The Ethics of IVF
Jun 15
To his credit, after months of me and others nagging him about this, Joe at Evangelical Outpost finally addresses the ethics of in-vitro fertilization. Why is this important? Because it’s morally and ethically inconsistent to vocally oppose embryonic stem cell research while supporting or remaining silent on IVF. Unfortunately, he misses the point, and still hasn’t staked out a morally or ethically consistent position.
Joe basically states that other methods are to be preferred to IVF, and that if IVF is used, it should be done in such a way as to minimize the number of embryos destroyed. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. To use this logic, we could use embryonic stem cell research in a way that minimizes the number of embryos destroyed, and we’d be in the same boat. In fact, if we use only the leftover embryos from IVF clinics, we kill two moral birds with one ethical stone.
To my knowledge, there exists no method of IVF that doesn’t involve the destruction of some embryos. Even if such destruction is the result of failed implantations, the end result is that you have still intentionally created embryos knowing that the majority of them would be destroyed. If life begins at conception, then destroying an embryo — any embryo, whether naturally or artificially conceived — is tantamount to taking a life. And, if their reasoning is consistent, taking a life is wrong whether the intent is to save other lives somewhere down the road, or to create a new life in the near future.
The bottom line? If embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong, then in-vitro fertilization is also wrong, for precisely the same reasons. I fail to see any justification why one is morally acceptable when the other is not, particularly when the two practices are so tightly coupled.
One more thing that bothers me about these discussions: why is it that when a woman unintentionally becomes pregnant, she’s told that this is “God’s will” and that she should “accept it,” but when a woman cannot get pregnant, this somehow isn’t God’s will and she’s allowed (often even encouraged) to take fairly extreme measures to rectify it?
#1 by j at June 15th, 2005
| Quote
What really gets me is this: an infertile couple spends thousands on IVF procedures to get pregnant. Then, since IVF requires the implantation of several embryos to increase the odds of a single succesful implantation, multiple embryos implant.
So now somehow it would be “against God’s will” to selectively abort the additional embryos and this otherwise infertile woman carries a litter of two to five children to term. Particularly in the higher count pregnancies, the limited resources guarantee birth defects and lifelong health issues (McCoy septuplets anyone?) and the whole community is called on to support the now cash strapped family.
God’s will indeed.
#2 by Jay at June 16th, 2005
| Quote
Thank you for helping force conservatives to come up with a cohesive moral framework that includes this issue.
I’d like to pre-empt a counter-argument before the fact: some conservatives say that IVF is okay because fertilized embryos are implanted and at least given a fighting chance.
Wrong. Some fertilized embryos are not implanted, because some of the embryos look abnormal and are likely to result in abnormal children. There is ongoing research about how to select the best embryos. The rest are frozen or discarded (mostly the latter, according to what I’ve read).
And before you conservatives say that doctors should just implant all the fertilized embryos, I’d like you to agree to help babysit and support the handicapped and deformed children/adults that will result from this policy.
#3 by Bruce at June 16th, 2005
| Quote
why is it that when a woman unintentionally becomes pregnant, she’s told that this is “God’s will” and that she should “accept it,” but when a woman cannot get pregnant, this somehow isn’t God’s will and she’s allowed (often even encouraged) to take fairly extreme measures to rectify it?
Yep, a very good question. Why can’t people accept their natural “fate” when they are unable to reproduce? Why must they “play God” and go around the natural order of things to reproduce at all costs? As a childfree by choice (vasectomy) person, I am often told that I am being selfish for not having kids. I would argue that it is these people who are the selfish ones. They are so arrogant as to think that they must reproduce at all costs because the world would be worse off without their progeny. According to the signs held up by the protesters who stand outside the Planned Parenthood clinic I drive by every day, you don’t need to abort your baby because they will help you give it up for adoption. So apparently these people should have no problem adopting a child if they really want one.
Ultimately, I usually tell them that if God really wanted them to have a baby, he could give them an immaculate conception. That doesn’t usually go over so well.
#4 by Henry at June 16th, 2005
| Quote
Correct me if i’m wrong, but even in ‘natural’ conception, the fertilized eggs don’t successfully implant themselves 100% of the time. So, by conservative thinking, these people are guilty of some sort of sin?
#5 by anne at July 4th, 2005
| Quote
Bruce - ouch. I respect all folks who decide not to have babies. My husband and I DO want to have a children & are giving IVF a try. If that does not work, we will adopt. Easy on the indictments - you know - take a walk in someone else’s shoes.
#6 by Katie at January 28th, 2007
| Quote
I think it is very easy to criticise other people’s actions when you aren’t the one with the problem. I’ve worked with people undergoing IVF treatment and I don’t think you will find couples who would love their baby more. So many children are born into a cold and unloving world that it seems harsh and old-fashioned of you to deny these parents a child. It is also interesting that most of you commenting are men. I am interested in your views but think you are getting carried away.
#7 by tgirsch at January 28th, 2007
| Quote
Katie:
Not sure if you were talking to me, but I think you took my point a bit too literally. I wasn’t saying that IVF if necessarily immoral. What I was saying is that if embryonic stem cell research is immoral, then IVF is even more so, and for precisely the same reasons. You can’t justify one and condemn the other, at least not without making an ends/means argument (which Christians generally abhor).
#8 by Victoria at May 25th, 2007
| Quote
Hi,
I see both sides of the argument but I don’t really think that it is immoral. Nothing comes into existence except by the will of God anyway so a child or 2 or 6 is born it is by the permission of God. God gave mankind the intelligence to seek out cures and treatments for different ailments and I really don’t see why IVF should be treated any differently.
Like someone mentioned earlier and if you know anything about conception, miscarriages happen frequently and sometimes without being known, the body will abort an abnormal embryo. If God really did not will for a couple to have a baby–they will not have it period no matter how hard they try. And if God wills for you to have a baby, then you will have it and nothing can control that but God.
It’s like any other decision you make, you have no idea what the future holds but you try to do your best and leave the outcome to God but you don’t say “well whatever happens is gonna happen and you do nothing” it doesn’t work that way. You get in your car and buckle up and try to be safe instead of saying “I may die today anyway so what’s the point.”
I guess part of the argument is also whether or not you believe that life begins at conception.
In my personal opinion we are judged by our intentions and clearly no one who seeks infertility treatment intends to kill a child. If you haven’t suffered from infertility you have no idea the pain surrounded by that. I respect both opinions.
#9 by kim at October 1st, 2007
| Quote
A woman in Spain gave birth, at age 66, by means of IVF. That is the epitome of selfish.
#10 by Faith at March 20th, 2008
| Quote
tgrish wrote: “To my knowledge, there exists no method of IVF that doesn’t involve the destruction of some embryos. Even if such destruction is the result of failed implantations, the end result is that you have still intentionally created embryos knowing that the majority of them would be destroyed.” (tgirsch)
Do you CLEARLY understand NORMAL reproduction (I think not)? Because MOST embryos FAIL to survive -naturally-. Up to 75% of all “natural” -conceptions- fail, period. So most implantations are “failed” implantations even before you look at IVF treatment. So, ANY attempt at conception is basically creating ‘embryos’ “knowing” that the majority of them will be “destroyed” by the human reproductive system.
And why shouldn’t someone choose MEDICAL treatment, to treat a medical problem? Why do we continually suggest that a treatment that has been around for thirty years and is -proven- effective is considered “extreme measures”, yet we can take out a heart from a dying/dead person and place that into another human being, and that is just good medical treatment. That sounds far more like “extreme measures” to me…(not that I think it is wrong by the way, just illustrating a point).
BRUCE wrote: “Why can’t people accept their natural “fate” when they are unable to reproduce?”
Is that like people should accept their natural “fate” of their failing heart if they are unable to produce a healthy heartbeat? Why is one medical issue-reproduction- deemed “fate” when it is not functioning properly, yet most others are not? Or do you seriously say this about every other ailment out there…”oh, why can’t people accept their natural “fate” at having cataracts when they are unable to see. Silly logic if you ask me.
#11 by tgirsch at March 21st, 2008
| Quote
Faith:
Methinks you miss my point. I’m not arguing that IVF is immoral. I’m arguing that any standard of morality that claims embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is immoral (a claim I stronlgy disagree with) must also conclude that IVF is immoral if it wants to be morally consistent. Yet the overwhelming majority of ESC research opponents do NOT similarly rail against IVF, which suggests to me that for them, they feel that somehow the ends justify the means in that case, which is a moral no-no.
#12 by KTK at March 21st, 2008
| Quote
There is in fact a subset of the religious right that does take that position. They oppose IVF or want strict limits placed on it, precisely because of the incidence of excess embryos.
In some states there have even been attempts to prohibit fertilization of more than one IVF embryo at a time, to ensure that none will be left over after implantation. This would of course sentence most women donating eggs for IVF to multiple rounds of hormonal stimulation and surgical egg harvesting, as well as tens of thousands of dollars in increased costs, because of the low success rate of IVF per embryo, but of course women’s interests are never part of the picture when the religious right gets all worked up about sex and reproduction.
There is also a (somewhat creepy) movement to encourage “adoption” of excess IVF embryos by infertile couples, to reduce the backlog of such embryos, rather than having those couples create their own IVF embryos and further contributing to the excess. A dozen or so babies have been born from donated embryos in this way. They call them “Snowflake Embryos” (get it? - each one is unique, and they’re frozen!).
But you’re right, a majority of people seem to see no problem in creating embryos that are doomed to destruction, even though they get beside themselves when those embryos are put to productive use in research.
#13 by tgirsch at March 21st, 2008
| Quote
KTK:
Oh, I know those people exist. Our old friend Joe Carter is among them. The problem is, even those people don’t squawk about IVF at all, while complaining loudly about ESC research, even thought the former is an exponentially more common practice than the latter, and indeed, the latter essentially wouldn’t exist without the former.
Why is this? That’s simple: Because for all their talk of moral high ground, they know that attacking IVF is a political loser, and that they’ll be laughed out of the public square as the extremists they really are. So they take the pragmatic approach, and exploit public ignorance to try and vilify something they don’t like while it’s still relatively new and unknown.
#14 by MLO at August 2nd, 2008
| Quote
Your inability to see that they are actually being internally consistent with their own philosophy / theology is because you don’t understand the tenant of “to create a life” vs. “to do research” that they use to differentiate between the two. In their theological world the intent to create a life through minimal intervention is theologically as sound as amputating a gangrenous limb. However, if you create embryos simply to destroy (in their minds) as in stem cell research it is as the warlords in Africa who cut off limbs to show power - there is no justifiable reason.
Now, to them, stem cell research is equivalent to the Nazi medical camps. (And, according to Internet rules, they lose for bringing it up first.) Because you are interfering with the creation of life through active genetic manipulation you are going against God - this goes back to the legends surrounding the Fallen Angels. (There are other, more esoteric theological arguments that I may blog about - but I am just going to touch the surface here.)
I don’t agree with them - I have had 3 failed IVFs and I don’t consider any of the embryos as living entities. I have even had a 2nd trimester miscarriage and though devastating, it was not a child yet. If the child cannot live outside the womb, it really isn’t “alive” in the same sense you and I are.
Oh, and EMBRYOS ARE NOT IMPLANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are TRANSFERRED in hopes of IMPLANTATION! (To argue this effectively, it is imperative to use the proper language instead of the language “science” reporters use.)
Theologically, their argument is stronger with each step of the reproductive process. With actual theological provenance, they are completely wrong since in Judaism - from which Christian theology is derived - life does not begin until the first breath. There is a strong argument for life beginning at “true” viability - but that is a moving target.
#15 by tgirsch at August 2nd, 2008
| Quote
MLO:
So creating embryos knowing that most of them will be destroyed is okay, so long as you don’t intend to destroy them? It’s okay as long as their destruction is a side-effect of an attempt to create life?
Sorry, but IVF still seems like trying to “play God” to me. It doesn’t seem the least bit theologically consistent.
I agree with you, however, about the Biblical standard for life starting at first breath, and you’re right about my misuse of the term “implanted.”
#16 by beth anne at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
IVF is selfish. Men and women who can not get pregnant together may not genetically be right for each other. Some people can not reproduce with other people because of genetic problems in their off spring. These people are forcing child that are going to have genetic problems. They should try having children with someone else.
I’ve noticed also that IVF mothers that I have met are very controlling people. The woman in my office had IVF. She is the biggest control freak, spanks her daughter often, and selected to have a girl over a boy, resulting in the killing of her offspring. Life happens at conception. Ultrasound pictures show fingers, a heart, lungs, etc….
And the comment above about “IVF parents who are more loving than natural mothers…” that is BS. I am a parent who is extremely loving. I conceived naturally (I had sex). IVF parents DON”T love their children as much. If they had a lot of love they would adopt. I adopted and I have my own natural child because I wanted to give a child who didn’t already have a home a home.
God let’s IVF happen because he lets humans have free will and to make their own choices.
#17 by beth anne at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
The difference between needing a heart transplant and wanting to create a child by IVF is stark. Whoever was comparing the two is an idiot. You can’t compare them. They are completely different. One is a life or death option. They other is just a frivolous obsessive need.
If you can’t have a child then you should try a different partner.
The “pain” that women go through when they can’t conceive…Well I’ve got news for everyone…LIFE is painful. We live in the USA where all of our physical needs are taken care of, yet people still want MORE. Maybe they should look at the PAIN that an unwanted child who doesn’t have a mom or dad is going through.
It’s like, “oh well..” If you can’t have children then their are other options. It happens all the time. Like Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman… They couldn’t have children togehter. They divorce and they suddenly have natural children with a different partner.
And you can’t compare a natual miscarriage to IVF embryos that don’t implant. The first isn’t intentional. But parents go into IVF knowing that embryos will be lost.
#18 by beth anne at August 5th, 2008
| Quote
I agree that it is selfish to have a child past the age of 45. Your children aren’t going to grow up with a parent…..Like Nancy Grace….who had IVF treatments at 47….She’s going to be almost 70 by the time her children graudate from High School and in her 70’s by the time her children graduate from college. She probably won’t even be around to see her grandchildren. This is a selfish act.
It’s also another point in my control freak theory. Nancy Grace should have had children in her 20’s or 30’s, but she didn’t. She wants to control every aspect of her life.
#19 by Tori at November 29th, 2008
| Quote
As the daughter of a Catholic couple that underwent IVF, I find almost all of these comments extremely offensive. My mother is by far the most loving parent I have ever seen, and far from a control freak. I have been healthy my entire life, and have been met with mainly curiosity rather than hostility in regards to my conception.
To the person above, Beth Anne, you are by far the most ignorant and closed minded person I have ever heard from. ‘Try and have children with another partner’? Excuse me? Is this an honest request? As far as I know, polygamy and adultery are not ethical, especially in comparison with IVF.
Try walking in someone else’s shoes before you condemn all of their actions.
#20 by Paul at December 24th, 2008
| Quote
Beth Anne:
You are an utter moron. Most couples who are unable to conceive naturally do not suffer from a genetic incompatibility that would be better remedied by “trying to have children with someone else.”
#21 by Rachel Beckett at April 6th, 2009
| Quote
I agree with Beth Anne.
#22 by Jane at June 2nd, 2009
| Quote
Beth anne,
just as I think people are more open-minded and realize that things go on outside of their own households these days then I read a post like yours and it only reminds me of the idiocy and narrow mindedness of some people. I can not believe you think that individuals that use IVF are selfish, controlling and don’t love their children as much as you do (this is a heck of a generalization) - well if this is what you are teaching your children then I feel sorry for them. For a woman who worships god as much as you make yourself out to, then maybe you should stop judging others and worry about yourself - I believe it says somewhere in the bible not to judge. You could not be farther from the truth, and you may realize that if you would get out from under that rock you have been hiding under for the past 60 years (just a guess). Also, if you had any education at all you would realize that it is in fact a medical condition that women and men suffer from that does not allow them to conceive a child naturally - its called infertility. Just like heart disease is a medical condition so is infertility, and you are all the more ignorant for not understanding that. I am a woman who conceived naturally and adopted for the same reason you have I assume and I can not imagine not being able to have a child - they are a blessing. These couples that seek IVF love their children just as much as I love mine. I have seen women 9 months pregnant with crack pipes in their hands and then see them deliver newborns that go through withdraw from these drugs in just the first hours of their lives - it’s the saddest thing you could possibly see but you wouldn’t understand that because apparently it always shines on your home. So with all of your ridiculous comments I assume you believe these are the women that should continue to have children just because they did it naturally and found a “compatible partner”(this is the stupidest comment I have ever heard and could only come from someone that is uneducated). Those children are the ones that end up on the streets. Obviously you can not look past the end of your nose and I feel sorry for you and your family - god bless your family for putting up with such an ignorant person like yourself.
I believe god gave us the intelligence and means to improve life, and if he did not then most children would die as toddlers and if they grew into adults then they would pass on by 30 (just a guess on the age obviously). I believe there needs to be strict regulations in stem cell research and to a point IVF but only because researchers could take it a little far and possibly fall into dehuminizing practices like cloning. I apologize for the lengthy post but Beth anne’s post is infuriating