On The Morality Of Heterologous Embryo Transfer

The inaugural Westchester Institute Scholars Forum was devoted to the following question:  Is it morally licit for a woman to transfer into her womb a biologically unrelated frozen embryo for the purpose of either adopting or rescuing it?  The question arises in light of the scandalous fact that hundreds of thousands of "spare" or "excess" embryos lie cryogenically frozen in IVF labs across the world.  The scholars gathering at the forum all agreed that "in vitro" fertilization practices are gravely immoral and that new human life is to be brought into the world only through a natural act of love within marriage.  Thus there was no disagreement over the immorality of technologically creating human life in a lab.  Furthermore, there was no disagreement that cryogenically suspending the life of a developing human being is a profound evil. 

However, the question of whether one can ethically do anything about this situation constituted a source of disagreement and the center of discussion.  There were basically three positions articulated by the attendees during the two days of debate.  First, there were those who defended a "rescue" model.  The scholars adhering to this position held that any woman, single or married, can licitly have an embryo implanted in her womb if her intention is to rescue the embryo from its tragic fate.  The woman need not have the further intention of keeping the child.  She may simply offer her womb as a place of nurture while the baby comes to term and then give him or her up for adoption.  Hence, her act is one of "rescue," and it is to be applauded and encouraged because of the great generosity and sacrifice that it entails. 

The second position advocated may be called the "adoption" model.   Scholars defending this position affirmed that transfer of a heterologous embryo into a woman's womb is licit, but only on the condition that the new "mother" fully adopt the embryo as her own.  In the eyes of these moralists, merely to rescue the embryo through gestation and then give it up for adoption to someone else is tantamount to abandoning it.  However, the principle of responsible parenthood, they argued, demands that a woman who chooses to become the gestational mother of an abandoned embryo must fully be a mother to the child she bears.  Hence, her act is licit and praiseworthy only if it is a complete adoption.

A third group of scholars saw the act of heterologous embryo transfer as intrinsically illicit.  They conceded that the condition of such embryos was a scandal, and that the intention behind an act of rescue or adoption could be quite noble and generous.  Nevertheless, these ethicists judged the act of transfer to be an infringement upon the procreative exclusivity that exists between a husband and wife.  In different ways, the scholars objecting to HET saw the act of bearing a child as essentially maternal, and thus as something proper only within the marriage covenant.  To say otherwise is to say that being pregnant is, strictly speaking, accidental to becoming a natural mother. 

Not surprisingly, few if any minds were changed during the course of the forum.  However, the nuances and implications of each position were much more clarified in the minds of the participants and there was a general sense of something significant having been accomplished.  In addition, a solid collection of essays emerged out of the gathering which will be jointly published in May, 2006 by the Westchester Institute and the National Catholic Bioethics Center .  Hopefully, these will contribute to the Church's own reflection on the morality of this procedure and will eventually lead to a magisterial judgment so that the matter may be settled.