The Scripture lays the foundation for most of the discourse on reproductive ethics. In the second chapter of Genesis, it says that “a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife… they [will] become one flesh”. This shows God’s image of marriage between a man and a woman. The first chapter of Genesis retells the story of how God created the Earth. This first chapter of Genesis summarizes and emphasizes that God is Creator and that he urges man and women to “be fruitful and multiply”, to bear children in his image. This understanding is the basis of what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on the morals of medical intervention for child-bearing (Shannon et. al 140-173). The document understands the power that medical technology can give to man, and even though God gave man dominion over all animals and land, medical technology “can enable man to ‘take in hand his own destiny,’ but they also expose him ‘to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature”( Shannon et. al 141). From the anthropological side, Pope John Paul II says that “each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well” (Shannon et. al 144). Therefore, anything that does harm to the body also does harm to the soul. From the support of Genesis, Crossroad argues that “no one can in any circumstance claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being” (Shannon et. al 147). This understanding supports the stance that human life should be respected and cared for since conception (Shannon et. al 148).
That human life also has “the right to be carried in the womb and 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 (Crossroad 158). Furthermore, the parents will also have a sense of fulfillment of “self-giving: the child is the living image of their love, the permanent sign of their conjugal union, the living and indissoluble concrete expression of their paternity and maternity” (Crossroad 158). This document also realizes the negative effects this has on society” “What threatens the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder and injustice in the whole of social life” (Shannon et. al 159). This aligns with Rousseau’s vision and reason for supporting the fact that artificial reproductive technology should only be restricted to a heterosexual couple (Ball 570).
Additionally, there is the question of the married heterosexual couple that are infertile. The Catholic Church states that “marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se order to procreation” (Shannon et. al 168). I find this statement to be highly insightful. There are married couples who I say might feel entitled to have a baby, but I believe that a baby is a miracle. Being gifted with that miracle does not come to everyone. Maybe God has another plan for this couple, as supported by this statement that argues that “physical sterility can be for spouses the occasion for other important services to the life of the human person, for example, adoption, various forms of educational work and assistance to other families and to the poor and handicapped children” (Shannon et. al 169).
– What is your opinion on the Catholic Church’s statement of marriage not equating to having the right to have a child?
In France, laws to (ART) artificial reproductive technology also only allows “sterile, heterosexual couples of procreative age to use artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization procedures” (Ball 547). Despite the Enlightenment and many others who tried to add amends to this restriction, not much change has happened. However, a law in 1978 to “encourage the birth of children [pushed France to provide] complete coverage of ART” (Ball 550). A deputy said that ART was “dehumanizing” because it pushes away from the nature of procreation (Ball 557). The Enlightenment saw the family as defined as heterosexual couple to be indicative of social stability of society (Ball 559). Thus, this image of family was supported and pushed through the restrictive laws of ART. Overall, society has been deeply rooted in the values pushed on by Scripture, and though, like Professor Seeman has said, many may not identify as religious, these values are engrained in their moral decision making.
-Can you envision yourself making an amend to your moral in a tough situation?
-Who do you think ART laws should give access to?
I think this was a very thoughtful blog post. The abundant use of direct quotations helped strengthen the analysis greatly. One area that I am unclear about is in regards to the rights of a married couple.
In the third paragraph, the view of the Catholic Church on ARTs is presented. “”Marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se order to procreation” (Shannon et. al 168).” After reading about the Catholic Church’s opinion towards ARTs, I would argue that science and religion are not inherent opposites. As discussed in the article, religion asserts a set of morals. Science itself is inherently neither moral nor immoral. Do you think there is a way if ARTs become more advanced and waste no reproductive material that they could potentially be approved of by the Catholic Church?
Hi Jonah,
I think that the wastage of reproductive material is only one of the issues that the Church raises in its critique of reproductive technologies. The “rights of the child” argument is not so easily disposed of. You may be right (I personally agree with you) that science is inherently neutral in moral terms, but nevertheless the pressure of temptation to use technologies just because they are available may not be neutral, and that is part of the Church’s argument.
I found your response very insightful and encompassing of many of the topics discussed throughout this week’s assigned readings. Reading the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis laid a foundation to understand the analysis made by Shivanandan and Atkinson. Their breakdown of the key phrases in the first two chapters improved my understanding of the text, as I had no prior experience or knowledge of the Bible.
Your analysis of “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity and Procreation” was the strongest. Using these quotes reminded me of the specific stances Shannon discussed surrounding the use of ARTs. I agree with your position when it comes to the discussion of “the suffering caused by infertility in marriage,” as I do think that some good will come out of these limitations in a marriage, such as adoption. In response to Jonah’s question – I do believe that with the expansion of science, the Church will become more accepting of the use of ARTs in procreation. I think this is already happening currently, since we have seen Pope Francis’s position regarding the use of contraception, such as condoms, to prevent the spreading of diseases, like AIDS and Zika.
I am glad you found the readings helpful! And you have given me some food for thought. Maybe the Church will change more quickly than I imagine. But I think a distinction is still to be drawn between the response to a deadly infectious disease like AIDS or ZIKA and more fundamental changes in the way we think about human reproduction. Of course, ART proponents argue that infertility is just an illness like any other that should be treated with all the technology at our disposal.
One aspect of your post that I found particularly insightful and thought-provoking is your analysis around ARTs and whether or not parents have the “right” to a child. I think that it is become more and more common for couples to use ARTs, and perhaps this increase has led to the mindset that in some sense a child is a right for them to have rather than a gift that they have been bestowed with. I am curious if there are greater ethical implications behind this shift in mindset rather than just the increased use of ARTs.
As for Jonah’s question I think that the Catholic church has been quite mindful and sensitive to the arrival of new reproductive technologies by delineating very carefully what is and is not allowed. However, I do not necessarily think their position will change mainly because their arguments are grounded in several moral values that are unchangeable in their eyes. These concepts include the dignity of human life from the very beginning to the very end and the concept that procreation must follow natural law and must occur solely during a conjugal act.
I tend to agree– I do not think the Church’s teaching is going to change any time soon.
I thought the concept of married couple’s not having the right to have a child was an interesting outlook. Although I’m unsure as to whether I agree with this statement or not, after reading the chapters of Genesis and the Catholic Church’s statements, I understand why many believe in this statement and it helped me further understand a reason as to why some take issue with reproductive technologies.
Personally, I think ART laws should give access to all those that wish to use the technology in hopes of creating a family. While I understand that some view ART as “dehumanizing,” I don’t necessarily agree. I think the point made in the French Bioethics paper that societal “norms” have a lot of say in what people deem as “natural” very interesting. In today’s world, society is continually changing and what wasn’t considered “natural” 20 years ago, can be seen very often in today’s world (i.e. homosexual couple’s having children). Since today’s world is continually changing, I think as a society we need to reevaluate what is seen as normal or natural. That being said, I do understand why it is hard for people to accept a change in their moral views and why this can lead to tough situations in which one must make a choice on what should be considered and abided by all.
Thanks Molly, great questions. So, should I conclude from your comment here that you think bioethical decisions about reproduction should be subject only to the rule of what appears normal to a larger group of people?
I thought it was interesting how you framed the readings. I noticed how Shannon et al warns against the “temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature” (141). But I must ask, since there is this temptation, who gets to decide where are the limits? Is it the church, the state, the scientist? These are shown to be ongoing discussions, as highlighted in Nan Ball’s notes, “The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethic Debates”. While I do agree on your point that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has their ideology based in scripture, I see some holes in their thinking that I must question. You stated how the Congregation’s stance is for human life to be “respected and cared for since conception” but I must point out how the values extend further. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith set arguments against abortion and alternative reproduction on their values of human life and protecting “the innocent human being’s right to life ‘from the moment of conception until death’” (Shannon et al 146). But where is the fight towards protecting and caring for the lives of these innocent if they are to be born, probably form mothers that do not want and/or may not be able to properly take care of the child themselves. Will the Congregation take in all of these abandoned children? Will they be the ones to protect their right to life “until death”?
Excellent questions Paula. I will note that in many places the Catholic Church has been a major institutional supporter of adoption services, but the implications of your question still stand.
I really enjoyed the structure of your post and how seamlessly you integrated your evidence. It clearly linked all of the articles, and I share the same belief that while society may not identify as being as religious today, the values imparted by Scripture still play a huge role in the moral decision making process.
As for who ART laws should give access to, I would say that would largely depend upon the cultural context. The role of the political system is to best represent the interests of society–with that in mind, if the majority of society is not in favor of homosexuals or post-menopausal women having access to ART because it defies the “natural laws,” the vision of marriage between man and woman and usurps God’s power, then it should be regulated. Though I think it is important to consider religion playing a crucial role in society’s moral decision making, and most religious views toward ARTs tend to be more conservative. While I think natural laws are changing, it takes time for the rest of society to catch up.
Hi Kristen,
You raised this in your own blog also, but do natural laws change? I would have have thought that the natural law position excludes that, but it is obviously something we should talk about. Also, be careful not to conflate the view of the Catholic Church with the view of “religion.” We will see that it is more complicated!
Thanks Giang! One factual correction is that Rousseau obviously never weighed in on artificial reproductive technologies. Rather, the article is arguing that a secularized form of the natural law position of the church was adopted in French enlightenment society. It sounds like you are sympathetic to the Church’s argument here. Aside from personal belief (“I believe that a child is a miracle”) can you articulate a reason that might resonate with a non-believer?