Assisted Reproduction? One can imagine

by Janos Talaber PhD

Recently plenty of articles have turned up about sexual abusers, abortion , and

young pregnant teenagers in the newspapers, magazines. Moral theologians, priests,

bishops, and many so-called `experts′ are arguing about these up-to-date moral

problems, but one thing is still missing. They can observe these problems from a

good point of view, we are all aware of the immorality of these things, we all

consider them to be unacceptable in our catholic life, but nobody can find a proper

solution for them. I keep continuously asking why? As for our Pope, he is always

saying what things are morally proper or not, especially regarding abortion or birth

control. But could the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith or the Pope figure out any

acceptable, satisfying solution to handle these phenomena? No, still not. They keep

preaching that using condoms, birth control pills or any other intrauterine devices is

strongly against God′s will, and very unnatural. However, they are incapable of

solving the problem.. In an article I have nowadays read the author says that one of

the solutions would be to avoid sexual contact? This reminds me of another question.

How would priests or the Pope himself be able to speak about those things which

they are not touched by? As for catholic theology, we teach that the sexual contact is

supposed to be dealt with only in the frame of marriage. In the marriage then, as the

next step, we would say,′ avoid sexual contacts if you don′t want to have a kid

or get infected by HIV?′. Clerics say, `plan your family and use a calendar.′ Then

imagine a calendar in which the dates of the sexual intercourse are marked. So all the

conjugal acts are pre-prepared. What would it lead to? Human acts? Or wouldn′t the

married couples work as programmed machines? Is it what God would tell us to do?

In a love relation,

passion

is very specifying. So is it in marriage. You cannot plan

the dates of your conjugal acts. It is not human. It is rather inhuman.

But today I did not make my pen ready to write for sexual abuses, abortion, and

these things. From the basket of these moral questions, however, one thing is still

---

missing: the question of

assisted reproduction

. Of course I am aware of the fact that

CDF and the Church are strictly against medical help in procreation, but until now I

have not been able to find the ground which their opinions are based on. Thousands

and thousands of innocent religious couples are touched by the problem of infertility -

many who are also worth having an own baby; those who are also the creatures of

God. Indeed I am not preaching about the manipulation of genes and embryos, but

strongly can I imagine medical assistance in procreation. The only question here is:

how to link the ethics of medical interference to moral theology? Let me explain it.

CDF and its judgments

When CDF states that assisted reproduction is morally unacceptable, its opinion

is laid on the human way of

conjugal act

. This is the action taken place between the

spouses, especially aiming at the procreation of new life. This act is sanctified by

God - implying that God is the only one who can give us babes or take them away.

Generally, it would mean that the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is

strongly determined by procreation and vice versa; procreation is the key in sexual

well-beings. Though this definition seems to be ridiculous and a bit old-fashioned

like, it was adapted in the previous edition of CIC (Codex Iuris Canonici) in 1917.

However, to keep steps up with our changing modern life, the new Code changed the

definition, ` The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman between

themselves establish a partnership for their whole life, and which of its nature is

ordered to

the well-being

of the spouses and to the

pr

ocreation

and upbringing of

children...′ (CIC′83 c.1055) This definition is to express that the Church may shut

down her

eyes before sexual enjoyment within the frames of sacramental marriage, but only if

the way towards free procreation is open. But what if - in spite of our willingness -

the procreation is somehow blocked by a disease, infection or other gynecological,

andrological problems? No one dare say that pious innocent people should simply

---

acquiesce in the problem and nod their heads without visiting a specialist. They have

to visit a doctor, they must not hesitate to discuss their problems in order that they

could find an acceptable solution.

Morally satisfying solutions?

There are several tools of medical help. Some really can be accepted and favored.

Step by step, it is possible to pick on the proper, satisfying help for the pious religious

couples.

First, it is very important to visit the doctor, and try to find out the disease which

stands in the background. In some cases, both men and women are responsible for

infertility, but as for the statistics, the leading cause is a

mechanical problem

. (55%)

It means that the ovum and the sperm cannot meet, so that they will become unable to

start developing. This mechanical problem, if there are not any other problems, can

be easily handled. But unfortunately, a high percentage of the couples will never

know what the problem has been.(35%) This is when doctors say there is an

immunological problem

. Honestly, in this case only God knows what is going on, and

why there is not conception. For all this, medical help is also available, but we do not

which try will succeed in the end.

Generated (stimulated) ovulation

is made by giving pills to women -

especially elder women who have some gynecological problems - in order to

produce ova, because they may not have had a functioning ovarium. In this case, the

conjugal act and the open way of procreation is not disturbed.

Insemination

is a device to inject sperms into the womb (uterine) of the

women. This triggers out moral questions. A

homologue insemination

is today

accepted by a huge number of theologians, since in this case, the husband′s sperms

are injected. Then, though the conjugal act is missing, we can accept this procreation,

---

hence the dignity of human life is not in danger. The other way, however, cannot be

accepted:

heterologue insemination

means that the injected sperms are from a

sperm-bank and not from the husband. All who think of it only a little bit could get to

the conclusion: this brings up not only moral questions, but also great ethical

problems: whose kid will that be? What feelings will the husband have? Who will

feel ashamed? Certainly it is not acceptable, though there is a slight resemblance to

adoption.

But whereas adoption is the act of humanity and gesture of the spouses

themselves (equally shared), heterologue insemination puts a third, unknown person

into the circle and unbalances the responsibilities.

These devices could be clearly defined and placed into the world of moral

theology; we could easily choose the ones who are acceptable, and could easily

object the one which is immoral. The so-called

embryo transfer (ET),

however, is

still surrounded by many debates and discussions, and yet is considered to be

morally unacceptable. But I would, myself, not state it so straight, and would attempt

to place it into the basket of morally satisfying tools. Nowadays in Hungary more

than a hundred babies are born of

embryo transfer

a year. These kids must be

accepted by the society, and by the church as well. These kids are

all human beings with arms and legs, with souls and manners. These small ones

should be equally dealt with like the other kids are. Regard them as tiny candles in

the night. The night of their parents′ life. The life of a troubling, hurting need for a

baby. The crave which could have been fulfilled only in this way. Then look at that

happy family after the arrival of the new comer. The happiness of faith, the gladness

of praising God. Would you then say that the couple sinned by choosing

embryo

transfer

before?

Some days ago, I talked to an expert about ET. We discussed the key points, and

the `maybe′ possibilities to choose a morally acceptable solution. Being a medical

doctor, he had never though of its moral in the way we (religious people) speak

amongst ourselves. He said he could see two things in the procedure: medical

techniques and help to infertile couples.

---

Theologians, and moral experts in this field may not imagine that there is a

possible choice for religious couples. The procedure of ET would not be problematic

for us, if all the embryos were implanted. Throughout the procedure six to ten ova

are obtained from the woman′s ovarium. All are fertilized, but according to the

statistics only 40-50 percentage of the ova starts developing. It means that only three

to five embryos are ready to start a new life. All of these embryos can be implanted

(transferred) to the womb, thus no place remains to destroy any of them. In addition,

religious couples could go and ask the doctor to transfer all the working embryos, and

may ask not to freeze them. In this procedure, if no embryos are destroyed, there is

nothing to object morally.

One important thing should be noted here: it is not enough for us to have

functioning embryos, but they have to be attached to the wall of the woman′s womb.

This moment is the only one which cannot be directed by medical aid.

Only God can decide whether the embryo will be attached or not, whether it will

work, develop or disappear. Until today, we do not know why there is pregnancy after

ET, or why there is not. So then, the way towards God′s will stays still open. It is an

interesting but astonishing fact: people can take away human life, or kill their

innocent unarmed kids before their births, but are unable to direct conceptions, even

then they have chances for medical aids.

Please do not forget that the way to assisted reproduction is not a simple way.

Many days and nights pass by, the decision of the couples is long considered. Still, no

one has right to steal the only possibility from them, and I do consider that no human

power could rightly interfere in people′s life when the question of descendants is

dealt with. The decision is up to the spouses - no one else. The way is very hurting

and humiliating, but finally it may bring happiness. Yes, the happiness of a lost

relation, happiness of new life. Kids, like lightening on the dark sky, are real the ones

whom we are worth living for; those who blow away the shadows of our troubling

life. And then, when no assisted reproduction is available any more, still couples

must be open towards

adoption.

It is not a shame, it even magnifies the gesture of

---

welcome on behalf of the spouses. But do not apart from the key point: all medical

helps (certainly morally acceptable tools) have to be tried out before adoption.

Then, resigned in peace of their souls, they are ready to adopt a child. Moreover,

theologians′, priests′, and all of our task would be to help these couples in their

decisions, not putting them back and making hard judgments on medical helps in

new life. But one can never perfectly understand this situation, until the day he or she

is not shaking in the same boat. Then, he will feel solidarity for these pious religious

couples and will never make serious judgments on them Neither will I do it

anymore.

---