Versión de HTML Básico
Ethical Implications
of In Vitro Fertilization
Janet Dickey McDowell
On December 28, 1981, Elizabeth Carr made headlines as the
first child born in the United States as the result of in vitro fertilization
(IVF). . . . What should be the Christian response to IVF and associated
techniques?
Some Christians believe that the response ought to be uniformly negative.
The earliest and strongest objections to even limited employment of IVF
came from within Christian traditions committed to the indivisibility of sex
ual union and reproduction. Those who oppose artificial forms of birth con
trol (notably the Roman Catholic Church in its official statements) most
often do so on the grounds that these forms deliberately sever a natural—
that is, biological—link between intercourse and procreation, a connection
which ought not to be broken simply because to do so is unnatural. Their
objection to IVF rests on the same premises. They contend that because IVF
removes conception from its natural context, intercourse, it is impermissi
ble. If sex without the potential for conception is wrong, then so, they say, is
conception without sex.
These opponents to artificial birth control and IVF may be faulted at sev
eral points. Initially, one must question whether artificiality per se is reason
enough to oppose a procedure like IVF. Kidney dialysis, respirators, even
blood transfusions are also unnatural medical interventions, yet they are not
opposed with the vigor of the Vatican’s response to IVF. One may choose to
distinguish between artificial birth control and a technique such as dialysis
by pointing out that dialysis
supports
or
mimics
natural physiological function,
whereas artificial birth control
thwarts
natural function. However, such a dis-
linction would work against those who oppose IVF on grounds of its artifi