In Theory: What is your stance on in vitro fertilization?

What should be done with the thousands of embryos “stuck in a frozen limbo?” That’s the question posed by Michael O’Loughlin, a reporter for the Catholic publication Crux.

In vitro fertilization is condemned by the Catholic Church, but for many Catholic couples, it’s the last chance to have children.

About 65,000 children were born via IVF last year, according to O’Loughlin. But when a family decides their family is complete, they must also decide what to do with their remaining, still frozen embryos.

The owners of the embryos can pay about $600 a year to keep them frozen. They can also choose to discard them, donate them to scientific research, or give them to clinics who help other couples who are unable to conceive. Since the mid-1990s, frozen embryos have also been treated as babies available for adoption, with an embryo’s owners having a say in which couple adopts them.

“The issue is not as clear-cut for other Catholics who consider themselves pro-life,” O’Loughlin writes. “They are troubled by the creation of fertilized eggs, a potential human life, that are not carried to term.”

Q: How do you view frozen embryos and the practice of in vitro fertilization? What should be done with those embryos that a couple no longer needs?

--

Any answer I give has to be given with the caveat, “Remember, I am not a Roman Catholic.” But I see nothing wrong with giving the fertilized eggs to couples who cannot conceive themselves. I also see nothing wrong with giving the fertilized embryos over for scientific research. Either choice, of course, would have to be acceptable to those who created the fertilized embryos to begin with. I mean, in no way should my embryo be given to another if I don’t wish so. Also, I should have the last word on whether my embryo should be given to science for research. While I do think it’s a shame to destroy the embryos without there being some use put to them, in no way should I be forced to do something against my wishes.

Again, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I also strongly believe that science is forcing us to look at new solutions, and those solutions aren’t necessarily bad. So I am very much in favor of the in vitro fertilization concept and practice. Also, as a non-Catholic, I am very much in favor of birth control. But for those couples who want kids and don’t want to adopt, certainly a way should be open for them to get their wish: the acquisition of a fertilized embryo.

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

Let’s begin by understanding the seemingly obvious (but popularly ignored) truth that human embryos are indeed human. They are not “potential” human lives, as if at some point they change their nature to full humanity. They are human lives from the moment of conception. They may not be as developed as adults are, but then newborns aren’t either.

God has ordained that all living beings, whether plant, animal or human beget “after their kind.” Human reproduction produces only one kind: human. Frozen in vitro fertilized embryos are humans whose lives have been suspended. I believe that in vitro fertilization is a blessing that brings the gift of children to couples who have a difficult time conceiving. But every conceived embryo must be treated as human, and not dismissed and discarded like an unwanted appendix. Because they are human, the only ethical options, as I understand Scripture, are giving them to other couples who will bring them to term or continuing their frozen suspension.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

--

What bothers me most about in vitro fertilization is not the medical act of fertilizing an egg outside a womb and putting it back in; it’s the practice of pulling dozens of eggs adding seed, and igniting a mass of human souls with little chance of developing into full-grown adults. We were all embryos before we were anything else, and so this idea of just discarding the “leftovers” is rather sickening. It’s inhumane, as any of these cryonically static people may be implanted, and continue to mature into our next generation — and there’s nothing “potential” about their humanity or the fact that they are most certainly alive, else why are we having this discussion?

The medical community needs to shore up their procedures and limit the petri-dish conceptions to no more than two at a time. If successful, families will have twins. If one of two fails, we take it like any unfortunate miscarriage. But this is a different thing than fertilizing 15 (the standard) and tossing most into bio bags for disposal, experimentation or indefinite refrigeration. Remember, it’s always the same thing, a human being. From conception to death, we’re all the same, and we need to respect human life enough to not make light of this issue. Pagans will scoff and regard it all as just soulless protoplasm to be trampled, but that’s the difference between us. And it amazes me how people make a fuss over the respectful treatment of the deceased and the proper care of their remains, yet here are living human beings actually requiring such fuss and care, garnering far less concern.

I would say that all current embryos should be put on a fast track for immediate and widespread implantation, and again, the limitation on future fertilization should minimize any surplus. This being the Christmas season, let me remind my fellow Americans that our Lord was artificially conceived, and a virgin woman carried him to term and wound up giving birth to Earth’s Savior. That’s the reason for the season, the supernatural conception of God’s incarnation. And while all of us deserve hot coal in our stockings, God has determined that by simply joining with Christ, our sins will find atonement. We are truly merry who accept this free gift.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

--

I view the practice of in vitro fertilization with some skepticism, much as I appreciate the medical advances that enabled IVF and which IVF itself has led to.

My doubts are whether humans and the societies we comprise are up to coping emotionally and ethically with the experience of IVF in all its possibilities.

The New York Times Magazine headline in Kwame Anthony Appiah’s ethics column on Dec. 13, 2015, asks “What Should I Have Done After an IVF Mix Up?” While millions have become parents with IVF, problems do arise and Murphy’s Law will always apply. Appiah’s column relates a woman’s confusion and sorrow in finding herself pregnant with another couple’s embryo.

Another headline on the same day in the L.A. Times crows about the successful birth of “in vitro puppies.” Really? Millions of unwanted dogs are killed every year, and who knows how many live miserable lives. I understand that the ultimate goal of this effort is to benefit endangered wildlife, not make more dogs, but if it can be done it will be done, unfortunately.

I am skeptical and a little saddened hearing couples say that IVF is their “last chance to have children.” More accurately, what they are saying is it is the only way to reproduce themselves genetically. That is their call, but I suspect ego is a powerful force in their choice. IVF is not the only way for infertile couples to be parents, given the many, many children worldwide desperate for a loving family.

An embryo at the IVF stage is living human tissue certainly, but a dozen or so cells is not a human being, much less a baby or even a fetus. I do not recognize a concept of “potential human life” — a human life is or is not. The fate of unwanted embryos is something couples employing IVF must be responsible for deciding. If discarding them seems gruesome or wrong, perhaps it is the widespread acceptance of creating these “spare” embryos that needs to be questioned.

Just because we can do something is no reason that we should, IVF being an excellent case in point.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose