Once you take procreation outside the body and adopt the notion that everyone has a mythical right to reproduce anyway they see fit, anything goes. It started with assisted reproduction technologies (ART) like IVF that were just supposed to help infertile couples have children. It hasn't stopped there. Crazy multiple births, sex selection, eugenics and even cloning and genetic engineering are all part of a "whatever the parents want" society.Surely ethics dictate that the parents and fertility doctors have the best interest of the resulting children of assisted reproduction in mind. If a parent's wants infringe on the best interests of the resulting child, surely the interests of the child would win out? Don't bet on it. Wesley J. Smith blogs about a new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics that argues that future child welfare doesn't matter because they do not exist yet. The abstract states:
The welfare of the child is the prevailing principle and concern regarding access to assisted reproduction in Western countries today, and there is a wish to avoid harm to future children. New research fields have developed in order to provide scientific evidence on the welfare of children living with different "types" of parents. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) seems to be heading in a responsible direction where the care and concern for future children is vital. However, the claim of this article is that the principle of the welfare of the child confuses the ethical framing of ART. Several philosophers in the past have argued that potential people must be regarded as outside the moral domain, and therefore cannot be harmed or benefitted. This message has not reached the policymakers, probably because the welfare of the child principle seems to fit so elegantly with common sense. In this article a different ethical framing of ART is proposed. The author argues that "futile care" and not "the welfare of the child" should be the guiding principle for eventually rejecting access to ART. The desired goal of ART treatment should be understood to be the production of functional families.
So what matters is not the "common sense" of what is best for the child, but instead creating "functional families". Smith comments on the absurdity:
This is ridiculous. We could certainly talk all we want about a child who does not exist, using him or her for body parts for example, and no harm has actually been done to anybody. But once that child actually comes into being, by definition he or she is no longer an abstract theoretical construct, but a real human organism. Once we have become actual parents, the point should cease to be primarily about us, and should be focused on the welfare and well being of our son or daughter.
What I find most chilling is the last sentence of the abstract:
Assisted reproduction is primarily about us, actual people in an actual society, and how potential children may affect us.
Because EVERYTHING is about US, including our children!? Here is academic evidence that assisted reproduction is really about what parents want and what doctors can do, rather than on the children.
The Church warned us about this. This is the difference between "begotten" and "made." Children are supposed to be "begotten" in a womb, not "made" in a petri dish. Smith gets it:
According to this view genetic engineering is terrific. After all, if I want a kid who can play baseball well, why should I be stuck with a son who is bookish and unathletic? Also, savior siblings–those whose tissues may be of medical benefit to an existing ill child–are fine and dandy.... According to this view, children can be made explicitly for instrumental uses, and hence, no problem....
This is parenthood as hedonism.... Everything is about me! So much for unconditional love.
