This article critiques the current theological basis that deems assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as immoral, namely that it dissociates the unitive act from procreation, and that it violates the dignity of the embryo. It is argued that notwithstanding the validity of these moral truths, these issues are of little relevance to couples facing childlessness. Three alternative views are then presented, all based on the injustices related to the ART market: (a) injustices that directly affect the couple and their offspring, (b) unfairness related to the commercial aspect of ART markets, and (c) the overall effects that impinge on society at large. Therefore, instead of burdening childless couples wanting to have children of their own with the culpability of sin for resorting to ART, one must rather make them aware that they are prey to the ART market while calling for better regulation of this system in order to mitigate these injustices. The article ends with some recommendations on how to address these injustices.
ArmstrongE. M.2007. “Part IV: Re-Imagining Bioethics: Expanding the Borders of Bioethical Inquiry and Action.” Advances in Medical Sociology9: 263–8.
2.
BalaschJ.GratacósE.. 2011. “Delayed Childbearing: Effects on Fertility and the Outcome of Pregnancy.” Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy29 (4): 263–73. doi: 10.1159/000323142.
3.
BalserDavidEspenbergHelena. 2002. “Assisted Reproductive Technology: Perspectives on Advertising and Marketing in the USA.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online4 (1): 96–7. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61922-0.
4.
BarnhartKurt T. 2013. “Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Perinatal Morbidity: Interrogating the Association.” Fertility and Sterility99 (2): 299–302. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.032.
5.
BayleBenoît. 2009. À la poursuite de l’enfant parfait: l’avenir de la procréation humaine. Paris: Robert Laffont.
6.
BeckerGay. 2000. “Espoir à vendre : commercialisation et consommation de techniques d’assistance médicale à la procréation aux États-Unis.” Sciences Sociales et Santé18 (4): 105–26.
7.
Benedict XVI. 2009. Encyclical Letter on Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth Caritas in Veritate AAS 8 CI, 641–709.
8.
BlakeDeborah D.1997. “Infertile Couples: Psychological Needs, Social Responsibilities”. In Infertility: A Crossroad of Faith, Medicine, and Technology, edited by WildesKevin Wm., 149–66. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9.
Boulet, S. L., Russell S. Kirby, Jennita Reefhuis, Yujia Zhang, Saswati Sunderam, Bruce Cohen, Dana Bernson, Glenn Copeland, Marie A. Bailey, Denise J. Jamieson, and Dmitry M. Kissin. 2016. “Assisted Reproductive Technology and Birth Defects among Liveborn Infants in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan, 2000–2010.” JAMA Pediatrics170 (6): e154934. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4934.
10.
CahillLisa Sowle. 1996. Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). 1987. Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day Donum Vitae, AAS 80 (1988), 70–102.
14.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). 2008. Instruction on Certain Bioethical Questions Dignitas Personae AAS 12 C (2008).
15.
ConnollyMark P.HoorensStijnChambersGeorgina M.. 2010. “The Costs and Consequences of Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Economic Perspective.” Human Reproduction Update16 (6): 603–13. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq013.
16.
CoxKathryn Lilla. 2013. “Toward a Theology of Infertility and the Role of Donum Vitae.” Horizons40 (1): 28–52. doi: 10.1017/hor.2013.2.
17.
CulleyL.HudsonN.van RooijF.. 2009. “Introduction: Ethnicity, Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies.” In Marginalized Reproduction: Ethnicity, Infertility and Reproductive Technologies, edited by CulleyLorraineHudsonNickyvan RooijFloor, 1–14. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
18.
EllisonBrookeMelikerJaymie. 2011. “Assessing the Risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome in Egg Donation: Implications for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” The American Journal of Bioethics11 (9): 22–30. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2011.593683.
19.
EriksonErik H. 1950. Childhood and Society. London: Vintage.
FullamLisaO’NeillWilliam R.. 2010. “Bioethics and Public Policy.” Theological Studies71 (1): 168–89. doi: 10.1177/004056391007100110.
22.
GreenJ.DarbyshireP.AdamsA.JacksonD.. 2015. “Desperately Seeking Parenthood: Neonatal Nurses Reflect on Parental Anguish.” Journal of Clinical Nursing24 (13–14): 1885–94. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12811.
23.
HirschmanElizabeth C. 1991. “Babies for Sale: Market Ethics and the New Reproductive Technologies.” The Journal of Consumer Affairs25 (2): 358–90.
24.
InhornMarcia C. 2009. “Right to Assisted Reproductive Technology: Overcoming Infertility in low-Resource Countries.” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics106 (2): 172–4.
25.
InhornMarcia C.2012. The New Arab Man: Emergent Masculinities, Technologies, and Islam in the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
JansJan. 2008. “The Moral Status of the Human Embryo According to Donum Vitae: Analysis of and Comment on Key Passages.” In Moral Theology for the Twenty-First Century: Essays in Celebration of Kevin Kelly, edited by HooseBernardClagueJulieMannionGerard, 97–105. New York: T & T Clark.
27.
JungPatricia Beattie. 1997. “What Price Infertility?” In Infertility: A Crossroad of Faith, Medicine, and Technology, edited by WildesKevin Wm., 166–80. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
KadiS.WiesingU.. 2015. “Uninformed Decisions? The Online Presentation of Success and Failure of IVF and Related Methods on German IVF Centre Websites.” Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde75 (12): 1258–63.
29.
KaratasM., M. Sehiralti, S. Gorkey, and T. Guven. 2011. “Ethical Evaluation of the Website-Based Promotion and Advertisements for in Vitro Fertilisation Services in Turkey.” Journal of Medical Ethics37 (8): 510–1.
30.
LauritzenPaul. 1990. “What Price Parenthood?” The Hastings Center Report20: 38–46. doi: 10.2307/3562619.
31.
LauritzenPaul. 1993. Pursuing Parenthood: Ethical Issues in Assisted Reproduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
32.
LawlerMichael G.SalzmanTodd A.. 2008. The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
LemoineMarie-EveRavitskyVardit. 2015. “Sleepwalking into Infertility: The Need for a Public Health Approach Toward Advanced Maternal Age.” The American Journal of Bioethics15 (11): 37–48. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1088973.
34.
MacCallamFionaWiddowsHeather. 2012. “Ethical Issues in Embryo Donation.” In Reproductive Donation: Practice, Policy and Bioethics, edited by RichardsMartinPenningsGuidoApplebyJohn B., 270–88. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MerrickJanna C.BlankRobert H.. 1995. Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and Conflicting Rights. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
36.
MillsCatherine. 2017. “Biopolitics and Human Reproduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of Biopolitics, edited by ProzorovSergeiRenteaSimona, 281-94. New York: Routledge.
37.
NewtonWilliam. 2012. “The Link between Life Issues and Social Justice: Insights into Pope Benedict XVI’s Social Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate.” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly12 (3): 449–60. doi: 10.5840/ncbq201212328.
38.
PorterJean. 1999. Natural and Divine Law: Reclaiming the Tradition for Christian Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Novalis.
39.
PreislerAndrea. 2013. “Assisted Reproductive Technology: The Dangers of an Unregulated Market and the Need for Reform.” DePaul J. Health Care L15: 213–36.
40.
RhonheimerMartin. 2010. “Chapter 5: The Instrumentalization of Human Life Ethical Considerations Concerning Reproductive Technology” In Ethics of Procreation and the Defense of Human Life: Contraception, Artificial Fertilization, and Abortion, edited by MurphyWilliam F.. Washington, DC: CUA Press.
41.
RichieCristina. 2012. “Applying Catholic Responsibility to in Vitro Fertilization: Obligations to the Spouse, the Body, and the Common Good.” Christian Bioethics18 (3): 271–86. doi: 10.1093/cb/cbs025.
42.
RothmanBarbara Katz. 1986. The Tentative Pregnancy. New York: Viking.
43.
RothmanBarbara Katz. 1989. Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
44.
RyanMaura A.2001. The Cost of Longing: Ethics and Economics of Assisted Reproduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
45.
SAMA Team. 2009. “Assisted Technologies: For Whose Benefit?” Economic and Political Weekly44 (8): 25–31.
46.
SarojiniNadimpallyMarwahVrindaShenoiAnjali. 2011. “Globalisation of Birth Markets: A Case Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in India.” Globalization and Health7 (27): 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-7-27.
47.
SheleeColen. 2006. “Like a Mother to Them’: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Child Care Workers and Employers in New York.” In Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, edited by LewinEllen, 380-96. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
48.
SimpsonBobHampshireKate. 2015. “Introduction: Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Third Phase?” In Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the Third Phase, edited by SimpsonBobHampshireKate, 1–18. New York: Berghahn Books.
SteelAnna JudithSutcliffeAlastair. 2009. “Long-Term Health Implications for Children Conceived by IVF/ICSI.” Human Fertility12 (1): 21–7. doi: 10.1080/14647270802499201.
52.
Stewart, Louise M., C. D'Arcy J. Holman, Judith C. Finn, David B. Preen, and Roger Hart. 2013. “In Vitro Fertilization is Associated with an Increased Risk of Borderline Ovarian Tumours.” Gynecologic Oncology129 (2): 372–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.027.
53.
SzewczukElizabeth. 2012. “Age-related Infertility: A Tale of Two Technologies.” Sociology of Health & Illness34 (3): 429–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01382.x.
