Embryo Adoption?

[Debora123]

I suppose the real difference is one of natural law…it’s a subtle distinction, like the one between artificial contraception and NFP. The problem with implanting embryos before birth might not be that IVF is wrong, but that the simple fact of artificial implantation is wrong.

If this is true it may just be an unfortunately unfair case of “the ends don’t justify the means”.

I think it sounds extremely legalistic.

Though this doesn’t apply to me, since I don’t plan on ever adopting anyone.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think it sounds extremely legalistic.

Though this doesn’t apply to me, since I don’t plan on ever adopting anyone.

I can’t tell you for sure if it’s a matter of natural law but if it is whether it’s legalistic or not does not matter. It would be a simple effect of applying the principle to this situation. Once the principle is applied nothing else CAN be done. The ends don’t justify the means, no exceptions.

 

[Debora123]

I can’t tell you for sure if it’s a matter of natural law but if it is whether it’s legalistic or not does not matter. It would be a simple effect of applying the principle to this situation. Once the principle is applied nothing else CAN be done. The ends don’t justify the means, no exceptions.

I disagree that it would be wrong in the first place.

 

[Debora123]

I know this is an old post, but I wanted to chime in. DH and I adopted 4 embryos, and we did not do this lightly. It was after much discernment and prayer, and after trying to adopt traditionally for several years, that we felt God wanting us to take a risk to give these babies a chance.

I do not intend to defend our decision here. I am only stating it for the purpose of establishing first-hand experience.

First of all, there is no technology available that implants embryos. What is being referred to here is called an embryo transfer, where the babies are placed into the woman’s uterus during a well-calculated fertile period, and then we wait to see if God wills for them to be implanted. One or both of the first babies that had their homecoming this way implanted, but sadly we lost them just a short week later. The second two babies we adopted never made it to implantation. So all that is happening in an embryo adoption is the physical transfer of the tiny babies from a petri dish into their rightful place - a mother’s womb. Implantation remains in the hands of God.

Having said that, I do have a dilemma on my mind now, after the fact. In memory of our first two babies’ due date (this week), I sent out a thank you card to the embryologist who assisted with their homecoming (“transfer”). I wanted to remind him that he is dealing with human life, and that even though the procedure was not “successful” for us, it was successful for the babies, as they have been released into heaven. It was a very painful and risky thing we did, for we long to be parents, but we knew that if these babies weren’t adopted, their genetic parents were ready to donate them to science (aka destroy them).

In the process of writing this card, I remembered filling out the clinic’s paperwork and being asked if we were interested in “selective reduction” aka abortion, in the case of multiples. We of course said “no”, but now I realize that this means that other patients do abort, and by our using this clinic’s services to save our babies’ lives, we financially supported an institution that takes the lives of other babies.

Now, whether or not we picked up our babies at this clinic, they would still abort the other patients’ babies if that’s what was being asked, bc our money paid for our expenses only. Still, I am now bothered by the idea of implicitly condoning this practice.

Having said that, as a mother of 4 children in heaven, would I risk judgment again to save my babies? If my babies had been born and sleeping in their crib, and I was taking a shower when a house fire broke out, and I only had time to grab my babies and bolt out the door without having a chance to cover my naked body for decency’s sake, would this also be considered wrong? Wouldn’t I be committing one moral evil (indecent exposure, lascivious quasi-pornographic activity) in order to commit a moral good (saving the lives of my children)? Would this be seen as moral relativism? Would people tell me to risk my children’s death while I try to put on appropriate clothing before trying to save them? Of course, there can never be a good enough parallel drawn.

Our 4 children were conceived through illicit means, but we had no part in this. Their genetic parents did this. We took them in just like any other adopted child. We provided what they needed. At this stage of development, they didn’t need a crib, diapers, and milk; they needed a uterus.

Speaking of which, the idea that an artificial uterus would in any way support the dignity of these poor babies is preposterous. It isn’t bad enough that they were conceived artificially? Now we’re suggesting they be gestated artificially as well? Perhaps this isn’t surprising when all motherly duties are being outsourced nowadays, from formula to daycare.

Returning to the moral dilemma. At this point, I don’t know if we would adopt embryos again, realizing what we now realize about the fact that abortions take place at many such clinics. Then again, this is not very different from the other procedures that are done that we as Catholics are against - IVF, surrogacy, donor insemination. To adopt embryos, to allow them to live, requires association with clinics that do other, illicit, procedures. Perhaps an entirely Catholic, Pro-Life clinic may be in order, one where babies go to be rescued. The nun’s idea mentioned in one of the posts was most fascinating.

Regarding the disassociation of the marital act from conception, I also must stress that this does not apply in embryo adoption. DH and I prayed for our babies before their homecoming, they were already our babies even before they were in my womb. Our adopting them or transferring them did not bring them into being, as some have pointed out. It is ridiculous to use this against embryo adoption, just as it would be ridiculous to use lack of marital intimacy as a reason not to adopt a newborn, toddler, preschooler, or teen. These children were already conceived, and the adopting parents had nothing to do with how that came about.

It is only individual interpretation and opinion that tries to extend this Catholic teaching from intimacy to pregnancy. Saying that because the child is not biologically related to the parents or because she or he was conceived outside the womb and therefore does not deserve to be gestated in the womb is like saying that an adopted orphan baby does not deserve to be breastfed by the adoptive mother. Of course, there is a camp that argues just this. But that is a sad debate for another day.

Btw, it is illegal to buy or sell embryos, so the idea that this would create a market for it is moot.

I agree whole heartedly. God bless you.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I disagree that it would be wrong in the first place.

I don’t know. I’m not an expert philosopher so I can’t tell if natural law would prohibit this. But if it does, there’s nothing we can do about it, in the same way that we can’t lie even to save somebody’s life.

This is one of those situations where it’s extremely difficult to detach yourself emotionally, so it’s a very hard thing to accept.

 

[anilorak13ska]

It’s wrong to lie to save an innocent person’s life?
I would think that given the choice of two sins, one grave and one venial, and no other choice, the moral imperative would be to choose the lesser of the two. Inaction when able to save a life is just sin by omission.

It’s interesting that on one hand, we bemoan moral relativism, and yet on the other hand, we do distinguish between venial and mortal sin. I think the line between the two is very thin.

This line of reasoning (“X is wrong, therefore I can’t do X, even if in the process Y - a greater moral imperative - is sacrificed”) sounds to me like a computer program incapable of picking up on the nuances of a given situation and assessing to what degree its commands relate. We are not robots. I am grateful for the guidance of the church, yet I am likewise grateful for the gift on conscience that is guided by the Holy Spirit no less than the Pope is. Together, between the two, such difficult decisions can be made in good conscience.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It’s wrong to lie to save an innocent person’s life?

And stop. Yes, it is, every time.

Inaction in this case is not a sin of omission. It is omitting to commit a sin.

 

[Debora123]

It’s wrong to lie to save an innocent person’s life?
I would think that given the choice of two sins, one grave and one venial, and no other choice, the moral imperative would be to choose the lesser of the two. Inaction when able to save a life is just sin by omission.

It’s interesting that on one hand, we bemoan moral relativism, and yet on the other hand, we do distinguish between venial and mortal sin. I think the line between the two is very thin.

This line of reasoning (“X is wrong, therefore I can’t do X, even if in the process Y - a greater moral imperative - is sacrificed”) sounds to me like a computer program incapable of picking up on the nuances of a given situation and assessing to what degree its commands relate. We are not robots. I am grateful for the guidance of the church, yet I am likewise grateful for the gift on conscience that is guided by the Holy Spirit no less than the Pope is. Together, between the two, such difficult decisions can be made in good conscience.

I agree. This whole thinking can get extremely legalistic. Didn’t Jesus warn against this type of thinking when he was being condemned by the pharisees for ]doing certain (good) things on the Sabbath?

 

[anilorak13ska]

I agree. This whole thinking can get extremely legalistic. Didn’t Jesus warn against this type of thinking when he was being condemned by the pharisees for ]doing certain (good) things on the Sabbath?

I agree. Thank You God that the Church does recognize the need for us to continue to form our conscience. I guess I will risk what the Church deems a sin over what I believe Jesus taught was a sin.

I do agree that the best strategy for anyone concerned about these babies is to educate the public about the dangers of cryopreservation of embryos, hyperstimulation of ovaries (also dangerous for women, some of whom have died from OHSS), and the benefits of NFP. That, I do believe, we can all agree on

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I agree. This whole thinking can get extremely legalistic. Didn’t Jesus warn against this type of thinking when he was being condemned by the pharisees for ]doing certain (good) things on the Sabbath?

Jesus did not say it was okay to sin on the Sabbath though.

I don’t even know if natural law condemns this, I haven’t looked into it, but if it does there’s nothing at all we could do about it.

 

[Debora123]

Jesus did not say it was okay to sin on the Sabbath though.

I never claimed Jesus said it was ok to sin on the sabbath!

What I meant was that Jesus made a point about the dangers of legalism when the pharisees were calling him out for doing some good works on the Sabbath.

I don’t even know if natural law condemns this, I haven’t looked into it, but if it does there’s nothing at all we could do about it.

I would 100% disagree with anyone who claimed it would be wrong, regardless of how this “natural law” was interpreted.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I never claimed Jesus said it was ok to sin on the sabbath!

What I meant was that Jesus made a point about the dangers of legalism when the pharisees were calling him out for doing some good works on the Sabbath.

Then you’re misunderstanding natural law. Breaking natural law is a sin, full stop. Venial or mortal depends on circumstance, but it is a sin.

I would 100% disagree with anyone who claimed it would be wrong, regardless of how this “natural law” was interpreted.

You’re having trouble detaching yourself emotionally, but sometimes it’s necessary. This may be one of those cases.

The fact is if it can be proven to be wrong by applying natural law theory then it is wrong. Period.

It’s a very hard thing to accept because we know these embryos aren’t embryos-they’re children. But this is not dissimilar to saying that we can’t lie even to save a person’s life. You can’t-ever. Even if it’s a child we’re trying to save.

If the principle of natural law can be used to prove that it’s a sin, then it is, as disappointing as it may seem. Emotionally it’s extremely difficult to accept, but logically it is (possibly) true.

 

[anilorak13ska]

I’m not sure where in the Bible or Holy Tradition it says that we are NOT to use emotion to help us gauge right from wrong. Doesn’t emotion play a huge part in the formation of our conscience? Anyone who worries more about their own purity from sin over saving innocent life must see something else more important than Jesus’s command to love one another as we love ourselves, and as He loved us. Would you really say to your child, “I’m sorry honey, but saving your life would require me to lie (or steal bread to feed you so you don’t die or hunger…), so looks like you’re out of luck, because stealing is wrong.” I think precisely because these embryos don’t have a face we can look upon it is easier to disassociate from what we’re talking about and stay “objective” (aka legalistic) and theoretical. Life isn’t lived in theory.

I know (I think?) we are not really here to convert each other to our own point of view, merely to share why we believe what we believe, and take that into consideration as we consider if our own beliefs are off. I’ve heard various arguments against EA, but nothing, absolutely nothing, strikes me as more important, more Christ-like, than saving a child’s life. I appreciate this thread a lot, bc in the past, I’ve seen this topic get out of hand and really cruel and hurtful. I felt judged for following my conscience, and I kept our babies a secret from most. But today, on the due date of the first two babies we lost, I finally accepted that our choice was imperfect from every point of view, except that of my babies.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m not sure where in the Bible or Holy Tradition it says that we are NOT to use emotion to help us gauge right from wrong.

We’re not talking of the Bible or sacred tradition here, we’re talking about what is right and what is wrong. A non-Christian theist would have no choice but to accept natural law if he or she is being honest with themselves.

Doesn’t emotion play a huge part in the formation of our conscience? Anyone who worries more about their own purity from sin over saving innocent life must see something else more important than Jesus’s command to love one another as we love ourselves, and as He loved us.

This has nothing to do with the purity of one soul or another. It has to do with sin. We can’t commit it to do something good, because the ends NEVER justify the means. Ever.

Would you really say to your child, “I’m sorry honey, but saving your life would require me to lie (or steal bread to feed you so you don’t die or hunger…), so looks like you’re out of luck, because stealing is wrong.”

No, I would not say that. I’m not saying what I would or wouldn’t do. I have no pretenses about my own “holiness” or lack thereof. God is not going to send me to Hell for saving my child. But if somebody is capable no, he or she should not lie or steal, even to save their child, because lying and stealing is wrong.

St. Thomas goes through this in the Summa, and Dr. Edward Feser (a Catholic Thomist) has a lot about the “murderer at the door” scenario on his website. I’ll try and find links if you’re interested.

I think precisely because these embryos don’t have a face we can look upon it is easier to disassociate from what we’re talking about and stay “objective” (aka legalistic) and theoretical. Life isn’t lived in theory.

No, but life is lived in facts. The fact is if natural law can be applied to prove that injecting embryos is a sin, then it’s a sin.

I know (I think?) we are not really here to convert each other to our own point of view, merely to share why we believe what we believe, and take that into consideration as we consider if our own beliefs are off. I’ve heard various arguments against EA, but nothing, absolutely nothing, strikes me as more important, more Christ-like, than saving a child’s life. I appreciate this thread a lot, bc in the past, I’ve seen this topic get out of hand and really cruel and hurtful. I felt judged for following my conscience, and I kept our babies a secret from most. But today, on the due date of the first two babies we lost, I finally accepted that our choice was imperfect from every point of view, except that of my babies.

I don’t mean to judge you at all. In fact, from your story you sound like a wonderful person. I’m just trying to say why the Church’s teaching might make sense.

I don’t like it either-in fact, I hate it. I’m sure the Church hates it too. But sometimes your hands really can be tied. Sometimes whatever choice Sophie makes doesn’t end up well.

 

[Debora123]

Then you’re misunderstanding natural law. Breaking natural law is a sin, full stop. Venial or mortal depends on circumstance, but it is a sin.

You’re having trouble detaching yourself emotionally, but sometimes it’s necessary. This may be one of those cases.

The fact is if it can be proven to be wrong by applying natural law theory then it is wrong. Period.

It’s a very hard thing to accept because we know these embryos aren’t embryos-they’re children. But this is not dissimilar to saying that we can’t lie even to save a person’s life. You can’t-ever. Even if it’s a child we’re trying to save.

If the principle of natural law can be used to prove that it’s a sin, then it is, as disappointing as it may seem. Emotionally it’s extremely difficult to accept, but logically it is (possibly) true.

Eh, whatev’s. I’m not going to debate the issue, I’m just saying that I don’t and won’t think adopting an embryo is wrong. Regardless of who tells me otherwise.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not sure where in the Bible or Holy Tradition it says that we are NOT to use emotion to help us gauge right from wrong. Doesn’t emotion play a huge part in the formation of our conscience? Anyone who worries more about their own purity from sin over saving innocent life must see something else more important than Jesus’s command to love one another as we love ourselves, and as He loved us. Would you really say to your child, “I’m sorry honey, but saving your life would require me to lie (or steal bread to feed you so you don’t die or hunger…), so looks like you’re out of luck, because stealing is wrong.” I think precisely because these embryos don’t have a face we can look upon it is easier to disassociate from what we’re talking about and stay “objective” (aka legalistic) and theoretical. Life isn’t lived in theory.

I know (I think?) we are not really here to convert each other to our own point of view, merely to share why we believe what we believe, and take that into consideration as we consider if our own beliefs are off. I’ve heard various arguments against EA, but nothing, absolutely nothing, strikes me as more important, more Christ-like, than saving a child’s life. I appreciate this thread a lot, bc in the past, I’ve seen this topic get out of hand and really cruel and hurtful. I felt judged for following my conscience, and I kept our babies a secret from most. But today, on the due date of the first two babies we lost, I finally accepted that our choice was imperfect from every point of view, except that of my babies.

Your babies are in heaven with the lord now, and no longer frozen in some lab. You have saved these babies in the best way anyone could ever be saved.

God bless you.

 

[marymary1975]

This has nothing to do with the purity of one soul or another. It has to do with sin. We can’t commit it to do something good, because the ends NEVER justify the means. Ever.

No, I would not say that. I’m not saying what I would or wouldn’t do. I have no pretenses about my own “holiness” or lack thereof. God is not going to send me to Hell for saving my child. But if somebody is capable no, he or she should not lie or steal, even to save their child, because lying and stealing is wrong.

Yes we agree that the ends never justify the means and that lying and stealing are sins, but you need to remember that life is not always clear cut and sometimes to identify if something is actually a sin you have to look at the circumstances. Remember the case of the survivors of an air plane crash on the Andes that ate the bodies of the death to survive? Well the church said they didn’t commit a sin because under the circumstances they had to do whatever they could to keep themselves alive. So an example like lying to save a child is not something good because it would take knowing a lot more circumstances and analyze too many subjective circumstances to determine, first of all if what we are saying is a sin is actually a sin. There is a reason why Jesus said Judge not and this is one of the reason, we can discern between good and bad but it is not for us to give a final determination because we are missing a good part of the puzzle.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yes we agree that the ends never justify the means and that lying and stealing are sins, but you need to remember that life is not always clear cut and sometimes to identify if something is actually a sin you have to look at the circumstances. Remember the case of the survivors of an air plane crash on the Andes that ate the bodies of the death to survive? Well the church said they didn’t commit a sin because under the circumstances they had to do whatever they could to keep themselves alive.

Did the Church say that (any sources)? I suppose you can rationalize that they’re already dead, but it’s difficult to judge without knowing the exact circumstances.

So an example like lying to save a child is not something good because it would take knowing a lot more circumstances and analyze too many subjective circumstances to determine, first of all if what we are saying is a sin is actually a sin. There is a reason why Jesus said Judge not and this is one of the reason, we can discern between good and bad but it is not for us to give a final determination because we are missing a good part of the puzzle.

You’re right, of course. I was taking these “thought experiments” at face value. Stealing is wrong. If you’re stealing to save a life, it’s still wrong. Lying is wrong. If you’re lying to save a life, it’s still wrong. But in real-life circumstances whether something is a “lie” or not or whether you’re actually stealing or taking what is rightfully yours is heavily dependent on circumstances.

No argument there.

 

[Debora123]

This has nothing to do with the purity of one soul or another. It has to do with sin. We can’t commit it to do something good, because the ends NEVER justify the means. Ever.

No, I would not say that. I’m not saying what I would or wouldn’t do. I have no pretenses about my own “holiness” or lack thereof. God is not going to send me to Hell for saving my child. But if somebody is capable no, he or she should not lie or steal, even to save their child, because lying and stealing is wrong.

Yes we agree that the ends never justify the means and that lying and stealing are sins, but you need to remember that life is not always clear cut and sometimes to identify if something is actually a sin you have to look at the circumstances. Remember the case of the survivors of an air plane crash on the Andes that ate the bodies of the death to survive? Well the church said they didn’t commit a sin because under the circumstances they had to do whatever they could to keep themselves alive. So an example like lying to save a child is not something good because it would take knowing a lot more circumstances and analyze too many subjective circumstances to determine, first of all if what we are saying is a sin is actually a sin. There is a reason why Jesus said Judge not and this is one of the reason, we can discern between good and bad but it is not for us to give a final determination because we are missing a good part of the puzzle.

 

[anilorak13ska]

I suppose a place of agreeing to disagree is not a bad place to be. For me, it was impossible to get the support I needed while going through the process with our babies, because instead of prayers for continued life for my babies, I was reading about how what I was doing was wrong. Maybe now that I’m on the other side of it, it’s easier to read

I most certainly would also like to read the actual Vatican source about the cannibalism situation, as this thread is the closest I’ve found so far:
50.97.102.67/showthread.php?t=550070

If it is so, it would most certainly give me the added consolation when faced with opposition over our choice to adopt embryos.