What Do You Think, Is Embryo Adoption Ethical?

[The Narrow Way]

Over 900 babies born through Christian agency's embryo adoption program

If you don't think it's ethical, why not?

I don't believe it is for several reasons....but I'd like to hear your thoughts first .

 

[PloverWing]

Assuming these points:
1. The embryos already exist
2. The embryos, if not adopted, would be destroyed
3. The person who is going to carry the embryo to term is fully and freely consenting

then, yes, I think it is ethically similar to adopting infants.

 

[Sabertooth]

...then, yes, I think it is ethically similar to adopting infants

It is the "Take & Bake" form of adoption.

 

[Sabertooth]

One down side is that biological siblings could inadvertently marry unless their state has a mandatory blood test requirement.

They should not be destroyed, but extra tracking would be necessary.

 

[Michie]

Assuming these points:
1. The embryos already exist
2. The embryos, if not adopted, would be destroyed
3. The person who is going to carry the embryo to term is fully and freely consenting

then, yes, I think it is ethically similar to adopting infants.

I’m with PloverWing here in what she posted and voted. But at the same time, from a Catholic pov, it should not be an option in the first place. But as a pro-lifer, we should be considering this among the options we already have available. We need to work as a team. If all my siblings had this opportunity that were aborted, I’d would have raised them. But that was not an option back in the day. The times are changing and we need to act accordingly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Over 900 babies born through Christian agency's embryo adoption program

If you don't think it's ethical, why not?

I don't believe it is for several reasons....but I'd like to hear your thoughts first .

It's completely ethical.
When you enter a burning building, you don't ask any bodies you find if they'd like to be removed to a better place.
The same goes for freezers. We always worry about children locking themselves in freezers. If we find them in there, we get them out. No questions asked.

 

[Skye1300]

Over 900 babies born through Christian agency's embryo adoption program

If you don't think it's ethical, why not?

I don't believe it is for several reasons....but I'd like to hear your thoughts first .

I believe it's ethical because those are unborn babies who need a chance at life. I believe life starts at conception, so those are living beings who need a chance to grow.
I believe they come from couples who did IVF and those are left over embryos that they chose not to keep.

 

[eleos1954]

Over 900 babies born through Christian agency's embryo adoption program

If you don't think it's ethical, why not?

I don't believe it is for several reasons....but I'd like to hear your thoughts first .

Human reproduction is part of God’s plan (Gen 1:28), and children are a blessing from the Lord (Ps 127:3; 113:9). Medical technologies that aid infertile couples, when practiced in harmony with biblical principles, may be accepted in good conscience.

I think children are to be considered a blessing regardless how they come to be.

 

[Hank77]

One down side is that biological siblings could inadvertently marry unless their state has a mandatory blood test requirement.

Do you mean DNA testing?

Sperm donors are another problem for having unknown siblings such as these 35 siblings from one donor.
This author's 'Normal Family' includes a sperm donor dad and 35 siblings

So what's especially wild to consider is that there's still no regulation in the United States. In the U.K., a donor sperm can be used to create a maximum of 10 families. But in the U.S., it's different. And there's no legal limits on how many children a donor can produce. ...

 

[Sabertooth]

Do you mean DNA testing?

Ideally. I thought that California (in 1983) had some lesser form of blood testing for the same purpose.

 

[Hank77]

Ideally. I thought that California (in 1983) had some lesser form of blood testing for the same purpose.

Not that I know of, paternity was determined by blood types but that could only prove someone wasn't the parent but not that they definitely were.
Now it's all DNA testing as far as I know.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

As long as everybody consents to the process, then sure.

 

[com7fy8]

I don't believe it is for several reasons....but I'd like to hear your thoughts first .

Well . . . you can tell us your reasons.

I think it can be good, not only because it can save a life, but you can bring up your child to be with God through Jesus and to find out how to love.

So, please, what are your issues with it?

 

[The Narrow Way]

Well . . . you can tell us your reasons.

I think it can be good, not only because it can save a life, but you can bring up your child to be with God through Jesus and to find out how to love.

So, please, what are your issues with it?

Good morning

For me, there are several reasons it's not good.

#1. If someone wants to raise a child, there are plenty unwanted children out there to pick from without having to pay someone to conceive a child for you to raise.

#2. Time, $ and effort should be put into raising children who are already here, not into creating embryos for the market.

#3. If there were no demand for the embryos, if the law prohibited them from being marketed, the business would end. That would be a good thing.

#4. When those embryonic Babies get older, they must someday be told the truth....that neither their father nor their mother wanted them, they were just MARKETED, to make $ on. How do you think that would make them feel?

#5. The adults who raise them, have no clue about their genetics, their background....it's not normal. When they get older and have to fill out medical forms with questions about diseases/illness in their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents, they will have to leave that all blank as they know NOTHING.

I'm sure I could think of more, but this is good for starters .

 

[Skye1300]

Good morning

For me, there are several reasons it's not good.

#1. If someone wants to raise a child, there are plenty unwanted children out there to pick from without having to pay someone to conceive a child for you to raise.

#2. Time, $ and effort should be put into raising children who are already here, not into creating embryos for the market.

#3. If there were no demand for the embryos, if the law prohibited them from being marketed, the business would end. That would be a good thing.

#4. When those embryonic Babies get older, they must someday be told the truth....that neither their father nor their mother wanted them, they were just MARKETED, to make $ on. How do you think that would make them feel?

#5. The adults who raise them, have no clue about their genetics, their background....it's not normal. When they get older and have to fill out medical forms with questions about diseases/illness in their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents, they will have to leave that all blank as they know NOTHING.

I'm sure I could think of more, but this is good for starters .

Good morning. I just wanted to say that the embryos were already made by couples doing IVF, they were left over embryos from that. So you would not be creating one when you chose to adopt.
They were already created and would have to be destroyed if no one adopted them. They do tell you the genetic history of the donor family.
They were created by couples who wanted children, not marketed. And technically the woman who carries the baby becomes the biological mom, just not the genetic mom.

 

[com7fy8]

Good morning

Thank you for answering and taking the time.

For me, there are several reasons it's not good.

#1. If someone wants to raise a child, there are plenty unwanted children out there to pick from without having to pay someone to conceive a child for you to raise.

But what if it's an adoption of an embryo already available? . . . maybe an extra of a couple who produced more embryos than they want?

Even if it is, I get that there are also born children available, including in foreign countries.

#2. Time, $ and effort should be put into raising children who are already here, not into creating embryos for the market.

understood

But can the spiritual character of the embryo's parents effect how the child comes out?

What if an embryo's parents are more caring and responsible, than those of a couple of fornicators who dump their child? If you adopt the street dumped child, you might not be able to guarantee how you will be able to bring him or her up > so, be ready to trust God about this, if you make this choice; He is able to have this work, though, overruling however the parents could pass on their spiritiality to your adopted child.

#3. If there were no demand for the embryos, if the law prohibited them from being marketed, the business would end. That would be a good thing.

That is like what ones say about purchasing kidnapped slaves > ransoming them can encourage more kidnapping.

I guess this could work. But the sellers need to have a better motive for stopping, right?

#4. When those embryonic Babies get older, they must someday be told the truth....that neither their father nor their mother wanted them, they were just MARKETED, to make $ on. How do you think that would make them feel?

This, in my opinion, can be dictating how other parents have to bring up their children. It is not always right to tell certain truths.

And, by the way > if they have been brought up to know love, they can forgive the ones who dumped or sold them, and appreciate having parents who love them.

And possibly they do not have to be told. They can be brought up to be wise so they figure it out when they are ready to, and ready to make good out of having parents who do want them, instead of feeding in an unwholesome way on their distant past.

#5. The adults who raise them, have no clue about their genetics, their background....it's not normal. When they get older and have to fill out medical forms with questions about diseases/illness in their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents, they will have to leave that all blank as they know NOTHING.

I'm sure I could think of more, but this is good for starters .

Well, as I have indicated, I consider it possible for any parents to pass on spiritual character and genetics. And this could go well or badly with either embryo adoption or born child adoption.

Also, people who adopt can make sure they get that information about their cute little embryo

And, bring up their child to be informed about medical history and ready to appreciate being loved by adoptive Mommy and/or Daddy.

 

[The Narrow Way]

Good morning. I just wanted to say that the embryos were already made by couples doing IVF, they were left over embryos from that. So you would not be creating one when you chose to adopt.
They were already created and would have to be destroyed if no one adopted them. They do tell you the genetic history of the donor family.
They were created by couples who wanted children, not marketed. And technically the woman who carries the baby becomes the biological mom, just not the genetic mom.

I understand your thinking...it seems that the best way is Nature's way....if pregnancy doesn't occur naturally, without IVF, then perhaps it's in God's plan for that couple to adopt?

 

[Skye1300]

I understand your thinking...it seems that the best way is Nature's way....if pregnancy doesn't occur naturally, without IVF, then perhaps it's in God's plan for that couple to adopt?

Yes, I can agree with you there about IVF. To me it's a separate issue from adopting an embryo. Instead of IVF, parents should consider adoption. If IVF were stopped, then there would be no extra embryos in need of adopting. I think your issue is with IVF and I agree with you. IVF is different from adopting the left over embryos. Adopting the left over embryos is rescuing them from being destroyed. If no one adopted the left over embryos, they would still be made from the IVF industry and the left overs would just be thrown away. Adopting them saves them from being thrown away. People make embryos for IVF because they want their own biological child.
When a couple goes in for IVF, they don't just take one egg and create one conception, they take like 6 or more of the mother's eggs and make like 6 embryos because most of the time it takes 3 or more tries before a conception/pregnancy takes. So they make more conceptions than the mother wants, anticipating that 3 or 4 will not survive. When pregnancy takes on the first or second try, there's like 2 or more embryos left over. So the parents will donate the left over embryos for someone to adopt. So adopting them is actually good. It's the parents creating a bunch of conceptions that might not take just to get that one good conception, then having left over embryos that will be thrown away if not adopted, that's what's bad in my book. Adopting some of the embryos is a solution to a messed up industry.

 

[Skye1300]

IVF should be banned in my opinion, but I guess people will always want their own biological child, no matter how many embryos have to die in the attempt to get that 1 or 2 good pregnancy.