A reader writes:
The last number I read put the count of unused frozen embryos in the US at 400,000.
I couldn’t tell you if that number is correct or not, but it’s certainly huge–whatever the correct number is.
I find that hideously disgusting and wonder if we have ever been so barbaric as we are now, allowing life to become a frozen commodity.
I don’t know who you mean by "we," but the human race as a whole has been equally or more barbaric than we are now–we simply haven’t had the tech to do this particular barbaric thing before.
If by some miracle our sick society decided to change it’s ways and respect life, what would be the right thing to do with all these embryos? Does the Church has a position on this?
No. The Magisterium seems to be sitting back and letting moral theologians kick this question around for a while. It’ll probably weigh in on it eventually–perhaps during the pontificate of B16.
I have heard news stories about women volunteering themselves to take these babies to term so that they are not just destroyed. I can’t see anything wrong with this and actually find it to be a very noble gesture.
Me, too.
Would it be wrong to just let them die?
Good question.
Should volunteers be requested to take the babies to term?
Another good question.
What if a couple has 14 embryos in a freezer and suddenly realizes what they did was wrong? To make it right, should they then try to bring all the babies to term.
Okay, we’re getting good question overload here.
These are just a few questions that came to mind as I was reading various stories. If you have any insight, could you please blog it?
I’ll tell you what I can. Here is a plausible order of solutions to the problem:
- The couple that has created the embryos does its best to implant and bring to term these embryos. This means implanting them in a way that will maximize the chance of their surviving, so not all at once if they have 14 in cryonic suspension. Of course, doing this is expensive, and the couple may hit a limit to the number they can do before the children’s "shelf-life" is gone and they die on their own. Thus . . .
- For those children that can’t be raised by their own parents, allowing them to implant in the wombs of volunteer save-a-baby mothers. This also won’t solve the whole problem though, so . . .
- Develop artificial wombs and allow the children to develop in them. This also will be unable to fully solve the problem so . . .
- Baptize the embryos, knowing that the rapid thawing will result in their deaths. This solution is unlikely to be applied in very many cases, though, so . . .
- Allow the children to die (either frozen or upon taking them out of cold storage) and entrust them to God’s mercy.
Now, if no other solution is morally legitimate, then option #5 is morally licit. The question is: Are any of the other solutions morally licit?
While it is certainly wrong for the parents to have created the children in the manner they did, once the children are created it seems quite intutitive to me that it would be morally licit for them to be implanted in their own mother’s womb and brought to term. Thus it strikes me that solution #1 is also morally licit. It seems to be the best way to repair the situation, and I suspect most moral theologians would agree with me on this point.
Solution #2 is where known disagreement comes in. Many moral theologians apparently feel that allowing a baby to incubate in the womb of another woman is Just Wrong even if it means that the alternative for the child is Death.
Personally, I don’t see that. I think that the value of human life is such that, once the life is created, the priority of saving it is such that it would allow implantation in a second womb if this were the only way to do it.
I know that surrogate motherhood, as the institution has evolved in our society, is Very Evil, but it seems to me that we’re talking about something very different here. Surrogate motherhood is conceived of as a way for infertile couples to have kids through a rent-a-womb system. That’s not what’s being proposed in this case.
What we’re talking about here is Saving A Kid’s Life, and that’s a very different thing. It’s one thing to agree to serve as a surrogate mother for a child that isn’t even in existence yet. It’s another to offer to serve as a surrogate mother in order to save the life of a child who can’t (for whatever reason) live in his own mother’s womb.
I’ve heard arguments in this regard about babies having a right to being carried in their own mothers’ wombs, but it seems to me that these are better directed to surrogate motherhood situations than to life-saving situations. It seems to me that the proposed right is one that would operate in a non-absolute fashion. For example, "Yes, the child has a right to be carried to term in his own mother’s womb–unless he already exists and the alternatives are death or temporary residence in another womb."
I understand more clearly the idea that the child has an absolute right to being conceived of his married biological parents in a normal sexual act, but it seems that the incubation stage is not that analogous to conception.
The definitive step in the child’s development–its conception and thus its creation–has already taken place. Incubation in a womb may provide it with nutrition, hydration, oxygen, shelter, and even hormonal interaction, but it does not provide anything definitive of its existence. Temporary residence in another womb thus seems to me more analogous to having a wet nurse after birth (which experience also provides nutrition, hydration, and hormonal interaction) or use of an incubator (providing shelter) or use of a respirator (providing oxygen) or use of all three (thus providing all of these benefits)–than it seems analogous to conception.
Thus–under normal conditions–one would not want to force a wet nurse, an incubator, and a respirator on a child, but if the alternative to these is death then they are morally licit.
I rather suspect many children faced with the alternative of another womb or death would also (upon reaching the age of reason) say that they would prefer the former, that it would not be a violation of their rights, and that denying them this without reason could be viewed as a violation of their right to life.
So I tend to view option #2 as morally licit.
The same goes for option #3. Given what I have just sketched out about providing nutrition, hydration, oxygen, homonal interaction, and shelter through artificial means, I don’t see why a womb has to be organic rather than artificial for it to be morally licit.
Babies are often put into incubator/respirator/artificial-nutrition-and-hydration contraptions for life-saving purposes and it’s regarded as totally morally licit. If this can happen after birth, I don’t see why it can’t happen before birth.
As meaningful as birth is as a human moment for the parents, it doesn’t
seem to be a moral imperative that children detach from the mother by
natural processes only. Indeed, to save their lives preemies are often taken from the womb by cesarean section and placed in such devices and nobody say boo about it morally.
So–at this point in my understanding–I don’t personally see why a life-saving incubator can’t be customized to serve the needs of progressively younger and younger children who can’t survive on their own yet. If it means filling it with warm fluid, fine. If it means allowing the baby to eat and respirate through the placenta rather than by his mouth and nose, fine.
All of this is with the goal of saving the lives of children who already exist, not allowing people to create new kids for purposes of putting in such wombs. Abstracting from the frozen embryo problem, why can’t we develop such
incubators for the children of women about to miscarry at 14 weeks? Why
would the kid have to be 28 weeks old before such an incubator becomes
morally licit? Where do you draw the line? And once the tech exists to save the lives of kids who will otherwise miscarry, why can’t it be used to save the lives of kids who will otherwise die in cold storage?
So it seems to me that option #3 is also morally licit given what I can tell at present.
That leaves us with option #4, which involved baptizing the kids, even knowing that they will die in the process.
In this case the death is not either the goal or a mean toward a goal.
Thus the law of double-effect applies if there is a proportionate
reason. One could certainly argue that giving the children the certainty of eternal life is
proportionate to the shortening of lifespan that would otherwise occur, especially since the alternative would be letting them thaw without baptism and die or simply go "stale" and die in cold storage.
So: There are no firm answers on any of these things, there’s rather a lot of disagreement on all of the above, and we’ll have to wait for the Magisterium to weigh in on these questions, but I hope the above discussion provides some food for thought.
The first statement still treats human life as a commodity, and I’m not sure that moral theologians will subscribe to that premise. Obviously, the real problem is the first sin in this case. That is creating the embryos outside of the marital act.
Fr. Tad of the National Catholic Bioethics Center is doing research in this area. If I understand correctly, he lies more in the statement 5 category.
The definitive step in the child’s development–its conception and thus its creation–has already taken place. Incubation in a womb may provide it with nutrition, hydration, oxygen, shelter, and even hormonal interaction, but it does not provide anything definitive of its existence. Temporary residence in another womb thus seems to me more analogous to having a wet nurse after birth (which experience also provides nutrition, hydration, and hormonal interaction) or use of an incubator (providing shelter) or use of a respirator (providing oxygen) or use of all three (thus providing all of these benefits)–than it seems analogous to conception.
With all due respect, although your intention of saving a life is a noble one, I strongly disagree that proposal #2 is a licit option. You are separating conception and gestation as two distinct elements in nature. But they are meant to go hand-in-hand–this is very obvious and be careful not to lose sight of it and let technology cloud judgment. Technology shouldn’t be able to change this view of nature now–it should never be able to change our view of natural law, no matter how noble the intention might seem. Remember, it’s the people who treat conception and gestation as separate elements who are responsible for this mess to begin with. We must not think like them in order to solve this problem.
There is no analogy. A woman’s womb has the purpose of bringing forth life that was conceived with her husband in a morally licit, marital act. These events were never meant to be separated into discrete chunks. In my view, surrogate mothers at this stage, even with a noble intention, would be breaking natural law, and two wrongs don’t make a right. They are taking the dignity out of their own bodies that God explicitly demands of them, in reducing themselves to an artificial, albeit organic, incubator.
Saving a premature infant through technology and machines is licit; reducing a live woman to the same level as an artificial machine is not–yes, even when we’re talking about saving lives; sad as it is, emotion and concepts of “fair” and “not fair” must be put aside.
A woman’s body was never designed to be an artificial (sic) incubator–yes, her womb would be an artificial one albeit an organic womb. This would be counter to the dignity of a person’s body and the natural course of events in which an embryo is meant to be gestated, whereas a truly artificial, non-organic womb or incubator would not be undermining the dignity of the human body and would be morally licit.
I see two morally licit answers: Develop an artificial womb (and likely consider that it’s an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive–not required but licit if it meets the criteria in a particular case for being so), or, not choosing what definitely could be considered “extraordinary means” and baptizing the young ones and handing them over to the mercy of God.
I rather suspect many children faced with the alternative of another womb or death would also (upon reaching the age of reason) say that they would prefer the former, that it would not be a violation of their rights, and that denying them this without reason could be viewed as a violation of their right to life.
We don’t know what they would choose and I’m not sure it’s relevant. You could also look at it this way, whether it’s relevant or not: It’s all but guaranteed that a baptized infant will find favor in God’s mercy, whereas a large chunk of people who do have the privilege of being born waste their lives on the way to Hell. There’s no use in bringing up irrelevant things, because this can go back and forth forever distracting us from the real issue. And please be careful about “denying them without reason could be viewed as a violation of their right to life”. It should go without saying, that we cannot get a step closer to women who, for good, reasonable, moral objections disagree with option #2 (I mean in their understanding of what God would want, not selfish reasons) being compelled to become surrogate mothers lest they incur guilt. The focus needs to be on what is right. These days we tend to lose focus by always putting children first–it’s become a cultural trend to cry “What about the children”. This too can actually cloud judgment. These may be one of those instances where babies (of course through no fault of their own) have to take a back seat to God’s will. I’m not saying it’s not sad. I’m saying it’s a tough decision and effort has to be made to muddle through and consider every aspect, not just doing everything that technology makes possible in order to save lives. I say this as someone who was devastated by a very early miscarriage at a point in time when most people don’t even know they are pregnant, so yes, I do take these things just as seriously as anyone else.
No disrespect meant in my disagreement. Thanks for reading.
You bring up some interesting points. It’s most unfotunate to have to have this discussion to begin with.
I agree with you… “Babies are often put into incubator/respirator/artificial-nutrition-and-hydration contraptions for life-saving purposes … I don’t see why it can’t happen before birth.”
After all God knows us even before we are born, so aren’t we alive from conception?
Given that the embryos are _already_ outside their mother’s womb and have already suffered this, I think really really early adoption (with the new mother housing the child in her womb instead of a room) is definitely the better option. Just standing by and letting people die of exposure doesn’t sound like a good option at all. We are Roman Catholics, not Romans, for goodness’ sake.
Searching for more Catholic precedents….
Okay. Obviously a child has a right to be nursed by his own mother. But St. Ailbe was famously suckled by a dog when he was abandoned, much as Romulus and Remus were suckled by wolves. Less legendarily, milk from non-human sources is still regarded as proper baby food, if not quite as good food as mother’s milk. But that wasn’t the only solution if the mother couldn’t provide enough milk; you could also get another woman to nurse the child for you. I know this isn’t done often thess days (fewer pregnant nursing ladies around), but being a nurse was not an unhonorable position, nor one disapproved of by the Church. In Irish law, IIRC, one had a relationship not only with one’s nurse but one’s nurse’s children; they were your milk brothers.
So it would be a bit messy — and definitely not the desired situation — but I don’t think it would be actively immoral. “Blessed be the womb that bore you and the breasts that gave suck.” (Heh.)
Artificial wombs, on the other hand, are the original BIG HUGE BAG OF TROUBLE. People wouldn’t use them only for the intended reason, and you know it and I know it. Once again I must mention Lois McMaster Bujold, who posits a future where artificial wombs (“uterine replicators”) are extremely common and women seldom bear their own children. Sometimes they are used for good; the medical applications are great. The replicators are also used for some incredibly nasty purposes, however, by nasty businessmen like the ones on Jackson’s Hole. Pretty much every book in her Vorkosigan series talks about replicators, but Ethan of Athos is the one with the biggest discussion. On Ethan’s planet, uterine replicators enable a world without women (who the Founders saw as evil) but with plenty of boy children.
Good points Maureen, but–a breast is not a sexual organ. It can be made to lactate by very natural means without a marital act and pregnancy taking place. I don’t see the glands and the sexual organ as analogous and I still think it’s dangerous to take the same road as the wrong-doers by separating marital acts with the natural course of gestation. I also feel strongly that surrogacy only goes further to damage the dignity of the human body–only in reverse. I see it as a case of the tried and true “the end doesn’t justify the means” and “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
I have to agree with Maureen. While an artificial womb would seem to be beneficial for this dilemma, It would open a Pandora’s box of trouble. Homosexual and lesbian “parents” would use this technology as well as infertile couples.
I have to agree with Maureen. While an artificial womb would seem to be beneficial for this dilemma, It would open a Pandora’s box of trouble. Homosexual and lesbian “parents” would use this technology as well as infertile couples.
Then I respectfully submit that you have to make up your minds — is saving lives really the most important goal or isn’t it? It seems to be what’s most important to you if we use a woman’s body to do it despite real concerns about the dignity of the human body. It takes a step back in its importance when we’re offered another alternative which can be without a doubt licitly used, regardless of the fact that others will misuse the technology. I sincerely apologize but the priority shift doesn’t make sense to me. 🙁
People misuse technology all of the time. That is nothing new. It doesn’t mean we still don’t use the same technologies for good and condone them, or that we consider such technologies illicit in themselves.
Jimmy,
A mere stylistic quibble about your writing. When you capitalize Very Evil, and Saving A Kid’s Life, it can appear to some readers that you are turning on sarcasm, which disttracts from your point. I think you should use italics as you did elsewhere in this post for emphasis.
Josh
I don’t know the “shelf life” of a frozen embryo, but I would assume that the focus should be on ways to extend the shelf life, if one exists. Even if there is a shelf life to the embryos due to the freezing, the biological organism tears apart, there might still be a precedent for keeping them frozen. Medical technology 1000 years from now could repair the embryos
I have heard others say that the Church’s stand on the frozen embryos creates interesting parallels to a possible theological acceptance of cryonics. Yes, this is when the heads and bodies of dead people are on ice which you may have heard of.
Step back for a second and compare a dead embryo on ice with people who are dead and on ice in some “life-extension” lab.
^^ The previous post was mine. I’d like to add to it.
My concern is God’s will, not just saving lives. As much as being a hero and saving some children with my womb might seem noble, I will not do it as long as I can’t be dissuaded from the fact that I really believe that it’s not what God wants. As I said, the womb and the breast are not analogous, (and–a wolf and a human female are certainly not analogous) and there are other potential evils in the surrogacy scenario that demand due attention.
If it is true that the negatives regarding artificial wombs discount them as a licit means, then I’ll understand and accept that. For now, that’s still up in the air with me and I do see Maureen’s point.
So the only sure solution as I see it now, is to baptize them and leave them to the mercy of God. Do not let yourselves fall into despair at this notion. The evil has already been done in these cases, if you take my perspective. Do not ever, ever underestimate God’s mercy. It’s the theme of St. Faustina’s life and mission and I strongly recommend that you read her diary. This is what I want to write about, mainly. You cannot comprehend this mercy.
The evil has already been done in the test tube. There actually is no need to scramble to rectify it through questionable means which we can debate about till the end of time. At the very least, for now, if you want a quick answer, trust in God is the answer. Not that we shouldn’t keep trying to figure out His will, but don’t expect a teaching on this very, very soon, and be patient, and reflect on everything. Don’t let the anger at what has already been done cloud your judgment.
I like the points made here. I’ve tracked some of this debate in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and this article has helped me feel out the issues more.
Personally, this is how I see things thus far: the Church opposes the destruction of embryos, even those created in vitro, for any purpose, as per its opposition to abortion. This is a central part of the embryonic stem cell debate, or the “clone and kill” or “therapeutic cloning” proposals floating out there. Sure, the embryo was conceived in an artificial environment, but being conceived in vitro is not the embryo’s fault anymore than an embryo conceived via rape (which while mechanically “natural”, is a mortal sin). As I understand it, no matter what happened in the process of conception, the life generated from conception is in the image of God, and the means of effecting that conception do not impinge on that.
Fears about whether we are doing something unnatural by giving these embryos a shot via surrogate pregnancy strikes me as being similar to the queasiness that kept the Levite and the rabbi from helping the dying Jew in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
If someone could better explain their qualms about permitting a surrogate pregnancy to help an abandoned embryo, I’d be much obliged, such as the Lurker, because I cannot get past that Good Samaritan objection, and I do know that very earnest and thoughtful Christians (such as other commenters on this blog) do oppose surrogate pregnancies even in the case of embryonic rescue. I would like to understand their perspective better.
I do oppose surrogate pregnancies in any other case, but in this case where the Church’s teaching is not defined, I think it may be permissible. (Heck, killing may be justified in self-defense or in just wars; could not this be the exception for artificially implanting an embryo?)
The one objection that I can hold to embryo rescue is that well-meaning Christians become part of the unjust system that created IVF clinics in the first place. If couples feel better about having spare embryos “since other people [e.g., Catholics and Evangelicals] will take them”, then we’ve become part of the problem, not the solution. It may be something like how well-meaning people continue to buy slaves in Sudan–yes, you give the person you bought his freedom, but you’re feeding the animal that kidnapped them in the first place.
BTW, good point on artificial wombs–they will probably have that effect on human dignity in the future.
The right to life precedes, and therefore supercedes, other rights. Normally, of course, a woman should not be carrying the embryo of another woman around in her womb, but this is not a normal situation. I don’t see why this life-saving “early adoption” would not be morally licit. It is a far better scenario for the infant than an artificial womb. Among other things, the gestational period would be a time of strong emotional bonding for the adoptive mother.
The life of the fetus in the womb is very complex. There are interactions with the mother through hormones and body chemistry that are so subtle I doubt they could be approximated artificially any time in the near future. This pre-natal history can also influence how we develop, even in terms of character. It is part of the stamp of humanity that we receive from our parents (normally).
Besides, if I found out I was hatched in an artificial womb/incubator thingy I think I would be pretty creeped-out. Can you imagine if you were a teenager when you found out? Life is tough enough at that age as it is. Still, an artificial womb would be better than death.
Something about #4 doesn’t sit right with me. Just intuitively. We should do all we can to preserve life and entrust them to God’s care. Better to have them perish as a result of heroic attempts to save them than to basically kill them with holy water. Ewww.
This is really good conversation everyone. I wish those who see the Catholic Church as a “black and white” institution that doesn’t allow any discussion, could see these types of discussion without being colored by their dislike of us.
Jimmy, I agreed with you up until the artificial womb (#3) part. Are there any moral guidelines regarding a medium that in and of itself is benign but the vast majority of its use is sinful? Doesn’t it become an occasion for sin even though it isn’t of its own right sinful and therefore to be avoided? That’s what I think would be the result of the artificial womb and not just because of homosexuals but all people who are trying to bring a child into the world and can not do so naturally. I mean, isn’t the reason we have all of these frozen children because of this desire? So the way I see it, creating this technology could save some children from death, but would likely over the long haul increase the number of morally illicit conceptions and possibly even increase the number that are frozen (as an artificial womb would likely not have the success rate of a natural one and so the doctors would take a ton of eggs to ensure they had enough to be successful in their task (which is the same reason they are taking too many now (the low success rate of implantations))).
What do you guys think of this angle? Jimmy?
The right to life precedes, and therefore supersedes, other rights.
God’s will supercedes anybody’s rights 🙂 When does a right become a right? That’s a question for another time.
Normally, of course, a woman should not be carrying the embryo of another woman around in her womb, but this is not a normal situation.
But surely you see how it’s more complicated than that. You can’t turn the sexual progression of events into discrete chunks because it’s convenient. You cannot say, “Sex, the womb, how children were supposed to be made and sustained for X months, health-willing” no longer have significance in natural law. To sustain preemie lives artificially is very different from turning a temple of the Holy Spirit into an artificial commodity.
I don’t see why this life-saving “early adoption” would not be morally licit.
In itself, it’s not. Adopt and baptize an embryo and trust in God’s mercy.
It is a far better scenario for the infant than an artificial womb. Among other things, the gestational period would be a time of strong emotional bonding for the adoptive mother.
That’s subjective thinking based on cultural sentiment. Assuming that this emotional-bonding mystical magic is the norm and the natural way of things is cultural, sentimental nonsense. Life is not a Disney movie where women are ideally thrilled at carrying a baby lest there is something seriously wrong with them. This is not a new thing since the 1960s, it’s always been so. You’re assuming that every married woman of God has a soft spot for babies and pregnancy and if they don’t, they’re an abberation of nature. Good parents? They can learn to be good parents, just as they can learn to be good spouses. That’s also following God’s will. With this natural bonding thing, you give women far too much credit in assuming it’s a natural magical power that all women have, and insult to them and how God made them if they happen to be people who have to work in order to accept the “joy” we assume for granted that they accept.
The life of the fetus in the womb is very complex.
It is; and pregnant mothers are also are complex.
There are interactions with the mother through hormones and body chemistry that are so subtle I doubt they could be approximated artificially any time in the near future.
Exactly — the “in the near future” part. Trust in God’s mercy, keep trying… But don’t pretend to understand women and the purpose of the womb so prematurely when there are other things to consider as well.
This pre-natal history can also influence how we develop, even in terms of character. It is part of the stamp of humanity that we receive from our parents (normally).
Besides, if I found out I was hatched in an artificial womb/incubator thingy I think I would be pretty creeped-out. Can you imagine if you were a teenager when you found out? Life is tough enough at that age as it is. Still, an artificial womb would be better than death.
But, an artificial womb and artificial conception would be *different* in that regard? They really aren’t. Let’s not get sentiment in the way.
Something about #4 doesn’t sit right with me. Just intuitively. We should do all we can to preserve life and entrust them to God’s care. Better to have them perish as a result of heroic attempts to save them than to basically kill them with holy water. Ewww.
Jerry,
I think you have to make the distinction between purposefully destroying an embryo to get rid of it and letting it die. The Church is definitely against destroying embryos in the way clinics discard them as extra waste but I think #4 & #5 are analgous to allowing death instead of using artificial means to prolong life.
If it is licit to use women as surrogates in order to save these lives there’s nothing to prevent it from being licit to use cows as surrogates in order to save these lives. It strikes me as clear that it would be wrong assuming it were possible to use cows to give birth to human beings and thus it can be concluded that it would also be wrong to use surrogate women in the same manner.
Just a few questions to throw out there:
What if the woman adopting the embryo is unmarried? Does the child’s right to life supersede her right to a father?
What if the woman adopting the embryo is involved in some sort of evil lesbian mockery of marriage?
To Lurker: I was reading your first post and am wondering if one wouldn’t have to conclude that caesarian section was against the natural law as well, based on your analysis.
If someone could better explain their qualms about permitting a surrogate pregnancy to help an abandoned embryo, I’d be much obliged, such as the Lurker, because I cannot get past that Good Samaritan objection, and I do know that very earnest and thoughtful Christians (such as other commenters on this blog) do oppose surrogate pregnancies even in the case of embryonic rescue. I would like to understand their perspective better.
Hiya, very poignant argument. What I would say is, that it goes against what I interpret Natural Law and God’s will based upon what I know about Natural Law to be. I can’t separate the marital act from gestation as the evil-doers do–which is exactly what they do when they make a baby in a test tube–in order to resolve the problem. I cannot accept reducing a sexual organ which is to be respected, to a mere artificiality (unlike the case with breasts and wet nurses–a breast need not need a pregnancy to induce milk and is not a sexual organ–read above for why they’re different).
For what it’s worth, I’m also struggling here. I have strong opinions about not jumping to answers too soon, but I see what others are getting at and am coming to a standstill sometimes. But I want to be wary–oh so very wary–before I make a definite answer. Calling a womb the same as a breast and treating them as one in the same, practicality-wise, has huge implications that might be counter to what God intends.
For now, my argument is trust in God’s mercy. He knows the anguish we experience in finding the truth and will not abandon those children.
In fact, St. Faustina’s confessor was going through a terrible trial. God showed him mercy and preserved his reward as if he had actually gone through the trial. Mercy is a mystery. Do not dismiss mercy as our “answer for now” and don’t think and react too hastily.
“If it is licit to use women as surrogates in order to save these lives there’s nothing to prevent it from being licit to use cows as surrogates in order to save these lives.”
No, I don’t think so, since a human womb is a natural environment for a human embryo, whereas a cow’s never is. Again, I’d consider this an exception to the rule about surrogacy–we do have exceptions against the commandment not to kill, and I don’t blame those exceptions for the fact that people kill each other for all sorts of reasons.
I do believe that we should try to preserve these lives in a very careful way–Lurker et al. are rightfully concerned about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. I do not think artificial wombs would be a good idea. Adoption of these embryos would not supercede Church teaching against a gay couple adopting the embryos, even supercede the Church’s preference that a married couple, as opposed to a single person, adopt them.
There’s been some discussion among British Catholics on this issue. See this brief piece for a sample:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/watt/watt_07embryoadoption.html
Here’s a link to another piece from the North American discussion:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/0809-96/1/1.html
To Lurker: I was reading your first post and am wondering if one wouldn’t have to conclude that caesarian section was against the natural law as well, based on your analysis.
Why would it be illicit based upon what I have said? Ideally procreation and gestation happen in a certain ordained sequence, but just like with any living person who needs medical help, we help a mother or a child in dire trouble with C-sections. That’s just using technology for good. It’s not making a human being into a technological commodity.
“No, I don’t think so, since a human womb is a natural environment for a human embryo, whereas a cow’s never is.”
It’s only the actual mother’s womb that is a natural environment for the gestation of the embryo. If an exception to this can be made for human wombs that aren’t the mother’s, then why can’t a similar exception be made for cow wombs that are equally not the mother’s?
“But surely you see how it’s more complicated than that. You can’t turn the sexual progression of events into discrete chunks because it’s convenient.”
The breaking of the “sexual progression of events” into discreet chunks has already taken place. The question now is what to do with the human embryo. I don’t think that saying “Oh, it’s all so complicated, just let them die…” is a solution.
I also disagree that the natural preference for the womb of the adoptive mother over one made of plastic is mere sentimental hogwash. At any rate, atificial wombs don’t exist and may not ever exist. All that can be meaningfully argued at the moment is whether it is better to let an embryo die than to let an adoptive mother carry him/her to term. You would have to present a strong argument to show that the life of the embryo comes in second to vague considerations of maternal dignity. Something stronger than “t’aint natural” at any rate. The whole situation starts out un-naturally.
Oh, and I don’t claim to understand women (trust me), but I do think we can, without too much intellectual hubris, take a pretty fair guess at the purpose of a womb.
I put God’s will first, not “human rights”. Not even babies’ rights. Please don’t mistake human dignity for human rights. We’re *supposed* to abide by our dignity because God created us in a certain way and it is good. Wanting to save lives doesn’t mean that when a dire situation comes around, that we dismiss the dignity God gave us and demands of us, and wants us to have–just to bring and ends to a means.
I mean nothing ill toward you 🙂 but I don’t think you fully understand the moral predicament. Please try reading the thread again slowly. Dismissing my point as something like feminism would be missing my point entirely, if that’s what you were hinting at 🙂 Not saying that you were doing that, but…. ahh… We must be above “what’s fair” and “what’s not fair” in order to ascertain God’s will. We have to come to logical conclusions based upon what we do know and put emotion and anger aside. We also have to have faith that we can and will find the real answers. Mere sentiment and intuition and prejudice about a gender just doesn’t cut it.
Anything else is a “red herring” 🙂
Perhaps it might be good to recall an analogous moral situation – the debate over whether or not stem cells from already-aborted children (ones obtained from abortion clinics, not cultivated just to be killed) could licitly be used. One argument ran that since the intrinsically evil act of abortion had already occurred and could not have been prevented, there was no moral problem in using the stem cells to benefit others, rather than letting the child’s death be in vain. In this way, some good would be brought out of this evil and unnatural situation, and lives could be saved. This argument was rejected, as it was determined that this would simply fuel the abortion trade, and would likely cause scandal to the faithful in the theological sense, i.e., blur the distinction so much that people’s moral outrage at both abortion and wrongful methods of stem cell harvesting would be blunted.
Now, I would argue, the same thing applies here. Some argue that good can be brought from an unnatural and intrinsically evil situation by embryo adoption, and that lives therefore can be saved. But at what cost to the common good? Would this not simply provide a “Catholic market” for IVF clinics? Can you imagine this ad in the National Catholic Register:
CATHOLIC WOMEN: HELP BUILD THE CULTURE OF LIFE!
We here at LifeSciences have many spare embryos waiting to be adopted by loving families. Don’t let the sins of the fathers be visited upon the sons. Make a stand for life!
Call the Catholic Services Division at 555-555-5555 and ask for Rachel.
Consider, more likely, the blurring in the minds of the already poorly-catechized of the world. If bearing someone else’s IVF child can be an act of virtue, how will that affect the perception of IVF and surrogacy in general? Many good Catholics I know have real trouble with the idea that even “normal” IVF is wrong – “But it’s new life!” they say. “Doesn’t God want us to be pro-life and pro-family?” Yes, of course, but in the proper way.
Finally (for those of you who have persevered this long), as Lurker points out, just because something sounds appealing does not mean that it is automagically right. A small lie to save Jews from death at the hands of the Nazis sounds right, but it is wrong. One cannot commit evil so that good may come of it. Now, whether or not this process of embryo surrogacy is evil is exactly what we are trying to determine, so I will not beg the question there, but let’s all please remember that just because we want to do something legitimately good does not mean that we can do it just any old way that seems mostly harmless to us.
Setting aside the various possible positions for a moment, I would like to point out that this discussion is revolving around the more fundamental question of how we should solve ethical questions. “Lurker” urges that we should take a natural law approach, based on the objective ordering we find in our bodies; most other posters are taking a proportionalist position, arguing either that the end justifies the means (“saving lives trumps everything”) or that the total moral evil of surrogate motherhood is less than the total moral evil of letting the babies die.
This is a huge difference in approach, much bigger than the debate about this particular issue. Unless we pay attention to it, we will all be talking past one another.
Jeremy,
I don’t think that the other posters are taking a proportionalist position. They believe that in this case, surrogate motherhood would NOT be evil at all, still knowing that it’s not the optimal way to bring a baby to term.
JJ,
Maybe I’m confused but I don’t think that the Church would consider telling a lie to save Jews from Nazis to be a sin. Just as stealing a loaf of bread to prevent you from starving (when there is no other way to get food) wouldn’t be considered a sin.
Thank you for the excellent post, Jimmy!!! I agree completely.
“Maybe I’m confused but I don’t think that the Church would consider telling a lie to save Jews from Nazis to be a sin. Just as stealing a loaf of bread to prevent you from starving (when there is no other way to get food) wouldn’t be considered a sin.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that lying is “intrinsically disordered” (1753) and is to be condemned “by its very nature” (2485) and says with respect specifically to lying and other intrinsically disordered behavior that “the end does not justify the means” (1753) and that a “good intention” does not make it right.
I’m a little late to this one, so probably nobody will read this – but one thing we should remember is that even in the Old Testament, surrogate mothers, by definition, bear a child *in order to give it to another woman who can’t*. That’s how surrogacy mostly works now. Embryo adoption I don’t think meets this criterion; the woman is bearing the baby not to give it away, or be paid for her effort, but to keep and raise it as her own. I don’t think this can be lumped in with surrogacy and condemned under that umbrella.
Here is the moral predicament:
You are looking at a tub of frozen embryos and they have been made your responsibility. You must decide what to do with them, keeping in mind that doing nothing will eventually result in their deaths. NOTHING that you decide to do at this point will fit neatly into some tidy category of natural law. Natural law instructs us to preserve life. Natural law also tells us to preserve the unity of the reproductive act.
Both courses of action in some way go against what we know of the natural law. Therefore, we must determine which of these two courses of action represents the more fundamental aspect of natural law. Allow the innocent to perish, or preserve the unity of the “act of marriage”. Is this too sentimental? I remain open to real argument either way.
I am more likely to be persuaded, at present, with practical arguments, like JJ’s pointing out that “Catholic surrogacy” will only encourage the fertility clinics to keep operating.
I think, anonymous poster, you will find that your commitment to discerning the will of God is by no means unique on this blog.
In consideration of Jimmy’s solution #2, please visit The Face of a “Surplus” Embryo at:
http://www.jjandtracy.com/
Link courtesy of http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
-CarlK
I can’t separate the marital act from gestation as the evil-doers do–which is exactly what they do when they make a baby in a test tube–in order to resolve the problem.
But that’s not “exactly” the problem with IVF. The problem with IVF is that it separates the marital act from conception (i.e., fertilization).
The Frozen Embryo Debate
This is a lengthy, but worthwhile argument about What To Do About Frozen Embryos.
Frankly, I haven’t made a decision on this yet. I think those who argue that embryo adoption is wrong have poor arguments, except for two.
While reading your thoughtful and stimulating discussion, I was reminded of the Church’s very clear teachings on end-of-life issues. Basic care and comfort (including food and water even if delivered by artificial means) are required. Extraordinary measures are not required, but may be employed. How does this relate to the question at hand?
1. The proper environment for development and life = basic care and comfort and is required even if provided by artificial means (therefore the artificial womb (and perhaps a human womb) is required to be provided if obtainable), OR
2. Placing a human in its embryonic phase into an alternative womb = extraordinary measures and is not required but may be done, OR
3. Is there another option (clearly my logic is rusty!)
Finally, these all presume that bringing a human into a more developed phase are equivalent to sustaining life, but they aren’t really the same, are they?
Thank you.
IVF Adoptions
What is the proximate primary end for an embryo? Birth. What is likely to happen to abandoned IVF embryos? They’re either discarded or used in experiments, i.e. killed. Does the Catholic Church approve of IVF? No (cf CCC 2377). Does the Catholic Chur…
Which is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of embryos to be killed or bypassing the sex act so that those embryos have a chance of being born? I say desparate times call for desparate measures. IVF should still be regarded as objectively wrong and no new embryos should be made, but Catholics should be permitted to adopt extras.
Every child that was conceived by rape or fornication was conceived during an a violation of sexual morality – an act of sin. Yet there is no moral quandry for any Catholic desiring to adopt such a child – or any for that matter. Adoption in no way validates the sinful act involved in the child’s conception. Why, then, is there any doubt regarding adoption of embryos? Is the failure rate a problem? If so, why? Would it not be better for some to survive than none?
Doing a report on this and what r we soposed to do.
No one gives a dam when women have there oeriods and throw away those eggs, of when men have wet dreams, why do people give a dam. Why dont we use them to save lives through stem cell reasearch. Thank you for your time
I agree with Maureen above about the Pandora’s box of artifial wombs- for all the good they could do here- I think they would only work further towards the dehumanization of reproduction and separation of sex from procreation between husband and wife.
Because we know darn well it won’t just be limited to this special case-
I’ve always had the feeling that unborn children and their mothers can somehow (maybe unconciously) communicate with each other while the unborn is in the womb, and this would further deprive the child of that.
xenical the
oakland implants dental
oakland implants dental