Humanae Vitae And Embryo Adoption

[Adrestia]

The other night I attended a lecture on Humanae Vitae. One of the facilitators, the NFP expert, said that he thought adopting an embryo was really no different than adopting a child that has been born. His reasoning was that (1) life begins at conception and (2) the medical use of hormones is only prohibited when used for contraception. He even mentioned that the church allows pro-conception hormone treatments for couples that are trying to conceive.

To my knowledge, the Magisterium has not ruled on this yet.

I'm really torn on this issue. It is my understanding that the mother goes through a similar medical/hormone process as a surrogate mother, but keeps the child(ren).

ref: http://www.nightlight.org/adoption-services/snowflakes-embryo/default.aspx

What do y'all think?

(By the way, this question came up because a young lady at the lecture was upset by the fact that the church would be against her acting as a surrogate mother for her sister.)

[Archaeology cat]

Personally, I think the issue is very similar to why we say no to surrogacy. The child is still conceived outside the marital act, and the woman is impregnated outside the marital act. It is tricky, I think, because these embryos have already been created, and are just in limbo, which is horrible. I'm not sure there is a good solution, really.

[Lil Red]

i think the National Catholic Bioethics Center has some stuff on this. I'd check them out: http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity//

particularly Fr. Tad's column: http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=249 (Making sense out of Bioethics)

[kafka]

Artificial procreation, in vetro fertilization, is of course is intrinsically evil, but this is different, we are dealing with prenatal, a created human person with a soul, body, spirit, from the moment of conception, who in spite of being created by an evil means, is innocent, helpless and is worthy of the dignity and resepect and right to life as are all other prenatals.

So apart from the potential moral difficultis circling the act itself, the heart of the matter is the moral object of the act of implanting a frozen embryo, who is already a created human person in the image and likeness of God into a surrogate mother. Is this act in itself a good or an evil? Is the act in itself compatible with love of God, neighbor, self. Can the act itself be ordered toward God as the final end?

The answer is yes. How could it not be?

The prenatal is given a new mother as well as a chance at live birth. This is certainly a good object and so the act in itself is inherently good and compatible with love of God, neighbor, self, and can be ultimately directed toward God who is Life.

On the contrary directly and deliberately depriving the frozen prenatals a chance at live birth would be intrinsically evil.

So the act of implanting a prenatal into a mother, who is not the genetic mother, to bring about the live birth saving the prenatal, is in itself not intrinsically evil. This is the only moral means of saving the prenatal.

But the intention has to be good, and all the circumstances of the overall act must be good. The circumstances could bring up moral difficulties because of the evil clinics and the procedures they use. But given good circumstances, the act in itself is moral as opposed to in vetro fertilization which is intrinsically evil.

Edited March 3, 2011 by kafka

[CatherineM]

I knew someone in florida who adopted two embryos. She did it with consultation with her pastor. This was before [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081212_sintesi-dignitas-personae_en.html"]Dignitas Personae[/url] came out.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I've done a lot of research on this particular subject. The short answer is that the Church has made no formal declaration about it.

I side with the argument that embryo adoption is intrinsically evil. I'll post again with that argument when I get home tonight.

[sixpence]

*warning-having only considered this topic for about 5 minutes*

my first impression is that adopting embryos is Not evil. It is not the fault of the embryo that it was produced in vitro! It still deserves to live! If the biological mother and father are unwilling/ unable to bring the baby to term, it seems like a very good thing for someone else to step in as a surrogate mother. At the very least, this is THE BEST option I can think of. What are the other options? Kill the embryo or keep it frozen indefinitely?

[Adrestia]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1299187237' post='2217567']
I knew someone in florida who adopted two embryos. She did it with consultation with her pastor. This was before [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081212_sintesi-dignitas-personae_en.html"]Dignitas Personae[/url] came out.
[/quote]

[quote]With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? All the answers that have been proposed (use the embryos for research or for the treatment of disease; thaw them without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers; put them at the disposal of infertile couples as a "treatment for infertility"; allow a form of "prenatal adoption") present real problems of various kinds. It needs to be recognized "that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore, John Paul II 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" (n. 19). [/quote]

The fact that JPII said "there seems to be no morally licit solution" makes me feel better about being torn.

There seems to be a slippery slope ahead. The young lady that offered to be a surrogate mother for her sister likened the loss of embryos during IVF to having a miscarriage. (She offered her womb because her sister has had a miscarriage and was devastated by it.) She understands why paying a stranger to carry a baby is bad, but not why doing for your own sister is bad.

Edited March 3, 2011 by tgoldson

[Seven77]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1299191922' post='2217621']



[quote]With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? All the answers that have been proposed (use the embryos for research or for the treatment of disease; thaw them without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers; put them at the disposal of infertile couples as a "treatment for infertility"; allow a form of "prenatal adoption") present real problems of various kinds. It needs to be recognized "that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore, John Paul II 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" (n. 19). [/quote]

That fact that JPII said "there seems to be no morally licit solution" makes me feel better about being torn.



[/quote]

That.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Seven77

[Seven77]

implanting an embryo goes against human procreation.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1299193787' post='2217640']
implanting an embryo goes against human procreation.
[/quote]

How are you defining procreation?

Some would say that implanting an embryo enhances human procreation, that it saves a life.

[kafka]

I knew these would come up that is why I planned on posting further.

The Magisterium teaches that there are three fonts of morality for all human actions. They are

First Font: Intention, the knowing choice of the person to do something (morally) to bring about an end, the intended end of the overall act.

Second Font: Moral Object, what the person knowingly chooses to do. It is the concrete act with an inherent order (or disorder) determined by the moral object which is either objectively good or evil in the eyes of God. The moral object is the proximate end of the overall act. Otherwise known as nature of the act, moral meaning, moral species, inherent order or disorder, intrinsically evil or intrinsically good.

Third Font: Circumstances, everything else pertaining to the knowingly chosen act other than the intention and moral object. These include the consequences, or effects, the situation, and so on.

For the overal act to be moral all three fonts must be good. If one font is bad, evil, immoral, illicit then the overall act is bad, evil, immoral, illicit. If one font is gravely evil, the overall act is gravely evil.

One needs to have a firm grasp of these in order to understand Magisterial teachings on morality, since many times these fonts are implied. And the three fonts will be decisive when discerning a surrogate motherhood defined in reference to different circumstances.

[b]Donum Vitae II, A, n.3[/b]

"Is "Surrogate"* Motherhood Morally Licit?

No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.

Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.

*By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:
A. the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of "donors." She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

B. the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy."

Nowhere does it state that surrogate motherhood is in itself intrinsically evil which is of the second font of morailty the moral object. It simply states that it is morally illicit. The reason is that the surrogate motherhood is morally illicit when defined in reference to the particular circumstances [third font] of IVF and OVE stated above. Notice that surrogate motherhood is clarified by two special definitions for the instruction being given. These two definitions are in relation to the circumstance of the overall act involving artificial procreative practices which are common today. The third font of morality is gravely evil because of the evil consequences summarized above, the disorder of maternal love since the prenatal is gestating in another's womb, as well as the damage done to the prenatal, and the family and so on. But these evil consequences are of the circumstance of a surrogate mother who is commissioned for the pregnancy by means of artificial procreation and will surrender the baby at live birth. They are not of the inherent order of surrogate motherhood itself.

This surrogate motherhood described above is morally illicit because of the gravely evil circumstance of the overall act of agreeing to a pregnancy by means of artificial procreation and the pledge to surrender the child, not because a surrogate motherhood is intrinsically evil in and of itself which is the second font of morality: the moral object.

In embryo adoption the mother adopts the prenatal and it is not intrinsically evil to implant the frozen embryo who is a created human person made in the image of God, who is totally helpless, innocent, with the same dignity and rights of any other prenatal, into a new mother which is not the genetic mother, because the act itself determined by the moral object is good: the chance of live birth and salvation for the prenatal. These frozen embryo's would have no other way of being brought to live birth other than for a mother to adopt them and having them be implanted. This good proximate end of giving the baby a chance at live birth is an expression of love of one's neighbor and can certainly be ordered toward God as the final end (see Veritatis Splendor), since God is Life. The adoption is not done in the same set of circumstances as the one's defined in Donum Vitae. If this is evil in an of itself than I am not a human person. God is Life.

Example: Let us say that we are living in a technologically advanced future. A mother two months pregnant gets into a car accident. The mother is dying and will eventually die for certain and the only way to save the prenatal and bring him to live birth is to transfer him into the womb of another woman (granted the technology is available). This is the only means of giving the baby a chance at live birth. This is not intrinsically evil, and it is a type of surrogate motherhood. A surrogate motherhood in the circumstance of an embryo adoption when the prenatal is abandoned or the genetic mother cannot be implanted because of old age, is not morally ilicit. The moral object is good (as I explained above in another post.) But their are many other difficulties in the circumstance at this present time which is what Dignitas Personae teaches:

[b]Dignitas Personae n. 19 [/b]

"With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it. . . [the document goes on to describe some immoral resolutions then]

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. [new paragraph] All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved."

Evaluting this paragraph one must keep in mind the three fonts of morality which are often implied in Magesterial teachings because the three fonts are also taught by the Magisterium and do not need to be stated everytime. The intention of embryo adoptio, the respecting and defending of human life is good, therefore the first font is good, moral, licit. The prenatl adoption itself is not defined as intrinsically good or intrinsically evil. It is simply stated as such. There is no teaching on the moral object of the second font of morality in this section, therefore the inherent order or moral species, or moral meaning, or nature (by analogy) contained and determined by the moral object is an open question like Theresa stated above. The third font, the circumstances is summed up as "All things considered." In the present the circumstances, the third font of morality, pose a difficult moral situation. How could one adopt an embryo with all the foreseen good conequences outweighing the bad with all the evil practices of clinics one might have to cooperate with, and various other difficulties I wont go into here.

However if all three fonts are good the overall act is moral and if a good circumstance of the third font of morality presents itself I think it would be moral to adopt a frozen embryo. In any case it is certainly not intrinsically evil to adopt an embryo.

Edited March 4, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1299189735' post='2217605']
*warning-having only considered this topic for about 5 minutes*

my first impression is that adopting embryos is Not evil. It is not the fault of the embryo that it was produced in vitro! It still deserves to live! If the biological mother and father are unwilling/ unable to bring the baby to term, it seems like a very good thing for someone else to step in as a surrogate mother. At the very least, this is THE BEST option I can think of. What are the other options? Kill the embryo or keep it frozen indefinitely?
[/quote]
your initial discernment is very good (read my above post)

[TeresaBenedicta]

The moral dilemma surrounding the act of embryo adoption or heterologous embryo transfer is a sensitive one that must be examined with great care, for it concerns the fate of hundreds of thousands of tiny human lives. As [i]Dignitas personae[/i] states, “All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299201822' post='2217681']

[b]Donum Vitae II, A, n.3[/b]

"Is "Surrogate"* Motherhood Morally Licit?

No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.

Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.

*By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:
A. the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of "donors." She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

B. the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy."

[b]Nowhere does it state that surrogate motherhood is in itself intrinsically evil which is of the second font of morailty the moral object. It simply states that it is morally illicit. [/b]The reason is that the surrogate motherhood is morally illicit when defined in reference to the particular circumstances [third font] of IVF and OVE stated above. Notice that surrogate motherhood is clarified by two special definitions for the instruction being given. These two definitions are in relation to the circumstance of the overall act involving artificial procreative practices which are common today. The third font of morality is gravely evil because of the evil consequences summarized above, the disorder of maternal love since the prenatal is gestating in another's womb, as well as the damage done to the prenatal, and the family and so on. But these evil consequences are of the circumstance of a surrogate mother who is commissioned for the pregnancy by means of artificial procreation and will surrender the baby at live birth. They are not of the inherent order of surrogate motherhood itself. [/quote]

Good point, Kafka.

I was just about to post my argument as to why embryo adoption is inherently evil... and I realized that the majority of argument rested upon surrogacy being [i]inherently[/i] evil. But as I reread DV, it does not seem that such is the case. As you point out.

However, we still must consider the question: Is the transfer of an embryo (either genetically related or not) inherently evil?

Germain Grisez argues that the act of embryo transfer is morally neutral. He writes, “It [embryo transfer] is not at odds with any basic human good- it protects life rather than violates it… it does not violate the transmission of life; and it has nothing to do with the good of marriage.”

On the other hand, other Catholic philosophers argue that embryo transfer does violate the good of marriage because[i] it separates the procreative aspect from the conjugal act. [/i] Thinkers such as Geach and Pacholczyk argue that procreation involves not only generation, but also pregnancy. “A proper understanding of the term ‘procreation’ must extend well beyond the biological events of fertilization,” says Pacholczyk, “and take into consideration the entire process of pro-creation, or that which is done ‘on behalf of’ the creation of a new child through the conjugal acts of self-giving love.”

I would argue that there is a violation of the procreative aspect of the conjugal act whenever embryo transfer occurs (and thus I would argue that IVF is inherently wrong not only because it removes conception from the conjugal act, but also because it removes pregnancy from the conjugal act.) Pregnancy is intrinsically related to conception and the two ought never to be separated from one another. Both pregnancy and conception together constitute what is meant by ‘procreation’ and to separate one or the other from the conjugal act is to violate the good of marriage.

To conceive is to become pregnant. It is well-known that at the moment of fertilization the entire genetic make-up of a child, including its sex, is complete; from the moment of fertilization there is a new human being in existence. Some wish to separate conception from pregnancy. The distinction between these two, I believe, is not a real distinction, but rather a theoretical one (made real only by the illegitimate creation of embryos in vitro). Pregnancy is defined as “containing unborn young within the body.” If, as the Catholic tradition holds, a human life begins at conception, then from the moment of fertilization, the mother contains within her body unborn young. It is impossible to conceive naturally and not become pregnant.

Some might argue double effect. However, it is not entirely clear that this situation can fall under the principle of double effect and, really, it cannot if embryo transfer is intrinsically evil (for one can never directly choose an evil action). Inherent to the transfer of a frozen embryo is the act of becoming pregnant. It is conceivable for a doctor to remove a dangerous cancer without harming the patient’s eyes. Or, in the typical example given about a pregnant woman with uterine cancer, we know that the removal of the cancer is morally neutral precisely because it is morally licit to do so in circumstances when the woman is not pregnant. However, it is impossible for a woman to have an embryo transferred to her womb without getting pregnant. Thus becoming pregnant is not a side effect or a “result of her choice” but rather is very much intrinsic to her choice. It is not the case of a double effect.

Pregnancy, being so interconnected with natural conception, cannot be separated from the conjugal act. IVF artificially separates the two, making the distinction between pregnancy and conception a real one. It is a real evil, however. Just as IVF artificially separates conception from the conjugal act, which is inherently evil, so too does the separation of pregnancy from its natural foundations in conception constitute as inherently evil.

[kafka]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299205973' post='2217694']
Germain Grisez argues that the act of embryo transfer is morally neutral. He writes, “It [embryo transfer] is not at odds with any basic human good- it protects life rather than violates it… it does not violate the transmission of life; and it has nothing to do with the good of marriage.”
[/quote]
in my opinion there are no such things as morally neutral act. Every knowinly chosen act is a good or an apparent good. It is impossible for a human person created in the image and likeness of God to chose a concrete act which is neutral, because he is directed by God written in the will and intellect, in all his choices to do things which are good acts compatible with love of God, neighbor, self and able to be directed toward the final end which is God who is Love, Mercy, Justice, Truth, etc. Nowhere in Veritatis Splendor, the crowing achievement of Magisterial teaching on moral fundamentals, are morally neutral acts mentioned. Nowhere. Rather the moral object is always said to be good or evil:

"The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who "alone is good", and thus brings about the perfection of the person. An act is therefore good if its object is in conformity with the good of the person with respect for the goods morally relevant for him. Christian ethics, which pays particular attention to the moral object, does not refuse to consider the inner "teleology" of acting, inasmuch as it is directed to promoting the true good of the person; but it recognizes that it is really pursued only when the essential elements of human nature are respected. The human act, good according to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive perfection when the will actually does order it to God through charity."

A morally neutral act (if it existed) is in itself incapable of being ordered toward the love of God, neighbor, self or the ultimate end: God.

And it is clear in Veritatis Splendor and other Magisterial teachings such as the CCC, and some documents of the USCCB that all three fonts must be [b]good[/b] for the overall act to be moral.

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together." (CCC, n. 1755)

USCCB Catechism: "Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act.... All three aspects must be good -- the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances -- in order to have a morally good act." (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.)

If the second font is neutral how can the overall act be moral if all three aspects must be good? Each font is distint, each is indepedent of the other. Together the three make up one overall act. Surely the intention and/or circumstance cannot transform the intrinsic order of an concrete act itself? This is impossible and this becomes clear with the teaching that intention and circumstance cannot transform the intrinsic disorder of an act with an evil moral object: an intrinsically evil act.

A morally neutral act would have no moral object and so no inherent order. This is unreasonable and it does not agree with all the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, the natural law, the moral principles, positive and negative precepts and so on.

I was actually going to start a thread on this but oh well.

The moral object of embryo adoption is clearly a good which is compatible with love of God since God is Life and love of neighbor, since the frozen embryo is helpless and in dire need and love of self, since the adoptive mother is given a chance to love and raise a child. The object is that the human person enslaved in a cryogenic state be made free and given a chance of live birth and be given an adoptive mother for life. To be made free is clearly a good. To be given a chance at life is clearly a good. To be given a mother for life is clearly a good, just like a foster child is adopted (I was one myself).

Edited March 4, 2011 by kafka