Should IVF in which Human Embryos are not Destroyed/Discarded be Legal?

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

An_N

Guest
I understand the Church’s position on IVF.

The Church rejects it because:
  1. It entails the destruction of excess embryos who are persons, and disrespects human life because of the eugenics mentality behind it.
  2. The unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act are separated.
  3. A child has the right to be conceived in an act of love and not as a product in a petri dish.
  4. The structure of the family (and thus the ordering of society) is threatened, because through IVF, a child could be carried to birth by a woman who may not be his biological mother. He also may never know his biological father. He may also be born to an unmarried woman, etc.
Okay, so let’s assume that IVF somehow were changed so that NO embryos were destroyed. Only one embryo is created, implanted, and carried to birth.

Should the government still ban/make illegal IVF, in this case, because of reasons 2) through 4)?

I feel as if reasons 2) and 3) are reasons exclusively from a Catholic natural law perspective, and irreligious people (or those from different religions) may not accept such ideas.

However, reason 4) might be more persuasive, because the government has an interest in ordering society. However, I feel as if the argument still is weak, because a lot of adopted children don’t know their biological parents. . .

So I guess I understand why IVF is immoral from a Catholic perspective even if it does not entail the destruction of embryos, but why should non-Catholics accept the Catholic perspective on the issue? And should the government have the right to regulate IVF in instances where embryos are not destroyed? If you think the government does have the right to regulate it, what are the limits of regulation? (E.g., only married couples can obtain IVF? Only married couples who are the biological parents of the embryo can obtain IVF?)

I guess the question boils down to this: should Catholics impose their moral beliefs on non-Catholics, even when it does not pertain to fundamental rights, such as the right to life?

Responses are really appreciated.
 
An_N said:
I understand the Church’s position on IVF.

The Church rejects it because:
  1. It entails the destruction of excess embryos who are persons, and disrespects human life because of the eugenics mentality behind it.
  2. The unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act are separated.
  3. A child has the right to be conceived in an act of love and not as a product in a petri dish.
  4. The structure of the family (and thus the ordering of society) is threatened, because through IVF, a child could be carried to birth by a woman who may not be his biological mother. He also may never know his biological father. He may also be born to an unmarried woman, etc.
Okay, so let’s assume that IVF somehow were changed so that NO embryos were destroyed. Only one embryo is created, implanted, and carried to birth.
Click to expand...
From a practical standpoint eliminating #1 is not practical. IVF is a long, often unsuccessful expensive process. Women have to stay on fertility-enhancing drugs some with serious side effects. “Fertilising” one ovum at a time and implanting it would lead to the IVF failure rate going thru the roof.
We are seeing a huge increase in multiple births precisely because standard practice for IVF is to implant several zygotes and hope one “takes”.
Should the government still ban/make illegal IVF, in this case, because of reasons 2) through 4)?
Click to expand...
I feel as if reasons 2) and 3) are reasons exclusively from a Catholic natural law perspective, and irreligious people (or those from different religions) may not accept such ideas.
Click to expand...
However, reason 4) might be more persuasive, because the government has an interest in ordering society. However, I feel as if the argument still is weak, because a lot of adopted children don’t know their biological parents. . .
Click to expand...
So I guess I understand why IVF is immoral from a Catholic perspective even if it does not entail the destruction of embryos, but why should non-Catholics accept the Catholic perspective on the issue? And should the government have the right to regulate IVF in instances where embryos are not destroyed? If you think the government does have the right to regulate it, what are the limits of regulation? (E.g., only married couples can obtain IVF? Only married couples who are the biological parents of the embryo can obtain IVF?)
Click to expand...
I guess the question boils down to this: should Catholics impose their moral beliefs on non-Catholics, even when it does not pertain to fundamental rights, such as the right to life?
Click to expand...
Responses are really appreciated.
Click to expand...
Natural law is not “Catholic”. It is . . . well, natural. It is based on reason. It goes back to Aristotle, at least. The government should prohibit what goes against natural law as much as possible. Now, gov’t can’t ban all evils (and probably shouldn’t try) nor try to make virtues mandatory.
But in cases involving human life like IVF, abortion, euthanasia, the gov’t must intervene.
 
Okay, maybe my question wasn’t clear enough. Should IVF be legal if and only if EVERY embryo were implanted and carried to birth? It’s a hypothetical scenario.

I understand that natural law is not specifically Catholic, but the Catholic Church has dictated a lot of what actually constitutes natural law. For example, the two meanings (unitive and procreative) behind the conjugal act. I doubt Aristotle formulated this specific detail. Should the government ban condoms because it violates the two meanings behind the conjugal act? (Should the government ban IVF in cases where EVERY embryo were implanted and carried to birth?)

If more people could respond, that would be greatly appreciated. I’m writing a paper, and this point is stumping me. I don’t want to write anything that would contradict Catholic teaching. Thanks.
 
An_N said:
Okay, maybe my question wasn’t clear enough. Should IVF be legal if and only if EVERY embryo were implanted and carried to birth? It’s a hypothetical scenario.

I understand that natural law is not specifically Catholic, but the Catholic Church has dictated a lot of what actually constitutes natural law. For example, the two meanings (unitive and procreative) behind the conjugal act. I doubt Aristotle formulated this specific detail. Should the government ban condoms because it violates the two meanings behind the conjugal act? (Should the government ban IVF in cases where EVERY embryo were implanted and carried to birth?)

If more people could respond, that would be greatly appreciated. I’m writing a paper, and this point is stumping me. I don’t want to write anything that would contradict Catholic teaching. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The answer is no.
 
An_N said:
Okay, maybe my question wasn’t clear enough. Should IVF be legal if and only if EVERY embryo were implanted and carried to birth? It’s a hypothetical scenario.

I understand that natural law is not specifically Catholic, but the Catholic Church has dictated a lot of what actually constitutes natural law. For example, the two meanings (unitive and procreative) behind the conjugal act. I doubt Aristotle formulated this specific detail. Should the government ban condoms because it violates the two meanings behind the conjugal act? (Should the government ban IVF in cases where EVERY embryo were implanted and carried to birth?)

If more people could respond, that would be greatly appreciated. I’m writing a paper, and this point is stumping me. I don’t want to write anything that would contradict Catholic teaching. Thanks.
Click to expand...
No.

Even if IVF could be done in a way that it involved only the reproductive cells of a husband and wife, and in a way that 100% guaranteed only one fertilization would take place, and that one would be successful…the answer is no.

The problem with IVF isn’t just that many lives are lost in the process. It isn’t just that a man must spill his seed outside of his wife. It isn’t even just that there are often surrogates in the practice. It is also because IVF distorts the divinely natural order of conception and fetal development, divorcing the former from the conjugal act and the latter from the woman’s body. IVF introduces a third party, a science lab, into the divine gift of life. We have a moral obligation to oppose such a perversion of the natural order.
 
Playing devi’ls advocate here.
What about feeding somebody through a catheter? That is, parenteral nutrition? Since SCIENCE! is involved, does it mean it’s immoral?
 
An_N said:
I understand the Church’s position on IVF.

The Church rejects it because:
  1. It entails the destruction of excess embryos who are persons, and disrespects human life because of the eugenics mentality behind it.
  2. The unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act are separated.
  3. A child has the right to be conceived in an act of love and not as a product in a petri dish.
  4. The structure of the family (and thus the ordering of society) is threatened, because through IVF, a child could be carried to birth by a woman who may not be his biological mother. He also may never know his biological father. He may also be born to an unmarried woman, etc.
Okay, so let’s assume that IVF somehow were changed so that NO embryos were destroyed. Only one embryo is created, implanted, and carried to birth.

Should the government still ban/make illegal IVF, in this case, because of reasons 2) through 4)?

I feel as if reasons 2) and 3) are reasons exclusively from a Catholic natural law perspective, and irreligious people (or those from different religions) may not accept such ideas.

However, reason 4) might be more persuasive, because the government has an interest in ordering society. However, I feel as if the argument still is weak, because a lot of adopted children don’t know their biological parents. . .

So I guess I understand why IVF is immoral from a Catholic perspective even if it does not entail the destruction of embryos, but why should non-Catholics accept the Catholic perspective on the issue? And should the government have the right to regulate IVF in instances where embryos are not destroyed? If you think the government does have the right to regulate it, what are the limits of regulation? (E.g., only married couples can obtain IVF? Only married couples who are the biological parents of the embryo can obtain IVF?)

I guess the question boils down to this: should Catholics impose their moral beliefs on non-Catholics, even when it does not pertain to fundamental rights, such as the right to life?

Responses are really appreciated.
Click to expand...
IVF is legal and will always remain legal. This is not the role of government.
 
AJM95 said:
Playing devi’ls advocate here.
What about feeding somebody through a catheter? That is, parenteral nutrition? Since SCIENCE! is involved, does it mean it’s immoral?
Click to expand...
It’s not science that creates the immorality (indeed, science has a right and proper place in the faith), it’s the disruption of the divine order. Use of technology to preserve and prolong life is morally neutral, it’s morality depends on how it is utilized and under what circumstances. But conception and fertilization are ordered specifically to the integrity of the conjugal act. To place this outside of that integrity is innately immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top