Why is IVF wrong? (Minor premise and Conclusion)

This post is a defense of the minor premise of a syllogism begun in "Why is IVF wrong? (Question and Minor Premise)." The premise is: All conception must be through sex, and this post takes the syllogism to its conclusion.

I just think blastocysts are lovely.
Img credit: Nina Sesina, Wikimedia Commons

In a way, this is the only premise necessary and the syllogism melts into an enthymeme. The original question was "can we use IVF?" and I reply, "no, sex is the only way we should conceive." The major premise was necessary to establish the fundamental difference between sex and ARTs, but this premise is the key. This is also the trickier premise because it relies on natural law and revelation, two things that our culture (and therefore I) are/am not that great at.

For a foundation, we don't prove that revelation is true, we receive it. We hold it with the same faculty that holds a Euclidean proof, but not because we have a demonstration of it. Rather, we hold revealed truths as gifts because the authority they carry is stronger than demonstration (Summa I.1.8). Our only job when it comes to studying and arguing about revealed truths is to defend parts of revelation based on other parts and show that the conclusions are cohesive and holy (for instance, defeat Arianianism by citing John 1:1,14, 1:30, and 8:58, or to point out that the Incarnation is a suitable medicine for our fallen condition for the reasons Athanasius cites). So I cannot demonstrate that sex is the only way which we can conceive, but I can show it in revelation and show that it is cohesive and holy.

To begin formally: reproduction involves creation and thus is a divine act. New embryos' souls are the only instance we still see of ex nihilo creation of a new substance. Like all creation, it is properly a divine act. It is God's to decide how His act proceeds, and He chooses to share it with us in a certain way. The way he shares it involves sex, so sex is like Him (it's life-giving, exclusive, and faithful as intended) and it's like us (surprisingly animal, but sublime). "Say," you might object, "how do we know that sex is the 'way' He chose? Maybe He just chose sperm egg fusion, in which case IUI and GIFT would be okay. Or maybe He just chose pronuclear fusion, in which case ICSI would be okay. How do you know He didn't choose something less inclusive?"

Img credit: Rugby 471, Wikimedia Commons

Actually, He chose something more inclusive: He chose marriage, including preparatory chastity and intramarital fidelity. We know this from revelation, especially Genesis, the Song of Songs, Mathew, and the letters of St. Paul. The revelation cited above is best expounded in Dignitas Personae, Donum Vitae, section 8 of Persona Humana, and Man and Woman He Created Them (in decreasing order of high- to low-yield as far as time spent reading the entire thing). Persona Humana, Man and Woman He Created Them, and Donum Vitae in particular cite scripture and magisterial authority. So revelation supports the premise.

Moreover, it is also cohesive with the rest of theology. This whole plan is like God: fiercely, uncompromisingly faithful, especially in its faithfulness to children. For this reason, neither marriage nor sex can be intentionally interrupted or replaced by a third party or nonsexual act. Sex looks so ordinary to us but it's on the level of angelic war--it's God's other way of making saints. Cloaked in normalcy, sex is actually a mechanisms of salvation history that is almost beyond our human capacity. This is why the Church seems so preoccupied with sex--it's hard to see what is right and wrong!--and why it seems to say "no" to so much. But this is why divorce, contraception, IVF, and surrogacy are wrong.

The final syllogism is a second-figure Cesare with a slightly complicated predicate in the minor premise.

No ART is a sexual act.

All conception must be through a sexual act.

Therefore, no conception can be through a sexual act.

In addition, remember that there are other big concerns with IVF (embryo construction predisposes to seeing people as products/things rather than persons, embryo destruction, and embryo freezing), but you asked about the act itself, as if it were used in the best possible circumstances: a sacramentally married couple with good intent and who only desire embryos to be made who will be implanted and refuse to destroy embryos (success rates probably less than 40% with those caveats).

Why is IVF wrong? (Major Premise)

Img credit: Mr. J Conaghan, Wikimedia Cmns

Recently a very articulate medical student, with the mind of faith, asked about the Catholic doctrine oHumana Vitae's prohibition of contraceptives. Why can't infertile couples have the procreative aspect of sex using a medical procedure? Isn't this being open to the procreative aspect? The difference in time (if having the procreation through IVF) is not willed by the couple. Isn't this the same or better than leaving one component entirely missing through a failing of nature?
f conception, asking why the Church does not permit artificial reproductive technologies or techniques (ARTs). The student accepted that sex is unitive and procreative and meant for marriage; moreover, the student agreed with

I really love hearing from medical students who are seeking understanding in the mind of faith. As the student pointed out, an infertile or subfertile couple does not disobey God's law by having sex, even though there is a disorder inhibiting the fruits of the procreative aspect. But the reason why the Church teaches that IVF is wrong is that sex is the only act which is legitimately procreative, the only way we are meant to conceive. We can syllogize to this conclusion with two premises. The major premise is that ARTs are not sex.*

Img credit: Cancer Research UK, Wikimedia Commons

Let's establish an analogy between sex and eating. Eating has two aspects, the gustatory (analogous to unitive) and nutritive (analogous to procreative). One is the enjoyment of food that only a rational creature can have, while the other is an important but more biological motivation. Just like infertile or subfertile couples, some people can't taste very well or can't taste at all, but that doesn't make eating wrong for them. I propose an imaginary neck cancer patient who physically has trouble eating and has a tube placed through his skin and into his stomach (a PEG-tube or G-tube). He tastes nothing, but he stops losing weight and he's receiving appropriate nutrition through tube feeds.

I thought it was interesting that the student called ARTs (e.g. IUI or embryo transfer) "procreative acts" in the original question. This is exactly right! These things can lead to babies, so they're procreative acts. But they are not sexual acts: they are professional, medical acts without foreplay, climax, orgasm, etc. Our G-tube patient gets liquids pushed through his tube (a nutritive act), but he's not eating. Medical parlance and common sense reflects this: we won't say "he's eating" until he's using his mouth. G-tube feedings aren't eating; ARTs aren't sex or sexual acts.

Moreover, ARTs cannot be aspects of sexual acts. When our G-tube patient starts a tube feed, he's nourishing himself, but he's not doing "the nutritive aspect of eating." He's not eating at all, and he can't complete aspects of one action while doing a related but separate action. Similarly, if an infertile or subfertile woman has an IUI, she may be procreating, but she's not doing "the procreative aspect of sex." They are separate acts and one's intention to view the acts together do not knit them together. ARTs cannot be viewed as aspects of sexual acts.

The minor premise, "All conceptions must occur through sex," is defended in the next part.

---

*By "sex," I mean heterosexual sex using reproductive organs, not oral or anal intercourse.