Implanting frozen embryos is wrong?

[mpartyka]

From Dignitas Personae:

With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them?..

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; 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”.

Okay, I totally understand and agree that in vitro fertilization, using donated sperm and eggs, and surrogate motherhood are all wrong. However, I cannot see the reason in denying otherwise infertile couples the option of implanting a frozen embryo that is the byproduct of another couple’s attempt at having a child. These embryos are already-created human beings. That they were created via illicit methods has no bearing on their humanity any more than the natural formation of a child through extramarital sex or even rape or incest would have bearing on the humanity of the offspring of these illicit acts. Thus, we have at hand actual human beings held in cryogenic suspension, and the only options we have with them is to (1) destroy them, (2) implant them in the womb of a woman – perhaps their biological mother, but perhaps not – so that they may be brought to term, or (3) keep them around until an artificial process is developed that can bring them to term.

Option 1 is tantamount to abortion. Obviously that’s out of the question.
Option 2 is moral, I presume, if the womb in question belongs to the biological mother – or perhaps not, so correct me if I’m wrong – but supposedly immoral if the womb belongs to some other woman.
Option 3 is moral, I presume – again, correct me if I’m wrong – although the technology needed to accomplish this does not exist.

I do not see the reason, however, behind the immorality of option 2 in the case where a frozen embryo is allowed to come to term in the womb of a married woman who is not its biological mother. How is this any different from the adoption of an already-born child who is the product of a different biological mother and father?

 

[Nate13]

Is your question what happens to frozen embryos who have already been created immorally? In other words your asking what is the line of action after the sin has already been created and you have all these frozen life’s?

 

[SonCatcher]

Option 2 is still being studied, as it is truly a difficult question. Their lives must be defended, however.

Option 3 would be unacceptable at all since it robs the child of any parents (in contrast even to Option 2).

 

[Cyclophile]

I’ve struggled a bit with this myself… Destruction is obviously wrong… but you have, IMO, a trapped soul with a right to live.

It is less moral to keep them frozen than to “adopt” them to a willing couple that can grow them to term via implantation. If there were an artificial means… that’s morally ambiguous but I think the right to live supersedes the right to parents.

 

[mpartyka]

Is your question what happens to frozen embryos who have already been created immorally? In other words your asking what is the line of action after the sin has already been created and you have all these frozen life’s?

Right. I fully agree that it’s wrong to create a frozen embryo. But when you’ve already got a frozen embryo, and the only options left to you are the three I listed above, how is it immoral – or perhaps, how is it not acceptably less immoral so as to justify choosing the lesser of two evils – to bring that frozen embryo to term in the womb of a married woman who with her husband intends to raise that child as her own? It is no justification of the means by which the embryo was created to enable it to fully develop, any more than it is a justification of extramarital sex or rape to allow an illegitimate child or rape-baby to come to term. Therefore I fail to see the difference between a married couple’s decision to implant a frozen embryo vs. that same married couple’s decision to adopt a child already born (who may have been generated via natural processes used illicitly)?

 

[Binary]

Option 2 is still being studied, as it is truly a difficult question. Their lives must be defended, however.

Option 3 would be unacceptable at all since it robs the child of any parents (in contrast even to Option 2).

I don’t understand this objection to option 3. The child already has parents: the people who produced the sperm and egg. Their decision to freeze the embryo is what has the capacity to rob the child of his/her parents, not decisions which come afterwards.

 

[mpartyka]

Option 3 would be unacceptable at all since it robs the child of any parents (in contrast even to Option 2).

Not sure why this matters. That’s sort of like saying you can’t give up a baby for adoption unless you already have parents waiting for it. Is the foster system immoral, then? Must Catholic adoption agencies turn babies away at the door if there are no prospective parents already lined up to adopt them?

 

[Nate13]

Right. I fully agree that it’s wrong to create a frozen embryo. But when you’ve already got a frozen embryo, and the only options left to you are the three I listed above, how is it immoral – or perhaps, how is it not acceptably less immoral so as to justify choosing the lesser of two evils – to bring that frozen embryo to term in the womb of a married woman who with her husband intends to raise that child as her own? It is no justification of the means by which the embryo was created to enable it to fully develop, any more than it is a justification of extramarital sex or rape to allow an illegitimate child or rape-baby to come to term. Therefore I fail to see the difference between a married couple’s decision to implant a frozen embryo vs. that same married couple’s decision to adopt a child already born (who may have been generated via natural processes used illicitly)?

Its plausible. You shouldn’t take this encyclical as saying what your describing as not being an option. The Church teaching rape is wrong does not mean the child that may come from a rape is evil. In other words the encyclical your referring to here in your post does not speak towards the question you have at all.

 

[SonCatcher]

The problem with Option 3 is that it too closely resembles a factory farm. It comoditizes people far beyond what IVF already does.

 

[mpartyka]

Its plausible. You shouldn’t take this encyclical as saying what your describing as not being an option…the encyclical you’re referring to here in your post does not speak towards the question you have at all.

Are you reading the same thing I’m reading?

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable…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…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.

To say that the situation cannot be resolved is to basically say, “None of the above proposed solutions are acceptable.”

 

[Rence]

Right. I fully agree that it’s wrong to create a frozen embryo. But when you’ve already got a frozen embryo, and the only options left to you are the three I listed above, how is it immoral – or perhaps, how is it not acceptably less immoral so as to justify choosing the lesser of two evils – to bring that frozen embryo to term in the womb of a married woman who with her husband intends to raise that child as her own? It is no justification of the means by which the embryo was created to enable it to fully develop, any more than it is a justification of extramarital sex or rape to allow an illegitimate child or rape-baby to come to term. Therefore I fail to see the difference between a married couple’s decision to implant a frozen embryo vs. that same married couple’s decision to adopt a child already born (who may have been generated via natural processes used illicitly)?

The Church teaches that two properties must be present: the procreative and the unitive. IVF, from any sourse, doesn’t include the unitive property. That’s why the Church is opposed to it, which is the same reason it opposes artificial birth control.

 

[mpartyka]

The problem with Option 3 is that it too closely resembles a factory farm. It comoditizes people far beyond what IVF already does.

So it’s better to leave these already-existing human beings in indefinite stasis until Christ returns rather than use an artificial means to bring them to term?

 

[mpartyka]

The Church teaches that two properties must be present: the procreative and the unitive. IVF, from any sourse, doesn’t include the unitive property. That’s why the Church is opposed to it, which is the same reason it opposes artificial birth control.

Granted, but once IVF has created human beings in the form of frozen embryos, the question is now what to do with the frozen embryos.

 

[Rence]

So it’s better to leave these already-existing human beings in indefinite stasis until Christ returns rather than use an artificial means to bring them to term?

Unfortunately, it will only create a market for them. It will result in more already-existing humans frozen to be adopted. The only thing that will help is to stop freezing them. But the rules of the Church have nothing to do with that. It has to do with the required unitive property not being present during IVF. If the Church says that IVF is allowed to save the frozen embryos, then everything else that interferes with the unitive property will be acceptable as well.

 

[SonCatcher]

So it’s better to leave these already-existing human beings in indefinite stasis until Christ returns rather than use an artificial means to bring them to term?

The objection to Option 3 does not preclude Option 2.

 

[Rence]

Granted, but once IVF has created human beings in the form of frozen embryos, the question is now what to do with the frozen embryos.

They will never allow it. They can’t allow it. If the Church says that IVF is allowed to save the frozen embryos, then everything else that interferes with the unitive property will be acceptable as well.

 

[SonCatcher]

They will never allow it. They can’t allow it. If the Church says that IVF is allowed to save the frozen embryos, then everything else that interferes with the unitive property will be acceptable as well.

The problem at hand is what to do with embryos after IVF has already generated them.

The Church has declared their destruction to be immoral (AKA Option 1 or murder) but has not yet spoken definitively on “adoption” of those embryos through implantation (AKA Option 2), though it looks doubtful from present writings.

 

[Nate13]

The problem at hand is what to do with embryos after IVF has already generated them.

The Church has declared their destruction to be immoral (AKA Option 1 or murder) but has not yet spoken definitively on “adoption” of those embryos through implantation (AKA Option 2), though it looks doubtful from present writings.

I think the problem is they don’t see it as a solution at this point while the practice continues. Sure you might give homes to some of those lives, but in the act of doing that you will create a market which will lead to the creation of even more frozen embryo’s.

I think the Church would have a different response to the idea of prenatal adoption assuming the practice of creating embryo’s outside of the womb was ended and you were debating what to do with the frozen embryo’s that were left afterwards. I do not see anything which indicates prenatal adoption in the case described has been declared intrinsically evil, and thus what the Church is debating is whether the practice would bring more evil than good. Right now it would bring more evil than good.

 

[melissa_b]

As Rence has mentioned, the problem with any method of bringing these embryos to term is the separation of the procreative from the unitive property. As I understand it, the only thing that can actually be done at this point with the already-created embryos is to leave them exactly as they are, which causes no additional harm. To do anything else would contradict the beliefs and teachings of the Church.

 

[Nate13]

As Rence has mentioned, the problem with any method of bringing these embryos to term is the separation of the procreative from the unitive property. As I understand it, the only thing that can actually be done at this point with the already-created embryos is to leave them exactly as they are, which causes no additional harm. To do anything else would contradict the beliefs and teachings of the Church.

This separation of the unitive and procreative aspects has already occurred though and you have a life. There is nothing left to separate. I think you speak too quickly in condemning these lives to live frozen forever. The problem with allowing these lives to be adopted now is that it would bring more harm than good at this point.