Boston College professor and theologian Tim Muldoon’s column, “Culture at the Crossroads” strikes a daring note this week; in pondering the recent Nobel Prize awarded to Robert Edwards for the development of human in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy, Muldoon wonders about the morality of it:
IVF does not serve the common good — that is, the good of countries and states providing loving homes to all their children. It interrupts the transformative process — the conversion, if you will — experienced by many families who ultimately are led to seriously consider adoption. It feeds the natural desire of parents to be genetically related to their children, but it does not raise the question of whether this desire serves a larger good.
You’ll want to read the whole thing. Once I did, I naturally had to add my own two cents, but as usual, I am a bit more bare-knuckled about it over at On the Square:
God aside, when the standard line among the credentialed gentry is that the world already has too many people on it and “globalists” like Ted Turner are publicly suggesting that one-child policies should be instituted in order to “save the planet” and its “dwindling resources,” can IVF be considered “moral”? And if not, then isn’t there something oddly ironic in the Nobel Committee’s awarding a prize for a procedure that attempts to further populate a world widely asserted to be overpopulated?
You can read the rest here.
It’s sort of a good-cop/bad-cop, thing, right? Join in the conversation and pass the pieces around; what is your opinion?
Brutally Honest: Seems UNICEF is making international adoptions more difficult