I was looking up the phrase "Celebrity adoption," with the idea I'd research a post about celebrities who adopt and satisfy my silly craving for celebrity gossip at the same time, when I came upon a news article from Bioedge: Bioethics news for health and legal professions and the media: "Mail order embryos."

It tells about a fertility clinic in Texas that allows patients to custom-order embryos, choosing things like eye and hair color, and using only sperm and egg combinations that have been "proven" in the past. Most of the sperm donors have PhDs, the article explains, while many of the egg donors have "some tertiary education," which I guess means some college, although I have a Bachelor's and a Master's degree and I don't know what "tertiary education" means.

Here's why the clinic director says that using the test-tube embryos are better than using embryos that infertile couples create using their own sperm/egg: their viability is only about 30%. The viability of these "tested" embryos is more like 70%. That makes a lot of sense to me, actually. My husband and I never considered IVF, with or without using someone else's donated sperm/eggs but if your goal was to carry a baby in your own body (as opposed to having the goal of passing on your own genetic material) I can see why you'd want to do this.

(I have to confess that since deciding to adopt Little J I have a fairly low opinion of the extreme lengths people go to have "their own" child, and what this clinic does falls on the continuum of things that I would never do, no matter what. I am not a religious person but I have a belief about the world that I think applies here: don't mess with Mother Nature. Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom and capriciousness, has provided the world with million of children who need homes - ready made.

As for hand-selecting the genetic traits, I don't think it's a big deal. While you're selecting sperms and eggs for higher education and viability and pumping your body full of chemicals all for 9 months of nausea and backache, followed by intense pain and a bloody mess, why not go ahead and make your kid blond haired and blue eyed? That doesn't really bother me).

The director of the clinic has a low opinion of adoption. Here's what the article reports her as saying:

Jennalee Ryan, the director, says that her program is superior to both normal adoption and "adopting" surplus embryos in IVF clinics. Babies offered for adoption tend to come from lower class women, she says, who often have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. IVF embryos come from couples with fertility problems and the pregnancy rate is, at best, about 30%. Furthermore, adopting couples may have to deal with vexatious genetic parents. Often an adopting couple has to jump through hoops to prove that they will be good parents.

That takes the cake, readers. Don't you agree?

And what about this: what's the difference between a child who was conceived the regular way and adopted at birth and this way? Is he/she an adopted child? His/her genetic make-up is different from the parents. Will he/she have identity issues? Will he/she want to find his/her "conception parents?" What are the laws about that? Will records be open?

It's really too much for me to wrap my little head around, despited my "tertiary education."

Comments, please.