Frozen embryo question

[Newbie2]

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.

Beg to differ (somewhat); I pulled those definitions directly from the Catholic encyclopedia and from the vatican document that you referenced. But I do agree that such things would fall under the general umbrella, as I said, of commandment #6.

1. 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.

No, no. It made for a great play on words…testy, testis…

1. 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.

It did not specifically mention frozen embryo adoptions, that what I was saying.

I’m not sure I understand your statement above (bolded). Are you saying that embryo adoption increases the numbers of unwanted embryos produced during IVF procedures?

1. 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

I believe you’re misunderstanding my struggle. I agree that a,b and c are morally illicit. I’m not arguing that these things are illicit.

What I’m saying is that immoral activities to produce these frozen embryos** have already occured.** I’m not saying that they should continue, quite to the contrary, I think they should stop…which would at least halt the number of frozen embryos that we have to deal with.

I’m saying that I’m having trouble accepting that in deciding that embryo adoption is immoral, many little human persons are being condemned to death by inaction.

I liken it to adopting an unwanted baby (the unfrozen kind), who’s mother is going to have an abortion; inaction results in the death of the embryo in both cases. The difference, of course, is that in the mother who decides to carry the baby to term is choosing inaction (the action would be to have an abortion) and in adopting an embryo, an action (embryo implantation of an already existing embryo) has to occur.

Pax et Bonum,

I’m not trying to talk you out of your position, but is my struggle any clearer?

 

[joandarc2008]

I’m not trying to talk you out of your position, but is my struggle any clearer?

I think the problem is that you do not understand the difference between homologous and heterologous implantation.

Here are some definitions from the above linked document:

• By the term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage. Such techniques can be of two types

a) Heterologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro of gametes taken from at least one donor other than the two spouses joined in marriage.

b) Heterologous artifical insemination: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of the woman of the sperm previously collected from a donor other than the husband.

** By artificial homologous fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means the technique used to obtain a human conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage. Homologous artificial fertilization can be carried out by two different methods:

a) Homologous IVF and ET: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the meeting in vitro of the gametes of the spouses joined in marriage.

b) Homologous artificial insemination: the technique used to obtain a human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of a married woman of the sperm previously collected from her husband.

Embryo adoption is an illicit form of implantation as in this very same document heterologous implantation has been deemed inherently evil and since the embryos are being adopted - it is by definition heterologous:

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

Also from a scientific point of view the embryos themselves would have to be stored in cryostasis as they would not have any shelf-life otherwise so there is no other possible way to store them for adoption other than cryostasis which has this ruling:

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.

I hope that puts it in a clearer order. If I were you I would sit back and read the entire document as I think it will help:

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

 

[Newbie2]

Nope, that ain’t the problem. I understand both, in fact I participated in several bovine embryo transfers in the early 1980s before attending veterinary school.

It would seem that either type of embryo implantation is illicit, and that’s the problem.

 

[joandarc2008]

Nope, that ain’t the problem. I understand both, in fact I participated in several bovine embryo transfers in the early 1980s before attending veterinary school.

It would seem that either type of embryo implantation is illicit, and that’s the problem.

Exactly - granted I played with V. fischeri in my undergrad with shotgun cloning but that was as close as I got to cloning before my life went other ways. But it is nice to have the background when reading these things to know how easily these things can be done and how slippery the slope is.

Now - you are right both are illicit - so I think what we to look at next are the three requirements for a moral decision:

1. The object of the act
2. The intent of the act
3. The circumstances of the act

In this case the object of the act is heterologous implantation of embryos is illicit. We have already agreed the intention is good. The circumstances do make the objective act seem less evil as the embryos will die.

However we then go to the quote from Catholic Answers Apologetics Series Volume 5 (pg 6):

An object is morally good on when the object, intention, and circumstances are simultaneously good. These three sources of morality are like three rivers flowing into one lake. If all three are pure, the whole lake is pure. If any one is polluted the whole lake is polluted.

Also we must remember that the ends never justify the means this is both said in the CCC and the Scripture:

Romans 3:8:

And why not say–as we are accused and as some claim we say–that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.

Cathechism of the Catholic Church 1753:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

 

[Newbie2]

Well, I’ll contintue to struggle along with it.

Now here’s an interesting twist. Suppose in the future there would be an artificial uterus (AU) developed that would allow a thawed embryo to develop into full term and be “born”.

Hmmmm. We remove the adopting couple from the moral “loop”, and the embryos are already made i.e. the IVF sins are already done and i.e. the AU is only to be used to rescue previously made and stored embryos.

Hmmmmm.

Of course the potential is there to encourage people to produce more IVF embryos in order to take advantage of such hypothetical technology, but in and of itself, would such use of an AU be immoral when used strictly for rescuing previously made and frozen embryos?

Hmmmmmm.

 

[BlueShadow123]

You might as well give it life instead of kill it. So I say go for it. If you do, then you have saved somebodies life.

 

[joandarc2008]

Well, I’ll contintue to struggle along with it.

Now here’s an interesting twist. Suppose in the future there would be an artificial uterus (AU) developed that would allow a thawed embryo to develop into full term and be “born”.

Hmmmm. We remove the adopting couple from the moral “loop”, and the embryos are already made i.e. the IVF sins are already done and i.e. the AU is only to be used to rescue previously made and stored embryos.

Hmmmmm.

Of course the potential is there to encourage people to produce more IVF embryos in order to take advantage of such hypothetical technology, but in and of itself, would such use of an AU be immoral when used strictly for rescuing previously made and frozen embryos?

Hmmmmmm.

That is an interesting hypothesis except if one of the couple dies we are again back to an illicit implantation.

 

[Newbie2]

That is an interesting hypothesis except if one of the couple dies we are again back to an illicit implantation.

?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[joandarc2008]

OK a couple has placed extra embryos in an artificial uterus to hold for later than one of the two members of the couple die than by definition we are back to an illicit implantation as the above statement also speaks out against unmarried women having implantation done. And f it is the woman that has died then you are saying that another woman would have to adopt in order to have implantation done making it a heterologous implantation.

Unless what you are saying is that the artificial uterus should be used to completely incubate and deliver in which case there are plenty of moral statements against that in the one above statement - as there is no bonding and it is completely out of the bounds of mariage and never in utero.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Church teaches that life begins at conception, so a frozen embryo is a human person who will surely die if not given life by means of implantation. In many cases, the frozen embryo cannot be implanted in the womb of the mother – either she is too old, or she is deceased, or the clinic keeping the embryo has lost contact with the parents. So implantation in a surrogate mother would be the only way to save the life.

Janet Smith: “While Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of the Person) speaks against embryo adoption, at the press conference at which Dignitas Personae was promulgated, Archbishop Rino Fisichella announced that embryo adoption was still an open question, as did a question-and-answer sheet posted on the USCCB.org website.” (Adopting Embryos: Why Not?)

“Proposals for ‘adoption’ of abandoned or unwanted frozen embryos are also found to pose problems, because the Church opposes use of the gametes or bodies of others who are outside the marital covenant for reproduction. The document raises cautions or problems about these new issues but does not formally make a definitive judgment against them.” (USCCB Q and A on Dignitas Personae)

Applying the three fonts of morality:

1. intention
   The intention is to save the life of an innocent and very young human person.
2. moral object
   The implantation of a frozen embryo is not intrinsically evil. The act itself is a medical procedure inherently directed at the moral object of saving the life of an innocent person.
3. circumstances
   If these frozen embryos are not implanted, then these young innocents will die. They cannot be maintained in a frozen state indefinitely. After a certain length of time, the embryos are no longer viable. There is no other way to save their lives than by embryo adoption.

The bad consequences that would result if embryo adoption is not done is the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human persons. The good consequences that would result if embryo adoption is done is the saving of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

The good consequences outweight the bad consequences of some degree of mediate material cooperation with the process of IVF, and some limited degree of scandal (from this cooperation).

 

[Ron_Conte]

In this case the object of the act is heterologous implantation of embryos is illicit.

The act is heterologous implantation of an embryo. The moral object is the proximate end, in terms of morality, toward which that act is inherently directed. Certainly the act is directed toward giving continued life and birth to a conceived human person. The moral object determines the essential moral nature of the act. So the moral object and the act itself are good.

What makes heterologous implantation usually immoral is the intention and circumstances. But in the case of frozen embryos, when there is no other way to save their lives, the intention and circumstances are different.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

Yes, but the Holy See also states, in this document from the USCCB website:
Regarding the Instruction Dignitas Personae (Vatican Summary), p. 5.
usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/
“The cryopreservation of oocytes is not in itself immoral” – in other words, freezing embryos is not intrinsically evil. When an act is not intrinsically evil, it is moral if both the intention and the circumstances (the two other fonts) are good.

The same document and page states that using frozen embryos as "a form of ‘prenatal adoption’ presents real problems of various kinds. This language indicates that the Holy See does not view ‘prenatal adoption’ (which is by definition heterologous) as intrinsically evil. There are various problems (circumstances) which would often make the act immoral, but it is not in itself evil.

 

[joandarc2008]

Yes, but the Holy See also states, in this document from the USCCB website:
Regarding the Instruction Dignitas Personae (Vatican Summary), p. 5.
usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/
“The cryopreservation of oocytes is not in itself immoral” – in other words, freezing embryos is not intrinsically evil. When an act is not intrinsically evil, it is moral if both the intention and the circumstances (the two other fonts) are good.

The same document and page states that using frozen embryos as "a form of ‘prenatal adoption’ presents real problems of various kinds. This language indicates that the Holy See does not view ‘prenatal adoption’ (which is by definition heterologous) as intrinsically evil. There are various problems (circumstances) which would often make the act immoral, but it is not in itself evil.

Thank you for the link to the newer document - I will need some time to go over it - however what I will tel you is that at least one of the scientists that worked with the USCCB in 2008 - (please forgive me I did not realize it was on a Vatican document so I did not look there - I thought it was on a separate USCCB document) - did not wish to give the impression that embryo adoption was licit because there was no moral solution to the problem. This was with an interview granted to Raymond Arroyo. I will have to find all of that. God bless.

 

[Newbie2]

Unless what you are saying is that the artificial uterus should be used to completely incubate and deliver in which case there are plenty of moral statements against that in the one above statement - as there is no bonding and it is completely out of the bounds of mariage and never in utero.

Yes, that’s what I was getting at…the artificial uterus is used as a “rescue” for an embryo that was planned to be carried to term in the biological mother (who was dying and died). Assume that the technology exists to carry such an embryo in such a circumstance to “birth”.

What would be the moral prohibitions against such an action? I see none. We routinely use intensive care for preemies to support them and such is considered to be morally acceptable. Such a high-tech artificial uterus is simply an earlier use of critical care support and intervention.

That was scenario one.

Scenario two: Would it be morally acceptable to use such an artificial uterus to rescue frozen embryos? Why or why not?

I suggest that it would be morally acceptable, based on the present teachings of the CC.

*Note that the intention is to rescue unwanted frozen embryos ONLY, not to create an industry of not having to use the human body (uterus) to bring a baby to term.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, but the Holy See also states, in this document from the USCCB website:
Regarding the Instruction Dignitas Personae (Vatican Summary), p. 5.
usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/
“The cryopreservation of oocytes is not in itself immoral” – in other words, freezing embryos is not intrinsically evil. When an act is not intrinsically evil, it is moral if both the intention and the circumstances (the two other fonts) are good.

The same document and page states that using frozen embryos as "a form of ‘prenatal adoption’ presents real problems of various kinds. This language indicates that the Holy See does not view ‘prenatal adoption’ (which is by definition heterologous) as intrinsically evil. There are various problems (circumstances) which would often make the act immoral, but it is not in itself evil.

Exactly.

It’s the between a rock and a hard place situation. One must look at both sides; letting the embryos die by benign neglect is morally problematic as well, we can’t forget that.

 

[joandarc2008]

Yes, that’s what I was getting at…the artificial uterus is used as a “rescue” for an embryo that was planned to be carried to term in the biological mother (who was dying and died). Assume that the technology exists to carry such an embryo in such a circumstance to “birth”.

What would be the moral prohibitions against such an action? I see none. We routinely use intensive care for preemies to support them and such is considered to be morally acceptable. Such a high-tech artificial uterus is simply an earlier use of critical care support and intervention.

That was scenario one.

Scenario two: Would it be morally acceptable to use such an artificial uterus to rescue frozen embryos? Why or why not?

I suggest that it would be morally acceptable, based on the present teachings of the CC.

*Note that the intention is to rescue unwanted frozen embryos ONLY, not to create an industry of not having to use the human body (uterus) to bring a baby to term.

I think that would require much thought and prayer on that one.

 

[Newbie2]

I think that would require much thought and prayer on that one.

I can see such a scenario (#2) being a viable (no pun intended) moral problem sometime in the future, based on the lack of moral guidance in medical research and the increase in our scientific knowledge and abilities.

My guess is that an AU will be developed for the purpose of having babies without the discomfort and “body ruining” that are the inconveniences of pregnancy and delivery. When we’ve got couples doing surrogacy simply because the mom doesn’t want the trouble of pregnancy and doesn’t want to ruin her figure now, how much easier will it be to not involve a third person when the AU can be used. No contracts, no worries about the surrogate mother bonding with their baby, and they can visit Junior over the internet through a camera in the AU whenever they’d like…“Look, Honey, he grew another finger this week!”.

A simple embryo flush, and violla! Babies without the discomfort and the stretch marks.

Sounds far-fetched now, but I’ll bet we’ll be seeing it in another 20 years or so.