Let's Make This Crystal Clear - In-Vitro Fertilization is Wrong

Here is an interesting article about a Catholic schoolteacher who claims she was fired due to using in-vitro fertilization to have twins. She is suing the school claiming discrimination. According to the article, it was clear in her contract that she could be fired for serious violations of Catholic Church teaching. I am not here to judge her and am sure that not having children would be a great trial. However, looking at the situation objectively we see several notable aspects of this story.

This is a clear violation of Church teaching with regard to in-vitro fertilization. Here are the pertinent Catechism references. For further reading, check out Donum Vitae:

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

2377Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. 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 . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

The basic moral point is contained in #2377:

"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 . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

These aren't just babies. They are persons who have the right to be born from an act of love and self-donation and not simply from the mixing of human germ cells by a technician. It devalues us as persons.

The second moral problem comes with the extra embryos created. The article states that; "...Jones said the couple used their own eggs and sperm and none of the embryos were destroyed in the process,...". I seriously doubt that. They, in my opinion, are playing on words here. In most IVF procedures, there are multiple embryos that are introduced into the uterus in the hopes that one will implant into the uterine wall. This is evidenced by the fact she had twins. They may not have destroyed any embryos, but they certainly implanted more than two. The others just didn't take. Thus, those children died not from direct destruction but from the inefficiency, known by the doctors, inherent in the procedure. Furthermore, in all likelihood, there were many embryos created that weren't introduced into the uterus. What happens to those children? They are frozen at -195⁰ Celsius. One might attempt to justify this practice by using those frozen embryos at some time in the future, but one can't get past the abortion aspect of IVF by loss of embryos via lack of uterine implantation, AND the fact the embryo can die in the liquid N₂ AND it is de-personalizing to subject someone (the embryo) to that kind of treatment when it isn't necessary.

What is sad about this story is now the couple has left the Church and attends Lutheran services. I hope and pray that they are able to repent and return one day. I don't think it will be soon; however, when they say things like "I want them to know that just because their parents had them through in vitro fertilization, that we are not evil sinners,” she wrote." Isn't that the typical modern statement to justify oneself? I don't think that ANYONE called her an "evil sinner". She doesn't engage the Church's teaching in any way other than to portray the Church as the unjust 'JUDGER', which, of course, is the gravest evil at all. The Church's job is to 'affirm us in our okayness' as Mark Shea puts it.

Let us pray for their conversion as well as ours.