Part II: The Ethics of the Early Life Issues

5. The Case for a Pro-Life View of New Reproductive Technologies[1]

A basic anthropological divergence

The philosophical essence of the traditional[2] view on new reproductive technologies is that the human body and the human person are not separate. That the body is not merely a “suitcase” for a soul or a mind or “personhood”. To the contrary, the body and the mind and the soul constitute a totality, an absolutely unique and sovereign singularity – a person. “Corpore et anima unus[3]”. An intervention on the human body, therefore, affects not only the tissues, the organs and their functions but also involves the person himself.

In the new philosophical view that supports both abortion and the new reproductive technologies, the body and the mind or soul are essentially separate[4], the body, the physical realities, are disparaged as being of secondary importance and the existence of a set and universal human nature denied. Man has no destiny other than what he creates for himself, and his nature is malleable according to private preference. Marriage, therefore, also has no transcendental nature but exists for whatever purpose decided upon by the individuals involved.

The difference between the pro-life perspective and the prevailing view of the world of medicine and law on new reproductive technologies is not only dependent upon the problem that artificial interventions in procreation invariably result in the death of persons at the embryonic, and therefore most vulnerable, stage. It is in fact a fundamental difference in anthropology, in understanding of the nature of man.

The chasm that exists between the pro-life and the prevailing philosophies regarding assisted reproduction, is created by the loss of the meaning of marriage and its relationship with the totality of the human person. In the new philosophies, marriage is merely a social contract created by the barest physiological and economic necessities and the held-over customs of past human societies. In this view, one held by almost the entirety of the contemporary medical, legal and scientific community, marriage has no transcendental[5] reality whatever and no intrinsic connection to the nature of persons. It can be entered into and left in the same way as a business contract. As we have seen with the advent of so-called “homosexual marriage” it has no bearing on the physical realities of human biology or procreation, which are considered to be “merely” physical functions distinct from the marriage “contract.”

The pro-life view is that marriage and procreation are inextricably linked and intrinsically connected to the physical and spiritual totality of the person. It holds that only in the context of this complete and transcendent union can a child have the opportunity for its fullest physical, social, psychological and spiritual development.

Why a Catholic document?

This traditional or pro-life view has been fully developed in the work of the Catholic Church’s teaching authority in the years since the advent of new reproductive technologies and has perhaps its most comprehensive expression in the document from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Donum Vitae” (1987), from which this section has been developed.

The guiding principle, the axiom, that sums up the pro-life position is expressed in this document:

“The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage: it is through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development.”

Flowing from this axiom, together with the basic pro-life principle of the right of every human being to life from the first moment of conception, is the entirety of the pro-life response to the various techniques and methods employed by the fertility industry.

A person making the case for a pro-life argument or perspective on the new reproductive technologies does not have to be Catholic to find in Donum Vitae an invaluable source of guidance. Any moral person, even an atheist, who holds the traditional Natural Law-based philosophical assumptions can find in this document a comprehensive examination of and answer to the ethical problems of new reproductive technologies, from their roots in philosophy, to their extension in the ethics of given clinical practices.

Basic criteria of ethical judgment

The pro-life position on the new reproductive technologies, particularly those which are not strictly therapeutic, is based on particular moral and ethical principles, which are themselves based on the transcendent and unitary anthropology described above. New reproductive technologies cannot be outright rejected on the grounds that they are artificial, but they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person,

Criteria for ethical judgement on particular applications of scientific research and technology must first include:

· primary and fundamental right to life

· the dignity of the person who is endowed with a spiritual soul and with moral responsibility

· an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law.

The first criterion must be that the physical life of the person, the embryo, is preserved. Any intervention that ends the life of an innocent human being is contrary to the natural moral law. It is only in the context of physical life that all the other values of the person can be fulfilled and developed. From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way.

Given the transcendent nature of the person, and marriage, that naturally pertains to it, the transmission of human life has a special character of its own and is a fundamental part of man’s natural dignity. If marriage is merely a contractual agreement between distinct individuals, a business arrangement, then it stands to reason that there is no special relation between it and natural procreation. But the pro-life position derives from the understanding that man is more than his body and that marriage is more than a mutually agreed-upon legal contract. It is only in keeping with his true nature that the human person can achieve self-realization as a "unified totality."

Can one speak of a right to direct experimentation upon human embryos for the purpose of scientific research?

The fact that national legislatures have gone forward with legalising such experimentation indicates that they have come to a definite conclusion regarding their status, despite the usual protestations of “respect” and “balance” in the treatment of embryos. The conviction that the embryo is a thing, not a person, and therefore has no inherent rights of its own, grants that there is a right to experiment on them, as with any other chattel possession. But in ethics, it is incumbent upon the person proposing to act to demonstrate that his proposed act is morally licit. The mere presumption that an embryo is not a person is not proof and if it cannot be proved that an embryo is not a person, if there is, in other words, the slightest chance that a human person is present, any act that may harm that person must be avoided.

Under the above criteria, can other forms of experimentation, including cloning, be morally licit?

In vitro fertilisation has led the way to other forms of biological and genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as attempts to create human/animal hybrids or the gestation of human embryos in the uterus of animals, or the attempt to create artificial wombs for the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage.

Also, attempts to create a human being asexually through "twinning", SCNT or any other cloning method, are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the right of a child to be naturally conceived within marriage.

The same principle applies to the freezing of embryos. Cryopreservation constitutes an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible.

The “right to a child”/ “right to parenthood” vs. life as a gift

The concept that there is such as a thing as a “right” to parenthood makes the assumption that the child is a chattel possession since to be a parent it is necessary to have a child. If there is a right to parenthood, there is a right to “own” or obtain a child. This assumption ignores the nature of the child as a sovereign person. There may be a legitimate desire to be a parent but no matter how strong and how natural, that desire does not constitute a right. Under the traditional view, a child is considered a gift from God and understood as such to be a created being, a person, with all the rights of personhood. Infertility, under this understanding, may be a serious misfortune, but it is not a violation of any “right” to which sufferers may have right of recourse.

Can the manipulation of the genetic inheritance be morally licit?

Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings according to certain desired traits. These manipulations start by presuming that those doing the experiments know what traits would “improve” the race. But they are contrary to the personal dignity of the embryonic person, to his integrity and identity. Therefore in no way can they be justified on the grounds of possible beneficial consequences for future humanity, an outcome that is only presumed, and not based on any evidence. Every person must be respected for himself: in this consists the dignity and right of every human being from his or her beginning.

Are IVF or other interventions in human procreation morally licit?

The development of the practice of in vitro fertilization has required innumerable fertilizations and destructions of human embryos. The usual practice presupposes a hyperovulation on the part of the woman[6]: a number of ova are withdrawn, fertilized and then cultivated in vitro for some days. Usually not all are transferred into the genital tracts of the woman; some embryos, generally called "spare ", are destroyed or frozen. On occasion, some of the implanted embryos are sacrificed for various eugenic, economic or psychological reasons. Such deliberate destruction of human beings or their utilization for different purposes to the detriment of their integrity and life is contrary to human person’s right to life.

Through these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree. This dynamic of violence and domination may remain unnoticed by those very individuals who, in wishing to utilize this procedure, become subject to it themselves.

Why must human procreation take place in marriage?

Given that a child is a free and sovereign person and must always be seen as a gift and not a possession, a truly responsible procreation must be the fruit of marriage. Human procreation has specific characteristics by virtue of the personal dignity of the parents and of the children. It must be the fruit and the sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and of their fidelity.

The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other. The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage: it is through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development.

This security of the child within a faithful marriage contributes to the good of civil society; the vitality and stability of society require that children come into the world within a family and that the family be firmly based on marriage.

Heterologous artificial fertilization[7] and "surrogate" motherhood

Heterologous artificial fertilization is contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of the spouses, to the vocation proper to parents, and to the child's right to be conceived and brought into the world in marriage and from marriage. Respect for the unity of marriage and for conjugal fidelity demands that the child be conceived in marriage; the bond existing between husband and wife accords the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive right to become father and mother solely through each other. Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity.

A child so conceived would have, potentially, as many as four “parents” only two of whom would be biological. With the addition of “surrogacy” another “mother” is added.

For the same reasons which lead to the rejection of heterologous artificial fertilization, surrogacy also cannot be licit. It is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person. Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents.

Why is homologous IVF^[8] not licit?

There is a natural, inseparable connection between the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning of the conjugal act. By its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very nature of man and of woman.

It is never licit to separate the two aspects to exclude either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation. The same principle prohibits the use of artificial contraception in marriage. Just as contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation so does homologous artificial fertilization, in seeking a procreation which is not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal union objectively effects an analogous separation between the goods and the meanings of marriage.

In the former case, contraception attempts union while deliberately excluding its natural end of fruitfulness; in the latter, artificial procreation attempts to bring a child into being by commanding the natural process and excluding the unitive aspect of sex.

The moral value of the intimate link between the goods of marriage and between the meanings of the conjugal act is based upon the unity of the human being, a unity involving body and spiritual soul. The conjugal act, as is the person, is inseparably both corporal and spiritual.

Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons.

The origin of a human person is the result of an act of giving. The one conceived must be the fruit of his parents' love. He cannot be desired or conceived as the product of an intervention of medical or biological techniques; that would be equivalent to reducing him to an object of scientific technology. No one may subject the coming of a child into the world to conditions of technical efficiency which are to be evaluated according to standards of control and dominion.

---

[1] The information in this section has been adapted from the Vatican document “Donum Vitae”. See Part V: Resources 1. Source documents

^[2] What is now regarded as the “pro-life” view, was, until the 1950’s, held almost universally by all but a few people. The massive societal shift in philosophical perspective discussed in the previous sections has reduced the traditional Judeo-Christian or Western view of human nature to being the peculiar minority opinion of a few pro-life persons and a small minority of Catholics (including the Church’s magisterial authority). In this document, the terms “pro-life view” and “traditional view” are more or less interchangeable.

[3] “The body and the spirit are one” Gaudium et Spes, 14, par.1

[4] Mind/body problem: cf; “Cartesian dualism” in the Glossary of Philosophical Terms in Appendix 1. It holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in which it exists today. The mind/body problem, or “dichotomy”, is the view that "mental" phenomena are, "non-physical" (distinct from the body). This view of reality leads to consider the corporeal as little valued and trivial.

^[5] Transcendent: beyond, or distinct from, the time/space world.

[6] Hyperovulation is achieved by the use of drugs that have been shown to be dangerous to the woman’s health.

[7] Heterologous IVF: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro of gametes taken from at least one donor other than the two spouses.

[8] Homologous IVF: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the meeting of gametes of both the spouses.