Catholics Split on Embryo Issue. 'Adoption' Embraced by Evangelicals

[David_Paul]

Washington Post
5/31/05
Alan Cooperman

Donielle Brinkman has never told her son, Tanner, any silly tales about being found on a doorstep or delivered by a stork. She decided he should know the truth: He arrived by mail, despite a Zip code error that nearly stranded him in a Phoenix warehouse. Tanner celebrated his fourth birthday with a cake at the White House last week, and President Bush offered congratulations on national television. That is because Tanner is the product of what evangelical Christian groups call an “embryo adoption.”

It is a birthright that places him, and at least 80 other children born in a similar manner, in the middle of the boisterous political battle over stem cell research and a sharpening theological debate, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. Some Catholic theologians are encouraging married couples to adopt unwanted embryos from fertility clinics. Others vehemently oppose the idea, calling it a grave violation of the principle that procreation should occur naturally.

The Vatican has not yet taken a stand. But if Pope Benedict XVI rules against embryo adoption, as some doctrinal conservatives expect, it could create a fissure between Catholics and evangelical Protestants, who have enthusiastically promoted embryo adoption and enlisted the White House’s support for it.

The story of Tanner Brinkman’s life, as his mother tells it, began in 1997 when a married couple in the northwestern United States underwent in vitro fertilization to overcome fertility problems. The husband’s sperm were combined in a laboratory with a female donor’s eggs to create embryos for implantation in the wife’s womb. But, as often happens in these procedures, the couple ended up with more embryos than they needed for a successful pregnancy. . .

Excerpt: Read more at washingtonpost.com …

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Would that not open up invitro if the Church allows that?

 

[David_Paul]

Don’t know. I’m ignorant on Church teachings on this.

Do know the Washington Post is the last place to look for honest information on the Church’s position (…no…I take that back. The New York Times is the last place. The WP is second to last).

Bet Alan Cooperman was having a Janet Cook/Jason Blair moment when he wrote this:

“He arrived by mail, despite a Zip code error that nearly
stranded him in a Phoenix warehouse . .”

 

[gardenswithkids]

Lisa4Catholics:

Would that not open up invitro if the Church allows that?

I know the Church ethicists are undecided on this issue. I would hope that instead of opening a door for IVF, embryo adoption would be a way to gracefully close the door that our culture already opened with IVF.

These embryos, through no fault of their own, have already been created in an unethical manner. What to do with them is another ethical dilema brought to us through our culture’s obsession with separating making love from making babies. Couples who struggle with infertility and who are tempted to use IVF have the option of being part of the problem and helping to create more embryos in labs, or part of the solution and giving a home to the unwanted, neglected embryos threatened with being left in a dumpster or torn apart for their stem cells. I see embryo adoption as a much earlier form of regular adoption, and I would hope it could be ethically used as a way to prevent embryonic stem cell research. But as long as people continue to create babies through IVF, people continue to create ethical dilemas.

Ultimately, we need to stop creating human beings through the unethical practice of IVF. I have no idea how we can go about doing this, but I think each one of us has a part to play by following and promoting the Church teachings on marriage and sexuality. I wonder what percentage of couples who undergo IVF treatment once used artificial contraception to prevent the babies they now want so desperately? Perhaps if we shared the beauty of the Church teachings earlier in their relationships, these couples would have concieved children in love through the marital embrace years before they resorted to IVF.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Lisa4Catholics:

Would that not open up invitro if the Church allows that?

To me, no. Not any more than conventional adoption opens up the Church to pre-martial sex (the most common precipitating event for conventional adoption). I see it as a rescue of a child in dire straits.

It is a very complex questions with very compelling arguments on both sides. Orthodox and highly regarded scholars on both sides have engaged the debate.

Is it a bad means to get to a good end? I do not know.
I am a member of the Nation Catholic Bioethics Center and their Spring Journal was dedicated to this very issue. Having read both sides, I am more confused than ever.

Personally, I tend to argue for the potential of life (not all frozen embryos survive or implant) so at the moment, I seem to favor embryo adoption in the same context that I favor conventional adoption.

Boiled down to the lowest common denominator, does it matter on what side of the cervix the child is on when you adopt him?

 

[Listener]

If the Church really believes that these little embryos are human beings, then I can’t imagine why she wouldn’t allow this. It would be acting like a wet nurse for another woman’s baby, but the process would just start much sooner. We have two alternatives here:

1. Adopt them and give them a chance.
2. Throw them down the sink.

The woman wouldn’t be commiting adultery with another man’s sperm. There is no sperm involved here. The sperm has already united with the egg, and the Church considers this a real baby. If the Church recommends throwing them down the sink, then I think that the Church is being very hypocritical.

I do believe, however, that this should only be allowed to happen to women who can’t conceive any other way. This would be just like any other adoption. They would just get the kid a little earlier.

 

[Rosalinda]

Can Embryos Be Adopted?
Interview with Moral Theologian Father Thomas Williams

"ROME, JUNE 3, 2005 (Zenit.org).- As stockpiles of frozen embryos grow, so does the debate regarding what should be done with them and for them, even among Catholic moral theologians.

For an overview of the issue, ZENIT interviewed moral theologian Father Thomas Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: Why is there so much debate surrounding embryo adoption?

Father Williams: We are starting from an “unnatural” situation, one that should never have existed. The production and cryogenic preservation of human embryos — upwards of 400,000 already — is a moral aberration, and morally sensitive people spontaneously recoil from this procedure.

Many people, ethicists included, have difficulty separating this wrong situation from what can morally be done to help those embryonic persons that now exist."

Read the whole interview at:
http://zenit.org/english/show_6.php

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Now I don’t think we can destroy them or throw them away, and it’s a sad existence to remain frozen in stasis. Although if I were to adopt a child, there are so many that have already been born that are in imminent need - why go through the extra trouble and expense of implantation (of which a lot of them will not implant, and thus die), and then 9 months of pregnancy and then childbirth. There are millions of children around the world who are orphans, or who are taken from abusive backgrounds, or whose biological parents can’t provide for them but still chose life instead of abortion - these children all need loving parents today, and my inclination would be to adopt one of these. As opposed to the embryos who are sadly frozen, but for whom a delay in adoption isn’t as critical.

 

[c659smith]

Man Gets Life Under Fetal Protection Law
Monday, June 6, 2005 9:07 PM EDT
The Associated Press

A 19-year-old accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder.

Gerardo Flores received an automatic life sentence because prosecutors did not seek the death penalty, which was available under the state’s 2003 fetus protection law.

Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who caused the miscarriage.

Basoria told authorities that, after about four months of pregnancy, she regretted not getting an abortion and started jogging and hitting herself to induce a miscarriage. When her efforts failed, she said she asked her boyfriend to help.

Flores did not testify, but earlier told police that he stepped on Basoria’s stomach several times during the week before she miscarried.

Prosecutor Art Bauereiss said most of Basoria’s family was pleased with the jury’s decision. But Basoria, who sobbed as she left the Angelina County Courthouse, had stood by Flores.

“It’s just tragedy all around,” said Flores’ attorney, Ryan Deaton.

Texas law defines an embryo or fetus as an “individual” and allows criminal prosecution or civil action for a preventable injury or death of a fetus. The law exempts health care providers who perform a legal medical procedure, such as an abortion.

Catholics should not be split on this issue. Thought you would all find the above article interesting. Now which side of the fence is the Texas Justice on. Medical abortions not a life.If the mother causes the abortion there is no human life. If someone else causes an abortion there is Human life. It seems Texas just cannot decide which side of the fence it is on. Of course there is human life and anyone killing this life is guilty of murder.

 

[didymus]

Daniel Kane:

To me, no. Not any more than conventional adoption opens up the Church to pre-martial sex (the most common precipitating event for conventional adoption). I see it as a rescue of a child in dire straits.

It is a very complex questions with very compelling arguments on both sides. Orthodox and highly regarded scholars on both sides have engaged the debate.

Is it a bad means to get to a good end? I do not know.
I am a member of the Nation Catholic Bioethics Center and their Spring Journal was dedicated to this very issue. Having read both sides, I am more confused than ever.

I’m not an ethicist and obviously folks a lot smarter than I will decide this, but one practical objection occurs to me.
A few years ago I recall a drive by some human rights organisations to buy children out of slavery in Yemen or someplace like that – “for US$40 you can buy a child an set him free” type of thing – I don’t recall all the details. The immediate result was MORE children being kidnapped into slavery because of the increase in demand.
Might not something similar happen here? If clinics and labs currently do not profit by “disposing” of them and suddenly there is a demand economics is sure to rear its ugly head.

Also, what will happen to the adoption of children already born?

 

[Hildebrand]

Of course, I submit to the authority of Pope Benedict XVI on this. Since he has not yet ruled on this… In my uniformed and humble opinion, I would hope the pope releases a letter on this showing his disapproval and disgust over the IVF itself and the consequences of IVF. I hope he rules the Church will not allow Catholics to adopt the children created in IVF. This problem was created by Protestants, disobedient Catholics, and many people who have ignored the Church’s prudent, wise and correct teaching on these matters.

While I do not believe the act of adopting a child created in a laboratory is itself sinful. Catholics who engage in actions may and will appear to be condoning IVF… and thus to be clear on this matter, the Church must oppose all actions involved in IVF. Creating a child in laboratory is an evil act - period. The Catholic Church ought to guide all persons who seek to have children through IVF to adopt the children already created and frozen in storage areas. This would prevent them from committing a seriously wrong and immoral act and replacing it with an act much more acceptable to moral and ethical standards.