One of the recent arguments brought against IVF is that of embryo sacrificing. By this is meant one of two things. The more contended one is the freezing of embryos, which if left in that state, will be an insult to their development.

As explained last week the government can and should act as guarantor for these embryos and make a limit on how long they can be frozen (perhaps not longer than three years) by which time the couple should be counselled to use them or else give them up for adoption. This is by no means a ‘commodity’ solution, but unfortunately, in my opinion, is the only one that guarantees the life of the embryos once they have been frozen.

The second contention is that when one puts embryos into the woman’s womb for implantation, 80% of these are lost – they simply do not implant. This happens in nature as well and 80% of all naturally fertilised eggs in the woman never implant themselves and are shed during menstruation. But once we are doing it consciously, there are those who argue that nature cannot be blamed and that just because it happens in nature, does not mean it should always happen. This is the so-called naturalistic fallacy. Yet in this context the naturalistic fallacy is wrongly used and indeed incorrect. This is not to say that the conscious knowledge that these embryos will be lost may not be morally problematic. It simply means that this philosophical argument – which has been used in the local media by those against IVF – cannot be used. Although venturing in some philosophy, I think that people interested should know what this is about.

The naturalistic fallacy argument simply states that we cannot go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ – just because something is like that in nature, does not mean it always ought to be that way. The classic example is medicine itself. Just because in nature people and animals die of diseases does not mean that we ought to die of diseases and therefore not seek a cure. Conversely just because animals kill each other in nature, does not mean that man, being an animal, should also endorse the act of killing. So the argument being made here is: just because embryos die in nature following fertilisation does not mean that they ought to die when IVF takes place.

The argument becomes false in a round about manner here. It is indeed very true that just because 80% or so of embryos die in nature following natural fertilisation, does not mean they should die following IVF. But the argument that they do die does not mean that we are justifying the death. It simply means we cannot do any better than nature – if we could, perhaps we should morally only use this means now that we know how. This would not make sense. We cannot venture to do any better than nature. It makes sense to justify this way – even if one does not accept this justification. Not accepting it based on the naturalistic fallacy makes a mockery of the fallacy itself. In fact the fallacy can correctly be used to justify IVF – just because fertilisation occurs in vivo in nature does not mean it ought always to occur that way; and thus in vitro may be justified.

The argument is used to justify or denounce acts; but it does not follow that the argument is always right. Just because it fits in does not make it right and this is where the naturalistic argument fails and has indeed been criticised. It cannot possibly be used to justify all acts. For example, just because in nature man lived in caves, does not mean that man always ought to live in caves. Just because in nature pollution does not occur, does not mean that all pollution is wrong (for example the justified use of transport). We cannot use the naturalistic fallacy argument in order not to have skyscrapers. One settles for the lesser evil – in these cases the sacrifice of the ambient for the thing obtained. So does this mean we should satisfy for the death of embryos in order to use IVF? Absolutely not, for we cannot possibly do better than nature in this case. Whilst it can be argued that ideally they ought not to be shed, the fact remains that if we choose IVF they will be shed. The naturalistic fallacy argument may be right in theory, but translating it into practice does not mean that IVF should not be used or that we are totally responsible, for the moral intention is already that they ought not to be shed. We would otherwise not have given them the chance. And if someone has an argument against the moral intention of the agent, then one would also put into jeopardy the ‘principle of double effect’ used by the Belgian Episcopal Conference to justify acts of indirect killing of foetuses to save the mother. The loss of these embryos is indeed foreseen, indirect and unintended, as the principle of double effect will have it.

I stress that I am not saying that this loss of embryos is justified but simply that the naturalistic fallacy argument not only does not help us but, in my opinion, lacks intellectual honesty towards the person not versant in philosophical jargon. Arguments should be used to help us arrive to a conclusion and not simply to twist it in order to justify our preconceived claim. Moreover the naturalistic fallacy has nothing to say about the morality or immorality of any act. It simply says that if something is like that in nature, it does not always mean that we should follow nature. We would still be living in trees or in caves if this were so. Nature only keeps 15-20% of fertilised embryos, irrespective of whether they come from within the mother or from outside. The fact we know cannot make us responsible only for those coming from outside the mother and not those from within – it does not make logical sense, because we have control on both.