Hey Dad, Let's Talk 2| The Moral Implications of Invitro-Fertilization (IVF) |
|
The debate rages on as to whether an embryo (a fertilized egg) is a human being or merely a "potential" human being, but putting all opinions aside, the scientific truth of the matter is that biologically a unique human being comes into existence at the very moment of fertilization. As prolife author, Randy Alcorn, says, there is only one moment in time when there isn't a human being and when there is: conception. "But," many will argue, "you can hardly compare a cluster of cells to a full-term baby. The embryo doesn't even look like a human being yet; therefore, it isn't." This is a moot point. Here's why: ...
Human beings aren’t fully developed at birth either. The sexual organs do not finish developing until puberty and the brain doesn’t finish developing until late adolescence. It literally takes a human being a good eighteen years to finish growing and developing. It is often argued that "just because an embryo has human DNA, it doesn't mean it is a human being. A sperm has human DNA, too." Here's the crucial difference: While the sperm and the egg do individually contain human DNA – the DNA of the father or the mother – there is no new human being involved. It is thus scientifically inaccurate to compare sperm to embryos because “they both have human DNA” - to do so is no different than comparing a human being to a body part, such as a finger or an eyeball (which like the person, has human DNA). And consider this: if you were to place a sperm inside a uterus, nothing would grow/develop, for a sperm is only half the equation. When a sperm and egg join at conception, however, the human DNA is no longer that of the father or mother – the DNA is now unique to the embryo, and is, in fact, the embryo’s DNA. This is because an embryo is a brand new human being in the earliest stage of development; which, if left uninterrupted, will continue on through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. Therefore, an early miscarriage is the death of a human being, just as the death of a toddler, a teenager, or an elderly person, is also the death of a human being – each at a different stage of life/development. So, how does this all relate to IVF? In the IVF process, several eggs are removed from a woman's ovaries (drugs have been taken in advance to create more eggs than would normally be produced in one cycle). The eggs are then placed in a petri dish along with a man's sperm. Fertilization will occur in the dish as sperm and eggs join up or the sperm may need to be injected directly into the eggs. Either way, multiple eggs are fertilized and are soon embryos. According to Dr. Leon Speroff (Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, Williams and Wilkins, 5th ed., 1994, 937-39) three to six embryos will then be inserted into the woman's uterus with the hope that at least one of them will implant; but the success rate is extremely low. This means that for every failed IVF, at least six embryos have died. For every "successful" IVF in which one or two embryos survive, at least two to four others have died. Multiply this by repeat attempts over several months and the number of embryos who have died or been frozen will number in the dozens. This means that a woman who chooses to have IVF performed is willingly creating embryos in a petri dish (each of which is a new human being) while fully acknowledging that the majority of these embryos, if not all of them, are going to die. She is deliberately sacrificing the lives of several children in the hopes of having just one or two children. Randy Alcorn, author of Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments says, "To the argument 'You can’t seriously believe a frozen embryo is a human being,' the proper response is, 'Both scientifically and theologically we can’t seriously believe a frozen embryo is anything other than a human being.' "
RELATED ARTICLES: Pro-life: Not a Religious Position Cutting Through Prochoice RhetoricAbortion and Right-to-Life - A Rebuttal Dr. Henry Morgentaler: An Angel of Light? Back-Alley and Illegal Abortions
(c) 2010 Bekah Ferguson Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. www.bekahferguson.com Licensed under Creative Commons. To stay current on new blog posts, please follow me on Facebook or Twitter .
Readers have left 2 comments.  1. UntitledGuest User, Unregistered I think in most situations, couples choose to limit the number of embryos implanted to the number of multiples they could handle (i.e If they wouldn't want anything more than triplets, they wouldn't have more than 3 implanted at any one treatment). If this is the case and they are willing to accept all embryos/babies if they implant and develop, they are not sacrificing additional children for one. They are willing to love all of them. Additionally, there is nothing to say that when a women who is not struggling with fertility has her monthly cycle and an egg becomes fertilized it automatically guarantees that it will implant and develop into a fetus. Considering how long some couples need to try before achieving a pregnancy, it is very likely that it is a very natural occurrence that some embryos simply do not ever move along and implant in time or there are genetic anomalies that the body rejects (miscarriage). You would not accuse the woman who achieves a pregnancy naturally of sacrificing other children because of the many months she did not achieve a pregnancy; it then seems rather callous to suggest that those who are struggling (rather emotionally I might add) with their difficulty becoming pregnant and want a child so badly that they are willing to risk the lifestyle change that comes with multiples, are in some way on the same plane as someone who seeks out an abortion. Of course there are always the couples that choose selective reduction, which is abortion, but most couples who have struggled to become pregnant are horrified at that thought. Posted 2010-09-03 15:22:27 2. UntitledBekah Ferguson, Unregistered Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your politeness, and I understand the points you are making. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. :) IVF is indeed a controversial topic and a gray area for many people. For me, the main difference between failed attempts at pregnancy, miscarriage, etc., versus IVF, is that in the former, the survival of any conceived embryos is in God's hands and is not my moral responsibility. But in IVF, embryos are cultivated unnaturally in a petri dish with the knowledge that the success rate of IVF is extremely low and it is rare for all of the embryos to implant. You're pretty much guaranteed that some of those embryos are most certainly going to die. To me, this is "playing God" with the lives of other human beings, and that's why I find it immoral. Another issue I have with IVF, which I didn't mention in this particular article, is the freezing of "leftover" embryos. The Washington Post, back in 1999, reported that hundreds of thousands of human embryos are now frozen indefinitely. They estimated that an additional 19,000 more embryos will be added to that number each year. The IVF Phoenix Infertility Information Booklet says on page 164: "Not all embryos survive the freeze-thaw process. A 50% survival rate is considered reasonable. After the thaw, embryos retaining 50% or more of the cells they had before freezing are cultured and placed back in the uterus via a tube inserted in the cervix. The number returned varies with the desires of the patient under the guidelines of age categories; under 35 years old, up to four embryos, 35 years and older, up to six embryos. National statistics for women 39 or less is 27% per embryo transfer, for women over 39, 14% per embryo transfer." Posted 2010-09-03 16:50:27 |
If life begins at conception, then the practice of invitro-fertilization (IVF) is morally questionable.