Brave New Frozen World

Brave New Frozen World

Where human life exists the spirit coexists. But what about the estimated one million souls in limbo locked in frozen embryos(1) kept alive by the frozen nitrogen abyss within cryopreservation tanks?

Curiously, each frozen embryo possesses all of the genetic material necessary to become an artist or athlete, doctor or writer, politician or evangelist in another generation. And yet, they are none of the above because they are indefinitely suspended in a kind of eerie aluminum world where their future demise may be determined by personal choice, a court’s decision, or a power failure. Some might be artificially supported well into the next century, born as siblings to the elderly.

The one in seven infertile couples in the U.S.(2) have a daunting task in attempting to understand all of the legal and ethical issues surrounding frozen embryos. As it now stands, medical and legal experts are grappling with them regularly, rapidly, and on a case by case basis, as one unforeseen consequence after another arises. To date, the fate of some 20,000(3), or one-fifth of the total estimated to exist in this nation(4), hangs in the balance. Recent court decisions continue to reflect a societal reverence of individual adult rights, while rejecting not only God’s Word regarding the origin of life but that of scientific evidence as well. Uneasy are the judges who face the choice of upsetting the status quo of the last twenty-five years perpetuated by the Roe v. Wade decision. Simply put, if embryos are determined, at the highest court levels, to be human beings, then the practice of abortion and use of certain forms of contraception could become outlawed.(5) No Supreme Court judge wants to venture down this path because, as one former attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union puts it, “You aren’t exactly playing God, but it’s not far from it.”(6)

Our reproductive technologies continue to win at their exuberant game of leap frog with an overburdened court system. This area of medico-technology has progressed with one thrilling jump after another in a wide-open field free of legislation or even of standardized consent forms at the clinics where astonishing things are happening. The ever broadening definition of family combined with biological barrier-breaking techniques within a cultural framework of tolerance are providing equal opportunity parental status to those heretofore excluded. Through the ability to freeze an embryo, parental rights are open to all of us in a diverse and non-discriminating culture: the single, same-sex partners, women well beyond menopause, the fifty percent of us that will divorce, the murderer(7), the dead(8), and even a combination thereof, who will somehow get hold of the several thousand dollars necessary to realize a dream of biological parenthood, then possibly have to watch each of the four premature infants that are the result of a medical miracle die one by one.(9) This is yesterday’s news in reproductive success.

In an information age in which today’s news passes through our already overloaded psyches at a dizzying speed, important bits of our news-byte diets sometimes don’t get properly digested. Individuals contemplating these technologies don’t always have the opportunity to assimilate the old news: God-given scientific intellect has already concluded that frozen embryos are completely established in genotype or genetic makeup. And in this genotype, writes author and bioethicist Gilbert Meilaender, “lies the uniqueness, the novelty of the individual, and we can think of the rest of life as working out and developing what has been established in conception.(10) Best-selling author Og Mandino paints a compelling picture of what doctors and researchers at fertility clinics might see, if only with spiritual eyes, at the moment of conception in The Greatest Miracle in the World. Upon fertilization of an egg by a sperm, says Mandino, all of the genetic material necessary to determine which person, out of some three hundred billion humans possible, has already been determined. When these two cells unite, each contains twenty-three chromosomes which each contain hundreds of genes, already governing every characteristic of this one human being’s eye color, manner, height and the rest of his or her traits. Of all the vast possibilities, God brings forth this one. “One of a kind. Rarest of the rare. A priceless treasure, possessed of qualities in mind…and actions as no other who has ever lived, lives or shall live.”(11) And so it is that “men are without excuse” for their lack of understanding because even though God in His totality is incomprehensible to man, His invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen by what has been made.” (12)

In a major embryo custody dispute between a couple in Tennessee, the American Fertility Society attempted to distinguish frozen embryos from actual “persons” by classifying them as “pre embryos.” In powerful court testimony, one Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the world renowned specialist in the field of Human Genetics stated that “each human being has a unique beginning which occurs at the moment of conception.” He asserted there was no such word as pre embryo, given that before the embryo nothing is known to exist aside from sperm and egg. The court overwhelmingly agreed with Dr. Lejeune.(13) So does biochemist, professor and author Lawrence Roberge. Roberge says that the term pre embryo is “fraudulent.” Yet it is this deceptive terminology which may in part be responsible for the cavalier disregard of frozen embryos as sub-human, relegating them to the ranks of tissue used in research experiments. When the courts rule that frozen embryos must be donated for these purposes to settle custody disputes, Roberge’s concern is that some of them can be used for “horrible experiments.” One illustration he offers involves that of a woman whose father suffered with Alzheimer’s Disease, a progressively debilitating deterioration of the brain. The woman, aware that fetal tissue research has shown that fetal brain cells have been used with varying degrees of success to treat this disease, approached her doctor with this knowledge in mind. She asked the doctor to perform IVF using her eggs and her father’s sperm to impregnate her with a fetus that she planned to abort so that its brain cells could be used to treat her father’s illness. Roberge says the doctor refused, but what if he hadn’t?(14) What about the doctors who can be financially motivated to abuse their power in creating life with the sole purpose to destroy that life?

Christ has said, “Greater love hath no man than he who is willing to lay down his life for a friend.”(15) What is implied here is the giving up of one’s life as an act of love motivated by a conscious choice to do so. When we offer up the lives of the unknowing, are we additionally sacrificing the souls of the unborn?

Combined with what we already know scientifically, if we could determine that frozen embryos contain spirit or a soul, determining whether they live or die would be just like playing God. If we fully realized that we cannot know when the spirit enters the body, we would not want to risk discarding God’s Spirit within the life that man begins in the laboratory. God Himself tells us, “As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the spirit enters the body being formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand God, the Maker of all things” (italics mine)(16). We may leave weather radar to the meteorologists, but do we want to relinquish the identification of spirit to those whose discernment lacks the involvement of the soul? One author says that “from the pragmatic perspective, the warning about ‘playing God’ is a distracting irrelevance, since we’re already playing God in so many ways.” He cites Nobel sperm banks and preconception sex selection with success rates of some ninety percent as examples.(17) And for a quarter of a century, those opposed to abortion have said man has no business claiming sovereignty over life that already exists. For the Christian couple suffering the very real despair of infertility, this ethical debate should be taken seriously in addition to the practical concerns regarding Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

We began freezing embryos as part of the costly ART known as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Using a series of painful hormone injections, a woman’s ovaries are stimulated to produce multiple eggs; up to twenty or more. The eggs are then harvested during a surgical procedure known as oocyte retrieval, immediately fertilized and become embryos. Because initial (and often subsequent) implantations may fail, some embryos will be implanted, while others will be frozen as back ups for future attempts. This helps to prevent further pain and costs associated with the extraction process. Depending on the initial success and also possible future changes in a couple’s decision to pursue IVF, excess embryos are routinely ordered destroyed by couples themselves, or donated to research, which of course also leads to their ultimate destruction.

We then began attempts to freeze eggs, hopeful to some as an achievement that would bypass certain ethical dilemmas associated with embryo freezing. Eggs have always been considered too fragile to freeze, yet with persistence a success was lauded when a Georgia woman was the first to give birth this way in this country. In this case, after sixteen of the woman’s twenty-three eggs survived the thawing process and were fertilized at the same time, eleven of them developed into viable embryos. Since eleven is a number usually more than twice the amount a doctor will implant in a woman at one time, four were used for implantation, resulting in the birth of twins. Yet what is neglected to be mentioned in coverage of this story is that of the whereabouts of the remaining seven embryos.(18) Until technology of egg freezing is perfected, embryo freezing is still the preferred method for IVF. And yet, even if it could “pass the muster,” which Scientific American asserts it may never do(19), should we simply overlook these million frozen embryos we must deal with at present?

What to do with our nation’s stockpile of frozen embryos is of concern even to those who have pioneered the actual technology.(20) And it is inextricably intertwined with such hotly debated issues as abortion, surrogacy, “egg brokering,” cloning, and the Human Genome project. Nearing completion, this $3 billion, federally funded project is working towards coding the entire human genetic map. The more we are able to do on the embryonic level, which we are realizing through the Human Genome project, the more complicated it may become for couples seeking ART. One technology currently on the cutting edge is called “preimplantation genetics.” This six-year old technology that began with the genetic screening of an embryo for cystic fibrosis allows prospective parents to sort and choose embryos for genetic defect, discarding the ones that will potentially be born with disease.(21) If these capabilities, as well as proposed legislation happen within reproductive medicine, it might very well be a reality for all those visiting fertility clinics to be required to have their embryos frozen, analyzed and tested for defects. From there we are potentially only a step away from genetic screening becoming required by all major health insurance companies or we run the risk of bearing offspring who cannot obtain health coverage due to their “pre-existing conditions” prior to their births. If science can determine who a person is before she is born, doesn’t it stand to reason that it can therefore decide who she won’t become by ending her life at the embryonic level?

Roberge explains, “Some genetic traits are actually protectors for other types of diseases.” He also points out that we can’t know in many instances to what extent a person may be affected with a genetic disorder, as in the case of Down’s Syndrome, for example.(22) Do we have the right to decide that life may not be worth living for someone because they may face a disorder? Says Jay Johansen of the Ohio Right to Life Group, “The ‘standard practice’ in IVF is to fertilize several ova, see which ones appear to be thriving the best, pick some to implant, perhaps freeze a couple of the ‘runner ups’ and discard the rest. We find such a practice totally unacceptable, as it blatantly calls for killing people based on health.” Johansen finds the notion of parents freezing embryos comparable to that of couples having “surplus children,” then allowing only the healthiest to live. (23)

The issues are so interrelated and complicated, digression toward a number of hazy realms is possible. If we are willing to take the initial step of warehousing human life in freezers and accept this as “procedure” in achieving parenthood, we begin a journey with no apparent limitations.

When Christians are preparing to embark upon such a course as that of ART and all of its ramifications, they should be first and foremost able to identify themselves as that of patient or consumer. There is an increasing muddying of the distinction between the two. Fertility has not as of this time been labeled a disease, and motivations do matter. Anyone with a mouse can click onto a number of websites offering the genetic material of high-quality potential sperm or egg donors. A Christian couple should have received some diagnosis, or at best, be experiencing unexplained fertility. They should ask themselves, how long have we tried to get pregnant? What is God directing us to do? Is adoption the way we are being led? Of course, there is counting the cost of ART, both in the attempt to bear offspring as well as the price of raising the multiple children that often result from them. Then there are the health risks facing both mother and child. There are inconclusive studies on the effects of such technology on either group. In addition to all of this, there should be a certain relinquishing of control over reproduction. It is often when we surrender our wills to become pregnant that we become blessed with the reality of expecting a child.

Some Christians try to become parents and feel that no amount of medical intervention is acceptable, while others are open to at least some forms of ART, believing that God can and does use them to help a couple achieve conception. The consideration of embryo freezing met with a resounding “No way” from those that were interviewed.

Peggy Artero, for example, is a 32-year old who has not been able to conceive again since the birth of her son six years ago. Having seen a fertility specialist for the past year, she has undergone surgery to unblock both of her fallopian tubes and had artificial insemination performed some three times. “Even though my desire to have a child is overwhelming, bordering on anguish sometimes, I believe there’s a line you don’t cross trying.” She explains that crossing that line involves forfeiting her sense of peace and justice. “Even if my husband and I could afford the cost of IVF, and we were told ‘this is your only chance of becoming pregnant,’ I wouldn’t have any back up embryos made for other attempts because once it’s an embryo, it’s like giving permission to freeze my baby. Modern technology can be taken to the point where it becomes inhumane. I felt a peace about having my surgery, but not about this.” (24)

The Bible tells us that ours is a God of peace, not of disorder. (25) If we examine the staggering amount of heartbreak and chaos created as society uses its knowledge to fulfill personal choice, we see much discord among the joy. If we consider that in several recent court cases women have fought to gain custody of their frozen embryos in the hopes of becoming mothers while their former spouses have fought not to become fathers, we see a distinct lack of unity. If we understand that in the majority of these cases, it is determined by our highest courts that “ordinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail,”(26) and that nobody is granted custody of embryos ordered destroyed, it might penetrate our hearts that “the wisdom of the world is coming to nothing.”(27)

Of this glut of cases in which technology is outpacing law, Nigel Cameron, Senior Vice President of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity says, “The courts wouldn’t allow for a man to force a woman to have an abortion if he didn’t want to become a parent.” He thinks that making a decision for the destruction of embryos is like allowing a man to choose against being a parent “after the fact.”(28) But because of the fear of questioning the life of the unborn at a period of development well before that of the twenty-two week fetus some states currently allow aborted, permission is being granted by our legal system. The sanctity of the human rights of the party wishing to avoid parenthood, even if after the fact, is allowing such fathers of frozen embryos to walk away from the consequences of their actions in pursuing IVF. By releasing them from responsibility for that which was freely consented to, participated in and created, are we not creating a whole new class of the deadbeat dad? How can it be that the same legal system that has been known to pursue this individual with a vengeance for the life he abandons after birth is the same that protects him from reaping what he has sown in a tank at the nearby fertility clinic?

Motive, emotion and desire affecting the lives of frozen embryos are brought to the courts by women as well as men. In the precedent-setting case of Davis v. Davis in the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Ms. Davis, who had previously fought on the state level and won the right to save the lives of the “human beings” she and her husband had made together, referred to them in Supreme Court as “potential life.” By the time the case made it to this level, Ms. Davis had remarried and held the hope of reproducing with her new husband. She no longer wished to be implanted with hers and her ex-husband’s stored and frozen embryos, but rather wished them to be donated to another couple.(29) Her new and weaker position towards that which were once regarded by her as “children” may have affected the judge’s eventual decision.

It is the contention of some well-meaning individuals that the best way to protect the rights of frozen embryos is to allow parents to determine their fates. This might include binding contracts that are drawn up by both parties before IVF attempts. Says Robyn Shapiro, a Milwaukee lawyer specializing in reproductive issues, “Just as the courts have acknowledged that parents are ordinarily the proper decision makers for their children’s welfare, the embryos’ best interests are maximally protected if gamete (sperm and egg) providers maintain decision making authority over their fate.”(30) But isn’t it true that in many instances, parents do not always do what is best for their children’s welfare? And is it not further the case that fifty percent of the couples in this country divorce? When couples divorce, children often become pawns used by their parents to gain control over one another in various ways. In a more nonchalant manner, frozen embryos can be used for one partner to wage financial, emotional or psychological warfare over the other. Then, in other cases there is a stalemate in which no one makes a move to do anything to protect frozen embryos from the ticking of the clock. This is particularly the case for couples who have never been in agreement as to how they view that which they have made together in the first place. Are they persons or possessions? In addition, a very real oversight of Shapiro’s is the fact that divorcing couples lose love for one another. It only stands to reason that as that happens, so too, would one or both tend to lose feelings of attachment for low-maintenance frozen embryos they once had hopes of raising into children with that former loved one.

It seems a twisted irony that while the United States spends billions of dollars annually to prevent and abort unwanted pregnancies, this country spends billions more to provide the technological means for producing babies for those who want them. In fact, we spend more in reproductive technological and surgical intervention than any other country. (31)

Author David Schenk says that if there is one lesson he has learned from the history of technology, it is, “If it can be done, it will be done.”(32) One wonders if Schenk was considering pre-technological lessons as well, such as the one learned through the Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel. At this early point in civilization, God said that there would be nothing beyond man’s ability to do if man shared a common language. He therefore confused man’s speech and scattered him.(33) For those of us approaching the twenty-first century, we have overcome barriers to global communication. Are we possibly approaching another era in history in which God once more curtails man’s soaring to reach new heights; this time as man builds his genetic monument to himself?

Technology is not in and of itself a bad thing. Says Roberge, “There is no morality with science or technology. These things are amoral as they exist, but rather it’s what’s done with them.”(34) Forty-one year old Mallory Albens, attempting to conceive for more than two years doesn’t see IVF as something she and her husband would pursue. She does however, suspend judgment for other Christian couples who do, conceding that God Himself may lead them on this path. She believes that one way for the Christian couple to avoid playing God “is for only as many embryos that are going to be implanted to be made.” Albens says Christians should take direction from the Bible. “Psalm 139 says that God knows us from the time we are in our mothers’ wombs. His Word says, ‘Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.'(35) I would think that the moment of conception would be the moment when one received everything from God, including His Spirit, based on that scripture.”(36)

There is no getting around the fact that many of those busy at work unraveling our great genetic map are those without qualms about treading on God’s sovereignty. Says scientist Francis Crick, who along with James Watson discovered the structure of DNA, “A modern neuroscientist has no need for the religious concept of a soul to explain the behavior of humans and other animals.” He confidently speaks for his colleagues when he asserts, “Not all neuroscientists believe the concept of the soul is a myth, but certainly the majority do.”(37) And one neuropsychologist who studies prayer adds this observation, “Most of my colleagues see religion as a sort of pathological state.”(38) Not only may we see a day when frozen embryos are routinely tested for potential physical or psychological impairments, but perhaps spiritual ones as well. And who is to decide? As my fingers hit the keyboard, researchers are attempting to hit upon a gene responsible for spirituality. Imagine a day not far off when parents may be able to “faith-select” their offspring just as they are currently able to “sex-select” them now. Remember, we live are living in an era where cloning is a reality, as well as posthumous reproduction, giving a child two biological mothers by using different parts of individual eggs to form one egg,(39) growing human tissue independent of a human and, perhaps shortly, the artificial womb.

And there are plenty of frozen embryos to study. In this country, despite widely held belief, it isn’t illegal to specifically create embryos for research. The congressional ban simply means that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest government source of money and scientific research standards can’t fund or control any embryo studies.(40) Lawrence Roberge worries about Christians pursuing IVF without adequate information in making their decisions. That embryo development isn’t completely arrested with freezing, he points out, may be a little known fact.(41) This has led to uncertainty as to how long embryos can be safely frozen. In Great Britain, thousands of frozen embryos were destroyed when that country enacted a five-year limit on their storage.(42) In this country, the oldest frozen embryo to result in a live birth surpassing this limit was six years old. Yet who is to regulate experimentation on even older frozen embryos?

“Christians need to be much more involved,” says Cameron. “According to scripture, we are called to be salt and light without compromise.”(43) Besides pushing aside the fear of what may happen to us professionally or personally with a non-compromising attitude, we need to be more aware of what is happening in reproductive technologies. Just as the secular world views “Knowledge as power,” Christians need to believe in acquiring enough knowledge to allow God something to give power to, such as getting across the ethical concerns of IVF. As Roberge has stated, Christians need more information before undertaking any IVF procedures. As an example of what he believes to be a lack of public education in general, Roberge says, “There are Christians and pro life organizations against abortion, but not necessarily against birth control, without realizing that many birth control methods actually work to abort rather than simply to prevent pregnancy.”(44)

Albens thinks that Christians probably can have more control than they think with IVF. “And if you can’t have that control by telling your doctor that you refuse to have embryos frozen, then, as a Christian maybe you don’t want to pursue IVF.” In the meantime, Albens is patiently waiting on the Lord, sure that God is leading her through a process that involves, “Waiting, trusting and learning…His Word says we have to go through things in order to experience His compassion so that we might have compassion for others. I don’t know how God is going to provide, but my prayer is that He keeps my arms full and my hope alive.”(45) While she spiritually grows in the process, she is focusing on enjoying other people’s children.

REFERENCES:

1. Maranto, Gina, “Embryo Overpopulation,” Scientific American IN FOCUS, p.2 of 3-page website analysis. Date unavailable. This resource refers only to the estimated number of frozen embryos currently stored worldwide and does not identify them as “souls in limbo.”

1. Minnesota Public Radio Series, The Fertility Race: “Meet a Family from the IVF Lab,” “Riding the IVF Roller Coaster,” and “Hoping and Waiting,” 1998. Taken from “Meet a Family from the IVF Lab.”

1. The Associated Press News Service, Inc., “Frozen Embryos in ‘Legal Limbo’.” Las Vegas SUN, February 15, 1998, p. 1 of 3-page website printout of article.

1. Maranto, Gina, “Embryo Overpopulation,” Scientific American IN FOCUS, p. 2 of 3-page website analysis. Date unavailable.

1. The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, “Analysis of Davis v. Davis in The Supreme Court of Tennessee,” June, 1992, p. 9.

1. Chu, Yueh-ru, former attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union and expert on the subject of reproductive technology, (as quoted in) McKee, Mike, “Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo,” The Recorder (CAL LAW Homepage), p. 3 of 6-page website printout, June 2, 1998.

1. Weiss, Rick, “Babies in Limbo: Laws Outpaced by Fertility Advances / Multiple Parties to Conception Muddle Issues of Parentage / Science on the Ethical Frontier; Redefining the Family,” Washington Post(Occasional Series), February 8, 1998, p. A1. Reference to a 26 yr. old bachelor who paid some $30,000 to a clinic to make him a baby then murdered it within six weeks of bringing it home.

1. Ibid. Reference to the case of a dead woman’s parents who “inherited” her frozen embryos along with her furniture and other possessions, then attempted to “grow” them into grandchildren using a surrogate.

1. Clark, Cheryl, “Tiniest Quad is Allowed to Die / At 10 Ounces, Taken Off Life Support,” The San Diego Tribune, April 28, 1998.

1. Meilaender, Gilbert, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. W.B. Eerdmans Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 29.

1. Mandino, Og, The Greatest Miracle in the World. A Bantam Book / published by arrangement with Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., September, 1977, p. 98.

1. Romans 1:20, The Holy Bible, New International Version. Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

1. Ohio Right to Life, “In the Circuit Court for Blount County, Tennessee, at Maryville, Equity Division (Division I), Case No. E-14496, Junior L. Davis, Plaintiff, v. Mary Sue Davis, Defendant, v. Ray King, M.D., d/b/a, Fertility Center of East Tennessee, Third Party Defendant, Syllabus,” pp. 5-8 of website article.

1. Personal communication with Lawrence F. Roberge M.S. Mr. Roberge is a biochemist; professor at both Elms College (Chicopee, MA) and Lesley College (Cambridge, MA); and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Catholic Association of Scientists and Engineers, and Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. He is author of the book: The Cost of Abortion (Four Winds Publishers, 1995) and has done research in neuroscience, immunology, biotechnology, and bioethics. This past summer he researched human cloning and abortifacient technologies. Interview by telephone, July 29, 1998.

1. John 15:13, The Holy Bible, New International Version, Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

1. Ecclesiastes 11:5, The Holy Bible, New International Version, Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

1. Schenk, David, “Biocapitalism: What Price the Genetic Revolution?” Harper’s Magazine, December 1997, v294 n1771 p. 37.

1. Meyer, Tara (Associated Press) “Georgia Woman Gives Birth to First U.S. Baby Born From Frozen Eggs,” Athens Daily News, October 17, 1997, p. 1 of 2-page website printout of article.

1. Maranto, Gina, “Embryo Overpopulation,” Scientific American IN FOCUS, p. 3 of 3-page website analysis. Date unavailable.

1. Trounson, Alan, and Karen Dawson, “Storage and Disposal of Embryos and Gametes: Patients Must Be Aware of Their Rights and Responsibilities” (Editorial), British Medical Journal, July 6, 1996, v. 313, no. 7048.

1. Rifkin, Jeremy, The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World. Putnam Publisher, New York, 1998.

1. Personal communication with Lawrence F. Roberge M.S. Interview by telephone, July 29, 1998.

1. Personal communication via e-mail correspondence with Jay Johansen of the Ohio Right to Life Group, July 20, 1998.

1. Personal communication with Peggy Artero(the name has been changed at the interviewee’s request to remain anonymous). Mrs. Artero is a Christian from Mount Vernon, New York, who has been attempting to conceive for more than two years at the time this article was written. Mrs. Artero has been seeing a fertility specialist for approximately one year who has performed tubal surgery to unblock both of her fallopian tubes, performed artificial insemination on Mrs. Artero using her husband’s sperm three times, and prescribed hormones such as Clomid. Interview in person August 17, 1998.

1. 1 Corinthians 14:33, The Holy Bible, New International Version. Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

1. The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, “Analysis of Davis v. Davis in The Supreme Court of Tennessee,” June, 1992, p. 9.

1. 1 Corinthians 2:6, The Holy Bible, New International Version. Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

1. Personal communication with Nigel M. Cameron, Ph.D. Dr. Cameron is the Chairman of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity’s Advisory Board, and Senior Vice President and Distinguished Professor of Theology and Culture, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL). Interview by telephone July 29, 1998.

1. The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, “Analysis of Davis v. Davis in The Supreme Court of Tennessee,” June, 1992, p. 3.

1. Shapiro, Robyn, “Who Owns Your Frozen Embryo?” Promises and Pitfalls of Emerging Reproductive Options,” Human Rights, Spring, 1998 issue.

1. Wang, Stanley S., J.D., “Making the Perfect Baby: A Regulatory Strategy for Human Genetic Engineering,” Medical Trial Technique Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3, March 26, 1997.

1. Schenk, David, “Biocapitalism: What Price the Genetic Revolution?” Harper’s Magazine, December 1997, v294 n1771 p. 37.

1. Genesis 11:1-9, The Holy Bible, New International Version. Colorado Springs, Colorado: International Bible Society, 1984.

1. Personal communication with Lawrence F. Roberge M.S. Interview by telephone, July 29, 1998.

1. Psalm 139:16, The Holy Bible. New King James Version (as quoted to me from Mallory Albens). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.

1. Personal communication with Mallory Albens(the name has been changed at the interviewee’s request to remain anonymous). Albens is a Christian living in Manhasset, New York who has been trying to conceive a child for more than two years at the time this article was written. Interview in person, August 10, 1998.

1. Hotz, Robert Lee, “Seeking the Biology of Spirituality,” Los Angeles Times, April 26, 1998, Page A-1.

1. Ibid.

1. Kohn, David, “200 Years of Helping Nature (A Fertility Timeline), “CBS Website, 48 Hours,” May 20, 1998. In July, 1997, a woman gave birth with an egg that was party hers and partly a younger woman’s. As women get older, their eggs become less permeable to sperm. In order to get around this, the outer nucleus of the younger woman’s egg was used in conjunction with hers. Most of the genetic material resides in the nucleus of an egg, yet it is still unknown just what exactly has been inherited from the younger woman.

1. Smith, Steven, “Limits on Embryo Research Affect Treatments for the Infertile,” Michigan Public Radio, February 5, 1998, page 1 of 4-page website printout of article.

1. Personal communication with Lawrence F. Roberge M.S. Interview by telephone, July 29, 1998.

1. Shelden, R.M., J. Belloni, G.H. Corsan, E. Kemmann, “The Fate of Cryopreserved Human Pre Embryos,” American Society of Reproductive Medicine Abstracts, p. 1 of 1-page website article.

1. Personal communication with Nigel M. Cameron, Ph.D, by telephone July 29, 1998.

1. Personal communication with Lawrence F. Roberge M.S., by telephone July 29, 1998.

45. 45. Personal communication with Mallory Albens of Manhasset, New York.