Should Christians Adopt Embryos?
— Thursday, September 20th, 2012 —
Evangelical Christians, it seems, are adopting embryos at an increasing rate, and the secular media are noticing the trend. Last week, religion journalist Krista Kapralos wrote about the theological and missional underpinnings of born-again believers giving birth to “unused embryos.” In a few minutes, I plan to talk to her about whether we should see this as something God calls us to do.
I mentioned on this blog, awhile back, that I had received some kick-back from someone who opposed any talk of so-called “snowflake adoption,” and objected to such an adoption happening in his extended family.
How, he wondered, could I support this kind of adoption when I am opposed (and I am, strongly) to in vitro fertilization (IVF), donor assisted reproduction, and other technologies that violate the one-flesh union and the relationship between love and procreation. The same thing, he argued, is going on here with a donor embryo being implanted in an adopting mother’s womb.
First of all, there is no such thing as a “donor embryo.”
Someone can donate sperm or ovum or even a heart or a liver, but no one can “donate” an “embryo.” No one can “own” an “embryo.” An “embryo” isn’t a thing; he or she is a “who.” Our Lord Jesus is the pinnacle of the image of God (Heb. 1:1-3). He was an “embryo” (Luke 1:42-43). The “embryonic” John responded to our Lord’s “embryonic” presence in precisely the same way he responded to his adult presence on the banks of the Jordan River.
These so-called “snowflakes” are brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus and are stored in cryogenic containers in fertility clinics as the “extras” of IVF projects. They already exist, and they already exist as persons created in the image of God.
And there are Christians called to adopt them, to bring them to birth through pregnancy, and to raise them in love. To be sure, the numbers of children who can be adopted in this way are a microscopic percentage of the whole. And the numbers even of those who can be safely brought to birth is even smaller.
Isn’t this simply an embrace of the kind of “Brave New World” Frankenstein technology we elsewhere lament?
No.
Adopting parents are not complicit in the “production” (I shudder to type such a horrible word in reference to a human creature) of these children. Again, the children are already conceived. The adopting parents are no more endorsing the technologies involved than parents adopting from an unwed mother are endorsing fornication or adultery.
Embryo adoption also doesn’t carry with it the violence to the one-flesh union that comes with surrogacy or sperm donation, in which one spouse’s genetic material is joined with a stranger’s.
Embryo adoption would be problematic if the adoptions themselves became a further commodity in the buying and selling transactions of the reproductive technology business or if these adoptions were a widespread incentive for couples to justify the decision to “create” and freeze additional embryos. This is not presently the case, though, and doesn’t appear to be likely to become so anytime soon.
But, most importantly, these aren’t “unused embryos” as though they were things or tools. These are image-bearing persons who are endowed by their Creator, not by their “usefulness” with certain inalienable rights. Opening our hearts, and our homes, and sometimes our wombs, to the least of these is a Christ-like thing to do.
An earlier, “embryonic” version of this essay appeared here on 22 February 2010.
I didn’t realise embryo adoption was an option, but that could be because I live in the UK. It seems that in the UK it is an option but it is far more rare.
Wow, I had no idea this option existed! And I absolutely agree with your response. If we truly believe an embryo is a human life, then we ought to give him/her the best chance to live by adopting them into a family that desires to raise and love them. Thank you for writing about this!
I came across your blog awhile back, but have never commented. I’m curious to know though, why you condemn fertility treatments like IVF or other methods that would still involve the husband and wife contributing to the creation of their child. The couples that choose that route aren’t doing it because they are trying to avoid the natural and beautiful way of creating a life, but they are doing it because one or both of them has a physical issue contributing to infertility. And the couples who choose to go that route to try for a miracle baby also still have very real love lives with each other; it simply cannot lead to a baby. While many couples with infertility issues choose to adopt, there are others who still want to try to conceive a biological child. They simply ask for the help of a physician. What is wrong with that, in your opinion?
@Inkling,
I agree! Well said!! My husband and I have a beautiful 9 year old son as a result of IVF. We felt God’s guidance and presence every step of our journey through infertility. The love we have for our son and the love we have for each other is not lessened because we chose IVF. It was all in God’s plan!
@Inkling,
Because IVF is selective. Many embryos are “created” but only a 1-2 are “selected” for implantation. Other concerns abound too:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/06/pro-life-concerns-about-ivf-include-abortion-exploitation/
@Inkling,
The issues Christians have regarding IVF lie in the fact that 1. many embryos are created but only a few are used. Others are inhumanely frozen or discarded due to “poor viability”. 2. IVF is also being used immorally to choose the desired gender or avoid mental or physical impairments in the child. 3. Often times too many embryos are implanted causing health risks to both the mother and the multiples causing painful decisions for the parents (”selective reductions”).
@Michael Beck, You can however use the process of IVF and not be “selective” and use all of the fertilized embryos(likely not all at once) that are in fact produced in love between a loving husband and wife. To say IVF can’t be done the right way and glorify God is wrong. Yes, there are some highly ethical concerns with IVF and many people do in fact act poorly and abuse the process in my opinion doing things like discarding certain embryos, which I agree with Dr. Moore that they are creations of God and brothers and sisters. But that should not be a reason to say IVF is completely wrong. If that is the case, you may as well not have sex, because after all, many people abuse the purpose and meaning of sex.
@Inkling,
There is a slight but damaging fallacy in the arguments against IV fertilization procedures raised here. The “normal” and “acceptable” practice is as stated selective, thus causing the loss of life of embryos deemed unsatisfactory and/or the freezing of embryos not chosen to implant. This, however, is not necessitated in the choice for IV pregnancy. Although more expensive (insurance will cover only standard procedures) and sometimes difficult to find a provider for (many doctors will not step outside the practices listed for fear of suits by disatisfied customers), it can be done by fertilizing and implanting only the eggs harvested during a single procedure.
I have a good friend who has twin daughters that pursued this course and found a doctor who was willing to abide by their moral stipulations. My friend is a staunch Christian and a biology teacher to boot.
I would agree with objections raised to the practice of IV fertilization as it is normally carried out for the same reasons Moore and the others posting do, but I would argue that it is possible to pursue this course morally–if with difficulty.
Thanks for the responses. I wish the author would reply as well. Stephen, I especially appreciated your thoughts. I totally get the objections and pitfalls, but the reasoning doesn’t hold up. It’s like saying that we should never use the internet because pornagraphic businesses use it. There will always be inappropriate uses of helpful tools, and if we are believers in Jesus, then we have an added responsibility to use those tools in ways that honor Him. His ethical standards are perfect.
I guess I just saw the blanket declaration of IVF being totally wrong as a statement lacking grace, understanding, compassion, and one that closes ears to anything else Moore might say. It came across as legalistic, holier than thou, and lacking compassion on those who wrestle with the implications of infertility. And the argument that one who uses that violates the relationship between love and procreation is utterly wrong. Anyone who has gone through infertility testing knows just how much love a husband must have for his wife to go through the rather embarrassing tests and procedures involved.
What breaks my heart is that so many godly men read this blog and take it to heart. And if they are pastors and turn around and share this belief with their congregation, how many families will they wound? IVF has very real ethical dilemmas, as does ANY and every part of pregnancy and childbirth. It would be far more beneficial to teach one how to wade through each issue and come out honoring Jesus while at the same time taking advantage of a tool that can indeed be beneficial.
@Inkling, “everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial…”
Thanks for this excellent article. We have four children…all adopted were post birth, and one pre birth. They all entered our family at different ages, and required varying levels of nurture and care. As you say, they are all image bearers… and all need the love and care of a family.
Phil
Sorry, should have said “3 were post birth and one pre birth.”
Dr. Moore, I don’t disagree with any of your points here. But I wonder if we ought not to consider the children who are already born to be a higher priority than those who have the advantage (at least for now) of being cryogenically frozen.
This is a hard concept to consider (for me at least). I also wonder what the long-term effects of cryogenic storage are. Perhaps we should feel an urgency to rescue these children from scientific slavery? To think that there are souls attached to these embryos baffles me.
Thanks for your ministry and commitment to orphan care.
@Tommy Brents,
As someone who is planning to pursue embryo adoption, this is a topic I have looked into a great deal. Of course the children who are already born should be a priority, though I am not sure that they should be a “higher” priority.
Here’s why: embryos have a limited time in which they are viable. Estimates on how long that is vary - anywhere from 5 years to 10. By the time a family with remaining embryos comes to the point emotionally that they are ready to part with their embryos, oftentimes several years have passed…meaning there is potentially only a short window (or at the very least, no guaranteed time) that they would be viable. So, in essence, these embryos are in need of rescue, in some ways moreso than a child who is already born.
My two cents. :)
Greetings. I am the father of a six-year old daughter through “traditional” adoption, as well as triplets (two boys and a girl) through “embryo” adoption. They turn six on Monday. As you can imagine - 2006 was an amazing year.
As you have aptly mentioned, these are persons - created in the image of God.
The difficulty as I recall it - is in overlaying what is a very scientific, data-driven process, with the mystery that is conception and childbirth. The “quality” of the embryos is rated, and a number chosen to give the best chance of having one child. You can see that dilemma. Then, weeks later when the news that more than one (but not all, mind you) of the children are thriving, you’re given the option of “embryo reduction” for multiple reasons. We were resolved from the start not to choose that option - and thankfully have three healthy little prayer warriors as a result.
We don’t always tell people where our kids came from - but we thank God every day for placing them in our care. Grace and Peace to you! ~ John
Though I believe that life begins at conception, I do believe our priority in adoption should be to rescue those who need us the most–the already born who are suffering due to being orphaned, abused, starved or diseased. These are the children who are literally crying out for help now. The embryos are not. While I don’t believe “snowflake adoption” is wrong, I don’t think it’s the best use of people’s finances and love.
@Katherine, This is a late comment, but please consider: if those embryos are not adopted, they WILL BE DESTROYED. They will certainly die. It is a matter of life and death for them.
What would you say to my wife who was diagnosed with cervical cancer? I’ve asked you this before and you have not responded. My child was just born thanks to IVF, and I cringe to think that one day she will see someone in a leadership position of the church call her a result of Frankenstein’s technology. It is quiet simple to do as we did and only fertilize the eggs you plan to implant. We have everal eggs in storage if we are lucky enough to have time to do it again before my wife needs a radical hysterectomy. We did unfortunately have an embryo that didn’t implant, but how is that any different than the dozens of embryos over the years we conceived that couldn’t implant? You see my wife’s cancer caused her to develop pollups in her uterus that prevented implantation without assistance. It is very possible that we had dozens of embryos fail to implant the natural way over the first 5 years of our marriage.
First, allow me to commend all those couples who have participated in “snowflake” adoption. Not only have you given a home and family to precious children, but you have also brought the value of these children to public attention, which could make others, even unbelievers, think twice before discarding embryos. Second, a word about prioritizing: It’s hard for us, as finite humans, to know which needs are most urgent or most important for us to meet. That’s where we have to depend on God, on His leading and on the abilities He gives us. My aunt and uncle were led to adopt eight children in addition to their two biological sons. Not everyone can do that. I guess my advice would be not to worry about what everyone else should do, but to ask God humbly, “What should I be doing to help those in need?” And it may be adoption or spreading the word about adoption or teaching your own children charity. So snowflakes are not the priority and children already born are not the priority; obeying God is the priority.
@Brenna Siver, Brenna, I think you have “hit the nail”.
In relation to the discussion about prioritization.
Embryos are persons, created in the image of God, as are those that have already been born. All, equally human.
One major difference is that those who have been “frozen” have absolutely no possibility of life apart from that provided through embryo adoption. They will certainly eventually die, if not adopted.
It is incredibly difficult to form priorities as we navigate our lives in a fallen world, but we each do form these priorities and need to live with the consequences.
We are a family that have adopted both post birth and embryo adoption…and I’m not sure I would be prepared to say that any of my children should have had priority over the others.
When we first learned of our infertility 15 years ago, we were told it was impossible for us to conceive. About 2 years ago we were advised that technology had improved to the point where we may now possibly be able to conceive (with medical intervention). As we had recently learned of embryo adoption, our hearts cried out for the “little ones” who had no hope, and we decided to not pursue conception using our own sperm and eggs. We couldn’t bring ourselves to even think about conceiving ourselves, when there were already tiny, tiny little ones that needed a home and a family.
But, that is us…and others may (and likely will) think differently…and that is a good thing.
May the Lord grant us all great wisdom and grace as we pursue Him, and endeavour to follow His will. And may he grant mercy to all the fatherless and motherless.
Phil