First IVF twins turn 25
Yesterday MSNBC interviewed the first “test tube” twins born in the US 25 years ago this month, Todd and Heather Tilton, and their mother, Nan:
I struggle with the issue of in vitro fertilization. I’m not Catholic but turn to Catholic teaching on the Life issue and have always found it sound….
The Catholic Church thinks IVF and artificial insemination are “morally unacceptable.” Catechism # 2377:
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…” [167]
Catholic teaching on IVF also reminds us:
There are also health concerns.
First the mother, whose body may be infertile for good reason. Forcing pregnancy on that body sometimes results in pregnancy problems like premature deliveries, harmful to the very child(ren) she so wants. The egg retrieval process is also potentially harmful, since she must inject herself with massive amounts of hormones to mature multiple eggs.
Then the children. IVF has been linked to birth defects, and at least 1 study has shown IVF children are more sickly.All that said, how can I say the children resulting from IVF should not be here? I know many IVF babies. The twins in the MSNBC video were wonderful.
One aside, I was disappointed in the Tilton family’s message, which was not on a woman’s strong maternal instinct or the miracle of life but rather on the “refusal to take ‘no’ for an answer… hope… [and] [w]here there’s a will, there’s a way.” Seemed politically correct. I thought it strange to disregard the miracle of their existence.
[HT: son Tim; photo of Tilton twins as babies courtesy of MSNBC]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
All that said, how can I say the children resulting from IVF should not be here? I know many IVF babies. The twins in the MSNBC video were wonderful.
Well said, Jill. When people want kids and can’t have them the “normal” way, what, really, is the big deal?
And yes, you’re still going to have the “morally unacceptable” crowd.”
Here is what gets me about the PC attitude on this. When it comes to abortion one of the ‘reasons’ to terminate the fetus life is because of all the “kids in the system” waiting to be adopted. Why have more kids when kids are waiting for homes.
But when it comes to Artifical Reproductive Technology (ART), they don’t seem to remember all those kids needing to be adopted.
Here’s is the saddest part – According to the CDC in 2004 127,977 women attempted this however only 44,774 (35%) women got pregnant. And only 36,760 (82%) of those pregnancies made it to delivery. And for those without a calculater that is 7,984 miscarriages. That means ART only has a 28.7% success rate.
Now for some more…..36,760 women in labor produced 49,458 babies. That is 32.2% of births were multiples. Multiple pregnancies hold a much higher risk for both mother and child. The mother has a higher risk of needing a C-section and a higher risk for hemorrhaging. The risks for the babies are Preterm deliver, low birth weight, disability and death. (BTW – the national average for multiple births in 2001 was 3% – I can’t find the # for 2004 but previous years it has always been around 3%)
I do have to say though that the technology to reduce multiples seemed to be improving. In 2001 54% were multiple births.
Considering how low the success rate is, wouldn’t it just be easier to adopt? However, since eugenic abortion is such a big thing everyone thinks a “defective” child is unwanted. Considering there are appx 1 million abortions per year that are for reasons of birth control and not medical or psychological These women shouldn’t have to go through all this pain and heartache. All it would take is 127,977 (apprx 13% of abortions)women who want abortions to be unselfish for 9 months of their lives and allow one of these women going through ART the great joy of loving and wanting a child.
http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2004/index.htm
Getting off soapbox now.
;-)
The technology to reduce multiples…are we talking about “selective reduction?”
Jill – another serious problem with IVF is the reduction abortions – the willingness to kill off one or more other children so one may gain strength, a condition that’s naturally rare, but systemic with a process that contains multiple abuses of humanity.
The saddest part of IVF is that children are treated as a product – a market to exploit, and markets seek to thrive.
I’m not unsympathetic to the desires of those who want children and are unable to have them, but IVF tills the soil of a constructed humanity. With folks like Edyt who desires an artificial womb so she wouldn’t have to maintain a pregnancy, you can bet someone out there sees such as desire as a market. Morally we shouldn’t be moving even one part down that road.
Valerie – I don’t think its fair to say things like “wouldn’t it be easier to just adopt” until you’ve actually tried adopting a child in this country.
You do know that parents who give up their children for adoption have a time period AFTER their baby has been living with adoptive parents where they can just change their mind and go to court to get their child back? Can you IMAGINE anything more awful than that for an adopting parent? Even if they go to court and win, just think about the stress/misery/time/expenses you’d go through with lawyers and court dates and the day to day anxiety of knowing some judge could decide to give the child you’ve been caring for back to its biological parents.
Do you know how adoption agencies will dig in to your personal life, interview your family, and judge your ability to parent based on things like your dad being an alcoholic, even if you have absolutely no control over that at all? How about if you didn’t get your act together in life until later on, made some mistakes and had even misdemenor convictions on your record? Guess what – No kid for you.
How about an international adoption? Well you’re looking at atleast a year and at least $75,000 in expenses – traveling, adoption fees, lawyer fees, etc. My family friends who adopted a boy from Vietnam, when all was said and done, had spent 16 months and over $100,000, and at the last minute, the agency they were originally working with backed out. Since its outside of the US, they had absolutely no legal recourse to get answers or any money back, and were heartbroken and dissapointed after having seen dozens of pictures of this baby boy who was supposed to be theirs. They ended up adopting a different child from another agency in Vietnam, but still… not everyone can deal with things like that.
The truth is, though the success rate for IVF isn’t high, it involves trips to the doctors office, and is sometimes even partially covered by insurance now. So no, it isn’t “easier” to adopt at all with the adoption system the way it is at the moment.
well said Chris.
Jill,
In the case of rape–a morally heinous act that should never occur–we don’t use the dignity of a resulting child to look back and say that the circumstances of his/her conception must be fine because the result was a beautiful child.
Similarly, the personal dignity of the children that result does not in any way mean that the means by which they were conceived was not evil. Rape is bad and should be fought against by society–though children that come from rape are still a gift from God. And IVF is morally reprehensible–though children that come from IVF are still a gift from God.
All it would take is 127,977 (apprx 13% of abortions)women who want abortions to be unselfish for 9 months of their lives and allow one of these women going through ART the great joy of loving and wanting a child.
*****************
Why dont you tell us all where you get the idea that women undergoing ART would RATHER adopt? Is there no end to how far you’ll stick your nose into the private lives and private decisions of total strangers? no end to the fantasy that you should be the one making these decisions, or telling strangers what they “should’ decide?
So Jill are you saying these kids should never have been born? Isn’t that like saying a child conceived in rape should never have been born? I mean, rape isn’t natural. Why not abort and adopt a baby if you want one?
Well said, Scott.
Also, about IVF. Catholic teaching inspired a method of model of fertility care which is “building a culture of life in women’s health care.” More time and effort is involved in finding the underlying cause of infertility.
…continued….
From naprotechnology.com:
“A NaProTECHNOLOGY approach to the infertile couple has the following goals:
It works towards assessing the underlying causes of the reproductive abnormality.
It allows for the treatment of these underlying causes.
It assists the couple in achieving pregnancy while maintaining the natural acts of procreation.
If the treatment program is unsuccessful, research into the unknown causes is undertaken.
If medically unsuccessful, the program will assist with successful family building by being supportive of adoption.”
http://www.popepaulvi.com/index.html
http://www.naprotechnology.com
http://www.creightonmodel.com
Scott, 9:27a, great point. I previously said Catholics have all the answers on this stuff. You proved me right.
Jess, 9:50a, great logic. I think you and Scott agree?
…continued….
From the naprotechnology.com website:
A NaPro Technology approach to the infertile couple has the following goals:
It works towards assessing the underlying causes of the reproductive abnormality.
It allows for the treatment of these underlying causes.
It assists the couple in achieving pregnancy while maintaining the natural acts of procreation.
If the treatment program is unsuccessful, research into the unknown causes is undertaken.
If medically unsuccessful, the program will assist with successful family building by being supportive of adoption.
Sorry for the multiples….I was getting error messages and thought my attempts were unsuccessful
So Scott…
You think the parents are doing something “evil”, and yet God gives them a gift?
In rape, if the mother chooses to accept her pregnancy as a gift from God, it makes perfect sense, because she’s not the one who did something evil. The rapist does not benefit from this gift from God. But in the case of IVF, parents are doing something you believe God thinks is evil, and yet he blesses them with the gift of a child?
That doesn’t make an ounce of sense.
Jill, we have these two twins which never would have been born if not for IVF. Does their conception make them any less important? Is a child conceived by rape still not a child? IVF gives life. A life is a life is a life. A person is a person is a person.
Amanda, this is a perplexing reality that you point out. Perhaps the best we could say about this, is, sometimes what God does and what He allows indeed do not make sense to us. We are not in a position to demand that He explain Himself.
I would point out at least that by permitting IVF to take place and even giving the gift of life through it, God is not necessarily approving of IVF. Same thing, again, as for rape. His creating new life in the midst of rape does not at all mean the God condones it.
Why doesn’t God simply choose not to bring about new human life in the morally reprobate situations of rape and IVF? I don’t know.
I’ll second that post of Scott’s at 9:27a. Excellent.
I’m sure that Rebecca Kiessling who was conceived in rape would agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.
Now on the other hand:
Jess – If I understand correctly Scott is saying that IVF should not have been started because it’s immoral, as rape is immoral. That doesn’t reject the twins, but it doesn’t condone the parents for employing IVF. I think I’ve been clear with reference to Rebecca regarding the sanctity of life, regardless of the immorality of the circumstances that brought life into existence.
And clearly Scott is not suggesting an abortion then adoption.
I don’t think Jill denies that the children are people, but just doesn’t approve of the way they came about.
“Why doesn’t God simply choose not to bring about new human life in the morally reprobate situations of rape and IVF?”
Apparently God likes to throw hurdles at us and get disgusted at us when we fall.
I have no problem with people trying IVF. They want their own children. They dont want to adopt. The woman has to go through an awful lot for IVF. Its her decision to make. But apparently being antichoice obviously extends to being against the right to choose IVF as well.
Also, I think many prolifers DO treat pregnancy as a punishment- “you have a baby because you were an irresponsible whore. Now you have to deal with it! That’ll learn ya!”- rather than a consequence that ultimately is a wonderful human being that deserves the same rights granted to everyone else. Not many people here have demonstrated it, but I have heard it from many opinions elsewhere.
I have no problem with IVF, if the eggs are either all implanted or used at a later date (either with egg “adoption” or with the same couple). I would be uncomfortable with simple disposal of the eggs. I’m not very comfortable with the eugenics part of it- I heard someone referring to it as similar to “using antibiotics on bacteria” about flushing them down the sink.
Jess said:
Mary Shelley dealt with the implications you’re inferring here with Frankenstein.
Are we to say that reanimation is moral?
When you mention person, are you referencing substance-based intrinsic personhood, or a detached autonomous sense of personhood, such as one that can be subjected to the sovereign will of their “co-creators”?
Do we as humans have the right to define the personhood of another human being?
“I would point out at least that by permitting IVF to take place and even giving the gift of life through it, God is not necessarily approving of IVF.”
But how do you know he doesn’t? It didn’t exist when Jesus was here. It didn’t exist when the Bible was written. How do you really know that, as with other advances in science that allow us to heal and extend life, God doesn’t think its absolutely wonderful?
“His creating new life in the midst of rape does not at all mean the God condones it.”
No of course not. But in a rape, there is a victim. Someone who has done nothing wrong who has been violated and hurt. It follows that God may want this victim to be given the gift of a child. In IVF, there isn’t a victim. Parents choose to participate in it, so it doesn’t quite follow that if its SO morally reprehensible, God would say “here you go, have two beautiful healthy kids!”
I don’t think its fair to say that because they were created with a different method, their being here is based on anything immoral if everyone involved is happy. Isn’t it a pro life mantra that no child would choose not to exist? And didn’t these parents make the choice to have a child? How could that possibly be morally reprehensible???
“Do we as humans have the right to define the personhood of another human being?”
So can someone say a fetus isn’t a person? Are we all people who deserve the same rights or are we only people when it suits your needs?
Jess – are you simply repeating my question?
No – there are two operating definitions of personhood. Choose.
“Do we as humans have the right to define the personhood of another human being?”
So can someone say a fetus isn’t a person? Are we all people who deserve the same rights or are we only people when it suits your needs?
“No – there are two operating definitions of personhood. Choose.”
What are the two definitions?
Bodily rights advocates regularly say the unborn are persons, but that they don’t have the right to life, while the mother possesses the sovereign right to her own body – thus devaluing the personhood of the unborn. (Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist example)
1. substance-based intrinsic personhood;
2. detached autonomous sense of personhood, such as one that can be subjected to the sovereign will of a single “co-creator” – aka the mother
So Chris… if you needed a kidney transplant and no matching donor was willing to donate a kidney to you, ensuring your death, does this mean you are “devalued” as a person?
No, of course not. It means that you simply cant FORCE bodily donation to anyone, from anyone. That rests on the conscience of the person who decides whether or not they are willing to consent. It says nothing about the value of the person who’s life depends on that consent.
When it comes to IVF, this is a critical issue.
“1. substance-based intrinsic personhood;
2. detached autonomous sense of personhood, such as one that can be subjected to the sovereign will of a single “co-creator” – aka the mother”
So you can choose which is best for you?
Jill said: I previously said Catholics have all the answers on this stuff. You proved me right.
Holy more respect for Catholic teaching than most Catholics have, Batman! God love ya, Jill. (Now, if only you could admit there’s nothing wrong with NFP…)
Hyperbole aside, I might point out that on certain bioethical issues that have arisen in recent years — not including IVF, mind you; on this one, the Catholic Church has a firm, clear teaching opposing it — the Church hasn’t yet come down with definitive teachings.
Take, for example, embryo adoption. On this issue, for the time being at least, the Church is allowing her moral theologians to duke this one out and state their respective cases, while as yet withholding judgment.
Scott J 9:27 AM
Wow, that is EXACTLY what I was going to say! Very good!
Amanda – kidney example doesn’t work – you beg the question.
You are smuggling in that the value of the life of the person (the unborn) is not the same as that of the one “granting” consent.
In other words, you’re begging this question:
“Do we as humans have the right to define the personhood of another human being?”
In this case you are claiming you can, but who gave you that “right” other than your own assumption of bodily sovereignty?
Amanda,
“No, of course not. It means that you simply cant FORCE bodily donation to anyone, from anyone. That rests on the conscience of the person who decides whether or not they are willing to consent. It says nothing about the value of the person who’s life depends on that consent.”
Yet in the case you mention, one does not directly and willfully kill the person in need of a donation. In every successful abortion, the unborn is directly and willfully killed. In your example, the death of the person in need of the transplant is passive, natural, and unintended.
If the Vatican wants to say no Catholics can use IVF thats one thing. I think its heartless but that’s beside the point. But Catholics dont have any right at all to try to pretend it shouldnt be an option for anyone. The RCC doesnt have a thing to do with the policies of the US – not our politics or our medicine.
Jess said So you can choose which is best for you?
Actually which one do you believe is true and applicable to humanity? (Free will says that’s a choice)
Amanda –
“Valerie – I don’t think its fair to say things like “wouldn’t it be easier to just adopt” until you’ve actually tried adopting a child in this country.”
You’ve missed some of my posts.
I can no longer have any more children. My husband and I wanted more than two. We looked into adopting a child with special needs (in particular AD/HD since that is what Danny and I have and we understand it.) But we weren’t allowed to because my Mom committed suicide and my Grandfather-N-law and my father-N-law were in the IRA. (My father-n-law only joined because if you did you got a free pair of pants, which was something that he needed desperatly.) So, I probably understand this far more than you do.
We also looked into adopting overseas and found that Catholic Charities have programs that make everything cheaper (it would cost around $10,000 – $15,000 – and yes, I know several couples who have gone through this and there are no hidden costs.) However, we do not have that kind of money and don’t want to go into debt by borrowing the money.
“You do know that parents who give up their children for adoption have a time period AFTER their baby has been living with adoptive parents where they can just change their mind and go to court to get their child back? ”
THANKYOU! I have mentioned this a couple times with some people telling me I am wrong. This is the benefit to adopting overseas.
“The truth is, though the success rate for IVF isn’t high, it involves trips to the doctors office, and is sometimes even partially covered by insurance now. So no, it isn’t “easier” to adopt at all with the adoption system the way it is at the moment. ”
People eligible to adopt and/or can afford to adopt overseas have a higher success rate than IVF.
TR –
“Why dont you tell us all where you get the idea that women undergoing ART would RATHER adopt? Is there no end to how far you’ll stick your nose into the private lives and private decisions of total strangers? no end to the fantasy that you should be the one making these decisions, or telling strangers what they “should’ decide?”
*sigh* I never said they would rather adopt, I was making something that is called a “idea” for a “different thought process”. You will see that I made comparrisons to the heartach of IVF with the amount of failures and miscarriages and simply compared that to the number of abortions and how few women would have to be unselfish for just 9 months. Since this is a Blog that deals with suggestions and different ideas I am by no means “telling” someone how to live their lives. I am just giving an opinion. If we didn’t give our opinions we wouldn’t really have much to talk about, now would we?
“Why doesn’t God simply choose not to bring about new human life in the morally reprobate situations of rape and IVF? I don’t know.”
It’s a little thing called “free will”. How else does sin happen if it isn’t for free will?
Lately over at Jill Stanek’s blog I’ve run into many abortion-choice advocates who are mother-bodily rights proponents who argue:
In short: The mother’s bodily “sovereignty” overrules all rights of the child she carries.
The pre-condition which initially raises this issue is that the mother consented to intercourse, but not the resulting pregnancy: hence the abortion.
Francis Beckwith, in Defending Life, points out this issue, as framed, has been dealt with extensively by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin and others in variations on Thompson’s violinist example.
Here’s the scope of issues:
1. Metaphysical: The intrinsic nature of contestants – procreation & relationships;
2. Morality: agency of rights/responsibilities;
3. Intuitions, analogies and philosophical anthropologies – rationale & application.
OOPs…..
Scott made the comment about God not allowing new human life, not TR……
1. Metaphysical: Intrinsic Nature of Contestants
Since the contest is between the rights of two conflicting human beings, we first need to establish the metaphysical questions of origin, substance and existence. The critical question to ask is this:
Are the two beings equal on every morally relevant point to decide this contest?
Thompson et al. concede that the child is indeed a human being. However, the extent of her rights as a human being are contested, immediately indicating that the unborn’s personhood is not considered the same as that of the born human being, specifically because of their relationship. We’ll discuss relationship first, and then deal with personhood.
Amanda @10:47 – this one’s for you:
a. Relationship
Because of the mother-child relationship we immediately run into a very hard fact that provides a basis for rejecting every other philosophical anthropology, because the existence (not merely life) of one of the beings is dependent, in part, upon the other being.
“Aha!” say the abortion-choicers, I rest my case. Not so fast – all that’s really been stated is that Thompson’s violinist arguments and the like cannot apply to this issue at all, because the substance-existence relationship is not found in any other example.
In other words all of Thompson et al. examples are non sequiturs.
Those examples fail before they even get off the ground of solid metaphysical reasoning because the mother-child relationship is completely unique when it comes to human beings. If we’re talking about the rights of two bodies, then you must start with the bodies, the flesh and blood – right?
Let’s back up a second, because the unborn’s existence (again, not yet discussing on-going life) is dependent only in part upon the mother. As we now know, the father provided the other half of the DNA for that child’s substance. Quite literally, two have become one flesh. It’s how every human arrives here and is the origin of our physical being, but that existence is not detachable from an unbroken chain of pregnancies. The violinist examples do not have that essential pre-condition. They assume a metaphysical grounding detached from this origin and the vital relationships that bring about humanity.
So what they throw out cannot be thrown out: that the conceptual process and the substance nature of both mother and child are of the same nature, an on-going human nature.
However, does being of the same substance of human flesh and blood and the existence of both of them brought about through a unbroken chain of pregnancies make them morally equal on all bodily rights?
Well, with criminal violations aside, we treat all born human beings of that same substance and that procreative process equally. Since all other born human beings arrived on this planet the same way, the human substance – flesh and blood, and the conception & gestational process is universally equal to all human beings. Clearly this is pivotal to our discussion.
Chris, you are my hero.
Sorry guys – I was in the middle of writing that and got carried away!
Bobby – Jesus is mine :-)
Ah, touche! Amen to that, Chris!
There is really nothing unique in the Church’s position on IVF as far as the method of creation versus the value of the person created:
The Church teaches that extramarital sex is a sin, but the child created as a result of that sin has intrinsic value.
The Church teaches that divorce and remarriage is a sin, but the child created from that but the child created from that sin has instrinsic value.
The Church teaches that rape is a sin, but the child created from that sin has intrinsic value.
The Church teaches IVF is a sin, but the child created from that sin has instrinsic value.
It is consistent. I would agree that in the case of rape, there is a victim, and because of this, I suspect the Church sees that as a greater sin than consenting adults outside marriage, but both are sins nonetheless.
Part of the problem with IVF (in addition to the separating sex from procreation) is that it leads to so many other evils (extra embryos that are experimented on or tossed or forever frozen, eugenic selection, etc.)
God’s plan is best.
I once heard a Priest who is a Bioethicist and pHD in Neuroscience discussing IVF say ” You don’t freeze humans”. Now obviously many will get their knickers in a twist and scream human embroyos aren’t human!
Amanda:
An omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful, all good and all merciful and loving God can turn any evil into good.
The Bible is filled with these examples.
Want one? How about the gruesome crucifixion and death of Christ which was intended as the ultimate evil by satan himself?
His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.
Yes, God can turn an evil, immoral action into a blessing.
But when it comes to Artifical Reproductive Technology (ART), they don’t seem to remember all those kids needing to be adopted.
Valerie, lots of people are not going to adopt if they can’t had kids through in-vitro. They want their own kids, even if it requires the aid of technology, etc. The number of kids waiting for adoption wouldn’t change, in this case, without it.
Without legal abortion there would be more unwanted kids and the number of kids waiting for adoption would go up.
PIP: I don’t think Jill denies that the children are people, but just doesn’t approve of the way they came about.
PIP, I don’t think Jill is all that much against it, really. And for those who really are, when people can’t have kids of their own without in-vitro, for example, are they truly going to worry about what others “approve of,” anyway? Good grief….
TexasRed said: If the Vatican wants to say no Catholics can use IVF thats one thing. I think its heartless but that’s beside the point. But Catholics dont have any right at all to try to pretend it shouldnt be an option for anyone. The RCC doesnt have a thing to do with the policies of the US – not our politics or our medicine.
Last I checked, there are still a few Catholic hospitals left in the US…
Based on what you said here, I’m curious to know, TexasRed, if you believe Catholic hospitals in the US should be forced to adhere to policies that go against clear Catholic teacihng (e.g., provide contraception, the morning-after pill, perform abortions, sex-change operations, etc).
1. substance-based intrinsic personhood;
2. detached autonomous sense of personhood, such as one that can be subjected to the sovereign will of a single “co-creator” – aka the mother
Chris, what’s really operative is the societal attribution of the status or not. The substance isn’t at issue, and the mother may or may not want the fetus (for example) regardless of her own opinions and desires concerning personhood for the unborn.
Thompson et al. concede that the child is indeed a human being. However, the extent of her rights as a human being are contested, immediately indicating that the unborn’s personhood is not considered the same as that of the born human being, specifically because of their relationship. We’ll discuss relationship first, and then deal with personhood.
Chris, while it’s true that “human being” can certainly be applied on a physical basis, that doesn’t mean that rights will necessarily be granted. It is not that the rights of the unborn are “contested,” it is that they are not attributed by society, and thus we have the argument from those who wish things were different, there.
Things like egg harvesting and IVF can be extremely bad for women’s health. Poor women are exploited by doctors and scientists who want to experiment on their eggs. Do we really know the long term effects of these things on a woman’s body? Do we know the effects on the child??
Related to this, check out this website:
http://handsoffourovaries.com/
Doug – how does your response not beg the question – which is an assumption that “sovereign rights” can be assigned (attributed) by society?
“Do we as humans have the right to define the personhood of another human being?”
You are create a dilemma horn – be careful you don’t get impaled!
That last line was supposed to read:
You are creating a dilemma horn – be careful you don’t get impaled!
HisMan- ya know, a whole bunch of people were crucified by the Romans. It was always a gruesome, terrible death. And they did it to plenty of women and children too.
Also, my parents tried IVF for several years before they adopted me and my kid brother. I really can’t comprehend that something in a petri dish is as important as a grown person.
You know, this argument doesn’t seem to be over “God’s Will” at all. In fact, it looks like the Catholic church just decided (again) that they wanted to determine how people have children, when they have children, and what kind of children they have.
And I say … it’s none of the church’s business how people decide to produce their family. Whether that’s adoption, abortion, IVF, sex, or a combination of all of those, it’s none of the church’s business.
For the religious out there — It’s a matter that should be held between you and your god.
“Do we as humans have the right to define the personhood of another human being?”
You are creating a dilemma horn – be careful you don’t get impaled!
Chris, I should have answered that earlier – I did see you post it, then forgot about it.
We have the idea of personhood, and we apply it. I realize that it’s not to all human beings (in the broad sense that includes the unborn) and that some people wish it was different.
I don’t see it as a question of it being a “right” to define such things. We just do it – that’s a premise. The arguing is over how we do it.
Bobby, do you watch “Ultimate Fighting” – the UFC and that type of stuff?
What you’re saying is that the unborn are non-persons, but not everyone holds this view. So we are agreed that there are 2 views of personhood.
Yet in making that statement, you’ve defined away what it means to be an integrated human being. I’m arguing you can’t rationally do that – that such an argument is invalid. You can’t have living flesh without some sense of “person”.
By your very statement, you are categorically rejecting my definition of personhood #1 found in your post at 11:55 AM. In that sense you must be assuming the other definition of personhood – #2.
True or false?
Please don’t say #3 or something silly. Either something is a universal or it isn’t. (Forgive my skepticism – it’s rare to find intellectual honesty on-line these days, particularly in such forums.)
Chris, we define the rights of animals all the time, don’t we? We used to define the rights of slaves. We used to define the rights of women. We define the rights of children all the time. Why should defining the rights of the unborn be any different?
What gives us those privileges?
(Answer: Position of power)
TexasRed said: If the Vatican wants to say no Catholics can use IVF thats one thing. I think its heartless but that’s beside the point. But Catholics dont have any right at all to try to pretend it shouldnt be an option for anyone. The RCC doesnt have a thing to do with the policies of the US – not our politics or our medicine.
Last I checked, there are still a few Catholic hospitals left in the US…
Based on what you said here, I’m curious to know, TexasRed, if you believe Catholic hospitals in the US should be forced to adhere to policies that go against clear Catholic teacihng (e.g., provide contraception, the morning-after pill, perform abortions, sex-change operations, etc).
Posted by: John Jansen at April 2, 2008 11:50 AM
******************************
Whats more important for a hospital? Being catholic or offering medical care to the people who need it? are only catholics allowed to go to catholic hospitals? or are they supposed to give medical care to everyone? Hospitals dont ‘offer’ contraceptives. Doctors do. I believe any pharmacy should be able to fill any legal prescription. I believe any emergency room should be required to offer the MAP to a rape victim. Telling a rape victim ‘sorry – you picked the wrong emergency room’ is insane. Sex change surgeries are performed by specialists. Why would that kind of specialist be affiliated with a catholic hospital?
Hi Doug.
“Bobby, do you watch “Ultimate Fighting” – the UFC and that type of stuff?”
Yeah, I sometimes watch UFC. There are several UFC guys who went into pro wrestling, and now even some pro wrestlers who join UFC. It’s kinda odd how there is a connection between the two, though.
On a related note to IVF, sort of, tomorrow’s episode of Oprah is going to feature a transgendered man who is pregnant.
You can see the preview here:
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200804/tows_past_20080403.jhtml?promocode=HP51
TR, I read somewhere that the Catholic hospitals can give the victim a preventative medication in the ER, but I might be wrong.
Doug, thanks for clearing that up. I thought she said she agreed with Catholic teaching.
Chris Arsenault at April 2, 2008 4:03 PM: When blockquotes go bad…
If this is redundant to something someone had said above, I apologize (I am not able right now to read all the way through the recent thread).
But I want to say a word about who is harmed by IVF. It is easy to point out the one who is harmed in the case of rape. But, admittedly, with IVF it is less obvious who is harmed and how.
Speaking from a Catholic POV, every human being is so precious and valuable that there are certain minimums that ought by right be present within the context of the creation of every human life. If these minimums are not present as new life is brought into being, then it is an offense against the intrinsic dignity of the individual who is being newly created (i.e. the human being who begins as a zygote, then embryo, then fetus, then born baby, etc.).
One of these minimum requirements is that each human being ought to come into being only within the context of a natural, loving union of its parents (through natural intercourse)–and that this couple is joined for life in the bond of marriage. Human life is too special not to be the fruit of a loving, physical sexual union of a husband and wife coming together in an act of love.
In other words, each human being has a right to have come into the world through the confluence of physical and spiritual circumstances of humanly performed intercourse and of the loving union of two souls joined in marital union. Anything less is offensive to the great dignity of the new human being.
Coming into the world via test tube procedures is far below the dignity of natural intercourse between husband and wife.
Again, this is not to say that a human being actually who has been conceived by IVF is in fact lower in dignity. No. (just as one conceived in rape is not in fact lesser in dignity than others). But, the one conceived in IVF has had an offense committed against his or her intrinsic dignity that is quite serious. (And the rapist, while he primarily commits a grave offense against the woman raped, also, commits an offense against any child conceived–by denying the child’s natural right to be the offspring of a loving father and to have the biological father and the social father be the same person.)
Chris,
too bad Doug hasn’t replied back to you. Hopefully he will.
The prochoice argument is irrational and circular.
I’ve pasted and copied some of your posts here for bedtime reading (I’m serious!! – they are very good!)
I hope all these compliments by BobbyB and others don’t cause your to lose your humility!! lol
AFter watching this video I couldn’t help wondering if these parents have visited upon their children their same infertility problems. Recent research suggests that there is a reason some men are not meant to father children – their infertility is passed onto their sons.
The British Medical Journal recently hinted that there may be a link to increasing infertility rates and IVF.
The idea is that couples suffering from infertility may be passing on their problems to their offspring who also inherit the same problems as their parents.
Because they innocent human beings that are being killed?
That doesn’t answer the questions I posed. It isn’t even possible to be an answer.
Did you know that use of power is a fallacious argument?
How so?
Just because we’re powerful doesn’t grant us the right to use that power against others.
I wholeheartedly agree. Regardless, that is the reason we have determined who has rights and who does not. Because we have the power to do that.
Edyt – great analogy between slaves and children. You can’t seem to break out of that property mindset of yours…
That’s not a mindset. It’s a fact. Those with the power make the rules.
You said:
You can’t have living flesh without some sense of “person”.
Animals have living flesh. Are they people?
To continue my earlier post,
A study done in Denmark, and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that young men whose mother’s received fertility treatments had lower sperm counts, more deformed sperm and smaller testes than those whose mothers did not receive treatment.
I guess this is another big experiment being done on humans and who know what the emotional and physical cost will be?
Well, I gotta say, it’s nice having a thread that’s not a complete IVF Bash fest like some of the others have been…
Scott J at April 2, 2008 4:53 PM – Another excellent post. Thanks. I agree 100%.
My posting efforts today reveal that many simply don’t understand or care what “intrinsic” means. It’s hard to present a rational argument when the underlying meaning is beyond immediate comprehension, and the desire to examine – to discover the truth, is willfully rejected.
Such hardness of heart can be chilling – however God has placed inspiration in broken vessels. Some commenters here would have rejected his personhood, suggesting that he could be aborted because of what he lacked.
They would have missed the special gift of God each one of us truly is – check out Nick Vojicic.
patricia said
Are you kidding?! My wife holds me to the standard of being like Christ! :-) Thanks for the encouragement.
Actually – I’ll be posting the article I was working on (portions posted above) regarding bodily rights on my own blog at http://www.thrufire.org.
There’s more to it, but I didn’t want to nuke Jill’s comment’s thread (and fear that I did that to some extent!).
Also, if you find them unclear or perhaps too deep, please let me know. Thanks!
“Actually – I’ll be posting the article I was working on (portions posted above) regarding bodily rights on my own blog at http://www.thrufire.org.”
Chris, make sure you let us know when this is posted. I look forward to reading it.
Okay Bobby – Patricia,
The post:
Controlled Burn: Bodily Rights or Lileigh’s Location (Part I)
is now up.
Sweet!
TR,
Whats more important for a hospital? Being catholic or offering medical care to the people who need it? are only catholics allowed to go to catholic hospitals? or are they supposed to give medical care to everyone?
Is IVF really “medical care” that is so urgent the couples can’t shop around for a different hospital?
Chris: What you’re saying is that the unborn are non-persons, but not everyone holds this view. So we are agreed that there are 2 views of personhood.
It’s more than that, Chris. As far as personal views of what personhood is, I’d draw the line right about viability, when sentience is becoming present in the fetus. There are many such differing views – at conception, at various stages along the way in gestatiion, at birth. Somebody could even put it later on childhood, perhaps when self-awareness gets to a certain point.
Then there is the societal construct of personhood, the attribution of status, and that’s what gets argued on abortion forums, most times. Pro-Lifers want personhood granted earlier than Pro-Choicers do, in the main.
……
Yet in making that statement, you’ve defined away what it means to be an integrated human being. I’m arguing you can’t rationally do that – that such an argument is invalid. You can’t have living flesh without some sense of “person”.
Sure you can. As far as the attribution of rights and personhood, the unborn, to a point in gestation, anyway, don’t have it, since society hasn’t done it. Doesn’t have to be that way, but it is that way. The restrictions on abortion after viability can be said to be a limited form of personhood and rights.
And per our personal feelings about when personhood is present, you certainly can have “living flesh” without personality, sentience, etc. – things that many people feel are required for personhood. I’m not sure what you mean by “integrated human being,” but agreed that the unborn are living human organisms.
……
By your very statement, you are categorically rejecting my definition of personhood #1 found in your post at 11:55 AM. In that sense you must be assuming the other definition of personhood – #2. True or false? Please don’t say #3 or something silly. Either something is a universal or it isn’t. (Forgive my skepticism – it’s rare to find intellectual honesty on-line these days, particularly in such forums.)
I’m not trying to BS you at all. Your #1 – substance-based intrinsic personhood is certainly not what is being argued in the abortion debate. Again, “living human organism” or similar definitely applies. But what has you dissatisfied as a Pro-Lifer is that society does not attribute the status of personhood to the unborn. I don’t reject the sameness of the unborn to us, as far as it goes – that is physical reality. Human DNA, etc., certainly is a “universal” for the born in this argument as well as for us, but that’s not at issue.
……
Your #2. detached autonomous sense of personhood, such as one that can be subjected to the sovereign will of a single “co-creator” – aka the mother
I said: “Chris, what’s really operative is the societal attribution of the status or not. The substance isn’t at issue, and the mother may or may not want the fetus (for example) regardless of her own opinions and desires concerning personhood for the unborn.”
The mother will want to continue the pregnancy, or not, on balance, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she feels one way or the other on whether the unborn are “people.”
Patricia: The prochoice argument is irrational and circular.
Baloney. Neither side is that way, necessarily. Pro-Choicers more want women to retain the freedom they do, while Pro-Lifers more want the unborn lives to continue.
No big mystery.
Chris, to Edyt: Because they innocent human beings that are being killed?
Chris, good discussion. Pro-Choicers aren’t saying that the unborn are “guilty” or “to blame.” There’s no capacity for guilt in the first place, any more than with a rock. The unborn are also not in a vacuum – there is the pregnant woman to be considered.
……
Did you know that use of power is a fallacious argument? Just because we’re powerful doesn’t grant us the right to use that power against others.
What we should do as a society is what is being argued. Moreover, the extent to which the unborn are “others” is also at issue.
……
Edyt – great analogy between slaves and children. You can’t seem to break out of that property mindset of yours…
The slaves and born children are thinking, feeling people. The unborn, to a point in gestation anyway, are not. Slaveowners want the will of the slaves subverted to their own. Pro-Lifers want the will of pregnant women subverted to their own.
I said
Doug responded
Doug your argument is invalid: If personhood is a societal construct, a mind state of some population, then it doesn’t matter whether I’m right or wrong, because each of us can have our own idea of personhood, and you’ll never be able to prove I’m wrong. Conversely, you’ll never accept another’s argument, because you believe you’re right.
That’s simply invalid circular reasoning: a human person is whatever a human person says is a human person.
Further, you assert that since personhood is a social construct, it’s majority rule when it comes to the objective reality of who is declared a person and who isn’t. That’s subjective. That path is historically cruel, with the fine examples of slavery and the Holocaust.
I stated the question:
and in your response you stated:
If you don’t understand what I mean – ask me. If you’re not sure about my argument (which you clearly don’t understand what intrinsic means), then how can you adequately respond?
Your response begs the question. You’re simply assuming what you’re trying to prove: you believe we as human’s have the right to define the personhood of other human beings without providing a shred of evidence as to why.
Go read my article : Controlled Burn: Bodily Rights or Lileigh’s Location (Part I) at http://www.thrufire.org/ and respond if you want there.
I make a full argument for the intrinsic substance nature of the human person there.
One last thing Doug – what good is sentience if the reasoning is invalid?
Chris, personhood – that which is a good bit of the abortion debate – is indeed a societal construct. You are right about the physical nature of the unborn, and I agree with you there, but the abortion argument primarily involves the status we attribute to the unborn, not the physical reality of the unborn.
There are also our own personal feelings of what personhood is, and they may differ from the legal/societal meaning of it. You and I can debate the physical reality of things, because there is external truth there, regardless of what either one of us thinks. Same for society’s position – same deal, it exists aside from our opinions. But no, on your personal feeling of what personhood is, and on mine, there is no “proving” each other wrong or right – since it’s a matter of opinion.
There is objective reality of what society says a person is, simply because it’s a fact, again separate from your mind and mine, but that is not saying that it “has” to be that way, i.e. society could have a different position. It’s not necessarily majority rule, either – all it takes for a law to exist is that there is sufficient opinion for it. Could be the majority, or could be a ruling council, or even from one person, as with a monarch.
I do know what “intrinsic” means, but again, it’s not the physical reality of the unborn where we differ, it’s on our satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the societal attribution of status.
I’ll read your article and respond, though my wife and I are on vacation after today and my online presence will be much reduced.
One last thing Doug – what good is sentience if the reasoning is invalid?
Sentience isn’t either “good” or “bad” on its own, and it doesn’t even necessarily mean that reasoning is present. A full-term, newborn baby, for example, is almost always sentient, but never sapient, and not self-aware as most become later on, not “creatures of reason,” etc. Whether reasoning is seen as good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.
“Lileigh was an 8-1/2 month developed unborn child who suffered an injury prior to birth, was born via c-section, then died. Technically, the judge ruled her death a non-homocide because she wasn’t considered a person at the time of the attack based on Colorado law. Her location was critical, both to the cause of her death, and how she was treated by the court. Lileigh’s death highlights the irrational logic of abortion-choice, where one can legally be a non-person human-being.”
Chris, murder is a legal term, and the judge is correct in going with the law, regardless of your personal opinions. Yes, had the baby been born it could well have made a difference. That is viewing the unborn alone, without consideration for the pregnant woman, so it’s really not the same as the abortion debate.
There is no necessary “logic” on the part of Pro-Lifers or of Pro-Choicers. It depends on what is desired – whether it be for the unborn life to continue, or for women to retain the freedom they now have.
As far as intrinsic nature, rights are not that. Rights are ideas, they have no separate physical existence, they exist in the mind, not apart from it. You say the contest is between the rights of two conflicting human beings, but that is really not the case. What is operative is that society attributes certain rights to the pregnant woman, but not to the unborn. If society did grant those rights to the unborn, you’d be happier and Pro-Choicers would not be.
______
“Arriving at the issue of personhood, the question must be raised: do the two contestants have the same moral basis for personhood? That is, not do they possess the same degree of development of person, but do they each possess all the essential common characteristics we recognize as necessary for a human person?
I believe this is the great schism in the debate, because there is an assumption implied in the abortion-choice position which is this:
That human beings can redefine the personhood of other human beings
But do human beings possess that right? The issue is critical because we’re dealing with personal autonomy. How can we test this?”
It’s not “redefining,” it’s defining it in the first place. There isn’t anything “universal” there from the get-go. Again, the societal attribution of personhood is really what this is about, and society is people, so yes, people define personhood. “Development of person” doesn’t exist apart from society’s opinion, here, it only exists in relation to it. While the physical reality wouldn’t change, if we didn’t have the concept of personhood then it would not exist.
Do we “have the right” to define personhood? That’s like asking if we have the right to have feelings of good and bad, right and wrong, etc., in the moral realm. The fact is that we do, plain and simple. Do we have a right to have consciousness? Really, it’s a meaningless question – we just have it, and it all goes from there.
______
“Should that change the moral basis of the mother’s person, by exchanging places with the daughter?
(Mother goes inside the womb of the daughter – the example from Chris’s blog.)
One would reasonably say no – it shouldn’t and that’s precisely my point: to claim it would change the moral basis would be a circular argument (and reveal the personhood begging schism) because the claimed abortion-right shouldn’t change no matter who was in the womb.”
Actually, one would reasonably say yes, because being inside the body of a person makes the difference. Whether we like the way it is or not, that’s society’s position. It’s not all black and white, either – if the “mother” was viable then most states have restrictions on abortion now, as per the Roe decision “seeing it in their interest to protect the unborn life.” The pregnant woman’s autonomy and rights are not “absolute” nor unaffected at that point. The “conflict” is also different, because the viable unborn could be delivered and presumably live, while still allowing the woman’s desire to end the pregnancy. Earlier in gestation that is not the case.
______
“We don’t reject/redefine the personhood of any born human being based on their stage of development.”
No, as it happens we really don’t, in the main, but that does not mean it “has” to be that way. We tend to attribute personhood at birth and then say that’s it – no changes afterward. It’s not like the born person “goes back in the womb,” so why should we?
There are some “gray areas” even here. In some cases we do allow people to die, for medical life support to be stopped, etc., though for most people we would not.
______
“Why make an exception for the unborn which has the same essential moral human basis as the rest of us? So development can be rejected as non-essential to this issue of bodily rights.”
It’s not an “exception,” it’s where the line is drawn. It’s a simple “before and after” deal. There is no “essential moral basis,” of anything. Morality is subjective. It is ideas. It exists in the mind, not apart from it. If there were no consciousnesses having feelings of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm, then morality would not exist. There has to be “somebody” having the feelings in the first place. Any moral thought can be traced to the desire behind it. For the abortion debate, it comes down to what does one desire most – that the unborn life continue, or that the woman be free to make her own best choice.
This is not saying that development is non-essential to the issue. It most certainly is, because society takes development into consideration on it. For one thing, the restrictions on abortion past viability can be said to be a limited form of personhood and rights for the fetus.
Doug
chiefly from conjecture It was evident, indeed, that she wished me http://idisk.mac.com/beverlylynnelesbianv/Public/0/jamie-lynn-and-lesbian-and-ftv-and-movies.html >jamie lynn and lesbian and ftv and movies affection, it seemed, he could not have for me it had been only kuyftjupzqk
chiefly from conjecture It was evident, indeed, that she wished me http://idisk.mac.com/beverlylynnelesbianv/Public/0/jamie-lynn-and-lesbian-and-ftv-and-movies.html >jamie lynn and lesbian and ftv and movies affection, it seemed, he could not have for me it had been only kuyftjupzqk
cerebral palsy help
The new approach focuses on newborns that have been deprived of oxygen. Nearly one out of six of every 1000 children born suffer from birth injury due to low oxygen levels. This form of birth injury can lead to life- long disabilities such as cerebral …