'Selective Reduction' Abortions Increasing: Children Have Become Commodities

[Michie]

*Permission to post full text*

By Deacon Keith Fournier
12/23/2010

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The Incarnate Word of God became a human person, living life at every age and stage

'Fetal reductions are most commonly conducted by inserting an ultrasound-guided needle through the mother's abdomen and into the uterus, injecting a potassium chloride solution into the chosen fetus or fetuses, stopping their hearts.' They are increasing in number. They are being done by parents who simply do not want twins. Our children have become commodities. Time for Catholic Action.


The Incarnate Word of God became a human person, living life at every age and stage, in the real womb of a real mother. He is identified with every child, at every age and stage.


CHESAPEAKE, VA. (Catholic Online) - On Friday December 10, 2010, an article written by Tom Blackwell appeared in Canada's "National Post" entitled"When is Twins Too Many?" The article told the story of a couple who are part of a growing trend in Western culture:

"Like so many other couples these days, the Toronto-area business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s - and their first son just over a year old - when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins.

"It came as a complete shock," said the mother, who asked not to be named. "We're both career people. If we were going to have three children two years apart, someone else was going to be raising our kids. ... All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen."


"She soon discovered another option: Doctors could "reduce" the pregnancy from twins to a singleton through a little-known procedure that eliminates selected fetuses - and has become increasingly common in the past two decades amid a boom in the number of multiple pregnancies. Selective reductions are typically carried out for women pregnant with triplets or greater, where the risk of harm or death climbs sharply with each additional fetus.

"The Ontario couple is part of what some experts say is a growing demand for reducing twins to one, fueled more by socio-economic imperatives than medical need, and raising vexing new ethical questions. Experts question whether parents should choose to terminate a fetus just because of the impact the child would have on their lives, and note that even more medically necessary reductions can trigger lifelong angst and even threaten marriages. The mother said the Toronto doctor who eventually did her reduction performs several a month."

If you recoiled upon reading about this couple choosing to "reduce" - kill - their daughter or son it is because you still have a conscience. However, there is no moral difference between the choice of this couple and the willful abortions committed every day for any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy in the United States of America and throughout the West. The action of taking the life of an innocent child in the womb is intrinsically evil. It also violates the Natural Law Right to Life making it a crime, even if the positive law of a nation fails to recognize the existence of that Right to Life.

The article interviewed a "counselor" who strives to "help" these parents. She explained she does so in "a nonjudgmental way." She admits that the trend "saddens and scares" her, and asks, "Is this a healthy thing? We have to ask these questions: Where does it stop? When do children become a commodity?"

The woman who killed her child said she had "no regrets, and believes the option should be openly available to all parents expecting twins." Here are her exact words, "I'm absolutely sure I did the right thing. I had read some online forums; people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn't feel any of that. Not that I'm a cruel, bitter person ... I just didn't feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to."

Tom Blackwell spoke with a New York City obstetrician who has changed his views on performing such "reductions". He has decided to expand his practice of selectively killing children in the womb, what he called the "procedure." He explained, "In North America, couples can choose to have an abortion for any reason". Blackwell ended the article noting how the killing of the children is accomplished, "Fetal reductions are most commonly conducted by inserting an ultrasound-guided needle through the mother's abdomen and into the uterus, injecting a potassium chloride solution into the chosen fetus or fetuses, stopping their hearts."

We probably do not want to consider what is really happening here just days before Christmas when we pause to remember the birth of the Child who changed the course of human history. However, we must do so if we ever hope to recover our National soul and respond to the meaning of the Holy Day we celebrate. The Incarnate Word of God became a human person, living life at every age and stage, in the real womb of a real mother. He is identified with every child, at every age and stage.

"Selective Reductions" are targeted raids on children using chemical weapons to kill them. They are now entrenched in our current culture of death.

For example, they are a part of In Vitro fertilization. On June 20, 2008 the Vatican released an instruction called "the Dignity of the Human
Person" which dealt with "Certain Bioethical Questions". In the section concerning the deliberate destruction of embryos we read: "The fact that the process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted in the Instruction Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life). There were some who maintained that this was due to techniques which were still somewhat imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded.

"It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high. These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo.

"It is often objected that the loss of embryos is, in the majority of cases, unintentional or that it happens truly against the will of the parents and physicians. They say that it is a question of risks which are not all that different from those in natural procreation; to seek to generate new life without running any risks would in practice mean doing nothing to transmit it. It is true that not all the losses of embryos in the process of in vitro fertilization have the same relationship to the will of those involved in the procedure. But it is also true that in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed. Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring."

The killing of these "excess" children continues after implantation in the womb of their mother through this heinous procedure referred to as "selective reduction". It is, in fact, selective execution. Children have become commodities.

In 1987, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its important direction entitled "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation". Among the questions it answered was: "What Respect is due to the human embryo, taking into account his nature and identity?" The answer given by the Magisterium: "The human being must be respected - as a person - from the very first instant of his (her) existence."

Sometimes when Catholic writers like me quote Church sources, the proponents of calling the killing of children a "right" try to dismiss us by saying this is our "religious position". The medical facts confirm what our consciences have always told us, that is when we still had consciences; the child in the womb is one of us, our neighbor. We now routinely intervene to operate on her when she is in need. We take 4d Ultrasounds of him and make our greeting cards with them. The child, from the moment of conception is, just like each one of of us, a human person in development. That development continues throughout life. Killing one of these children is killing our innocent neighbor. "Selective reduction" is simply one more example of Orwellian Newspeak.

Years ago I was involved in a new business venture. We built offices and invited guests to help us to dedicate them in prayer. One of the men with whom I was involved in the venture was an Evangelical Protestant leader. He shared some good news with our invited guests; his daughter was expecting her first child. Of course, everyone was happy. Then, without even pausing he told everyone present that she went through In Vitro Fertilization at a nearby clinic. I was appalled, knowing as I do that every In Vitro treatment results in "excess embryos" being killed and that "selective reductions" are often involved. Explaining that to him later was a difficult moment.

The Canadian counselor's question was answered in the West long ago, "When do children become a commodity?" They became a commodity when their killing was legalized. The evil is covered over by deadly, loaded language like "selective reduction" and "choice". As we pause to celebrate the Birth of the Author of Life, let us be resolved to ending the Culture of Death. It must be our first priority in the coming year. It is time for Catholic Action.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=39694

 

[Fantine]

Fetal reductions usually occur when people have had in-vitro fertilization and had several embryos implanted--which in itself is a sin.

The assertion that it's commonly done for people expecting twins is, I'm sure, a gross exaggeration.

Very little is said by the church about in vitro fertilization, even though every in vitro fertilization creates numerous embryos or zygotes who are left around in freezers to die (or, in countries where the law permits, to be used for stem cell research...)

I think very little is said because infertile couples are "sympathetic." Middle class (or above.) Ozzie and Harriet without David and Ricky....we identify with them.

Not like the 17 year old dropout with an incipient meth problem. Who would identify with her?

Truth be told, the infertile couples who opt for invitro will probably destroy more embryos than the 17 year old with the incipient meth problem ever will.

 

[Davidnic]

Actually one of the ways to fight for these embryos is to advocate for "Snowflake Adoption" where the left over embryos are adopted and implanted in a mother who brings them to term. It is a new type of adoption.

We have considered having a second child and then adopting and for that adoption we are considering snowflake.

 

[Meepy]

Fetal reductions usually occur when people have had in-vitro fertilization and had several embryos implanted--which in itself is a sin.

The assertion that it's commonly done for people expecting twins is, I'm sure, a gross exaggeration.

Very little is said by the church about in vitro fertilization, even though every in vitro fertilization creates numerous embryos or zygotes who are left around in freezers to die (or, in countries where the law permits, to be used for stem cell research...)

I think very little is said because infertile couples are "sympathetic." Middle class (or above.) Ozzie and Harriet without David and Ricky....we identify with them.

Not like the 17 year old dropout with an incipient meth problem. Who would identify with her?

Truth be told, the infertile couples who opt for invitro will probably destroy more embryos than the 17 year old with the incipient meth problem ever will.

the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos.

In No. 2377, the Catechism explains why the Church opposes methods that separate marital love-making from baby-making.


They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union.


In successful in-vitro fertilization, a human life comes into existence outside the conjugal act and outside the womb. Conception is the result of a technician's manipulation of "reproductive materials." The process for the collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.

 

[Anygma]

Actually one of the ways to fight for these embryos is to advocate for "Snowflake Adoption" where the left over embryos are adopted and implanted in a mother who brings them to term. It is a new type of adoption.

We have considered having a second child and then adopting and for that adoption we are considering snowflake.

i looked at snowflake adoption some years ago. but they are sooooo expensive, i doubt we could ever afford one unless we won the lottery and the odds of that happening are next to none since we don't buy tickets.

human being should never have a price tag attached to them but if you can afford to save some snowflake baby/ies that's great

 

[Meepy]

The Vatican's latest document on the subject, Dignitas Personae, basically says that embryonic adoption has the same problems as IVF. It includes surrogacy, which is forbidden by the Church ... so, it looks like the answer is no. It would be an immoral act. The Church states there is no morally licit solution to frozen embryos at this time

Dignitas Personae


on frozen embryos:

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”


John Paul II, Address to the participants in the Symposium on “Evangelium vitae and Law” and the Eleventh International Colloquium on Roman and Canon Law (24 May 1996), 6: AAS 88 (1996), 943-944.

 

[Davidnic]

actually the illicit part of it would not involve what to do with those already made. It is not illicit for those who want to help save those already made to save them in that manner. Moral theologians are currently debating the issue.

Under double effect, if you are not the one who produced or had the embryo produced it is not morally illicit to save the person.

I have heard arguments on both sides and am pretty confident in the pro-argument as a means of helping save those produced as long as we guard against it becoming a call to produce more.

Lifesite news interpreted some Vatican statements to be against it (and even boldly headed an article stating, incorrectly, it was directly opposed) but the Vatican has not issued a statement on it and application of existing norms would argue against lifesites interpretation.

I have talk to numerous priests and people with moral theology degrees who adamantly disagree with that view and hold the Vatican's position on it is not defined except by existing norms and giving a caution not to the procedure but to what may happen as a result.

The adopter does noting illicit and saves a person who was thrown away.

Now, don't get me wrong...there are some issues with it. It can not be allowed to have the adoption become an excuse to increase or continue the manufacture of the embryos. It can not be allowed to create a supply and demand situation. That is where some issues arise.

Here is a quote from a good overview:

For those embryos that do end up abandoned in liquid nitrogen, the question often arises: would it be morally permissible to give them up for "embryo adoption," whereby other couples could implant, gestate and raise them as if they were their own children?

There is ongoing debate among reputable Catholic theologians about this matter, and technically it remains an open question. A recent Vatican document called Dignitas Personae expressed serious moral reservations about the approach, without, however, explicitly condemning it as immoral. But we can easily see reasons why the promotion of embryo adoption would be imprudent.

If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos; IVF clinic operators would be able to placate themselves by saying, "We really don't need to worry about producing extra embryos, because there will always be somebody willing to adopt any that are left over." It could offer the clinics an excuse to continue and even expand their current immoral practices.​

Source

But if someone weighs the dangers and proceeds in a moral manner with guidance it is an open question. But the real danger is people will see it as a business.

 

[Fantine]

the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos.

In No. 2377, the Catechism explains why the Church opposes methods that separate marital love-making from baby-making.


They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union.


In successful in-vitro fertilization, a human life comes into existence outside the conjugal act and outside the womb. Conception is the result of a technician's manipulation of "reproductive materials." The process for the collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.

My point was: How often does that make the headlines? Never.

With IVF many embryos are created. And first they have to pass the "right line, left line" test--they're able to test them genetically immediately. If the prospective parents only want boys, all the female embryos are rejected. If there are disabilities, those embryos are rejected.

After that's done, they deal with what's left. That may be ten embryos. The couple may only want two children. That leaves 8.

And now we learn that if they change their minds during pregnancy, they can dispense with one of the two.

A promiscuous teen could have an abortion once a year until she was 25 without destroying as many babies as that nice Ozzie and Harriet couple from the suburbs who have already decorated their sweet little nursery for those babies they want so much.

But they'll never hear the criticism.

 

[Meepy]

actually the illicit part of it would not involve what to do with those already made. It is not illicit for those who want to help save those already made to save them in that manner. Moral theologians are currently debating the issue.

Under double effect, if you are not the one who produced or had the embryo produced it is not morally illicit to save the person.

I have heard arguments on both sides and am pretty confident in the pro-argument as a means of helping save those produced as long as we guard against it becoming a call to produce more.

Lifesite news interpreted some Vatican statements to be against it (and even boldly headed an article stating, incorrectly, it was directly opposed) but the Vatican has not issued a statement on it and application of existing norms would argue against lifesites interpretation.

I have talk to numerous priests and people with moral theology degrees who adamantly disagree with that view and hold the Vatican's position on it is not defined except by existing norms and giving a caution not to the procedure but to what may happen as a result.

The adopter does noting illicit and saves a person who was thrown away.

Now, don't get me wrong...there are some issues with it. It can not be allowed to have the adoption become an excuse to increase or continue the manufacture of the embryos. It can not be allowed to create a supply and demand situation. That is where some issues arise.

Here is a quote from a good overview:

For those embryos that do end up abandoned in liquid nitrogen, the question often arises: would it be morally permissible to give them up for "embryo adoption," whereby other couples could implant, gestate and raise them as if they were their own children?

There is ongoing debate among reputable Catholic theologians about this matter, and technically it remains an open question. A recent Vatican document called Dignitas Personae expressed serious moral reservations about the approach, without, however, explicitly condemning it as immoral. But we can easily see reasons why the promotion of embryo adoption would be imprudent.

If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos; IVF clinic operators would be able to placate themselves by saying, "We really don't need to worry about producing extra embryos, because there will always be somebody willing to adopt any that are left over." It could offer the clinics an excuse to continue and even expand their current immoral practices.​

Source

But if someone weighs the dangers and proceeds in a moral manner with guidance it is an open question. But the real danger is people will see it as a business.

I don't know. Dignitas Personae seems pretty clear when it says that there is no solution regarding the frozen embryos in section 19 of the encyclical. It pretty much leaves it at that. I think until the Church says something later on we should do what this encyclical says. Specifically

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.

and

here seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos

No morally licit solution would be the keyword here. I don't think we should overstep our bounds because we are playing with things like surrogacy and eugenics, even though it might have good intentions. The fact that they could be bought with money itself violates the way the Church views human dignity too I think.

 

[Davidnic]

The fact that they could be bought with money itself violates the way the Church views human dignity too I think.

Adoptions are not free either, and I would rather pay than let the child die if I was going to pay for an adoption either way.

It all depends. The danger that is warned against is that in helping save their lives we do not allow that the unregulated fertility industry decides to ramp up production of embryos and even custom ones for people who want them. In addition people may want those kinds of adoptions while other children sit in squalor because they are not tailor made.

The evil people can stoop to sometimes boggles the mind.

But morally there is nothing wrong with attempting to save the life of the child by embryo adoption, but there are concerns (as Dignitas Personae points out) because of the anti-human nature of the industry you are dealing with.

So, in moral theology it depends how it is done and that the concerns are addressed as best as possible. Factors of cooperation in evil are not there at this point. There is no cooperation in evil, or evil act or intent in the adopter. But if the industry becomes such where embryos are produced for adoption...then there will be a cooperation issue.

It is one of the issues making the rounds of moral theology circles for the past decade.

Dignitas Personae is clear it is not a solution, because it does not solve the problem of the production. And if it was used as an attempt to solve that problem it would end up increasing production. So it is not a long term solution.

But it is not an immoral act to do it in an attempt to save the life at this point, but it can not be presented as a solution to the problem that the embryos are being made or be allowed to be a feel good excuse to turn a blind eye to the disposal and creation of the embryos.

That's the current focus of the debate. Since it is a good act to save a life but if it gets twisted by the culture of death the intention and the act can be turned into something by those wanting life to be a commodity...the nature changes.