There's been a lot of talk recently about how IVF fits into the pro-life worldview, and I know that I definitely have some questions.
I'm incredibly biased toward adoption, but I can see how IVF can allow couples to become pregnant with their own babies when all else fails and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Likewise with surrogacy. I'm not sure that asking a sister to carry the baby for her sister/brother in law, is a totally bad thing either.
But what gets me wondering is the stories we see about two people who are physically incapable of reproducing, who go buy some eggs/sperm, fertilize the in a test tube, then rent the womb of someone they don't know to carry the child. I could be wrong, but that sounds like simply purchasing another human being. Go to the donor bank, pick the perfect donor sperm and egg so you get exactly what you want, then hire someone to do the hard work of gestating this purchased embryo, then take your purchase home from the "store" after checkout. To me, it doesn't sound much different from any other form of purchasing a human.
14 comments:
IVF is unnatural, and many embryos (the babies we don't want aborted?) will be destroyed. If you can't conceive, then adopt.
Surrogacy is unnatural and, in my view, downright immoral. ADOPT. (It's really sort of like adultery, part of you having sex - albeit implanted--with someone not your spouse.)
I find both practices to be self-centered and evil.
My natural knee prevented me from functioning in virtually every meaningful way, yet my unnatural knee has allowed me to do all sorts of things. My spine deteriorated years ago, the unnatural chunks of angle iron and lag screws allow me to walk. I'm not sure that "natural" is the best argument.
Be that as it may, I'm suggesting that under certain circumstances that I can see how both of those things COULD be appropriate.
I am arguing that for two people to purchase donor sperm, eggs, and rent a womb is the functional equivalent to buying a human being. I'm also suggesting that using IVF to produce a child for the purpose of harvesting organs or tissue is vile as well.
I agree that adoption is a great option. Adoption should be subsidized (if subsidy is appropriate) much more than abortion is.
There may be arguments, but "natural" isn't one of them.
FYI, given the fact that it is natural for humans to create (made in the image of a creator God) and to take what is found in the natural world and make useful things (subdue/dominion), then it seems like an argument could be made that humans using our God given creativity and the resources of the natural, created world to solve problems is actually pretty natural. I'm not making that argument, but it could be made.
I'm not certain of all the details, but I believe there are methods or practices of IVF which don't require the collection of embryos to be frozen for later use only to eventually be murdered. Some states have restrictions on the issue. It's apparently expensive and time consuming to extract and fertilize an ovum, implant in the mother and then hope for the best, and having extras at the ready reduces that expense of time and money, but I find it abhorrent. Between the time we were married and the point at which our daughter was conceived was five years, being done the old fashioned way. Had it gone much longer, and at our ages at the time, we might have adopted or given up the notion of having a kid altogether.
For those willing to shell out the dough, IVF at it's most basic is simply getting the ovum fertilized in a different way and I don't see it as a problem simply because it's unnatural.
Craig's final scenario is especially heinous in my view. It's accessorizing at best.
Craig,
I don't know if your comment about "natural" was directed my comment, but I think it is. I noted these things are "unnatural" --not "natural."
Obviously, if that is the case it would alleviate one concern. Like many things, it could be looked at as a tool. As we know tools can be used for good or evil.
Glenn,
As you know, natural and unnatural are two sides of the same coin. As I pointed out, if I stuck with only what is "natural" or "not unnatural", I would literally be unable to walk. I could avail myself of a wheelchair or other device, but those are also "unnatural" as a means for mammals to get around. Further, my father had a valve replacement back in the day. His "natural" heart valve was replaced with an "unnatural" heart valve sourced from a swine. I guess that the swine heart valve is less "unnatural" than my titanium knee, but that's nitpicking innit?
My point remains that using "natural/unnatural" as the standard would exclude quite a bit of medical treatments that improve people's lives significantly. As well as pointing out that it's not "unnatural" for humans to use natural resources in ways that they are not used in nature.
Craig,
According to the way we are designed, IFV is an immoral because embryos are killed in selection. There is no need for IVF except sinful selfishness.
Surrogacy is immoral because it is impregnating a woman by someone other than her husband, and the man impregnating someone other than his wife, which I see as a version of adultery. Again it is done for sinful reasons, i.e. selfishness.
So if you want to determine that natural vs unnatural doesn't apply, how about the sin of selfishness?
Glenn,
As I suggested, I believe a single ovum can be removed from a woman to be fertilized in a petri dish...or in whatever is used to bring together sperm and ovum...and then implanted. If this is true, then it's not the IVF which is immoral, but the specific method used to provide a pregnancy for a couple. This suggestion was provoked by an article discussing the Alabama ruling, wherein it provided that how IVF is done in Alabama (or allowed to be done, regardless of how any specific Alabama clinic does it) is more restricted in other states.
As to surrogacy, to surgically implant an embryo from another couple is nothing like having intercourse with someone other than one's spouse. It is merely a means by which one's progeny can be brought forth into infancy. As such, it is no more selfish than any other couple producing a child in the normal manner. Consider:
A couple struggles...very much as did Abraham and Sarah...to conceive a child. Is such a couple selfish for trying repeatedly to produce a child? Was Abe and Sarah? I'd say that's absurd, as the determination to go forth and multiply is a moral purpose or function of marriage. It's not a matter of selfishness per se as far as that determination goes. We were created man and woman for that purpose but most people marry because of the "selfishness" of their desire for one another.
I would agree that not all methods of IVF are moral, but until I can confirm that embryos are always put at risk just to get one which will flourish, there's no immorality inherent in every method of impregnating one's spouse which isn't the old fashioned way.
Art,
IF the IVF uses another person's semen other than the husband, then it is adultery because another man is providing and it isn't the husband's. Even if it the husband's, everyone I've know or read about often loses the first time and has to keep trying--i.e.killing the original sperm/egg. It is nothing but selfishness to do this horrible and super expensive experiment rather than adopt.
Surrogacy is like intercourse because they are taking sperm from a man not her husband; again this is unnecessary and only caused by the SIN of selfishness.
As for Abraham and Sarah, Abraham committed adultery with Sarah's handmaid. God promised them children yet they were unhappy with waiting and selfishly used the handmade. IMMORAL.
Go forth and multiply was spoken to one wife/one husband. Never meant to multiply using many wives.
There is absolutely NO need for IVF or surrogacy except caused by the sin of selfishness.
Glenn,
I have no idea how many of my wife's eggs I had fertilized before it was obvious she was pregnant after five years of trying. Should we have stopped trying after the first year? The first six months? After failing to conceive during our honeymoon? If you're saying there's no method of IVF which doesn't result in excess embryos, I might be able to agree with your otherwise unreasonable insistence that it's a sign of selfishness to want to conceive with one's spouse.
Surrogacy is NOT at all in any way like intercourse. Only intercourse is like intercourse. The husband is not required to have intercourse with the surrogate if the gametes of him and his wife can be harvested and united and the resulting embryo implanted in the surrogate. Thus, no adultery. At all.
"As for Abraham and Sarah, Abraham committed adultery with Sarah's handmaid. God promised them children yet they were unhappy with waiting and selfishly used the handmade. IMMORAL."
Irrelevant to the issue here. My point was they continued trying unsuccessfully before resorting to bringing in a third party and until that point there was nothing at all immoral with that continued trying.
"Go forth and multiply was spoken to one wife/one husband. Never meant to multiply using many wives."
Irrelevant to the issue here. No one's suggesting multiple wives or intercourse with surrogates. Except you.
"There is absolutely NO need for IVF or surrogacy except caused by the sin of selfishness."
Nonsense. I don't know your history with your wife or if you even have children. So I will just ask. Did you consummate your marriage with one act of intercourse and then wait, and failing to conceive, did you never again try?
Art,
Everything I've see about IVF ends up with multiple fertilized being destroyed. That's what makes it wrong. If no fertilized eggs are destroyed then I suppose it would be okay
Of course surrogacy isn't truly adultery but analogous to it. The man who provides sperm to the surrogate is not married to her and should not be using a woman as a birthing unit. That is, to me, just plain unholy and an abuse of the woman as an incubator.
The issue of Abraham IS immoral; He had sex with a woman who was not his wife. God promised him a child with his wife but he couldn't wait. IMMORAL.
The selfishness issue is when one MUST have a natural born child and uses other people to get it done.
We had no problem conceiving, but if we did there is no way I'd be spending the money for IVF.
Glenn,
Five separate points addressed in order:
1. If every method of IVF requires fertilizing multiple eggs before any are implanted, then I oppose IVF completely. I'm not sure that's the case, though, and haven't done any deep dive into the subject to know one way or another. I only know that in articles regarding the Alabama ruling, it was mentioned that other states are more restrictive of the practice and it implied multiples aren't required to get the job done.
2. It's not at all analogous to adultery and as far as I know, the point is simply to provide a womb, not to impregnate the surrogate. While that practice might indeed be employed, to regard all forms of surrogacy as adultery or analogous to it is improper.
3. You're going past the point in question. Their desire to conceive was ongoing prior to the thought of a third party. Their desire to continue trying up to that point is not selfishness and the desire of any couple to unite their gametes in an alternative manner to produce their own child isn't, either.
4. No one mentioned that here but you. IVF doesn't depend upon it and surrogacy doesn't either.
5. So, you consummated once, never a second time and conceived?
Art,
I just give a "sigh.'
Notice what I said in #1: "If no fertilized eggs are destroyed then I suppose it would be okay."
#2 Well, it is YOUR opinion that surrogacy isn't analogous to adultery and it is MY opinion that it is. The woman is being impregnated by someone other than her husband. It's also immoral in my opinion because it is "rent a body."
#3. I think it is narcissistic selfishness that says, "if God hasn't provided for a child the normal way, well I don't want to adopt someone else's child so I'll going to spend thousands of dollars and use petrie dishes and other bodies to get a child with my gametes." I'm allowed that opinion.
#4. Yes I have more than one child; no problem conceiving.
Glenn,
#2 Let's say you impregnated your wife, but she couldn't carry the child for some reason beyond her control. Would you regard renting a body to be immoral if it meant your child would live? How so? I don't see any way to argue against carrying the embryo of another as immoral from a Scriptural perspective. No fornication is involved simply to implant the embryo.
#3 Sure, you're allowed any opinion you find personally pleasing. Doesn't make it worth a damn. In this discussion, you've chosen to focus on only that which is the worst possible application of artificial methods.
#4 My question was regarding only your first child. Did you engage in the procreative act and then wait until you confirmed whether or not you were successful in producing conception? If not, did you give it up, or selfishly try again?
Post a Comment