Embryo Adoption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NickVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Moral theologians are debating what has been termed the “rescue” of frozen embryos. The magisterium has not issued a specific judgment on this, and there is a division of opinion among theologians who firmly assent to the teaching of Donum Vitae. Some argue that “rescuing” frozen embryos is intrinsically immoral; others argue it is not. Though members of the latter group give different arguments to support their position, they all hold that it is morally licit for a woman to volunteer to have an embryo transferred into her womb in order to protect its life.”

Moral theolgians may dissent, dispute, contradict until they drop dead.
They are still in contradiction of the teaching as it stands to date.

In the end, the Church agrees:

"Our Holy Father reminds us that “man’s life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life: Man cannot do with it as he wills. Human life and death are thus in the hands of God, in his power. He alone can say: ‘It is I who bring both death and life’ (Deut. 32:39)” (Evangelium Vitae 39).

We must recognize the right of God alone to give life and to take it. It has been one of humanity’s great tragedies that many innocent ones have to die before we are able to see that truth."

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp
 
catharina said:
"Yet as a graduate student in Theology (presumably,
CATHOLIC Theology), you know (and accept) that
the Catholic Church does NOT allow adoption of
frozen embryos, do you not?"
Click to expand...
He’s probably not answering because the question is wrong.

The Church HAS NOT made an official stance on this, and HAS NOT declared that adoption of these human beings is prohibited.

If you had continued reading the source you posted, you would have realized this.
 
It would be interesting to explore the discussion of “Is letting these embryos die a sin of omission?”, methinks, as well as to hypothesize how the Church would view the use of an artificial embryo to rescue these babies.
 
Newbie2 said:
I see. No, I didn’t know. That was unclear.

I’ll let you know if I will respond to the question.

What I believe has little bearing on this discussion, wouldn’t you agree? I’m sure it’s more interesting to explore what you mean by “dissent”, “dispute” and “rejection”, so I can tell you whether I “dissent”, “dispute” or “reject” Church teachings in this area in your terms so that we can more effectively communicate.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You describe youself as a graduate student in Theology.
My questions of you reflect your status. No problem.

Simply questions.
If you prefer to refrain from answering, I understand.
 
Newbie2 said:
It would be interesting to explore the discussion of “Is letting these embryos die a sin of omission?”, methinks, as well as to hypothesize how the Church would view the use of an artificial embryo to rescue these babies.
Click to expand...
The question? Post #30?
 
catharina said:
"Our Holy Father reminds us that “man’s life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life: Man cannot do with it as he wills. Human life and death are thus in the hands of God, in his power. He alone can say: ‘It is I who bring both death and life’ (Deut. 32:39)” (Evangelium Vitae 39).

We must recognize the right of God alone to give life and to take it. It has been one of humanity’s great tragedies that many innocent ones have to die before we are able to see that truth."

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp
Click to expand...
Catharina, THE LIFE ALREADY EXISTS. You see, us Catholics believe that life begins at conception. Meaning these embryos ARE LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.

We are not “creating human life” by caring for these embryos.

And I don’t know why you refuse to believe that the Church has not made official stance on this yet. The quote you YOURSELF quoted sates the following:

“The magisterium HAS NOT issued a specific judgment on this, and there is a division of opinion among theologians who firmly assent to the teaching of Donum Vitae. Some argue that “rescuing” frozen embryos is intrinsically immoral; others argue it is not.”
 
Debora123 said:
Catharina, THE LIFE ALREADY EXISTS. You see, us Catholics believe that life begins at conception. Meaning these embryos ARE LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.

We are not “creating human life” by caring for these embryos.

And I don’t know why you refuse to believe that the Church has not made official stance on this yet. The quote you YOURSELF quoted sates the following:

“The magisterium HAS NOT issued a specific judgment on this, and there is a division of opinion among theologians who firmly assent to the teaching of Donum Vitae. Some argue that “rescuing” frozen embryos is intrinsically immoral; others argue it is not.”
Click to expand...
That seems to be the case and might be the crux of apparent disagreement; “specific” judgment vs “general or implied” judgment?
 
Donum Vitae says this:

“Freezing of embryos (cryopreservation) constitutes an offense against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offenses and manipulation are possible” (DV 1:6). catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp

and this:

Donum Vitae reaffirms the sacredness of human life “from the moment of conception,” meaning that the human embryo must be respected and treated as a person recognized to have, above all, the right to life. In addition, it must be defended in its integrity and tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being (DV 1:1). catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp

To me, both these passages suggest that it is moral to nurture and raise these embryos as human beings, not to be kept frozen in a lab. And this is what I use to form my educated opinion.

But nonetheless, the Church has taken NO STANCE on this issue. So all we can do right now is form our opinions based on good Christian principles and the dignity of human life.
 
We have reached this point:

"ZENIT: Is everything still up for debate, since the matter has not yet been closed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Scarnecchia: No, certainly not – even back when “Donum Vitae” was issued in 1987, the freezing of human embryos was condemned, in vitro fertilization was condemned, and surrogate motherhood was declared illicit and condemned. You would think that that would solve the problem, but, of course, not all the issues were addressed.

For instance, “Donum Vitae” principally addressed the coming to be of a human being through a conception that was not the fruit of a conjugal act of love between a husband and a wife, but occurred in vitro, that is, in a glass petri dish. This procedure was clearly condemned as was the freezing of “extra” or “spare” embryos.
Nonetheless, thousands of frozen embryos have been created and the question was asked by many well intentioned persons – can a woman, other than the mother, have a frozen embryo transplanted into her womb without becoming a surrogate mother?

Some bioethicists faithful to the magisterium, not dissenting theologians by any means, who were concerned about the fate of these frozen embryos, argued that rescuing or adopting a frozen embryo would not make the woman a surrogate. A surrogate, they argued, would be one who, for love or for money, took an embryo into her womb with the intention of giving it to another – “I’m doing it for my sister, I’m doing it for my daughter, I’m doing it for $20,000.” A woman would not become a surrogate mother, they argued, if she did not intend to give the child away after birth but intended to adopt him or her. Anecdotally, I’ve spoken to a nun who said that if heterologous embryo transfer were approved, she would be tempted to found a new order of nuns dedicated to rescuing these frozen embryos.

This approach was criticized for collapsing the motive into the moral deed. Bioethicists critical of embryo adoption objected and said [that what’s more important than one’s motive] is the moral deed, the “what”, which they understood to be the act of becoming pregnant with someone else’s child.

These bioethicists argued that if the transfer of a frozen embryo into a woman’s womb was surrogacy per se, it would be intrinsically evil and it couldn’t be done for any good motive, not even to save the life of the frozen embryo.

ZENIT: Has there been any resolution of that debate in the Church?

Scarnecchia: Well, that debate went on for 20 years, from 1987-2008. Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “Dignitas Personae.” Paragraph 19 offered some resolution to this debate. My talk picked up where “Dignitas Personae” left off and what it did not yet address.

…

This, the licitness of homologous embryo transfer, is still an open and important lacuna that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needs to address and resolve one way or another."

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Xm-2j8iCK9QJ:www.zenit.org/article-28463%3Fl%3Denglish+congregation+for+the+doctrine+of+the+faith,+frozen+embryos&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

I have no plans to anticipate new Church Teaching.
Multitude of Catholics did so prior to Humanae Vitae. They were incorrect.
 
catharina said:
Not at all. You describe youself as a graduate student in Theology.
My questions of you reflect your status. No problem.

Simply questions.
If you prefer to refrain from answering, I understand.
Click to expand...
newbie2 - Again I await your response -
even if your response is “I will not answer.”
 
A change in focus:

Hypothetical. An artificial uterus gets developed that can be used to gestate these embryos to “birth”.

Is it moral to use these devices?
 
Newbie2 said:
A change in focus:

Hypothetical. An artificial uterus gets developed that can be used to gestate these embryos to “birth”.

Is it moral to use these devices?
Click to expand...
From awaiting your response to Post #30
to your advance of the hypothetical.

Right.
 
catharina said:
From awaiting your response to Post #30
to your advance of the hypothetical.

Right.
Click to expand...
So what do you think? I’ll bet that within 10-15 years there will be such an artificial uterus. Of course, methinks it will be developed as an artificial surrogate for women who either cannot carry to term or choose not to “ruin their bodies” with pregnancy, rather than being primarily developed for a “rescue” function.

But, it’s probably that such technology will be available.
 
Newbie2 said:
So what do you think? I’ll bet that within 10-15 years there will be such an artificial uterus. Of course, methinks it will be developed as an artificial surrogate for women who either cannot carry to term or choose not to “ruin their bodies” with pregnancy, rather than being primarily developed for a “rescue” function.

But, it’s probably that such technology will be available.
Click to expand...
I think you are unwilling to respond to my Post # 30 -
and unwilling to admit that fact. Always helpful to know such a thing.

Ta-ta.

😉
 
Debora123 said:
Like I said, I don’t see how caring and nurturing for a human being who’s been frozen is evil. This whole attitude reminds me of the pharisees.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go so far as to make comparison with teh Pharisees.

Its a rubbish situation for sure for those tiny humans, but we only have to look at the nature of humanity and our history to see what will happen if the Church, or any other organisation allows full scale embryo adoption.

Right now there are 1.2 million abortions approx. in America, and there are many, many, MANY couples wanting to adopt - but can’t because of said abortions. The children in foster care are in a sort of legal limbo, so getting them in place of not-aborted baby is difficult. So, if embryo adoption was wholesale, people would go there? Wouldn’t they?

So what then happens when people who “own” the embryos but don’t want them, realise there is a market for their surplus? They will likely seek a price. They may not be able to legally sell them, but they could donate them and in exchange the couple adopting would pay say, “legal fees”, “storage fees” and the likes. Then of course, there will be more and more people seeking these embryos.

Suddenly it goes from a heart felt need to adopt to a scramble for the best deal.

There is no moral solution, and as stink as it is, I think its best to just let those children linger until natural death takes them, and they do degrade over time to the point that they wouldn’t implant.

Our history tells us as a society we are unable to value human life, this is just another example. Yes, there will be success stories, but there are “success” stories that come out of all immoral behaviour, even if it does seem like splitting hairs.
 
Anyone have thoughts about the morality of an artificial uterus? 🙂

As I see it, since it is using technology to “get us out of the moral pickle” and not a person i.e. a woman’s uterus…this could be an interesting moral alternative.
 
NickVA said:
Has the Church spoken at all about the morality of “Embryo Adoption”. Embryo adoption being when some other couple’s embryo is implanted into a woman’s uterus.

Obviously, we know what the Church clearly says on the immorality of In-Vitro Fertilization process.

However, there are great numbers of children siting in freezers waiting to be born.

“The results show that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States. This number is higher than expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 200,000.”

“Of the remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death, abandonment, and divorce.” (Quote:The Rand Corp.)

These human beings are sitting in freezers waiting for someone to let them out.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a terribly sad situation.
Yet we know we cannot act against (or without a blessing of) Church Teaching.

The horror of it is contained within the very process of in-vitro.
The outcome can not surprise any of us.
 
catharina said:
Yes, it is a terribly sad situation.
Yet we know we cannot act against (or without a blessing of) Church Teaching.

The horror of it is contained within the very process of in-vitro.
The outcome can not surprise any of us.
Click to expand...
It is NOT against Church teaching.

“The magisterium HAS NOT issued a specific judgment on this, and there is a division of opinion among theologians who firmly assent to the teaching of Donum Vitae. Some argue that “rescuing” frozen embryos is intrinsically immoral; others argue it is not.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top