Well now I am going to get it! You stand behind the President and get your picture on the front of the Washington Post and the LA Times and than it is OPEN SEASON 
. I have read so many articles in the last week that are either out of context, misleading, or completely inaccurate. For this reason, I will be posting several on my ESCR pages along with my rebuttals. (And speaking of the press, I am interviewing with the AZ Republic in the morning…be watching for this article).
This evening though I stumbled upon a blog posting that was not written by the syndicated press but by a blogger such as myself. I decided to share his article with you (along with my rebuttal) because his argument is one that continually resurfaces. Several other snowflake families have been subject to this same "attack". As you all know me to be a "hit it on the front end instead of the back end" kind of person, it makes sense to me to "prepare" my web readers for the type of media that you are likely to see written in regards to our family. This is not original. It has been tried several times. I find it to be completely irrational and usually don’t even respond to it. The only reason I submitted my comments to this particular blogger was because his comments were so personal. The grief of my heart is and has been my miscarriages. You know that. This man had the odacity to call my womb the womb of death. He crossed a very personal line with me and I was not going to let that go unchallenged.
Now, I want you to warn you in advance. I am not going to share his identity or blog address with you. My reason is simple. I do not wish to begin a war. I figure that once you read this, many of you are going to want to comment on this author’s site. If he then in turn retaliates, we will both end up taking too much time engaging in a conversation that is unlikely to be resolved via the blog vehicle. Further, he has a right that I want to defend to post anything he wants to (as I do 
). If my regular web readers disagree with something I have said in a posting, I don’t mind respectful comments about it. HOWEVER if people who are not regular visitors seek out my website and post their frustrations looking for a debate- I do not appreciate that. I don’t have time for it. It feels like a violation to me. For that reason, I do not want to encourage a retaliation against this blogger (okay I want to but for reasons just stated I won’t ). Feel free to rant and rave about what he said on MY site though okay? LOL! And by the way, his quotes come from the Washington Post article and my website which he so thoroughly investigated (not!) Okay – are you ready? Here it comes:
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Donielle Brinkman sends ten babies to their deaths so she can "experience pregnancy"
As I wrote this, two different squirrels were scampering around trying to bang another squirrel on my windowsill. I couldn’t keep straight who wanted the sex and who didn’t.These people Bush invited to a photo-op are raving mad,
When the embryos were shipped by FedEx to their fertility clinic in Phoenix, Donielle Brinkman recalled, her "ultimate nightmare" occurred: The package went astray because of an erroneous Zip code. In a panic, she drove to a FedEx warehouse to retrieve it herself. "I went to the counter, and I wasn’t leaving until they gave me that tank," she said. "I said: ‘You have my babies there. I need you to hand them over.’ "
… Over the next three years, she insisted that her doctors transfer all of the embryos into her womb, two or three at a time. She had four transfers, and three miscarriages. Tanner was the only one who survived, but "we were committed to all 11 of those babies," she said. "We were going to see it through as long as it took."
… When the Brinkmans ran into fertility problems, they first tried in vitro fertilization themselves, unsuccessfully. They also thought about a conventional adoption. But because they wanted to experience a pregnancy, Donielle Brinkman said, they turned to Nightlight Christian Adoptions of Fullerton, Calif., and its "Snowflakes" program, a name intended to emphasize that every embryo is unique.
- Donielle Brinkman considers a fertilized embryo a person, presumably with the same right to life as everyone else
- Donielle knows her uterus is likely to kill any embryo that finds its way in
- An already born unwanted child is not good enough for her to adopt, Donielle wants to experience pregnancy herself
- Donielle opts to send eleven donor embryos to her uterus of death; one survives
I’m a big fan of adoption, but don’t consider the actions Donielle Brinkman took to be immoral. What she does with her ability/inability to reproduce with or without the aid of science is none of my business. But I fail to understand how she can avoid feeling guilty about these 10 babies she thinks died so she could experience pregnancy.
UPDATE: From the Brinkman’s website – Donielle expresses something akin to regret or a rethinking … or something,
We feel so blessed that the Lord chose us for two very unique and different adoptions. The first was a Snowflake Embryo Adoption – what a joy it was to get to carry Tanner. After loosing all 10 of Tanner’s siblings in first trimester miscarriages though, I did not have the heart to continue down that road.
Two questions arise: First, if her "heart" won’t let Donnielle continue down a road she chose, why did her brain let her get on it in the first place? Her "pregnancy experience" fulfilled, she now thinks sending snowflake babies to likely death is all of a sudden wrong?
The second question is why is Bush posing for an "embryo adoption" press photo with a woman who has qualms about "embryo adoption" in some cases, including her own?
Post a Comment
Comments:
Hi there! Donielle Brinkman here:). I was googling for something and happened upon this article. It appears that I should take a moment and clarify a few of your "facts". You seem to be applying some faulty reasoning here. Allow ME to recap:(1) Yes I pursued embryo adoption because I wanted to experience pregnancy
By Doni Brinkman, at 6/5/2005 10:39 PM
(2) I do not support cryopreservation BECAUSE it can be harmful to embryos. The fact that I don’t agree with cryopreservation though has nothing to do with the fact that these embryos needed mommy’s and daddy’s. I don’t support sex outside of marriage either but I wouldn’t refuse to adopt because I disagreed with the timing of conception. (3) My womb was not the problem (according to the Dr.s). I did carry Tanner to a full term birth and tested negative for any factors that could have contributed to my miscarriages. The Dr.s concluded that the miscarriages were due to abnormalities within the embryos. They would have miscarried irregardless of who carried them. Although to your point, had I found out after my first miscarriage that my body was causing the loss of our childrens lives, we were prepared to place them with another family. We would have been heartbroken but we would have prioritized them. This is why we made sure to have me tested before proceeding with the other transfers (4) The intent of transferring frozen embryos into a mother’s womb should be obvious. To rescue them from frozen orphanages. This is a life saving endeavor – not selfish life taking. Not sure why this is confusing. (5) My "regrets" were not about embryo adoption – don’t take me out of context please. For a mom who has suffered infertility, to then loose children in miscarriage is a HEAVY grief to carry. I mourned these babies and am emotionally not prepared to risk another miscarriage (although – medically I shouldn’t have to be concerned about that any more than any other woman because once again – my Dr.s claim I did not contribute to their loss of life). And lastly, I should point out to you that I most definitely support domestic adoption. Maybe you missed that part on my website? We domestically adopted our son at 25 weeks in January of 2004. I held both my children before they were deemed "viable" Tanner while in a tank and Ty before he was even out of the second trimester. Any wonder why I lobby to protect these tiny lives? Just thought your posting needed a little balance. Sincerely – Donielle Brinkman
12 responses to “The Price of Fame”
Wow I am at a loss for words against that man! I am glad that you were not. I am sorry that you had to read that about yourself and your family, I cannot imagine how hurtful that was. To be able to turn the truth around and state it as fact is unbelieveable.
I am proud of what you stand for and your ability to write and speak out about it. Thank you for posting information aobut ECSR. I think a big problem is that people don’t know enough about the facts.
Know that many people are behind you and support you, myself included.
~Robin G.
I can’t believe his nerve…..how dare he try to bash you and your family for fighting for the lives of precious little ones. I applaude your response to him, I bet he never saw that one coming. But I have to ask, have you been back to his blog, has he responded to your comment?
Doni – I love you and am so sorry to see you being misrepresented in such a way! You should never have to defend yourself regarding your choice to love each and every baby you carried and to continue in your endeavor to bring them life!
How is it you always seem to keep your “cool”! 🙂 I am steeming over this!!! Let me at him……..:-)
Kristi Simpson
Jim and Doni,
I may not have been there through the first couple of years of Tanners life, but I was there after Ty was born. I watched for over a month on a daily basis the strength, the emotions, the knowledge, and faith you gave to each other and to Ty. Even before I knew the entire story of Tanner and Ty, I would have never questioned your intentions as parents. I stood right next to my own son and many times would look over to at Ty when one of his alarms would be warning and watched as you would hold your breath until you knew he was out of danger. ” A true emotion of any good parent” Your devotion to your children is nothing to question, it is REAL and always will be. Doni and I have become good friends over the last 16 months and never would I doubt her. As for the man who wrote this bashing….
Do you know who you are dealing with???
The Brinkman family is stronger than most I know and the love that carries between them is strong enough to move through something as small as your uneducated words. A peice of advice,,,,, before you type your next artical please study your subjects a little closer and realize that people the the Brinkman Family unite and stand strong when it comes to people attacking who they are and what they are about. Something I have learned…….
” It only takes a second to judge, but a life time to love”
Although it’s irritating to read all the misrepresentations, NO ONE can ignore that embryo adoption is a life-saving choice for these embryos. Last week I was speaking with a reporter and she brought up the argument that some people say we are purposely destroying the embryos when we adopt them, thaw them and then have them transferred to our womb. I told her I had heard that argument but I personally think it’s a silly argument. I went on to explain that the embryos are being thawed and transferred to a uterus so they have the best chance at life — it’s up to God which ones continue developing in the womb and which ones God takes home to be with him. In embryonic stem cell research, there is absolutely no chance that those embryos will survive — they will be killed and the choice hasn’t been left up to God, but to humans. Anyway, your reply was good and I would only add that the gentleman’s blog sounds like he was reading the front page of the Washington Post on Tuesday, May 31. =)
Thank you for your defense sweet one’s:) Linda – yes we have continued the conversation a bit and while I don’t believe he and I would see eye to eye on most any subject…I do think he has been more gracious when dealing with me directly (as opposed to his article). Courtney – yes that is the source he quoted from. In fact, the quotes that he copied from the WA Post were accurate – it was his interpretation of what was written that I found offensive. And by the way, I will be posting the WA article and my comments soon as well. That was an interesting spin…didn’t see it coming:). You just never know what angle the press may take.
Everyone has the right to thier own opinion but saying you have a “womb” of death… that’s just an attack out of ignorance! I posted my own ‘small’ rebuttal on HIS site… there are ways of finding it…. LOL
LOL, I found his site pretty easily too. Really interesting spin he put on it…..amazing that he chose to focus on the negatives and ignore the miracle of life! Like he said though, he doesn’t believe that an embryo is human life…so there isn’t any reasoning with him.
Hi everyone. I think Robin Gilliam states well half of the ethical dilemna experienced by those who believe these embryos are human life,
“NO ONE can ignore that embryo adoption is a life-saving choice for these embryos.”
The other half is that the best medical technology today can bring to term less than 1/3 of cryo-preserved embros, yet it’s reasonable to believe that a decade or two out, technology will allow nearly 100% of those same embryos to come to full term.
If one believes these embryos are people with rights like you and I, attempting IVF with them now is playing russian roulette with human lives in order to save – today – less than 1 out of three of them.
It seems to me any “rescue mission” ought be put off as technology improves.
As I said in my original post reproduced by Donni, I don’t find third-party IVF immoral at all, what people do in this arena is their own business, however given the choice, my ethics would compell me to adopt a breathing baby who needs a home over a cluster of cells that needs a womb.
I’m tempted to respond and tempted not to. I wonder if some ears will ever really be able to hear?
I guess I will address this post to Doni… hard to be silent but what can I say to someone so bent on preaching to the choir about adopting children who need homes?
A few things come to mind when I read this post. The most obvious I will mention first:
1. Whose to say WHAT science and technology will know 1 year, let alone, 10, 20, 50, 100, years from now – it’s all a guess… and I have NO doubt that IF science and technology allows all of the frozen embryos to be carried full term (impossible by any stretch of the imagination as no one can guarantee that) – but let’s just say “science” comes close to even 50% it will only be with the loss of MANY MANY MORE children during the trial period. There would be no way scientists could perfect such a thing without killing many on the way… that would be self-defeating! It goes back to the same thing ESCR supporters are advocating – kill some to save many… too many children will die in the process. This is a flimsy (or is the right word really ridiculous?) arguement for not saving babies TODAY!
2. If the rescue mission is “put off” thousands that could be saved will be discarded, killed, destroyed, and researched upon in the meantime – not saved. There is no better time than NOW to fight for lives that have the hope of being saved.
3. A breathing baby needs a home – indeed. But the problem does not lie with those wishing to adopt a child – breathing or frozen. This isn’t the time to attack the ethics of those who love children and wish to save many.
4. Embryo’s are in fact tiny children who need homes – just as much as any breathing baby. Period.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to argue with Doni or any other adopting family for giving making a family for themselves and for their children? None of this makes any sense when I see this discussion continuing back and forth. It seems so unnecessary.
Doni & Jim, I am so thankful that you joined God in His plan to save TANNER! NO ONE can say he’s not worth the fight. Don’t ever stop being a voice for those who need it most. I’m so glad you are speaking loud and clear regardless of those who don’t see eye to eye with you. I know for sure that there are many starfish who will thank you one day. 🙂
I am amazed, but in today’s world not surprised by these comments being made. I am glad that you took the time to respond and you did so with such poise, yet candid (which I LOVE about you) thoughts. Thank you for giving the ‘little ones’ a voice!
May the Lord continue to bless the Brinkman Family.
Here’s another of my responses to him tonight:
There is just so much I would like to respond to but I lack the time and late night energy at the moment… besides, I just don’t see there being a resolution with some of the individuals writing here. I will respond to Erik though – you said:
“It seems our difference is irreconcilable for the moment: I don’t consider a fertilized egg to be a person, you do. Until we can objectively make that determination, it’s best for the federal government to stay out.”
1. I agree with the first sentence – we are at an impass that can’t be bridged unless one of us lets go of the foundation of our beliefs on who and what embryos are. It’s clear to me that scientifically human eggs fertilized by human sperms create human cells. Those cells, if they continue to grow and not die, are living. Those cells continue to grow in the right environment (presumably a mother’s womb at first) to live through all differnent stages of life as a fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, middle-aged…etc. Live human embryos are living human beings – science proves it. The question remains – are they assigned personhood and if not then, when are they? Can you name the date?
2. I do not agree that since we have differing opinions that can’t be resolved then the government should stay out. In fact, it is ESPECIALLY BECAUSE we can not agree that someone should step in to create laws that protect life. We can disagree on all sorts of things that don’t matter and will never change the world… but if there is any chance whatsoever that embryos really are lives that deserve protection, shouldn’t we take THAT chance? If we are going to make a mistake about whether human embryos are really people or not shouldn’t we risk the error being on the side of caution? It just seems like the most ethical AND logical thing to me to consider embryos as life worth protecting until someone can prove otherwise – not the other way around. When it comes to humanity – always risk on the side of protecting life.
As to the commenter who is so intent on listing all the reasons our current gov’t administration is “hoodwinking” everyone into believing he’s fighting for life… all I can do is really shake my head. If he was truly trying to pull the wool over our eyes in order to win votes or whatever it is you think he’s trying to do, he certainly could have taken an easier path! Fighting for unborn children has become a very difficult fight in recent years – whether it be regarding various aspects of abortion, IVF, cloning, or embryonic stem cell research. If he was trying to win the majority with so-called lies I’m sure he could have found an easier path and chosen less controversial subjects or perspectives.
You comment also on a war “based on lies” but that would take way to much to really properly respond to. I will say this: As the wife of a military member I can say I fully support our President and our troops in the war on terrorism – whether it’s here on the homefront or in Iraq or Afghanistan. I’m thankfully somebody is doing something to clear out even a little bit of the evil that has been devastating lives for too many years.
PS – Erik, I responded to your arguement about encouraging science to clean up it’s own mess on Doni’s site. I agree they should but not at the expense of more embryos. And in order for them to find greater success in bringing embryos to full term pregnancy age in a lab rather than a womb – I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that it would be at the expense of thousands of more lives of preborn children. (That’s just a highlight of my thoughts on the subject).
Once again, I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to respond to your article. It will always be a subject worthy discussion.
PS – I do still wish you would change your mind about saying Doni sent her babies to their deaths… the fact of her story (which are medically documented) prove otherwise. It does seem a rather blatantly cruel thing to say to a mother who wants to lovingly raise her family and give life to little ones. I hope you’ll reconsider and at least concede on that point. 🙂