Embryo Adoption?

[NickVA]

Has the Church spoken at all about the morality of “Embryo Adoption”. Embryo adoption being when some other couple’s embryo is implanted into a woman’s uterus.

Obviously, we know what the Church clearly says on the immorality of In-Vitro Fertilization process.

However, there are great numbers of children siting in freezers waiting to be born.

“The results show that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States. This number is higher than expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 200,000.”

“Of the remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death, abandonment, and divorce.” (Quote:The Rand Corp.)

These human beings are sitting in freezers waiting for someone to let them out.

 

[Rence]

I’m sure the magisterium would love to sanction adopting out those embryos, and I’m sure there are many Catholics who would like to do so. But I don’t know how the Vatican can approve these adoptions without at the same time giving a green light to IVF. It’s either allowed or it’s not… so those embryos will just have to sit in the freezer until they get adopted by non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t believe the Church has made a decision either way.

I would disagree with Rence. I don’t think allowing for embryo adoption means acceptance of IVF.

Babies conceived through adultery, fornication or rape aren’t less human. We don’t hold the sins of their parents against them.

The embryos exist I think they should be allowed to continue their lives. It isn’t their fault they were conceived in that manner.

This is just my opinion…

 

[NickVA]

But I don’t know how the Vatican can approve these adoptions without at the same time giving a green light to IVF. It’s either allowed or it’s not… so those embryos will just have to sit in the freezer until they get adopted by non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics.

In My opinion, There is a difference between this and IVF. This would not be immoral because it is rectifying the consequences of the sin of those who have chosen to use IVF and produce “surplus Children”.

 

[Willy_Jose]

The Church states in its most recent magesterial instruction of relevance - “Dignitas Personae” - that there is no moral solution. As quoted from item # 19 (emphasis mine):

*"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”.

 

[Rence]

I don’t believe the Church has made a decision either way.

I would disagree with Rence. I don’t think allowing for embryo adoption means acceptance of IVF.

Babies conceived through adultery, fornication or rape aren’t less human. We don’t hold the sins of their parents against them.

The embryos exist I think they should be allowed to continue their lives. It isn’t their fault they were conceived in that manner.

This is just my opinion…

Hey, I agree with you Mary Gail. I’d adopt one myself in a heartbeat. I just think the Church doesn’t allow for embryo adoption because people will construe it as allowing IVF. It doesn’t take much for the general public, with the help of the media, to take one sentence from the Pope and morph it into pages of inaccuracies. But, the Church will probably NEVER allow adopting of these embryos because of the staunch rules about the unitive properties requirement. If they did allow it, imagine the droves of Catholics that would be standing in line offering implantation. The Church would rather leave the embryos in the freezer than allow a woman to implant that embryo.

 

[Bookcat]

The Church states in its most recent magesterial instruction of relevance - “Dignitas Personae” - that there is no moral solution. As quoted from item # 19 (emphasis mine):

"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”.

thanks…saved me looking for it.

 

[Willy_Jose]

That being said, I think there is still the option for “embryo adoption” in the sense that one might offer to materially sponsor embryo maintenance in its current frozen state. There is no obligation for the sponsor to seek its implantation in any way. If we go by the traditional teaching, an embryo has life of its own and ensoulment. It is already a being in the eyes of God and we can “adopt” it the way it is.

 

[manualman]

Willy, your idea gives new meaning to the concept of “limbo!”. No, I think that would be an application of extraordinary health care means where it can’t do any positive good. It’s a tragedy that those babies got put in that situation, but using extraordinary means to perpetuate their suffering seems ill conceived to me.

I’ve come around on this issue. I used to think there was no good reason to deny implantation of embryos unjustly created by others in IVF in the same manner that we encourage people to adopt babies born and given up from out of wedlock situations. Why hold the sins of the parents against the children? But what swayed me was that the implantation itself creates a sort of faked pregnancy in which the language of the body SAYS that the love of the spouses has created a new life, which isn’t true. It’s a sort of biological lie that degrades the dignity and meaning of conjugal love.

 

[Debora123]

But what swayed me was that the implantation itself creates a sort of faked pregnancy in which** the language of the body SAYS that the love of the spouses has created a new life**, which isn’t true. It’s a sort of biological lie that degrades the dignity and meaning of conjugal love.

What about when someone gets pregnant bc of rape?

Seriously, it seems like this is all just legalism:

**“IVF is sinful, and it’s wrong, and that’s just the way it is, period.”
**
Where is compassion for these poor human beings, frozen in time?

I don’t support IVF in the least bit, but in this case, it’s about an innocent human life. We’re going to deny that life of the loving nurture it deserves simply because “IVF is wrong, and that’s just the way it is, period?” Come on people, sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath!

 

[Willy_Jose]

…It’s a tragedy that those babies got put in that situation, but using extraordinary means to perpetuate their suffering seems ill conceived to me.
QUOTE]

It is an injustice, but what made you conclude that the frozen embryos are “suffering”?.
Debora123;7496508:

What about when someone gets pregnant bc of rape?
…Where is compassion for these poor human beings, frozen in time?
QUOTE]

You have to take off from an answer to my question to manualman above.

 

[Debora123]

You know, I just thought of something. IVF - is IN Vitro Fertilization

In this case the embryos already are fertilized human beings who need a proper home to grow and prosper. Every human being deserves that, and it shouldn’t matter how they were conceived.

 

[Victorious]

The reason that there is no moral solution to this problem is that the ends do not justify the means: you cannot do evil (in this case, in vitro fertilization) in order to achieve good.

 

[Willy_Jose]

You know, I just thought of something. IVF - is IN Vitro Fertilization

In this case the embryos already are fertilized human beings who need a proper home to grow and prosper. Every human being deserves that, and it shouldn’t matter how they were conceived.

Yes, embryos are human beings. They were conceived in a petri-dish, but humans nevertheless. The process of fertilization goes against natural law, because there is a natural means of fertilization with the attendant unitive moral aspect. That is why the artificial conception is an injustice by itself, humans are meant to be conceived the natural way. If artificial implantation is done further, that is another violation of natural law. So many things can go wrong with IVF, such is the case when man inordinately interferes with nature.

IVF is not a 100% sound scientific technique that guarantees the well-being of the human embryo being implanted, and there is reasonable concern that the embryo may suffer more or even die in the process. According to this, the average pregnancy success rate of IVF/artificial implanation is only at 35%. As is often the case, dead and discarded embryos are the result of this inordinate interference with nature. If you say it is not compassionate NOT to implant an embryo for it to be nurtured to healthy growth, then you are making an assumption that is not warranted by medical evidence. The Church does not intend to “perpetuate suffering” by prohibiting implantation of a frozen embryo. It just says it is an injustice (which must be avoided in the first place) that has no moral solution.

 

[Debora123]

The Church does not intend to “perpetuate suffering” by prohibiting implantation of a frozen embryo. It just says it is an injustice (which must be avoided in the first place) that has no moral solution.

Giving the human being a chance at a normal life seems like the only moral solution to me. I think this is a no brainer, quite honestly, and the fact that the Church won’t allow them to be implanted and given a shot at the life they deserve simply because it’s “unnatural” seems very heartless.

According to what you say, most don’t make it through the process of implantation… but you know what? At least that way they are given 2 possibilities - their souls are set free to heaven, or they grow like the rest of us and have a normal life. Both beat being frozen in time as an embryo in a lab. Human’s don’t belong there.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Giving the human being a chance at a normal life seems like the only moral solution to me. I think this is a no brainer, quite honestly, and the fact that the Church won’t allow them to be implanted and given a shot at the life they deserve simply because it’s “unnatural” seems very heartless.

According to what you say, most don’t make it through the process of implantation… but you know what? At least that way they are given 2 possibilities - their souls are set free to heaven, or they grow like the rest of us and have a normal life. Both beat being frozen in time as an embryo in a lab. Human’s don’t belong there.

I do empathize with your feeling of compassion for the frozen embryos. On the other hand, with artificial implantation there are dilemmas you face upfront. Of the thousands of frozen embryos, would you choose the healthiest ones that will most likely make the pregnancy a success? Most likely. But with that decision comes a purposeful choice to reject the weak embryos or the defective ones. Isn’t that heartless too? Isn’t it more compassionate to prioritize the weaker ones? Assuming you chose an embryo in whatever way, the decision to carry on an artificial implantation carries with it a risk (about 65%) of destroying the embryo. Then you may make multiple attempts, destroying embryos in the process. If you accept that risk, you are willfully putting into a heavy gamble the life of the embryo. You might even end up with a severe deformity as a result of the artificial method. Our motives may be praiseworthy, but do we have the moral freedom to purposely gamble with the life of other humans? You see, IVF/artificial implantation is fraught with dire consequences, however noble the intention might be. Aside from the medical, there are also psychological and legal issues as well.

Besides, are the frozen embryos really “suffering” in the context that we adults understand human suffering? Tough to answer, but I would trust God to comfort them in their tiny, innocent state. I understand the Church saying there is no moral solution, but it is certainly not a heartless stand. Our moral obligation may be confined to the effort within our means to have IVF stopped altogether so that no further embryos are produced artficially; maintain (or “adopt” if you will) the existing embryos in its current state; and pray for their souls.

 

[Victorious]

Giving the human being a chance at a normal life seems like the only moral solution to me. I think this is a no brainer, quite honestly, and the fact that the Church won’t allow them to be implanted and given a shot at the life they deserve simply because it’s “unnatural” seems very heartless.

It is not the Church that is heartless. It is those who created the embryos who are heartless. The Church is not the one that created the problem. When you do evil, you run the risk of doing irreparable damage, and this is a prime example.

The fact that there is no moral solution is not the fault of the Church. The fact remains that you cannot do evil in order to achieve good.

 

[Debora123]

It is not the Church that is heartless. It is those who created the embryos who are heartless. The Church is not the one that created the problem. When you do evil, you run the risk of doing irreparable damage, and this is a prime example.

Creating these humans unnaturally *was *heartless. But so is leaving them abandoned in some freezer all in the name of “INVITRO IS WRONG!”

The fact that there is no moral solution is not the fault of the Church. The fact remains that you cannot do evil in order to achieve good.

…except I see nothing evil in attempting to nurture and love these innocent lives who deserve it just as much as any of us. Sometimes members of the Church only see the written rule - “IN VITRO IS WRONG,” and they fail to remember that Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Reminds me of when Jesus was picked on for “working on the Sabbath” when he was miraculously healing lives. Pharisees could only see the written rule “No Work on Sabbath,” and to hell with the lives that needed help that day.

 

[Debora123]

Of the thousands of frozen embryos, would you choose the healthiest ones that will most likely make the pregnancy a success? Most likely. But with that decision comes a purposeful choice to reject the weak embryos or the defective ones. Isn’t that heartless too? Isn’t it more compassionate to prioritize the weaker ones?

Ok, so then maybe adoption is wrong too? After all, people do tend to pick the healthy pretty ones over the handicapped or obese children.

As for the rest of your post:

Well, like I said, at least that way they are given 2 possibilities - their souls are set free to heaven, or they grow like the rest of us and have a normal life. Both beat being frozen in time as an embryo in a lab.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m sure the magisterium would love to sanction adopting out those embryos, and I’m sure there are many Catholics who would like to do so.** But I don’t know how the Vatican can approve these adoptions without at the same time giving a green light to IVF.** It’s either allowed or it’s not… so those embryos will just have to sit in the freezer until they get adopted by non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics.

Easy, see below.

I don’t believe the Church has made a decision either way.

I would disagree with Rence. ** I don’t think allowing for embryo adoption means acceptance of IVF.**Babies conceived through adultery, fornication or rape aren’t less human. We don’t hold the sins of their parents against them.

The embryos exist I think they should be allowed to continue their lives. It isn’t their fault they were conceived in that manner.

This is just my opinion…

The reason that there is no moral solution to this problem is that the ends do not justify the means: you cannot do evil (in this case, in vitro fertilization) in order to achieve good.

That’s precisely the point! Adopting these pre-existing embryos is not IVF. It’s like what has been already been said:

Rape is a morally unacceptable way to make a baby. Babies from rape are adoptable.

IVF is a morally unacceptable way to make a baby. But you seem to be saying that babies from IVF are not adoptable.

The question methinks that really needs to be answered is if **embryo implantation **is morally acceptable. It would seem not, in cases of surragacy (witness recently Nicole Kidman and her guy). However, in cases of rescue of an already “made” embryo, ???

The problem is that if not specifically limited, embryo implantation as a morally acceptable procedure could be twisted so as to include surrogacy, which is morally unacceptable.

Enter, in a few years (possibly) the artificial rescue uterus.