Ethical Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter prolifegirl618
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prolifegirl618

Guest
Dear All:

I work for a not-for-profit pro-life organization. That being said, I came across a question that I thought I’d pose and get feeback on:

Is is moral for a woman to save th elife of an embryo through adoption, that is, by having this new life implanted in her womb and bringing the child to birth? :confused:

Any advice on this would be appreciated!
 
This is just my personal opinion, but I think it would be. Just as a family can adopt a child who has already been born, they could adopt an embryo and hopefully bring that boy or girl into their family. To me this is a better alternative than allowing the embryos to be used for testing or just discarded.

The only downside I could see would be that some might claim that embryo adoption would justify the immoral practice of IVF. That’s where the issue gets fuzzy for me. The adoptive parents would not have participated in the IVF, just accepting its results, but are they then implicitly accepting the morality of IVF?
 
As best I understand it, moral theologians are not in agreement on the issue, and the Church is still studying it. It is not by any means a clear cut issue.
 
The Church has not definitively spoken on this.

Moral theologians come down on both sides of the argument.
 
prolifegirl618 said:
…Is is moral for a woman to save th elife of an embryo through adoption, that is, by having this new life implanted in her womb and bringing the child to birth? :confused:

Any advice on this would be appreciated!
Click to expand...
My understanding is it is immoral to remove the embryo from the biological mother, and immoral to fertilize an egg outside of the woman. I agree the Church has not made a clear stand on what could be done in a state where the sin of others has created this issue as a pre-existing condition.
 
I would say that it is preferable to leaving the embryonic human being to be “donated” for destructive embryonic stem cell research.
 
Gee, great question–this is where theologians really earn their paychecks.
 
I would agree that it doesn’t seem any different from adopting an already born child.

Would we not adopt a child just because it was conceived out of wedlock? Just because the child was created in a sinful manner doesn’t mean that the child should be punished or denied a home.

Now if we payed for the in vitro, in order to implant those fertilized eggs into a woman and saying ‘she’s adopting them’, THAT would be wrong and accepting in vitro as OK. (but I don’t know even if anyone does that. I don’t know much about in vitro).
 
GREAT question.

We know it’s immoral to destroy the embryo, and the only way to keep from destroying the embryo is to preserve it (freezing and storage) or to implant it an allow it to develop.

It stands to reason that implanting it would be OK.

Let’s take for example a similar hypothetical:

Let’s say that it would be medically possible to transplant, say, a first or second term fetus into a “recipient” (hate that word, but for the sake of clarity…).

Mom gets mortally injured in a car accident. Is it morally acceptable to transplant (transfer, implant, any word you want to use that means the same thing) the fetus into a recipient mom?

If so, then the same holds for implanting an otherwise “unwanted” embryo, as in the original question. If no, well…then it’s not OK.

Just another way to think about your question.
 
seems to me that human life begins at conception no matter how it happened. The human person that exists in an embrionic state of developement is endowed with the dignity of all human persons and should be given the right to experience the life it possesses if possible.

I can’t see how doing this as an act of charity causes scandal.

I’m sure there will be those who not knowing charity would perceive the act as hypocritical but that false perception isn’t caused by the act.

I’m sure it would cause an environment that would allow some people to hide their favoritism of the evil act behind a false piety but if a human life is given a chance to be fullfilled then an evil intention has been the cause of a good in my opinion.

Also imagine the population of those who are saved in this way infused into society and how they will effect the structures of consciousness that allows the evil.
 
My understanding is it is immoral to remove the embryo from the biological mother, and immoral to fertilize an egg outside of the woman. I agree the Church has not made a clear stand on what could be done in a state where the sin of others has created this issue as a pre-existing condition.
Click to expand...
It is also immoral to conceive outside marriage. Yet it is always wrong not to protect human life where one can. I don’t think there is anything the Church can make clearer.
 
1ke said:
The Church has not definitively spoken on this.

Moral theologians come down on both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...
Right. You should search Catholic answers radio for a program on snowflake babies or embryo adoption. I heard an ethicist on Catholic answers speak on this that convinced me that embryo adoption is not ethical.

But, it breaks my heart…
 
BobP123 said:
It is also immoral to conceive outside marriage. Yet it is always wrong not to protect human life where one can. I don’t think there is anything the Church can make clearer.
Click to expand...
well, moral theologians who are not considered to be “radical” or “dissenting” have said that implanting embroyos is immoral; others, who are neither “radical” nor “dissenting” have said the opposite, and both sides make cogent and reasoned arguements for their position.

It initially looks like a simple answer - one is saving the life that was originally created. However, moral issues are not always as simple as this appears on its face.

The Church has not spoken officially - at least, not as far as I can ascertain. So, to answer the OP’s question, it may get down to doing as much research on the moral issue as posible, and spending a good deal of time in prayer if one is trying to discern if one should take part in an implantation. Kind of like using one’s conscience…
 
The Westchester Institute and the National Catholic Bioethics Center published a series of essays titled “Human Embryo Adoption”. To summarize the book by content, I would offer a few points:
  1. Most female theologians and philosophers seem to be against embryo adoption in any form. Likewise, most male theologians and philosophers are against embryo adoption in any form.
  2. Most priests favor embryo adoption if (a) the actual couple involved implants their own embryo (b) another married couple implants the embryo for the purposes of their own personal adoption.
  3. The “rescue” position as described in this thread, is largely looked down upon b/c the embryo is abandoned twice.
It is a very open and hot topic. Interestingly, for the first time in religious history, the lines seem to be drawn by vocation (either the married or priestly state).

The question is not “Is it licit to save a life?” the answer to that is obvious. But the means to save that life have to be licit as well. The question seems to be "Is it licit for a woman to become pregnant outside of marriage? And “Is it licit for a woman to deliberately become pregnant outside of the act of marriage or seek to carry a child not related to either the mother or father? Is it licit to seek to become pregnant outside of the marital act? The answers to these questions, (answers that I do not have) can alter what it means to be “with child” “married”, etc. Much is at stake.

If it is illicit for a woman to become pregnant outside of marriage, then the motivation to “save a life” does not make an illicit act somehow licit. Similarly, if it is illicit for a woman to seek to become pregnant with a child not her husbands and her own then their motivation to rescue and adopt the frozen embryonic person does not somehow make the illicit act licit. The Church rightly describes this situation as “absurd” (Donum Vitate 7).

The book I refer to is here. All authors are noted theologians loyal to the Church.

informationsecured.com/ncbc_store/detail.aspx?ID=94

Those actually considering this course of action should review this carefully. Much is at stake. The “Snowflakes” analogy (largely a protestant movement)have less trouble with this theologically because most protestant communities already think that in-vitro is a good idea.
 
Daniel_Kane said:
  1. The “rescue” position as described in this thread, is largely looked down upon b/c the embryo is abandoned twice.
it never occured to me that this ethics discussion included the action of women occupied with this task and handing them over to some other agancy that would arrange for their care. Adopting an embryo would necessarily require that the woman who carries the child would also be the person who provdes maternal care. Also.

I would imagine that it would be better for them if their eternal destiny were left in God’s hands as innocent victim souls than be brought into the world as if on a conveyor in a factory.
Click to expand...
 
Daniel_Kane said:
The question is not “Is it licit to save a life?” the answer to that is obvious. But the means to save that life have to be licit as well. The question seems to be "Is it licit for a woman to become pregnant outside of marriage? And “Is it licit for a woman to deliberately become pregnant outside of the act of marriage or seek to carry a child not related to either the mother or father? Is it licit to seek to become pregnant outside of the marital act? The answers to these questions, (answers that I do not have) can alter what it means to be “with child” “married”, etc. Much is at stake.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top