The power of Remini’s AI imagery has undeniably opened up new and exciting possibilities when it comes to pregnancy and parenting. However, one scholar raises a cautionary note, pointing out that computer-generated children have a much broader impact than simply kindling maternal and paternal feelings in childless adults and can lead to ideas and practices in direct conflict with Catholic teaching on sexuality, reproduction, and the purpose of human life.
Emma Waters, Heritage Foundation research associate working on marriage, family, life, and assisted reproductive technology policy, said that while AI holds tremendous potential for good, it is not limited to benevolent applications. For example, apps such as Remini possess the capacity to create images of children produced by homosexual couples, which does not align with God’s intended plan for marriage and reproduction. Advancements like these may cultivate desires that cannot be fulfilled, even if science aims to make them possible.
More dire are the implications of this technology for the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) industry.
Already, children are commodified by IVF, allowing parents to choose characteristics such as eye, hair, and skin color — but the advent of autogenerated child imagery could take the “build-a-baby” experience to new levels. Through genetic testing of embryos, scientists could produce lifelike images of the lab-created babies, and from this pool, parents could then choose which embryos to implant.
Waters cautioned that adopting a consumerist approach to reproduction could profoundly reshape our expectations of having children. “If kids are no longer something that primarily comes from the union of a husband and a wife but are something we can create and design according to needs or desires you have for the kid, then I think we’re on a very slippery slope where having kids becomes more like ordering a product rather than receiving a gift.”
Real-life incidents that demonstrate the unintended consequences of child commodification have been emerging for some time now. For example, one gay couple in California is suing the fertility clinic they used after they requested a baby boy and ultimately received a baby girl. They claim the fertility clinic acted negligently and recklessly, not honoring the gender request a doctor assured he could make happen. The couple also sued for costs as they spent $300,000 on the surrogacy/IVF process and were still determined to eventually have two sons, the extra girl adding unintended child care costs.