Can we confirm that In Vitro Fertilization is inhumane?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anhphan

Guest
I know this is an old question but I am confused about IVF. Is it helpful for us?
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
In vitro fertilization has two problems:
  1. It separates procreation from the act of sex
  2. Generally speaking most of the eggs do not survive. After they have been fertilized thousands are shot into the woman’s uterus (to oversimplify) and only 1 survives. This is the equivalent of aborting 999 babies.
 
Oh! I think you meant inhumane, not inhuman. Very differed things!
 
Do you think that ones conceived by IVF should thank God for their extistence?
 
I don’t think this is right. Thousands of eggs are not fertilized and placed in one woman’s uterus. That is quite exaggerated.
 
Ioana said:
In vitro fertilization has two problems:
  1. It separates procreation from the act of sex
  2. Generally speaking most of the eggs do not survive. After they have been fertilized thousands are shot into the woman’s uterus (to oversimplify) and only 1 survives. This is the equivalent of aborting 999 babies.
Click to expand...
Someone has already said that’s hyperbole. But I also think it’s closer to having unviable fertilisation. That happens.
 
I’m guessing the issue at hand is knowing that there will definitely be some embryos that will die off. Most of the times, one sticking is the goal, while the rest r simply to increase the odds of this happening?
 
Yes, they usually implant a few to hope one survives…this is why there are so many twin and triplet births with IVF. But it depends on individual circumstances.

The other problem is that women often end up with unused fertilized embryos and have to decide what to do with them: destroy them, freeze them long-term, let them be adopted by other couples, or donate them to science.
 
I’m likely biased but it seems to me that sex risks some not working too.
 
When having sex, a miscarriage would not be intentional.

For IVF, there’s the intention of losing some embryos. They don’t shoot up all of the embryos with the intention of all of them sticking. So yeah, the conscious intent is the key concept here. They do this process with the intent that there will be embryos that will not make it.

Of course, this isn’t the only reason why the Church is against IVF. It’s due to the fact that procreative and unitive aspects of sex are being separated. Which is the same explanation used for any other sexual immorality.
 
The miscarriage isn’t intentional in either. When having sex we know that not every fertilisation will succeed, with ivf we know not all will succeed. If we knew how to ensure success with ivf why be so inefficient?
 
Alex337 said:
When having sex we know that not every fertilisation will succeed, with ivf we know not all will succeed.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you comparing the possibility of fertilization and possibility of implantation?
 
Lea101 said:
40.png
Alex337:
When having sex we know that not every fertilisation will succeed, with ivf we know not all will succeed.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you comparing the possibility of fertilization and possibility of implantation?
Click to expand...
Both have chance of failure.
 
Failure to fertilize is not the same as failure to implant though? The latter results in death of the embryo, while there’s no loss of life if you were never fertilized in the first place
 
Three problems.

The resulting embryos are screened for genetic disabilities. The genetically imperfect embryos are destroyed, a form of silent eugenics. If I had been conceived through IVF, I would have been destroyed.
 
There are thousands of abandoned embryos in fertility clinics.

Usually multiple embryos are implanted.

I know a woman with twins. Four were implanted with that pregnancy. She had prior implantations that didn’t take. Then she had 4 in storage that she “let go” meaning that they were destroyed.

So to get 2 babies be born, another ten embryos needed to die.
 
Lea101 said:
Failure to fertilize is not the same as failure to implant though? The latter results in death of the embryo, while there’s no loss of life if you were never fertilized in the first place
Click to expand...
Even intercourse risks the failure for the fertilized egg to stick, resulting in the same thing.
 
I would say that only the four that were killed were deliberately targeted though. We know there is a failure rate for implantation with babies conceived through intercourse.

Anyway even if all babies survived IVF would still be immoral so I don’t think it’s a good argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top