My Journey Through In Vitro Fertilization

via My Journey Through In Vitro Fertilization | Catholic Lane.

frozenembryo

My Journey Through In Vitro Fertilization

by Jenny Vaughn on Oct 29, 2014 in Contraception & Abortion, Featured, MyChurchParish.com, Parenting, Reproductive Technology, Women –

It’s July 2008 and I’m strapped to a surgical table as a fertility doctor siphons three dozen eggs out of my ovaries through a long needle. Blood is coming from between my legs, as the needle repeatedly perforates my vaginal walls en route to my ovaries in search of viable eggs. In the next room, my husband is masturbating so fresh sperm can be used to fertilize the eggs.

Originally published at CatholicSistas.com.

When we’re done, my ovaries hyperstimulate and I pass out. My abdomen and chest begin to fill with fluid; the anesthesia doesn’t stop the severe pain that fills my body. I struggle to breathe. The doctor stabilizes me, but it still takes nearly a week to recover from the brutal procedure.

The doctor had retrieved 38 good eggs, of which 31 are fertilized. Over the next week, 16 of our embryonic children die and are discarded. Thirteen are cryogenically frozen, mostly two to a vial. Two fresh embryos are transferred to my uterus.

Yes, the cost is high for what we’re doing, both financially and physically. But it will be worth it, I tell myself. Because surely at least one of these embryos will give us our heart’s desire–a beautiful child of our own.

Justifying Our Choices

My journey into in vitro fertilization (IVF) actually began in the 1980s, when my mother used donor sperm and intrauterine insemination to conceive me and my twin sister. When we were 12, we discovered that the man we thought was our father was not. I was disturbed that we were created by my mother and a stranger, and have always felt as if only part of me was “real.”

Fast-forward to my own marriage in 2004. We wanted children right away, but a year of trying had resulted in no pregnancy. I was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome, an endocrine disorder that inhibits regular ovulation.

Doctors put me on the same ovulation-stimulating medication my mother had used to conceive me–Clomid. Four unsuccessful cycles later, we moved on to artificial insemination, though we did at least use my husband’s sperm. Still no baby.

In desperation, we graduated to the expensive and complex process of IVF, where my eggs and my husband’s sperm would be taken out of our bodies, joined in a petri dish, and the resulting embryos would be inserted into my uterus.

Even before we started down the IVF road, there was a voice inside of us whispering that it was wrong. But that voice was drowned out by louder, more persistent voices, like the doctors’ who said we had little to no chance to conceive without it. Friends and family, too, supported anything that would end the suffering of our infertility.

Then there was my own desire for a child, shouting down the doubts and assuring me that God would want me to be happy and that, as a woman, I deserved a child. And really, how could science that helps create life be a bad thing?

So we signed the contract and started the IVF process. To prepare, I took hormone injections and pills to stimulate my ovaries for egg retrieval. Though most eggs were fertilized simply by exposing them to sperm, some needed sperm forcibly injected into them with a needle.

These newly formed, microscopic human beings were then graded for quality and we were encouraged to discard “low-grade” embryos that had little chance of survival. But because we couldn’t fully stifle our doubts about the wrongness of IVF, we insisted that all our viable embryos be preserved.

Suffering and Loss

After the first transfer in July 2008, we were thrilled to discover that we were pregnant with twins, due the following April. But at 21 weeks gestation, our twins–Madi and Isaiah–were born prematurely and only lived for one hour each. During those brief, heartbreaking few hours, we held them, bathed them, dressed them, and baptized them, holding onto their tiny, fragile bodies as long as we could. Continue reading

Church Believes in Cures That Don’t Sacrifice Life – Catholic Culture

There is a great deal of confusion in our society about stem-cell research. An important distinction must be made about embryonic stem-cell research that kills innocent human life and adult stem-cell research that doesn\’t.

The Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem-cell research but strongly supports adult stem-cell research. Opponents of the Church have branded us as being opposed to science and indifferent to those who suffer from illnesses. But we support ethically responsible scientific research and are very committed to searching for cures, as long as it doesn\’t kill human life.

This is indeed a pro-life issue. We believe that there are strong ethical issues involved here. Even a small embryo is a human being. We all started out as embryonic stem cells. To harvest embryonic stem cells — even to help human life — is wrong because it kills the embryo. It means in effect using tiny human body parts for scientific purposes.

The end does not justify the means.

We know that the genetic package is really complete when conception takes place and sonar pictures of the living infant in the womb clearly show human life as it grows and develops.

Human-life issues are the bedrock of our faith. Respect for life is central to Catholicism, and thus we defend every life where it is threatened — from conception to natural death. We are committed to a consistent ethic of life. Hence, we oppose abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia and capital punishment. As a religious leader I have a serious obligation to share this teaching with others. I am aware that some will not agree.

Some will say that human embryos are in frozen storage and ultimately will be discarded anyway so why is it wrong to try and get some good out of them? Well, in the end we will all die anyway, but that gives no one the right to kill us.

These embryos will not die because they are inherently unable to survive, but rather because others are choosing to hand them over for destructive research instead of letting them implant in their mother\’s womb. The idea of experimenting on human beings because they may die anyway also imposes a grave threat to convicted prisoners, terminally ill patients and others.

We can all support many kinds of exciting and forward-looking avenues of stem-cell research, like umbilical cord and adult stem-cell research, with a clear conscience. These treatments have been a great help to people with Parkinson\’s disease, spinal cord injury, sickle cell anemia, heart damage, corneal damage and dozens of other conditions. There are scholars and experts who would say there is much more hope to develop cures from adult stem-cell research than from embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem-cell research will certainly lead to the creation of cloned human embryos — which also raises serious ethical problems.

via Library : Church Believes in Cures That Don’t Sacrifice Life – Catholic Culture.

When is the Argument Not Hypothetical

Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..Pro-life…..Pro-choice…..

Ready for the truth?   Google images: vacuum contents of abortion.

Life – Not An Abstraction!

Educators Fail – Lawmakers Fail – Journalists Fail – False Compassion Fails!

We have important moral and ethical problems to face in America and in the world.  In order to make educated decisions, people need to be educated.  Our present culture seems determined to keep the people, young and old, in the dark as to the life that lives and moves and has its being within a mother’s womb.

National Geographic will take you inside the womb, so that you can watch the reality.  While Planned Parenthood, funded by U.S. dollars, enters into the most personal and profound decisions women can make, offers less than the reality.  For the woman making a life changing decision, a decision that will impact, for better or worse, how she thinks and feels about herself and others,especially her own child, Planned Parenthood obscures the facts in favor of  its own agenda.  Planned Parenthood will, for instance, turn the monitor away from the pregnant mother during a sonogram procedure.  Why trouble the client with the fact within the womb of their client, an actual picture of the truth, the infant/fetus growing  within them.  Why is that? Could it be that seeing is believing and believing can effect a decision to abort, when such a decision would effect the financial bottom line of this booming mega-business?

Our schools are no better.  Values-free education is of  no value when it comes to living a moral, ethical human life.  Giving teenagers less than science, and telling them less than the actuality of  pregnancy and person-hood is to fail them.  We propagandize them, when we pretend they will not be effected by decisions that society makes for them in lieu of  the education that can with present technology show them, in flesh and blood, not only the life in the womb, but abortion as it really is.

When the young teenager is aborted of the baby she carries within her, she sees it and feels it, and then has to live with it.  What teacher, lawmaker, journalist or councilor has prepared her for this reality, rather than failed her  in the name of compassion and/or convenience?  False compassion leaves scars too deep to be helped by a brochure hastily given before dismissing the girl to make way for their next act of “mercy?”

The education needed for today’s moral and ethical decisions goes beyond the facts of pregnancy to the heavy lifting science touching on  embryonic stem cell research.  Here journalistic misinformation and purposeful skewing of the facts muddy the waters. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput spoke of  “The Evil of Embryo Destruction – In embryonic stem cell research, end does not justify the means.”

Commenting on journalistic integrity Chaput responses to the Denver Post:

In the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, some of the massive media coverage has been fair, accurate and thorough, but much of it — too much of it — has fallen short of reasonable journalistic standards.

By far the most troubling piece I’ve seen was the editorial, “Zealotry vs. science,” published by the Denver Post….. in this case, the Post used bombast and misleading information to argue its support for federally funded embryonic stem cell research in a way reminiscent of a not-very-bright bully.”

Ed Morrisey talks about the issue here with more from Archbishop Chaput