IVF regulations a ‘wild, wild west’
“Evangelical ethicists are urging policymakers to tap the brakes on in vitro fertilization (IVF) expansion despite an executive order by President Donald Trump and widespread enthusiasm for the practice.” - Baptist Press
- 177 views
I have always been a bit confused at the ardent stance of Christians that life begins at conception, and that all abortion is wrong, but that so many embrace IVF. The inconsistency and thought process are baffling. Especially when embryonic deaths from IVF far, far outpace abortion deaths.
The pastor who did my marriage counseling reminded me that the vast majority of embryos are discarded, and that for IVF to be morally permissible, you had to limit the number of eggs you put in the petri dish. It did not turn out to be an issue for my wife and I, but I was glad for that wisdom.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It touches on the whole personhood debate. I’m not really sure ‘life begins at conception’ is a winning argument, though it’s accurate. I just think few doubt that what’s there is “life.”
The debate has more to do with what we view as a person. A human being. But right to life has, at times, reacted very negatively to the personhood debate as though it were an inherently evil question.
But we know if we bleed a bit, there are living cells in that blood. They are human cells and they are alive. These cells are not persons, though.
We all know they aren’t. By why aren’t they? (Viability? Genetic information? Quantity of cells?)
I think it’s a question worth thinking through, especially as embryonic research, cloning and all that becomes more advanced.
In terms of public policy, we have to tell the truth, but there is always the question of “what truths constitute the most compelling argument for a particular policy?”
Overall, it looks to me like the pro-life movement is really more concerned about fetal suffering than anything else—though I’m sure belief in the sanctity of human cellular life is generally sincere. It’s just that fetal suffering captures everyone’s moral reasoning much more readily. It’s so often the pathos argument that wins the day vs. the ethos or logia argument.
But how to make a pathos argument to regulate IVF? The pathos is all on the other side: helping couples who want children but can’t have them without some technological help. What are some cells compared to that? There’s no emotional clout there.
And as a culture, we’re all about emotional factors, regardless of our opining about “science.”
I don’t know what the solution is—as far as effective persuasion goes. Respect for human cellular life has never been more important, and Christian sanctity of life efforts need to really focus on how to make a coherent, internally-consistent, and hopefully broadly unified case for that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron makes some great points. Scripture talks about God knowing us from the womb. I can clearly argue from scripture that life in the womb is human and fully a person. I am not willing to argue that life in a petri dish is not a person since I do not know.
In these sort of situations, I choose to err on the side of caution and thus I want to make sure I do not contribute to killing what might be a human life. At the same time if those cells were in a burning building, I would not risk my life to rescue them. With modern technology we have ethical concerns that we would have never had to even struggle with in the past. What if one day we have a test tube baby without a womb. I would want that life protected. Further, I want to be careful about condemning those that see IVF differently. This is not as cut and dried an issue as abortion is. If there are further scriptures that can bring more clarification to my thoughts, I would love to hear them so that I am better equipped to sort out this issue theologically. On the other hand, I do not like the idea of getting into a debate that uses this issue simply as a political weapon.
I wrote a bit on this subject a little while back. The whole thing gets pretty complicated, especially with the advent of "alternative family structures."
https://ebcelkhorn.com/whats-the-deal-with-ivf/
https://ebcelkhorn.com/ethics-of-ivf/
https://ebcelkhorn.com/ivf-surrogacy-and-same-sex-marriage/
Also, there's an revealing point in Richard Dawkins recent conversation with ChatGTP.
https://ebcelkhorn.com/artificial-intelligence-consciousness-and-the-incoherence-of-richard-dawkins/
Pvawter, I think the last link you posted above and the imaginary conversation is perhaps the most powerful thoughts I have heard against the indiscriminate use of IVF. I would like to hear more on this discussion though. Thanks for your thoughts.
Discussion