Artificial Procreation

[Ron_Conte]

Artificial procreation (such as in vitro fertilization and other techniques) is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The Magisterium has clearly and definitively condemned artificial procreation. But why is it immoral?

The reason is found in the moral object of sexual acts. God has ordained the use of the sexual faculty for the sake of marriage, for the sake of the union in love of the spouses, and for the sake of procreation. In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. When a man or woman separate the procreative meaning from the unitive meaning into different acts, each and every sexual act that lacks either the marital meaning, or the unitive meaning, or the procreative meaning is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Artificial procreation is immoral because the acts that are procreative (e.g. IVF) are separated from the acts that are unitive; these procreative acts lack the natural sexual union of the spouses. A set of acts cannot be considered as one act for the sake of moral evaluation; therefore, the unitive and procreative meanings may not be separated into separate acts. And so the prior or subsequent unitive sexual acts of the spouses cannot be combined morally with the procreative acts of artificial procreation as if these were one act.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “The process of IVF and ET must be judged in itself and cannot borrow its definitive moral quality from the totality of conjugal life of which it becomes part, nor from the conjugal acts which may precede or follow it.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Vitae, II. n. 5.)

[ET is embryo transfer, when the embroy created by IVF (in vitro fertilization) is transferred into the womb.]

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

 

[Ron_Conte]

Artificial procreation, in addition to being a grave sin in itself, also often results in a grave injustice for which there appears to be no just solution: frozen embryos.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo cryopreservation constitutes an offense 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.”
(Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Vitae, I. n. 6)

My research into the current situation regarding frozen embryos reveals a very grave injustice that seems unable to be made right in the vast majority of cases. A 2003 survey in the United States found over 390,000 frozen embryos stored at 340 fertility clinics (called assisted reproductive technology or ART clinics), plus several thousand more stored in off-site facilities, plus an estimate of over 50,000 more in clinics that did not participate in the survey, but had participated in a 1999 survey, plus an unknown additional number from over 30 clinics which declined to provide any information. The same article cited other estimates in other surveys: over 50,000 frozen embryos in the United Kingdom (in 1996), and over 70,000 in Australia and New Zealand (in 2000). The result is well over one half million frozen embryos. This figure does not include many nations known to have these same kind of clinics and services, and does not include additional embryos frozen since that time. Other statistics available indicate an increase in the use of fertility clinics since those surveys, implying a substantial and continued increase in the number of frozen embryos worldwide. It is entirely possible that the current number of frozen embryos worldwide (as of early 2010) has exceeded one million.

Even if we were to attempt to save the lives of these frozen embryos, using embro transfer and surrogate motherhood, the risk of death for a frozen embryo is very high. At least 90% would die before being brought to birth; and that is a conservative estimate.

No wonder the CDF said that these many frozen embryos pose “a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved”. Given the current high risk of death to any attempt to give development and birth to frozen embryos, and the high number of frozen embryos, there seems to be no just resolution to this problem at the present time.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The deliberate destruction of human embryos is a type of direct abortion.

Pope John Paul II: “This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos…. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 63.)

If a person procures any articifical procreation procedure, or any similar intervention, which includes the deliberate destruction of one or more human embryos, he or she is guilty of procuring an abortion,

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

and is therefore excommunicated.

 

[Ron_Conte]

direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.
artificial procreation is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in speaking against surrogate motherhood, does not use the term intrinsic evil; the basis for the determination of immorality is in the third font, not the second font.

surrogate motherhood is not intrinsically evil, and may be moral in some circumstances, such as to give development and life to frozen embryos, who otherwise would die.

Consider a case where the only means to bring a very young human person to life is by a medical procedure where the embryo is transferred to the womb of another woman, not the biological mother of the embryo.

The act itself is a medical procedure with the moral object of allowing a human person to develop and be born. The moral object is good because it is a particular fulfillment of the commandment to love your neighbor. The intention is to give development and birth to a human person, and to avoid the eventual death that would result from many years of being frozen. The circumstances are such that the embryo cannot be transferred to the womb of the mother. Perhaps she has died, or is unwilling, or is too old for a reasonable chance of success. The bad consequence of being raised in the womb of another woman is outweighed by the circumstance that this is the only path to continued life for this person. Thus, all three fonts are good and the act is moral.

 

[Newbie2]

Good post, Ron.

I’m looking forward for a definitive statement on the “rescue” of frozen embryos or what else should be done with them.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Good post, Ron.

I’m looking forward for a definitive statement on the “rescue” of frozen embryos or what else should be done with them.

The eternal moral law, which is based on the love of God above all else, and on the love of neighbor as self, requires that we attempt to give development and birth to all frozen human embryos.

I don’t know if the Holy See will rule definitively on this subject in the near future.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t know if the Holy See will rule definitively on this subject in the near future.

Here is what the Holy See has said recently:

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there** seems to be no morally licit solution **regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.[39]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

 

[Greg27]

Understandably the Vatican wishes to protect a number of goods (in this case the good of marriage and the need for children to grow up in a stable environment with loving parents) in its ban on artificial methods of conception. Personally, I don’t have a problem with artificial conception, provided the parents are married. I have some reservations though where conception is made using the gametes provided by a third party (i.e. sperm or ova from a person who is not a spouse) and also artificial conception for single parents. The problem with third parties is that in a way it undermines marriage (which is supposed to be entirely exclusive) and situations where third parties are involved or where single parents may have problems if the child wishes to know who its donor (biological) parent is, or where relationships fail and there are disputes over child support. There are certainly moral issues in relation of the obligations of the donor(s) to support the child financially, emotionally and in other ways, and also in relation to the right of the biological parent to know about the child and the child to know about its parent.

Understandably the church feels the institution of marriage, tried and tested as it is, provides the best framework for raising children. As such I agree. But I think it goes too far in a blanket prohibition on artificial conception when the practice is already widespread and socially accepted, at least in Western society.

The moral theologians in my view would do better in developing sensible moral guidelines for the acceptable and unacceptable use of such technologies and placing appropriate limitations rather than a total ban. A particular issue (asides from the issues I already mentioned) include the possible abuse of artificial conception through commercialisation. Christian churches should speak up on the dangers unregulated capitalism can cause, particularly in assisted reproduction. Pharmacutical and biomedical companies have already tried to take out patents on certain technologies and the extension to humans through lobbying should not be ignored. Without being able to make sensible and reasonable submissions on the ethics of these technologies because of hardline and uncompromising standards, I think the churches will unfortunately be marginalised and sidelined in the debate in the face of critics who claim they are opposed to science and the use of technology to do good.

 

[budgie2]

Artificial procreation (such as in vitro fertilization and other techniques) is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The Magisterium has clearly and definitively condemned artificial procreation. But why is it immoral?

The reason is found in the moral object of sexual acts. God has ordained the use of the sexual faculty for the sake of marriage, for the sake of the union in love of the spouses, and for the sake of procreation. In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. When a man or woman separate the procreative meaning from the unitive meaning into different acts, each and every sexual act that lacks either the marital meaning, or the unitive meaning, or the procreative meaning is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Artificial procreation is immoral because the acts that are procreative (e.g. IVF) are separated from the acts that are unitive; these procreative acts lack the natural sexual union of the spouses. A set of acts cannot be considered as one act for the sake of moral evaluation; therefore, the unitive and procreative meanings may not be separated into separate acts. And so the prior or subsequent unitive sexual acts of the spouses cannot be combined morally with the procreative acts of artificial procreation as if these were one act.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “The process of IVF and ET must be judged in itself and cannot borrow its definitive moral quality from the totality of conjugal life of which it becomes part, nor from the conjugal acts which may precede or follow it.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Vitae, II. n. 5.)

[ET is embryo transfer, when the embroy created by IVF (in vitro fertilization) is transferred into the womb.]

I do believe that IVF is a mortal sin for a Catholic because embryos have been experimented on and destroyed in some IVF procedures. Artificial Insemination is more ethically acceptable. However, God must still sometimes bless the fertilised eggs as God is creator of life and God doesn’t punish the children who are born from IVF. I think God allows it to happen but it’s really a more pagan way of reproducing and not Catholic and there are different levels of humanity.

 

[Newbie2]

Understandably the Vatican wishes to protect a number of goods (in this case the good of marriage and the need for children to grow up in a stable environment with loving parents) in its ban on artificial methods of conception. Personally, I don’t have a problem with artificial conception, provided the parents are married. I have some reservations though where conception is made using the gametes provided by a third party (i.e. sperm or ova from a person who is not a spouse) and also artificial conception for single parents. The problem with third parties is that in a way it undermines marriage (which is supposed to be entirely exclusive) and situations where third parties are involved or where single parents may have problems if the child wishes to know who its donor (biological) parent is, or where relationships fail and there are disputes over child support. There are certainly moral issues in relation of the obligations of the donor(s) to support the child financially, emotionally and in other ways, and also in relation to the right of the biological parent to know about the child and the child to know about its parent.

Understandably the church feels the institution of marriage, tried and tested as it is, provides the best framework for raising children. As such I agree. ** But I think it goes too far in a blanket prohibition on artificial conception when the practice is already widespread and socially accepted, at least in Western society. **
**The moral theologians in my view would do better in developing sensible moral guidelines for the acceptable and unacceptable use of such technologies and placing appropriate limitations rather than a total ban. ** A particular issue (asides from the issues I already mentioned) include the possible abuse of artificial conception through commercialisation. Christian churches should speak up on the dangers unregulated capitalism can cause, particularly in assisted reproduction. Pharmacutical and biomedical companies have already tried to take out patents on certain technologies and the extension to humans through lobbying should not be ignored. Without being able to make sensible and reasonable submissions on the ethics of these technologies because of hardline and uncompromising standards, I think the churches will unfortunately be marginalised and sidelined in the debate in the face of critics who claim they are opposed to science and the use of technology to do good.

It seems that you’re using “widespread and social acceptance” as a measure of morality. Do I misunderstand?

It is notable that some mainstream Catholic moral theologians do advocate the use of modern reproductive technology under limited circumstances i.e. the implantation/“rescue” of existing frozen embryos. However, we must be careful when we use terms like “sensible”. Sensible does not always equate with moral.

 

[jspieldenner]

I do believe that IVF is a mortal sin for a Catholic because embryos have been experimented on and destroyed in some IVF procedures. Artificial Insemination is more ethically acceptable. However, God must still sometimes bless the fertilised eggs as God is creator of life and God doesn’t punish the children who are born from IVF. I think God allows it to happen but it’s really a more pagan way of reproducing and not Catholic and there are different levels of humanity.

Artificial Insemination is not acceptable because of how the sperm is collected- usually using pornography and masturbation. It also disconnects the marital act of sex and its life-giving quality. The two must go together.