ma y not inc lude le g a l fe e s, e mbryo shipping , ma tc hing se rvic e s, c ounse ling , a dditiona l me dic a l sc re e ning Home Study/ F a milyAsse ssme nt
$1,000-$2,500 Co sts va ry b y sta te
Clinic F roze n E mbryo T ra nsfe r (F E T )
$2,500-$5,000 Co sts va ry b y c linic
T OT AL
$6,000-$17,500 Ge ne ra lly le ss e xpe nsive tha n do me stic o r inte rna tio na l a do ptio n
Se le c tio n a nd ma tc hing o f a do ptive pa re nts with g e ne tic pa re nts: Re lig io n Wo rk L
e ng th o f ma rria g e
F
ina nc ia l sta tus
E
duc a tio na l sta tus
Numb e r o f c hildre n in fa mily Prio r ma rria g e E
thnic b a c kg ro und
Ag e s o f a do ptive pa re nts Mo the r must b e a b le to “c a rry” the e mb ryo s
Me e t Ha nna h Stre g e , b o rn De c e mb e r
31, 1998 a t 7:07a m
Ado pte d with 20 sib ling s, shippe d b y
F e dE x to a fe rtility c linic in Pa sa de na , Ca lifo rnia
Only 3 o f 12 e mb ryo s survive d the
initia l tha wing a nd impla nta tio n
I
mpla nta tio n o f the 3 re sulte d in ne g a tive pre g na nc y te st
Re ma ining 8 we re the n tha we d; thre e
impla nte d, o ne survive d a nd wa s b o rn: Ha nna h
“E
mb ryo a do ptio n is pe rha ps no t a mo ra l e vil, b ut we do we ll to no te tha t ne ithe r is it a n unq ua lifie d g o o d.”
I
t will ma ke irre spo nsib le in vitro a c tivity mo re like ly
I
t will pe rpe tua te the pro duc tio n o f “spa re e mb ryo s” a nd the ir e ve ntua l de a th
E
mb ryo a do ptio n is mo ra lly diffe re nt tha n the sta nda rd c a se o f a do ptio n – unlike the la tte r, the g e ne tic pa re nts o f e mb ryo a do ptio n ha ve c o nc e ive d with the inte nt o f a b a ndo ning so me o f the ir o ffspring
T
he re a re q ue stio ns re g a rding the a ppro pria te ne ss o f Christia ns to inve st g re a t fo rtune s in pursuit o f a c hild a nd why c o uple s willing to a do pt c ho o se e mb ryo s ra the r tha n infa nts
Sinc e unuse d e mb ryo s ma y b e re turne d to the ir g e ne tic pa re nts
fo r o the r a do ptive pa re nts, wha t if a b ro the r a nd siste r g ro w up in se pa ra te to wns, me e t in c o lle g e , a nd ma rry witho ut kno wing tha t the y a re sib ling s?
Wha t if sib ling s a re a do pte d se pa ra te ly a nd o ne , unkno wing ly,
finds he rse lf o r himse lf sitting o n a jury tha t must de te rmine the g uilt o r inno c e nc e o f the o the r?
I
s e mb ryo a do ptio n a n ine ffic ie nt me tho d fo r the impla nta tio n a nd b irth o f a c hild?
Wha t a b o ut re q ue sting c e rta in b io lo g ic a l c ha ra c te ristic s b a se d
I
t’ s b e st to pla c e the fro ze n e mb ryo s into the ir ma te rna l wo mb
Ne xt, the ir a do ptio n b y a no n-b io lo g ic a lly re la te d fa mily A c o uple sho uld no t ha ve the ir fro ze n e mb ryo s de stro ye d b e c a use the
e mb ryo s a re vie we d a s a fina nc ia l o r so c ia l b urde n
L
ike wise , a ny fro ze n e mb ryo tha t is de stro ye d fo r the sa ke o f re se a rc h is mo ra lly re pre he nsib le
Pa re nts unde rg o ing I
VF
SI ma y b e pe rsua de d to g e ne ra te e xtra e mb ryo s kno wing tha t the y ma y b e a do pte d; this will c o ntinue to a dd to the o ng o ing ho me le ss po pula tio n o f fro ze n e mb ryo s, a n una vo ida b le b ypro duc t o f the re pro duc tive te c hno lo g y industry
T
he unic e llula r zyg o te (da y-o ld e mb ryo ) o r the five -da y o ld e mb ryo nic b la sto c yst is a de ve lo ping huma n b e ing , sc ie ntific a lly a nd Sc riptura lly
E
mb ryo , pre -e mb ryo , o r pre -zyg o te – the sc ie ntific a nd the o lo g ic a l fa c t re ma ins. T he e mb ryo is a huma n b e ing .
E
mb ryo a do ptio n is a via b le a lte rna tive fo r a ddre ssing the issue o f ho me le ss a nd a b a ndo ne d fro ze n e mb ryo s
Ho we ve r, c a utio n must b e a ddre sse d to c o uple s inte nt o n b e c o ming
invo lve d in this pro c e ss
An infe rtile husb a nd a nd wife A husb a nd a nd wife who ha ve use d I
VF to c o nc e ive
T
he y ma y still ha ve fro ze n e mb ryo nic c hildre n
T
he y ma y ha ve do na te d e mb ryo s fo r a do ptio n o r de struc tio n
T
he y ma y b e c o nside ring I VF
A divo rc e d husb a nd o r wife strug g ling o ve r fro ze n e mb ryo
c usto dy o r a do ptio n
A sing le wo ma n c o nside ring I
VF
A ma rrie d c o uple c o nside ring e g g o r spe rm do na tio n A ho mo se xua l ma n, wo ma n, o r c o uple c o nside ring ma rria g e ,
a do ptio n, I VF , o r do na tio n
A c o ng re g a tio n full o f huma n me n, wo me n, a nd c hildre n, sinful fro m the time
mo m a nd da d c o nc e ive d the m b y Go d’ s c re a tive po we r a nd lo ve , who ne e d to he a r the truth o f Je sus Who wa s c o nc e ive d, b o rn, suffe re d, die d, a nd ro se a g a in fo r the m
A Bib le Study ne e ding to le a rn o f Go d’ s lo ve a nd fo rg ive ne ss fo r the m a s the y
e xpe rie nc e the spiritua l dile mma s o f to da y
Yo ung sing le o r ma rrie d Christia ns who ne e d to kno w the ir ide ntity a s b a ptize d
so ns a nd da ug hte rs o f Go d
Yo ung c a te c hume ns who ne e d to le a rn Go d’ s g ifts o f b o dy, so ul, mo the r,
fa the r, ma rria g e , c hildre n, Wo rd , Sa c ra me nts, a nd fa ith
Whe re is yo ur pro -life lite ra ture ? Whe re is yo ur pro -life pre a c hing a nd
te a c hing ?
Whe re is yo ur lo c a l c risis pre g na nc y
c e nte r?
Ho w c a n yo u pe titio n yo ur e le c te d
le a de rs to suppo rt le g isla tive pro te c tio n fo r unb o rn c hildre n?
Ho w c a n yo u pub lic ly de mo nstra te
Go d’ s me rc iful c a re fo r pe o ple o f a ll a g e s a nd c o nditio ns?
Ho w c a n yo u pra y tha t Go d’ s will is
do ne in Churc h, Ho me a nd Sta te ?