In my college alumni notes, I was struck by the following brief quote, written by the father of the baby referred to therein:
"Joshua is the product of a lot of love and work, as he was born with the help of a surrogacy agency, a gestational surrogate, an in vitro fertilization clinic, and an anonymous egg donor."
Joshua is being raised by two men, one of whom appears to be his biological father. And who is his mother? Motherhood has been cut in two: one woman provided the genetic material and another one carried him following his extracorporeal conception till his birth.
There is much in this remarkable class note to catch one's breath. Here, I would like to comment briefly on in vitro fertilization.
In the easiest case, the homologous case, in vitro fertilization facilitates conception through the father's sperm and mother's egg and is followed by implantation into the mother's womb. Often, however, as in the case of Joshua, more bodies come into play: a man other than the "father" may provide the sperm; two women, other than the "mother" may provide the egg and the womb. In any event, the petri dish lies in for the fallopian tube.
My opposition to IVF includes all varieties, including the homologous. Not because it is very costly procedure. Not because it is not mandated by health concerns. Not because it entails some risk for the woman in whose womb the fetus (blastocyst?) will be implanted.
IVF is an essential element in the dissolution of the bond between parent and child: Even in the homologous case, it introduces at least one rift between conception and mother. It introduces a rift between conception and parental love. (I will not quote rabbinic teachings about the attitudes of husband and wife during sexual intercourse; suffice it to say that the rabbis considered such attitudes to bear on the future felicity of the child. The essential point here is that conception took place, in the views of the Sages, in the context of a relationship between the parents.) In homologous IVF, conception indeed takes place, but the parental bond with each other, as with the fetus, has been rent. The parents haven't conceived a child; the lab technician has.
Homologous IVF is a kind of pandora's box, in which hope may at first be the only perceived issue. Along with hope, and parental joy, IVF brings out a host of forces detrimental to the parental-child bond.
An inability to conceive in the natural way is, in and of itself, a message that should be taken seriously. If fertility treatments (such as medications for husband or wife) do not facilitate natural conception, then it is no sign of failure, and every sign of love and concern, to consider other ways to care for and show love for children.
The petri dish, with its temptation of IVF, whispers to would-be parents: conception is your right. Yet the capacity to conceive is not a right; it is not an entitlement. It is a gift: a gift that, in G-d's good judgment, is granted to many but not to all.
--H. A. Massig המשיג
