We have already explored why In Vitro Fertizilation (IVF) is gravely immoral.
Since IVF is used by any combination of people (such as married couples; same-sex couples of either gender; by unmarried, heterosexual couples; and even by single people), let us consider just how quickly using this technology can, and already has spun out of control.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) makes an immensely important distinction, “A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift” (paragraph 2378, emphasis added). Thus, a couple unable to conceive does face a difficult cross to bear, but does not have a “right” to conceive a child outside of the conjugal act (CCC 2377).
A right is something owed to someone. It bears repeating: a child is not owed to anyone, and is instead a gift from God.
Every child has an innate right to know the identity of his or her parents (CCC 2376, emphasis added). But just who exactly are the parents to a child conceived through IVF?
First, consider that such children conceived through IVF already really do wrestle with big life questions that they really should not have to. They often wonder if any stranger on the street might be related to them, or if they marry someone who shares their DNA. Such stories are available to be read on the website, AnonymousUs.org. Proponents of IVF urge them to be grateful and to just shut their mouths.
LET US COUNT THE NUMBER OF PARENTS THROUGH IVF
When children are treated as commodities, as they are in IVF, alarming results can follow. A common example today is a pair of gay men trying to legally become the parents to a child they think they have a “right” to.
Here is a crazy, yet totally conceivable (pun intended) outcome in our present world.
Let me count for you how many people could claim to be the parent to a single child through IVF:
1. Obviously, the sperm “donor” father.
To call him a donor would be a lie, since he gets paid to commit the grave sin of masturbation and then leaves his sperm with the clinic staff, who then can create progeny of his for many years, sometimes dozens or hundreds of times. Ironically, while he is the only constant, he is also completely anonymous most often.
2. The biological mother.
Obviously, whichever woman’s egg was fertilized would make that woman the biological parent to that child.
3. A second biological mother?
Nowadays, unethical scientists are actually fusing two eggs together and then fertilizing that with sperm. If a doctor did that in our example, then that would add another woman who would share DNA with this child, and so possibly add another possible biological parent to the equation.
4. The surrogate mother.
In our crazy world, the woman carrying the baby need not be the biological mother, and can even be paid for the “service” of carrying a baby in her womb for nine months, after implantation.
5. Homosexual partner #1.
6. Homosexual partner #2.
In my example, both homosexual male partners intend to raise the child, so each would claim to be the parents. In the end, in many states, they are the ones given parental rights.
7. Lab technician #1.
Naturally, the two people who caused the sperm and the egg to mix would each be considered a parent. However, in IVF a third person, a technician is the one to actually mix the sperm and the egg. So, could not the technician be called a parent in this example?
8. Lab technician #2.
When nature is left to take its course, a baby implants in the uterus, thanks to the prior conjugal act of his or her parents. Thus, the two people who caused the baby to be implanted in the uterus are naturally the parents to the child.
However, in IVF, it is a third party, a doctor who injects the newly-formed baby into the uterus of the mother. Assuming the injector is not the same technician as the Petri dish mixer, this person in this example could be considered yet another parent to this child.
ON WHAT PLANET WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED MORAL?
Do you see how complicated and crazy this gets, very quickly? I counted up to eight parents for this one child conceived in IVF. I am sure we could add more layers of complexity, but this is a good start.
Who thinks this was a good idea for society?
If you think this is too far-fetched, then I direct your attention to the real-life story of Cindy Close. (Shown here in this news video interview.)
She gave birth to twins, who were implanted in her by IVF. She has no biological connection to the children. She intended to birth them and raise them in a platonic relationship with the biological father, Marvin McMurrey.
After the birth, McMurrey filed for sole parental custody of the children, and intended to raise the children with his gay lover. He claimed Close was a surrogate and had no rights to the children.
Close won the court case. The judge ruled because she gave birth, she was the legal mother to the children. Also, no surrogate agreement had been made. She and McMurrey, the court ruled, are the “co-parents” of the boy and girl.
Please sound off below on your thoughts on this thought experiment.
Did I leave anyone out of their parental claims?
Please sound off below!