Whenever I have spoken to groups about the Church’s teaching against in vitro fertilization (IVF), especially to groups of young people, someone always asks how to talk about this topic if there are people present who were themselves conceived in this way. The moral discussion about how IVF separates the unitive (love-making) from the procreative (life-giving) aspect of the conjugal act (marital sex) and how male and female gametes form an embryo in a petri dish all sounds like a condemnation of the child himself. It sounds like a cruel accusation that the child conceived in this way, produced like property instead of conceived in love, is somehow less than human or less deserving of respect as a person.
Of course, this is not true. The very basis of the argument against artificial procreation is that every human being, including an embryonic child, “must be respected—as a person—from the very first instant of his existence” (Donum vitae I.1). Rather than diminishing the IVF-conceived child, the Magisterium affirms the dignity and rights of that child. It is the part of society that supports and promotes IVF that neglects the rights of the embryonic child. The result of such opposed views, one that upholds the humanity of children from the first moment of their existence and the other that focuses on the desires of the parents, is that the IVF-conceived person is caught in the middle. It will be helpful, therefore, to examine the arguments.
Arguments For and Against IVF
Supporters of assisted reproductive technologies, in a superficial way, have the easier emotional case to make. In their view, IVF is good because it provides a way for anyone who wants one to have a baby. They assume this means that since the baby is wanted, the baby is loved. All is good. However, opponents of IVF do not equate “what the parent wants” with “what the child needs.” We can make a simple syllogism to demonstrate the differences.
IVF provides a way to have a baby if you want one.
Having a baby if you want one is good.
Therefore, IVF is good.
IVF separates love-making from life-giving in marriage.
Whatever separates love-making from life-giving in marriage is not good.
Therefore, IVF is not good.
The second premise in each of these has a sub-premise with different assumptions. In the first argument for IVF as a good, the premise that “having a baby if you want one is good” assumes that it is good for the would-be parents to have what they want. There are any number of situations that can prove this assumption false, and they follow the same reasoning as, for example, getting a puppy. Just because a person wants one does not entail that it is good for that person to have one to raise. Perhaps the person does not realize the expense and time commitment in raising the puppy (or child). Perhaps the person will change his or her mind and not want the puppy (or child) later in life. Anyone who has a baby, whether naturally or artificially, may go through such emotions, but we do not determine “what is good” by these changing emotions and desires.
In the second argument that IVF is not good, the second premise that “whatever separates love-making from life-giving in marriage is not good” assumes a deeper conclusion that marriage is a unity between husband and wife—not just a bodily unity and not just a spiritual unity, but both bodily and spiritual—and that within this unity of self-giving is the only proper way for a new human, a new baby, to come into existence in cooperation with God.
In this argument, what is good is determined from an expansive assessment of the meaning of marriage and personal dignity. It is true that if we push the anti-IVF argument all the way, we will also argue for divine revelation and God’s existence, but the argument itself can stand on its own. If children are the “supreme gift of marriage” (CCC 2378), and if marriage is husband and wife become one, then breaking that unity in order to become parents is not good for the marriage or for the child.
Respect for the Person—Always
Okay, but what does all of that have to do with talking about IVF in front of people conceived this way? The answer is that each view comes from a drastically different perspective of children, marriage, human dignity, and rights. When we say that IVF is “not good,” we mean that it is a form of disrespect and a violation of the natural rights of the child to be conceived in marital unity. In no way does this diminish the child, but rather it critiques the moral decision of the parents for themselves diminishing the child. That’s why the CCC goes on to say, “A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead” (2378). Pro-IVF says the parents have a right to a child. Anti-IVF says the parent should respect the rights of a child.
It is important to know the underlying arguments. Even if you do not spell these out when in the presence of an IVF-conceived person, at least be aware that the entire view of the Church is based on love and respect for this person standing in front of you. It is always that.
Recently, after a talk on a college campus where I discussed the Church’s teaching on contraception, abortion, and IVF, a young man came up to me and told me that he is one of a set of triplets that his mother gave birth to after IVF procedures. He said he understands the difference between the choice of the parents and the worth of himself, but he also loves his parents. “Of course,” I said. I told him that the fact that he, obviously, is close to his siblings and to his parents, and even that he is here thriving in college, is all a testament to the love and strength in his family. It is of utmost importance that we always acknowledge the joy in these situations.
I look at this the same as if an adult had told me he was born to an unwed mother who, despite any difficulties, built something good out of the situation. Sex outside of marriage, for that is what IVF technically is, is not good, but as with anything, good can always come from a wrong choice if we turn our path back toward the good. There is a difference in making a moral assessment in abstraction and engaging with a real life person. Sometimes the appropriate response is to affirm the good whether we go on to discuss the moral argument or not. We need to do this for each other because, Lord knows, we all have strayed from the straight and narrow path to holiness. Not every encounter needs to be centered on argumentation.
So, there is no checklist of responses that I can give to the question about how to respond to an IVF-conceived person, except to be respectful. That seems like stating the obvious, but the underlying truth is that this person, like all people, is loved by God and has the right to be respected as a person, from the first moment of his existence—however he came to be—and all the moments that make up the rest of his life.
Editor’s Note: This author’s new book, IVF Is Not the Way: The False Promises of Artificial Procreation, is available for preorder from Sophia Institute Press.
Read this author’s previous IVF-related article, “What Rights Do Human Embryos Have?” on CE.
Photo by Girl with red hat on Unsplash
