The anti-abortion crowd claims that embryos are persons and should not be destroyed for stem cell research but ignores the fact that "adopting" leftover cells from IVF clinics inevitably means that some will die.
`Embryo adoptions' give life to controversial debates
By Stephanie Schorow
Thursday, May 26, 2005
http://theedge.bostonherald.com/healthNews/view.bg?articleid=84768
With noise from her 3-year-old daughter in the background, Kate Johnson of Reading, Pa., speaks of the children she and her husband will someday ``recognize on the other side.''
``We basically have 10 adoptive children that went on before us and we basically have one'' here now, said Johnson, who with her husband, Steve, ``adopted'' an embryo through a Christian-based organization committed to bringing frozen embryos into the world.
By arrangement with the Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program, Kate, a speech pathologist, and Steve Johnson, a financial planner, were accepted as prospective parents by two couples who did not want to see embryos remaining from their in-vitro fertilization process destroyed, used for research or kept in frozen limbo. After 10 attempts, the 11th implant survived, and little Zara was born to Kate.
The Snowflakes program was launched in 1997 by the nonprofit, state-licensed Nightlight Christian adoption agency in Fullerton, Calif., in response to the boom in in-vitro fertilization. Often 10 to 20 or more eggs are fertilized and frozen for implantation; after the last sucessful pregnancy or for other reasons, the couple must then decide what to do with the leftover eggs. The Snowflakes political stance is clear: ``We view the embryo as a preborn child,'' said director Lori Maze.
Couples must agree to carry all babies to term - ``there's no abortion of a child with Down syndrome,'' Maze said. If couples raise questions of what to do if the mother's life is endangered, Maze said, they will be told ``this is not the right program'' for them.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
#1: Are you a parent? Have you ever had the desire to have a child? If you can answer "yes" to either of these you would know that this is not an anti-abortion issue. Why destroy the supply of 400,000 frozen embryos when there are millions of American couples experiencing the pain of infertility? #2 There is a big difference between purposely destroying embryos for "research" and embryos dying during an attempt at providing them a full life. We didn't choose which one of the 11 embryos would live ahead of time; we didn't purposely kill 10. They died on their own. #3 We are supporters of stem cell research. Adult stem-cell research (ASCR) has already led to more than 1,000 treatments for more than 60 diseases, illnesses and injuries. We are opposed to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) for 4 reasons: A) It PURPOSELY destroys human life B) It is junk science, resulting in ZERO cures since its inception in 1981 C) It's goal is cloning - are you reading the news out of South Korea? D) It takes money and attention away from ASCR, which works. I'm a paraplegic, and I want a cure. We need to stop wasting time and money on junk science so people can be healed and have fuller lives. Steve Johnson - Adoptive Snowflake Dad
No, it is not "junk science." The heads of the NIH agencies all agree that it is very promising.
There is a need for about 1,000 different lines so by far the vast majority of frozen embryos would be available for adoption.
The goal of ESCR is not "cloning" of humans although it would be nice to have the ability to clone human organs for transplants, thus eliminating the immune response.
Post a Comment