In-vetro Fertilization

[Fisher-of-Men]

I teach a course on morality to high school juniors and seniors at our local parish. After having covered the Church’s teaching and moral issues behind contraception, abortion, test tube babies, and in-vetro fertilization, one student asked if a surrogate mother was immoral assuming that collection of sperm and egg were collected immediately after the natural marital act of intercourse, and fertilization took place in a test tube. (Recall, this is allowed since it assists the natural marital act, rather than bypassing it with masturbation.) Normally, the single fertilized embryo would be placed back in the mother’s womb, but if she was unable to bear a child, would a surrogate be acceptable. I was unaware said I would return with a response next week.

 

[1ke]

Yes, it is immoral.

From the Catechism:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

From Donum Vitae:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM

3. Is “Surrogate” Motherhood Morally Licit?

<No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.>

Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.

By “surrogate mother” the instruction means: a) The woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of “donors.” She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy. b) The woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

 

[Fisher-of-Men]

Thanks a bunch!!

 

[manualman]

For the record, the above passage clears up TWO questions.

1. No surrogate uterous allowed since the lab scientist is the one actually doing the fertilization.
2. No IVF even if the sperm and egg are collected after proper marital relations. Same reason as #1.

Want a fun one to discuss with class?

We’ve now established that IVF is wrong due to the immoral way in which the child in conceived. BUT what about all those babies that WERE conceived sinfully, but now exists regardless and are considered ‘surplus’ and are stored in a lab freezer somewhere. The church has NOT yet ruled that it is inherently wrong for a couple to adopt such an unwanted child and have him implanted in the adoptive mom’s womb. The difference is that although the conception was conducted sinfully, the child bears no guilt for it. And he IS a new human being every bit as priceless as the rest of us. We don’t condemn children that result from fornication, do we…? Why IVF?

It’s controversial, but not a decided matter (no consensus of bishops or papal ruling). IMO it’s good for kids to see that the development of moral teaching and see the reasoning that lies behind it.

 

[martino]

you most likely already answered that students question when you talked about contraception. if you told them that contraception was immoral because it separated the untive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect, then you can easily explain that the same principle applies to IVF and surrogate mothers, but in the reverse. Contraception uses the untive but denies the procreative; IVF or surrogate mothers attempt to procreate without use of the unitive. it is immaterial that the sperm was gathered after the couple had normal relations because that is an entirely separate act. the women would still be empregnated by a doctor after an embryo was developed in a test tube, and that is not the normal or natural way children are created.

 

[Joan_M]

Natural fertilization occurs in the fallopian tube, and therefore, it would be physically impossible to collect an egg after a marital act!

We know this, but when questions come at us fast and furious we get “bazodee” (a local expresion meaning confused), and cannot think of the obvious answer!