Assisted reproduction? One can imagine

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 infertilitymany 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.

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 procreation 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 willingnessthe 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.

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 womenespecially 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.