A Cold Snap

We had a cold snap a few weeks ago. Here’s what we didn’t do: throw the kids outside and let them thaw out when the weather warmed up. Sounds obvious, right? Sadly, putting kids on ice is part of IVF, or in vitro fertilization. IVF has been in the news recently, so let’s review why it’s a bad thing to do. Heads up: there’s a little basic biology for more mature audiences.

First, let’s look at the name. ‘In vitro’ means ‘in glass.’ Instead of ‘In vivo,’ or in a living mother, the woman’s egg and the man’s sperm are united in glass. A new human being is conceived in a lab experiment. After fertilization we have an embryo, a fully unique human being that is developing to maturity—if we give it the chance. And let’s state here that every child is a child of God and deserves to be treated with dignity.

Now let’s look at the steps of IVF. A woman’s eggs have to be harvested. If she needs some kind of testing, that’s no problem at all. An egg will always be an egg; it never grows up. But if she is having her eggs harvested to produce new kids in the lab, that is wrong. After you have the egg, then a man’s sperm has to be harvested. Sperm will always be sperm and never grow up. But if it is harvested through self-stimulation, called masturbation, that, too, is wrong. Sexual intimacy and its potential for new life, these are gifts for husband and wife; to turn that inward towards oneself is wrong, even if the ultimate goal is a child. Why? Children are meant to be the fruit of the love of a mother and father. To invite strangers and donors into that relationship, or to subcontract the work of conception to a doctor is a wound on married life. Yes, some couples struggle with the pain of infertility. Other couples self-inflict infertility through same-sex unions. But let’s continue to follow the IVF process and we’ll see even more why this is wrong.

In IVF, a number of eggs are fertilized. These new humans, in the embryonic stage, how are they treated? Some are immediately frozen. Rather than letting them grow and develop, they are put on ice. What happens to the others? They are diagnosed, or tested. If there are any possible ‘deficiencies’, they are eliminated. Not the deficiencies—no, the actual embryos, independently developing human beings, are destroyed. Sometimes the deficiency is that the new child is not the biological sex the parents want. What happens to the survivors? They are implanted within a woman. If she miscarries, the other kids are melted down and given a chance. If the implantation is successful and she gives birth, the other kids stay on ice.

People using IVF say, ‘We love our children. We wouldn’t have them without IVF.’ I wish they would love all their children, not eliminating those who are ill, or freezing those who are healthy. This is why IVF is so bad. It is bad science, not recognizing the dignity of each and every human person from their very conception. It is bad ethics, eliminating or freezing developing human beings and wounding the dignity of marital intimacy. It is bad faith, for in eliminating human children, IVF eliminates the children of God.

Christ has taught us clearly through his Catholic Church on these points. I’ll include notes from the Catechism below. Probably most people don’t even want to discuss IVF. But your government leaders sure do. So it’s best to begin with uncovering what it actually is. These days we are so used to getting everything ‘on demand.’ That doesn’t apply to children—they are ultimately a gift from God.

With my prayers,

Fr. Jerome

?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."?"Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."