Ethical Question Regarding IVF

[explodingboy]

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.

And we have my answer. Also applies to surrogacy. Going for the triple I don't much care for international adoption either, we're far from running out of kids locally up for adoption.

 

[Marycita]

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.

This (except I do see something wrong with the procedure as well)

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.

And this.


Also, if the case is that a man is giving his sperm to a woman who is not his wife - I think that is completely wrong. If God wanted that man and woman to reproduce, they would have been the ones to get together.

 

[crishmael]

I don't think it's sinful. Very costly and not very successful for sure, but those in themselves aren't sins. When people want children they do crazy stuff and it's difficult for someone outside the situation to understand it. But I think adoption would be the better option.

 

[Inkachu]

I do think it's somewhere between unethical/immoral and sinful. I don't think we should "play" with human genetics. Plus, there are thousands of children in foster care in desperate need of homes; if you can't get pregnant, adopt.

 

[Blank123]

maybe I'm too black and white for my own good, but I don't understand the "its not sinful, but it is wrong." answers.

If its wrong, how is it not a sin? I can understand if its wrong for the individual answering, but the answers given seem to be expanded to the general population. which leaves me going

 

[MacFall]

I think it's probably a way of saying, "It's not wrong, but I don't like it and wish that other people wouldn't do it."

 

[Niels]

I'm glad that the option exists for couples who need it. The only ethical qualm I have with it is the potential for abuse in the name of eugenics. Our understanding of such things is still nascent, and making rash decisions may lead to unfortunate unintended consequences years from now.

 

[Somber]

I do think it's somewhere between unethical/immoral and sinful. I don't think we should "play" with human genetics. Plus, there are thousands of children in foster care in desperate need of homes; if you can't get pregnant, adopt.

This

Also, where does God's will come into this? As Celtic Heart said there are many children in need of a home. If you cannot get pregnant maybe God has a different plan for your life. As a christian I believe that it is wrong.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I personally would not do it because of the money vs. success rate issue. I terms of morality and such, I honestly do not know enough about it to really say one way or another.
I will say that some people would find this option better than adoption. Adopting a child is a very long, and also expensive progress. You don't just walk into an orphanage, pick a child or two, and walk out. Even then, people tend to forget that adoption is a HUGE risk; you don't know the genetics of the child. Don't get me wrong, I think adoption is a GREAT thing, but I don't like it when people tend to see it as this easy alternative.

 

[Blank123]

This

Also, where does God's will come into this? As Celtic Heart said there are many children in need of a home. If you cannot get pregnant maybe God has a different plan for your life. As a christian I believe that it is wrong.

Be careful about labelling something as a Christian belief when Scripture is silent on the issue.

It could just as easily be argued that God placed that couple in a time and place and provided them with the money so they *could* go the IVF route.

 

[Oddish]

I personally am uncomfortable with it.

 

[Oddish]

Also, if the case is that a man is giving his sperm to a woman who is not his wife - I think that is completely wrong. If God wanted that man and woman to reproduce, they would have been the ones to get together.

I agree so much with this!

 

[K9_Trainer]

And we have my answer. Also applies to surrogacy. Going for the triple I don't much care for international adoption either, we're far from running out of kids locally up for adoption.

Yeah. I used to want to adopt a child internationally. But really, it doesn't matter. A child without a home is a child without a home, it doesn't matter if it's from Africa, Russia, or the US.

 

[Ukrainia]

There was also a weird and kind of creepy article about sperm donors in Time magazine a few weeks back. For people who do go that route, it pays to do research and be careful. Of course, that probably also goes for adoption.

 

[Ukrainia]

Also, country like Germany has laws in place so no human embryos spend time frozen, so when people decide on invitro ferilization over there, all the embryos are implanted apparently. Not sure if this solves all the ethical dilemmas, and it may create new ones but it's a very different way of doing IVF than the way it's done in the US.

 

[Amber.ly]

I am extremely fuzzy on the science of it all so I can't say one way or another whether I think the actual procedure is sinful.

I think ethically, I find no sin it in. While I completely believe adoption is a better choice, for some couples this isn't a possibility either.

 

[enelya_taralom]

I found this article on IVF interesting: from Christopher West Technology and Human Conception

Technology and Human Conception

When Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets earlier this year, the Internet was abuzz with debates about the reproductive technology industry. But the debates focused primarily on how many embryos should be allowed to be transferred to a woman’s body. Very few seem to be asking the more fundamental question: Should we be producing children in a laboratory at all?

The pain and even anguish of infertile couples mustn’t be undermined. However, as good as the desire for children is in itself, it doesn’t justify any and every means of "getting" a child. The Church’s basic moral principle regarding reproductive technologies is this: if a given technology assists the marital embrace in achieving its natural end, it can be morally acceptable, even praiseworthy. However, if it replaces the marital embrace as the means by which the child is conceived, it’s not in keeping with God’s design.

Separating conception from the loving embrace of husband and wife not only provokes many further evils, but, even if these are avoided, it remains contrary to the dignity of the child, the dignity of the spouses and their relationship, and Man’s status as a creature. Let’s look briefly at each (for further discussion, see my book Good News About Sex and Marriage).

(1) Provokes further evils: Separating conception from the marital embrace doesn’t necessarily entail the following evils, but it usually leads to them in practice: masturbation as a means of obtaining sperm; production of "excess" human lives that are either destroyed through abortion, frozen for later "use," or intentionally farmed for medical experimentation; a "eugenic mentality" that discriminates between human beings, not treating all with equal care and dignity; the trafficking of gametes (both sperm and ova) and frozen embryos for use by others.

(2) The dignity of the child: To seek a child as the end result of a technological procedure is to treat the child in some way as a product. For those involved, this creates – consciously, or unconsciously, subtly, or not so subtly – a depersonalized orientation towards the child. Products are subject to quality control. When you spend top dollar for a new computer, you want it in mint condition. You don’t care about the specific computer you pulled out of the box. You want one that works. If it’s defective, you’ll take it back for a refund or exchange it for another one.

Similarly, the temptation is all too real for a couple paying thousands (even tens of thousands) of dollars for these procedures to want a "refund" or an "exchange" if their "product" is defective. I don’t mean to imply that every couple who pays for these procedures stoops to this level. The temptation to apply "quality controls" can be resisted. But a depersonalizing mind-set is built-in to the very nature of the procedure.

(3) The dignity of the spouses and their relationship: The technological generation of human life is simply not marital. In other words, the child is not the fruit of his parent’s marital union, but the product of a technological procedure performed by a third party apart from their union altogether. As a former professor of mine put it, "Spouses can no more delegate to others the privilege they have of begetting human life than they can delegate to others the right they have to engage in the marital act"(William May, Marriage: The Rock on which the Family is Built).

The marital embrace is not simply the biological transmission of gametes. It is a profoundly personal, sacramental, physical and spiritual, reality. To divorce human conception from this sublime union shows a lack of understanding of the deepest essence of married love.

(4) Man’s status as a creature: God alone is the "Lord and Giver of Life." Spouses have the distinct privilege of co-operating with God in pro-creating children, but, as creatures themselves, they aren’t the masters of life. They’re only the servants of God’s design. Through technological fertilization, we set ourselves up as operators instead of co-operators, creators instead of pro-creators. We deny our status as creatures and make ourselves "like God."

None of this is said to condemn anyone. We simply "know not what we do." The Church, following Christ, proclaims mercy to all. But truth must be spoken. And as we come closer and closer to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the Church’s teaching on reproductive technologies appears more and more like true wisdom than mere finger wagging.

 

[PandaBeast]

And we have my answer. Also applies to surrogacy. Going for the triple I don't much care for international adoption either, we're far from running out of kids locally up for adoption.

Can't speak for the UK, but in the US there actually aren't many children available for adoption. Very few children in the foster care system are actually adoptable, as their parents still have intact rights and are trying to get their children back through the court system. I would imagine the situation in most western countries is pretty much the same.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

It is all part of the problem in our way of thinking - the way we exploit sexuality and human persons.

We abort babies and then produce people in test tubes outside an act of love because there are not babies to be had. It dehumanizes society and corrupts our understanding of sexuality. The problem with our society is that we put freedom above all things and we demand getting things our way with instant gratification.

To put sperm and eggs together, freeze them, implant them, give them away to other people or destroying them is treating them as commodities. These are real people, with a unique identity.

Sex is a gift from God. The gift should be freely received and given to others with respect for its purpose and the gifts that go along with it. The sad part about society is that we don't even see it as a gift, it is has been reduced to a need, a biological urge to be satisfied and something to play with to produce children.

Couples should emulate the Trinity. From Adam came Eve, who looked upon her and saw himself and loved his own flesh. From the Father came the Son, who looked upon Him and Himself, the Word, and loved the person who shared His essence. The love of the Father and Son was so great that they wanted to make it more complete by revealing it fully to another person and from their shared substance, came the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit could love the other two and also share and enjoy the love between the Father and Son. Thus, love was perfected in the Trinity.

Men and women can look onto each other and share their bodies to produce another person out of that love. Like the Holy Spirit, the child comes from them out of love. IVF is sinful in this since that like all sin, it looks to do something good but it produces good in error or produces evil in trying to do good.

God wants us to share and come close to that perfect love that exists in the Trinity.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I found this article on IVF interesting: from Christopher West Technology and Human Conception

Technology and Human Conception

When Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets earlier this year, the Internet was abuzz with debates about the reproductive technology industry. But the debates focused primarily on how many embryos should be allowed to be transferred to a woman’s body. Very few seem to be asking the more fundamental question: Should we be producing children in a laboratory at all?

The pain and even anguish of infertile couples mustn’t be undermined. However, as good as the desire for children is in itself, it doesn’t justify any and every means of "getting" a child. The Church’s basic moral principle regarding reproductive technologies is this: if a given technology assists the marital embrace in achieving its natural end, it can be morally acceptable, even praiseworthy. However, if it replaces the marital embrace as the means by which the child is conceived, it’s not in keeping with God’s design.

Separating conception from the loving embrace of husband and wife not only provokes many further evils, but, even if these are avoided, it remains contrary to the dignity of the child, the dignity of the spouses and their relationship, and Man’s status as a creature. Let’s look briefly at each (for further discussion, see my book Good News About Sex and Marriage).

(1) Provokes further evils: Separating conception from the marital embrace doesn’t necessarily entail the following evils, but it usually leads to them in practice: masturbation as a means of obtaining sperm; production of "excess" human lives that are either destroyed through abortion, frozen for later "use," or intentionally farmed for medical experimentation; a "eugenic mentality" that discriminates between human beings, not treating all with equal care and dignity; the trafficking of gametes (both sperm and ova) and frozen embryos for use by others.

(2) The dignity of the child: To seek a child as the end result of a technological procedure is to treat the child in some way as a product. For those involved, this creates – consciously, or unconsciously, subtly, or not so subtly – a depersonalized orientation towards the child. Products are subject to quality control. When you spend top dollar for a new computer, you want it in mint condition. You don’t care about the specific computer you pulled out of the box. You want one that works. If it’s defective, you’ll take it back for a refund or exchange it for another one.

Similarly, the temptation is all too real for a couple paying thousands (even tens of thousands) of dollars for these procedures to want a "refund" or an "exchange" if their "product" is defective. I don’t mean to imply that every couple who pays for these procedures stoops to this level. The temptation to apply "quality controls" can be resisted. But a depersonalizing mind-set is built-in to the very nature of the procedure.

(3) The dignity of the spouses and their relationship: The technological generation of human life is simply not marital. In other words, the child is not the fruit of his parent’s marital union, but the product of a technological procedure performed by a third party apart from their union altogether. As a former professor of mine put it, "Spouses can no more delegate to others the privilege they have of begetting human life than they can delegate to others the right they have to engage in the marital act"(William May, Marriage: The Rock on which the Family is Built).

The marital embrace is not simply the biological transmission of gametes. It is a profoundly personal, sacramental, physical and spiritual, reality. To divorce human conception from this sublime union shows a lack of understanding of the deepest essence of married love.

(4) Man’s status as a creature: God alone is the "Lord and Giver of Life." Spouses have the distinct privilege of co-operating with God in pro-creating children, but, as creatures themselves, they aren’t the masters of life. They’re only the servants of God’s design. Through technological fertilization, we set ourselves up as operators instead of co-operators, creators instead of pro-creators. We deny our status as creatures and make ourselves "like God."

None of this is said to condemn anyone. We simply "know not what we do." The Church, following Christ, proclaims mercy to all. But truth must be spoken. And as we come closer and closer to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the Church’s teaching on reproductive technologies appears more and more like true wisdom than mere finger wagging.

Interesting thoughts, but it sounds like the author is ignoring the science behind conception and making sex as a means of conception overly sentimental. Whether conceived in the womb or in a petre dish, the same process is involved. Egg and sperm meet, blastocyst develops, it is implanted in the uterus and grows into a child.

I don't think removing sex from conception is going to change how parents' view or love their child. Actually, I'd say that view could almost be considered insulting. What if a woman is raped? That child is not conceived in a loving, marital "embrace". It doesn't mean that child cannot be loved and valued by the mother/parents. And nobody wants a disabled child, we all want healthy babies, but we love them no matter how they come out.

Anyway, I don't mean to imply that sex isn't sentimental and special. It is. But I don't think a child conceived in a different way is somehow magically viewed differently because it wasn't conceived during a loving, sexual encounter between two people who love each other.