feminine-genius

Guess who's turning 30

That would be Louise Joy Brown, first "test-tube" baby, as we called it then. Now, thousands are born annually using IVF. Her parents, having waited nine years for a child, offered these words the day after her birth:

'Louise is, truly, a gift from God,' she told assembled television reporters, her voice breaking with emotion. 'Every woman who has yearned to hold her own child in her arms, and then been flooded with the love that only motherhood brings when that longed for dream comes true, will understand what I mean.'

While recognising the pain and suffering of infertility, we must also consider the cost of IVF: the indignities for the father, and discarded human life, and the child conceived outside the marital embrace. Not to mention the risks:

We have all heard the happy-ever-after stories of countless women for whom IVF has made motherhood a possibility. But what few women realise is that IVF treatment has become increasingly aggressive: so much so that there are very real risks involved.

Take the case of Temilola Akinbolagbe. Just two days after she began fertility treatment she suffered a massive heart attack at a south London Tube station. She was rushed to hospital where, five days later, her life-support machine was switched off. She had been a healthy young woman who had simply yearned for a child. But her body reacted fatally to the drugs she was given to stimulate her ovaries.

Granted, such deaths are rare but the fact is that they do happen. And, worryingly, up to 10 per cent of women, particularly those under 35, react badly to the hormonal drugs they are given. They are used initially to shut down the reproductive system and then to stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple eggs instead of a single one, which can then be surgically collected and fertilised with the father's sperm.

A less intense hormonal regimen is being phased in, although the frantic women wanting success don't necessarily want to hear about minimising the risks. Emotions run high, as do the bills.

Since almost 80 per cent of women seeking fertility treatment do so at private, and highly expensive, clinics it seems surprising then that more clinics do not opt for the mild version. The traditional mindset seems to be that more drugs mean more embryos put back in the womb - resulting in more babies and higher places in the league tables compiled by the regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Prof Fauser believes the reality is that the huge costs charged (a single cycle of IVF costs about £3,000) has meant that there is fierce competition among the clinics. 'With all the commercial pressure and all the money involved,' he says, 'it is easy to understand. But it is not to the benefit of the patient.' With all parties desperate for results, the tendency has been to use more drugs to produce more eggs and, hopefully, more babies. Thus IVF has become a multi-million-pound industry.

Each story is one of unique suffering, and yet, while they are all tied to the notion of reproducing (naturally enough) they are also locked in a struggle of wills -- despite the losses, the discarded children, and the dead-ends. I've read so many testimonies of infertile couples who find peace -- in God's will. Accepting "no" is inevitable at various points in life. God's consolation must line these beds of pain in a unique way, but He must be sought on His terms. If only these couples considered Providence and how else to receive the seeds of grace, then this dark industry would diminish. For now, prayers for the children who won't see the light of day. Some day, they will judge us all.

The epitome of womanhood

Sega has come up with a new product for lonely men. A robot girlfriend--who kisses on demand.

"She's very lovable and though she's not a human, she can act like a real girlfriend."

EMA can also hand out business cards, sing and dance.

No nagging. No bad breath. No stealing the covers. Who could ask for anything more?

Who's the professional here?

I know only the barest essential facts about Miley Cyrus. Less than most. But this story has been troubling me.

Pop star and 15-year-old Disney sensation Miley Cyrus tells ET she's "embarrassed" about an upcoming photograph of her appearing semi-topless in the new Vanity Fair issue. "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," she tells ET. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."

One fact I do know is that Miley happened to mention her Christan faith recently, and pegged it as the reason that she stays focused and family-centered. I can't help but thinking that such a disclosure set her up as a target.

The photo, on stands next week, accompanies an interview with Miley and her dad, Billy Ray,  and were shot by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. As seen on our show promo last week, they show Miley sitting in profile with just a blanket wrapped around her chest.

Vanity Fair editors respond: "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley. In fact, when Bruce Handy interviewed Miley, he asked her about the photo and she was very cheerful about it and thought it was perfectly fine."

However, a Disney Channel spokesperson says: "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

So was the photo seen digitally on the shoot the same one used in the magazine? Some details are missing. Poor judgement may have been exercised (how anyone survives in such shark-infested waters is beyond me) but it would appear that someone ought to ask about the photographer's professionalism. Did she set out to shame the youngster? Did she have an ulterior motive for her shots? Why is everyone appalled at the child, and none at the photographer?

Prayer as a first resort

Some save prayer for their last resort -- when doctors, diplomats or dilemmas reveal obstacles that cannot be surmounted. It sounds as if this head of state uses prayer simultaneously with other actions, and this time it paid off -- praise be to God.

The Colombian daily “El Tiempo” revealed on Holy Saturday that a crisis that could have ended in an open conflict between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela was averted by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe confiding the situation to the intercession of Mary under the three different titles by which she is the country’s patroness.

His "Hail Mary" wasn't the last ditch attempt associated with the "Hail Mary" in football, but part of a regular campaign of devotion.

“The President is a man of faith, he always carries with him a wooden Cross and a Rosary. I have heard him pray several times in the motorcade or on the presidential airplane.” “He always tries to be coherent with his faith in his work, pleasing God with what he does,” Fr. Solórzano was quoted by the “El Tiempo.”

Passion or politics?

Let me begin with two caveats. First, I rarely believe a thing that Hillary Clinton says, because she is so calculating. This is beyond the normal political games that are somewhat necessary -- I find very little integration in HRC (which I would define as sincerity, comprehensiveness, and a motivating principle). If she were to have a single principle, sadly, I would have to interpret it to be Power at Any Price. Part of the price, of course, seems to be a chameleon-like ability to hide the defining principle to offer an array of secondary tidbits that votors would find more palatable.

Secondly, I am diametrically opposed to virtually everything that HRC promotes as her platform: accomodation for the homosexual agenda, abortion on demand, the destruction of marriage, larger government, embryonic stem cell research, etc. etc. etc. (UPDATE: I found an excellent synopisis of her "private" life, which is not at all private in the end, given the nature of marriage.)

Now those two caveats aside [really!] I would still have to look at this with a really jauniced eye, and see if there isn't a deeper truth revealing itself. She was asked by an adoring supporter, "How do you do it?"

But then, Clinton began getting emotional: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said.

Her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."

Rewind now to one of my favourite snippets of poetry, which happens to be from [pace!] Lord Byron:

Love, to a man, is a thing apart

'Tis a woman's whole existence.

I never really cared about why Byron made this observation, and whether he was a scoundrel, and whether he honoured women. (I don't think that he did.) I always liked that snippet because it is true. Apart from everything else, it is true -- and there is physiological evidence that supports it. Men compartmentalise things brilliantly, because their brains are actually structured differently than women's brains. There are fewer connectors between different parts of the brain in men than in women, which explains why women integrate their emotions with their tasks, with personal interactions, with all realms of their lives. For better or worse, if a woman is integrated, it's all of a piece. Painful as it can be, each facet permeates the other facets, unless she can throw up barriers, which are not always healthy. God made us this way.

Now, if HRC is being sincere (and I must leave room for crocodile tears and pandering for the moment)then I would have to say that this is a crystallising moment in which we see the potential deficiencies of a female president. At the end of the day, George W. Bush has always made it clear: this is a job. When I leave it, I'll leave a job. Even when faced with the prospect of losing his bid for re-election, he said he could simply go back to Texas and not bat an eye.

I don't see this with HRC, and her defense of "passion" is disconcerting. But just to show that others vehemently disagree, consider the result of her melt-down:

After the event, Pernold Young told ABC News that she was glad Clinton showed emotion. "She allowed herself to feel," Pernold Young said.  " I was surprised and I said, 'wow there's someone there.'"

Another woman in the group, Alison Hamilton of Portsmouth, New Hampshire said she, like most of the people in the group, had been considering Obama. But after seeing Clinton become emotional, she said she was going to vote for Clinton. "Her whole thing today really convinced me but that really did clinche it for me," Hamilton said. "She's very impressive."

Let's just hope that our enemies think the same way. If we can convince terrorists of the strenth of passion and tears, we won't need to deploy any troops under her command. Hand-holding and watery eyes will do the trick.

[Please know I have an enormous regard for former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She, of all women, proved that one could operate on guiding principles and not make everything personal. Thus, feminine leadership is possible, but I'm afraid that good examples are rare.]

Beggars belief

This is ridiculous. 'Nuf said.

Motherless by decree

I don't think P.D. Eastman imagined in her wildest dreams what this question could dredge up legally, ethically, and medically within fifty years of the publication of her classic children's book.

[An] unmarried man, Roberto d.B, had made arrangements with an unmarried woman friend to have her eggs donated to him for the purpose of being fertilized in vitro (outside her womb). (It is unclear whether the eggs were fertilized by his sperm.) And he had made arrangements with a second woman (the "gestational carrier" or "surrogate mother") to have her carry the embryos to term. (Although the decision states she had family responsibilities, it does not state whether she was married or had sexual relations with any man during the relevant time; if she were married, there would have been an issue about whether her husband was the father of the twins.) When the second woman delivered the fraternal twins in 2001, the hospital reported her as the mother. The man sued to have her name removed and his name listed as sole parent, the father. They both argued that she had no genetic link to the children and never intended to be their mother. The trial court agreed to add his name as father, but to retain her name as mother. An appeal was taken.

So legally, now, these are two six-year-olds with no mother, birth certificates with blank spaces, and a psychological nightmare that only God can heal.

It is clear that the court implicitly held that, although the twins were delivered from the womb of this woman, she was not their mother. There can be only two reasons for so holding. One is that she did not intend to be their mother, but the court expressly states that her intent is not a factor in establishing or not establishing parentage -- any more than it is for men. The alternative justification for this implicit holding is that she was not genetically linked to the children and therefore could not be their mother.

Aint this grand. The deconstruction of gender and consequent restructuring of family and rights allow these two children to be hatched at the whim of a man with a mission to use his seed to stick it to the system.

If neither the gestational carrier nor the egg donor are mothers, then who is mother to these twins? No one. As Judge Cathell observes in dissent, the result is not a finding that a particular woman or particular women are not the twin's mother, but that the twins have no mother. .... These twins are half-orphaned -- by the will of their father, the will of the two women who procreated them, the will of the court. They are motherless by decree.

Atta boy, pops. Nice work. Clever work from all of you -- never mind the shredded souls entering first grade to carry on a life of contradictions. Here unfold two lives who will be marshalled to argue against the very comfort and solace that they desperately need -- in order to defend a tragedy.

____________________________________

UPDATE: Speaking of tragedies, here's another. One might think that the courts (which have already collaborated to ignore the very life of the unborn) are bent on making sure that children's interests are consistently trumped by what adults want. "Want" in the sense of petulant whining, persistent grasping, obsessive avarice, and selfish longing.

While biological bonds shout their claim, one is reminded of the anecdote of the two women fighting over the baby before King Solomon. He knew authentic motherhood by its selflessness and desire for what was in the child's best interest.

Taking down the bullies

The tremendously talented Jill Stanek combines her love of women, her love of truth, and her investigative genius and contributes to the take-down of the HPV vaccine initiative.

A great source of excitement for me has been blogging on the pharma industry's lucrative idea earlier this year, which foolish legislators - almost all liberal - ran with, to mandate the HPV vaccine for all 11- and 12-year-old girls. The New York Times even disparaged one of my HPV posts, which is always a badge of honor.

The enthusiasm for the vaccine was at giddy proportions despite the lack of firm evidence.

Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June amid cheers that it could largely prevent cervical cancer among vaccinated women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly recommended that all girls and women ages 11 to 26 receive the vaccine.

The American Cancer Society seconded the recommendation, although it concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" of benefit among women ages 19 to 26 because so many had already been exposed to the virus.

At least 24 state legislatures have introduced bills calling for mandatory vaccination of girls in their early teens or younger.

Yet now, Congress and the New England Journal of Medicine (thanks to writers like Stanek beating the drums) agree that the much-touted vaccine wasn't really effective. Again, more money, more hand-wringing, and more money to be made from the fodder of women's lives -- to no end. The LA Times reports:

New data on the controversial HPV vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer have raised questions about its efficacy, researchers are reporting Thursday, undercutting efforts in many states to make vaccination mandatory.

Although the Merck vaccine, called Gardasil, blocked nearly 100 percent of infections by the two HPV strains it targets, it reduced the incidence of cancer precursors by only 17 percent overall.

Part of the reason was that many of the teenage girls and young women in the three-year study already had been exposed to the virus, according to the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Overall, the new results indicate that the vaccine is not living up to its initial prospects. The findings show that 129 women would have to be vaccinated to prevent one precancerous lesion....

This, along with the lies inherent in the Pink Ribbon campaign are my reasons for not supporting the American Cancer Society. Fueled by emotion, it's a very flawed group.

Making money on women II

There is an important piece on You-Tube here, which highlights the dangers inherent in the procedure to harvest human eggs. Sadly, it begins with the testimony of a woman who lost her own daughter -- a daughter who was evidently completely oblivious to the potential harms.

Here is another industry driven by bottom line profits and fueled by consumers who care nothing for the moral questions surrounding conceptions outside the marital act. Add to this a race to find cures through embryonic stem cells and women's health takes another predictable hit. All for the cause.

UPDATE: In the combox below, darling Margaret wonders:

During this process, fifty eggs are taken. Only one is used. You don't even need to believe in the ethical 'life begins at conception' to see how this becomes immoral - what about those other forty nine eggs which could potentially have been babies?

At first, I dismissed the thought, because an egg is simply an egg. If it's not fertilised, there's no life and thus if it's destroyed, there's no harm. (It's the fertilisation in the petri dish and subsequent destruction that is wrong.) BUT THEN, in an "a ha" moment, I had to say: Is it possible that this is the feminine version of "Onanism" -- in which it is declared sinful for men to spill their semen without the potential to give life. What exactly is the sin of Onanism, and could this be an equivalent?

Condolences

The sense was very strong and so I ran with it -- I wrote a card to the parents of the VaTech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui. I cannot imagine their grief, which has to be torment. Mental illness is such a trial in the best of circumstances, and beyond all comprehension in the worst.

Jennifer Roback Morse wrote an excellent piece, which is here. Brought back memories of a distinct conversation many years ago in a home-schooling group, in which all the mothers were making a pact to pray for one another so that all their children would marry good Catholics. I half-heartedly joined in, but felt unsure of myself. I finally had to throw water on the fire, and add the prayer that good Catholics would find my kids even if they strayed from the Church (which sort of undermined their prayer that the holy ones marry holy ones...) Now that they're aging, I see that I was right simply in the fact that life is far more complicated than we could ever imagine. Saint Dymphna, pray for those affected by mental illness; Matt Talbot, strengthen those fighting addictions; Saint Augustine bring back all the stray sheep.

UPDATE:  I'm not alone. Another great piece here.

That silence [of Cho's mother] brings to mind another silence: the silence of Eve. In Genesis, the first words uttered by Eve after the expulsion from the garden are those of joy at the birth of Cain, her son: “I have gotten a man from the LORD!” No long thereafter, she bore Abel, a second son.

But joy turns to tragedy as the two grow to manhood. Cain, jealous of his younger brother, killed Abel. And there, in Genesis chapter 4, right at the beginning of biblical history, the first murder occurs. God chastises Cain and punishes him by making him a “fugitive and a vagabond” upon the earth.

Throughout the story, however, Eve says nothing. She is silent. One can only imagine her anguish: Have I birthed this violence into the world? My son, my beloved son, the firstborn of all humanity, is a murderer. He has killed his brother. Is this my fault? What have I done?

We cannot fail to support this woman in sincere and heartfelt prayer.

UPDATE: From today's statement by Cho's sister:

"We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless and lost. This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person," she said.

"We have always been a close, peaceful and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence."

She added: "He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare."