It is no surprise that different religions would have a say on reproductive technologies. Many religions have principles and values that stem from important scriptures or oral law, and these principles and values are typically used to determine the morality of scientific inventions. The readings for this week focus on what different religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, have to say about reproductive technology such as surrogacy, IVF, gamete donation, and even abortion. The main purpose of the Donum Vitae is to show the Church’s views on various reproductive technologies. In Genesis 1:28, there is the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Humans are given dominion over Earth and according to Christians, this dominion includes science and technology. However, the dominion needs to be according to God’s rules, meaning that human beings have the responsibility to keep science and technology in check. This includes assisted reproductive technology, which the Church views as going beyond the dominion granted to man (Donum Vitae 141). The principle/value Christian law uses as the means of measuring the morality of reproductive technology is whether this technology is “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.” (143) There is an emphasis on whether the technology preserves the integrity of an individual’s identity. To determine whether reproductive technology violates this principle, the Donum Vitae first emphasizes what constitutes a human being that is worthy of these rights: “From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has “wished for himself” and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God.” (147) We see from this one statement that Christian views on reproductive technology largely stem from the idea that human life begins from the moment of conception when the fetus is first a zygote. This places a large barrier on reproductive technology which, in some cases, could lead to the murder of a human being. For example, the main Christian argument against abortion and IVF is the idea that it could cause harm to the embryo. In the case of IVF, spare embryos are often discarded. If they are preserved, the means of preservation are also unethical. The idea that man has the capability of destroying human life with science and technology is an example of how man’s dominion granted by God has gone astray, and how man is attempting to “play” God. Another issue with reproductive technology posed by the Church is the idea that human procreation is really meant to be an act that is between a husband, wife, and God; assisted reproductive technology adds another element to the equation which is inherently “unnatural”.
The Church also emphasizes how assisted reproductive technology violates certain human rights, such as the right of a man and woman who are joined through marriage to become a father and mother only through each other, i.e., through Conjugal relations (158). It also goes against the child’s right to be brought into the world in marriage and from marriage since IVF or gamete donation doesn’t necessarily require a couple to be married. In terms of the Church’s view on surrogacy, it represents a “failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, conjugal fidelity, and of responsible motherhood” (160) and goes against the child’s right to be carried in the womb and be biologically nourished by the woman who is raising him. It also seems that Christian law focuses on a very literal interpretation of Biblical text. For example, God’s commandment to man to cling to his wife and become one flesh in Genesis 2:24 has been interpreted as an emphasis on the importance of a conjugal relationship between husband and wife. When an embryo is brought about by IVF, it is “deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act.” (162) The Church views the consummation of marriage as what gives the man and woman the ability to take on the role of mother and father. At this point in the reading, I was wondering if the use of assisted reproductive technology was morally allowed in any form by the Church if it was done by a married couple and was not a substitute for conjugal relations. My question was quickly answered. Artificial insemination is not prohibited if it isn’t used as a substitute for the conjugal act but as a means to facilitate and to help so the act attains its natural purpose of procreating. (166) It is important to note that the Church does acknowledge the suffering brought about by infertility, but it suggests other means of attaining a child such as adoption which is encouraged, unlike in Muslim communities according to the previous week’s readings. (169) The implications of this are that Christians don’t necessarily place the same importance on kinship as other religions might. The emphasis that limits certain reproductive technologies is on the rights of the child from the moment they are conceived, and not necessarily whether the child would have any biological closeness to the parent.
The reading by Dr. Seeman offers a deeper look into the differences in interpretations of Biblical texts between Jews and Christians. The primary claim of this reading is that these two religions interpret the texts differently when determining the legitimacy of different assisted reproductive technologies. For example, while Christian law typically uses Genesis as a means to show what traditional marriage and procreation should look like, Jewish law focuses on the quote “to be fruitful and multiply” (1:28) as a commandment that needs to be fulfilled through any means, this includes the allowance of certain reproductive technologies. Jewish law also focuses on Leviticus more than Genesis when determining the morality of assisted reproductive technologies. (Seeman 346) In addition, much of Jewish Halacha is derived from examples set by the Jewish forefathers and mothers. For example, Hagar served as a surrogate for Sarah but her son, Ishmael, was raised by Hagar and was viewed as her son. Jewish Halacha states that the birth mother remains the mother no matter who may raise the child. (342) One question this raised for me is how this can be reconciled with the idea that Leah and Rachel, wives of Jacob, had servant surrogates but these surrogates were not considered the actual mothers of the sons they bore. It is also interesting to point out that Protestants use these same examples in the Bible to show how surrogacy can cause strife in the household, and therefore should be banned. (343) All in all, many religious individuals would naturally consult with religious leaders before moving forward with attaining children through assisted reproductive technology. I think this says a lot about the relationship between science, religion, and ethics, and how often they intermingle in our society.
5 comments
Skip to comment form
Shirel,
I really enjoyed reading your insight into this week’s readings. Your summary and analysis of the Donum Vitae and Dr. Seeman’s article on Jewish ethics and new reproductive technologies in Israel is very well done, and I ended up asking myself similar questions during both readings. I grew up going to a Jewish private school and we were required to take a Judaics class and I remember learning about Sarah in the Torah, but never really connected her servant’s raising of her child as an example of surrogacy. I found this discussion to be very interesting, as this biblical passage has been interpreted by Christianity and Judaism to mean very different things. I also have heard the term “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28) in several different contexts, and it’s quite interesting to discuss this in the context of how Judaism views modern reproductive technology. I know both readings also focused on the idea of certain reproductive technologies (like IVF) being deemed “natural” or “unnatural”. I am still a little confused about the usage of these terms, as there seems to be a lack of consensus on what “natural” really means. But anyway, I thought you did a great job pulling together the themes of each reading and placing them in the context of our class topic.
I am still slightly confused on how the Catholic church would perceive assisted reproductive technology for a couple that is not married. Especially today, more and more people are making a conscious choice to not be married. However, the Donum Vitae makes it clear that their presented values are deeply rooted in the importance of “the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage” (Donum Vitae 145). If a Catholic couple seeking to have children through assisted reproductive technologies is not legally married, does this status in a sense make them “exempt” from the views of the Catholic Church? How would the Catholic Church view this child? If however, it is forbidden to have a child outside of marriage, does this mean some tangible punishment occurs? It is also interesting that a large component of the Catholic Church’s foundational views regarding assisted reproductive technology is built on the idea of a healthy family. However, it seems to solely define family as a biological relation instead of considering the other possibilities that may form the definition of a family (and resultantly what we discussed last week – kinship).
I was also wondering which specific verses/passages in Leviticus directly contrast Genesis (besides Lev 18:16) and helped form Jewish perspectives on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies? I think it is extremely interesting that the passages from the same overall religious text can lead to such polar views on the morality of using assisted reproductive technologies between Judaism and Catholicism. Additionally, I wonder how Protestant Christian views would compare to both Judaism and Catholicism. Although Protestants and Catholics are both technically considered Christians, I wonder if Protestant view would be more similar to Jewish law, and if so, where it would diverge from Catholic perspective.
Overall, you did a great job writing this blog! I think you summarized each reading’s main points concisely, accurately, and thoughtfully. You also chose strong evidence/quotations from the readings to support your ideas and you incorporated them very smoothly. One suggestion I have for writing more effectively would be to be more specific when you use antecedents like “this” or “it”. For example, in this sentence “This places a large barrier on reproductive technology which, in some cases, could lead to the murder of a human being.”, I would suggest being more specific what “this” is referring to, otherwise it may be construed as vague or unclear.
Shirel, great job analyzing the readings for this week and concisely communicating your thoughts in your post! One thing I found interesting from the reading was the concept of natural vs unnatural conception. For example, in Dr. Seeman’s article, it reads that the “French policymakers limited the legal practice of IVF to sterile, heterosexual couples of childbearing years- ‘natural’ parents in other words”. I thought it was interesting that the use of artificial reproductive technology among ‘heterosexual couples of childbearing years’ was legally deemed natural while the use of this technology on any other types of couples would be seen as unnatural, although it is the same methodology being utilized to produce a child. This helped me understand the varying social expectations of ART based on religious backgrounds throughout the readings. Furthermore, it led to the understanding that the context of reproductive and bioethical questions “requires a clear recognition that social rather than just biological reproduction is almost always at stake in the way people think about these matters (Seeman, 344)”, given that there are conflicting examples of what should and should not be done when it comes to reproduction based on religion. As you (Shirel) mentioned, the primary claim of Dr. Seeman’s reading was comparing the differences in interpretation of artificial reproduction among Christians vs Jews. Could this then be interpreted as artificial reproduction should be based on personal values given that there is no universal right or wrong to whether IVF, surrogacy, etc is ethically permissible or not? To what extent should religion play a role in an individual’s decision to use artificial reproductive technologies? Overall, I really enjoyed reading your blog post, it was very well thought out and your summaries helped further clarify important concepts from each reading.
Shirel,
Well done on your summary and analysis of the interpretations of the biblical text and the implications for reproductive technology! I really enjoyed how you tackled each reading while simultaneously weaving in together and comparing the readings from one another into a strong and well-supported analysis. I appreciated how you demonstrated your understandings and thought processes of the readings, about how the readings highlight how science, religion, and ethics intertwine in our society, by supporting your post with various quotes as well. For example, you were able to compare what Donum Vitae stresses regarding how ART is considered as a violation of human rights and integrities and how the Church emphasizes how ART violates certain human rights from their very literal interpretations of the narratives in Genesis. Your summary of Dr. Seeman’s “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel” was solid that shared similar insights I gained from the reading as well. Dr. Seeman’s article was a challenging but interesting read for me as I was unfamiliar with the discrepancy between Jews and Christian interpretations of biblical texts and initially believed that both religions had similar, if not the same beliefs from the Bible. It was compelling to read about how, though both religions read the same texts, their stylistic interpretations differ greatly. For instance, Jewish readers focus on the legal portions and ideas of the kinship of the Bible such as “to be fruitful and multiply” while Christians believe the narrative of the Bible, which can explain why Jewish bioethical ART decisions are more versatile and liberal than Christians. During my readings this week, especially in Dr. Seeman’s paper, I was also wondering what “natural” really means. As we have gathered from the difference In interpretations and implications of the biblical text between Jews and Christians, ethics cannot be solely dependent on sociological factors. We cannot underestimate how interpretative strategies shape these ethical and moral decisions. With that understanding, do you think it is safe to say that we also can’t determine what “natural” exactly is because our interpretations are simply so diverse and there is no right or wrong answer to what is ethically acceptable? I would have loved to have read some of your own ideas and interpretations of what natural may mean to you! Overall, great job on your blog post! I felt that a lot of my questions and confusion from the readings were clarified by your strong summary!
Hi Shirel! I think you did a great job summarizing the articles we read this week. It was a lot of content and you explained the main points of each article with relevant citations.
This week’s readings had me thinking about the decline in faith of more conservative views in newer generations. When people are dedicated to one another and want to create a dynamic of kinship in creating a family it is a great tragedy for those individuals to not be able to accomplish this goal. Since spirituality often stems from moments of intense suffering or drastic change could the development of fertility technology be one of the paths for the decline of more conservative or orthodox views. Could the tragedy one feels in the inability to reproduce be cause enough to lose faith? When conception was something only god could create, before scientific reproductive technology, was it possibly easier to have faith? As Dr. Seeman discusses “every one of the matriarchs in Genesis struggles with barrenness, which comes to define the very architecture of biblical narrative.” Not being able to reproduce when one desires is debatably one of the greatest heartbreaks an individual could encounter.
I would also like to bring up another point that I have been thinking about. In the face of birth, religion seems to have extremely rigid regulations on how to conceive a child. However, in the face of death, let’s say cancer or heart surgery, the church is silent. Why is chemotherapy the will of god but in-vitro technology so threatening? Are cancerous cells not also the will of god?