Are women morally obligated to adopt frozen embryos?

[NTOT]

If they have an empty womb available not currently occupied and there is someone who would continue to live if implanted, isn’t the women obligated to take in the baby? As on another thread, if someone is drowning and you have an empty boat, are you not obligated to make your boat available to this person?

 

[Harrison]

Isn’t that in-vitro fertilization? Either way, it does not sound morally acceptable, so, no, you would not be obligated to do something that is morally wrong in order to save that life.

As for saving someone who is drowning, you are morally obligated to help IF YOU CAN, but arguably one should not needlessly risk their life unless they are capable of doing so, otherwise you now have two people to rescue instead of one.

 

[1ke]

If they have an empty womb available not currently occupied and there is someone who would continue to live if implanted, isn’t the women obligated to take in the baby?

The woman who *created *the embryos certainly has a moral obligation to the babies and bringing them to term.

There is no obligation for all women in general to adopt an embryo.

 

[RavenousWolf]

Apparently this is a hot debate within religious circles currently.

Some believe that it would be morally wrong to include yourself in the invitro process, as post #2 suggested.

Others believe that it is morally wrong to let the children suffer in a frozen state for an unknown period of time and allow their lives to be put on hold. It’s also unknown whether they would later be “thrown away” or possibly used for research. Both are despicable ideas, but I guess we’ll just have to see what the Church says in regards to such a situation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Another question is are people obligated to adopt if they have an extra bedroom? The answer should be the same. I am not obliged to adopt children. There are already many people that are willing to adopt children. Is it good to adopt but it isn’t an obligation

Regarding adopting frozen embryos I cannot see an all out ban against adopting them. They were created and stored. They were not asked their opinion. They are totally innocent of the sins of their parents, the doctors, the scientists. Because these people decided on IVF and committed a sin…then the poor babies need to suffer the consequences and be denied the chance to be born? They cannot be condemned to life in prison in solitary confinement without the chance of parole because other people sinned. I just cannot see it.

 

[turtle18]

In theory, I can’t see anything wrong with being a “uterus donor” for these poor little embryos. It certainly beats research. A woman could have the baby and then give it up to a childless couple. How is it any different than organ donation?

 

[Seatuck]

I don’t think women are morally obligated to bear one of these children. But if adopting one would prevent it from being experiemented on then I’m all for it. There is an alternative to bearing one and that is baptism and allowing the child to die and go to heaven.

 

[NTOT]

Another question is are people obligated to adopt if they have an extra bedroom? The answer should be the same. I am not obliged to adopt children.

Doesn’t this beg the question “When did we see you naked?” and the answer “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me”? How can one not obligated to share their gifts?

There are already many people that are willing to adopt children. Is it good to adopt but it isn’t an obligation.

It is hard to rectify in my mind willingly refusing to adopt someone in need when one has provisions and ability available. Help me understand.
Personally I don’t think embryo adoption is morally licit due to violation of the sacredness of the mother’s womb on those grounds, but I don’t know the official Church’s position. That is why I am trying to discern in case the Church has no problem with it, would women then have the obligation to save these babies.

There is an alternative to bearing one and that is baptism and allowing the child to die and go to heaven.

Could the whole nitrogen tank be baptized at once by immersing it in holy water and following the normal form of baptism?

 

[Seatuck]

Doesn’t this beg the question “When did we see you naked?” and the answer “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me”? How can one not obligated to share their gifts?

It is hard to rectify in my mind willingly refusing to adopt someone in need when one has provisions and ability available. Help me understand.
Personally I don’t think embryo adoption is morally licit due to violation of the sacredness of the mother’s womb on those grounds, but I don’t know the official Church’s position. That is why I am trying to discern in case the Church has no problem with it, would women then have the obligation to save these babies.

Could the whole nitrogen tank be baptized at once by immersing it in holy water and following the normal form of baptism?

No, I believe for baptism to be valid the water must hit the recipient . And this would assume that the embryo is alive . The church hasn’t spoken on this scenario or the snowflake baby adoption either. I’d like some clarification on the matter. Hope it’s forthcoming.