Assisted Human Reproduction Act:
The Catholic Response

“The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life.”
- “The Gospel of Life” (EV 14)

In writing those words, the Holy Father could not have anticipated just how much of a threat “new” reproductive technologies would pose. At the writing of “The Gospel of Life,” (in the early nineties) many of the “new” technologies were the stuff of science fiction, a remote and perhaps impossible threat to life. Today they are all too real.

In “The Gospel of Life,” the Holy Father reminds us that Christians are and are called to be ‘the people of life and the people for life.’ We are members of Christ, Who said, “I am… the Life,” and Who came that we may have life—abundantly.

Families, especially fathers and mothers, then, are charged with a special responsibility to preserve and foster the dignity and status of life and family generally. In addition, all laypersons are charged by their vocation with whatever pertains to the “world.” Time and again, the Church has reminded laypersons that they are called to be in the world, living in the world not as one with the world-- for they are one with Christ—but rather in the world to renew it.

The renewal of the world, especially in things pertaining to life and family, is thus the pre-eminent apostolate of lay Christians, especially of families.

This “social role of families is… to find expression also in the forms of political intervention: families should be the first to take steps to see that laws and institutions of the state not only do not offend but support and positively defend the rights and duties of the family” (FC 44) and the right to life.

For this reason, lay Christians are called upon to respond to the draft legislation introduced recently by the federal government known as the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

Contents:

• The Legislation: what it covers

  • Human Cloning

  • Human-Animal Hybrid Reproduction

  • The Use of Embryonic Human Beings in Research

  • The Commodification of Human Beings and Human Reproduction

• How to Contact Your Member of Parliament (M.P.)

• Key Points for Letter Writing.

  
The Draft Legislation: What it covers

The draft legislation covers the prohibition or regulation of a number of technologies, all of which are connected to forms of assisted human reproduction. Assisted human reproduction is any technology that assists in the procreating of human beings. For the purposes of the legislation, this definition appears to be restricted to those technologies that assist in procreation but not procreation in the course of sexual intercourse. The legislation also proposes to deal with the use in experiments of the “products” of some forms of assisted human reproduction — that is, with the use of embryonic human beings in stem cell research.

The legislation covers much more than will be covered in this Package. For the sake of brevity, the Package will cover only the most important aspects.

For a more comprehensive look at the legislation, see the Executive Summary provided by Health Canada:

For a glossary of terms used by Health Canada

The aspects of the legislation that are addressed in this Package are:
1. human cloning;
2. animal-human hybrid reproduction;
3. the use of embryonic human beings in research;
4. the commodification of human reproduction and human beings.

You can either read the entire text of the package or jump ahead to the particular topic that most interests you. At the end there is a Summary that explains the main problem with the legislation, as well as a section detailing the key points — useful in writing letters to Members of Parliament, in contacting the media, discussing the issues with friends and in prayer.
  

Human Cloning

What does the legislation propose regarding human cloning?

The legislation would ban human cloning.

What is human cloning?

To understand cloning, it is helpful to define human “reproduction.”

Reproduction occurs whenever a full genetic code — a complete DNA strand — is made present in what was an ovum.

In the natural course of human reproduction, the presence of the complete DNA strand in the ovum is accomplished thus: When the sperm meets the ovum, the ‘half-code’ DNA strand of the sperm combines with the ‘half-code’ DNA strand of the ovum to form a complete code DNA strand. (In this way, a child gets half of its genetic code from its mother and half from its father.) With the presence of the complete DNA strand, the ovum becomes a human being — it has the complete genetic code of a human being — and reproduction has occurred. It then grows to become an ‘embryonic’ human being that will attach to the uterus of its mother.

NB: Once the complete DNA strand is present in what was an ovum, the ovum has become an embryonic human being — reproduction has occurred. But that embryo may later divide into two or more human beings — it may develop as twins, triplets and so on. We cannot know if the life of one or of more than one person has begun until there is growth and development. Nevertheless, from the moment that the complete genetic identity is established in the ovum-become-embryo, we are dealing with new human life.

Two forms of cloning are technologically possible at present. One form (called “embryo splitting”) is essentially an artificial way of producing twins (or multiple siblings.) The embryo is artificially split such that more than one human being develops. The human beings who originate in this manner will be identical twins, triplets and so on, all possessing the same genetic code — exact copies of each others DNA.

The other form of cloning in use today (called “somatic cell nuclear transfer”) is accomplished using some variation on the following basic procedure: The complete DNA strand of an already existing (or dead) human being’s “somatic” cell (a cell with the full genetic code) is put into an ovum that has had its ‘half-code’ DNA strand removed. Thus a complete DNA strand — a full genetic code — is made present in what was an ovum. At this point, a new human being is procreated, and if all goes well, and it is implanted into a womb, it will grow and develop in the same way as it would if its genetic code — its DNA — had been provided in the natural way. However, the child procreated will have the other person’s genetic code, the DNA, will be a clone of that person — will be genetically identical — like identical twins.

This second form of cloning technology has been used to clone sheep, cows, goats, rats, mice — and also human beings. But all the human beings cloned in this way have been destroyed at the embryonic stage of development.

What is the problem with human cloning?

There are three problems: it harms the person who is cloned; it undermines the family —which harms the rights of children and endangers reverence for life; and it does not respect the inherent dignity of human reproduction.

1. The harm to the person who is cloned:
Somatic nuclear transfer cloning involves a very high risk of death or deformity. Most of the animals reproduced in this way have died very soon after reproduction occurred. Most of those that have survived long enough to be implanted in a womb have had gross deformities. And of those that are born, few are healthy. Of the healthy few, even they have health problems, including a foreshortened lifespan. Embryo splitting, while not as dangerous, increases the risk of death or deformity with no advantage to the persons being cloned.

Cloning could have other negative effects on cloned persons, effects we can only speculate about. Being the clone of an already existing person could have serious negative psychological effects. In addition, society may treat clones differently. And it is not at all clear how cloned persons would fit into society, not having a natural mother and father.

2. It undermines the family:
Not procreated by the marital act of two parents who have a stable commitment to each other, cloned human beings do not have a family. It is not at all clear who the cloned persons parents are or if they even have parents. Who might these be — the person or persons who provided the genetic code or the ovum or the womb?

True, one of their genetic ‘parents’ or someone else might adopt the cloned child —indeed they might be cloned specifically to provide someone with a child. But the relationship of the clone to his or her adoptive parents is not established by who they are — natural parent and child — but who they decide to be — parent and child by law or social consensus or personal choice. That is, the bond between them is not something they are subject to but something that the parents make subject to themselves.

The fact that natural familial bonds are not subject to law, social consensus or personal choice are the very grounds for maintaining that the rights of children — of all family members — are something to which we are all subject — rights that might be violated but that exist regardless.

Procreating a child without having established a family based on a stable commitment (marriage) always, then, threaten the child’s rights — and often leads to the parents being tempted to treat that child’s life without reverence.

But cloning is even more of a threat to the reverence that is due to every human life because it does not respect the dignity of human reproduction.

3. It does not respect the dignity of human reproduction.
Even if the cloned child did not suffer death or deformity and even if it were adopted by a loving couple and provided with a family; cloning would still be gravely wrong.

The reproduction of a human being is not the mere manufacture of a biological system and should never be the object of anyone’s intent to ‘produce’ something. The human being who is procreated is a person — and persons should only come to exist as the result of the loving embrace of two persons. Put philosophically, a child should only be a subject of reproduction, the result of two other subjects’ loving actions — and never an object subordinated to the actions of a manufacturer. Cloning is for making objects, ‘things’, while subjects, ‘persons’, are not made but procreated.

Regardless of the good will of those who engage in cloning, the very act of cloning necessarily by it nature reduces the procreation of a human being to an act of production, necessarily treats the procreated person as though he or she were a thing.

How do we respond to this aspect of the legislation?

We should ask our legislators to enact the legislation’s proposed ban on human cloning. We should also urge them to ensure that the legislation anticipates and similarly prohibits new forms of cloning as well as other similar attempts to procreate human beings without respecting the dignity of human reproduction — other attempts to procreate persons without natural parents.
  

Animal-Human Hybrid Reproduction

What does the legislation propose regarding animal-human hybrid reproduction?

The legislation prohibits transferring animal sperm, ova, embryos or fetuses into human beings and the procreation of human beings using sperm, ova or embryo parts that were transplanted into an animal. But the legislation proposes only to regulate the creation of a ‘chimera’— a creature that is part animal, part human — that is it would be allowed under license from the government.

What is animal-human reproduction?

The genetic code — the complete DNA strand needed for reproduction and provided naturally by sperm and ovum — can be provided in many other ways than those detailed above in the section on cloning. It can be derived by combining parts of one DNA strand with another or by producing wholly new DNA strands. Already scientists are combining strands of DNA from one species with those of another to produce “improved” forms of plant and animal life. It may soon be possible to produce entirely new forms of plant and animal life.

Were this applied to human reproduction, we could produce “chimeras” — human beings with animal features or vice versa — or even creatures that we cannot readily define either as man or animal.

Why is the production of an animal-human hybrid a problem?

The dignity of the human person must utterly preclude the possibility of altering human DNA such that we might procreate creatures with a human or partially human dignity but who are not fully capable of possessing human dignity or enjoying the dignity they possess. We have no right to do that to any creature. Nor indeed do we have the right to produce creatures when we do not know what rights they might possess.

The other ‘social’ danger lies in the confusion that many people will face about what it is to be human. With the line between human beings and animals confused by chimeras, people may find it more difficult to recognize human dignity. Rather than sensitize us to the fate of animals, these developments may cause many to lose all reverence for human life and dignity.

How do we respond to this aspect of the legislation?

We ought to urge our legislators to prohibit entirely any attempts to create creatures that are partly human. Likewise the law must prohibit attempts to combine human and non-human strands of DNA to produce any hybrid being. The law must ban entirely the procreation of chimeras.
  

The Use of Embryonic Human beings in Research

What does the legislation propose regarding the use of embryonic human beings in research?

In this area more than any other, the legislation is deficient. There is a provision for prohibiting experimentation on embryonic human beings procreated solely for the purpose of research. But if procreated for any other reason (e.g. the ‘surplus’ embryos that result from ‘in vitro’ fertilization attempts), those embryonic human beings would be subject to experimentation — which would kill them.

How are embryonic human beings used in research?

Embryos are a source of “stem cells” — cells from which all other kinds of cells “stem” or develop. As such, stem cells are extraordinarily useful in scientific research. For this reason, many want to allow for embryonic stem cell research, despite the fact that such cells are obtained by killing a human being. (It should be noted that there are other sources of stem cells that can be obtained without harm to anyone.)

The seriousness of this problem:

While some might choose to dispute labeling an embryonic human being a “human being,” the fact is that a human being is a human from the moment of conception.

This consistently held teaching of the Catholic Church is expressed well in Donum Vitae, an Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“The fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his or her bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception.” (CDF, Donum Vitae, 1987, # 1)

 

The Law Reform Commission of Canada agrees:

“True, the present Code has a curious provision in section 206 to the effect that a child doesn’t become a human being until it has proceeded completely from its mother’s body. This, far from being a proper definition of the term, runs counter to the general consensus that the product of human conception, in the womb or outside, is a human being.” (Law Reform Commission of Canada, Crimes Against the Foetus, Working Paper 58, 1989, p. 50)

How do we respond to this aspect of the legislation?

We must urge our legislators to prohibit any research that deliberately causes the death of or that seriously harms embryonic human beings — indeed human beings at any stage of development.
  

The Commodification of Human Reproduction and of Human Beings

What does the legislation propose in this regard?

The legislation will prohibit the sale and purchase of sperm and ova and will prohibit maternal surrogacy for payment (renting out womb space for someone else’s embryonic child).

Why are these prohibitions important?

These prohibitions are vital in preventing human reproduction from becoming ‘commodified’ — from becoming something that can be bought and sold like a commodity.

The sale and purchase of embryonic human beings is also prohibited — prohibiting the commodification of human beings.

We must urge our legislators to maintain these proscriptions against commodification.

Is this enough to protect the dignity of human beings and human reproduction?

No. The legislation will still allow for the donation of sperm and ova and for free and voluntary surrogacy. It also allows for the donation of embryonic human beings.

Thus, it is still possible, even likely, that human beings and human reproduction will become, as the philosophers put it, ‘reified’ —will be treated as things or objects. If sperm, ova and wombs can be donated and accepted without any interpersonal love or commitment or even meaningful interaction, then human reproduction will become, in many instances, nothing other than the production of an object. Whether those who seek to reproduce in these ways intend it or not, they will not be treating the child they procreate as a person but as a thing, an object whose being they may manipulate. Procreation using donated sperm, ova, wombs and embryo parts will never be that interpersonal act of two loving, committed persons, but always an act of mere production.
  

Summation

The key concern that we must have regarding the legislation is its deficiency in protecting the dignity of human reproduction. If the dignity of human reproduction is not both recognized and respected, the personal dignity of every human being from the moment of conception will not be recognized and respected either. If the dignity of persons is not respected in the giving of life, then the act of giving life becomes degraded. So likewise does life itself and ultimately human personhood. The key question is “What are we — persons or things?” And how should we be reproduced, as persons or things? The legislation does not answer this question, and it must — if we are to safeguard the dignity and rights of human beings.

Some Additional Resources:
 
1. An article written by Dr. William May, PhD, on human cloning
 
2. The Declaration of the Pontifical Academy for Life regarding stem cell research
 
3. The Public Statement of the Catholic Organization for Life and Family regarding the Assisted Human Reproduction Act
  

Key Points for Letter Writing

These may be useful in writing letters to your M.P., in contacting the media, in conversations and in matters to pray about.

• the legislation does propose to and should prohibit human cloning, the transplanting of sperm, ova and embryos from animals into human beings and vice versa, and the commodification of human reproduction. We support these measures and hope that they become law.
    

• the legislation does not prevent the procreation of ‘chimeras’, creatures part human and part animal. We have no right to procreate such creatures, for their sakes and the good of all humanity. We must urge legislators to ban this practice.
    

• the legislation does not prevent embryonic human beings from being destroyed in harvesting their stem cells for the sake of research. We must urge legislators to prohibit all destruction of embryonic human beings. It is ironic that the legislation seeks to prohibit the procreation of human beings for the purpose of such research but does allow those already procreated to be killed.
    

• the legislation does not prevent the donation of sperm, ova, womb space and embryos, allowing human procreation to take place apart from the stable and committed relationship of marriage. Human reproduction using donated sperm, ova, wombs and embryos does not respect the dignity of procreation. Procreation is reduced from the creation of a person as the result of a personal act to the manufacture of a thing.

To contact your M.P., please refer to the M.P. contacts below.
  

Members of Parliament
Lower Mainland

Mail may be sent postage-free to:

House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa  ON  K1A 0A6

To find your MP, click here and enter your postal code