Frozen embryo question

[braumeister]

Would there be anything immoral with a couple who can not conceive a child to have a frozen embryo implanted in the womb as opposed to “throwing out” the unused frozen embryos?

 

[3DOCTORS]

It is already happening:

nightlight.org/adoption-services/snowflakes-embryo/default.aspx

However, from what I have heard, Catholic bioethicists and, I would assume the Holy See, someone correct me if I’m wrong, are against it at this time. They say it is because it isn’t through marriage and it would encourage IVF to be continued.

But I sure do feel sorry for those frozen little babies. :bighanky: I wish there was something that could be done for them, and then that when every last one was saved and born, the practice of IVF would be stopped.

 

[Apollos]

Would there be anything immoral with a couple who can not conceive a child to have a frozen embryo implanted in the womb as opposed to “throwing out” the unused frozen embryos?

Naturally there would be. It divorces the act of radical self-giving love from the generation of a human person. You would have to tell your kid that he came into this world as a result of the doctor drugging mommy to get her body to make excess eggs so he could catch a few with a needle stuck in her groin, and of daddy masturbating in the clinic bathroom. Then he and his 7 to 10 brothers and sisters were put in suspended animation together with him until mommy and daddy were ready to let him grow up and become a fetus, and unfortunately four or five of your older brothers and sisters died in the process of being put into mommy’s “stomach”, but he was the charm. Then you can tell him just how special he is.

 

[joandarc2008]

It is already happening:

nightlight.org/adoption-services/snowflakes-embryo/default.aspx

However, from what I have heard, Catholic bioethicists and, I would assume the Holy See, someone correct me if I’m wrong, are against it at this time. They say it is because it isn’t through marriage and it would encourage IVF to be continued.

But I sure do feel sorry for those frozen little babies. :bighanky: I wish there was something that could be done for them, and then that when every last one was saved and born, the practice of IVF would be stopped.

You are correct - but it is a definite underlining of the IVF being continued. As long as ther are frozen embryos on the market there will be couples looking to have them implanted - which will leave for more couples not feeling guilty about putting frozen embryos up on the market. It also could lead to a slippery slope of these embryos being bought and sold - as it is from couples. And all of this of course as mentioned does violate the marriage covenant as another couples child (the creation of what should have been their love making but instead was her surgery and his masturbation) will be implanted into your uterus is not God’s plan for how life is to be made. Sorry to be put it so bluntly.

 

[3DOCTORS]

You’re right, but since we don’t abort babies conceived in premarital sex or rape, it just makes me sad that these little guys and gals are stuck and I wish there was some morally acceptable way they could save them so they could be born and grow and live the rest of their lives that have already been started…

I’m just expressing my sadness; I don’t have any answers.

 

[joandarc2008]

You’re right, but since we don’t abort babies conceived in premarital sex or rape, it just makes me sad that these little guys and gals are stuck and I wish there was some morally acceptable way they could save them so they could be born and grow and live the rest of their lives that have already been started…

I’m just expressing my sadness; I don’t have any answers.

It is very sad - it is as Fr Corapi has said in his Spiritual Warfare talk: “Satan’s favorite color is gray.”

 

[3DOCTORS]

It is very sad - it is as Fr Corapi has said in his Spiritual Warfare talk: “Satan’s favorite color is gray.”

Gotta love Fr. Corapi. :yup: I guess we just have to trust the babies’ fate to God’s providence and to each one’s individual guardian angel.:angel1:

 

[Seatuck]

usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a
treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial
heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;38 this practice
would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are
otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This
proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life,
presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned
embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John
Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular
to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there
seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and
thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should
therefore be protected by law as human persons”.39

 

[braumeister]

For those who believe it’s immoral, what would you suggest we do with them. You couldn’t kill and throw them out.

 

[Newbie2]

I guess what’s clear about this question is that the answer is unclear.

Morally speaking, one way of looking at frozen embryos is like any other unwanted baby. We believe them to be unique persons with a soul, and if we do nothing they will eventually die.

So…morally speaking, there’s little to distinguish a baby made by two teenagers during a back-seat tryst; a baby that is unwanted and conceived out of wedlock and a baby at embryo stage that is “extra” and is in frozen stasis.

Neither was conceived in a moral manner.

But that horse has already escaped and it’s too late to close the barn door. In both cases we have to deal with the present reality of the situation(s): There are unwanted babies out there that can be adopted.

What’s problematic, of course, is what has to be done in order to rescue the frozen embryos and the very real possibility of the immoral acts of superovulation and IVF becoming a commercial venture.

My opinion is that if all IVF were to cease, the Church might take a bit different opinon on rescue of these frozen embryos. We are indeed caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

[joandarc2008]

I hate to say it but I believe from a moral standpoint that we do nothing and in doing nothing it almost creates a “double effect” situation where doing nothing allows nature to take its course and the child cannot survive indefinetly whereas doing something is sinful and would lead to the loss of more life and more destruction no matter what the intent. I know this is probably not what anyone wants to hear but unfortunatey this is what happens when man messes in God’s work which is creating life.

 

[Newbie2]

I hate to say it but I believe from a moral standpoint that we do nothing and in doing nothing it almost creates a “double effect” situation where doing nothing allows nature to take its course and the child cannot survive indefinetly whereas doing something is sinful and would lead to the loss of more life and more destruction no matter what the intent. I know this is probably not what anyone wants to hear but unfortunatey this is what happens when man messes in God’s work which is creating life.

The counter argument is that in deliberately missing an opportunity to spare a life, such an ommission could be looked at as morally objectionable. The analogy could be that it is similar to not making efforts to talk a pregnant teenager who is seeking abortion into adoption. By doing nothing, the baby dies.

I don’t necessarily agree with this counter argument, but it does hold water.

The point that mankind screwed up and created this situation is rather moot, don’t you think? Agreed, we should not have gone there, but the reality is that we are there, these embryos do exist and we have a moral difficulty in deciding what to do with them.

 

[joandarc2008]

The counter argument is that in deliberately missing an opportunity to spare a life, such an ommission could be looked at as morally objectionable. The analogy could be that it is similar to not making efforts to talk a pregnant teenager who is seeking abortion into adoption. By doing nothing, the baby dies.

I don’t necessarily agree with this counter argument, but it does hold water.

The point that mankind screwed up and created this situation is rather moot, don’t you think? Agreed, we should not have gone there, but the reality is that we are there, these embryos do exist and we have a moral difficulty in deciding what to do with them.

Yes but by doing something - the something here is an immoral act - by impregnating a woman with someone else’s zygote this violates the Sacrament of Matrimony and falls under the sin of adultery. The ends do not justify the means.

Also by adopting the existing embryos we are creating an argument of moral relativism where people who are sitting on the fence may make the immoral choice to start IVF as they feel someone will adopt their embryos and everything will be OK.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes but by doing something - the something here is an immoral act - by impregnating a woman with someone else’s zygote this violates the Sacrament of Matrimony and falls under the sin of adultery. The ends do not justify the means.

Also by adopting the existing embryos we are creating an argument of moral relativism where people who are sitting on the fence may make the immoral choice to start IVF as they feel someone will adopt their embryos and everything will be OK.

No, it’s not quite adultry. Adultry has to do with sex outside of marriage by a married person. While it does have to do with the sanctity of marriage and the connection with reproduction, adultry is a sexual sin, based on a sexual act or acts with someone who is not one’s spouse.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “… adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse.”

I think the mistake you’re making is that you’re connecting the act of “adopting” an embryo with the making of one. People who adopt embryos, methinks, do so out of a sense of concern for the person who will die without being rescued. This is not a morally relativistic act, as they are not connected with the people “making” the embryos, not to mention that couples who rescue these embros, methinks, would like the practice of IVF to stop.

Now I do agree with you that there is the danger of those considering IVF to possibly proceed if they know that the “extra” embryos may be adopted. However, that adoptive parents have nothing to do with that choice; that moral choice and moral consequences lie with the biological parents.

The reasoning you propose is faulty in that the motivations of the adoptive parents is not a morally relative act due to the actions of the biological parents. That would be like saying that someone adopting a “born” baby is encouraging illicit sexual activity because the biological mother assumes that if she gets pregnant, there will be someone there to adopt the baby and everything will be OK.

So, yes, I agree that IVF start the whole “immoral choice” ball rolling. And, I would agree that couples who engage in “rescue” as a first choice (rather than having or conceiving children on their own) may be morally “on the hook”. And IF for some reason adopting couples were “pleased” or “glad” or “happy” that IVF was used to make “their embryo”, then that too would be problematic, same as if an adopting couple were “happy” that two unmarried people had sexual relations because it allowed them to have a baby to adopt.

However, I know of a couple who rescued two embryos. The couple was unable to conceive on their own, and had two embryos implanted; both survived and they now are adoptive parents of twins. Their motivations were to adopt unwanted children, and that’s what they did.
Besides the “sin” of embryo implantation, I have a difficult time finding sin in what they did.

I do not want to give the impression that IVF is a moral act, but by the same token I don’t think it is clear whether or not embryo implantation is an immoral act, under certain circumstances and with the right motivation.

Hopefully, we will see further clarification of this by the Mageristerium. Technology is advancing at such a rapid pace, it’s difficult to make judgments on certain procedures that will stand the test of time. Certainly IVF will always be immoral, but will embryo implantation?

Take a very unlikely scenario: 20 years from now, Bob and Mary are married. Mary is pregnant, but JUST so. By that time, they’ve developed some technology to be able to detect that Mary has a blastocyst-sized embryo present. They get into a car accident, and Mary is “dead”, kept alive only by intensive life support. Mary’s sister, also married, wishes to adopt Mary’s baby and just happens to be in the right part of her cycle to allow for embryo transplation to be successful.

The embryo was conceived under moral circumstances and will die if Mary is taken off life support (which Bob wants to do, as she continues to get closer to death day by day and there is no chance of recovery…in the future they have “better” life support than now). Will it be morally acceptable to rescue this embryo in such a manner?

What is the moral difference between rescuing the embryo in the manner I just described or removing the embryo and allowing it to develop in an “artificial uterus” that will allow it to grow to term and be “born”? (Such things may very well be possible in 20 years)

Such decisions the Church makes now on moral actions need to take into account what future technologies may make possible.

 

[joandarc2008]

No, it’s not quite adultry. Adultry has to do with sex outside of marriage by a married person. While it does have to do with the sanctity of marriage and the connection with reproduction, adultry is a sexual sin, based on a sexual act or acts with someone who is not one’s spouse.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “… adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse.”

I think the mistake you’re making is that you’re connecting the act of “adopting” an embryo with the making of one. People who adopt embryos, methinks, do so out of a sense of concern for the person who will die without being rescued. This is not a morally relativistic act, as they are not connected with the people “making” the embryos, not to mention that couples who rescue these embros, methinks, would like the practice of IVF to stop.

Now I do agree with you that there is the danger of those considering IVF to possibly proceed if they know that the “extra” embryos may be adopted. However, that adoptive parents have nothing to do with that choice; that moral choice and moral consequences lie with the biological parents.

The reasoning you propose is faulty in that the motivations of the adoptive parents is not a morally relative act due to the actions of the biological parents. That would be like saying that someone adopting a “born” baby is encouraging illicit sexual activity because the biological mother assumes that if she gets pregnant, there will be someone there to adopt the baby and everything will be OK.

So, yes, I agree that IVF start the whole “immoral choice” ball rolling. And, I would agree that couples who engage in “rescue” as a first choice (rather than having or conceiving children on their own) may be morally “on the hook”. And IF for some reason adopting couples were “pleased” or “glad” or “happy” that IVF was used to make “their embryo”, then that too would be problematic, same as if an adopting couple were “happy” that two unmarried people had sexual relations because it allowed them to have a baby to adopt.

However, I know of a couple who rescued two embryos. The couple was unable to conceive on their own, and had two embryos implanted; both survived and they now are adoptive parents of twins. Their motivations were to adopt unwanted children, and that’s what they did.
Besides the “sin” of embryo implantation, I have a difficult time finding sin in what they did.

I do not want to give the impression that IVF is a moral act, but by the same token I don’t think it is clear whether or not embryo implantation is an immoral act, under certain circumstances and with the right motivation.

Hopefully, we will see further clarification of this by the Mageristerium. Technology is advancing at such a rapid pace, it’s difficult to make judgments on certain procedures that will stand the test of time. Certainly IVF will always be immoral, but will embryo implantation?

Take a very unlikely scenario: 20 years from now, Bob and Mary are married. Mary is pregnant, but JUST so. By that time, they’ve developed some technology to be able to detect that Mary has a blastocyst-sized embryo present. They get into a car accident, and Mary is “dead”, kept alive only by intensive life support. Mary’s sister, also married, wishes to adopt Mary’s baby and just happens to be in the right part of her cycle to allow for embryo transplation to be successful.

The embryo was conceived under moral circumstances and will die if Mary is taken off life support (which Bob wants to do, as she continues to get closer to death day by day and there is no chance of recovery…in the future they have “better” life support than now). Will it be morally acceptable to rescue this embryo in such a manner?

What is the moral difference between rescuing the embryo in the manner I just described or removing the embryo and allowing it to develop in an “artificial uterus” that will allow it to grow to term and be “born”? (Such things may very well be possible in 20 years)

Such decisions the Church makes now on moral actions need to take into account what future technologies may make possible.

You are wrong about the adultery part - much a part of this falls under the sixth commandment - so do teachings on subjects which violate the marital union - adultery is about more than sex. The Church already has spoken on embryo adoption. She has spoken in numerous documents that it is wrong.

As far as your Bob and his wife scenario - there is a double effect in place - if the child cannot live outside the mother then we are not killing the child the child is dying of natural causes. But why would we mess with God’s plan when there is a woman on life support that is keeping that child going. I cannot imagine most women on this site would mind being left alive for the purpose of the life of a child.

CRL Life Spots on IVF

Pope Condemns In Vitro Fertilization

 

[Newbie2]

You are wrong about the adultery part

I’d like to see some documentation.

• much a part of this falls under the sixth commandment - so do teachings on subjects which violate the marital union - adultery is about more than sex. It is, but it is about breaking the marital vows with another person. This isn’t the case in what we are discussing. The Church already has spoken on embryo adoption. She has spoken in numerous documents that it is wrong.

I’d like to see some documentation. Got any links?

As far as your Bob and his wife scenario - there is a double effect in place - if the child cannot live outside the mother then we are not killing the child the child is dying of natural causes. But why would we mess with God’s plan when there is a woman on life support that is keeping that child going. I cannot imagine most women on this site would mind being left alive for the purpose of the life of a child.

You misunderstand the scenario. The woman is dying and will not survive to support the baby to term. Perhaps I was unclear on that. And this is in the future, where such technology makes it easy and commonplace to be able to save such an embryo.
CRL Life Spots on IVF

Pope Condemns In Vitro Fertilization

 

[joandarc2008]

Newbie2:
Fine - here is your documentation

1. IVF requires masturbation as part of collection of sperm:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

You will find this is also found in the sixth commandment which reads “Thou Shalt not commit Adultery” Here is the link to said CCC and commandment: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

1. Now as far as the actual implantation:

All references below come from this link

They say this a few different ways in the same document but this one was the most clear that the heterologous in-vitro fertilization was an offense against marriage:

1. DOES HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION CONFORM TO THE DIGNITY OF THE COUPLE AND TO THE TRUTH OF MARRIAGE?

Through IVF and ET and heterologous artificial insemination, human conception is achieved through the fusion of gametes of at least one donor other than the spouses who are united in marriage. Heterologous artificial fertilization is contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of the spouses, to the vocation proper to parents, and to the child’s right to be conceived and brought into the world in marriage and from marriage.(36) Respect for the unity of marriage and for conjugal fidelity demands that the child be conceived in marriage; the bond existing between husband and wife accords the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive right to become father and mother solely through each other.(37) Recourse to the gametes of a third person, in order to have sperm or ovum available, constitutes a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a grave lack in regard to that essential property of marriage which is its unity. Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity. Furthermore, it offends the common vocation of the spouses who are called to fatherhood and motherhood: it objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity; it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood and responsibility for upbringing. Such damage to the personal relationships within the family has repercussions on civil society: what threatens the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder and injustice in the whole of social life. These reasons lead to a negative moral judgment concerning heterologous artificial fertilization: consequently fertilization of a married woman with the sperm of a donor different from her husband and fertilization with the husband’s sperm of an ovum not coming from his wife are morally illicit. Furthermore, the artificial fertilization of a woman who is unmarried or a widow, whoever the donor may be, cannot be morally justified.

The desire to have a child and the love between spouses who long to obviate a sterility which cannot be overcome in any other way constitute understandable motivations; but subjectively good intentions do not render heterologous artificial fertilization conformable to the objective and inalienable properties of marriage or respectful of the rights of the child and of the spouses.

Since any embryo adoption would therefore be heterologous you see the issue.

1. I did not know this but this is what the Vatican has to say about freezing (same link as above):

The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo - cryopreservation - constitutes an offence 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 offences and manipulation are possible.

 

[joandarc2008]

(con’t)

1. As far as homologous fertilization which was brought up here is an issue to think about:

1. HOW IS HOMOLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TO BE EVALUATED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW?

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

The teaching of the Magisterium on this point has already been stated.(51) This teaching is not just an expression of particular historical circumstances but is based on the Church’s doctrine concerning the connection between the conjugal union and procreation and on a consideration of the personal nature of the conjugal act and of human procreation. "In its natural structure, the conjugal act is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation on the part of the husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the proper nature of the act is the expression of the mutual gift which, according to the words of Scripture, brings about union ‘in one flesh’ ".(52) Thus moral conscience “does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined solely either to the facilitating of the natural act or to ensuring that the natural act normally performed achieves its proper end”.(53) If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by reason of the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two meanings of the conjugal act. Masturbation, through which the sperm is normally obtained, is another sign of this dissociation: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: "It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes ‘the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love’ ".(54)

What I get out of this - is that because it is an in-vitro an not in utero fertilization and that that it is taking place removed from the sex act there is an issue.

I hope that helps- let me know if I missed anything. There is a lot in that document but the Church is pretty clear.

 

[Newbie2]

Fine - here is your documentation

Now, now…don’t get testy. (I just had to say it.)

1. IVF requires masturbation as part of collection of sperm:

We are in agreement that IVF is immoral, that was never disputed. So, yes, if you were saying that IVF is considered under the general conception or idea of adultry, I’d agree. As far as the specific sin of adultry, I’d disagree. “2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.” Adultry, as a specific sin, requires a third party outside of marriage.

Perhaps we’re splitting hairs here, as both IVF and sex outside of marriage are both sinful.

1. Now as far as the actual implantation:

All references below come from this link

They say this a few different ways in the same document but this one was the most clear that the heterologous in-vitro fertilization was an offense against marriage:

Since any embryo adoption would therefore be heterologous you see the issue.

I can see why you could come to this conclusion, but I read this as in the context of the IVF taking place for the specific purpose of producing an embryo for implantation. Embryo rescue involved implantation of embryos that are unwanted and will be “killed” through neglect or discarding.

There may be other references, but I don’t see a specific prohibition of embryo rescue here.

1. I did not know this but this is what the Vatican has to say about freezing (same link as above)
   Yep. Kinda like putting an old person into “cryostasis”, if such a thing can be sucessfully developed at some point in time, against their will in the hopes that there would be a cure for what ails them.
2. As far as homologous fertilization which was brought up here is an issue to think about:

Now this is probably the best support for the argument against frozen embryo rescue, although it does not address the issue specifically:

If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit.

Thanks for the links. I hope you don’t think I’m arguing against the teaching, but am putting forth the argument to further help clarify it. I will admit that this is an issue that I struggle with, and haven’t come down on either side yet. I fully understand the teaching about the connection between marital conjugation and reproduction and fully support it…but I’m having trouble getting past what I perceive as missing a chance to adopt a human being (kinda like talking a teenage girl into having her baby and adopting it rather than sitting by and watching her go have an abortion); in other words, a sin of omission leading to the death of an individual.

I guess we’ve created this situation, having developed the technology for IVF, freezing embryos and embryo transfer, and have created a moral rock and hard place.

In addition, I don’t want to introduce a “sappy and emotional” component into this discussion, but I have a real hard time condeming the practice when I saw the twin “snowflake” babies baptized in our parish several months ago, knowing full well that they would have ended up in a dumpster behind the clinic sooner or later if they had not been adopted.

So, I’ll continue to struggle with this teaching…

 

[joandarc2008]

Thanks for the links. I hope you don’t think I’m arguing against the teaching, but am putting forth the argument to further help clarify it. I will admit that this is an issue that I struggle with, and haven’t come down on either side yet. I fully understand the teaching about the connection between marital conjugation and reproduction and fully support it…but I’m having trouble getting past what I perceive as missing a chance to adopt a human being (kinda like talking a teenage girl into having her baby and adopting it rather than sitting by and watching her go have an abortion); in other words, a sin of omission leading to the death of an individual.

I guess we’ve created this situation, having developed the technology for IVF, freezing embryos and embryo transfer, and have created a moral rock and hard place.

In addition, I don’t want to introduce a “sappy and emotional” component into this discussion, but I have a real hard time condeming the practice when I saw the twin “snowflake” babies baptized in our parish several months ago, knowing full well that they would have ended up in a dumpster behind the clinic sooner or later if they had not been adopted.

So, I’ll continue to struggle with this teaching…

I hope you don’t mind - I’m having trouble linking your arguments as it is hard to pull the quotes over from the thread so:

1. While I understand you are understanding about the adultery argument - you are misdefining adultery. Adultery is any violation that falls under the sixth commandment - this can include lack of chastity, masturbation, heterologous IVF, etc.
2. Sorry for sounding testy - no excuse it wasn’t you I was going back in forth between two of these threads and the other was not as nice. My apologies.
3. The argument against the frozen embryo adoption is that freezing the embryos is cruel - I did link that above therefore embryo adoption which is by definition heterologous would increase this practice. Also by definition frozen embryo adoptions are heterologous which the document linked above did speak clearly against and why.
4. It is important that you not only read what I have to say but the full link that I have posted- I don’t understand how you can still have the arguments you do when the document that I have posted states very clearly that a) cryostasis of embryos is wrong b) homologous IVF is wrong c) heterologous IVF is wrong

Pax et Bonum,