Embryonic "Adoption"

[Epiphanygirl]

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.

You're the best Wiffey!

 

[Paul S]

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.

I don't see how freezing or death, particularly if these babies are unbaptised and risk never being able to see God, is better than life and a chance at baptism and salvation. Yes, we trust the unbaptised to the mercy of God, but we don't know. Limbo remains a real possibility, and if it turns out that it's true, it makes abortion and IVF even more evil.

I am glad we have the Church to decide these matters, instead of each of us having to figure out for ourselves what seems right.

 

[Carrye]

I am glad we have the Church to decide these matters, instead of each of us having to figure out for ourselves what seems right.

That's where you and I agree, brother.

 

[cindylou]

I am glad we have the Church to decide these matters, instead of each of us having to figure out for ourselves what seems right.

That's just it...the Church has not made a definite statement regarding embyonic adoption after 8 years. I certainly do understand their hesitancy...Infertility is such a difficult and sensitive issue. I think this is where the problem is arising. As a woman, I know that if I were infertile, the thought of giving birth to my own child would be so overwhelming. And I can see how "easy" it is to justify this course of action. After all, these are babies already. I think that is why this option seems so evil to me. I think it is a way to reach out to well meaning loving Christian parents by telling them they are "rescueing" babies from destruction. On the surface it sounds great to save a babie AND solve a couples infertility problem. I think, however, it may encourage an even bigger attraction to the IVF industry and parents could convince themselves that they would be "helping" infertile couples by letting them "adopt" their children. I certainly am sensitive to infertile couples feelings, but this just gives me the creeps. I am concerned merely because I see how this thing has the potential to snowball especially since President Bush has suggested funding such programs. It is especially serious in the US since we have NO restrictions on how long an embryo can remain frozen. Besides, Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson are encouraging Christian parents to consider this option. It seems so sad to me, since there are so many little ones living, breathing and growing that have no parents at all or are living in foster homes just waiting to be held and loved. Just my thoughts. I hope the Church makes a decision/statement about this sooner than later.

Cindylou

 

[Paul S]

And I can see how "easy" it is to justify this course of action. After all, these are babies already. I think that is why this option seems so evil to me. I think it is a way to reach out to well meaning loving Christian parents by telling them they are "rescueing" babies from destruction. On the surface it sounds great to save a babie AND solve a couples infertility problem. I think, however, it may encourage an even bigger attraction to the IVF industry and parents could convince themselves that they would be "helping" infertile couples by letting them "adopt" their children.

But that's the difference - creating a child to let him be adopted this way is surrogate motherhood, which is immoral. These children are already created, and abandoned by their parents.

 

[Letalis]

Wow, I had no idea there was anything immoral with artificial fertilization and implantation. I wonder why there aren't as many threads on this as there are on birth control.

Of course, I think I already know the answer to that one.

 

[D'Ann]

Hi Epiphany girl and Cindy Lou,

First of all, my apologies to you or anyone that I may of offended regarding adoption. I agree with what you said Epiphany girl. When a couple comes to the conclusion that they can not have a baby of their own, there is most definitely a grieving process for what should of been. A grieving process for the loss of holding their baby in their arms, loving her/him, having this little sunshine in their life... It is heart-breaking how many couples would make excellent moms and dads but for whatever reason cannot conceive by normal methods.

I don't blame couples for seeking alternative methods, at the same time though, those methods can lead to even more heartache and sadness too. I don't know what the answers are and I truly hope and pray that the CC will make a decison on this issue soon.

My prayers will be with those couples who are grieving for what could of been and what they truly miss in their heart... loving their baby and holding their baby in their arms...

Also, couples that are struggling with conceiving... Please do not blame yourself, it is not your fault.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

 

[seebs]

Eight years? That's an eyeblink. I wouldn't expect a firm conclusion on a serious or non-trivial moral question in under fifty.

Which leaves us all wondering what to do in the mean time, but... Better that the Church take her time and be more confident, I think, then issue whatever answer comes up first... Isn't that part of why the Church's opinion is respected in the first place?