1 day Ago By Roxane B. Salonen
The conversation that unfolded from my March 2 “Living Faith” column, “IVF discourse opens a Pandora’s box”, provided evidence of the critical need to discuss moral implications of third-party reproduction. In the online comments section, I was challenged for not having elaborated on my claims about the industry having a eugenics component, along with it being “a money-making machine” that allows “the destruction of human lives.” I’m grateful for the chance to circle back and add depth to my stark words.
And while surrogacy is another deeply questionable practice, let’s focus on invitro fertilization (IVF) for now. In the IVF process, eggs are extracted from a woman and fertilized by a man’s sperm in a lab. It’s an expensive procedure, so many eggs are usually extracted in a session.
Of the ones that “take,” not all are considered “keepers.” The “unfit” zygotes are discarded or kept frozen, often indefinitely. This is eugenics.
We are making decisions about which humans are valuable and tossing aside or destroying the rest. In an April 3 rebuttal letter, “Of conception and deception,” local lawyer Michael Gjesdahl tried to discredit me while praising the industry from which he benefits financially. While I make zero money from this industry, Mr.
Gjesdahl credited his office for having practiced assisted reproductive technology (ART) law for over 20 years. Friends on social media quickly called it out. “He’s advertising himself,” wrote one.
“Definitely a conflict of interest” wrote another. The third was even more explicit: “My favorite part is when he suggests that because this has been going on for so long, the moral questions have been resolved, as if the longer an injustice goes on, the more justified it is.” That friend also noted, “And as if the alphabet soup of medical institutions and regulatory agencies can pronounce judgments on fundamental moral questions,” concluding with the unattributed quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
” I don’t know Mr. Gjesdahl. I’m going to assume he believes he is serving his clients well and is being compassionate to those grieved by infertility.
But neither of these negate the reality that these practices are morally questionable from their very beginnings. I have disparaged neither those who struggle with infertility nor their children. One online commenter noted that the tone of my column, rather than being “despicable,” as the letter contended, was “actually quite respectful and compassionate.
She certainly thinks IVF is an immoral practice, but she understands the motivation to seek it and empathizes with the struggles of infertile couples.” I appreciate those willing to approach this emotional topic thoughtfully, holding it up to the light of truth. Without this, we’ll continue to devalue the human lives diminished through these procedures, keeping us all in bondage.
For further illumination, listen to my March 21 podcast interview with Tim Mosser, “Are practices like IVF and surrogacy moral?”, which offers perspective beyond what is possible here..
