All babies are equal, but some babies are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell).
In today’s USA Today, we get a “Faith & Reason” column by Cathy Lynn Grossman titled “‘Test tube babies’: God’s work or human error?” The timing is inspired by the awarding of a Nobel Prize in Medicine to Robert Edwards, whose work in In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) led to the first “test tube baby,” Louise Brown, born 32 years ago.
I don’t know Ms Grossman’s personal feelings on the matter, but the questions she asks (either reflecting those feelings, or those she thinks some of her readers have, or maybe just to gin up some page clicks) are — well, damned disturbing, even to state. First, as the lead to the article:
Do you think a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes — or mind or hands, depending on your theology/philosophy — of God? Does the science behind this merit the Nobel Prize for Medicine or condemnation in the realm of faith and ethics?
Then, at the conclusion:
Do you think a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes of God? Does the science behind this merit a Nobel Prize, or ethical condemnation? And what about the parents? Is their IVF choice selfish or loving? Are they creators — or merely shoppers?
Wow. Let me count the insults and errors and just damned fool reasoning riddling those two mostly-duplicated sentences.
1. Do you think a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes of God?
That someone would ask that question is appalling. I mean, if the answer is no, then, heck, let’s go hunting a simulacrum of The Most Dangerous Game! Faux Long Pig is back on the menu! And, hey, we just found a great way to generate apparently intelligent but fundamentally inhuman laborers for mines and farms and factories and other places where we don’t have to worry about “worker safety” any more!
I jest, of course, but … whatever is involved in giving a human being a soul (if you believe in such a thing — for purposes of this argument, assume that “soul” and “child in the eyes of God” are meaningful concepts), it certainly should not be considered limited to the results of sexual intercourse (unless one considers the genitalia somehow involved in soul creation). A baby conceived through IVF seems to me every bit a human being, and I can’t think of anything that would make it less a child in the eyes of God.
Except, of course, for folks who always seem to be looking for ways to figure out who is less human, less loved by God, and the next target for shunning, abuse, and debasement. There are an estimated 4 million people alive today conceived through IVF. Do some folks really think they should become the new Untouchables?
2. Does the science behind this merit the Nobel Prize for Medicine or condemnation in the realm of faith and ethics?
I don’t know that this has to be an either-or question. After all, you will probably find someone whose religious or philosophical beliefs are offended by pretty much any scientific advance or discovery or assertion of the reality of the material world.
Besides the “Zombies! We’re creating soulless zombies!” crapola, the Big Metaphysics question that gets raised about this is whether Man Is Arrogating Unto Himself That Which Belongs To God. Rob Stein at the WaPo says IVF “gave humanity the power to do what previously was considered the province of God: create and manipulate human life.”
But that strikes me as technophobically silly. Life is not being “created” here. There’s no essential difference, in terms of human interference in the conception process between IVF and artificial insemination. Or, for that matter, timing when (or whether) you have sex. Or medical treatments to deal with biological problems in fertility or conception. Once you get beyond ignorant hominids having sex whenever they please and not being aware of where babies come from, human interference in God’s Will (if we consider God’s Will to be random conception) is always present in the baby-making process.
IVF is certainly more technically complex, but objecting to it on that basis is like objecting to someone getting a heart transplant or radiation treatment for cancer (or taking antibiotics, or …).
The most rational (in terms of my being able to understand it) objection to IVF is that the process creates multiple potentially viable embryos, only one or two of which are selected for implantation, the others destroyed/discarded (if not saved away for a subsequent try). If you believe that an embryo is a human being, an ensoulled child of God, this (as with abortion) raises eyebrows. This is, for example, the main basis for Catholic objections to IVF (the Pope does not, as far as I can tell, subscribe to the zombie theory).
I don’t have an easy answer to this (except that the “every embryo is a child of God” folks ought to huddle up with the “IVF babies aren’t children of God” folks to work out their theological conflicts before their contradictory arguments get presented at the same time). While I don’t consider embryos per se (let alone zygotes) the same as I do born children, I don’t think their Afterlife is affected or harmed in any way by this happening to them (any more than with abortions or with the huge number of embryos lost through miscarriages, both recognized and unrecognized).
Stein’s article notes some of the other implications:
But IVF has forced society to reconsider many assumptions. Using IVF, a child today can have one “mother” who donated her genes, another who donated her womb and another who raised him or her, for example. Family members have supplied eggs, sperm and wombs to relatives, scrambling traditional relationships. The procedure has also helped fuel the debate over gay rights by enabling same-sex couples to have genetically related children.
And once it was expected that a man would marry his brother’s widow in order to keep the effective blood lines going and provided for. People have use surrogate parents for millennia, or raised children from other family members as their own. “Traditional” relationships have been “scrambled” multiple times over human history, both by mores, circumstances, and technological advances. Having to “reconsider assumptions” isn’t a bad thing.
Stein’s article goes on at (and more coherent than Grossman) length about some of the bioethical issues raised by how people are using Edwards’ discoveries. But IVF is a tool, not a result. To condemn it based on how it is arguably misused by some is to condemn all technology.
3. And what about the parents? Is their IVF choice selfish or loving? Are they creators — or merely shoppers?
This one just stumps me. IVF is neither cheap nor easy, and it’s usually the last step down a long, painful road of attempts at conception. I don’t think such an effort is any more (or less) selfish than any intentional conception. It certainly doesn’t seem any less loving.
One might argue that, with so many children needing adoption, going to such extremes to have children seems a selfish waste of time and resources. Of course, one could argue that (or the “overpopulation” argument) over any conceived child. If we want to have that societal conversation, I’m fine with that, but making IVF parents bear the brunt of it seems unfair.
Grossman’s whole “creators or shoppers” line is mind-numbingly stupid, and insulting. You could argue far more persuasively that people who adopt are shoppers (there’s usually money involved, as well as product selection), but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that. That IVF parents pay a goodly amount of money for their child means nothing; hospital charges for normal deliveries are non-trivial as well.
As noted above, there’s certainly room to discuss the ethics behind different aspects of how IVF is used by some. Is it ethical to select a gender? Or other traits? Who “owns” an IVF-conceived embryo (an argument that’s come up in more than one divorce case)? Is using IVF to get someone else to carry your baby to term for you an ethical things to do? How about donating eggs? Or, for that matter, sperm?
But IVF itself was an incredible medical breakthrough that has led to millions of births and parents (and their children) celebrating them. It’s certainly deserving of a Nobel Prize, fears (or headlines) about soulless zombies notwithstanding.
See, Dave, you’re forgetting to take into account the fact that Cesarean babies aren’t people, either. After all, they weren’t “born of woman,” they were surgically removed! Foul beasts of Satan!
The depths of people’s ability to misunderstand is truly frightening. I remember hearing some interviews on the radio with passers-by when Dolly the sheep was cloned. One young lady was certain that rich people would have themselves cloned for spare parts. Never mind the fact that somebody has to give birth to the child who must then be raised to adulthood. If it’s a clone, it’s an organ bank and nothing more. Abysmal dolts.