Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jennyp
But how is that (procreation divorced from intercourse) any different from in vitro fertilization?

In terms of morality, it is no different. Both cloning and in vitro fertilization techniques are intrinsicially and objectvely morally disordered.

"[Artificial reproductive t]echniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible [than sperm/egg donor procedures], 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.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.] '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.'" -- [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2577]
In other words: any fertilization technique other than that which occurs naturally and biologically as the result of sexual intercourse between husband-wife is disordered because it severs the relationship between reproduction and the ultimate act of unselfish human bonding (loving sexual relations between spouses). Furthermore, such techniques are insulting to the dignity of the sacrament of marriage; by providing a way for unmarried persons to "reproduce" without benefit of marriage, IVF diminishes the perceived value of the marriage bond within a society and undermines the status of the human family as the fundamental social unit. Finally, such techniques are insulting to the dignity of the human person: just as reducing a a human being to the status of property (i.e. chattel slavery) is immoral, reducing a human being to the status of a manufactured product (i.e an entity engineered in a laboratory) is intrinsically immoral.

In a world where orphans abound, the selfish desire to reproduce one's own DNA at any cost is immoral. For those infertile couples with a true desire to raise and nurture children, adoption is the only moral choice.

47 posted on 01/04/2003 12:15:06 AM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: B-Chan
They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.

I guess this means that animals are sinners yet they have no soul. Right?

48 posted on 01/04/2003 12:17:07 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: B-Chan
any fertilization technique other than that which occurs naturally and biologically as the result of sexual intercourse between husband-wife is disordered

Definitely. But the fact that both are equally illicit, for similar reasons, does not necessarily bear upon the Natural Law and how it intersects with the infusion of the soul in IVF versus cloning.

55 posted on 01/04/2003 12:35:46 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson