Topic: Frozen Embryo adoption

[Quinault]

http://www.king5.com/news/Embryo-Adoption-Celebration-Unites-Families-103251659.html

I was wondering when a church would take up the cause for frozen embryos. A church here in our area has taken up the cause for embryo adoption. The head organization looks Catholic, but the organization is not associated with a specific church. The church that celebrated embryo adoptions recently was an AG church.

If life begins at conception, then frozen embryos are little lives. This is a very interesting concept. I struggle with the idea of adopting embryos when there are so many children outside the womb that need homes. This is definitely an interesting concept for the "pro-life" crowd. It is definitely a better thing to do than picketing abortion clinics.

[Alveus Lacuna]

In that video, the woman honestly seemed more interested in her own experience of carrying and having a baby. She referred to what they did as an "option", not a mandate. This doesn't seem to be about moral outrage or the dignity of human life, but for this couple it was about the family experience they had been dreaming about. I'm not saying that's all bad or anything, it just that this doesn't really seem to be as much about pro-life issues.

[deusveritasest]

I struggle with the idea of adopting embryos when there are so many children outside the womb that need homes.

I think it depends on the condition of said children. If they are in great danger of losing their lives because of how neglected they are, and thus both are an issue of life and death, I do not think it is wrong to prioritize a living child over an embryo. However, if the already living child does have a decent chance of living even without your help, then I think preserving life should be the priority and the embryo should be adopted instead. OTOH, if these frozen embryos are actually capable of being preserved for many years and then brought to life at a significantly later date, and thus it is not so much an issue of life or death, then I think the living child should again be given priority.

[Quinault]

Frozen embryos can remain frozen for a number of years. I actually take issue with the fact that most people want "babies," older children need homes as well. I really hope in the future that my husband and I can adopt siblings. Often the youngest child will be adopted if they are a baby, leaving the older children to float in fostercare. My sister-in-law is looking to adopt, but they will only accept a child o-3 months.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

http://www.king5.com/news/Embryo-Adoption-Celebration-Unites-Families-103251659.html

This is definitely an interesting concept for the "pro-life" crowd. It is definitely a better thing to do than picketing abortion clinics.

I don't think it's better or worse. I applaud any and all nonviolent efforts to preserve human life as long as they are conducted in the love and Spirit of Christ. Those of us who claim to be Pro-Life should encourage comprehensive efforts to save unborn lives. Some may be called to adopt children who are already born; others may seek to adopt frozen embryos; and others may be called to stand outside abortion clinics in order to compel women not to kill their babies. I think God works through all of these efforts.


Selam

[ialmisry]

http://www.king5.com/news/Embryo-Adoption-Celebration-Unites-Families-103251659.html

I was wondering when a church would take up the cause for frozen embryos. A church here in our area has taken up the cause for embryo adoption. The head organization looks Catholic, but the organization is not associated with a specific church. The church that celebrated embryo adoptions recently was an AG church.

If life begins at conception, then frozen embryos are little lives. This is a very interesting concept. I struggle with the idea of adopting embryos when there are so many children outside the womb that need homes. This is definitely an interesting concept for the "pro-life" crowd. It is definitely a better thing to do than picketing abortion clinics.

Some people have issues on this, especially Orthodox whose moral theology resembles Humanae Vitae.  I remember a somewhat negative statement from an Orthodox priest who is strongly prolife (and has adopted toddlers).

The only issues, as far as I see, are how successful implantation is, how much longer the embryos can stay in stasis etc.  Otherwise, I support snow flake babies being born.

[danman916]

Frozen embryo's have a shelf life (and I detest talking about life in this way, but there is little else way to say it). Eventually, they become unvioble.
There is no easy answer to this as it is difficult to see how the end justifies the means in either case.
The problem is that IVF is very immoral because it removes the unitive from the procreative in making new life just as contraception removes the procreative from the unitive.

[deusveritasest]

Could someone please explain how there come to be living frozen embryos in the first place? 

[danman916]

See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Cryopreservation

[deusveritasest]

See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Cryopreservation

So then in the process of IVF sometimes more than one embryo is produced and the multiple embryos are often abandoned?

[Quinault]

Yes, it is most cost effective to harvest and fertilize multiple embryos. When a couple feels that they have "enough" children they will have to choose to destroy the remaining embryos, donate them to science or put them up for adoption. Often the reason why you hear about so many women having multiples is because they use up all the remaining embryos. The rate of successful pregnancy with IVF is about 1/3 I believe. So couples will place 3-4 embryos hoping that they will have at least one "stick." But if the egg is already fertilized then the process to place the embryos is much less dangerous.

Harvesting eggs is extremely dangerous to women. They force you to super-ovulate and then harvest the eggs. This process can on occasion cause the death of the woman. I wonder if this is part of the reason why the Catholic church has been fairly neutral to negative about IVF (outside of the fact that conception is separate from the procreative marital act).

[deusveritasest]

Could a couple not instruct the doctors to only fertilize one egg at a time?

[Quinault]

A couple could, but it would be far more expensive. It costs about $12,000 for a single cycle of IVF. Eggs don't freeze like sperm. You have to use an egg as soon as you get it. So it costs the least to harvest, fertilize and then freeze eggs.

[deusveritasest]

But it might be a valid and acceptable cost for wealthy people who are more pro-life inclined.

[Quinault]

Adopting embryos is much less then adopting a child. Adopting a child is somewhere around $20,000 on average. Th adoption of an embryo is around $2,500.

[Quinault]

But it might be a valid and acceptable cost for wealthy people who are more pro-life inclined.

 To a certain point, yes. But the health risk associated with harvesting eggs is so high that few doctors allow a woman to harvest eggs more then a couple times. A woman can develop cancer from the process. Death is also not unheard of.

[deusveritasest]

But it might be a valid and acceptable cost for wealthy people who are more pro-life inclined.

 To a certain point, yes. But the health risk associated with harvesting eggs is so high that few doctors allow a woman to harvest eggs more then a couple times. A woman can develop cancer from the process. Death is also not unheard of.

Oh. If it is really that risky, it might very well invalidate even attempting the entire process from a significant enough pro-life perspective.

[ialmisry]

Frozen embryo's have a shelf life (and I detest talking about life in this way, but there is little else way to say it). Eventually, they become unvioble.
There is no easy answer to this as it is difficult to see how the end justifies the means in either case.
The problem is that IVF is very immoral because it removes the unitive from the procreative in making new life just as contraception removes the procreative from the unitive.

In the case at bar, the new life is already here. The gnat straining of Humanae Vitae doesn't apply, and isn't going to take care of that camel, the viability of the embryos at present.

Nor is there an ends justifying the means dilemma, as the lives are already at steak.  Too late to debate whether IVF is immoral (though not too late to debate stopping the future production of embryos, or subject them to restrictions).

I am aware that many who follow HV see a woman carrying one of the frozen embryos akin to murder. It is, however, more akin (at least in this circumstance) to donating a kidney.

[Quinault]

But it might be a valid and acceptable cost for wealthy people who are more pro-life inclined.

 To a certain point, yes. But the health risk associated with harvesting eggs is so high that few doctors allow a woman to harvest eggs more then a couple times. A woman can develop cancer from the process. Death is also not unheard of.

Oh. If it is really that risky, it might very well invalidate even attempting the entire process from a significant enough pro-life perspective.

That is exactly the reason why I would never have undergone this process (it took a year to conceive our first child, and I was thinking about our options if we couldn't conceive naturally. I immediately eliminated the IVF route because it is so risky. I love having my own children, but I don't think it is worth risking my life to have a child that shares my DNA.) I can understand why the Catholic church is against this process. But since the eggs are already there, waiting to be implanted in a willing uterus, I can't think of anything being wrong with adopting these potential children (or children waiting to be born, depending upon your perspective).

[deusveritasest]

But it might be a valid and acceptable cost for wealthy people who are more pro-life inclined.

 To a certain point, yes. But the health risk associated with harvesting eggs is so high that few doctors allow a woman to harvest eggs more then a couple times. A woman can develop cancer from the process. Death is also not unheard of.

Oh. If it is really that risky, it might very well invalidate even attempting the entire process from a significant enough pro-life perspective.

That is exactly the reason why I would never have undergone this process (it took a year to conceive our first child, and I was thinking about our options if we couldn't conceive naturally. I immediately eliminated the IVF route because it is so risky. I love having my own children, but I don't think it is worth risking my life to have a child that shares my DNA.) I can understand why the Catholic church is against this process. But since the eggs are already there, waiting to be implanted in a willing uterus, I can't think of anything being wrong with adopting these potential children (or children waiting to be born, depending upon your perspective).

Agreed 100%.

[ialmisry]

But it might be a valid and acceptable cost for wealthy people who are more pro-life inclined.

 To a certain point, yes. But the health risk associated with harvesting eggs is so high that few doctors allow a woman to harvest eggs more then a couple times. A woman can develop cancer from the process. Death is also not unheard of.

Oh. If it is really that risky, it might very well invalidate even attempting the entire process from a significant enough pro-life perspective.

That is exactly the reason why I would never have undergone this process (it took a year to conceive our first child, and I was thinking about our options if we couldn't conceive naturally. I immediately eliminated the IVF route because it is so risky. I love having my own children, but I don't think it is worth risking my life to have a child that shares my DNA.) I can understand why the Catholic church is against this process. But since the eggs are already there, waiting to be implanted in a willing uterus, I can't think of anything being wrong with adopting these potential children (or children waiting to be born, depending upon your perspective).

Agreed 100%.

That makes three. (except I know why the Vatican is against this process).