Reproductive Technologies: Part 1

Reproductive
Technologies

Various medical technologies used to alleviate
infertility (the inability of a couple to produce a
child of their own

Wednesday 7 September 2011

Infertility - the inability to have /
conceive, children is a painful issue for
Christians - for some the ability to
have children is intertwined with their
view of manhood and womanhood - it
is as if part of their identity as a man
or woman has been removed.
Reproductive technologies offer
childless couples the possibility of
having a child to whom at least one of
the parents is genetically related -
previously adoption was the only Harsha Chawda is
option. recorded as India’s
The ﬁrst “test-tube” baby was born in ﬁrst IVF baby in 1985

England in 1978

Legally these new technologies pose many
questions - which to date do not necessarily
have a legal precedent. There are also
“interesting” scenarios arising from the use of
this technology - e.g.
A man cannot produce sperm - his wife uses
“anonymous” donated sperm to become
pregnant.
A doctor advises a couple in their early 40’s
to save one of the woman's eggs as with age
there is increasing possibility of birth defects.
A woman consistently miscarries - the couple
hire another woman’s womb to carry their
embryo to term - it has been formed in the lab
from her egg and his sperm.

A lesbian couple have a baby using
the egg of one of them and donated
sperm.
Two homosexual men want a child -
they can donate sperm to impregnate
a woman who carries the baby to
term - or, purchase eggs and have
them fertilised in the lab before being
implanted into a surrogate mother.
A single woman does not want to wait
for marriage to have a child - at a
fertility clinic she is inseminated and
has a child.


A couple want a designer child -
they advertise for an egg donor -
over 1.78m, blond, blue eyes,
athletic, high academic
qualiﬁcations - will pay up to
$50,000 for a batch of eggs.
A couple have 3 girls - they now
want a boy - and select male sperm
to impregnate the woman.
A 54 year old woman loses her son
in an accident -s he is post
menopause so she purchases an egg,
uses her husbands sperm in vitro
and has a doctor prepare her uterus
hormonally for implantation.

A man in his mid 20’s has an
accident resulting in brain injuries -
before his life support is turned off
his wife asks for a harvest of sperm
so that she might have his child.
Modern technologies are turning
upside down traditional ideas of
reproduction. What does the Bible
say of this technology? (Most are not
directly referred to in scripture). Do
traditional teaching on marriage,
family etc. Have any bearing on
these issues?


Overview of technologies

These range from minor,
inexpensive treatments to major,
expensive procedures. The success
rate of each varies.
1. Intrauterine insemination - if
the man has poor/inferior sperm
it can be inserted into the womans
uterus artiﬁcially, it is simple and
pain free - along with fertility
drugs it increases the chance of
conception and of having twins,
triplets etc.


2. Donor Insemination - as
for (1) but with donated
sperm - legally the sperm
donor can be identiﬁed by
the child.
3. Egg Donation - a female
version of (2) but more
complex and costly -
involving slight surgery after
hormonal treatment to
induce a greater egg harvest -
fertilisation is in vitro or in
the fallopian tube (along with
sperm)

4. Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer
(GIFT) - hormonal treatment for
woman to induce multiple egg release -
these are removed surgically and then
combined with the mans sperm and
placed in the woman’s fallopian tube -
this gives a far higher chance of
fertilisation and pregnancy.
5. In vitro Fertilisation (IVF) - woman
receives hormone treatment, eggs
harvested, man provides sperm -
fertilisation is in the lab (not the
woman’s body) - up to 4 embryos are
then transplanted into the uterus in the
hope of implantation.

6. Surrogate Motherhood - genetic
surrogacy where a woman is impregnated
with sperm of the man who will become
the child’s father - the woman conceives,
carries the baby, gives birth and then
hands it over to the family.
Gestational surrogacy - embryos are
implanted into the woman but she has
no genetic part in the child - all is
provided by the couple who want a
child.
Commercial surrogacy involves a fee -
altruistic surrogacy has no fee and is often
done by family/friend who desires to
help.

7. Intracytoplasmic Sperm
Injection - more expensive
and more reliable - inject a
single sperm into an egg.


Moral boundaries in Reproductive
Technologies

Does having a family mean that
almost any technological aid can
be embraced? The RC church
prohibits most uses of technology
in reproduction. Some say only
the husband and wife can provide
genetic materials. As Christians
where do we start and stop in our
use of reproductive technology?


The Donor Sibling Registry
Using this people conceived using
donated eggs, sperm etc. Can contact
their genetic families. Some countries
have government registries in place and
others require that donors give their
identity in case recipients want to ﬁnd
them. This has led to a slowing down of
donations!
Historically children were born through
procreation where God, husband and
wife are involved - now we talk of
reproduction which might sound a little
more product orientated though children
are not reduced to commodities!

We have to ask if reproductive
technologies should be used at all
- if no then the discussion is over
and options are limited.
If yes then we have to ask if it is
morally permissible to use
donors of eggs, womb and
sperm, or should only those
belonging to the husband or wife
be used?


Surrogate motherhood was
practiced in the ancient world -
but the technologies we know of
were not available - so they are
not directly addressed in the
Bible. So we have to look for
general principles, which we
might disagree about! Rae
suggest we look at “Biblical
fence posts” which provide the
boundaries for what is
considered ok in terms of
procreation - anything outside of
these is not permissible.

Theologically how
should we think of
technology - is it a
good or bad thing?
Can you think of
examples justifying a
positive or negative
approach to
technology?


Rae suggests if technology helps
improve human life and alleviate the
effects of sin they should be thought
of as positive and part of God’s
common grace to all mankind.
Medical technology can be thought
of in this way.
Genesis 1:26, Prov 8:22-36
This should be taken in general terms
- not every discovery or innovation
has to be welcomed or used but those
helping in fulﬁlling this mandate
should be - unless they violate
another biblical principle or moral
standard.

Infertility should be considered as any
disease resulting from sin entering the
world - as would any disease affecting
another part of the body. So we can proceed
with caution.
The RC church stops here - sex is solely
within marriage and each sexual act has the
potential to bring about conception and life
- reproductive technology would interfere
with the God given order within this -
marriage is the only morally legitimate way
to procreate (produce young) - for RC
church technologies are not banned but
only those assisting normal intercourse in
producing a child can be used.

In such a view RC’s seem to
think of infertility as different
to other diseases.
One might ask if the Bible
teaches that sex should always
be with a view to procreation -
or, e.g. In S. of S. can we see it
as sufﬁcient and an end in
itself? In the NT Paul
encourages couples to have
regular sex to avoid temptation
- 1 Cor 7:1-5 - uniﬁcation in sex
is seen positively.


The next boundary issue is the idea
that, “procreation was designed to
occur within the context of a stable,
heterosexual, permanent,
monogamous marriage” children are
born into such families - so normally
procreation leads to parenthood.
Rae suggests that Gen 1:28, be
fruitful and multiply, should be seen
in the general idea of Gen 1-2. The
accounts of Gen 1 in giving a broad
view, but which need to be
considered by reading between the
lines of Gen 2.

Gen 2 speaks of creation of mankind and
their relating to one another - but also
their relation to God.
1:26 - mankind are made male and
female
2:4-5 follows chronologically but adds
the details - distinction of male and
female, mans loneliness and desire for a
mate, creation of woman - once she is
formed God tells them how to relate. So
we should read in this order:
Gen 1:26 - Gen 2:4-25 - Gen 1:28


Gen 2:24 - God institutes the first
marriage - note also the use of leave,
one flesh (sexual union, in the rest of the
Bible just for married couples)
Gen 2:23 - bone and flesh used together
usually signify family relationships -
this seems to be the instituting of a
normal family relationship.
We have to see Gen 1:28 as being within
marriage - not every man and woman
has to marry (1 Cor 7:25-28), but
marriage is the norm for procreation.
The difficulty is that God at times allow
this norm to be “ignored”

Divorce is allowed - what of leaving
and cleaving in a permanent way?
Surrogate mothers - Abraham Gen
16, Jacob in Gen 30.
Polygamy is allowed - why?
Such exceptions to God’s norm were
allowed - so what of us today are
third party contributions allowed in
procreation?
The NT gives great weight to
creation and suggests the above
might have happened but were
never Gods best.
Paul argues against homosexuality
in Rom 1 based on creation order.

Looking at the role of women in 1
Tim 2:12-15 he appeals to Gen 1-2.
Jesus does the same talking about
divorce - Matt 19:1-9
Creation norm carries much weight
biblically!
Although the Bible doesn’t appear
too comfortable with 3rd party
contributions it is hard to say
deﬁnitively that it disallows them.
Options such as single mother by
choice or gay/lesbian couples
having babies would appear to be
outside of this boundary.

A third boundary issue is the status
of the unborn - discussed
extensively in the abortion section -
a child exists from conception
onwards and therefore it has to be
protected. Discarding of embryos or
termination of pregnancy clearly
goes beyond this.
The fourth boundary is the idea of
adoption fulﬁlling the biblical idea
of compassion for the vulnerable in
society. Jas 1:27 sets a (ﬁgurative?)
mark for care for the vulnerable in
society

Rae also suggests a strong belief in
God’s sovereignty is a boundary
marker - reproductive technologies
can make us desperately follow them
and stop us trusting God and his
plans for us - it leads to a lack of
peace in our lives (1 Cor 7:17-28).
What is the motivation of the people
for using techniques?
Finally, throughout the Bible children
are viewed as a gift from God (Ps
127:3-5) - to be received open
handedly and with no speciﬁcations
or conditions. We should be grateful
for any children we are blessed with!

Reproductive Technologies: Part 1

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (12)

Similar a Reproductive Technologies: Part 1

Similar a Reproductive Technologies: Part 1 (6)

Más de Richard Chamberlain

Más de Richard Chamberlain (20)

Último

Último (20)

Reproductive Technologies: Part 1