Implanting frozen embryos is wrong?

[Rence]

I truly do wish the Church were to allow the adoption of frozen embryos. I would adopt one in a minute if they allowed it. The only reason why I haven’t already is because I was taught that it was against the rules of the Church. I’m sure many Catholics who choose to remain in communion with the Church aren’t happy with the teaching either

 

[Nate13]

And have you bugged the folks at the Catholic bioethics center regarding this issue?

Nope, but I’m not thinking about trying to adopt one of those frozen embryo’s and the issue really doesn’t bother me like it seems to bother some of you guys If its weighing on your consciences that much you should do what you need to in order to get it resolved.

 

[Nate13]

I truly do wish the Church were to allow the adoption of frozen embryos. I would adopt one in a minute if they allowed it. The only reason why I haven’t already is because I was taught that it was against the rules of the Church. I’m sure many Catholics who choose to remain in communion with the Church aren’t happy with the teaching either

If its not intruding too much what would be your reasoning for wishing to do so? If you don’t wish to share it that’s fine. I myself just can’t envision a licit line of thinking at this point to do that instead of adopt a child that needs a home right now

 

[Rence]

Nope, but I’m not thinking about trying to adopt one of those frozen embryo’s and the issue really doesn’t bother me like it seems to bother some of you guys If its weighing on your consciences that much you should do what you need to in order to get it resolved.

Again, you misrepresent me. Why do you do that? This is the second time on this thread alone. Anyway, I personally have no problem with it whatsoever. I just know the Church does, and I just want to make sure that despite not agreeing with Church teachings, that I get them and communicate them correctly. And as to your last sentence, I might just do that. Especially since I seem to be the only one conceding to the teaching. Maybe all those priests I spoke to were wrong and I have a green light. If that’s the case, I should get cracking

 

[Nate13]

Again, you misrepresent me. Why do you do that? This is the second time on this thread alone. Anyway, I personally have no problem with it whatsoever. I just know the Church does, and I just want to make sure that despite not agreeing with Church teachings, that I get them and communicate them correctly. And as to your last sentence, I might just do that. Especially since I seem to be the only one conceding to the teaching. Maybe all those priests I spoke to were wrong and I have a green light. If that’s the case, I should get cracking

The OP apparently does and you voiced some displeasure so I assumed you were not incredibly happy about it either. I apologize if you felt I was misrepresenting you. Trusting the advice of people on the internet over multiple priests would not be wise. I merely was telling why the reasons who provided were not reasons the Church was using to say it was wrong. Someone at a Catholic bioethics center could probably lay it out for you.

 

[Rence]

If its not intruding too much what would be your reasoning for wishing to do so? If you don’t wish to share it that’s fine. I myself just can’t envision a licit line of thinking at this point to do that instead of adopt a child that needs a home right now

Because that would be my preference. And they’re all children that need a home right now if one believes a soul begins at the time of conception. If one believes a soul begins at conception, then the embryo is just as important as the already-born child. I figure that everyone has different callings. We have to, so that everything is covered. One will push for the adoption of those already born. Another will push for embryo adoption. Between the two, all the children are covered I think it’s that way with other callings and passions as well.

 

[Rence]

The OP apparently does and you voiced some displeasure so I assumed you were not incredibly happy about it either. I apologize if you felt I was misrepresenting you. Trusting the advice of people on the internet over multiple priests would not be wise. I merely was telling why the reasons who provided were not reasons the Church was using to say it was wrong. Someone at a Catholic bioethics center could probably lay it out for you.

Nope, I’m not displeased with embryo transfer, or IVF, and I don’t find them immoral at all whatsoever. They’re merely taught as forbidden by the Church in my eyes, which I’m not pleased with, but the Church is not a democracy. If we go back to “rationals”, though I know the teachings and the reasons, I don’t find them “rational” either. But then, they don’t care what I think. And as long as I choose to remain in communion with the Church, I have to obey those teachings. Though if you do find a reliable source that proves the Church allows it, please keep me in mind and let me know

 

[Nate13]

Because that would be my preference. And they’re all children that need a home right now if one believes a soul begins at the time of conception. If one believes a soul begins at conception, then the embryo is just as important as the already-born child. I figure that everyone has different callings. We have to, so that everything is covered. One will push for the adoption of those already born. Another will push for embryo adoption. Between the two, all the children are covered I think it’s that way with other callings and passions as well.

If the Church is saying no as it works towards forming a definitive teaching on the matter then there is much merit in submitting to the authority of the Church which is what I assume is the conclusion you have come to. We have great saints like Padre Pio who stepped aside from doing great work at the request of his superiors even though it was probably done unjustly. Any great work loses its goodness if its done in disobedience. Even Jesus submitted to the authority of his parents in the temple even though he was doing good preaching there, when they came and asked him to leave with them.

 

[mpartyka]

Have you checked with a priest or an apologist yet?

Done. Here is the question as posed to “Ask an Apologist”:

Dignitas Personae says:

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…couples as a treatment for infertility [or as a form of “prenatal adoption” to prevent the embryos’ destruction] 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.

I do not understand the reasoning behind these statements. Artificial procreation is illicit because it involves the joining together of a sperm and an egg outside the unitive conjugal act of marriage – the same is true of the embryos produced with surrogate motherhood in mind, which is what makes surrogate motherhood illicit. But once someone has committed the illicit act and created a human embryo, procreation is over and there is now a new human life to be considered and cared for. Embryos created through other illicit means (e.g., through extramarital sex or rape) are afforded the same dignity and protection as licitly created embryos. So how does the implantation of an already-created embryo in the womb of a woman – let us assume the best circumstances: that this woman is married and intends that she and her husband will parent the child after it is born – constitute an illicit act rather than a form of adoption (albeit very, very early)? Specifically, how does implantation after illicit procreation constitute an illicit act “for the same reasons” as do artificial procreation and surrogate motherhood as stated by Dignitas Personae?

According to the FAQ, either they’ll answer it in 5 days or they’ll delete it, at which point I’m stuck with y’all.

 

[mpartyka]

If one believes a soul begins at conception, then the embryo is just as important as the already-born child.

No, I actually think Nate13 is right: The clock is ticking on an already-born child in need of parents, not so with a frozen embryo (unless the frozen embryo can only remain viable for so long while frozen, but according to one site viability can last at least 12 years).

 

[Nate13]

Done. Here is the question as posed to “Ask an Apologist”:

According to the FAQ, either they’ll answer it in 5 days or they’ll delete it, at which point I’m stuck with y’all.

You might google Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk and his writings and see if he says anything about it.

 

[Nate13]

Bam. Here you go.

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0137.htm

There is ongoing debate among reputable Catholic theologians about this matter, and technically it remains an open question. A recent Vatican document called Dignitas Personae expressed serious moral reservations about the approach, without, however, explicitly condemning it as immoral. But we can easily see reasons why the promotion of embryo adoption would be imprudent. If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos; IVF clinic operators would be able to placate themselves by saying, “We really don’t need to worry about producing extra embryos, because there will always be somebody willing to adopt any that are left over.” It could offer the clinics an excuse to continue and even expand their current immoral practices.

Its up for debate but we have the Church’s word for now.

More info:

lifenews.com/2011/04/17/the-catholic-case-for-embryo-adoption/

 

[Rence]

Wow, then I guess I don’t have a thing to worry about and I can go about planning for embryo adoption

 

[Nate13]

Wow, then I guess I don’t have a thing to worry about and I can go about planning for embryo adoption

I would talk to these guys ncbcenter.org/

 

[Rence]

I would talk to these guys ncbcenter.org/

But that’s where the information you quoted is from…it’s on that site too

 

[Rence]

But that’s where the information you quoted is from…er, it’s on that site too…

 

[Nate13]

But that’s where the information you quoted is from…it’s on that site too

I was going to recommend using their consulting services and actually talking to someone directly. Then you get to go “I read these things and this is what I’m getting from it. Is it correct?” And then they go “Yes or No and here is why”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would talk to these guys ncbcenter.org/

Yes but they have a consultation service, where you tell them your unique situation, and they give you guidance on your situation.

 

[mpartyka]

If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos

Still not buying the whole “let’s not do good so that other people won’t do evil with it” argument. This argument is kind of like saying, “Let’s not adopt children because, if we do that, unwed teenagers might be more inclined to have sex because they know adoptive parents are out there waiting for kids.”

 

[Nate13]

Still not buying the whole “let’s not do good so that other people won’t do evil with it” argument. This argument is kind of like saying, “Let’s not adopt children because, if we do that, unwed teenagers might be more inclined to have sex because they know adoptive parents are out there waiting for kids.”

Here are the reasons Father Tad gives:

If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos; IVF clinic operators would be able to placate themselves by saying, “We really don’t need to worry about producing extra embryos, because there will always be somebody willing to adopt any that are left over.” It could offer the clinics an excuse to continue and even expand their current immoral practices.

In other words by adopting embryo’s you will cause more to come into existence is his first argument there by doing more harm than good by your actions. This is not the same as adopting the baby that is the result of a rape. Adopting that baby will not cause more rapes… Unwed teenagers have the 9 months of hell to go through that is still plenty of incentive for them not to get pregnant if they don’t want a child… Plus teenagers aren’t always exactly rational either… There are real differences between your example and what is happening with frozen embryo’s.

Some have suggested that a morally acceptable solution to the frozen embryo problem might come through applying the principle that “extraordinary” means do not have to be undertaken to prolong human life. They argue that to sustain an embryo’s life in a cryogenic state is to use extraordinary means and this is not required.

In fact, however, the decision to continue cryopreserving an embryo in liquid nitrogen is probably not an instance of using extraordinary means, since the burden and costs involved in taking care of embryonic children in this way are actually minimal. When we have children, we have a duty to clothe, feed, care for, and educate them, all of which costs plenty of money. When our children are frozen, we don’t need to clothe, feed, or educate them; our care for them can only be expressed by paying the bill each month to replenish the liquid nitrogen in their storage tanks. This way of caring for our children is obviously unusual, but it does not seem morally extraordinary in terms of achieving the desired end of safeguarding their physical integrity.

You could claim extraordinary means if the embryo was about to die, otherwise this principle stands.

In my opinion, parents have an obligation to care for their children in this way until some other option becomes available in the future (maybe a sophisticated “embryo incubator” or “artificial womb” of some kind), or until there is a reasonable certainty that they have died on their own from decay or “freezer burn,” which may occur whenever frozen embryos are stored for extended periods. Perhaps after a few hundred years, all the stored embryos would have died on their own, and they could finally be thawed and given a decent burial. This approach would not involve us in the direct moral agency of ending their lives by withdrawing their life-sustaining liquid nitrogen.

Father Tad actually seems to believe there is a future for the 3rd option you came up with which is to raise the children in an artificial womb.

Things to note:

1. I don’t see Father Tad argue we are dealing with an intrinsic evil here. If we were, none of his other arguments would have been needed since you cannot claim to use the principle of double effect if your dealing with an intrinsic evil.
2. Thus opposition to embryo adoption is based in the fact that the principle of double effect only applies if your action will cause more good than evil. I would tend to agree with him on this point until such a time as frozen embryo’s stop being created. Other modern countries have done so (Germany, Italy) and it should not be crazy to expect the U.S to do so as well.