Replies

Let's pose a different question here for a minute.

Many people on this thread feel very very strongly that life begins at conception. At least one poster believes that it begins at implantation. Another won't say what she believes, but has studied fetal development to come to her views. And others feel that life begins when there is some sort of neural development. In every case, we all agree that life begins no earlier than AT conception.

Medical science is at an awkward stage in which one can test a blastosphere for a genetic defect, but cannot test a sperm and an egg prior to conception.

Within a few years it is highly probably that both eggs and sperm will be able to be tested (and even in fact engineered) PRIOR to conception.

Would either a). testing of naturally occurring eggs and sperm or b). engineering eggs and sperm prior to fertilisation be morally acceptable to those of you who oppose the destruction of embryos?

It either case, there would be no destruction of life or of potential life.

Does this resolve all moral problems AND solve the problem here where parents with genetic disorders want to bear children without those disorders?

jas3

Would either a). testing of naturally occurring eggs and sperm or b). engineering eggs and sperm prior to fertilisation be morally acceptable to those of you who oppose the destruction of embryos?

For many of us, the problem is not just with the screen-and-discard process. It's with the whole process that separates conception from natural human relations--with IVF itself. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about IVF involving sperm and egg from the biological parents themselves:

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible [than those involving donor sperm and/or egg], yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "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. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

Obviously, this is a minority view even now - and will become more so as people increasingly reject the notion of giving birth to "defective" children. But I think most people know that there is something amiss with the mindset behind test-tube baby-making. That's probably why so many of them are anxious to find a good rationale for destroying the unwanted embryos stored in fertility clinics.