Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 4, Number 1

12 The Ethics of IVF cold environment of the laboratory. The church maintains this position both on spiritual grounds that uphold the sacrament of marriage and on natural grounds that insist that reproduction inherently is and ought to be exclusively tied to sexual intercourse between husband and wife. 23 The Dignitas Personae also specifically rejected the use of ICSI, the discard of unwanted embryos, the freezing of eggs and embryos, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Similarly, bioethicist Gilbert Meilaender argued that the biological bond between parent and child is of moral significance because 1) human beings are embodied in nature, 2) reproduction is at least one part of the purpose of the sexual union of husband and wife, and 3) children are meant to be a manifestation of the marital union of love, not the result of rational calculation and a purchased procedure. 24 According to Meilander, the introduction of third parties into the procreative process -- be they physicians, donors, or surrogates -- violates the sacred nature of reproduction, blurs lines of kinship and family ties, fails to embody the union of the parents, instrumentalizes the human body, and turns the child into a product which is made, not begotten. 25 Others have opposed IVF on the grounds that it makes the child substitutable, a mere manufactured commodity. The child is sought as a means to fulfill the intended parents’ desires, rather than an end-in- him/herself, violating the Kantian imperative. Bioethicist Robert George warned of this even outside the context of IVF: when considered rightly, children ought to be “treated by their parents, even in their conception, not as a means to their parents’ ends, but as ends-in-themselves; not as objects of the desire or will of their parents, but as subjects whose fundamental interests as human beings are protected by the principles of justice and human rights: not as property, but as persons.” 26 These views and others oppose IVF on principled grounds, claiming that even in the most ideal circumstances, IVF comes with a great moral cost, however genuinely good the result. Many of these claims are legitimate concerns that bear consideration; whatever the benefit to the individual, IVF has and certainly will continue to influence the shape of society -- our values, our morality, and our metaphysical beliefs. Where we as a society have landed on this issue will inevitably inform our answers to questions yet to come. This principle of present decisions shaping future values is worth keeping in mind as we explore adjacent issues in the rest of this paper: the filling-out of alternative applications to the ‘most conservative’ option described at the beginning of this section. Some are future projections likely just around the corner; many are presently practiced and crucially significant for our understanding of family, procreation, and humanity. Unused embryos and the beginning of life The single most significant ethical issue when considering the morality of IVF is the personhood of unused embryos. Almost always, more eggs are extracted and fertilized than mature and are transferred, as 23 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Dignitas Personae," (2008). 24 Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians , 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2013). 25 Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians , 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2013). 26 (George )”