Replies

Yes, we are to afford the rights of a person to the embryo from the moment of its conception (fertilization). (CCC #2270 & #2274).

But my position is that the CCC does not address or imply what that means with respect to the property and inheritance rights (for example) of a frozen microscopic embryo in a lab.

Who is the unused (discarded) frozen embryo’s father - the sperm donor or the man who was married to the woman who had the embryos created?

If his parents die, how long should a frozen embryo’s inheritance be held - indefinitely? 5 years? 30 years? Should the embryo’s already born sibling be deprived of that portion of the inheritance because the frozen embryo might someday be born?

If such a frozen embryo was created in a Mexican lab and then transferred to the USA would Catholic-compliant pro-life laws address whether that embryo is a citizen of Mexico or the USA?

If such a frozen embryo is in the lab for 5 years before being transplanted and eventually born, would a Catholic law require that person to be able to vote 13 years after birth because otherwise it would be deprived of the human rights it gained at fertilization?

Is such an embryo eligible for welfare benefits?

Does such a person have a right to develop into a baby? How would a catholic law achieve that, given the fact that the Church actually flatly and universally condemns transplanting such embryos into women in all cases - even for the purely selfless reason to offer the embryo a chance to have a normal life?

We have some guidelines, but the Church leaves these questions without definitive answers.

These issues are not black and white.

Notwithstanding wrote, in reply to my comment):

Yes, we are to afford the rights of a person to the embryo from the moment of its conception (fertilization). (CCC #2270 & #2274). But my position is that the CCC does not address or imply what that means with respect to the property and inheritance rights (for example) of a frozen microscopic embryo in a lab.

I can't help but think that this is completely irrelevant to the case. You wrote, earlier, that "It is an extremely rational and morally defensible position to hold that a human embryo in a test tube is NOT a person." That flatly contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church (to Whom Mr. Gingrich now belongs) on a grave matter; it is not rational, nor is it morally defensible, to convert to a Church Who forbids one's own views on a topic of unspeakable gravity.

Such an embryo is human, but is not necessarily a human person.

I'm afraid this makes no sense at all; personhood is the function of having a soul, and all newly-conceived human beings have souls (almost all of whom are tainted by the stain/privation of Original Sin]. One cannot possibly claim that the "embryo = not necessarily a human person" is in any way consistent with Catholic teaching.

Once such an embryo is returned to the womb and implants, that embryo is fully alive

Now, I must ask you to think about this reasonably! "Being alive" is a Boolean (i.e. one of two mutually exclusive choices) value: either one is alive, or one is not. It may well be the case that we (by-standers) do not know the status (i.e. alive or dead) of any GIVEN person (e.g. a prisoner of war, a man who fell down a cliff, out of our sight, while rock-climbing, etc.), but it beyond question that he must be one or the other; one does not, and cannot, become "more alive" or "less alive". The only times I've even heard such terms were in cases when someone was making an ill-advised reference to so-called "quality of life", or else to some other subjective description of their feelings (e.g. "when I ski, I feel fully alive!").

and developing and the law should protect such an embryo as if he/she was a person - we don’t know exactly when such an embryo attains personhood in God’s eyes so we err on the side of caution.

Friend, if you embrace Catholic teaching, then you must embrace the fact that we know PRECISELY when life begins (i.e. when the body and soul are created at the moment of conception). Again: we might not be able to time such an event in any given person's life to the nearest second, but: what of it?

Conception is when human life begins. But when does human personhood begin? If we say at conception, then we have a conundrum with all the embryos in freezers - are these frozen persons? Do they stay suspended in ice until the end of the world or the freezer breaks?

Surely you must realise that you've swerved away from logic, and embraced mere rhetoric, here! All of your supposedly rhetorical questions have clear answers:

1) But when does human personhood begin? A: at conception

2) If we say at conception, then we have a conundrum with all the embryos in freezers - are these frozen persons? A: Yes, they are... and it is an unspeakable horror which the Church condemns, utterly.

3) Do they stay suspended in ice until the end of the world or the freezer breaks? A: Yes... or until they are thawed for attempted implantation (and probable immediate death), or thawed in order to be torn asunder for medical experiments, or a hundred and more other possibilities.

Of course as a Catholic I err on the side of protecting human life in the womb - and I also want to halt the creation of embryos invitro precisely because of this abhorrent situation in which we have thousands of these frozen human beings who almost certainly don’t meet the definition of “person”.

You really do need to think carefully about this: personhood is the state of being created in the Image and Likeness of God--by which we have a self-aware intellect, a radically free will, and a memory (aside from having a body, complete with animal passions)--and those powers are intrinsic to the SOUL, which is created at conception.

Who is the unused (discarded) frozen embryo’s father - the sperm donor or the man who was married to the woman who had the embryos created?

That's a bit like asking "who's the father: the biological father who died when the child was an infant, or the adoptive father who is the only 'father' the child has ever known"? Biologically, the biological father is the father; that's rather self-evident, isn't it?

If his parents die, how long should a frozen embryo’s inheritance be held - indefinitely? 5 years? 30 years? Should the embryo’s already born sibling be deprived of that portion of the inheritance because the frozen embryo might someday be born?

You seem to be following a train of thought that says: "Here are some tactical legal difficulties with the personhood of the unborn child at earliest stages; it is useful to avoid these difficulties; therefore, embryos cannot possibly be persons!" That's simply silly, dear fellow; personhood is not determined by one's convenience or utility to others. Even if the legal problems increased ten-thousand-fold, it would not affect the personhood of the living embryo, one jot! One might as well declare a baby born of surrogate parents to be a "non-person", simply because the implications for inheritance would befuddle several lawyers!

If such a frozen embryo was created in a Mexican lab and then transferred to the USA would Catholic-compliant pro-life laws address whether that embryo is a citizen of Mexico or the USA?

I trust you know that citizenship of a particular nation has nothing especially to do with one's personhood in the eyes of God?

If such a frozen embryo is in the lab for 5 years before being transplanted and eventually born, would a Catholic law require that person to be able to vote 13 years after birth because otherwise it would be deprived of the human rights it gained at fertilization?

Given that the Catholic Church does not oblige any given voting age (or voting at all, for that matter--monarchies are perfectly in keeping with Catholic teaching), this is quite beside the point... and again: no amount of bureaucratic inconveniences could ever excuse the denial of the right to life of any human person (fron conception until natural death). I admit to being a bit baffled as to why you wouldn't see this rather self-evident fact! "Red tape" does not translate into "freedom to massacre at will", you know.

Is such an embryo eligible for welfare benefits?

See above; welfare is not mandated by Church law; nor would any such "red tape" difficulties justify the removal of any person's right to life. Surely this is obvious? Would Hitler have been justified in killing Jews on the basis that the paper-work involved in giving them rights under German law would be too cumbersome for the clerks in charge of it?

Does such a person have a right to develop into a baby?

Well... do you have the right to develop into an adult who is one year older than you are at present? The issue is quite the same. All other things being equal, the answer is "yes, of course!"

How would a catholic law achieve that, given the fact that the Church actually flatly and universally condemns transplanting such embryos into women in all cases - even for the purely selfless reason to offer the embryo a chance to have a normal life?

I assume you're referring to Donum Vitae, and to Dignitatis Personae (the subsequent clarification of it)? The Church forbids transplanting embryos in that state (at present--it's a policy which might change in the future; it's a Church discipline, not a Church teaching) at least partially in order not to enable and/or give cover to the gravely evil practises of IVF, cloning, etc. I have to confess, I don't see any intrinsic evil involved in such a "snowflake adoption"; but for now, we are to obey. But as to your point: this particular policy of the Church is NOT due to any supposed denial of the humanity and personhood of the embryonic child by the Church! Dignitatis Personae makes that quite clear, in fact (section 4).

We have some guidelines, but the Church leaves these questions without definitive answers.

The Church leaves some things (at least for now) without answers; but this is not one of them, friend; your reasoning simply doesn't square with the teachings of the Catholic Church (see above) or with fallacy-free logic.

These issues are not black and white.

Some are not (at least, not yet); this, and many others, are.