Humanae Vitae And Embryo Adoption

[kafka]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299260615' post='2217898']
Hm. I'll have to chew with this a bit more. My first impression is that I'm inclined to agree. Give me a bit to think on it more.
[/quote]
You better agree. I've been doing some epic thinking here.



just kidding. In any case I think what I stated above is true. Grace and peace.

[Adrestia]

Thank you all for putting so much thought and research into this.

The church teaches that life begins at conception (fertilization), not at implantation; so I'm inclined to agree with kafka.

[CatherineM]

The real key is for us to stop producing embryos that will live in limbo. European countries don't allow people to make all these extra embryos.

[Adrestia]

Let me clarify that, at this point, I think it is morally permissible for embryo adoption where the parents who adopt are the parents that carry the pregnancy.

However...

What if a woman wanted to carry a child for an [i]adoptive [/i]couple where the mother was infertile? If the surrogate mother refuses payment, is it any different than donating a kidney?

With this situation I am trying to ask whether we can really separate gestation from conception.

(But let's not fool ourselves here, most surrogate mothers are paid for their services.)

[Papist]

The Church has not officially spoken regarding this quandary. There are valid points on both sides, as this thread has shown. The Church is wise and she makes sure no stone is unturned before proclamation. God bless the Church and the Pope!!!!!

[kafka]

I came up a with a moral definition while I was doing my laundry today.

[b]Moral Meaning of Implanting an Abandoned Embryo in the Circumstance of Adoption[/b]

A moral definition for the medical procedure of implanting a human embryo into a adoptive mother could be:

the direct and deliberate commencement of gestation of a very young human person. The moral object is the actual commencement of gestation. The knowingly chosen concrete act, the medical procedure of implantation, is inherently ordered toward the good proximate end of commencing gestation. Commencement of gestation is a good and so the moral object and inherent order of the concrete act is good. The meaning implied in the good moral object of commencing gestation is the salvation, protection and defense of the prenatal's life; freedom of the prenatal from cryogenic preservation, as well as the chance at development and birth. And so these implied goods are included in the moral meaning of the concrete medical procedure of transfer. Each good moral object in it's deepest sense is created reflection of the Divine Nature. In this moral object the deepest sense could be life and freedom. The moral object of this concrete act is compatible with the love of God, neighbor, self and in particular is a selfless act of love and mercy to neighbor, who is the helpless, innocent and enslaved very young human person. And this moral object is ordered toward God the final end, since He is Life.

The implanted adoptive mother knowingly chooses the good moral object commencing gestation, as does the doctor and any nurses who formally cooperate in the concrete act of medical implantation.

The intended end must be good. In this case it would probably be identical to the meaning implied in the moral object summed up in saving the life of an innocent and helpless very young human person.

In the circumstance there are two reasonably foreseen consequences which will always be present in the adoption. The good consequence of saving the prenatal's life, and the bad consequence (a harm or disorder) of the adoptive mother in fact she is not the genetic mother. The good consequence outweighs the bad consequence however the remaining circumstance encircling the intention and moral object are complex. All bad consequences of moral evil must be avoided for example the formal cooperation of participating in artificial procreation, embryo reduction, culling of ovum, or any other ART procedures, before, during or after the medical procedure of implantation. The bad consequence of scandal must be avoided, the adoptive parents (husband and wife) must make it clear that artificial procreation is in itself intrinsically evil and that they do not approve of it.

Other circumstances encircling the act include the urgency of the situation, an estimated millions of frozen embryos worldwide who are abadoned and will eventually lose viability with some being murdered. The fact that frozen human embryos remain viable for a limited period of time and cannot rely on technology to save them. The fact that the longer the frozen embryo is preserved the lesser the probability of that prenatal develeping unto a live birth after commencement of gestation. The fact that many very young human persons are enslaved in cryogenic preservation violating their right to life.

An overall moral act of embryo adoption is possible given a circumstance where the reasonably foreseen good consequences may be judged to outweigh the bad consequences. And I think it should be encouraged.

Edited March 5, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1299265893' post='2217925']
Let me clarify that, at this point, I think it is morally permissible for embryo adoption where the parents who adopt are the parents that carry the pregnancy.

However...

What if a woman wanted to carry a child for an [i]adoptive [/i]couple where the mother was infertile? If the surrogate mother refuses payment, is it any different than donating a kidney?

With this situation I am trying to ask whether we can really separate gestation from conception.

(But let's not fool ourselves here, most surrogate mothers are paid for their services.)
[/quote]
I dont understand exactly what you are getting at here. Maybe clarify the circumstance a little more?

[Adrestia]

Clarification: A couple wants to adopt a frozen embryo. For medical reasons, the wife cannot be implanted. A different woman agrees to be implanted with the adopted frozen embryo in order to give the child to the couple.

All parties agree that IVF is intrinsically evil. The woman who is implanted does so voluntarily, receives no financial compensation.

If gestation is separate from conception, can a woman accept a frozen embryo on behalf of an adoptive couple?

[kafka]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1299299009' post='2218112']
Clarification: A couple wants to adopt a frozen embryo. For medical reasons, the wife cannot be implanted. A different woman agrees to be implanted with the adopted frozen embryo in order to give the child to the couple.

All parties agree that IVF is intrinsically evil. The woman who is implanted does so voluntarily, receives no financial compensation.

If gestation is separate from conception, can a woman accept a frozen embryo on behalf of an adoptive couple?
[/quote]
Wow, you are forward thinking!!! I like it and this is a good scenario almost like a natural adoption.

I have put absolutely nil thought into this. But initially this sounds like it would fall to the circumstances, the third font of morality. I do not initially see any bad consequences which would spring up from this situation, granted everyone has good intended ends. I didnt mention in my above moral definition anything about the transfer of guardianship, because I dont know anything about the laws governing adoptions, so this might come into play with this particular circumstance.

Edited March 5, 2011 by kafka

[Archaeology cat]

I really don't understand how that scenario would be different from surrogacy in general, or how it wouldn't fall under that condemnation. I admit that, being a mother, I cannot understand how a woman would intentionally get pregnant just to give the child over to another. There's no way to explain the bond you form with the child in utero. I understand if the mother has gotten pregnant and cannot raise the child. I'm sure it's the hardest decision ever, but I can understand that more than I can understand allowing yourself to be impregnated for the purpose of giving the child over to another. But this is my personal, non-theological opinion.

[kafka]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1299315525' post='2218191']
I really don't understand how that scenario would be different from surrogacy in general, or how it wouldn't fall under that condemnation. I admit that, being a mother, I cannot understand how a woman would intentionally get pregnant just to give the child over to another. There's no way to explain the bond you form with the child in utero. I understand if the mother has gotten pregnant and cannot raise the child. I'm sure it's the hardest decision ever, but I can understand that more than I can understand allowing yourself to be impregnated for the purpose of giving the child over to another. But this is my personal, non-theological opinion.
[/quote]
presuming you are referring to the most recent circumstance brought up by tgoldson, I think you are making some good arguments which have to be weighed in the overall consequences [third font].

This circumstance in my opinion would not fall under the two condemnations in Donam Vitae of surrogate motherhood, since those circumstances involve articificial procreation, monetary transfers, the harm done to the family of the moral agents.

But with the agents involved in this circumstance there is no artificial procreation, no monetary transfer and the frozen embryo is abandoned by the original father or mother. So the question I think you're posing is basically the reasonably foreseen bad consequence of the potential spiritual, physical, psychological harm done to surrogate mother and the prenatal. These certainly could be grave enough for the temporary mother involved and prenatal. For the husband and wife who will ultimately adopt and raise the child I dont think any harm is done to them since similar sort of adoptions occur in normal circumstances e.g. a husband and wife adopt a baby from across the world.

In any of these circumstances there is a potential harm to the prenatal who will have to live with these transfers his or her entire life. Yet God's mercy and healing are very powerful and He will bring all the just (and all things) to fulfillment and completion eventually, so I think the potential for a more or less normal life of for the harmed human person would outweigh any the harm done by being transfered twice. Human life is very good because of Jesus Christ. God gives very much in this first life, and in spite of personal sins His forgiveness is extremely merciful. And the person who started out as a frozen embryo could do very many good things. But I may be wrong.

As for the temporary mother in this circumstance. She would have to be unique. Spiritually, physically and emotionally fortitudinous, not to mention selfless. One of heroic virtue. She would have to make the decision with knowledge of the potential harm, but it would theortically be her decision and she would have to weigh these consequences herself using prudence. There is a subjective element to the third font of morality. But even then it could still be too much, like you say, since you are a mother.

but this is speculative. We are getting pretty far out there. I am less certain of my two most recent posts in the thread than I am of the ones made previous to these.

Edited March 5, 2011 by kafka

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1299315525' post='2218191']
I really don't understand how that scenario would be different from surrogacy in general, or how it wouldn't fall under that condemnation. I admit that, being a mother, I cannot understand how a woman would intentionally get pregnant just to give the child over to another. There's no way to explain the bond you form with the child in utero. I understand if the mother has gotten pregnant and cannot raise the child. I'm sure it's the hardest decision ever, but I can understand that more than I can understand allowing yourself to be impregnated for the purpose of giving the child over to another. But this is my personal, non-theological opinion.
[/quote]

The difference is that the surrogate is not participating in IVF or receiving money. She is doing it voluntarily to save a frozen embryo from death.

Here's my basic question: If embryo adoption is deemed okay because gestation can be considered separate from conception - which is a necessary distinction if we believe that those frozen embryos represent individual human lives and not just the "potential" for individual lives - then why must the adopting mother be the one who carries the child?

What's the difference between this type of surrogate motherhood and foster care?

One might say that the adoptive mother should be the one who carries the child in utero because she is the one adopting the child! If a couple were to adopt an infant, they would have to be prepared to accept the infant right away. They could not give the baby to a neighbor (that has a really nice crib) so they could then take the child back when it was big enough for a bed.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299317773' post='2218192']
but this is speculative. We are getting pretty far out there. I am less certain of my two most recent posts in the thread than I am of the ones made previous to these.
[/quote]

yup. there is a slippery slope that we need to avoid.

(Although I can't stand them, I defend the Supreme Court's ruling about the Westboro Baptist pseudochurch. If the SCOTUS can shush them, they can shush anyone. I will not be shushed.)

[Archaeology cat]

I'll have to think on this more. Some good thoughts, though. I'm not convinced yet, but like I said, I'll have to think about it.

[AudreyGrace]

Although IVF and all that stuff is wrong (procreation outside of marriage) then it should be avoided at all costs. However, if a human has already been created, what is the true Christ-like thing to do? A new life has been formed and is fully deserving of our love. We should treat it just as we would a born child in an unfortunate situation. It's not THEIR fault they were conceived in the way they were.