Embryo Adoption

[Lilllabettt]

My husband and I are seriously considering embryo adoption.

When people do IVF, they make a lot of babies and freeze them until they can be transplanted into the moms womb. A lot of times the mom does this a few times, but then doesnt want anymore kids, or just cant physically anymore, and there are frozen babies "leftover".  The parents can then order that the babies be left to die, or be given to science for experiments. Another option is to give them up for adoption. 

You all may know that the Church strongly cautions against embryo adoption but does not forbid it. 

I have a lot of feelings about it. I'm not one of those women who just "has" to be a mom. But, I know the need is there. Unborn babies in this country have NOTHING. in fact embryo adoption isnt legally adoption. Although I would go through an adoption agency, and have a home study, a social worker, etc. It would legally be a property transfer. Totally gross.

1 thing that really concerns me is that I'd have to go to a fertility clinic, and pay people who do IVF every other day to implant my adopted children. It's almost like walking into an abortion clinic imo. I would never go to a planned parenthood for a mammogram. But because this is a grey area there are zero faithful catholic clinics that can do this. Going to the ivfers are the only option to save the babies. My husband compares it to back in the day, when religious orders would go to slave markets and ransom the people there. Idk if I could work with ivfers and keep my tongue in check though...

Idk, I guess I'm just looking for prayers. perspectives. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Lilllabettt

[Guest]

I can't offer any perspectives, sorry - but I will be keeping you and your decisions in prayer

[Seven77]

 The problem is: What  to do about  these frozen tiny human beings? I just read a quick article about embryo adoption and it is not immoral according to the Church, as you said. One of the things with that is that, it might promote the cause of IVF, but then again it is not intended to do so… Just thinking out loud to understand this…

And you and your husband are in my prayers.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Seven77

[little2add]

Embryo adoption is a blessed way to ensure that embryos are brought into this world to a loving, stable family and live the great life they were meant to have.

bless you and your family

Edited July 16, 2019 by little2add

[Lilllabettt]

34 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 One of the things with that is that, it might promote the cause of IVF, but then again it is not intended to do so… Just thinking out loud to understand this…

Intention is important although I understand the "object" is important as well. We cant do evil in order that good might come of it. So, the question is, is the act of implanting an embryo in a mom good or evil. Some say yes, because it screws with the natural procreative process- they go so far as to say a bio mom that repents of doing IVF cant implant her remaining embryos in her own womb, even if she wants to. 

Others say no. Pregnancy is not the same thing as conception. Pregnancy is a biological nourishment process. It's like wet nursing for a baby who cant breastfeed with her birth mom.

I dont find the first argument real convincing. But the church hasnt taught anything really on the significance and meaning of being pregnant.  All the teachings are about conception specifically.  Of course that's because they never had to think about them separately.  

[Seven77]

My instinct tells me that something is very wrong. It's not natural. But that's the conception  we are talking about. After the child has been conceived… Now that might be a different story… embryo adoption seems to me to be saving life that already exists…Even if it is also technically unnatural… Well, that's the part that gets confusing to sort out in my mind.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Seven77

[Not A Mallard]

A priest's perspective on this:

https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-is-it-a-sin-for-a-catholic-couple-to-undergo-an-ivf-procedure/

[Seven77]

11 minutes ago, Not A Mallard said:

A priest's perspective on this:

https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-is-it-a-sin-for-a-catholic-couple-to-undergo-an-ivf-procedure/

he is not addressing embryo adoption itself though

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Not A Mallard said:

A priest's perspective on this:

https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-is-it-a-sin-for-a-catholic-couple-to-undergo-an-ivf-procedure/

Yeah... I would NEVER do IVF. I consider IVF a form of child abuse. I try hard not to blame people because they are ignorant... but I'm not ignorant and I would never do it to innocent kids.

I'm asking about embryo adoption.

Premarital sex, extra marital sex, IVF are all sins but God can bring good out of them (when he creates a baby). Why God "participates" in seeming to bless those sins but doesnt bless people who have sex the "right" way is an enduring mystery to me. 

But whether an unborn baby is conceived via premarital sex or  IVF , once the baby is conceived, the question is what do you do with it.

For babies conceived in premarital sex, the mom could get an abortion or she could keep it growing in her womb. For babies conceived via IVF the mom could leave them to die, give them to science for experiments, or implant them so they can keep growing in her womb. Or put them up for prenatal adoption.  Those are the only options.

The experiments are definitely immoral. The other options are open to debate. I have a hard time seeing "leaving them to die" as being prolife. It's TRUE we are not required to provide extraordinary means of sustaining a patients life. But these are healthy babies who will die only because they are being denied the ordinary means - nutrition, water- of preserving life. With these patients they can only receive ordinary support in utero.  So... to me it makes sense that we have to provide the ordinary means, if we can. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Lilllabettt

[Lilllabettt]

Bumpity bump. I need my Pham to give me food for thought. 

[chrysostom]

I don't know for sure. It sounds like the object is the thing in question. If it is intrinsically evil, it's a no. Then is it? I guess this is what you're trying to figure out.

There is a long thread on this from 2006 in a blog post by Jimmy Akin in which Catholics took either side of the issue. https://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/07/frozen_embryo_a.html

One blogger, made a response to it, supporting embryo adoption: http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2006/07/akin-on-embryo-adoption.html

During the long discussion, Donum Vitae was brought up often. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html  If you have not read I think it's worth a read.

I came into the discussion predisposed towards supporting it. On the Akin thread, my mind went back and forth, for and against. After having read a little bit, I think the strongest evidence is against it. Some argued that there had been nothing definitive said on embryo adoption, but I think one could show that something has been said. Also I don't think the pro-embryo adoption commenters there produced an convincing response to the Donum Vitae text.

Quote

Donum Vitae I.5: "In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art not transferred into the body of the mother and are called "spare" are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued."

I think it's pretty clear. If transfer of the embryo into a woman's womb - even with nothing but charitable intent - were licit, Donum Vitae would have mentioned it.

Another observation: Donum Vitae frequently mentions, and condemns, IVF and ET (embryo transfer) in the same breath. Most of the arguments in DV are against the fertilisation portion, but I think it would be difficult to show that when it condemned "IVF and ET" it only meant IVF and not ET. In fact I suspect it mentions ET so often precisely to address the potential loophole.

The section on surrogate motherhood is also relevant, I think.
 

Quote

 

Donum Vitae A.3: "IS "SURROGATE"* MOTHERHOOD MORALLY LICIT?

No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person. Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.

* By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:

a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of "donors". She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy."

. . . "

 

Obviously the agreement to surrender the baby is not a factor in embryo adoption, but otherwise it seems to be a very similar kind of act, and so I think there are elements of the argument against surrogacy in this passage which could also apply to embryo adoption - "contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person" in particular. It implies that procreation is not just fertilisation - and that seems to have moral consequences. And regarding the unity of marriage, the poster Inocencio (on Akin's thread) repeatedly asked (without answer) whether the wife's fertility could be used to become pregnant outside the conjugal union of her and her husband?

I think an example that brings surrogate motherhood very close to embryo adoption is when the surrogate mother is in an agreement that leaves her entirely free to keep the baby she bears should she choose. This is less bad than agreements that coerce her to give up the child, I think, but it still falls under the prohibition. And I do think, upon a little reflection, that there is very little difference between that and embryo adoption.

In the end, I think there is at least a possibility that embryo adoption constitutes grave matter, after having read Donum Vitae. In any case, exercise caution.

Food for thought. I am sympathetic to the motives for it, though, and I am open to being convinced otherwise. I pray you find the right course of action.

A couple extra points.

Can we even keep these embryos, these abandoned, utterly lost children, in cryopreservation at all?

Quote

Donum Vitae I:6 "The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo - cryopreservation - constitutes an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible."

It's heartbreaking, isn't it, what horrible dilemmas IVF has brought us to. Such incredible evil running rampant, truly mad science, with irreversible consequences.

A final point, also discussed on the thread, is on artificial wombs. Might they be used, in some future point, to save these poor children?

Quote

Donum Vitae I:6 "Techniques of fertilization in vitro can open the way to other forms of biological and genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as attempts or plans for fertilization between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human embryos in the uterus of animals, or the hypothesis or project of constructing artificial uteruses for the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage."

It seems like this is impermissible too. However, I think there is a truly interesting clarification that may need to be made at some point in the future. I quote a commenter from the Akin thread: "But if artificial wombs are immoral, yet Isolettes and other incubator technology for saving premies is moral, might there come a point where we literally cannot tell the difference between one and the other on a purely technological basis?"

Okay, I'm officially stumped...

[CatherineM]

I knew a couple in Florida who did this twice. They handled the issue with their pastor. It’s got a million arguments on both sides. My Dad always said it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. I’d sit down with your pastor and discuss why you want to do this. 

[Lilllabettt]

On 7/19/2019 at 12:19 AM, chrysostom said:

I don't know for sure. It sounds like the object is the thing in question. If it is intrinsically evil, it's a no. Then is it? I guess this is what you're trying to figure out.

There is a long thread on this from 2006 in a blog post by Jimmy Akin in which Catholics took either side of the issue. https://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/07/frozen_embryo_a.html

One blogger, made a response to it, supporting embryo adoption: http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2006/07/akin-on-embryo-adoption.html

During the long discussion, Donum Vitae was brought up often. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html  If you have not read I think it's worth a read.

I came into the discussion predisposed towards supporting it. On the Akin thread, my mind went back and forth, for and against. After having read a little bit, I think the strongest evidence is against it. Some argued that there had been nothing definitive said on embryo adoption, but I think one could show that something has been said. Also I don't think the pro-embryo adoption commenters there produced an convincing response to the Donum Vitae text.

I think it's pretty clear. If transfer of the embryo into a woman's womb - even with nothing but charitable intent - were licit, Donum Vitae would have mentioned it.

Another observation: Donum Vitae frequently mentions, and condemns, IVF and ET (embryo transfer) in the same breath. Most of the arguments in DV are against the fertilisation portion, but I think it would be difficult to show that when it condemned "IVF and ET" it only meant IVF and not ET. In fact I suspect it mentions ET so often precisely to address the potential loophole.

The section on surrogate motherhood is also relevant, I think.
 

Obviously the agreement to surrender the baby is not a factor in embryo adoption, but otherwise it seems to be a very similar kind of act, and so I think there are elements of the argument against surrogacy in this passage which could also apply to embryo adoption - "contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person" in particular. It implies that procreation is not just fertilisation - and that seems to have moral consequences. And regarding the unity of marriage, the poster Inocencio (on Akin's thread) repeatedly asked (without answer) whether the wife's fertility could be used to become pregnant outside the conjugal union of her and her husband?

I think an example that brings surrogate motherhood very close to embryo adoption is when the surrogate mother is in an agreement that leaves her entirely free to keep the baby she bears should she choose. This is less bad than agreements that coerce her to give up the child, I think, but it still falls under the prohibition. And I do think, upon a little reflection, that there is very little difference between that and embryo adoption.

In the end, I think there is at least a possibility that embryo adoption constitutes grave matter, after having read Donum Vitae. In any case, exercise caution.

Food for thought. I am sympathetic to the motives for it, though, and I am open to being convinced otherwise. I pray you find the right course of action.

A couple extra points.

Can we even keep these embryos, these abandoned, utterly lost children, in cryopreservation at all?

It's heartbreaking, isn't it, what horrible dilemmas IVF has brought us to. Such incredible evil running rampant, truly mad science, with irreversible consequences.

A final point, also discussed on the thread, is on artificial wombs. Might they be used, in some future point, to save these poor children?

It seems like this is impermissible too. However, I think there is a truly interesting clarification that may need to be made at some point in the future. I quote a commenter from the Akin thread: "But if artificial wombs are immoral, yet Isolettes and other incubator technology for saving premies is moral, might there come a point where we literally cannot tell the difference between one and the other on a purely technological basis?"

Okay, I'm officially stumped...

Thank you for this. I'm reading point and counterpoints to some of this and am making up my mind. I appreciate the feeding. 

On 7/24/2019 at 4:28 AM, CatherineM said:

I knew a couple in Florida who did this twice. They handled the issue with their pastor. It’s got a million arguments on both sides. My Dad always said it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. I’d sit down with your pastor and discuss why you want to do this. 

Please no with the "ask your priest" advice. Lay people have to take responsibility for forming their own conscience and doing their own ethical decision making (where the Church has left grey areas). God wont be fooled if we stand before him and try to blame the priest. Not in this day and age. 

For laughs, I did ask my pastor... he was enthusiastic and followed it up with "and if you cant carry, you could get a surrogate!" For anyone reading: surrogacy is in direct opposition to an explicit teaching of the magisterium. 

People who live their lives doing what they want because they can tell God sorry later - have to live, after the fact, with the chance that their contrition is contaminated and might never be real enough to count. God is not fooled by such games. 

[dominicansoul]

https://www.liveaction.org/news/embryo-adoption-couple-adopts-embryo-frozen-two-decades/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

My own personal opinion is this is something the Church needs time to make a decision on.  In the meantime rescue those poor frozen babies!