Posted on 05/20/2009 1:29:15 PM PDT by NYer
This article will clarify a certain dimension of the debate over embryo adoption and lead to the conclusion that a woman who chooses to have an orphaned embryo implanted in her womb (heterologous embryo transfer, which we'll call HET), cannot be morally approved.
I have been a leader in the pro-life movement for over 30 years, and no one would more like to see all of the abandoned frozen embryos rescued. The nature of their in vitro conception, subsequent freezing and reduction to so-called "leftovers" constitutes a grave injustice.
Many people, motivated by real charity, look to embryo adoption as a way to save these frozen human beings whose precarious lives number in the tens of thousands. They argue that Vatican statements against surrogate motherhood are narrowly focused and even unclear. Moreover, since HET does not involve the exchange of sexual intercourse, namely it does not involve a formal act of adultery, they conclude that no moral laws are violated in embryo adoption.
Vatican statements, however, are not as open or equivocal as advocates of embryo adoption interpret them. Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of the Person), the instruction recently issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, directly addressed the fate of frozen embryos and concluded: "The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for fertility is not morally 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."
The document clearly regards embryo adoption as a form of heterologous procreation — namely a form of reproduction that involves an outside third party — already condemned in the 1987 Vatican document Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life). Moreover, while Donum Vitae explicitly condemned only one form of surrogate motherhood, the new document, Dignitas Personae, very clearly states that "any form of surrogate motherhood" is morally illicit. By definition and context, the new document recognizes embryo adoption as a form of surrogacy.
Advocates of embryo adoption argue, based on Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth), that the Church is only concerned about the God-willed inseparable connection between the procreative and unitive meanings of the conjugal act. Since embryo adoption doesn't involve such acts, the marriage bond is not violated. This analysis is based on a very narrow, minimalist definition of procreation, as if sexual intercourse was the only single nuptial aspect of the marriage bond.
A strong argument exists that the Church believes procreation to be a more comprehensive and profound reality. Dignitas Personae describes embryo adoption as a kind of procreation when it condemns this practice as a form of "artificial heterologous procreation." This means that, while no acts of intercourse occur, the gestation of a baby is nonetheless part of the meaning of procreation — and procreation must remain within the bond of the marriage covenant.
Donum Vitae asks the very question: "Why must human procreation take place in marriage?" — and describes procreation as a prolonged and extended process.
The document teaches: "For human procreation has specific characteristics by virtue of the personal dignity of the parents and of the children: The procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be a sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their hope and of their fidelity. The fidelity of the spouses ... involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other."
The document immediately, in the very section focused on the meaning of procreation, describes procreation: "The child has a right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage: It is through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development."
These are the "specific characteristics" of procreation. The document is not prohibiting the adoption of a child already born or prohibiting so-called artificial wombs or incubators when medically indicated. It is focused on the use of sexuality itself within marriage and does not identify procreation as limited to the conjugal act.
At stake in the debate over embryo adoption is the very meaning of the marriage bond and the connection between husband and a wife and fatherhood and motherhood. Many argue that embryo adoption is not adultery. However, the fact remains that when a woman has a thawed orphaned embryo transferred into her womb she is in fact procreating — namely becoming a mother — in relation to another man's child.
Is this justified only because she never exchanged a sex act with this man to produce this child? She has become a mother outside of that freely given gift of self to her spouse, which is the essence of the marriage bond. She has allowed her body to be used to gestate another man's baby. In marriage, spouses freely give of themselves — the total embodied word of the personal self is handed over. In a liturgy of nuptial embodied love, the man and the woman speak the total word of their masculine and feminine self donation. Marriage is a sexual/procreative friendship that involves the entire nuptial meaning of the body.
This nuptial meaning of the body, by definition, includes not simply the promise of spouses to engage in conjugal acts only with one another, but that one's reproductive organs — what constitutes the entire masculine and feminine word —is also inherent to their nuptial communion.
The wife has no right to use her reproductive powers outside the sphere of her marital commitment. The husband has no right to give her permission to do so. Her reproductive powers are constitutive of her nuptial word already handed over to her husband. Her status as wife is linked by natural law and the sacramental truth of her body to her motherhood. There's a direct moral, not simply biological, relation between the conjugal act and the womb.
This is why nuns and single woman may not permit their wombs to be used to gestate an orphaned embryo or an unborn baby whose mother is unable to carry him.
Many faithful theologians believe, in good conscience, that they may continue to argue in favor of HET, but it appears the Church is headed toward a definitive negative answer.
Frozen orphaned embryos bear the burden of the injustice of their in vitro conception. I do believe that the principle of double effect offers a resolution — albeit a sad one.
Frozen embryos are subjected to injustice. Thawing them is a reversal of the injustice — to free them from a condition contrary to their dignity. This is the directly chosen and directly willed good effect. The evil effect, their deaths, is not willed and not directly chosen. The principle of double effect can be exercised when one knows that the ontically evil effect will happen — not only when there's a possibility that it won't.
Ultimately, as Christians, we need to gird our loins and change this pro-death culture — a culture that would treat and even call any human being a "leftover."
Ping!
Interesting...
It’s an ugly situation, but allowing the children to be born is the right moral call.
I assert that it would be better for pro-life people to be neutral or positive about embryo adoption. The issues involved are so subtle, and the practice so rare and well-intentioned, that it is not worth the damage speaking out against embryo adoption would do to the anti-abortion cause. If embryos are languishing and people — people who had no involvement with IVF — want to rescue the embryos, coming out against this will seem bizarre and contradictory to many of the people we need to alert about the evil of abortion.
The article says otherwise.
The article says otherwise.
The article certainly does say otherwise!
Moreover, while Donum Vitae explicitly condemned only one form of surrogate motherhood, the new document, Dignitas Personae, very clearly states that "any form of surrogate motherhood" is morally illicit. By definition and context, the new document recognizes embryo adoption as a form of surrogacy.
I don't understand what you mean. Embryo adoption either involves acts which are gravely contrary to natural law, or it doesn't. Into which category does an act the Church is "never able to endorse" fall?
The article makes the case that the Church has already taught, implicitly, that embryo adoption is contrary to natural law, because all surrogate motherhood is contrary to natural law.
The bottom line continues to be: avoid IVF and anything like it, and these problems don't arise.
Embryo adoption is unnatural, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily contrary to Natural Law. You can make a persuasive argument that the Church's existing teachings lead to the conclusion that embryo adoption is illicit, but that isn't the same as the Church's stating that embryo adoption is per se wrong. The Church has not gone this far.
logically correct.
but it’s not the kid’s fault, and saving him would be a blessing for him.
So if that technology were invented, is it possible that Church teaching would allow the implantation of pre-existing embryos in artificial wombs?
And if so, what effect does that have on the decision to thaw now versus keep frozen until technology advances?
The Vatican does not allow the adoption of “Snowflake Babies”
http://www.tldm.org/News12/VaticanRulesOutAdoptionOfFrozenEmbryos.htm
While I must stand my the Vatican, I think this should be rethought. If we stand that a baby is a baby from the moment of conception, then the Vatican is allowing babies to die if not adopted.
I have no dog in this fight, or should I say, no uterus to fight with.
I am not arguing in favor of embryo adoption, but I do assert with confidence that the Vatican has yet to condemn the practice as per se immoral. (The “per se” part is key.)
My apologies, you are absolutely correct. I was mistaken. This is from the USCCB explanation of the Vatican’s “The Dignity of a Person” document
5. What topics in this document have not been specifically addressed in past teaching documents?
Some very new issues are discussed here for the first time. Some proposed methods for altering the technique for human cloning so it will produce embryonic stem cells but not
an embryo (e.g., “altered nuclear transfer”) are judged to require more study and clarification before they could ethically be applied to humans, as one would have to be
certain that a new human being is never created and then destroyed by the procedure.
(These cautions do not apply to an even newer technique, using genetic or chemical factors to reprogram ordinary adult cells directly into “induced pluripotent stem cells”
with the versatility of embryonic stem cells. This clearly does not use an egg or create an embryo, and has not raised objections from Catholic theologians.)
Proposals for “adoption” of abandoned or unwanted frozen embryos are also found to pose problems, because the Church opposes use of the gametes or bodies of others who are outside themarital covenant for reproduction. The document raises cautions or problems about these new issues but does not formally make a definitive judgment against them.
All well and good to argue this way,
but when the sinfulness of man screws
up God’s order, there is one way to
decide the right course of action
- and that is to ask “what is the most
redemptive thing that can be done now?”
In this case, I say, let them be adopted.
Embryo adoption is such a fascinating issue — to me, anyway — because the Church has so few issues it sees as gray, rather than black or white. (I'm not criticizing the Church, by the way.) I think it would be best if the Vatican leaves open the question of whether embryo adoption is per se illicit. There are similarities between adoption of born-children with adoption of embryos, yet the labs that store embryos, who would be involved in implanting embryos in adoptive mothers, are engaged in illicit practices, so, it’s a morass. (In contrast to fertility labs, orphanages play no role in any illicit behavior that may have produced some of the orphan children who live there.) It's a morass!
Hmmm. . .how would adopting a frozen embryo be any different from adopting a child already born? In either case, the child needs parents.
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.