To the editor: Paul Thornton notes that March 2, the day his article about his family's IVF experience was published, was his twins' 12th birthday. Happy birthday to his children.
If court rulings and legislation before his wife stated that her IVF cycle defined embryos as living human beings, there may not have been a birthday to celebrate without those 10 or so embryos Thornton said they had to choose from. .
The consequences of such court action or legislation would return IVF to the beginnings of the late 1970s, when an egg was typically removed and an embryo created, without any stimulation of the ovaries. Success rates would be discouraging, multiple cycles would be needed, and future generations of future parents would be denied the opportunity to have a family.
From a religious perspective, there may be different opinions on when life begins. But scientifically there is no doubt that an embryo created in the laboratory from a couple's eggs and sperm has no prospects for life without a complex protocol of hormonal treatments and a precise moment for its transfer to a properly prepared uterus.
Arthur L. Wisot, MD, Boynton Beach, Florida.
The writer is a co-founder of a fertility practice in Southern California.
..
To the editor: The abortion and IVF debate is hypocritical and insidious.
Nobody wants to have an abortion and women who use IVF prefer to get pregnant naturally. Anti-choice people want this to be a battle over last resort decisions, and pro-choice people agree.
The facts are known. To reduce abortions, reproductive decisions must be made without fear of financial ruin or psychological trauma.
We must debate that politicians legislate policies that support strong families with solutions that do not turn the conception, birth and raising of children (or the decision not to do so) into a blessing, at best, or, for too many people, in a traumatic experience.
Maggie Light, Carpentry
