Reproductive Technologies- morally acceptable or not?

What do you think of the different reproductive technologies that have now become available for couples or individuals? Choose/cite one particular reproductive procedure/practice and discuss whether it is acceptable or not. The usual arguments against these reproductive technologies are that “we play God in performing/having these procedures” and that it is unnatural. Assuming you want to defend reproductive technologies, how would you address these criticisms? Otherwise, explain why you think these reproductive technologies are 'immoral'. What do you think should be the limit, if any, of a particular reproductive medical procedure? Meaning, at what point do you think does it become 'questionable'? Make sure to explain why.

I was just remembering the slogan of a famous shoe brand that says, “Impossible is nothing” and I could say that yes, nowadays, nothing is really impossible. It’s not surprising to find out that recent medical technology could easily manipulate anything there is to manipulate, like in the case of some reproductive technologies like, artificial insemination(AI), in vitro fertilization(IVF) and all that diverse acronyms that stands for a wide ranging reproduction assisting technology.
The question of whether these reproductive technologies are ethical or unethical boils down to one point and that is “procreative liberty.” John Robertson was very clear in saying that every person should have a procreative liberty or simply put the freedom to procreate and have a child or to avoid having them, which ever the case maybe. It is worth mentioning though that this freedom is not absolute, it must be limited at some point, particularly if there are other people involved. This freedom to procreate should be strongly dependent on the potential harm that it could inflict to other people.
My personal stand in this argument is that, any person should have the freedom to procreate and to exercise this freedom in whatever means necessary. As in the case of using reproductive technologies, it is still part of this so-called freedom to procreate and thus I think is morally acceptable. It is very similar to helping blind people see or deaf people hear, but in this case, we are just talking about people who are not able to conceive a child by natural means. I personally think that they are exactly the same. We have this sympathy to help disabled people and we should extend that sympathy to people who badly need them (people who are impotent, etc). I just want to clarify that when I speak of a morally acceptable reproductive technology, it should not be able to cause or inflict any harm to other people. For example an HIV patient who has a freedom to procreate should not be allowed to exercise his freedom because by doing so, he would inflict harm to the person that he’s going to make sexual interaction with, and also, potential harm to the baby (like what I said this freedom should not be absolute, we should consider the effect that we are going to have on other people).
To answer the question as to why we play God whenever we perform these assisted reproductive technologies, our concept of morality should be something that is internally defined; we must do something because at the very least, that is what we believe as the right thing to do. Therefore, given this freedom to procreate, each person should be given the chance to decide for themselves, they should not be controlled by the church or by the policies of the government or by anything that is external. We all have our own personal freedom and we could always exercise this freedom as long as we don’t hurt other people. I won’t see it as though we’re playing God, I mean, just because your impotent does it follow that you should not be allowed to bear a child in your entire life? It like saying that blind people should not be allowed to see forever or disabled people should not be given a chance to walk all through out their lives, solely because they were born that way or that particular condition was a gift or sometimes, a curse from God. We could see that there is nothing wrong in giving a disabled man a walking stick to help him walk, so what makes reproductive assisted technology (which main goal is to just “aid” or “help” people) immoral? I think that they are both just the same.
Final note, naturalist would say that this is strictly immoral because the process can be described as something that is unnatural. But I would like to believe otherwise, advancement in technology is by itself natural because it is a product of the human mind. Exactly the reason why we are called Homo sapiens, we think. And this thinking which leads us to discover these advance forms of reproductive assistance can be described as natural already.

In this day and age, technology has made it possible for people who are in different parts of the world to communicate with each other. Technology has made record stores and the compact disc nearly obsolete and put digital music on the map. Technology has made it possible for us to have knowledge or information at a mouse-click. Aside from innovations in gadgets and material objects, technology has also made it possible for people who previously cannot conceive a child conceive one.

I read the article by Ronald Munson entitled The Case of Baby ‘M’. This case was a different one, in the sense that it was something new. Dr. Elizabeth Stern and her husband, William, could not conceive a child. So, they went to an infertility clinic and opted for surrogacy. Surrogacy is where a woman agrees to carry a child in her womb and deliver it for another party or couple. The Stern’s met with a woman named Mary Beth Whitehead who agreed to be artificially inseminated with Mr. Stern’s sperm. The Stern’s also agreed to pay Whitehead $10,000 in exchange. Whitehead also expressed that she will turn the child over to the Stern’s when the child is born. However, this was not the case, the Stern’s and Whitehead went through a legal battle to get full custody of the child. A decision by a New Jersey judge stated that the Stern’s had custody, Elizabeth had been allowed to legally adopt the child, and Whitehead was not given anything. Eventually, Whitehead appealed the decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the original decision. However, the child was left to the custody of the Stern’s because Whitehead wasn’t seen to be fit to raise the child. The court held that surrogacy agreements should be done if there is no payment involved and if the surrogate mother voluntarily surrendered her parental rights.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision that surrogacy should only be permitted if there is no money involved and that the surrogate mother knows what she will go through. Parental rights should, thus, be surrendered by the surrogate mother voluntarily. Paying off the surrogate mother seems like payment for the surrogate mother’s child. It seems like the child is sold in the market. Other than that, I find there is nothing wrong about surrogacy if all parties are in agreement.

I don’t find surrogacy or any of the other reproductive technologies immoral. If a couple is able to rear a child, then why not? To undergo these procedures, there is intensive information that needs to be taken in. So I believe, that people who do want to use reproductive technologies are well-informed of the decisions that they will take. People were able to create these technologies through thorough researches. How can it be different from other technological innovations that were done through research and the natural instinct of man to know, or better lives? If we play the “God card”, it’s as if we’re putting curses on people who want to have children but are unable to conceive.

I don’t think reproductive technologies turn out to be immoral or questionable. And to think, why would these expensive technologies be available, if there really wasn’t any use for it?

In our present time, there is no way we can prevent new technologies from emerging. It is as good as saying that yesterday we have no cure for this certain disease and the next thing we know, the antidote has been discovered. Without a doubt, innovations are present left and right and the question left to us is on whether we utilize it or not. Definitely, I am a fan of many sorts of technology—the internet, cellular phones, computers, and other gadgets. However, I am not a fan when it comes to assisted reproduction technology.

When I say that I am not in favor of these new reproduction technologies, I am only speaking for myself. Furthermore, it does not mean that I am totally against it and that I would condemn people who actually support it—no, I would not. It is just that I would not do it for myself, even if given the chance (reproduction technologies can be VERY very pricey).

The main reason which influenced me not patronize these so called technology is the fact that it is against my belief. As a believer of Christ, I believe that everything happens in accordance with the will of God. God has designed everything and has purpose for everything that is happening—including the things that are not taking place. If it is not meant to happen, it is not meant to happen. Let us take for example, infertility. Being infertile is not bad at all. Moreover, it does not automatically mean that you are deprived of God’s blessings. Infertility can be seen as something that is wonderful. Just like the case wherein a couple could not have their own child simply because the wife is infertile. For this specific couple, they did not see infertility as something that is negative, but instead they perceived it as something good. Having no child of their own, they have just decided to channel their love and resources for the children who badly need them. In short, they help an outreach program within their community. The example only goes to show that what humans normally see as something bad may not be bad at all. It is just a matter of having the right perspective.

Another reason which hinders me from supporting this specific kind of technology is the fact that sometimes people consider reproduction as a commodity- something to be bought and sold. This should not be the case for the reason that every human life is sacred. If in any case reproduction technology will be applied, it should only take place within the fields of health care, not in the marketplace. I don’t think it is right to make profit out of it whether in the form of the selling of eggs, sperm or embryos, or through such practices as commercial surrogacy. Also, I don’t think it is right to destroy human embryos simple because they are of “insufficient quality” or because they lack some desired quality. An example of this would be that of gender preference.

The last reason would be my belief that reproduction technology is not the only option availabe. In this world with large numbers of abandoned, malnourished, suffering and parentless children, couples or individuals who desire to become parent/s can consider adopting or fostering a child. Also, couples may consider the thought that living without children can be a fulfilling option after all.

Truly, the issue of reproduction is very complex. That is why couples or individuals considering these new reproduction technologies should be very very responsible in coming up with any decision leading to this. They must put to mind that the wellbeing of the prospective children should be at the forefront of decision-making. If possible, couples can attend comprehensive counseling about emotional, spiritual, economic, social and moral matters for these are just as important as medical counseling.

Assisted reproductive technology such as In vitro fertilization (IVF), where fertilization of ova takes place outside of the uterus in a Petri dish, is just one the many incessant scientific progressions open for today’s individuals, and numerous opinions arise and morality somewhat plays a big role on this inevitable event. At one side (the naturalists and the Church), reproductive technology is purely unnatural and it depicts the act of playing “God”. On the other hand, some may say that we as individuals have the capacity to think and improve one’s potentiality and hence reproductive technology is only a product on today’s advancements in human existence and hence it is morally accepted since it improves human condition and it promotes another means or alternative to procreation.

I want to point out that my stand in assisted reproductive technology in the aspect of its morality is that it is only permissible in given circumstances. Reproduction per se is somewhat known to be a blessing to married couples and I believe that certain factors should be addressed in order to comprehend my stand.
First of all, such cases that would risk one’s life can be an example of why reproductive technology is acceptable. Let me again recall that individuals have the capacity to think and with this ability we tend to seek for alternative ways in various situations that would lead to the development of humanity’s needs. If for example a married couple has the capacity to raise a child and they are both fertile, but the life of the wife is at risk if she becomes pregnant (for example she has an infantile uterus), would other alternatives be permissible to use such as assisted reproductive technology? It is very obvious to also point out that assisted reproductive technology only support what is lacking, and it only becomes moral if does not practice its ability to manipulate the whole scenario as a whole.

Still, this development comes with great responsibilities. The experimentation of embryos and the like is somewhat an issue. The people behind this advancement should already stop what they need to stop. They already know enough what they should know. It is sufficient already to learn that they can assist married couple who are in need. They should not even attempt to play “God”. Also, to be able to balance and meet halfway with the Church’s beliefs, I believe that procreation is only permissible for married couples. Procreation has always been known to be inherent in marriage. It serves as one of the fundamental aspects of it. A couple (let us assume that is not married) wants to have a baby by assisted reproductive technology. That situation of using assisted reproductive technology becomes immoral. The act of procreation that is for married couples is utterly depleted and hence becomes immoral. Also, I purport the fact that assisted reproductive technology is permissible for normal healthy married couples. It is not permissible to use this if one or both of them have abnormalities such as imbalance of mental state, one or both of them are carriers of a disease and the like.

Autonomy is an important determinant in cases like this, but what comes with that is the responsibility of the couple and the people behind this advancement per se.

In many ways, the discovery of the new means of procreating is, I believe, an advance of humanity. It provides opportunity of actually raising children to those who, for medical, legal, or cultural reasons, cannot have ones.

These technologies, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination, embryo donation, and contract pregnancy, in a sense make those couples or individuals freer having to expand their procreative options. To argue why these are acceptable, we take as an example IVF, a process by which egg cells are fertilized by sperm outside of the womb (in vitro). The IVF process requires sperm, eggs, and a uterus. To achieve a pregnancy, any of these requirements can be provided by a third person. As long as it is the choice of the couple, heterosexual or homosexual they may be, to have a third party reproduction, I do not think there is anything wrong with that especially if it allows them to be released from that resignation of the impossibility to raise a child. They are, after all, entitled to make their own decisions for their relationship.

Some sociologists and legal scholars deem new reproduction to be inherently progressive and liberating, albeit issues pervading the technologies need to be addressed, including legal and ethical considerations and racial disparity in its use. Critics may claim that applying the new means of procreating is tantamount to playing God and that it is unnatural and therefore immoral. However, as we have discussed in class, wouldn’t the fact that such technologies were conceived by the human mind make them natural? Is it not the will of God to enlighten those inventors and materialize these means of increasing opportunities that humanity once thought to be impossible? God can make much more awesome things that are beyond human comprehension and it is but a simple thing to make us capable of new means of reproduction. After all, the book of Genesis, if we are to be fundamentalist, commands humans to multiply without specifying the permissible methods, so I guess what is not stated to be forbidden must be permissible. Also, the desire to procreate is, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our deep-seated thrusts as humans or those inclinations and tendencies which are natural. Therefore, procreating, be it the old-fashioned way or by means of new reproductive technologies, is natural and moral if we are to argue in line with the Natural Law Theory.

If there should be any limit to these reproductive medical procedures, I think one would be that of practicing them but at the same time neglecting the oppressions that go along with it. I would like to cite Prof. Dorothy E. Roberts in her article Race and the New Reproduction in view of the fact that these technologies are barely accessible to African Americans, that “our vision of procreative liberty must include the eradication of group oppression, and not just a concern for protecting the reproductive choices of the most privileged.”

As the world and its society advance to a stage wherein things thought as absurd are now becoming a possibility, artificial reproduction is one of the things made possible by the advent of breakthroughs in technology.

With this in mind, several techniques are now possible to achieve pregnancy by barren wives, husbands or couples. I do not think that we are “playing God” by administering or patronizing these methods. I would like to think that we want to achieve our full potential as human beings that these methods are somewhat necessary or an aid for us to be.

With rights becoming an emphasis for others to achieve or overcome the limits imposed on them, the right of having a family or creating one enables them to have a child whether or not they are old and impotent. Who are we to restrict a person or a couple of not having a child that would give them happiness and contentment? If it is within their rights to produce an offspring, I think we should let them as they do not infringe upon our right to do so by natural means.

It being unnatural is somewhat true as it does not really take the natural course of things, especially the conceiving part. But what does being unnatural really mean, not being able to be pregnant through the sexual means? Is that an aspect of being unnatural that some people abhor? But then, is not natural to be pregnant and give birth and having a child that you can call your own? In Vitro Fertilization, embryo donation and other forms of procreation enable childless couples or persons a chance of becoming a parent. I think that these methods are a means for those people who really wants a child that they can support early in life (pregnancy).

I think that people should not condemn this idea readily. I think that this is morally permissible as it gives a person a chance of producing life and involving other people in the process. And that it should not be restricted on others on the basis of their race. On the aspect of age, I think that there should be a thorough examination of the implications. We are given a right to think for ourselves and a responsibility to shoulder the choices that we want to make and so we must consider the needs and wants other people think.

In the new fold of our history, various forms of technology are being developed. Recently, even the process of artificial reproduction for infertile couples is one of the highly developed processes brought by modern technology. Upon reading the article of Dorothy E. Roberts entitled Race and the New Reproduction, I was surprised that even in modern processes of reproduction, racial disparity still exists. It is really observable that reproductive technology such as artificial insemination and vitro fertilization (IVF) are used almost exclusively by white people. However, this racial disparity has nothing to do with rates of infertility; it’s just the interplay of financial barriers, cultural preferences and professional manipulation. According to Roberts, the high cost of the IVF procedure places it out of reach of most Black people whose average income falls far below that of whites.



When it comes to the issue of being morally acceptable, my stand is: reproductive technology is morally acceptable as long as infertile couples have legitimate reasons for procreation. For example, there are fertile women who undergo reproductive technology because their husbands are infertile, they might not want to undergo the process but still, they do it so that they will have children who are genetically-related. I agree with Roberts that it is the genetic relatedness that truly challenges the meaning of family and for this reason many couples choose to undergo artificial reproduction. However, artificial reproduction through IVF (or other artificial way) is not the only way to have children. There are women, fertile or not, who want to have children and undergo this process because bearing children might cause their lives and they have no alternative.



This issue is really complicated because we don’t know the reason of the couples who undergo such process. Although infertile couples have the freedom to choose reproductive technology, they should take into consideration various factors that might be affected by the process. For Robert’s article, the main factor to consider is racial disparity and this issue cannot be addressed by merely discouraging people to do that, I believe that government intervention is a big help by limiting the use of this technology.

The use of the different reproductive technologies is acceptable. In fact, mankind should be grateful that we can now overcome infertility. Why should we subject those who are not able to bear children but wanted to become parents to sorrows and agonies if we can solve their problems? Some people have the perceptions of “pregnancy completes a woman” and/or “a real man can make a woman pregnant”. Or not becoming parents may be expressions of failure to some and thus consider their lives unmeaningful. So why deprive those who can not bear children of the unexplainable emotions of becoming parents when becoming one is what they wanted the most? The use of reproductive technology is permissible if undergoing such procedure will not pose harm to anybody involved and to the possible offspring, especially. And that, one is prepared for whatever medical, social and emotional risk that may come.

An example of reproductive technology is the In vitro fertilization (IVF). “In vitro fertilization (IVF) is usually a four-part process. First, the woman’s ovaries are stimulated chemically to induce ovulation. Second, several nearly ripe ova (eggs) are retrieved surgically through the insertion of a fine needle and tubing. Sperm too is collected, as in artificial insemination. Third, the sperm and ova are fertilized in a laboratory and allowed to cleave or multiply several times. Finally, one or often several embryos (also called pre-embryos, blastocysts or zygotes) are inserted into the woman’s uterus where, hopefully, at least one will implant and grow”.

The thing that I dislike the most in the IVF is one of its procedures. It is not acceptable that the fertilized ova will be allowed to multiply then undergo genetic diagnosis. The parent-to-be will determine genetic make up of the embryo according to what they want. The “excess” embryo will be “discarded”. In such way, they treat the embryos like mere guinea pigs. Embryos have potential of becoming a person that should be realized or at least try to. Or they can cryopreserve the “excess” embryo for stem cells use instead.

Genetic diagnosis should focus on severe diseases rather than traits such as sex or appearance. “Discarding” embryos will only be acceptable if it is because they wanted to make sure that the child is perfectly healthy or those that have the least chance to survive.

Another unacceptable thing with regards to the procedures of IVF is the high chance of multiple pregnancy. They transplant two or three embryos so that there is high possibility that pregnancy will be successful. It would be cheaper to undergo again with the procedure, it first try is unsuccessful, than raising four kids at the same time.

Science and Technology has its limitations. The technological and scientific innovations, discoveries and inventions like the reproductive technologies are products of science and technology that were made primarily to improve and save the lives of mankind and/or to some extent to save the earth itself. How these products are used is beyond the control of science and technology. Thus the use of reproductive technologies is never “playing like God” but a mere application of the products of science and technology. Also, the view that reproductive technologies are not unacceptable because it is unnatural is unsound. Scientists or doctors merely assist, through the use of the products of science and technology, so that natural process may become successful like pregnancy. Just like how physically disabled individuals who make use wheelchairs to assist them in moving around. Wheelchairs are unnatural and product of science and technology. But we consider its use as acceptable and humane. The use of reproductive technologies works the same way-they only assist so that natural processes happen successfully.

Whoever infertile or those are not really able to bear child/children may resort to reproductive technologies. May it be a couple, single woman or a man, homosexuals, transgender etc. For as long as these individuals are capable financially, emotionally, physically and psychologically to care and love a child, it is acceptable. Gender does not determine the “responsibleness” of an individual. So whoever wanted to experience the joy and all the emotions that goes with being pregnant should allowed to resort to reproductive technology. As long as they are prepared and be responsible of whatever the consequences might be.

There should be limitations and regulation in the access and the nature of functions of reproductive technologies. It would not be right that reproductive technology maybe used for “designer babies”. “Designer babies” are just product of ones whims and caprices. Making sure that a child’s eyes are blue or that he/she has cute dimples is not the primary purpose of reproductive technology. It should only be limited to those who are infertile and those that are not capable physically to have a child, like homosexuals. Likewise, reproductive technology should not be used for commercialization purposes. Also, trying to have a perfect or the best child through the use of reproductive technology will only change the societal structure. A society divided into the “best” and not. In such a way, reproductive technologies would only be a means of discrimination and oppression.

Answering the question whether Reproductive Technology is moral or immoral, we have to take into consideration some cases that may support the practice of using it. In our generation, it has been an easy observation that the complexity of the human brain has led to produce some things that are ‘unnatural’. Such developments in reproductive technologies are tagged as artificial means in producing an offspring, therefore it is immoral. I think we have to consider a lot of cases before coming up with a conclusion that using these new reproductive technologies are immoral or moral.Individuals are faced with the difficulties in judging moral dilemmas and/or issues. In our society at present, the role of the church has been a big influence in deciding whether these recent developments in procreation are moral.

Married couples in a typical society consider having children of their own induces a certain feeling of happiness and satisfaction yet it should be in a natural, healthy way. But what about those heteroxuals, gays, lesbians, and infertile couples wanting to have biological offsprings?

I have read an essay favoring the so called “Proactive Liberty” written by John A. Robertson. Proactive liberty simply argues that in a society, people shall not be restricted to their personal convictions, faith, and religion and state interventions in making rational decisions so long as they can be held responsible. In essence, proactive liberty is the freedom to decide whether to have children or not to have children; individuals shall be given the freedom to reproduce or not to reproduce genetically. Reproduction, as they say, is always genetic and it occurs when man’s sperm cells meets up a woman’ egg cells turning into an embryo once it was fertilized. In essence, the recent developments concerning reproductive technology shall be made accessible and available to individuals who wanted to have their gestational babies in an ‘unnatural way’.

It has also been argued that ‘Proactive Liberty’ is a negative right as pointed out by John A. Robertson, meaning it shall not go along with government intervention in relation to proactive choices. Furthermore, it is not the duty of the government to protect the rights and freedom of the individuals in making proactive choices since it is not guided by their constitution.


The reproductive technologies that has been recently developed are in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination (AI) and the like. The IVF allows a woman’s biological reproduction to be transferred to another woman carrying her egg cells without having to produce genetically. Now, this procedure has been argued as being immoral because it is done in an unnatural way. But how do we really consider these procedures unnatural? To what extent that this is considered unnatural? Some would argue that using Reproductive Technology is immoral because is not natural. The complexity of the human brain ‘naturally’ has the tendency to go beyond human imagination.

A lot of us would not easily resort to using these procreative procedures simply because we are guided by our personal convictions. Given our personal convictions and our faith in God, church authorities may say that we are trying to play the ability of our creator to create lives. And that is immoral because God is the one and only powerful entity to create lives. But what if God blessed us with the ability to go beyond the natural way by making the human brain capabilities to create almost the possibility pf all things impossible? As what our Pastor in our church have told us, “With God, nothing is impossible.” Don’t you think it is time to open our minds to a new kind of reality? To accept the reality that we as humans, created by an all-powerful, omnipotent, and omniscient God, has the ability to go beyond human expectations?

Taking a stand on the issues, I am not against of reproductive technology and proactive technology. Since we are rational beings created by God, we have the ability to think and rethink and that is natural. So may be recent developments that are believed by conservatives as artificial, are natural. It is because it is still a product of the human mind. The human mind is wonderfully, magnificently, and fearfully created by a magnificent and wonderful God.

In a world we are living right now, many would say that almost everything is possible in our world. Human beings are able to find new discoveries and technologies in order to improve human life. One of these innovations is the introduction of reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. These two reproductive technologies aim to allow those unable to conceive a child to bear one. For these do not involve procedures done outside of the human body, and totally oppose the teachings of the church of procreation, these advancements brought several moral issues.

I, personally think that the use of reproductive technologies is acceptable when there is really a valid reason for procreation. People have their own right to decide for themselves unless they do not cause harm to other people. On the issue of reproductive technologies, people have the right to exercise their reproductive freedom in any means possible unless they do not affect other people negatively. For the church only allows a man and a woman united by a marital covenant of love to have a child, this must also be applied on those who needed to go through in-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination. The couple must be married to consider these advancements as acceptable. One example wherein in-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination can be used is on the case where both or one of the couple is infertile. Infertility can be considered as a disability of a person because of the inability to bear a child. Through this new knowledge, a disability is given a solution.

For the world is continuously changing, and several events may continue to support a given stand, we must not immediately close our minds to what we think is naturally not correct. We must continue to understand and analyze both sides’ means and ends. By doing so, we are able to open our minds to the possibility of knowing the deeper sense and importance of such new knowledge.

The claim that new reproductive technologies are unnatural comes from language reinforcement because doctors describe reproduction as natural and artificial but people take it literally and so artificial becomes unnatural. New Reproductive technologies can cot possibly be unnatural because they were borne out of the natural process of human’s knowledge evolving and expanding itself thus what seems to be impossible then are available now and because it is new, it is legitimate to have questions or concerns about it but to discard it all together is wrong.

I’d like to center mainly on Dorothy E. Roberts’ Race and Reproduction, as a black woman her concerns are real over the effects of in vitro fertilization (IVF) on race. She noticed that more white women undergo the procedure than black women while the latter is twice likely to need it more, she reasoned that this is because of the subtle biases in nature of how IVF clinics operates costing twice as much as an average black woman’s salary therefore ensuring that only white women gets it. There is also the lingering fear of that IVF like other new reproductive technology, and even abortion actually, promotes unwanted racial superiority because they seem to favor propagation or strengthening of bias towards white babies with blond hair and blue eyes. Roberts’ adds that most recipients would want a white baby and that cases where there are black babies are usually met with horror, either because there was a mistake during the insemination that the recipient did not know about or some other external factor, in which case a white baby would have been much more desired.

First, let us first establish the fact that blacks are a minority in the United States, roughly 30% of the population that is, so it is not a new phenomenon that you might not see as much of them in any clinic at all. What is a cause for concern is even if they do need it, such procedures will not be available to them because a whole society was built with them as second class citizens in mind. Sure slavery got abolished, what two centuries ago?, but in the language of history that was just yesterday and the vestiges of it are still clinging to this day, so the culprit really are the modern day masters who still make them slaves, either by denying them equal pay to meet their daily needs or assistance when they are faced without any help such that new technologies that could have helped them be not available like IVF. And because it is the master’s world, it is inevitable that the dominant choice would be blond hair and blue eyes; off course it would be reinforced! as long as black people keep themselves in a system that makes them second class citizens when they have as much right to be American, in passive submission because after all they have a black president now, etc. then I doubt there will be an end to any of it. Technology or science for that matter is not bad, it is how we use them that defines it.

They say IVF and various others make life a role playing game where humans get the chance to play God? I say no, it is but an arena where we can appreciate God more or some other super being if you’re not religious at all, understanding the mysteries of the miracle we call life and reveling in the joy of it all and accepting that there is more we need to know. God, if there is even such would have not let us live with such capabilities and evolve to where we are now if all he wanted was for us to take things as they are, it is natural that He would have left something in this world for us to question so we could understand. He allowed us to learn these things.
[/size][/size]

As the human mind progresses, countless possibilities are being discovered and the technological innovation affecting our lives are becoming inevitably fast. Procreation sounds impossible during the time of 50’s, but now it is becoming more and more prominent and is already to set off worldwide. Procreation has long been a topic for debate, as its process raised so many ethical issues. One more thing is the issue of discrimination dominantly occurring between the whites and the blacks. As the lives of people in new world puts into fast track, traditional methods are continuously being altered – and becoming more expensive. It is not just an issue of race and choices, rather accessibility and power also plays a major role.

Embryo donation is one of the most intriguing topics argued, since it requires consent and necessarily undergo several experiments leading to wastage and discarding of embryos, or as others put it; possible humans. Embryos became the object of experiment, the consequence to success. It is a trial and error method of study, where these objects of experiment are willingly taken from their donors, with high hopes of positive result. By doing such experiments, it does not necessarily mean that we are trying to surpass and outwit what God has imposed to be Divine Creation, rather we are merely taking the best of our minds and let us take our knowledge far beyond all possibilities that we may achieve. These innovations aim to make our lives easy and not to demoralize or astray us from goodness, we just have to bear in mind our limitations and the consequences of the things we do. Besides these present procreation methods are merely responses to infertile couple needs, just like food for the hungry.

Only this will be questionable when it undermines the rights of other people, respect remains to be of great importance. It is questionable when it becomes a tool to annihilate society, and disregard people’s right to choose their own way of life, when it overlaps the values of others and touches the boundaries of humanity’s freewill. Each and every one of us has the right to decide for ourselves, we just have to keep in mind the responsibility of being a human in making these choices. We can never achieve a harmonious society; there will always be a part that is dominant, the least we can do is lessen the gap between them two.

I have read on discussions about the ‘New Reproduction’ prior to this essay. However, Professor Roberts’s paper was the first one that I have read which considered the angle of racism in the already morally problematic subject.
That being said I have already established my position that such practice, for me, is immoral. ‘Playing God’ would most definitely be a factor for me thinking that it is immoral. Another would be the degree of control that the ‘parents’ have over the ‘potential person’. And last would be the possible dilemmas that the potential person might face in his/her being an ‘actual’ person.
Having been stated in the main question that ‘playing God’ is one of the usual arguments brought up whenever discussions about New Reproduction take place, I will no longer discuss too much on this. I would just like to say that in the world where we exist in today, the scientific achievements and those currently being pursued are really aimed on being able to play God. Focusing more on medical breakthroughs, specifically in healthcare, we have New Reproduction, Human cloning, stem cell creation, and many others. All of these aims to prolong, perfect, or even create life. New Reproduction is more on creating and perfecting life – though others might like to think of it as prolonging also. So indeed playing God is an issue that might be already established and previously discussed, but I would still add it to one of my main reasons on why I think it is immoral.
Next would be on the degree of control that the ‘parents’ have on the potential person. The ability to dictate every trait – hair color, eye color, and even certain brain functions, (which actually seem more like details) – of the potential person is just disturbing for me. I have mentioned ‘perfecting life’ and this is actually my main argument for that particular concept. Genetically creating an embryo is one thing. But genetically engineering an embryo is another. If all a sterile couple really wishes is to have a child who is genetically related to them, why is then there a need to specify such traits? And some would even go to the point creating an ‘ideal’ or a ‘perfect’ child. This is where it starts to get a little bit problematic for me as I see no need for that.
Last would be the transition from being a potential person to an actual person, and what possible dilemmas the child might face from there. Before anything else I would just like to clarify that I am not homophobic or even patriarchic. My claims might contradict these clarifications but these are just personal opinions influenced by my personal set of values just like everybody else’s answers. Parenting the child is an issue for me in terms of who will parent the child. It was mentioned in the article that some IVF clinics only accept heterosexual married couples and find the cases of single women to be problematic. I share these people’s particular point of view. I have nothing against single parents. In terms of the quality of parenting, nobody can assert such a claim that having married heterosexual parents could provide the best results. However, the option of having a ‘traditional’ family could now be reduced to being a second option – to some – with this particular technological advance. Extreme feminists could even assert such a claim that there would be no more need for males in the world as they could pro-create by themselves through the presence of such technologies – I personally know people with this line of thinking. Another possible dilemma is a child growing up having homosexuals for parents. The quality of parenting is also out of the picture here. Rather I see some other problems that one might refer to be ‘minor’ or ‘shallow’, but for me however are not. Imagine yourself to be in kindergarten or grade school. And you are asked to draw your family during your art class. There you will draw a picture of you and your parents. Then when the teacher asks you to pass your work, you will see that your classmates’ works show a male and a female parent while yours could show either both male or both female parents. There would be that inevitable sense of confusion within the kindergarten you. Or even consider a normal conversation when you are asked for your father’s name and you say ‘Ramon’. Then the same person will ask for your mother’s name and you say ‘Bruno’. If I was the person asking you I would be a little shocked and confused as well. It is okay to be a homosexual as long as you do not cause harm to anyone. But think of someone perfectly innocent as a child, who perceives the world to be as what his/her parents tell him/her it is, could be indirectly harmed as he/she will not understand such complexities at such a young age.
It was said that we should not be dogmatic in looking at issues such as this one. But it was also said that the reasoning of a person is exclusive to his/her own set of values. So as my final stand, I believe that as long as the limits and the potential dilemmas remain unsolved, New Reproduction will still remain immoral for me.

Reproductive Technology entails a range of techniques used to overcome infertility, influence or choose the genetic characteristics of offspring, or modify the characteristics of a population. These procreative techniques also entail a range of ethical issues rousing controversies involving the limitations and boundaries of governmental control, private (personal) choice, religious belief, and parental wishes and desires. Some examples of assisted reproduction are In Vitro Fertilization, artificial insemination, surrogacy, and ways such as, concentrating a sperm sample from a husband, whose sperm count was low, bringing an ovum within the mother’s reproductive tract, and administering medication to enhance ovulation.

I am not against reproductive technology because this development has enabled many couples to have children despite their deficiencies. Assisted reproduction has also served as an answer to the prayers and wishes of those parents to have their own family. The decision of individuals to engage or avail one of these reproductive techniques is part of the freedom and free will they have as human beings. But there are also boundaries to this freedom as well as responsibilities on the part of the individuals to be able to take the consequences of their action that will surely affect their personal lives, their relationships with other people which in turn affect the society they belong with. In In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), children are produced through a technical process, subjected to what they called “quality control”, and eliminated if found “defective”. Individuals who wish to engage in such a technique should equip themselves with the appropriate information and make themselves ready to accept the consequence of subjecting their soon to be daughter/son to the arbitrary choices of these experts.

In the view of the Church, a child is generally seen as a kind of gift of nature, conceived out of love and passion of two people. It would argue that in reproductive technology, a child may seen increasingly as a commodity whose main objective is to satisfy the emotional needs of the parents. But the joy that a newborn child brings to a couple or even an individual is irreplaceable. The concept of family that the baby shapes is very much essential to a human being. True enough, God has the control of everything in this world. He is our creator but we can discern reproductive technology as His own gift and blessing for mankind. There are moral options presented by the Church that can be taken into consideration, the LTOT (Lower Tubal Ovum Transfer), GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer), use of fertility drugs, and the use of natural methods in which natural reproductive rhythms are tracked to enhance chances for achieving pregnancy.

I believe that for as long as these methods of reproductive technology and the developments from them are kept under control, they can be of great benefit to mankind.[/font]

ISTURIS, R.D.S. 2005-53691 Philo 171
3rd Written Assignment: Reproductive Technologies

In the overview of the article New Reproductive Technologies, Robertson argued that “individuals should be free to use these techniques or not as they choose”, without government intervention, unless there is potential for significant harm to others. So it is a technology available to all as long as no harm can be caused to others.

The primary “other” that can be caused harm to is the potential infant represented by the sperm and egg cell or zygote that will be used for the procedure. Robertson’s argument implies that as long as the infant will be in good conditions (well-being) after it is born then the use of reproductive technology is acceptable.

The author also mentioned that society should not restrict individuals’ access to reproductive technologies provided that these adults are capable of making rational, well informed, and free choices. But is the mere presence of these capabilities in the individuals seeking reproductive technologies enough? If a “husband and wife” possessing all these capabilities was to use this in vitro fertilization in order to produce an infant which will then be claimed as their by a couple who sought the paid services of the “husband and wife” to produce the infant, the “wife” as surrogate mother, is the mere presence of those capabilities mentioned above enough to justify the use of the technology? If the production of infants became the “husband and wife’s” family enterprise because it generates substantial income, is that still moral? It does not cause anyone any harm after all. It gives the “husband and wife” income and gives the fulfillment of a want to the couples who paid for their services. So it’s ok to gather women at their prime to act as surrogate mothers for the pregnancy and births of the “ordered” infants by some couples who are willing to pay for it. The infant became a commodity in this hypothetical situation.

Another issue in reproductive technology which was often cited was the issue of its likelihood to abortion. The fittest sperm, egg cell, zygote is chosen to undergo the whole pregnancy and birth process. But what happens to those zygotes that are unfit? They are disposed. Some people view this as the same with abortion or discriminatory infanticide. The same, in the sense that a potential being is being denied of its actuality. But this also has its flaws. Is the status of potentiality enough to justify the zygote being saved from disposal? What if the zygote’s DNA shows it to be predisposed or will be born with a debilitating condition (e.g. down syndrome, cerebral palsy) and will have a life of disability, is it also enough to justify its disposal?

These technologies are morally acceptable if used for example, to have fulfillment for a family or to fix a problem of the zygote or embryo (e.g. heart disorder). But, as in the case of “designer babies” wherein the zygote’s DNA is manipulated to produce a “made to order” infant, the motivation behind this (usually vanity), the use of reproductive technologies seem to be morally unjustified. in the sense that we are playing good and choosing which genes are to be used. disrupting the natural workings of reproduction. but then again, in "natural" circumstances, don't we also choose our mates? if you want a "designer baby" find someone with which your genes can work with to produce the resulting infant you want. but if you want a baby which is a product of the union of you and your partner, would it matter if the infant has its imperfections, imperfections that are non quality life threatening?

Reproductive technologies are acceptable. It is in their usage and the reason behind it which bring the problems and issues.

L.N. Santiago

Procreative liberty is the “freedom” either to have children or to avoid having them. If a person or couple is not allowed to use new reproductive technologies to promote their “freedom”, they may be considered as deprived. Furthermore, to be entitled with procreative liberty, the individual or couple must have the capacity to financially afford the procedure, rear the resulting child, and accept the consequences of failed or successful attempts. But what if a poor and infertile couple yearns for a child? Since they are poor, they cannot exercise their freedom to procreate because they lack the capacity to pay for the procedure. Therefore, they too are being deprived of a “freedom”. This deprivation, based on economic capabilities, makes procreative liberty morally unacceptable and unfair. The concept of “freedom” procreative liberty presents puts the poor people in an even more disadvantaged position and promotes class struggle; whereby only the wealthy and powerful people benefit from the technological innovations of the society. If this is the case, does this mean that only the rich and powerful people have the potential to reproduce “social assets”? I don’t think so. Consider the likes of Ramon Magsaysay and Manny Villar who rose from the ranks and became significant leaders of our country. In addition, it promotes inequity since the opportunity to have a “good baby” will only come from the ranks of the wealthy and powerful; thus, increasing their population and the possibilities of oppression.

The use of technologies to have children may or may not be morally acceptable, depending on the procedure used. When it involves assisting the sperm get to the egg (in collaborative reproduction or choosing of healthy sperm) through artificial means, it may be acceptable because it is simply giving the sperm a ride. But if it involves manipulating the zygote to harmonize with the whims or needs of perfection of the parent, then it is morally unacceptable and is a blatant act of trying to be God. God created people in His image and likeness, but never into perfect beings—where others are born with fatal diseases, degenerative disorders, genetic abnormalities, or are cross-eyed. Then, who are we now trying to create “something better”. It is like challenging God himself—created questioning his/her own creator. Yes, it is absolutely true that God created humans with a mind that could fathom great knowledge and conceptualize technologies such as these. But along with that, human beings are also given the free will to choose to do (or not) what the mind dictates.

Once the child is born, an issue in collaborative reproduction on the concept of a family arises. It involves possible confusion on the part of the child as to what a family constitutes. Having the traditional concept of a family, explaining the “new setup” to the child will prove to be problematic. But since the child is already a product of a non-traditional practice, then it would also be alright to use a more encompassing definition. However, people around him/her might not be as open-minded as his/her family. For this reason, it is unfair on the part of the child to be born in a society where he/she will be readily met with discrimination and injustice.

Given that the doctors’ sole purpose of “designing” babies, at present, is to remove the disordered genes so as to prevent mothers from giving birth to babies with defects and to help the family, unimaginable things can happen in the future once the technology is fully mastered. People can use the technology for their selfish desires and, thereby, act like gods if it is not guarded well. Once fully mastered, the possibility for this event to occur is, without a doubt, inevitable, especially if the trend of technology nowadays is considered. If the good guys think they can protect their technology, the bad guys will, also, not doubt their ability to steal it. At this point, it will not only be a war of steel or germs, but also a war of the psyches—or of determination. Before the degree of defenses and offenses go up a notch higher, we must now consider the prevention of possible bloodshed—prohibit the genetic engineering of embryos. Furthermore, knowing how to alter an embryo could eventually lead to the creation of super humans. The idea may seem quite far-fetched, but then again, just less than five decades ago, cars run by water also seemed unlikely. By being part of this medical innovation is tantamount to allowing oneself to be practiced on or used as guinea pig; thus, indirectly supporting morally unacceptable goals.

To be morally acceptable, freedom to procreate must narrow down its parameters. Evaluation of the technologies used as to whether they are truly a means of assisting or manipulating reproduction is necessary to determine its acceptability. Furthermore, careful assessment of the parent/s’ intentions and capacity to rear and/or bear a child regardless of social discriminations must be done to prevent wholesale of eggs/sperms or a production of an army of clones.

What do you think of the different reproductive technologies that have now become available for couples or individuals?

I think that it is nice to know that there are medical breakthroughs that could help couples or individuals fulfilling their desires to become fulltime parent or at least replicate their genes for the sake of continuing their blood line.

Choose/cite one particular reproductive procedure/practice and discuss whether it is acceptable or not.

Among many reproductive procedure/practice I have chosen the surrogate mother procedure.

“Surrogacy is a method of reproduction whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant and deliver a child for a contracted party. She may be the child's genetic mother (the more traditional form of surrogacy), or she may, as a gestational carrier, carry the pregnancy to delivery after having been implanted with an embryo. Surrogacy is a controversial, and in some jurisdictions, illegal, medical procedure.” Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_pregnancy

For me everything is permissible, however one must be willing to endure the consequences of his/her actions. Reproduction deals with many abstract concepts like emotions, happiness, love, relationship, parenthood, family and rights. One who goes beyond from husband and wife setting to have a baby must be willing to be struck by complicated problems in the future.

It is the same with what happened in Baby M’s story. Dr. Stern wanted a baby but his wife couldn’t give him so they have decided to legally ask Ms. Whitehead of her assistance with a legal waiver of her rights as the mother and ought to be care taker of the child and a sum of money.

In the beginning Ms. Whitehead seemed to be ok with the arrangements, but after the baby has been born, emotions wanting her baby back crept in and this made things complicated resulting to law suits and public attention was all on their case.

The ending of the story was the court recognized that Dr. Stern and Ms. Whitehead are the parents of the child and not Mrs. Stern. Also, the court is settling the visits of Mrs. Whitehead because Dr. Stern got the custody of the baby due to his status that is more favorable for the development of the child.



The usual arguments against these reproductive technologies are that “we play God in performing/having these procedures” and that it is unnatural. Assuming you want to defend reproductive technologies, how would you address these criticisms?

We always play God, don’t we? Once a judge decides on a case, he is a god in a sense.
We are little gods in every aspect of our lives because we have the will to carry on the things we want to do and not want to do.

A scientific breakthrough could be used to cause harm or to bring hope to many people. For me the motive for an action justifies the morality of an act. If your motive is to be happy and share your love to a possible son or daughter, go on – just don’t forget the possible complicated consequences because your not just dealing with a life, you’re also dealing with roles, rights and family issues.

Human reasoning cannot fathom everything.

Arguments about the morality or the immorality of a particular act arise from the different positions of people. In every battle, each side fights for its own reasons. It is assumed that each side is fighting for things that would benefit them. No one fights for nothing. People speak from different perspectives. A theory is relative to the people who follow its principles. Relativity can be a good key word. Words are tools which help in clarifying things. A set of words is relative to a particular culture. Words do not have universal meanings. In different dialects, words vary in meanings.
There are fora being held to inform the public about issues that are too vital to be taken for granted. Sex education is a concept which is considered a big need of the society today. Teens or even children must learn basic facts about sex. Knowing the rights and wrongs in the sex aspect at a young age is a good start for a kid, hence for a developing nation. A sudden and fast increase in a country’s population leads to problems and inconsistencies its entire system. In the Philippines, a number of Filipinos, especially those who live below the poverty line, do not have proper orientation about sex. There is a rise on the rate of childhood pregnancy. These kids who are supposed to be in school studying and learning for their personal enrichments are at home, taking care of their own babies. The youth today are not using what they are supposed to learn in schools.
We are living in an era where scientific advancements flourish. We now have mobile phones, laptops, mp3 players, and other gadgets that we consider vital to our daily lives. Science does not end in creating these mobile gadgets. Science has also taken steps for discovery and more inventions. In the sphere of reproduction, science started to exist since day one. The process of giving birth to a child is already assisted by science through the tools in hospitals that are used in the process. Several reproductive practices have been discovered. These processes are contested by different groups in society. The concept of artificial insemination has caught my attention the most. It is making a woman pregnant without having sex with any man. A sperm is collected and inserted to the reproductive tract of a woman for the woman to get pregnant. It gives me the chills because I never thought there would be other means for a woman to get pregnant. This technological breakthrough, if it is considered a breakthrough, seems to break the law of the Church, the Divine Law. The Church insists the natural way of family planning, which is sex without the use of any artificial means. The Church will not push its position if it is against its own dogmas. I think it is fine for people to do it, for they have the freedom to do anything they want for their future. People act in their own free will. If they think it is really needed to have the artificial insemination done, then they can do it. Any thing used for the wrong purpose is always bad. People may be against this practice, but others support it. It may be helpful to some and destructive to others. People speak from different perspectives, and with different reasons. There are always two sides of a story. There are always two opposing forces in a battle. Artificial insemination is still moral if it is used on the right purpose.