<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ruth Institute Blog &#187; artificial reproductive technologies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/tag/artificial-reproductive-technologies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:02:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Book Review: Precious Babies &#8211; a donor conceived person&#8217;s view</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/20/book-review-precious-babies-a-donor-conceived-persons-view/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/20/book-review-precious-babies-a-donor-conceived-persons-view/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Conceived Persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=10030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Rachel Pepa [Please note the other resources at the bottom of the article when you click "Keep reading."] A review of Precious Babies: Pregnancy, Birth and Parenting after Infertility By Kate Brian As an informal guide to having children after fertility problems, Precious Babies has much to recommend it. There is, however, an omission [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/20/book-review-precious-babies-a-donor-conceived-persons-view/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Moms: the triumph of the Will over Nature</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/06/two-moms-the-triumph-of-the-will-over-nature/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/06/two-moms-the-triumph-of-the-will-over-nature/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Redefinition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IVF]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just saw this headline in the Des Moines Register: “Judge: Put both moms’ names on the birth certificate.”  “Both moms?!?!?!”  Yes, you read it right: “both moms.” Judges created same sex “marriage” in Iowa in a case called Varnum v Brien. So, now another judge rules that the spouse in a same sex marriage should [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/06/two-moms-the-triumph-of-the-will-over-nature/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IVF: Is This Really Good for the Children?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/04/2-ivf-is-this-really-good-for-the-children/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/04/2-ivf-is-this-really-good-for-the-children/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invitro fertilization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Rebecca Taylor I have heard countless times that parents that undergo in vitrofertilization (IVF) must love their children so very much to go through such an expensive and invasive process to have children.  I have no doubt that parents undergoing IVF believe they are doing what is best, but looking at the realities of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/01/04/2-ivf-is-this-really-good-for-the-children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Feminists Warn Against Exploiting Women for Eggs in Biotech</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/06/feminists-warn-against-exploiting-women-for-eggs-in-biotech/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/06/feminists-warn-against-exploiting-women-for-eggs-in-biotech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:57:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egg donation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Wesley J. Smith Click here to watch the related music video. Pro choice and pro life women have come together in coalition to protect women from being exploited for their eggs by Big Biotech. Reason?  Women would take all the risks and the companies could make all the money but for the small payments [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/06/feminists-warn-against-exploiting-women-for-eggs-in-biotech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why ‘splitting’ motherhood is against the rights of the child</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/08/why-%e2%80%98splitting%e2%80%99-motherhood-is-against-the-rights-of-the-child/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/08/why-%e2%80%98splitting%e2%80%99-motherhood-is-against-the-rights-of-the-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Conceived Persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egg donation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sperm donors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wonderful! The world is coming to its senses! FROM THE IONA INSTITUTE BLOG: In the last year to 18 months the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR, pictured) had handed down several excellent decisions. The most famous is the Lautsi judgement in which it ruled that Italy could place crucifixes on the walls of state [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/08/why-%e2%80%98splitting%e2%80%99-motherhood-is-against-the-rights-of-the-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>10 Reasons to Choose NaProTechnology Over InVitro Fertilization</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/10-reasons-to-choose-naprotechnology-over-invitro-fertilization/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/10-reasons-to-choose-naprotechnology-over-invitro-fertilization/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invitro fertilization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By David Picella For couples that are experiencing infertility, the desire to have a child can be overwhelming. Every month that passes is another missed opportunity. Depression, grief, sadness, and despair eventually set in and at some point most couples become desperate enough to gamble with tens of thousands of dollars on expensive procedures like [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/10-reasons-to-choose-naprotechnology-over-invitro-fertilization/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are babies prizes or gifts?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/are-babies-prizes-or-gifts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/are-babies-prizes-or-gifts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infertility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[babies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Margaret Somerville A Canadian radio station created world-wide controversy recently when it ran a &#8220;win a baby&#8221; competition. An Ottawa music station, Hot 89.9, recently launched a “Win a Baby” contest. The prize offered was up to three rounds of fertility treatment worth C$35,000. It’s reported that the station received around 400 applications “from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/are-babies-prizes-or-gifts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Church’s Best kept secret: Church Teaching on Infertility Treatment</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/the-church%e2%80%99s-best-kept-secret-church-teaching-on-infertility-treatment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/the-church%e2%80%99s-best-kept-secret-church-teaching-on-infertility-treatment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invitro fertilization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9024</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tonight Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will interview Katie Elrod. Elrod has been a humanities teacher and administrator in independent schools for over 15 years, and has taught in the Perspectives program at Boston College. She received her BA and MA in philosophy from Boston College, where she was a Lonergan Fellow. Elrod has spoken on natural [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/24/the-church%e2%80%99s-best-kept-secret-church-teaching-on-infertility-treatment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anonymous No More: Child of Sperm Donor Speaks Out</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/15/anonymous-no-more-child-of-sperm-donor-speaks-out/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/15/anonymous-no-more-child-of-sperm-donor-speaks-out/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Conceived Persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invitro fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sperm donors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Such children struggle with a unique anxiety: What if I fall in love with my half-sibling? by CHRISTOPHER WHITE Thirty-two invitro fertilized children gather at the Swedish Medical Center in 2003 in Denver. The Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Center gathered the children from each of its 16 years of work in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/15/anonymous-no-more-child-of-sperm-donor-speaks-out/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Babies for Sale: Buyer Beware</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/11/babies-for-sale-buyer-beware/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/11/babies-for-sale-buyer-beware/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surrogate Mothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surrogate mothers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Infertility can bring so much heartache to couples desperately wanting a baby. Sadly, desperation opens the door for exploitation. Recently, two high-profile surrogacy attorneys, Theresa Erickson and Hilary Neiman, were caught exploiting surrogates, stealing from California taxpayers and, most horrifically, selling babies.  by Jennifer Lahl This article was first published at Tothesource.org on August 17, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/11/babies-for-sale-buyer-beware/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One parent or five?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/07/one-parent-or-five/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/07/one-parent-or-five/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2011 03:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surrogate Mothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surrogate mothers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Carolyn Moynihan Most couples who marry, even today, probably intend to have one or two children at least. Marriage and the baby carriage (as family scholar Brad Wilcox likes to pair them) have always gone together. But this is not what is meant by the new catch-phrase “intentional parenthood”. A report out today (golly, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/07/one-parent-or-five/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Black Market Babies and the Church</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/26/black-market-babies-and-the-church/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/26/black-market-babies-and-the-church/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invitro fertilization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Mary Jo Anderson The current battles over the fate of thousands of babies conceived via in vitro fertilization would confound even King Solomon. Sensational news reports surrounding the $180,000 price tag for Ukrainian black-market babies shocked the determinedly secular segments of society, and few remain unmoved by the story of the FBI’s round-up of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/26/black-market-babies-and-the-church/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Couple Sue Fertility Doctor Over &#8216;Lost&#8217; Embryos</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/24/california-couple-sue-fertility-doctor-over-lost-embryos/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/24/california-couple-sue-fertility-doctor-over-lost-embryos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What a mess, and, of course, these children, wherever they are, IF they are, will have no idea WHO they are. By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES Alex Walterspiel and Melanie Waters, a married couple in their 30s, conceived their 3-year-old son through in vitro fertilization and hoped to get pregnant again with one of the remaining [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/24/california-couple-sue-fertility-doctor-over-lost-embryos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/16/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/16/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Babies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Invitro Fertilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[babies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow. Where does it end? by RUTH PADAWER As Jenny lay on the obstetrician’s examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn’t want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/16/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Open Letter to the ASRM from a Donor Conceived Adult</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/07/06/an-open-letter-to-the-asrm-from-a-donor-conceived-adult/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/07/06/an-open-letter-to-the-asrm-from-a-donor-conceived-adult/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Conceived Persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posted on July 1, 2011 by wendykr An open letter to the ASRM from Susan Kane, a donor conceived person, in response to Todd Essing’s commentary (Balancing the Rights of Donor Offspring With Those of Donors: But What About Parents? Forbes. June 30/11,  http://tinyurl.com/Essig-2011-06-30) which was a response to the commentary that Naomi Cahn and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/07/06/an-open-letter-to-the-asrm-from-a-donor-conceived-adult/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EWTN On Location: Learn To Defend Traditional Marriage – And Why You Must!</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/24/ewtn-on-location-learn-to-defend-traditional-marriage-%e2%80%93-and-why-you-must/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/24/ewtn-on-location-learn-to-defend-traditional-marriage-%e2%80%93-and-why-you-must/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholic Church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Roback Morse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Roback Morse events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7748</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Michelle Laque Johnson Click here to view a video of Dr. Morse speaking. People who promote same-sex marriage say the Catholic Church&#8217;s stand that marriage is a sacrament that must be between one man and one woman is gay-bashing. Why, they ask, should it matter to you if two people of the same sex [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/24/ewtn-on-location-learn-to-defend-traditional-marriage-%e2%80%93-and-why-you-must/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could Prenatal DNA Testing Open Pandora’s Box?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/12/could-prenatal-dna-testing-open-pandora%e2%80%99s-box/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/12/could-prenatal-dna-testing-open-pandora%e2%80%99s-box/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 04:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A follow-up to Betsy&#8217;s post on pre-natal DNA testing: That knowledge has a flip side. “How much responsibility are we expecting people to take for the genetic makeup of any child they might have?” asks Josephine Johnston, a research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank near New York City. If a child [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/12/could-prenatal-dna-testing-open-pandora%e2%80%99s-box/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Higher They are The Harder They Fall</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/11/the-higher-they-are-the-harder-they-fall/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/11/the-higher-they-are-the-harder-they-fall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Jennifer Lahl, CBC President Pacific Reproductive Center (PRC) of Southern California (AKA, the reproductive tourist capital of the world) has just announced the opening of an on-site laboratory with breakthrough technology that has the ability to analyze all 46 chromosomes (23 from the mother and 23 from the father) of a human embryo within [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/11/the-higher-they-are-the-harder-they-fall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Andy Crouch, IVF in Germany, and Phyllis Schlafly</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/02/andy-crouch-ivf-in-germany-and-phyllis-schlafly/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/02/andy-crouch-ivf-in-germany-and-phyllis-schlafly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Norrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Podcasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["From the Front Lines of the Culture War"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholic Radio of San Diego]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IVF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phyllis Schlafly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are several new things up on the podcast page (and more to come).  Recent additions include: On the latest issue (May 16) of her radio show, &#8220;From the Front Lines of the Culture War,&#8221; Dr J interviewed Andy Crouch, author of &#8220;Culture Making: Recovering our Creative Calling.&#8221;  He&#8217;s focused on the things we&#8217;re creating [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/06/02/andy-crouch-ivf-in-germany-and-phyllis-schlafly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/ruthinstitute/May23_11.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/ruthinstitute/May24_11.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/ruthinstitute/May31_11.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Donor offspring are people &#8211; with rights &#8211; too</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/24/donor-offspring-are-people-with-rights-too/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/24/donor-offspring-are-people-with-rights-too/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 18:21:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Conceived Persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great article. From start to finish. by Barbara Kay A Canadian provincial court rules that gamete donors may not hide their identity. The British Columbia Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Adoption Act and Adoption Regulations on Thursday. They argued that the legislation denies offspring of sperm and egg donors (gamete donors) their Charter [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/24/donor-offspring-are-people-with-rights-too/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 10/21 queries in 0.009 seconds using disk

Served from: www.ruthblog.org @ 2012-02-11 06:46:02 -->
