In Vitro Fertilization

Michelle Sauer

In Vitro Fertilization Syllogisms:

My arguments:
Both adopted children and In vitro fertilization kids may not know their parents or family history
Adoption is not looked down upon for this
Therefore, in vitro fertilization should not be looked down upon either.

Conception is a beautiful outcome of physical conjugal love.
Conception by using the expensive and trying method of in vitro fertilization is also a great sign ___of love.
So, both should be deemed valid sources of love in the conception of a child.

A child created in the womb is a human being, and is treated and viewed as such.
A child created in a lab is also a human being.
Therefore, no child created in a lab should be viewed as a product, but as a human being.

The Church’s argument:
All life is sacred from the moment the egg is fertilized,
In vitro fertilization often kills off the extra embryos
Therefore, in vitro fertilization doesn’t protect the sanctity of life.

Michelle Sauer
Morality Pd 1
Ms. Frank
19 April 2013
In Vitro Fertilization With new technologies being developed every day, new realms of opportunity are opened for society’s usage in many different areas of life. But with the new options, comes new disputes over the moral implications associated with their practice. One area in particular, which is shrouded in debate and moral grey areas, is in vitro fertilization, or the process in which an egg is fertilized by a sperm outside of the body. While the general public takes a variety of standpoints on this procedure, the Catholic Church sees no room for any argument. The Church takes a firm stance against in vitro fertilization, describing it as a threat to the holiness of marital unity, the child, and the mother. Not to be mistaken, the Church does sympathize with the search to overcome infertility. The problem is tragic, and no one deserves to suffer through the inability to have a child. It is unreasonable to assume that people will not try to conquer this serious and emotional health issue, as children are the great gift of marriage. But these techniques must be put under moral scrutiny through the eyes of faith. “Each technique should be assessed to see if it is truly moral, that is, whether or not it promotes human good and human flourishing. All these technologies touch in some way on innocent human life… some methods are moral, while others—because they do violence to the dignity of the human person and the institution of marriage—are immoral,” (Haas). Only “techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted” (Dignitas Personae). After being studied, it has been decided that in vitro fertilization does more damage than good. First, there is a minor qualm about the procedures through which the sperm are procured for the use in the petri dish. While the mother only must take pills to allow her eggs to mature at the same time, the father must masturbate to produce sperm for the procedure. Masturbation is viewed to be a violation of the sanctity of the sexual act by the Church. The Church also voices major concerns about in vitro fertilization and how it goes against the sacred unity of marriage. Marriage has two levels of unity: the spiritual and emotional loving connection between the husband and wife and the development of that love in the act of physical unity during the creation of new life. These two levels of unity should never be separated. “Consequently, as explained in [Donum Vitae], it is morally wrong for married couples or anyone to attempt to generate human life outside of, or apart from, the act of marital sexual intercourse because to do so severs those dimensions: in IVF, procreation takes place in a Petri dish, apart from the unitive dimension of conjugal act,” (Westchesterinstitute). The Church also explains that in vitro fertilization turns the child into a product. These “test tube babies”, as they are sometimes referred to, are the creation of scientists in a lab as opposed to the loving act of parents. “Children brought into the world through IVF are arguably not generated, but manufactured. While the couple provides the ‘materials’ (ovum and sperm) for the creation of the child, it is a laboratory technician who brings about a new human life in a laboratory dish,” (Westchesterinstitute). They say that although the child will and should be loved to the fullest extent in life, in vitro fertilization turns the sole goal of human sexuality into procreation of the “product”, or child. Sexuality should not be used solely for this purpose, but to further deepen the love between husband and wife, as stated above. It is also believed by the Church that in vitro fertilization takes away many rights of the child. First, the child has a right to be created by the loving act of sexual intercourse between his or her parents, not in a petri dish. “In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right ‘to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,’ and ‘the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception [the first moment of a child’s existence],” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997). The parents do not have the right of a child owed to them, because the child is a gift from God, but the child has a right to be conceived by his or her mother after intercourse with his or her father.
The child may also be deprived of the knowledge of his or her real parents. Sometimes, donor eggs or sperm bust be used from someone who will not be a part of the child’s life and who is not a part of the marriage. “This can create a confusing situation for the child later, when he or she learns that one parent raising him or her is not actually the biological parent. In fact, the identity of the "donor," whether of egg or sperm, may never be known, depriving the child of an awareness of his or her own lineage. This can mean a lack of knowledge of health problems or dispositions toward health problems which could be inherited,” (Haas).
Another issue that the Church has with in vitro fertilization is that embryos are killed or used for experimentation. The process costs a great amount of money—around at least ten thousand dollars per attempt at a child. There is also a ninety percent chance that the embryos made will die. Because the costs are so high and the odds of success so low, doctors often implant around five embryos into the mother’s uterus. But sometimes more than one child survives, which the couple does not want. To fix this, doctors partake in the procedure called fetal or selective reduction.
“Here they monitor the babies in utero to see if any have defects or are judged to be not as healthy as the others. Then they eliminate those "less desirable" babies by filling a syringe with potassium chloride, maneuvering the needle toward the "selected" baby in the womb with the aid of ultrasound, and then thrusting the needle into the baby 's heart. The potassium chloride kills the baby within minutes, and he or she is expelled as a "miscarriage." If it cannot be determined that one baby is less healthy than the others, some doctors simply eliminate the baby or babies who are easiest to reach,” (Haas).

All of these aspects of in vitro fertilization are attacks some of the central tenants of the Church—love and the dignity of the human person. The love of the marriage is undermined, because the child is produced, not made through a loving act. It turns the creation of the child into a medical procedure, sterile, not within a loving union. This takes away the rights and dignity of the child, who has the right to be created in love. Husbands and wives are supposed to make love, not babies. Humans are to be “begotten, not made”, and thus babies are of equal dignity with their parents.
The fact that the babies are destroyed is a blatant violation of the tenants as well. Human life should be viewed as made in the image and likeness of God and sacred, so it should never be used in a medical procedure by the parents and doctors.
“In IVF, children are engendered through a technical process, subjected to "quality control," and eliminated if found "defective." In their very coming into being, these children are thoroughly subjected to the arbitrary choices of those bringing them into being. In the words of Donum Vitae: ‘The connection between in vitro fertilization and the voluntary destruction of human embryos occurs too often. This is significant: through these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree.’ The document speaks of ‘the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage.’ To be within and from marriage, conception should occur from the marriage act which by its nature is ordered toward loving openness to life, not from the manipulations of technicians,” (Haas).

The Catholic Church believes that from the moment of conception, the embryo has a soul, and thus should not have its life decided upon by another person, even the parents. It is a person with dignity from its first moments of existence, even in the cellular form. I understand and respect the Church’s views against in vitro fertilization, but my opinion of the procedure does differ in a few areas. First, I would like to state that I am considering in vitro fertilization in its practice in a stable situation. I am not considering the moral implications involved in situations, such as in India, where mothers sell themselves as carriers for a living. My opinion considers the act of in vitro fertilization itself, not the controversial practices and applications of it in other countries or situations. The in vitro fertilization I am considering is that performed under safe and just circumstances. I disagree with the statement that in vitro fertilization undermines conjugal love. I believe that it supports the marriage. If a couple is infertile, the act of intercourse can still bring them together and develop their spiritual love for each other in a physical way, but no child will come from that act. A child can further that love to an even deeper level, so I believe that the couple infertile or homosexual, should be able to raise a child. The raising of a child, brings about new challenges and responsibilities, which can deepen the love between a couple. So, I do believe that the act of procreation is an important aspect. I also disagree with the statement that the gift of a child is not a right but a gift from God. I believe that a child is a miracle that results from the action between two people, and anyone who wants to have a child should be allowed to have a child as long as they are prepared to handle the responsibilities and difficulties that may result. In vitro fertilization is an answer to this want, and a way for the parents to have a child of their own genetics, even if they are infertile. The Church also argued that when a donor is involved in in vitro fertilization, the child’s right to know its parents is taken away and they may be confused as to who is truly his or her mother or father. But, as far as my knowledge extends, I am unaware of any opposition from the Church towards adoption, from which the same questions and difficulties may arise. I think that as long as a child is bringing into a loving home, that it does not matter who the biological parents might be, as long as the child is made fully aware of their situation when the time is right. The argument that a laboratory made child is more a product than a human being is another point of contention to me. If the couple could conceive a child on their own, they would. I do not believe anyone would turn to in vitro fertilization unless they had the desperate desire to love a child. If I were a “test tube baby”, I would not view myself as a product of laboratory procedures, but the creation of a loving act from my parents, just a child of natural conception would. The knowledge that my parents wanted me so badly that they were willing to go through this process and pay so much money for me would be enough of a show of love, and of course, they would have proven their unconditional love for me after my birth. I think that the love shown after birth is much more important than the love of intercourse in conception. I also have different views of life. I do not believe an embryo is a child immediately. I will say that I do not believe in God, thus, I do not believe in souls. I do believe, though, that a child is a child at a later point in a pregnancy. So, I do not have issue with the fact that some of the embryos are destroyed. But, I do not wish to venture further into this topic, as it as a completely different subject that I could spend another six pages discussing. Evidently, the Catholic Church and in vitro fertilization do not coincide. It goes against many central tenants of the Church, and Catholics also view it as a violation of the child’s rights. My beliefs differ, as I see it as a loving act and a solution for infertility. The debate is complex, and there are sound arguments for either side. This matter will not be settled any time soon.

Bibliography:

Brown, Judie. "Pro-Life Basics." clmagazine.org. American Life League, Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://www.clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/ND2012ProLifeBasics.pdf>.

Graves, Jim. "Church teaching on in vitro fertilization." catholicworldreport.com. Ed. Carl E. Olson. Catholic World Report, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1774/church_teaching_on_in_vitro_fertilization.aspx
>.

Haas, John M. "Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology." http://usccb.org/. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://old.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml>.

"In Vitro Fertilization - Why Not?." catholic.net. Catholic.net, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=6575#>.

Bibliography: Brown, Judie. "Pro-Life Basics." clmagazine.org. American Life League, Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. &lt;http://www.clmagazine.org/prolifebasics/ND2012ProLifeBasics.pdf&gt;. Graves, Jim. "Church teaching on in vitro fertilization." catholicworldreport.com. Ed. Carl E. Olson. Catholic World Report, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. &lt;http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1774/church_teaching_on_in_vitro_fertilization.aspx &gt;. Haas, John M. "Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology." http://usccb.org/. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. &lt;http://old.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml&gt;. "In Vitro Fertilization - Why Not?." catholic.net. Catholic.net, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. &lt;http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&amp;id=6575#&gt;.