Versión de HTML Básico
Janet Dickey McDowell
ciality, for in fact it is far more analogous to dialysis, in that it also attempts
to replace (by admittedly complex technological means) a deficient physio
logical function. Thus the Roman Catholic response to IVF appears incon
sistent with its acceptance of other medical technologies.
A second difficulty with this most conservative rejection of IVF is that it
presumes an absolute indivisibility of reproductive potential and the sexual
expression of love in every single act of intercourse. The majority of Protes
tants (and a great many Roman Catholics who stand in tension with their
tradition’s stand on artificial birth control), while perceiving an important
connection between reproduction and sexual love, do not assert that the
reproductive purpose of sexuality needs to be served at all times. Instead, the
unitive purpose of sexuality—its capacity to express love—is claimed as fun
damental. Procreation will often be an outgrowth of a mature sexual rela
tionship, but the temporary postponement of reproduction, or even a deci
sion not to conceive children at all, is acceptable within this less naturalistic
perspective.
This understanding of the values associated with intercourse would hold
that love (as expressed in sexual activity) is preconditional to reproduction,
and in that sense the two purposes remain linked. But because this view is
less act-oriented, more concerned with the total relationship than with every
instance of intercourse, there would be no reason to object to IVF. The fact
that conception does not take place as the
direct
result of love made concrete
through intercourse is less significant; provided that both love and the desire
to procreate are elements of the couple’s total relationship, IVF would not
be problematic.
Other critics raise quite a different objection. They fear that IVF will
encourage (by providing a means) an obsessive concern with having one’s
own child, a child genetically related to its parents. It is thought that those
who choose to accept the discomfort, expense and inconvenience of IVF,
rather than opting for adoption, may perceive parenthood too biologically.
These critics are concerned that IVF candidates will fail to keep in mind that
Christian parenthood is above all a moral commitment to nurture a child,
not the contribution of ova or sperm.
It would seem, however, that this danger is not substantially greater for
couples using IVF than for other couples. All parents are potentially prey to
this sort of idolatry: a veiled worship of self and the continuation of self in
future generations. Christian churches rightly ought to discourage all of its
manifestations, whether in candidates for IVF or prospective parents who
anticipate ordinary conception.
At the same time, it is important to remember that genetic inheritance is
not incidental. A sense of lineage—connectedness to parents and grand
parents and great-grandparents—while far from vital to successful family