The Danger and Immorality of Surrogacy

Surrogacy appears, at first glance, to be a perfect solution. It even seems quite charitable, as surely many of the intentions are derived from that, to carry a baby for a couple struggling to conceive. But as in my previous articles about IVF and fetal research, the reality breaks this 'fairytale' like story. It is doing and bringing more harm than the opposite. Once again, even our good intentions cannot surpass the objective reality and morality. If we still continue to do it, then we must ask ourselves what are our true desires and intentions. Who are we prioritizing? Who are we hurting in the process?

To get straight to the point: Surrogacy is exploitative. Both altruistic (the surrogate does not receive monetary compensation) and commercial surrogacy. How? Why is banning surrogacy what our societies should strive for? Hopefully, this article will answer these questions.

I pray that this blesses you and maybe someone in your life in any way, or someone who might cross paths with you, to bring into light this injustice and embrace life in such a way without harming our neighbours. 

The Process

Image: Michigan Advance

The Exploitation/Horror of Surrogacy

Recently, a heartbreaking tragedy has unfolded in California, which, unfortunately, is not so rare. A gay couple, who had their surrogate, Brittney Pearson, due to a breast cancer diagnosis, let the baby boy die at 25 weeks, after she delivered early because of the diagnosis, to give the baby a chance to survive, while getting the chemo treatment. As Nash, a 21-week-old premature baby, was delivered, a world record as the youngest baby delivered successfully, we know, today, with the progress of technology, a 25-week-old premature baby can survive outside of the womb. 

The couple did not want to pay the surrogate for a baby not born before 38 weeks, because of the health risks associated with a premature baby. 

• Brittney did not want to kill the baby, so they threatened with legal action
• She offered the option of adoption, but they demanded a death certificate
• She has stated that as a surrogate, she feels used, as a ''rented out uterus.'' Surrogacy does exploit the reproductive. 

Brittney Pearson said: ''I want to keep this baby safe and bring it earthside.'' But that was not guaranteed, because of the legal rights not given to the surrogate. This is one of the dangers, the most dangerous, of surrogacy. The gay couple had an 'ownership' right, which surpassed the human right of the baby and silenced Brittney. The very act of surrogacy from all parties played a role in this baby's tragedy. Children are not products. But that is what surrogacy does. It rips away the fundamental right and dignity of the baby and even of motherhood itself. 

And recently, it was discovered that a baby was allowed to be adopted by a gay couple through surrogacy. This already strips away the motherly role necessary for the baby, and as research shows, a child needs a mother and a father. Children do best when raised by their biological, married mother and father. It is not just an opinion, but decades of social research. But coming back to the previous topic, one of the couple, Brandon Keith Riley Mitchell, was convicted in Pennsylvania for the sexual abuse of a minor and is publicly listed on the Megan’s Law registry as a Tier 1 child sex offender. 

Surrogacy Takes Advantage of Vulnerability 

During the war in Ukraine, many have stayed close and care for the babies born to surrogates, many abandoned without parents.  The war has prevented parents from returning to Ukraine, leaving their children with an uncertain future. Ukraine has had a growing international trade in surrogacy. The New York Times reports, “The country’s favorable laws — biological parents are listed on the baby’s birth certificate — and affordable prices, generally around $40,000, have attracted many aspiring parents.” It is estimated to be one of the most popular destinations for surrogacy in the world, with more than a dozen agencies specializing in the regulated practice. One agency alone arranges around 1,000 surrogate births each year. In 2020, the pandemic lockdowns barring international travel left many parents unable to reach the babies they paid women to carry as well. 

These precious babies do not only find themselves in an actual war zone, but another type of war zone, being stranded because of surrogacy and treated as property. 

Brian Clowes, director of research and training for Human Life International, said when he traveled to Bengaluru, India, several years ago, the Parliament was considering banning surrogacy because groups of women were being abused as “baby farms” for rich women, both in India and the West. The nation eventually passed a law banning commercial surrogacy, but not “altruistic” surrogacy, in which the mother is only compensated for essential medical expenses and insurance.

India is a high-profile spot for surrogacy. Because of the immense exploitation of Indian women, especially the low-income women, India has banned surrogacy, but like some countries in Europe, kept altruistic surrogacy legal. Non-Indian couples cannot seek surrogacy in India.  New Delhi’s Center for Social Research stated, “Surrogacy degrades a pregnancy to a service and a baby to a product. Thailand and Cambodia are among other countries that have taken action towards the exploitation of commercial/international surrogacy. Surrogates are also found to have increasing psychological and emotional distress post-surrogacy. The children have shown to be in the same line as the surrogates, as this study shows.

Julie Bindel, a writer, exposes the hypocrisy of our culture by saying:

''The accelerating boom in surrogacy for gay couples…represents a disturbing slide into the brutal exploitation of women who usually come from the developing world and are often bullied or pimped into selling their wombs to satisfy the selfish whims of wealthy gay or lesbian westerners…. This cruelty is accompanied by epic hypocrisy. People from Europe and the USA who would shudder at the idea of involvement in human or sex trafficking have ended up indulging in a grotesque form of “reproductive trafficking.”

Also, surrogates who are exploited sign contracts that they cannot read. They’re kept in dorms, isolated from family and friends. Forced to deliver by cesarean section. Some aren’t paid the full amount they’re promised. A few surrogates have died. 

Toboni, in an interview with New York magazine, exposes what she has uncovered:

“There are cases where American couples feel a little strange about what is happening, and the ethics of it, but turn a blind eye because they don’t want to pay the higher rates in the States. Many couples don’t want to know what’s behind the scenes, they want their baby fast, and they want it done cheaply.”

And as the National Catholic Register exposes in this article:

''the Indian restaurant is crowded, and the ambient noise of fellow diners all around makes it hard to hear. But Gianna Toboni, an investigative reporter from HBO’s documentary show VICE, slowly begins to understand what is being offered to her by a woman sitting across the table.

Toboni is in India to get a firsthand look at the country’s booming international surrogacy industry. She has heard rumors of “extra” Caucasian babies for sale, so she meets a surrogacy broker for dinner. On camera, the broker, holding a swaddled infant, tells Toboni she can take the baby home tonight — for a price.

The source of these “extra” babies is beyond horrifying. Western couples are taking advantage of the discounts international surrogacy offers. They get a baby gestated for them at a low price, and the women in third-world countries get more money than they could make in several years.

To make the process more efficient, doctors often transfer more than one embryo to a surrogate. If she gets pregnant with multiples, sometimes the commissioning couple is not told. Nine months later, they fly in and get the one baby they paid for. The “extras,” however, are peddled on the black market. While the couple thinks they’re getting a miracle at a bargain price, they are unaware that their “extra” children are being sold to whoever is willing to pay.''

But similar cases happen in the West, too, unfortunately. In that same article, you will find a few heartbreaking stories, which bring forth the realities of this horror occurring all around the world.

Today. many women fight for the ''right'' to abortion (which ends the life of an innocent child) because of women's ''reproductive rights'', but are usually in favor of surrogacy. Interesting, isn't it? Modern feminism has not, in reality, protected girls (like the unborn baby girls in the womb), nor has it protected the dignity of actual reproductive rights (like the exploitation in surrogacy) of a woman (often poor), but has failed to live by what they preach. 

End of my rant. Let's move on.

But if the surrogate has consented, what is the problem then?

Something done out of the consent of someone does not make it automatically a good moral decision, nor acceptable. If someone consents to be murdered, it does not take away the immorality of murder; hence, the restrictions and opposition towards murder still should apply, nevertheless. An article from Catholic Answers evaluates this matter well:

“Sometimes people consent to things that are bad for them. But in such examples, consent is not what is driving the moral evaluation. What’s in the driver seat is a more fundamental underlying moral theory that says these actions are bad and thus need to be avoided. If there is a more fundamental framework that does the evaluative work, then it follows that consent by itself isn’t sufficient to justify some activity.”

We have to take the children's well-being as a priority as well. Studies have demonstrated the psychological effects on children. It is quite clear as day, that much harm comes from surrogacy. It is not a fairy tale-like magic that the world tries to sell you. Here are involved, not just the women, but also the children. Let's not forget that.

What Does The Catholic Church Say? What should be the Christian response?

Donum Vitae states, “A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, ‘the supreme gift’ and the most gratuitous gift of marriage.” God designed the family in a way that serves the best interests of the child, not the opposite.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral”(2376).

The Church's stance is often viewed as non-compassionate towards couples desiring children, a family. However, as said in the previous articles, the methods cannot be unethical, even if the intentions are good. And as Christians, we contradict our faith and the love that Christ has shown us, if we accept immoral methods, such as surrogacy, IVF, fetal research, etc. Also, the Church does sympathize with the pain of infertility, stating:   “Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly,” and “Research aimed at reducing sterility is to be encouraged.”

The Church offers hope.

But often, women and couples desiring a child are unaware of the ethical option available, like NaPro (Natural Procreative) Technology, which is approved by the Catholic Church. Madeleine Kearns expresses this in this article, that many women, not knowing the root cause of their infertility, believe that IVF is the only option. Several fertility clinics tell women that IVF is the only option, not recommending NaPro at all.

Surrogacy rips away the rights of children, who are treated as objects of commercial contracts. As Joseph Meaney, past president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, said: 

“What surrogacy also does is it commercializes women’s reproductive capabilities. In a sense, their bodies are being rented out to be used by others to carry children. In some cases, the surrogate mother is the biological mother. In other cases, she will have an embryo transferred into her womb not related to her biologically. In both circumstances, it is extremely unnatural for her to be used in such a way, even with her consent. It goes against the dignity of a human being.”

Meaney also adds that there is a social-justice aspect to be said about surrogacy, because surrogate mothers tend to be from lower economic backgrounds, and those ordering are on the elite scale. “So it’s the rich exploiting the poor, which from a Catholic perspective is blamable.” Meaney says. 

A 2015 poll indicated that 71% of Americans approve of surrogacy, with 57% approving of commercial surrogacy, and even those who consider religion "very important" showed a 48% approval rate for commercial surrogacy. Different Christian denominations vary in their moral view towards surrogacy. This is concerning, like with the seeming approval, even from the religious, towards IVF.

It is obvious that, especially as Christians, if we are faithful to the faith, we cannot deem surrogacy as a moral way or as a solution for families in difficulty with having a child, or simply to fulfill the desire to have a child. The dignity of every individual should never be compromised. I understand that superficially, it seems a kind act, but we must be careful, because we know that the enemy is great at deceiving. 

As Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of The Ruth Institute, states:

“[Surrogacy] is a practice that turns the person from a person created in the image and likeness of God into a commodity,” says Dr. Morse. “Something that can be bought and sold and is property.

“It’s very important for Christians to look beyond those [fancy] headlines and look beyond the advertising copy to realize that this is a business,” she continues, “and it’s being run like a business. Exploitation of women and the buying and selling of children is part of what this business is doing.” A child of any kind of third-party reproduction […] is a child of God and loved; you must never regret the child. […] But that child may end up having different kinds of issues that will be very difficult to discuss inside the family.”

Artist: Tianna Williams

Conclusion

I truly hope this article has blessed you, and it will bring forth light into the darkness of this fallen world. I pray that each one of us will defend all lives and dignity, no matter what our surroundings say. I believe that we, even we Christians, must speak out more intensely, even in Churches, about the many ways the violation of God's gift, life, is abused. To educate our young and work towards it becoming the standard approach for a society when confronting these matters.

Being truly pro-life is not just about bringing life into the world, but also protecting the sanctity, the right, and value of life itself. Pro-life's mission does not end with the evil of abortion, or when a baby is delivered, but also after. In supporting struggling families, single-parents, and children at risk, among all the other scenarios, our stance is to uphold the dignity of that person until their natural death. But even after that, for example, a dignified burial and respect to the deceased must be upheld as very valuable, and if violated, fight back because that's how valuable their existence is.

https://unlawjournal.blogspot.com/2025/03/wombs-for-rent-dark-side-of-surrogacy.html

https://notthebee.com/article/gay-men-order-surrogate-to-let-preemie-baby-die-after-she-delivered-early-due-to-cancer-diagnosis

https://studentsforlife.org/2022/04/06/caught-in-a-war-zone-commodified-children-are-stranded-because-of-surrogacy-in-ukraine/

https://www.hli.org/resources/surrogacy-ethical-issues/

(1)  Nicholas Postgate. Early Mesopotamia Society and Economy at the Dawn of History [Routledge, 1992], page 105.

Author: Aamu Maria C.

Fetal Harvesting/Research. The Legs of the Abortion Industry.

Introduction

''If you are going to kill all these [Jewish] people, at least take the brains out so that the material may be utilized.''    

Nazi doctor Julius Hallervorden, Nuremberg trials, 1945

''We can either use the tissue in what we know to be lifesaving [fetal tissue] research, or we can bury it. That is the choice.''

United States Senator Brock Adams, 1992

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), human fetal tissue “is defined as tissue or cells obtained from a dead human embryo or fetus after a spontaneous or induced abortion or stillbirth.”  Fetal tissue most of the time refers to pancreatic or neural brain tissue (tissue from the cranial cavity). 

The first fetal organ transplant was done in December of 1985 in Denver. Researchers Everett Spees and Kevin Lafferty transplanted fetal pancreatic tissue into the body of a 51-year-old diabetic. These cells began to produce the needed insulin for the patient. In 1988, researchers went further. Brain cells from an aborted seven-week-old baby were transferred to an adult patient for the first time, implanted in a 55-year-old male with Parkinson's disease by a surgical team led by Dr. Curt Freed and Dr. Robert Breeze at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. 

My first encounter with the reality of the harvesting of aborted babies started sometime after God opened my eyes fully to the matter of abortion itself. From sources like LiveAction, I began to know about this horrifying crime done on babies, that not only were killed but were also subjected to experiments. But my knowledge flourished through Tommy Kearns, the father of little hero Clementine, who was aborted against his wishes (the mother regretted the decision right after it), and her organs were sold/harvested illegally for profit by the abortion facility in New Jersey. 

I couldn't believe it. How more evil can this industry get? And perhaps even worse, how is this allowed to happen in our society? By the government? By their neighbours, who should care for and protect them? We have failed and betrayed each other. 

So many questions, so much frustration, anger...but then the determination to do something about this, even in the smallest ways. God wants us to act. And doing that, while loving even the ones supporting, and even committing this horror. It is not easy, but that is why we need Him, why we must deny ourselves and let Jesus Christ increase in us and work through us.

Again, like with IVF and surrogacy, the methods are not questioned or justified, because a baby born to an infertile couple through IVF or surrogacy helps couples with having a baby, and the woman carrying the child receives benefits. Everyone's happy, and everyone gets what they want. As Guttmacher.org states:

''Medical research using human fetal tissue obtained from abortions has benefited millions of people worldwide and holds great promise for the continued advancement of basic science, as well as for the development of lifesaving vaccines and therapies. Since 1973, when abortion became legal nationwide, fetal tissue research has, time and again, become entangled in the abortion controversy. The current controversy—set off by a series of heavily edited and misleading videos—grew out of abortion opponents’ long-standing campaign to vilify abortion and abortion providers, and it now threatens fetal tissue research itself.''

But at what cost?

This article will explore the following topics. Sources will be provided at the end of the article, and other educational sources to dive into to expand our knowledge on this topic, which is not widely spoken about.

But before going forward, we must start by knowing the body systems most affected by the diseases that are allegedly ameliorated in those who receive fetal tissue transplants.

• Brain stem (The lower portion of the brain)
• Cerebellum (located forward of and above the medulla)
• Anencephaly ( Total lack of the cortex (upper brain), with lack of skull closure. Usually, the hypothalamus is malformed, and the cerebellum is rudimentary or absent. This condition includes the exposure of the cranial matter to the air and is almost always fatal within hours or days (about 75 percent stillborn, with mortality of birth survivors at 90 percent in the first week), but some anencephalic babies do live several years.)
• Hydranencephaly (the cortex (upper brain) is entirely replaced with spinal fluid. There is total or near-total hemispherical destruction. There is great ventricular (brain cavity) enlargement with little or no cerebral mantle. The brain stem, cerebellum, and basal ganglia are present but may be abnormal. Usually, the brain stem remains functional.)
• Hydrocephalus ( The obstruction of the normal accumulation or drainage of cerebrospinal fluid from its points of production to its areas of absorption, involving increased pressure in the head.)
• Microcephaly (Abnormally small head size, usually (but not always) associated with brain disease and/or mental disability.)
• Megalencephaly (The baby's head is enlarged due to abnormal enlargement of the brain.)

The ''Benefits''  

Over  15 million Americans alone suffer from diseases and injuries that are believed could be aided to various degrees by fetal tissue transplants. Including Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, diabetes, head injuries, paralysis, etc. These are the conditions that pro-harvesting researchers focus on when they say that fetal transplants are necessary. Through millions of abortions, we can help others. This brings great joy to researchers, the medical world, and, of course, to many people suffering from the illnesses listed before. 

That is why Dr. Abraham Lieberman of the New York University Medical Center said:

"This [fetal tissue techniques] is to medicine what superconductivity is to physics."

The Reality

More than three-fourths of all studies in this area have concluded that fetal tissue transplantation benefits only a very few people: The scientists participating. Only a very few articles have described measurable improvement in symptoms related to neurological disorders, and most of these articles describe studies that are incomplete or flawed.

Dr. Robert J. White reviewed these studies and stated:  

"The clinical studies so far conducted in transplanting human fetal brain tissue into the cerebral hemisphere of patients with Parkinsonism have demonstrated little evidence of measurable, lasting improvement in neurological dysfunction."

Keith Crutcher, Ph.D., states the following:

My own research has been focused with the hope of providing some information that might lead to the relief of pain and suffering of individuals who suffer from neurological diseases. But that cannot be the ultimate guideline for all that I do ... If I have to rely on the death of another individual to extend the life of another, I reject it and I have done this very forcefully.

Evil disguised as good

Medical researchers stating that fetal harvesting and their experiments to find a cure for illnesses encourage abortion in the first place. More abortions, more fetal research, and in belief that more chances for finding cures. Or might get a pregnant woman who is considering abortion to think that ''well, if I abort this baby, at least some good thing comes out of it..'' 

In the 1988 hearings before the National Institutes of Health, one pro-fetal organ harvesting researcher insisted that "There should be no attempts to influence the women's decisions about having an abortion or persuading them to donate the [fetal] tissue."

Later, the same researcher acknowledged the unworkability of this concept, saying that in Sweden, where fetal organ harvesting is common, "The reaction from most women is that they are encouraged that at least something 'good' is coming out of this invariably negative experience of having an abortion."

Or as Mary Ann Warren proposes in her "Can the Fetus be an Organ Farm?" Hastings Center Report, October 1978,  Warren not only endorses the practice of using the organs from the babies who are aborted because they were products of unintended pregnancies, but she also recommends that women become pregnant intentionally to grow babies for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs. This is the conclusion: Human babies must die to improve the quality of life for adults. 

Some physicians, like  Dr. Ralph DeGeorgio, resist this and fight back. And won't compromise on morality for the sake of convenience. As the doctor himself stated: 

"We must recognize why the use of human fetal tissue is being advocated in the first place: Precisely because it IS human.''

A fetus is a person. To obtain fetal tissue is to obtain the bodies or parts of preborn human beings. Many Pro-choicers/abortionists claim that a fetus isn't a human being (fetus in Latin means 'offspring'), but for these experiments, research to happen, we need human organs from humans. Contradictions left and right. 

And continuing this horrendous and immoral crime in the name of progress simply follows the belief that, in the name of progress, if any atrocity must be committed, it should be for the sake of progress. As if there is a worship done towards 'progress.' It has become above human dignity for some.

But it goes further. Many see no moral obstacle to using live, unanesthetized unborn babies in the name of progress.  In February 1987, in the issue of the Hastings Center Report, 'ethicist' Mary Mahowald and researchers Jerry Silver and Richard Ratcheson of the Case Western Reserve School of Medicine stated that using live babies for the same purposes ...'' is morally defensible if dead fetuses are not available or are not conducive to successful transplants."

Aborted preborn babies will inevitably become transplant donors, because rarely are miscarried and ectopic babies suitable. 

Frederick Bieber, a geneticist in Brigham and Women's Hospital's pathology department, examined the results of 1,025 miscarriages during a year and found that only 39 (3.8 %) produced a genetically normal baby that had not died two or three weeks previously and hence been unusable for transplantation purposes. Of these 39 babies, most were infected in some manner and hence unusable. During this same year, most of the babies who died as a result of 125 ectopic pregnancies that Bieber examined were also unusable for transplant purposes. This is why abortion is, and will be, encouraged even more, for the so-called ''greater'' good, if fetal research is encouraged. 

''The Love Of Money Is the Root of All Evil''

In 2018, the NIH provided funding for 200 such projects involving fetal tissue at a total cost of $115 million. There is much effort and money spent to harm others rather than to care and help, like the pregnant mothers in difficulty or struggling families, for example. 

But read for yourself what this money helps to do:

Abortionists alter the abortion procedure so that they can obtain more intact fetuses or parts that are useful on today's fetal organ market. Abortionists have known that live-born aborted babies are more profitable than those who are aborted dead. Therefore, to profit from their crimes, they have altered their procedures so that aborted preborn babies are either kept alive or killed in such a manner that their organs are not destroyed in the process. 

The Fetal Pancreas Network, organized in 1984, recommends that the best 'abortion tissue' is obtained from 6-month babies killed by D&E abortion. Dr. Kurt Hirschhorn of New York's Mt. Sinai Hospital says that "With prostaglandins, you can arrange the whole abortion so the fetus comes out viable in the sense that it can survive hours, or a day."

The abortionists also assess "service charges" by providing dead unborn babies to labs that specialize in experiments requiring fetal tissue.  All of this is reported poorly in the mainstream media and prestigious medical journals, demonstrating the casualty of accepting this violation of a right every human possesses. The New England Journal of Medicine of May 18, 1972, reported that "Most of the babies delivered by the latter method [ hysterotomy or Cesarian section] were still alive when they were dropped into a tissue grinder to be homogenized." 

And according to the April 15, 1973, Washington Post, Dr. Gerald Gaull, Chief of Pediatrics at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation, "... injects radioactive chemicals into umbilical cords of fetuses ... While the heart is still beating, he removes their brains, lungs, liver, and kidneys for study."

James S. Bardsley, president of the International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine, provides hundreds of pounds of fetal tissue annually to researchers. The company advertises for abortionists to use a specialized abortion suction technique that leaves the baby's head intact so the brain can be removed, and later used for experiments. 

They also advertise for the remains of second-trimester babies killed by dismemberment (D&E) rather than by salt poisoning, because in the D&E, the baby is still alive when the abortion begins, and the aborted tissue is much fresher in that way.

Caution: This video contains graphic images. However, they must be seen, so I highly recommend watching even if it is difficult. 

Greed of Profiting and Manipulation

The National Institute of Health tells us the following:

But Bardsley once again reveals the importance of the role privacy plays in this practice: "All too often, the woman is not even told that the tissue will be used for medical research."  

And as Tommy Kearns, father of Clementine, testifies:

This refusal is very telling. The abortionists know that women would reject the idea of having their babies torn apart. Like the mother of little Clementine. This is similar to the refusal to provide 'listening rooms' for pregnant mothers to hear their baby's heartbeat, because 9 out of 10, if not 10 out of 10, a mother would change her mind on abortion after hearing her baby's heartbeat. 

But as pro-abortion medical 'ethicists,' Marjorie Schultz has suggested, the doctors and companies may soon be making millions from selling fetal body parts, and the woman should be able to profit too.

And Harry Schwartz, a member of the New York Times editorial board, stated that "If a poor woman wants compensation for the use of tissue from her aborted fetus, by all means let her have it if someone needs that tissue and is willing to pay for it."

This is yet another potential way to exploit women through abortion. Some pro-choicers have even suggested that poor women should turn to "tissue breeding" as a replacement for welfare and workfare.

The Hope Not Shown

Advances have been made in adult stem cell research and other non-embryonic avenues for repairing or replacing damaged organs and tissues. The field of "tissue engineering" using adult cells has exploded as researchers move toward rebuilding ears, tracheas, and hearts. (1) 

Adult stem cells have successfully treated hundreds of thousands of patients with cancer and leukemia, have repaired damaged corneas, restoring sight to people who were legally blind, healed broken bones, and are being used to regenerate heart tissue damaged by a cardiac arrest. (2)

 Adult bone marrow stem cells were responsible for the first completely successful trial of human gene therapy, helping children with severe combined immunodeficiency disease to recover an immune system and safely leave their sterile environment for the first time. Adult cells from a young paraplegic woman's immune system, injected into the site of her spinal cord injury, have cured her incontinence and enabled her to move her toes and legs for the first time (3) – "generating hope for those with spinal-cord injuries around the world," as one news report states. (4)

Finally, adult pancreatic islet cells from cadavers have been used to reverse juvenile diabetes in fifteen patients, and further human trials are being planned at several centers in the United States. At the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association, researchers announced that all patients benefited from the transplants, and nine have remained insulin-free for eight months, with some patients requiring no injections for up to two years. (5)

Considered by experts as a "remarkable advance," this breakthrough has also received enthusiastic attention from Lee Ducat, founder of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDF). "There's still a lot to be learned, but this is the most optimistic I've been in 30 years," she continues. "To take patients who are ill and going in and out of shock and give them a normal life... this is an unbelievable result. They say they never knew what feeling normal is all about." (6)

But as the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) states:

''Yet this good news has gone largely unnoticed by the current leadership of the JDF. Instead, the organization is focused on diverting funds toward a misleading ad campaign to persuade Americans to support killing human embryos for their stem cells.''

Summary of the Catholic Church's Response

Donum vitae highlights that the corpses of embryos and fetuses, deliberately aborted or not, “must be respected just as the remains of other human beings.” And in the case of adult corpses, “all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.”

Dignitas personae (2008), issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, states the following:

''The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world. The Church’s Magisterium has frequently intervened to clarify and resolve moral questions in this area. The Instruction Donum vitae [1987] was particularly significant. And now, twenty years after its publication, it is appropriate to bring it up to date.''

Donum vitae (focused more on the morality of assisted reproductive technologies and their impact on the dignity of marriage and protection of the human embryo), on embryo research, rejects the “principle of separation” that is the foundation of American and British public policy on FTR:

''The criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees in not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation. The criterion of independence is not sufficient to avoid a contradiction in the attitude of the person who says that he does not approve of the injustice perpetrated by others, but at the same time accepts for his own work the “biological material” which the others have obtained by means of that injustice. . . . 

It is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust.''

Conclusion

What also made me sad upon writing this article for you was the challenge I faced while searching for sources to provide for you, and widening my knowledge on this topic even deeper, but as I said, it was a challenge. The second source link you will find at the end of this article was the richest source. A lot of what I wrote today, the direct quotes and older sources, are from there. You will find the very original resources from them. 

I highly recommend continuing with the research, as I must do as well. This crime is done regularly, but very much in the dark, but it is an industry, or rather a crime, that is receiving positive responses. If we can dismantle the harvesting industry, this exploitation of murdered children, which enriches the abortion industry, the industry itself, can, through that, fall completely and hopefully permanently.

We can suffocate this industry with every act of courage we take for the defense of these little human beings, who are infinitely precious in the eyes of God, and if we remain faithful to our conscience, it should be precious to us as well. 

Image from 'LiveAction'

SOURCES

https://humanlifereview.com/fatal-tissue-the-horror-and-the-lure/

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/fetal--newborn-organ-harvesting-respectable-graverobbing-9611

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6699036/

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44129.pdf

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20010810_RL31015_d452c9dbf0d9ed8e5c5a0f5442eb89e96ed8361e.pdf

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/stem-cell-research/human-embryo-research-is-illegal-immoral-and-unnecessary

https://www.cbhd.org/cbhd-resources/the-ethics-of-fetal-tissue-research-catholic-perspective

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

- @clementines.voice is Tommy Kearns' Instagram, where many have joined to pray and fight for Clementine. Tommy also provides educational sources on this matter.

Author: Aamu Maria C.

IVF is not pro-life. Here's why

Can you be pro-life and support IVF?

IVF is something that many pro-lifers deem as a moral and acceptable option, because through the process, life is created. But there is a problem with this stance.

Being pro-life is fighting for the dignity of all lives, including the embryos. And interestingly enough, when talking about abortion, we pro-lifers do say that the embryos have value and abortion is wrong from the moment of conception. But there is a slippery slope with accepting IVF as a pro-lifer. Yes, a life is formed, and a couple can have a child. But the methods need to be questioned. And as people, and as Christians, we have to pay close attention to the way we proceed with things, and not come at the expense of causing harm to others and violating God’s design.

In this article, we will examine what exactly happens during IVF, including its consequences, potential harms, and moral implications, viewed through a scientific lens, with a hint of a Christian response.

Before moving forward…

We must clear something important before going further: All children who have been conceived through IVF and have received this gift, that is, life, are themselves a gift from God. They are precious, and through an immoral way, something beautiful and sacred came through it. So their value are not different from those who were conceived naturally. And desiring a child is not bad.

However, this should not, as a society, justify continuing an immoral act. An act where, when one child lives a full life, several other babies are killed in the process or are used as an experiment. Taking someone else’s dignity should never be the means to run to. And our culture should stop preying on the emotional struggle and grief of those couples who are sterile and desire a child, to achieve selfish desires and profit off of them. And treating children as objects and testing on them. Our desires for something that is in itself good, like wanting children and a family, should not overpass morality, because then, it becomes selfish.

Our subjective intentions, even the good intentions, cannot dominate objective reality. Many pro-lifers tend to have a softer and flexible position about IVF. And if we truly value life and want to defend it with our best efforts, there can be no exceptions.

If you are struggling to conceive a baby and are suffering due to infertility, just know that you are not alone, and there is a way to bring this dream into your life and homes. I hope and pray that this article will help you with that. Help you to go closer to that, in an ethical way. ❤

What is IVF?

IVF is one form of assisted reproductive technology. It involves combining sperm and one or more eggs outside a woman’s body in a laboratory.

Quick facts:

• 1960s-1970s: Research into human oocyte fertilization led to the possibility of IVF.
• 1978: Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Sir Robert Edwards achieved the first successful IVF birth with the birth of Louise Brown.
• 1 in 6 couples suffer worldwide from infertility.

The Process

To get the gametes, men usually masturbate, and women’s ovaries have to be dangerously stimulated by drugs. Technicians examine the semen and eggs and select the “healthiest”, creating with them multiple human embryos (which are human beings) in petri dishes. The embryos are then examined under microscopes, and any that show defects are killed. “Healthy” embryos are grown for a few days, tests are performed on them to make sure they “pass” quality control, and a few are selected for transfer to the woman’s womb or the womb of a gestational surrogate. Other embryos are killed or frozen and selected for various purposes, like donation to other patients, embryo-destructive research, or for future pregnancies etc.

What does IVF take away?

IVF is dehumanizing. As we recognize in the process of IVF, children have become test subjects. Their dignity is attacked.

In vitro fertilization produces the destruction of discarded embryos (equivalent to abortion), and in the case of multiple embryo transfer, is often accompanied by selective reduction (equivalent to abortion) of implanted embryos. The principle of this procedure is evil, involving the destruction of human embryos.

And the heartbreak of infertility puts couples in a vulnerable situation. And we must be careful that our desires that are in nature good, like wanting children, do not become an enemy to another child. It can also transform into selfishness. But the heartbreak of infertility also makes them vulnerable to an industry that gains its profit through their suffering and ultimately the lives of other children.

Why Catholics, and ultimately all Christians, cannot support IVF morally

Unfortunately, even when the Catholic Church condemns IVF, many Catholics do choose IVF and disagree with the Church’s stance on IVF. A 2013 Pew Research survey found that only 13% of U.S. Catholics believe IVF is morally wrong. This is heartbreaking to know as a Catholic and alarming. And many non-Catholics do not view IVF as immoral as well. If we don’t defend all lives and their dignity as Christians or pro-lifers, we do contradict ourselves. 

The Catholic Church supports the pursuit of finding both technological and natural ways to overcome the unfortunate and painful situation of couples’ infertility. “Since children are a wonderful gift of marriage, it is a good thing to try to overcome the obstacles which prevent children from being conceived and born.” However, Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states:

“One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (1789). This principle is tied to the truth that certain acts are intrinsically evil. “There are some concrete acts … that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil” (CCC 1755)... “

In 1987, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document known as Donum Vitae (“The Gift of Life”) addressing the moral point of view of the modern fertility procedure. 

IVF separates the procreative and unitive meaning of the conjugal act. It seeks to procreate without the one-flesh union. This is a violation of the dignity of the human person because “the child has the right…to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.” 

The Dark Reality

In IVF, the embryos created in the lab are graded on their “quality.” If any embryos don’t hold up to the standard, they are discarded, frozen indefinitely, or even donated to research and eventually destroyed. These are human lives being destroyed because they have “undesirable” genetics.

IVF is modern-day eugenics. No different from the Nazis, who eliminated anyone who were ‘’unfit’’ for their ideal society.

Embryo “grading” — a subjective inspection to assess an embryo’s potential to successfully implant and grow to live birth (with “unfit” embryos destroyed). Preimplantation genetic testing also should not be conducted. This testing intends to select for desired traits and against unwanted ones. For example, if a couple only wants a girl, male embryos would be discarded. Couples who desire a child without certain birth defects may opt to destroy embryos that might have trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), etc. Do you start to see the enormous moral problem? Does this remind you of something?

Dr. Lauren Rubal, a board-certified OB/GYN and integrative medicine physician with a subspecialty in reproductive endocrinology and infertility, is among many doctors who have changed their minds on IVF and stopped offering it to their patients, acknowledging the immorality behind this process. And, instead of offering moral options to the couple longing for a family, without harming other children in the process.

“A recent study showed that the number of embryos needed to optimize cumulative live birth rates was nine,” said Rubal.

“This means that up to eight embryos may not survive or will be frozen or destroyed. So effectively, you are choosing the death of nine to get the life of one. Even though you have good intentions — you want life, you’re also choosing all of the consequences that follow.”

In choosing the deaths of other lives, IVF is not a pro-life choice. Another moral problem we face is the fact that nearly 1.5 million embryos are believed to be currently frozen in the U.S. alone. This process treats these children like property.

Dr. Rubal makes us notice something else: women who undergo IVF have two times the risk of life-threatening pregnancy complications, and a 26% increased risk of preterm birth. The children conceived through IVF who survive to birth have a 40% increased chance of birth defects and about double the chance of having autism. Recent studies have shown a significant risk of maternal death and morbidity associated with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies after IVF. 

In the Netherlands, the overall mortality due to IVF is higher than the overall maternal mortality rate. The increased mortality is due to multiple pregnancies and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In an editorial in the British Journal of Medicine, Dr. Susan Bewley noted that in the United Kingdom between 2003 and 2005, there were two deaths due to abortion. In contrast, there were seven deaths related to complications from IVF. These cases go unreported.

The National Library of Medicine in 2020 reports:

“Today, almost 3% of all children in Germany — and in countries with a very liberal policy, like Denmark, 6% of all children are conceived by IVF. In every class at school, there is one IVF child.”

Researchers have found that regarding the health of those conceived and born:

• Risks of heart defects, musculoskeletal and central nervous system malformations, preterm birth, and low birth weight are increased in children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF). The risks seem to be based on maternal and paternal factors, but also on IVF itself.

The Catholic News Agency estimates that more die from IVF than abortion, stating:

“The CDC estimates that more than 238,000 patients attempted IVF in 2021. If clinics created between seven and eight embryos for every patient, that would yield about 1.6 million to 1.9 million embryos over a year. Despite these high numbers, fewer than 100,000 embryos were brought to term, which suggests that somewhere between 1.5 million and 1.8 million embryos created through IVF were never born. Alternatively, the abortion industry claimed about 985,000 lives from July 2022 through June 2023, suggesting that the IVF industry could be ending nearly twice as many human lives every year.”

IVF is not an option. Then what is?

NaProTechnology is one ethical alternative to IVF. One study has confirmed earlier findings that NaProTechnology results in several live births, without the danger to women and newborn infants. Adoption of born children is another ethical option. Many children seek a stable, loving home. One can even adopt embryos that have been abandoned as well. At the end of this article, you will find the source for this, if interested.

What is NaProTechnology?

NaProTechnology (NPT) — that makes use of a woman’s natural fertile cycles, and in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is a form of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and which seeks to replace the natural means of procreation.

Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) focuses on this. By addressing the underlying causes of infertility, rather than directly manipulating the reproductive process. It is safer, moral, and even more affordable than IVF, and improves the health of the patients. Multiple studies have shown that through RRM, an equal or even higher birth rate occurs than with IVF.

Let’s summarise:

• IVF neglects the underlying health issues, and costs on average 20,000$ per cycle. Remember, couples need multiple cycles.
• Costs 4x more per birth compared with RRM, and has a low success rate (10%).
• Has a high human embryo loss rate: 85% of the human embryos are either frozen, discarded, used for experimentation, or miscarried.

In the US alone, over 1 million embryos are frozen. In 2019, Europe saw 335,744 frozen embryo replacement cycles, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and 2019 over 1 million ART treatment cycles were reported.   

In the UK, embryo storage cycles increased to 10,719 in 2021, a 30% increase from 2019, according to the HFEA. 
In Spain, there are 668,082 embryos in the conservation banks, and about 10% (around 60,005) of them have an uncertain fate and risk of being abandoned, according to the latest data provided by the Spanish Fertility Society (SEF).

RRM helps you get pregnant ethically, yet also values the health of the woman, like PCOS, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis, etc.

This shows that RRM provides the longing desire to build a family ethically, without sacrificing other children throughout the process, and prioritizes health and addresses the root cause of infertility.

What we must confront

Donor sperm or eggs can introduce problems of identity. Research shows that individuals conceived with donor sperm often experience confusion later in life. Also, a child needs a mother and a father. Research has shown this unpopular belief in today’s day and age. IVF is a popular option for same-sex couples, like surrogacy; an article that will be written soon. Also, the ‘trend’ of women choosing to become single mothers and not wanting to carry a child, like some celebrities have done, uses surrogacy or IVF as an option.

These are too ‘controversial’ to talk about, and one will most likely be called all sorts of names, like ‘homophobic’ or shaming women wanting to become mothers, etc. However, this is for the good of all, especially the most innocent. The destruction of human embryos, the danger to women and newborn infants, and the replacement of the marital act in procreation are all consequences of IVF, which have a long-term impact, as in our culture, for example.  

I would more than encourage family life, especially as I’m a Catholic, but to do it evilly is not the right way. It shouldn't sit right with us to stay silent or neutral about these realities, just because of how others will perceive us. Sinning in vanity is too common, and I have personally committed this sin too often in the past, and it hasn’t led to the goodwill of others. We also must share these truths with others, as many people, including couples considering IVF, who most likely are not informed of this dark reality. And to know that there is an ethical, healthier, and even more secure chance, and a way to bring a baby into this world with love.

We must bring the darkness into the light. And defend every life. Yes, including the human embryos.

Sources

An adoption resource - https://christianadoptions.org/

https://studentsforlife.org/2024/02/23/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-to-talk-about-invitro-fertilization-ivf/

https://studentsforlife.org/learn/in-vitro-fertilization/

https://abolitionistsrising.com/ivf/

https://www.adoptingembryos.com/— You can adopt the abandoned embryos.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology

More resources are found on the 'Service' section of the website

Basic Biology and Guide to the Beginning of Life (fertilization)

There is much debate over when life begins. Some say after the baby's viability, others say when consciousness or 'personhood' begins, or simply right after birth. Some go as far as to say that no one knows when life begins. Where are these claims founded upon? Are they scientific? What is the evidence supporting their statements? 

Unfortunately, they are based on an emotional approach and not facts. And because many doctors are promoting this due to the profit they gain, as the abortion clinics, and the majority of celebrities and politicians in the West do as well, it has become a strong influence and a 'confirmation' that makes us feel 'better' about accepting abortion. But they aren't based on facts, but on propaganda and emotional arguments with repeated words and phrases that they sometimes have a difficult time reasoning with logical answers. And unfortunately, being pro-abortion has been masked with it being 'merciful' and doing the 'moral' thing by the woman, not realizing that they are stepping on the value that a woman (a mother in this case) has, and abortion wounds that, while also taking someone else's life.

The Pro-Life stand is a scientific one, which demonstrates life begins at conception. The response is often that it isn't true or that this is solely a religion-based answer. But science disputes otherwise, because objective truths do exist, and one does not necessarily have to be a Christian to know them.

Let's begin our basic guide to the first step of when life is created, and get our basics well learned.

• fertilization - the fusion of an egg and sperm immediately resulting in a new, genetically distinct human being (zygote). A multi-step process that is complete in 24 hours. 

The fetus/baby has his/her human DNA, distinct from the mother and father, The gender and physical traits like skin, hair, and eye color of a baby are determined at conception So no, a fetus is not part of the woman's body, but a woman's body carries another body that has its own unique human DNA, which is entitled to the rights of his or her autonomy, as this word is often used to justifu abortion. And two humans, a female and a male, cannot produce a cat or an elephant, because they are not of the same species. We can only procreate human (Homo sapiens) babies and vice versa. Embryology (the study of the formation and development of an embryo and fetus) and developmental biology have proven this. Embryology texts, scientific journals, and other relevant authorities also confirm them. Just to bring a few examples:

If someone insists that fertilization is not the beginning of life, are the following options the correct ones? The following options have been used to indicate that it is the beginning of life. But are they?  No, they aren't, and science will tell you why:

Sources:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=33&docid=31381

Baby Olivia:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-lQOooYAs8

There are more resources in the 'Service' section of the website.