I'm really confused today.

Justin's post about "assisted" reproduction has me all in a dither, both morally and intellectually, because I want to follow the natural law wherever I can find it, but first I have to find it, then analyze it, and then I get all worried about things like logic and the Constitution and stuff...

I guess I should start by asking, What is assisted reproduction? Is that in contrast to unassisted reproduction?

I'm a little confused, because I thought that the people who are opposing assisted reproduction also had a problem with contraception (which is "assisted" prevention of reproduction -- i.e. assisted non-reproduction).

So, apparently, is isn't reproduction per se that they're either for or against, but the assistance of it either way. Can't help it, can't hurt it. The federal government must (in their view) be used to prevent people from having assistance with either reproduction or non-reproduction.

Well, to a point. Only married people get assistance. Unmarried people, you're on your own.

If I take the broad, general view of this complex matter, it strikes me that all reproduction is, by definition, assisted. Barring parthenogenesis, one cannot reproduce on one's own. What is required is the assistance of either a member of the opposite sex, or a third party to assist or facilitate the process in one way or another. If a woman wants to have a baby, the easiest way for her to do that is to locate a man to assist reproduction. That kind of assistance, it seems, they would allow. But if the woman either doesn't want a man to assist her by means of penile-vaginal intercourse, or if that tried and true technique has failed to effect reproduction, then they see a problem.

(A problem, apparently, requiring a federal government solution. I'd love to know just where the Constitution gives such a broad grant of authority, but for now I want to see this argument through. . .)

The demand is that federal law require that the woman be married before she can be assisted by any third party other than a man she might persuade to engage in ordinary assisted reproduction (a.k.a. heterosexual sexual intercourse). Beyond that, they want the entire "assisted reproduction" process to be federally regulated, even for married couples.

I take it that the goal here must be primarily to encourage marriage. But not by all. Unmarried women would still be free to engage in assisted reproduction by having sexual intercourse with as many men as they might choose, as much as they might want. But, because medically normal women would be barred by the federal government from escaping sexual intercourse unless they were married, the federal government would essentially be creating a new requirement -- that unmarried women must submit to male penetration in order to have children.

(Gee. I wonder if the founders realized they were giving the federal government such vast powers. . .)

Moving to the unmarried but medically abnormal women (those with fertility problems), the federal government would similarly not allow them the right to assistance unless they were married. The goal, I assume, must be to encourage marriage. But again, not by all. Unmarried women who couldn't have children would find the foot of the federal government planted firmly in their vaginas. I'm assuming that the public policy interest involves discouraging childbirth among unmarried women with fertility issues, but I think this is a pretty small portion of the unmarried, and I'm wondering how much money would really be saved this way.

But wait a minute! If the goal of the people who are against assisted reproduction is really to stop reproduction by the unmarried, why are they limiting their effort to such a small portion of the unmarried?

Or might this be a foot in the door approach? (I'd say "foot in the vagina" but that sounds dirty and besides, I already said it once.) I'm troubled by an apparent inconsistency, because so many of the same people are also against the prevention of pregnancies by unmarried women.

OK. They don't want them to get pregnant. That I can handle. But, if they also don't want them to not get pregnant, what's going on?

What am I missing?

I'm having difficulty with following how they can be against assisted prevention, but also against assisted non-prevention, unless the idea is to just be against all assistance.

Sheesh! Next they'll be against assisted living.

Nah, that can't be right, because many of the same people were all for Terri Schiavo's right to life.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I was all for Terri's right to live too, despite the fact that her life was assisted by feeding tubes and IV lines.

But wait! They also want to have the federal government stop people from having assistance to prolong their lives. (Like assisted reproduction, some life extension is good! But other life extension is bad!)

What makes some people think they should be in charge of other people's assistance?

I'd rather leave people alone. I guess we should be lucky the Constitution is supposed to do that.

Once again, I think atheists and believers should join in common prayer:

DEAR GOD, PLEASE DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT HELP ME ANYMORE.

I hasten to add that the people on what's often called the "other side" of this debate also have no problem with a role for the federal government. If they had their way, assisted reproduction would not only be a "right," but since rights are defined not as rights but as obligations, this "right" would require that the federal government (the taxpayers, of course) pay for reproductive assistance. Thus, limiting these arguments to the merits unwittingly enables another foot in the door by presuming federal jurisdiction. (Which is why I think the Constitution deserved at least a mention.)

MORE: Speaking of bioethics and (gasp!) values, Almost Girl (who works for a medical ethicist) has a fascinating post called "A Question of Values" in which she asks whether fashion is just as important as, well, medical ethics:

I do work in ethics and morals, the deepest root of what makes us human and yet I don’t consider it intrinsically more worthwhile than writing fashion copy or putting together a good poto shoot. Why? Because helping people dress themselves, express themselves, learn to appreciate their own beauty adds just as much to life as curing disease. I spent the better part of my high school years seriously ill and what I took from that experience as I struggled to get to college is that we need to appreciate the things in life that make it more worthwhile. Even as I lay in bed I took joy in the beauty of my town, music, clothing that made my life more functional. I don’t know why we don’t appreciate fashion as something socially worthwhile. Is it some residual sexism from the fact that fashion is primarily the domain of women? Do we not value their work? Do we think that fashion is only populated with self indulgent women who do it for superficial reasons? Heck, I even support some of those superficial reasons! We all need clothes! What is wrong with providing the world with better clothing, helping people dress better, or bringing out better style in the world?

(And fortunately, the Constitution prevents the federal government from regulating fashion.)