Embryo Adoption Is Good

[kafka]

here is a blog I just launched:

Embryo Adoption is Good
'prenatal adoption' in light of Catholic ethics

http://embryoadoptionisgood.blogspot.com/

so far all I have is three introductory posts:

Embryo Adoption is good
What is a Frozen Embryo
The Term 'Gestate'

but my plan is to post a series of nine articles probing the open question of 'embryo adoption':

1. Embryo Adoption is Good
2. The Three Fonts of Morality
3. A Moral Definition of the Medical Implantation of an Embryo in the Circumstance of Adoption
4. Commencement of Gestation is not Intrinsically Evil
5. Commencement of Gestation is not Morally Neutral
6. Gestative Acts are not Unitive, Marital, Procreative
7. The Creation, Conception, Gestation, and Live Birth of the Church
8. The Transcendent Death of Jesus on the Cross
9. The Gestation of Mary

Though I dont really write scholarly/professional theology, I think I might eventually post some more scholarly stuff I have found concerning statistics, the circumstances, and so on.

And other stuff, whatever I think of concerning this severe problem.

For those especially interested in Catholic ethics and this severe disorder with the frozen embryos.
If you havent heard of this already you might be dismayed.


(and I do have phatmass phorum linked at the bottom of the site )

Edited March 11, 2011 by kafka

[AudreyGrace]

the school computer i'm on blocked your website.

[cmotherofpirl]

I thought the Church said this was wrong?

[Cherie]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299858910' post='2220094']
I thought the Church said this was wrong?
[/quote]

There are still debates as to whether or not that document necessarily condemns embryo adoption.

From [i]Dignitas Personae ([url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf"]http://www.usccb.org...as_Personae.pdf[/url] ) [/i]of September, 2008:

[quote]
19. With regard to the large number of [i]frozen embryos already in existence[/i] 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.

Proposals to [i]use these embryos for research [/i]or[i] for the treatment of disease[/i] are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere "biological material" and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a [i]treatment for infertility[/i] is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html#_ftn38"] [/url]this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

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 [i] "prenatal adoption".[/i] This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. [/quote]


The National Catholic Bioethics Center has published the opposing viewpoints of two experts on the subject:


According to Stephen Napier, Ph.D., the document does allow for embryo adoption:


[quote]


[indent] In Section 19, DP says the following:

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 "[i]prenatal adoption[/i]". This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. (n. 19). [/indent] Some have taken this note to reject embryo adoption. I do not think that is correct.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says, "The document raises cautions or problems about these new issues but does not formally make a definitive judgment against them." Also, the current president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, has said that the issue of embryo adoption was still an open question. If the USCCB and the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life got the interpretation wrong, the Vatican would have corrected them publicly. But there has not been any correction; consequently, the question on embryo adoption remains open.

Embryo adoption is clearly an act by which a young human being is saved. The fact that the woman must gestate the child in order to save the child does not change the moral quality of the action. Childhood adoption, after all, is not only permissible but is encouraged by the Church. Adopting a child that happens to be younger, and thus requires implantation in a mother's womb, means only that the woman must sacrifice more, thus growing in charity. But it also means that the woman can form a greater bond with the child.

Those who say that embryo adoption violates the conjugal act or that it achieves procreation apart from the marital union misunderstand the obvious fact that the child already exists! The child has already been procreated. He or she awaits a loving couple to save him or her.

It is true that the Church says that the child has a right to be gestated by his or her [i]own [/i]parents. But who violates that right? Clearly, the parents who went through IVF, and abandoned him or her to life in a freezer. In fact, the embryo-adopting couple cannot violate this right. The right to be gestated by one's own parents places duties [i]on one's own parents[/i], and no other.

Adopting an embryo is a way to love a child in a very vulnerable state. Additionally, it gives witness to the inherent dignity of all human beings no matter how small.[/quote]




According to John M. Haas, Ph.D., however, the answer is [i]NO, [/i]it does [i]not[/i] allow for embryo adoption:


[quote]


[indent] DP states in Section 19:

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a [i]treatment for infertility[/i] is not ethically 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. [/indent] The Holy See acknowledges the good motivation of those proposing pre-natal adoption of frozen embryos but states that not even an infertile couple may have them implanted for the various reasons already stated: that in vitro fertilization, artificial heterologous procreation and surrogate mothering (a woman not the mother the child "renting" out her womb for gestation) are wrong. The "problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above" are fundamentally the fact that embryos are manipulated and subjected to the decisions and actions of others that do not respect the inviolability of their personhood.

First of all, some frozen embryos will be chosen to live while others will be allowed to die. What will be the criteria used as to which will live and which will die? Would just boy embryos be chosen, or just Asian or Caucasians ones? These are arbitrary criteria used to decide who will have a chance at life and who will not.

Second, the "thawing" process itself will result in the deaths of some embryos. And then, after they have been thawed, the surviving embryos will be judged as to which will have the greatest chance of survival. Again, arbitrary judgments will be made as to which will be given a chance to live and which not. And how are the ones not chosen for implantation discarded?

Third, single women have advanced the same arguments for rescuing the embryos by offering their bodies to gestate them even though they do not have husbands. This would deny the child the good of an integral family.

Finally, husbands and wives give the procreative powers of their bodies to one another as a gift to be open to the engendering of new life between them. As St. Paul said, "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but to his wife." To place someone else's child into the body of the wife would violate the integrity of the marital union unique to that husband and wife.

As regrettable as it is, as DP says, " it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent [i]a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved[/i]." [/quote]

[kafka]

It is an open question (i.e. a question not definitively answered by the Magisterium). Some interpret Dignitas Personae narrowly and without charity and not in light of the entire Catholic Faith.

But I know for certain and will prove in my articles drawing from the moral teachings of the Magisterium, and the deeds of God in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that the moral object of implanting an embryo is in itself good. Then the morality of the overall act falls to the intention and circumstances. The circumstances of an adoption is what poses the problems as I will also explain, all the good consequences have to outweigh the bad. The circumstance has to be good. After I finish the series of articles focusing on the moral object of the act, I will turn to an evaluation of circumstances drawing from theologians, research, statistics and so on. Work on the circumstances has already been done by others. But first the moral object seems to be causing confusion among some of the faithful.

"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 the marital covenant for reproduction. The document raises cautions or problems about these new issues but does not formally make a definitive judgment against them." USCCB Q and A on Dignitas Personae

[kafka]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1299861401' post='2220105']
According to John M. Haas, Ph.D., however, the answer is [i]NO, [/i]it does [i]not[/i] allow for embryo adoption:
[/quote]
I will make a reply to his arguments tonight or tommorrow. Probably just in this thread for now, instead of the blog.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299869984' post='2220152']
It is an open question (i.e. a question not definitively answered by the Magisterium). Some interpret Dignitas Personae narrowly and without charity and not in light of the entire Catholic Faith.

But I know for certain and will prove in my articles drawing from the moral teachings of the Magisterium, and the deeds of God in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that the moral object of implanting an embryo is in itself good. [/quote]


How can you be certain when experts do not?

[kafka]

read the post below. I double posted.

Edited March 12, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1299861401' post='2220105']
According to John M. Haas, Ph.D., however, the answer is [i]NO, [/i]it does [i]not[/i] allow for embryo adoption:
[/quote]
the doctor's arguments are italicized followed by my refutations:

[i]First of all, some frozen embryos will be chosen to live while others will be allowed to die. What will be the criteria used as to which will live and which will die? Would just boy embryos be chosen, or just Asian or Caucasians ones? These are arbitrary criteria used to decide who will have a chance at life and who will not. [/i]

Ideally artificial procreation would come to an end and all of them would be adopted, however we do not live in an ideal world. One being chosen while others are not chosen in one particular circumanstance does not violate the inalienable rights of the rest of the group (which are already violated). In fact one being adopted would help the rest of the group since it would increase the probablity of the rest being adopted. In the past was it immoral that one slave be freed while the rest were not or should it all slaves remain captive until lawmakers finally decide that all slaves are free?

There are an estimated ten million frozen embryos, should we wait until we have found ten million adoptive mothers while frozen embryos continue to be murdered, before one of them gets a chance at gestation? And in the meantime more and more human persons are artificially procreated with no one to witness against them? If a husband and wife adopt an embryo they must avoid scandal by speaking out against artificial procreation and their adoption would in fact be a living witness against the people who are practicing these methods.

The argument above is altogether unreasonable, and not grounded in love of God and neighbor.

A fair way to decide who gets a chance at gestation would be to cast lots leaving the decision up to Providence. Or perhaps the one's who have been frozen for a longer period of time get priority over the ones who have been frozen for a shorter period of time. Both of these would not be arbitrary. But even if neither of these ways are practiced by the clinics who offer the adoptions, a husband and wife may still make a moral choice in a good circumstance with good intentions.

[i]Second, the "thawing" process itself will result in the deaths of some embryos. And then, after they have been thawed, the surviving embryos will be judged as to which will have the greatest chance of survival. Again, arbitrary judgments will be made as to which will be given a chance to live and which not. And how are the ones not chosen for implantation discarded? [/i]

The "thawing" process is not intrinsically evil. The moral object of the concrete act of thawing is to prepare the very young human persons for the commencement of gestation, which is a good. If one tragically happens to die in the process this would be a bad consequence of the good concrete act which must be weighed with the good consequences which is of course a chance at life. But if no embryos are thawed then they will certainly die (or be murdered) eventually, so the good consequence of preparing one for a commencement of gestation outweighs the bad consequence of a potential death in the thawing. And not all of them die in the thawing if they were properly frozen (please God).

If embryos cannot be thawed apart from others then multiple adoptions could be scheduled where all the projected embryos are covered for adoption all at once, so none are discarded (which would be murder). That way there are no arbitrary judgements to be made.

And a husband and wife who are adopting cannot agree to formally cooperate with embryo reduction in any case so for the overall act to be moral this evil consequence in the circumstances of embryo reduction cannot be chosen. They would have to find out beforehand.

But if enough people repent there are good creative solutions to solving problems.

[i]Third, single women have advanced the same arguments for rescuing the embryos by offering their bodies to gestate them even though they do not have husbands. This would deny the child the good of an integral family. [/i]

Agreed. However a husband and wife may still morally adopt a child with a good intention and in a good circumstance. The circumstance is dire for these helpless innocents. One cannot wait for the perfect laws to be formulated in order to act.

[i]Finally, husbands and wives give the procreative powers of their bodies to one another as a gift to be open to the engendering of new life between them. As St. Paul said, "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but to his wife." To place someone else's child into the body of the wife would violate the integrity of the marital union unique to that husband and wife. [/i]

The direct and deliberate commencement of gestation is a good moral object in and of itself. It is a gestative act. It is not a sexual act. A gestative act is not unitive, marital, procreative. Once the third and final object of the moral sexual act, i.e. procreative, is attained, the act is consumed and terminates. Moral objects do not keep on going. Once the arrow hits the targets it stops.

One act does not inherently order a subsequent act in a set of acts or ever. Eact act has its own intention, moral object and circumstance without exception. If one act could inherently order a subsequenct act in a set of acts then one could justify evil acts with good acts in a set of acts which is absurd. Example: The waging of a just war, and many moral acts of destroying military targets (with good intention and good circumstances) does not justify a subsequent evil act of destroying an innocent population. Nor does a moral sexual act inherently order a subsequent unnatural sexual act for any good end whatsover without exception. Each overall act has its own intention, moral object and circumstances without exception. And the good and evil of each overall act is determined by these three fonts without exception (according the teaching of the Magisterium)

And the Father sent the Son who assumed a human nature created by the Spirit in the womb of the [b]Virgin[/b] Mary. Emphasis on Virgin. The Son incarnated himself in the womb of Mary. He implanted himself in a Virgin. The Son of God did not properly belong to the Virgin Mary. This was certainly not an immoral act done by God.

Edited March 12, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299899929' post='2220258']

[i]Second, the "thawing" process itself will result in the deaths of some embryos. And then, after they have been thawed, the surviving embryos will be judged as to which will have the greatest chance of survival. Again, arbitrary judgments will be made as to which will be given a chance to live and which not. And how are the ones not chosen for implantation discarded? [/i]

The "thawing" process is not intrinsically evil. The moral object of the concrete act of thawing is to prepare the very young human persons for the commencement of gestation, which is a good. If one tragically happens to die in the process this would be a bad consequence of the good concrete act which must be weighed with the good consequences which is of course a chance at life. But if no embryos are thawed then they will certainly die (or be murdered) eventually, so the good consequence of preparing one for a commencement of gestation outweighs the bad consequence of a potential death in the thawing. And not all of them die in the thawing if they were properly frozen (please God).

[b]If embryos cannot be thawed apart from others then multiple adoptions could be scheduled where all the projected embryos are covered for adoption all at once, so none are discarded (which would be murder). That way there are no arbitrary judgements to be made.

And a husband and wife who are adopting cannot agree to formally cooperate with embryo reduction in any case so for the overall act to be moral this evil consequence in the circumstances of embryo reduction cannot be chosen. They would have to find out beforehand. [/b]

But if enough people repent there are creative solutions to solving problems.
[/quote]
I just added/edited the bold in the above. This is an important aspect when evaluating the circumstances of the overall act. The third font of morality. There can be no formal cooperation with artificial procreative practices before, during or after the implantation in the circumstances of an adoption/implantation. If there is a foreseen embryo reduction, the couple would not be able to adopt in that circumstance.

Or there could be creative solutions like a multiple adoptions performed at once so all the thawed embryos are covered in one situation. If enough people repent, and goodness starts to take hold again good ideas are able to be applied.

Edited March 12, 2011 by kafka