Posted on 10/27/2004 9:38:56 PM PDT by curiosity
Pro-life groups have staged "rescues" at abortion clinics over the years in an effort to save unborn children. Now, a new movement is underway to "rescue" the thousands of human embryos created through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and placed in frozen storage indefinitely. This movement carries different names in various parts of the country, but the objective is the same: to transfer frozen human embryos into the wombs of "adoptive" mothers who will give birth. Since the Catholic Church teaches that in-vitro fertilization is immoral, the whole idea of such human-embryo "adoption" has stirred spirited debate among moralists and bioethicists. The Vatican, meanwhile, appears to be standing back to see how the whole discussion plays out. The idea of such adoptions first surfaced in England in 1996, when thousands of frozen embryos were to be destroyed under a 1991 British law that said "surplus" human embryos could be frozen for a maximum of five years, unless the genetic parents requested an extension. In in-vitro fertilization, multiple embryos are created in the lab because implantation success is unreliable. "Surplus" embryos remain frozen and eventually are destroyed if the genetic parents do not claim them. Pro-life people condemned the planned destruction of the British embryos, and some groups called for volunteers to "adopt" an embryo. The Vatican weighed in on the complex situation with mixed messages. A Vatican moral theologian, Franciscan Father Gino Concetti, reiterated Pope John Paul II’s call for an end to IVF and criticized as "monstrous and inhumane" the IVF industry’s "sacrifice of human beings for the profit of other persons." But, he said, "adoption" of the embryos "raises perplexities and reservations." An editorial in the Vatican newspaper called the planned destruction "a prenatal massacre," while suggesting that "in extreme circumstances" embryo adoption might be acceptable. Several British couples and more than 100 Italian women — including two elderly nuns — stepped forward to "adopt" the embryos. British law prohibited such adoption without parental consent, so the embryos were destroyed. But the rescue idea had taken root, and in 1999 an Italian law permitted embryo adoption. Archbishop Elio Sgreccia, director of the Bioethics Center of the Catholic University of Rome and vice president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, expressed concern that such adoptions might be used to justify overproduction and freezing of human embryos. Franciscan Father Germain Kopaczynski of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Boston told Our Sunday Visitor most Catholic moralists would give "cautious" approval to adopting human embryos already conceived, but they don’t want to be seen as approving of IVF. "Sometimes what happens is that the technology is so new and the use is so outlandish that the Church will stand back and see exactly what is going on here," Father Kopaczynski said. "You find Catholic theologians sometimes stammering over this just because there are absurdities involved in the creation of human beings by other human beings in such a sterile, sterile way. I think that’s one of the reasons Catholic moralists wonder: How can society get out of this mess that it’s in?" Pope John Paul II has always asked scientists to guard against technology trumping morality, Father Kopaczynski said. "I think what our Holy Father is warning us about is being technological titans but moral midgets, and that’s very much at stake here." Richard Doerflinger, spokesman for the U.S. bishops’ pro-life office, told Our Sunday Visitor that the IVF industry is largely unregulated in the United States, with some estimates placing the number of frozen embryos here as high as 100,000. Doerflinger said the embryo-adoption issue is extremely complicated because it can be considered a laudable rescue effort, but also provides incentive to continue producing embryos. "What you don’t want to be doing is feeding into the IVF industry and encouraging them to keep doing this," Doerflinger said. The situation "would be far simpler if a law came in and said ‘In-vitro clinics could no longer freeze embryos . . . . but for those embryos already in storage, we will see if adoptive parents can be found.’ Then there would be no danger of inadvertently encouraging the continued practice." He added that the U.S. bishops have not issued an official statement on embryo adoption partly because its moral threshold "is not fully resolved at the theological level." Among those debating the question are moral theologians William May, a professor at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Washington, D.C., and Msgr. William Smith, a professor at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, N.Y. In his new book, "Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life" (Our Sunday Visitor, $17.95 plus shipping), May concludes that rescuing a frozen human embryo by "transferring it from the freezer to the woman’s womb" is a morally licit act. May prefers that a married couple undertake the transfer and subsequent rearing of the child, but he writes that it is not intrinsically immoral for a single woman to nurture an abandoned embryo in her womb and then give it up for adoption after birth. ‘What’s going on here?’ However, Msgr. Smith told Our Sunday Visitor that transfer of a human embryo is not adoption, but rather surrogate motherhood, which is condemned by the Church. "I don’t question the good intentions of what people are doing," Msgr. Smith said. "I want an answer to the moral question: ‘What is going on here? Is this a legitimate use of human sexuality within the covenant of marriage?’ And my answer to that is ‘no.’ " Philosopher Janet Smith, who teaches bioethics at the University of Dallas, told Our Sunday Visitor that she believes adopting frozen embryos is not intrinsically immoral, but one also must ask if it is prudent. "We certainly could call this a Pandora’s-box phenomenon. Once you start doing immoral things [IVF], that opens up quandaries in which there is no attractive solution, quandaries that are beyond the normal plan for this ‘vale of tears,’ " Smith said. "The usual effects of original sin we have to deal with are quite enough for most of us. We don’t have to go around creating new moral dilemmas." q --Carey (acarey@osv.com) is a senior correspondent for Our Sunday Visitor
I'm curious what your take on this issue is.
First, this is a very complex issue, and opinions vary widely. I am only expressing my opinions. I do not present them as being any better than another person's opinions. This seems like a personal matter to me, and it seems appropriate for each person to form a personal belief and act accordingly.
These frozen embryos are not babies. They're microscopic. Viewed under a microscope, they do not in any way resemble miniature babies. These are masses of undifferentiated cells. No nervous system, no internal organs, no circulatory system.
Just as a stalk of wheat is not a loaf of bread or a bottle of beer, these are not babies. But just as wheat can be milled, mixed with yeast and water, allowed to rise, then baked and a loaf of bread results, an embryonic mass of cells has the potential to be a human. That potential counts for something. Each person must assign their own value to this potential. I believe the value occurs as a result of gestation and prenatal nurturing. Others may not agree, and that's OK.
Now the political part. Given this is by nature a personal matter, I do not believe the government should intervene. People should be allowed to decide what to do with their cells, containing their genetic material. People should decide at what point in the early stage of development they have a prenatal child.
Religion has long served as a moral guide in making these decisions, and that seems appropriate. But given the relatively large number of child abuse cases in the Catholic Church, and the apparent evidence that the Catholic Church knew about the abuse and usually protected priests, I'd be wary of accepting the advice of the Catholic Church on matters of child welfare. I think they've lost the moral high ground, and that's limiting their effectiveness as an advisor on all moral issues. Historically, they have a bad track record on matters of science as well, having confined an aged Galileo to house arrest for speaking the truth when it differed with the official Church position.
On a more pragmatic note, there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos. It is not practical to attempt to rescue them. Even if there were enough willing women with a womb for rent, we'd have a lot of extra children contributing to a more crowded world. That seems immoral with so many babies aborted and abandoned every year. In addition, most of these are embryos from couples who have trouble conceiving. Many are from parents beyond the prime age of conception, and the embyros will have genetic defects such as trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome) and other terrible afflictions.
As I said, it's a complex matter. I'd be surprised if there was a simple solution.
>> Option #3 is the only moral choice.
You seem to believe that morality is absolute. You also seem to believe that the choice you would make is THE choice, in the absolute scheme.
For reasons I partially listed in my previous (too long) post, I'd probably opt for option #2. Having these cells used to create treatments for life threatening diseases seems like the best option to me, given the present situation.
But I belive strongly in everyone's right to choose. I do not believe others, even a majority, should choose for anyone else, and I certainly don't think the government should be used as an instrument of any forced decision.
That may be true, but it would represent the lesser of two evils, the other being the death of the unborn children.
Proverbs 24:11Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
This is a category error, a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes human nature. Size is an accidental characteristic of human beings, not an essential characteristic. A baby is smaller than an adult but no less human. A baby simply represents a human being in a relatively early stage of development. Its life is of no more or less value than the life of an adult human being. The same holds true for children in the earliest stages of prenatal development.
A human's a human, no matter how small.
Is this "right" absolute? Or is it simply your opinion?
Do I have the right to choose to murder my children?
It seems like this is a morally sound way of rescuing these people from their plight. I don't want to encourage IVF, but I don't want to let these existing children be murdered either.
No one has any right to choose to murder someone else.
Chopping up children for spare parts is simply evil, and there is no "right" to do such a vile thing.
Those making the above argument would suggest a 4th option: continue to keep the babies frozen until they are no longer viable. Then discard them.
I don't agree with this reasoning, but I still have not found a decisive refutation of it. That's why I posted the article.
That's a strong argument.
Thus they argue that despite the noble intentions of embryo adopters, their actions are still immoral.
When a human life is in the balance, it is a very difficult question.
What say you to this argument?
I say that I will not condemn someone for attempting to save a human life, but I would like to hear what the Magisterium has to say about it.
I'm thinking the reply to the Smith argument as something like the following:
It is immoral for a woman to allow herself to get pregnant by means other than intercourse with her husband in so far as such a pregnancy would involve procreation without the conjugal act. Embryo adoption, however, is an act that does not involve procreation; procreation has already occurred and the adoptive mother was not a party to it. Therefore, in this instance, it is licit for the woman to get pregnant by means other than the marital conjugal act.
Smith would say it is still wrong because embryo adoption is a form surrogate motherhood, which the Church has condemned. I answer that surrogate motherhood is immoral because it separates procreation from pregnancy. In this case of embryo adoption, pregnancy has indeed been separated from procreation. However, it is not the adoptive mother who has created this separation. In fact, she has no part in it. The genetic mother did it. The adoptive mother is merely rescuing the child who has been put in an horrible situation as a result of the evil act.
On the other hand, a surrogate mother is a party to the separation of pregnancy from procreation because her consent to acting a as a surrogate is what makes such separation desirable for the genetic parents. Therefore a surrogate is complicit in the evil act. In contrast, the fact that a woman chooses to adopt an embryo has absolutely no influence on whether the embryo gets created via IVF. Of course, this would not be the case if embryo gets created specifically for the purpose of giving it to the adoptive mother, which is why it seems to me IVF has to be outlawed before embryo adoption becomes morally licit.
What do you think?
Really? Then why is everyone so hot to get their hands on their stem cells? It ain't cuz their frogs or chickens. These embryos are as human as you and me. I'm bigger than my 3 yr old, who is bigger than my 3 mo old, who is bigger than a 3 week old embryo. Size is merely a function of where a person is on the timeline.
The idea and moral sentiment is understandable. It is, however, contrary to natural law to place an embryo into a woman who is not the real mother. Becoming pregnant and giving birth other than through the natural process of lovemaking is wrong.
And it is certainly wrong for Catholics to participate in unnatural ways of creating and giving birth to human beings.
While the sentiments are understandable, this is not a sound solution.
Ad hominem of detraction and fallacy of composition. Logical errors eloquently expressed are still logical errors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.