IVF and emergency abortion

[ChirpChirp]

I didn't want to spam the forum so I put the two topics in one thread


Question 1:
Most of the church views on IVF (in vitro fertilisation) I have heard are negative. However, the only reason I could find based on my understanding of the Bible are that embryos may be created which are not utilised thus leading to destruction of life. However, if all the embryos are utilized or only a certain number created so as not to have any left over, would it be a sin for a couple who cannot conceive naturally to undergo IVF?

Question 2:
Undoubtedly abortion on demand is a sin. However, when the mother's life is at risk is it permissible for a doctor to end the pregnancy if this will result in the improvement of the mother's health?

There was a recent case over here where a mother presented to hospital miscarrying her baby but was denied an abortion. Her miscarriage lasted an atypically long period of time and during this time she developed septicaemia and died. She was denied the abortion because the baby still had a heartbeat but in reality there was no way that baby would have survived- it was only 17weeks old and she was in active labour. To me it seems like a terrible and preventable waste of a life Abortion is actually legal over here in the case of an emergency and there was more at play in the way the hospital reacted to her situation which I will not go into here, but what is the church teaching on such situations?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think as far as abortion goes for your second question, if you know both will die you do what you can to save at least one.

I dunno about the first one. you should probably ask your priest about these.

 

[truthseeker32]

As I have understood it the problem with IVF is also the idea that people have a right to have children rather than seeing children as a blessing God decides to give or restrain. Personally, if my wife and I had to rely on IVF to have a child I would instead opt to adopt some of the many children that already exist without a loving family.

In cases of abortion I am of the opinion that the goal or intent determines the morality of an action. I see a moral distinction between a fetus being lost as a result of doctors intending to save the mother's life and a fetus being lost as a result of the doctor intending to destroy the fetus.

 

[ChirpChirp]

As I have understood it the problem with IVF is also the idea that people have a right to have children rather than seeing children as a blessing God decides to give or restrain. Personally, if my wife and I had to rely on IVF to have a child I would instead opt to adopt some of the many children that already exist without a loving family.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think you could tell a couple or especially a woman that due to having developed a certain illness in her lifetime or whatever the reason may be that you don't think she should have children...it would be kinda like telling a sick person that since they don't have a right to be healthy because it's a blessing from God that you're not going to go out of your way to treat them :/ As a woman I know if I found out I couldn't have children without medical help I'd go for IVF but make sure no embryos are harmed (you can freeze them and keep them for later too, but just make sure all of them are used). Maybe for a man it wouldn't be that different, but I know for me having the child myself would not compare with adoption. Having said that, you could always adopt as well as have your own

 

[Cappadocious]

it would be kinda like telling a sick person that since they don't have a right to be healthy because it's a blessing from God that you're not going to go out of your way to treat them

I would not condemn a woman who used IVF.

IVF comes in different shapes and sizes. For example, using a sperm donor or an egg donor for a couple to have the fertile members' DNA child, instead of adopting, doesn't have much to do with Christianity.

 

[gzt]

One of the objections to IVF is that it removes sex from the act of conception. This at the very least makes it problematic.

As for the second question, this is one of the few situations where it would be permissible.

 

[ChirpChirp]

I would not condemn a woman who used IVF.

IVF comes in different shapes and sizes. For example, using a sperm donor or an egg donor for a couple to have the fertile members' DNA child, instead of adopting, doesn't have much to do with Christianity.

Yeah I agree. Same as surrogate mothers for a gay couple.

I wonder though if a Christian woman was not able to carry the baby but if you could take her egg and her husband's sperm and use a surrogate volunteer to carry the baby, like her sister, would that be permissible?

 

[ChirpChirp]

One of the objections to IVF is that it removes sex from the act of conception. This at the very least makes it problematic.

Well nobody is stopping the couple from trying to conceive through sex. But if it's not going to happen that way you're not "removing" anything you're just making the best of a bad situation. And since sex is there for the couple to express their love as well as for procreation there shouldn't be anything wrong with them continuing their sexual relations right?

 

[ArmyMatt]

As I have understood it the problem with IVF is also the idea that people have a right to have children rather than seeing children as a blessing God decides to give or restrain.

that's a pretty good point

 

[Crandaddy]

As I have understood it the problem with IVF is also the idea that people have a right to have children rather than seeing children as a blessing God decides to give or restrain. Personally, if my wife and I had to rely on IVF to have a child I would instead opt to adopt some of the many children that already exist without a loving family.

In cases of abortion I am of the opinion that the goal or intent determines the morality of an action. I see a moral distinction between a fetus being lost as a result of doctors intending to save the mother's life and a fetus being lost as a result of the doctor intending to destroy the fetus.

This. ^

And as regards the first paragraph, I might add these questions for all to consider: Does anyone have a right to artificially create human life in a lab? Isn't that kinda like playing God?

As for the second question, this is one of the few situations where it would be permissible.

Is denying Christ permissible if the only alternative is a gruesome martyrdom?

 

[rusmeister]

I would not condemn a woman who used IVF.

IVF comes in different shapes and sizes. For example, using a sperm donor or an egg donor for a couple to have the fertile members' DNA child, instead of adopting, doesn't have much to do with Christianity.

This is not true.
"Anything can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false. Nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true." CS Lewis

Bioethics is very relevant to Orthodoxy. What we do and why we do it is very much related to our salvation.

In general, these issues are based on secular understandings: IVF on the idea that I ought to be able to have children by ANY means if I want, and abortion on the idea that a baby is not really a baby if the mother's life is in danger. When we see that, the Orthodox answers become more obvious.

Generally speaking, a mother is never in danger from her baby. The cases where a baby's presence is seen to interfere with a proposed medical procedure are not even one in a million, but the wedge used from such improbable scenarios is then used to justify everything else. Similarly, legitimate use of IVF would be an extremely rare thing, but from the argument it then becomes a practice that businesses can survive and thrive on from illegitimate use, which, now that these practices have been accepted, are multiplying like mushrooms and trumpeted in the media. That is the practical effect of these theoretical improbabilities.

GK Chesterton said, "We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great task is to learn not to do them." That, I think, is the best advice.

 

[gracefullamb]

.

 

[Crandaddy]

On your abortion question everything I have read has said yes it is allowed if the baby cannot be saved but the mother can be saved. It isn't so much that it is allowed as this would be the lesser of two evil since doing nothing would mean the loss of two lives.

But then it would be allowed if it is necessary to save someone's life. So then why wouldn't capitulating to demands to deny Christ be permissible if lives might be saved?

Or, here's another scenario that just occurred to me:

Say that a young mother with her baby are hiding with a group of other people from a squad of soldiers who are searching for them. If the soldiers find them, they will kill every one of them, including the baby. Suddenly, the baby starts crying inconsolably, and loud enough for the soldiers to hear it. The only way to stop the baby from crying--and prevent being discovered--is to kill it. Should the mother kill her baby, so that she and the rest of the group might live? Or, would it at least be permissible for her to kill her baby?

 

[Cappadocious]

This is not true.
"Anything can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false. Nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true." CS Lewis

Bioethics is very relevant to Orthodoxy. What we do and why we do it is very much related to our salvation.

In general, these issues are based on secular understandings: IVF on the idea that I ought to be able to have children by ANY means if I want, and abortion on the idea that a baby is not really a baby if the mother's life is in danger. When we see that, the Orthodox answers become more obvious.

Generally speaking, a mother is never in danger from her baby. The cases where a baby's presence is seen to interfere with a proposed medical procedure are not even one in a million, but the wedge used from such improbable scenarios is then used to justify everything else. Similarly, legitimate use of IVF would be an extremely rare thing, but from the argument it then becomes a practice that businesses can survive and thrive on from illegitimate use, which, now that these practices have been accepted, are multiplying like mushrooms and trumpeted in the media. That is the practical effect of these theoretical improbabilities.

GK Chesterton said, "We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great task is to learn not to do them." That, I think, is the best advice.

You misunderstood my post.

 

[rusmeister]

You misunderstood my post.

Well, I understood something; you have a perception of what I understood that may be true or false...

 

[ChirpChirp]

Generally speaking, a mother is never in danger from her baby. The cases where a baby's presence is seen to interfere with a proposed medical procedure are not even one in a million, but the wedge used from such improbable scenarios is then used to justify everything else.


Similarly, legitimate use of IVF would be an extremely rare thing, but from the argument it then becomes a practice that businesses can survive and thrive on from illegitimate use, which, now that these practices have been accepted, are multiplying like mushrooms and trumpeted in the media. That is the practical effect of these theoretical improbabilities.

Did you even read my first post? I included a clear example where the mother was in danger from her baby. And no, it's far from being one in a million. Complications in pregnancy are common.

As regards IVF, I don't know where you live and what "businesses survive and thrive from illegitimate use". But legitimate need for IVF is quite common! Just from listening to my boyfriend's experience on his obstetrics rotation I heard of a good few cases requiring or that may require IVF in the future.

 

[rusmeister]

Did you even read my first post? I included a clear example where the mother was in danger from her baby. And no, it's far from being one in a million. Complications in pregnancy are common.

As regards IVF, I don't know where you live and what "businesses survive and thrive from illegitimate use". But legitimate need for IVF is quite common! Just from listening to my boyfriend's experience on his obstetrics rotation I heard of a good few cases requiring or that may require IVF in the future.

Hi, Chirpchirp,
Yes I did read your post. And I deny that the mother is in danger from her baby, generally speaking. You may talk of ectopic pregnancies where the baby cannot be saved, there it's like ArmyMatt said. You save who you can. Complications in pregnancy absolutely do not mean that we need to kill the baby to save the mother. Morally and ethically, murder is wrong - deliberately killing one in the name of saving another is not morally justifiable.

But the real problem is that people far from Christian morality take that football, as soon as you give them an opening, and then use it to justify all sorts of unnatural insanity. The hard and clear rule, the Orthodox understanding, is that killing, to save anybody, is wrong. The "fetus" is a baby, a human person, and must be seen and treated as such. If you start with that, you might avoid the Pandora's Box of sin struggling to open and flood the world with what we already see - "surrogate mothers", homosexual "parents", abortion, eugenics (under whatever name) and so on.

Humanity has existed without IVF for thousands of years. That we CAN do something now does not mean we OUGHT to do it. "Need" is debatable. (My young children tell me they "need" a cookie.) Many couples have found that they can not bear children, including my "mentor", GK (and Frances) Chesterton. It is tragic. But it is not the end of the world. Again, yes, I can conceive of legitimate use. But it does not mean that use is mandatory for the Christian. Our goal is eternal life, and we must not subordinate that to mothers' lives or a couple's natural desire for children, both good things, but not our real goal.

It just seems as if you think, "We CAN do a thing; therefore we MUST". I don't think that true at all. Unless iron walls are built around legitimate use here, laws that say these procedures may only be used in accordance with Christian morality, within marriage, no third parties, etc etc, it is better not to do these things at all. Since I am sure that will not happen, I think these things VERY dangerous for our society. We are playing with fire. All sin is playing with fire; some is more immediately destructive than others.

There are a lot of presuppositions here that need to be unpacked.

 

[ChirpChirp]

Hi, Chirpchirp,
Yes I did read your post. And I deny that the mother is in danger from her baby, generally speaking. You may talk of ectopic pregnancies where the baby cannot be saved, there it's like ArmyMatt said. You save who you can. Complications in pregnancy absolutely do not mean that we need to kill the baby to save the mother. Morally and ethically, murder is wrong - deliberately killing one in the name of saving another is not morally justifiable.

.

Rusmeister, I feel like you are deliberately misinterpreting everything I say! I did not by any means say abort the baby as soon as a complication comes up! However when you're in active labour at 17 weeks gestation that pregnancy is over! Her womb and the contents became infected and needed emergency clearance to at least give the woman a chance to live!

I'll come back to the IVF question later because I'm busy right now, but basically no we don't HAVE to do anything about it. Jesus didn't HAVE to heal any sick, but He still did it out of love and compassion and we should live out lives like He did and show the same love and compassion! So why should a doctor not do their best to help a couple conceive?

If a woman (or a man) has some pathology and therefore is sick why not solve this problem? you are not creating life, God is. Humans will never be able to create the life itself. All you are doing is facilitating this creation of life in unfortunate people who happen to have some pathology that does not make it simple and straightforward like the majority of us. Neither are you "removing sex from conception" because it was never there in the first place!

 

[ChirpChirp]

Hi, Chirpchirp,


Humanity has existed without IVF for thousands of years. That we CAN do something now does not mean we OUGHT to do it. "Need" is debatable.

Not really a valid argument....

Humanity has also existed for thousands of years with murder, thieving, adultery etc....does that mean this does not need to change? Or that if we can change it we should not?

 

[MKJ]

With regards to IFV, the way the RCC describes it, the issue is the separation of the whole package of sexuality. IFV is sort of the opposite error of contraception: where contraception tries to reduce sexual activity between a couple from procreation by having sex without the possibility of fertilization, IFV removes unitive sexual activity between a couple from procreation by having fertilization without unitive sexual activity.

The potential harms that are seen to come out of this relate to making a child a product and having a child a sort of mechanical process.

Of course one could argue that in many cases, we allow for mechanical or alternate means for natural human processes when they are compromised by weakness of the body. No one complains about people using an insulin pump, even though it is clearly artificial, or going to dialysis rather than relying on their own kidneys.

I do tend to think some types of IFV would be disallowed for sure under a Christian perspective: using eggs or sperm from other people, or a surrogate. (And the latter, in particular, is riddled with potential for abuse and injustice.)