Adopting Frozen Embryos

[Schieffelin]

I think my main problem with it is that it will make some people feel less hesitant to pursue IVF if they don’t have to deal with the guilt of “left over” embryos. If they feel like they can just give those embryos up for adoption to another couple then that removes one of the moral barriers for them. Especially for Christians who don’t understand why IVF is wrong in and of itself but who do feel it’s wrong to destroy or permanently freeze embryos. It’s one of the reasons why it might be bad for the Church to publicly endorse it.

 

[Della]

I think my main problem with it is that it will make some people feel less hesitant to pursue IVF if they don’t have to deal with the guilt of “left over” embryos. If they feel like they can just give those embryos up for adoption to another couple then that removes one of the moral barriers for them. Especially for Christians who don’t understand why IVF is wrong in and of itself but who do feel it’s wrong to destroy or permanently freeze embryos. It’s one of the reasons why it might be bad for the Church to publicly endorse it.

I think this line of thinking is something like saying that before contraception abortion or giving their babies to religious sisters who cared for such unwanted children was all that was open to unwed mothers so the religious sisters shouldn’t have opened their doors to those babies to discourage unmarried girls from engaging in sex outside of marriage. I rather doubt most people who are going to go through with IVF are all that bothered about the “left overs” nor would they be more likely to do it if people were willing to adopt their embryos. They are thinking of what they want at the moment and not the long term consequences of their actions, any more than the girl who gives in to her boyfriend and gets pregnant. People can be extremely shortsighted, as the decline in the morals of our culture testifies.

 

[manualman]

…If a problem already exists we should try to fix it instead of worrying about encouraging misunderstandings. The misunderstandings can be addressed, but living embryos shouldn’t be made to wait because some people might get the wrong idea, should they?

You’re refuting an argument I didn’t make. I understand your argument and used to hold that position myself. I still do agree that the frozen embryo is innocent and bears no blame for the sin that created him and anything that MORALLY can be done to save him should be done. If science handed us an artifical womb, it might be moral to use such a thing on abandoned embryos (and ONLY in that case!).

However, I no longer believe that making a woman pregnant with a child that is not her own is something that morally can be done. I think it fundamentally damages the relationship between her and her husband in a way that post-birth adoption simply doesn’t. If the church rules differently, I’ll of course admit being wrong, but I come to my conclusion based on trying to internalize the theology of the body and recognizing that the procreative relationship of marriage goes rather beyond the physical transfer of semen! Humanity is still bumbling in the dark in regards to the true depth and meaning of these things. We have no idea just how fully our bodies and souls are intwined.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The theologian Germaine Grizes has written a multi volume work called The Way of the Lord Jesus.

Volume three deals with difficult moral questions.

One of the questions envolves a sister carrying her dead sister’s embryo to term in oreder to save the baby from remaining in an IVF clinic.

Grizes gives a very good answer point by point. He does show that in this case it would not be morally wrong for the sister to save the baby,

The work carried an Imprimatur.

 

[Della]

You’re refuting an argument I didn’t make. I understand your argument and used to hold that position myself. I still do agree that the frozen embryo is innocent and bears no blame for the sin that created him and anything that MORALLY can be done to save him should be done. If science handed us an artifical womb, it might be moral to use such a thing on abandoned embryos (and ONLY in that case!).

However, I no longer believe that making a woman pregnant with a child that is not her own is something that morally can be done. I think it fundamentally damages the relationship between her and her husband in a way that post-birth adoption simply doesn’t. If the church rules differently, I’ll of course admit being wrong, but I come to my conclusion based on trying to internalize the theology of the body and recognizing that the procreative relationship of marriage goes rather beyond the physical transfer of semen! Humanity is still bumbling in the dark in regards to the true depth and meaning of these things. We have no idea just how fully our bodies and souls are intwined.

Of course, if I had been able to adopt an embryo and carry it to term, it would have been with the full agreement of my husband. We’re one of those couples who couldn’t have children. Emotionally, it was never a problem for me because I’m not one of those gals who must have a child or die–although I understand that feeling. So, it’s not an emotional decision–not that you’re implying that, either.

I agree that the ideal is a man and a woman having their own children, but adoption is the charitable thing to do if one cannot have them, if a couple can afford it/want to do it. We never did–for many good reasons. But it makes my heart bleed as a Christian to think that people have been so selfish and unfeeling in wanting to have a child that they would let their other children stay frozen indefinitely. Now that is sick, to my way of thinking. We can’t cure people of such sickness without their repentence, but we can do something about the unwanted children. I think the idea of rescuing the innocents is of more importance in this Solomon like decision, as someone characterized it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

You’re refuting an argument I didn’t make. I understand your argument and used to hold that position myself. I still do agree that the frozen embryo is innocent and bears no blame for the sin that created him and anything that MORALLY can be done to save him should be done. If science handed us an artifical womb, it might be moral to use such a thing on abandoned embryos (and ONLY in that case!).

However, I no longer believe that making a woman pregnant with a child that is not her own is something that morally can be done. I think it fundamentally damages the relationship between her and her husband in a way that post-birth adoption simply doesn’t. If the church rules differently, I’ll of course admit being wrong, but I come to my conclusion based on trying to internalize the theology of the body and recognizing that the procreative relationship of marriage goes rather beyond the physical transfer of semen! Humanity is still bumbling in the dark in regards to the true depth and meaning of these things. We have no idea just how fully our bodies and souls are intwined.

I see your point, but often a terrible act results in a baby (rape, fornication, adultery etc) IVF results in a baby, the difference is that the baby is in a location that cannot allow him to finish developing.

The life has been created. It isnt the fault of the baby that it is a location that cannot allow him to finish developing.

 

[manualman]

The life has been created. It isnt the fault of the baby that it is a location that cannot allow him to finish developing.

All true, which is why I’d argue that one could morally use an artificial womb to save that child’s life if such a thing existed.

But a basic of catholic theology is that honorable ends can’t justify immoral means. Technological methods to make a woman pregnant with a child that is neither hers nor her husband’s is a serious issue not to be blown off simply because of how noble the ends are. This is why the church hasn’t formally taught on the issue yet (IMO).

P.S. An imprimatur doesn’t convey any positive statement, just a negative one (nothing contained in the book is CONTRARY to the faith in the opinion of the reviewer). As the church hasn’t ruled yet, the imprimatur neither endorses nor refutes Grisez’ argument (which I’m sure is a good one).

 

[agapewolf]

However, I no longer believe that making a woman pregnant with a child that is not her own is something that morally can be done. I think it fundamentally damages the relationship between her and her husband in a way that post-birth adoption simply doesn’t. If the church rules differently, I’ll of course admit being wrong, but I come to my conclusion based on trying to internalize the theology of the body and recognizing that the procreative relationship of marriage goes rather beyond the physical transfer of semen! Humanity is still bumbling in the dark in regards to the true depth and meaning of these things. We have no idea just how fully our bodies and souls are intwined.

We discussed this at the ethics class too, and you’re right about it. The other issue is that there are other steps that have to be taken in order to implant the embryos, all of which have issues in themselves.

The first, is to choose which ones. One embryo’s dignity isn’t greater than the next, so even in random choosing, there is still a problem.

Then the unfreezing of them, which can kill them.

 

[DexUK]

We discussed this at the ethics class too, and you’re right about it. The other issue is that there are other steps that have to be taken in order to implant the embryos, all of which have issues in themselves.

The first, is to choose which ones. One embryo’s dignity isn’t greater than the next, so even in random choosing, there is still a problem.

Then the unfreezing of them, which can kill them.

There’s no moral problem in the random choosing - one isn’t making any value judgements on any attributes of the child concerned over that of any other, it’s simply down to the available means by which to save the child (i.e. a woman willing to offer herself for this task).

If the child will, ultimately, die anyway - and that seems to be 100% guaranteed - then surely it is preferable to attempt a rescue with some chance of success than to not do so which clearly won’t have any success at all.

A fireman will enter a burning building to rescue a trapped occupant if he can. He doesn’t always manage it and only some of the occupants he attempts to rescue are saved, but just because he’s not 100% successful doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try because if he doesn’t the trapped occupants will always die.

The frozen embryo is that trapped occupant, in this case trapped in a test tube. He (or she) can never escape on his own. He needs help.

 

[agapewolf]

The couple items I brought up are not my opinion. They are legitimate issues brought up by the president of the catholic bioethics center. Take it up with him

 

[thewanderer]

The couple items I brought up are not my opinion. They are legitimate issues brought up by the president of the catholic bioethics center. Take it up with him

Just because one intelligent man brings them up as issues to be wary of does not mean that we must all agree with him. I agree with above poster that it is absolutely impossible for it to be wrong to choose one child over another, if that were the case than normal adoption would be immoral because someone, somewhere along the way had to choose one child over another. As for the fact that they might die, that is certainly more of a problem, but if the means used are moral than using the principle of double effect one must weight the good and bad of unfreezing and adopting vs remaining frozen. Since in this case it is a matter of certain vs potential death of the unborn child I think it is pretty clear that, if the means themselves turn out to be moral then the adoption of such embryos would be moral even though there is a risk of the death of ssome of these children. The real question here is whether or not the means themselves are moral, ie, whether or not the procreative act reserved to husband and wife ends with conception or extends into the pregnancy. I tend to think it ends with conception, but I know that others (such as manualman above) disagree with me. There are arguments on both sides, but unless the Church comes out and officially says it is wrong I would have no problem adopting such embryos or helping others to do so, and I will not be doing anything immoral in so doing.

 

[agapewolf]

Just because one intelligent man brings them up as issues to be wary of does not mean that we must all agree with him. I agree with above poster that it is absolutely impossible for it to be wrong to choose one child over another, if that were the case than normal adoption would be immoral because someone, somewhere along the way had to choose one child over another. As for the fact that they might die, that is certainly more of a problem, but if the means used are moral than using the principle of double effect one must weight the good and bad of unfreezing and adopting vs remaining frozen. Since in this case it is a matter of certain vs potential death of the unborn child I think it is pretty clear that, if the means themselves turn out to be moral then the adoption of such embryos would be moral even though there is a risk of the death of ssome of these children. The real question here is whether or not the means themselves are moral, ie, whether or not the procreative act reserved to husband and wife ends with conception or extends into the pregnancy. I tend to think it ends with conception, but I know that others (such as manualman above) disagree with me. There are arguments on both sides, but unless the Church comes out and officially says it is wrong I would have no problem adopting such embryos or helping others to do so, and I will not be doing anything immoral in so doing.

This isn’t simply one man’s opinion. He doesn’t make statements such as that simply as an opinion. These are very weighed out moral implications made with bishops, etc He’s not on his own on this one.

weighing the good with the bad is NOT in any way shape or form the way morality is determined. The ends don’t justify the means, as you also say. You are contradicting yourself, in this particular instance.

I was simply giving a few more items for consideration, that I learned in this class. I’m not giving the hours of background that went in to each item. The whole point is that each item has moral implications itself, and each item has to be isolated as a clean case on its own, not simply because its means to an end.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It’s a difficult and thorny subject. After all, you are essentially being a surrogate, if one of these embryos were to be implanted in your uterus and brought to birth. And that’s not allowed in our Church. The “artificial uterus” might provide a way out of the problem but it doesn’t exist and bringing THAT into existence could cause other complications that we can’t foresee.

If only we could turn back the clock and not have IVF…nor legal abortion…There would be more babies to go around…

 

[thewanderer]

This isn’t simply one man’s opinion. He doesn’t make statements such as that simply as an opinion. These are very weighed out moral implications made with bishops, etc He’s not on his own on this one.

weighing the good with the bad is NOT in any way shape or form the way morality is determined. The ends don’t justify the means, as you also say. You are contradicting yourself, in this particular instance.

I was simply giving a few more items for consideration, that I learned in this class. I’m not giving the hours of background that went in to each item. The whole point is that each item has moral implications itself, and each item has to be isolated as a clean case on its own, not simply because its means to an end.

When it comes down to making a decision based on the principle of double effect that actually is exactly how it is done. I am in no way contradicting myself. The principal of double effect says that the good effect has to be proportional to or greater than the bad effect to make the action moral. This, of course, presumes that the means are not intrinsically evil and that the person acting in no way intends the bad effect. I may have phrased it differently but what I said in my previous post is exactly how the principal of double effect works, which, along with the ends do not justify the means, are the two fundamental principals for determining morality. It is perfectly moral to perform a surgery on someone even when that surgery has a risk of killing that person when there is a greater risk of the person dying without that surgery, that is because of the principal of double effect, the good that can be reasonably expected from surgery is greater than the bad that can result from it. If the means are moral then the option of possibly saving a life, even if it brings risks, is a greater good than certain or even alll-but-certain death.

 

[thewanderer]

It’s a difficult and thorny subject. After all, you are essentially being a surrogate, if one of these embryos were to be implanted in your uterus and brought to birth. And that’s not allowed in our Church. The “artificial uterus” might provide a way out of the problem but it doesn’t exist and bringing THAT into existence could cause other complications that we can’t foresee.

If only we could turn back the clock and not have IVF…nor legal abortion…There would be more babies to go around…

I think the reason there is debate about it even though surrogacy is condemmed is because people are trying to undersand why surrogacy is immoral. Some people think it is only because conception is not kept to husband and wife, others think it is more than that and extends to the actual pregnancy itself.

Maybe it would be useful if people found what the Church has to say about surrogacy so that we can look at it more closely?

 

[Della]

I think the reason there is debate about it even though surrogacy is condemmed is because people are trying to undersand why surrogacy is immoral. Some people think it is only because conception is not kept to husband and wife, others think it is more than that and extends to the actual pregnancy itself.

Maybe it would be useful if people found what the Church has to say about surrogacy so that we can look at it more closely?

Surrogacy is not really at issue because no couple, in this case, is asking a woman to take on their pregnancy so that they can have a child. Rather, this is a case of a couple taking on the unwanted embryo(s) of those who had them removed from their mother’s uterus and stored–perhaps never to be implanted in anyone, and thus left to die–a form of abortion, really. No couple is going to be a surrogate for another, but rather would take on being parents in their own right of an unwanted child, which is adoption, not surrogacy.

 

[manualman]

…The real question here is whether or not the means themselves are moral, ie, whether or not the procreative act reserved to husband and wife ends with conception or extends into the pregnancy. I tend to think it ends with conception, but I know that others (such as manualman above) disagree with me. There are arguments on both sides, but unless the Church comes out and officially says it is wrong I would have no problem adopting such embryos or helping others to do so, and I will not be doing anything immoral in so doing.

This is a great explanation of that side of the issue except for one minor quibble. If one DOES go forward with this embryo implantation and the church later discerns that it is immoral, then objectively the person will have done something immoral. They won’t be culpable for it since they followed church teaching and their own well formed conscience at the time, but the actually morality or immorality of an act is independent of when the matter becomes settled teaching. Otherwise, very well argued!

 

[agapewolf]

When it comes down to making a decision based on the principle of double effect that actually is exactly how it is done. I am in no way contradicting myself. The principal of double effect says that the good effect has to be proportional to or greater than the bad effect to make the action moral. This, of course, presumes that the means are not intrinsically evil and that the person acting in no way intends the bad effect. I may have phrased it differently but what I said in my previous post is exactly how the principal of double effect works, which, along with the ends do not justify the means, are the two fundamental principals for determining morality. It is perfectly moral to perform a surgery on someone even when that surgery has a risk of killing that person when there is a greater risk of the person dying without that surgery, that is because of the principal of double effect, the good that can be reasonably expected from surgery is greater than the bad that can result from it. If the means are moral then the option of possibly saving a life, even if it brings risks, is a greater good than certain or even alll-but-certain death.

You are missing one VERY LARGE point here. The good and the bad you are weighing are not outcomes, but moral actions in themselves. The issues I brought up each have their own isolated issues with them under study. These are not effects, as you keep measuring them, but actual individual moral quandries themselves. THIS is the part of ends don’t justify the means.

 

[thewanderer]

You are missing one VERY LARGE point here. The good and the bad you are weighing are not outcomes, but moral actions in themselves. The issues I brought up each have their own isolated issues with them under study. These are not effects, as you keep measuring them, but actual individual moral quandries themselves. THIS is the part of ends don’t justify the means.

I have to say I am a little confused. How am I weighing actions rather than outcomes? I am weighing the likelihood of the death of the embryo. That is not an action but rather an outcome.

 

[thewanderer]

This is a great explanation of that side of the issue except for one minor quibble. If one DOES go forward with this embryo implantation and the church later discerns that it is immoral, then objectively the person will have done something immoral. They won’t be culpable for it since they followed church teaching and their own well formed conscience at the time, but the actually morality or immorality of an act is independent of when the matter becomes settled teaching. Otherwise, very well argued!

Oh yes, I do understand that, but that is true of so many actions that it is not really possible to live our lives saying that I will avoid an action unless I have a decree from the church that such an action in my situation is moral. All we can do is our best, which means taking the principles which we are given by the Church and using our best judgement to form our actions based upon them. If we allow the fear of unkowingly causing harm to stop us from acting we will nver get anything done.