Religion and human rights in artificial insemination: a matter of ratio
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61345/1339-7915.2023.3.1Keywords:
religion, human rights, somatic rights, fourth generation rights, right to artificial inseminationAbstract
It is pointed out that modern man is particularly sensitive to the imposition of any worldview and way of life. The only language in today’s world is the language of freedom, even if there is a substitution of this concept and its abuse. The value of freedom is not indifferent to religion. Therefore, the only way to spread the religious worldview in society is not the force of coercion, but the force of gravity.
It is noted that the problem of the relationship between bioethics and religion is determined by a number of reasons, both scientific and theoretical, and socio-cultural plan. The current stage of development of scientific thought is characterized by the emergence of a new phenomenon – bioethics. Bioethics is an integrative science that synthesizes knowledge about man, which is already substantiated in medicine, psychology, psychiatry, religious anthropology, philosophical anthropology and others. The moral aspect is the center of bioethics, it is associated with its attitude to all living things, to life as such. Because of this we can talk about the formation of a bioethical worldview as a holistic system of views on the human problem. The beginning of the process of forming a bioethical worldview is closely connected with scientific progress, biomedical practices, and the aggravation of religious problems. The uniqueness of bioethical discourse creates the preconditions for the development of philosophical and methodological ground for the study of bioethical worldview. The methodological significance of the problem is related to the need to rethink the fundamental philosophical problems that relate to demental philosophical problems that relate to the definition of attributive characteristics of man.
It is established that the religious problems that arise when using the IVF method are associated with several components: the production of germ cells, the lack of connection between conception and the natural idea of marital intimacy, obtaining an excessive number of embryos and manipulating them (elimination, reduction, freezing) embryos, preimplantation diagnosis), the use of germ cells of third parties. In this case, in vitro fertilization can be morally justified by religion and an acceptable method of infertility therapy for the Orthodox Christian, if it does not kill embryos and does not break the bond “in the flesh” even at the level of gametes.
References
Vystuplenye yhumena Fylyppa (Riabykh), predstavytelia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy pry Sovete Evropy, kandydata bohoslovyia y kandydata polytycheskykh nauk, na VIII zasedanyy sovmestnoi komyssyy po dyalohu «Pravoslavye-Yslam» 26 yiunia 2012 hoda. URL: http://www.strasbourg-reor. org/?topicid=923.
Shavrina I.V., Bioetyka i relihiia: teoretyko-metodolohichni problemy doslidzhennia. Visnyk NAU. Seriia: Filosofiia. Kulturolohiia. 2016. № 1 (23). S. 134–137.
Osnovy sotsyalnoi kontseptsyy Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy. M.: Otdel vneshnykh tserkovnykh sviazei Moskovskoho Patryarkhata, 2008. S. 135.
Tarabryn Roman, Sviashchennyk. Otnoshenye Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy k ekstrakorporalnomu oplodotvorenyiu. Moskovskye eparkhyalnye vedomosty. № 9-10. 2014. URL: https://mepar.ru/library/ vedomosti/77/1716/.
Royere D. Embryo characteristics and cryopreservation outcome // ESHRE Campus symposium Cryobiology & Cryopreservation of Human Gametes & Embryos Brussels, Belgium, 2004, p. 28. URL: http://www.eshre.eu/~/media/emagic%20files/SIGs/Embryology/Archive/Syllabus%20Brussels%20 2004.pdf.
Zashchyta embryona cheloveka in vitro. Doklad Rabochei hruppy po zashchyte embryona y ploda cheloveka. Rukovodiashchyi Komytet po byoetyke Soveta Evropы (CDBI). Strasburh, 19 yiunia 2003 h. (nauchnaia redaktsyia chlen.-korr. RAN B. H. Yudyna y prof. L. F. Kurylo).
Khaidarshyna L., Shoryn A., Solomatov S. Kak k zachatyiu «yz probyrky» otnosytsia relyhyia? Oblhazeta. ru. URL: https://www.oblgazeta.ru/society/12189/.
Tarabryn R., sviashch. K voprosu ob etycheskoi otsenke metoda EKO s pravoslavnoi tochky zrenyia v kontekste poslednykh dostyzhenyi byomedytsyny. URL: http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/4007414.html.
Shrechcha E., Tambone V.. Byoetyka. Uchebnyk. Perevod s ytalianskoho, 2001. Bybleisko-bohoslovskyi ynstytut sv. apostola Andreia, 2002. 561 c.
Aksenov Yhor, prot. Prohress y sovremennoe chelovecheskoe dostoynstvo. Etycheskye voprosy sovremennykh vspomohatelnykh reproduktyvnykh tekhnolohyi. Pravoslavye y problemy byoetyky. Sbornyk rabot. M., 2017. S. 25–29.
Balashov Nykolai, prot. Reproduktyvnye tekhnolohyy: Dar yly yskushenye? Pravoslavye y problemy byoetyky. Sbornyk rabot. M., 2017. C. 45–49.
Dokument «O kreshchenyy mladentsev, rodyvshykhsia pry pomoshchy «surrohatnoi matery». Zhurnal zasedanyia Sviashchennoho Synoda Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy 25-26 dekabria 2013 hoda (№ 158). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481024.html.
Kozlov Maksym, prot. Pochemu nuzhno kaiatsia za surrohatnoe materynstvo? URL: http://www. mpda.ru/site_pub/2021507.htm
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Mykola Palinchak, Myroslava Bielova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.