New Reproductive Technology

Formerly a mysterious, elusive event that occurred only in the secret and dark places of a woman’s body, conception is now subjected to the blinding light of the laboratory and the scrutiny and manipulation of medical technology. Beneath the dazzling miracle of healthy children born to long-suffering infertile couples lies a shadowy moral twilight. The same technology affords contemplation of the possibility of “designer children” through prenatal diagnosis, sex selection, abortion, and, ultimately, cloning and genetic engineering. The advent of surrogacy and egg and sperm donation is the logical extension of separating the procreative and unitive acts that began with the widespread use of contraception. Placed outside the temple of a covenantal relationship, modern conception is often complicated by consumerist influences of a marketplace that needs purging, just as Jesus cleansed the synagogue (John 2:13-16).

Reproductive Miracles

The bitter agony of barrenness is well recognized biblically, and God’s faithfulness to his promises is exemplified in reproductive miracles (Elizabeth in Luke 1:13, Sarah in Genesis 18:10 and Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:10). It is no less prodigious for those couples whose infertility, be it blocked fallopian tubes or low sperm count, can be overcome by the in vitro (literally, “in glass”) uniting of their own sperm and ovum. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is accomplished outside the mother’s body when sperm and ovum spontaneously meet in a laboratory dish or by microinjection of disabled sperm directly into the ovum. Successful embryos that begin dividing are placed in the womb, where they may or may not implant and result in a pregnancy. The ownership, freezing, storage and use of unplaced embryos are fraught with controversy. Some couples claim them and feel responsible to give each embryo an opportunity for womb placement. Others sell their embryos (along with sperm or harvested eggs) to finance these expensive treatments with their variable success rates and odds that at times resemble gambling. Successful pregnancies are often complicated by multiple gestations, forcing selective abortion of some implanted embryos to ensure that a smaller number (twins or triplets) will reach viability. There are higher rates of prematurity and complications for which society ultimately bears responsibility in the care of the disabled and vulnerable. Many people feel public funding would be better spent in prevention of infertility (usually a result of sexually transmissible diseases) and in the encouragement and support of women who wish to carry a baby to term instead of having an abortion with the intent to give an inestimable gift to an adopting couple.

Once conception can occur outside the relational context of human sexuality, reproductive capabilities are imparted to single people, homosexual couples and postmenopausal women. Among those polled, fewest people object to nonanonymous arrangements occurring between family members (e.g., a woman donating eggs or carrying a child for her sister). But what are the rights of the child? To whom do they belong: to the genetic, gestational (birthing) or social parents? Theologian Gino Concetti said that “a couple does not have the right to have a child at any cost, but a child does have a right to be created in a natural way” (“Talk of the Streets”). The complex ramifications of parenting nonbiologic children are akin to the established practice of adoption. Questions of responsibility and rights are raised when more then one set of parents have claims on a child, who may ultimately become torn apart in a court lacking Solomon’s wisdom.

Another facet of NRTs is prenatal diagnosis. Under the guise of providing reassurance of normalcy or preparation for defects, the thorny issue is raised whether parents can justly subject both society and an abnormal child to “wrongful birth.” Does a child have a right to have intrauterine euthanasia to prevent inevitable “indignities” and suffering as predicted by prenatal tests should the pregnancy continue and birth occur? Prenatal diagnosis is the first of many potential steps in altering the type of children that society will admit. At the present time it involves sampling of fetal cells from the placenta at an early stage in pregnancy (chorionic villus sampling) or from amniotic fluid closer to the time to quickening (amniocentesis). In the case of IVF, early cells can be removed from the multicellular embryo prior to being placed in the womb. In research settings these cells have also been successfully duplicated or cloned (artificial twinning). In the future, fetal cells that appear in the maternal circulation may be sampled, providing information without potential harm to the fetus.

As with most genetic diagnoses, a positive result represents a “fate” without hope of a cure at this stage of technology. The alternatives include termination of a pregnancy or, with IVF, a decision not to implant that particular embryo. Gene therapy and rare intrauterine interventions are as of yet experimental but represent distinct possibilities for the future.

With the advent of DNA manipulation and reconstruction through virus vectors, the power to correct critical genetically coded errors becomes a possibility. The DNA molecule takes on a new identity as a pharmacologic agent for curing perhaps even such commonly fatal ailments as heart disease and cancers. We are taking evolution into our own hands when we consider gene therapy. We need to recall that the seducing power unleashed from the splitting of the atom was wielded in a destructive fashion on Hiroshima. In the blinding excitement of the genetic revolution we too easily forget the responsibilities inherent in the biting of this apple core—as we seek knowledge of the “good and evil” inherent in our genes, navigating with fewer ethical absolutes than ever before.

Ethical Considerations

While the full exploration of the ethical ramifications of genetic engineering and NRTs exceeds the scope of this article, the following two concerns are foremost: the commercialization of reproduction and the redefinition of human dignity in narrower terms.

Commercialization of Reproduction. Desperate infertile couples are at the mercy of a profit-driven reproductive industry and are prone to exploitation in research settings. The selling of human tissue, eggs, sperm and embryos contravenes human dignity. Disadvantaged women may sell their reproductive capacities by entering into surrogacy arrangements where they may carry a genetically related or unrelated child to term and relinquish their rights to the child (if healthy), all for a sum of money that is usually less than what the legal brokers receive who represent the commissioning couple renting her womb. The transfer of funds is never enough to occupy the void and compensate her grief, let alone the dehumanization she suffers. Remunerated surrogacy is ominously reminiscent of slavery. Children begin to be viewed as technological accomplishments, commodities and luxury accessories that enhance social status. Identically cloned embryos may one day be frozen and banked for future use as organ donors or replacement children. Even aborted female fetuses can provide eggs, making it possible to be a genetic parent without having been born. The media captures our attention for commercial purposes by focusing on the marginal and the maudlin. In the process our sensibilities are flattened and theater obscures the truth.

Is Human Dignity Most Threatened by the Disease or the Cure? What are the motives we bring to the reconstruction of the human race through NRTs? What values will be paramount in shaping the chosen characteristics of the future generations? Challenging responsible stewardship, NRTs give human pride and rebellion every possibility for expression. Will we be motivated by vanity, perfectionism and elitism in choosing cosmetically appealing physical or superior intellectual characteristics? By sex selection (accomplished by preferential sperm treatment, selective implantation or abortion), will we produce “ideal” families with offspring of both sexes or offspring representative of the more valued sex (usually male)? In some areas of China where ultrasound imaging and abortion are readily available, the number of boys born is significantly greater than the number of live-born girls, fueled by strict incentives imposed by the government to limit families to one child. Even the seemingly altruistic desire to prevent suffering and promote health is worn thin by the means by which it is achieved —intrauterine euthanasia and embryo experimentation.

The understated message is that we no longer value and are unwilling to protect the vulnerable, the diseased and the deformed in society. The unspoken corollary of the option for prenatal testing is that no one should knowingly permit a less than perfect baby to be born. We wrongly sense a moral obligation to dispatch ourselves before we are violated by nature. What is being lost is the essential fact that human beings do not lose their dignity by virtue of an inability to control what cannot be controlled, such as birth defects, disability, illness, aging and death. “It is the equivalent of saying that to possess human dignity with any degree of certainty one must be forever free of adversity” (Stolberg, p. 146). We are reminded that Christ on the cross maintained his human dignity in the face of suffering and slander.

Recovering Reproductive Reverence

In contemplating incarnation, Mary, by gentle persuasion, conceives miraculously within the confines of a betrothed covenantal relationship. However, she is given no clear indication as to whether Jesus is genetically her child conceived of the Holy Spirit. Joseph also is visited by angels and told of the child’s coming. In the mysterious incarnation of “God-in-utero,” one wonders whether the genetic material that Jesus Christ possessed was contributed miraculously by one or both of his earthly parents. Did he enter into the human family pervasively and integrally, sharing his father’s dexterity for carpentry and his mother’s gentility? Did Mary act as a willing surrogate for the transplantation of perfected DNA, somehow unencumbered with the scourges of humanity, making Jesus a transcendent physicality from the moment of conception? Or did the transforming power of the Holy Spirit preclude the necessity for Jesus to have had anything more than the expected human complement of genetic material?

Ultimately, the hope we have for the future is not eugenics but Jesus. Children represent expressions of our trust in God’s intent that “the world should go on,” but they are not the means to ultimate sanctification, permanence and perfection. It is unlikely we will ever splice out all the genes that contribute to our brokenness and separation from God. The severing of procreation from sexual activity within the confines of marital fidelity is the harbinger of the disintegration we experience when we threaten our dignity by attempting to separate soul and body. Doubt is the shadow cast by faith. As we plunge into the genetic age may the transcendent presence of God’s justice and beneficence guide us in the complex decisions that await our ethical scrutiny.

» See also: Birth

» See also: Conception

» See also: Euthanasia

» See also: Miscarriage

» See also: Pregnancy

References and Resources

P. Baird, Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (Minister of Government Services, Canada, 1993); P. Teilhard de Chardin, The Appearance of Man (New York: Harper, 1965); E. C. Hui, Questions of Right and Wrong (Vancouver: Regent College, 1994); S. D. Stolberg, “Human Dignity and Disease, Disability, Suffering,” Humane Medicine 1, no. 4 (1995) 144-47; “Talk of the Streets,” Time, January 23, 1995, 10.

—Carol Anderson