Artificial Reproduction An Ethical Evaluation

Clarify terms … Human zygote – the cell produced by the union of the ovum and sperm which initiates a new human being Human embryo – the preborn child during its first 8 weeks of development Human fetus – the preborn child from its 9 th week of development until birth

A little history … Artificial Insemination, one of the earliest reproductive technologies, was developed in the early part of the 19 th Century as a means of improving animal stock. In the second half of the 1800s, Artificial Insemination was initiated as a means of treating infertility in humans.

A little history (continued) … In 1978, the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, was born. In-vitro clinics increased in the U.S. from one in 1986 to more than 300 by Egg-donor use jumped from 2,500 in 1995 to 5,000 in By 1998, 5,000-10,000 donor-egg babies had been born. ( ,000-60,000 a year from sperm donation) 1993 – George Washington University researchers performed twin-splitting on human embryos. February, 1997 – the sheep Dolly was cloned.

A little history (continued) … November, 1998 – a human embryo was cloned using a cell from a man’s leg and a cow’s egg. December, 1998 – the United Kingdom sanctioned cloning for therapeutic purposes. March, 2001 – two scientists announced their intent to clone the first human baby. October, 2001 – first human embryos produced using nuclear transplantation – birth of an infant from cryopreserved embryos 2001 – birth after sperm taken from dead man

A little history (continued) … 2003 – 400,000 human embryos frozen in U.S. clinics – unmarried, unemployed woman gives birth to octuplets 2010 – women freeze eggs for career reasons or to await Mr. Right – 66 year old woman gives birth to triplets

Expense … From start-to-finish, anywhere from $34,000 to $1,250,000. Egg donor fees from $3,500-$10,000. Oct., 1999 – Three models auctioned their eggs “on-line.” Bids started at $15,000.

Various Methods … Artificial Insemination –Heterologous –Homologous In vitro Fertilization –Heterologous –Homologous Surrogacy Cloning

Ethical Evaluation of ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION Uses masturbation to collect semen Can violate the marital bond Replaces “the sexual act”*

Ethical Evaluation of IN VITRO FERTILIZATION Uses masturbation to collect semen Can violate the marital bond “Extra” embryos Cryopreservation “Quality control” for undesirable embryos Used for research Replaces the sexual act* Impersonal environment for a human being

What’s wrong with “replacing the sexual act”? The END – the baby itself – is a great good. The CIRCUMSTANCES may be good; that is, the couple may love the baby produced by artificial means just as much as they would love one begotten in the marital act. The ACT itself is intrinsically evil.

How can an act that has such a good end be intrinsically evil?

Because a good end does not justify an evil means!

Compare the two acts… Act of mutual self-giving Selfless act The fruit of this mutual self-giving is the child. New person is treated as a subject, as a person. Act of getting “something” for oneself Selfish act Exercise dominion over new product New person is treated as an object, as a thing.

Through the marital act … …the child comes into existence not as something his parents have merely “caused” to exist, but rather as the fruit of their mutual gift of themselves to each other. Thus, the child’s very identity lies in his being the living manifestation of his parents’ self-giving. This is the only appropriate way for a human being who is a subject (person) and not a mere object (thing) to come into existence, for he is a being of equal dignity to his parents and thus may not be merely used to meet their “need” of having a child.

Ethical Evaluation of SURROGACY Involves the ethical difficulties of artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. Violates the unity of marriage. Objectively fails to meet the obligations of maternal love and responsible motherhood. Offends the dignity and right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world by his own mother. Can easily exploit poor women.

Ethical Evaluation of CLONING Belongs to the eugenics project. Radically manipulates the relationality and complementarity which is at the origin of human procreation. (asexual / agamic) Perverts the basic relationships of the human person. (filiation, parenthood)

Cloning … Entails severe suffering for the psychic identity of the clone who is a mere “copy” of another. Views the human person as an industrial product rather than as a gift of love.

What about therapeutic cloning? Since cloning is inherently immoral, a good end will not justify it as an evil means. It is also evil because the cloned human being is produced simply to be used.

Artificial Reproduction claims: That new life is not really a gift from God, but is rather something that the parents may manufacture, or have manufactured, for themselves. That new life may be manufactured by a process which is impersonal in the sense that it might just as well be carried out by anyone. That one may so place the new life in the inferior role of the product of a process of domination.

Moral parameters regarding reproductive technology… The dignity of all human life must be respected. The goods of marriage must be safeguarded.

Every human being has the right: To be conceived by two people united in marriage. To be conceived in a loving, sexual act between his parents. To be conceived in the personal environment of his mother’s womb. To be gestated in his mother’s womb. To have the genetic gift of two parents.

Ethical principle regarding reproductive technology… Moral methods assist nature. Immoral methods replace or substitute for the conjugal act.

Possible artificial methods … *Modified Artificial Insemination (AI) *Modified Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) *Modified Gamete Intra-fallopian Transfer (GIFT) *Modified: sexual act occurs

Morally accepted assistance: NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology) – medical and surgical treatments that cooperate completely with the reproductive system. – Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D. – Pope Paul VI Institute, Omaha, NE

Every human being is to be what the Creator designed him to be: a living manifestation of the two-in-one flesh union of his parents.