I had always thought of embryo adoption as an anonymous donation from a donors where both sides would never know anything about the other, however, now in many cases it's treated as any other adoption where a homestudy is completed, and a couple with remaining frozen embryos chooses the family that will "adopt" them.
Here's a link to better explain how it works.
http://www.embryodonation.org/adoption.html
Do you think this is a better way of handling this then just "donating" them to a random couple? Do you think this is better, worse or the same then traditional adoption of an infant? Will these children have any of the same issues that a child who is "traditionally" adopted may have? If you were born under these curcumstances, do you think you would still cansider yourself "adopted" even though the "adoptive" mother is the one who carried you and gave birth to you? How
I look forward to hearing opinions on this, I'm not quite sure how to answer some of those questions myself
2007-11-09 06:43:27 · 13 answers · asked by Angela R 4 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Adoption
Also, do you think that the "adoptive" mother would have a much stronger bond with the child because she not only raised the child, but also carried him and gave birth, or do you think that genetics still plays a very important role in that "bond"?
Also, how would you refer to the couple donating the embryos? "Birthparents" definetly wouldn't work. "natural" and "biological" don't seem to quite fit either.
2007-11-09 06:49:16 · update #1
Tobit, I agree that that the process of creating many embryos that often become "left over" doesn't seem right, but I do wonder, if the embryos already are inexistance, and it's not possible for them to be used by the original couple, is it better to allow some one else to "adopt" them, or is it better to dispose of them. I ask this not in reguards to whether it would help an infertile couple, but which would be better/ more ethical in reguards to the child that may be born as a result.
2007-11-09 17:55:44 · update #2
This is probably the least painful way of dealing with adoption. The mom who would have a very strong bond severed doesn't have the same opportunity to create that bond, the infant in question doesn't have to transfer the bond,and the adoptive parents get to bond with the baby from the time of implantation.
HOWEVER... like all voluntary adoptions these adoptions should be COMPLETELY open with contact and updated medical histories. Birth certificates need to be re-vamped to allow for genetic parents & adoptive parents to both be reflected on the official court documents.
Anonymous donation of sperm, eggs or embryos should be outlawed.
2007-11-10 01:10:17 · answer #1 · answered by mommy2squee 5 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Hi AH2911,
I went to that link and read the whole thing. To be honest, I don't know how this can be legal. If it is, it should not be. It's clearly selling human embryos. Even if the original owners of the embryos are donating them, it looks like there's a business profitting off of the transactions. (Adoption agencies are also middlemen profitting off of others.)
There is not one mention in there of the well being of the potential child considered, only about the benefits to infertile couples. The webpage specifically targets the couple's weaknesses and seeks to fix them with an unethical & unproven approach. That illustrates the desperate lengths people will go to in order to have a baby. If they had used their own sperm & egg, with their own DNA, then that would be fine, that doesn't change who the end result person would be.
Anonymous donation in any form is just wrong, whether it be sperm, eggs, or embryos. It invites more secrecy and lies into a future human's life by leading them to believe their parents are somebody other than who really are. What's worse is there is no paper trail to trace where they really came from if they put the adoptive parents down on the birth certificate as the natural mother & father. While that may look like a "plus" to the adoptive parents, I suspect the future human will not see it that way. Who regulates such a business?
It seems this is all about ensuring a better experience for the adoptive mother so she can "bond" better. Does nobody feel an ethical obligation towards the child being created? It appears optional for the adoptive parents to deceive him or her. If so, that seems very selfish. Even if they are honest with the future child about their origins, that leaves more questions unanswered. Would YOU like to have been created using somebody else's leftovers? What if they want their true medical history? Don't they deserve to know their true heritage? What if they want to meet their siblings? The questions go on & on. What rights does the child have?
If you had asked whether it might be more appealing for adoptive mothers, I would say yes, particularly the ones who live in fear of natural mothers wanting to maintain contact with their baby, or wanting a reunion upon adulthood. Something that seems to be lost in all of this is that it's not all about the adoptive parents. The children's needs must always come first! Short and long-term needs. Babies do not stay babies forever. I suspect most humans born under this circumstance would have far more issues than adoptees today already have.
Something you did not ask, but I will throw in here anyways, is that I believe it is wrong to create more embryos than a couple needs. If there weren't any "leftover embryos" then there wouldn't be a dilemna over what to do with them.
If it were me, I would be concerned and would not proceed with embryo adoptions. There are areas for which ethics have not caught up legally yet, & I predict we will be hearing from those future children and it will not be favorable.
julie j
2007-11-09 17:35:01 · answer #2 · answered by julie j 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
I would suggest that embryo adoption is unethical. We do not yet know whether it is physiological or psychological healthy to a child's full development. It is akin to human experimentation. I cannot accept that, but perhaps I am just a Philistine.
As to whether a person adopted in this manner would have similar experiences to more traditional adoptees, I suspect so. Genetics plays an important part in maturation, some people -but not all - would feel a lost connection. Nevertheless, as you can see on this forum, there are a wide range of adoptee perspectives. Embryo adoptees would likely be no less diverse.
Edit: Puxny makes a good point that warrants discussion. I agree it is unethical to dispose of embryos. However, shouldn't we question the morality of a procedure that creates embryos with such a tenuous future?
2007-11-09 09:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by Tobit 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Whoever carries the child is going to have a bond to that child. Regardless if they are the genetic mother or surrogate. In most cases this is why some people go with embryo adoption so that they can have the bond of the baby growing inside them.
As far as adoption an infant vs. adopting an embryo. When it comes down to it the only difference is who cares the child. Maybe refer to the couple donating as genetic.
In regards to adopted embryos have more or less issues then traditional adoption. I think it would be the same some people who adopted traditional have very little issues (sometimes none) about it. While others have tremendous issues. Some people would probably hate being an embryo adoptee just like some hate being an adoptee. Some people would have no problem with it.
2007-11-09 08:33:14 · answer #4 · answered by Spread Peace and Love 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋
That's really interesting. I wish ALL parents went through a home study upon finding out they were pregnant. I think it'd deter a lot of people from getting pregnant in the first place--those people who shouldn't be parents. At the same time, that'd never happen! I'd love for someone to study my home and tell me what I need to fix, etc. It could be a great learning opportunity for everyone! I wouldn't want someone random raising a potential child of mine. It does open the can of worms, though, of what happens if the parents are chosen, but the eggs don't implant? Anyway, just more questions to add... I'm interested now!
2007-11-09 06:49:55 · answer #5 · answered by Sit'nTeach'nNanny 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Clearly, there are people who have answered who have not had to deal with infertility. I can understand if you have issues with the creation of embryos, but it certainly shouldn't be criminalized. It's just not for everyone, and that's fine. But if it's not for you, please don't put down others for the decisions they have made.
IVF is a difficult process to go through, and it doesn't always work on the first try. It is great to have more embryos to save for the next try, or to save them for a second child. It is much easier on the couple than wasting the eggs that had to be surgically removed from the woman's ovaries.
Embryo donation, as well as egg and sperm donation are a wonderful idea because it gives someone a chance to be pregnant who wouldn't have been able to have that experience otherwise. And specific to embryo donation, it gives that embryo a chance at life when otherwise it may have been discarded. I agree that I don't think anyone should profit from this though. Most clinics offer embryo donation as an option that doesn't cost anything extra. Perhaps this would be easier for some of you to grasp. You don't have to go through an adoption agency to use donated embryos.
2007-11-10 01:06:41 · answer #6 · answered by greensock 5 · 6⤊ 6⤋
I would not do embryo adoption myself because there is too much physical risk involved.
So, you adopt a cell. There's no guarantee you can develop into a baby and deliver it.
Biological children can have the same issues any adopted child can have, so the "issues" argument of embryo adoption doesn't hold it's merit, either.
I adopted my children last year at ages 9 and 10, and you would swear by looking at them that I had them.
You would swear by our bond that we had them rather than adopted them.
In embryo adoption, the "parents" would be considered "donors". They will never know if their embryo becomes a child or not.
I could easily adopt an embryo, but I have fibroids and PCOS...almost guarantee you a miscarriage (I've had 5) if I tried.
So, as you can see, for the most part, I don't think this is a good idea.
2007-11-09 16:04:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
Well, I've read some professional research literature on embryo adoption. The first adoption agency for this was in 1997 so there hasn't been much of a chance to really assess it. So far it seems to be going pretty much like traditional adoptions. In regards to the ethics of it, I guess the idea is either you let the embryos be frozen forever, dispose of them, or give them to someone else. It would be a hard choice, wouldn't it?
2007-11-09 11:50:49 · answer #8 · answered by punxy_girl 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋
My answer to this question is I don't believe in embryos being swapped from women to women. For me it is wrong for one women to have another women's embryos implanted in her. Just my thoughts. You never know. One day you might mary your half brother or sister. You just don't know what can happen.
2007-11-09 22:43:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
All sperm/egg/embryo donation should be illegal.
Anyone who participates in the above is in the business of creating intentional adoptees which, of course, is disgusting sick and sad.
DNA matters.
Some donor concieved children (now adults) are speaking out, and they have many of the same issues as your garden variety adoptee.
2007-11-09 13:03:30 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 8⤊ 6⤋