Limbo was defined as the pious speculation of a place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of “natural happiness” but not in the presence of God. Pope Benedict XVI recently said that there’s hope that God grants salvation to unbaptized babies.
But now man in his attempt to make himself godlike has now created limbo; a place where human beings are kept frozen in perpetuity…or as long as the bill gets paid.
And there’s really no way out until the world begins realizing that there are no “extra” humans. Case in point. Take this ruling in Ireland:
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal by a separated mother of two against the High Court’s refusal to order a Dublin clinic to release three frozen embryos to her with a view to becoming pregnant against the wishes of her estranged husband.
The five judge court found the embryos are not the “unborn” within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution (the anti-abortion amendment of 1983) and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protection. The “unborn” referred to a child within the womb and not pre-implanation embryos, the judges ruled.
They also found there was no enforceable contract between the woman and her estranged husband entitling her to use the embryos.
So these human beings are now, by court decree, untouchable in perpetuity. By court ruling, they will exist in some modern man-made legal limbo.
And the main reason the court ruled this way was that if those un-implanted embryos were deemed worthy of rights, this would logically lead to the banning of some forms of contraception that don’t necessarily prevent fertilization but prevent implantation. And that would be very unpopular as contraception is seen as the great liberator of women worldwide and as the great rampart against overpopulation -which many believe to be the biggest issue of the day.
It’s kind of a backward working logic in that the court is saying the embryos can’t be human because that would be inconvenient to our way of life. Why not accept the obvious and moderate your life to fit reality?
And people know that there’s something wrong with this man-made limbo. CNN had a story on these frozen-in-perpetuity babies earlier this year:
By the time she was in her 40s, Andrea Cinnamond was afraid she’d never be a mother. Then came the day in 2005 her daughter was born through in vitro fertilization, followed two years later by twin sons. Today, Kaitlin, Jack, and Aidan bounce around like Ping-Pong balls through their Boston, Massachusetts, home.
Experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of embryos have accumulated in fertility clinics across the country.
Cinnamond, now 49, and her husband are grateful for their healthy children and the medical science that helped create them. Yet she’s haunted by the three embryos that were left over.
Like many women struggling with infertility, Cinnamond was delighted when a laboratory took sperm and egg and provided five chances for a second child after Kaitlin’s birth. In many ways, infertility is a numbers game — more embryos created means more tries for success. She was asked in the beginning about the matter of surplus embryos, but how could she think about those she might not want when her thoughts were consumed by the children she longed for?
When the time came to decide about the extras, she says, “I thought I was going to be calm and casual.” And she was, until the first bill arrived to keep the embryos frozen. “I was petrified,” she says. “There was no practical reason to keep them. I just wasn’t ready to make the decision not to keep them.” She paid the $600, hoping that her thoughts would crystallize as time passed. This year, she’s paying the bill again.
Michelle DeCrane of Austin, Texas, has also been paying for embryo storage for two years. She has a 2-year-old daughter — and six frozen embryos. “I would love to have another baby, if I were younger — I’m 40 — and if money was not an object.” She finds herself trapped in a mental loop; while she doesn’t have the same mind-blowing love for the embryos as she has for her daughter, neither does she consider them anonymous laboratory tissue. And there’s another wrinkle: One of the six embryos is biologically hers and her husband’s; the five others were created with donor eggs and his sperm. “What do people do?” she asks. “You have all of these embryos in all of these labs. Are people going to keep doing what I’m doing and pay the $40 a month ad infinitum?”
Some will. Experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of embryos have accumulated in fertility clinics throughout the country, some awaiting transfer but many literally frozen in time as parents ask themselves questions few among us ever consider with such immediacy: When does life begin? What does “life” mean, anyway?
Isn’t it ironic? With science racing forward in its search for answers, we feign ignorance on the most basic questions. We pretend to remain perplexed. Indecisive. In limbo.
December 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The sad reality is, the answer to the "life" question will not help them propel an agenda. Therefore, they don't have time for it.
Climate change on the other hand…
December 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thank you for this post. Most people do not realise that these embyros are human beings with immortal souls trapped in an earthly Limbo, they cannot even die: death would be a release to allow their souls go to God, instead Man-made-god creates and then traps. More people need to know the truth.
James
December 15, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I thought Ireland was above changing the Truth (legal and moral) about human life (human if and only if a person) to fit a popular agenda (the Pill, etc., etc.).
Maybe they'll get around to changing their constitution to explicitly include the anti-dignified position of those humans being artificially created and then frozen in limbo as legally being a person.
Ireland "saved civilization" once (after Rome fell), might it do it again?
gbm3
December 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Sort of brings a new light to setting the captives free.
December 15, 2009 at 4:54 pm
There's actually one silver lining in the Irish decision (this is with the caveat that I know nothing, just like, I imagine, most commenters, about Irish law): it appears to recognize that a father has rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis his children. (Set aside for a moment the nonsequitor of applying rights about children to people who the court doesn't recognize as children). That's a vast improvement over American law, where even married fathers have absolutely no legal control over what happens to their unborn children. He's nothing but a source of child-support payments, but only after the mother makes her (legally entirely unilateral) decision to give birth.
December 15, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Hmm… what a tangled web sin weaves. I wonder if the main issue in this case is that the estranged husband doesn't want to have to support the children if they're able to survive being thawed and implanted in their mother's womb? But if that's the case, wouldn't he have consented to this possibility when he donated the sperm?
Is there any possibility that she make a contract with her husband relieving him of any financial responsibility for the children?
In the most extreme case, if the embryos are threatened with being frozen in perpetuity, would it ever be morally permissible to thaw them, attempt to baptize them, and give them the best medical treatment we have without implanting them in a womb (knowing that this means certain death)?
December 15, 2009 at 6:14 pm
About a year ago I wrote a post about "snowflake" children- a term I've heard used for these poor babies who are in man-made limbo.
The post is here
Brian,
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith answered your question about thawing and baptizing in Dignitas Personae with a no.
December 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Thanks, Catholic Student-at-Law.
December 15, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Rome is right, but it is hard to wrap my head around “abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”
Would it be permissible to gather those embryo’s in danger of being killed (due to lack of funds or whatever) in order to preserve them in a facility paid for by the faithful? …A sort of living tomb of the unborn?
December 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Suz,
I remember asking Cardinal George about what is the most moral thing to do about this situation. His basic response was "Don't go there in the first place." I was a little miffed and annoyed by that response at first, because the whole problem is that we are in that position. But I understand it better now. Essentially, there is no good moral solution to "excess" embryos created by assisted reproductive technology (ART). The creation of those lives were a violation of the natural moral law, and their implantation into a womb would be another violation. Thawing (with resultant death of the embryo) seems to be the least offensive to the dignity of the human person.
It's rough, and there is no simple answer. It's hard to find the path to God when you're walking in the devil's fields, and with ART, we are well within Satan's domain.
December 15, 2009 at 9:57 pm
"His basic response was '"Don't go there in the first place.'"
This quoted goal (which I heard before) is/has crystalizing(ed) in my head the truly Catholic moral criteria for where babies should come from and be welcomed (due to the lack of contraception mentality). Babies/zygotes must morally come from "conjugal union" of husband and wife because if they don't, we get into the problems discussed in this post.
The pragmatic detriment of humanity in going against God's will is always there even though we might not see it right away. His ways (that are taught by the Church) are above our ways.
May God help us all.
gbm3
December 15, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Another question, is it moral for the parents of frozen embryos who repent of their decision to have IVF try to implant the remaining children into the mother's womb?
December 16, 2009 at 12:01 am
Interesting (if somewhat morbid) topic, but I missed a point – is it immoral to implant such babies and carry them to term? – I don't see why. The only argument I see against it is that of demand pushing supply (we have the similar dilemma of whether to buy and free slaves, while simultaneously encouraging the slave trade). Otherwise, I see no reason why _implantation_ should be sinful. Life is not sinful, nor can carrying a child to term be sinful. Wouldn't this be a great 'yes to human life'?
As a parallel example, premarital sex is sinful, but out-of-wedlock pregnancy is not a sin.
December 16, 2009 at 3:22 am
Sebastian and Brian,
A priest friend of mine did his dissertation in Rome on this topic. The implantation of ART embryos into a woman's womb is a separate violation of the natural law, ie, that life is to be conceived and brought forth through the conjugal act. ART has multiple violations of the natural law: 1) harvesting of eggs 2) gathering of sperm, usually through masturbation (usually incited through pornography) 3) creation of new life in a petri dish and 4) implantation of the new life into the woman. Note: there are probably more, but these are the ones at the top of my head.
In the implantation process, a person other than the woman's husband is entering her for the purpose of procreation. The vagina, the uterus, the womb are all precious areas that no one but a woman's husband should transgress during the procreative process. This is the main reason why "snowflake adoption" is problematic. It's still separating the marital act from the generation of new life.
Sebastian, you are correct to say that carrying a child to term cannot be sinful. However, you cannot skip the step as to how the child ended up in the womb.
This is a wrenching issue precisely because we know it involves complete human beings. There is no answer that doesn't leave one feeling hollow in some way. We (mankind) got ourselves into this mess, and like so many of our self-inflicted problems, there are no clear-cut satisfying answers.
December 16, 2009 at 3:27 am
Michael – Cardinal George's "Don't go there in the first place" seems to be his mantra for avoiding all issues relating to Catholicism in his archdiocese. It would appear he is at least consistent. And I do mean at the very least.
December 16, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Dear Michael,
Thanks for your answer. I had a chance to skim over Dignitas Personae – in paragraph 19 we read:
"…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;[38] 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.
All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned
embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. …"
So "prenatal adoption" is a violation of your point #4 – I think you gave good arguments for this, though it is not entirely evident to me that violation of #4 constitutes an absolute moral evil. DP addresses this in the second paragraph, stating that there are "problem not dissimilar", though the language is weaker than in the other parts of the encyclical, and maybe suggests that this might be at least a starting point to thinking about a solution. Of course, the Church sees further than I.
Nevertheless, my problem lies not so much with the morality of artificial implantation, as with the idea that there is in fact no solution, as both you and DP say. My intuition doesn't like the idea of a morally-unsolvable problem – even if prenatal adoption is not a solution, maybe there exists one nonetheless of which we have not thought. If someone commits the sin of ART and wants to repent, how can they give restitution? Can we dig a hole so deep that God cannot get us out?
Then again perhaps what is impossible for man is somehow possible for God. I suppose he has a plan for these children too.
I value any other thoughts on this.
December 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I should think the solution is rather obvious. All these frozen babies will be awakened, and hopefully babtized, at the Second Coming.
December 17, 2009 at 3:09 am
PS: By "rather obvious" I in no way meant to impugn the wisdom of the other posters.