Urpedigreechumdog Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Ahoy! I'm in the middle of an essay (title: Explain how a follower of Natural Law might respond to issues raised by infertility treatment) and I have written about AID and AIH (Artificial Insemination by Donor and Husband) but i still need to do about IVF.However, I think I've written a load of bollocks anyway, here's what i've got so far (not spell checked or gone over yet so don't nit pick please Thomas Aquinas devised his theory of Natural Law in the hope of making a way for anyone to easily make moral decisions. It is a stand alone theory which means it does not rely on any religion for support. It is a theory that can be used by anyone. Aquinas wanted it to be as simple as possible, however this did prove to be easier said than done. Aquinas presents us with a set of 5 primary principles of which we should respect and live by. These principles are; Do good and avoid evil; Preserve and protect life; Procreate and nurture the young; Live together in society; Know and worship God.To look at issues raised by fertility treatment, it is essential to concentrate on only one of these principles, 'Procreate and nurture the young'. A follower of Natural Law would take this primary principle and use reason to elaborate and apply it.AIH is Artificial Insemination by Husband. It involves injecting sperm through a catheter into the wife's reproductive tract. This form of treatment is used to aid couples in which the man has physiological problems. A strong follower of Natural Law would dismiss this treatment as immoral. He or she would believe that the only circumstance in which a baby should be brought about is to have sexual intercourse, within a marriage. Followers of Natural Law believe that sex within marriage is both unitive (uniting and mutually giving love) and procreative (bringing about a human life). The general conclusion on AIH would be that it is wrong and unacceptable. However not so strong followers of Natural Law may believe it to be ok, seeing as the sperm is form the Husband. These views would tend to come from a Natural Law follower of a Protestant background or of no religion at all. Natural Law followers from a Catholic background would still not accept it because the process would involve masturbation, which is prohibited under all circumstances.AID is similar to AIH, but the sperm is from a donor. This would definitely be considered wrong under all circumstances, even by a follower of Natural Law from an atheist background. This is mainly due to the fact that the sperm is not the husband's. Strong followers of Natural Law would not think twice about believing AID to be acceptable. This would be because they believe no has the right to have a child in the first place. They believe that married couples do not have the right to a child, they only have a right to have sexual intercourse to hope that they will be blessed with a baby.IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) is a very complex procedure involving fertilising an egg and sperm in a laboratory, then carefully placing it in the womb and to hope for the best. It is a very expensive procedure and it has such a low success rate (20%).Anyhoo, i was wondering if someone could point me into the right direction as to whether or not i'm right or not. I've got minimal notes for this and I think i could be writing about AID AIH and IVF from the RC Church point of view(ish). HELP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sameer Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Not really the reply you were anticipating but I just thought I'd mention your essay writing skills don't really help your cause. Reading through that was a chore, like reading a text book or something. You should try and make it flow more, if you can.As for the actual topic... I think you've covered most of the ethical issues involved (masterbation and intercourse) but I suppose if you wanted to add a bit of blabber you could talk about how the conception of a human life is not a role humans should take, and that it's Gods' work only... and IVF could be interepreted by some as man playing God, which pretty much pisses on religious beliefs.But then you can also play devils advocate by introducing the extremes and saying that according to natural law, IVF (and such procedures) may be necessary at some point. What I mean is, again this is the extreme end of the scale, a part of Natual Law is the protection and preservation of life. Well what happens if there's some bitch disease or something whereby men can no longer conceive by intercourse? IVF is a solution, and upholds natural law.Been a long time since I've done that kind of shit. Rusty, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urpedigreechumdog Posted March 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) Cheers for the feedback, I know my essay skills are poo, but i'm not really in the mood - earache and a headache, but it's something that needs to be done.As long as i'm not completely off track then it should be ok Edit: Essay finished now anyway Edited March 21, 2006 by Urpedigreechumdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.