This is a tragic situation, no matter how you look at it (hat tip: Creative Minority Report):
A Spanish woman who deceived a U.S. fertility clinic about her age and become the oldest woman to give birth has died at 69, leaving behind 2-year-old twins, newspapers reported Wednesday.
Maria del Carmen Bousada gave birth in December 2006 after telling a clinic in Los Angeles that she was 55, the facility's maximum age for single women receiving in-vitro fertilization. Guinness World Records said the 66-year-old was the oldest on record to give birth and the case ignited fierce debate over how much responsibility fertility clinics have over their patients.
Bousada told an interviewer at the time that the Pacific Fertility Center did not ask her for identification, and maintained that because her mother had died at 101, she stood a good chance of living long enough to raise her children. [...]There was no word on who would raise the twins. Bousada had once said she would look for a younger man to help her raise them.
A few things need to be made clear: first, as a Catholic I believe that all use of IVF is immoral. It is a grave moral evil whether a 26-year-old or a 66-year-old is using this means to manufacture a child or children. It is wrong whether a married couple or a single person decides to use it.
That said, it should go without saying that the children manufactured in this way are wholly innocent of the evil of their parent or parents in choosing IVF. Just as a child conceived in rape is wholly innocent of the crime and sin of her father, so are these twin boys innocent of the evil of IVF and of their mother's extremely imprudent choice to undergo this procedure at 66. Their tragic loss of their mother is to be deplored, and they, their mother, and any other family are in my prayers.
However, because the children are innocent does not mean that we can't or shouldn't condemn IVF as being a threat to the intrinsic dignity of the human person. Children deserve to be conceived in the context of the marital embrace of their loving parents, and to be raised by them. Granted, a married mother who is much younger than 66 when her child is born is not guaranteed that she will live to see her child grow up, but that doesn't mean that nature, which usually permits a woman to be fertile for a certain time period and no longer, should be ignored altogether, subverted, and overruled by those who would objectify children and manufacture them "to order," so to speak.
As we continue to de-couple the notions of marriage and parenthood, and of natural conception and parenthood, we're going to see a lot more situations like this one, I'm afraid. And so long as we see the creation of a child as a "right" which has nothing to do with marriage or natural, biological parenthood, we're going to keep losing any grounds on which to object to such things.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Following the logic of the Roman Catholic Church’s argument..
Why is there no coordinated effort within the Roman Catholic Church to have women donate womb space to bring frozen embryos to life? Why isn’t the Roman Catholic Church at the forefront of advocacy for research into fallopian tube, vas deferens and uterus transplants? Catholics on sites such as Life News have shown vast ignorance in relation to assisted reproduction and a lack of compassion that cannot be considered Christ-like. They assume all IVF cycles involve destruction of embryos and they mock married couples that would like to become biological parents through IVF as selfish and ignoring God’s will for them in their lives. They assume these parents are too narcissistic to adopt, and that those who have conceived naturally (no matter the circumstances) have been “blessed” by God. I’d love to read a poll about what percent of Catholics who have had children naturally have in addition adopted children into their families? It seems so convenient to match up the unwanted babies in the world with couples struggling with infertility (and it certainly lifts the burden on taxpayers that otherwise would be supporting the unadopted children’s needs). If no babies were available for adoption (the supply is shrinking as we give greater support to single mothers), would the Life News writers and posters still feel so self-righteous in demanding infertile couples forgo fertility treatments?
For me, this issue is tremendously personal. My son’s father and I are each one of more than 10 children with strong ties to the Pro-Life movement. Due to several of my brothers’ being carriers of cystic fibrosis, they have together with their wives brought 6 children into the world with IVF. I know the parents are committed to giving all embryos they have created a chance at life, as they believe each one is unique and deserving of life. I also know the parents are committed to raising their children Catholic, and that our local priest supported their decisions to procreate through IVF (as my brothers, lacking vas deferens, could not conceive “naturally” with their wives).
I asked Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in person about the moral status of my brothers and their wives. He said that IVF is never morally acceptable and that it is a grave offense. When asked what my siblings should now do, he said that they need to make a good confession. I wonder, though, what have they done that is sinful? I interpret Fr. Tad’s perspective to be that, if my brothers and their wives were “good” Catholics, their children would not exist. I know firsthand the tremendous sadness that infertility can bring to a marriage, as another close family member’s spouse divorced them over disagreements about how to become biological parents while being faithful to Catholic Church teaching. How many Catholics turn to IVF when they have no other biological options, and how many other infertile Catholics chose adoption instead?
I also asked Fr. Tad about snowflake babies and the Catholic Church’s perspective on this procedure. He essentially said it is morally wrong to create new embryos and that while the Church had no official position on adopting frozen embryos, there are good arguments on both sides. He left me with the impression that, instead of pursuing a path that would produce a biological sibling for our child, my son’s father and I would find more favor with the Catholic Church if we adopted a snowflake baby instead. I would welcome Fr. Tad or other Catholic bioethicists to expand upon this reasoning. The way I see it is, then, if the Catholic Church recruited enough generous women to donate their womb space to bring all the frozen embryos to life, then those of us who have not abused the IVF process and will not abuse it by creating more embryos than we will give life to will then have a moral chance at procreating with our own embryos.
It is beyond my understanding, even as a theology minor at a Catholic college who has worked for several dioceses, how the Roman Catholic Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions, even welcoming them back into the
Church if they are now married with other children (who will never know about their murdered sibling), but the Roman Catholic Church completely condemns a Catholic couple who has never so much as used birth control to prevent pregnancies, who choose in response to infertility to procreate via IVF using their own eggs and sperm, and transferred all embryos to the uterus.
My son still attends Catholic school. At some point, will he be taught that, if his uncles and aunts were good Catholics, his 6 cousins would not exist? If so, please tell me now, so I can investigate other educational options before he is exposed to this hateful line of reasoning.
@Your Name - I've undergone 4 IVF cycles now, and not a single embryo has been destroyed. They have died, yes, but that is nature. That happens to fertile women too - more than half of all fertilized embryos die before they can implant in the uterus. The IVF procedure did not cause those embryos to die.
It does not logically follow that IVF is immoral because it destroys human beings. That does not have to be the case.
@Following - I completely agree, particularly with the number of so-called good Catholics who have biological children yet have not adopted.
There are not that many children available for adoption, the adoption process is long and psychologically difficult, and the cost is outrageous.
To "Following the logic of the Roman Catholic Church’s argument":
I don't know anything about "Life News" other than that whoever they are, they do not represent the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
The local priest supporting IVF did so in contradiction to Catholic teaching.
Fr. Tad was correct that your siblings, as Catholics, need(ed) to make a confession.
The Church does not condemn those who have had children via IVF while accepting those who have aborted.
The Church proclaims and argues that some things are sin, and that Catholics with grave mortal sin need to go to confession. This is not hateful.
You refer to "good" Catholics. I don't know that anyone is a "good" Catholic. We are all sinners.
I think your questions revolve around what is considered sin and why. I've posted why (in part) IVF is considered sin. As a theological student you should undertand the reasoning, even if you reject it. Though it strikes me that you don't understand.
Perhaps part of the problem is that you see the very real good of children that are the result of IVF and can't concieve of why the process is sinful. This is a fundamental question of ends justifying the means. I conclude that ends do not justify any means. Do you?
Max - please read the attached article and help explain the Catholic Church logic in favoring women conceiving with donated ovaries over women conceiving with their own eggs. So, the Catholic Church essentially says, it is morally superior for a woman to have intercourse and procreate and give birth to a child not of her DNA, over having her eggs and her husband's sperm produce embryos through IVF and transfer all embryos to her uterus for a chance at life. Which of the two scenarios would likely cause more lasting damage to the marriage and to the resulting children’s self-esteem? “Honey, I have no idea who your biological mother is, but the Catholic Church said we could only procreate through intercourse, so rest assured all is right in God’s eyes.” Why hasn't mainstream media picked up on this bit of Catholic teaching yet?
See article here:
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=136743
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.