Splitting the Baby
Life • Marriage •
Parental Authority
Parental Authority
Splitting the Baby
by Rebecca Burgoyne, CFC Research Analyst
April 15, 2010
Great wisdom has been attributed to King Solomon, who, in I Kings 3, determined to settle a dispute between two women claiming to be a baby’s biological mother. When Solomon called for a sword to split the baby in two, as if to give half of the child to each of the disputing women, the true mother cried out – willing to give up the baby to spare his life – and Solomon returned her child to her. Questions of parenthood continue in courtrooms today, often with divorcing parents arguing over child custody arrangements. Yet as the virtually unregulated field of reproductive technology unfolds, many of those child-custody decisions will require the wisdom of Solomon.
One of those is the case of two couples facing off in court over the custody of preborn children – which they both claim. Californians Edward and Kerry Lambert filed suit last week to re-gain two embryos they had previously donated to Missourians Patrick and Jennifer McLaughlin. As part of their original embryo-adoption contract, the Lamberts included language that unused embryos would be returned to them.
Using embryos created from Edward’s sperm and an anonymous egg donor, the Lamberts had a child several years ago, and wished to ensure that the four remaining embryos would not be destroyed. Contracting with the McLaughlins, they included a clause that, should the embryos not be used in a year, they could retract the contract in order to find other solutions.
Jennifer McLaughlin gave birth to twin girls earlier this year, but delayed the decision on the remaining embryos. Now, although the McLaughlins say they want to use the remaining embryos, the Lamberts have requested the return of the frozen embryos, and courts in both Missouri and California will consider “splitting the baby” again.
Whose child is it anyway?
In recent years, assisted-reproductive technologies have allowed barren couples to experience the joys of parenthood. Assisted-reproductive technology (ART) includes any fertility treatment using both eggs and sperm. In 2005, more than 134,000 assisted-reproductive procedures were performed, resulting in 52,000 births, and almost 12 percent of women of reproductive age report using infertility services. One in seven fertility clinics are located in California, and most physicians doing in vitro fertilization procedures are situated here.
Most states do not have laws in place governing these new technologies. Instead, most physicians in the field regulate themselves, with only guidelines from two professional organizations – the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Reproductive Technology (SART).
In the wake of the Nadia Suleman case last year, ethics surrounding reproductive technologies have been given widespread attention. Much of the debate surrounding Suleman, a single mother who gave birth to octuplets, centered on her inability to afford her family of 14 children. Policy discussions include the topics of responsibility, ethical boundaries, costs, and the risks of ART to women and their children.
Health risks are another problem – to the mother because of the hormone treatments she must undergo, but also to the child who is two to four times more likely to have certain birth defects than children conceived naturally. Also, the likelihood of stillbirths and multiple births increase with ART. Do women undergoing these procedures know the risks? For the most part, no. Informed-consent requirements are lax, and no state has developed informed-consent laws for assisted reproduction.
The Lambert-McLaughlin case emphasizes the problem of unused embryos. Most are destroyed or donated to research, although for those who believe that life begins at conception, this is not an option. There are close to 500,000 frozen embryos stored nationwide, leftovers from in vitro procedures. The solution favored by a majority of Americans from a wide variety of backgrounds is embryo adoption. And hundreds of families have expanded their family circles through this pro-life option.
Pioneered and promoted by California’s Nightlight Christian Adoptions, the world’s first “snowflake” baby, Hannah, was born on December 31, 1998. Interviewed for CitizenLink in 2008, Hannah’s mom, Marlene Strenge, gave this advice to infertile couples exploring their options. “You need to know where God is leading you and really prayerfully consider it. There are no guarantees; just lean on where God is leading you. Through our adoption agency, we do a lot of activities with families that have adopted, whether it’s international or domestic adoption or snowflake or some of them have even done foster. So I wouldn’t say that embryo adoption is better than the others. I think they’re all valid forms of building your family.”
For more information:
· Public Debate Over California Octuplets Dramatically Underscores Need to Regulate IVF Industry, Americans United for Life
