The Dignity Of The Human Person Is Violated By Some Reproductive Technologies by Gary L. Morella
In a lecture published in Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine 1997, Dr. Janet Smith of the University of Dallas addressed the issue of the morality of reproductive technologies by making the following observations.
God loves each and every human life no matter the method of a baby's conception. That is, He loves those conceived through the loving embrace of husband and wife, those conceived out of wedlock, those conceived through an act of rape, and those conceived in a petri dish. Nonetheless, obviously, not all acts that lead to the conception of new life are equally moral; not all are in accord with human dignity. Many of the new reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and cloning involve procedures that violate human goods.
Many argue that the Church should not oppose any method that helps married couples fulfill one of the deepest desires of their hearts and one of the defining elements of marriage: that is, having babies. While the Church has approved many modern medical techniques that assist couples in overcoming infertility and hopes that modern medical science will find additional moral means as well, it nonetheless judges that some methods are simply incompatible with the moral parameters surrounding child-bearing. Those moral parameters are that the human dignity of all life must be respected and that the goods of marriage must be respected.
An important point that Dr. Smith makes is that it must be noted that however natural and good it is that spouses desire children, it cannot be said that they have a "right" to children. Therein lies the problem with the new reproductive technologies. This "skewed right to have children" is a derivative of "freedom confused with license". Authentic freedom is doing what you ought as opposed to license which is doing what you want. If moral precepts were a function of doing what you want in a Kantian sense, then on the horizon awaits an iceberg of autonomous universal precepts created by another individual as a function of his unique rights standing directly in the way of the Titanic of your unique rights. The truth of the matter is that the orchestra on your "ship of rights" is not playing "Nearer my God to Thee", but "Further away my God from Thee" with your selfish approval.
We must recognize that children are a gift from God Who chose to have new life brought forth through the loving embrace of spouses. He wanted life to be the result of an act of love by those committed to loving each other and the life that may be conceived as the result of their loving acts. God's design is to have children lovingly conceived and cared for by loving parents. Many children are denied much that would enhance their upbringing, but we ought to strive to make certain that our actions do not lead to difficulties for the children we bring into this world.
While it is hopefully the case that couples seeking to have children by means of modern medical technology are acting out of love for the children they hope to have, not all methods are equally compatible with the love that they feel. The Church has compassion and understanding for the struggles and sorrows of those afflicted by infertility and urges modern sciences to discover and perfect methods that will assist the infertile in a moral fashion.
Dr. Smith tells us that the Church distinguishes moral from immoral methods using the following principle.
Moral methods assist nature, whereas immoral methods replace or substitute for the conjugal act that should be the source of new life. The justification for this principle is found in the Church's natural law theory of morality which sees God as the author of nature and the human person as a creature who is given the ability to live freely in accord with nature or as one who can violate nature. "Nature," here, does not refer simply to the biological laws of nature; rather it refers to the whole nature of the human person. The institution of marriage is a natural institution in that it meets natural needs of the human person both on the physical and spiritual level. The conjugal act represents the total self-giving of spouses, and since children are the result of and the most incarnational representation of that total self-giving, it is appropriate that children come to be only through an act of conjugal sexual intercourse.
In this statement Dr. Smith is alluding to a fact of the Natural Law that many forget. The Natural Law is not just biological; it is spiritual or metaphysical. We are not reproducing to save the species; we are procreating to populate Heaven. Animals do the former; human beings created in the image and likeness of God do the latter. There is an inherent dignity when speaking of human reproduction that realizes the intrinsic dignity of a human being, in particular, the actions of a human being toward another human being within the holy sacrament of Marriage. These actions in and of themselves must, of necessity, be self-giving not selfish toward the spouse, and similarly toward the children – born or potential. Because of this dignity spouses and children are not instruments to be manipulated; they are creatures of God to be loved in the most caring fashion possible, as God loved us.
As The Instruction On Respect For Human Life (Donum Vitae) asserts:
Marriage possesses specific goods and values in its union and in procreation which cannot be likened to those existing in lower forms of life. Such values and meanings are of the personal order and determine from the moral point of view the meaning and limits of artificial interventions on procreation and on the origin of human life. (Intro.3)
What needs to be kept in mind is that procedures that are acceptable for the treatment of other animals are not acceptable for human beings; we may sterilize animals, cross-breed them, and create new life in test tubes, but we may not do these things to human life. This principle shows the falsity of the claim that the Church has a "physicalistic" or "biologistic" view of sex. What the Church does have is a personalist view of sex, or it would allow all of these procedures for human beings.
The reason why we may not do these things to human beings is that each and every human life is the result of a special act of creation by God. This is necessary because human life is immortal; it is ensouled by God at creation with the immortal soul being the form of the body. Only God can bring immortal life into existence. Although God is the true creator of human life, the role of the spouses in cooperating with God in His creation is not to be minimized; it is neither unimportant nor simply mechanical. As The Instruction On Respect For Human Life teaches, the creation of human life should be the result of a deliberate and willing act of sexual intercourse between two spouses.
By comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the universe, the transmission of human life has a special character of its own, which derives from the special nature of the human person. "The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act and as such is subject to the all-holy laws of God: immutable and inviolable laws which must be recognized and observed. For this reason one cannot use means and follow methods which could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals." (Intro. 4; the internal quotation is from John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), III.)
The key thing that must be remembered is that since the creation of life on the part of God is a loving and free act, the creation of life on the part of the spouses in cooperating with God should also be the result of a loving and free act. Human life is not created by chance, it is not the result of the simple physical uniting of male and female; it involves a special act of creation by God. This crucial claim is at the center of the teaching of Church documents on human sexuality and reproduction, in particular, Humanae Vitae, which states at the outset that spouses collaborate with God in the transmission of life.
In "The Vocation Of Marriage", Creative Love, The Ethics Of Human Reproduction, edited by John Boyle, Dr. Smith asks, "If it is the munus (solemn assignment) of spouses to have children, why could they not use the assistance of technology to help them have a child?" She answers this question by observing as the The Instruction On Respect For Human Life makes clear, some kinds of assistance are moral and some kinds are not. Those which serve to make the child the direct product of someone else’s act, of the doctor’s or the technician’s act, are immoral. It states:
In reality, 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. (II.B.4.c)
Homologous In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Embryo Transfer (ET) are brought about outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose competence and technical activity determine the success of the procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. (II.B.5)
Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of ‘de facto’ existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person. (II.B.5)
Let us consider the question of "Why is artificial reproduction sinful?"
It is basically sinful because it separates procreation from the fully human context the conjugal act. Moreover, the techniques of artificial reproduction have a high rate of failure. It is not only a failure in relation to fertilization. It is a failure in regard to the consequent development of what people call the "embryo." This unborn child is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. [See Catechism On The Gospel Of Life, Father John A. Hardon, S.J.]
What about principles of morality, i.e., "Do they apply to intervention on human embryos?"
Yes they do. No doubt there are people who experiment or do research, or promote in vitro fertilization with human embryos. No matter what the intentions behind this embryology may be, it is absolutely prohibited by the Divine Law. Even when medical or surgical means are used to assist the health of the child in the womb, this intervention may not involve disproportionate risks for the life of the unborn. [See Ibid.]
Father Hardon asks, "What are some moralists saying about the Church’s teaching on sexual and conjugal ethics?"
They are claiming that each person is to decide for himself what is right or wrong regarding:
One result of this moral iconoclasm is to reject even the constant moral teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. (Veritatis Splendor 47) [See Catechism On The Splendor Of Truth, Father John A. Hardon, S.J.]
Father Hardon’s reply to this erroneous teaching by the "new moralists" follows:
It must be condemned as contrary to the truth about man and his freedom. It contradicts the Church’s teaching on the unity of the human person, whose rational soul is essentially the form of the human body. We are destined for a heavenly eternity in body and soul. (Veritatis Splendor 48) [See ibid.]
Dietrich von Hildebrand in Marriage: The Mystery Of Faithful Love had this to say about procreation within the holy sacrament of Marriage.
That a new human being should issue from it is certainly part of the solemn grandeur of this supremely intimate union. The wonderful, divinely-appointed relationship between the mysterious procreation of a new human being and this most intimate communion of love (which by itself alone already has its full importance), illuminates the grandeur and solemnity of this union.
Thus it is that in order to preserve the reverent attitude of the spouses toward the mystery in this union, this general connection between procreation and the communion of love must always be maintained even subjectively, at least as a general possibility of this act.
It is difficult to imagine a greater lack of reverence toward God than interfering with this mystery with desecrating hands in order to frustrate this mystery. How terrible to think of man wanting to destroy this unity which God has established so mysteriously, deeming those united in the highest earthly union of love worthy to take part in His creative power. To go against God’s purposes through a desecrating interference, perhaps even thus to throw back into the void a being that God had intended to exist – what sacrilegious presumption!
In order to get an appreciation for the truth of the Church’s teaching in Donum Vitae we must understand that the spiritualization of parenthood and the unconditional love of parents for their children are the two factors that are greatly undermined by technical approaches to parenthood. These factors are essential for the proper functioning of parenting and child-raising. Without them, as pointed out by Donald DeMarco in Biotechnology And The Assault On Parenthood, the "family would be reduced to a travesty unworthy of human beings." What DeMarco refers to as "technologized parenthood" is based on too materialistic a conception of both parenthood and offspring, as well as the mode of human generation itself. One has to look no farther than modern workplaces to see working couples having children because "it is the in-thing to do." Of course, only one child is required for these "chic" couples who will not risk losing their material possessions or sacrificing their accustomed lifestyle for so specious a reason as cooperating with God Almighty. This attitude rests on an inadequate anthropological view of the human being and fails to acknowledge that the spiritual and the bodily are both constitutive parts of the human person. As a result, it does not see the need to affirm a spiritualized, personal love between the spouses, or to encourage a disposition toward new life that welcomes it as a gift from God. In his remarks to the press, when the Vatican Instruction Donum Vitae was being released, Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized the significance of this point when he stated:
Every person deserves unconditional respect and can never be reduced to an object to be used; this is valid from conception until death. Therefore the conjugal act by which the spouses specifically express their communion of interpersonal love is the only "cradle" worthy of the new human being.
In the text of Donum Vitae we read:
The origin of the human being thus follows from a procreation that is "linked to the union, not only biological but also spiritual, of the parents, made one by the bond of marriage."
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.
At this point a summary of the lines of reasoning of Donum Vitae will be given as presented in Catholic Sexual Ethics, Lawler, Boyle and May.
The first line of reasoning is based on the inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act. According to this line of thinking fertilization, is sought rightly only when it is the result of a "conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which spouses become one flesh." From the moral point of view, procreation is deprived of its true meaning when it is sought, not as the fruit of the conjugal act, the one-flesh unity of the spouses, but as a result of technological procedures.
The second line of reasoning is based on the "language of the body." The spouses’ one-flesh unity in the conjugal act speaks eloquently of the love-giving, life-giving nature of their marital union. The child is, as it were, the "word" they conceive in giving themselves to each other. This rich meaning is entirely lacking when the origin of new life is no longer linked to the bodily/spiritual union of husband and wife.
The third line of reasoning is rooted in the nature of these technologies of reproduction as forms of "making," of "producing." When a child is "begotten" in the marital act, it comes into being as a gift crowning the gift of husband and wife to one another. It is "begotten", not made. But when a child comes to be by recourse to the new technologies of reproduction, it comes into being as "product" of human artifice. But to treat a human child as a product is to violate its dignity as a person.
Examples of methods that violate the unitive meaning of the sexual act are artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy, all of which require the collection of sperm. Generally semen is collected through an act of masturbation, an act that is considered intrinsically immoral. Yet, even were the semen to be able to be collected by a morally permissible means, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy nonetheless require that a technician's skill be substituted for the act of sexual intercourse as the direct cause of the conception of the child. In these methods the child is not a result of the loving union of the spouses but of a technician's skillful manipulation of "reproductive material." For this reason, these methods are considered to be immoral.
One court case demonstrates the confusion of parenthood that comes with some reproductive technologies. This case involved a woman who had had some of her husband's semen frozen. After they divorced, she decided to use some of the semen to have herself impregnated through artificial insemination. After the baby was born, she sued her former husband, the biological father, for child support. He contested claiming that he was not the legal father of the child. The court decided that the lab technician was the legal father since the lab technician was most directly responsible for the impregnation of the woman. One might ask, "Well, just what would you expect from such an abandonment of the law of God, given to us for our own well-being?" You reap what you sow. The resulting confusion should not be unexpected.
In addition to requiring the immoral act of masturbation and of replacing a technician's skill for the act of sexual intercourse, the above mentioned methods are immoral in other ways. Often the reproductive "material" used in these procedures does not belong to the parents of the child being conceived. That is, sperm from a man other than a woman's husband may be used; ova from a woman other than the woman herself may be used. Such use of "alien" reproductive material violates the sanctity of marriage and of child-bearing, for the child is no longer the result of a loving act of the spouses but is the result of an exchange of genetic material of those who have made no loving commitment to one another. What we are witnessing here is the height of selfishness as opposed to self-giving, a complete distortion of what marriage is as a holy sacrament with children as things to be made rather than creations of God.
It is now possible now for women, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual, to purchase sperm from sperm banks and to select with some specificity what sort of genes they would like their baby to have. There is virtually no oversight of the distribution of the semen. One individual man could be anonymously fathering dozens or hundreds of children through semen donations; such children may be in some danger of marrying a half-brother or sister some day. In a famous legal case, a doctor who worked at an infertility clinic used his own semen and fathered many children with his patients. Women long past natural child-bearing age have had babies through these reproductive technologies. They purchase ova from a female donor and are impregnated through in vitro fertilization.
Cloning is another procedure that creates a new human life outside of the act of conjugal sexual intercourse. The nucleus of a mature but unfertilized egg is removed from the woman and replaced with a nucleus obtained from a specialized somatic cell of an adult organism. An unlimited number of genetically identical individuals could be produced through this process. It is not yet perfected for human beings but seems within the realm of possibility. In addition to many of the disvalues mentioned above, cloning would open up another Pandora's box of possibilities that will be difficult if not impossible to control. It will be possible to create clones of individuals who will then have a ready supply of "spare parts." It will be possible to clone those we think have special talents or beauty and create for us a kind of a perfect society.
These reproductive technologies along with abortion have served to diminish the value of human life greatly. At one time the medical profession expressed great horror at the Nazi regime for experimentation done on human beings, particularly on embryos. Government funding is now provided for experimentation on the excess embryos produced through in vitro fertilization, all in the name of science.
Medical "advances" such as abortion, contraception, and the new reproductive technologies all developed in the name of compassion, have made it possible to separate sexuality and baby-making. But now we find ourselves in a "Brave, New World" where sexuality and child-bearing are far removed from their natural and proper meaning and human life itself has come to have little value in the eyes of many.
The intent of Donum Vitae was the hope that "all will understand the incompatibility between recognition of the dignity of the human person and contempt for life and love, between faith in the living God and the claim to decide arbitrarily the origin and fate of a human being," i.e., to become a false god by not allowing God to be God.
The daily news tells us that we are a long way from seeing that incompatibility.