Abstract

This dissertation is a carefully focused philosophical examination of the ethical arguments about the use of In Vitro Fertilization with Embryo Transfer and artificial insemination to assist infertile couples to bear their own genetic children. The dissertation sets the scene of its argument with a statement of its biological presuppositions and a review of the well known arguments about the morality of IVF/ET. It then examines Thomas Aquinas' teaching on natural law ethical theory, since some opponents of IVF/ET appeal to this theory to defend their position. Then the dissertation provides a detailed philosophical explanation and critique of an important document opposing IVF/ET. The author explains and critiques the best well known philosophical work against IVF/ET, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith . CDF claims that unity of husband and wife, and proreation are essentially linked to conjugal act. That is, the proper nature of conjugal act is to unite husband and wife and to procreate children. But CDF did not show how the two aspects of the conjugal act that CDF considers necessary , are necessarily present together in conjugal act, when very often, they occur separately. This position of CDF is based on a kind of natural law moral argument which views IVF/ET and artificial insemination as unnatural, hence immoral. Then, on the basis of a proportionalist or consequentialist interpretation of Thomas Aquinas' natural law ethical theory, in contrast with the deontological interpretation of this ethical theory by CDF, the author shows that CDF's deontological ethical argument that IVF/ET is unnatural and therefore immoral is fundamentally flawed. Instead IVF/ET is shown to be both natural and morally justified. Using value assumptions about the two essential meanings conjugal act, the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning , which CDF itself accepts, the dissertation argues on proportionalis or consequentialist grounds that, in general, IVF/ET yields more goods than harms for those involved, especially in a culture like Nigeria. Moreover, a comparison of IVF/ET with other competing alternatives shows that, in each case, IVF/ET yields a better balance of good over evil than the other alternatives. ;Therefore opponents of IVF/ET are not justified in condemning this technology as immoral either on the basis that it is fraught with serious risks/harm for the embryo or on the basis that it is unnatural