1.  There is a shortage of egg donors. Sometimes people have to pay thousands of dollars to women to get them to “donate” their eggs for implantation.  But there is a way that this could be addressed.  When a female fetus is aborted or is miscarried, the fetus carries the full component of all of the eggs that she would have been born with.  Is it ethical to harvest these egg cells from an aborted fetus, and to use them to create new embryos?

          There are two areas of concern in this question, which are intimately bound together; the first deals with the ability of man to manipulate human procreation through genetic technology and the second has to do with the nature of the sexual act itself, but I will first highlight the guiding principle underlying all moral actions.  St. Paul in the letter to the Romans talks about how the wickedness of man “serves to show the justice of God” [Romans 3:5], as a consequence of this he states that certain individuals ask the question, “Why not do evil that good may come?” [Romans 3:8a].  He then immediately answers this question by condemning those who propose it, saying that “Their condemnation is just” [Romans 3:8b].  St. Paul is pointing out that for human beings both the object and the intention must be good for an action to be morally correct.  He is distinguishing between God’s ability to draw good effects out of evil actions, and the intentionality inherent in all of man’s actions which of necessity must be good.  Thus God can draw good out of evil, but man may never intentionally do evil that good may come of it; in other words, the ends do not justify the means. 

          Catholic moral theology sees the practice of in vitro fertilization itself as immoral because it separates the two indivisible principles inherent in the sexual act; the unitive element and the procreative element.  Pope Paul VI in his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, stated that there is an “. . . inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.  Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to the laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman” [Humanae Vitae, section 12].  Any human intervention which attempts to contravene this reality by manipulating procreation is thus illicit and contrary to the natural law and to revealed truth.  When one technologically manipulates procreation he destroys the unitive nature of the marriage act because he separates the unitive principle from procreation, treating procreation as an object which can be in some sense controlled and purchased, it is a form of materialism that fails to take into account the true nature of the human person.  The conjugal act is and can only be a personal act, to manipulate it with technology is to demean it and in a sense turn it into a economic commodity. 

          The idea of taking eggs from an aborted fetus is contrary to the guiding principle that I began this essay with, it promotes the idea that the end justifies the means, that one may do evil in order to bring about a good effect.  That one may murder an innocent person in order to help someone else achieve a desired end.  The right to life is the fundamental right, from which all other rights originate.  And it is the teaching of scripture that God, and not man, is the source of human life, for it is God who “. . . formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into him the breath of life” [Genesis, 2:7], and from this is follows that man does not have absolute control over his own life, but that life is a gift of God.  So both the use of aborted fetuses and the manipulation of procreation are equally illicit.

2.  Technology now exists to carefully look at each embryo and to choose the ones with some traits that are desired and avoid other traits.  This can be called a kind of genetic enhancement.  To what extent is enhancing an unborn child a good justification for using genetic technology and is it ethical?  What should be done with the embryos that are not chosen?

          Again it is important to remember that God, and not man, is the author of life.  For “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” [Genesis 1:27].  The implication within this question is that man has the right to choose which embryos (i.e. innocent human beings) will live and which will die.  Prenatal diagnosis is permissible for therapeutic reasons and for the defense and health of the unborn child, but “this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion . . . a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death sentence” [Donum Vitae, part 1, section 2].  One cannot treat an embryo as on object, it is a subject with inherent rights, as the second century patristic author Tertullian said, “To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth.  That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed” [The Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 25].  The concluding phrase from the quote connects Tertullian’s view to the creation account in Genesis, where it says, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth” [Genesis 1:11].  Tertullian understands that the fruit contains the seed, and that as a consequence the seed contains within itself the fruit, the concepts are connected.

          The argument that genetic manipulation is justified if it is done for the good of the embryo is contrary to the principle I put forward in the response to the first question, where I stated that one cannot do evil that good may come of it.  Therapeutic procedures “. . . which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival” are morally licit, but any kind of manipulation which causes its destruction is contrary to the divine law, natural and revealed.  These types of genetic interventions are dangerous in that the defenseless (i.e. the unborn) are often times the ones who are the victims of a desired perfection which is determined by those in power at any given time.

3.  Genetic selection can also be used to avoid major genetic disabilities.  But what about subtle ones?  There is a condition that affects some embryos.  It causes them to be shorter in stature (about 5'4" as adults) to suffer some upper body weakness, and to suffer recurrent episodic bleeding, nearly every 4-6 weeks.  While the bleeding is usually painless, for some patients it is not, and is associated with abdominal and cranial pain.  Given this condition, some occupations are closed to them, and generally, the patients never achieve parity in income, or economic status.  Since we can now diagnose this condition prior to birth, should we avoid this condition?  Should genetics be used to eliminate disabilities?

          One may not do evil that good may come of it, so the destruction of an unborn human being is never morally licit; only those procedures which are of a therapeutic nature are morally acceptable.  Scripture indicates that God alone is the creator of life, and that human beings only participate in this act of creation as instrumental causes through the conjugal act, as scripture says, “Thou [God] didst form my inward parts, Thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb . . . my frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was being made in secret . . . Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in Thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” [Psalm 139:13, 15a, and 16a].  For human beings to intervene in the nascent stages of human life in order to destroy it is contrary to both revelation and the natural law.

          The question uses the example of a condition which causes episodic bleeding and goes on to indicate that the individuals with this condition are unable to perform certain tasks, and as a consequence of this, “. . . some occupations are closed to them, and generally, the patients never achieve parity in income, or economic status” [Question 3].  If personhood were dependent upon economic achievement, then these individuals would never truly become persons or experience true fulfillment, but personhood is an ontological and not an economic reality.  Pope John Paul II has spoken of this in his encyclical letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, where he indicates that this is one of the basic philosophical problems facing the modern world; that human development  is often reduced to a form of consumerism, where “. . . people [become] slaves of ‘possession’ and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better” [Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 28:2].

          It is the difference between being and having, and it is important to note that, “. . . to ‘have’ objects and goods does not in itself perfect the human subject, unless it contributes to the maturing and enrichment of that subject’s ‘being,’ that is to say unless it contributes to the realization of the human vocation as such” [Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 28:4].  So the fact that a person with this condition may never achieve economic parity with those who do not have it, is no reason to end that persons life by killing them in the womb.  No economic, racial or religious  factors can ever justify the killing of an innocent human being.

4.  Cloning in animals has been achieved and now human cloning is theoretically possible.  This means that the nucleus of an adult cell, with all of its DNA can be transplanted to a new egg, and stimulated to become an embryo, and then implanted to create a pregnancy.  The resulting child would be a (fairly) exact replica of the adult from whom it was cloned.  Should this be permissible?

          Cloning is another aspect of genetic manipulation of humanity that is contrary to both the natural law and revealed truth.  Man is not the author of life, and in this regard he is trying to make himself equal with God, the true source of life.  This is precisely the sin of Adam and Eve.

          It is important to note that original sin is not simply the desire within man to know the difference between good and evil; the sin in original sin is the desire to know good and evil in separation from God.  The sin of Adam and Eve entails a desire to be God, which becomes clear when one looks at what the serpent told Eve, “You will not die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God” [Genesis 3:5].  The sin of Adam and Eve is the sin of pride, the desire to be completely independent from God.  It is brought on by their failure to see that true freedom comes only by conforming the human will to the will of God.  Sadly much of the research in the area of genetics falls into the same error, it desires to make man the source of life independently of God and the moral law.  What modern science is doing is similar to what is recounted in the Tz’enah Ur’enah where it says that, “. . . in the Gemara . . . Rava created a person using the holy Names and sent him to R’ Zeira.  R’ Zeira spoke to him, and seeing that he was unable to answer, said: ‘You must be a creation of the Sages.  Go back to the earth, and be earth once more.’ . . . a man cannot create another man who can speak, for the power of speech comes from the soul” [Course Reader, p. 80].  This text clearly shows that there are limits on man’s ability to produce things, and that properly speaking he does not have the power to create another human being, but only the power to procreate.

5.  Let us say that it would be possible to take the first few cells of the dividing fertilized cell, and instead of letting them develop as a fetus, allowing them to be separated and develop into sheets of cells that are all alike (for example, lots of nerve cells, or lots of heart cells).  Is such a technology permissible?  Could you use the tissues for transplants?

          Once again the method for getting the cells referred to in the question at the present time requires that one kill an innocent human being, and the Lord has said, “You shall not kill” [Exodus 20:13].  The Pope speaking about the euphemistic ways in which our culture describes abortion stated in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, that “Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as ‘interruption of pregnancy,’ which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion,” he goes on to say that, “Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience.  But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth” [Evangelium Vitae, 58:2].  And as he points out, nothing can ever “. . .  justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being” [Evangelium Vitae, 58:4].  The gravity of the moral situation in the world today is reflected in the way in which the Pope addresses this issue, in the encyclical he declares that, “By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops – who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine – I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.  This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” [Evangelium Vitae, 62:3].  By wording his declaration in this way, the Holy Father has reaffirmed dogmatically that this teaching is infallible and irrevocable, and that all Catholics are therefore bound by this decision and that anyone who disagrees with it is latae sententiae (automatically) excommunicated.

          I conclude by once again reiterating the statement I made earlier, that one may not do evil that good may come of it.  Good intentions alone can never justify that which in its object is morally evil.  In the magisterial instruction Donum Vitae, the Church declared that, “Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the moment of their existence.  It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable ‘biological material’” [Donum Vitae, part 1, section 5].  Thus the ends can never justify the means.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Bible:  Revised Standard Version.  (New York:  American Bible Society, 1971). 

Instruction on Bioethics: Donum Vitae.  (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1987)

Pope Paul VI.  Humanae Vitae.  (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1968)

Pope John Paul II.  Evangelium Vitae.  (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1995). 

Pope John Paul II.  Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.  (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1987).

Alexander Roberts (Editor).  The Ante-Nicene Fathers.  (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).  10 Volumes.

Course Reader.  The Moral of the Story: The Bible and Ethics.

Mid-term Examination:  Case Study in Creation Are there Limits in Genetic Research?

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

Philosophy 551:  Biblical Ethics (JS 516)

Midterm Exam

Professor Laurie Zoloth

14 October 1999

Copyright © 1999-2025 Steven Todd Kaster