Embryo Adoption Debate - Essay Example

Embryo Adoption Debate The saving of frozen embryo through their implantation into the wombs of other women is a that hasremained controversial for long now, with the theological argument on this subject taking both sides and asserting the correctness of each side. E. Christian Brugger bases his argument that saving the life of frozen embryos though implanting them into the wombs of married women is licit, on the premise that the intention for which the action is undertaken is the most important1. Thus, according to Brugger, while surrogate mothers undertake implantations of embryo to fulfill the illicit purpose of the offending person refusing to carry the embryo, an embryonic-saving procedure through implantation into the wombs of other women has the intention of saving the life of the frozen embryo from death2. This position is affirmed by Karl Schudt, whose argument is that the creation of spare embryos on a dish and their freezing through the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process is in itself wrong, thus making the act of saving the frozen embryos from the IVF morally right3. Further, William May adds his voice into the affirmation, through observing that it is not evil for woman, married or unmarried to allow herself to become pregnant, other than through a conjugal act4. In this respect, the proponents of the licit of embryo implantation into the wombs of women for the sake of saving their lives holds that the act is morally acceptable, since even though it goes against the theological law of pregnancy providing for the consummation of life only through the conjugal act of a husband and wife, it does not amount to the evil of surrogate pregnancy5. On the other hand, the opponents of the implantation of the embryo in the wombs of women for the sake of bringing forth life of the frozen embryo observes that the act is illicit and immoral. Francis de Rosa first observes that the debate regarding the implantation of abandoned children in the womb of other women has missed the right direction. This is because; the debate has simply focused on the ‘embryo adoption’ as the major object of the act of implanting the embryo in women’s wombs, yet the actual object is yet to be established6. His position is supported by Robert F. Onder, who argues for the position that the act of producing embryos and freezing them as spare babies is an evil and a major problem, since such spare embryos that are produced over and above the ones the couples require, and stored as frozen embryos, are never returned for7. Therefore, the IVF has continuously served to create a bank of frozen embryos that continue to increase in the lab freezers, and there is no good act or intention that can serve to erase this evil. Catherine Althaus also holds that the evil of implanting an abandoned frozen embryo in the uterus of a woman is not different from that of surrogate motherhood, owing to the fact that both entails the consummation of pregnancy outside of the theological law of marriage8. Thus, the opponents of the implantation of the frozen embryo in the uterus of the women for the sake of bringing forth life argue for the evil of the action of creation of the frozen embryos in the laboratory. These opponents hold that there is no atoning mechanism that can erase the fact that such an act is itself a social and theological evil. The root of the disagreement in this debate is on the morality of the implanting of the frozen embryo in the uterus of other women who are not the real mothers of the frozen embryos. While this point is widely disputed, both the proponents and opponents of the act of implanting the embryo into the uterus of other women have reached a fundamental point of agreement. The agreement is that the action of creating spare embryos in the laboratory through the process of IVF is inherently evil and immoral9. According to Christian Brugger, the act of creating frozen embryos in the laboratory goes against the theological law of marriage, which requires that life should only be created through the conjugal consummation act of the husband and wife. Therefore, any other form of consummation of human life out of the conjugal act between a husband and wife is inherently wrong, since it is intrinsically wrong to generate human life through any other means, other than the conjugal act of husband and wife10. In addition, the consummation of life through the laboratory process that results in the frozen embryos is wrong, since it robs off the spouses the fidelity of creating life through marriage which should only occur through each other11. Allowing a woman to implant a frozen embryo into her womb is therefore immoral, since life as was divinely designated, should emanate from within the humans, as opposed to being exteriorly generated and then brought into the humans for further propagation12. In this respect, the mere fact that the continued propagation of life through implanting an embryo into the uterus of a woman, married or unmarried, is an exterior act of bringing life into a human, makes this act immoral. Thus, the two sides of the debate fundamentally agree that the act of generating embryos in the laboratory through IVF, and then freezing them as spare embryos is intrinsically and inherently wrong. However, the disagreement is perpetuated by the proponents of the view that saving the frozen embryos through having them implanted into the uterus of other woman is morally acceptable. This is because, according to the opponents of this view, allowing other women to get implanted with the frozen embryos is the acceptance of the first evil act of creating the embryos through IVF in the laboratory13. However, the proponents of allowing the practice holds that; while the action of IVF creation of frozen embryos is wrong, the intention for which the implantation of the embryos in the uterus of other women is done should be looked at as the most important factor; entirely separated from the first evil14. The intention of the implantation of the embryos in the uterus of the other women is to save the frozen embryos from death, since their real parents no longer come back for them, even after creating them as spare embryos. Therefore, the action cannot be termed as immoral or evil, since it is analogous with the impregnation of a woman through rape which is in itself an evil, but the product of that rape cannot be contracepted simply because it was consumed through an evil process15. Similarly, William May holds that; while fornication and adultery are both evils that go against the theological law of marriage, a child consummated through these evil acts cannot be denied life based on the fact that the process through which the child was consumed was evil and immoral16. In this respect, the first evil of creating frozen embryos in the laboratory cannot be undone17. However, a subsequent good can be attained through allowing the frozen embryos a chance to live even if through other women, as opposed to letting them die. According to Karl Schudt, measuring the good and evil associated with implanting the frozen embryos into the uterus of other women should not be based on another act, other than for the act of saving the life of the frozen embryo18. This is because; the condemnation of the frozen embryos to an indefinite period of freezing will eventually result into their death. Thus, the morality of allowing the embryos to be implanted in the wombs of other women draws from its intention, which is to save the lives of the frozen embryos. Bibliography 1. Brugger, Christian. In Defense of Transferring Heterologous Embryos (NCBQ 5:1, Spring 2005), 95-112 2. Schudt, Karl. What is Chosen in the Act of Embryo Adoption? (NCBQ 5:1, Spring 2005), 63-71. 3. May, William. On Rescuing Frozen Embryos: Why the Decision to Do So Is Moral (NCBQ 5:1, Spring 2005), 51-57. 4. de Rosa, Francis. The Transfer of Abandoned Frozen Embryos: Identifying the Object of the Act (NCBQ 5:1, Spring 2005), 59-62. 5. Onder, Robert. Practical and Moral Caveats on Heterologous Embryo Transfer (NCBQ 5:1, Spring 2005), 75-94. 6. Althaus, Catherine. Can One Rescue a Human Embryo? The Moral Object of the Acting Woman (NCBQ 5:1, Spring 2005), 113-41. Read More