Rejection Of Artificial Procreation

Why does the Roman Catholic Church oppose artificial procreation, e.g. in-vitro fertilization and human cloning? Only recently Pope Benedict XVI once again affirmed this position.

Speaking at the end of a three-day Vatican conference on diagnosing and treating infertility, Benedict also reiterated church teaching that marriage is the only permissible place to conceive children. Matrimony “constitutes the only 'place' worthy of the call to existence of a new human being" he said.

The pope pressed the church ban against artificial procreation, saying infertile couples should refrain from any method to try to conceive other than sex between husband and wife.

This is not new teaching among Catholics. In an earlier blog I referred to this. In a document published in 1987 by the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith, "Instruction On Respect For Human Life And Its Origin," we read,

This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act". (25) 

This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.(26)

 Lutherans, on the other hand, do not seem to have the same reservations. In the document "Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions" by Deborah Abbott and Paul Nelson, we read,

Artificial insemination by a husband (AIH) is not problematic among Lutherans; however, artificial insemination by a donor (AID) is cause for moral concern with the ELCA and has been rejected by the LCMS. The ALC stated, "Artificial insemination. . . in which only one of a couple (the woman in present circumstances) provides genetic material and other genetic material comes from an anonymous donor, becomes a consideration for some married couples. There are, however, such moral, emotional and legal ambiguities that must be taken into account as to render the procedure suspect for a Christian" (ALC 1980:6). 

One thing you must say about Roman Catholic teaching: it is consistent and unchangeable. Whereas Lutherans—and many others—argue back and forth among themselves about ambiguities. The question that must be addressed and affirmed by all of us who take a pro-life stance is simple: When does life begin? If "the adventure of human life" indeed begins with the union of sperm and egg . . . and "in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted," what more need we say? Even if you insist that IVF be confined to the ovum and sperm of the married couple, you still end up with leftover zygotes that are either destroyed or frozen. If you search for moral certainty, then you must come down on the Roman Catholic side.

There are options other than IVF. Thousands of children await adoption.







 

Ethical Concerns About In-Vitro Fertilization

I ended yesterday's discussion of bio-ethics with this paragraph:

A complication in all of this is in-vitro fertilization, the development of embryos outside the uterus, in petri dishes. Are these developing embryos also human and worthy of protection even before they are inserted into the woman's uterus? And what about the storing of these embryos for later use? Many ethical and legal questions cluster about this issue.

Over 4 million babies have been born through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). An estimated 8.5% of the 40 million couples of childbearing age in the United States are involuntarily infertile. Many more around the world could be added to this more than 3 million.

The IVF procedure is described in an article by Dr. Amnon Goldworth in Pediatrics in Review: "The Ethics of In Vitro Fertilization." He states his position about ethics in this way:

My conception of ethically permissible behavior is based on the view that any decision is ethically permitted if it is voluntary and does not cause gratuitous harm to others. This is congruent with the early ethical stricture in medicine, Primum non nocere, “First, do no harm.” However, our perception of harm must be qualified. A living being can be harmed without being harmed in a moral sense. I harm a mosquito when I swat it, but I do not harm it in a moral sense unless I assign a moral absolute value to the mosquito’s well-being. To be harmed in a moral sense is to be wronged. Thus, my concern is with behavior that does or does not wrong another.

Several ethical concerns arise.

1. Embryos can be tested for defects and diseases. Defective and diseased embryos may be rejected and destroyed. Is this murder? That leads to the next question. Do parents using IVF with the potential of transmitting a disease (e.g. Huntington chorea) wrong their child?
2. Is the embryo a person with rights? Many insist that the developing "human organism" (sic!) is not a person until born. We who are pro-life advocates generally insist that personhood begins at the moment of conception. How can that be so? 
3. Who are the parents? We now have the ability to combine sperm from one man, egg from one woman and the resulting embryo can  be implanted into a third woman. The child born from that pregnancy can be raised by a separate couple. Potentially five people are involved.
4. IVF embryos not implanted are frozen. What do we do with the estimated 5 million frozen embryos in the U.S. alone? How do we treat them if they are indeed persons with rights? 
5. We have the technology to facilitate high multiple birth pregnancies for a woman who may be unable to support sextuplets or octuplets? Who decides, the woman (and her husband) or the doctors? What about the liberty to have as many children as we want?
6. Further, with multiple pregnancies a woman faces a threat to her physical and mental health. Should access to this technology be limited only to women of a certain age and health? Who should make that decision? 
7. Multiple pregnancies also present a threat to the well-being of the offspring. Consider low birthweight and preterm birth. Children born of IVF have a greater risk of Spina bifida and other serious birth defects. 
8. Fertility treatments and IVF: who pays? Insurance plans, both public and private, or the couple? 

I leave you to ponder these questions. Consider what I have written in earlier postings. Ponder what God's Word says about our responsibilities before Him. Devote yourself to prayer. No simple answer to any of these questions will satisfy. I welcome your input.