This is a personal question for me. I declined doing IVF on moral grounds and used the Catholic church's Napro Technology. I have a healthy, happy 13 year old conceived naturally and no ethical/moral quandary about unused embryos. More people should know this is possible.
As always with complex and thorny ethical problems, there are many who are ready to offer simple Gordian knot solutions that strip away the complexities of the problem and lead us into oblivion. While the moral dilemmas of IVF clearly call for a thoughtful discussion, who will make it happen, who will participate in the discussion, who will assure that the discussion is fair-minded and not overly influenced by bias? When we enter the world of medical ethics, subjectivity quickly rises to the surface and is not easily corralled. It is always a risk that we enter the Socratic world where nearly any postulate inevitably brings us to a place of absurdity. Yet tackle it we must. Good article. I hope many will read it.
What you haven't touched on is the foundational philosophical and biological and environmentally ethical issue of the health of such people who are born via IVF.
If such people can not be reproduced in a natural biological environment, by normal healthy parents, then will such people be expressing the healthiest biological requirements for living in this world?
Is IVF undermining and eroding the natural selection process that occurs in the natural process of reproduction, thus reversing the evolutionary natural selection process that has been the foundation of our biological stamina and health?
Thank you -- I read your piece with interest, and it is an intriguing argument. I do not favor artificial wombs or growing embryos/fetuses outside a uterus, but with that said, how would you defend your implantation demarcation for human life once artificial gestation becomes possible? We have already grown embryos past 14 days, and can likely extend that further with current technology: long past the point were implantation would have occurred.
I am admittedly blindly opposed to artificial gestation, which makes it difficult to answer this question. I think nature knows what it's doing and we don't (know what either it or we are doing).
Interesting point. But isn't the fertilized egg growing (dividing) several hours after conception before implantation, meaning it's alive already? And doesn't a baby after being born still need a mother or close substitute to nourish it to continue growing, just like in the womb? I think our understanding of life isn't complete, so we focus on one problem and create many more unintentional problems.
So does a seed grow and develop to the point where it is ready to take root and germinate once it falls into warm, receptive soil. But many many more seeds are made than ever germinate and that’s also true of very early embryos (though not in the same numbers).
Seeds don't divide and grow until planted. If sperm is the seed, it's "planted" in the egg, where it does indeed grow (divides). Mammals are more complex than plants, the growing continues when the mother shares nutrition, from implantation through childhood. Why do some embryo fail? I don't know. Science might explain the how but never the why.
There's no ethical dilemma here. Our utilitarian society allows experimentation on children, murder of unwanted children, and freezing of children to be held in Limbo until further notice. And what will we do with those children when they are unwanted? Or when the power goes out? How do you baptize an embryo you can't even see?
Do you really want to explain to the good God what you did with the children He sent you, as you inevitably must? Oh, wait. I have an answer. There's no God, and we can do anything we want. Don't complain if you get axed. Embryos? Ha ha ha.
What about the utilitarian value of all these embryos for experimentation in GMOs and AI and all that utopian drivel that the EMF and WHO etc. want to inflict on us?
I wonder if it's not somewhat intentional, to only show interest in increased fertility for wealthy couples? It doesn't surprise me that there is a lack of interest in low-cost fertility options; the Malthusians running our society don't seem interested in producing more "useless eaters."
A dollar not invested in Apple could have been worth a fortune. But it wasn't. A redwood sprout in the shade could have become a towering tree that lived for thousands of years. An embryo implanted in 2024 could have become a citizen in the wonderful world of 2124, when lifespans have been extended and all disease cured. When reality in potentia becomes reality de facto it is imagination-based.
Yes science keeps offering potentials as realities, whereas all it is is pipe dreams with very real dangers that are glossed over with our attention redirected by slight of hand using short term gains as the outcome.
The other elephant in the room of the foundational philosophical, biological and ethical ramifications of IVF is the very nature of the family and it's role in our society.
The ideal of a mother, father and children as the basic building block of society, with its close blood relationship to the extended family, tribe, community and larger society in general, is greatly undermined by acceptance of IVF.
These bonds are very real, as is evident by the millions of people who spend a lot of time and money tracing their physical ancestors and living relations.
Yet IVF from unknown donors removes this relationship, as does adoption in any form of surrogacy as does children born from adultery and any form of acceptance as "normal" of children being born outside of the marriage structure.
Acceptance of IVF is closely linked philosophically to acceptance of the unmarried parent and then to the acceptance of the "queer" parent - each being a large step away from the family structure with the extended family support systems that have and are still so vital to the purpose and meaning of our societies.
All of this is in our society has of course been supported by the Christian values that are also foundations in our society.
Jesus tells us clearly:
"from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart."(Mark 10:6-9)
Yet IVF, and the ramifications of it, certainly do put man and woman apart, and as such clearly undermines the very fabric of our society.
This is a personal question for me. I declined doing IVF on moral grounds and used the Catholic church's Napro Technology. I have a healthy, happy 13 year old conceived naturally and no ethical/moral quandary about unused embryos. More people should know this is possible.
I agree, and I commend you for taking this path.
As always with complex and thorny ethical problems, there are many who are ready to offer simple Gordian knot solutions that strip away the complexities of the problem and lead us into oblivion. While the moral dilemmas of IVF clearly call for a thoughtful discussion, who will make it happen, who will participate in the discussion, who will assure that the discussion is fair-minded and not overly influenced by bias? When we enter the world of medical ethics, subjectivity quickly rises to the surface and is not easily corralled. It is always a risk that we enter the Socratic world where nearly any postulate inevitably brings us to a place of absurdity. Yet tackle it we must. Good article. I hope many will read it.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Wow Doc what a can of worms is IVF!
What you haven't touched on is the foundational philosophical and biological and environmentally ethical issue of the health of such people who are born via IVF.
If such people can not be reproduced in a natural biological environment, by normal healthy parents, then will such people be expressing the healthiest biological requirements for living in this world?
Is IVF undermining and eroding the natural selection process that occurs in the natural process of reproduction, thus reversing the evolutionary natural selection process that has been the foundation of our biological stamina and health?
This is a very important question, for which we need more research before we engage in these massive social projects.
Amen to your headline. It's not rocket science. Human life begins at conception!
Here's another, perhaps complicating perspective. https://anniegottlieb.substack.com/p/extrauterine-children
Thank you -- I read your piece with interest, and it is an intriguing argument. I do not favor artificial wombs or growing embryos/fetuses outside a uterus, but with that said, how would you defend your implantation demarcation for human life once artificial gestation becomes possible? We have already grown embryos past 14 days, and can likely extend that further with current technology: long past the point were implantation would have occurred.
I am admittedly blindly opposed to artificial gestation, which makes it difficult to answer this question. I think nature knows what it's doing and we don't (know what either it or we are doing).
Interesting point. But isn't the fertilized egg growing (dividing) several hours after conception before implantation, meaning it's alive already? And doesn't a baby after being born still need a mother or close substitute to nourish it to continue growing, just like in the womb? I think our understanding of life isn't complete, so we focus on one problem and create many more unintentional problems.
So does a seed grow and develop to the point where it is ready to take root and germinate once it falls into warm, receptive soil. But many many more seeds are made than ever germinate and that’s also true of very early embryos (though not in the same numbers).
Seeds don't divide and grow until planted. If sperm is the seed, it's "planted" in the egg, where it does indeed grow (divides). Mammals are more complex than plants, the growing continues when the mother shares nutrition, from implantation through childhood. Why do some embryo fail? I don't know. Science might explain the how but never the why.
The fertilized egg is the seed. Sperm is the pollen. :)
There's no ethical dilemma here. Our utilitarian society allows experimentation on children, murder of unwanted children, and freezing of children to be held in Limbo until further notice. And what will we do with those children when they are unwanted? Or when the power goes out? How do you baptize an embryo you can't even see?
Do you really want to explain to the good God what you did with the children He sent you, as you inevitably must? Oh, wait. I have an answer. There's no God, and we can do anything we want. Don't complain if you get axed. Embryos? Ha ha ha.
What about the utilitarian value of all these embryos for experimentation in GMOs and AI and all that utopian drivel that the EMF and WHO etc. want to inflict on us?
I wonder if it's not somewhat intentional, to only show interest in increased fertility for wealthy couples? It doesn't surprise me that there is a lack of interest in low-cost fertility options; the Malthusians running our society don't seem interested in producing more "useless eaters."
A dollar not invested in Apple could have been worth a fortune. But it wasn't. A redwood sprout in the shade could have become a towering tree that lived for thousands of years. An embryo implanted in 2024 could have become a citizen in the wonderful world of 2124, when lifespans have been extended and all disease cured. When reality in potentia becomes reality de facto it is imagination-based.
Yes science keeps offering potentials as realities, whereas all it is is pipe dreams with very real dangers that are glossed over with our attention redirected by slight of hand using short term gains as the outcome.
The other elephant in the room of the foundational philosophical, biological and ethical ramifications of IVF is the very nature of the family and it's role in our society.
The ideal of a mother, father and children as the basic building block of society, with its close blood relationship to the extended family, tribe, community and larger society in general, is greatly undermined by acceptance of IVF.
These bonds are very real, as is evident by the millions of people who spend a lot of time and money tracing their physical ancestors and living relations.
Yet IVF from unknown donors removes this relationship, as does adoption in any form of surrogacy as does children born from adultery and any form of acceptance as "normal" of children being born outside of the marriage structure.
Acceptance of IVF is closely linked philosophically to acceptance of the unmarried parent and then to the acceptance of the "queer" parent - each being a large step away from the family structure with the extended family support systems that have and are still so vital to the purpose and meaning of our societies.
All of this is in our society has of course been supported by the Christian values that are also foundations in our society.
Jesus tells us clearly:
"from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart."(Mark 10:6-9)
Yet IVF, and the ramifications of it, certainly do put man and woman apart, and as such clearly undermines the very fabric of our society.
Weird, I didn't have any trouble with the original link. And it definitely does not sound like botspeak.