Comments on: IVF Morally Reprehensible

By: "Non-Controversial Human Embryonic Stem Cells…And a Bridge in Brooklyn" @ Ales Rarus

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:27:22 +0000

[...] Well, you aren't killing 'em, but if you consider embryos persons, removing a chunk of mass from them without a by-your-leave is not very neighborly. Sure, they can regrow, but it still strikes me as ghoulish, and if we let ourselves do this, how do we guarantee that we can prevent other actions on embryos? Moreover, this has to be done by IVF, whose ethical concerns are being discussed elsewhere on this blog. [...]

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"I don't understand the overwhelming desire to have a child of one's own flesh. I really don't."

The degree to which people feel this desire does seem to vary, but I've learned that it can be quite powerful.

Perhaps many of those desires are inordinate. After all, IVF has a lousy success rate, and costs a fortune even for one try (and many people try multiple times). Some philosophers, including I think the estimable Peter Singer, have opposed IVF on utilitarian grounds, that it is a bad allocation of medical resources and money. (Alas, the the anthology that includes the topic has been put in storage…)

Right or wrong, however, it must be understood, and we must empathic for pastoral and pragmatic reasons if nothing else. Herein seems to be the chief difficulty of IVF rhetoric: I think that because IVF involves (at least rhetorically) the creation of life rather than its destruction (though in practice far, far more embryos are destroyed than brought to term), it is a tougher issue to take on.

Discussions such as this one are quite useful in forming effective responses, but I think real gains may not be had until people are more sensitized to embryonic humanity, and how even well-intentioned procedures like IVF can be destructive in reality. Emily, your point about adoption is also very good, and this will help us address the abortion issue as well (kick butt in law school so you can help out some familes and orphaned kids, eh? ).

By: EmilyE

EmilyE — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"The urge to have a child of one's flesh is quite primal."

Yes, it is … But maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe we as Christians need to do more to promote adoption — to remind people that, no matter whether a couple has biological children or adopts them, they will love those children just the same.

My younger brothers are adopted. I am not. And it's not like I was somehow more special to my parents because I was biologically "theirs." They loved all of us and treated us all equally.

I don't understand the overwhelming desire to have a child of one's own flesh. I really don't. Sure, I'd love to bear a child(ren). But I also know that medically, I may have a great deal of difficulty doing that. I would much rather turn to adoption than to infertility treatments. It's far less selfish, IMO. (Actually, even if I could bear an unlimited number of biological children, I'd still adopt a few.)

By: Jerry Nora

Jerry Nora — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"There are children to adopt. Adopt instead of resorting to IVF."

Um, we can adopt instead of conceiving naturally as well. The urge to have a child of one's flesh is quite primal. While I see cloning as a rather necessarily manipulative thing, IVF does play to very basic desires, and I find this objection vulnerable, if not on its objective merits, but for the fact that you'll turn a lot of people against you with its emotional appeal (and like it or not, we must address people's affects, their hearts, and not just talk moral theology or bioethics).

By: Emily W

Emily W — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Obviously, you haven't met as many Romaphobic Protestants as I have. It's kinda hard to be Christian allies when someone denies that you're a Christian at all.

On the contrary, I may know more. I used to be one, and I grew up among them and went to college among them. I said we *ought* to be allies — I know full well it doesn't often happen! Still, I think that working together as Christians on issues like this is perhaps our best hope, even if it's not very common. We will not get "Romaphobic Protestants" (as you put it) to agree with our theology. But we have a far better chance of getting them to work with us toward a common goal.

The comment about worldviews (secularist/relativistic vs. religious) is not mine, BTW. It's the thesis of the book. Any arguments about "the conflation of secularism and relativism" should be directed toward the author, not me.

By: EmilyE

EmilyE — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

We may even find strange allies in certain Jewish sects and Muslims"

There is a fascinating book called "The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion & Morality in Crisis." We've been discussing some of its themes in a Bible study I attend, and I've only just started reading it. (So please forgive my vagueness when I talk about it.) The author, Robert George, is a professor at Princeton University.

The whole thesis of his book is that the major conflict in the world today is not between the West and Islam — as some political scientists are so fond of predicting — but within the West itself. The most pressing conflict of our day is between those who hold a secularist, relativistic worldview and those who hold to a worldview rooted in faith and the belief in absolute truth.

I think this book has a good point. Christians and Muslims could be allies on many, many issues, if we moved past our suspicion of one another and began to work together. The same goes for Christians and more conservative sects of Judaism. Let us not forget, either, that despite the deep denominational divides in Christianity, Christians of all stripes ought to be allies in this fight.

Pope Benedict said something like this recently in one of his Wednesday audiences, I think… He said that the best immediate hope for Christian unity is for Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants to realize that they are on the same side of the "culture war" and begin working together to further the Kingdom of God on earth. The theological differences have developed over centuries, even millennia, and cannot be erased overnight. There must be dialogue on these differences, of course, but first, we need to learn to work together.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

a couple observations:

"The most pressing conflict of our day is between those who hold a secularist, relativistic worldview and those who hold a worldview rooted in faith and the belief in absolute truth."

I can almost hear Theomorph's teeth grinding at the conflation of secularism and relativism.

"Let us not forget, either, that despite the deep denominational divides in Christianity, Christians of all stripes ought to be allies in this fight."

Obviously, you haven't met as many Romaphobic Protestants as I have. It's kinda hard to be Christian allies when someone denies that you're a Christian at all.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

And a reply to gbm3's reply at the same url!

(Please look at the preceeding comment. I am so sick of HTML right now!)

By: Jerry Nora

Jerry Nora — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Another alternative to IVF are more natural methods of assisted reproduction. One type of NFP is the Creighton Method, which is actually used largely as a method for getting pregnant. All NFP systems, by virtue of calling especial attention to a woman's cycles, may be used to help a couple get pregnant, but the Creighton Method is associated with a particularly strong program of fertility care call NaPro Technology. Check it out at:

http://www.creightonmodel.com/

This would not undercut all IVF demand, of course, but it is quite cheaper and for most couples, uninvasive. I imagine that most people would pay perhaps not even a tenth as much as they would for one round of IVF. (For polycystic ovarian syndrome, there are possible surgical options, for instance.)

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

FD,

I'm never sure if the trackbacks are going to work. Here's my take on your post:

IVF: A Christian Option