Embryo Adoption

[SahmomMN]

I received some information about Embryo Adoption from my local Pro Life Action group and I would like to know where they Catholic Church stands on this. My first reaction is that it is wrong because it is done through IVF but then I wonder the only difference between this and adoption is that the mother gets to carry the child in her womb.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut or suggestions where I can find more information?

 

[cor]

The See of Rome hasn’t made a direct pronouncement on the matter and Catholic theologians and philosophers are divided about it.

news
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/30/AR2005053000872.html
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=13792

from the first link:

*It is a birthright that places him, and at least 80 other children born in a similar manner, in the middle of the boisterous political battle over stem cell research and a sharpening theological debate, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. Some Catholic theologians are encouraging married couples to adopt unwanted embryos from fertility clinics. Others vehemently oppose the idea, calling it a grave violation of the principle that procreation should occur naturally.

The Vatican has not yet taken a stand. But if Pope Benedict XVI rules against embryo adoption, as some doctrinal conservatives expect, it could create a fissure between Catholics and evangelical Protestants, who have enthusiastically promoted embryo adoption and enlisted the White House’s support for it.*

commentary
humanlifereview.com/2001_summer/caulfield_s2001.php
losangelesmission.com//ed/articles/1999/0599jmc.htm
nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word031105.htm

From the last link:

*Pacholczyk argued that the implantation of an embryo is an intrinsically evil act, because it separates aspects of procreation that should remain united. Procreation, understood as “collaboration between husband, wife and almighty God,” he argued, extends from fertilization through conjugal relations to birth, and to skip one of those stages means instrumentalizing the process.

It also results, he said, in a “fissure in parenthood,” since “spouses have an exclusive right to become mother and father solely through each other.”

“One should not become a parent through any means other than one’s spouse,” Pacholczyk said. He also argued that since fathers are incidental to the process of embryo adoption, fatherhood “is gravely and intrinsically violated.”

If Pacholczyk began from the point of view of the marital relationship, Williams began from the embryo.*

I think it it’s part of the marriage vow to only have children with one’s spouse. By engaging in “embryo adoption” one is having children with someone other than one’s spouse.

 

[calchiquita]

I think it it’s part of the marriage vow to only have children with one’s spouse. By engaging in “embryo adoption” one is having children with someone other than one’s spouse.

Isn’t that true of any adoption?

 

[bilop]

I can’t see how it could be consistent with Catholic morality. If artificial means of achieving pregnancy is not permissible for a married couple, I don’t see how it can be permissible to use artificial means in this manner.

God Bless.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Isn’t that true of any adoption?

No – traditional adoption is of a child that has already been born. “Embryo adoption” involves the implantation of an embryo in the womb – thus, the woman is now “having children with” someone other than her spouse.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ribozyme]

I wonder what Richard Lynn would think embryo adoption.

 

[mapleoak]

*Pacholczyk argued that the implantation of an embryo is an intrinsically evil act, because it separates aspects of procreation that should remain united. Procreation, understood as “collaboration between husband, wife and almighty God,” he argued, extends from fertilization through conjugal relations to birth, and to skip one of those stages means instrumentalizing the process. *

Implantation does not separate the aspects of procreation, as an embryo is already a human being. The method in which the embryo is produced separates the aspects of procreation.

It also results, he said, in a “fissure in parenthood,” since “spouses have an exclusive right to become mother and father solely through each other.”

“One should not become a parent through any means other than one’s spouse,” Pacholczyk said. He also argued that since fathers are incidental to the process of embryo adoption, fatherhood “is gravely and intrinsically violated.”

This would mean adoption is also wrong. Further though, both mother and father would be ‘incidental’ and therefore fatherhood AND motherhood would be “gravely and intrisically violated.”

If Pacholczyk began from the point of view of the marital relationship, Williams began from the embryo.

I think it it’s part of the marriage vow to only have children with one’s spouse. By engaging in “embryo adoption” one is having children with someone other than one’s spouse.

Embryo adoption is not the creation of new life. The morality of embryo adoption would have to be determined on the basis of whether it is ethical to implant and already existing human being in order to preserve its life or not. It cannot be based on the same argument as in-vitro fertilization, which is immoral for the reasons of separating the conjugal act from procreation.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[holly_potter]

I was wondering about this. If embryo adoption was a sin, then what would happen to all those frozen embryos that the other parents created sinfully? Either we’d have to keep them frozen in perpetuity or kill them for stem cells. Either way is an insult to an already created and living child.

This is why I hope that the Church would allow this form of adoption, since it’s just like any other adoption; in both cases, the child is already created and already alive; the embryo is just younger, if we were to apply pro life principles to this issue. The only problem is the “artificial insemination” issue. This isn’t insemination. It’s basically the transplantation of an already living child into a marriage, same as adoption. It just has to be consented to by both the husband and wife, and no single parenting in this issue.

I hope the Church will rule on this soon, because if and when I get married, I’d like to adopt embryos to save them from a frozen life or a certain death in research or otherwise.

 

[LeahInancsi]

I was wondering about this. If embryo adoption was a sin, then what would happen to all those frozen embryos that the other parents created sinfully? Either we’d have to keep them frozen in perpetuity or kill them for stem cells. Either way is an insult to an already created and living child.

This is why I hope that the Church would allow this form of adoption, since it’s just like any other adoption; in both cases, the child is already created and already alive; the embryo is just younger, if we were to apply pro life principles to this issue. The only problem is the “artificial insemination” issue. This isn’t insemination. It’s basically the transplantation of an already living child into a marriage, same as adoption. It just has to be consented to by both the husband and wife, and no single parenting in this issue.

I hope the Church will rule on this soon, because if and when I get married, I’d like to adopt embryos to save them from a frozen life or a certain death in research or otherwise.

I totally agree.

Even if the Church were to decided against it, I’d be willing to risk my salvation if I couldn’t have my own children.

 

[mapleoak]

This is why I hope that the Church would allow this form of adoption, since it’s just like any other adoption; in both cases, the child is already created and already alive; the embryo is just younger, if we were to apply pro life principles to this issue. The only problem is the “artificial insemination” issue. This isn’t insemination. It’s basically the transplantation of an already living child into a marriage, same as adoption. It just has to be consented to by both the husband and wife, and no single parenting in this issue.

One MAJOR problem with embryo adoption is that typically, multiple embryos are implanted so that hopefully some of them will ‘take’. After implantation of some of them occurs, a decision is made as to the viability of the implanted embryos. The chosen one is allowed to grow, and the remaining embryos are aborted.
This among many other moral and ethical considerations as well as the encouragement of the further ‘production’ of embryos as a commodity.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mapleoak]

Further concerns of moral and ethical significance include the denial of husband and wife to have children of their own as a result of their unitive and procreative love. If someone else’s child is in the mother’s womb, their act of love making cannot possibly be open to the creation of NEW life. This differs from a couple who conceived naturally and has marital relations with each other while pregnant in that the unborn child is the result of their love-making.
With natural adpotion their is no such denial of this procreative aspect. So there is no misunderstanding, what I pointed out previously was only that embryo transplants are not the same as artificial insemination. That certainly does not mean that embryo transplants are morally acceptable. Additionally, there is the violation of the sacredness of the mother’s womb among other things.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Seatuck]

We could baptize them and let them die a natural death as an option as well.

 

[Jennifer123]

I hope the Church issues an opinion on the subject soon - it is a very curious modern problem.
Thanks Mapleoak for your insight, it has given me things to consider that I haven’t thought of before!

 

[LeahInancsi]

I guess I’m not Catholic enough yet, but assuming a Catholic woman were allowed to carry an embryo to term, the baby would be born and the couple would adopt the baby as they would any other baby, perhaps, left at a fire station. And, yes, it would be baptized and die a natural death.

What’s the problem? It would simply be an adopted child!

 

[Jennifer123]

What’s the problem? It would simply be an adopted child!

The problem in question regards how the baby was made and how it would come to term, both ways violate existing Church teaching on the dignity of human sexuality. Kind of a “catch 22” proposition I guess.

 

[LeahInancsi]

The problem in question regards how the baby was made and how it would come to term, both ways violate existing Church teaching on the dignity of human sexuality. Kind of a “catch 22” proposition I guess.

Beats killing the embryo by miles.

 

[vluvski]

I cannot fathom how anyone would decide that adopting an embryo, which is just as fully human as you and I, is somehow morally different from adopting a child.

It is irrelevant to make cases regarding how the child was conceived. The Church consistently takes a stand against abortifacients and abortion, regardless of the details of the sexual act leading up to that pregnancy or potential pregnancy.

The question becomes one of location, or more specifically, implantation. Is it wrong to implant the embryo, an innocent human being, into the uterus of another woman? The answer to that question will determine whether or not embryo adoption is morally wrong or right.

 

[Cari]

Without commenting on my thoughts about the morality of the topic at hand (I haven’t decided yet), here is one thing to ponder about the difference between adoption of a child already born and the adoption of one in its embronic state:

As part of the gestational process, fetal cells enter the mother’s bloodstream. In fact, according to one website:

During pregnancy, cells can migrate in both directions between maternal and fetal circulations. As the pregnancy progresses, cell transfer from fetus to mother increases. By the third trimester, between 40 percent and 70 percent of women carry fetal cells in their blood. In some cases, the fetal cells have antigens or markers on their surface that make them compatible with the mother’s immune system. As a result, they escape rejection by the mother’s body and can travel freely throughout the mother’s circulation. Fetal cells have been found within a mother’s circulation decades after she has given birth. This intermixing of very low levels of fetal or non-self cells with the mother’s own cells is called microchimerism.

In effect, the woman carries part of the child as part of herself, long after birth has occurred. The father would have no such parallel.

In the case of adopting an embryonic human, the mother will have a cellular bond to the child that the father will not have. In the case of adopting a child already born, neither father nor mother have any cellular similarity to the child. This, to me, seems to be problematic- that a wife would give birth to a child that she will have cellular ties to, but not the husband.

Something to think about.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Cari,

I understand what you’re saying and it’s definitely something to consider, but is killing the embryo better?

 

[Cari]

Cari,

I understand what you’re saying and it’s definitely something to consider, but is killing the embryo better?

I haven’t decided where I stand on this issue, so I’d love to have some answer to your question, but I don’t yet. Can I go with the “Just let me run the world and I’ll make sure we don’t even have to make decisions like this one” fantasy?

I’ll just back into a safe little, “I’ll leave it up to the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to God’s Will” and will accept what is decided (unless the offer really DOES come in for me to run the world, then all bets are off).