Frank Nelson, BJ Barone, and baby Milo (June 27, 2014) TheStar.com/ Lindsay Foster photo |
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, August 7, 2014
Think, for baby's sake
Photos of two shirtless gay men holding a freshly born baby circulated widely on the internet recently. Commentators' emotions gushed, turning the baby into a poster child for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).
Unnoticed, however, is IVF's moral
nightmare.
IVF means fertilization "in
glass," that is, fertilization in a test tube or Petri dish.
IVF involves these steps: (1) a woman's
ovaries are stimulated to release multiple eggs; (2) 5-15 eggs are extracted
via minor surgery; (3) sperm is obtained via masturbation; (4) eggs and sperm are
placed in a dish where fertilization occurs; (5) up to three embryos are placed
in a woman's uterus; (6) remaining embryos are frozen.
If IVF is successful, an embryo implants
in the uterus and an infant is born nine months later. If not successful,
leftover embryos are thawed and more embryos are implanted.
So far, so good? Nope.
IVF has huge moral concerns that
shouldn't be eclipsed by the wants of wannabe parents, whether gay or straight.
Because up to three embryos are placed in the uterus, it's
not uncommon for more than one implantation. Enter these problems: (1) too many
children, thereby risking the gestational mother's health; (2) "selective
termination," i.e., abortion of the extra child/ children.
Also, IVF usually creates
more frozen embryos than needed. Enter the problem of what to do with the "leftovers." Garbage? Research?
But
contemporary science—embryology, fetology, biology—tells us that the human
embryo is a human being (not a dog being or a kitten). Surely, discarding or doing
research on human beings—research that destroys them—is problematic.
Also, when donor sperm
and donor eggs are involved, don't biologically based moral obligations to the IVF-created
child accrue to the donors? We usually think that biological parents have moral
obligations to their offspring—after all, we sue biological fathers for child
support because they are biological fathers.
In fact, sperm donors
become biological fathers via IVF, and egg donors become biological mothers via
IVF. There apparently is, then, a nature-based moral duty to care for and raise
one's offspring which gets violated. Isn't this violation unfair to children?
When sperm and egg
donors—i.e., the biological parents—are anonymous,
growing evidence shows that IVF children struggle deeply with personal
identity. For a child, knowledge of his/ her biological mother and biological father is important. But anonymous sperm and egg donors obliterate this connection. Surely
this (too) is unfair to children.
In the case of same-sex
couples who create a child via IVF, a baby is deliberately deprived of (at least) one of his/her biological
parents (solely because two adults want a baby). Surely, this is unfair to
children (as well). And it's more unfair if sexual as well as gender
differentiated parenting are important to the baby's well-being.
Furthermore, IVF creates
markets for women's eggs and egg harvesting presents serious health risks to
women. Enter the problem of "eggsploitation"—the exploitation of
women for their eggs.
IVF also creates markets
for surrogate mothers who face health risks. Women (especially poor women) are being
exploited for their wombs. This contributes to the creation of a subclass of
women—a.k.a. "breeders".
IVF-created people
should be loved and respected, to be sure. But IVF threatens to turn children
into commodities, especially if the children are the product of sperm and egg
sellers and if relations between parents and surrogates involve financial
transactions.
In other words, IVF may
very well aid and abet human trafficking, albeit at the earliest stages of human
being.
Finally, there are many
already-born, non-IVF children who need parents. Surely, the adoption of these children should occur first and instead of IVF.
Whereas
adoption is a rescue operation aimed at helping needy children already there, IVF
steps into moral darkness with the aim of creating new children to satisfy
adult wants.
Stop emoting over the
baby pictures. Think (and act) like morally responsible adults, for the baby's sake.
Further reading:
- "What's wrong with third party assisted reproduction?" (Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, August 2014).
1 comment:
An excellent article. Thank you.
Post a Comment