Church's teaching on unused frozen embryos?

[mapleoak]

If the Church deems the act illicit I will, of course, obey. But in the mean time I have respect for people who are treating these fertilized eggs as legitimate human persons, in dire need of rescue and nurturing, not merely a theological problem.

One has to be careful, because if the Church were to formally pronounce the immorality of the action, it is not because it decides to impose a restriction, but rather that it is affirming that it is and always was immoral. The moral culpability of an individual however being limited in good faith in the absence of such a pronouncement (assuming due dilligence, prudence, and proper discernment on the part of the individual). The attitude of some is that of freedom to do whatever befits until the Church makes a statement which in its absence in no way reduces the gravity of the situation nor creates a ‘free for all’.

Sorry, maple, I’m with these guys. Existing church teaching on IVF is silent about the morality of the artificial IMPLANTATION.

The absence of a specific teaching addressing an isolated and specific action does not mean anything goes until a specific teaching is established. There are many things which are wrong, but the Church hasn’t made a formal pronouncement on. In most cases a pronouncement is to clarify, specify, affirm, and otherwise remedy existing dissent.

However, I HAVE heard one good argument against embryo adoption. The theology of the body might imply that a woman becoming pregnant apart from the marital act is an act inherently violent against the union of the man and wife and destructive to the realtionship, even if both (consciously) highly desire to go forward with the adoption. Pregnancy, childbirth, labor, recovery, nursing, etc are not simply mechanical actions. Engaging these biological functions apart from the natural fruit of the womb is definitely a brave new world.

One problem is the potential treatment of women as farmland. Another is the disunity of the mother’s genetic being from that of the unborn and that of her husband. God intended procreation (to which the process of pregnancy is inherently linked) to be a part of the overall context of marital relation. Another is that the woman (married or virgin) would be pregnant, but not be the mother. Would that make unwed non-mothers a possibility? What moral responsibility would this mother have toward her child? What responsibility does a husband have in this situation? There are many other problems as well, both pratical as well as (more importantly) theological ones.

I used to be very much pro-embryo adoption. After hearing it this way, I’m more inclined to advise folks to wait and see what the Church discerns.

Good advice.

BTW…the names mapleoak.

 

[mapleoak]

"3. Is “Surrogate” Motherhood Morally Licit?

No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.

I fail to see how this is at all ambiguous. It states that “Surrogate Motherhood” is illicit. “Surrogate motherhood” is the in-utero adoption of a child not ones own. It is not a method of fertilization. The document states after the question, NO. It then states the reasons for being NO are the same the reasons that 'heterologous artificial fertilization" is wrong.

In both cases it “represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love” (husband is denied his own offspring), “of conjugal fidelity” (wife carrying someone elses child), “and of responsible motherhood” (she is denied the fruit of her womb); “it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents” (true in both artificial conception and surrogate motherhood); “it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.” (irregardless if the husband is understanding, cooperative, and agrees - a husband could also agree to infidelity in other ways as well, doesn’t make it right).

 

[KathleenElsie]

My thoughts only so don’t yell:

1. Out-law ban the harvesting of human eggs and sperm for the creating of life outside of the natural sexual union of a man and woman. No exceptions. Harsh yes. Moral yes.
2. Then allow the babies that are now frozen to be adopted then implanted into the adoptive mother. The adoption process must be finished prior to the procedure no exceptions. The same adoptive parents must agree to adopt each of the child’s siblings that are waiting in the frozen state.
3. No experimentation on humans without their written consent. So the person would have to be old enough to make informed decisions on what to do with his or her body.

 

[Socio_Momma]

Okay I typed out a longer post but I don’t know where it went (probably for the best it was too long) and I am now out of time

Anyway…the document in question defines surrogacy as the following:

*"By “surrogate mother” the Instruction means:

the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of “donors.” She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy."*

Surrogacy is not the same in its core definition as what human embryo adoption is. The woman carrying the child here would be the adoptive mother, not a surrogate mother. Surrogate means another woman is really the legal mother and would mother the child. Here the mother (who will continue to mother after birth) is the woman carrying the child.

IF were to apply the following as from the same document in question

" Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families."

Then these objections to surrogacy would mean adoption was wrong and illict. Without a framework for understanding how surrogacy is not adoption there is nothing to separate a couple who is raising a child that is not their biological child, or an adoptive mother who nurses her adopted child (this can & does happen). This is not what the Church teaches, instead adoption is seen as an acceptable option. St. Joseph himself is an example of adoption. Since he is either referred to as an adoptive and/or foster father of Jesus. A pretty good model of fatherhood even though Jesus wasn’t his biological child:thumbsup:

With human embryo adoption the parents who are bringing the child through the natural process of pregnancy would be the actual adoptive parents (the child is being brought into the world by his/her adoptive parents via this process). Not the same as surrogacy.

The option of embryo adoption is still possible and is not in contradiction with previous teaching. If the Church decides it is I would obey, as the Church has more wisdom than I do

 

[BioCatholic]

We need to define the situation the frozen embryo is in. If you accept that the embryo is 100% human, then it is in a very dangerous environment. Our society removes children from dangerous environments ALL the time (abuse, neglect ect).

The frozen state ultimately will kill the child, very slowly through freezing damage. It is quite similar to a child being trapped in a fire. The environment will kill the child, but at a MUCH faster rate. There is no basic difference between a enormously hot and enormously cold environment, except the RATE at which damage is inflicted. Our society will level the same murder charge at a person who kills their spouse, whether with a single shot, or through years of abuse. RATE of murder is not a factor.

I personally have pulled children from either burning cars, or cars about to explode. I put my body at serious risk. A mother who adopts a frozen embryo puts her body at serious risk as well. Yes, pregnancy is risky, as well as the implantation procedure. Any time you go inside the human body, there is ALWAYS risk of infection.

Any way you look at it, the child was created. He/She already exists. The real question is: Can we prohibit a willing person to undergo risk to attempt to save their life? Remember, HOW the child got in the burning car is irrelevant. There is a clear duty to act no matter whether the car was hit by a drunk driver, or the parent was drunk driving themselves. I doubt I’d still be a free man had I said “Well Mr. Parent, you were drunk driving illicitly, and you should have NEVER put your child in this situation to begin with, so I am prohibited from pulling them from the flames…”

 

[mapleoak]

We need to define the situation the frozen embryo is in. If you accept that the embryo is 100% human, then it is in a very dangerous environment. Our society removes children from dangerous environments ALL the time (abuse, neglect ect).

Embryos are indeed 100% human beings, brought about unjustly and indeed cast into an unearthly domain. The problem is not with intent to try any and all moral means available to save their lives, it is with the use of immoral means. That is what the debate is over. Is it morally acceptable to impregnate a woman with someone elses child?

The frozen state ultimately will kill the child, very slowly through freezing damage. It is quite similar to a child being trapped in a fire. The environment will kill the child, but at a MUCH faster rate.

Yes they would both be found to be within dire circumstances.

There is no basic difference between a enormously hot and enormously cold environment, except the RATE at which damage is inflicted. Our society will level the same murder charge at a person who kills their spouse, whether with a single shot, or through years of abuse. RATE of murder is not a factor.

Rate of murder has not been discussed as it has nothing to do with what means may be morally acceptable in attempting to save their lives. If the means used are morally unacceptable, they cannot be used, even if good may result. If a gunman holds someone hostage with the condition that he will let the person free provided that you kill an innocent person, such means would not be permissable even though it would result in saving the hostages life.

I personally have pulled children from either burning cars, or cars about to explode. I put my body at serious risk.

The difference here is that you are not directly performing an immoral act. The fact that your body is put at serious risk is a foreseeable and unintended though tolerable side effect. The fact that the good that may be accomplished (saving the childs life) is proportionate to the risk (that you may be seriously injured or killed) and there exists sufficient probability of success, AND you are not directly intending getting seriously injured or killed though understanding that it may indirectly result from your action, as well as (and most importantly) removing a child from a burning car is not in and of itself an immoral action, attempting to save these children from burning cars is justifiable.

A mother who adopts a frozen embryo puts her body at serious risk as well. Yes, pregnancy is risky, as well as the implantation procedure. Any time you go inside the human body, there is ALWAYS risk of infection.

The question is not whether or not implantation is risky, but whether the action is moral.

Any way you look at it, the child was created. He/She already exists. The real question is: Can we prohibit a willing person to undergo risk to attempt to save their life? Remember, HOW the child got in the burning car is irrelevant.

This must be decided on whether the means used to save the child are morally justifiable.

There is a clear duty to act no matter whether the car was hit by a drunk driver, or the parent was drunk driving themselves.

Would you say that a non-pregnant woman would be obligated then to save a child through implantation? The good that will be accomplished far outweighs the potential risk. What right would a woman (in good health) have to not make her womb available to these unborn children?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Embryos are indeed 100% human beings, brought about unjustly and indeed cast into an unearthly domain. The problem is not with intent to try any and all moral means available to save their lives, it is with the use of immoral means. That is what the debate is over. Is it morally acceptable to impregnate a woman with someone else’s child? This is possibly avoided with the adoption process being finished prior to the implantation. I am not God or any of the persons that have to make this horrible decision so I will leave it up to Holy Mother Church. In my case and many others it is an emotional situation and not a well thought out decision.

Yes they would both be found to be within dire circumstances.Rate of murder has not been discussed as it has nothing to do with what means may be morally acceptable in attempting to save their lives. If the means used are morally unacceptable, they cannot be used, even if good may result. If a gunman holds someone hostage with the condition that he will let the person free provided that you kill an innocent person, such means would not be permissible even though it would result in saving the hostages life.

The difference here is that you are not directly performing an immoral act. The fact that your body is put at serious risk is a foreseeable and unintended though tolerable side effect. The fact that the good that may be accomplished (saving the child’s life) is proportionate to the risk (that you may be seriously injured or killed) and there exists sufficient probability of success, AND you are not directly intending getting seriously injured or killed though understanding that it may indirectly result from your action, as well as (and most importantly) removing a child from a burning car is not in and of itself an immoral action, attempting to save these children from burning cars is justifiable.

The question is not whether or not implantation is risky, but whether the action is moral.

This must be decided on whether the means used to save the child are morally justifiable.
Would you say that a non-pregnant woman would be obligated then to save a child through implantation? The good that will be accomplished far outweighs the potential risk. What right would a woman (in good health) have to not make her womb available to these unborn children?

The decision is never easy to do the moral thing. We as a society have allowed an evil to be perpetuated on these children in our names. Now there is a mess to clean up and we will need all the guidance we can get from our Moral Leader the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[mapleoak]

The decision is never easy to do the moral thing. We as a society have allowed an evil to be perpetuated on these children in our names. Now there is a mess to clean up and we will need all the guidance we can get from our Moral Leader the Holy Catholic Church.

Let us pray that God does not show His wrath and that He has mercy on us His people.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, see, here ya go.

The Church teaches against messing around with human fertility and we (humans, society) ignore it. Now we have created more of our own moral problems to deal with.

Humans…sheesh.

 

[Seatuck]

We could also baptize these babies and let them die naturally as Catholics. That is another solution of what to do for them if implantation is declared immoral. It ought to be done anyway prior to an attempted implantation since there is such a high rate of mortality for them.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

They (emryos) should be buried in unconsecrated grounds.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What is the Church’s current teaching on the **unused **frozen embryos that were made for in vitro fertilization?

do you have a scientific article on that? how can an embryo survive the freezing process?

 

[rlg94086]

do you have a scientific article on that? how can an embryo survive the freezing process?

Here you go… it’s not a very scientific article, but it explains the procedures which are already in practice. It may not explain directly “how” they survive, but they obviously do…

sharedjourney.com/ivf/fet.html

Embryo Freezing
The FET procedure involves having your embryos frozen, or cryopreserved. Embryos can be cryopreserved at various times after fertilization, ranging from one day after fertilization up to five or six days after. Embryo cryopreservation allows your embryos to be kept healthy and viable for up to ten years. The freezing procedure is as follows:

• Your embryos are placed inside of special glass vials, that look much like straws.
• These embryos are then mixed with a special solution, called cryoprotectant. This cryoprotectant prevents ice from forming in between the cells of your embryo.
• The glass vials containing the embryos are then inserted into a controlled freezer filled with liquid nitrogen.
• They are cooled slowly until they reach a final temperature of -196° C.

Embryo Thawing
Before FET can take place, your embryos must be thawed after the freezing process. When your reproductive endocrinologist decides it is time to begin the FET procedure, your embryos will be removed from the freezer and thawed.

• The embryos are allowed to thaw naturally, until they come to room temperature.
• The embryos are then steeped in four separate solutions to help remove any cryoprotectant used during the freezing process.
• Your embryos are then warmed to body temperature (37°C) and mixed with a small amount of culture medium.

The Frozen Embryo Transfer Procedure

The FET procedure is actually fairly straightforward. It is very similar to typical IVF embryo transfer procedures: your body will be monitored for ovulation and endometrial development and then the embryos will be implanted into your uterus.
Before Embryo Transfer
Before your embryos can be thawed and transferred, you and your reproductive endocrinologist need to decide how many embryos to transfer into your uterus. The number of embryos transferred will directly impact the success rate of the FET procedure. Typically, between three and four embryos are transferred during each FET procedure.
Your health care provider will then monitor your body in order to determine the best time for the embryo transfer. You will be given numerous ultrasound scans (probably four or five) in order to monitor follicular development in your ovaries and the thickness of your uterine lining. Your reproductive endocrinologist will try to match the age of your embryos to the correct stage of your menstrual cycle. Typically, embryo transfer takes place about two days after ovulation. Your embryos will be thawed the day before your FET procedure.

 

[rlg94086]

do you have a scientific article on that? how can an embryo survive the freezing process?

Here is another site with information: givf.com/fertility/embryofreezing.cfm

Including FET success rates: givf.com/successrates/latestsuccessrates.cfm#fet

 

[AgnosTheist]

Thanks for the info, Robert! All i can say is ‘yikes!’.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Frozen embryos are not the byproduct of conjugal love. They are done in a laboratory with test tubes and syringes. This makes them ultra-dimensional, IMO. It is not done by the blueprint God had given in Genesis.

 

[mdixiew]

What is the Church’s current teaching on the **unused **frozen embryos that were made for in vitro fertilization?

Are they considered to have a soul? If so they need to be batized and buried. Plain and simple

 

[Sr_Sally]

My thoughts only so don’t yell:

1. Out-law ban the harvesting of human eggs and sperm for the creating of life outside of the natural sexual union of a man and woman. No exceptions. Harsh yes. Moral yes.
2. Then allow the babies that are now frozen to be adopted then implanted into the adoptive mother. The adoption process must be finished prior to the procedure no exceptions. The same adoptive parents must agree to adopt each of the child’s siblings that are waiting in the frozen state.
3. No experimentation on humans without their written consent. So the person would have to be old enough to make informed decisions on what to do with his or her body.

So if there are 10 or 15 frozen siblings, the same adoptive parents must take them all? Not sure I understood that point.

if so, my question is, do we know if there are greater health risks to a woman from implantation than natural pregnancy? I am assumming so, since they usually have the woman taking hormals treatments etc to prepare for implantation. Are there any moral issues with that?

 

[Sr_Sally]

Are they considered to have a soul? If so they need to be batized and buried. Plain and simple

I thought we received a soul at conception. If that is correct, than yes they have a soul. This is a position I have not heard before. Thank you.

 

[nilofc]

Just because they’re stuck in a freezing unit, it doesn’t mean they are fair game for inhumane experimentation.

Imagine… children trapped inside a burning schoolhouse with no way of escape. But we do have a robotic unit which can go through the flames and when it did reached the room where the kids are, the robot begins to harvest and extract the organs of those kids since they’ll die in the fire anyway. Better make use of their usable organs.

From this example, it becomes evident that even if they’re trapped in a place destined to be doomed doesn’t mean we can violate their humanity.

We should take the natural course of life for Frozen embryos and not add to their demise. Let’s not commit another sin on top of the sin we already done to them.