Embryo Adoption

[CrystalMayner66]

What are your thoughts on embryo adoption?

I think adopting already existing embryos is a fantastic practice and might consider it myself one day. After all, if not adopted, they will eventually die or be killed.

embryoadoption.org/faqs/?tab=adopter-faq

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I think from a Catholic perspective it’s a morally grey area, because conception isn’t supposed to occur in that way.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Would that end up needing to use in vitro fertilization to come to term? If so the church is opposed to that…

Reference: catholicscomehome.org/what-does-the-church-teach-about-ivf/

 

[Tim_D]

Would that end up needing to use in vitro fertilization to come to term? If so the church is opposed to that…

Reference: catholicscomehome.org/what-does-the-church-teach-about-ivf/

True. The whole subject is ethically immoral by nature.

 

[Beryllos]

Would that end up needing to use in vitro fertilization to come to term?

No, these are eggs that have already been fertilized by IVF, and may have begun cell multiplication (to the stage of a tiny ball of cells), and are then frozen. The usual reason for freezing is that too many embryos were produced and they cannot all be placed in the womb at one time.

Although the IVF has already been accomplished, I think the Church’s opposition to embryo adoption stems from the fact that it would require further artificial means (hormone treatment to prepare the womb, and physical placement of the embryo in the womb).

It seems a pity, though, that the embryos should be denied a chance to grow and live.

 

[Beryllos]

It seems a pity, though, that the embryos should be denied a chance to grow and live because of theological reasoning. I wonder if the Church will ever reconsider this. Is it possible that charity toward the embryo — which is an already existing person, in danger of death by neglect, right? — could override the principle that every aspect of the pregnancy ought to be all-natural?

 

[edward_george]

The Church actually hasn’t ruled definitively one way or the other on embryo adoption, but does lean toward a negative judgement thereto. For every theologian who argues for it, you’ll find one who argues against. Until the Church has ruled on the matter, people are free to form their own judgments about it.

Fr ACEGC

 

[dshix]

This is a grey area because the Church has not yet ruled on ectogenesis, that is, the growing and birthing of an embryo inside an artificial womb.

We know that it is immoral to implant an embryo into a woman’s womb, and so the only other way to grow that embryo would be via an artificial womb. The technology doesn’t exist yet, but it will soon, and the Church will rule on whether this is permitted before long.

As for the embryos themselves - it’s painful to think of these humans trapped in the earliest stage of development, their freedom and rights horribly violated. For embryos that already exist and which are frozen in a facility somewhere, it would be ideal if we could determine a valid way to baptise them - then, the best route would be to allow them to unfreeze and die naturally, baptising them before their deaths. This would not be immoral because they would die of natural causes, and keeping them in stasis is extraordinary, not ordinary means of life-preservation.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

I am shocked that so many of you consider embryo adoption immoral, and are suggesting we should just let the embryos die instead…

The Church has never ruled embryo adoption to be immoral that I am aware of. If you have contrary evidence, please share it, but I think the Church implicitly supports embryo adoption in the fact she is pro-life.

Yes, creating embryos through in vitro is contrary to God’s will, but adopting embryos that already exist is entirely separate than creating new ones. In the U.S. thousands of embryos are frozen and must be adopted to survive.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

For embryos that already exist and which are frozen in a facility somewhere, it would be ideal if we could determine a valid way to baptise them - then, the best route would be to allow them to unfreeze and die naturally, baptising them before their deaths. This would not be immoral because they would die of natural causes, and keeping them in stasis is extraordinary, not ordinary means of life-preservation.

:bigyikes:

I’m all for the baptisms, but I would never advocate just letting them die when they could be adopted! For embryos, their natural source of shelter and sustenance is the womb, and denying them the chance to be implanted would seem to be like denying food or shelter to a born child. I certainly feel just letting them die without dire motivation (such as lack of adoptive parents and lack of funds to keep them frozen) is immoral.

 

[dshix]

:bigyikes:

I’m all for the baptisms, but I would never advocate just letting them die when they could be adopted! For embryos, their natural source of shelter and sustenance is the womb, and denying them the chance to be implanted would seem to be like denying food or shelter to a born child. I certainly feel just letting them die without dire motivation (such as lack of adoptive parents and lack of funds to keep them frozen) is immoral.

I understand your “cringe factor” here, but you need to understand that when we’re talking about a complicated moral situation such as this one, we have to take into account the Church’s understanding of natural law and the moral implications that come from it.

According to the Church’s teaching, it is against the natural law, and therefore, immoral, to implant an embryo into a human mother’s womb. Since the end does not justify the means, we cannot use this objectively disordered/evil means to bring about a good end.

The question (which is still unanswered by the Church) is whether we can use ectogenesis to grow embryos.

If the Church comes back and states that that is immoral to use ectogenesis, those embryos will essentially be in a limbo, where there is no moral path forward resulting in their living a full human life. Their human rights to freedom, to a father and mother, to being grown in a mother’s womb? All have already been violated. At that point, should the Church declare ectogenesis immoral, the only path forward would be to baptise those embryos and allow them to unfreeze. This would basically send them straight to Heaven, and it is the most merciful result possible, really.

Remember: whether something “feels” immoral to you or not is irrelevant. Whether the Church teaches something to be immoral or not IS relevant.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am shocked that so many of you consider embryo adoption immoral, and are suggesting we should just let the embryos die instead…

The Church has never ruled embryo adoption to be immoral that I am aware of. If you have contrary evidence, please share it, but I think the Church implicitly supports embryo adoption in the fact she is pro-life.

Yes, creating embryos through in vitro is contrary to God’s will, but adopting embryos that already exist is entirely separate than creating new ones. In the U.S. thousands of embryos are frozen and must be adopted to survive.

Are you aware of the machine gun medical practices for implantation. And why that constitutes a culture of death?

Lay it out for me, you adopt and embryo, just one? And then what? What is the next step?

 

[Beryllos]

Are you aware of the machine gun medical practices for implantation. And why that constitutes a culture of death?

Lay it out for me, you adopt and embryo, just one? And then what? What is the next step?

What do you mean by machine gun medical practices for implantation? I thought I knew a lot about IVF and fertility medicine, but I don’t know what you are referring to here.

 

[Anglewannabe]

I am shocked that so many of you consider embryo adoption immoral, and are suggesting we should just let the embryos die instead…

The church is clear the only way for a woman to become pregnant morally is by having relations with her husband. Thus, it is immoral to place an embry is a woman’s womb. Sadly, the child dies but… we can not cure sin (ie in vitro fertiliaztion) with another sin

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I am shocked that so many of you consider embryo adoption immoral, and are suggesting we should just let the embryos die instead…

The Church has never ruled embryo adoption to be immoral that I am aware of. If you have contrary evidence, please share it, but I think the Church implicitly supports embryo adoption in the fact she is pro-life.

Yes, creating embryos through in vitro is contrary to God’s will, but adopting embryos that already exist is entirely separate than creating new ones. In the U.S. thousands of embryos are frozen and must be adopted to survive.

I’m not sure people are saying THEY think it’s immoral, but are pointing out the theological thinking of the Church on the matter. The church has not ruled on it (that I am aware) so at the moment it’s a very grey area and safer to assume that the current teaching on the immorality of artificial implantation will remain in place. I certainly agree that the intentions behind embryo adoption are honourable.

 

[SyroMalankara]

:bigyikes:

I’m all for the baptisms, but I would never advocate just letting them die when they could be adopted! For embryos, their natural source of shelter and sustenance is the womb, and denying them the chance to be implanted would seem to be like denying food or shelter to a born child. I certainly feel just letting them die without dire motivation (such as lack of adoptive parents and lack of funds to keep them frozen) is immoral.

How do you suggest these embryos get implanted according the sexual unitive aspect of marital relations as regarded as necessary by the Church by divine law? There is today no artificial means to do this without violating the marital act between spouses alone.

 

[SusanneT]

How do you suggest these embryos get implanted according the sexual unitive aspect of marital relations as regarded as necessary by the Church by divine law? There is today no artificial means to do this without violating the marital act between spouses alone.

Good question - I have no idea whether it can be done surgically in a way which is morally consistent.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Are you aware of the machine gun medical practices for implantation. And why that constitutes a culture of death?

Lay it out for me, you adopt and embryo, just one? And then what? What is the next step?

I am familiar with the embryo adoption process and there are no machine guns involved–you can watch the entire embryo transfer procedure on YouTube. Nor do I consider adopting children of any age to be supporting a culture of death.

If, or how many times, I would do an embryo adoption would depend on whether I overcome my tokophobia, my health, financial resources and the wishes of my partner. I wouldn’t adopt more than one or two embryos at a time, since the more children a woman carries during a pregnancy, the more dangerous the pregnancy. And if all goes well, the next step is parenting your children, but I think you know that, so I’m not sure I understand your question.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

How do you suggest these embryos get implanted according the sexual unitive aspect of marital relations as regarded as necessary by the Church by divine law? There is today no artificial means to do this without violating the marital act between spouses alone.

Good question - I have no idea whether it can be done surgically in a way which is morally consistent.

The Church tells us the sexual unitive aspect of marital relations must remain tied to the creation of children. Embryo adoption is not the creation of children.

 

[1ke]

I am shocked that so many of you consider embryo adoption immoral, and are suggesting we should just let the embryos die instead…

The Church has never ruled embryo adoption to be immoral that I am aware of. If you have contrary evidence, please share it, but I think the Church implicitly supports embryo adoption in the fact she is pro-life.

Yes, creating embryos through in vitro is contrary to God’s will, but adopting embryos that already exist is entirely separate than creating new ones. In the U.S. thousands of embryos are frozen and must be adopted to survive.

Dignitas Peesonae is pretty clear in the regard. The church does not “implicitly” support embryo adoption. DP explicitly concludes it is morally problematic.