The Alabama Supreme Court correctly issued a ruling on February 16 that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) are human babies. This should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of biology and human reproduction. Unfortunately, this ruling has once again brought to light the incoherence of much of the Republican party.
The party's leading presidential candidate, Donald Trump, incorrectly declared that Alabama lawmakers should preserve access to in vitro fertilization saying he “strongly supports the availability of IVF”. Governor Greg Abbott had a similar opinion saying he “supports Texas families having access to in vitro fertilization treatments and has ‘no doubt’ the state will address issues raised by a recent controversial court ruling out of Alabama.” The defense of IVF is not limited to high profile Republican politicians, but also finds support among Catholic commentators. For example, Jack Posobiec said the solution is to “embrace adoption for IVF embryos. Don't end IVF. This is the pro-life answer.” To their credit, their support for IVF, although seriously misguided, is motivated by good intentions. Both Trump and Abbott support IVF as a means to empower parents to have more children whereas Posobiec believes finding adoptive parents for frozen embryos (i.e. babies) is the solution. Both ends are good, but are brought about by intrinsically evil means. The problem stems from misguided consequentialism and an incorrect application of double effect.
Consequentialism is an umbrella term for numerous ethical theories, but they all have in common that moral judgment is based solely on consequences. Consequentialism rejects the idea that behaviors can be classified according to their moral species. This is in contrast to Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium which states that behaviors can be classified according to type. Every act has a type or essence in which we can determine its moral permissibility. In other words, certain types of acts are immoral regardless of motive, circumstance, or consequence. Through observation we have a basic understanding of different types of acts (e.g. murder, theft, adultery). There are three components to every act: object, motive, and circumstance. I use “motive” rather than “intent” because I think it better explains what is being described. When I use “intent” I simply mean something done on purpose rather than something that happens by accident (i.e. non-intentional). When all three components are morally good, then the act itself is morally good. If any component is morally bad, then the act itself is morally bad.
Acts are determined by their objects. It is the object of an act that determines the nature or essence of the act independent of motive or circumstance. The object is the thing the act is specifically about. For example, the object of eating is food and the object of adultery is a married person. Prior to analyzing the motive of an act (i.e. the reason why the act was done) and the circumstance (i.e. the context and resulting consequences of the act), the moral nature of the act is determined by its object. A good act has a good object and an evil act has an evil object. For example, the act of eating is good because its object (i.e. food) is good for the nourishment of the body whereas the object of adultery is bad because sex with a married person is destructive of marriage. Certain objects are incapable of being properly ordered. Any act with an evil object is by its nature evil and thus illicit regardless of motive or circumstance. This is what the Magisterium calls an “intrinsically evil act”.
The motive of the act is the reason the act was chosen. Motive can either increase or decrease the severity of an act. A bad motive can turn a morally neutral act into an evil act whereas a good motive can diminish the severity of an intrinsically evil act, but it cannot remove it; they remain irremediably evil acts “incapable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.” For example, if the reason for charitable giving is for the sole purpose of a tax write-off, the good of charity is severely diminished. Good acts must be done for the right reasons. Likewise, if the reason for theft was so a father could pay for his sons medical procedure, this would reduce the severity of the evil act, but it would not make theft good.
The third component of an act are the circumstances. The circumstances consist of the context and the foreseeable consequences of the act. The circumstances are considered good if the foreseeable good consequences outweigh the foreseeable bad consequences for all persons affected by the act. Likewise, if the foreseeable bad consequences outweigh the foreseeable good consequences, then the act is evil. It is only after it has been determined that an act has a good object and the right motive do we begin to weigh the consequences of the act. Although good consequences can reduce the severity of a disordered act, they cannot make the act good. They remain intrinsically evil acts by their very nature.
Now that the nature of an act has been adequately analyzed we can begin to understand the intrinsically disordered nature of IVF. I will first explain the primary reason IVF is wrong and then explain from secondary reasons why IVF is wrong. Before that we have to learn a little bit about what IVF is.
In vitro fertilization is a process where doctors collect developing eggs from a woman's ovaries. Once the eggs have been harvested, the embryologist will fertilize the eggs with sperm by mixing them together in a petri dish. The resulting embryos will grow in special incubators after which one or more of them will be transferred into the woman’s uterus. If the process is successful the woman will be pregnant. In order to increase the chances of pregnancy this process may be repeated numerous times. On average 8-14 eggs are harvested and roughly 80% of those eggs will fertilize. At this stage, new human life has been created. The embryos that are not transferred into the woman’s uterus will either be frozen or discarded. This results in serious ethical problems.
The primary reason IVF is immoral is that the object of the act is intrinsically disordered. The object is to achieve pregnancy through technological and medical means independent of the conjugal act. In the proper context, sex is a natural good. The natural end or telos of the sexual act is procreation. What is good is anything that helps fulfill this natural end and similarly anything that frustrates this natural end is bad. This puts the object of IVF in the same moral genus as contraception. Whereas contraception separates the procreative end of the conjugal act while keeping the unitive and pleasurable aspect of the conjugal act, IVF replaces the conjugal act entirely. The Magisterium is clear on this matter. Donum Vitae teaches,
if the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by reason of the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two meanings [unitive and procreative] of the conjugal act.
IVF is intrinsically evil because it seperates procreation from the conjugal act. This means that neither good motive nor good consequences can justify IVF. However, the consequences or secondary reasons only further exasperate the sheer evil of IVF.
The secondary reasons are just as morally problematic as the primary reason. IVF has become a multi-billion dollar industry mainstreaming the commidification of parents and the commercialization of children. As of 2022 over 8 million children have been born worldwide via IFV with roughly 2.5 million cycles performed every year, resulting in over 500,000 deliveries per year. The average cost of an IVF cycle in U.S. is $12,000. Patients must also pay $3,000-$4,000 in medications per cycle. In order to receive a successful result multiple cycles are often required resulting in a cost of tens of thousands of dollars.
To commidify means to treat something or someone as a commodity. This is inherently related to replacing the conjugal act with technology. The parents become the providers of the raw material of sperm and egg which are then manipulated in a laboratory to get the sperm to fertilize the egg. Further complicating matters is the use of “donor” eggs or sperm, resulting in the biological mother or father being someone from outside the marriage. Ever child deserves to be raised by his biological parents. It is thus a disorder of the will to intend a situation where a child is raised separated from his biological mother or father. In many situations the assumed entitlement of the parent takes precedence over the inherent dignity of the child.
As I mentioned previously, on average 8-14 eggs are harvested and roughly 80% of those eggs will fertilize. However, many of these embryos are never implanted. The excess embryos are frozen and stored in a laboratory. This creates serious moral issues. If the embryos are never implanted in the mother, they will either be destroyed or donated. The first option is morally equivalent to abortion, so it is quite odd that certain pro-life Republicans continue to support IVF. The option of donation is obviously better than death, and while we can support embryo adoption as a necessary byproduct of IVF, it is morally illicit to support IVF for the secondary purpose of embryo adoption. This is a misapplication of double effect.
There are four general points to the principle of double effect:
The act itself is not intrinsically wrong
The person acting intends only the good effect, and would avoid the bad effect if possible
The good effect cannot be caused because of the bad effect
The good effect must be in proportion to the bad effect
We can see that the application of double effect with regard to IVF never gets off the ground. As was previously mentioned, IVF is intrinsically evil and thus any good resulting effects are irrelevant to the moral nature of the act. Secondly, while adoption is a moral good, it would be extremely disordered to intentionally create a child for the sole purpose of finding adoptive parents. In the case of IVF the good effect of embryo adoption is directly caused by the bad effect of creating “unwanted” embryos.
In vitro fertilization is consistent with the cultures liberalism and concomitant consequentialism. Liberalism has reduced the good to consensual acts of satisfying individual preferences and desires. Science is reduced to the technology capable of satisfying those desires. In the case of IVF, the individual preferences of the parent(s) come before the inherent dignity of the unborn person.
There are married couples who struggle with infertility and we should show compassion, charity, and love to these struggling couples. Many of these couples have not thoroughly thought through this issue. Many of these couples and the politicians who support them have good intentions. Nevertheless, we must be firm that the essential nature of IVF is evil. On the other hand the use of technology as a means to help couples struggling with infertility is not itself intrinsically evil. There are numerous morally acceptable interventions to help struggling couples. Two prominent techniques are Lower Tubal Ovum Transfer and Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer. The later is a bit more controversial, but currently the Magisterium has not ruled against it and thus it remains a permissible option. Infertility is a serious problem and we should offer help in any morally licit way possible.