My Article in today’s Headline Bistro.
In Part I of this series I laid out the broad scientific and theological issues inherent in the debate over embryo adoption, which is the legal adoption of leftover embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF), implanted in the adoptive mother’s womb, brought to term, and then raised by that adoptive couple as their own.
It is an issue that has riven the Catholic bioethical community. Whether or not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s instruction, Dignitas Personae (DP), has ended the debate depends on whom one asks. Pushing out into the deep from Part I of this series, I posit that much of the division around this issue arises from language in DP that is muddled regarding the science and human rights, and spilling over into the very essence of conjugal union.
Recently, Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro-Carabula, the outgoing interim President of Human Life International cited a debate between Professor Janet Smith (pro-embryo adoption), and Father Tad Pacholczyk (against embryo adoption). In his article, Msgr. Barreiro declares that the matter is closed, citing the language of the Church’s document, which states:
The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility 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.
It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption.” This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above (19).
Msgr. Barreiro editorializes:
So what this document is stating is that adoption in the womb presents similar problems to those that are found in artificial heterologous procreation and surrogate motherhood. The above-mentioned norms were issued by the CDF with the purpose of putting an end to the long debate between theologians on the question the permissibility of embryo adoption. So this document should put an end to these discussions stating the embryo adoption should not be done.
Msgr. then goes on to state:
Finally it should considered that this instruction’s doctrinal value is clearly described by Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Secretary of the CDF at the presentation of this document, stating that it participates in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter and as a consequence it should be received by the faithful with the religious assent of their spirit.
Respectfully, Msgr. Barreiro has oversimplified the matter and overlooked a few contrary voices among the bishops here in the U.S. and in Rome. DP was not a document crafted to address embryo adoption, but to deal with the broader issues surrounding reproductive technologies such as IVF. In that light, Archbishop Ferrer’s declaration of the document as binding on the faithful is binding on those matters in the document that are considered settled.
Embryo adoption is not one of those settled issues. Consider the words of Dr. Stephen Napier at the National Catholic Bioethics Center:
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.
So where is the language in DP that might leave the door ajar for the Congregation to revisit the issue, adding clarification? Consider:
…John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons” (19).
There seems to be no morally licit solution. Yet, at the same time, John Paul II recognized that these embryos remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons.
These are human beings, declared by the Congregation in its 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion to be presumed to possess a soul from the moment of fertilization and in need of safeguarding:
• “The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development” (6).
• “Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: ‘Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes’” (7).
• “From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. ‘The one who will be a man is already one’” (13).
• “This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul” (Footnote #19).
As no human person has the “right” to be submerged in liquid nitrogen and kept there until succumbing to freezer burn, there must be a moral solution that respects the rights of these babies to continue their development unmolested and nurtured, especially in light of God’s having created for them a soul.
There is, and it resides in the very aspect of conjugal union being appealed to as the impediment to embryo adoption. We’ll examine that argument in Part III.
I cannot accept that perpetual freezing or death is what’s best for these precious children. All embryos need a womb to grow, and it seems that fulfilling that need with the intent of raising that child cannot be a sin. I can see where the procedure may cause grave concerns–I have read that the woman adopting the baby is given birth control pills (which sounds like a horrible idea all around) to regulate her cycle, and I can understand misgivings about working with the industry that creates and destroys these children–it would be nice if there were separate embryo adoption clinics–but to just say that in the interest of morality, all of these children should die? No.
Jessi – I agree. Very well said. + Ann
Just a quick comment on the actual embryo transfer itself – some clinics put patients on birth control, some do not. Mine did not for our two transfers (first one resulted in a miscarriage, second resulted in our thirteen month old twins). While I do not know for sure, I’m guessing that some clinics will use BCP for patients who do not cycle regularly. For those who do cycle regularly, it is unnecessary. It is also possible to do a “natural” transfer in which minimal medication is used (like progesterone supplementation after the transfer).
A very delicate balance must be maintained when working with a fertility clinic for an embryo transfer of adopted embryos. We worked with Nightlight’s Christian Adoption’s Snowflake program and, thankfully, they helped us with our clinical negotiations.
Hi Andrea,
I’ve been thinking of you as I tackle this issue. How have you been?
Oh man… I’m still just as confused as ever. From what I gather, we should do whatever we can to save these already-existing, living humans. But there are the problems with embryo adoption mentioned above and also the question of potentially causing greater evil by apparently legitimizing IVF.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge on the subject. I’m hoping Part III will help me understand better…
Andrew,
These are very delicate issues to parse, theologically; in no small part because the language of science and the intersection of science and theology is somewhat muddled. Hang tight for part III. In the interim, visit Andrea’s site:
http://www.catholicembryoadoption.blogspot.com/
God Bless.
Thanks for the link. Checking it out now…
Congrats, Andrea! I’ll check out your site too.
Hi Gerry,
Life’s busy with twin toddlers to chase! One more month until my husband returns from his deployment. It’ll be so nice to replace skype with the real thing!
My blog is much more developed in my head than in real life. Funny how life works that way. I have about four partially written entries on my home computer, which doesn’t do me much good now that I’m visiting my parents.
In the meanwhile, if any of you have any specific questions about embryo adoption or an embryo transfer, fire away!
I’m dying for part 3 because I’m still not sure how you get get away with separating the marital act from procreation….?
Since the human beings – the frozen embryos – are already created and living, it seems to me that the adoptive parents would not be the ones separating procreation from the marital embrace anymore than parents who adopt a 2-year-old are.
Is conception and carrying a child in the womb intimate? Or not?
It seems to be the only place for your spouse and God. Not a third party.
Is the vocation of marriage not the primary vocation of two people? God, Spouse and then children?
I’m really asking, not arguing? Becase I’m very confused…..
What message am I sending my spouse? He is not needed for conception to impregnante me, just me and the doctor.
Do not get me wrong, I do believe that we have a problem on our hands with all the babies that are frozen. But we also have a crisis in marraiges, will this only contribute?
Those are really good points. I of course agree that conception and carrying a child in the womb are intimate and that the primary responsibility in marriage is between husband and wife; not the children. Without a healthy relationship between the parents, the marriage and family break apart.
Conception has already taken place in the case of embryo adoption (just like in the adoption of born children), so I don’t think that’s a valid reason not to adopt in any case (born or pre-born children). However, the dignity of the womb and its purpose to nurture one’s own children is a very good question. That’s why surrogate motherhood is not condoned by the Church (as I understand it). It’s for that reason (and the apparent legitimization of an atrocity to would-be IVF parents) that I’m not sure what to think about embryo adoption yet.
In any case, I don’t think embryo adoption should be the first choice for new parents, nor should adoption or foster-parenting in my humble opinion. Parents first need to try to bring children into the world naturally and thus follow God’s first command to us: “Be fruitful and multiply.”
But there are abandoned children out there who need adoptive parents, and I currently think that should include children conceived via IVF.
I think both those for and against embryo adoption would argue that fertilization and gestation should not be viewed as separate components. Many schools of thought have emerged concerning the fate of the frozen embryos.
One school of thought argues that because fertilization and gestation should not be separated, there is no hope for these frozen embryos. The opposite school of thought poses that since the fertilization was a prior event, far removed from the adoptive couple, that one could in good faith adopt these preborn children.
My womb alone is not procreative. If so, many, many sterile women would be deemed capable of procreative acts merely because they have a womb that is hospitable to embryonic life. And yet we know that is not true. A hospitable womb will never of its own accord generate a human life. Instead, it allows for life to grow and to flourish, similiar to the breasts of a nursing mother.
Breastfeeding is an intimate act normally stimulated by pregnancy hormones. Yet an adoptive mother can take measures to nurse her adoptive child. I don’t pretend that breastfeeding and gestating are 100% comparable examples, but both are providing life-giving nourishment in a highly personal manner to “flesh not of my flesh”.
What was St. Joseph’s role in the gestation and upbringing of Christ? Though not genetically related to Our Lord, St. Joseph is revered as Christ’s adoptive father and as the patron of all fathers.
When does one become a “mother” or a “father”, especially for adoption? Is it the point of receiving the child in your arms? The point of an embryo transfer? “Gotcha day?” Becoming “paper pregnant”? My husband and I are not just parents to our twins, but to our five additional adopted souls in heaven, two of whom did not even survive the thawing process. Each child is named and loved as our own.
Andrea-i promise my questions are just questions of me trying to grasp the validity of embryo adoption. As I know this is personal matter for you I am in no way attacking. 😉.
But I do not think your comparison to st. J and Jesus being conceived by the holy spirit are valid here? Could be just me, but it seems far stretched.
Nicole, I totally respect your questions – they’ve been honest and heartfelt!
I do agree with your assessment concerning the St. Joseph analogy – it doesn’t entirely relate. Conception via the Holy Spirit is definitely not the same as conception via illicit means. What I hoped to ask (and did not convey clearly), is how does one define parenthood for the adoptive parents? There are many similarities between infant adoption and embryo adoption that make it a wholly complex and confounding topic. There are many differences too (I don’t want to oversimplify!).
I’ve unfortunately read a fair share of articles that inadvertently condemn regular adoption through their condemnation of embryo adoption. A couple of the articles in “The Ethics of Embryo Adoption and the Catholic Tradition” come to mind…
St. Joseph became a parent through the most unconventional means. The Church is open in its advocacy of traditional adoption. I believe embryo adoption can present parenthood opportunities similiar to (but not identical to) many of these unconventional means.
The act of creating and freezing human embryos does not achieve moral stasis when the freezer lid is closed. It seems to me that the offense against the moral and natural law remains active and ongoing as long as these children are deprived of that which nature requires for their gestation — a mother’s womb. While I certainly understand the issue is fraught with problems, it nevertheless seems to me that a very good case can be made that embryo adoption might be regarded as a 21st century means of practicing a corporal work of mercy: ransoming captives.
If we believe the embryo is a human being, and we love it as such, it seems to me that we should desire the best for it – a chance to be born. Yes, it can and probably will further a blackmarket for these little beings, but if life and love always prevail, victory is ours.