Adopting Frozen Embryos

[JackieMom]

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.

I agree. They are no different than the abandoned baby crying for warm arms to hold and protect him, a home to keep him safe and food in his belly. In fact, it’s worse since they literally have NO voice and the vast majority of people view them as disposable.

Check out any “IVF message board” and how the women discuss their procedures. They call the embryos “embies” and talk about their transfer and storage as though they were discussing some commodity.

 

[Della]

I agree. They are no different than the abandoned baby crying for warm arms to hold and protect him, a home to keep him safe and food in his belly. In fact, it’s worse since they literally have NO voice and the vast majority of people view them as disposable.

Check out any “IVF message board” and how the women discuss their procedures. They call the embryos “embies” and talk about their transfer and storage as though they were discussing some commodity.

Yes, when people think of children as something they want/need to fulfill their happiness instead of gifts from God they will think of them as disposable at their whim. Sad, very sad.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I have read quite a bit about fertility treatments and procedures (but not the bioethics book referenced above). Based on what I know of the ‘industry’ and their procedures, I would not go anywhere near the place.

This may indeed have been started as a way to ‘help’ infertile couples, but today it is an amazing racket. There is not one part of the process that the Church approves of since fertility clinics do not work to correct problems to allow couples to conceive naturally. A woman going in to adopt a frozen embryo would be subject to all the manipulation and unnatural procedures they would require (they don’t just squirt the babies in “turkey baster” method!)

I also do believe that enough couples are influenced by what might happen with their “extras”, that having them think all the ‘snowflakes’ are safely adopted would encourage infertile couples who might otherwise hesitate.

We should be doing what we can to discourage artificial conception instead of doing anything at all to encourage it. Yes, those babies are innocent victims, but we do not make things better when we implicitly encourage more emvryos to be created artificially. Many more children are discarded, “reduced”, or die through lack of implantation than are frozen for a later use.

 

[JackieMom]

I have read quite a bit about fertility treatments and procedures (but not the bioethics book referenced above). Based on what I know of the ‘industry’ and their procedures, I would not go anywhere near the place.

This may indeed have been started as a way to ‘help’ infertile couples, but today it is an amazing racket. There is not one part of the process that the Church approves of since fertility clinics do not work to correct problems to allow couples to conceive naturally. A woman going in to adopt a frozen embryo would be subject to all the manipulation and unnatural procedures they would require (they don’t just squirt the babies in “turkey baster” method!)

I also do believe that enough couples are influenced by what might happen with their “extras”, that having them think all the ‘snowflakes’ are safely adopted would encourage infertile couples who might otherwise hesitate.

We should be doing what we can to discourage artificial conception instead of doing anything at all to encourage it. Yes, those babies are innocent victims, but we do not make things better when we implicitly encourage more emvryos to be created artificially. Many more children are discarded, “reduced”, or die through lack of implantation than are frozen for a later use.

I think there are a couple of flaws here. One - very few couples allow their embryos to be “adopted.” I doubt any see it as a safety net for IVF. The vast majority of couples don’t want anyone else raising “their” kids and choose to discard or freeze until they die.

Secondly, we will never get people to stop using IVF. Most people see nothing wrong with it and many see it as a total godsend. Tey think we are insane for wanting todeny infertile couples biological children.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I think there are a couple of flaws here. One - very few couples allow their embryos to be “adopted.” I doubt any see it as a safety net for IVF. The vast majority of couples don’t want anyone else raising “their” kids and choose to discard or freeze until they die.

Secondly, we will never get people to stop using IVF. Most people see nothing wrong with it and many see it as a total godsend. Tey think we are insane for wanting todeny infertile couples biological children.

Yes, unfortunately I agree with you. Most people do think IVF is a godsend and now a perfectly natural and normal thing to do.

I actually think an articifical womb will only make things worse rather than better.

 

[crystal_waters]

I actually think an articifical womb will only make things worse rather than better.

I do too for several reasons, plus those carried for 9 months in an artificial womb are going to have a social stigma that they wouldnt have had they been born from a human womb

 

[Della]

I actually think an articifical womb will only make things worse rather than better.

I do too for several reasons, plus those carried for 9 months in an artificial womb are going to have a social stigma that they wouldnt have had they been born from a human womb

Not only that, a baby in the womb isn’t just incubating, he is listening to his mother’s heartbeat and the sound of her voice, as well as absorbing nutrients. He is being socialized before he is even born. In effect, he’d be kept deaf to any but artificial sounds, and that can’t be good for a developing child, either.

 

[thewanderer]

Not only that, a baby in the womb isn’t just incubating, he is listening to his mother’s heartbeat and the sound of her voice, as well as absorbing nutrients. He is being socialized before he is even born. In effect, he’d be kept deaf to any but artificial sounds, and that can’t be good for a developing child, either.

I guess I don’t quite understand that reasoning. Obviously an artifical womb is less ideal than being carried to term in ones own mother, but isn’t it a better option than death?

 

[Della]

I guess I don’t quite understand that reasoning. Obviously an artifical womb is less ideal than being carried to term in ones own mother, but isn’t it a better option than death?

The best option is a human mother–because the child is a human being. Artificial wombs could too easily be used to produce the “right kind” of human being. It’s not the same thing as an incubator, it’s playing with human life. An existing embryo needs a human mother no matter how that embryo was brought into being, although that too should not be done through artificial means. I cannot see how it would be good for the child to simply relegate him to a machine when living human women would want to adopt him and bear him in her womb.

We’ll have to see how the Church comes down on this, but I would hope it would be on the side of adoption into human mothers’ wombs for the sake of both child and mother. Machines, IMHO, ought to be a last resort, but as you say, better than nothing if they can be shown to be truly advantageous to the child and not produce children redisposed to maladjustments that will make their lives and those of others miserable rather than fruitful, and I don’t mean mere mental or physical impairments, but rather grave disorders of the mind that could make them a danger to themselves or others. We know that development in the womb and even botched deliveries can do this to a child. We’d have to be careful to not do this to these children, but create as nurturing an environment in the womb as possible–and that is a real human mother.

 

[thewanderer]

The best option is a human mother–because the child is a human being. Artificial wombs could too easily be used to produce the “right kind” of human being. It’s not the same thing as an incubator, it’s playing with human life. An existing embryo needs a human mother no matter how that embryo was brought into being, although that too should not be done through artificial means. I cannot see how it would be good for the child to simply relegate him to a machine when living human women would want to adopt him and bear him in her womb.

We’ll have to see how the Church comes down on this, but I would hope it would be on the side of adoption into human mothers’ wombs for the sake of both child and mother. Machines, IMHO, ought to be a last resort, but as you say, better than nothing if they can be shown to be truly advantageous to the child and not produce children redisposed to maladjustments that will make their lives and those of others miserable rather than fruitful, and I don’t mean mere mental or physical impairments, but rather grave disorders of the mind that could make them a danger to themselves or others. We know that development in the womb and even botched deliveries can do this to a child. We’d have to be careful to not do this to these children, but create as nurturing an environment in the womb as possible–and that is a real human mother.

I agreed with you that of course a real womb would be better than an artificial one, I just can’t see how being raised in an artificial womb would be better than death. Maybe that is not what you are intending to say, and if so I am sorry for replying.

 

[Della]

I agreed with you that of course a real womb would be better than an artificial one, I just can’t see how being raised in an artificial womb would be better than death. Maybe that is not what you are intending to say, and if so I am sorry for replying.

No, it’s good to reply for clarification. I agree, an artificial womb is better than death, but I’d rather not see us go that route unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Sadly, those who have frozen embryos seem in no hurry to hand over their offspring for implantation in either human or machine, so it’s probably a moot point.