According to Shannon and Kockler, insurance companies are essentially able to make constituents within their policies that require them to only pay a portion of the procedure. This leads to the problem of high technology costs. Will only the wealthy have access to IVF? For most, it will not be covered by insurance and to make availability even more limited, “one cycle of ART with elective testing would cost a couple approximately $17, 715” (Shannon & Kockler 96). The mere cost, even without considering the community’s technological capabilities (which also affects availability), makes this type of ART attainable by only a certain group of people, which is an ethical dilemma. When a service is only attainable by the rich we encounter a problem that looks to the inequality between social classes, directly affected by the gap between the rich and …show more content…
In IVF: Answering the Ethical Objections, Toulmin states that following fertilization in a dish, “zygosis occurs just as though the sperm had arrived through sexual intercourse, and implantation and gestation are free to proceed normally” (9). Sure, one may argue that the sperm and egg fertilize in the same mechanism, however that is a poor argument. Scientists are able to genetically modify plants to be resistant to types of pesticides, does this mean that their survival is natural? Not quite. Therefore, the mechanism is the same, sure, however in actuality the procedure robs conventional, procreative sex. According to Human Vitae, sex is a unitive and procreative process, thus it is intended to bring couples closer together, while remaining open to human life. When IVF is brought into the equation, one may say that clearly it is open to human life, however, the problem with IVF is that it robs reproduction/sex of its unitive act. Sex is no longer the factor bringing the child into the world; it is now hormones and medical equipment and not solely the two individuals who love each other.