Embryonic "Adoption"

[cindylou]

Last week at Mass I picked up a Pro-Life magazine on my way out. The magazine itself is very interesting, including many articles and news from around the world and from other "denominations." One particular article involved the fairly new and somewhat controversial practice of embryonic "adoption." In this procedure, frozen embryos waiting in limbo for either implantation or destruction are "adopted" by couples and implanted through invitro fertilization. Since the baby is born the "adoptive" parents are considered it's natural parents and the only legal procedure involves the "adoption" of the embryo. I know that the Church considers artificial insemination to be gravely immoral, but what about this? Does the Church consider this form of "adoption" an exception? Personally, I am having are hard time seeing how this is acceptable for us as Catholics. I know they are babies, but sadly I see them as innocent victims in this hi-tech world of babies on demand. Just in case, I have posted the CCC reference. I would really like to hear some thoughts about it.

Cindylou

CCC 2376 "Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other.'"

 

[ZooMom]

Wow, that's a hard one. I would say it's not right, because of the Church's teachings on artificial fertilization and implantation, but also because there are so many babies already born that need a home. I can certainly understand wanting to save these unborn, though. Wow, again. Really tough question.

 

[Markh]

There is no official position on this at the moment.

I would be against the practice personally as something the Church should teach,

in the same way the Church would say that people with Aids should still not use condoms (but rather abstain).

The point is here is that I imagine some people, if the Church gave the thumbs up to embryonic adoption, would rather than giving birth to a child (or abort a child) have their unborn child placed up for embryonic adoption in an action contrary to the natural law.

even though it might be nice for women to save embryos from destruction by giving birth to them, it would be infinitely better if the experiements did not take place in the first place.

Embryonic adoption almost allows experiments to be morally justified as the babies will not be aborted. It could in effect encourage experiments on embryos I think.

Also, there are so many embryos which would be required to be adopted rather than destruction- the practice of endorsing embryonic adoption may save a few, but I think it would promote the destruction of even more embryos as I think an endorsement of embryonic adoption would give rise to more experiements.

The Church is much better off just sticking to absolutes here and condemning all tampering with life.

Also, endorsing embronic adoption would perhaps give rise to an endorsement of embroys being allowed to be adopted but grown in test tubes- what makes a mother's womb any different from an artificially womb. I think the Church would be making a mistake allowing embryonic adoption.

 

[Maggie893]

It is a tough question however, two wrongs don't make a right. To violate church law by artificially inseminating will cause the couple to be standing in the place of creator. They will be negating God's opportunity to create life within their marriage through them naturally. Certainly there is a sacrificial desire within this, however going against natural law with the belief that the end justifies the means is not sa tance the Church would probably condone.

 

[cindylou]

Since I posted this question this morning I have done a little research on line about this. I even checked out the web site for the Snowflakes adoption program, which helps parents adopt embryos. Since this problem first arose in 1997, the Church has made no official statement regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in limbo. Almost 8 years, and the Church is still trying to figure it out? That concerns me a little bit. Since that time, several hundred if not thousands of embryos have been "adopted" through the Snowflakes program based in California. I did find some quotes in articles including OSV from Catholic parents who have chosen this option for themselves, and hoping the Church at some point "gets on board." I am flabbergasted. The debated continues with 2 scholars of moral theology, Msgr. William Smith from St. Joseph's Seminary and Dr. William May from John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. The Msgr says no way and quotes Donum Vitae as supporting his argument that the "adoptive" mother ends up just being a surrogate mom. Personally, I hope the Church steps up and finally addresses this issue. The numbers of frozen babies keeps growing especially in the States where there are no time limits on how long an embryo can remain in storage. Sadly, I think many good Christians can "find" a way around this by convincing themselves that they are saving the lives of unborn, unwanted babies who will eventually be destroyed. I agree with the Msgr when he said the only way to resolve this problem is to allow the embryos to die a "natural" death. So sad. Just more victims in this culture of death.

Cindylou

 

[Carrye]

We cannot fix one evil by committing another. That's a basic principle of moral theology. This is not a purely functional thing. And God forbid adopting embyros would turn into a lucritive business!

 

[Wiffey]

I think it is reflective of the sinfulness of the world that we are artificially creating embryos in labs because couples who cannot conceive insist on violating natural law and creating more embryos than they can carry (meaning that some are created just to die), just so they can possibly have a child with THEIR genes (instead of adopting).

Look around! So many children around the globe with nothing. They need a home and a family and they are already HERE. The expense of adopting is usually LESS than infertility treatments and IVF...

Although I sympathize with infertile couples, insistence on IVF over adoption is an act of selfishness and a sin. There are plenty of kids who need good homes...

Sorry to be so adamant. I have a sister who is adopted. She came to us when she was 8 years old and is profoundly deaf. Had she remained in Korea she would have had an ugly fate. Instead she is a college graduate and a productive member of society. Every test-tube baby equals a child out there who doesn't get a chance to be loved and have a decent home, education and medical care.

 

[Paul S]

We cannot fix one evil by committing another. That's a basic principle of moral theology. This is not a purely functional thing. And God forbid adopting embyros would turn into a lucritive business!

But isn't there a difference between the implantation of these embryos, which have already been created, and the creation of new people through IVF? The intent with the adoption is to save the lives of these babies, not to create new life artificially. Couldn't this be seen, perhaps, as like donating an organ to these babies who would otherwise die?

 

[Carrye]

But isn't there a difference between the implantation of these embryos, which have already been created, and the creation of new people through IVF? The intent with the adoption is to save the lives of these babies, not to create new life artificially. Couldn't this be seen, perhaps, as like donating an organ to these babies who would otherwise die?

I agree that this is a sad, sad issue, but we absolutely cannot begin implanting those embryos.

IVF is evil. It is as simple as that. We cannot bring a good out of evil by committing another evil (implantation; surrogate parenthood). We cannot use immoral actions to achieve seemingly good ends.

For example (true story): A child needs a new liver. Her father donates a piece of his, but her body rejects it. Her mother is willing to donate. There are other children at home. The doctors refuse to allow the mother to be a donor. Why? The ends to not justify the means. It would be unethical for that mother to undergo surgery to presumably save her child.

Of course immoral and unethical are slightly different terms, but I think the analogy still holds. In this case it is the doctors who prevent such actions; in the case of embryos, it is the Church.

Maybe someone who is more versed in moral theology than I can expand on this.

 

[plainswolf]

But isn't there a difference between the implantation of these embryos, which have already been created, and the creation of new people through IVF? The intent with the adoption is to save the lives of these babies, not to create new life artificially. Couldn't this be seen, perhaps, as like donating an organ to these babies who would otherwise die?

Very interesting point!

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[Truth and Reconciliation]

Definitely a hard question. As mentioned above, two wrongs make the whole world more divergent from God's commandments. Life is sacred (Jeremiah 1:5), and tampering with life in ANY way is wrong. IFV is wrong because it goes against the very essence of procreation on behalf of a married couple. A child is supposed to be a product of God's love and the love the spouses have for each other. IFV takes away the latter and makes sexual procreation, which is something holy, and twists it.

As for embryonic adoption, I'd say that IMHO it should not happen.

 

[D'Ann]

Greetings Cindy Lou,

With all of my heart and mind, I do understand why infertile couples may prefer to consider different options other than to adopt... At the same time though, why? I agree with clskinner. Mankind's agenda and goal has always been to "play God". It is God who gives life and who takes life(birth/death - finality) , and that is the way it is to always be.

Why is it necessary to encourage young women to give their embryos up and have them frozen? That practice can easily become a "money making" process for some. There are sooooo many aspects here and where to begin?

1. There are many unwanted babies who need loving homes... What's wrong with adoption? Is it really important the color of hair and eyes or nationality? When we become parents, our main concern out of love should be for the child and what is best for the child. It breaks my heart when I see unwanted babies and children on TV.

2. Science is already abe to "clone" animals and parts of the human body... and someday, you know that it is just a matter of time before... they start cloning the whole body and thus.... cloning babies and adults too. What worries me is that the issue of cloning and the issue of embryos being frozen is all .... mankind trying to play God.

3. Where do we draw the line? I'm probably not explaining this too well, but I hope the CC sticks to its guns and offers with kindness and compassion another option to infertile couples... like helping them to adopt babies that are already born.

4. Don't we already have enough unwanted babies and children and people... do we actually need Scientists making more? All of this technology is interesting and fascinating, but I do think, we need to be cautious and careful...

I say this with compassion and kindness for those who are truly and sincerely seeking help with figuring out how to start a family. Please adopt. Every child deserves a chance and a loving, caring and supportive home with parents who are filled with love and willing to make sacrifices that are necessary for the well-being of their children.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

 

[Paul S]

IVF is evil. It is as simple as that. We cannot bring a good out of evil by committing another evil (implantation; surrogate parenthood). We cannot use immoral actions to achieve seemingly good ends.

But is the evil the implantation of the baby, or his creation in a laboratory? If IVF is evil because it separates reproduction from sex, it seems to me that the evil is the artificial joining of sperm and egg in the laboratory, since that is the creation of life and the "playing God".

What if a woman started to suffer a miscarriage, and there was no way of preventing it, but it was possible to save the baby by transferring it to another woman? This is like IVF, in that it creates a pregnancy without sex, but the intent isn't to create new life but to save an already-existing life.

4. Don't we already have enough unwanted babies and children and people... do we actually need Scientists making more? All of this technology is interesting and fascinating, but I do think, we need to be cautious and careful...

The article is about babies who are already here - the couples want to take frozen embryos and adopt them, rather than letting the fertility clinics dispose of these tiny humans. We absolutely should discourage the creation of more people through IVF, but that doesn't change the fact that many babies already exist.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The principle of double effect seems relevant here.

 

[Maggie893]

What if a woman started to suffer a miscarriage, and there was no way of preventing it, but it was possible to save the baby by transferring it to another woman? This is like IVF, in that it creates a pregnancy without sex, but the intent isn't to create new life but to save an already-existing life.

A woman's womb is not just a breeding field. It is a part of a whole being which was designed to partake in the Creator's creating. IVF would create a situation where the surrogate mother has now taken matters into her own hands, used her body like fertile land and closed the door to new life being created between herself and her husband.

Please do not misunderstand my position here. I am heartbroken that these embryos are frozen in time. But again, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Greetings Cindy Lou,

With all of my heart and mind, I do understand why infertile couples may prefer to consider different options other than to adopt... At the same time though, why? I agree with clskinner. Mankind's agenda and goal has always been to "play God". It is God who gives life and who takes life(birth/death - finality) , and that is the way it is to always be.

Why is it necessary to encourage young women to give their embryos up and have them frozen? That practice can easily become a "money making" process for some. There are sooooo many aspects here and where to begin?

1. There are many unwanted babies who need loving homes... What's wrong with adoption? Is it really important the color of hair and eyes or nationality? When we become parents, our main concern out of love should be for the child and what is best for the child. It breaks my heart when I see unwanted babies and children on TV.

2. Science is already abe to "clone" animals and parts of the human body... and someday, you know that it is just a matter of time before... they start cloning the whole body and thus.... cloning babies and adults too. What worries me is that the issue of cloning and the issue of embryos being frozen is all .... mankind trying to play God.

3. Where do we draw the line? I'm probably not explaining this too well, but I hope the CC sticks to its guns and offers with kindness and compassion another option to infertile couples... like helping them to adopt babies that are already born.

4. Don't we already have enough unwanted babies and children and people... do we actually need Scientists making more? All of this technology is interesting and fascinating, but I do think, we need to be cautious and careful...

I say this with compassion and kindness for those who are truly and sincerely seeking help with figuring out how to start a family. Please adopt. Every child deserves a chance and a loving, caring and supportive home with parents who are filled with love and willing to make sacrifices that are necessary for the well-being of their children.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

I totally agree with your post, just to let you know, I am a woman who is having problems conceiving as well.
I know many of you here are caring and have big hearts on top of be faithful to our faith, this is beautiful!!!
One thing I must say though is please be sensitive on this issue of how it makes a person feel when you tell them to just adopt.
For those that have children, or can have children, this is a easy and bold statement to make. You are secure with your situation. How many here have natural children and have adopted, or can have children but chose not to in order to "save or rescue" those in orphanages? It almost seems like we are the ones to do this by default. The problem of conceiving goes much deeper than you know. Many women suffer with guilt, depression and feelings of not being a "normal woman" because they can't give their husbands "heirs" to carry on the bloodline and heritage of a family. This can be made worse if you are on only child, or you marry a man who is a "only" son... add to that the in-laws...do you see what I'm getting at?
It's easy to talk clinical and religious, but please, remember that their are some of us dealing with issues such as this in real life here on this forum.

 

[Carrye]

But is the evil the implantation of the baby, or his creation in a laboratory?

They're both evil. That's the problem.

 

[Paul S]

They're both evil. That's the problem.

Has the Church ever addressed this? I know IVF is evil, but with IVF the same couple creates the child and has him implanted in the mother. I'm not sure the church has ever addressed this as two separate processes. I also see a difference between this and surrogate motherhood, since the couple uses a surrogate mother in order to have children, and with embryonic adoption the couple is not creating new life outside marriage.

Doesn't the Church also teach that if the only possible choices are evil, the least evil may be done? With these babies whom already exist, the only choices are to do nothing and leaving them frozen, destroying them, or implanting them. Implantation seems to be the best option here.

A woman's womb is not just a breeding field. It is a part of a whole being which was designed to partake in the Creator's creating. IVF would create a situation where the surrogate mother has now taken matters into her own hands, used her body like fertile land and closed the door to new life being created between herself and her husband.

I agree with you, but I don't see the moral option to be letting a baby die when it can be prevented - maybe this is an area where double effect applies. The intent is to save the baby, not become a surrogate mother. If it's moral to remove a fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy, knowing the baby will die, then I don't see how it's immoral to do the reverse.

 

[Wiffey]

Please accept my humble apologies if anything I have said has caused you pain. Certainly, there is a great sense of loss and guilt that infertile couples struggle with, along with familial pressures to produce.

I have one child and can not have more for medical reasons. My husband has no biological children and is fine with that. But boy do I understand the family expectation thing! His folks were counting on him to reproduce, as his only sibling is struggling with fertility problems. Oy vey!

That being said, although I understand the emotions which might lead someone to consider IVF and certainly sympathize, I do not believe that the ends justify the means. I think that a couple needs to get through the grieving process that occurs and is natural when they cannot get pregnant or carry to term before anyone approaches them with the idea of adoption. Adoption can be a good choice for those who are ready to entertan the idea, but it DOES signify a letting go of the hope of a pregnancy. And it isn't for everyone.

Even when adoption exists as an alternative, infertility is painful and certainly nothing that anyone easily gets over.

 

[Carrye]

Has the Church ever addressed this? I know IVF is evil, but with IVF the same couple creates the child and has him implanted in the mother. I'm not sure the church has ever addressed this as two separate processes.

The Church has no formal policy on embryo adoption. I found what looks like a good article, but I'm trying to find more than just the abstract. Let me keep trying.

Edit: I can't get access to the article itself, but here's a list of the references: http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=embryonic+adoption&sp-a=000101d9-sp00000000

Doesn't the Church also teach that if the only possible choices are evil, the least evil may be done? With these babies whom already exist, the only choices are to do nothing and leaving them frozen, destroying them, or implanting them. Implantation seems to be the best option here.

Yes, the least evil may be done. The problem is with the conclusion that implantation would be the "best". Some ethicists would agree with you. And some would disagree.