Assisted Reproduction and Abortion

Great Debates
1

One of the many arguements I’ve heard from pro-life/anti-abortion/anti-choice folks is that as human beings we should not decide who lives or dies, being that we are fallible, emotional creatures.

However, every day thousands of pro-life folks engage in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in order to help them get pregnant. So in this sense they are DECIDING who gets to live, and in fact creating life where nature/God/biology didn’t intend it.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that if God/Nature (which ever you believe) created two human beings with low sperm count or endometriosis or non ovulating ovaries or whatever that those beings were not meant to reproduce? And if we are not to decide who dies, why are we allowed to decide who lives?

I’m struggling with this right now because while I am pro-choice (although I personally am against abortion), I am also vehemently against the death penalty because, primarily I feel human beings are too emotionally involved and subjective and fallible to make the decision of who should die and when. However, next month I begin in-vitro fertilization. So in essence, I’m deciding, or forcing life where nature did not intend it.

How can this be reconciled? Is it because choosing to create life is the ‘happy’ side of life and death? Is it because evolution instilled us with the knowledge to overcome reproductive difficulties in order to perpetuate the species?

(I think about these things, of course, at 3:00 in the morning)

2

Where **nature **did not intend it, or where **God **does not intend it?

Call me crazy, but I don’t think we can do *anything *against the will of God. Certainly not if we’re talking the omnipotent Judeo-Christian God. By very definition, He’s omnipotent and we’re not. We can use IVF and infertility techniques, sure. But they often fail. Those are the ones, IMHO, that God “doesn’t intend” to have biological children. Maybe He intends those folks to adopt. Maybe He intends you and/or your partner to learn some difficult lessons or to grow closer as a couple through this process. Perhaps that growth would not happen if you conceived naturally.

As the chick who got pregnant using three forms of birth control her first time at intercourse, I don’t see how contraception is against God’s will. I used it - lots of it - and got pregnant anyway. Either I have truly rotten luck, or God willed be to be pregnant. Considering the wonderful, difficult lessons my son has brought me, I’ll go with the God theory.

There are abortions that fail. There are even more contemplated abortions that never happen (like mine.) There are executions that are delayed so long that the prisoner dies of natural causes. Is God working through these? Perhaps.

I believe God gave us both the brains and the raw materials to better our own lots. Perhaps, for the vast majority of people, the answer is that He doesn’t particularly care one way or the other if you get pregnant. So using contraception prevents the pregnancies you don’t want, and He doesn’t care about. But for the ones He really wants in the world, no amount of contraception is going to work. Heck, Mary tried abstinence and it didn’t work! For those whom He truly has some reason to desire they not have biological children, all the ART in the world won’t help.

As for “nature” I don’t think Nature is sentient enough to care about individuals. The large imbalances in environment are evened out over time, but individuals are irrelevant.

3

I’m not suggesting Nature is sentient. I’m suggesting that if human beings have ‘faulty insides’ that prevent reproduction, then should they reproduce to continue those biological errors?

4

Well, it depends. Are the problems genetic in nature? Twisted or perforated fallopian tubes are often not genetic, but need AFT to aid in conception. Lots of couples who are are genetically just fine simply waited until the woman was too old - nothing’s inherently wrong with her genes (althogh there does tend to be more chromosomal damage in older eggs). Some AFT techniques are designed to minimize genetic defects in otherwise risky couples. Gotta give that one props.

Couples who use AFT that overcome genetic faults and aren’t minimizing passing untreatable defects along? Personally, I don’t think it’s a good decision. It strikes me as unethical and selfish, when one considers evolution as a whole.

But I would never attempt to prevent another couple from doing so. I am obviously not in that position, so it’s doubly unfair for me to pass that kind of judgement.

5

I guess my asking “Where **nature **did not intend it, or where **God **does not intend it?” was meant to indicate that I don’t think, in this particular case, that you can ask “God/Nature (which ever you believe)” as if the two are synonomous. To me, they’re not, even though I’m a nature-worshipin’ pagan. “The Divine” has some vested interest in some folks some of the time. Nature, as manifest through evolution, couldn’t give two squats about individual couples.

6

While they may not be synonymous, people can use both in their arguements. It’s against the will of Nature or God didn’t intend it.

Plus I didn’t want someone to come in and say “Well, God doesn’t exist so the whole arguement is moot” I’m just trying to head hijacks off at the pass.

I’m only 32. The issue is low sperm count. I’m not so conflicted as to not want to do it, but it is odd that I would never want to decide who dies, but essentially I’m trying to decide who gets to live.

7

Not exactly “who” - more like “if”. But it doesn’t strike me as markedly different from the decision to have children in the first place.

I think the idea is that life is a good thing. Death is a necessary evil. The default ought to be to choose life, except in special circumstances.

Isn’t part of the problem with some aspects of the pro-abortion/pro-choice position that it gives no weight at all to the fetus - not even a little bit? I am pro-choice myself, but abortion seems to be a more significant decision than blowing your nose or having an enema. If you see what I mean.

God be with you and your husband in the IVF.

Regards,
Shodan

8

“Evoluction” isn’t something that acts with purpose. But I don’t see your dilema is any different from someone who was treated for a medical condition and then had kids afterwards. Reproduction is more than just eggs and sperm. The person has to survive in order to reproduce.

9

The Bible says that infertility is a curse, and it also says that Jesus came to release people from all curses.

Infertility, therefore, was NEVER in God’s great plan. It’s a result of the fall of man.

The only problem I have with IVF is the idea of “throwaway” embryos. Since I believe life begins at conception, I probably wouldn’t do IVF unless I could get the doctor to guarantee that only X number of embryos would be made per try, all of which would be implanted into me. None of this sitting in the freezer until they’re finally destroyed stuff.

Which, AFAICT, is the only problem most pro-lifers have with IVF. Some will argue that IVF is “not natural” but to them I say screw it. Blood pressure medication isn’t “natural.” Injecting yourself with insulin isn’t “natural.” We do those things, though, to overcome problems that have developed in our bodies. Is that “forcing life where nature didn’t intend it?” I mean, if you develop sky-high blood pressure, does that mean that nature intends for you to have a stroke and die, even if you’re, oh, 40 years old? I don’t think so. I think it means that we’re all products of a fallen world, and stuff like this is going to happen. The fact that we have the knowledge how to fix it is a gift from God, who holds all medical knowledge in His hands. We should use the knowledge He has given us.

Same with fertility treatments, I think.

Do I think people take it too far? Yes. Some IVF patients throw away dozens of embryos after they get the one baby that they wanted. That’s wrong, IMHO, because to me they have killed dozens of their own children in the process of creating one. I think it’s also morally wrong to be using fertility drugs at an age where you know you are very likely to die before the child reaches adulthood (like that woman in Romania), or to use them when you already know in advance that the child you produce will inherit a horrible genetic disease that will kill them early.

There’s a reason nature wants us to eventually stop reproducing: we need to be alive long enough to raise the next generation. In those cases, I think we are forcing life where nature didn’t intend it.

As far as you’re concerned, nah. What you’re doing is no different than, say, if your husband was able to take a pill to increase his sperm production.

10

Then why does infertility still happen, if Jesus ended all curses?

11

AC: * I think it’s also morally wrong to be using fertility drugs at an age where you know you are very likely to die before the child reaches adulthood (like that woman in Romania) *

I see what you’re saying, but that implies it’s also wrong for older men to father children.

12

What I mean is, even though an old man can father children perfectly “naturally” with a younger woman, by your reasoning that people shouldn’t become parents if they’re too old to raise the kids to adulthood, that would also be a case of “forcing life where nature didn’t intend it”, albeit without IVF or other modern technology.