Can a Robot Give Life? Bioethics, Technology, and the Human Limit in Assisted Reproduction

June 6, 2025
Author: Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero
Versión en Español

Introduction

A woman in Guadalajara embraces her newborn child for the first time. The emotion is indescribable. But what makes this birth unique is not just the miracle of life, but the fact that this life began when a robot, guided by artificial intelligence, introduced a sperm into an egg with millimeter precision. No human hands were involved at that moment. Only algorithms, mechanical arms, and remotely supervised screens.

This is not a science fiction script nor an experiment in Silicon Valley. It is a medical reality from April 2025. For the first time, an in vitro fertilization was almost entirely automated. And although the result has been labeled a clinical success, the question that arises is not technical, but ethical: Can human life begin from a machine without losing something essential of our humanity?

This article pauses at that threshold: between the promise of technological precision and the risk of dehumanizing the origin of life. Are we witnessing an evolution of medicine or a silent delegation of what only humans should decide? Does automation in assisted reproduction represent an ethically sustainable advance or a leap towards the commodification of the body and the instrumentalization of life? Because in matters of life, the how matters as much as the what. And at the beginning of every human life, we should never forget that it is not only about efficiency but about meaning.

The Specific Case, Technology, and Efficiency

In April 2025, the first baby conceived through almost entirely automated in vitro fertilization was born, using a robotic system controlled by artificial intelligence. The procedure, performed by Conceivable Life Sciences₁ i in Guadalajara₂ ii, replicated 23 critical steps of the ICSI method under remote supervision.

The robot selected, immobilized, and injected sperm into eggs with millimeter precision. Four out of five eggs were successfully fertilized and one was implanted, leading to birth. The results were published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online₃ iii.

This advance marks a watershed moment, but also raises a fundamental ethical question: Can technical efficiency replace clinical judgment in the origin of human life? Automation is not neutral; it implies delegating decisions that touch on dignity and the meaning of being human.

The Human Body as a Field of Technological Experimentation

Advances in assisted reproduction have opened new possibilities but have also favored a reductionist view of the human body as a mere biological platform. Deeply human processes like fertilization are being technologized to the point of being conceived as optimizable and automatable procedures, leaving aside their personal, relational, and existential nature. This instrumentalization puts at risk our understanding of the body as a constitutive part of the person, not as a disposable object.

When software decides which sperm to inject into which egg, we are not just facing a technical operation: we are intervening in the beginning of a human story. The problem is not technology itself, but its use uprooted from ethical criteria. Fertilization, more than a medical act, is a foundational moment that demands respect, not just precision.

For this reason, principles such as the dignity of the embryo, respect for life from its inception, and the precautionary principle must guide any innovation in this area.₅ v Without them, even the most sophisticated achievements can lead to a dangerous subordination of the human to the useful. Not everything that is technically possible is ethically acceptable: when life becomes a technical project, we risk emptying it of meaning.

Technology that Assists or Technology that Replaces?

AI-assisted in vitro fertilization may seem a technical triumph, but it poses a central ethical tension: Are we facing technology that assists or that replaces the human? The discussion is situated between technophilia—which celebrates AI’s precision and efficiency—and techno-skepticism₇ vii, which warns that no machine, however advanced, can deliberate about good nor replace moral judgment. Software can calculate but cannot decide. What does it imply then that a machine selects the sperm that will give origin to a life?

From an ethical perspective, as Jacques Maritain₈ viii asserts, technical progress must be subordinated to the dignity of the person and the common good. “Not everything technically possible is morally permissible.” Guardini₉ ix and Ratzinger₁₀ x agree: when technology disconnects from ethical judgment, it risks dehumanizing. Therefore, although in vitro fertilization raises profound bioethical objections—such as the manipulation and loss of embryos—it is necessary to analyze its recent developments without losing sight of these principles. Automating certain processes could improve technical precision, provided it does not replace human responsibility nor displace the centrality of the patient.

Finally, it must be noted that the promise of accessibility associated with automation is, for now, doubtful₁₁ xi. Previous experiences, such as the use of the Da Vinci robot in surgery, show that costs tend to increase, not decrease. The key question is not whether a robot can do it better, but who should decide to initiate a human life. That decision does not belong to an algorithm but to a responsible conscience, capable of love, respect, and ethical accountability.

Can There Be Informed Consent in an Automated Context?

Informed consent is not a signature but a real understanding of what is authorized. In the case of automated IVF, this principle is challenged: Can couples grasp what it means to delegate key decisions to an algorithm? Knowing that “AI will be used” is not equivalent to understanding the ethical implications of delegating moral judgment.

The risk is that consent becomes technical and superficial, losing its ethical dimension. Autonomy implies responsibility and giving it up without awareness is a form of evasion of what is human.

Today, bioethics must demand a new pedagogy of consent: one that not only defends the right to decide but ensures comprehension and ethical discernment before entrusting the body—and trust—to a machine.

Social and Legal Implications

Automated in vitro fertilization poses not only medical and bioethical challenges but also profound legal and social implications. Incorporating artificial intelligence at the beginning of life demands clear regulatory frameworks, principles of distributive justice, and effective accountability mechanisms. Automation without ethical regulation may open dangerous gaps, especially if algorithms involved in assisted reproduction are not evaluated transparently or subjected to dignity and precaution criteria.

Moreover, there is a growing risk of inequity: these technologies tend to consolidate in high-cost contexts, which could turn automated fertility into a privilege for a few. And when something goes wrong—because even with AI errors exist—the assignment of legal responsibilities becomes blurred. Who answers: the doctor, the programmer, the company, or the uninformed patient? This new scenario demands an urgent review of legal categories and control mechanisms.

It cannot be ignored that the beginning of life involves fundamental rights: identity, bodily integrity, and filiation based on human bonds. Automating this process without solid ethics and adequate legal regulation could blur these rights. Therefore, now more than ever, it is urgent to anticipate, legislate clearly, and place the person—not the machine—at the center of care and law.

Conclusions

Artificial intelligence can assist with great precision in medicine, but when it comes to conceiving human life, the criterion cannot be only technical. The question is not whether it can be done, but whether it should be done and under what ethical conditions.

Technology can collaborate; it can relieve, optimize, and facilitate. But it must never replace moral judgment nor the centrality of the person. Life must not be reduced to a soulless operation of codes. Automating without reflection undermines the most human part of care.

This case reminds us that it is not enough to celebrate advances: they must be critically interrogated. We need a firm bioethics, centered on dignity and capable of setting limits against technological fascination. Because conceiving life is, above all, a deeply human act. And the human, if automated soullessly, fades away.

Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero is a lawyer, master’s, and Ph.D. in Bioethics from Universidad Anáhuac, Mexico. He was Director of Human Capital, Director, and General Coordinator at the Faculty of Bioethics. He currently serves as a researcher in the Academic Directorate of Integral Formation of the same University. He is a member of the Mexican National Academy of Bioethics and the Latin American and Caribbean Federation of Bioethics Institutions. This article was assisted in its writing by ChatGPT, an AI tool developed by OpenAI.

The opinions shared in this blog are solely those of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent a unanimous opinion of the seminars, nor do they reflect an official position of CADEBI. We value and encourage any comments, responses, or constructive criticism you wish to share.

1. https://www.conceivable.life/ 
2. Spivack, E. (2025, April 14). World's first baby conceived with remotely operated, 'automated IVF' has been born. Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/health/fertility-pregnancy-birth/worlds-first-baby-conceived-with-automated-ivf-has-been-born 
3. Mendizabal-Ruiz, G., Chavez-Badiola, A., Hernández-Morales, E., Valencia-Murillo, R., Ocegueda-Hernández, V., Costa-Borges, N., Mestres, E., Acacio, M., Matia-Algué, Q., Flores-Saiffe Farías, A., Salvador Martinez Carreon, D., Barragan, C., Silvestri, G., Martinez-Alvarado, A., Campos Olmedo, L. M., Valadez Aguilar, A., Sánchez-González, D. J., Murray, A., Alikani, M., & Cohen, J. (2025). A digitally controlled, remotely operated ICSI system: Case report of the first live birth. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 50(5), 104943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2025.104943 
4. Thomas, U. (2025, April 10). First infant conceived and born using fully automated intracytoplasmic sperm injection system. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. https://www.genengnews.com/topics/artificial-intelligence/first-infant-conceived-and-born-using-fully-automated-intracytoplasmic-sperm-injection-system/ 
5. The human embryo is a subject from the moment of fertilization, bearer of an ontological dignity that does not depend on its development nor external recognition. It is not a "thing" to be disposed of or programmed, but a "someone" who deserves unconditional respect. As Elio Sgreccia states, “the embryo is already an individual and complete human life in potency, and therefore must be treated as a personal subject, not as available biological material.” This recognition is key to avoiding the technical instrumentalization of the human body from its origin. Sgreccia, E. (2007). Manual of Bioethics. Vol. I: Foundations and Biomedical Ethics (3rd ed.). Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. 
6. Laura Cuesta Cano, an expert in digital education and cybercommunication professor, defines technophilia as “the early adoption of new technologies, intensive use of digital devices and applications, belief that technology has the potential to solve important societal problems, and a feeling that technology improves quality of life.” 
7. In the words of analyst Enrique Dans, techno-skepticism—far from always being rational—can become a rigid, simplistic, or even absurd stance motivated by fear of change, ignorance, or the need to reaffirm personal beliefs. Dans warns about the tendency to generalize anecdotal facts to discredit technological advances, replacing analysis with apocalyptic judgments. Skepticism, he points out, should be healthy and critical, not an ideological trench. (El Español, 2023). 
8. Maritain, J. (2001). The Rights of Man and Natural Law; Christianity and Democracy (Biblioteca Palabra Collection, Vol. 17). Madrid: Ediciones Palabra. (Original work published 1942). 
9. Fayos Febrer, R. (2015). Bioethics, education, and power: a reflection from Romano Guardini’s thought. In Proceedings of the International Bioethics Congress (pp. 661–670). Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/8485445.pdf 
10. Ratzinger, J. (Benedict XVI). (2006, September 12). Faith, reason, and university: memories and reflections [Speech]. University of Regensburg. Retrieved from https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html 
11. Melgar Barcelona, P. (2024). The Da Vinci system: Technology and robot-assisted surgery (RAS) [Bachelor's Thesis, International University of Valencia]. Institutional repository. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=8485445