“Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.” –François Rabelais
Advancements in artificial reproduction have called on society not only to devise answers for its purpose, but more importantly to develop a keener awareness of its limitations. The spread of IVF in the Middle East has challenged the assumptions of religious fundamentalism by using technology in cooperation with religion instead of undermining it. In contrast, the “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae, “Gift of Life”), issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith in 1987 from the Roman Catholic Church, seeks to concretely address this issue:
“The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it […] these techniques 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’” (141).
Dating back to the fifteenth century B.C., the Book of Genesis tells the grand narrative of the Old Testament, beginning with the creation of the world—and notably of human beings created in the image of God. Man and woman are creatures made with a unique capacity to mirror and reflect the character of God, and are thus mandated by Him to rule over all other living creatures as benevolent kings. Adam and Eve stood in perfect moral relationship with their Creator and possessed a duty of obedience to Him; however, God voluntarily entered into a covenant with His creatures and added a promise of blessing to His law for perfect and total obedience to His rule. An important part of this covenant is the kinship provided through marriage. In Genesis 2:23, man’s first poem highlights his wife’s companionship with him:
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Marriage is portrayed as the consummation of God’s covenant with humankind, and “one flesh” in verse 24 denotes that it is intended to be monogamous. Furthermore, the “properly” constituted relationship between man and woman results in… “one flesh”” (Shivanandan 135). This sacred bond is the unity in which “the blessing of fecundity… will be realized. It is not merely the manipulation and combining of genetic materials that effects the blessing, but it is the fruit of the one-flesh reality….” (136). This man-and-woman relationship not only unifies two sexes in a heterosexual, monogamous manner that seems to be ordained from the beginning of creation, but its sanctity also allows the humanity and familial unity to be properly passed on to the next generation. There is a strong suggestion that the importance of this kind of relationship, one free from homosexuality or reproductive technologies, goes beyond fulfilling societal expectations—it is the only way to properly have children.
Questions to consider:
- What is the difference between a covenant and a contract? Consequences of ending them?
- How does the significance of “one flesh” portrayed in Genesis play into the issue of fidelity in surrogacy?
- Does this point of view change your understanding of kinship? Does it make McKinnon’s view of kinship as a cultural construct seem more compelling? Why or why not?
The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith states that moral law regarding science and technology must “be 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). The natural moral law, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is not merely a set of norms dictated by biology; rather, it is defined by the Creator’s intended purpose for our bodies (144). For this reason, the Catholic Church opposes anything that has the potential to destroy an innocent human life on the belief that it is not ours to destroy, which therefore precludes abortion.
“’What do to one of the least of my brethren, you do unto me’” (Mt. 25:40, 174).
In order to make a moral judgement on artificial procreation, one must first consider the “life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage” (145). This means the Catholic Church is not only concerned about the way in which the child is conceived, but the environment he or she will be raised in.
As long as therapeutic procedures seek to promote the life of the human embryo, they are considered permissible; however, the live embryo is not to be exploited through experimentation, as such the corpses of human embryos and fetuses must also be treated with respect and remain untouched (153). The argument the Catholic Church formulates against procedures of manipulating embryos for human reproduction and heterologous artificial fertilization stems from “the fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage” and their “reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other” (158). For these reasons, the Church also opposes surrogacy as a substitute for the conjugal act, even though sterility is considered to be a difficult trial but more so an invitation to service through assistance to other families or adoption as an affinal form of kinship.
Questions to consider:
- Do you agree with the Catholic Church’s normative view of family in our society today? Why or why not?
- Under what conditions do you find the use reproductive technologies acceptable? Do you believe children have a fundamental right to know who their parents are?
The passage of three major bioethics laws in France have provided a lens through which the rest of the world can view the evolution of “French ideas concerning the family and nature” stemming from the Enlightenment period in 1789 (“Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen,” 546). In 1994, The French National Assembly restricted access to ART to sterile, heterosexual couples of procreative age who could prove they have been together for at least two years (555). The implications of these laws were intended to “champion the normative model of the family” by disallowing homosexual couples, virgins, and post-menopausal women to have children and thereby promoting the traditional bi-parental, heterosexual family structure and the “normal genealogical development of family” (548, 568). Legislators also imposed these restrictions in part because “they did not want the children to be received into an unstable environment that might be detrimental for their future psychological well-being” (568).
While ART through artificial insemination in France was first seen as “repugnant to natural law” according to the church and government in 1880, by late twentieth century the first government-sponsored sperm banks started appearing (549). Because access to healthcare is a constitutional right in France, an infertility diagnosis and treatment through ART is completely covered (550). Opponents to ART such as Christine Boutin claimed it was “dehumanizing” –the more artificial reproduction becomes, the more we abandon the natural process of procreation (557). However, these ideas remain unpopular because ART accounts for less than 1% of births in France as of 1991. But still, the question posed by French sociologists of whether we are even capable of defining the “contemporary family” impacts how fully accepted the ideas of Rousseau’s fundamental belief of the “interrelationship between the well-being of family and society” (559). If children are to be the beneficiaries of knowledge, then they shouldn’t they take precedence in matters relating to family? However, it should also be noted that Rousseau believed nature was an evolving, “dynamic force” rather than a static force, therefore providing evidence that it should not simply advocate the status quo of restricted ART access (580).
The threat of reproductive anarchy and the ambiguity of nature and predominant social customs poses huge implications for lawmakers in the future, demonstrating the need for a collaboration of perspectives to preserve the conscience behind science today.
Questions to consider:
- Is there a proper way to reconcile what is “natural” and what is best for “the preservation of humanity”? Do you view natural law as more of a dynamic or static force?
- What implications do the bioethics debates in France have on the United States given our current healthcare system?