What is IVF? Most people create moral disagreements without having the basic knowledge about IVF. Simply stated, IVF involves removing eggs from a woman, fertilizing them in the laboratory and then transferring the fertilized eggs, or zygotes, into the uterus a few days later. Although, this sounds simple, it’s risky and can cause multiple births. Also, recent findings by NewsHour health correspondent Susan Dentzer, who went on to explain, Quote ’the risk of low birth weight is higher for infants born primarily through in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies’
Can this mean that in moral perspective, if a baby is born with low birth weight and grows up to have various disabilities, that it’s the fault caused primarily by IVF? It should be highlighted that in the past genetics was found to be the main cause for disabilities. So, how can the blame be transferred to IVF when we are still experimenting with genetics.
When seen in different light some of those moral issues can be seen as unfair to those who practice it and need it. For example, when a married couple of child baring age, cannot conceive and have tried all possible ways to no avail, they then turn to and place their hopes in, in vitro fertilization.
There is a higher chance of conceiving with IVF in those cases where both persons are healthy but due to various circumstances cannot bring about natural conception. Hence IVF does bring hope to those who have tried and failed at the natural level. Hence to those persons, there would be no moral dilemma or question.
On the pure ethical level, IVF tends to lend itself to the saying “playing GOD”. In the pure theological sense IVF does interfere with the general religious idea that only GOD can/must create children. Hence we must accept that the puritan will find the concept of IVF deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Additionally, procreation poses a large issue to various religious and ethnic groups. The acceptance of IVF would be contradictive to their traditional beliefs. Hence, the acceptance of IVF in the wide spectrum of human race will vary inversely as their religious rigidity.
Another aspect is the lost of unwanted or unused embryos. This aspect will defiantly not have much support. Added to this a lot of independent women, who want to conceive without a male counterpart, has caused a lot of concern in the ethics of life and in the socio-psyche of society. The child will then be brought up by a single parent and without the paternal counterbalance, this child could well turn out with physiological problems in later life.
Also, due to the financial implications, only the “well-to-do” can afford this procedure. Hence, in one more way we make another ethical imbalance of “haves and have-nots.” This does fuels the cause of problems in society and in civics.
In conclusion, one cannot be judgmental in this issue. I would like to remain open minded at this moment; as; In Vitro fertilization does bring hope and life to those families who have run out of the natural conception option. I suppose I would support those women who are unfortunate in their ability to conceive naturally and in their context, I would not render a moral or ethical judgement. However, in the case of single women who wish to be mothers, I would strongly oppose, as my moral and ethical sensibilities would be disturbed at the idea of a ‘fatherless society.’ On the financial aspect I am deeply troubled that although IVF has been around since 1981 (U.S.), yet it has not been made available to the poorer and needy families due to the high cost.
I take a middle path to what I think is moral and ethical about this issue, and believe that it depends on the persons concerned and the exercise of their own personal opinions and personal options available to them.
