Adoption

[StColette]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1867983' date='May 15 2009, 12:54 PM']Back on topic: I don't see how the adoption of a frozen embryo is really any different in principle then the adoption of a post natal child. Maybe someone can explain?

Since Dignitas Personae doesn't [b]actually[/b] say why it's wrong and only says for reasons not dissimilar to those above. Really what does that mean?[/quote]

I think it is because it would be similar to surrogate motherhood or ivf, which the Church teaches against.

. IS "SURROGATE"* MOTHERHOOD MORALLY LICIT?

No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous 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 a pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html"]CDF - Donum Vitae[/url]

The only thing is in the case with the frozen embryos in question they would not be given up after pregnancy. Btw Donum Vitae is a great document if you haven't read it before.

[Slappo]

[quote name='StColette' post='1867998' date='May 15 2009, 09:22 AM']The only thing is in the case with the frozen embryos in question they would not be given up after pregnancy. Btw Donum Vitae is a great document if you haven't read it before.[/quote]

Intentionality is vastly different too. From what I know usually surrogate motherhood is agreed upon before the fertilization of the embryo. Therefore it is a preplanned unnatural fertilization whereas this has nothing to do with planning out an unnatural fertilization.

The intention is different too. One intends to carry a child to term (usually for money if I'm not mistaken) so that another couple can have it. This intends to save the life of the child which would otherwise die.

[CatherineM]

I think the Vatican was loath to approve adoption of embryos because it would open the doors to people wanting to push the envelop further. We recognize embryos as living humans, and would have liked to have reinforced that encouraging their adoption, but it would also unfortunately reinforce IVF as a necessary evil in the process. We are literally taking the line that saving these children's mortal lives isn't worth participating in a evil process that endangers the eternal lives of the adults involved.

The Vatican also knows that there is no legitimate reason to have so many frozen. Many European countries, which are much more liberal than the US when it comes to this stuff, don't have this large backlog of frozen embryos because they have limits on how many can be created, and they can only be implanted into the natural mother and it must be done within a reasonable amount of time.

[picchick]

You scared me...

[StColette]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1868017' date='May 15 2009, 02:19 PM']I think the Vatican was loath to approve adoption of embryos because it would open the doors to people wanting to push the envelop further. We recognize embryos as living humans, and would have liked to have reinforced that encouraging their adoption, but it would also unfortunately reinforce IVF as a necessary evil in the process. We are literally taking the line that saving these children's mortal lives isn't worth participating in a evil process that endangers the eternal lives of the adults involved.[/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1868006' date='May 15 2009, 01:43 PM']Intentionality is vastly different too. From what I know usually surrogate motherhood is agreed upon before the fertilization of the embryo. Therefore it is a preplanned unnatural fertilization whereas this has nothing to do with planning out an unnatural fertilization.

The intention is different too. One intends to carry a child to term (usually for money if I'm not mistaken) so that another couple can have it. This intends to save the life of the child which would otherwise die.[/quote]

I also included IVF. Allowing the adoption of embryos would open wide the issue of IVF. And as Catherine pointed out, the Church teaches against ivf. Good intention or not for wanting to carry these embryos to term so that they may live, it does not make IVF moral.

[Slappo]

[quote name='StColette' post='1868043' date='May 15 2009, 11:57 AM']I also included IVF. Allowing the adoption of embryos would open wide the issue of IVF. And as Catherine pointed out, the Church teaches against ivf. Good intention or not for wanting to carry these embryos to term so that they may live, it does not make IVF moral.[/quote]

Implanting of already frozen embryo's isn't IVF though. IVF has [b]already taken place[/b] by the time that you reach the point of frozen embryo's.

in vitro |in ˈvēˌtrō|
adjective & adverb Biology
(of processes or reactions) taking place in a test tube, culture dish, or elsewhere outside a living organism : [as adj. ] in vitro fertilization.

The sin of IVF has already taken place by the time that the implanting is happening within the woman. The question now is what to do with the results of the intrinsic evil of IVF.

[Slappo]

[quote name='StColette' post='1868059' date='May 15 2009, 12:26 PM']That's not the only problem with IVF, it's also the removal of the conjugal act from the equation if we are speaking about these already created embryos.

" The human person must be accepted in his parents' act of union and love; [b]the generation of a child must therefore be the fruit of that mutual giving (45) which is realized in the conjugal act [/b] wherein the spouses cooperate as servants and not as masters in the work of the Creator who is Love."[/quote]

Again, the generation of the child has already occurred. Therefore the stripping of the generation of the child from the conjugal act has already taken place. These sins have taken place already, now the question is what do we do with the [b]already IVF'ed generated outside of the conjugal act[/b] child.

EDIT: That is the conjugal act has already been removed from the equation. Also, with the definition of the conjugal act, any act of fornication or rape is not the conjugal act, and therefore any child generated from fornication or rape is not generated within the conjugal act.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Slappo

[StColette]

Forget it. I'm not in the mood today. DP makes it clear. That's enough for me.

[Slappo]

[quote name='StColette' post='1868066' date='May 15 2009, 12:36 PM']The problem with implanting already frozen embryo's isn't just how they were created it's how they are put in there. The child doesn't get there by means of the conjugal act. Removal of the conjugal act is another problem that the Church sees with achieving pregnancy through IVF. Donum Vitae makes this apparent.[/quote]

lol I think you deleted your post after I quoted it.

The definition of the conjugal act excludes fornication. The child has already gotten there in the sense that s/he is a child. When it comes to the implanting of the child within the woman, it is a matter of physics.

Edit: Also the advancement of technology to move an embryo from the fallopian tube into the uterus due to an eggtopic pregnancy would follow the same principles. The embryo did not get into the uterus by means of the conjugal act, but rather by means of surgery.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Slappo

[Slappo]

[quote name='StColette' post='1868066' date='May 15 2009, 12:36 PM']Forget it. I'm not in the mood today. DP makes it clear. That's enough for me.[/quote]

If anyone else could pick up where StColette left off I'd appreciate it.

I really don't think DP made it clear at all...

Sorry if I bothered you colette!

[StColette]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1868070' date='May 15 2009, 03:44 PM']If anyone else could pick up where StColette left off I'd appreciate it.

I really don't think DP made it clear at all...

Sorry if I bothered you colette![/quote]

Being pregnant, currently, and being in this debate is not a good mix. And we will leave it at that. CatherineM made a very valid point, but you have not addressed it. Her area of study is Moral Theology so she'll probably pick up where I left off.

[Slappo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1868017' date='May 15 2009, 11:19 AM']I think the Vatican was loath to approve adoption of embryos because it would open the doors to people wanting to push the envelop further. We recognize embryos as living humans, and would have liked to have reinforced that encouraging their adoption, but it would also unfortunately reinforce IVF as a necessary evil in the process. We are literally taking the line that saving these children's mortal lives isn't worth participating in a evil process that endangers the eternal lives of the adults involved.

The Vatican also knows that there is no legitimate reason to have so many frozen. Many European countries, which are much more liberal than the US when it comes to this stuff, don't have this large backlog of frozen embryos because they have limits on how many can be created, and they can only be implanted into the natural mother and it must be done within a reasonable amount of time.[/quote]

I definitely see the possibility of confusion of the morality of IVF with the Vatican allowing already frozen embryo's to be implanted in women, and the push to altogether ban IVF is very important as well. The question then comes to.. say all IVF stopped this very minute, what is to be done with the frozen ones? Throw them out? Murder. Let them unthaw to die naturally? Maybe. Implant them in women willing to adopt them? I don't see why not.

Although IVF is a necessary evil in the process of implanting these already frozen embryo's into a woman, it is an evil that has already occurred and is continued to be stressed as an evil. [b]The question at hand is the act of implanting frozen embryo's into a woman's body evil or not.[/b] The morality of anything that is done previous to this point is irrelevant because those evil's have already taken place and the movement of a frozen embryo into a uterus is a a separate moral act.

If we developed technology to be able to raise the embryo's from frozen embryo to postnatal child without the use of the uterus of a mother, would this be a moral evil?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1868076' date='May 15 2009, 02:56 PM']I definitely see the possibility of confusion of the morality of IVF with the Vatican allowing already frozen embryo's to be implanted in women, and the push to altogether ban IVF is very important as well. The question then comes to.. say all IVF stopped this very minute, what is to be done with the frozen ones? Throw them out? Murder. Let them unthaw to die naturally? Maybe. Implant them in women willing to adopt them? I don't see why not.

Although IVF is a necessary evil in the process of implanting these already frozen embryo's into a woman, it is an evil that has already occurred and is continued to be stressed as an evil. [b]The question at hand is the act of implanting frozen embryo's into a woman's body evil or not.[/b] The morality of anything that is done previous to this point is irrelevant because those evil's have already taken place and the movement of a frozen embryo into a uterus is a a separate moral act.

If we developed technology to be able to raise the embryo's from frozen embryo to postnatal child without the use of the uterus of a mother, would this be a moral evil?[/quote]

I'll take the baton. DP was eagerly awaited by folks like me. I was hoping for embryonic adoption. I have friends back in Florida who adopted two of their children this way. I've had to take a long hard look at what went into DP, and a lot of prayer as well. What we are dealing with here are humans who have been frozen. I think the stat is 50% die when thawed. I think is some regards, we have potentially murdered them already just by freezing them. We need to stop interfering with the natural process of reproduction. We use damaging chemicals to prevent conception. We butcher our bodies. We load ourselves up with hormones to produce abnormal amounts of eggs for the IVF process.

I didn't marry until I was 43, and had several miscarriages. Don't you think that we dealt with people suggesting IVF which would have been free to us? It wasn't tempting because we really aren't up to being the parents of an infant anyway. If we had been desperate to have a child though, it might have been really tempting. People also assumed I was on fertility drugs because I kept getting pregnant. We are dealing with such personal, core issues with DP.

Basically the Vatican is saying, if it isn't natural, no go, period. Most teachings dealing with morality and new science or medicine issues fall into authoritative doctrine. That means we are to follow the rules even if we don't agree with them. They are not definitive or infallible. The church recognizes with this stuff that things may change in the future, but for what we know, here and now, this is what it right. In 50 years with all the leftovers of birth control pills in the environment, maybe women will no longer be able to produce eggs on their own. If that happens, maybe the Vatican will look at defrosting the embryos to save the race, or maybe they will decide that it's just time for the end to come.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

[Slappo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1868280' date='May 15 2009, 04:50 PM']I'll take the baton. DP was eagerly awaited by folks like me. I was hoping for embryonic adoption. I have friends back in Florida who adopted two of their children this way. I've had to take a long hard look at what went into DP, and a lot of prayer as well. What we are dealing with here are humans who have been frozen. I think the stat is 50% die when thawed. I think is some regards, we have potentially murdered them already just by freezing them. We need to stop interfering with the natural process of reproduction. We use damaging chemicals to prevent conception. We butcher our bodies. We load ourselves up with hormones to produce abnormal amounts of eggs for the IVF process.

I didn't marry until I was 43, and had several miscarriages. Don't you think that we dealt with people suggesting IVF which would have been free to us? It wasn't tempting because we really aren't up to being the parents of an infant anyway. If we had been desperate to have a child though, it might have been really tempting. People also assumed I was on fertility drugs because I kept getting pregnant. We are dealing with such personal, core issues with DP.

Basically the Vatican is saying, if it isn't natural, no go, period. Most teachings dealing with morality and new science or medicine issues fall into authoritative doctrine. That means we are to follow the rules even if we don't agree with them. They are not definitive or infallible. The church recognizes with this stuff that things may change in the future, but for what we know, here and now, this is what it right. In 50 years with all the leftovers of birth control pills in the environment, maybe women will no longer be able to produce eggs on their own. If that happens, maybe the Vatican will look at defrosting the embryos to save the race, or maybe they will decide that it's just time for the end to come.

We have to draw the line somewhere.[/quote]

Thanks Catherine,
I should e-mail two of my old professors, one who ran my seminar and one who recently took the Bioethics chair at FUS.
My seminar professor seemed to think that DP's wording did not authoritatively prohibit adopting frozen embryo's .

I definitely see the complications in the situation, and I most definitely see the need to stop interfering with reproduction. As someone who hopes to be getting married soon, it's really sad to see how much marriage has been attacked as well as the natural process of procreation.

I assuredly submit to the Church's teaching, but I guess my confusion came with confusion in one of my classrooms.