Adopting Frozen Embryos

[agapewolf]

I have to say I am a little confused. How am I weighing actions rather than outcomes? I am weighing the likelihood of the death of the embryo. That is not an action but rather an outcome.

I’ve already mentioned above a couple action items that are currently involved in the whole process. They each have their own moral aspects to them as actions. The “choice” of one over the other (Which you are simplifying way beyond what it can be simplified too, as I already explained this has loads of background study behind this idea), etc

 

[thewanderer]

Oh yes, I do understand that, but that is true of so many actions that it is not really possible to live our lives saying that I will avoid an action unless I have a decree from the church that such an action in my situation is moral. All we can do is our best, which means taking the principles which we are given by the Church and using our best judgement to form our actions based upon them. If we allow the fear of unkowingly causing harm to stop us from acting we will nver get anything done.

Just to add to this, its a matter of setting ones own pride aside and trusting in God. We need to learn to set our own pride aside and accept that, as humans, we are going to make mistakes, we are going to do things which are in themselves immoral even when we are trying to do the right thing. That’s the reality. We need to accept the reality that we can’t be perfect and put our trust in God that so long as we use the principles given by the Church to form our actions, He will lead us where we need to go. If we can’t learn to accept that then we will end up allowing our desire to ensure that we imperfect humans always get it right in the way of actually accomplishing things for God and His kingdom. What if I am right in my thinking but because of inaction many precious children who might have been adopted and up dying? There is great risk on both sides of this issue, we should not allow our fear of making a mistake prevent us from doing something good. We must instead each use our reason in line with the principles given us by the Church and follow it without fear, but instead trusting in God and His providence.

 

[thewanderer]

I’ve already mentioned above a couple action items that are currently involved in the whole process. They each have their own moral aspects to them as actions. The “choice” of one over the other (Which you are simplifying way beyond what it can be simplified too, as I already explained this has loads of background study behind this idea), etc

You made the claim above that I have been comparring actions rather than results. Can you please either substantiate this claim or admit that you misspoke/were wrong? The two things that I have been comparing are the result of a dead child vs the possibility of a living child. Those are the results of multiple actions, yes, but they themselves are the effects, the results, and they are what I have been comparing when weighing the good and bad effects when talking about the principle of double effect.

Yes, of course there are multiple actions which lead up to these results, and it is a complicated situation, but I really don’t see how that changes what I was saying. Can you please clarify how you think this effects what I was saying?

 

[agapewolf]

You made the claim above that I have been comparring actions rather than results. Can you please either substantiate this claim or admit that you misspoke/were wrong? The two things that I have been comparing are the result of a dead child vs the possibility of a living child. Those are the results of multiple actions, yes, but they themselves are the effects, the results, and they are what I have been comparing when weighing the good and bad effects when talking about the principle of double effect.

Yes, of course there are multiple actions which lead up to these results, and it is a complicated situation, but I really don’t see how that changes what I was saying. Can you please clarify how you think this effects what I was saying?

I’ve already talked about this several times. I don’t know any other way to say it. You have to isolate each action as a clean case:

For example: IVF: morally wrong. WHy?

well, some people will say because of the abandoned embryos. Some people say because of the selective abortions if too many embryos live in the womb, some people say etc…etc…
None of these are actually WHY IVF is morally wrong, they are separate moral actions, EACH of them that have their own moral issue. You have to isolate the clean case:

The first step to IVF:
Fertility testing (depending on how its done, could be morally wrong)
more steps, which I don’t know all involved: harvesting eggs, creating the embryo, abandoning embryos, implanting, etc. Each have its own individual action that has moral implications.

So, in adopting embryos, there are MANY actions involved.
As I already, several times pointed out— the choosing of some over others, is a step that has a moral quandry, yet I don’t have the exhaustive several hours to explain this issue
— one of the next steps… unfreezing them, is an action that has moral implications.
another one— the implanting (this may be the biggest one that must be decided, because this is the ACTUAL main aspect of this whole issue. They would have to isolate the situation for a clean case in order to hash through the morality on it).

these are NOT simply effects. They are individual moral actions themselves.

 

[thewanderer]

I’ve already talked about this several times. I don’t know any other way to say it. You have to isolate each action as a clean case:

For example: IVF: morally wrong. WHy?

well, some people will say because of the abandoned embryos. Some people say because of the selective abortions if too many embryos live in the womb, some people say etc…etc…
None of these are actually WHY IVF is morally wrong, they are separate moral actions, EACH of them that have their own moral issue. You have to isolate the clean case:

The first step to IVF:
Fertility testing (depending on how its done, could be morally wrong)
more steps, which I don’t know all involved: harvesting eggs, creating the embryo, abandoning embryos, implanting, etc. Each have its own individual action that has moral implications.

So, in adopting embryos, there are MANY actions involved.
As I already, several times pointed out— the choosing of some over others, is a step that has a moral quandry, yet I don’t have the exhaustive several hours to explain this issue
— one of the next steps… unfreezing them, is an action that has moral implications.
another one— the implanting (this may be the biggest one that must be decided, because this is the ACTUAL main aspect of this whole issue. They would have to isolate the situation for a clean case in order to hash through the morality on it).

these are NOT simply effects. They are individual moral actions themselves.

I completely understand that there are multiple actions, or means if you will, and each needs to be examined individually to discover whether or not they are morally permissable. If that is the point you are trying to make then I think we are just talking past each other. In rereading my first post to you I see that I was not very clear about making a distinction between each of these steps of the process, but I have been keeping that in mind as I think about this all. When I responded to you I was trying to address two of the aspects, the act of choosing one over another, and the act of unfreezing the embryos, and leaving the third, the implantation of the embryo as the unknown determining factor of whether or not this would be moral. But it seems like I was not very clear about it. I guess I do not at all understand why the first two would be problematic, but I understand why the third one has so much debate.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Surrogacy is not really at issue because no couple, in this case, is asking a woman to take on their pregnancy so that they can have a child. Rather, this is a case of a couple taking on the unwanted embryo(s) of those who had them removed from their mother’s uterus and stored–perhaps never to be implanted in anyone, and thus left to die–a form of abortion, really. No couple is going to be a surrogate for another, but rather would take on being parents in their own right of an unwanted child, which is adoption, not surrogacy.

I think we could term it “passive surrogacy,” or some other label. But you are, in fact, carrying another couple’s child in your own uterus. Whether you do it with knowledge of the couple or whether the baby is representing the fact that a couple did ask to create him, I still call it surrogacy. Or…Maybe “host pregnancy?” There must be a term.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You are missing one VERY LARGE point here. The good and the bad you are weighing are not outcomes, but moral actions in themselves. The issues I brought up each have their own isolated issues with them under study. These are not effects, as you keep measuring them, but actual individual moral quandries themselves. THIS is the part of ends don’t justify the means.

This is the crux of the problem, and the reason I believe the Church can’t come to an authoritative answer: all solutions to this problem require means that the Church has authoritatively defined as immoral.

It appears that implicit in Church philosophy is that there is ALWAYS a moral means to choose from. However, sometimes this is not the case. The fertilized eggs exist, and an action MUST be taken, be it explicit or implicit. One action results in death, the other in life. I personally believe when faced with immoral means, the means the results in the good “ends” must be chosen.

 

[AnastasiaRomano]

So, in adopting embryos, there are MANY actions involved.
As I already, several times pointed out— the choosing of some over others, is a step that has a moral quandry, yet I don’t have the exhaustive several hours to explain this issue

I struggle to see why choosing one (or some) embryos over others would be any different than regular adoption. Adoptive parents choose certain children over others – they specify an age range, special needs they are willing to consider, sometimes gender, etc., and some APs have to turn down referrals if the child’s situation is not one they are comfortable with. If it’s a domestic infant adoption, generally the infant will end up being adopted by another family if one family declines. But in international adoption, being declined by one family possibly could mean growing up in an orphanage or institution, or possibly even death if the child has significant medical needs that are difficult to meet in his/her home country… So why would selecting embryos be any different than regular adoption, morally speaking? Particularly if they were selected at random?

 

[Schieffelin]

I think this line of thinking is something like saying that before contraception abortion or giving their babies to religious sisters who cared for such unwanted children was all that was open to unwed mothers so the religious sisters shouldn’t have opened their doors to those babies to discourage unmarried girls from engaging in sex outside of marriage. ** I rather doubt most people who are going to go through with IVF are all that bothered about the “left overs” nor would they be more likely to do it if people were willing to adopt their embryos.** They are thinking of what they want at the moment and not the long term consequences of their actions, any more than the girl who gives in to her boyfriend and gets pregnant. People can be extremely shortsighted, as the decline in the morals of our culture testifies.

I’m sorry but this simply isn’t true. I am dealing with infertility right now and because various support groups I know many many other women going through infertility–most of the are Protestant Christians. And this issue does concern them and affect their decision making very very much.

 

[agapewolf]

I struggle to see why choosing one (or some) embryos over others would be any different than regular adoption. Adoptive parents choose certain children over others – they specify an age range, special needs they are willing to consider, sometimes gender, etc., and some APs have to turn down referrals if the child’s situation is not one they are comfortable with. If it’s a domestic infant adoption, generally the infant will end up being adopted by another family if one family declines. But in international adoption, being declined by one family possibly could mean growing up in an orphanage or institution, or possibly even death if the child has significant medical needs that are difficult to meet in his/her home country… So why would selecting embryos be any different than regular adoption, morally speaking? Particularly if they were selected at random?

Perhaps you’ve missed the part where I’ve pointed out multiple times that I don’t have the time to put the hours of background to explain the issue. So I’m saying it again. It’s an issue. If you’re concerned, please contact that Catholic bioethics center.

 

[AnastasiaRomano]

Perhaps you’ve missed the part where I’ve pointed out multiple times that I don’t have the time to put the hours of background to explain the issue. So I’m saying it again. It’s an issue. If you’re concerned, please contact that Catholic bioethics center.

I’ve read their book, actually – a pretty good collection of essays from theologians and bioethicists on both sides of the issue. And I still don’t particularly understand your argument. If you put a statement out there saying that choosing embryos is immoral, even when done at random, you should expect people to ask you why exactly you believe that. Or at least be able to give a 5-minute explanation of why exactly choosing embryos differs from choosing children in adoption…

Just my $0.02, anyway.

 

[agapewolf]

I’ve read their book, actually – a pretty good collection of essays from theologians and bioethicists on both sides of the issue. And I still don’t particularly understand your argument. If you put a statement out there saying that choosing embryos is immoral, even when done at random, you should expect people to ask you why exactly you believe that. Or at least be able to give a 5-minute explanation of why exactly choosing embryos differs from choosing children in adoption…

Just my $0.02, anyway.

I didn’t say “I believe this” . I said it was a point brought up by Dr. Haas.

 

[crystal_waters]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=103086

Heres something from the ask an apologist forum

It says the church hasnt decided one way or the other, so we are free to support the procedure until the church reaches a decision

 

[Luvz2travel]

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!

That’s kind of how I view it.

But what if you’re a single and want to adopt but Mr. Right never showed up and maybe you could have children but Mr. Right isn’t even in the wings. I’m not in a position to adopt right now but if I was I might consider it as an alternative. I’d be just as happy to adopt a child who is already born as well.

 

[Luvz2travel]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=103086

Heres something from the ask an apologist forum

It says the church hasnt decided one way or the other, so we are free to support the procedure until the church reaches a decision

That’s no answer but if the church believes they are children what could the moral objection be other than some people are totally against adoption.

 

[JackieMom]

My sister adopted embryos about 7 years ago. She now has two boys who are biological brothers. It seems like this was the best of all worlds considering she could not concieve on her own. The children now have loving parents, they were not murdered, and my sister and BIL got to experience the joys of having babies.

The only way I can see this is that those frozen embryos are exactly the same as babies concieved via rape or incest. They were concieved immorally, but they are still children who need a loving home and parents. They are no less valuable or important or needy than babies in orphanages. Embryo adoption is taking something wrong and making it as right as possible. What is the alternative? Murdering them? They can only be frozen so long before they die - so freezing them indefinitely is not an option either. To Catholics that is the same as dumping a 5-year-old down the sink or allowing a newborn to perish from lack of care.

People will never stop doing invitro. Most couples prefer to have their extra embryos destroyed rather than donate them to an adoptive couple. Praise the Lord a small number of these babies are allowed to live!

If you see no difference between a frozen embryo and a child that has already been born, how could you deny them the right to live and have a family just because they were originally concieved inappropriately?

 

[JackieMom]

Surrogacy is not really at issue because no couple, in this case, is asking a woman to take on their pregnancy so that they can have a child. Rather, this is a case of a couple taking on the unwanted embryo(s) of those who had them removed from their mother’s uterus and stored–perhaps never to be implanted in anyone, and thus left to die–a form of abortion, really. No couple is going to be a surrogate for another, but rather would take on being parents in their own right of an unwanted child, which is adoption, not surrogacy.

The embryos are not removed from anyone’s uterus. They are fertilized in a laboratory, allowed to divide until a certain stage, then either frozen, discarded or implanted.

 

[Della]

The embryos are not removed from anyone’s uterus. They are fertilized in a laboratory, allowed to divide until a certain stage, then either frozen, discarded or implanted.

Thanks for the correction. :tiphat: They would have to be taken from the ovaries. As I understand it, at least 100 eggs need to be generated in order for implantation to be successful. That produces a lot of left over embryos if all are fertilized.

 

[JackieMom]

Thanks for the correction. :tiphat: They would have to be taken from the ovaries. As I understand it, at least 100 eggs need to be generated in order for implantation to be successful. That produces a lot of left over embryos if all are fertilized.

I don’t think that’s true. The woman involved takes drugs to stimulate her ovaries to prepare multiple eggs for harvesting, but I think the number is much lower than 100. The trick is to stimulate folicle development without hyperstimulation - which is dangerous. Still, yes, if possible more embryos than necessary are created. The ones that become fertilized and grow are then graded as to quality and the healthiest available are implanted. The “duds” are discarded and any extra healthy ones are stored for possible later use.

 

[Della]

I don’t think that’s true. The woman involved takes drugs to stimulate her ovaries to prepare multiple eggs for harvesting, but I think the number is much lower than 100. The trick is to stimulate folicle development without hyperstimulation - which is dangerous. Still, yes, if possible more embryos than necessary are created. The ones that become fertilized and grow are then graded as to quality and the healthiest available are implanted. The “duds” are discarded and any extra healthy ones are stored for possible later use.

Again, thanks. It’s the ones stored that are our concern. What happens to these human beings that are never implanted? And is it morally acceptable for Catholic women to adopt them for implantation, if offered? I say yes because they are human beings in need of rescuing, therefore the means used justifies it.