Regarding the prohibition of heterologous fertilization

The debate that is reopening, on the legal level, about the constitutionality of the prohibition,
provided for by Law 40, of heterologous fertilization, is vitiated by an inaccurate premise,
which conditions its outcomes. It cannot be said that medically procreation
is properly configured as a therapy of sterility and infertility. In fact,
this technique has a "replacement" function for a part of the reproductive process,
allowing the birth of a child.
In the prohibition of heterologous fertilization, in reality, the reproductive health of the
couple, because even by resorting to it, the couple remains infertile or sterile. The prohibition,
instead, it is aimed at protecting the right of the unborn child to be generated by the same couple
that will raise it, thus preventing the legalization of the dissociation between the figures
parental: in order to have a child with heterologous fertilization, it is in fact necessary to resort to a
so-called donor - the real parent - who turns out to be a stranger to the couple
he resorts to technique.
The legal question, therefore, cannot be adequately addressed if it is
the misunderstanding that interprets medically assisted procreation as an affair weighs heavily
and the different ethical implications are not taken into consideration,
that come into play in homologous and heterologous fertilization.