Versión de HTML Básico
Technology and Pregnancy Enhancement
71
tance in procreation, so long as the process employed is not objectionable on
other moral grounds.
Technological assistance as such, therefore, is not ethically questionable.
Rather than a wholesale rejection of technological assistance
in toto
, such
assistance, within certain limitations, in the process of pregnancy can be a
^reat benefit to childless couples and therefore ought to be welcomed. The
ethical issue, in other words, does not lie with the idea of assistance from
medical science. Rather, each specific means must be ethically tested.
Alternatives to Technological Procreation
Of course, the availability of technological assistance does not mean that
conscientious childless couples ought to sense a compulsion to employ it.
The Vatican document goes too far in asserting that infertile couples are
called to find in their situation “an opportunity for sharing in a particular
way in the Lord’s cross. . . . ” Nevertheless, the suggestion that this be a valid
attitude is surely correct. In addition to turning to technological assistance,
iwo other options are worthy of consideration by couples touched by infer-
lility: adoption and remaining “child free” for the sake of service to Christ.2
a.
Adoption.
Adoption ranks as the preferred option for couples who can
no t
have children through natural means. This practice carries biblical pre
cedence. Moses, for example, was adopted. And the implication of the doc-
irine of the virgin birth is that Jesus was adopted as well (by Joseph). Further,
ihe adoption of a child who for some reason is given up by his or her natural
parents becomes a gracious act, for therein a couple extends a home to a
homeless little one. In this way the act can serve as a reflection of the gra
cious compassion of God, who provides home for the homeless. Finally,
adoption can also serve as a metaphor of God’s adoption of human beings
into
the divine family.
Because of the picture of spiritual truth that it offers, adoption is a viable
option. As John and Sylvia Van Regenmorter aptly declare, “For the Chris-
nan infertile couple, adoption is not ‘second best.’ It is simply the way that
( iod in his wisdom can choose for us to be parents. Whether one becomes a
parent biologically or through adoption, the fact is that children are not a
i i^ht but a gift from God.”3
Nevertheless, adoption is not without its difficulties.4
2.
T h e te rm
child free
is of fered as preferable to
childless
by D i ane Paye t te-Bucc i , “Volunt ar
( Inldlessness, ”
Direction
17, 2 (1988): 39.
C John and Sylvia Van Regenmo r t e r and Joe S. Mc l lhaney , Jr. , M .D .
Dear God, Why Can
V
H r
Have a Iluby?
(Grand Rapids: Raker, 1980), 141.
I. I;or a helpful , succinct di scuss ion of (lie joys and difficult ies su r round ing adop t ion , see
1
1»id , 1 W IS. T h e difficult ies involved in llie adop t ion process are the subject of a recent
lime
• over story. Nancy ( i ihhs, “T h e Itaby < hase ,” /'////<•, () Oc tober
1989
,
H(>
8 9
.