Editors note. Written by Paul Stark, this appeared on the blog of Minnesota Citizens for Life (MCCL), National Right to Lifes state affiliate. While this ran a while back, it rebuts an error that refuses to go away: the insistence that there is a debate about when human life begins.

At the Idaho Statesman Journals science blog, Susie Bodman (at the time an editor at the paper) responds to the pro-life contention that life begins at conception:

As a biology student, Im sorry, but the stipulation that life begins at conception is laughable to me. However, its not for reasons you might assume that Im a godless scientist-in-the-making, a stereotypically liberal journalist, a pro-choice protagonist, a fire-breathing feminist or whatever else you might conjure up.

It comes from how biologists define life and distinguish it from inanimate things, such as rocks. Living organisms are characterized by having the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity and continual change.

A single cell is a form of life, and guess what eggs and sperms are. Yep, thats right. They are CELLS.

If eggs and sperm are already alive, well, then to a biologist life exists BEFORE conception.

Also, if those egg and sperm cells are made by you, and you were at one time conceived from egg and sperm cells arising from a couple who were conceived from egg and sperm cells and so on, so long as youre not at the end of an extinct lineage, life really is CONTINUOUS until you get back to the very first cell that formed on Earth.

Therefore, life doesnt just begin at conception. Its more like life BEGAN with the first cell 3.8 billion years ago.

Bodman really, laughably, misses the point. When we say life begins at conception, we mean (obviously, I thought) that the life of an individual human being begins at conception.

Biological life in general is continuous, as she notes; even the sperm and egg are living.

But the sperm and egg are mere parts of larger organisms, not human beings themselves. When they unite a new single-celled organism (the zygote) is formed a member of our species at the earliest stage of development who (given an adequate environment and nutrition) will actively develop himself or herself toward maturity.

The textbook Human Embryology & Teratology explains: Although life [defined broadly] is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

In short, Bodman apparently has yet to learn how biologists distinguish organisms (e.g., you, me, an embryo) from biological entities that are not organisms (e.g., sperm, egg, or a strand of my hair).

That a distinct, living and whole (though immature) human organism comes into existence at conception is a matter of biological fact. Embryology textbooks and leading experts overwhelmingly confirm this:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cella zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Langmans Embryology: The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.

Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects: Human development begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. This cell [the zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, discoverer of Down syndrome chromosome: To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention; it is plain experimental evidence.

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.

Read more here:
Sorry pro-abortionists there is no debate about when life begins - National Right to Life News

Submit the press release

NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2017 Extend Fertility, a one-of-a-kind, specialty egg freezing practice, today announces that its state-of-the-art egg-freezing laboratory is fully operational. The lab at Extend Fertility oversees and executes the process of vitrification utilizing a process that is considered to be the most advanced and successful.

The Cryotec method employed by Extend Fertility was created by Dr. Masashige Kuwayama, long considered the foremost authority on vitrification, and is considered the most advanced method of egg freezing available for cryopreserving eggs currently in practice. This process, combined with the labs state-of-the-art technology and uniquely clean environment, enables Extend Fertility to ensure a near 100 percent survival rate of oocytes.

The Cryotec process is superior to its slower predecessors, which introduced more opportunities for errors that can destroy the viability of stored eggs by damaging their cellular structure, said Embryology Laboratory Assistant Director Dr. Leslie Ramirez, PhD, who studied in Japan with Dr. Kuwayama to perfect her technique. Extend Fertility is Dr. Kuwayamas east coast representative Cryotec laboratory. Before any other cryogenic lab is permitted to use his method, their embryologists must train with Dr. Ramirez.

Vitrification is so named because during the process the eggs transition to a vitreous, or glass-like, state. A combination of cryoprotectantsand faster cooling (compared to the slow freezing method)reduce the opportunity for damaging intercellular ice crystals to form during the process, ensuring a near 100 percent survival rate of oocytes.

To maintain this uniquely advanced lab, Extend Fertility takes a number of steps to produce the cleanest, safest possible environment for egg freezing:

World-class physicians and embryologists provide patients at Extend Fertility with the highest quality care in a state-of-the-art facility, purpose built for egg freezing. The lab is led by chief embryologist Dr. Leslie Ramirez, who obtained her masters and Ph.D. in biotechnology of human assisted reproduction at the University of Valencia in Spain, studying under Dr. Carlos Simn at the Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad (Valencia Infertility Institute). She then studied with Dr. Masashige Kuwayama in Japan. Dr. Ramirez is supported in the lab by Alexis Adler, Extend Fertilitys Senior Embryologist. Ms. Adler has more than 20 years embryology experience, having previously worked as the Senior Embryologist at Weill Cornell and as the Supervisor of the Embryology Lab at NYU Fertility Center.

To learn more or schedule a fertility assessment, potential patients can visit Extend Fertilitys website at http://www.extendfertility.com or call 212-810-2828.

Contact: Rachel Dobin 646 747 7153 rdobin@kwittken.com

SOURCE Extend Fertility

Read this article:
Extend Fertility Debuts State-of-the-Art Egg Freezing Lab - Satellite PR News (press release)

Teresa and Bill: That there wasnt anything they could say or do I might disagree with them, which I still do but it doesnt stop you loving them. Photo: Emilie Ng

CATHOLIC parents Teresa and Bill* discovered the unconditional love they had for their children when their son told them 17 years ago he could no longer live as a man.

Six months earlier, Bill, a retired GP and Billings natural family planning practitioner, had taken a course on medical ethics and bioethics with health ethicist Fr Kevin McGovern.

One of the issues discussed was transgender therapies and sex reassignment surgery.

I was reading it from a medical point of view, reading the different viewpoints about things and reassignment surgery, and I thought it was going a bit far, Bill said.

And my son at the time came down on that particular day and I was talking to him about it.

He didnt say anything very much, as I was sort of going on a bit.

It was a seemingly normal day when that same son dropped by to visit his Catholic parents at their Queensland home.

I was sitting where you are, and he was sitting in the middle and made us sit down, said he had some important news, Bill said.

Teresa mentally prepared for a cancer scare.

Instead, their son apprehensively handed over a short article with the headline: Boys will be girls.

And he said, Ive decided I want to live as a woman, Teresa said.

Bill stood up from the couch, looked his son in the eye, and wrapped his arms tightly around him.

Research has found that transgender people experience a condition known as gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is understood to be a psychological condition where a person experiences distress because of incongruence between their biological gender and their expressed gender.

According to Western Australian bioethicist Fr Joseph Parkinson only about one in 10,000 adults are transgender, or 0.01 per cent.

While the recommended treatment of gender dysphoria is counselling and a supportive environment, surgery is becoming an increasingly popular option, although not all transgender people undergo sex reassignment operations.

After 18 months of intense counselling and a psychiatric assessment, Bill and Teresas son was confirmed to have a genuine case of gender dysphoria and underwent sex reassignment surgery to remove his genitalia and acquire female sexual organs.

He was 32 at the time, and re-emerged to the family as Grace.

Grace, because she was looking for the grace to become a woman, Bill said.

On every form of Australian identification, Grace is a woman even the sex on her birth certificate was changed to female.

Teresa said she was totally unaware that it was possible to change from male to female, to live as a transgender person.

According to her, there were no externally obvious signs that their son was ever distressed about his real and perceived gender.

He did everything children do in their childhood played with toys, fought with his siblings, and he even played dress-ups with his sisters.

He attended an all-boys Queensland Catholic school, proved to be talented at gymnastics and rugby, and ended up a faithful employee at a global technology company, made up primarily of male workers.

He even considered entering religious life at one stage.

Bill noted in retrospect that Grace, as a boy, was sensitive to others, especially to those in trouble.

She said she first thought of being a girl when she was at primary school and she had to play the part of a girl in some play they were putting on, Bill said.

She decided then that she liked the idea.

While the Catholic Church does not have an official, authoritative teaching on transgender identity and gender dysphoria, it recognises the condition as a psychological disorder.

The Church also deems gender reassignment surgery as deliberate mutilation of the body that removes healthy organs, but again, there is no official statement.

With Grace now, because she didnt find any sympathy or understanding within the Church, shes found she can manage without it, Teresa said.

I doubt she will come back to the Church.

Teresa said she struggled to reconcile the Churchs position on gender dysphoria with her own Catholic faith, though it has not made her less faithful.

I get very upset about their ignorance, that they dont seem to listen to all the new psychology information that has come out about gender dysphoria, and most still seem to see that people who want to change their gender are mentally unstable, she said.

I really wanted to do something about it and shake them and say, Listen to them dont you understand that your position is so antiquated?

Bills more patient, saying it might take 50 years. I want it to happen now.

Bill also disagrees with the Churchs understanding of gender dysphoria as a psychological condition, and prefers to draw on embryology for answers.

The bottom line of all of this, is people with no knowledge of embryology say were either male or female from conception but, no, the embryo differentiates into male or female during development, with gender identity another issue, he said.

On the other hand, Bill and Teresa caution against cultural influences that believe gender is a choice.

Mind you, I think there can be a tendency to say what gender you are is a choice, but its not, Bill said.

Its almost giving the idea that this overall is common (but) its still not common.

Sometimes I see that there are people with an issue trying too hard the other way.

I even heard the Pope say its not a matter of choice; I also say its not a matter of choice its just a fact.

For a transgender person, its not saying I choose to be this, or I choose to be that, but I am, I am a woman but I have been given an XY chromosome but that is semantics.

They also warned against young people deciding too early that they have gender dysphoria, reiterating that it took their daughter 32 years and another 18 months of therapy to confirm her decision.

They said parents who had teenage children wanting to change their gender, either through hormonal treatment or therapy, should talk to their child about the underlining reasons for their unhappiness.

We are very worried that it is becoming too popular a notion and agree that for most people psychological counselling is the way to go, Teresa said.

Grace will celebrate her 50th birthday this year and both Bill and Teresa will be there to count their blessings.

I see this as a blessing because, to me, that particular day, when that news came, I just know that I did not have to think about it (giving his son a hug), Bill said.

I knew it was love in me that made me do it.

It said to me that even though I may not always show it, I actually do love my children unconditionally as any parent should that there wasnt anything they could say or do I might disagree with them, which I still do but it doesnt stop you loving them.

* Names have been changed to keep the couples identity anonymous.

View original post here:
Parents of transgender woman share their emotional journey - Catholic Leader

|

Posted: Feb 14, 2017 12:01 AM

I hear a lot of calloused arguments in favor of abortion. Most of them come from leftists. Unfortunately, I occasionally hear them coming from self-described libertarians and conservatives. Unlike leftists who are wrong on every issue, the person claiming to be conservative or libertarian is usually right on most issues. So it is worth trying to offer them a respectful and well-reasoned response. Below, I respond to just such a reader. Her words are indented and in italics, mine are not:

I ask pro-lifers: who will take care of all the unwanted babies if we were to ban abortion. (There is never an answer). Will we go back to building orphanages and institutions wherein we stick children until adulthood?

This is simply false. When you ask pro-lifers who will take care of unwanted babies we do have an answer, which is pretty straightforward: There is no such thing as an unwanted baby.

Put simply, those willing to adopt a child exceed the number of children aborted in this country every year. The logical error in the readers argument is that it is somehow worse to be placed in an orphanage than to be slowly and methodically dismembered. That logical error is compounded by the easily refutable assertion that such an outcome would be reasonably likely.

The evidence of a surplus of willing adoptive parents is not new. The National Committee for Adoption said in a 1990 press release that "infants who are legally free for adoption, regardless of their race or ethnicity do not have to wait for homes. In fact, there is a long waiting list of screened families who want to adopt even seriously disabled newborns, including babies born with Down Syndrome and spina bifida. An estimated two million families in the U.S. were interested in adopting a child even back in the early 1900s when between 1.5 and 1.6 million babies were being aborted in the U.S. annually. The children waiting to be adopted tend to be older. Babies do not wait to be adopted.

Who will be accountable for all the babies who will be beaten or worse; beaten to death by parents that never wanted them? CPS certainly has never gotten a real foothold in this country, they surely can't/won't help. So, I had this conversation with a friend of a friend just the other day, and when I asked who will be held accountable for the deaths or maiming of babies, her response was the parent of course. Indeed. But we still have a DEAD CHILD. Not just a dead child, Mike. A dead child who took how many very painful blows, how many kicks, how many head bangs? People who are beaten die a very painful, very slow death. Who will be held responsible?

This argument is even easier to defeat than the previous one. Simply look at the numbers. Those claiming that abortion is needed to reduce child abuse must contend with the empirical reality that child abuse increased by over 500 percent in the decade following Roe v. Wade. In fact, in less than a decade after Roe, child abuse had already risen by over 500 percent. These stats come right from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

This should not come as a surprise. Roe v. Wade said that a woman could defeat the government interest in stopping third trimester abortions if she had a legitimate health interest in obtaining the abortion. On the very same day, the Court released the Doe v. Bolton decision saying that emotional and psychological factors count as legitimate health interests.

Let me translate that for you: If the prospect of having a child causes a woman emotional or psychological distress she may have the child slowly dismembered in the womb. It is no wonder that child abuse skyrocketed in the aftermath of those two decisions.

Of course, the greater error my reader has made is simply assuming that abortion is not child abuse. This requires rejecting the consensus of the science of embryology that tells us the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being from the point of conception. Ultimately, dismembering the unborn in order to prevent child abuse makes about as much sense as decapitating someone in order to prevent tooth decay.

During the early 1990s when our abortion rates peaked at around 1.6 million per year our homicide rates were also at their highest levels. At that time, the annual number of homicides approached 25,000. This means that there were over 60 abortions for every one murder or manslaughter. So the numbers would not justify keeping abortion legal even if it prevented every single homicide much less the rare parent-on-child homicide preceded by long term physical abuse. The only way the math works is if one engages in anti-science fundamentalism and pretends that the unborn is not a human.

Finally, it makes little sense to probe the readers implied assertion that the unborn child feels no pain during the process of dismemberment. It has never been our position that abortion is wrong because it hurts. It is our position that it is wrong because it unjustly kills an innocent human being. Those focusing on the issue of pain would never consent to decriminalizing the rape and murder of women provided that the victims were first drugged thus rendering the act painless.

In the final analysis, those who would use the welfare of children to justify elective abortion are guilty of both the abuse of logic and the neglect of facts. It is a crass rationalization for murder that is unworthy of conservatives and libertarians alike.

Dems Demand to Know What Trump Knew and When AboutFlynn Controversy

Chaffetz RejectsInvestigation Into Flynn Talks With Russia

More:
Does Abortion Really Prevent Child Abuse? - Mike Adams - Townhall - Townhall

Lyon, France - Screening embryos for chromosomal defects, a fast-growing practice aimed at helping older women to have a baby, in fact reduces the chance of a successful pregnancy, doctors reported on Wednesday.

The process, called preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), entails taking a cell from a lab-dish embryo on its third day of development, and testing a number of its chromosomes for any abnormalities.

The goal is to filter out embryos that could develop abnormally and trigger miscarriage, leaving only the fittest for transfer to the uterus.

But Dutch fertility experts, led by the University of Amsterdam's Sebastiaan Mastenbroek, said their own large-scale investigation found PGS in fact lowers the success rate.

They looked at 408 women, aged 35 to 41 who had had three cycles of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

One randomly-selected group of 206 women was given PGS, while the other 202 were not given PGS, thus acting as a "control" group, or comparison.

"We found that, at 12 weeks, 52, or 25 percent, of the women in the PGS group were pregnant, whereas 74, or 37 percent, of the control group had an ongoing pregnancy," Mastenbroek said.

"And the women in the PGS group also had a significantly lower live birth rate - 49, or 24 percent, as opposed to 71, or 35 percent, of the controls."

The research was unveiled at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), taking place in this southeastern French city. It was also published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

PGS is a relatively new technique that is in increasing use in IVF centres around the world. But the process also has stirred concerns that it encourages eugenics, and some countries ban it or restrict its use to embryos from parents who have an inherited disease.

Mastenbroek said there could be several explanations why PGS had failed in these older women.

One was that the taking of the sample cell, a process called a biopsy, could somehow affect the embryo's potential to develop normally, he said.

Another possible cause was that the number of chromosomes which are analysed was too small. This meant that embryos which had been certified as normal were in fact abnormal, because they carried one or more flawed chromosomes that had not been tested.

A third explanation could be that the biopsied cell may be an odd-one-out - it may not be representative of the chromosomal composition of the whole embryo.

Mastenbroek said further work was needed to see whether PGS was effective or not in other groups of women, such as those who suffer recurrent miscarriage.

But, he said, the results of his research suggest PGS should not be carried routinely for older would-be mothers.

Meanwhile, British and Danish researchers said infertile women who turn to so-called complementary therapies such as reflexology and nutritional supplements to support their IVF treatment also have a lower chance of pregnancy.

Their study of 818 Danish women in the 12 months following the start of IVF found that those who used complementary therapies had a 20-percent lower pregnancy success rate.

"It may be that complementary therapies diminish the effectiveness of medical interventions, as has been shown in previous research," said Jacky Boivin of Cardiff University, Wales.

"Or it may simply be that persistent treatment failure encourages women to seek out CATs because they are more willing to try anything to get pregnant."

The next step is to study the same group over five years to get a longer-term view of the pregnancy rate.

"It is important to do this because we are concerned that, with persistent treatment failure, women might become more and more susceptible to deceptive advertising about ineffective CATs or other unproven treatments," Boivin said.

See the article here:
'Screening cuts chances for healthy babies' - Independent Online

Prague - More than three million babies have been born following fertility treatment since the birth of the first IVF child nearly three decades ago, according to a report released on Wednesday.

Louise Brown made medical history when she was born in Britain after her mother had in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

Since then the number of children conceived each year through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has risen from 30 000 in 1989 when data was first collected to 200 000 in 2002.

"The... report covers two-thirds of the world's ART activity, so the total number of ART cycles in the world can be estimated at one million a year, and the number of ART babies produced at around 200 000 a year," said Dr Jacques de Mouzon of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART).

The ICMART report shows the average pregnancy rate using fresh embryos was 25,1 percent and the delivery rate was 18,5 percent.

"However, these rates varied from 13,6 percent to 40,5 percent for pregnancy, and 9,1 percent to 37,1 percent for delivery," Dr de Mouzon said.

Fertility treatments were most available in Israel and Denmark, which also have among the highest percentage of ART babies. It was lowest in Latin America where fewer than 0.1 percent of births were due to ART.

"There is a real inequality between the different countries, and this is due to money," said Dr de Mouzon.

"Some countries provide free cycles of IVF, while in others, couples cannot have ART unless they can pay for it, for example through medical insurance."

The report released at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) meeting also showed that fertility clinics are moving towards transferring only one embryo during treatment to reduce the number of multiple births.

Read the original here:
Baby boom after fertility treatment - Independent Online

Gold Coast IVF Medical Director Steven Palter, left, and Embryology Lab Director Ed Stehlik, had to scramble to prepare to help five women who were ready to have embryos extracted during a narrow time window during the storm, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017. (Credit: Danielle Finkelstein)

Kim Farrell had an important appointment to keep Thursday morning.

The date and time had been set for her fertility doctor in Woodbury to extract the eggs that she hopes will give her and her wife Dee their second child this year.

Nature, however, had its own designs.

A storm was brewing, snow was coming and it would be arriving, well, at about the same time as the two-hour window...

Optimum Online customers get unlimited digital access

There's more to the story! Subscribe now.

To continue reading, Newsday subscribers log in

To continue reading, Newsday subscribers log in or register

More:
For LI couple, in vitro fertilization procedure goes on, despite storm - Newsday

Sunday is International Darwin Day the 208th anniversary of the birth of naturalist Charles Robert Darwin, whose 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, began a controversy that exists to this day.

Sunday also is being proclaimed as Take Darwin to Church Day in various parts of the world. Leaders of the movement, which was initiated by the Council for Secular Humanism, suggest that churches invite science advocates to speak to their congregations.

Darwin has been lauded and maligned over the past 150 years, depending on ones point of view.

Although some religious organizations stridently oppose biological evolution, other groups accept evolution with a twist: they allow for theological considerations.

Theistic evolution, also known as theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creation, allows for the belief that God is the creator of the universe and all life and that evolution is a tool that God used to create human life. That includes astronomical, geological, chemical and biological evolution.

In 2014, Pope Francis suggested a link between evolution and creation. Said Francis: God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

A survey conducted by Pew Research last year found that while 98 percent of scientists associated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe humans evolved over time, only 62 percent of Americans overall believe that to be the case.

Among those least likely to believe in human evolution, according to the survey, were evangelical Protestants (57 percent) and Mormons (52 percent.)

In 2008, the Church of England acknowledged it was overly defensive when it dismissed Darwins ideas. In its public apology, the church compared its dismissiveness of Darwins theories to its rejection of Galileos astronomical observations in the 17th century.

Over time, a number of myths about Darwin have cropped up. In response to a request by LNP, Josh Fischel, who teaches religion in the philosophy department at Millersville University, debunked five myths about Charles Darwin.

1. Charles Darwin was an atheist.

While he despised the orthodoxy of traditional religious practices, his writings suggest that he was a deist not an atheist.

2. Charles Darwin had a deathbed conversion to religion.

Its untrue. This myth was started by a woman who never had met Darwin, but who sought to profit from telling a story about this end-of-life conversion experience.

3. The existence of humans is the goal of evolution.

Not true. The purpose of evolution, if you will, is more evolution.

4. The common claim that its just a theory implies that its some kind of speculation.

In fact it is a scientific theory. But scientific theories explain, through the gathering of evidence (in this case, from embryology, archaeology, genetics, etc.) observations we make about the natural world.

In fact, evolution is a descriptive scientific theory that helps us to better understand and predicate the nature and origin of life, but makes no pretensions to how we ought to act or what we should strive for as individuals and as a society.

The rest is here:
A primer on Darwin Day: Some religious groups embrace 'Theistic evolution' - LancasterOnline

Sir, William Reville (February 8th) argues that personhood is more properly defined by philosophy than by science. I agree with Prof Reville that the appropriate discipline is philosophy.

However, philosophy has to be informed by science. Furthermore, there is no consensus among philosophers about how personhood should be defined.

If we accept Prof Revilles definition in terms of thinking, anticipating, planning, and so on, then the weight of evidence is that human embryos are not persons. The weight of scientific evidence from embryology and neuroscience is not diminished by philosophical terms as functionalism or essentialism.

Functionalism, as understood by Prof Reville, leads to the startling conclusion that the status of both an embryo and a newborn baby are the same in terms of personhood. This radical and highly questionable claim needs to be evaluated with reference to scientific evidence, especially from neuroscience and psychology.

I am not arguing that the non-personhood of the embryo (or of the early-stage foetus), should deprive it of protection in law.

My contention is that it has implications for the Eighth Amendment which imposes a rigid balance of rights between the unborn and the mother. That balance of rights should, I believe, be adjusted in favour of the mother in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities/life-limiting conditions, rape, and elevated risks to long-term health, consistent with recent findings against Ireland by the UN human rights committee and Amnesty International. Yours, etc,

Dr DON OLEARY,

Mallow,

Co Cork.

Sir, No Irish person, who believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn child and who holds intentional abortion to be profoundly immoral, has any faith whatsoever in the so-called Citizens Assembly and its consideration of the Eighth Amendment.

The Citizens Assembly is a stitch-up. It is a pretended consultation process by the Irish Government, which has already ridden roughshod over the consciences of TDs and party members on the deliberate killing of the unborn.

No one who regards abortion as evil is fooled by this State-sponsored, deeply biased charade. Let no one be fooled or hoodwinked. The Government, with the support of the international abortion industry and its many wealthy and powerful lobby groups, is hellbent upon repealing the Eighth Amendment.

Faithful Catholics, their fellow pro-life Christians, and those of all faiths and none who hold wilful abortion in abhorrence, must be vigilant and alert to the end-game of the deception being plotted. Yours, etc,

Fr PATRICK

McCAFFERTY, PP

Corpus Christi Parish,

Belfast 12.

Visit link:
The Eighth Amendment - Irish Times

A change in the law regarding surrogacy will allow single people to become parents via surrogacy.

Following a surrogate birth, English law continues to define the birth mother as the legal mother of the child, despite the fact that most such births involve the use of donated eggs. The status of parenthood must then be transferred via a parental order.

However, section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 requires that applicants for a parental order must be:

(a) husband and wife,

(b) civil partners of each other, or

(c) two persons who are living as partners in an enduring family relationship and are not within prohibited degrees of relationship in relation to each other.

Last year, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby highlighted this exclusion of single commissioning parents, declaring that the law discriminates against them and breaches their human rights. He had been considering the case of a single man who had commissioned a child from a surrogate mother in the United States and was subsequently refused a parental order because he had no partner.

Now the government has officially announced plans to change the law.

Conservative Peer Baroness Chisholm told fellow members of the House of Lords:

[We have decided] the Governments response to the recent High Court judgment that declared that a provision in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008which enables couples but not single people to obtain a parental order following surrogacyis incompatible with the Human Rights Act. We will, therefore, update the legislation on parental orders to ensure that it is compatible with the court judgment.

She announced plans for a remedial order that will place single people with a biological connection to the child on a level playing field with couples when applying for a parental order. Remedial orders are an occasionally used way of quickly altering legislation that has been found to breach human rights. They are placed before Parliament for just two periods before becoming law.

A recent written answer a question in the House of Lords suggests that the remedial order will be introduced in May. This could mean the change taking effect before the end of the summer. Reports also suggest the change is likely to be retrospective.

Photo byQuinn Dombrowski via Flickr under a Creative Commons licence

Go here to see the original:
New law allows single people to become parents via surrogacy - Marilyn Stowe Blog