In vitro fertilization continues to grow in popularity as more and more women - married and otherwise - discover they are infertile. Whether infertility is due to a physical problem, or even to a previous abortion or the use of a birth control chemical , there is no doubt that IVF is almost always an alternative.
But should it be?
IVF has many complications, including a high failure rate . Even so, some believe that the couple that chooses to freeze children who were not implanted so that they can have children later is making a good decision because "frozen embryos are just as good for IVF as fresh ones." This statement is erroneous, as are so many in the reproductive technology world.
Take, for example, the tragic story of the Ohio couples who recently lost their frozen preborn embryonic children because the freezer malfunctioned. The immense sadness in this latest news story is that 2,000 preborn embryonic children died because a freezer broke down . The anguish and sorrow inflicted on couples desperately hoping to experience pregnancy and birth is immeasurable.
This woeful story exposes the reality of reproductive technology and the false promises it provides.
In a world where technology, rather than God, appears to provide an answer to everything, we confront the tragic deaths of embryonic children on a regular basis. We see their deaths not only in places where freezers have failed, but when clinicians tell an anxious couple that their treatment has failed . And we see it when a doctor recommends the destruction of an embryonic child because a prenatal genetic test has revealed genetic problems . In these scenarios, precious human beings - someone's children - are treated like commodities and tossed into the garbage!
These are the real tragedies of in vitro fertilization.
We understand and have great compassion for couples who learn that they are infertile. This news is a source of great anguish, but responding to such a diagnosis without seeking natural treatments can create even more misery. In all honesty, one must ask a burning question at this point. Why do couples turn to clinical practices that are completely divorced from nature instead of pursuing infertility treatments that respect the laws of nature and the human person?
Natural Procreative Technology, NaProTECHNOLOGY for short, is one such positive response to infertility. Many doctors across America are trained in this practice - a method that unleashes the "power of a woman's cycle" and has been the single source of countless successes. The differences between the clinical and the natural are so extreme that we can say without hesitation that they represent the battle between life and death, good and evil, and right and wrong.
Procreation involves the union of man and woman acting in accord with nature. IVF depersonalizes the act and dehumanizes the child. IVF represents the antithesis of procreation as designed by God.
Even though in vitro fertilization did not exist at the time Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae , he had the insight to proclaim that man
is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred - all men must recognize that fact," our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God."
It is in these few words that we encounter the fundamental problem with artificial reproduction, contraception, abortion, and all manner of disrespect for the human being.
Freezing children and other crimes against humanity are never right. They never will be.