What is the moral thing to do with "leftover" embyros?

[jpm1977]

As I read it, the author of the article, William Saletan, tried to imply that there is an unsettled debate; I found his attempt lacking:

“It turns out that Catholic faith in reason cuts both ways. It can dispel the yuck factor but can just as easily override our sense of goodness. That’s the inadvertent lesson of Pacholczyk’s morning presentation on women who “adopt”—i.e., implant and carry to term—IVF embryos. He asserts that such adoptions are intrinsically evil. I stare at him in disbelief, but he makes a case. Procreation is unitary; therefore, just as it’s wrong to have sex without openness to pregnancy, it’s wrong to get pregnant without sex. What if a woman has hired a clinic to cultivate IVF embryos and is on the table ready to have them implanted? Pacholczyk says she should “stop the train of evil”—get up and leave the clinic. The embryos must be left in limbo because they can’t be “licitly” implanted.”

The bolds (mine) are all esablished points of Catholic doctrine.

"Father Thomas Williams, the dean of university’s theology school, makes the opposite case. Pacholczyk’s theory collapses, he says, because it implies that IVF embryos are “partially procreated children.” “All beings are either persons or non-persons,” Williams argues. “From a Catholic perspective, there’s no such thing as partial persons, part something and part someone.”

I don’t disagree with Father Williams assertion that there is no such thing as a partially created person, but this doesn’t come close to arguing the “opposite” of Pacholczyk’s prior statements about the immorality of implanting IVF embryos. It also fails to demonstrate how Pacholczyk’s argument implies that the embryos are “partially procreated children.”

I think the article shows that, contrary to popular belief, the Church is at the forefront of science (not in the Dark Ages), but also tries to imply that because the Church has scientists/priests discussing certain issues, that more might be open to debate than previously thought.

Is it established doctrine that the embryos cannot be implanted? I thought that was a point of debate in this thread. I don’t know that there’s been a position of the Church established on this particular point. I admit, I may have missed something earlier in the thread, so I don’t mean to belabor something that’s been established.

Saletan’s not writing for a Catholic audience in the article, so I would guess he left out a lot of Wiliams’s and Pach.'s debate. Nonetheless, does Pach. imply the embryos are not fully human? If they are, don’t they have the right, if possible, to grow to maturity? If so, then why shouldn’t they be implanted?

On the other hand, if there are millions of them, how do you morally pick which ones would and would not be given the opportunity to be “born” or mature–assuming they can’t all be? Must you keep them all in suspended animation until the end of time?

Is keeping them cryogenically frozen when they are not self-supporting the equivalent of administering food and artificial respiration to someone who is truly incapable of living without machine support and is “brain dead”? I thought in certain circumstances, the church allows breathing apparatus and feeding tubes to be removed if the person is truly “brain dead” as the Church would accept the term (not just in a coma), but I could be wrong.

Assuming the embryos are truly brain dead as the Church would accept that term (and it seems like they would be: If you are twelve cells, or a hundred cells, without a brain, you may be human but you can’t be “brain alive” can you?), is the moral thing to thaw them all out and let them die naturally?

I know I am probably circling back to square one here, but it seems to me that might be the moral thing to do if they cannot all be saved, and I know of no way they could all be saved right now.

 

[rookieonedge]

Wouldn’t the moral precept “the lesser of two evils” apply here? If it is sinful to implant the embryos (early humans in suspension) and sinful to destroy them or let them die, which of the choices would be the lesser of two evils? I would contend that it is less “intrinsically evil” to allow implantation and bring to fruition however many can be saved even though all, or even many, will not be “adopted.” You may know about the Snowflake babies – embryos adopted and implanted. Some of these children were present when President Bush first signed the legislation to prohibit federal funding of ESCR.

Using tissue and organs from aborted babies and embryos has been known to cause tumors and violent tremors in patients. The recent news report of a 9-year-old Israeli boy who developed a cancerous brain tumor after being injected with ESC is a case in point.

 

[pickguard1]

Wouldn’t the moral precept “the lesser of two evils” apply here? If it is sinful to implant the embryos (early humans in suspension) and sinful to destroy them or let them die, which of the choices would be the lesser of two evils? I would contend that it is less “intrinsically evil” to allow implantation and bring to fruition however many can be saved even though all, or even many, will not be “adopted.”

The lesser of two evils premise rests on the necessity of choosing one or the other. If one thing, or the other will happen, no matter what then it may be licit to choose the lesser of two evils. But it is always licit to choose neither of the two, since they both involve choosing something evil. That is why one can do so in an election to a certain degree.

However, in this case, there isn’t a situation of the powers that be saying “well, the embryos are scheduled to be tossed into a furnace next week, or we will implant them-you choose” type of situation. The second would be the lesser of two evils, IMO. But, it’s just not the case here.

 

[MariaTheresa]

I don’t see how the Church can be opposed to saving the lives of these pre-born children by letting someone adopt them starting in the womb and also be against abortion. Allowing these children to die because the philosophy behind saving them can’t be worked out adequately is ridiculous.Either they are children and we do all we can to save there lives(without killing someone else of course) or they are not children.

 

[Bear_Claw]

I don’t see how the Church can be opposed to saving the lives of these pre-born children by letting someone adopt them starting in the womb and also be against abortion. Allowing these children to die because the philosophy behind saving them can’t be worked out adequately is ridiculous.Either they are children and we do all we can to save there lives(without killing someone else of course) or they are not children.

Ah, yet another example where Catholic rules look good on paper, but applied to the real world, we are left wanting…

 

[pickguard1]

I just had a thought, and maybe someone can help shed some light on the philosophy/theology with Church documents. I know it is wrong to choose to do evil so that a good may come of it (the ends do not justify the means.) However, the lesser of two evils premise runs more like - it is OK to choose an evil if the intent is to avoid a greater evil, so long as there is no attachment to the lesser evil - i.e. presuming that if the greater evil was not a threat, the lesser evil would not be chosen or acted upon, right?

Correct the last statement if I’m wrong, please.

Maybe this scenerio (implantation of frozen embryos) would allow for some leeway in light of avoiding a greater evil?
I know it sounds like I’m backtracking on my own position, but that’s the purpose of this thread isn’t it, to see if we can’t assist in the discernment of what can/should be done?

 

[magdelaine]

I don’t see how the Church can be opposed to saving the lives of these pre-born children by letting someone adopt them starting in the womb and also be against abortion. Allowing these children to die because the philosophy behind saving them can’t be worked out adequately is ridiculous.Either they are children and we do all we can to save there lives(without killing someone else of course) or they are not children.

No, no, this is a very superficial understanding of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. They are most definitely children. The way in which they were created is evil and this act itself is what leaves them in limbo. The Church understands the sacredness and goodness of 1) our sexual anatomy 2) the marital act and 3) the fruits of that act (children). Taking these poor children, whose creation outside the womb is a grave sin, and “implanting” them in a woman’s womb violates God’s plan for human reproduction, it injures the marital bond between husband and wife, and it further compounds the initial evil act with more evil.

What needs to be understood is that what we do in these instances has deep philosophical and moral meaning that may not be evident at first glance. The Church teaches and extols everyone to hold to the deeper meaning, and therefor would never and even *could *never violate those principles in her teachings.

HOWEVER, I myself cannot help feeling for these children. I could see myself adopting one, implanting it, and then very sincerely asking for forgiveness for this act. Not that it would be right, but I can fully sympathize with the temptation.

 

[Namesake]

No, no, this is a very superficial understanding of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. They are most definitely children. The way in which they were created is evil and this act itself is what leaves them in limbo.

Are embryos created through rape/incest different just because they came to be through coitus? Should they be in “limbo” because they were created through an evil act? Do you really mean to defend a position that puts more value on sexual intercourse than on the life created?

 

[magdelaine]

Are embryos created through rape/incest different just because they came to be through coitus?

No. And neither are embryos created with in vitro techniques different from naturally concieved children.

Should they be in “limbo” because they were created through an evil act?

They are not in limbo. They exist within their mother until birth. Embryos created through IVF, however, are deprived of their natural home from the moment of their creation.

Do you really mean to defend a position that puts more value on sexual intercourse than on the life created?

It’s not about valuing sexual intercourse over and above human life. It’s about valuing the sacred nature of our sexuality and the way in which people come about.

But about your analogy…there is no sin, but in fact great good, in allowing a baby conceived through rape be born. However, in order for these snowflake embryos…who were created as if they were property and then subsequently abandonded by their parents…to be born, the mother, the father, and the doctor all have to participate in a very grave sin, that of violating the sexual integrity of the woman and the couple.

I’m not a theologian and I know that there are probably better words to explain this position, but this is how I understand it…as a general plan that has at its heart the greatest respect for human life and sexuality.

 

[rookieonedge]

No, no, this is a very superficial understanding of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. They are most definitely children. The way in which they were created is evil and this act itself is what leaves them in limbo. The Church understands the sacredness and goodness of 1) our sexual anatomy 2) the marital act and 3) the fruits of that act (children). Taking these poor children, whose creation outside the womb is a grave sin, and “implanting” them in a woman’s womb violates God’s plan for human reproduction, it injures the marital bond between husband and wife, and it further compounds the initial evil act with more evil.

What needs to be understood is that what we do in these instances has deep philosophical and moral meaning that may not be evident at first glance. The Church teaches and extols everyone to hold to the deeper meaning, and therefor would never and even *could *never violate those principles in her teachings.

HOWEVER, I myself cannot help feeling for these children. I could see myself adopting one, implanting it, and then very sincerely asking for forgiveness for this act. Not that it
would be right, but I can fully sympathize with the temptation.

It seems to me that what you are saying applies during ordinary conditions of marriage, but here we have extraordinary conditions in that embryos were created, albeit illicitly, outside the marital embrace that protects the sanctity of human life. In this case, we must use extraordinary means to “rescue” them as Deuterotomy tells us. Even though these tiny humans are not necessarily in immediate danger ot being destroyed, they are, nevertheless, in dire need since they are frozen in suspension.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2274 “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.”

Therefore, it seems apparent to me that we MUST emphatically do SOMETHING to bring as many lives as possible to fruition. It would be wrong to hold the law over the person. That’s what Jesus complained about regarding the Pharisees. They preached the law, but had no regard for “widows and orphans.”

Also, in one of the gospels, Jesus talked about how David allowed his starving soldiers to go into the Temple’s holy ground and eat the bread kept for offerings. Sometimes the law does not take into account extraordinary circumstances such as the lives of innocent humans in a prison of sorts waiting to be set free. We must consider their souls as well as their bodies. Their souls must be yearning for release. These are the “poorest of the poor.”

 

[MariaTheresa]

Resucing children is not a sin.
The people who conceived these children in a petri dish have committed the sin. Saving them by giving them their natual place, inside a womb,and thereby saving their lives is not a sin. The Church is wrong in letting a person remain in suspended animation and then letting them die because their conception did not happen the way God intended. To sit on ones hands , let them die, and say that is the greater good is completely wrong IMO.

 

[lmarie4]

Using the word evil with IVF – seriously? Calling it a sin – really? And, do you find medical modalities for other diseases sinful and evil too? Oh, wait … let me guess, infertility isn’t a medical condition right? If your liver or heart is defective, by all means get medical help to make them work again. If your uterus or ovaries are defective, don’t get medial help to make them work – that’s sinful! I’ve heard this all before … ironicially and most often from those fortunate enough to have had their own children with ease.

Personally, I thank God for IVF and all the assissted reproductive modalities that we are so blessed to have available. And, I thank God for blessing me with my little miracles who only make this world a better place.

Yes, we do have to figure out how to deal with the many embryos we have. Allowing science to move forward with research will only bring a small percentage of them to rest. Adopting these embryos out to parents who cannot conceive on their own – I can’t think of a better option. A win-win for all – baby, birth parents and adoptive parents. Making reproductive specialist take more accountability for how many embryos they place in an infertile womans uterus is another area to focus on.

There are many issues surrounding all of this, but I assure you there is not an ounce of evil among those of us who have dealt with infertility. Not an ounce.

Lmarie4

 

[Namesake]

Using the word evil with IVF – seriously? Calling it a sin – really? And, do you find medical modalities for other diseases sinful and evil too? Oh, wait … let me guess, infertility isn’t a medical condition right? If your liver or heart is defective, by all means get medical help to make them work again. If your uterus or ovaries are defective, don’t get medial help to make them work – that’s sinful! I’ve heard this all before … ironicially and most often from those fortunate enough to have had their own children with ease.

Personally, I thank God for IVF and all the assissted reproductive modalities that we are so blessed to have available. And, I thank God for blessing me with my little miracles who only make this world a better place.

Yes, we do have to figure out how to deal with the many embryos we have. Allowing science to move forward with research will only bring a small percentage of them to rest. Adopting these embryos out to parents who cannot conceive on their own – I can’t think of a better option. A win-win for all – baby, birth parents and adoptive parents. Making reproductive specialist take more accountability for how many embryos they place in an infertile womans uterus is another area to focus on.

There are many issues surrounding all of this, but I assure you there is not an ounce of evil among those of us who have dealt with infertility. Not an ounce.

Lmarie4

Bravo! What a well written reply and so heart felt.

 

[john_fleming]

The Church has in fact addressed these issues in a document called dignitatis personae which was published on the 8th of September 2008. Pope John Paul II, in 1996, 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". Now in 2008 the Instruction Dignitatis personae excludes the possibility of embryo adoption. In paragraph 19 the Instruction excludes the use of embryos for destructive research, and for the treatment of infertile couples. “Embryo adoption” is described as “praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life”, but nevertheless “presents various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.” The reference here is to making a woman pregnant other than by an act of marital intimacy. The Instruction does not rule against allowing the embryos to thaw and succumb. It says merely that "the problem of thousands of abandoned embryos represents “a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

Father John Fleming

 

[FanChan]

Using the word evil with IVF – seriously? Calling it a sin – really? And, do you find medical modalities for other diseases sinful and evil too? Oh, wait … let me guess, infertility isn’t a medical condition right? If your liver or heart is defective, by all means get medical help to make them work again. If your uterus or ovaries are defective, don’t get medial help to make them work – that’s sinful! I’ve heard this all before … ironicially and most often from those fortunate enough to have had their own children with ease.

Personally, I thank God for IVF and all the assissted reproductive modalities that we are so blessed to have available. And, I thank God for blessing me with my little miracles who only make this world a better place.

Yes, we do have to figure out how to deal with the many embryos we have. Allowing science to move forward with research will only bring a small percentage of them to rest. Adopting these embryos out to parents who cannot conceive on their own – I can’t think of a better option. A win-win for all – baby, birth parents and adoptive parents. Making reproductive specialist take more accountability for how many embryos they place in an infertile womans uterus is another area to focus on.

There are many issues surrounding all of this, but I assure you there is not an ounce of evil among those of us who have dealt with infertility. Not an ounce.

Lmarie4

The only problem I see with this argument is that a defective heart or liver or whatever else can lead to death. Seeking moral means to cure a fatal illness is good and acceptable. Infertility will not kill you. I am speaking as someone who in all liklihood is infertile (I’d know for sure if the damn doctors would take me seriously enough to test me). You want other people to adopt these children, and yet you cannot do the same? The desire for invitro in the first place is precisely why certain people doubt that anyone would adopt all of these children. Infertile couples should be the answer to the overwhelming number of orphans; why do so many couples - or just infertile women, period - see the need to spend thousands of dollars on invitro, which isn’t guaranteed to work, when they could spend that money on adoption?

May God some day shift the hearts of those suffering men and women who cannot bring forth their own children, to be overcome with compassion for those suffering children who were not or could not be loved by those that brought them forth.

 

[magdelaine]

There are many issues surrounding all of this, but I assure you there is not an ounce of evil among those of us who have dealt with infertility. Not an ounce.

Lmarie4

For one thing, dealing with infertility or not, it is the act that is intrinsically evil, not the person. The act *is *objectively evil:

Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”

IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. 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. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.

catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml

And you don’t have to take the Church’s word for it. Just look at the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of embryos that are in this frozen limbo to see the “fruits” of this technology. Which is what we are discussing on this thread…

 

[judechild]

Using the word evil with IVF – seriously? Calling it a sin – really? And, do you find medical modalities for other diseases sinful and evil too? Oh, wait … let me guess, infertility isn’t a medical condition right? If your liver or heart is defective, by all means get medical help to make them work again. If your uterus or ovaries are defective, don’t get medial help to make them work – that’s sinful! I’ve heard this all before … ironicially and most often from those fortunate enough to have had their own children with ease.

Personally, I thank God for IVF and all the assissted reproductive modalities that we are so blessed to have available. And, I thank God for blessing me with my little miracles who only make this world a better place.

Yes, we do have to figure out how to deal with the many embryos we have. Allowing science to move forward with research will only bring a small percentage of them to rest. Adopting these embryos out to parents who cannot conceive on their own – I can’t think of a better option. A win-win for all – baby, birth parents and adoptive parents. Making reproductive specialist take more accountability for how many embryos they place in an infertile womans uterus is another area to focus on.

There are many issues surrounding all of this, but I assure you there is not an ounce of evil among those of us who have dealt with infertility. Not an ounce.

Lmarie4

Lmarie4, no one here is accusing you of anything, or anyone who has trouble conceiving. But, adding to what Magdelaine said about the rights of the child being violated by making him or her esentially a commercial product, many “spare” embryoes are created though IVF and ET which are destroyed or frozen because they are “undesirable”. The CDF document we were talking about earlier (The Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation - Replies to Certain Questions of the Day) says: “the connection between in virto fertilization and the voluntary destruction of human embryos occurs too often. This is significant: though these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree” (Section II sub-section 1). For that reason, we cannot “thank God for IVF”; we would be enjoying the fruits by trampling on the rights of others.

As for infertility,the Congregation knows the challenge that poses too: “on the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in conjugal love… Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation” (Section II sub-section 8). It then goes on to explain why an intrinsic “right to a child” would be contrary to the child’s rights. However, I don’t understand why you think the Church is against finding cures for infertility: "Many researchers are engaged in the fight against sterility. While fully safeguarding the dignity of human procreation, some have achieved results which previously seemed unattainable. Scientists therefore are to be encouraged to continue their research with the aim of preventing the causes of sterility…" (Section II, sub-section 8). So If a person’s reproductive organs are defective it’s not against the Church to seek medical help; that would be ridiculous! The only thing the Church is against is anything that is contrary to human rights; both of the parents and the child.

I do, though, think you have a good point in your third paragraph, and I hope the Church eventually will accept an act like that as an exception to the norm, owing to the lack of alternatives. A while back I made the arguement that implanting embryoes in the womb may be sujectively, not intrinically, evil; I renew that arguement since I have not yet seen an authoritative Church document that states the contrary.

 

[pickguard1]

I have been trying to find an analogy that might apply here. I’ll give this one a shot, and please give feedback on the faults or validity of my argument.

As judechild mentioned, maybe there are situations where embryo implatation would be permissible.

Say a person in a house is gravely injured due to an assault by a robber, but can be rescued if done in time. However, saving him requires breaking into the house. Of course, this is a crime in and of itself. It involves destruction of someone’s property, and the violation of the privacy of that property. It is licit to break into the house, nonetheless, to rescue that person - why? Because the person’s life is more important than the property.

Under normal circumstances, it would be wrong to tresspass and break in - but this is (as was mentioned before) an extraordinary situation, so the normal rules don’t apply for this one occasion.

Couldn’t embryonic implantation be viewed in the same way? If (and this would be the foundational caveat) a knowing married couple both agreed to sacrifice of themselves for the life of a preborn embryo, would that not mitigate the crime against the nature of marriage/parenthood? Is the sanctity of the marital bond destroyed by the implantation? If both spouses agree to this scenario, does this permanently harm (or even temporarily harm) their marital bond? If so, how? (I can’t imagine if both spouses agree to this, that either would be jealous of the other due to the fact the the child is not either of theirs - do spouses behave that way in a normal adoption?)

In this situation, it would require that a married couple both agree to this, in the same way that one would agree to adoption of a born child. Also, it would have to be clear that the exception does not give licence for the practice of IVF to continue, only that this is an extraordinary means to prevent unneccesary loss of life due to the irresponsible and immoral acts of others (my lesser of two evils argument again). Also, I would imagine the motivation could not be solve infertility problems, as this would inevitably create demand for embryos for this purpose (which is actually what caused this crisis to begin with).

I do agree, however, that if all the infertile couples would divert their efforts to adopting children already born, this problem would eventually disappear.

 

[pickguard1]

The Church has in fact addressed these issues in a document called dignitatis personae “Embryo adoption” is described as “praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life”, but nevertheless “presents various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.”

The reference here is to making a woman pregnant other than by an act of marital intimacy. The Instruction does not rule against allowing the embryos to thaw and succumb. It says merely that "the problem of thousands of abandoned embryos represents “a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

Father John Fleming

Father, the instruction Dignitatis Personae states regarding thawing “The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable”.37 Does this not include thawing them and letting them succumb? Just wondering.

Also, the paragraph that mentions pre-natal adoption, to me at least, presents itself as a possiblity for further research. The statement that it “presents various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above,” leads me to believe that it is not held per se at the same morally wong level as the methods and motivations that have created the problem in the first place. It also implies that there might be solutions the could ultimately bypass these problems (maybe I read too much into it, but that is how I read it - it doesn’t explicitly say that the problems are identical).

Do you know if there is any research being done by the Church that would allow for the implantation of these embryos during the course of the marital act itself, rather than by a third party? If so, would this present a possible solution to the current problems with implantation?

 

[magdelaine]

A while back I made the arguement that implanting embryoes in the womb may be sujectively, not intrinically, evil; I renew that arguement since I have not yet seen an authoritative Church document that states the contrary.

Having read a little more on this subject, I have to agree with you here. Adopting abandoned embryos could be justified as a rare case of “act first, apologize later”.

However, the Church is wise not to declare this licit. It is a very short, very slippery slope from adopting abandoned embryos to creating embryos for the purposes of adoption.