Lazy Blogger Quick Takes

ChelseaContraception, IVF, Sex, Surrogacy3 Comments

Lazy BloggerOne of these days I will become a more diligent blogger. In the meantime, here are a few things that I’ve been keeping open in my browsers lately that I’ve been wanting to talk about here in my own little corner of the world wide web, but have been too lazy to get around to.

1. Nuns Must Have Birth Control Coverage — As I’m sure most of you have heard already, last week the Obama administration proposed new rules for the HHS Mandate to supposedly give greater protections to organizations opposed to contraception. Not only does this not do what it supposedly intended to do, but Wesley Smith notes that it may have actually made the mandate worse than it was originally.

2. New IVF technique giving women better outcomes — by “better outcomes,” they mean fewer children born with Down syndrome. This is achieved through a new technique that can better tell which embryos are “normal” and which ones have chromosomes missing and only implanting the one, single healthy embryo. So, it’s not that fewer children with Down syndrome will be created, it’s that even more of them won’t be allowed to see the light of day. This, my friends is why it has been said that IVF is the “younger sister” of eugenics.

3. Sex Trafficking at the Super Bowl — way to go a-holes. Just as learning about what goes on in the Village tainted my view of the Olympics as a whole, this information will make me never see the Super Bowl the same again.

4. A few weeks ago, tuned in while Jennifer Lahl was a guest on The Justice Hour with Lisa Macci talking about IVF, embryonic stem cell research and savior siblings. That episode isn’t archived on the site yet, but you can listen to a previous episode in which she talked about surrogacy, egg donation and the virtually unpublicized exploitation of women involved in these industries.

5. Prolific surrogate mother pregnant again — with twins — I don’t know about you, but these are the women that came to my mind when a new study came out recently showing children’s cells living in the brain’s of their mothers long after birth. Gestational surrogates are often treated as little more than an easy bake ovens with no legal rights to the cupcake But, pregnancy is not simply being a human incubator for nine months, it affects a woman’s entire body, both physically and emotionally, before and after birth.

6. Some of you may remember the “pregnant-man-who-wasn’t-really-a-man” story from a few years ago. Well now, after giving birth to two more children, Thomas Beatie and his wife want to get divorced — and, despite the fact that Beatie has finally completed his gender reassignment, the judge in the case is struggling to make sense of the situation. Was Thomas really a man when they got married? Is it a gay marriage? How should he proceed?

Alliance Defense Fund’s Jim Campbell said it well, “Sadly, the deep confusion created by these two women, and the biological father who helped conceive the children, is just a symptom of much greater societal problems.”

7. “Reproductive Rights” Run Amuck — in case you missed it the first time around, I’ve published my article for HLI’s Truth and Charity Forum over at Catholic Lane.

8. Finally: Adding a Stich in the Seamless Garment of Life — I love where Sr. Theresa goes with this article.

If we stop to think about life issues, it is shocking how delicately each issue is woven into another. When one suffers, they all suffer. Slowly but surely the “seamless garment” of life in our culture is being torn apart.

Anytime we love others with the extravagant, unconditional love, that mirrors God’s love, we are putting another stitch in the seamless garment of life, and bolstering the fabric of human dignity. We do this simply by showing others how important they are and how precious their life is. Loving others is one of the most important aspects of truly respecting life – one that we all manage to neglect quite often

Read more.

Drug Addicts Don’t Need Sterilization or Abortion

ChelseaAbortion, Addiction, Contraception2 Comments

baby-mom.pngOver a year ago I wrote an article about why drug addicts should not be encouraged to allow themselves to be permanently sterilized. Sharing her personal story of being pregnant while addicted to crystal meth, Calah Alexander is an example of why sterilizing drug addicts is the wrong approach:

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t easy, being a newly-pregnant drug addict. But it gave me something to live for. Someone to live for.

Many times, women who are addicted to drugs manage to clean themselves up during the pregnancy only to fall back into old habits after the baby is born. This is why conventional wisdom states that a drug addict can’t raise a child, even if she manages to carry the baby safely, healthily to term.

In some women, this is doubtless true. But think of the message we’re sending those women.

You can’t do this. You are too weak to resist. You’re not a mother, you’re unfit to be a mother, we know you won’t make sacrifices for your child. Better for the child to not live at all than to be abandoned by a drug-addled mother. After all, what kind of life will she have. The daughter of an addict.

I vividly remember one day, three months after Sienna was born. I managed to get us both dressed and we went for a walk. I walked around our apartment complex, unconsciously making my way to a friend’s apartment with drug connections. Before I had really decided to do so, I was knocking at his door. No one was there. I sat on a bench across from his apartment and waited. I waited for an hour, my mind racing all that time. I couldn’t get over the one, obvious hurtle. If I were to use drugs again, I couldn’t breastfeed the baby. But what excuse could I give for not feeding her? What excuse would I have for using formula? And what if the Ogre figured it out? What if he told my parents? Would the drugs really enter the breastmilk? Would it affect her too much? Couldn’t I just smoke a little bit, and then see if she acted funny?

In the midst of this frantic train of thought, I happened to look down at my daughter. She was sleeping, her soft pink mouth open, her little hand curled up against one fat, rosy cheek.

She was absolutely beautiful, and absolutely perfect. I knew the hell of drug use, and in that instant I knew that I could not do that to my daughter. I couldn’t let that horror into her tiny, flawless body.

She opened her eyes, yawned, and smiled at me. It was a rare thing for her to smile at me. I was an absent mother, a source of food. We had almost no relationship at all. But at that moment, for the first time, I loved her. I picked her up and held her closely, shaky and nearly weeping from the adrenaline that had been coursing through me. Just as my friend’s car pulled up I held Sienna in one arm, turned the stroller around and went home.

From that moment on my half-formed plans to use drugs again began to dissipate. It took years before they were gone completely, and even still, on bad days, the thought sometimes pops into my head, unbidden and quickly chased out.

But my daughter saved my life. She saved me from that terrible crisis. The people around me didn’t say, “You can’t be a mother. You can’t parent. You’re addicted to crystal meth, there’s no hope for you.” They said, “You are a mother now. This is your child. You can, and will, raise her.” And I did. I am.

Read more.

It’s not that I think addicts should be encouraged to get themselves or their wife/girlfriend pregnant in the hopes that it’ll help turn their lives around. Nevertheless, new life is new hope, not a problem to be eliminated. Substance abuse is the problem. Sexual immorality, and in many cases sexual abuse, is the problem.

Eliminating the possibility of children being born is not an answer to either of these problems. As Calah notes, this just sends the message that they’re too weak to ever get over their addiction. People with addiction need support, compassion, love — community — whether they’re experiencing a crisis pregnancy or not.

As it’s name suggests, that’s just what the Comunità Cenacolo is for young people with addictions of all sorts. It’s community. It’s family. It’s love. It’s hope. Not only are they dedicated to reaching out to drug addicts and their families, but their services are free and, through prayer, hard work and personal outreach, they provide for the underlying reasons many of these people turn to drugs in the first place – loneliness, low self-esteem and sense of self worth, selfishness and, of course, lack of faith. It is a “school of life”, providing for the complete person, not just helping them get “off drugs” but giving them the tools to deal with their defects when they re-enter the world and all its temptations. This is the kind of healing that needs to take place in order to truly build up a culture of life!

Did Penicillin Launch the Sexual Revolution?

ChelseaSexLeave a Comment

One economist seems to think so. SourceFed has the highlights:

Three Parent Embryos: Modifying Future Generations

ChelseaGenetic EngineeringLeave a Comment

Rebecca Taylor has an article in the National Catholic Register about scientists experimenting with three-parent embryos to try to combat mitochondrial disease:
genes.png

The Catholic Church is clear that somatic gene therapy, non-inheritable genetic engineering in one individual for therapeutic reasons, is a moral good. But the Church draws a clear line between somatic and germ-line gene therapy.

Dignitas Personae, the 2008 instruction on bioethics from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, states: “Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit. … The moral evaluation of germ-line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential offspring. Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny. In the hypothesis of gene therapy on the embryo, it needs to be added that this only takes place in the context of in vitro fertilization [IVF] and thus runs up against all the ethical objections to such procedures. For these reasons, therefore, it must be stated that, in its current state, germ-line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit.”

So even though the intent of creating three-parent embryos is therapeutic in nature, because IVF is required and because this is a germ-line modification, Catholics cannot embrace this procedure.

Looking closer at the passage from Dignitas Personae, the phrases “in the present state of research” and “in its current state” suggest that there may be a time where the Church may support germ-line gene therapy. If the gene therapy could be accomplished by modifying egg or sperm precursors in the body, allowing conception to take place naturally in the marital act, then that would address the problems with the use of IVF.

But there is still the problem of safety. The risks of modifying sperm and egg are indeed “considerable” to the potential offspring, which is why many countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and France have laws against inheritable genetic modifications.

Read more.

My, but she has impeccable timing. In case you missed it, our latest episode of BioTalk also deals with 3-parent embryos. So, after you finish reading Rebecca’s article, be sure to check us out below for more even more on this topic:

The Real Reason to Criticize Roe

ChelseaAbortion, Roe v. Wade1 Comment

Over at the Public Discourse Daniel K. Williams has a must read on the misunderstood history of abortion law in the United States:
baby-gavel.jpg

[F]or years pro-lifers have not really understood what Roe did. They have too often accepted the myth that neither legal abortion nor an organized pro-life movement existed prior to Roe. Although they have denounced Roe vociferously, they have justified doing so with the erroneous argument that Roe was the primary cause of the nation’s high rate of legal abortion, as though legal abortion did not exist in the United States before 1973.

Actually, Roe did not introduce legal abortion to the United States; it did something even worse. Prior to Roe, legal abortion existed, but so did a large, vigorous pro-life movement, and that movement was beginning to win the public debate on abortion. Roe deprived the pro-life movement of its legal victories and allowed abortion to become more available to poor and minority women. It subverted the democratic process and led to a partisan polarization that only grew worse with time. Perhaps worst of all, it nullified the pro-life movement’s constitutional arguments and enshrined in case law a constitutional interpretation that deprived the unborn of any constitutional rights.

Contrary to popular belief, legal abortion was widely available in the United States prior to Roe.

Read more.

Biking for Babies on EWTN Tonight!

ChelseaActivismLeave a Comment

b4b.pngThis is a little late notice, but tonight (9 pm CST) EWTN’s Life on the Rock is having a pro-life special in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I’m pleased to see that two of the guests on tonight’s program will be Jimmy Becker and Mike Schaefer (pictured right), founders of the group Biking for Babies.

I had the great pleasure of speaking with Jimmy on the phone several months ago. Awesome guy. Great organization. I love it when pro-lifers think outside the box.

You’ll learn more about it if you watch the show, but briefly: Biking for Babies is an annual long-distance bicycle trip to increase awareness of the dignity for human life at all stages. The first B4B was a 600 mile ride from Carbondale, IL to Chicago, which raised over $13,000 for several local pro-life charities and pregnancy centers. This year they’ll ride for 1,100 miles from New Orleans to Chicago with a goal to raise $40,000. They do a great job of ‘vlogging’ their rides every year. Videos, more info about the riders, and how to donate, can be found via the ride’s website: www.BikingForBabies.com and on Facebook.

Check them out tonight, 9pm CST. If you don’t have cable or your provider doesn’t carry EWTN, you can watch it live online at EWTN.com

BioTalk, Ep. 2: 3-Parent Embryos and the Brave New U.S.

ChelseaBioTalk, Cloning, Embryo Experimentation, Embryonic Stem Cell Research1 Comment

cloning2.jpgA new episode of BioTalk, in which Rebecca Taylor and I talk about all things bioethics — especially issues related to human biotechnology — is finally here!

In this episode, we talk about scientists experimenting with “three parent embryos” and the “Brave New” United States where there are no restrictions on this or other once unthinkable kinds of human experimentation currently in practice. We also discuss the impact this kind of experimentation has on women. Ladies, pay attention. Human Biotechnology is a “women’s issue” if ever there was one.

Previously: Episode 1: Prenatal Genetic Testing

“Reproductive Rights” Run Amuck

ChelseaIVF, Reproductive TechnologyLeave a Comment

Dear readers, I’m pleased to share my first article for Human Life International‘s Truth and Charity Forum: “Reproductive Rights” Run Amuck.
truthandcharity.png
Yes, I’m writing about (what else?) IVF again. I can’t help it. As millions of human beings pay the ultimate price at the hands of an increasingly out of control, unregulated fertility industry, it pains me that this isn’t a higher priority for the pro-life movement at large.

As I’ve said before, and say again in the article: Artificial insemination and IVF are among some of the technological developments of the twentieth century that came faster than humanity could process their implications and discern their right use — or whether they should be used at all. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean that we should.

Sadly, it seems most Christians don’t even question the morality of IVF, anymore.

Read it here.

Are Online Dating Websites Altering the Climate of Commitment?

ChelseaPro Life4 Comments

If you’re like me — thirty and single — you’ve probably been asked once or twice, “have you tried online dating?” followed by, “another friend of mine was in his/her thirties and had just about given up on love when he/she logged onto one of those online dating sites and met the woman/man of his/her dreams. They just got married last year”…or something like that.
online-dating.jpg
The logic of online dating, of course, is that it’s easier to find and meet other single people with similar interests and relationship goals and, thus, easier to find a spouse. But, with so many prospects, some are now wondering if online dating actually makes it more difficult to fall in love?

This is an interesting article from Verily on the tendency of online daters to spend an endless amount of time searching for that one person who represents absolutely everything (they think) they’re looking for in a spouse — a constant quest for someone more compatible.

It’s based on a fascinating Atlantic article, A Million First Dates, which asks:

The positive aspects of online dating are clear: the Internet makes it easier for single people to meet other single people with whom they might be compatible, raising the bar for what they consider a good relationship. But what if online dating makes it too easy to meet someone new? What if it raises the bar for a good relationship too high? What if the prospect of finding an ever-more-compatible mate with the click of a mouse means a future of relationship instability, in which we keep chasing the elusive rabbit around the dating track?

While researching for his book Love in the Time of Algorithms, author Dan Slater spoke with several online-dating-company executives, most of whom, he says, seem to agree with what research suggests: the rise of online dating will mean an overall decrease in commitment. Only one executive, Alex Mehr, a co-founder of the dating site Zoosk, disagrees with the prevailing wisdom that online dating does anything to change whether you’re looking for a long-term, monogamous relationship or not. “That’s a personality thing,” he says. He has a point. It’s definitely debatable how much of this is due to the individual personalities of the people dating online vs. the existence of online dating itself — that this is more of just a reflection of our society as a whole.

Anyway, there’s much more to the Atlantic article, including how online dating makes it easier for people to opt out of struggling marriages. Read it if you get a chance.

Offering a bit of advice to online daters, Verily’s Ashley Crouch writes:

it’s easy to slip into the mindset that one should have a gut feeling instantly whether this is “it.” And while sometimes this happens, don’t underestimate the value of a second look, or fail to remember that compatibility is something that is created together.

It is important to remember that we don’t have an endless amount of time to make such a decision. That is, the window of opportunity for starting a family is not open indefinitely. And, as Sam Keen put it, “We come to love not by finding a perfect person, but by learning to see an imperfect person perfectly.”

Personally, I looked into it once — a Catholic dating site — and the description of it in one of the articles above as a “mass mailer approach” to love is pretty dead on. I was overwhelmed. I’ve also described it as being like going to a bar and having about 30 guys approach you all at once asking for your number. I didn’t even know where to begin. I also wasn’t a fan of the price, so I only did the free version, which you really can’t go very far with, anyway.

How ’bout you? Have you tried online dating? What is/was your experience like?