William Phelps 5/1/2015

The Natural Moral Law approach to Right to a Child does more harm than good. [10]
The idea of having a right to a child is typically raised by those attempting to have a child through
artificial means, such as IVF. Natural Moral Law, as first put forward by Aquinas, holds a variety of
views as to the ethics of IVF. However, is it correct to say that such a Thomistic approach to IVF
does more harm than good?
A follower of both natural moral law and divine command theory may state that Christian teachings
are the best way to evaluate the right to a child. This may be said due to the fact that those
following divine command theory, such as Karl Brunner, believe that the best possible action is
doing what God wills at any particular moment. Thus, when Pslam 139 states for you formed my
inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb, it may be interpreted as saying that
only God has the authority to grant children, and thus if you are infertile, it is due to Gods will. As
Brunner stated, if acting in accordance with God is the best action, then not to have IVF and accept
that you have not been granted the right to a child by God is optimum. Personally, I disagree, due
to the fact that judging following Gods will to be the best course of action is a strictly Christian
viewpoint, and it would be incorrect to say definitely that an Abrahamic God exists, thus it is not
necessarily the case that following the commands of the Bible is the best course of action.
However, Natural Moral Law may dictate that only by following its precepts (both specifically and
generally) may be live in an ordered society and fulfil our telos. Thus, when it states that we should
preserve innocent life, it is thus speaking out against artificial techniques such as IVF. This is due
to the embryos that die in the process of fertilisation, and not only is this not preserving innocent
life, but it is also disallowing the fulfilment of telos, for no-one, according to Aquinas, is born to die.
Again, I disagree, due to the fact that we can never truly know the telos of every human, for it is
possible to serve God in many different ways. I further believe that Aquinas support of casuistry
justifies the use of IVF in acquiring children, for with the advent of science we may say that God
would want us to fulfil his order of going forth and multiply, and in many cases IVF is the best way
of doing this. I also think that the synderesis rule works in the case of IVF, for unlike abortion, for
example, generally couples are very happy to attempt IVF, thus meaning that as we generally will
towards it, IVF would appear to be good.
Contrarily, Fletcher and his 1966 Situation Ethics may disagree.