Adopting frozen embryos

[JP2Admirer]

YinYangMom:

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.

Sorry YinYangMom, I was offline so I didn’t answer your question. Thanks Giawannabe!

As for this question, I would say that being a surrogate mother for other married women who cannot have a baby would be unethical because the intention is to create a child through artificial means. That I would say is wrong. In that case, the child doesn’t already exist, and the intention is to create it through artifical means.

 

[manualman]

Hard to believe people find this to be a tough one.

Does anybody believe it would be OK to leave a 6 year old child who was once a “test tube baby” in a closet for a month to die of starvation/dehydration? Duh. Same principal. Once the life is created, it is a human regardless of the sinful circumstances at conception (IVF, rape, incest, etc).

Implantation has never been the problem issue. Adoptees can never participate in the common IVF practice of implanting several and aborting the extra ones that ‘take.’

But here’s an interesting twist:
Would it be morally OK for a woman to have one of these rescued embryos implanted, carry him to term, then give him up for adoption to someone unable to have their own children? Would seem to steer clear of the traditional problem of surrogate motherhood… Talk about complicated: poor kid has a biological mom, birth mom AND adopted mom.

 

[tuopaolo]

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

I am pretty sure your understanding and recollection is incorrect. John Paul II never approved of the implantation of genetically foreign embryos. In fact with regard to frozen embryos in Great Britain, Cardinal Hume advised that they be allowed to die. In reading some theological commentary on the issue of implantation of genetically foreign embryos, I’ve never come across the claim that John Paul II approved of it. In fact those on the side that it is not immoral have always said that the magisterium has not settled the issue.

 

[777]

I STILL say in-vitro fertilization is not only making an infant outside of the body, or what you call it, it’s a 70,000% SIN!! One such woman, who claimed to be a devout Catholic, had something like that. Her name was Celine Angelil.

 

[batteddy]

"I STILL say in-vitro fertilization is not only making an infant outside of the body, or what you call it, it’s a 70,000% SIN!! "

Yes, it IS sin. But in the hypothetical situation being discussed, the in-vitro fertilization has already happened. There are concieved babies sitting frozen in liquid nitrogen.

“Isn’t surrogate parenting against Church teaching?”

Yes, it can be, but it all depends on the intent.

That is to say: you cannot intend to concieve a child purely for the purpose of giving it away. You cannot carry a child for someone else who they could never carry on their own. But to “rescue” a child who is frozen or in a womb that has become in danger of miscarriage…once it already has been concieved and abandoned by its biological parents…it might be morally taken in and raised. There is no real difference between adopting a born child, and adopting an unborn child in my mind.

“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.”

It is a no-no. Because that baby would be created SPECIFICALLY with the intent and for the purpose of being carried to term by someone other than its biological mother.

But once the baby IS concieved already, I would think something can be done to rescue it. Just like once a child is in an orphanage it is okay to adopt, but it is wrong to have a child just to give it up for adoption.

“Would it be morally OK for a woman to have one of these rescued embryos implanted, carry him to term, then give him up for adoption to someone unable to have their own children?”

Depends on the intent. Sort of like “foster care” for the embryo, eh? Raising it for a few months of its life and then passing it on to the next caretaker?

I think that would depend on the Church’s teaching on foster care in general…is it moral to pass one child from person to person. To go from the orphanage (freezer) to a middle person and then finally to the adoptive parents…or should children go directly from orphanage to adoptive parents without being raised in between?

I think it all depends on intent.

 

[p.e.driver]

My initial instinct has always been No! But I’m not the Pope… so here’s the logic I’ve come to so far:

As Bobby Jim said, there are many children already born who need the basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, love, e.i. “Parents”. At the moment, frozen embryos need…nothing. No food, or shelter, but they can be adopted and kept frozen to prevent destruction.

Let’s look at the big picture… these embryos do have souls, and at the end of the world, they will meet Jesus like all of us… only they will have no final judgement and go straight to heaven… so they are fine where they are for now…

So… let’s pretend we are in a mathematically perfect world and ideally we should prioritize like this:

1. Outlaw IVF (therefore stopping the creation & freezing of embryos)
2. After that, adopt out the frozen embryos.
3. After that, adopt ALL born orphans.
4. If born orphans are all adopted, adopt & implant frozen orphans

But we all know we don’t live in a perfect world. Is it immoral to implant frozen embryos for the sake of adoption?.. I don’t believe so. I believe it is immoral to overlook the born orphans for the sake of experiencing a pregnancy and some how “starting fresh” with an embryo. I welcome anyone’s thoughts… this is just were I’m at right now. I’m genuinely concerned and waiting for the Vatican’s response.

 

[mlchance]

The human being who exists at fertilization is a gift from God. Even though the process (IVF) is evil, the baby is not.

Embryo adoption is an act of mercy; not a crime.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[cardenio]

Here’s an answer I like.

Adopting embryos is an issue that should never have come up. But it has come up. Neither the adoption or the destruction of these embryos is exactly what God had in mind, but the adoption is the “lesser of two evils.”

 

[Giannawannabe]

tuopaolo:

I am pretty sure your understanding and recollection is incorrect. John Paul II never approved of the implantation of genetically foreign embryos. In fact with regard to frozen embryos in Great Britain, Cardinal Hume advised that they be allowed to die. In reading some theological commentary on the issue of implantation of genetically foreign embryos, I’ve never come across the claim that John Paul II approved of it. In fact those on the side that it is not immoral have always said that the magisterium has not settled the issue.

Your recollection of this event does not sound right to me. I remember at the time, being very excited that there might be another avenue of adoption (my dh and I are adoptive parents). If you have an article to cite, I would be very interested in reading it. I would like to know if I’m wrong regarding this.
Human embryos that are conceived via IVF have souls and are human beings. Yes. The process of conception is sinful, but so is the process of unmarried persons conceiving and some place their children for adoption. I can not imagine that a Cardinal would advise that they would just be left to die. As I mentionioned in an earlier post here, that would be like an “in-vitro abortion”.
I agree that the magisterium has not settled the issue. However, I think in this particular instance, the embryos were to be destroyed, and JPII encouraged couples to adopt them, so they would not be killed.

 

[burnside]

I remember reading some time ago that,in theory,there was no problem in one woman being a surrogate mother for another in the following situation:-
Husband and wife create the embryo but,due to womb damage,the
wife keeps having miscarriages.Another woman can be used to carry the baby for the full term.
I cannot remember exactly who said this,but i feel pretty confident it came from a high-ranking member of the clergy.The difficulty about using surrogate mothers was that they normally were involved with carrying a baby that was created by the use of a sperm or egg donor,not one that was created by the two people who were both the biological parents.In addition,at the time i read this,there was a case or two in the Press of surrogate mothers doing some kind of financial deal and/or the couple deciding they no longer wanted the baby.The Church naturally disapproved of that,causing the reservations about the whole idea of surrogacy

 

[p.e.driver]

burnside:

I remember reading some time ago that,in theory,there was no problem in one woman being a surrogate mother for another in the following situation:-
Husband and wife create the embryo but,due to womb damage,the
wife keeps having miscarriages.Another woman can be used to carry the baby for the full term.
I cannot remember exactly who said this,but i feel pretty confident it came from a high-ranking member of the clergy.The difficulty about using surrogate mothers was that they normally were involved with carrying a baby that was created by the use of a sperm or egg donor,not one that was created by the two people who were both the biological parents.In addition,at the time i read this,there was a case or two in the Press of surrogate mothers doing some kind of financial deal and/or the couple deciding they no longer wanted the baby.The Church naturally disapproved of that,causing the reservations about the whole idea of surrogacy

The problem here is that the conception is still in a petrie dish (if I’m reading this correctly) and therefore still considered morally unacceptable by the CCC:
*
“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 (2376). Techniques involving only the married couple (homogologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable (2377). Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross (2379). A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift…A child may not be considered a peice of property, an idea to which an alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead (2378).”*

This would overide any clergy’s word.

 

[burnside]

You could be correct.I don’t know how accurate the Press Report was.

p.e.driver:

The problem here is that the conception is still in a petrie dish (if I’m reading this correctly) and therefore still considered morally unacceptable by the CCC:
*
“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 (2376). Techniques involving only the married couple (homogologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable (2377). Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross (2379). A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift…A child may not be considered a peice of property, an idea to which an alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead (2378).”*

This would overide any clergy’s word.

 

[tuopaolo]

Giannawannabe:

I would like to know if I’m wrong regarding this.

Giannawannabe:

I can not imagine that a Cardinal would advise that they would just be left to die.

You can read his statement here:

catholic-ew.org.uk/cn/96/960805a.htm

and here is the most relevant excerpt

On balance I would myself argue that the ‘least worse’ solution is to allow such embryos to die, by withdrawing them from the freezing process since this constitutes an extraordinary means of preserving life. (By ‘allowing to die’, I do not endorse additional actions intended to terminate their lives more rapidly.) But even with this option the loss of deliberately created human life is repugnant. It is the deplorable result of a bad law, and a profligate technique.

As I said, I very much doubt that JPII encouraged the implantation of genetically foreign embryos. Either you must not be remembering correctly or whatever medium you heard this from must have been defective (the media often get things wrong when it comes to religion)

 

[manualman]

osv.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=360

Hmm, seems to me that discussions are all similar to this one.

To me, it seems that the IVF people have put pro-lifers between a rock and a hard place. Choose neglect with full knowledge that a child will die or choose adoption with full knowledge that scandal (as it is technically defined) will result.

To me, it seems negligent manslaughter is worse sin than scandal.

 

[tuopaolo]

osv.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=360

Hmm, seems to me that discussions are all similar to this one.

To me, it seems that the IVF people have put pro-lifers between a rock and a hard place. Choose neglect with full knowledge that a child will die or choose adoption with full knowledge that scandal (as it is technically defined) will result.

To me, it seems negligent manslaughter is worse sin than scandal.

Avoiding evil (that which is intrinsically evil) is not neglect and doing something intrinsically evil for the sake of saving a child’s life or even a million childrens’ lives is unlawful (just as lying for a similar purpose would be unlawful)

There is never a situation where the only options available are sins. If one has analyzed a situation with those results then there must be something flawed with one’s analysis.

 

[manualman]

Perhaps you are right. But if so, I still say that must mean that it only ‘appears’ to be a scandal.

I have yet to hear an argument against this kind of adoption that holds water. Yes, the church holds that God intends all human beings to be created though an act of love between husband and wife. Agreed. Therefore, we should kill all bastard children, yes? NO! The concept of surrogate motherhood has been condemned by the church based on the understanding that the new life would be created in some other means than the only licit way.

In the case of frozen embryos, all that is moot. The life exists. The frozen child is fully human and posses the full dignity and value of humanity, regardless of the impropriety commited in his creation.

Seems to me that the attitude of ‘let them die’ smacks of the attitude of people of Jesus day towards lepers and cripples.