Immorality of InVitro: Test-tube babying is wrong

[roughrider]

In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other. That time is now.

Wangari Maathai – Nobel Lecture, Oslo, December 10, 2004

This quote seems apt in the trying times we live in.

Press reports indicate that Kenya has made her history. The first Kenyan test tube babies were born at the Avenue Hospital on 8th May 2006. This fact has caught the attention of Kenya’s chattering masses and many are beside themselves with joy, congratulating the ‘parents’ of those two baby girls. (Forget the fact that IVF had already been pioneered almost 30 years ago (July 25th 1978) when Louise Brown was born weighing 2.61 kgs. shortly before midnight at a district hospital in Oldham UK)

But 30 years is infinitesimal in the larger context and the havoc this scientific 'advance' will eventually cause may have just started. This is, clearly, a technical and scientific coup for Kenya and the World but it may herald a moral and ethical dilemma. Are we laying the foundations for cataclysmic changes to human society and life as conceived by God and as we have known it hitherto?

‘Let us understand that not everything that is possible technically is morally acceptable’

What are some of the ethical and moral objections to IVF?

• Children should be the product of a loving union. The IVF procedures opens up the possibility of what has been called ‘long distance conceptions’ and like a commentator recently noted ‘extracting the gametes outside the marital act doesn't favor matrimonial unity’. many women are also questioning the ability to 'fully' and 'ordinarily' love children they did not concieve in normal unions. The purpose of marriage is not to have children at all costs.
  
  
• The second basic objection is the rejection process used in IVF. Many of the embryos are killed or ‘not allowed to grow’. This is a deeply disturbing process that might result in trait selection and mechanization of humanity. When man begins to play God, we have cause to be concerned.
  
  
• A doctor may keep embryos stored (cryopreservation) for as long as he deems fit, thus deciding the course of life; when and how children will be born. Is this our role?
  
  
• We run the danger of producing human beings in a factory ‘conveyor belt’ fashion.
  
  
• This process can lead to what I call parental confusion which lawyers might enjoy arguing about but which society should avoid. ‘The male seeds can be produced by one man, the female eggs by one woman, and implantation of the embryo in another woman and finally the adoption of the child by another couple’ this is FIVE people involved as parents of some sort. This is deeply troubling and maybe psychologically traumatic for children who have to wade through the intractable confusion of parentage.
  
  
• The idea of 'test tube' babies has led many men to use their sexual seeds for sale to those in favor of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Also some mothers 'rent' their wombs to carry a pregnancy for those (often unknown to them) who are unable to do so. This commercialisation when taken to its logical concluison is not too different from slavery and trade in humans.
  

Test tube fertilization cheapens the human, it erodes our dignity and makes us mere objects.

Roughrider with some input from Fr Pascal Mwambi Mwakio of Holy Ghost Cathedral, Catholic Archdiocese Mombasa

[pharlap]

*scrath scratch scratch* on the head...... let me digest this.

[dubois]

Once again, the catholic church has taken the moral high ground and is now busy contradicting itself. First of all RR, do you know how many lives have been unnecessarily lost because of the catholic's opposition to the use of condoms?

Secondly your arguments on IVF take us straight back to Pre-modernity. What is wrong with 'long distance conceptions'? Most parents will tell you that raising a child is what matters and not conception. Even more puzzling, is the fact that you try to link IVF to the possible breakdown of matrimonial unity. Unwanted pregnancies are in fact a bigger threat to matrimony than IVF. Think about it, to go through with IVF you need money and 100% commitment.

Is it too much to ask the Catholics to acknowledge science yet they shamelessly benefit from scientific breakthroughs. If we start passing moral judgments on science, how far should we go? Don't doctors play 'God' everyday?

On the issue of commercialization or mass production of human beings, if countries enforce the universal human rights i believe there wont be a problem. Such human rights are not uniquely catholic but apply everywhere in the world.

Finally, it is an embarrassment that the catholic church remains inflexible and outdated in the post modern world. It is not surprising its bases in first world countries have almost collapsed. Unfortunately third world populations are more easily manipulated because of poverty and ignorance.

[donworry]

I wanted to share this bit with the good Fr Pascaln Mwambi Mwakio

It comes from ABC news but I was not able to supply a direct link:

May 11, 2006 — After five years trying to conceive, Kelly and Eric Romenesko decided to try in vitro fertilization.

Their twins, Alexandria and Allison, were born last year. It was a joyous event in the couple's life.

"They're miracles. They're precious," Kelly Romenesko said.
The couple were not prepared for what came next. When Kelly, a teacher at two Catholic schools in Wisconsin, told her bosses she had gotten pregnant through in vitro, they handed her a pink slip.

"I was in tears," she said. "I remember asking, 'Is this the only reason why I'm being fired?' They stated, 'Yes.'"
The schools say Romenesko agreed to follow church teachings when she was hired. One of those teachings was that the in vitro technique was morally wrong because it replaced natural conception.

"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Church Doctrine


People like Joseph Capizzi of the Culture of Life Foundation said that in vitro fertilization ran counter to Catholic teachings, which stress that a child should be conceived through sex between a husband and wife.
"It's not so much that it's artificial that's the problem, instead it's removing the sexual act and procreative act from the context of marriage," he said.

The church also takes issue with in vitro because embryos are sometimes destroyed, but Romenesko said there were other teachers who had in vitro in the school. She said she did not go public with her announcement but "stated it to a principal behind closed doors that we were going through this process."

Romenesko appealed to the school board, but it would not reinstate her. Now a state agency is looking into the case. Meanwhile, the Romeneskos have stopped practicing Catholicism.
"I think the issue here is the fact that Kelly was released from her job for being pregnant, not the in vitro fertilization itself," Eric said. "Our daughters have been baptized Lutheran at this point in time. Kelly and I haven't converted yet."

"It wouldn't change my ability to teach in any way," she said. "It's a shame. This shouldn't have happened."

[dubois]

I was born a catholic and my mother is still a devout catholic. When I was much younger, I remember the case of a middle aged man who lived a few blocks from my dad's house. The man worked for Amref as a driver and sometimes drove trucks all the way to Malawi. The man was also married and had two beautiful children. This guy was perhaps the most liked in that neighborhood especially by the kids. He had all sorts of board games, soccer balls and his home was always open to the neighborhood kids. I visited his place several times and since he was a also painter sometimes he'd draw our portraits. He was the coolest guy (and not with any ill motives) us kids ever met.

However tragedy struck. He separated from his wife (she moved out with the kids) and he seemed pretty depressed. However after a few months he found himself a pretty girlfriend and he was back to his lively self. Things however would never be the same again because only one month later he was diagnosed with HIV and he deteriorated pretty fast. I remember most of us kids were sternly warned not to visit his place again ( it was in the early nineties) lest we got infected too. (I am still deeply ashamed i never went to see him before he died).

The greatest shame however lies squarely in the hands of the catholic church. Once the Catholic church got information that he had separated from his wife and was living with another woman, they refused to visit his place and offer any prayers. Furthermore, when he finally died they refused to participate in his funeral (despite the fact that the man had been a devout catholic for thirty something years)even after the tearful pleadings of his distraught mother. The only reason for their refusal was that he was living with a woman who was not his wife. I never forgave the Catholic church and they still amaze me today with their irrational inflexibility. One thing I know for sure, if there is a God then he is not in any of those churches. What kind of God abandons you in your hour of need?? I am still a young man but i have advised my folks, in case of death, to never allow any of those sects to bless me or whatever they do for the dead.

[maina]

Dubois,

I am terribly sorry to learn of your friend's death. It is sad and shameful that the church he belonged to does not comprehend what furtherance and chaperon signify with respect to the Christian faith! They should know better than call themselves a church when they do not ostend true Christ-like faith - LOVE!

However, in your witticism above, you smoothly yet intimately commingle three abstracted issues - ethics, religion and science. That is dangerous! The three are not connate. I am wonderfully sure that you’ve heard people say "Well, that’s true for you but not for me", when referring to some opinion or religious belief on which they disagree. Now, are there any "truths" that can be considered universal or absolute?

Quite frankly, I maintain RR's opinion here; makin' babies in a lab is immoral. There are no two ways about it. It is morally wrong and it becomes even more exasperating when you have insurrectionists masquerading as progressives of Kenyan fellowship, in Kenya, while they pollute the mwananchi with their intellectualistic views and opinions. I'm sure you've heard of big words like "democracy", "trend", et cetera, which these no good "progressives" excessively express to defend their worldliness. That's what all this baby-makin' science is about! You see when religious ideas, institutions and interpretations lose their social significance, there is no point of reference for objective moral values. Science is not, and never was about morals!

Maina

-unedited-

[dubois]

maina,

My story was simply meant to illustrate the Catholic's approach to matters that are beyond them. Sometimes it is better to step aside and let your congregation use their discretion instead of acting like we are still in 206 AD.

Unfortunately, religion still has great influence in third world countries. I dont mind a personal opinion against IVF that's definitely within your rights, but when a church with a billion followers takes the moral high ground and condemns millions to unnecessary suffering then we have a problem. The catholic church simply exploits the fact that our populations are poor, uneducated and oppressed. How can you make decisions for millions of people without first educating them? there is no level playing field.

Do you think the decline of religious institutions in the west is a bad thing? I think it is a symbol of free will and a victory against
'moral' policemen.

[roughrider]

dubois said:

Once again, the catholic church has taken the moral high ground and is now busy contradicting itself. First of all RR, do you know how many lives have been unnecessarily lost because of the catholic's opposition to the use of condoms?

Secondly your arguments on IVF take us straight back to Pre-modernity. What is wrong with 'long distance conceptions'? Most parents will tell you that raising a child is what matters and not conception. Even more puzzling, is the fact that you try to link IVF to the possible breakdown of matrimonial unity. Unwanted pregnancies are in fact a bigger threat to matrimony than IVF. Think about it, to go through with IVF you need money and 100% commitment.

Is it too much to ask the Catholics to acknowledge science yet they shamelessly benefit from scientific breakthroughs. If we start passing moral judgments on science, how far should we go? Don't doctors play 'God' everyday?

On the issue of commercialization or mass production of human beings, if countries enforce the universal human rights i believe there wont be a problem. Such human rights are not uniquely catholic but apply everywhere in the world.

Finally, it is an embarrassment that the catholic church remains inflexible and outdated in the post modern world. It is not surprising its bases in first world countries have almost collapsed. Unfortunately third world populations are more easily manipulated because of poverty and ignorance.

I appreciate your viewpoints and here is my response:

First, the focus should NOT be on the catholic church but on the ethical issues raised. If you believe as you say that many lives have been lost because of the Church position on Condoms does that mean they must be dismissed as always wrong?

On the second point - some of us think that families and marriages are united by love; that children are products of love and that these cannot be sent in parcels like letters or traded in impersonal terms like shares at a stock exchange - I agree this may be old fashioned to many and may be against 'modernity'

On commercialisation you need to clarify a little, is it ok to trade in embryos or not? Is it fine to set up factories to produce babies for any couple with marriage certificates?

Your final point wreaks of intolerance. The teachings of the Catholic church may be considered 'outdated' by your likes but we need to respect that they in fact have a right to those teachings and that there are many who agree with them. I do not know who is qualified to label this or that outdated just as I do not know what this postmordern world you keep talking about is. Is it about immorality and permisiveness?

[roughrider]

donworry said:

I wanted to share this bit with the good Fr Pascaln Mwambi Mwakio

Their twins, Alexandria and Allison, were born last year. It was a joyous event in the couple's life.

Speaking for the good Father I wish to point out that we shouldnt mis-represent the Church. All babies - irrespective of the conception method are too be loved unreservedly; even test tube babies.

That is why this church does not condone abortion, for whatever reason.

Once they are concieved we must give babies all accordance of human dignity and their life is sacred... but this is why the Church is opposed to methods that might imperil that very consideration. Methods like IVF that allow 'weeding' and that cheapen life by commercialising aspects of it erode human dignity and the value of life in society.

They also destroy the natural tenets that ensure biological diversity and therefore individuality is preserved in humans... when we begin selectiong for colour, race, height, weight and other traits.

[pharlap]

Lol@ Roughrider-- Do you believe in darwinism? Ever heard of natural selection? Lol When will we accept technology as the next natural development in mankind? That shoosing of skin color and blue eyes etc.. is natural selection. Darwin saw it coming. lol rest his soul.

[politicalmaniac]

Dubois,
This is you at your best (unlike your maddeningly irrational views on politics opps.....)
I totally concur with you in this case.

I too am a catholic but I am of the "buffet" variety. I pick and choose what I believe in and keep away from the nonesense.

I distribute birth control info and technology without any sense of guilt (not abortion though which I am totally against but thats another story).

I have seen the benefits of assisted reproductive technology first hand and I know the joy derived by the parents when they see their young ones.

I support the idea of letting married priests serve and allowing them the choice to get married.

I dont go for confession. Full stop.

The catholic church is qiute anachronistic.

[maina]

politicalmaniac said:

Dubois,
This is you at your best (unlike your maddeningly irrational views on politics opps.....)
I totally concur with you in this case.

I too am a catholic but I am of the "buffet" variety. I pick and choose what I believe in and keep away from the nonesense.

I distribute birth control info and technology without any sense of guilt (not abortion though which I am totally against but thats another story).

I have seen the benefits of assisted reproductive technology first hand and I know the joy derived by the parents when they see their young ones.

I support the idea of letting married priests serve and allowing them the choice to get married.

I dont go for confession. Full stop.

The catholic church is qiute anachronistic.

Politicalmaniac,
Do you know that you sound like a hiphop artist? I hope these views are exclusively yours.

I know a Catholic evangelical right here in Philly who is so anti your views; that is anti religion. On thing you need to awfully comprehend is that there is a profound difference between belief in Christ and His salvation and Christianity as a religion! The religion aspect is of course a worldview and of course a philosophy in and of itself! You must understand that!

Maina

-unedited-

[kipsang]

I am a protestant and belief on the sanctity of life; I however beg to differ with those who say making of babies in the lab is immoral...

These babies were not made or engineered the way we do with soy beans or dairy cows, morality can be augued from marriage viewpoint ..the kids have normal human attributes and were formed from the seeds of loving and legally maried parents.


maina..Can you educate us on the differences between worldviews and philosophy..

[maina]

Two things Kipsang, just two things:
Firstly, hear you: "I am a protestant and belief on the sanctity of life; I however beg to differ with those who say making of babies in the lab is immoral"..............what amazing rhetoric! Actually, you sound like George Bush (just this past week on Primetime) when he unintelligently lamented that giving "illegal aliens" the RIGHT to citizneship is not amnesty! As much as we are all free to express our opinions, it is always wise to be just a lil' perceptive, if you know what I mean. It is not logical for one to sit on the fence and at the same time claim to be on the land one owns!

Personally, I have a major problem (more like a fateful problem actually) with Christians who adopt the religion of Christianity and live and preach it (more like the old Testament) as opposed to a personal relationship with Christ, and in so doing, these "Christians" smoothly and recklessly adopt worldviews (aka philososphies) that are anti-Christ! To illustrate my point, let's get a lil' philosophcal. God, our Heavenly Father said this in Genesis 1:26 ".............Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" - from the original King James version (by the way, and for those who think Jesus is not God, the "us" illustrates that He is God)!

Now, my question to you, my fellow Christian is this; if God in all His power and sovereignity created the world first (even before man was ever part of the action), then who is man to go to a lab and change the process of creation, by eliminating God and audaciously playing the role of God in the lab and recreating himself through science? Do you see why evangelical Christians will have nothing to do with this nonsense? One thing you need to know is that nothing on earth or space can change your basic nature other than God Himself. That is because He is the Only Absolute Creator, period! Quite frankly, as a Christian, you should be the last person to boost science because science as we know it has nothing to do with morals! In other ords, science is IMMORAL. Actually Kipsang, it is disappointing to read that a Christian (such as yourself) would believe and endorse the philosophy of laboratory science!

Secondly, with respect to adherence, worldview = philosophy. For instance, the philosophy you hear Oloo and Raila Odinga awfully proselytizing is their own philosophy, even though it's got loads of ugly doses marxism (which has never made sense to anyone including Karl Marx).

Lastly, IUV is immoral! If you think it ain't, could you please kindly school me on its absolutes?

Maina

-unedited-

[politicalmaniac]

Maina,
sil vous plais, ecrit en anglais!!!.
Je ne comprend pas ce que vous ecrit.

Moi, j'aime mon dieu.
Mais l'eglise catholic doesnt make sense to me all the time!

I dont see the sense of restricting birth control on the basis of impractical, obsecure, man made church dogma.

I dont see how assisted reproductive technology is phiolosophically at variance with other medical life prolonging procedures like ventilation support or cardiovascular support in a vegetative patient.

The bottom line is that as far as religious doctrine is concerned, the catholic church is out of step, with a number of my beliefs.

But at the same time the Church does a lot of good which I support and actually participate in.
The areas of education, health care, and social justice for the disadvantaged, are areas where the catholic church has no peers. Full stop.

But when it comes to marriage, birth control , HIV prevention, I simply dont look at the Church for guidance. They seem to have been stuck in a time warp capsule.

[dubois]

Dubois,
This is you at your best (unlike your maddeningly irrational views on politics opps.....)

pmaniac, even you will soon come to agree with my maddeningly irrational views on politics. i cant wait.

[donworry]

Are we too hasty to attack the church's opposition to IVF and other technologies related to women's reproductive health issues?

I returned here following the upheaval being caused around the world by the work of fiction-da Vinci Code.


Church still lives in that airy fairy world where she wishes and hopes but she just cannot deliver: to illustrate, allow me to quote the good Roughrider(!)

"Children should be the product of a loving union"........OK but how can we tell that IVF parents are not in a loving union? I'd imagine that a couple who have tried everything before going for IVF treatment are probably as close and loving as you will ever get considering that traditionally a childless man is more inclined to discard his "barren" wife and find himself a newer "more fertile" model. Ama does "union" here refer to the actual act of bonking?

The church is good at issuing moral guidance which is sadly not enforcable. Question....do you marry every woman/man that you sleep with?

The church must learn that her children have grown up. Please stop treating your children as if we still live in an era where bibles were hand written and only a few noble individuals had copies. Whilst the dear church slept, advances in printing and the industrial revolution stormed into the world and church's dominance was lost forever.

[aeichener]

donworry said:

Ama does "union" here refer to the actual act of bonking?

Technically, yes. Actus vere humanus - cheesy as it sounds - is a technical term of canon marriage law.

Alexander

[roughrider]

donworry said:

The church is good at issuing moral guidance which is sadly not enforcable. Question....do you marry every woman/man that you sleep with?

The Da Vinci code is an excellent compelling thriller –I enjoyed every minute of it. I thank Dan Brown and Ron Howard for their great contribution to FICTION.

Donworry – The 'Church' cannot enforce. Morality and adherence to beliefs are matters of choice, faith and consience. That is true today as it was 2000 years ago. There is only social sanction (read removal from the communion) and potential of eventual adverse judgement by the Almighty.

Secondly, you know this already! ‘Marriage is envisaged as the irrevocable, life long loving union of one man and one woman. The primary purpose of marriage is to fulfill a vocation in the nature of man and woman, for the procreation and education of children, and to stand as a symbol of the mystical union between Christ and his Church. The secondary aim is the mutual reciprocal help and it is also a "remedy to concupiscence". Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God's fatherhood. Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages". It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another’