Comments system


Wednesday, 28 March 2018


This essay presents us the meaning and the ethical implication of artificial insemination. God created everything (creatures) in the universe and later created man out of soil to be the ruler of other creatures’. God sees that it is not good for man to live alone, he then, created a helper like him out of the bone of his body called ‘woman’. This is the purposely for companionship. All this is to show the love of God for human beings. It shows here that love is the purpose by which God created man and woman for each other.
Later afterward, God commands them says, ‘be fruitful and be multiplied and fill the earth’. This statement of God takes effect. Deductively, this reminds us the solemnisation of human marriage. The consummation of marriage grows out of love and love grows out of the conjugal relation of man and woman. We are very conscious of the fact that the definition of marriage of yesteryears is not more valid again. That is, marriage is not defined only as a union between men and women again. But, it is defined as a union between human person(s) and a thing(s) or human being(s). In other words, marriage means human beings can get married to a human being or a thing. Marriage now means ‘love between human and human or a thing that one loves. However, love is the first purpose of marriage and later child-bearing therefore enters for solidification or procreation. Child-bearing results from the expression of love and right to each individual’s body in conjugal relationship of human persons as God has made it or being existed naturally.
Biologically, reproduction process begins with sexual intercourse or ejaculation of man sex organ into woman’s sex organ which we actually yield pregnancy if there is fertilisation.
However, invention of technologies has proved this natural process of reproduction wrong, that is, it is not only coming together of men and women that can only or sexual intercourse that can yield pregnancy through ejaculation. This new method or term called reproductive ‘technologies’ exist in different processes and forms.
One of Catholicism leading theologians Karl Rahner, has put the matter as follows:
Now this personal love which is consummated sexually as within it and essential inner relation to the child, for the child is an embodiment of the abiding of the marriage partners is expressed in marital. Genetic manipulation (Rahner means artificial insemination by donor).
In essence, this essay is aimed of exposing artificial insemination, has seen by many ethicists especially the catholic magisterium and major philosophical imports beside. Equally, some basic fundamental philosophical and ethical questions will be raised against the two practices artificial insemination. It will also reiterate our knowledge that human being right from conception is truly human and nothing less. Therefore, the attempt of the exponents to experiment of human embryo will be seen as an immoral and irrational attempt.
The major nuances of both natural and artificial means of procreation will be highlighted, and more importantly, the role of conjugal love as a means of perfect procreation and as an expression of love between marriage couple will be made known as well. We shall also see that the Catholic emphasises more on the conjugal expression of love as the basic unitary value in the family. Finally, we shall conclude this essay, whereby both the evil and unethical aspect of artificial insemination will sorted out beyond a reasonable doubt
The term ‘reproductive technologies’ refers all procedures that replace, impact or totally, the natural ( by sexual intercourse) process of conception and of in-vitro-gestation. Practically, this will include: artificial insemination (homologous when the insemination is from the husband‘s semen (AIH) and heterogous that is when the insemination is from a donor (AID)). In-vitro fertilisation with sperm of husband or donor with ovum of wife or host womb or without it (artificial placenta) cloning. Other technologies such as sperm banking, ovum banking is instrumental to those procedures. The ancillary procedures may raise specific ethical and policy problem noted in effectiveness danger, confidentially, selection criteria and so on. On the other hand they may raise very few problems.
The main ethical issues cluster around the technologies noted. Several things should be remarked about the use of these technologies.
They progressively increase in the replacement of so-called natural processes. Just as artificial insemination replaces sexual intercourse, so in in-vitro fertilisation does that and more. It replaces tubal fertilisation and natural implication, and could conceivably replace natural gestation.
Many of the arguments use to justify or condemn one type of invention, that is, appears where another type is involves. However, even though there is an overlapping in the procedure to make it necessary to discuss it individually.
Artificial insemination is the act of fertilising a matured ovum (female egg) with the sperm or semen of a male in an extra-sexual methodology (the fertilisation still takes place in the woman) this is a part of in-vitro practices. This method may employ gamete donation by the husband (AIH) or by a donor (AID).
It may be performed with or without the mediation of physician. This means of ‘procreation’ has been practised for many years back in whose date is not certain but has be a great mark of success and failure in adopting this method of procreation. ‘With the growth of technologies (AI) has been used with considerable success in animal husbandry ‘  this is to produce animal with desirable characters.
Artificial Insemination and the Single Woman
Artificial insemination in single woman has been a controversial ethical question. The question goes thus: should single women conceive and bear children and try to raise their offsprings without the benefit of normal family environment? It is insane for a woman to bear children without legal biological father. It is considered to estimation that, does one out of ten recipient of AI by donor is unmarried or lesbian. The inclination towards lesbianism has been the major instinct in many woman who decided to live alone and bear children independent husband. We should know this time that is questionable and unethical, unnatural to deliberately bring children into home with only one parent.  No doubt,   children who have been by virtue of their condition orphaned either through divorce or death, do suffer from lack of normal family life.
Artificial Insemination by Husband (AIH)
Artificial insemination done by husband who undergo a permanent operation for sterility called  vasectomy for contraceptive purpose have their semen fluid stored for eventual use in the future if for some unforeseen reason the may later make up their mind to have children.
Artificial insemination is the placement of a husband’s sperm in his wife’s uterus so as to fertilise an ovum and produce a child. In this case children are merely produced out of the desire to have children based on a reason which may be medical but unethical. Opposed to this notion as other moralists who see nothing wrong with their endeavour, why? They said in such a situation of medical problem, it becomes necessary to help the couple to have their own genetic children. This only preserves unity and purpose of marriage and science in this manner only helps the couple to attain the goal if nuptial relations. In the African setting, in the case of a couple without children the woman take a huge blame and shame, hence the man in the family may end up in polygamy. Thank to science that make it possible to trace where individual problem comes from.
Artificial Insemination by Donor
This is practical when a husband’s sperm is inadequate it is possible for a wife in a couple to conceive by sperm donated by another man, the practice is called insemination by donor [AID]. Donors insemination was first perform the 1884 a Philadelphia physician without the knowledge of the infertile couple. It is estimated that 300,000 infants have been born by AID, with an approximate value of 10 – 20 thousand conception per year currently in the USA again . Since the case of AID killer disease is now very prominent, the majority of the recipient in Australia is using frozen sperm with commercial banks.
Inseminations are usually performed twice per cycle, Mainly just before and after ovulation, thus about 90 percept of the recipient conceive if they continue therapy for a year, but if these attempt are  unsuccessful after one year, donor’s sperm may be used with the in-vitro fertilization procedure with additional 50 percent of the couples conceiving after 6 cycles.
Consequently, one may even rightly or not argue that AID constitutes to adultery. This is because the answer based on adultery could be relative to every individual and sects. Thus, this issue could be controversial only with the use of terminologies. As Andrew Varga put: The above reasoning can be criticised, however, by pointing out that AID helps to achieve one of the main purpose of marriage, namely the procreation of children. The question nevertheless remains as to whether parenthood is such an absolute right that a woman whose husband is infertile may have a child by any means, even going outside the marriage. One has to consider the infertility or fertility is not an individual question but a collective and mutual problem of a man and woman joined in marriage for better or worse. For husband who will reminded daily of his impotency as often as he sees the child grows who is not really his. And for the child, if he or she is told of his or her origin later might become a problem. Many cases have heard of African that when man is infertile or impotent, the couple invites a third party to have intercourse with wife. And so, the man treats the child as his own.
 An individual person does not have a right to have a child, because this act involves the cooperation of two persons. Thus, one individual does not have a right to expropriate from another is needed in order to produce a child. A child is a person, and no other person has right to the  other, not even is it right for a married couple to claim dominance over their choice of having a child through artificial insemination and of course in-vitro fertilisation.
According to Donald DeMarco, children are neither objects, slaves, property, nor extension of their parents. They are gifts conceive in a moment of intimate self surrender between husband and wife. Artificial insemination gives the great account of control and calculation and separation that is required, us in sharp conflict with intimacy, self-surrender and gift. Thus, the essential dynamism in sexual intercourse leads husband and wife towards and experience of ecstasy which cannot be distinguished from their renunciation of control.
By removing  the origin of the child from two personal content of conjugal love, as AI does is to exclude the bodily aspect human love from marriage weaken love to some degree. And to weaken love is another bonding act of the family-uniting parent with children and children with their parents ,as well as each other is to weaken the family .And since the basic unit of the society, what weaken the family also weaken the society.
Another problem is that marriage is involved. The main ethical problem in this system of procreation is that the essence of marriage itself is ignored and the value of sex which the married man and woman owes to each other is only seen as a means of satisfying this desire and not to the greater value of the bond guiding the family.
Again, on the factual note, it is love that is the unitary bond of the society and this love starts right from the family. It then follows that a home where love is not well defined will surely influence the society with such defect. According to Pope Pius XII, when cannot practice artificial insemination, but admitted that we can use technical means allowed the marriage act to achieve its objective. In addition, something that is artificial does not mean it is immoral. However, in the case of mental intercourse, something become immoral of it is artificial in the sense that it replaces sexual intercourse with something else.Pope john centre; reproductive technology and the church (USA the Pope john research and Education publishers 1988) page 175.couple, or anyone for that matter, has right cluid? In responding to a woman or couple request for AI by the exponents, is the medical professioner responding to a disease or desire? However, untimely to consider infertility (or even procreation) solely from the perspective of individual is right can only undetermined in thought and practice.

Protestant Appraisals
The ethical analysis in the protestant community reveals several diverging points of view. Joseph Fletcher argues that artificial insemination by donor is not a violation of the marriage bond because: (1) Marriage is not a physical monopoly, and mutual consent by husband and wife protests artificial insemination against the accusation of   broken faith, and (2) the donor’s relationship to the wife is completely impersonal.
According to Dr. Soloman B. Freehof,  ‘My own opinion would be that the possibility of the child marrying one of his own kin is far fetched, but that since according to according Jewish law the wife has committed no sin and the child is  ‘kosher’ then the process of artificial insemination should be permitted.
Jewish appraisals
Their argument is similar to that of catholic literature by regarding human generation to stud-farming methods AID servers the  link between  the procreation of children and marriage indispensable  to the maintenance of the family as the most  basic and sacred unit of human society. It would be enable women to satisfy their craving for children without the necessity to have homes and husband.
A tolerant attitude is certainty dominant in the protestant and Jewish communities. The very ethicists who most clearly and some times severely condemn AID have little problem with AIH as a morally legitimate intervention to overcome infertility.

Roman Catholic Church does not embrace AID or AIH. Within Catholicism there never and still not wavering on AID. It was and still generally is seen is as morally wrong, and for several reasons, not all of equal weight. First, it violates the marriage covenant wherein exclusion, non-transferable, inalienable right to each other’s bodies and generative acts are exchange spouses.
Second, once concede the right, even by their own husbands, to be inseminated artificially by the seed of another man; wives might to easily conclude that it would be preferable to receive the seed in the natural way (sexual intercourse). Thus, adulteries would be multiplied to the detriment of marriage. Fourth, the human stud-farming mentality towards marriage would be fostered based of the consequences.
Within Catholicism AIH was for years defended by some as at least probably permissible, if semen was obtained in a licit (nonmasturbatory) way. The reasons adduced against AID were not there, and the method seemed a defensible way of overcoming the sterility problems of the couple. In 1949, Pope Pius XII intervened and said AIH ‘must be absolutely eliminated’. In support of his rejection, he noted: We must never forget this: it is only the procreation of a new life according to the will and plan of the creator, which brings within it-to an astonishing degree of perfection, the realization of the desired ends. Thus is at the same time, in harmony with the dignity of the marriage partners, with their bodily and spiritual nature, and with the normal and happy development of the child. The conjugal act in its natural structure is a personal action; a simultaneous natural self-giving which, in the word of Holy Scripture effect the union in one flesh.
In a nut shell, the argument, then, of Pius XII,  was that even  AIH is immoral, because the child so born is not the fruit of an act of itself the expression of personal love. It simply means that children must conceive of an act of itself a personal expression of love if marriage not converted into a biological laboratory.
It is clear, here from our discussion thus far that, the ethical aspects of artificial insemination have been approached from the dominant perspective of the meaning of marriage, parenthood, and the family. Furthermore, the majority opinion of ethicists have been that AID, by the introduction of donor semen,  separates procreation from marriage, or the procreative sphere from the sphere of mutual love, in a way tat is either violative of the marriage covenant or likely to be destructive of it and the family. It is also discovered that waters operate with a different set of presuppositions. Some lay emphasis on the important of sexual intercourse because of conjugal love.
In addition, parents love their children simply because the children are need love: they ought to love them because they love each other and because the children are the visible fruits and extension of that love.
However, it fundamentally separates the marital union from the procreation of new person and this permanent embodiment of the unity of marriage love transfers procreation, isolated and turn from its human matrix to an area man’s sphere of intimacy. In addition, this is the proper context for sexual union, which itself implies the fundamental readiness of the marriage partners to let their unity take the form of a child.
Rahner adds other confirmatory argument. For example, the donor remains anonymous refusing his responsibility as the father and infringes the right of the child so conceived. F
Furthermore, AID commonly practiced would lead to two new races, the technologically breed super-group and ordinary unselected group and this at the very time we are attempting to dismantle all other forms of discrimination.


Pantaleon Iroegbu and Anthony Echekwube (Eds). Kpim of Morality: Ethics: General, Special ansd Professional (Nigeria: Heinemann Education Books PLC, 2005).
Revised Standard Version Bible
Encyclopaedia of Bioethics ,Vol4. Warrien T Reich  Editor in Chief, New York, Collier Macmillan Publishers 1978..
Elias and Annas, supra Note 5.
Robertson, Supranote 6.
Andrew C. Varga: The  Main Issue in Bioethics (Italy: Paulist Press, 1984).
The Hasting Centre Report, No6 on Sex Education. Christian Defence League, Baton Rouge USA.
Leonie McSweeney: Sex and Conception 4th Ed. (Nigeria African University Press, 1992).
Andrew  c  varga; The main issues in bioetic {italy:paulist press,1984}.
Donald DeMarco: Infertility and In-vitro fertilisation: Its meaning and morality, (Sackatcheven:Maurian Press Ltd, 1985).

No comments:

Post a Comment