A Protestant View: The Ethics of Embryo Adoption and the Catholic Tradition

  • Eric Gregory
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 95)

This paper offers a Protestant perspective on Roman Catholic debates regarding the moral permissibility of transferring and adopting genetically unrelated embryos that have been abandoned or designated for donation. The relative silence in Protestant bioethics on these issues stands in contrast to the vigor of Catholic discussions. This neglect is striking in light of both the significant role of mainline Protestants in supporting the practice of in vitro fertilization (IVF) which gave rise to such novel possibilities and the growing support of embryo adoption by evangelical Protestants (Berkman, 2002; Cooperman, 2005; Ennis, 2005; Saake, 2005). The essay affirms the inherent morality of both the transfer and adoption of abandoned embryos. But, it also expresses reservations about the current practice. For theological reasons, it encourages a critical attitude toward potentially vicious reasons for which it is promoted in our cultural context.

Keywords

Burning Coherence Stein Infertility Tray 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andolsen, B. (1981). ‘Agape in feminist ethics,’ Journal of Religious Ethics, 9, 69–83.Google Scholar
  2. Bainton, R.H. (1957). What Christianity Says About Sex, Love and Marriage. New York: National Board of Young Men’s Christian Associations.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, K. (1961). Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Vol. III/4. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
  4. Berkman, J. (2002). ‘Adopting embryos in America: A case study and an ethical analysis,’ Scottish Journal of Theology, 55, 438–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkman, J. (2003). ‘Gestating the embryos of others: Surrogacy? Adoption? Rescue?’ The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 2, 309–329.Google Scholar
  6. Black, R. (2001). Christian Moral Realism: Natural Law, Narrative, Virtue, and the Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bowlin, J. (2002). ‘Contemporary protestant thomism,’ in P. van Geest, H. Goris, & C. Leget (Eds.), Aquinas as Authority. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.Google Scholar
  8. Brakman, S.V. (2007). ‘Paradigms, practices and politics: Ethics and the language of human embryo transfer/donation/rescure/adoption,’ in M.J. Cherry & A.S. Iltis (Eds.), Pluralistic Casuistry: Moral Arguments, Economic Realities, and Political Theory: Essays in Honor of Baruch A. Brody (pp. 191–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Brugger, E.C. (2005). ‘In defense of transferring heterologous embryos,’ The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 1, 95–112.Google Scholar
  10. Bunge, M. (Ed.) (2001). The Child in Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  11. Bush, George W. (2005). President Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research, May 25, Office of the Press Secretary. [Online]. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524–12.html.
  12. Cahill, L.S. (2001). ‘Using Augustine in contemporary sexual ethics: A response to Gilbert Meilaender,’ Journal of Religious Ethics, 29, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavadini, J. (2005). ‘Feeling right: Augustine on the passions and sexual desire,’ Augustinian Studies, 36, 195–217.Google Scholar
  14. Clapp, R. (1993). Families at the Crossroad: Beyond Traditional and Modern Options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1987). Donum Vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day) [Online]. Available: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/ rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html.
  16. Cooperman, A. (2005). ‘Catholics split on embryo issue,’ The Washington Post, May 31, A1.Google Scholar
  17. Cromartie, M. (1997). A Preserving Grace: Protestant, Catholics, and Natural Law. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  18. Demartis, F. (1998). ‘Mass pre-embryo adoption,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7, 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Rosa, F.M. (2005). ‘The transfer of abandoned frozen embryos: Identifying the object of the act,’ The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 1, 59–62.Google Scholar
  20. Ennis, M. (2005). ‘Culture of strife,’ Texas Monthly, Oct., 102–110.Google Scholar
  21. Finnis, J., Grisez, G., & Boyle, J. (1987). Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  22. Grisez, G. (1997). The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 3: Difficult Moral Questions. Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gustafson, J. (1978). Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics: Prospects for Rapprochement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hauerwas, S. (1985). ‘The family as a school of character,’ Religious Education, 80, 272–285.Google Scholar
  25. Hauerwas, S. & Bennett, J. (2005). ‘Catholic social teaching,’ in G. Meilaender & W. Werpehowski (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics (pp. 520–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jenson, R. (2005). ‘Reading the body,’ The New Atlantis, 9, 73–82.Google Scholar
  27. Kaveny, M.C. (2000). ‘Appropriation of evil: Cooperation’s mirror image,’ Theological Studies, 61, 280–313.Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, T. (2000). ‘A deceptive good’. Christianity Today, 44, 108–109.Google Scholar
  29. Mangina, J. (2004). ‘Bearing fruit: Conception, children, and family,’ in S. Hauerwas & S. Wells (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (pp. 468–480). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. May, W.E. (2005). ‘On “Rescuing” frozen embryos: Why the decision to do so is moral,’ The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 1, 51–57.Google Scholar
  31. Mayoue, J. (2005). ‘Legal and ethical challenges of embryonic adoption,’ in T. Jackson (Ed.), The Morality of Adoption: Social-Psychological, Theological, and Legal Perspectives (pp. 262–282). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  32. McKenny, G.P. (2005). ‘Responsibility,’ in G. Meilaender & W. Werpehowski (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics (pp. 237–253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Meilaender, G. (2001). ‘The author replies,’ Journal of Religious Ethics, 29, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michelmann, H.W. & Nayudu, P. (2006). ‘Cryopreservation of human embryos,’ Cell and Tissue Banking, 7, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morgan, E. (1944). The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeeth-Century New England. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  36. Mundy, L. (2006). ‘Souls on ice,’ Mother Jones, Aug., 39–45.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, M.J. (2004). ‘Protestants, natural law, and reproductive ethics,’ in C. Tollefsen (Ed.), John Paul II’s Contribution to Catholic Bioethics (pp. 121–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nachtigall, R., Becker, G., Friese, C., Butler, A., & MacDougall, K. (2005). ‘Parent’s conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision.’ Fertility and Sterility, 84, 431–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niebuhr, H.R. (1963). The Responsible Self: An Essay in Christian Moral Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  40. Noll, M. & Nystrom, C. (2005). Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  41. O’Donovan, O. (1984). Begotten or Made? Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  42. O’Donovan, O. (1986). Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  43. O’Donovan, O. (2005). The Ways of Judgment. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  44. Outka, G. (2005). ‘The ethics of human stem cell research,’ Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 12, 175–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petersen, T. (2002). ‘The claim from adoption,’ Bioethics, 16(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Post, S. (1994). Spheres of Love: Toward a New Ethics of the Family. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ramsey, P. (1970). Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers, E. (2002). Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Saake, J. (2005). Hannah’s Hope: Seeking God’s Heart in the Midst of Infertility. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.Google Scholar
  50. Santurri, E. (1987). Perplexity in the Moral Life: Philosophical and Theological Considerations. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  51. Sauer, M/V. (Ed.) (1998). Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Schudt, K. (2005). ‘What is chosen in the act of embryo adoption?’ The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 1, 63–67.Google Scholar
  53. Schweiker, W. (1995). Responsibility and Christian Ethics. Caimbridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Spar, D. (2006). The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  55. Stein, R. (2007). ‘Embryo bank’ stirs ethics fears: Firm lets clients pick among fertilized eggs,’ The Washington Post, Jan. 6, A1.Google Scholar
  56. Thomson, J.J. (1971). ‘A defense of abortion,’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, Fall 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
  57. Weil, E. (2006). ‘Breeder reaction,’ Mother Jones, Aug., 33–37.Google Scholar
  58. Werpehowski, W. (2002). American Protestant Ethics and the Legacy of H. Richard Niebuhr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wheeler, S. (2005). ‘Christians and family,’ in G. Meilaender & W. Werpehowski (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics (pp. 343–359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Williams, T.D. (2005). ‘The least of my brethren: The ethics of heterologous embryo transfer’. The Human Life Review, Summer, 87–98.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Gregory
    • 1
  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations