Adopting frozen embryos

[Angainor]

It was in the news a while back that some Spanish women adopted frozen human embryos that were created using in vitro fertilization. The women then impregnated themselves with an embryo and will raise the child as their own.

I understand the Catholic Church has not established an official position on the issue. The in vitro fertilization itself was, of course, condemned, but that is water under the bridge. The embryos were already created and just frozen there.

So, what do you think? Is it a good thing to adopt these embryos? I heard on a Catholic Radio show that there are Catholics on both sides. One side said it was good because it is just like adoption. One side said it was bad because the woman became pregnant by going around the normal method with her husband.

I think it should be conception itself that would be sinful to achieve without marital relations, not pregnancy per se. The adopting of the embryo should not be considered sinful.

 

[Giannawannabe]

From what I understand, the Holy Father himself has encouraged this practice in the past. If I remember correctly, there were some frozen embryos in Great Britain that were going to be destroyed, so JPII encouraged couples to adopt the embryos before they were destroyed. This was some time back. I don’t think there has been any formal declaration or decision as to whether it is against Church teaching at this point. I’m sure there will be in the future.

God Bless

Giannawannabe

 

[yochumjy]

Angainor:

It was in the news a while back that some Spanish women adopted frozen human embryos that were created using in vitro fertilization. The women then impregnated themselves with an embryo and will raise the child as their own.

I understand the Catholic Church has not established an official position on the issue. The in vitro fertilization itself was, of course, condemned, but that is water under the bridge. The embryos were already created and just frozen there.

So, what do you think? Is it a good thing to adopt these embryos? I heard on a Catholic Radio show that there are Catholics on both sides. One side said it was good because it is just like adoption. One side said it was bad because the woman became pregnant by going around the normal method with her husband.

I think it should be conception itself that would be sinful to achieve without marital relations, not pregnancy per se. The adopting of the embryo should not be considered sinful.

The problem is that you are removing the marital act from child birth. If the embryo could be implanted and then normal relations done for the fertilization it would be fine. Also, how are they actually fertilyzing the embryos? Are they buying 10, fertilizing 10 and then picking the best 2 like IVF? Are any children being aborted? I have no clue from your post if this was mentioned or even considered.

John

 

[yochumjy]

yochumjy:

The problem is that you are removing the marital act from child birth. If the embryo could be implanted and then normal relations done for the fertilization it would be fine. Also, how are they actually fertilyzing the embryos? Are they buying 10, fertilizing 10 and then picking the best 2 like IVF? Are any children being aborted? I have no clue from your post if this was mentioned or even considered.

Ummmmm, oops, I was thinking eggs, not embryos…

The only problem is if this becomes a business. Where the IVF people start marketing this, extra eggs, extra sperm, we’ll create them and you save them…

John

 

[Angainor]

yochumjy:

The problem is that you are removing the marital act from child birth. If the embryo could be implanted and then normal relations done for the fertilization it would be fine. Also, how are they actually fertilyzing the embryos? Are they buying 10, fertilizing 10 and then picking the best 2 like IVF? Are any children being aborted? I have no clue from your post if this was mentioned or even considered.

John

Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough.

The embryos in question are “extra” embryos “left over” when other couples went through the process of IVF. They are already fertilized and just sitting in a freezer. I understand that part of it is sinful.

Other women who are not related to the couple have adopted those embryos and inserted them in their womb to raise them. The baby will not be related to either the adopted mother who became pregnant with the child or father.

 

[yochumjy]

Angainor:

Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough.

The embryos in question are “extra” embryos “left over” when other couples went through the process of IVF. They are already fertilized and just sitting in a freezer. I understand that part of it is sinful.

Other women who are not related to the couple have adopted those embryos and inserted them in their womb to raise them. The baby will not be related to either the adopted mother who became pregnant with the child or father.

You were clear, I just had a brain blip, see my other response…

John

 

[Genesis315]

Hmmm. I voted yes on instinct because invitro fertilization is wrong. I didn’t really think about how these are already created human lives. In this case I would say it is probably not sinful. On the other hand, would it be one of those do evil to achieve a good situations? Hmmm. Tough question

 

[Angainor]

yochumjy:

Ummmmm, oops, I was thinking eggs, not embryos…

The only problem is if this becomes a business. Where the IVF people start marketing this, extra eggs, extra sperm, we’ll create them and you save them…

John

Yes, I agree that would be horrible. There is also a danger of shifting responisibility. Responsible people are picking up the slack of the grossly irresponsible. It is fine in isolated incidents, but if it becomes a the common way of doing things it would be destrutive. But the same could be said for traditional adoption.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Genesis315:

Hmmm. I voted yes on instinct because invitro fertilization is wrong. I didn’t really think about how these are already created human lives. In this case I would say it is probably not sinful. On the other hand, would it be one of those do evil to achieve a good situations? Hmmm. Tough question

Same question I have. I initially voted yes, but after reading these posts, I’m not sure what I think. I guess I should read first before voting. But that raises a good point about doing evil to achieve good. Do the ends justify the means in this case? I suppose what we have to ask is, is IVF intrinsically evil, or does its moral depravity depend on the situation? From what I can gather, it seems the Church has declared IVF intrinsically evil, in the same way that contraception is intrinsically evil. Being an intrinsic evil, no amount of good that can come from using an intrinsic evil can ever be justified. Just my thoughts. I hope the Church makes a statement soon!

 

[YinYangMom]

I would imagine adopting an embryo is a noble thing, especially if it would otherwise be destroyed.

The problem is what to do with it after it’s been adopted. How long can an embryo remain viable as such?

What does the adoptive couple do with it once they’ve adopted it??

Isn’t surrogate parenting against Church teaching?

Besides, how does one “impregnate oneself” with the embryo???
Doesn’t that require medical assistance???

 

[Giannawannabe]

After JPII encouraged couples to adopt frozen embryos set to be destroyed (this was a few years ago), my husband and I looked into adopting embryos.

In response to YinYangMom—a woman’s body must be prepared to receive the embryo, much the same as if she were to undergo IVF. There is nothing immoral about doing this (taking hormones to prepare body for implantation of an embryo). Once the adoptive mom is prepared, the embryo is inserted in the her body. The embryo may or may not implant in the woman’s uterus.

The fees for the procedure is similar to adoption fees. Currently, there are a couple of angencies in the business of frozen embryo adoption.

An embryo, whether conceived naturally or in-vitro has a soul. If the embryos are to be destroyed anyway, I can not imagine it would not be okay to adopt them. They would be killed otherwise. I know that IVF is not a procedure that is okay with the Church, but to allow these embryos to die would be like an invitro-abortion. I pray that The Church makes a definitive statement regarding this soon.

 

[JP2Admirer]

I think the Holy Father was right in encouraging people to adopt the embryos.

I think we should remember the golden rule in this. If you were a frozen embryo, what would you want?

Also, Jesus said that “whatever you’ve done unto the least of my brethren, you’ve done unto me.” I would say that an embryo could be considered the “least” among us. I think Againor is right on. The act of conceiving the child without sexual relations is what is evil.

I don’t believe it would be an evil act to adopt the embryo after the fact. The adopter had no part in the evil, they merely are doing good. They are not doing evil to make good, as the evil has already been committed.

It’s actually very similar to the Good Samaritan parable. An evil has been committed against someone and they are suffering. Another person comes along and helps them get through that evil. That is how I see this. The distinction is in that the intention of the adopter is to save a life, not to create it artificially. I would say they are doing a moral good.

It becomes another story, though, if people or companies intend to create extra embryos to adopt them out. That would definitely be unethical, and no different from IVF. Same point, same intention, therefore, unethical.

 

[YinYangMom]

Giannawannabe:

the embryo is inserted in the her body.

Isn’t that the part which is against Church teaching though???

JP2Admirer,

When JPII encouraged people to adopt embryos did he say what they were supposed to do with it once they received it? Did he actually encourage implantation of the embryos???

 

[kmktexas]

UKcatholicGuy:

Same question I have. I initially voted yes, but after reading these posts, I’m not sure what I think. I guess I should read first before voting. But that raises a good point about doing evil to achieve good. Do the ends justify the means in this case? I suppose what we have to ask is, is IVF intrinsically evil, or does its moral depravity depend on the situation? From what I can gather, it seems the Church has declared IVF intrinsically evil, in the same way that contraception is intrinsically evil. Being an intrinsic evil, no amount of good that can come from using an intrinsic evil can ever be justified. Just my thoughts. I hope the Church makes a statement soon!

IVF **is ** intrinsically wrong but we aren’t talking about this woman (or any other couple) doing any more fertilization. These embryos are the result of fertilization that already happened. The issue of “removing the marital act from the birth” is a non-issue. This isn’t even Church teaching. The Church teaches that the marital act and the creation of new life should not be seperated. Again, that sin has already happened and is in the past. New life already exists and the only question is, how do we deal with it now? To adopt the embryo and to bring the child to birth are good things. No one is talking about doing evil to acheive good as would be the case for the couple who chose to fertilize the children outside of the womb. This is doing good so that more good can come of it.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

A couple of thoughts…

There are an awful lot of children who have already been born who are in desperate need of loving parents. Some of them are orphans, some are children of mothers who otherwise might have chosen abortion, some are children who have been abused. My wife and I might consider adopting one of them first. Not that I like the fact that embryos are frozen and in stasis, but by virtue of being in stasis, their need is not quite as immediate as a newborn or young child in need of adoption.

Also, for the frozen embryos to be born, they have to be implanted and brought to term. If I recall correctly, a substantial portion of them usually die in the process - they will try to implant four, and hope that one survives. So in the merciful act of bringing a frozen embryo to term, there’s a good chance that you’re dooming it to die. I’m not sure how the morality of that shakes out, since the embryo isn’t in imminent danger of death if you leave it frozen.

 

[Mom_of_one]

YinYangMom:

Isn’t that the part which is against Church teaching though???* Nope. What the Church teaches against is the MAKING of the baby outside of the woman’s body, not the putting in of the baby. Hope that helps. *

JP2Admirer,

When JPII encouraged people to adopt embryos did he say what they were supposed to do with it once they received it? Did he actually encourage implantation of the embryos???

 

[Giannawannabe]

YinYangMom:

JP2Admirer,

When JPII encouraged people to adopt embryos did he say what they were supposed to do with it once they received it? Did he actually encourage implantation of the embryos???

Yes. I believe JPII encouraged the inserting of the embryos so they would have a chance at life by implanting in the adoptive mother’s uterus. Otherwise, the frozen embryos were to be destroyed as the biological parents no longer wanted them. To adopt them and not try to bring them to life would not be helpful at all.

 

[DustinsDad]

yochumjy:

The problem is that you are removing the marital act from child birth. If the embryo could be implanted and then normal relations done for the fertilization it would be fine.

Actually, an embryo is already human, already been fertilized (the union of the sperm and the egg is conception). That particular sin has already been committed here - removing the marital act from the bringing forth of new life.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[YinYangMom]

Giannawannabe:

Yes. I believe JPII encouraged the inserting of the embryos so they would have a chance at life by implanting in the adoptive mother’s uterus. Otherwise, the frozen embryos were to be destroyed as the biological parents no longer wanted them. To adopt them and not try to bring them to life would not be helpful at all.

Thanks.

And you, too, Momophone.
But does that mean Catholic women are allowed to be surrogate mothers for other married women who cannot carry a baby to term due to medical reasons? I always thought that was a no-no too.

 

[abcdefg]

Is it difficult to accept embryos are just human like everyone here? why so many voted “yes”. what the church is against is sinful procreation methods, an embryo is already procreated and just need to bring up.