Adopting Frozen Embryos

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds a little risky…what happens if the embryo defrosts?

Seriously, though, I never heard of frozen embryos before. Though it sounds to me like a form of surrogacy (which is a no-no in the CCC).
 
Embryo adoption happens when a couple uses IVF and has leftover embryos from the procedure. They can decide to have them discarded, they can pay to have them stored indefinitely, or they can donate them. If they choose donation then an infertile couple can “adopt” one, have it implanted, carry it to term, and give birth.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that this is ok in the eyes of the catholic church. If it isn’t that doesn’t make much sense to me, since assuming they are equivalent to fully developed people, isn’t it cruel to discard them or have them frozen for decades?
 
I’m not sure that the Church has fully caught up with what is now scientifically possible in such circumstances yet.

To abandon these embryos, which are, in any moral sense, individual children, would be, by default, to abort them.

Surely babies that are born full term and are abandoned by their parents are rightly and justly adopted? If a baby, not yet full term, can be adopted by a couple who, through the ‘miracle of science’ can carry that unborn child to term and ‘normal’ birth, then this is no different, morally, from adopting an already-born child? It surely prevents the death of the child and, as such, surely that is a moral positive?
 
Please read Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae.

Unfortunately, this is not a moral solution to the problem.
 
I have read Dignitas Personae and the relevant section I copy below:
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.
Click to expand...
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. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”
Click to expand...
The main conclusion of this part of the document is that, with regard to those frozen babies, there is no conclusion and that the existence of and what to do with these frozen embryos presents questions… But there are no answers proposed by the Church in this instance.

This is not a sustainable position and, to be frank, I think it’s awful that the situation is left in such a way. Yes, it’s a ‘wisdom of Soloman’ type of thing, but it shouldn’t be left for another day as that guidance from the Vatican seems to be suggesting and that means that the Vatican has to answer legitimate questions on the matter and make a definitive moral pronouncement that goes beyond just saying “this situation shouldn’t have occurred in the first place”.

There are children that need to be saved.
 
This is such a difficult question, and most of us wish the Magisterium would get it together and make a ruling.

However, I totally disagree with the whole invitro thing. I truly believe that going the invitro route is wrong along with surrogacy and all other forms of attempting to manipulate the natural birth process. It has a high degree of “ick” factor for me. And I was offered these solutions so I know how desperate people are to try and have children.

That said, one of the reasons some couples choose NOT to go the invitro route is precisely the questions of the extra embryos. The mere idea of my babies being frozen for how long and possibly discarded gives me the willies. But if parents knew for a fact that those frozen embryos would most likely be adopted by desperate Catholic parents who can’t do invitro themselves and have no other way of “birthing” their own baby… then it might encourage more and more “snow babies.”

But I understand the concept of saving those babies.

Like I said, I wish the Vatican would get working on an answer for this. But for the record, I marked “no” for the poll. I feel it would be wrong to have someone else’s baby implanted in my womb. It is not what God intended. And believe me, I grieved my own infertility and miscarriage problems due to auto-immune issues. I turned down invitro fertilization, and miraculously got pregnant against all odds to have my one miracle baby.
 
I have to concur with DexUK. The Vatican’s response is a bit more than just “this should never have happened” but not much more. The full reply is that we should leave them frozen until such a time that it’s possible to create artificial wombs in order to allow these children to grow… and then adopt them.

I don’t see why this is the appropriate answer. Obviously the scientific feasibility of such a solution is a long ways away, and so we should just let this kids hang in limbo for hundreds of years… at which time they will likely die or not survive the implantation to an artificial womb process due to deterioration?! No, I don’t like that solution or understand why it’s the right answer.

I totally understand that children have the right to be formed by two loving parents through conjugal relations, but guess what? Many kids who are created through conjugal relations don’t have loving parents. The Church doesn’t teach, for instance, that we’re allowed to abort children conceived via rape or incest and for good reason! They’re already alive. Their dignity was violated, yes that’s true, but that’s no reason for them to be discarded. The same goes, in my book, for children created via artificial means. Their dignity was offended by the actions of their parents but I don’t see how trying to allow them to have life and have it more abundantly would be wrong.

I can, however, understand the Vatican’s concern that couples suffering from infertility problems would see embryo adoption as a “loophole” of sorts since they can’t use IVF themselves. It’s a tricky situation to say the least.

As for me, my answer would be “no” as to whether I would do it. Aside from being a man, my wife and I have no problems from a fertility standpoint but we do have problems from a delivery standpoint. We might adopt kids who are already born, but there’s no reason for us to adopt embryos even if the Church were to rule it licit.
 
The_Bucket said:
I have to concur with DexUK. The Vatican’s response is a bit more than just “this should never have happened” but not much more. The full reply is that we should leave them frozen until such a time that it’s possible to create artificial wombs in order to allow these children to grow… and then adopt them.

I don’t see why this is the appropriate answer. Obviously the scientific feasibility of such a solution is a long ways away, and so we should just let this kids hang in limbo for hundreds of years… at which time they will likely die or not survive the implantation to an artificial womb process due to deterioration?! No, I don’t like that solution or understand why it’s the right answer.

I totally understand that children have the right to be formed by two loving parents through conjugal relations, but guess what? Many kids who are created through conjugal relations don’t have loving parents. The Church doesn’t teach, for instance, that we’re allowed to abort children conceived via rape or incest and for good reason! They’re already alive. Their dignity was violated, yes that’s true, but that’s no reason for them to be discarded. The same goes, in my book, for children created via artificial means. Their dignity was offended by the actions of their parents but I don’t see how trying to allow them to have life and have it more abundantly would be wrong.

I can, however, understand the Vatican’s concern that couples suffering from infertility problems would see embryo adoption as a “loophole” of sorts since they can’t use IVF themselves. It’s a tricky situation to say the least.

As for me, my answer would be “no” as to whether I would do it. Aside from being a man, my wife and I have no problems from a fertility standpoint but we do have problems from a delivery standpoint. We might adopt kids who are already born, but there’s no reason for us to adopt embryos even if the Church were to rule it licit.
Click to expand...
Are your sure that the artificial womb idea comes from the Vatican…I think it’s Father Tad’s personal opinion.
In my opinion, parents have an obligation to care for their children in this way until some other option becomes available in the future (maybe a sophisticated “embryo incubator” or “artificial womb” of some kind), or until there is a reasonable certainty that they have died on their own from decay or “freezer burn,” which may occur whenever frozen embryos are stored for extended periods. Perhaps after a few hundred years, all the stored embryos would have died on their own, and they could finally be thawed and given a decent burial. This approach would not involve us in the direct moral agency of ending their lives by withdrawing their life-sustaining liquid nitrogen.
Click to expand...
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=478

It could be that he’s basing it on a Vatican document…but I don’t see the document…:o
 
There is no official church teaching yet on embryo adoption. The National Catholic Bioethics Center recently published an entire book (yes, with an imprimatur) containing 12 lengthy essays from various Catholic theologians and bioethicists about embryo adoption. Each essay was well-reasoned, and you could tell that each writer had put a lot of thought and prayer into the question of embryo adoption… and the essays reflected a wide variety of opinions. It’s a fascinating read, if anyone is interested.

store.ncbcenter.org/iHuman-Embryo-Adoption-Biotechnology-Marriage-and-the-Right-to-Lifei-P51.aspx
 
Perhaps after a few hundred years, all the stored embryos would have died on their own, and they could finally be thawed and given a decent burial. This approach would not involve us in the direct moral agency of ending their lives by withdrawing their life-sustaining liquid nitrogen.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with this. Deliberate inaction that ends in death is just as bad as deliberate action that ends in death, in particular if this death is avoidable.

To be completely honest, and having thought about it more, my instinct is that the Church is bordering on Scandal if it is teaching doing nothing and thereby allowing these innocents to die. It’s not the babies’ fault that they are being held, unwanted, in cryogenic storage, and it’s not the babies’ fault if they are left so long that their cellular structures degrade and eventually die. It feels like a scandal to me that they should not be permitted to live by means of a loving woman who willingly sacrifices herself for a while that these children may live. That would be, essentially, a logical extension of being a wet nurse. (I use the word ‘scandal’ in its particular religious context here).

My heart breaks for these children who will never know life but who could, potentially, be saved. Certainly the situation should not have come to pass in the first place, but now that it has, don’t we (society) have an absolute moral duty to save their lives? Surely we must not allow inaction to rule us and passively let these little ones die? Every fibre of my being yearns for life for these innocents.
 
AnastasiaRomano said:
There is no official church teaching yet on embryo adoption. The National Catholic Bioethics Center recently published an entire book (yes, with an imprimatur) containing 12 lengthy essays from various Catholic theologians and bioethicists about embryo adoption. Each essay was well-reasoned, and you could tell that each writer had put a lot of thought and prayer into the question of embryo adoption… and the essays reflected a wide variety of opinions. It’s a fascinating read, if anyone is interested.

store.ncbcenter.org/iHuman-Embryo-Adoption-Biotechnology-Marriage-and-the-Right-to-Lifei-P51.aspx
Click to expand...
Glad you posted this. I just took the “Catholic Sexual Ethics” class in 2011 at the TOB institute, taught by Dr. John Haas, the pres. of this bioethics center. We learned how to isolate clean cases, and we read the parts of the documents mentioned in this thread, and hashed through them carefully.

The church is saying, so far, that adopting embryos cannot be a means to treat infertility. This is a very nuanced wording, and is different than an intent solely for the person itself. All sorts of questions arise as to how to measure intent, etc. Dr. haas was leaning towards discouraging the practice, but it isn’t black and white at this time.
 
agapewolf said:
The church is saying, so far, that adopting embryos cannot be a means to treat infertility. This is a very nuanced wording, and is different than an intent solely for the person itself. All sorts of questions arise as to how to measure intent, etc. Dr. haas was leaning towards discouraging the practice, but it isn’t black and white at this time.
Click to expand...
Right, but this is such a gray area. I think the Church would probably say “OK” to someone without fertility problems but hesitate to give approve to someone with fertility problems. Then it becomes kind of ridiculous where it’s OK for some people but not for others despite the fact that the actions are exactly the same and the intentions are actually the same… to bring a child to full gestation. The only difference is the circumstances.
 
The_Bucket said:
Right, but this is such a gray area. I think the Church would probably say “OK” to someone without fertility problems but hesitate to give approve to someone with fertility problems. Then it becomes kind of ridiculous where it’s OK for some people but not for others despite the fact that the actions are exactly the same and the intentions are actually the same… to bring a child to full gestation. The only difference is the circumstances.
Click to expand...
That’s approaching it backwards, and is actually very far fetched in its approach.

It’s a matter of whether a human being is used as a means to an end. The church, if it finally does make a final statement of yes or no, would not determine its morality based on who is doing the action such as your suggestion.
 
The babies are already created, they are just in suspended animation.

Yes, I would adopt a “Snowflake” as they have been termed. And I would do it regardless of what the Church hasn’t said. They are children who have already been made. They can’t be killed, can they? So what is the alternative? Give them to people who want babies!
 
TheRealJuliane said:
The babies are already created, they are just in suspended animation.

Yes, I would adopt a “Snowflake” as they have been termed. And I would do it regardless of what the Church hasn’t said. They are children who have already been made. They can’t be killed, can they? So what is the alternative? Give them to people who want babies!
Click to expand...
Thats true, to destroy the embryo would be just like abortion in a way, i think they should be allowed the chance to be born
 
I’m pretty sure that there is no authoritative teaching on this one yet. Note that the opinions of respected theologians are NOT authoritative teaching!

There are two good competing arguments here:
  1. The frozen child bears no guilt for the sinful IVF procedure her parents procured. It is an act of mercy to rescue her if possible from imprisonment in frozen stasis even though the implantation procedure has a high mortality rate. It’s still better than certain death after a long freezer limbo!
  2. God designed the marital relationship such that pregnancy is meant to be an ongoing experience of intimacy between man and wife. The act of implanting another couple’s child in the womb of the mother is so disruptive to the right to intimacy between a man and wife as to make it impermissible. The ends don’t justify the means.
I lean towards the latter. Unlike conventional adoption, embryo adoption puts the woman through the entire pregnancy experience. I think we’re arrogant and foolish to assume that this is merely a physical process with no deeper emotional meaning or potentially devastating effects on the marriage relationship.
 
manualman said:
I’m pretty sure that there is no authoritative teaching on this one yet. Note that the opinions of respected theologians are NOT authoritative teaching!

There are two good competing arguments here:
  1. The frozen child bears no guilt for the sinful IVF procedure her parents procured. It is an act of mercy to rescue her if possible from imprisonment in frozen stasis even though the implantation procedure has a high mortality rate. It’s still better than certain death after a long freezer limbo!
  2. God designed the marital relationship such that pregnancy is meant to be an ongoing experience of intimacy between man and wife. The act of implanting another couple’s child in the womb of the mother is so disruptive to the right to intimacy between a man and wife as to make it impermissible. The ends don’t justify the means.
I lean towards the latter. Unlike conventional adoption, embryo adoption puts the woman through the entire pregnancy experience. I think we’re arrogant and foolish to assume that this is merely a physical process with no deeper emotional meaning or potentially devastating effects on the marriage relationship.
Click to expand...
Although I’m too old now to have a child, I’d have stepped up and said yes to implantation of an embryo and be a mother to him/her to keep the child from being destroyed.

I see it this way, it’s like someone driving too fast over a bridge and getting stuck hanging between the bridge and certain death if their vehicle should drop. Okay, they got themselves into this situation, but they still deserve to be saved, especially any innocents that may be in the car with the driver. It’s not a perfect analogy–it’s the best I could come up with, but saving life is always the right thing to do, IMO. They’re already here. We’re not talking about creating new embryos, we’re talking about rescuing ones that already exist.

It’s also similar to bringing married ministers into the Church as priests–it’s an exception to the general rule, but the right thing to do, just the same. I know the celibate priesthood is a discipline, but I think the principle is the same. If a problem already exists we should try to fix it instead of worrying about encouraging misunderstandings. The misunderstandings can be addressed, but living embryos shouldn’t be made to wait because some people might get the wrong idea, should they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top