orthodox teaching on pro-life issues

[Lotheriel]

Firstly, please forgive me if this is the wrong forum or if my thread offends anyone.

I am studying human rights and abortion law at university and was very curious about the orthodox teaching of issues such as IVF and abortion. I gather that orthodoxy is pro-life but I was wondering to what extent e.g in cases of rape.

I don't want to start a debate, I hold my pro-life views firmly already and I am sure others hold their views, I was just wondering what orthodoxy teaches as we so often have media coverage devoted to the catholic teachings in issues such as IVF and embryology.

Again I am sorry, but if anyone could help me, that would be great.

Blessings to you all,

Lotheriel x

[Knowledge3]

It is not pro-life as a political movement but pro-life as moral conscience in the universal consciousness of the Church.

[gzt]

The only possible cases where abortion can be considered are when the life of the mother is in serious danger. IVF is never allowed.

[ThePilgrim]

We don't see one evil as justifying another. Rape doesn't justify murder of an innocent child.

[Rowan]

My school recently had an abortion debate, and a good point that was brought up was that in most places in America, rapists don't even get the death penalty...so why should the child die?

...if the child was going to die during the delivery, then how the child dies really matters. Abortion can't be justified by saying the results would be the same.

...if the child is determined to have a developmental issue, this still cannot justify abortion.

Orthodoxy teaches that abortion is wrong. Of course embryology supports the Church 100%.

[MamaBug]

You might be interested in The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics by Fr. John Breck

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Gift-Life-Christianity-Bioethics/dp/0881411833/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759059&sr=8-2

[Lotheriel]

You might be interested in The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics by Fr. John Breck

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Gift-Life-Christianity-Bioethics/dp/0881411833/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759059&sr=8-2
Ah, thank you for the recommendation, I have just placed an order for a copy of amazon.

Thank you for your replies,

Blessings x

[MsDahl]

I have never even pondered on the idea of IVF and Orthodoxy. I really don't know enough about fertility treatments either as it has never personally affected my life (infertility).

Is it ok to pose this question in your thread, Lotheriel? My question is what is the Orthodox view on infertility treatments. Is it frowned upon in the Church or specifically stated that if a person is experiencing fertility issues that they should not seek medical help?

[Matrona]

I have never even pondered on the idea of IVF and Orthodoxy. I really don't know enough about fertility treatments either as it has never personally affected my life (infertility).

Is it ok to pose this question in your thread, Lotheriel? My question is what is the Orthodox view on infertility treatments. Is it frowned upon in the Church or specifically stated that if a person is experiencing fertility issues that they should not seek medical help?

IVF is not allowed because they usually create many more babies than the couple actually would be willing or able to bear, and those children end up being killed for experiments (embryonic stem cell research) or just thrown away like trash. Also, if a genetic disease is found in any of your embryos, IVF allows for pre-implantation screening of the embryo so that doctors can cull these children.

Other treatments might be frowned upon by some spiritual fathers, but unNatural Family Planning intended to aid conception, as well as hormone therapy, is usually permissible.

Artificial insemination might be permissible as well, provided that it's only meant to give the hubby's slow swimmers a leg-up, and doesn't use other people's sperm.

Generally speaking, if something just helps the mom and dad's bodies do what they are supposed to, it's almost certainly going to be allowed. If it involves creating children artificially in a lab, however, it probably isn't.

[Lotheriel]

I have never even pondered on the idea of IVF and Orthodoxy. I really don't know enough about fertility treatments either as it has never personally affected my life (infertility).

Is it ok to pose this question in your thread, Lotheriel? My question is what is the Orthodox view on infertility treatments. Is it frowned upon in the Church or specifically stated that if a person is experiencing fertility issues that they should not seek medical help?
Hey thanks for the reply, yeah its ok, I was really curious about IVF in particular, I can gather pretty much about abortion in orthodoxy, just checking.

IVF seems a less controversial issue these days, in my research I find it hard to come across any objectors towards IVF (using donor sperm/eggs or otherwise) even in the scope of religion. It seems to be in the news a considerable amount these days in the UK, especially with the proposed plans of giving each couple 2 free IVF treatments on the NHS. Just curious about the orthodox view on IVF.

[MamaBug]

I have never even pondered on the idea of IVF and Orthodoxy. I really don't know enough about fertility treatments either as it has never personally affected my life (infertility).

Is it ok to pose this question in your thread, Lotheriel? My question is what is the Orthodox view on infertility treatments. Is it frowned upon in the Church or specifically stated that if a person is experiencing fertility issues that they should not seek medical help?
I'm trying to remember the details from when I went through it...

IVF - definitely no as Matrona said. Also any form of surrogacy (donor egg, donor sperm, using another person, etc.). I think the catholic church frowns an artificial insemination but it is okay from the Orthodox standpoint as long as no donor sperm/egg is used. Fertility treatments are okay and, of course, if you want to grow your family through adoption instead or as well then that's good too.

[MsDahl]

Why no donor egg/sperm?

[gzt]

I generally think you would find that the Orthodox are opposed to anything that would separate the sexual act from the procreation of the child.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I have heard of an Orthodox priest who allowed a spiritual daughter to undergo IVF.

Only six embryos were thus created, and then all six were implanted in her womb, one or two at a time. Six was chosen as a large enough number to give the couple a fighting chance of carrying a child to term, but small enough that if God granted that all the children were carried to term, they could still provide for them all.

By God's mercy, three of the embryos were carried to term.

I mention this case as it deals with our objections to IVF, rather than being a knee-jerk reaction to it.

Vasya.

[gzt]

It doesn't really deal with all of the objections to IVF.

[Vasya Davidovich]

It doesn't really deal with all of the objections to IVF.
Which one(s) did I miss?

Thanks,
Vasya.

[gzt]

That it separates the act of the generation of children from the marital act.

[Vasya Davidovich]

That it separates the act of the generation of children from the marital act.
With respect, it seems to me that argument is a weak one.

What about parents who adopt? Their child is not the product of their marital act.

Or are the biological parents the only real and legitimate parents, because they were the child's progenitors?

I see here a couple that are [presumably] engaging in the marital act with one another, so the sanctity and mystery of marriage is preserved ... who have been open to life (children) and sought out children ... who have not separated children from their marriage and marital activities ... who have ensured that no embryos were created and then destroyed (and so are not party to murder).

Vasya.

[Matrona]

With respect, it seems to me that argument is a weak one.

What about parents who adopt? Their child is not the product of their marital act.

Or are the biological parents the only real and legitimate parents, because they were the child's progenitors?

This is not a relevant argument and you cannot read the text in bold into what gzt said. Adoption, whether of born or embryonic children, merely involves existing children; the Orthodox couples who become parents through adoption are not party to the circumstances of those conceptions. This is nothing like deliberately creating your children outside of the marital act.

[Vasya Davidovich]

This is not a relevant argument and you cannot read the text in bold into what gzt said. Adoption, whether of born or embryonic children, merely involves existing children; the Orthodox couples who become parents through adoption are not party to the circumstances of those conceptions. This is nothing like deliberately creating your children outside of the marital act.
Hi, Matrona. Long time, no chat. Feels like old times: you on one side of a debate, and me on the other ... lol Makes me feel at home.

I'm pretty sure I can read the bolded portion into what gzt said - in fact, I think I did. I look forward to his response.

Vasya.

[Matrona]

Hi, Matrona. Long time, no chat. Feels like old times: you on one side of a debate, and me on the other ... lol Makes me feel at home.

I'm pretty sure I can read the bolded portion into what gzt said - in fact, I think I did. I look forward to his response.

Vasya.
How nice. While you're taking that stroll down memory lane, maybe you can come up with a response to what I said. gzt didn't say that being a child's biological parents was what made you "real" parents, he said that IVF separates the conception of children from the marital act. He said nothing about the issue of whether those children would be biologically related to their parents.

[ExOrienteLux]

Under the conditions Vasya told us about, I see no reason to consider IVF a sin. Obviously, that priest didn't either. If a couple is earnestly trying to have children and other options have failed, why would an IVF with a reasonable (ie 4-6) number of embryos be objectionable?

How would it be different from artificial insemination? Doesn't that "[separate] the act of the generation of children from the marital act"?

IC XC NIKA,
Philip.

[Matrona]

How would it be different from artificial insemination? Doesn't that "[separate] the act of the generation of children from the marital act"?


I'm sure it does. That was gzt's argument, not mine. But there is still a difference because IVF actually involves making conceptions happen, while artificial insemination (which I said might be permissible, not that it is permissible) at least still leaves part of the natural process intact. Gametes are just cells, but once you put them together in a petri dish and swish them around, there are human beings there, and ripping that process out of the human body is just wrong.

[rusmeister]

I'm afraid that Matrona's right (and gzt by extension). We do indeed allow wiggle room for economia in the Orthodox Church and this distinguishes us from Catholics, who seem to hold an extremely legalistic view on these things. However, in general, holding to the rule is right. If I may dare use some GKC to back up the case for holding the general rule and limiting the exceptions...


Surely it is plain enough that if you ask for dreadful exceptions, you will get them--too many of them. Let me take once again a rough parable. Suppose I advertised in the papers that I had a place for any one who was too stupid to be a clerk. Probably I should receive no replies; possibly one. Possibly also (nay, probably) it would be from the one man who was not stupid at all. But suppose I had advertised that I had a place for any one who was too clever to be a clerk. My office would be instantly besieged by all the most hopeless fools in the four kingdoms. To advertise for exceptions is simply to advertise for egoists. To advertise for egoists is to advertise for idiots. It is exactly the bore who does think that his case is interesting. It is precisely the really common person who does think that his case is uncommon. It is always the dull man who does think himself rather wild. To ask solely for strange experiences of the soul is simply to let loose all the imbecile asylums about one's ears. Whatever other theory is right, this theory of the exceptions is obviously wrong--or (what matters more to our modern atheists) is obviously unbusinesslike. It is, moreover, to any one with popular political sympathies, a very deep and subtle sort of treason. By thus putting a premium on the exceptional we grossly deceive the unconsciousness of the normal.
Divorce vs Democracy 1916

[MsDahl]

Thank you, Vasya, for your contribution to this thread!

[Matrona]

I'm afraid that Matrona's right

HA! I knew you'd say this one day! ;) :thumbsup:

[Macarius]

I have to agree that, under economia, IVF may be allowable if done in a way that ensures it is non-abortive and respects the life of all the children involved.

In general, it ought to be avoided, but just like intentional childlessness ought to be avoided, there may be extenuating circumstances which allow for it if it is done ethically.

Adoption, to me, does provide a counter example, since internal to the sacrament of marriage of the couple who adopts the child was not produced by 'natural' means. That is to say, the child is not an iconic offspring of life from the eucharistic union (sex) of their marriage. Still - the act of raising and loving a child is of high importance to a marriage, and if a couple cannot bear children naturally, this is a perfectly acceptable means of having them.

We might say that IVF should be avoided if adoption is possible, given the deplorable state of foster care in the USA... but again, that would be economia - not saying IVF is wrong on principle.

My two cents...

Incidently, since we're on the topic of pro-life... we are also against any form of euthanasia, and though I know Holy Tradition doesn't go one way or the other, it seems consistent with Orthodoxy for one to be a pacisfist and anti-death penalty as well (which I am). This is called a "consistent pro-life ethic." Never end life when it can be avoided - always hold out hope for Christ's salvation. Never respond to evil with evil, but always with life-affirming good. Life is good. Death is evil. These are basic tennets of our faith.

In Christ,
Macarius

[Michael the Iconographer]

The only possible cases where abortion can be considered are when the life of the mother is in serious danger. IVF is never allowed.
When the life of the mother is in serious danger, and the doctor attempts to deliver the child either through induced labor or c-section, if the child does not survive the attempt to birth the child it is not an abortion.

[Xpycoctomos]

So there are two big points:
1)a process that holds intended abortions as a probably or even possible outcome is forbidden
2) any process that separates the martial act from procreation (and, so it seems, vice-versa) is forbidden.

I defeintely agree with the first one. Number 2 is at the very least a general rule held to. However, I think there is a very tangeable difference between the two that might make the first issue a bit more concrete than the second. The 1st issue is the guard against the doing away of life (ie the procuring of death). The second issue is about 1) protecting the martial act for it's intended consequences or 2) (and this one having much more to do with the current debate) keeping the procreative act within the marital act. While the two are related, they are different issues. And with that said, while I have heard of talk from many Church Fathers about never impeding conception in the context of the marital act, I haven't yet heard of condemnation of procreation outside of the marital act. Certainly this is unnatural, but surely an unnatural process doesn't always mean bad but rather a reaction to a bad circumstance. We can think of all kinds of unnatural things we do to get around our fallen circumstances (ie imperfections). It would seem to be that IVF (as long as no mebryo is discarded purposely) is at least not in the same boat of contraception as far as moral infractions go. It seems that IF it is an infraction then it is of a different genre and, I might suggest, even of less seriousness.

Now, that last part (being that it perhaps isn't as serious) I do not know if I am right about. I mean, it is about creating life and although what is happening on a very basic level IS fully natural (that is that the DNA of two loving parents is being combined, etc...), the way in which it was administered is not at all natural and... perhaps God doesn't like that and doesn't like those two people creating humans. ???

I don't know... I just think the issue is quite deep. It seems like it is something that we can not find out about by going to the usual anti-contraception documents of the CHurch Fathers we run to becuase I don't (yet) see how they would apply.

Sorry for the "run on thoughts". Interesting off-shoot of the OP. Good OP too.

God bless,

Xpy