Right Wing Religious Wacko (RWRW)

I’ve been reading some recent blog articles comparing/contrasting the ethics of in-vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research:

• From the Left
• From the Right

I’d like to respond to the following from “TGirsch” of the Lean Left crew:

“To my knowledge, there exists no method of IVF that doesn’t involve the destruction of some embryos. Even if such destruction is the result of failed implantations, the end result is that you have still intentionally created embryos knowing that the majority of them would be destroyed. If life begins at conception, then destroying an embryo – any embryo, whether naturally or artificially conceived – is tantamount to taking a life. And, if their reasoning is consistent, taking a life is wrong whether the intent is to save other lives somewhere down the road, or to create a new life in the near future.”

This is an interesting argument, but I believe a failed one. “Destruction” and “natural selection” are not equivalent concepts. I understand the point that people who believe IVF is morally permissible go into the procedure knowing that some of the harvested and outside-the-womb-combined eggs and sperm may not become viable. However, what the Lean Left folks fail to mention is that the same natural selective process occurs, even during intercourse. For example, take what the Center for Reproductive Health & Gynecology has to say about unexplained infertility:

“Once an egg is fertilized, there is an 80 percent chance of cell division. The rate of division of the resulting embryo is also of significance. Usually 48 hours after fertilization, the embryo is between two to four cells (blastomeres). At 72 hours, they are usually between six to eight cells. After five days of growth, they are usually over 120 cells with a fluid cavity in the middle (Blastocyst). If a larger than expected percentage of embryos divide slowly or stop dividing at any stage, this can result in infertility.”

So, does this mean that no one should try to conceive naturally, because persons may knowingly or unknowingly be destroying (through natural selection) a newly fertilized embryo? Come on.

There are marked ethical and moral differences between IVF procedures and embryonic stem cell research. The goal of IVF is to create life. The harvesting procedure might result in embryos that die through natural selection, but the intent is for all of them to be viable. Yes, many fertilized eggs may result from harvesting the eggs from a woman and the sperm from a man, but fertility clinics (with the consent of the patient) only implant the number of embryos that the patient is willing to bring to term in a healthy manner. While some of these embryos might die when attempting to implant, there is no intent for destruction here. I believe that the ethical issue with this procedure has nothing to do with placing embryos into the patient (knowing some might die), but what to do with the possibility of having extra embryos that cannot be used in the initial implantation procedure (due to the ethics of not implanting too many for the safety of the patient). That moves us towards the slippery slope of using these embryos for anything other than use by the couple involved in the procedure or for donation to other expectant parents.

With regard to embryonic stem cell research, we move into the arena of willfully destroying embryos (life, or potential life, depending on your definition) for a “greater good” by possibly helping people who have health-related problems. Is there even an argument that using embryos for research is nothing but destroying life, even “potential life” if you believe otherwise?

Yes, there is a “treatment” more benign than IVF that can make parents out of nonparents - adoption. There’s also (adult) stem cell research that needn’t involve the destruction of life (or potential life). However, I argue that the two cannot be compared. IVF, when approached in an ethical manner, strives to produce healthy embryos. It’s not the procedure that is unethical, it’s the decision as to what to do with extra embryos that are not used in the initial implantation procedure. My vote would be that these embryos be given every change for life by either 1) being used for a later implantation procedure for the original patient or 2) donated for use by another needy couple. Each of these steps promotes life. Embryonic stem cell research, however, promotes life only by first destroying life (or a potential life).

Tags: [embryo, pro-life, IVF, in vitro, in-vitro, in-vitro fertilization, stem cell, embryonic stem cell, morality, ethics, values]

This entry was posted on Friday, June 17th, 2005 at 4:03 pm and is filed under Culture, Morals & Values, Politics, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.