Is in-vitro fertilization a morally acceptable way to have children?

Question

In in-vitro fertilization, dozens of your eggs are fertilized then implanted into your womb. When for or five of the babies begin to grow, you are forced to terminate all but one or two of the babies.
This link is to an LA Times article about a couple who had to face this decision:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-neil6may06,0,2723837.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Are you comfortable with terminating three of four children in order to have one or two? How do you justify this ethically and morally? Thank you for your responses.

Washington Post article dealing with the same topic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501730.html?hpid=features1&hpv=national

Aahotep - Hi there. I am right with. I can't have children either. In-vitro is just not an option for me, so we are discussing adoption. Thank you for your answer.

err..meant to say "right there with you." :)

WritersBlock - you and your wife were one of the lucky ones. Many other couples who use in-vitro are faced with have to go through "selective reduction" and terminate one or more of the babies who took. I am glad you two didn't have to go through that decision.
Lok - frozen embryos aren't what we are talking about - we are talking about having triplets and having to kill one or two of them in order to have a safe pregnancy with the remaining one.

Acid - If calling it a fetus helps you sleep better at night, then so be it. It's a child. The 25% study you quote comes from ANIMAL tests that are simply "applied" to human beings, it's not even the same thing.
Now go answer my other question, I wrote it just for you.

Aicd - AH HA!! You quoted wikipedia! Yet you just told me that I can't quote wikipedia because it's not a good resource. Try again blinky!! :)

Answer 1

Me, I wouldn't do it, just for that reason, but there are other reasons too. And how on earth does one decide WHICH one to "keep", and which ones to destroy? Nope. NOT going there.

In my own opinion, I think people get way *too* desperate to have *their very own* biological children. They spend scary amounts of money and go through procedures like this, when there are thousands and thousands of little children waiting for moms and dads to love and be loved by. A couple could adopt three kids for the same amount of money they are spending to do these extraordinary procedures. If I were not of an age considered too old to adopt (most agencies only want you if you're under 40), and if we had the $$$$$ required for the process, I would adopt myself. As things are, it's not an option for us -- but that's the route I'd choose.

(Believe me, I DO understand how hard it is to accept being unable to have kids -- I can't either, and I still can't deal with Mother's Day services in my church. All those little kids bringing flowers to their moms... )

Answer 2

I have an IVF baby who is the dearest thing in the world to me. Three years ago when trying to conceive we told our doctor that we didn't want twins and he encouraged us to put back just one embryo (leaving others frozen). We were very fortunate because we got pregnant the first cycle this way, but our clinic has had pretty good success rates with just one or two embyro transfers, and even then discouraged higher order transfers.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in immortal souls. I think an embyro is just a clump of cells and no more "alive" than any other clump of living cells in our body. I think abortion must be kept safe and legal and the decision to abort must be up to a woman and her doctor. But I also think that every abortion is a tragedy, and that we must find ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Answer 3

Your facts aren't facts. At least, situations differ. All of the embryos obtained by my wife and I having had in vitro are in frozen storage right now. Of the three that were implanted, two NATURALLY reabsorbed, while the third took. My wife is currently 12 weeks along in a quite ordinary pregnancy as the result of our procedure.

Keep in mind that not every normal pregnancy goes to term. Are miscarriages immoral? How about all the fertilized eggs that are still flushed from a woman's body via menstration? (Yes, it does happen.)

Death kills ten out of ten people. It must be viewed realistically! We lost two embryos... but we're going to be parenting the third into adulthood. How many potential babies are lost normally? What's more, how many made it to birth, only to be abused later in life?

I think we need a little consistency before knowing just what to examine, here.

[Edit] Now I see what you're asking. If my wife had all three take, we'd be faced with either trying to carry all three to term, or "reduce" one or more of them. Is this moral? Gotcha.

If carrying all three put my wife at risk, yes I'd reduce--even though I know I'd be killing a future child. As a father, my role is to protect. Ironically, if letting everything go would risk killing everyone involved, I see that I'd have no choice but to put the odds in favor of having at least one healthy child and saving my wife. Look at it this way, if I sacrificed my own life pulling someone out of a burning building, I'd be remembered as heroic. But if I destroy one embryo to clear the way for a healthy delivery of another... I'm a monster?

Yes, I'd do it.

If leaving all alone wouldn't risk killing the mother and all children... well... we'd be changing one heckuva lot of diapers and having one heckuva nursery. I wouldn't "reduce" for the sake of simply having less children.

Answer 4

That is not up to you or me, except when it directly involves you or me. Right and wrong are purely human concepts which change drastically across time and different cultures. Three hundred years ago, many people thought there was nothing wrong with owning other people, either as indentured servants or as slaves. That stance has changed. Hangings used to be viewed publicly, but almost every state now considers it "cruel and unusual". Duels were once legally protected. The list goes on and on, but my point is made. Right and wrong are irrelevant concepts, since they will change time and time again. The law is all that matters.

Answer 5

Check out www.gotquestions.org for the answer to this question. They have an excellent explanation of the process and the moral questions you face in the process.

God bless you in this. We have a miracle grandson who was an in-vitro baby.

Answer 6

Most people at MOST only inplant 3 eggs. Most doctors would not implant dozens, knowing that could happen, and probably would.

Me and my husband dont use birth control, we believe that it will happen when it happens. We also dont believe in trying, if you will. We have relations when we want to, the way nature intended and if I get pregnant, its because God wants us too.

BTW, I am 22 years old, with 20 month old twins, a 7 month old, and am pregnant again due in January :)

Answer 7

I believe it is morally acceptable. Also, I don't believe that frozen embryos are the same thing as children. They have no self awareness, to me that is when life begins.

EDIT: Okay, misunderstood. Still I am pro choice. I don't believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby.

Answer 8

I think that in-vitro fertilization is great, it is to give the chance to another people to reproduce!!!! and that would be great because more people would be able to witness Aaron Carter's talent and possitive effects in society.

Answer 9

Yeah I'm ok with this.

Then again, I'm not against abortion, which I assume is the basic point of this argument.

So there ya go. If this is someone's only way to have a child, then I say go for it.

Answer 10

You are loading the question by calling them babies.

baby
1.an infant or very young child.
2.a newborn or very young animal.

a fetus is not a baby. it is a potential baby.