I posted this article because I wished to laud and defend big families and older-motherhood. OK so far. But I brushed past the issue of in-vitro fertilization much too fast --- almost parenthetically.
The fact is that IVF virtually always involves the death of 2 or 3 embryos, and often many more. This in itself is a very grave evil.
Moreover, even if IVF didn't involve generating human life and then destroying it, the process itself turns human procreation into a commercial transaction and a laboratory technique, which is inherently dehumanizing ---and it's part of the larger project of the deadly "commodifying" of human values which we see all around us.
I am convinced that IVF is morally objectionable in all cases. So although I can respect this mother-of-12's good intentions and wish her and her husband well with their precious little ones, I regret giving the impression that laboratory procreation is something to celebrate.
Please think this through carefully. I didn't at first.
Well said, Mrs. Don-o. I too applaud women having babies as long as they can naturally. But as you said so well, utilizing IVF to have a child is a whole 'nother ball game, no matter the age a woman chooses to utilize it. I agree with you that it is a very grave evil.
You bring up a valid point. Doctors do tend to implant multiple embryos (increasing the chance of success) and then often abort the "extras" to either prevent a risky multiple pregnancy or to select the number of children- much as a gardner might thin radishes or carrots. Not a morally good thing to do, if one believes the soul joins the body at conception.
But how do we know that God doesn't give each embryo only the seed of a soul? Just as a fertilized egg is only the potential for a child, perhaps it only has the potential for a soul as well.
Does the unfertilized egg my wife "loses" every month have half a soul? What about the millions of sperm that don't quite make it to the egg? Do they have half-souls?
I don't have the answers- I'm not a priest, philosopher or mystic.
And as I think about it, if a naturally fertilized egg (embryo) naturally fails to implant, the baby is lost also. So should couples not try?
And what if a woman has had a natural miscarriage or two? Should they stop trying because of all the lost children?
There is a solution to the problem of the "left over" embryos after a woman has been successfully impregnated- donate them. There are quite a number of infertile women who would love to carry and give birth to a child.
The fact is that IVF virtually always involves the death of 2 or 3 embryos, and often many more. This in itself is a very grave evil.
Moreover, even if IVF didn’t involve generating human life and then destroying it, the process itself turns human procreation into a commercial transaction and a laboratory technique, which is inherently dehumanizing -—and it’s part of the larger project of the deadly “commodifying” of human values which we see all around us.
I am convinced that IVF is morally objectionable in all cases. So although I can respect this mother-of-12’s good intentions and wish her and her husband well with their precious little ones, I regret giving the impression that laboratory procreation is something to celebrate.
Please think this through carefully. I didn’t at first.