Roughly 127,977, babies are killed each year through the process of in vitro fertilization -- at least if one accepts the definition that discarding a fertilized embryo amounts to abortion and murder.
Pro-choice groups obviously don't see it that way. More interesting, pro life groups do see it that way but rarely discuss in vitro fertilization either, perhaps because it's a popular technique.
But a recent statement from the Vatican makes it clear that the Holy See views embryos discarded during in vitro as being abortions.
The document -- Instruction Dignitatis Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions -- refers to embryos disgarded during the in vitro process as abortions.
Responding to the argument that in vitro isn't as bad because it involves incidental murder as a side effect, rather than as the main goal, the document states, "in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed."
Referring to the practice of creating multiple embryos to increase the odds of one leading to a birth, the document declared:
"One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied."
The full statement on In Vitro:
In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos
14. The fact that the process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted in the Instruction Donum vitae.
There were some who maintained that this was due to techniques which were still somewhat imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded.
It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high. These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo.15. It is often objected that the loss of embryos is, in the majority of cases, unintentional or that it happens truly against the will of the parents and physicians. They say that it is a question of risks which are not all that different from those in natural procreation; to seek to generate new life without running any risks would in practice mean doing nothing to transmit it. It is true that not all the losses of embryos in the process of in vitro fertilization have the same relationship to the will of those involved in the procedure. But it is also true that in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed.
Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring. In many countries, it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of these, some are transferred into the woman's uterus, while the others are frozen for future use. The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied.
This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the "various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life".
16. The Church moreover holds that it is ethically unacceptable to dissociate procreation from the integrally personal context of the conjugal act: human procreation is a personal act of a husband and wife, which is not capable of substitution. The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilization vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure - in addition to being in contradiction with the respect that is due to procreation as something that cannot be reduced to mere reproduction - leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being. Recognition of such respect is, on the other hand, promoted by the intimacy of husband and wife nourished by married love.
The Church recognizes the legitimacy of the desire for a child and understands the suffering of couples struggling with problems of fertility. Such a desire, however, should not override the dignity of every human life to the point of absolute supremacy. The desire for a child cannot justify the "production" of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.
In reality, it seems that some researchers, lacking any ethical point of reference and aware of the possibilities inherent in technological progress, surrender to the logic of purely subjective desires and to economic pressures which are so strong in this area. In the face of this manipulation of the human being in his or her embryonic state, it needs to be repeated that "God's love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother's womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gen 1:26) in each one... Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end".

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
**It is true that not all the losses of embryos in the process of in vitro fertilization have the same relationship to the will of those involved in the procedure. But it is also true that in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed.**
The Church seems to make a distinction here between embryos that are killed with malice and embryos that die accidentally -- as often happens immediately after intercourse (in fact, more often that in conceptions that proceed toward what we generally regard pregnancy).
But if life is life ... isn't the failed implantation of an embryo into the uterus -- let alone a miscarriage -- just as much of an "abortion" as a surgical procedure? Isn't this the reason the Church opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest? Will the Church be excommunicating faithful couples who come into a Catholic hospital reporting a miscarriage?
That's where the logical extension of the Church's standards leads to, IMO.
I understand the desire of couples to have children but I consider it to be very selfish to demand that those children be biologically connected to you - which is what IVF comes down to. It isn't that the couple simply wants a child/children - if that were the case then they could adopt. It is that the want a SPECIFIC child (the correct sex, the correct genes, etc) and therefore are willing to sacrifice other potential children in the process. The Church may not be able to convince people like Mike not to do it - but perhaps writings like this will at least convince us to consider what we are doing and make our choices more conscious.
It is not without full understanding of the longing married couples have for a baby, or the tragic impact of infertility on their lives that the Catholic Church bears solemn witness to universal truth.
We start with the understanding that even at the single-celled stage, that is the first stage of development of a human being. It is a stage that all of us have gone through. I say this as a Molecular Biologist. After fertilization, beginning with the single-celled stage we have a new human organism that is full and complete as such in that, and every subsequent stage of its development.
As we employ our technologies, we MUST adhere to the first principle of ethics-THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. We must use just means to achieve just ends.
The all too human and noble desire of couples for "a baby of their own" can never justify the winnowing of humans in their embryonic stage of development in the search for the most viable candidates. Some bloggers have suggested a moral equivalence between natural miscarriage and the intentional killing of humans in their embryonic stage of development. How absurd.
Finally, IVF treats these nascent humans as property. The freezing and storage of embryonic humans violates the first and most fundamental charge for parents-to facilitate the growth and development of their children. Molesting and arresting the development of those children by submersing them in liquid nitrogen until it is convenient for the parents to further their children's development shows the complete lack of understanding all involved have of human nature.
Our human nature is a shared nature. We don't all have a different human nature. The institutionalization of IVF comes complete with its manufacturing approach to humans, complete with quality control-by discarding rejects-and cold storage (as though the children were mink coats). Such an institution tears at the very fabric of our shared human nature. Therefore, the argument that this decision should only be made by the infertile and those who stand to profit from their infertility is a lie. Our human dignity, our shared human nature is at stake. Inasmuch as that nature is shared, we all have a voice in this debate.
I agree with Gerald. We must use just means to achieve just ends.
I am perplexed at the divide on such an issue. It is extremely sad and troublesome.
Many people view the Church as some great evil despot that seeks to control people's minds and actions. That is unfortunate. I think the Church (among others) can be a great source of guidance and wisdom on extremely complex moral issues. After all, these matters are what they discern and deliberate continuously.
Has the Church made mistakes in the past? Of course. Have there and are there bad people within the organization? For sure. Is there any organization within the history of man without such corruption? No. Not unless they were aliens.
The Church is supposed to proclaim the good news and message of Jesus Christ. Some people feel that when the ugliness of humanity surfaces from within the Church (i.e. priest scandal), it is a license to discredit the entire institution. Not so. If a son is born to a father who commits murder, is the son subject to the same destiny? Of course not. Many people believe that George W. Bush is a terrible person. Does this mean that America is terrible? That would be absurd.
One does not have to be a Christian to recognize that given two choices, one is ultimately better, as is the case here. I had a friend who was raised in the south and was brought up to dispise blacks. He said to me that one night, as a teenager, he spent some time in prayer meditating racism. At age 15, he was able to conclude by himself that racism was wrong. I feel that most people can reach the same conclusion (truth) for themselves if only they give themselves a chance.
Regardless of what the media tells us, our lives are not just about us as individuals. Life is not about self indulgence. We have an obligation to protect the environment for future generations. We must fight to champion equality among men. We must sacrifice ourselves so that we benefit as a planet and as a race.
When I contemplate these very serious issues, I imagine two separate Earths existing at the same time with the same components independent of one another. As they are set in motion, which one will depict a more favorable picture of humanity over time? Which planet will last longer, be happier, more peaceful, more prosperous and more glorious? The Earth whose inhabitants seek to feed one another or the Earth whose people strive to feed themselves as individuals?
There is always a better choice and there is always one truth.
F u all ok. GOD this God that Human nature this human nature that. MIKE is right! you should use what ever makes you happy in the end thats all god wants. You know how many miscarriages there are a year! that in itself is the same thing as the in-vitro. They dont throw away babies they simply make it easier for some to be born they put five in and sometimes five will come out. it just a help thats all. you guys are so hypocritical honestly. and no am not pregnant - am fine - and am not planning to have one anytime soon. I just beleive that God loves us all the way we are and our decisions when true to our hearts he will understand. If those 'babies' were not born am sure he planned for that to happen. It not like the scientist are there saying o lets keep this one and throw away this one. The only way they would "throw away" a baby is if it shows will be born with a deadly disease why in gods name would you want that baby to be born to suffer? retarded. wut ever i just hate people trying to put god into their choices to critisize something they dont understand? I want to kno if all those who oppose it are also infertile? and if so and want to adopt good! do it dont botther other peoples choices! God gave us a mind to advance and if we have gotten this far in technology its for a reason. Again i dont believe they pick and choose.
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.