Embryo Adoption

[Giannawannabe]

Let’s substitue ‘babies’ for ‘embryos’. It may take several attempts over a few years, but they did use all of the babies. Of course. I was using the term embryo in keeping with OP reference to Embryo Adoption. If you read my previous posts, I did refer to them as “babies” and “tiny human beings” too.

No, they only have a say so in how many are actually implanted at one time. Guaranteed, there will be more embryos thawed out than are attempted to be implanted.
Do you mean more “babies” thawed out??? The parents have a say so in how many babies are thawed for the transfer. At least in our circumstance and the circumstance of my friends. I’m not sure why you say “guaranteed”.

No disagreement here, only that there appears to be confusion on the difference in the two procedures. One is the conception process - “In-Vitro” and the other is the “implantation” process. The two can be totally separate from each other. Of course they are. The embryo (baby) transfer is done after in-vitro (conception in a petri dish) is completed. Once the transfer is completed, implantation does not always occur.

How much choice did you have in the fact that 10 embryos were conceived. If the parents were going to only USE two babies, why would they conceive eight more. Further, lets say it takes two attempts before a so-called success is attained. If two are thawed in hopes of getting one to take, there is a mortality rate of 50%. If it takes 10 attempts to get one to take, 90% mortality. If the babies are left frozen, they remain alive, 0% mortality. At what point does one say: “okay we have had x unsuccessful attempts, maybe we should stop embryos now”. Or does it go like this: “Gee were on our 100th attempt, I’m not stopping until I get a baby”.
I never said dh and I conceived 10 times. I only used that number as an example. With the IVF procedure, the woman’s ovaries are stimulated to produce eggs. Once the eggs are “ripe”, they are retrieved with local anesthesia. The sperm is collected from the father and mixed with the eggs in a petri dish. The amount of eggs retrieved is highly variable. Sometimes only one embryo (baby) is conceived out of 10-15 eggs, sometimes all of the eggs will be fertilized. At that point, there may be 10 or 15 embryos (babies) to transfer. That is when the parents can choose to have only 2 transferred and freeze the rest for further transfers in the future. The embryos (babies) referred to in the OP, are the ones that are not ever transferred. They sit in suspended animation, until they die. The mortality rate is not 0%. Many of the babies die while frozen.

Here we are talking about a plane full of hostages. The gunman is willing to make a deal, he will let half the hostages off and shoot the other half. Do we agree to such a deal. It would save the lives of 50% of the passengers. I don’t think so.
I certainly understand your point here. The babies can die during the thawing process. The babies can die while they are frozen. The babies may be transferred, not implant, and then a miscarriage occurs. IMO, being thawed and transferred respects the dignity of these human beings. Your opinion is different. At this point, we can only give differing opinions. Once the Church speaks, whatever She instructs, I will be obedient, even if I disagree.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mapleoak]

It doesn’t matter where the embryo comes from. If the woman is pregnant intercourse is not open to new life.

Not true, and this topic has been discussed at length in past threads. Please do a search for more information. The product of a couple’s love-making is culminated in both the physical and spiritual makeup of their child, neither adding to nor taking away. It is the ultimate expression of their marital union. No such expression exists when the wife is pregnant with another’s child.

I never said dh and I conceived 10 times. I only used that number as an example. With the IVF procedure, the woman’s ovaries are stimulated to produce eggs. Once the eggs are “ripe”, they are retrieved with local anesthesia. The sperm is collected from the father and mixed with the eggs in a petri dish. The amount of eggs retrieved is highly variable. Sometimes only one embryo (baby) is conceived out of 10-15 eggs, sometimes all of the eggs will be fertilized.

This was my point, there is no control here. Whether ten to fifteen eggs happen to get fertilized or only one, it is beyond anyone’s control.

At that point, there may be 10 or 15 embryos (babies) to transfer. That is when the parents can choose to have only 2 transferred and freeze the rest for further transfers in the future.

This is another major moral conundrum, in that the parents choose 2 to transfer. One of which will die or be killed. The other eight are decided to not be worthy for use and are frozen. Some of those will die in the freezing process, some will die while frozen.

The embryos (babies) referred to in the OP, are the ones that are not ever transferred. They sit in suspended animation, until they die. The mortality rate is not 0%. Many of the babies die while frozen.

The 0% refers to death by some action taken on the part of someone involved in the process. If they are left alone and only the maintenance of the conditions proper to keeping them frozen are upheld, there is no resulting death caused by another person. Certainly, some are going to die while frozen for no other reason than that God is calling it their time to go. The difference is whether one is willing to take it upon themself to sacrifice some lives in hopes of getting what they want.

IMO, being thawed and transferred respects the dignity of these human beings. Your opinion is different. At this point, we can only give differing opinions. Once the Church speaks, whatever She instructs, I will be obedient, even if I disagree.

Yes, and I do respect your opinion, even though mine is different. I do not believe anything along the way respects the dignity of the human being, whether it be the artificial conception, the freezing or thawing, or the transfer to a surrogate parent - a truly sad situation man has gotten into indeed. Further, and an issue which has its own set moral dilemnas, aside from the dignity of the person, is the affront on the sacredness of marital love.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Giannawannabe]

This was my point, there is no control here. Whether ten to fifteen eggs happen to get fertilized or only one, it is beyond anyone’s control.
Initially, I believe your point was there was no control of the parents as to how many embryos (babies) were implanted, not how many are fertilized. I agree that there is no control during implantation, but the parents can decide how many embryos (babies) are used for transfer. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your original point.

This is another major moral conundrum, in that the parents choose 2 to transfer. One of which will die or be killed. The other eight are decided to not be worthy for use and are frozen. Some of those will die in the freezing process, some will die while frozen.No. If 2 are chosen to transfer, than 2 may implant and live. If 3 or 4 are chosen to transfer than 3 or 4 could implant and live. That is why there are so many twins, triplets and quadruplets born to IVF couples. You are saying if parents choose 2 to transfer, than 1 will die or be killed. That is simply not the case. It’s possible, but not the expected outcome.

The 0% refers to by some action taken on the part of someone involved in the process. If they are left alone and only the maintenance of the conditions proper to keeping them frozen are upheld, there is no resulting caused by another person. Certainly, some are going to die while frozen for no other reason than that God is calling it their time to go. The difference is whether one is willing to take it upon themself to sacrifice some lives in hopes of getting what they want.I believe placing an embryo (baby) in a test tube to freeze is “taking action” that could kill him/her. Many do not survive the actual process of freezing.

Yes, and I do respect your opinion, even though mine is different. I do not believe anything along the way respects the dignity of the human being, whether it be the artificial conception, the freezing or thawing, or the transfer to a surrogate parent - a truly sad situation man has gotten into indeed. Further, and an issue which has its own set moral dilemnas, aside from the dignity of the person, is the affront on the sacredness of marital love.
I respect your opinion as well. It has been interesting debating you. Unfortunately, due to an initial evil act, beings are placed in jeopardy through no fault of their own. I must sign off! My kids are calling. Many blessings to you and yours.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[giagustine]

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.

I know that this thread is older, but I was reading it and have to comment.

Giannawannabe - you are completely correct. The parents (or adoptive parents in the case of embryo adoption) have COMPLETE control of how many embryos are transferred. They can request one to be transferred or three. However, NO doctor in good standing would transfer 10 embryos. In the field of IVF it is not usual to transfer more than 3 or 4 embryos at the most and the transfer of 2-3 embryos is what is most routine. In fact, the scenarios of high order multiples (over triplets) are generally products of fertility drugs (such as Clomid) rather than IVF. I am in NO WAY saying that IVF is acceptable as it is a grave sin and moral evil. However it is incorrect to say that multiple embryos are implanted and then extras are routinely aborted. Just isn’t the case. Now, it is true that some people do engage in “selective reduction” (abortion of multiple babies), but this is not routine. The general rule (and what any doctor who is professional will tell you) in the transfer of embryos is to only transfer as many as you are willing to carry, deliver, and raise.

It is my prayer that the Church will make a definitive statement in regards to Embryo Adoption soon.

 

[KarenNC]

embryodonation.org/adoption.html (my emphasis added—note that it says “options” which means the adoptive parents do have a choice in whether or not to consider procedures to reduce a multiple pregnancy)

"How many embryos will be transferred to my uterus?

Usually, two to four embryos are thawed for each transfer cycle. All embryos that survive the thawing process are transferred.

Is there a chance for multiple births?

Multiple births are much less common with frozen embryo transfers than with non-frozen (“fresh”) embryo transfers. We limit the number of embryos transferred, but there is no guarantee that you will not have multiple births. Your options to control this will be discussed during counseling.

How many attempts can I have to become pregnant?

Currently, a maximum of three embryo transfers will be allowed for each patient accepted into the program."

Are all like this? I do not know, but at least one is.

 

[marybee]

I think it comes down to this…The church has not said anything difinitively either way…So it would not be sinning by doing it.

I personally believe that it is not wrong…This would be the most loving thing to do for another human being, giving them a chance at life. To me it is no different than any other kind of adoption, It is akin to adopting a child who was concieved thru rape or some extra marital way. I mean if the baby were premature or some other way marginalized we wouldn’t bat an eye. If in vitro is the only way to SAVE them then that would be ok with me. I think it is a little ironic because the Church used to believe the only way for a person to get to heaven was baptism after birth…so i mean if discarding embryos to die were done in the past the Church would believe they went to Hell or Limbo and be damned. So I guess there are just too many loose ends in this one. Very complicated. The Church is so prolife, especially when it comes to the preborn, i just don’t see why this would be an exception.

 

[hasikelee]

Trying to find the answer to this dilemma is pretty moot, don’t you all think?

I mean, that’s like trying to do surgery on a patient when he is still bleeding to death!

It would make more sense to put strength and focus on stopping the creation of more humans, stopping the promotion of baby peddling and stopping things such as embryonic research.

As long as there is a demand, it will be met.

Also, there are limited options regarding the poster who said a patient can choose how many embryos to implant. The cost is astronomical and many doctors think it is a worthless pursuit to do such invasive surgery for “just one embryo.” There is also the fact that this is certainly not the well-researched and precise method many want us to believe, and indeed, doctors are poking around in the dark with a lot of guesswork.

Furthermore, you have the conundrum of the embryo being fatally deformed or dying soon after implantation.

And yet, if you decide then to implant many, you risk killing these humans simply by not being able to carry 7 or 8 babies at one time. Or even worse, there is the pressure to abort so as to save at least one baby.

To the poster who asked “what about sexual intercourse to save someone’s life” would you abort three or four babies to save one baby?

The end doesn’t justify the means and these example prove why that is such an important motto!

 

[marybee]

Some of these analogies are crazy! you are not killing them to try to implant them. You do not need to abort three babies to kill one. You can still try to stop the creation of embryos this way while still trying to give them life…

Its like watching 4 ppl drowning and trying to save them all but 3 may or may not make it, do you still just watch them drown because you may or may not be able to save all of them? insanity,.

 

[giagustine]

It would make more sense to put strength and focus on stopping the creation of more humans, stopping the promotion of baby peddling and stopping things such as embryonic research.

I agree that the creation of more humans via IVF should be stopped and I am happy to do what I can to help that goal. However, I (by myself or with my family) can not stop IVF. I (myself with my families help) CAN save the life of an embryo (should God allow). Just because certain things need to be done - such as stopping embryonic research or IVF - it does not mean that other good can’t be done as well - such as saving the life of an individual embryo (or two, or three).

Also, there are limited options regarding the poster who said a patient can choose how many embryos to implant. The cost is astronomical and many doctors think it is a worthless pursuit to do such invasive surgery for “just one embryo.”

Oh, really? Do you know this from personal experience? I ask because I have in fact been down this road. I have a child through embryo adoption. What do you mean when you say that there are “limited options” on choosing how many embryos to implant? We had complete choice in how many to implant. The only way that we were limited is that we could not implant more than four embryos. So, we were limited in a good way. And, for the record, the cost isn’t astronomical. The total cost for our embryo adoption (thaw, transfer, etc.) was $3000. MUCH cheaper than traditional adoption. Also, there is no “invasive surgery” - in fact no surgery at all. The transfer of a frozen embryo is a very simple and painless procedure. It takes about 30 seconds and is not even as uncomfortable as a pap smear.

There is also the fact that this is certainly not the well-researched and precise method many want us to believe, and indeed, doctors are poking around in the dark with a lot of guesswork.

Unfortunately you are wrong on this aspect as well. There has been multitudes of research done in the area of assisted reproduction. More than you even want to know. It is not a shot in the dark. It is horrifically sad how much research has gone into creating life in an unnatural way.

Furthermore, you have the conundrum of the embryo being fatally deformed or dying soon after implantation.

Embryos are not deformed because they are implanted. And “deformity” of an embryo is genetic and not from IVF or how it was implanted generally. Many significant studies have shown that the instances of birth defects are no higher with IVF or Embryo Adoption than with natural conception. So, you have no greater risk of having a handicapped or deformed baby through Embryo Adoption than through natural conception.

And yet, if you decide then to implant many, you risk killing these humans simply by not being able to carry 7 or 8 babies at one time. Or even worse, there is the pressure to abort so as to save at least one baby.

Once again - no doctor in good standing is going to transfer 7 or 8 babies. This is just not done. To hear of the transfer of 7 or 8 babies is highly unusual. It is not the norm. Transferring 2-3 is the norm.

Do adopted embryos die in the process of thaw and transfer? Yes, some do. At the same time, they are all destined to die if they are not transferred. Utmost care and wisdom must be taken in the thaw and transfer of adopted embryos. They are human lives in the frailest form. However to say that because some (or even one) embryo would die you should not try to save any is quite sad in my opinion. I agree with marybee - if four people are drowning you don’t just watch them because some of them may die and you may only be able to save one. You try to rescue them all. And in the end God decides which ones live or die.

That being said, I am a firm believer of only transferring as many adopted embryos as you are willing to carry and raise. That is what we did. We were willing to raise the embryos that we rescued and were firmly opposed to any type of selective reduction or abortion for any reason, including a genetic deformity.

Assisted reproduction is full of ethical dilemmas. As the Church teaches, it is a moral evil. However, Embryo Adoption is very different. It is the rescue of already created life that is destined to die if there is no intervention.

As always, I submit all of my views and opinions to the authority of the Church and should the Church speak authoritatively on this issue I will gladly submit to their teaching. At this time I am unaware of any teaching on this issue although I am always seeking a definitive answer on this subject.

 

[hasikelee]

I agree that the creation of more humans via IVF should be stopped and I am happy to do what I can to help that goal. However, I (by myself or with my family) can not stop IVF. I (myself with my families help) CAN save the life of an embryo (should God allow). Just because certain things need to be done - such as stopping embryonic research or IVF - it does not mean that other good can’t be done as well - such as saving the life of an individual embryo (or two, or three).

giagustine, I find it important to argue every aspect of an issue, especially this issue at hand due to its gravity. Developing all premises and following through on every conclusion can only make the truth more obvious. You should be fairly informed that I support embryonic adoption.

I hear a lot of defense in your post, whic wouldn’t be a productive emotional foundation on which to continue talking with you. When grappling with larger issues, I enjoy discussions that are more free-flowing without personal emotions or insecurities tied up in them.

For example, abortion is one of my favourite issues but I usually avoid discussions with women who have aborted as the trauma is too great to have a carefree philosophy session.

Thanks for the many points you brought up and God bless. You have much to offer others who are less familiar with this subject.

 

[bookgirl]

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.

Is that really an issue? Is “cellular similarity” even a scientific term? They’re not related DNA-wise. And a mother already has specific connections to the child that the father does not, regardless of the fact that he is the biological father. No one said the parenting experience or even the pro-creation experience is equal or the same, especially not the Church. I don’t think that has anything to do with anything.

The only argument I’ve seen so far that makes this any different than normal adoption is that the time the mother is carrying the child is unavailable for procreation between the husband and the wife. That and is it moral to allow the embryo to die? But the death would be a natural death, regardless of how the life was created.

 

[bookgirl]

Just to elaborate on my previous post: The one thing that no one seems to be touching on is that no one would be KILLING an embryo by not using it. If it wasn’t used, yes, it would eventually die. But it would die b/c it was not in a position to have a chance at living. Creating the embryo could be called killing it, maybe, if you consider that the scientist / cooperating parents know that it may not be used. But any of us not implanting it, or letting it thaw and die, would not be killing it. It has no way to stay alive as it is. It is not growing inside of a women’s womb. Abortion is killing, it is taking a life that, left to nature, would grow and be born. Left to nature, these embryos would die. It is only with artificial means would it continue to live. Letting a human die a natural death, even if it’s conception was not a natural conception, isn’t killing is it? I could be thinking about this wrong, who knows.

I’m not commenting on whether embryo adoption would be right or wrong, just making an observation. My emotional reaction would be to approve embryo adoption, I’d love for them to get a chance. But my feelings about something doesn’t make it right. ???

 

[Jennifer123]

I think it comes down to this…The church has not said anything difinitively either way…So it would not be sinning by doing it.

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT

“Conscience is the inner core of
human beings whereby, compelled to seek the truth, they recognise the objective standards of
moral conduct, indeed the dictates of God’s law, and make a **practical judgment **of what is to be
done here and now in applying those standards (Rom 2:15-16; Vatican II, On Religious Liberty
(1965), §§2,3; The Church in the Modern World (1965), §16). Thus the moral character of actions is
determined by objective criteria, not merely by the sincerity of intentions or the goodness of motives,
(Vatican II, The Church in the Modern World (1965), §51) and all people are called to form their
consciences accordingly.”

In making a conscious decision about this, I think it best to be prudent, and yes, practical. (emphasis mine)

Abortion supporters make the claim that since there is no ex cathedra infalliable declaration about the Church’s teachings on abortion, then Catholics can dissent and still be in good standing. But that ignores the many, many statements of this teaching throughout the ages by popes and other theologians.

We shouldn’t ignore the many teachings we have regarding IVF and should consider that carefully before fully supporting or even engaging in embryo adoption. I think it is practical to wait until Rome has spoken.

 

[marybee]

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT

“Conscience is the inner core of
human beings whereby, compelled to seek the truth, they recognise the objective standards of
moral conduct, indeed the dictates of God’s law, and make a **practical judgment **of what is to be
done here and now in applying those standards (Rom 2:15-16; Vatican II, On Religious Liberty
(1965), §§2,3; The Church in the Modern World (1965), §16). Thus the moral character of actions is
determined by objective criteria, not merely by the sincerity of intentions or the goodness of motives,
(Vatican II, The Church in the Modern World (1965), §51) and all people are called to form their
consciences accordingly.”

In making a conscious decision about this, I think it best to be prudent, and yes, practical. (emphasis mine)

Abortion supporters make the claim that since there is no ex cathedra infalliable declaration about the Church’s teachings on abortion, then Catholics can dissent and still be in good standing. But that ignores the many, many statements of this teaching throughout the ages by popes and other theologians.

We shouldn’t ignore the many teachings we have regarding IVF and should consider that carefully before fully supporting or even engaging in embryo adoption. I think it is practical to wait until Rome has spoken.

This is complete nonsense…The ordinary magisterium has already infallibly said abortion is wrong. We don’t need the extraordinary magisterium to reiterate this for it to be a Truth.

 

[Jennifer123]

This is complete nonsense…The ordinary magisterium has already infallibly said abortion is wrong. We don’t need the extraordinary magisterium to reiterate this for it to be a Truth.

Did you read the article? Anyway, the point is that just because the Church hasn’t said anything doesn’t mean we may be acting in good conscience.

 

[Neithan]

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.

Embryos already are alive, and no way in hell would it be worth risking your eternal salvation merely to extend their time on earth. The best thing we can do is baptise these poor souls.

 

[bookgirl]

Embryos already are alive, and no way in hell would it be worth risking your eternal salvation merely to extend their time on earth. The best thing we can do is baptise these poor souls.

That’s a good point.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

A serious text that explores this issue from all perspectives is Human Embryo Adoption, available from the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

https://www.informationsecured.com/ncbc_store/detail.aspx?ID=94

This book is a collection of essays from Catholics known for their loyalty to the Church and great intellect. Interestingly, most priests except one, favor it; most laymen except one are against it and all lay women (to my knowledge) are against it.

Interesting Party Lines.