We're on the Move

We have left our home in Washington and are heading back East. It is going to be a long journey, but the scenery is beautiful. Here is a picture from our trip out here.

Dressing with Dignity Review

I put my Chesterton book away for a while and have been reading a few other things. My latest read is called Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammond. I think the issue is so important that I will be writing a few posts about it. I will start here with a review of the book.

Hammond incorporates wonderful Catholic sources (popes, saints, scripture, and others) when giving the proper definitions of modesty and noting what the Church has said about fashions. She discusses the history of fashions: unchanged for about 6000 years until the 1900s. However, in the 1900s, things started going downhill rapidly! She also discusses what it means to be feminine. In addition, she uses a whole chapter to discuss proper outfit guidelines.

I think this book is important. It is vital to know what the Church teaches and how the Church has reacted to the changes in clothing in the past hundred years. Before I read this book, I did not know that the Church had made any statements regarding dress!

This book is greatly needed in our world today. I think it should be required reading for every woman and girl. I encourage you to buy the book for yourself and hope that it will change your life and perspective on how to dress like a woman.

The New Marriage Series

This is not my introduction to my new series. It is only an overview and look ahead for everyone to see what is in store!

I feel it is important for me to site Catholic sources with my series. I do not want to write another one like my Back to Nature series where I strictly state my ideas and thoughts. These latest two, Open to Life and now Marriage, are too important not to add Catholic sources.

With that said, I have a great deal of reading in store for me with this series. I have not read all the papal encyclicals about marriage, women, and family. I also have books from Chesterton, Bishops’ letters, and a few Catholic web articles that I plan to read. I hope that my motivation and time management will help me to accomplish this quickly so I can start writing.

If you watched my introduction page for my last series, you saw immense growth in the amount of posts I had. I started with about four posts in mind and the series grew to a total of 22 (including the introduction and closing remarks)! This one is already starting to do the same. I began my thoughts with only the idea of soul mates and it has grown from there. I currently have these posts in mind, but I am hoping to add many more:

* Between a man and woman
* Soul mates
* Courtship vs. dating
* Cohabitation
* Engagements
* Prenuptial agreements
* Vows
* “Getting to know each other”
* Theology of the Body and Marriage
* Arguments
* The importance of NFP
* In-laws and family
* Marriage and money
* Women and the vocation of marriage
* The problems with divorce

As I said previously, I am taking a little time off to move and delve into writing ahead for this series. I plan to post my Marriage Series Introduction in about two weeks.

An Over-Population Rebuttal

Although, I realize this article is long, it is important for understanding the non-existant over-population problem and the Catholic answer to it.

Take a break, and enjoy the article "Planet Un-Parenthood: The Myths of Overpopulation" by Fr. Frank Pavone.

Open to Life: Closing Remarks

For a list of all posts in the series and for links to all documents used, visit: Open to Life Series: Introduction.

To read the series from the beginning, see: What is Openness to Life?

This is a final note for my series.

To be open to life is of the greatest importance, whether Catholic, Protestant, or non-Christian. Life is important and must be valued and protected from the moment of natural conception until the moment of natural death. Within our time on Earth, suffering is almost in inevitable and with that is the need for compassion, mercy, sympathy, and healing - not euthanasia, suicide, abortion, or PGD. Be a light for this world by living out the important call: to be For LIFE.

I am not perfect and I do not claim to be. I hope that throughout this series no one has thought of me as preaching from my soapbox. I have made many mistakes in my life and will continue to make mistakes in the future. All I can do is ask God for his mercy and forgiveness through the confessional and help others to live their lives through Christ by teaching Catholic doctrine.

I hope that this series has helped at least one person come closer to Christ and His Church. If it has, I thank God for working through me with the Holy Spirit.


My next series is equally important and I am eagerly awaiting its debut, but I need a short break so that I can research, read, and write ahead as well as get my house in order for our upcoming move. I have a few posts scheduled so there will still be something to read in the meantime. Please stay with me through this transition!

Open to Life: The Population Myth

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?

This Open to Life series would not be complete without a statement (or two) about the so-called “over-population problem”. Let me begin, by saying that there is no over-population problem. This myth/theory has been and still is purported as fact (just like evolution)!

The world today makes more food, more efficiently than it ever has. Better farming practices and machinery have made this possible. We actually make more food per person today than we used to—and we do it on less land. There is no food shortage. The world is large enough to produce food for all people. This is not to say that people do not starve because of lack of food. They certainly do. I am simply saying that the world can and does make enough food for everyone; it is just that some governments sadly withhold food from their citizens and many people waste large amounts of food (that theoretically could have gone to feed others).

As far as destroying/polluting the environment, if every person lived as a good steward of the earth through buying local and in season meat, eggs, and produce; gardening where possible; and using energy efficiently, population would be a non-issue. The fact that people destroy the environment through their selfish practices is the only reason why “pollution” and “nature” come into play while talking about over-population. (See my endnote and read my Back to Nature series for a more on this.)

If you do not believe me, do your own research—but make sure you get the facts not the myths. For the best information on this, watch Demographic Bomb and Demographic Winter. These movies really put everything into perspective for Robert and me. There are trailers on the websites, but you have to purchase the DVDs to see them. To get some statistics without purchasing a movie, this page talks about the issue.

Endnote: Please realize, I am not saying that if you do not garden and you buy strawberries in February you are being selfish. I am merely saying that the practices I mentioned help us to be good stewards of the earth, which we are called by God to do.


Up Next: Open to Life Closing Remarks

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: Eugenics and Abortion

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


Last time I talked about eugenics and IVF. If that did not wake you up to the Truth of the world, I hope that this post will.

Prenatal testing is now commonplace. According to Physicians for Life, “an estimated 70% of all pregnant women in the United States will choose to have prenatal screening tests.” One of the main purposes of this testing is to abort diseased, disordered, or imperfect children. This is not just my opinion: “Recent US studies have indicated that when Down syndrome is diagnosed prenatally, 84% to 91% of those babies will be killed by abortion. This trend is not isolated to the United States. In England, a 2004 study showed that 94% of babies who were diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome were subsequently aborted” (Physicians for Life). This post from Accepting Abundance also discusses the issue.

In my post about Planned Parenthood’s beginnings, I talked about how Planned Parenthood claims to help the poor … by not helping them. In other words, they are just strictly pro-abortion and we can “only guess” as to their motives (if we really need to). Their statements in this recent Fox News article advance this idea further:

After a law scheduled to go into effect July 1 will require women to wait 72 hours and consult a crisis pregnancy center adviser before getting an abortion, Planned Parenthood argues that it violates First Amendment rights. They (PP) say that HB 1217 aims to misinform pregnant women with the intent of dissuading them from getting an abortion. They further argue, “Under the law, these crisis pregnancy centers must have as their central mission a desire to dissuade a woman from having an abortion, no matter what her particular risks or circumstances.”

Really … What could they possibly be so afraid of from fewer women deciding to have abortions unless they have ulterior motives?

In addition, let us not forget about the abortions in other countries and possibly in the U.S. when the child is not the “correct” sex. Especially with China’s one-child policy and parents wanting males who will take care of them in old age.

The only way we can stop the madness of eugenics by another name is by setting a Christian example, especially by being Open to Life, advocating for these innocent babies, and teaching our children—living as a light to the world.


Up Next: The Population Myth

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: Eugenics and IVF

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


After reading my last post, you might think eugenics is ancient history and not even worth discussing. But if you remember the quote from Chesterton, “I know that it [eugenics] means very different things to different people; but that is only because evil always takes advantage of ambiguity,” (emphasis mine) you might think twice.

Today, that I know of, there are two extreme forms of eugenics going on openly in this country and everywhere else around the world. One way, IVF and the term “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”, I will discuss now. The other way, abortion, I will save for my next post.

According to Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Family, “Increasing numbers of clinics are also offering … pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for weeding out embryos with certain genes or of a certain sex, “selective reduction” for destroying developing unborn children in multiple-gestation pregnancies, and even custom-designed embryos for clients seeking children with certain levels of beauty and/or accomplishment.” If this is not the proper definition of eugenics, I do not know what is!

Many things that I have read about IVF openly state that only the “best” embryos are implanted. What this means is that most embryos conceived in a dish are then tested for abnormalities, deformities, deficiencies, and disorders and if anything is found in the genetic tests, those embryos are then destroyed. In other words, babies are made every day in labs, and then if found to be imperfect, they are killed.

This truly is eugenics at its “finest” and I am sure that all proponents of eugenics including Hitler, would be proud of the “advances” we have made in the field of baby making.


Up Next: Eugenics and Abortion

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: Eugenics and Birth Control

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


Chesterton said in Eugenics and Other Evils, “I know that it [eugenics] means very different things to different people; but that is only because evil always takes advantage of ambiguity.” (emphasis mine)

In 1883, Sir Francis Galton coined the term “eugenics” meaning “good birth”. His idea was to use selective breeding (based on his cousin Charles Darwin’s theories) for “the betterment of mankind”. Many people throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s advocated for eugenics. One woman in particular was a true advocate for eugenics in the United States. Her name: Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger (who I talked about briefly before) edited and wrote for a magazine titled The Birth Control Review. In the February 1919 issue, she wrote an article called “Birth Control and Racial Betterment” with this as its opening, “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit” (p. 11, emphasis mine). This woman is the one who encouraged the Anglican Church (the first church) to accept contraception, and this woman is the one who founded Planned Parenthood – the biggest abortion provider in the nation today.

Now some may say, well that was just the founder of Planned Parenthood. They do not believe those things anymore. My reply to this is simple – where are all Planned Parenthood clinics? Certainly not in rich neighborhoods. What class of people does Planned Parenthood “help” around the whole world? The poor and almost exclusively the poor. However, they “aid” the poor by giving them contraceptives and abortions, by taking away their children, not by eliminating their poverty.

We now have a whole class of people that are unwanted: babies. Innocent children are being slaughtered for “women’s rights”, “choice”, and “population control”. In other words, for “the betterment of mankind”. (Sound familiar? Reread above.) We need to realize that preventing the birth of a child is an evil thing. Most people have always known this, but it is made to sound harmless with the words “eugenic”, “birth control”, or “reproductive freedom”.

If we want to turn this around, we must know where we left the right path.Birth control has led to the decline in our society (see this post and this one). Speak out against abortion. Use and advocate for natural family planning. Vote for politicians who will overturn Roe v. Wade, make euthanasia illegal, and keep marriage between a man and woman. Do not assume that others will lead the way. Everyone must do his or her part.


Up Next: Eugenics and IVF

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: Prophesies in Papal Encyclicals

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


God has naturally ordered all things for reasons that we may not understand, but when we start to interfere with them, evil consequences are automatic. The Church has always known the dangers of not following her teachings. And in 1968 when many people wanted the Church to “change” her teaching on birth control (something impossible for the Church since it does not change any teaching on faith and morals), Pope Paul VI disappointed the masses with his encyclical Humanae Vitae. In it, he prophesied what would happen with the world if it chose artificial methods over God’s plan. All four of his prophesies came true and as chilling as it might seem, many people predicted these same or similar outcomes, because this is the natural order of tampering with God.

In his encyclical, Pope Paul VI wrote:

“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. [1]Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and [2]a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. [3]Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

“Finally, [4]careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” (17, emphasis mine)

Will anyone disagree that we have an exponential increase in marital infidelity, a true lowering of all moral standards, disrespect for women and them seen as objects, and governments using birth control to control its people (think China and India)?

The Bishops also draw attention to this in their 2006 letter Married Love and the Gift of Life.

“Many would likely be surprised at how long all Christian churches agreed on this teaching against contraception. It was only in 1930 that some Protestant denominations began to reject this long-held position. Those opposed to this trend predicted an increase in premarital sex, adultery, acceptance of divorce, and abortion. Later, in 1968, Pope Paul VI warned that the use of contraception would allow one spouse to treat the other more like an object than a person, and that in time governments would be tempted to impose laws limiting family size. Pope John Paul II called attention to the close association between contraception and abortion, noting that “the negative values inherent in the ‘contraceptive mentality’ . . . are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation [to abortion] when an unwanted life is conceived” (Evangelium Vitae, 13, emphasis mine).

“These predictions have come true. Today we see a pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases, an enormous rise in cohabitation, one in three children born outside of marriage, and abortion used by many when contraception fails. A failure to respect married love’s power to help create new life has eroded respect for life and for the sanctity of marriage.”

Up Next: Eugenics and Birth Control

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: What is Wrong with Fornication?

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


I talked about sex before marriage briefly in my last post: Theology of the Body.

Our society talks about and occasionally even teaches “abstinence”. Although abstinence is called for, without the moral and religious meaning behind it—it is just abstaining, but for what? Society teaches it as a form of “birth control”, but this is not the reason that God made sex solely for marriage! Catholics and some Protestants teach chastity. Although chastity is so much more than waiting until marriage, I am restricting my discussion to that aspect alone.

In The Contraceptive Revolution and Its Fruits, John Bruchalski links fornication to birth control and even abortion.

“To me, the teaching that sexual intercourse is reserved for marriage, that partners in marriage must respect one another, and that marriage involves the total giving of oneself to one's spouse in love, in family life, and in sexual intercourse, is a very powerful and positive teaching. It allows us to be open to life, open to love.

“Its antithesis is the idea that has been adopted by our culture: that individuals have a right to sexual relationships outside of marriage, and that, whether single or married, individuals have a right to sexual intercourse free from any concern that a child might result. Taken one step further, this provides a foundation for the mentality that accepts abortion: if a child results from sexual activity, whether inside or outside marriage, the right not to have to ‘deal’ with that comes into play.” (emphasis original)

Fornication and living together before marriage are wrong. But why? God gave us this supreme act of love so that we could express and image His love. One cannot do this with anyone other than their spouse to whom they have committed their lives and hearts. The Bishops teach, “Sexual intercourse is meant to express the total and unrestricted gift of self that takes place in married love. To have sexual intercourse outside the covenant of marriage is gravely immoral because it communicates physically the gift of oneself to another when, at the same time, one is not willing or able to make a total and permanent commitment” (Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan). Katrina Zeno in “Living Together Before Marriage” uses the same teaching and states, “Pope John Paul II once said that the opposite of love is not to hate another, but to “use” another as an object. When we “take” sexual pleasure from another without “giving” ourselves totally—past, present, and future in a bond of permanent love that is open to new life—we are actually using this person."

Christopher West, in “Living Together Before Marriage”, brings up an important issue. He says,

“If you are having sex with your fiancé now, there’s one thing you know about him or her. He or she is willing to have sex with someone he or she is not married to. … It shouldn’t surprise us in the least that those who are sexually active before marriage have much higher rates of infidelity during marriage. These are the logical consequences of failing to understand the inherently marital meaning of sex.” (emphasis original)

Up Next: Prophesies in Papal Encyclicals

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: Theology of the Body

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


Most quotes from this post are from Theology of the Body for Beginners. The numbers in parentheses are page numbers. I thoroughly enjoyed the book both times I read it, but I have to admit, this post is written from my notes I took from the book a few years ago. It is currently packed away in boxes. I wish I had the time to get it out and reread it for this post.

I would like to focus on just a few sections. The whole book is greatly important, and Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body is even more important, but I chose only the most relevant parts to include here.

The first is Spousal Love as Prayer: “The internal goal of every marriage is for the spouses to ensure that what they express subjectively in their sexual union confirms the objective truth of God’s plan. … Simply getting married is not enough to make sexual union something holy and beautiful” (99). Many engaged couples would ask, “What is wrong with having sex now if we’re going to be married in a few weeks (months, etc.)?” Christopher West answers this exact question in “Living Together Before Marriage”. There is no difference. “What you are doing now is not marital and—unless you have a change of heart before the wedding—what you’ll be doing then won’t be marital either” (9). The marital union can only be fully realized the way God intended within marriage and with a pure heart.

The second section is an interesting one. It is entitled Respect for Procreation. On page 104, Christopher West tells us that “even Sigmund Freud recognized [that respect for the procreative function of sexual union is the linchpin of all sexual morality]. In Freud’s book Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis he wrote, “Abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.” Even the atheist psychologist understood the importance of openness to life.

I will lump the next two sections together, as they are very similar (“Birth Control” and the Purpose of Contraception). “The Church has always recognized that the only method of ‘birth control’ that respects the language of divine love is ‘self-control’” (111). Chesterton has a similar quote that I shared earlier. To fully understand this, we must realize that the purpose of contraception is not to prevent pregnancy—abstinence was around long before contraception, is 100% effective and 100% safe. “Contraception was invented because of lack of self-control; contraception was invented to serve the indulgence of lust” (113).

The last two sections (Lust and Sex and True Freedom and Sex) are so important. In his book Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojityla (Pope John Paul II) wrote, “If sexual intimacy results from nothing more than lust, it is not love.” This is so true today. Many people do not even know what true love is. I have heard multiple TV show characters that are getting divorced say, “I still love you.” How can you love someone and leave him or her? What does this teach society? I want to finish with a few final quotes from the book:

• “What distinguishes us from the animals? Freedom!”
• “God gave us freedom as the capacity to love. Contraception negates this freedom.”
• “Contraception not only attacks the procreative meaning of sex, ‘it also ceases to be an act of love’ (TOB 123:6). If you cannot say no to sex, what does your ‘yes’ mean?” (emphasis original)
• “Only the person who is free with the freedom for which Christ set us free (see Gal 5:1) is capable of authentic love.”

Up Next: What is Wrong with Fornication?

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: ARTs Related to IVF

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


These procedures are all related to in vitro fertilization. There are more procedures than I have listed below, but these are currently the most common. Since this post is strictly for medical information and so I do not have to keep repeating myself, know that the Catholic Church teaches that ALL of the below procedures are immoral.

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI)
A procedure commonly used today in IVF clinics is ICSI. This is the direct injection of a sperm into the egg. It is used to boost success rates but by doing so, it “bypasses all the natural safeguards that prevent damaged or defective sperm from reaching the egg in a woman’s body” (In Vitro Fertilization: The Human Cost).

Cryopreservation
Embryos not used are frozen so they can be preserved if the couple (woman) decides they want more children. Some of these embryos remain in a frozen state indefinitely, considered “excess” or “spare”. Some people have even considered “donating” embryos to couples who cannot have children. The large quantity of “spare” embryos has been a temptation for researches and as such, many others are destroyed for research purposes.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)

In my mind, the only "thing" who could degrade
human life to this extent is of course the Devil.

PGD is a process used to select the “most viable” or “desired” embryos for implantation. This process is eugenics by another name. I will talk more about this in a later post. In Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology, the Bishops warn, “IVF divides the decision to welcome a new child into two separate decisions: whether to conceive this new human being, and whether to transfer him or her to the mother’s womb. This has tempted fertility doctors and couples to exercise various forms of so-called “quality control” through genetic screening, so that only the embryos who seem most viable or have the most desired traits are given an opportunity to implant in their mother’s womb. The embryos not selected are destroyed.”

Human Cloning
The Bishops’ warning speaks for itself when they state, “Human cloning is the most extreme reduction of human procreation to a manufacturing process. … The goal is to produce—or even mass-produce—new embryonic human beings who are valued not for their own unique identities, but for the particular traits they may share with the donor of the body cell. The cloned human embryo is a living human being who deserves to be treated with full moral respect; yet in the act of being created not for his or her own sake but as a “copy” of someone else, he or she is treated as a thing or even a commodity, not as a person. This is a gross violation of human dignity” (Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology). The process of cloning is truly asexual reproduction as it requires the use of an egg but not sperm. Also, the egg is used without its DNA so it may even be attempted using an animal egg rather than one from a woman.

In addition, cloning is not without medical risks. The same fertility drugs previously talked about here are used to extract eggs for cloning. “The cloning process is so unnatural and wasteful that it magnifies these risks further. Hundreds of eggs may be needed to produce even one live human embryo; animal trials have produced live-born offspring only very rarely, usually with serious health problems; and any attempt to bring a human child to birth from this procedure would pose grave risks to mother and child” (Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology).

In Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology the Bishops affirm,

“Each of these abuses is a natural outgrowth of the original decision to turn the begetting of a child into a manufacturing process. This threatens to turn what should be the unconditional love and acceptance of parents for their sons and daughters into something more tentative and conditional.

“In this situation a new life may be highly valued—as a way of meeting parents’ goals for family size, or of achieving other goals such as scientific knowledge—but this human life is not respected as human persons deserve to be respected.” [Emphasis original]

Up Next: Theology of the Body

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Open to Life: What is Wrong with IVF? (II)

If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


Because of the multiple problems with in vitro fertilization, I divided the topic into three separate posts. This one discusses the health risks for women and also the potential human error and mix-ups involved in the process. I also want to preface this post with my remarks from the last post:

In Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan, the Bishops remind us that when using technology to “create” human beings, the “[c]hildren begin to be seen less as gifts received in a personal communion of mutual self-giving, and increasingly as a lifestyle choice, a commodity to which all consumers are entitled.”

In vitro fertilization (IVF) in particular is a gravely immoral, dehumanizing, and even a medically risky procedure. “This procedure [IVF] is so far from a loving act of the spouses that it can even be used to conceive a child if neither of them is alive, for the body of neither one is involved in the act of generating this life once sperm and egg are obtained and stored” (Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology). The medical problems range from the extremely high death rate of embryos to the increased risk of birth defects to human error resulting in the doctor implanting someone else’s child in the woman’s uterus.

Health Risks to Women
The main risk to women’s health through the process of IVF is the use of “superovulatory” drugs to stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple eggs at one time for the procedure. “These drugs have been associated with an increased risk of some cancers, and may lead to a condition known as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), whose effects can include reproductive problems, kidney failure and even death” (In Vitro Fertilization: The Human Cost).


Photo from California IVF: Davis Fertility Center

   With multiple pregnancies (a huge risk with IVF), “mothers are more likely to suffer from complications such as high blood pressure, hemorrhages and preeclampsia” (In Vitro Fertilization: The Human Cost). There are also the risks for cesarean deliveries, which are mandatory with multiple pregnancies.

Human Error/“Mix-ups”
There are so many risks related to human error, but some include the wrong sperm being inseminated into the woman, the wrong sperm used to fertilize the egg(s), the wrong embryos being implanted, and embryos (or eggs and sperm) being lost or accidentally discarded.

“[T]he University of California has paid out more than $24 million for 137 separate incidents in which eggs or embryos were either unaccounted for or given to other women without consent.” (“UCI settles a dozen fertility suits,” The Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2009)

“IVF mix-ups are a regular occurrence at fertility clinics across the UK, an expert has said. Dr. Sammy Lee, a scientific consultant at the Portland Hospital in London, said the case of a white woman giving birth to black twins which hit the headlines earlier this month is probably not an isolated incident…. He said: ‘Every day, someone somewhere in the UK is inadvertently messing up… I am aware of the wrong embryos being transferred to the wrong patients at several [National Health Service] units during the past 10 years. I have also confidentially been told about a number of cases where the wrong sperm were used to inseminate eggs.’” (“IVF mix-ups ‘occur regularly’,” BBC News: Health, July 24, 2002.)

“In the case of mixed-up embryos that caused a white Staten Island woman who underwent in vitro fertilization to give birth to two sons of different races, a state inquiry has concluded that the embryologist knew another couple’s embryos had been implanted but failed to tell anyone at the time or to act to correct his error.” (J. Yardley, “Investigators Say Embryologist Knew He Erred in Egg Mix-Up,” The New York Times, April 17, 1999, p. A13.)

“This is a notoriously unregulated area that some of my colleagues have called the Wild West of medicine,” said [Mark] Rothstein, a lawyer and director of the University of Louisville Institute of Bioethics, Health and Law. “I think it [mix-ups] happens and in many cases we don’t know about it.” (J. Christoffersen, “Experts Troubled by Fertility Mix-Up Case,” Associated Press, July 15, 2004.)


Up Next on Monday: ARTs Related to IVF

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction