I am deeply struck by my past blindness to the commodification of human embryos. Now I feel the need to rethink and, in fact, reverse my previous view of IVF.
I think being against IVF because it causes excess embryos is like being against life because some people are bad. The reasons smack of unjustifiable outrage. IMHO storing fertilized embryos is not far different than storing frozen eggs and sperm , except that they can help create new lives for couples yearning for families.
To make the leap that keeping them is immoral is a misinterpretation of the meaning of life. Embryos are not life the way a fetus is at 3 months, or the way a baby is. Next are you're going to tell us to lock up men and women who use contraceptives?
This is indeed akin to the problem of ransoming slaves, which incents the slavery system to continue.
This problem is even simple to solve however; let the infertile potential adopters make themselves known to crisis pregnant mothers whose baby is already conceived. The main moral problem of IVF is the conception in the Franken tube in the first place. Infertile couples tempted to IVF should instead put themselves at the service of the orphans already conceived.
A bit authoritarian of you since many couples want their own children. I take the pro-life approach. Every new life is precious. But blocking a new life is not taking away a life. For example: Abortion by obstinance is okay. Abortion via contraceptives is okay. Killing a fertilized embryo is okay. After some point however one is taking a life. Then it becomes bad. Using IVF helps create life. That's a blessing. It gives life. As to the unused embryos? They are not yet "life" so there is no taking of life. On balance IVF is great. It gives life and it does not take life away. IMHO, this argument against IVF is faulty.
"This is equivalent to ransoming slaves" - you resort to exaggerations to make this and most of your points. And where does it say "created equal means an embryo is life." As to "property of the state" - I agree embryos are not property of the state. The same for transplanted organs. At least they should not be.
Abstinence and contraceptives do not abort a baby, they prevent conception as their etymology makes clear. Did you not read the article? It clearly says IVF babies are “expiring.”
This is what happens when we both commodify human beings, and also believe that every adult wish should be fulfilled, without any thought for the effect on children. We need to remember that just because we can, doesn't mean we should – and all human beings are so much more than 'just a clump of cells', and are worthy of respect and protection.
I am Mother Grandmother ( of 12) soon to be a greatGrandma wife of 60 years. Now a widow.. I am Catholic 4th generation Portugueuse India Eats Africa NewEngland Vancouver family
Has anyone commented that IVF or Adpotped Children and Trafficked children have problems of identity Ancestry .Com etc we cannot imagine..the pain of?
Olympic Gold Medalist Skater is a designer Baby "a Product" to be reproduced by Reproductive technologies 1980-2020 Nobel Prize Babies Good looking Babies etc Test-tube babies.
Mary the Catholic Queen Madonna Widow universal saw and spoke of life as being from "Generation to Generation" Abraham to _Jospeh 14 X 3 genration Mathhew Gospel Page One. God is Creative Generative Collaborative with Daisy Mae No end in sight
This topic is one to revisit and I hope you delve deeper into some of the issues readers have mentioned. There are so many connected topics that affect the issues of morality, future considerations for these innocent IVF/egg donor/adopted children and their parents, both original genetic parents, the mother who carried the children in her womb, the possible genetic siblings, half siblings….it’s loaded w scenarios that are usually ignored at the excited onset of creating a family unit. Surely there’s a way to best avoid confusion, resentment, possible feelings of betrayal due to secrets withheld by parents…
I feel for all involved.
One thing that seems very positive is that these children who are born through these various means , however they come to life in the world, are dearly loved and wanted.
I feel open/non secretive adoption and full disclosure about IVF w donated sperm, eggs, or embryos is best for the child at some point.
This is a very interesting area. Is an embyo life at such an early stage? Is the ability "to become life" the measure? Ronald Reagan once said on the question of abortion, "Perhaps some day scientists will determine when life starts."
If we assume a frozen fertilized embryo is "life" then I do not see why keeping them on ice is any less immoral than commoditizing them. So IMHO these embryos cannot be told they are life with all of God's blessings. But are they not life? Are they just a commodity to be sold? Also not true. Quite a puzzle, huh?
For an answer, maybe we can look at the sequestering of human organs; a topic I know a bit about since I am a recipient of a heart transplant. It saved my life six years ago.
These organs are also not life but they are life. And they must be removed from people who are brain-dead but alive. In Japan they do not allow heart transplants on moral grounds. The history on how we allowed transplantation in the US is very interesting and I urge you to read how Ronald Reagan, with help from clergy, enabled heart transplantation-- thus my being able to be here to discuss this topic! Any why my transplant was done at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Anyway, the selection of hearts is governed by a blind screening process - giving all recipients the same rights. It is managed by UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing), which is Federally funded. Requests for hearts are managed by UNOS who approves you being listed after a sophisticated and detailed medical submission process which, once you are listed, prioritizes you based on a priority score. I had a good score since I only had a few weeks to a few months to live.
Perhaps all unused embryos should be managed by an independent, Federally or non-profit financed organization that promotes the distribution of these embryos, at no cost to those wanting them. Unlike hearts, there is an oversupply of embyos. However, there should be an oversupply of recipients.
The charter of the organization could be the blind distribution of embryos via a distribution network of churches, hospitals, and conception clinics.
I am deeply struck by my past blindness to the commodification of human embryos. Now I feel the need to rethink and, in fact, reverse my previous view of IVF.
I think being against IVF because it causes excess embryos is like being against life because some people are bad. The reasons smack of unjustifiable outrage. IMHO storing fertilized embryos is not far different than storing frozen eggs and sperm , except that they can help create new lives for couples yearning for families.
To make the leap that keeping them is immoral is a misinterpretation of the meaning of life. Embryos are not life the way a fetus is at 3 months, or the way a baby is. Next are you're going to tell us to lock up men and women who use contraceptives?
This is indeed akin to the problem of ransoming slaves, which incents the slavery system to continue.
This problem is even simple to solve however; let the infertile potential adopters make themselves known to crisis pregnant mothers whose baby is already conceived. The main moral problem of IVF is the conception in the Franken tube in the first place. Infertile couples tempted to IVF should instead put themselves at the service of the orphans already conceived.
A bit authoritarian of you since many couples want their own children. I take the pro-life approach. Every new life is precious. But blocking a new life is not taking away a life. For example: Abortion by obstinance is okay. Abortion via contraceptives is okay. Killing a fertilized embryo is okay. After some point however one is taking a life. Then it becomes bad. Using IVF helps create life. That's a blessing. It gives life. As to the unused embryos? They are not yet "life" so there is no taking of life. On balance IVF is great. It gives life and it does not take life away. IMHO, this argument against IVF is faulty.
Created equal means that day 0 embryo is a life.
As for "unused" embryos, read dignitas personae.... These unfortunates have been put in limbo, having not been concerned from the marital embrace
Read the all too euphemistically titled brave new world. These children having been conceived in the frankentube are creatures of the state.
"This is equivalent to ransoming slaves" - you resort to exaggerations to make this and most of your points. And where does it say "created equal means an embryo is life." As to "property of the state" - I agree embryos are not property of the state. The same for transplanted organs. At least they should not be.
Abstinence and contraceptives do not abort a baby, they prevent conception as their etymology makes clear. Did you not read the article? It clearly says IVF babies are “expiring.”
Never said they abort a baby.
“Abortion by obstinance (sic)!is okay. Abortion via contraceptives is okay.” You said abortion right there.
This is what happens when we both commodify human beings, and also believe that every adult wish should be fulfilled, without any thought for the effect on children. We need to remember that just because we can, doesn't mean we should – and all human beings are so much more than 'just a clump of cells', and are worthy of respect and protection.
Many things in the world are moral failures, but IVF is not a “moral failure,” it’s a life-giving and life-changing miracle.
It can be (& is) both.
I am Mother Grandmother ( of 12) soon to be a greatGrandma wife of 60 years. Now a widow.. I am Catholic 4th generation Portugueuse India Eats Africa NewEngland Vancouver family
Has anyone commented that IVF or Adpotped Children and Trafficked children have problems of identity Ancestry .Com etc we cannot imagine..the pain of?
Olympic Gold Medalist Skater is a designer Baby "a Product" to be reproduced by Reproductive technologies 1980-2020 Nobel Prize Babies Good looking Babies etc Test-tube babies.
Mary the Catholic Queen Madonna Widow universal saw and spoke of life as being from "Generation to Generation" Abraham to _Jospeh 14 X 3 genration Mathhew Gospel Page One. God is Creative Generative Collaborative with Daisy Mae No end in sight
May God bless you in every way Daisy Mae
This topic is one to revisit and I hope you delve deeper into some of the issues readers have mentioned. There are so many connected topics that affect the issues of morality, future considerations for these innocent IVF/egg donor/adopted children and their parents, both original genetic parents, the mother who carried the children in her womb, the possible genetic siblings, half siblings….it’s loaded w scenarios that are usually ignored at the excited onset of creating a family unit. Surely there’s a way to best avoid confusion, resentment, possible feelings of betrayal due to secrets withheld by parents…
I feel for all involved.
One thing that seems very positive is that these children who are born through these various means , however they come to life in the world, are dearly loved and wanted.
I feel open/non secretive adoption and full disclosure about IVF w donated sperm, eggs, or embryos is best for the child at some point.
It’s a lot to think about.
Thank you for writing this piece.
IVF isn’t a ‘moral failure’, it allows many people to have happy families, and there’s nothing unethical about embryo freezing.
This is a very interesting area. Is an embyo life at such an early stage? Is the ability "to become life" the measure? Ronald Reagan once said on the question of abortion, "Perhaps some day scientists will determine when life starts."
If we assume a frozen fertilized embryo is "life" then I do not see why keeping them on ice is any less immoral than commoditizing them. So IMHO these embryos cannot be told they are life with all of God's blessings. But are they not life? Are they just a commodity to be sold? Also not true. Quite a puzzle, huh?
For an answer, maybe we can look at the sequestering of human organs; a topic I know a bit about since I am a recipient of a heart transplant. It saved my life six years ago.
These organs are also not life but they are life. And they must be removed from people who are brain-dead but alive. In Japan they do not allow heart transplants on moral grounds. The history on how we allowed transplantation in the US is very interesting and I urge you to read how Ronald Reagan, with help from clergy, enabled heart transplantation-- thus my being able to be here to discuss this topic! Any why my transplant was done at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Anyway, the selection of hearts is governed by a blind screening process - giving all recipients the same rights. It is managed by UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing), which is Federally funded. Requests for hearts are managed by UNOS who approves you being listed after a sophisticated and detailed medical submission process which, once you are listed, prioritizes you based on a priority score. I had a good score since I only had a few weeks to a few months to live.
Perhaps all unused embryos should be managed by an independent, Federally or non-profit financed organization that promotes the distribution of these embryos, at no cost to those wanting them. Unlike hearts, there is an oversupply of embyos. However, there should be an oversupply of recipients.
The charter of the organization could be the blind distribution of embryos via a distribution network of churches, hospitals, and conception clinics.
Just a thought. 🤷♂️
You peak Inglese perfectly with the highest moral authority one can imagine. Keep it up. PS: cross-language pun intended