Ethical Considerations Against In Vitro Fertilization

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an assisted reproductive method that is becoming increasingly popular among couples experiencing infertility. Many view it positively, as a response to an understandable desire, an almost universal longing: the desire to have a child. This procedure carries ethical implications that are sometimes ignored or avoided in the decision-making process; however, it remains an intrinsically immoral act and, therefore, a serious matter. Therefore, it is important to review the ethical implications of IVF so that those who opt for this method can understand the process and its complexity before making the decision and become aware of other alternatives that may be effective. But let's take it step by step.

Human life begins with the formation of the zygote, in which the two gametes, the sperm and the egg, unite, giving rise to an individual with its own DNA. It is a human being in constant development until the day of their death. This human being is first known as a zygote, then as an embryo, then as a fetus, then as an infant, a child, an adolescent, an adult, and, finally, an older adult.

Some couples will face the painful reality of infertility, so they decide to try IVF to conceive. This process involves extracting eggs and sperm to induce fertilization artificially. In this process, between 15 and 20 eggs are extracted (depending on the woman), of which 60% to 80% are successfully fertilized; this marks the first stage of development of 12 or 16 individuals, in their initial stage, the zygote. From there, cell division begins and continues until our death. Around day 6, the doctor implants this being, now called an embryo in the cleavage stage, into the

uterine cavity. If all goes well, the embryo will grow into a fetus, the mother will give birth to him or her, and will continue his development outside the womb through subsequent stages (neonatal, infancy, childhood, adolescence, etc.). But to achieve a single pregnancy, doctors may attempt to fertilize up to 20 eggs, and once they begin to divide, they analyze the embryos (human beings) to select the one with the "best characteristics," which will be implanted. The other embryos (human beings) are either discarded, frozen, donated to another couple, or used for research.

In this way, in vitro fertilization involves several ethical dilemmas. The first is that it is a method that goes against natural law because it takes fertilization and conception outside the intimacy of sexual and marital relations, and because it is decided which human being will live and which will not, based on a utilitarian and not bioethical perspective. Another more serious ethical dilemma is that it is a method of multiple abortions, since, as we have seen, for one human being to be born, it involves the sacrifice of up to 12 or 16 human beings in the prenatal stage.

Another ethical and moral dilemma is that some of these human beings are either left to die or are frozen until their parents decide to thaw them. Finally, there is the ethical dilemma between profit and the parents' hope, since, in the "best" case, the probability of success is 43%. Still, with age, it can drop to 13%, which generates a significant expense of up to $25,000 with a low probability of success.

Behind these ethical dilemmas is a fundamental question: who has the authority to determine which human being is more or less valuable, and who deserves to live and who does not? If ending human life is wrong, then it is wrong at any stage of development, whether it is a zygote, an embryo, an adolescent, an adult, or an older adult, because what logical, valid, and rational argument can be given to support the idea that the value of a human being lies in their stage of development and not in their intrinsic value?

Another important element to consider is that infertility is a painful experience that requires being treated with sensitivity and empathy. Still, it should not be confused with the idea that one has a "right" to be a parent, and therefore, the method used to achieve it doesn't matter. This premise is incorrect, as it would also serve as justification for someone who rapes a woman, simply because they believe they have the "right to be a father," without considering the means, only the end. Furthermore, one should not confuse longing or desire, however valuable it may be, with a right, since no one has a right to another human being, even when that person is their own child.

Hence the importance of remembering that parenthood is not a right, nor should it even be seen as a desire or longing, because in reality it is a gift, a blessing, and an enormous commitment in which children do not belong to us or come to fulfill our desires, but rather are a trust (evolutionary or divine, however you want to see it) to promote their healthy physical, social, and psychological and spiritual. And, as we said, no argument justifies a human being deciding who lives and who dies based on their desires, as unfortunately happens in the IVF procedure.

The reality is that IVF is a form of eugenics based on the parents' desires and the criteria of the doctors, who assign greater or lesser value to these embryos, so those considered of little value will not have the opportunity to continue their human development. It doesn't matter what the law says, or how we try to justify the selection and discarding of human beings. No law or medical criterion can be above natural law and human dignity in all stages of development; therefore, those who think it is their right need to confront reality, because it is not a right.

Those who resort to IVF need to be aware that they will be parents not only of the child they give birth to, but also of those who will be discarded, as well as those who remain frozen or are donated to other couples. Therefore, they also have a responsibility towards those children.

It is important to remember that a huge task in life is learning to accept that it shouldn't be the way one wants it to be. So, if someone waits until age 35 to have a child or has a medical condition that prevents them from having children, reality will confront them. They will need to decide whether to accept it by acting with respect for human nature or to impose their desires over the dignity of their own children, who will end up being discarded. IVF is the materialization of the God complex, in which one believes they have the right to manipulate life and decide who lives and who doesn't.

And what about children born through IVF? Well, that child has the same dignity as any other human being and, therefore, should be celebrated. Their dignity is the same as that of a child born from the sexual encounter of two spouses who love each other, or that of a child born from rape. Human dignity and its value are not questioned; the method used to achieve it is questioned. Just as rape is condemned, but not the child resulting from it, so too should IVF be condemned, but not the child of those who chose this method; IVF is rejected not because of the child, but because, for that child to be born, their siblings had to be sacrificed.

All these arguments and ethical problems are what have led the Catholic Church to consider IVF in Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae as morally illicit and intrinsically grave, and to consider its practice a mortal sin and, therefore, to prohibit it among its faithful.

Fortunately, other options do not involve morally or ethically problematic acts; for example, the Creighton Model Fertility Care System, which has proven to be in accordance with natural law and has yielded significant results for those who have experienced fertility difficulties. There is also the option of adoption, thus creating the experience of love and family not only for the couple but also for a living child who needs to be accepted and loved like any other child. If none of these options are viable, the couple has one last option: to radically accept their reality, understanding that life does not have to be as one wants it to be; it does not have to adapt to us, but rather we must adapt to it.

If any readers have already participated in IVF, I invite them not to promote it, not to participate further in the discarding of human beings, and instead to promote the other options mentioned here. In this way, they contribute to a world that respects life, dignity, and the natural law to which we are all bound.

Greetings to all,

Mario Guzmán Sescosse