Embryo Adoption

[C_Bautista]

Perhaps implanting the embryo in an UNMARRIED woman is a solution?

Surely we cannot say that it is better to kill the unborn child.

But is there anything wrong with an unmarried woman adopting a child? If not, then what about an unmarried woman giving birth to a child?

There are obvious social problems with this, but it is immoral? Indeed, it seems to be at odds with a certain aspect of the natural order of creation, but is there a better solution?

 

[Jennifer123]

Beats killing the embryo by miles.

But since many embryos usually have to be implanted anyway with IVF in order for one to live, you may have to do an evil act in order to achieve what may be a “good” effect, which Church teaching tells us is impossible.
It seems it is best to wait until the Church, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, rules on what may be morally acceptable. It is sadly fascinating, this problem that Culture of Death has handed us.

 

[C_Bautista]

Is it IVF that is, itself, an evil? Or is the attempt to bypass the natural sexual act that is evil?

Surely, one could say that adultery is evil. But is it wrong to have sex with someone you’re not married to if they threaten to commit some form of murder otherwise?

Intentionally destroying innocent life for any intended end is NEVER acceptable. Period. But is IVF so grave as to be similarly universally unacceptable? I’m not personally sure.

I understand that we cannot let an inherently evil act (e.g., murder) be the means to a wishfully good end or effect, but is IVF itself inherently evil, or is the spirit in which it is typically conducted that is truly evil?

Are we choosing between the lesser of two evils or are we proposing using evil as a means to an end? Tough questions.

Is this distinction like the one between “killing” and “murdering?”

But indeed, I find myself often lacking in humility in these sorts of things - it is probably best to pray for guidance and patience. I sometimes find myself too wrapped up in the intellectual aspect of theology while disregarding its true intention - increasing our ability to know and love God and others.

Still, the morality of this act is worth discussion, I think.

 

[StCsDavid]

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish"

Mother Theresa spoke those words regarding abortion. Are we not with embryo adoption deciding that a certain number of children must die via IVF so we may achieve what we wish? Are there not millions of already born children in need of adoption from loving parents? Is the experience of pregnancy and childbirth really worth the killing the unborn? Do we not devalue the human being in it’s simplest most vulnerable condition to the status of reasonably expendable to achieve a means to an end?

 

[C_Bautista]

Sorry if I mis-worded something - I’m not at ALL supporting risking any unborn children’s lives by “mass implanting” them into a mother.

Not sure if that’s what I came off as saying.

When I said “IVF” I just meant implantation of an embryo inside a mother.

 

[LeahInancsi]

But since many embryos usually have to be implanted anyway with IVF in order for one to live, you may have to do an evil act in order to achieve what may be a “good” effect, which Church teaching tells us is impossible.
It seems it is best to wait until the Church, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, rules on what may be morally acceptable. It is sadly fascinating, this problem that Culture of Death has handed us.

I agree. I suppose the subject of this debate is whether or not we’re going to try to save ANY of these embryos or not. At present, saving them all is not possible to my knowledge.

 

[StCsDavid]

Sorry if I mis-worded something - I’m not at ALL supporting risking any unborn children’s lives by “mass implanting” them into a mother.

Not sure if that’s what I came off as saying.

When I said “IVF” I just meant implantation of an embryo inside a mother.

The question that comes to me is how does one choose which soul to risk or save. Imagine a rack of 100 test tubes. How would one decide out of that 100 which one got a slim chance at life or a more probable death? How would one be able to discern God’s will for that soul without directly or indirectly playing God over the life of that soul? I don’t pretend to have any good answers which is why I think it’s a very dangerous area.

 

[C_Bautista]

The immorality of IVF aside, this is still not much of an easier issue to deal with, as you say.

I just find it difficult to say that inaction is an acceptable response to this. The state in which unborn children in test-tubes exist is a perverse one that is, as of yet, unnatural to an unmatched degree. They are held in physical reality, their souls infused into a material body, yet they are not allowed to develop or grow.

Patience and prudence are necessary; but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the morality of taking no action.

But as you say, I don’t want to pretend to have any decent real answers either.

 

[ribozyme]

The question that comes to me is how does one choose which soul to risk or save. Imagine a rack of 100 test tubes. How would one decide out of that 100 which one got a slim chance at life or a more probable death? How would one be able to discern God’s will for that soul without directly or indirectly playing God over the life of that soul? I don’t pretend to have any good answers which is why I think it’s a very dangerous area.

I’ll let Richard Lynn answer that question:

“In Eugenics, Lynn argues embryo selection as a form of standard reproductive therapy would raise the average intelligence of the population by 15 IQ points in a single generation (p. 300). If couples produce a hundred embryos, he argues, the range in potential IQ would be around 15 points above and below the parents’ IQ. Lynn argues this gain could be repeated each generation, eventually stabilizing the population’s IQ at a theoretical maximum of around 200 after as little as six or seven generations.”

It’s rather callous, but I see embryo selection as the salvation of humanity as it can be used to eliminate human misery.

 

[cor]

Surely, one could say that adultery is evil. But is it wrong to have sex with someone you’re not married to if they threaten to commit some form of murder otherwise?

I’m not sure. That’s a good question. And it makes you rethink your position on the whole embryo adoption thing.

But indeed, I find myself often lacking in humility in these sorts of things - it is probably best to pray for guidance and patience. I sometimes find myself too wrapped up in the intellectual aspect of theology while disregarding its true intention - increasing our ability to know and love God and others.

I think I find myself doing that too, sometimes.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Since there are some people on the forum who are opposed to embryo adoption, I am curious as to what alternative they would promote for the embryos.
Even if IVF were banned tomorrow, we would still have thousands of frozen embryos. If we cannot allow couples to adopt the embryos, what should we do with them? Destroy them? Destroy them by using them for research? Keep them frozen until the end of the world?

 

[LeahInancsi]

…

What is that thing at the bottom of your posts? It looks obscene.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Since there are some people on the forum who are opposed to embryo adoption, I am curious as to what alternative they would promote for the embryos.
Even if IVF were banned tomorrow, we would still have thousands of frozen embryos. If we cannot allow couples to adopt the embryos, what should we do with them? Destroy them? Destroy them by using them for research? Keep them frozen until the end of the world?

I’m with you. I’d love to take a couple of those embryos, give birth to them and put them through college. If for some reason one or more of them died because of my interference, I would pray to the end of my days that God would have mercy on my soul. If I were to go to hell for this, it just might be worth it to have given someone else life.

 

[StCsDavid]

I’ll let Richard Lynn answer that question:

“In Eugenics, Lynn argues embryo selection as a form of standard reproductive therapy would raise the average intelligence of the population by 15 IQ points in a single generation (p. 300). If couples produce a hundred embryos, he argues, the range in potential IQ would be around 15 points above and below the parents’ IQ. Lynn argues this gain could be repeated each generation, eventually stabilizing the population’s IQ at a theoretical maximum of around 200 after as little as six or seven generations.”

It’s rather callous, but I see embryo selection as the salvation of humanity as it can be used to eliminate human misery.

Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler had a similar idea of improving the human species via eugenics. Some very intelligent folks, the scientists who developed this technology, got us into this dilemma. I’m not sure higher IQ is the key to man’s salvation. Man was getting along just fine before this technology became available.

Until a more proven method of embryo implantation can be perfected, it is my humble opinion that the best thing we can do for these poor souls frozen in time by our doing is to find a way that all of them have a decent shot at life that is far better than the roll of the dice they have today. I have faith that God watches over them as the most innocent beings in His creation, and I also believe that Christ’s agony in the garden included a vision of man’s arrogance with regard to human life.

 

[Giannawannabe]

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

I notice that when people use this argument against embryo adoption, they use terms like “typically” or “usually” multiple embryos are implanted. It is the parents decision how many embryos are used for each IVF attempt. The parents are not simply bystanders, subject to whatever the doctors involved want to do. If there are 10 embryos frozen, a couple may choose to do an IVF attempt with only 1 or 2 embryos at a time, and continue until all 10 embryos are given a chance. There is no “right to life”, if the embryos remain frozen in a laboratory. To me, it is not consistent to say that life begins at conception, and then not treat embryos the same as any other human being.

 

[Cari]

It’s rather callous, but I see embryo selection as the salvation of humanity as it can be used to eliminate human misery.

But again here, as in another thread where you brought this theory up, you’re equating a high IQ with happiness. History has shown us that those who possess a high IQ are not necessarily the happiest people out there. This theory also ignores other forms of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence, which would lead to greater happiness.

 

[Jennifer123]

Since there are some people on the forum who are opposed to embryo adoption, I am curious as to what alternative they would promote for the embryos.
Even if IVF were banned tomorrow, we would still have thousands of frozen embryos. If we cannot allow couples to adopt the embryos, what should we do with them? Destroy them? Destroy them by using them for research? Keep them frozen until the end of the world?

I just want to make it known that I’m not for or against embryo adoption, I too am horrified by the scenario of these little lives frozen in space and time, but I am awaiting the Church’s opinion on the subject before I make up my mind.

I just worry that as with most things acceptable in secular culture, the Church’s possible stance against embryo adoption will be a source of ridicule and scorn because most people won’t even try to understand the complexity of the situation nor do they know about the Church’s teaching on human dignity and human sexuality.

I am trying to learn as much as I can so that I can share that with others who have only listened to the secular argument or have surface knowledge of these situations. I am by no means an expert!!

In any case, it is my understanding that IVF is inherently evil regardless of whether the parents refuse to selectively implant, so I can’t see how it could be used in an embryo adoption procedure anyway?

 

[StCsDavid]

I notice that when people use this argument against embryo adoption, they use terms like “typically” or “usually” multiple embryos are implanted. It is the parents decision how many embryos are used for each IVF attempt. The parents are not simply bystanders, subject to whatever the doctors involved want to do. If there are 10 embryos frozen, a couple may choose to do an IVF attempt with only 1 or 2 embryos at a time, and continue until all 10 embryos are given a chance. There is no “right to life”, if the embryos remain frozen in a laboratory. To me, it is not consistent to say that life begins at conception, and then not treat embryos the same as any other human being.

If one believes that life begins at conception then one would not be so cavalier as to create embryos outside of the natural law. Let’s say that only two embryos are used. Who gives one the right to choose which two are risked for the satisfaction of the potential parent? Using the argument that the embryos remain frozen in a laboratory equates the value of life with its quality of existence or even its size. It’s not a terribly large leap to say that a person in irreversible coma is similar in existence to a frozen embryo. Would one advocate killing the comatose to harvest their organs so another could live? After all, the comatose are just laying there taking up space. We keep them alive with the hope that maybe one day the means might be available to bring them back. Should we not treat these little souls whose lives were violated by man’s perversion of creation not be treated with the same hope, the same dignity? One day perhaps we will have the means to bring them our of their current condition.

We are responsible for the state of existence these frozen embryos find themselves in. If we are going to play God in this way then we have a moral obligation to protect the dignity and sanctity of life even if that life seems inadequate to we who are more fortunate.

 

[Giannawannabe]

If one believes that life begins at conception then one would not be so cavalier as to create embryos outside of the natural law. Let’s say that only two embryos are used. Who gives one the right to choose which two are risked for the satisfaction of the potential parent? Using the argument that the embryos remain frozen in a laboratory equates the value of life with its quality of existence or even its size. It’s not a terribly large leap to say that a person in irreversible coma is similar in existence to a frozen embryo. Would one advocate the comatose to harvest their organs so another could live? After all, the comatose are just laying there taking up space. We keep them alive with the hope that maybe one day the means might be available to bring them back. Should we not treat these little souls whose lives were violated by man’s perversion of creation not be treated with the same hope, the same dignity? One day perhaps we will have the means to bring them our of their current condition.

We are responsible for the state of existence these frozen embryos find themselves in. If we are going to play God in this way then we have a moral obligation to protect the dignity and sanctity of life even if that life seems inadequate to we who are more fortunate.

First of all, I stated that ALL available embryos frozen would be used. During in-vitro, many embryos can be made; the biological parents may only use 2, then the rest would be frozen. Of those remaining frozen embryos, all would be used and given the chance to continue to grow and live. In embryo adoption, the embryos are only used from biological parents who release the babies for adoption—there may be 10, there may be only 3.
Secondly, I’m an adoptive parent. The circumstances surrounding the conception of my children were less than ideal, and certainly NOT in line with God’s plan. Although these circumstances were immoral, my children’s lives were spared and are now thriving and much loved in our home. I see these frozen embryos in the same way as I would any other children given up by biolgical parents and placed for adoption. From what I understand the paperwork and procedures are the same. Releases signed from biological parents, homestudy completed, follow up visits made, etc.
I like your analogy to a comatose patient. However, IMO, there currently exists means to “awaken” these tiniest of human beings—embryo adoption. In a comatose patient, there are no means. I certainly do not advocate a comatose patient. Their life is as valuable as any other life. At this time, there is no way to “cure” them. One day there may be, and of course, there would be no question at all to do so. There would not be discussion or debate as to whether to bring people out of their comas, even if there was the chance that it may not work. The same consideration should be given to these tiny little human beings.

 

[mapleoak]

If one believes that life begins at conception then one would not be so cavalier as to create embryos outside of the natural law. Let’s say that only two embryos are used. Who gives one the right to choose which two are risked for the satisfaction of the potential parent? Using the argument that the embryos remain frozen in a laboratory equates the value of life with its quality of existence or even its size. It’s not a terribly large leap to say that a person in irreversible coma is similar in existence to a frozen embryo. Would one advocate killing the comatose to harvest their organs so another could live? After all, the comatose are just laying there taking up space. We keep them alive with the hope that maybe one day the means might be available to bring them back. Should we not treat these little souls whose lives were violated by man’s perversion of creation not be treated with the same hope, the same dignity? One day perhaps we will have the means to bring them our of their current condition.

We are responsible for the state of existence these frozen embryos find themselves in. If we are going to play God in this way then we have a moral obligation to protect the dignity and sanctity of life even if that life seems inadequate to we who are more fortunate.

Very true. In fact, to the poster who was astute enough to notice that I purposely used the word 'typically" while illustrating a point, it most certainly is not the ‘end all be all’ argument in this matter. Lets look at it a little further.

It is the parents decision how many embryos are used for each IVF attempt.

Untrue. The parent(s) have very little say so in these matters, other than that they would like to have an implantation performed.

The parents are not simply bystanders, subject to whatever the doctors involved want to do.

Yes they are.

If there are 10 embryos frozen, a couple may choose to do an IVF attempt

Actually in-vitro fertilization is an entirely different animal. Here we are talking about already existing already conceived and very much alive human beings.

with only 1 or 2 embryos at a time, and continue until all 10 embryos are given a chance.

Actually, no it doesn’t work that way.

There is no “right to life”, if the embryos remain frozen in a laboratory.

Yes there is. All human beings, regardless of how they were conceived, have a “right to life”.

To me, it is not consistent to say that life begins at conception, and then not treat embryos the same as any other human being.

Exactly. They deserve the same dignity and respect as any other human being, regardless of how small they are.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak