Michael J. Fox on IVF
I have to say that I agree with Fox on this point:
Fox goes on to make a crucial point that only some in the pro-life community have been trying to make for years. “Where was the outcry when in vitro fertilization was started twenty years ago? Because this has been going on for twenty years. Hundreds and thousands of these cells have been destroyed every year”
The problem of in vitro for the pro-life movement has been an enormous stumbling block for the fight against embryo research and cloning, even from the Catholic front. Despite a definitive document from Rome dating to 1986, the Catholic Church has failed on the ground level to significantly oppose IVF. Most Catholics are not even aware that their Church opposes it.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Steve, I admire your consistency and intellectual integrity on issues of life at all stages of development. You and I disagree on the merits regarding embryonic stem cell research, for the reason identified by Mr. Fox.
Given that IVF procedures produce excess embryos which, as a practical matter, will never be implanted and grow into later stages of development, I fail to see how the use of such embryos, which will otherwise be discarded or destroyed, for research in hope of curing disease or alleviating suffering, thereby prolonging life or improving the quality of life, is not itself pro-life. To me that is morally akin to harvesting the usable organs of a just-deceased person for transplant.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I don’t think I understand Fox’s point. Is he saying there is no difference in the creation of IVF embryos in order to bring a child into the world, and the utilitarian destruction of those embryos for experimental purposes?
Without debating the Roman church’s stance on IVF, the line being crossed is the intentional creation and then intentional destruction of human life for utilitarian purposes. The issue is the extraction of tissue from a human being, causing its destruction, and then using the extracted tissue for experiments.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
John:
Removing of organs from a deceased person is done AFTER the person is dead. The person is not intentionally killed in order to get the organs.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“I don’t think I understand Fox’s point. Is he saying there is no difference in the creation of IVF embryos in order to bring a child into the world, and the utilitarian destruction of those embryos for experimental purposes?”
I think that’s exactly what he’s saying. What’s the difference between creating embryos that are going to be destroyed to bring about new life, and creating embryos that are going to be destroyed to bring about better quality of life for the living?
Maybe you could explain what’s NOT utlitarian about IVF?
“The person is not intentionally killed in order to get the organs.”
But dozens of embryos are intentionally discarded in the IVF procedure. Can you explain more clearly what you think the difference is?
November 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
IVF is evil, but most people are unaware of why. Heck, I really wasn’t aware of the negative consequences until last year. Frankly, I had never thought the matter through. Most of us should be ashamed for not being educated enough on this.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:07 pm
I think Fox’s point is that there really is no difference between IVF and ESCR, and if you don’t (or didn’t)oppose IVF, you are being hypocritical for opposing ESCR.
I agree. But the proper answer isn’t to support ESCR, its to oppose IVF precisely because it creates human embryos as “aide effects” to be discarded.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
sorry - “side” effects, not “aide” effects.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:59 pm
What is the practical and moral difference between an excess embryo which will never be implanted and a just deceased person? As to the former, why is being discarded as medical waste morally preferable to seeking to cure disease?
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 am
I think I disagree with Michael J. Fox. In vitro fertilization uses specific criteria for whether or not embryos are discarded. For example, if an oocyte is fertilized with more than one sperm, then it will contain three nuclei and such embryos are doomed to an early death. Implanting such eggs would be futile and wasteful. Also, a normally fertilized egg might grow and divide in culture but begin to experience significant amounts of cell death. Such an event is easily observed through the stereomicroscope and implanting such an embryo would also be pointless, since this embryo will fail to implant. Discarding such embryos are irrelevant to the dicussion of the morality of embryonic stem cell research because such embryos would not be useful for repreductive or research purposes either. These defective embryos represent miscarriages at the earliest stages of development.
With respect to in vitro fertilization, prolife couples who wish to undergo this procedure should make a prior commitment to birth and raise each and every fertilized embryo they authorize the physicians to produce. Only them can in vitro fertilization, in my view, be acceptable.