Sir, - It is unfortunate that Archbishop Connell chose contraception as the touchstone of his recent address in Maynooth, because his concern about children becoming "technological products" is worthy of deep consideration. In matters of sexual behaviour and human reproduction, artificial contraception is a relatively minor step on a long road away from nature and we have reached a stage on that journey where profound questions of the type raised by the Archbishop should concern us all.
Most rational people see no difference between so-called natural and artificial methods of family planning and little wrong with either. Equally, it is hard to argue with in vitro fertilisation by husband (or partner). Artificial insemination by donor is somewhat more dubious, but arguably is acceptable in the same way that adoption is. However when the selection of "desirable" donor characteristics becomes part of the game, the archbishop's observations start to acquire import. Here planning crosses the line from questions of timing or infertility to ones of physical and/or behavioural requirements. This, together with selective abortion on the grounds of undesirable traits (including a foetus being the wrong gender), has already taken us a long way down the slippery slope to the custom-built baby.
As if this were not enough with which to wrestle, technology is presenting us with new questions before we have even come to grips with the existing ones. Soon we will be confronted with the reality of human cloning. One does not need to be a Christian to feel uneasy at the prospect of a (literally) mother- or father-less child. Within 20 years or less, we may have the ability to genetically engineer children before they even get as far as the womb. Such tampering will probably start with noble purposes such as the elimination of inherited illnesses such as cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. But what will happen if and when the scientists discover a gene that gives rise to criminal tendencies? Or homosexuality? Or high intelligence? What then?
To some, these problems may yet seem remote, but 10 years ago Dolly the sheep would have seemed equally improbable. History shows us how quickly human nature and market forces can convert laboratory capabilities into day-to-day commercial realities. When some pharmaceutical giant offers the wealthy Western consumer the prospect of genetically modified babies, what kind of humans will we then be? A self engineered race? A made-to-measure species? Technological products, maybe?
There are profound ethical questions here and the debate is simply not keeping up with the science. If we do not address these questions now, humanity will find itself overtaken by events. The archbishop may have done us all a favour by drawing attention to this issue, but we need to get away from the unsupported assertion and the dead ground of contraception to the front line of contemporary reproduction technology where the nature of our humanity is now being called into question. Ironically, Humanae Vitae, and not just the encyclical of that name, may be the real issue for the 21st century. - Yours, etc., Frank E. Bannister,
Stillorgan Wood, Blackrock, Co Dublin.