Life on Ice

In 1995, a California doctor took responsibility for thousands of unwanted embryos. He's still figuring out what to do with them.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 19, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Davidebert @ 06/21/2009 12:00:33 PM

    Here is a perfect chance for Christian anti-abortion activists to step up to the plate and do something positive. They can help Dr. Anderson solve the ethical problem, and adopt these embryos. But unfortunately, they are all too busy arranging for the murder of other doctors, so they probably won't have the time. Oh, those pro-life people, what a dilemma. So many doctors, so few "lone nuts" to program. Recruiting must be a nightmare.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/22/2009 4:54:28 PM

      So I'm glad to see that your post is full of truth! NOT! First equating Christians with the murder of Dr. Tiller is wrong and I guess you are saying the other Christians in the church where he got shot were apart of the plot as well.

      Making blanket statements about Christians and placing all the responsibility on Christians to come to the rescue of others is just stupid! Are you saying that others besides Christians wouldn't come to their rescue? GET REAL!

      • Posted By: katbat @ 06/30/2009 10:20:12 AM

        Bojack,

        You really don't get why people might get pissed when pro-lifers spend all day protesting at clinics but don't actually do anything helpful like adopt or sponser an unwed mother?

        • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/30/2009 11:48:51 AM

          a bit of a blanket statement.... im not disagreeing with you though. ALOT of pro lifers stand up for what they beleive in and actually adopt and make a difference. its about practicing what you preach. sadly, and im sure many prolifers can agree, most do not adopt because they already have a full family or are just outright hypocrits. those are the ones that give the pro life movement a bad name. its the ones that are adamantly christian, then turn around and spit on women walking into an abortion clinic as if they hate someone they dont even know or understand. or the ones that decide to walk into a church and shoot an abortion doctor in the back, or the people that assault women/couples that have had an abortion, or the very insane few that decide bombing a clinic and killing other innocent people is a good "pro-life" message and some how validates they're position on the subject. the majority of christians have done worlds of good for people across the globe, changing lives and affecting change, its the loud vocally obnoctious few that give the pro-life movement a bad name because they are in no way willing to compromise. thats where the biggest problems lie.

          bojack27: its also not right to assume anyone prochoice wouldnt come to the rescue and adopt a child either.... hopefully, my girlfriend (soon to be fiance) and i will be able to adopt a child AND have our own soon, when we finally buy a house that is. there are plenty of hypocrits on both sides of the subject, and as per usual there are also plenty of blanket statements thrown around from both sides as well. and its not neccessarily wrong to equate "christians" with the death of doctor tiller either. i mean, he was shot by a member of his church congregation, in the back. to try to say that it is not a christian model of extremity i dont know what is. that shooter is of the same ultra right wing extremists that bomb abortion clinics and beat up patients walking out of the clinics, the same kind that preach love regardless of the sin and spit and taunt those that they dont know or understand.

          i think we can all agree that everyone is pro-life at they're cores. no one, or hopefully no one, sees or gets joy out of performing an abortion, or tinkering with embryos. its not a happy moment for a mother to decide whether or not a being inside her should live or not depending on living circumstances or situations. my girlfriend and i are adamantly pro-choice, but personally pro-life. if she were to get pregnant i would want to keep the child. but its not my place to decide what another couple or a sinlge mother is to do with her life and her body. i dont tell people what do do in any other aspect of they're lives, or how they should raise they're own childeren, or anything. not my place. its they're life. its an issue that should be left to the parties involved, not they're neighbors, or church members or the church itself, or the state, or the federal government.

          • Posted By: carsda1 @ 06/30/2009 12:49:25 PM

            Here again, you're all making the same error: you're equating "churchgoer" with "Christian." Just because someone is sitting in a church on Sunday doesn't make him or her a Christian, any more than someone sitting in a barn on Sunday is a cow. Look, to be a Christian is more than just to say the words. It's not a religion. It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, surrender your life to His leading, and live for Him. HE is the one who said, "If you love me, keep my commands." Period. Those who murder in the name of Christ are NOT living for Him - they're doing their own thing; trying to work their way into heaven in their own way. You lay the Inquisition at our feet all the time, but those folks were another good example of people who claimed to be Christians and were not acting according to that statement. "Compromise" is not the answer. A compromising Christian is one who swears or murders or commits adultery and blacks everyone else's reputation by claiming Christ. The answer is "Live what you say you believe or stop claiming Christ."

            • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/30/2009 5:19:03 PM

              you said:
              "Just because someone is sitting in a church on Sunday doesn't make him or her a Christian, any more than someone sitting in a barn on Sunday is a cow. Look, to be a Christian is more than just to say the words".

              true. but its a personal truth. the man that shot that doctor WAS A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH. meaning, in society, that person is largely considered a christian. theres no way around that truth. whether or not he himself "had a relationship with jesus christ" is irrelevant to the argument. plenty of people go to church to learn HOW to have a relationship with jesus christ, and having that relationship isnt something that is measurable in any way in this life and world. in his mind, he was justified, thinking that he was doing god a favor in killing a man in cold blood. the bible/god denounce murder and consider it a sin. yet, it is all throughout the bible that killing can be righteous in the name of the lord.

              compromise. lets talk about that. lets talk about "compromising" with the issues of slavery/beating childeren that is encouraged and accepted in the old testament, i.e. THE ORIGINAL BIBLE, supposedly the words of god himself through divine intervention. do you beat your kids? or own a slave? you compromise with parts of the bible that might not be 100% relevant in todays world, you and everyone compromises shows through the amount of different denominations within any given religion. you dont all agree on the same things, even though they are written down in plain text and is the same in every bible on earth.

              if the anti-abortion movement wants to see some progress and shoot for lowering unwanted pregnancies, than its time they start shooting for those goals instead of trying to outlaw it, which you and i know, wouldnt end the problem. compromise is what accomplishes goals in which both parties might not have EVERYTHING they want, but they both get SOMETHING they want and call it even and good.

              • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:24:38 AM

                Last part:
                I do agree with your last point that we should ALL (pro-life AND pro-choice)work harder to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to make sure children whose birth families cannot care for them get real, loving families. Education is one thing we can do, beginning with our own kids. I think that's the point many of us on both sides miss - that we can't just sit around and make somebody ELSE do something about it - we have to be working for it ourselves. We have six children, and we talk to them about the responsibilities of sex. We are involved in their lives and their friends hang out at our house (what's a few more sandwiches?). We SHOULD be taking in pregnant mothers in crisis who have no homes and caring for them. We should be listening to them, not just talking at them. Caring for them rather than condemning them. You are right. We should be doing those things. I should be doing more of those things. And you know, if we were doing those things, caring for other people on a personal level, the government could legalize whatever it wanted and abortion could still be a rare choice.
                Thanks for the debate. Iron sharpens iron, they say.

              • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:24:03 AM

                Part III
                Denominationalism is something else too. What issues do we disagree about that are the same in every Bible? Baptism? That's a big one. Some claim infant baptism, some claim believers' baptism. Guess what? The plain answer is not in every Bible on earth. Predestination? Yes - there are texts that can support each side. Should we worship on Saturday or Sunday? For the most part, these disagreements are over nonessentials (doctrines that are not essential to a person's salvation). True, some churches hold to extra-biblical or nonbiblical doctrines, but the fault is not in Christ or in Christianity, but in those views. Not all CHURCHES that claim to be Christian really are. Some are cults. Some are social clubs. Some are service clubs, like a Rotary meeting with prayers. And some do continue to hold followers in bondage, thinking that they have to do this and that and this, carefully, over and over again and don't miss anything...if they're going to be let into heaven. That is sad, but it is a pox on THEM, and not on Christianity or on Christ. And even in the churches that do hold to essential biblical doctrines, there are unbelievers in the pews. Some are dragged by their spouses/parents/children. Some are searching. Some think they're Christians but have missed the point.
                I know you don't want to hear any more, so I'll stop there.

                But of this man (I don't even remember his name) who killed Dr. Tiller, as you said, "in his mind he was justified," that's not Christianity, or even religion. That's the spirituality you were talking about "diggin into yourself for answers." That's not where Christians are supposed to go for answers. If he believed in the Christ he claims he would have listened to Him when He said, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." To be so mad over someone else's sin that we go and commit the same sin in the name of Christ is preposterous.

              • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:23:38 AM

                part II Religion is man's attempt to work our way into _____________. Call it heaven or nirvanah or whatever you want. Yes, to a certain extent, throughout history organized religion has tried to tell people the right thing to do to get free, as you said. But free of what? Free of death, free of suffering, free of this disposable earthsuit. Christianity is not a religion in that sense, because the work has been done by Christ on the cross - that's why it's FREE. You are absolutely right that a building with a cross can't set you free...and sitting in one doesn't make you a Christian either. Only Christ can set us free, which is why Christianity is an individual relationship and not an "organized religion." Just like you would say that abortion's not a governmental thing - it should be each person's decision for themselves. If some women are coerced into abortion by their families, that doesn't mean that all pro-choicers are coercive. Christianity is an individual decision, and how we live it out reflects on US, not everyone who claims the name of Christ.

                Hmmm. You are making blanket statements that sound like you haven't really read it and had questions for yourself, you've just heard the old arguments and nobody's answered you. Murder for God is all over the Bible? Where in the New Testament do you find that? Or since you specified the Old Testament, Where in the Prophets? Job? Esther? Nehemiah? God does not ordain murder anywhere in the Bible, although He did send the Israelites to war in Exodus and Joshua and I and II Kings. War is not murder (I know that statement is not politically correct either). King David was "a man after God's own heart" but he experienced severe consequences for committing murder. God didn't call his murder of Uriah righteous at all. Let alone beating children. If you mean that the Bible advocates discipline (as in "spare the rod, spoil the child") yes, the Bible does say we should discipline our children. Discipline and beating are not the same thing. Slavery was a part of the culture (it's what they did with prisoners of war when there was no home country to repatriate them to [or their home country wouldn't redeem them], and how they handled debts too large to be repaid) and God provides clear guidelines for the ownership and treatment of slaves. Even in the Old Testament (which is part of the Hebrew Torah, not "the original Bible" The Original Bible was put together in the 300s by Constantine), there was a feast (the Year of Jubilee) during which slaves were freed. Check it out - there are terms of service for slaves (not "forever until you die") and indentured servants and bondslaves. There are penalties for harsh treatment. God does not anywhere encourage His people to own slaves.

              • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:22:48 AM

                I'm sorry- you're right. I was in a hurry and did not address your other points. I'll do that in a second - have to cut this in half because it's too long. Whether he himself had a relationship with Christ IS the entire argument, if he claims to be Christian. Of course this relationship is measurable in life and the world (though admittedly Christians don't do a perfect job of showing that). What I took issue with was your false attribution: you look at one fellow who claims to be Christian and does atrocious things and you don't say "Look what he did - That fellow isn't a very good Christian." You say, "Look what he did - all Christians are bad." You laid this at the feet of Christians, which is what I responded to.

                I do not agree with your other statement that all people are prolife at their core. They're "Pro Good Life," (all of us are no matter what we believe about God-it's called selfishness. There was a reason Jesus said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." we already love ourselves, we don't need to work on that) which I believe you alluded to later on. If the child is inconvenient/not really wanted/would cause hardship (however we determine that)/etc. then the quality of OUR life takes precedence over the life of the child. We're not pro-life, we're pro OUR life. If someone has a terminal disease and is in pain or decides the quality of their life is too poor they (or we) should be able to decide to take their life. Again, not pro-life, pro QUALITY life. "If someone's an abortion doctor, then their life is not worth a plugged nickel" is another statement that's not pro-life. You were right earlier on when you said pro-lifers need to be pro ALL life. Pro embryonic life, pro 'less than ideal' life, pro elderly life, pro George Tiller's life. If we aren't willing to say life is precious from conception through death, no matter what state the individual is in or what choices he or she makes, then we need to look closer at whether we're really pro-life or just anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia. I think many people also call themselves pro-life who aren't, truly. They're just anti-something.

                continued

            • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/30/2009 5:30:49 PM

              you didnt even address any other parts of my post, which was the heart of what i was talking about.

              you see, you simply cherry picked what offended you, brought it to light, and left the rest alone. this is the inherant problem with humanity, and hence, the idea of organized religion (which isnt really organized at all, its a big cluster fcuk).

              SPIRITUALITY can set you free, a building with a cross on it cannot. in the end, each and every religion boils down to controlling our most basic of desires, diggin into yourself for answers, doing alot of thinking (praying/meditation) about whats going on in your life.

          • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/30/2009 11:56:40 AM

            i have yet to hear about or see a pro-choice advocate commiting a murder of a fully grown adult simply because of they're opinion on abortion/adoption/embryos. something to keep in mind. and i very well could be wrong about that as well, just saying, i have yet to hear or see anything stating that a prochoice advocate went and bombed a church or a pregnancy crisis center or anything for that matter.

    • Posted By: asianmama @ 06/30/2009 11:21:24 AM

      Clearly, there needs to be more laws to determine what to do in a situation like this. This is an ethical dilemma when the donor cannot be reached to make a decision on their embryo(s). I am amazed at the shallowness at which some people's minds work. To make this a "Christian" responsibility is quite ignorant. One Hitler does not make all Germans monsters. One Bin Laden does not make all Middle Easterns monsters. Everyone sins. The only example to follow is the one without sin and that is Jesus. Don't ever expect Christians to be perfect because they are not. They are humans. Perfect people do not go to church. The responsibility of the embryo is clearly the donor's. Attorneys for the clinics should clearly state in the contract what is to become of the embryos should a situation like this occur. This doctor took on a precarious situation and is doing what he thinks is the best option. Kudos to him! Have a blessed day.

      • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/06/2009 12:45:36 PM

        Clearly, there need not be any stray embryos to be concerned about--problem solved! I don't recall anything said by g-d in the bibble about the production of embryos, the care and feeding thereof.


      • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/30/2009 12:02:43 PM

        great post!!! kudos to you!!

    • Posted By: bobthe @ 06/30/2009 12:44:13 PM

      davidbert, it wasnt murder. 'just' a 180th trimester abortion!

    • Posted By: carsda1 @ 06/30/2009 12:40:53 PM

      But that's just the thing. Read the article, Davidebert - nobody can adopt the embryos without the consent of the PARENTS. They have to make a decision to make the embryos available to other people - that's what the controversy is about. Doctors can't just give embryos to people - if he did that you'd accuse Christian pro-lifers of baby stealing. Some of us Christian pro-lifers DO support pregnant teens and take meals to underprivileged people - perhaps you could get to know some of us personally before condemning all of us.
      Blessings

    • Posted By: asianmama @ 06/30/2009 11:20:07 AM

      Clearly, there needs to be more laws to determine what to do in a situation like this. This is an ethical dilemma when the donor cannot be reached to make a decision on their embryo(s). I am amazed at the shallowness at which some people's minds work. To make this a "Christian" responsibility is quite ignorant. One Hitler does not make all Germans monsters. One Bin Laden does not make all Middle Easterns monsters. Everyone sins. The only example to follow is the one without sin and that is Jesus. Don't ever expect Christians to be perfect because they are not. They are humans. Perfect people do not go to church. The responsibility of the embryo is clearly the donor's. Attorneys for the clinics should clearly state in the contract what is to become of the embryos should a situation like this occur. This doctor took on a precarious situation and is doing what he thinks is the best option. Kudos to him! Have a blessed day.

  • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 06/30/2009 9:31:19 AM

    This is another "manufactured" problem that should never have happened. There is no reason for an embryo to exist anywhere but inside a woman who has chosen to have a baby now. Those embryos never had a choice. Using body parts like commodities is morally bankrupt.

    I feel compassion for people who suffer from infertility. However, evolution works because nature is allowed to decide which organisms are suitable to survive, i.e., reproduce. Interfering in something as basic as our genetic legacy is a surefire way to ensure that infertility problems will continue and be magnified in later generations. You would think that as intelligent beings we could learn how to enhance our enjoyment of life by uinderstanding our genetics and preserving the infinite possibilities inherent in natural selection.

    • Posted By: bobthe @ 06/30/2009 12:51:35 PM

      geckogirl, you seem to lack both compassion and an understanding of genetics. Please tell me how a couple using IVF with donated biological materials somehow compromise natural selection? They arent passing on defective genes, but rather the genes of others who CAN reproduce.

      • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/01/2009 8:16:47 AM

        They are forcing the coming together of genetic materials in an alien environment, a test tube. In reality, those genetic materials may not have what it takes to naturally come together to form an embryo. It is all forced, artificial, and alien.

        As for the entitlement aspect of motherhood, get over it! If you feel entitled to motherhood, adopt an abandoned child. Adoption should be as simple as putting your name on a list and being presented with the first child who needs a home, regardless of that child's age, race, eye color, gender, or health. You want a child, then you takes your chances like everybody else who has children the "old-fashioned" way. You have no guarantee of health or eye color or gender then, either.

        • Posted By: bobthe @ 07/01/2009 3:46:37 PM

          geckogirl, once again your pseudo intellectual claim to things being 'natural' therefore being good is totally devoid of both logic, but any foundation in reality.

          Human kind largely lives outside of natural selection. MRIs, flouride toothpaste, insulin, cancer treatments and homes with heating all abrogate the natural bit in natural selection. So unless you live in the wild and have never seen a doctor you have precisely ZERO room to talk.

          But to get to the important bit - the genetics of it. IVF produces viable offspring, even when said offspring are not the biological products of the parents. This has precisely nothing to do with damaging the gene pool, infact - bringing together viable genetic material that otherwise would not have resulted in offspring (to use your own complaint) does nothing but to further genetic diversity.

          why dont you get a clue and leave having opinions to the grown ups, mkay?

          • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/06/2009 12:27:09 PM

            Precisely because my origins are "natural" my family and my children are not burden to society or the healthcare industry. Just because you decide to put some random genes together does not mean those genes would combine in a natural setting. The situation is forced. And the children that are born of IVF statistically cost more iin health care than naturall born children.

            You may be extremely familiar with insulin, cancer treatments, flouride toothpaste, and MRI's, but I am not. You are like a drug pusher--gee since you tried the crack you might as well try the heroin, too. Your philosophy of pressuring for more dangerous choices because you personally already make lots of dangerous choices, makes no sense. When people choose not to fly because planes can crash, you are probably the first to point out that cars crash, too. Like that somehow makes it ok that planes can crash? My philosophy is to pick and choose the dangers with at least a little bit of grown up thought, unlike you who can't spell, can't type, can't read, and can't write. Your test tube origins are showing.

            • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/07/2009 3:03:25 PM

              And how does using medical technology intended for helping sick people get a diagnosis/treatment have anything to do with being dangerous? It would be more dangerous for people to avoid a diagnosis/treatment of many illnesses than it would be for them to seek it. Your philosophy is contradictory to what you are saying in the beginning of your second paragraph. Have you ever heard of the expression smoke screen in writing? All of your posts contain one.

            • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/07/2009 2:25:39 PM

              Before you go picking on people for their spelling errors and whatnot, you should take a look at yourself first. Besides, that's a bit immature of you. Obviously, someone who made good sense got to you, now who's taking umbrage? You have to have used something that would have helped lengthen your lifespan at some point in your life, maybe it wasn't something that bobthe listed, but there has to be something and that was the point of the post. You are a hypocrite. It is also obvious that bobthe knows how to spell, type, read and write, otherwise none of the post would have made sense at all.
              Great post by the way bobthe! You said what I wanted to, but couldn't quite get around to saying.

        • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/01/2009 10:33:34 AM

          You do however get to experience carrying the baby, and having a newborn placed in your arms and raising them the way you see fit from the very beginning. You are a heartless person.

    • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 06/30/2009 12:46:12 PM

      So just because I have "unexplained Infertility" I shouldn't have a chance to experience the whole of motherhood, which I have been dreaming of and trying to make a reality for the past 8 years. How can you say you have compassion, you obviously have no idea what it's like. How would you feel if your only true desire in life was to experience motherhood with all it's ups and downs even just once and be told that it's natures way of saying you're not supposed to. I know this is kind of going a bit OT, but I had to say something. I agree that people should not have a choice to freeze their embryos for later when they are perfectly fertile in the first place, but to say that people shouldn't have a chance to do IVF because nothing else worked is plain insensitive. I have also had people tell me, "just adopt" which is equally as insensitive, because although I'm adopting 2 of my nieces and my nephew and plan to adopt another child someday regardless of how IVF works out and I will love all my children the same, it doesn't deminish the desire to be pregnant and have the whole experience just once.

      • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/01/2009 8:11:53 AM

        Your attitude is just another example of the greed and irresponsibility of the "me, me, me" generation. You don't have the entitlement to anything here in this life. Neither to own children or buy fertility. I don't feel sorry for you or for your infertility. I feel sorry for children being born that were never meant to be. I feel sorry for girls who are born and forced to perpetuate the inherent infertility of their genetics. I feel sorry for girls who might grow up to need surgical intervention to give birth in a time where no surgeons may be available. By your belief system are not entitled to anything, apparently. Not even good health.



        • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/01/2009 10:23:55 AM

          I'm not saying I want to own children, just raise them to be happy, respectful, caring individuals. I can imagine by your thought process that you are another one of those women like my sister who takes their fertility and children for granted. I would also like to add that by what you say in your earlier post, natural selection isn't a good thing either because the majority of the children who are up for adoption/in the system are bred from people who make poor choices, so then they must have genetics that will cause them to make poor choices too? My mom got pregnant at the age of 40 and gave birth to a healthy baby and he is her sixth child. She is a worthless mother for reasons I will not bore you with. My sister who is 13 months older than me has 4 healthy children who she lost because drugs were more important and now I'm adopting 3 of them. My little sister has 3 healthy children that she wasn't ready for, but loves and does her best to care for. So if everyone else in my family is so fertile, why is it that I'm not? And what makes you so sure I will pass infertility on to my children? I have "Unexplained Infertility" and doing IVF will possibly allow me to find out the cause. I'm not only doing this for myself, I'm also doing it for my husband who wants a child as much as I do and my MIL and FIL who would love to have a grandchild to carry on the family name because my husband is an only child. Are you really that horrible of a person that you have no feelings for others? I feel sorry for you, not the children who "weren't meant to be born" as you say. At least they will know love and compassion. I don't feel entiltled, just that if I have the option, I'm going to utilize it.

          • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/06/2009 12:35:03 PM

            Well, because you say it's ok, then it must be ok. I'm sure that regardless of the dangers, and regardless of the many people whose "choices" have provided you with plenty of available children to adopt, it is of utter importance that you use all the science and technology at your disposal because you need to breed. In spite of the health care that you divert for you and yours, and it's not like you have it in you to love children in spite of their origins--you will just love your own progeny the most. And that love for your progeny is more important than anything. I understand.

            I love the children who will have to face the outcome of your choices in a dark time where science and technology may have a hiccup or two, and your daughters or your granddaughters have to travail to no avail. But nevermind all that, it's all about you.

            • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/07/2009 11:36:45 AM

              And what is this nonsense about healthcare? I have great insurance, and I happen to know that most of the children in the system have way more health problems than most of the children born via IVF.

              • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/07/2009 12:27:34 PM

                Check out adoptuskids.org, It is heartbreaking that their parents opted to use drugs and do g-d knows what else when they were planning to continue their pregnancies and bring these children into the world. These are all children born the natural way by parents who just didn't care/love them enough to make good choices for the sake of their kids. They are the ones I feel sorry for, not children who are wanted and created in a lab who have mothers who care/love them enough to take every precaution possible while pregnant to try and ensure that they will have a healthy baby and then continue to care for them with tons of love after they are born.

            • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/07/2009 12:10:56 PM

              I will NOT love my bio children any more or less than I love all the children who come into my home and heart by any means. And since you feel so strongly that people with infertility should adopt all the "unwanted" children in our society, why don't you do your part and adopt as well? Just as I think your opinions are rediculous, I'm sure you think my opinion that you are selfish/greedy for having six children the "old fashioned" way when you could have had one or two bio children and adopted the other four or five, is just as rediculous. This could go on forever and I still wouldn't be able to touch on all the things I would like to say to you, so I will just leave it at that. I have way more important things to utilize my time on.

      • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 06/30/2009 3:12:01 PM

        I should add that if I did have left over emby's, I would use them no matter the outcome of the first attempt. I have to give IVF a try just once to know that I did everything in my power to become pregnant. If it doesn't work I can at least have the peace of mind knowing that I tried. This way I won't always be haunted by the question, what if?

  • Posted By: tremorfireheart @ 06/30/2009 10:37:50 AM

    @ GeckoGirl
    People like my uncle need these clinics to help with the problems they are having with producing children with his current wife. His genetics actually should be quite beneficial to the generations to come. Physically fit and A highly compensated Computer programmer inidicating a great deal of inteligence should note him of being worthy of the most basic desire. To be fruitful and multiply. To say that those who can not do on their own is unworthy of a helping hand is a rather base statement. its natural for any creature to try and overcome any obstacle to its own reproduction and survival by anymeans it has at its disposal. Those that can manage to do so have passed the natural selection test. Humans natural selection has tended to go those who best can grasp the new technologies to provide them with an advantage, be it weapons, medicine or lessening imposed work loads. This is just another tool for them to accomplish that with.

    No one is forcing anyone to have a kid who's not there own.And even if a child is not born to his biological parents, I'm sure s/he is very appreciative to have been born at all. I do not see how the slavery statement is relevant at all. They made a choice to use these means to ensure that they would have children. they are not stealing what is freely given. We don't complain about there being adoption fees why complain about the fees associated here?

    @general knowledge
    The quandry involves money as always. The scientist doesn't want to keep paying to keep them. There are few patients allowing it to be used as a different form of adoption. The donors don't care enough about the embryo's to claim them. So now they are faced with "do we just throw them out or do we destroy them in such a manner to get some kind of benefit out of it?" as they can't continue to pay for them without endangering the financial structure that keeps the others viable for human life.
    tremorfireheart@yahoo.com

    • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/01/2009 8:23:37 AM

      I'm not sure that I agree that computer programmers should be allowed to reproduce using technology. I'm a software engineer and I passed my superior genetic material on to six children the old-fashioned way. None of them have fertility problems or need surgical intervention to give birth. I'd hate for the lights to go out in Georgia and have one of my daughters or granddaughters in need of a c-section because EYE insisted on having children using technology that may or may not be there when you need it. There is no guarantee we'll have these technologies forever. It's highly likely that we won't.

      • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/01/2009 10:30:03 AM

        I feel sorry for your kids. You are so judgemental and have no compassion. I just hope they don't learn that from you. I would give anything to be able to reproduce the old fasioned way, but for some unknown reason that hasn't been a possiblity for me. I just can't believe there are people like you in the world, that's where I start to lose faith in humanity.

        • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/06/2009 12:38:42 PM

          You SHOULD lose faith in a humanity that seems to disregard the wishes of others (embryos), for all your focus on your own choices. Perhaps I shame you with my perfectly valid opinion that humanity has no business playing with our genetic material in any way. I know the kind of people I'm typing about here. The more you take umbrage, the more I'm obviously correct.

          • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/07/2009 11:07:50 AM

            How is giving the embryos a life they would otherwise not have had disregarding thier wishes? Embryos obviously can't think, therefore it is impossible to disregard thier wishes until they are born and old enough to think/speak for themselves. I know that if I was created through IVF, I would feel even more blessed to be here and feel that much more wanted by my parents because they did everything in thier power to make sure I was born. I have often thought to myself how I am so glad that I was born and able to experience the wonder that is life and even though I wouldn't know it if I was never born, since I am here there is no way I would want to not have been born.

      • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 07/01/2009 12:30:21 PM

        Since I'm living proof that perfectly fertile people can have children with fertility problems, your opinion is flawed. Would you say the same thing to your daughter if she was in my position? "Get over it" I would hope that you would be open minded enough to support her in whatever decision she made. There is no evidence that children born of IVF will inherit their parent's infertility, so where do you get off thinking that? And just because a person concieves with the help of IVF doesn't mean they will have to have a c-section, they can still give birth the "old-fashioned" way. You just sound like a very closed minded person spewing thier opinions as if that was all that mattered. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, so don't go around trying to make people feel even worse about an already SH!TTY situation!

  • Posted By: scottreeves @ 06/30/2009 10:59:35 AM

    First, pro-lifers are some of the most active in adoption and foster care services and single mother assistance. Have you heard of crisis pregnancy centers--there are tons there to help single moms-to-be who opt for life over abortion--those are sponsored by pro-lifers. The pro-abortion movement is so inconsistent, criticizing crisis pregnancy centers and arguing against adoption while saying that pro-lifers do nothing without ever checking the facts. It is a load of ignorant crap.
    Furthermore, if you listened to prolifers you would not have the complications in this article. Why can't infertile people simply adopt. It is all about the money. We complain about overpopulation, or lack of adoptive parents and then spend millions producing unwanted babies to be frozen--does no one see the selfish barbarism and medical greed behind this. .

    • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 06/30/2009 2:29:19 PM

      See my earlier post to get the answer to your question.

      • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/06/2009 12:42:22 PM

        In this, the anti-woman movement and the pro-choice movement are in complete agreement. The pro-choice movement actually does more to help women make good choices. I have been a pro-choice activist for 45 years and I've never met anyone who is pro-abortion. All of the people I work with want every child to be wanted, nurtured, loved, and provided for by its mother.

    • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/01/2009 8:18:34 AM

      I'm pro-choice and I see the selfish barabarism of artificially created humans quite clearly.

  • Posted By: aliciah @ 06/30/2009 10:09:23 AM

    Let me begin with.. there is NO reason other than selfishness to ever terminate a pregnancy. However, there is a distinct difference between the embryo inside a pregnant woman and one that is stored in a thermos. The one in the thermos, if left to its own devices would cease to be viable. If there was no way to store lab created embryos this whole argument would not exsist.
    And to those who think that infertility is just God or natures way of saying "your defective and should just die," have you not even considered that part of the issue is our lifestyle. Thanks to medicine people can easily live into there 70s. From a purely natural perspective humans should only live to about 30; maybe. In this case we should all begin reproducing as soon as possible that would be at about 11-13 years old. So the fact that someone in their 30's or 40's has trouble is not a genetic fault. In nature no one would have lived long enough to need to reproduce at that age. But in our society 11 year old cannot raise a child. Heck it is even difficult for some 30 years olds.

    • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 07/01/2009 8:29:29 AM

      That isn't for you to decide. I know people who terminated pregnancies for reasons other than selfishness, and that is entirely their business. That is the reason that women are guaranteed the right to privacy because they are the once who must deal with the consequences. Every mother is a single mother, many just don't realize right away. Having a baby is a lifetime commitment and a huge expenditure of energy. Nobody has the right to make that decision for anyone. If you want a baby, knock yourself out or adopt. If I want a baby I'm not going to call you at 3 am to discuss the pros and cons of MY life situation and my children's. Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries. :-)

  • Posted By: maskingtape @ 06/30/2009 8:03:47 AM

    This is relatively a simple case. Anything older than 10 years should be discarded. Dont give the owners or "parents" an option, but an ultimatum. If they do not make a decesion by the ten year mark then the embryo's will be discarded as medical waste and the the "parents" will be charged for all associated fees. It's a simple solution. I don't want to hear any arguments about religion or moral issues. There aren't any. The owners of the embryos obviously have moved on so should we.

  • Posted By: ditchqueen @ 06/30/2009 8:51:07 AM

    Being a surrogate , I understand how difficult it is for parents. Yet, I feel if these "parents" take off and abandon their emby's it is no different then abandoning a child. They know full well these embryo's are there. These emby's should be donated to other couples who cannot afford the expense of IVF. I'm sure many of them would be willing to reimburse the $300 in storage costs if they could "adopt" the emby's, considering IVF is an expense most cannot afford.

    • Posted By: hopingforamiracle @ 06/30/2009 12:25:34 PM

      I agree. As a woman with IVF as my only hope, short of a miracle, at having a bio child, I feel that these people lost their right to decide when they abandoned their embryos. I would be so greatful to have the possibility to adopt abandoned emryos if I find out that I have poor/bad egg quality when I do my first and only (insurance will only cover it once) round of IVF with ICSI this year.

  • Posted By: michaelbinCA @ 06/30/2009 12:19:52 PM

    Are there no restraints? WTF? Opt for a hand job or oral.

  • Posted By: bobthe @ 06/30/2009 12:19:42 PM

    this is disgusting. The static hold time on a typical storage dewar is around 4 months. 1 dewar can hold literally thousands of embryos. Bulk liquid nitrogen is typically delivered in tanks ranging from about 140 to 200l, and a tank around me (tampa, fl) runs well under 200$. ! tank would be enough to fill a number of storage dewars. Do the math and the annual cost for storing maybe 10,000 embryos would be maybe 1000$. And this guy charges 300$ PER !?!!? what a racket! give um to me! Just a small percentage of couples pony up the $ and I could quit my day job! But thats not enough, now the good doc wants to charge the university for storage too !?!?

  • Posted By: jalee @ 06/30/2009 12:09:53 PM

    Isn't this a little Orwellian?

  • Posted By: mpdsld @ 06/30/2009 12:00:54 PM

    how could a couple find out information on these unclaimed embryos

  • Posted By: apoorperson @ 06/30/2009 8:03:59 AM

    I think parents who just leave their embryos for years are being selfish. They should offer the embryos to other couples or give the doctor permission to dispose of them as he can. I am guessing if these embryos have been in storage for 15 years, the parents are not going to use them. It would be sad if they just end up being thrown out.

    • Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/30/2009 10:45:23 AM

      Agreed, too many people go after the doctor/caretaker, and lay no responsibility on the donors. For every pro-lifer who feels that life begins at the moment of conception, these donors/parents have sold their offspring into bondage. Why do I not hear more protests against the donors? It seems to me Dr. Anderson is caring for about 6,700 "children," at least by pro-life standards. If he doesn't do something soon with the abandoned ones, he's going to run out of money and lose them all. If you truly believe that these embryos are alive, and truly appreciate life, you should be donating to Dr. Anderson to keep the place running, not trying to put him out of business.

  • Posted By: eprn17 @ 06/20/2009 8:31:27 AM

    Just read the news in one day's edition of any newspaper, and you would have to wonder at these right-to-lifers' position that all human beings deserve life. Look at the state of the world and the cruelty and duplicity we exhibit every day, and ask yourself, what is so wonderful about human beings that their right to life is sacrosanct?

    • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 06/30/2009 9:49:03 AM

      Life can be sacrosanct in the same world that is pro-choice. If every individual is given the same amount of rights as any other, then it is clear that we all have exclusive rights to our own genetics and bodies up to the point that these rights invade the rights of other individuals. If we approach our choices from this perspective, then it is clear that the best choice to prevent preganancy is to use contraception or abstinence, and prayer that one will not be raped or molested. Once a woman is pregnant her choices supercede the choices of any other individual up the the point where any other individual involved is on an equal survival footing. If a woman knowingly allows an unplanned pregnancy to proceed then she has made a choice that involves herself and her children. Pro-choice followed to its logical conclusion actually ensures that born children are treated well before and after their birth. In an ideal world, all pregnancies are planned and well-supported by society so that the next generation is born into health and receives the best nurturing the biological mother can provide, by choice. Life is sacrosanct because we are intelligent and we are able to make choices. You cannot take choice out of the equation either by invading a woman's privacy or by invading the genetics of an embryo for your own purposes.

    • Posted By: IMHopeful @ 06/20/2009 8:56:56 AM

      The problem with this statement is that there are not many people interested in adopting leftover blastocysts. This article speaks to the difficulty in finding a home for the leftover blastocysts. The truth is, they will end up as medical waste. The longer they sit, the less viable they are for use in IVF or research.It seems illogical, if not inhumane, to not support this valuable research. For neurological diseases and conditions, this research holds hope for millions. The first clinical trial using embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries has recently been approved by the FDA. The rats have been walking in the labs for years and hopefully, this research will translate into recovery for millions of people around the world suffering with spinal cord injuries. When you understand the potential this science holds, you have have a difficult time understand why some make it difficult for it to go forward. The fact is, many leftover embryos will end up as medical waste. We can choose to discard them OR use them to help individuals who long for a better quality of life.

      • Posted By: GeckoGirl @ 06/30/2009 9:36:45 AM

        The inherent problem with the use of embryonic stem cells is that we are using body parts without giving the donor a choice. I'm adamantly pro-choice and for that reason I do not support embryonic stem cell research. The individual is a product of his or her genetics, environment, and upbringing. To steal the genetic of another is akin to forcing a woman to give birth to another individual against her will. It is slavery and there is nothing good about slavery.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/22/2009 5:00:47 PM

        The problem with your statement is that Adult Human Stem Cells have proven to be far more reliable, treat more diseases and don't have the side affects like embryonic stem cells have.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/22/2009 4:58:03 PM

      I don't see you lining up to get a Saline solution poured over your body, your limps ripped apart, or your skull split open and your brain sucked out. So tell me what is so special about your life that you are hanging onto it as well?

  • Posted By: general knowledge @ 06/30/2009 9:40:29 AM

    I thought this article would be unbiased, and until the second page I was holding out hope still. But this is a nicely painted face on the ugly human stem cell argument.
    Examine for a moment the "why" of the question. Why is there a quandry? It is simple, and you can have all the time you need to make a decision.

  • Posted By: pblaikie @ 06/30/2009 9:08:30 AM

    I applaud Dr. Anderson's efforts and his committment to the potential lives in his charge. His sense of responsibility towards both the embryos and the parents shows a professionalism that should be recognized for its sensitivity to all the parties involved. I wish him well in his search for the parents for resolution and the answers he requires for the final fate of those he cannot locate to be determined in the most humane and if possible most beneficial to those who can either adopt them or as a last resort be utilized in stem cell research to assist the whole of humanity.

  • Posted By: Setay @ 06/19/2009 7:34:09 PM

    I say he should move to one of those crazy states that say life begins at conception and legally claim thousands of dependents. Wow, no taxes for life

  • Posted By: lawschoolbound @ 06/30/2009 6:48:31 AM

    This to me is just another sign of how laws have not yet caught up with man's inventions. Stem cell research as well as embryo research is just as good as they are bad. To say an individual suffering from leukemia and receiving chemo should not preserve her legacy is a selfish statement indeed however it is also selfish for a normal healthy individual to do the same because they are waiting on a just in case moment. Life in my opinion is precious and even more precious is one's ability to save a life by any means necessary. In this case rules and regulations need to be updated and followed by new laws that are enforced in order to maintain the order and balance needed to see this issue through.

  • Posted By: lawschoolbound @ 06/30/2009 6:48:09 AM

    This to me is just another sign of how laws have not yet caught up with man's inventions. Stem cell research as well as embryo research is just as good as they are bad. To say an individual suffering from leukemia and receiving chemo should not preserve her legacy is a selfish statement indeed however it is also selfish for a normal healthy individual to do the same because they are waiting on a just in case moment. Life in my opinion is precious and even more precious is one's ability to save a life by any means necessary. In this case rules and regulations need to be updated and followed by new laws that are enforced in order to maintain the order and balance needed to see this issue through.

  • Posted By: malik55 @ 06/30/2009 4:05:42 AM

    Why did they start this ? The couples who stored their embroys are at fault as for no reason they did this. It seems they wanted fun and should be aware of that, they will be answerable in hearafter in front of the Great lord. they should be given high penalties.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse