In 2005, Lewis Black was headlining the Radio and Television Correspondent’s Association Dinner, when he decided to address the politically-oriented crowd with a bit of sardonic levity. “I’m sitting with distinguished Democrats, distinguished Republicans,” said Black, “a group of people who can’t even agree on what the facts are anymore.” It wasn’t just politicians, Black continued: “It’s difficult to figure out what the facts are now.”
Take the case of Terri Schiavo, proffered Black. The tragic case of a woman living in a persistent vegetative state involved a widely-reported dispute between Terri’s parents and her husband about whether to remove her feeding tube. The case became a political football, with arguments—and evidence—presented from widely different perspectives.
“I have never seen anything quite like [it],” bellowed Black. “One set of doctors that said, ‘Well, she’s brain dead,’ and the other set of doctors said, ‘Well, she could be dancing by Thursday.’”
The dispute was about the most fundamental question in existence. “One said she was dead and the other said she was alive,” concluded Black. “If that’s where modern medicine is at…and if that’s where facts are at, we’re in trouble.”
A recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court concerning the status of IVF-created embryos in a wrongful death suit lit a firestorm of emotionally-charged rhetoric highlighting a real dispute about the most basic elements of the case. IVF is a pro-life venture, said one side of the aisle; IVF inevitably leads to murder, said the other. The positions could not be more stark.
“IVF is a pro-life venture, said one side of the aisle; IVF inevitably leads to murder, said the other.”
It is entirely possible that the truth lies on one side or the other—intellectual humility requires we begin with that possibility, including the option that the truth lies opposite my initial instinct. But as a rule, public disputes by largely uninformed participants discussing complicated questions generated by attention-grabbing headlines are wrought with overstatement, lacking nuance. What is worse, it often feels as if either side barely understands the arguments levied against their case; after all, the generosity required to understand the other position can be a hindrance to rousing prejudicial passion for one’s own side.
But we Christians are, by definition, truth seekers. We want to know what is true because we wish to live, move, and have our being in Him who is true. Truth seeking is an act of worship, a form of loving God with all of our mind. Looking for truth across the aisle is an act of service, a form of loving my neighbor as myself. Defensive postures are unnecessary when we stand with—not against—our fellow man. We pursue truth together, asking questions that will benefit us all, and being open to charitable critique as we check our biases and recognize our limitations.
1. Think better of each other
I propose that we begin by believing the best about each other (or at least not believing the worst). Regardless of your views on reproductive technology, I assume you and I are for trusting in God as the sole provider of children, believe all humans are made in the image of God, and are against the attempted murder of innocent human life. These basic assumptions may be lost in the vociferous rhetoric along the picket lines; but in our heart of hearts we know that our shared humanity is greater than our differences. It is helpful to our sense of belonging to the human family that we acknowledge our shared assumptions.
2. Ascertain the facts
The second move—after assuming the best about one another—is to ascertain the facts.
The IVF procedure begins with extracting eggs. Rather than fertilization occurring in the womb, sperm and egg are introduced “in vitro” (meaning “in glass”) in a petri dish in a lab. Generally, a fertilized egg is allowed to grow up to the blastocyst phase (3-5 days after fertilization) before being placed in the uterus. The embryos are then either implanted or frozen. In America, there are many options involved. For example, you can often choose how many eggs to extract and how many to fertilize. There are several highly sensitive issues involved in making that decision.
For example, as the doctor will tell you, there is no guarantee how many eggs (if any) will become embryos. Then there is a financial consideration. In America (in particular), the egg retrieval portion of IVF can be a very expensive procedure. The high cost of the procedure is often the same total price whether you elect to remove and fertilize one egg or twelve. The emotional quotient combined with the financial quotient can easily lead one straight to good ole pragmatism.
But then there is yet another important factor: all the possible unknowns will lead to questions that must be answered. What will the clinic do with fertilized eggs that fail to make it to the blastocyst phase? For a variety of reasons, it has become common to attempt fertilization of several eggs at one time. Since implanting multiple embryos at one time is often either unadvised or unwanted, many opt to place any embryos not immediately implanted into cryogenically preserved storage, a process sometimes known as “freezing embryos.”
“All the possible unknowns will lead to questions that must be answered.”
Given this information, will you choose to undergo PGT (Preimplantation Genetic Testing) which can alert you to genetic problems with embryos? What are the chances of an implanted embryo splitting into multiples (since the chances increase slightly if one has undergone PGT)? This is especially important if you think you will just implant all the fertilized embryos at one time. What will you do if you have multiple embryos and then, later, learn that you or your spouse has dangerous health risks in pregnancy (often unknown until one is actually pregnant)? If you assume you will just put them up for adoption, are you aware just how many frozen embryos are out there? (Hint: the answer is in the millions.)
You can see how these three issues—unknown effectiveness, financial concern, and all possible outcomes—require significant reflection and research. But then there is a fourth—though by no means least—important element in the fact-finding process: one’s religious outlook or ethical commitments. Public policy must grapple with when to assign personhood, but personhood is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one, and those making such determinations are not value neutral. I imagine there are many Catholics who do not know the official position of the Catholic church is decidedly against any form of IVF. Equally so, many Protestants and non-denominational Christians are unsure of any viewpoint—pro or con—within their religious perspective that might shed light on the parameters of one’s decision-making on this issue besides pragmatism and instinct. I highly recommend talking to your pastor, priest, or church leader. Talk to several of them. Finding out how your faith may relate to your practice is always good, but it is especially important when such significant questions are at stake.
“Personhood is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one.”
3. Consider aspects outside your experience
The third move—after believing the best about each other and ascertaining facts about the procedure—is to consider what aspects of the debate you simply can’t fully appreciate from where you sit.
If you have never had trouble conceiving, you don’t know what it is like to be told you are unable to have children—or what it must feel like to be finally told there is a way to biologically conceive. If you have never been pregnant, you don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant—how your body will react, or how you will think about pregnancy after giving birth. If you have never lost a child in the womb, you don’t know what it is like to experience such an ordeal; this is a reason to not be flippant about assuming you will just implant lots of embryos and “see what sticks.” If you have never had to decide if IVF is right for you, you don’t know what it is like to face the dilemmas (emotional, financial, and religious). If you don’t understand the teaching of your church, you don’t know what it means to see IVF through the lens of your prior (and higher) commitment.
And there are limitations on our hermeneutical and theological reflections. There is no “chapter and verse” on this particular subject, and what we can offer is best described as “fenceposts” or “signposts” for wise decision making. Christians are to be guided by the ethic of love (Matthew 22:37-39), which includes respect for the dignity of all persons, and fellow feeling for those who face difficulties.
“What we can offer is best described as “fenceposts” or “signposts” for wise decision making.”
4. Gather and consider the best arguments
Finally, gather and consider the best arguments you can find for the position you desire and the position you least desire.
Think it strange that anyone could be against IVF? Seek to understand the line of reasoning. Children are gifts to be received not commodities to be created, or, in the words of Oliver O’Donovan, they are begotten, not made. Why give in to a commercial industry with questionable ethics when there are so many children waiting for adoption? In addition, most IVF procedures in America involve multiple embryos, and most of those involve discarding of embryos. If you believe human personhood begins at the moment of fertilization, then you have human persons who are alive but stop growing—either before or at the blastocyst stage. Freezing them in perpetuity, implanting them at sub-optimal times, or choosing to implant a large number of embryos at the same time are all decisions which could be conceived as depriving children of the best chance at life.
“Most IVF procedures in America involve multiple embryos, and most of those involve discarding of embryos.”
Think IVF is atrocious, playing God, and reminiscent of those who use technology to procure abortions? Consider the diametrically opposed motivations of those seeking an abortion from those seeking IVF—one pursuing medical intervention to end life, the other pursuing medical intervention to create life. Wonder why anyone would use technology in assisting pregnancy? Consider the myriad of ways we all use medical technology to assist in health issues—even life-or-death ones—in the modern world. Assume freezing an embryo is comparable (negatively) with treating a grown child in the same fashion? The very ability to freeze an embryo for months or years (when such is not even possible with a grown child) suggests to many that dealing with embryos and dealing with a fetus are not identical conversations. Intuitions are tricky things, and not always reliable indicators of moral foundations.
I believe there are good answers to these difficult questions—blending scientific data and biblical convictions. And I will propose a thoughtful, biblical perspective on IVF in a forthcoming article that is cautiously positive on the procedure, under certain conditions. But for now, let’s agree that we can do better. We can talk to one another with empathy. We can seek to understand the conclusions of our friends and neighbors and the reasons behind their lines of argument. And we can recognize the difficulty of standing in someone else’s shoes. The IVF debate is a burning fire that will rage on; may we make every effort to ensure our conversations generate less heat and more light.
