Catholics and the Orthodox are opposed to in-vitro. It’s their right, of course, and far be it from me to tell them they shouldn’t be opposed. What I don’t get is the logic. They don’t accept in-vitro because some embryos get discarded. But without in-vitro, all follicles just go to waste and are eventually discarded by the body anyways. With in-vitro, at least some follicles get to turn into babies.
Or is it all about investing a follicle that has met a spermatozoon with a meaning that is different from the follicle that hasn’t yet met one?
I’m not getting an in-vitro or anything. I’m just wondering.
Clarissa's Blog 
From what I can tell — and I’ve only talked to a few Catholics about this, so real Catholics should feel free to correct me — it’s because IVF interferes with “God’s plan.”
There’s some idea that parents who have children this way are “playing God,” or creating children to fulfill their own selfish desires — treating children like objects, in other words.
And for the extremist Pro-Lifers, I think they do think a fertilized egg, a blastocyst, is somehow a person. So when parents create a dozen blastocysts, and only implant one, they do think that’s killing babies.
I don’t, myself, believe any of this, or agree with it. My brother and SIL have two kids that would never have been born without IVF. I often invite anti-IVF fanatics t contact my brother and tell him his kids should never have been born, or that he thinks of his kids as objects.
LikeLike
Very good summary. I don’t agree with that thinking, but i believe you pretty accurately stated their believes. And I personally am ok with religious people believing it, as this is probably a correct biblical view (or at least possibly so). The only clear line is obviously that shouldn’t work its way into the legal realm etc.
LikeLike
Do they only implant one? I was under the impression that they fertilized several eggs, and implanted several embryos because the success rate of IVF is low. What sometimes results is that all of the embryos implant and since having multiples is bad for the health of the mother and the embryos, they often engage in selective reduction–aka abortion, which Catholics are supposed to consider a sin. They also consider fertility drugs that stimulate ovulation to be a sin for this this reason and possible result as well.
I don’t know how much anti-consumerism plays into this, frankly. I’ve seen people who grew up in large families, and there wasn’t much consumerism or individualism going on.
In my opinion, almost any decision people make about reproducing is selfish to someone somewhere.
LikeLike
It depends on the woman’s age. Under thirties can get one implanted but older women try to maximize the changes and implant two or three.
Other reproductive techniques, including all that rely on fertility drugs, they don’t have any problem with. I know because there is a doctor at our Catholic hospital who does everything but in-vitro there. For in-vitro he has to keep a separate office down the road. It’s all a formality because most of the process still happens at the Catholic place.
LikeLike
I know Clarissa hates Monty Python but this gets recycled for a reason:
Or is it all about investing a follicle that has met a spermatozoon with a meaning that is different from the follicle that hasn’t yet met one?
Pretty much. The same logic has been used to justify removing a fallopian tube as the only resort to treat an ectopic pregnancy than an abortion, because Catholics reason that if the incidental effect of procedure is miscarriage, it’s permissible, but directly causing one is not. That’s also why the hospital refused to perform an abortion on Savita Hallapanavar but let her die of sepsis instead.
What I don’t get is the logic. They don’t accept in-vitro because some embryos get discarded. But without in-vitro, all follicles just go to waste and are eventually discarded by the body anyways. With in-vitro, at least some follicles get to turn into babies.
“Wasting follicles” has been used to justify extremely early marriage, on the logic that not giving the egg an opportunity to be fertilized is sinful. “Wasting sperm” is used to condemn masturbation.
LikeLike
This is not my religious tradition but my understanding is that it is about “investing” a fertiled egg with a sacred “meaning.”
I’m pretty sure that when in-vitro methods are used, the harvested eggs are fertilized in a petri dish and then put in cold storage for later use. Many more eggs are fertilized and stored than are needed and there are different approaches on what to do with the extras after a successful pregnancy concludes: donate to another couple, donate to science, discard, leave them on ice forever…
The only time I can think of when unfertilzed eggs are saved is when a young woman is about to undergo chemotherapy that will harm or destroy her eggs. She can opt to have eggs harvested and stored so that she can become pregnant later when her treatment is over and her life is back on track. I have never heard of these unfertilized eggs having a special status, I think the problem here is all the other things wrong with in-vitro.
I find the overall idea that fertilized eggs are sacred interesting because as much as this belief appears to be based on science, it ignores other science. For example, a good percentage of eggs fertilized without any modern technology, that is through intercourse, fail to implant themselves and are naturally “discarded.” But I suppose that is the hand of God working and He (sic) always gets a pass.
Another example is that sometimes two eggs are fertilized but instead of going on to become twins, one embryo absorbs the other and only one being results. So if a new soul us formed every time a sperm and egg combine, what happens to the extra soul?
One final thing I can think of that these people object to is that several fertilized eggs are introduced to the uterus at the same time since there is no guarantee that any one egg will successfully implant. If multiple eggs implant, later on some of the embryos can be removed early in the pregnancy. And of course this is — gasp!!! — an abortion. And we can’t have that, can we?
I know a family where four eggs managed to implant themselves and none were removed. Four very premature babies were born and three of them ended up having to be removed from life support. The remaining child is now in college. He is a charmer but has a smattering of mild disabilities (both physical and cognitive) as a result of his premature birth. What is the moral here, I don’t know.
LikeLike
“So if a new soul us formed every time a sperm and egg combine, what happens to the extra soul?”
Or, to go the other way, suppose a blastocyst — which according to the Extremist Pro-Lifers, is already a child, already has a soul — suppose that blastocyst splits, forming twins?
Do those two (future) babies have a single soul between them? Is one ensouled and the other soulless? How’s this work, exactly?
LikeLike
“Do those two (future) babies have a single soul between them? Is one ensouled and the other soulless? How’s this work, exactly?”
-There is always one soulless twin. This is where we get the phrase “evil twin.” :p
LikeLike
The identical twins undergo spiritual mitosis. A mitosis error means one twin ends up double souled, so you get an evil twin.
In the case of less close twins or fraternal twins, they undergo spiritual meiosis instead.
LikeLike
Spiritual meiosis. I like it.
A red-head is supposedly born soulless, though. So if you’ve got two red-headed twins, there must be a spare soul just floating around there.
LikeLike
“Do those two (future) babies have a single soul between them? Is one ensouled and the other soulless? How’s this work, exactly?”
LikeLike