I believe American abolitionists purchased slaves in order to free them. In Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Harriet Jacobs recounts how she escaped and then later was purchased by abolitionists, and she felt very strongly that she didn't want to be purchased because she recognized her own human dignity.
I recall hearing a suggestion that the embryos be baptized and permitted to die. I'd be interested in the practicality of this approach. How developed are the frozen embryos? Do they have heads yet? If not, could you baptize a person who's too young to have an identifiable head? How long would it take them to die? I imagine splashing water on them would kill them, because it would thaw them, but it wouldn't be murder because of double effect. Could you complete the baptism before the person died or would the first splash of water kill them? Would a partial baptism work in this case? Obviously the intention is there. Would it be morally permissible to purchase embryos in order to baptize them, knowing that they will die? Could parents morally hand over their own embryos for this? Would both parents have to agree? What if you can't find the biological father? Would the mother's husband be able to give permission?
I am more persuaded by the arguments against embryo adoption than those for them, but it does seem to me to be a gray area. Most articles and arguments I've seen published do tout it as a solution for infertile couples who want the experience of gestation and birth, and who find it difficult or impossible to adopt an infant (because there are so few infants available). It is promoted as both "just another way to adopt," and one that is uniquely wonderful and generous and which makes the couple doing it especially praiseworthy.
Is that more a problem of how it's presented than a problem with what it really is? Maybe. But how many fertile couples would choose to bear other people's children instead of their own? Not many. Especially if they have to pay to do so.
If IVF were illegal, and these frozen embryos were all there were and would ever be, I could perhaps look at them more impartially. But in reality, human beings keep being created and thrown away or frozen "to keep just in case." That fact makes it difficult for me to evaluate this issue without revulsion.
I can't see how this grave situation admits of any satisfactory solution. But I wonder if the Church's end-of-life teaching has any bearing here -- namely, the teaching that extraordinary measures to sustain life need not be taken when the actual effect of such measures is essentially to prolong death. I do not know the answer to that question and am wondering if the Church has addressed it.
This was a very helpful review. An omission would be a discussion of the church's end-of-life-care teachings. To put it bluntly: is it immoral to remove the artificial life-preserving measures that prevent otherwise immanent deaths of frozen embryos? At first glance, it would seem a sad but permissible act. But that would raise the need for follow-up clarifications. For instance, if is permissible in principle, is it permissible for the parents and technicians who conceived them to perform such an act, or is there a critical dependence upon who is performing the act? Perhaps more to the point, in the ordinary end-of-life scenario, the church seems to provide for a special authority of near-kin and their close professional advisors to make such acts while disfavoring unassociated persons from making such acts. However, a gut reaction concerning frozen embryos would protest that the near-kin and close professional advisors are uniquely disfavored from making such a decision, precisely because they are the ones who put the embryos in this situation (even if much time may have passed). it intuitively feels like murder for them to do it, which is generally the opposite of the more general end-of-life situations. Perhaps a topic for a future post?
Excellent article. I do think that embryo adoption is a good thing, but that IVF needs to be outlawed as soon as possible.
I believe American abolitionists purchased slaves in order to free them. In Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Harriet Jacobs recounts how she escaped and then later was purchased by abolitionists, and she felt very strongly that she didn't want to be purchased because she recognized her own human dignity.
I recall hearing a suggestion that the embryos be baptized and permitted to die. I'd be interested in the practicality of this approach. How developed are the frozen embryos? Do they have heads yet? If not, could you baptize a person who's too young to have an identifiable head? How long would it take them to die? I imagine splashing water on them would kill them, because it would thaw them, but it wouldn't be murder because of double effect. Could you complete the baptism before the person died or would the first splash of water kill them? Would a partial baptism work in this case? Obviously the intention is there. Would it be morally permissible to purchase embryos in order to baptize them, knowing that they will die? Could parents morally hand over their own embryos for this? Would both parents have to agree? What if you can't find the biological father? Would the mother's husband be able to give permission?
Edited for typo
I am more persuaded by the arguments against embryo adoption than those for them, but it does seem to me to be a gray area. Most articles and arguments I've seen published do tout it as a solution for infertile couples who want the experience of gestation and birth, and who find it difficult or impossible to adopt an infant (because there are so few infants available). It is promoted as both "just another way to adopt," and one that is uniquely wonderful and generous and which makes the couple doing it especially praiseworthy.
Is that more a problem of how it's presented than a problem with what it really is? Maybe. But how many fertile couples would choose to bear other people's children instead of their own? Not many. Especially if they have to pay to do so.
If IVF were illegal, and these frozen embryos were all there were and would ever be, I could perhaps look at them more impartially. But in reality, human beings keep being created and thrown away or frozen "to keep just in case." That fact makes it difficult for me to evaluate this issue without revulsion.
I can't see how this grave situation admits of any satisfactory solution. But I wonder if the Church's end-of-life teaching has any bearing here -- namely, the teaching that extraordinary measures to sustain life need not be taken when the actual effect of such measures is essentially to prolong death. I do not know the answer to that question and am wondering if the Church has addressed it.
This was a very helpful review. An omission would be a discussion of the church's end-of-life-care teachings. To put it bluntly: is it immoral to remove the artificial life-preserving measures that prevent otherwise immanent deaths of frozen embryos? At first glance, it would seem a sad but permissible act. But that would raise the need for follow-up clarifications. For instance, if is permissible in principle, is it permissible for the parents and technicians who conceived them to perform such an act, or is there a critical dependence upon who is performing the act? Perhaps more to the point, in the ordinary end-of-life scenario, the church seems to provide for a special authority of near-kin and their close professional advisors to make such acts while disfavoring unassociated persons from making such acts. However, a gut reaction concerning frozen embryos would protest that the near-kin and close professional advisors are uniquely disfavored from making such a decision, precisely because they are the ones who put the embryos in this situation (even if much time may have passed). it intuitively feels like murder for them to do it, which is generally the opposite of the more general end-of-life situations. Perhaps a topic for a future post?