Posted on 08/11/2004 6:34:48 AM PDT by NYer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Catholic teaching has called in-vitro fertilization techniques immoral for decades. But most Catholics still haven’t heard the news.
California attorneys Anthony and Stephanie Epolite found out the hard way that in-vitro fertilization wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be. After years of marriage, and facing her 39th birthday still without a baby, Stephanie turned to a fertility clinic.
Two years and $25,000 later, the couple had nothing but frustration and embarrassment to show for the time spent on in-vitro fertilization (in-vitro fertilization).
"We were emotionally, financially and spiritually spent," Stephanie Epolite said. "The clinic did no diagnostic tests. They loaded me up with fertility medication and determined the right time for retrieval of my eggs."
But, after the retrieval and the mixing of the eggs with Anthony’s sperm in the laboratory, still no embryo developed. "In the end, they told me I just had old eggs," Stephanie said.
She wishes she had known at the beginning what she has since learned: The Catholic Church forbids fertility techniques that try to make babies outside of marital intercourse. "There is no education out there about the alternatives," she said, "so Catholics are flocking to the fertility clinics."
According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, infertility affects more than 6 million American women and their spouses, or about 10% of the reproductive-age population. About 5% of infertile couples use in-vitro fertilization.
As to how many Catholic couples are among them, figures are hard to come by. But many Catholics seem unaware of the immorality of the procedure.
"Anecdotally, from our consultation experience here, Catholics using reproductive technologies are generally unaware of the Church’s moral teaching in this area," said Dr. Peter Cataldo, director of research with the Boston-based National Catholic Bioethics Center. "They’re not hearing it from the pulpit or elsewhere."
In her teaching on human reproduction, the Church seeks to safeguard human dignity. God wants life "to be the result of an act of love by those committed to loving each other," philosophy professor Janet Smith has written. Anything that assists the conjugal act achieve its purpose of procreation is licit; anything that substitutes for it is not.
In No. 2377, the Catechism explains why the Church opposes methods that separate marital love-making from baby-making.
"They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union."
In successful in-vitro fertilization, a human life comes into existence outside the conjugal act and outside the womb. Conception is the result of a technician’s manipulation of "reproductive materials." The process for the collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.
Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, explained that the Church teaches that the procedure is immoral for several reasons. "It undermines the meaning of sex. It violates the exclusivity of the couple’s marriage covenant," Father Pacholczyk said. "It says that it is okay to manufacture life in a laboratory as if it were a commodity, when it should be the result of human love."
"There’s also the ancillary evil of freezing embryonic humans that are later abandoned or poured down the sink if they are not useful," he added.
In addition, Father Pacholczyk noted that babies created through in-vitro fertilization have an elevated risk of birth defects.
"Studies have shown a sixfold elevated risk for in-vitro fertilization children contracting an eye disease called retinal blastoma versus normally conceived babies," he said. "In-vitro fertilization is very unnatural. You’re extracting ova from the woman, culturing them and inspecting the developing embryo in a laboratory setting. They are in a completely unnatural environment for a very long time before they are put back into the womb.
"Commercial interests offer in-vitro fertilization as standard practice," Father Pacholczyk said. "The Catholic Church is the only voice opposed to it."
But there are morally acceptable alternatives to in-vitro fertilization, and Dr. Thomas Hilgers is trying to let more Catholic couples know that.
In response to Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical reaffirming the Church’s opposition to contraception, Hilgers devoted his life to the study of human reproduction, developing the Creighton Model System of Natural Family Planning and eventually opening the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction.
In 1991, Hilgers coined the term NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology), a reproductive and gynecologic medical science that seeks to evaluate and treat a host of women’s health problems without the use of contraception, sterilization, abortion or artificial reproductive technologies, thereby making it consistent with Church teachings.
NaProTechnology first identifies the causes of infertility and then seeks to treat them. That’s not always the case at fertility clinics.
"The aim of most fertility clinics is to skip over the abnormality to try to get women pregnant," Hilgers said. "Yet when you skip over the causes, you end up dealing with them one way or another.
"It’s ludicrous to promote in-vitro fertilization as the help for the vast majority of 6.62 million with impaired fertility," he said. "When you listen to the national news and morning television shows, you think that in-vitro fertilization is the only thing available to infertile couples, yet less than 0.5% of infertile couples in the U.S. are helped by in-vitro fertilization each year."
Catholic theologians and ethicists would agree that NaProTechnology is morally acceptable, Cataldo said.
Cataldo pointed out that "certain drug therapies and egg-stimulating medications at doses that don’t have disproportionate risks for the children engendered or for the mother" also are acceptable. But other technologies, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) fall into a "gray area."
"Some moral theologians and ethicists see these techniques as assisting the conjugal act. Others see it as replacing it," he said. "Until such time as the Vatican speaks, Catholics contemplating the use of IUI or GIFT should inform themselves of both sides of the moral and theological argument and then make a decision in good conscience."
Regardless of the artificial method chosen, the cost of such techniques remains high and the success rates low. According to the 2001 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates report compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a survey of 384 fertility clinics showed a clinical pregnancy success rate of 32%.
In a 1990 article published in Social Justice Review, then-associate director of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat Richard Doerflinger noted that a survey of in-vitro fertilization clinics discovered that half of the clinics had never had a live birth after being in business at least three years, collectively treating more than 600 women and collecting $2.5 million for their services.
"Those with the extraordinary emotions that engulf infertile couples are extremely vulnerable," Hilgers said. "They are easy prey."
Not only do natural and morally acceptable alternatives such as NaProTechnology cost far less, but they also are more successful. The Pope Paul VI Institute boasts success rates ranging from 38% to 80%, depending upon the condition being treated.
Following the Epolites’ experience with in-vitro fertilization, Stephanie learned about the Pope Paul VI Institute from a Natural Family Planning counselor. In the fall of 2000, the couple applied to the institute, gathered charts they had kept that outlined vital signs related to fertility, and underwent diagnostic testing.
As it turned out, both had reproductive issues that their previous fertility clinic had never diagnosed. Anthony’s sperm count was low, and Stephanie suffered from endometriosis and blocked fallopian tubes.
Six months later, following treatment of their conditions at the Pope Paul VI Institute and at the age of 42, Stephanie conceived naturally. Their daughter, Claire Marie, was born Oct. 31, 2002.
"At the Pope Paul VI Institute, we saw compassion, concern, help and love," Stephanie said. "They provided individualized treatment, versus the empty feeling that we felt from the fertility clinic. Whereas the fertility clinic bypasses all the laws of nature, the Pope Paul VI Institute works with the laws of nature."
If you are not Roman Catholic, then you don't have to be concerned with the Church's position on IVF. Otherwise, just look at the stem cell debate to wonder why people have issues with IVF and the industry itself.
If that is so, the case should be filed under "tough luck".
Only if the parents instruct them to flush them all. I know one Christian couple who is in the process of having their third child and will keep implanting their frozen embryos until there are none left. One can also choose to donate the frozen embryos to another infertile couple looking to have a child. IVF doesn't have to be selfish but the clinics simply make it so easy to discard the unused embryos that many people do so (it's like an abortion with no surgery). It's the destruction of embryos that is wrong.
It's astoundingly selfish from my POV because there are thousands of EXISTING children who need homes and families, and because I don't feel the need to have a "blood child" of my own.
Life is full of selfish acts. Using your income to make yourself comfortable rather than donating it to feed starving children in a third world country is selfish, too. This line of reasoning isn't all that different from the reasoning socialist would use to justify controlling our incomes.
I don't see the inherent problem with helping the sperm and egg get together. In the case of the couple mented above, the husband lacks the plumbing to get his sperm out of his testicles but everything else is fine. One also needs to realize that a substantial number of fertilized eggs within a woman never reach the embryo or implantation stage, either, so simply citing the number of embroys that don't survive doesn't really mean anything. But I do fully agree that purposeful destruction of unwanted embryos is the moral equivalent of abortion and I consider abortion to be infanticide.
In the big scheme of things, I think IVF is a mixed bad. On the one hand, a substantial number of embryos are destroyed by parents who don't want them and that can make people more indifferent to abortion. On the other hand, when parents have a picture of their child as an embryo as the first picture in their child's photo album, I can't help but think that really brings home the message that a child is alive and important from fertilization. The people undergoing IVF place a lot of hope in those fertilized eggs and I think that helps emphasize where the life of a child really begins.
How do you know that oral sex, for example, is unnatural?
As I said above, being corrected on the history, my response is "tough luck". Sometimes, you just can't do everything you want to do. Unfortunately, looking at Baby-Boomer "Me" society today, this idea is utterly foreign to many people.
Too destroy some human lives for the purpose of achieving other human life is nothing short of utilitarian, a philosophy put into practice by the Nazi's.
Too have engaged in such a process is gravely wrong, so grave most people who have done it, are not going to admit it.
How could a PROCESS that results in the procreation of my beautiful children be so wrong? It is.
It is the same kind of mentality that begets the idea that it would be okay to forcibly take one person's internal organ's to save or improve the life another.
Won't happen you say?
It is already occurring in a number of countries around the world.
Once a society begins to accept some utilitatian ideas, it isn't long before others follow.
Just because God tells humans to multiply, it does not follow that IVF or any other form of reproduction is ethical. That it is a non sequitur. If we were to use your reasoning, the rapist could use this same divine command to justify his actions when such actions led to conception. The immorality of IVF is not principally based on the fact that many embryos are lost in the process. Even if all the embryos could always be saved, IVF would still be unethical, for other reasons.
When you spend a lifetime with your child, that one act of sex that preceded him becomes as important as a mote of dust.
Take that kind of reasoning and apply it to rape, and you will quickly see that it fails. Whether or not the importance of the manner in which a child was conceived becomes smaller in one's mind as the child grows up and one becomes further removed from it in time, that does not change the morality of the act. If the child was conceived by an act of rape, the act of rape was still wrong, no matter how important or unimportant that seems 30 years later. The question is not how important it is to do what is ethical. The question is whether IVF is ethical.
- A8
You are the one who brought up semen. I was just explaining Catholic teaching about morals in marriage.
It seems like you're scared that engaging in oral and/or anal sex will turn you gay. Don't worry, unless you have those type of tendencies already, it won't turn you into a poofter.
Scared? No. I firmly believe that men who indulge in these homsexual acts with women are already homosexual wannabees. The desire to be a girly-boy was already present when you first indulged in it. The indulgence didn't make you a girly-boy.
So, then, you would have no problem French-kissing another man. A mouth is the same whether on a man or woman. Right?
No, I would, because french-kissing is something that should be reserved for one's spouse. However, other types of kissing are perfectly acceptable as signs of normal affection to either a man or woman. I kiss my dad and father-in-law.
Sure. Vice is what makes the world fun. I'm quite proud to consider myself a hedonist.
Well, I had you pegged from the get-go.
I consider it a lot more fun to love my wife and not have to fear diseases or damnation.
What other reasons?
It is so good to hear from H the C.
I may be wrong, but I believe Lance wasn't married at the time, and may not even have met his future wife.
Let's assume for the moment that the above is true. He just knew that he wouldn't be a bio father unless he did something about it before the operation.
I'm assuming this doesn't change the answer.
So let's go further if you've got the patience for another nuance:
-- What if science figures out a way to extract sperm from the male without masturabation (instead of taking blood, "taking sperm")? I don't think the procedure exists today, but if Lance had that done would he be wrong?
I would think yes on account of natural law (no procreative and unitive act was involved), but the power of the logic weakens, especially if his sperm is inserted into the wife's womb.
Thanks for the answer.
I had no idea. I bet a lot of Catholic husbands in difficult conception situations don't even know that perforated condoms exist.
Ok, manly-man, is it only "climaxing" in a woman's mouth the part you have trouble with? Anything short of that is ok? [This isn't a churlish question, I have a point to make]
Um, no. You said:
The purposeful ejaculation of semen outside of one's wife's vagina is always a mortal sin.
So, who is bringing up semen?
No. I firmly believe that men who indulge in these homsexual acts with women are already homosexual wannabees.
Your definitions are as flawed as your "logic." A sexual act between a man and a woman is, by definiton, heterosexual.
In any event, the vast majority of American men indulge in these so-called "homosexual acts." So, following your logic, America is a majority-homosexual country. That makes YOU the deviant.
I consider it a lot more fun to love my wife and not have to fear diseases or damnation.
It really does come down to fear for your ilk. Fear of sex. Fear of disease. Fear of "damnation."
The fear of STD's is especially prevalent among religious people. It's almost clinically phobic.
Obviously you are too busy or unwilling to read the rest of the thread or fail to see any shades of gray in the posts.
I have NEVER written a word in support of destroying fertilized eggs and many others have discussed the other options available. I fully support those other options and regret that all too often, fertilized eggs are destroyed.
The step to raiding for organs is a big one, mostly because it involves an absolutely unwilling party. I unfortunately get the idea that some on this thread are against organ DONATION however, because it isn't "natural"...I don't accuse you of that, I merely include it as an observation on the thread.
I have no doubt about your sincerity, just a quibble with your broad brush.
Gardening is evil?
Is it me, or does modern man have a disturbing obsession with sex?
Reminds me of the Bloom County strip where they decided that they were damaging the environment. It ended with them all hanging in harnesses from tree limbs to avoid accidently smashing bugs when they walked on the ground.
The last line was the realization that they were breathing and murdering billions of microbes...
First from looking at the purpose of things. The penis is designed to fit the woman's vagina, not her mouth or anus. It is only in the vagina that it can accomplish its task of impregnating her, not in her mouth or anus.
The arguement from pleasure, that it can be used to give pleasure in any orrifice thus does not hold up. The pleasure is ancilliary to the primary purpose, which is attempted impregnation. If the male orgasm was meant to primarily give pleasure without attempted impregnation in each act of intercourse, then men would have been designed more like women, with a set time per month for impregnation, but with an ability to acheive orgasm at any time or multiple times in one act.
Second, from looking at the mutuality of the act. Human desire for pleasure in sex is to satisfy oneself by satisfying one's partner, because in sex you give yourself to the other person as an instrument to cause their ultimate pleasure in orgasm. On the other hand, in consumated oral sex, a woman pleasures a man while deriving nothing for herself in return, and the man gives nothing to her in return.
So both in its frustration of the purpose of the sexual faculties, and its laying aside the mutuality necessary for a sexual relationship, it comes up wrong.
And since I'm sure you'll bring it up next, the same observations are what make consumated female oral sex acceptable within the confines of a consummated act of intercourse. First, the climax of the woman is not tied to the actual act of impregnation. A woman can climax many times prior to the man with no affect (well, not entirely no affect, but you understand what I mean!) on the man's ability to climax in the normal way. Also some women, in fact, for a variety of reasons, do not receive orgasm from intercourse. But the mutuality of the act dictates that they should receive an orgasm if the man has since that is the secondary purpose of sex. Therefore, the man has a duty, in fact, to pleasure his wife outside of intercourse either manually or orally, either before or after his own climax, if he has been or expects that he will be unable to cause his wife's orgasm during the actual act of intercourse.
Does that all make sense? I'm not asking you to agree with it, but only to agree that I have a logical basis for my beliefs in accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church.
By this standard, if you'd known what Osama was up to five years ago and had a chance to shoot him, it would have been morally wrong to do so -- which strikes me as absurd on its face.
All unnatural things are not wrong, but all unnatural human acts are because we are meant to behave in certain ways and not in others.
That is the basis of natural law theory. You are free to disagree with it, I suppose, though I would wonder what you substitute into its place. Earth-Firsters mistakenly twist this to make unnatural things (i.e. human inventions) wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong in any human invention. They are just inanimate objects and procedures. Its the uses they are put to by humans which create good and evil, right and wrong.
Right and wrong are determined by human acts, not human objects.
Correct, - right and wrong are determined by human acts, not human objects.
-- Things created by humans are not wrong, nor are socalled "unnatural" human acts which are harmless to others.
When we behave in certain harmless ways and not in others, it is not the business of society to condem our acts.
See the US Constitution for details.
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.