Ethical Question Regarding IVF

[Touma]

I am curious what your thoughts are. Is it a sin for a Christian man to donate his sperm to a woman who is not his wife, in a non sexual manner, so that she can get pregnant?

Why? Why not?

 

[Ukrainia]

There is the ethical issue that usually more embryos are harvested than are needed and those embryos sit on ice, until they're needed (which is some of the time) or until people decide they're trash. Just doing a quick google search there are currently 600,000 embryos on ice in the US alone. It's foolish to believe that most of them are going to be born. That's really really sad for those who believe a human embryo is a valuable human life. There are a few organizations who attempt to find couples willing to adopt the embryos (and are willing to implant them), but it's unlikely to ever become mainstream. I think this is the biggest ethical problem with IVF, but not the only one. It dehumanizes human embryos as just another technology, not a human being.

 

[Fremdin]

In what non-sexual manner can sperm be donated? It doesn't get itself in that cup.

 

[septemberskies]

Short answer: It's not how God designed pregnancy to happen... I don't agree with it.

 

[Socktastic]

People are free to do whatever is legal and whatever their morals allow them to do. Be that egg/sperm donation, surrogacy or in-vitro fertilisation. I understand that for some people the desire to have a biological child means they'll use any means possible to have one, and i'm not going to stamp my foot and go "no, no treatment for you". That is not my place, and honestly we're each driven by our individual understanding.

For me, on a personal level, IVF is not an option. Just because I desire a child does not give me the right to have one. Mix in the low success rates (what is it 20-25%?), potential depression/anxiety, possible vaginal infections and other such wonderful things and it's something that isn't particularly palatable.*

Is it a sin? Ah, that wonderful question that sparks many a heated discussion. That depends on what you view as sin. I do not view it as a sin, but I know people who do. Although the "it's against God" theme doesn't hold much water if they take medication and such things. It's a medical advancement, even if it involves such a hot topic as embryos.


*Of course this is based on the NHS, so it's probably wrong.

 

[Nilloc]

Short answer: It's not how God designed pregnancy to happen... I don't agree with it.

So would you view driving a car as wrong too? That isn't the way God designed human transportation.

 

[Keri]

This should be a fun thread. Or interesting at least.

My mother was an in-vitro fertilization specialist. I spent many of my childhood days in the lab she worked in. They were kind to her, being a single mother and let me hang around. I've been fascinated with the procedure from childhood. Whilst she was introducing sperm to eggs in petri dishes, I was cutting out and arranging chromosomes. Rambling. Back to the topic.

No, I don't see it as wrong. Or a sin. Some men are sterile. If a guy and his partner wanted a child, and he could not impregnate, then donor sperm would have to be used. God has always valued life. In Biblical days if a man died before being able to have his wife bear a son, the brother of that man would take the wife, impregnate her and if a son resulted, that boy would take on the name of her deceased husband. Anyway, I don't really see a difference. Sure, one was for the honor of the name-lines continuing, and in modern society it's for the reason of having a child, I really don't see how it's my place or anyone else's place to say that the desire to bring a child into a happy, loving home is wrong, no matter the method.

 

[MacFall]

No, it's not sinful. I can't say why I think it's not, because I can't even begin to imagine why someone would think it would be (unless they view impregnation itself as a sexual act which... well, "ew" is all I can say about that).

 

[Blank123]

The only issue I'd have with it is destroying the unwanted embryos.

Otherwise, I don't really care how someone chooses to start their family.

 

[MacFall]

The only issue I'd have with it is destroying the unwanted embryos.

Otherwise, I don't really care how someone chooses to start their family.

Yeah, there's that.

 

[Keri]

The only issue I'd have with it is destroying the unwanted embryos.

Otherwise, I don't really care how someone chooses to start their family.

From what my mother has said, the blastocysts that are not dividing properly (and are ruled unviable) are not kept. And the majority of the time, the unimplanted viable blastocysts are frozen for future use, if necessary. They refrain from just tossing away perfectly viable blastocysts. Not saying it doesn't happen, but usually the patients are paying a lot for each round of IVF, so they end up freezing the extra in case implantation doesn't occur.

 

[Blank123]

From what my mother has said, the blastocysts that are not dividing properly (and are ruled unviable) are not kept. And the majority of the time, the unimplanted viable blastocysts are frozen for future use, if necessary. They refrain from just tossing away perfectly viable blastocysts. Not saying it doesn't happen, but usually the patients are paying a lot for each round of IVF, so they end up freezing the extra in case implantation doesn't occur.

Interesting.

So what happens to the viable ones if they're never implanted? like say... 10 years go by and the couple has decided that they have enough children. Do they remain frozen when they know they will not be used?

 

[Keri]

Interesting.

So what happens to the viable ones if they're never implanted? like say... 10 years go by and the couple has decided that they have enough children. Do they remain frozen when they know they will not be used?

There was this one couple that had two children, like 20 years apart even though at one point they were the same age as blastocysts.

When my mother worked in the field (years and year ago) it was very early on in the IVF timescale. Then, they just stayed frozen for as long as necessary. I see how eventually a decision will have to be made. Tangent... I wonder though how long the cryopreservation can be attempted before damage to the blastocyst (if any) will occur.

With that said, I have the opinion that conception begins at implantation. Whether aided or unaided, pregnancy doesn't occur until the blastocyst implants. If it never implants, it gets flushed out with the next cycle. Whether the blastocyst was formed in a uterus or a dish, unless it implants, it's not going to go much futher than the 70-100 cells.

I know this is a touchy subject. The "when does life begin" debate. I don't want to get into that. So I'll stop.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

The only issue I'd have with it is destroying the unwanted embryos.

Indeed. From the little I know of the subject, this is my only problem with it... that, and its questionable success rate.

 

[PandaBeast]

There are a lot of children in the world that could use a home. I think infertility might well be God's way of nudging someone to take a few of the already here one's in. The problem mostly seems to be westerns aren't especially willing to take in kids that aren't white.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I'm not the biggest fan of IVF. I obviously cannot speak on behalf of Christian morality when it comes to IVF, but in my personal opinion, I think it's a huge waste of money. I don't see anything wrong with the procedure itself, but I will probably never understand why and the motives for doing it. There are thousands and thousands of unwanted kids in the world that need to be adopted...And couples are willing to pay 5 digit numbers and go through invasive procedures and emotional turmoil just to have a kid that is "their own"? It just seems so self centered and emotionally based.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm not going to say it's sinful, but I can't say that choosing IVF over adoption is right. If a couple can't have kids together and they want kids, then it just might be God telling them that they should adopt. There are after all, plenty of kids who need it.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

I am curious what your thoughts are. Is it a sin for a Christian man to donate his sperm to a woman who is not his wife, in a non sexual manner, so that she can get pregnant?

Why? Why not?

Neither sinful nor edifying.

 

[PinkSweetart]

I'm not the biggest fan of IVF. I obviously cannot speak on behalf of Christian morality when it comes to IVF, but in my personal opinion, I think it's a huge waste of money. I don't see anything wrong with the procedure itself, but I will probably never understand why and the motives for doing it. There are thousands and thousands of unwanted kids in the world that need to be adopted...And couples are willing to pay 5 digit numbers and go through invasive procedures and emotional turmoil just to have a kid that is "their own"? It just seems so self centered and emotionally based.

I agree with this.

As for being a Christian. I personally don't see it as sinful, but just "wrong". I don't know if I'm being closed-minded here.... But it's just not something I would do. I mean if adoption wasn't an option I would just take that as God telling me he didn't want me to have kids. But really, I'd rather adopt than go through all that trouble.

 

[Perhaps Today]

Personally, I don't think it's a good thing. I believe it goes against what God has in mind for reproduction. If a couple is not able to have children of their own, there are plenty of children who can be adopted and made part of the family.