Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

IVF Creates Ethical Concerns and Imposes Risk Upon Children

January 23, 2025

Share

The decision made by the Alabama Supreme Court in February 2024 that embryos are to be considered children brought in vitro fertilization (IVF) to the forefront of political conversation this past year. In the decision, Associate Justice Jay Mitchell stated that “unborn children are ‘children’ . . . without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics.” Barbara Collura of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association expressed her recoil, arguing, “This ruling is stating that a fertilized egg, which is a clump of cells, is now a person. It really puts into question the practice of IVF.” It certainly challenges the practice, yet the critical inquiries remain unaddressed. 

There is moral confusion that cannot be resolved by partisan politics, as evidenced by the pervasive ambiguity that transcends party affiliations. Christians and the Church’s testimony are uniquely positioned to offer the necessary clarity and guide the moral discourse regarding the utilization of reproductive medical technologies.

It is unethical to create a risk that could be harmful to future human beings. Medical technologies are associated with varying levels of risk that must be evaluated by individuals prior to their use. However, with the application of IVF, not all individuals are capable of providing consent. The lives of the most vulnerable are endangered to a significant extent, not by their own volition but by the volition of their parents and physicians. In doing so, harmful risk is created for children ex nihilo.

In her article, “A Christian’s Practical Guide to Reproductive Technology,” Emma Waters documents the prevalence of harmful outcomes for children born through IVF interventions:

“Children born through IVF have a higher likelihood of cancer, autism, minor cleft palate, or a congenital heart defect. As bioethicist Oliver O’Donovan argues, ‘There is a world of difference between accepting the risk of a disabled child (where that risk is imposed upon us by nature) and ourselves imposing that risk in pursuit of our own purposes.’ For Christians, who value and protect life from the moment of conception, such parents submit their own wishes to the wellbeing of children. That includes children who do not exist yet.”

The Catholic Church has historically maintained a more resolute stance against IVF and contraceptives than Protestant churches in terms of official doctrine, despite the fact that there is a range of dissent among members. Official Catholic doctrine views IVF as morally unacceptable. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, IVF separates the procreative act from the marital act, which is considered contrary to the dignity of the couple and the child. The Church teaches that human life should be brought into the world through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife, not through technological means.

Is it justifiable to employ medical technologies that impose risks on the very lives they aim to create?

The Vatican document Donum Vitae further explains that IVF involves the manipulation of human life and treats children as products of technology rather than gifts from God. The Church also raises concerns about the potential for embryo destruction and the commodification of human life in the IVF market. The largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), also passed a resolution in 2024 opposing IVF. Among its concerns are the following:

  • IVF often results in the creation of more embryos than can be safely implanted.
  • IVF leads to the freezing, stockpiling, and ultimate destruction of human embryos.
  • Some embryos may be subjected to unethical practices such as sex selection.
  • IVF involves the routine destruction of embryonic human life.
  • IVF increasingly engages in methods for determining suitability for life and genetic sorting based on parental preferences.

Some Protestant Christians have attempted to argue support for IVF by proposing a moral equivalency between IVF and medical technologies that treat problems onset by injury, disease, and the fall. This categorical error produces a false and dangerous equivalency. Not only does it ignore the autonomy of the child but also the ethical responsibilities that are to be applied for that child.  

Medical technology aids individuals in their own recovery or fight against illness and injury. This is an important distinction not to miss and is one that pro-choice advocates consistently disregard. Technology that is employed to treat injury must not be morally comparable to technology that is employed to generate new life and subject it to danger. The human life created in an IVF procedure introduces another individual patient into the moral equation. Further, IVF medical technology can harm the child in vitro or in the womb while not presenting any physical threat to life for the mother. In contrast to other medical technologies like dialysis, which only consider one person, IVF must take into account the welfare of two patients. The medical technology argument disregards this involvement of two patients, reflecting a preference for a parent-first (or only) strategy rather than a child-first strategy. 

2025 Lent Books
Get Your Free Book Today

Finally, the ethical compromises associated with sperm collection for IVF procedures are often overlooked. Sexual relations between husband and wife in a medical facility, proctored by an attending technician, violate the sanctity of the marriage union. If pornographic material is present, then that further complicates the moral compromise. As a result, sexually immoral situations develop for the following reasons:

  1. It’s a deviation of the created order for human sexuality and intimacy. 
  2. It invites others outside the conjugal union of one man and one woman into the sexually creative process.
  3. It brings a child into a place of potential harm due to the high degree of risk of termination. This high-risk scenario is unique in that the risk level is created from no risk.

In sum, the widespread acceptance of IVF raises significant ethical concerns regarding the welfare of children conceived through this technology. The recent legal and political developments surrounding IVF have ignited a broader debate about reproductive rights and the moral responsibilities of parents and society. The potential risks, including higher incidences of serious health issues, the commodification of human life, the destruction of human embryos, and the moral implications of manipulating procreation, challenge the notion of IVF as a responsible choice for prospective parents. Both Catholic and Protestant denominations have expressed strong opposition to IVF, emphasizing the sanctity of life and the importance of natural procreation within the marital union. The ethical dilemmas surrounding IVF highlight the need for a child-first approach, prioritizing the well-being of the child over parental desires. Ultimately, the question remains: Is it justifiable to employ medical technologies that impose risks on the very lives they aim to create? This inquiry calls for careful reflection on the moral responsibilities we hold toward the most vulnerable among us—those who cannot consent to the circumstances of their own conception.