Reproductive Technology and the Right to Life

Advances in reproductive technology have proven to be a blessing to many a couple suffering with infertility. Thanks to these advances, couples, who in the past would have been unable to have children, now happily bounce them on their knees. However, as thrilling as these new technologies can be, their application can be fraught with moral hazard. Ethical lapses can be avoided by thinking clearly about the principles that ought to inform our decision making in this area.

Let's begin by reflecting on the right to life. The first principle that ought to guide our thinking is that all human beings have a God given right to life. Our founding fathers recognized this principle and emblazoned it in the Declaration of Independence. The right to life was deemed "inalienable" because it was "endowed" by the Creator.

The next principle we should consider is that human life should be protected from conception to natural death. Human life exists from the time it is conceived until it is extinguished. If the "right to life" is to have any meaning, therefore, it must be protected from its beginning until its natural end.

Additionally, humanity is a function of our essential nature (i.e., that we are the offspring of human beings) and is unaffected by age, size, location, state of health or circumstances of conception.

Finally, we should understand that human beings have dignity, worth, and value because we have been created in God's image (Gen. 1:27-28), and a great price has been paid for our redemption (John 3:16; 1 Peter 1:18-19).

A close examination of these principles reveals they are often violated by various applications of reproductive technologies. Consider the following:

"Embryo Creation." In order to enhance the potential for conception, numerous embryos are often created in the laborat

ory with a view toward making multiple attempts at implantation. Initial attempts at implantation often fail, so "extra" embryos are created for use in future attempts. These "extras" are typically frozen and thawed for future use. If not used, they remain frozen indefinitely or are discarded and destroyed. But can such a procedure be ethically justified? Is there really such a thing as an "excess" human being? Can human beings be fairly regarded as a mere "surplus?" Aren't basic principles of human dignity offended by such concepts?

The fact that embryos are small and not fully developed doesn't affect their worth. Size doesn't determine significance. We cannot credibly maintain that those who are fat are worth more than those who are thin, or that the tall are worth more than the short. Nor is an infant less precious than a full grown adult.

Likewise, age should not enter into the equation. We don't maintain that the old are worth more than the young. And who would seriously consider freezing their three year old child and placing them in suspended animation with a view toward thawing them at a future date?

Location outside the mother's womb shouldn't enter in to one's consideration about how to treat such embryos either. Location may affect the value of real estate, but it doesn't affect the value of human beings. We don't maintain that human beings who live in penthouse apartments have more inherent worth, value, or dignity than those who live in the ghetto.

"Embryo screening" is a practice by which parents are encouraged to "eliminate" embryos who might have undesirable genetic characteristics, such as the trait for early-onset Alzheimer's. Through a process called "pre-implantation genetic diagnosis" (PGD), embryos who are deemed at risk for carrying undesirable genetic traits are "weeded out." Aside from the fact that PGD poses a high risk that healthy embryos will be discarded, the practice embraces the notion that those who don't measure up to someone else's subjective standard of perfection do not have lives worthy of living. The immorality of such a practice for older children is manifestly apparent. We cannot justify the elimination of a two year old because it is discovered that they have a genetic trait that may cause problems for them in the future. The practice of weeding out two day old embryos is no more defensible.

"Selective reduction" is a course of action that is often recommended when more embryos than expected successfully implant in their mother's womb, e.g., five instead of two. Selective reduction is a euphemism for "abortion." Fertility experts often advise their clients to eliminate some of the babies they are carrying to avoid the stress of multiple births and to increase the likelihood that they will give birth to fewer, but healthier, children. Such a course puts the mother on the path of killing some of her children in utero to benefit the remaining ones. This "Sophie's Choice" recommendation clearly violates the ethical principles outlined above.

Couples who wish to avail themselves of reproductive technologies will do well to educate themselves about all that the technologies entail. They will do even better to evaluate those technologies in the light of ethical principles that should inform their decision making before embarking on their use.

Amen Pillut! We have two beautiful children thanks to IVF and we will have our final remaining embryos implanted in the next few months. And we are praying that God's will will be done and that He will bless us with the children He chooses to bless us with.

While I appreciate the moral concerns of this piece--let's just say for us it isn't theory--we have lived it. As an Evangelical Christian I cannnot accept what would be the end result of this piece's morality--the it would be more morally acceptable (and thus that God would prefer) that NO children would be born to love and praise and worship Him rather than have some children be born to love Him, if in the process, no matter how hard you tried and how much you prayed, not every embryo developed and was born.

Agreed. My husband and I did not go into the process without a lot of research and discussions and prayers first...I appreciate the concern that there are people who have leftover embryos (we were never that fortunate, since I am a poor responder to meds) who donate them for science or destroy them :*( but most of the people I know who have some left over use them for family building or have donated them to embryo programs so that other families can hopefully be blessed. I really don’t like the broad brush painted over all fertility treatment that says we are indifferent to the outcome of the embryos—or that it is murder to replace several embryos in the hopes of God allowing at least one to implant. Month after month for normal, fertile people who are trying may not result in embryos implanting either, does that mean those people are committing ‘murder’ because they didn’t get pregnant? There’s a lot more to all of this than just pouring down harsh judgment on infertile people.

May God bless your efforts to have more children, ZGuy! We’ll keep you in our prayers! Pray for us too, as we are
trying one more time in a few weeks as well. :*)

The best way to deal with selective reduction is not to get into the situation of needing it to begin with.

You might notice that "selective reduction" is more likely to be necessary with fertility drugs than with IVF. With IVF, while you can't control how many embryos will implant, you can control how many are given the opportunity to implant at one time.

With fertility drugs, a competent fertility specialist can tell if too many eggs are being released in a given cycle and recommend not attempting fertilization during that cycle.

Multiple births become exponentially more dangerous for the mother and for the babies as the number of babies increases. If God had intended for women to have "litters", He would have given them larger wombs.

I think sometimes couples and/or doctors agree to these large multiple births for personal glory & publicity, without considering the dangers involved to the mothers and babies.

So am I - but I have one rather rude question to ask? How many embryos were created before she was implanted?

You sound like you think my doctor is Frankenstein, 'creating' embryos in a secret laboratory. :-)

Only God can create embryos. Only God can implant the embryos in the endometrium. Only God can continue that embryo's life force for 9 months until a baby is born. Only God...well, you get the picture. :-)

As for my ordeals in my quest to become a mother: First IVF-6 (4 died, 2 replaced, 1 pregnancy that ended in miscarriage) Second IVF-3 (all 3 replaced, no pregnancy) Third IVF-4 (all 4 replaced, Maya resulted)

Did your doctor even tell you how many of your children he put on “ice”?

The question shows a lot of ignorance about the actual IVF process, unfortunately, but I don't mind. If I can answer serious questions, I'll be glad to do so. :-)

As I stated in a previous post, I never had any embryos left. They either died shortly after fertilization in the hospital, or after they were returned inside me. Not counting Maya's embryo. :*)

Doctors don't just put embryos 'on ice'--they inform the patients through every step of the procedure exactly what is happening. My RE (reproductive endocrinologist) actually calls me himself, and I really appreciate that. :-)

In advance of the cycle, the prospective parents sign legal documents determining exactly what *they* want to happen to their embryos. The doctors have no say so in the matter.

I'm not sure you understand the process-there's a website called inciid.org that has easy to understand explanations of the IVF procedures, but basically, if any embryos are left then couples can choose if they wish to have them frozen and stored until they are ready to use them again in a procedure called FET (frozen embryo transfer). Unfortunately, sometimes the embryos don't make it through the thawing because they are extremely fragile, but there are many that do, that are placed back into the mother, and go on to become healthy little babies. :*)

If the answer is more than one, will your beautiful daughter have the good fortune of you bearing her brothers and sisters now on “ice” at a later date?

I detect a bit of snideness, but again, I'll answer. :-) Unfortunately, I am a poor responder to stimulation meds. I've never produced more than 6 eggs (first IVF), and as each day passes during the IVF fertilization process, there is a 75% attrition loss--yes, 75% of the eggs/embryos are lost. One reason why doctors try to get as many eggs as possible. There were never any leftover embryos to put 'on ice' as you say. I wish there had been, FETs are a million times easier than actual IVF cycles.

That said, I begin a new cycle this Thursday, which happens to be my birthday :-) If, God willing, there are any embryos left, we will put them in cryo in the hopes of trying again in the future--my husband and I always wanted a houseful of children! And our 3400 sq ft house could sure hold a bunch! :-) God willing, this cycle will be successful and Maya will get to be the big sister she prays for every night for the past 5 years...maybe her dad will get the son he would love to have...maybe there will be success for us again down the road, God willing. :*)

Depending on what happens, if God blesses us with any leftover embryos that we can't use for some reason (the only one I see right now is DH deciding we have enough kids, although that's hard for me to imagine) we have already agreed that our embryos will NOT be used for science or stem cell testing or anything of that nature--they will not be destroyed by simply letting them thaw out--they will not be abandoned to the cryo facility's decisions about them. We will donate them to an embryo adoption program such as Snowflakes so that perhaps other couples in our infertile shoes might be blessed by God too. :*)

Any more questions?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.