Here is a long but interesting article about paid surrogates in India, most of whose “clients” are Americans.  There are so many thorny issues here.  Is it possible that these women aren’t exploited, when they’re offered (by their standards) massive amounts of money?  If we accept surrogacy for free, out of charity or love, is it wrong to pay for it?  Are these western parents so desperate for a biological child somehow selfish for going this route instead of adopting one of the many children in the world who need loving parents?  I don’t know the answer to any of these, but the whole operation seems very murky, and that’s without even addressing the “surplus” embryos that are inevitably created with IVF.

I can’t bring myself to condemn people who would do anything to have a child of their own, which for many people means one that shares their DNA.  But this is an area in which some moral clarity, and consensus on what is and is not acceptable, would be very helpful.

_______________________

Andrea adds: Condemnation is never particularly helpful, no. But that is besides the point. If something is sketchy, murky or just plain wrong–we ought to call a spade a spade and say so. That might sound a lot like “condemnation” in moments. What is worse–a whiff of condemnation or in the case described above, making people into monetary transactions? I’m a sympathetic sort, I like to think–in particular to feeling like you really want kids. But there comes a point when our feelings really are besides the point–and wanting a child even very badly is, after all, just that. A feeling. (Does anyone ever feel (hardy har har) like our culture is grounded on nothing more than the latest Oprah show?)

The Central Bureau of Statistics recently released data that showed there were 117,000 Jewish births in Israel in 2008.
The number of abortions in Israel for the same year is estimated to be over 40,000. Thus in 2008, of the approximately 160,000 pregnancies in Israel, 120,000 led to births and 40,000 (one in four) ended in abortion.

Given the increasing number of religious Jews in Israel, who have significantly higher birthrates than their secular counterparts, this means that the number of pregnancies ending in abortion amongst secular Jews in Israel is radically higher.  Mass abortion is tragic in any context, for any people.  But there is something especially bitter about this – there are too many people who consider Jewish lives to be disposable, and it’s heartbreaking that the behaviour of so many Jewish women places just as little value on the life of a Jewish baby as does the basest antisemite.

Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher, who is a quadriplegic, is quoted in the Free Press as cheering Obama’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, since scientists will be able to work “free from manipulation and coercion.”

Fletcher paints opposition to stem cell research as hypocrisy:

He said anyone who is upset by stem cell research should ask themselves: if they or someone they loved had an illness that could be cured, would they turn down the cure because it came from stem cells? “I think not,” he said.”

There are a couple of serious problems with this portrayal of opposition to research that involves the destruction of embryos, and that’s without getting into the science, about which it will suffice for now to say that a number of respected scientists in the field believe embryonic stem cells to have no advantages over other forms of stem cells.

First, the hypocrisy charge. A measure of compassion is certainly owed to Fletcher, and most of us, thank heavens, will never be called upon to stick to our principles at the cost of a (tenuous) hope of a cure for such a crippling condition. Becoming an MP, and then a member of cabinet, at so young an age would be a remarkable achievement for anybody, let alone someone with such a difficult physical burden to bear, and these accomplishments are a testament to Fletcher’s mental fortitude.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this is an ugly and intellectually lazy point to argue. For those of us who believe an embryo is a human life, albeit at a very early stage of development, the difference between embryo destructive stem cell research and the organ harvesting of political prisoners that (allegedly) goes on in China is one of degree, not of kind. I would like to think that if I, or a loved one, required a heart transplant, I would not in my desperation advocate executing someone and harvesting his heart to save my life or my child’s. If I were driven by my suffering to push for such an action, I hope the broader society around me, while feeling compassion for my plight and doing everything ethical that they could to help me, wouldn’t endorse the suggestion.

The other problem is in the motives ascribed to Bush and others who didn’t sanction embryo-destructive research, thereby creating “manipulation and coercion.” Good people can disagree about the morality of stem cell research, as they can about IVF, and all the other issues related to assisted reproductive technologies. But a good faith debate isn’t possible when, as with Kathleen Parker’s distaste for “oogedy-boogedy” conservatives, pro-life advocates are assumed to be operating from an irrational, anti-scientific or superstitious worldview. Post-modern sophisticates (correctly) point out that pure objectivity is impossible, but they seem to make an exception when it comes to their own positions, which are so clearly enlightened and correct that opponents act not out of conviction or logic but out of some Snidely-Whiplash small-mindedness coupled with a fondness for fundamentalist religion.

I expect this kind of rubbishing of pro-life values from the Liberals and NDP; I expect better from Conservatives.

______________________

Andrea adds: I know people, who faced with their own suffering in disease, choose ethical solutions. One of them, Mark Pickup, has a blog that is worth checking out.

It’s a tough leap for people to feel wonder and sympathy for a mere embryo, perhaps especially because we abort 12 week old fetuses with abandon. Tough issues–ones to address with compassion to be sure. But hypocrisy charges? Uncalled for.

_______________________

Tanya adds: What is a pro-lifer? Normally, it is someone who’s opposed to embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia.

The opposite says it’s OK to abort a child with a deformity. The opposite says it’s OK euthanize someone due to undetermined and variable degrees of illness. The opposite says, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the ends justify the means.

I may be biased, but it seems as though the pro-life side values life, whereas the opposite simply has contempt for sickness, illness, and deformity. It’s all a little Orwellian.

______________________

Andrea may be biased too: but also understands that we all are–and I’m pretty open with my bias. Seems to me I pretty consistently encounter folks in favour of embryonic stem cell research, in favour of euthanasia, in favour of abortion–none of these things should be forced, of course–and they think theirs is the “unbiased” position. I raise one eyebrow at them, that’s what I do. Later, I might bite my thumb at them, in a moment of Shakespearian anger.

A US clinic is preparing to offer the service of screening embryos, pre-implantation, for cosmetic factors and sex, not only for disease or birth defects. We are talking here about couples who are already having multiple embryos created, and then selecting one that meets its criteria to bring to term. So far, the selection is only being made on the basis of avoiding medical problems; the “leap” here is to allowing it to be made on other criteria as well. And all kinds of people who are fine with the former are objecting to the latter.

But Dr Gillian Lockwood, a UK fertility expert and member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ ethics committee, questioned whether is was morally right to be using the science in this way. “If it gets to the point where we can decide which gene or combination of genes are responsible for blue eyes or blonde hair, what are you going to do with all those other embryos that turn out like me to be ginger with green eyes?” “

Just as I can’t understand why aborting a baby because it’s the “wrong” sex is worse than aborting a baby because you broke up with its father, I don’t see why choosing one embryo and destroying the rest is worse for cosmetic reasons than for medical reasons. Certainly the desire to have a child without a disease is much more sympathetic than the desire to have a blond child; but if the issue of morality here is creating 8 embryos with the knowledge that 7 of them will be destroyed, the reason why one is chosen and the rest destroyed is pretty much beside the point.

Some countries have figured this out:

Italian fertility law does not permit the creation of surplus embryos or selective testing. Ms Quintavalle said that was “one sure way to avoid the slippery slope”.

Sounds good to me.

________________________

Andrea might argue that it is less heinous to select for cosmetics. One could argue we already do that when we have kids the natural way–we choose mates we are attracted to–and that might mean marrying a man who is tall, dark and handsome, or blonde, or what have you. What we don’t do is test prospective mates for their immunity to disease. In any event, it is scarier to me to choose embryos for medical reasons. Because now we’re getting into the Perfectability of the Human Race and all that has ever meant in the past is really bad things.

________________________

Brigitte dislikes both: Seems to me breeding for looks can be every bit as bad as the other kind.

________________________

Andrea adds: I won’t disagree with you, Brigitte.

Anyone watch Gattaca, oops I mean Bio-Dad on the CBC the other night? And listen to some specialist in California talk about his comfort level choosing embryos by sex? And how he would be fine with checking embryos for genetic disposition to disease?

It turns out the mother who gave birth to octuplets last week already has six other children aged 7 or younger, including twins.  One of her children is autistic. All of the children were conceived by IVF, allegedly using the sperm of a neighbour who asked her to stop having herself impregnated with the embryos that were half his. He plays no role in the children’s lives and isn’t listed on their birth certificates as their father. She has no reliable income, and lives with her parents, who declared bankruptcy last year. In her mother’s own words, she

has been obsessed since her teens with being a mother and had eight embryos implanted because she wanted “just one more girl” to add to her existing brood of six children aged two to seven.

I wouldn’t know where to start, if we were to make a list of all the things wrong with this situation. In some European countries, IVF is only available to legally married couples. Is it the government’s job to regulate that? I don’t know, but if we accept that the government has a role in monitoring adoption, to ensure that children aren’t adopted into unsuitable homes, it doesn’t strike me as unreasonable that the government have some role in monitoring highly interventionist ART like this.

But why is there a doctor in the entire country who would do this? We have talked a lot at PWPL about doctors having the right to exercise their conscience and refuse to perform abortions or refer to other doctors for abortions. Doesn’t it go without saying that doctors aren’t obliged to implant 8 embryos just because a woman requests it? While it sounds as if all eight of these babies are in relatively good condition, they range in size from roughly one and a half to three and a half pounds, and it is never desirable that babies be born so prematurely and small. And that’s the best case scenario when implanting such a high number – far more commonly, a number of them would miscarry (if that’s the right word). The risks to the mother of an octuplet pregnancy, never mind her seventh pregnancy in seven years, also aren’t negligible.

Did it never cross the minds of the people who impregnated this woman (and the situation seems murky – IVF isn’t cheap) to wonder about her mental soundness? I’ve known people – married, stable, financially secure couples hoping for their first child – whose specialists asked them to see a psychologist as part of the plan for fertility treatment, to ensure that they could cope with the additional stress that the various treatments, and the high chance of failure, can bring. Is ART such a lawless field in California that any woman, under any circumstances, can be impregnated with as many embryos as she wants, regardless of the risks to her health and the babies’, as long as the cheque clears?

This case represents a collision of a lot of problems. Should people with financial difficulties not have kids? Well, it’s irresponsible not to be able to provide the basics for them, but in a civilized country they won’t starve to death. Should single women deliberately bear children? The evidence is clear that this doesn’t set the kids up for the easiest life, but in a free country it isn’t anyone else’s place to prevent them from doing so. Should legal restrictions exist on how many embryos can be implanted at one time? Surely this is a medical decision, and yet none of the doctors involved seemed to be using good judgment. Should the criteria for IVF be as stringent, and by implication as regulated by government, as adoption? The small-government conservative in me screams “no,” especially if the government isn’t paying the tab, but you couldn’t really ask for a better example if you wanted to make the case that oversight is necessary.

I’d love to hear from those with a better understanding of the medical side of this, and also from our in-house medical ethicist!

_______________________

Brigitte adds: Oh my goodness. What a mess. And it’s not about to get better…

Seriously, like Rebecca, my libertarian side doesn’t want too much government regulation in private affairs. But my more pragmatic and rational side, seeing this sort of terrible story, wonders why it has been allowed to happen. I mean, I’m glad they didn’t abort some or all of the babies and that they all seem to be doing reasonably well. I really do wish those small children the best – I hope they manage to have as close to a normal and happy life as can be managed. But you see what happens when people are allowed to use science to defy nature. Even the ‘father’ of these babies had no say in the matter – how crazy is that?

________________________

Véronique says: 2 words: reproductive freedom. Once you start down that road, who is to say when to put the breaks? As a society, if we want women the freedom not to reproduce even after a child has been conceived, we must face the other extreme: women who want to reproduce in spite of every shred of common sense (to put it mildly).

I have a very difficult time with infertility treatments, mostly because of the hardships they put on the babies. Parents are able to consent to the aggressive treatments they go through. 1-pound premature babies don’t. I believe that every life is worth living, even lives of suffering. I also believe that every life has a purpose, even disabled life. That being said, medically-created lives of suffering make me cringe. It’s one thing to embrace disability when it comes knocking on your door. It’s another thing to plunge head-first in a medical endeavor likely to create suffering, especially when the suffering is not your own.

Infertility treatments also make me reflect on the contrast between unwanted pregnancies  and the desperate want of children in the same environment. Have children become such commodities that we can create them or dispatch them at will? I guess they have.

Our society has a severe case of split personality, let me tell you.

At any rate we made a choice, as a society, to let science run wild. We could have put the breaks on several scientific developments that are now being questioned. We assumed that we would know when to put the breaks. As it turns out, some people do but many still don’t. I think that to reverse steam, we will need to experiment all the horror that some scientific pursuits have to offer. In this regard, I’m glad that the octuplets story is causing shock and outrage. It’s too bad that 8 frail lives now have to pay for that lesson.

Véronique adds to her comment: As an aside, am I the only one who is genuinely freaked out by the amount of personal information the media has access to regarding the mother and her kin? Information that they do not hesitate to share liberally, like it’s our right to know?

It makes me wonder if such wide-ranging information about me is available out there. Not that my life is that interesting: all my babies were conceived the ol’ fashioned way with the same guy, imagine! When I got unexpectedly pregnant with the baby I’m about to deliver, people would ask me “How did this happen??” and I would answer “Do you want the G-rated version or the X-rated one?” Lesson: don’t ask stupid questions you don’t really want answers to.

Anyhow, when I was young and innocent I used to think that surveillance and the availability of personal information in the public square were only bothersome to those who had something to hide. You want to pour over my phone records? Go ahead and bore yourself to death. But now I realize that the problem lies with letting anybody and everybody (including the media, the government, the insurance companies, the banks, the neighbours…) decide what exactly is “something to hide.”

At least as far as defending life is concerned: Rod Bruinooge. He’s a young, talented, ambitious Metis MP from Winnipeg, which means in the Conservative Party, which is eager to grow in rural areas and attract more aboriginal votes and bring in fresh blood, the sky is the limit for him. And he is a proud supporter of life and defender of the unborn, who speaks not only for the most vulnerable among us, but also the two thirds of Canadians who want at least some restrictions on abortion in Canada (as compared to the current complete lack of them.) After picking off the heavily favoured Reg Alcock in the last election by 111 votes, he expanded his margin of victory to 4000 in October.

There are many different kinds of courage. By toeing the line and keeping quiet, Bruinooge could curry favour with higher-ups in the part and set himself up for a smooth climb through the party. He’s also got a young family (with his second child born yesterday – congratulations!) and therefore no end of claims on his time. But instead of playing it safe and keeping his mouth shut, as the CPC would prefer, he’s speaking his conscience, leading the most-unsecret-ever secret pro-life caucus, and setting an example more of us should follow. I know I have often chosen to keep my beliefs to myself, whether out of a desire not to cause social unpleasantness, alienate colleagues, or mark myself as an outcast in the extremely pro-abortion circles in which I spend much time. One of my New Years’ Resolutions is to be brave enough not to acquiesce, through my silence, when others speak of abortion as a women’s right. I have a feeling Rod himself doesn’t see himself as a hero for doing what he does and saying what he says, but I admire him, and look forward to what he’ll do in the years to come. We need more MPs like him.

How about the freedom not to be stoned to death? It is unclear whether the woman whose murder is described here was a 23-year-old accused of adultery or a 13-year-old who had been raped. (Not that it matters.) What is undisputed is that the woman was murdered in front of 1,000 onlookers, as well as nurses on hand to make sure that she really was stoned to death.I look forward to Obama working to prevent this ASAP, since he kept on talking about how important it was for women to make choices.

It’s a sick kind of feminism that takes the “right” of women in the developed world to dispose of their unborn children at will more seriously than the rights of women in the undeveloped world to live free from genital mutilation, child rape, marital rape, forced marriage, and stoning.

A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.

“Don’t kill me, don’t kill me,” she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.

Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.

Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.

Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week.

Meanwhile, Islamists in the capital, Mogadishu have carried out a public flogging.

The issue seems mysteriously to have become dead in Canada, perhaps because everyone is too polite to risk hurting anyone’s feelings by pointing out that marriage isn’t just one of a Baskin-Robbins type assortment of flavours of relationships. In the US, the contribution of David Blankenhorn, a self-described liberal Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage, to the debate has been invaluable, and I wish more Canadians of all political persuasions paid more attention to him. Liberals who believe insisting upon the traditional definition of marriage is judgemental (it is – and that’s a good thing) and libertarians who think that marriage is a private good and therefore not the concern of government or the wider society (it is a definite public good) could learn a lot from him. Here’s a concise summary of his work on marriage and parenting, in the LA Times today.