IVF and Parental Dominion II: Moral Arguments

Jump to Comments

(The following is part 2 of a multi-part series entitled “In vitro Fertilization and Parental Dominion“, modified from a paper I wrote for an M.Div. course in Marriage, Infertility, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies, November 2007)

I. MORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE USE OF IVF

At the root of any moral argument dealing with the use of IVF you will find a set of moral guidelines. Some guidelines are defensive in nature, while others seek to set positive parameters for the use of such technologies. The spectrum of thought runs all the way from those such as H.J. Muller who feel that the use of IVF is almost morally required to redeem humanity from the degenerative slide that it finds itself in, to those of the Roman Catholic belief who hold to an almost wholesale rejection ARTs as clearly impermissible. It should be noted that the question of “personhood” or status of the embryos in question exhibits major sway over the way in which an ethicist will view IVF. For the most part, the various views discussed below hold (at least to some extent) to the personhood of the embryo (the one exception being the American Fertility Society).[1]

One representative view in the IVF debate is that of Dr. William Cutrer, who believes that “couples can do IVF while complying with all ethical principles, but to do so they must honor life at the one-cell stage.”[2] Cutrer uses four main guidelines to focus his ethical questions on the use of IVF: good, harm, autonomy, and justice. Seeing that Cutrer supports the use of IVF, we can assume that he believes that his moral guidelines for this technology have been sufficiently answered. It should be noted as well that Cutrer’s major emphasis on the use of IVF is that the embryo is treated with respect from the earliest stage, and that all genetic materials (sperm and egg) are taken from the infertile couple themselves.[3] Although Cutrer could be considered on the conservative side of the IVF issue, other ethicists go further to caution couples of the technological and cultural context of which the question of IVF is raised.

One such theologian who has weighed in on the technological thrust behind IVF is Oliver O’Donovan. He argues against reproductive technologies as a whole, and IVF in particular on the basis that they “cheat nature, making children commodities or artifacts,” rather than gifts of a natural marital union.[4] In his book, Begotten or Made?, O’Donovan addresses the technology of IVF in the context of a larger technological culture that “has been overwhelmed by ‘making.’”[5] His main concern is the proper moral interaction between nature and procreation. If God ordered procreation to occur in a certain way, with certain purposes in mind; do humans have the right to circumvent nature to ‘make’ a child of their own technological will? In the case of IVF, O’Donovan would answer no.

Catholic theologians such as Bernard Haring argue against the use of IVF on similar grounds as O’Donovan, the major difference being that Catholic doctrines against IVF focus on the manner in which it separates the “unitive-procreative functions of the marital act.”[6] The key concept in this moral framework is the inability to separate procreation from the specific conjugal “act”. As a 1987 article on the dignity of procreation reads,

“Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language of the body and union of human persons.”[7]

The Catholic church does take into account the intentions of the parents in pursuing IVF in the name of fruitfulness, but it denies that mere intention can ever override clear moral boundaries; saying that “even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo” in cases of IVF, the practice is still “illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation”.[8] In other words, the ends do not justify the means used to obtain that end.

For the American Fertility Society, moral guidelines governing the use of IVF have less to do with the dignity of the embryo (of which they consider is “not equivalent to a person”), and more to do with the human-well being of the infertile couple seeking its use.[9] This point of view sees IVF as an acceptable means to provide for a beneficial end. The AFS would agree with John Robertson when he writes

“The moral objections to IVF made by the Catholic Church, feminists, and others do not constitute the compelling evidence of tangible harm necessary to justify interference with procreative liberties.”[10]

The AFS themselves note that the only limitations on reproductive technologies such as IVF are: “the transmission of disease to the offspring, unwillingness to provide proper prenatal care, inability to rear children, psychological harm to offspring, overpopulation, and nonmarriage.”[11] When viewed under the auspices of this idea of procreative liberty, IVF is seen as just another reproductive option that couples have the right to pursue of their own accord. It should be clear that this view is out of the bounds of divine revelation, and rejects the biblical understanding of the imago Dei. It is no surprise that the Ethics Committee for the AFS affirmed that the basic use of IVF is “ethically acceptable.”[12]

As with the majority of assisted reproductive technologies, there is little consensus to be found on the use of IVF. If personhood is affirmed for the embryo that is created in vitro, there then becomes more common ground in the discussion; but even with this acknowledgment, there is widespread disagreement over the morality of the practice in toto, as well as the manner in which it is carried out. When the issue is approached from the Christian perspective, we must affirm with Paul Ramsey that “human parenthood is not the same as that of the animals God gave Adam complete dominion over.”[13] It is the extent of that “dominion” both in procreation and in parenthood where the ethical questions are at their weightiest, and where we will turn in the next blog post.

(TO BE CONTINUED…)

---

[1] Shannon, Religion and Artificial Reproduction -74

[2] Cutrer, The Infertility Companion -175

[3] Cutrer 189

[4] Cole-Turner, Genetics: Theology and Care at the Beginning of Life- 65

[5] O’Donovan, Begotten or Made?

[6] Curran, Dialog About Catholic Sexual Teaching 153

[7] Curran 227

[8] Curran 230

[9] Shannon 75

[10] Robertson, Children of Choice: Children and the New Reproductive Technologies- 100

[11] Shannon 75

[12] Shannon 76

[13] Ramsey, Fabricated Man- 33

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• IVF and Parental Dominion: Babies At All Cost?
• IVF and Parental Dominion IV: The Proper Dominion of Parenthood and Conclus…
• Half dryad, half cyborg

3 Comments

Filed under Books, Culture, Ethics, Life, Pro-Life, Quote, Religion, Theology

Tags: Artificial Reproduction, Catholic, Christian, Embryo, Ethics, Genetics, in vitro fertilization, Infertility, Morality, Personhood, Pro-Life, Protestant, Religion, Theology