Embryo Adoption

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If one truly cares for the humans involved. Why in the world would they participate in growing a market and industry in which humans are bought and sold for profit?
And if so morally superior perhaps those same people could start purchasing sex trade workers to save them. That probably has a much higher medical success rate.

Oh, but they aren’t as cute…

 

[CrystalMayner66]

If one truly cares for the humans involved. Why in the world would they participate in growing a market and industry in which humans are bought and sold for profit?
And if so morally superior perhaps those same people could start purchasing sex trade workers to save them. That probably has a much higher medical success rate.

Oh, but they aren’t as cute…

Excuse me?! Are you comparing the adoption industry to the slave and human trafficking industries?!?

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Embryo adoption is a very interesting moral grey area, and I realize the Church has not ruled definitively on it (although it has come close if Dignitas Personae deems it morally problematic).

Here’s a few other problems that I see with it, though:

1. If the practice of embryo adoption becomes widespread, it could encourage more couples to practice IVF if they know that there is a good chance that someone will adopt their “unused” embryos.
2. There are thousands of children in the foster system in the U.S. (and in orphanages overseas) waiting for adoption. These children face very poor prospects if they do not find a permanent home and family before age 18. There are currently far more children waiting for a home than there are couples willing to adopt them. Shouldn’t these children receive first priority among couples considering adoption? Not everyone is called to adopt from the foster care system, but those considering adoption should at least prayerfully discern it, as the need is urgent. Frozen embryos stored from IVF do not yet have awareness, and while it is very wrong to create these little humans and keep them suspended in a freezer, it seems to me that given the choice between saving an embryo and a living child in need, one should choose the child.

Not that it has to be either/or; one could adopt both, but it seems that opening the door wide to embryo adoption would further reduce the number of families willing to adopt foster children.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

1. There are thousands of children in the foster system in the U.S. (and in orphanages overseas) waiting for adoption. These children face very poor prospects if they do not find a permanent home and family before age 18. There are currently far more children waiting for a home than there are couples willing to adopt them. Shouldn’t these children receive first priority among couples considering adoption? Not everyone is called to adopt from the foster care system, but those considering adoption should at least prayerfully discern it, as the need is urgent. Frozen embryos stored from IVF do not yet have awareness, and while it is very wrong to create these little humans and keep them suspended in a freezer, it seems to me that given the choice between saving an embryo and a living child in need, one should choose the child.

Not that it has to be either/or; one could adopt both, but it seems that opening the door wide to embryo adoption would further reduce the number of families willing to adopt foster children.

I can understand your perspective here. Personally, while I would consider embryo adoption, God willing, I would love to adopt from foster care, and I hope that dream will one day become a reality.

However, I think one has to take into account that many adopting parents wants babies, and for whatever reason, will not consider foster care regardless. These are homes that would be able to give embryos a chance. It is possible some families may reject sinful practices like IVF in favor of embryo adoption, which happens to be safer and cheaper.

Furthermore, as Catholics, I think we must be careful not to make the mistake of thinking our abilities give us more value over others. I think it is legitimate to point out foster children are conscious, able to suffer. etc., but as Catholics, we do believe even the one celled embryo has value for bearing the image and likeness of God.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Excuse me?! Are you comparing the adoption industry to the slave and human trafficking industries?!?

Consider the analogy closer.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

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

"In order to come to the aid of the many infertile couples who want to have children, adoption should be encouraged, promoted and facilitated by appropriate legislation so that the many children who lack parents may receive a home that will contribute to their human development.

Judging by that excerpt, it sounds like Dignitas Personae is pretty supportive of embryo adoption.

Granted, it goes on to say, "It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

I would say there is a difference between something being “problematic” or complicated, and something being immoral or sinful. The situation of frozen embryos existing is problematic, and so is letting the embryos just die. And there is no reason one should put more emphasis on the adjective “problem[atic]” than on the adjective “praiseworthy”. I do not consider this passage to be a prohibition of embryo adoption at all.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Embryo adoption is a very interesting moral grey area, and I realize the Church has not ruled definitively on it (although it has come close if Dignitas Personae deems it morally problematic).

Here’s a few other problems that I see with it, though:

1. If the practice of embryo adoption becomes widespread, it could encourage more couples to practice IVF if they know that there is a good chance that someone will adopt their “unused” embryos.
2. There are thousands of children in the foster system in the U.S. (and in orphanages overseas) waiting for adoption. These children face very poor prospects if they do not find a permanent home and family before age 18. There are currently far more children waiting for a home than there are couples willing to adopt them. Shouldn’t these children receive first priority among couples considering adoption? Not everyone is called to adopt from the foster care system, but those considering adoption should at least prayerfully discern it, as the need is urgent. Frozen embryos stored from IVF do not yet have awareness, and while it is very wrong to create these little humans and keep them suspended in a freezer, it seems to me that given the choice between saving an embryo and a living child in need, one should choose the child.

Not that it has to be either/or; one could adopt both, but it seems that opening the door wide to embryo adoption would further reduce the number of families willing to adopt foster children.

One point, though it doesn’t affect the main argument (i.e., embryo adoption): what you say about foster kids being available for adoption isn’t universally true.

DH and I looked into it locally. There were no kids under three years old available in our entire multi-county area unless they had severe mental and physical disabilities–think kids who would never walk, talk, or engage in any activity above about a 4-6 month old infant’s ability. Our state has such strong parental rights that it’s virtually impossible to sever them, thus freeing a child up for adoption, even in the face of irrefutable abuse. Many families are reasonably concerned at the thought of taking on many thousands of dollars of medical expenses plus indefinite round-the-clock care.

Also, the social work/home study information was so offensively intrusive that we ended up backing out without even starting. (Think having to describe our sex life to the case worker in extreme detail, down to what sort of foreplay we each prefer.)

So…I can understand why a lot of couples are a lot less willing to go down that route than one might think. Private adoptions are rather less invasive, but will also run into the mid-five-figures or more out of pocket.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

One point, though it doesn’t affect the main argument (i.e., embryo adoption): what you say about foster kids being available for adoption isn’t universally true.

DH and I looked into it locally. There were no kids under three years old available in our entire multi-county area unless they had severe mental and physical disabilities–think kids who would never walk, talk, or engage in any activity above about a 4-6 month old infant’s ability.

It’s true that there often aren’t many babies or toddlers available for and through the foster care system, or when they are available, they are adopted very quickly. There are many school-aged children and teens waiting for permanent homes, though. (Of course, adopting an older child is not for everyone.)

UbiCaritas:

Our state has such strong parental rights that it’s virtually impossible to sever them, thus freeing a child up for adoption, even in the face of irrefutable abuse. Many families are reasonably concerned at the thought of taking on many thousands of dollars of medical expenses plus indefinite round-the-clock care.

**Also, the social work/home study information was so offensively intrusive that we ended up backing out without even starting. (Think having to describe our sex life to the case worker in extreme detail, down to what sort of foreplay we each prefer.) **

Wow.

 

[pensmama87]

It’s true that there often aren’t many babies or toddlers available for and through the foster care system, or when they are available, they are adopted very quickly. There are many school-aged children and teens waiting for permanent homes, though. (Of course, adopting an older child is not for everyone.)

One common recommendation I’ve seen for families interested in fostering is that any children placed in your home be younger than biological children. My husband and I have discussed fostering as a possibility, but due to the ages of our children that does limit our ability to help for just the reason you described.

Ubi, I can’t believe they would even ask something like that. I understand the need to.screen out weirdos, but man. (Maybe start with the people who have no qualms answering the questions? )

 

[1ke]

"In order to come to the aid of the many infertile couples who want to have children, adoption should be encouraged, promoted and facilitated by appropriate legislation so that the many children who lack parents may receive a home that will contribute to their human development.

Judging by that excerpt, it sounds like Dignitas Personae is pretty supportive of embryo adoption.

You have misquoted DP. That paragraph is NOT about embryo adoption. please don’t be disingenuous.

Granted, it goes on to say, "It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

Keep going and further on it concludes with it “need to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

” than on the adjective “praiseworthy”. I do not consider this passage to be a prohibition of embryo adoption at all.

You are misreading what the document says.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Keep going and further on it concludes with it “need to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

You are misreading what the document says.

I would have to disagree with your interpretation.

I think it preposterous that DP literally means there is no resolution possible, because any choice you make consists of a resolution, and it is impossible to keep them frozen forever. It would make no sense for the document to forbid both choices, when one must be made eventually. If you hold this view, that no choice is licit, and yet one must be made, that would still lead to the conclusion of supporting embryo adoption.

                        If "cannot be resolved" means all options are illicit:
                      Illicitly letting the child die < Illicitly letting the child live
  The option that results in letting a child live is clearly superior in this equation.

I think rather, DP is saying there is no resolution possible which is entirely just and as God intended. Either the child must die or must enter the womb with the help of medical intervention, without the smooth transition from fertilization to implantation that God intended. And yet, despite this tragedy embryo adoption is the best of the imperfect solutions.

 

[Herculees]

You all might find the below article interesting:

www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/what-is-the-pro-life-catholic-view-of-human-embryo-adoption

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You all might find the below article interesting:

www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/what-is-the-pro-life-catholic-view-of-human-embryo-adoption

That was an extremely well researched and written blog. It summed it up quite nicely.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

You all might find the below article interesting:

www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/what-is-the-pro-life-catholic-view-of-human-embryo-adoption

Thank you!

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Keep going and further on it concludes with it “need to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

You are misreading what the document says.

“Embryo adoption. The document [DP] does not reject the practice outright but warns of medical, psychological and legal problems associated with it and underscores the moral wrong of producing and freezing embryos in the first place.”—United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

 

[EnglishTeacher]

You all might find the below article interesting:

www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/what-is-the-pro-life-catholic-view-of-human-embryo-adoption

This was a fascinating and well-written article that presented both sides of the argument. I lean toward the view that embryo adoption is wrong, for a number of reasons, but I can see the other side as well.

I thought this statement form the article was interesting: “It clearly states that embryo adoption for the treatment of infertility is immoral, but adoption for adoption sake is left ambiguous…”
What does that even mean, in practice? These two motivations (adopting because one cannot conceive and “adopting for adoption sake,” whatever exactly that means) often overlap. Would infertile couples be barred from adopting an embryo no matter what? It is a strange and impractical splitting of hairs, and makes no sense.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

This was a fascinating and well-written article that presented both sides of the argument. I lean toward the view that embryo adoption is wrong, for a number of reasons, but I can see the other side as well.

I thought this statement form the article was interesting: “It clearly states that embryo adoption for the treatment of infertility is immoral, but adoption for adoption sake is left ambiguous…” What does that even mean, in practice? These two motivations (adopting because one cannot conceive and “adopting for adoption sake,” whatever exactly that means) often overlap. Would infertile couples be barred from adopting an embryo no matter what? It is a strange and impractical splitting of hairs.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

I thought this statement form the article was interesting: “It clearly states that embryo adoption for the treatment of infertility is immoral, but adoption for adoption sake is left ambiguous…”
What does that even mean, in practice? These two motivations (adopting because one cannot conceive and “adopting for adoption sake,” whatever exactly that means) often overlap. Would infertile couples be barred from adopting an embryo no matter what? It is a strange and impractical splitting of hairs, and makes no sense.

I noticed that line as well. That line comes from the author, rather than one of the Church documents, so I’m not sure if I agree with it. But perhaps the author was getting at the idea that embryos should be sought out of love for the child, rather than for personal fulfillment, and that adopting purely for personal fulfillment is immoral, while an infertile couple adopting out of love for the child would be acceptable?

 

[EnglishTeacher]

I noticed that line as well. That line comes from the author, rather than one of the Church documents, so I’m not sure if I agree with it.

The line was referring back to and paraphrasing from a Church document.

But perhaps the author was getting at the idea that embryos should be sought out of love for the child, rather than for personal fulfillment, and that adopting purely for personal fulfillment is immoral, while an infertile couple adopting out of love for the child would be acceptable?

I understand that is more or less what they are trying to say (perhaps; it’s not clear). But my question is, where do you draw the line? Those two motivations almost always overlap. Rarely does anyone adopt from a purely, 100% selfless motivation. People adopt children because they want to love and care for them but also because they believe the child will make their lives happier. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that; that’s just how it is.

No one attempts to parse the motives of would-be parents this closely in a regular adoption of an already-born child, so why do it with embryo adoption? I think it is a wishy-washy attempt to draw a moral line in a hazy area where the line is not going to “stick,” especially when it comes to infertile couples and their reasons for adopting. Either it’s ok for a married couple to adopt an embryo, or it’s not.

 

[bitterhope]

The line was referring back to and paraphrasing from a Church document.

I understand that is more or less what they are trying to say (perhaps; it’s not clear). But my question is, where do you draw the line? Those two motivations almost always overlap. Rarely does anyone adopt from a purely, 100% selfless motivation. People adopt children because they want to love and care for them but also because they believe the child will make their lives happier. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that; that’s just how it is.

No one attempts to parse the motives of would-be parents this closely in a regular adoption of an already-born child, so why do it with embryo adoption? I think it is a wishy-washy attempt to draw a moral line in a hazy area where the line is not going to “stick,” especially when it comes to infertile couples and their reasons for adopting. Either it’s ok for a married couple to adopt an embryo, or it’s not.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a couple that goes into embryo adoption with the mindset of adopting versus a couple with the mindset of no longer being infertile. Some couples that adopt embryos have stated that they do not view their children as adopted because they are the ones that “gave life” to their child and speak of a time when they once suffered from infertility. They seem to believe their infertility was cured through that process. They will say things such as they did not adopt their children, they are theirs because at the moment their hearts started beating (or “became alive”), it was inside their womb. I think that is problematic and also very unkind to the couple who biologically formed the baby, and willing allowed him/her to be adopted so that he/she may live instead of killed.