We took the kids to the playground yesterday. It was overcast and in the low 70's, unusual for September in central Texas. No surprise, then, that there were a gazillion other kids there too.
Parents were conspicuously absent. There were a few doting parents here and there, usually associated in some way with toddlers who were just learning to climb. Many parents were sitting in their cars, texting, talking on their phones, or listening to ipods.
One dad immediately stood out to me. When he wasn't cuddling with his son on the bench, he was beaming with joy, watching his young boy explore the playground equipment. The dad was attentive, calm, and happy to share the nice afternoon with his son.
I didn't notice it immediately. But when I did, I couldn't stop thinking about it. That little boy was the first black child I had ever seen with Down Syndrome. And he was beautiful.
I wanted to tell the dad many things. Thank you, thank you for letting him live. Thank you for being a wonderful testimony of what it means to parent a special-needs child. Thank you for letting me witness your joy.
But I didn't. I thought that might be too strange coming from an absolute stranger. Instead, we smiled at each other as our kids played peek-a-boo through the playground equipment. We chuckled together as our boys beat out a rhythm on a table top.
****
I'm still thinking today - Lord, how do you want us to grow our family? What comes next after this next round of embryo adoption? Are you calling us to special needs adoption? I sometimes have to avoid reading descriptions of waiting children because I want to rescue them all; I get very emotionally attached and feel pain at the grievances in their lives.
God, I'm not quite sure where You're sending us long term (or really even short term!), please lead us to the little ones who need us the most.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Back in the Game
Now that our house in Virginia is finally rented, we're jumping back into the adoption arena again!
While there are many different ways to pursue embryo adoption or embryo donation, we feel very strongly that a traditional adoption process (or as close as one can get) is the most dignified manner of adopting embryos.
This means we'll first procure a home study through a local agency. Last time we worked with Bethany Christian Services for this step. They were an expensive choice, but worth it, we thought, because they were located nationwide. We thought future home studies could be streamlined by always working with the same agency. And then God laughed, because the Army sent us to a state in which Bethany has no presence.
Instead of Bethany, we're now going to be working with Generations Adoptions (out of Waco) for our home study. Lucky for us, this agency's home study is way cheaper than last time. Woo hoo!
Once our home study is completed, we'll move on to the embryo adoption part with Nightlight's Snowflake Program.
Here's the projected timeline, but since so much of the paperwork has to be compiled from third parties, it's anyone's guess as to the actual timeline. We also try to not move on to the next step until the prior step is paid for. Since we're a one income family this time around, things may move a little more slowly due to finances.
October - submit initial paperwork for the home study.
Late fall - complete home study; submit Nightlight's Snowflake application
Late winter - early Spring 2013 - complete Snowflake paperwork; be matched with embryos
Late Spring 2013 - embryo transfer prep and embryo transfer
And I know, now that I've published the projected timeline, that things will not go according to plan. That's life. If nothing else, I'm making this public so you can nag me about completing paperwork. ;-)
Home studies vary a bit from agency to agency. Here's our checklist for Generations' contracted home study, just to give you a feel for the process.
STEP 1
Not only do I have my work cut out for me, if I'm to make my personal goal of submitting Step 1 items by October 1, but I'll also need to start nagging Bryan. Some couples may operate differently, but I make him write his own autobiography. And let me tell you, writing an autobiography is not one of his favorite ways to pass time.
While there are many different ways to pursue embryo adoption or embryo donation, we feel very strongly that a traditional adoption process (or as close as one can get) is the most dignified manner of adopting embryos.
This means we'll first procure a home study through a local agency. Last time we worked with Bethany Christian Services for this step. They were an expensive choice, but worth it, we thought, because they were located nationwide. We thought future home studies could be streamlined by always working with the same agency. And then God laughed, because the Army sent us to a state in which Bethany has no presence.
Instead of Bethany, we're now going to be working with Generations Adoptions (out of Waco) for our home study. Lucky for us, this agency's home study is way cheaper than last time. Woo hoo!
Once our home study is completed, we'll move on to the embryo adoption part with Nightlight's Snowflake Program.
Here's the projected timeline, but since so much of the paperwork has to be compiled from third parties, it's anyone's guess as to the actual timeline. We also try to not move on to the next step until the prior step is paid for. Since we're a one income family this time around, things may move a little more slowly due to finances.
October - submit initial paperwork for the home study.
Late fall - complete home study; submit Nightlight's Snowflake application
Late winter - early Spring 2013 - complete Snowflake paperwork; be matched with embryos
Late Spring 2013 - embryo transfer prep and embryo transfer
And I know, now that I've published the projected timeline, that things will not go according to plan. That's life. If nothing else, I'm making this public so you can nag me about completing paperwork. ;-)
Home studies vary a bit from agency to agency. Here's our checklist for Generations' contracted home study, just to give you a feel for the process.
STEP 1
- Submission of the application for contracted home study
- Submission of supporting documents:
- photo of couple
- photos of home exterior (including front and back yards)
- criminal background check
- copies of drivers licenses
- lists of addresses (include county) for past 10 years
- fingerprinting ($44.20 per adult in the home)
- provide a floor plan of the home (including dimensions of rooms and purposes)
- provide directions to home
- provide autobiography for each parent
- statement of income (last year's W-2 form)
- copy of savings and checking account statements for 2 months
- proof of health insurance coverage
- proof of life insurance coverage
- five references (four from non-relatives, one from a relative) - agency will contact from addresses in application
- proof of employment (pay stubs for each parent)
- good employment record (resume for each parent)
- copy of marriage license
- birth certificates for entire fmaily
- medical evaluation forms for entire family
- sign acknowledgment of behavior policy
- Home study visit completed (with all family members present)
- Environmental inspection
- fire inspection
- $1500.00 home study fee
Not only do I have my work cut out for me, if I'm to make my personal goal of submitting Step 1 items by October 1, but I'll also need to start nagging Bryan. Some couples may operate differently, but I make him write his own autobiography. And let me tell you, writing an autobiography is not one of his favorite ways to pass time.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Me and the Media
Our last few weeks in Virginia, I decided that I didn't have enough on our plate with packing, renting out our house, researching places to live in Texas, and the normal day to day toddler antics. Given my ample free time (hah!), I agreed to be interviewed by a reporter out of Northern Virginia for a piece on embryo adoption.
I was beyond nervous as the interview approached. Would I be represented fairly? Would the Church's point of view be represented appropriately (both by me and then through the editing stage)? How would the kids behave during the filming?
I'll be honest, filming was tough. I was wired for sound and had to attempt to sit in one spot on my couch for an hour while the kids roamed about. And by roamed about, I mean over, under, and around me. Overall, though, the newspeople were able to piece together a decent clip.
There's also a short article that accompanied the news footage: "Controversial Embryo Adoptions on the Rise".
My largest complaint is that the reporter/editor spelled our son's name wrong - he's Mac and not Max. And if that's the only complaint I have, I think everything turned out okay.
I was beyond nervous as the interview approached. Would I be represented fairly? Would the Church's point of view be represented appropriately (both by me and then through the editing stage)? How would the kids behave during the filming?
I'll be honest, filming was tough. I was wired for sound and had to attempt to sit in one spot on my couch for an hour while the kids roamed about. And by roamed about, I mean over, under, and around me. Overall, though, the newspeople were able to piece together a decent clip.
There's also a short article that accompanied the news footage: "Controversial Embryo Adoptions on the Rise".
My largest complaint is that the reporter/editor spelled our son's name wrong - he's Mac and not Max. And if that's the only complaint I have, I think everything turned out okay.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Interesting Possibilities
Being a military couple puts a damper on adoption. In addition to working around finances, we have to struggle with adoption timing due to moves and deployments. We couldn't start adoption two until the kids were at least nine months old. Bryan was deployed then. He came home in September when the kids were 14 months old. The Army then told us we'd be moving in May. While I appreciate the long notification, that just means that many more months to wait until we start the next adoption. To make things even more complicated, embryo adoption is neither eligible for the federal adoption tax credit nor the military adoption credit. So we will pay for each and every adoption we choose to do out of pocket.
When you add up all the expenses, it cost somewhere around $15,000 in order to bring home our twins (home study, snowflake adoption fees, transfer #1 (miscarriage), transfer #2, medications). Now that I don't work for money (I'm never going to say being a stay at home mom isn't work!), it will be very difficult to finance subsequent adoptions.
We will have a couple of financial breaks this time around though. First, our next home study will be almost $2000 cheaper - different adoption agency. Second, repeat patrons of Nightlight's Snowflake Adoption program receive a $500 discount. Third, we learned last time that a frozen blastocyst transfer (embryos that are five or six days old) is a lot cheaper than those in the day one to three stage. I believe this is because the clinic doesn't have to do as much to prep the embryos for transfer, but that's only my own semi-educated guess. While we won't turn down embryos because of their development age, it is something to be mindful of...
Nightlight has had two webpages up that I've been checking over the months. One is a page of waiting multi-ethnic embryos and another is a page of "special need" embryos. (Sorry, I can't link to the multi-ethnic page currently - Nightlight is in the process of updating their website and they haven't added family profiles back to this page yet.) All of these embryos are highlighted because they will be more difficult to place either because of race, number of embryos, or medical history.
One particular family caught my eye, "Sonya and Gary's" embryos. They're listed on the page linked above. The medical issue isn't a concern for us and eight blastocysts presents a very interesting hypothetical scenario. I've already contacted the Snowflake program and gotten a little bit more information which has only increased my interest.
Blastocysts have much higher survival rates than less developed embryos. You can look up statistics online, but our own personal story is pretty much on par with current success rates. Our first transfer consisted of four embryos, all day one or two. Two survived the thaw (50% survived thaw), one implanted (25% implanted), and we miscarried around eleven weeks. Our second transfer consisted of three day six blasts. All three survived the thaw (100%), and two implanted (66.6% implantation rate). And our twins were born very healthy and full term.
"Sonya and Gary", pseudonyms, have eight day five and six blasts, frozen in four straws. While it's not definite, one can assume that the embryos are frozen two in each straw. When one adopts embryos through Nightlight's Snowflake program, the adopting family receives all of the embryos. So one could thaw one straw at a time at the pace desired by the adopting family.
Way back when Bryan and I got married, we hoped for a large family. I joked about having six to eight kids; he wanted a more conservative four or five. When reality hit in the form of infertility, compounded by limited finances and military life, we realized our plans for a large family were almost definitely an impossible dream. Adopting a larger set of embryos could prove to be a way to our original family goals.
At this point, Sonya and Gary's embryos present a hypothetical scenario, one that's provided some interesting converstations between me and Bryan over these last few days. (Sadly, we're still months away from actually being able to adopt embryo at this point. Darn move.)
If we adopt a larger set of embryos:
If we used our previous statistics as an example, we could expect approximately two thirds of the embryos to survive. Our family would grow by an additional five or six children.
Even if one looks at the national statistics for the survival rates of a single frozen blast (40.7% pregnancy rate), that would mean our family would potentially grow by at least three more children.
As I said earlier, it's simply mind-boggling. I'll admit, Bryan's a little overwhelmed by the concept of eight blasts. One of the caveats of embryo adoption is the statistics game. While four more children is a fairly safe, easily comprehendable number, one must be aware that God alone knows how many children will result. And, though not statistically likely, it could be eight. Or none.
So now we're discerning. In this hypothetical scenario, how many embryos would we be willing to adopt? We hadn't fully considered the perks (though the word "perks" almost seems too crass to be used here) of adopting a large embryo set. Essentially a larger embryo set would allow us to grow our family on our own time, a thing unheard of for a couple limited by infertility.
My brain is simply swimming. On top of thinking about renting our house, packing, and driving halfway across the country with toddlers, I'm now adding hypothetical adoption questions to the mix.
Jesus, I trust in you. I must say this dozens of times each night, when I'm trying to force my overactive brain into submission and let sleep take over. Jesus, I trust in you.
When you add up all the expenses, it cost somewhere around $15,000 in order to bring home our twins (home study, snowflake adoption fees, transfer #1 (miscarriage), transfer #2, medications). Now that I don't work for money (I'm never going to say being a stay at home mom isn't work!), it will be very difficult to finance subsequent adoptions.
We will have a couple of financial breaks this time around though. First, our next home study will be almost $2000 cheaper - different adoption agency. Second, repeat patrons of Nightlight's Snowflake Adoption program receive a $500 discount. Third, we learned last time that a frozen blastocyst transfer (embryos that are five or six days old) is a lot cheaper than those in the day one to three stage. I believe this is because the clinic doesn't have to do as much to prep the embryos for transfer, but that's only my own semi-educated guess. While we won't turn down embryos because of their development age, it is something to be mindful of...
Nightlight has had two webpages up that I've been checking over the months. One is a page of waiting multi-ethnic embryos and another is a page of "special need" embryos. (Sorry, I can't link to the multi-ethnic page currently - Nightlight is in the process of updating their website and they haven't added family profiles back to this page yet.) All of these embryos are highlighted because they will be more difficult to place either because of race, number of embryos, or medical history.
One particular family caught my eye, "Sonya and Gary's" embryos. They're listed on the page linked above. The medical issue isn't a concern for us and eight blastocysts presents a very interesting hypothetical scenario. I've already contacted the Snowflake program and gotten a little bit more information which has only increased my interest.
Blastocysts have much higher survival rates than less developed embryos. You can look up statistics online, but our own personal story is pretty much on par with current success rates. Our first transfer consisted of four embryos, all day one or two. Two survived the thaw (50% survived thaw), one implanted (25% implanted), and we miscarried around eleven weeks. Our second transfer consisted of three day six blasts. All three survived the thaw (100%), and two implanted (66.6% implantation rate). And our twins were born very healthy and full term.
"Sonya and Gary", pseudonyms, have eight day five and six blasts, frozen in four straws. While it's not definite, one can assume that the embryos are frozen two in each straw. When one adopts embryos through Nightlight's Snowflake program, the adopting family receives all of the embryos. So one could thaw one straw at a time at the pace desired by the adopting family.
Way back when Bryan and I got married, we hoped for a large family. I joked about having six to eight kids; he wanted a more conservative four or five. When reality hit in the form of infertility, compounded by limited finances and military life, we realized our plans for a large family were almost definitely an impossible dream. Adopting a larger set of embryos could prove to be a way to our original family goals.
At this point, Sonya and Gary's embryos present a hypothetical scenario, one that's provided some interesting converstations between me and Bryan over these last few days. (Sadly, we're still months away from actually being able to adopt embryo at this point. Darn move.)
If we adopt a larger set of embryos:
- any remaining embryos after a transfer, whether or not the transfer itself results in a live birth, still remain ours
- we would not have to pursue a home study for each subsequent adoption
- we would have the freedom to pursue transfers on our own time, rather than factoring in an addtional six month plus period for a home study and matching
- we would only have to pay for a transfer (anywhere from $1500 - $3500) rather than the whole home study/adoption/transfer work-up
If we used our previous statistics as an example, we could expect approximately two thirds of the embryos to survive. Our family would grow by an additional five or six children.
Even if one looks at the national statistics for the survival rates of a single frozen blast (40.7% pregnancy rate), that would mean our family would potentially grow by at least three more children.
As I said earlier, it's simply mind-boggling. I'll admit, Bryan's a little overwhelmed by the concept of eight blasts. One of the caveats of embryo adoption is the statistics game. While four more children is a fairly safe, easily comprehendable number, one must be aware that God alone knows how many children will result. And, though not statistically likely, it could be eight. Or none.
So now we're discerning. In this hypothetical scenario, how many embryos would we be willing to adopt? We hadn't fully considered the perks (though the word "perks" almost seems too crass to be used here) of adopting a large embryo set. Essentially a larger embryo set would allow us to grow our family on our own time, a thing unheard of for a couple limited by infertility.
My brain is simply swimming. On top of thinking about renting our house, packing, and driving halfway across the country with toddlers, I'm now adding hypothetical adoption questions to the mix.
Jesus, I trust in you. I must say this dozens of times each night, when I'm trying to force my overactive brain into submission and let sleep take over. Jesus, I trust in you.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Pondering the other side
When you adopt through Nightlight's Snowflake Embryo Adoption program, the adoptive family receives three generations of medical history on the genetic family. While I don't know the exact age of Cora and Mac's genetic siblings, my hypothesis is they (the triplets) were about fifteen months old. I'm using Cora and Mac's height and weight records as comparisons.
Cora and Mac will be eighteen months old tomorrow. Everyday I marvel at their progress, their physical growth, their developing language skills, their ever expanding interest in the world around them... I cannot imagine life without them.
I'm sure every adoptive parent wonders what prompted the placing parents' decision. Was it financial? Emotional? Mental? Did physical limitations push the placing parents in one direction?
I used to think it would be harder for birth parents to give up their infant through regular infant adoption than genetic parents through embryo adoption. I guess I always thought that nine months would build such a deep connection that severing it, even for the most noble of reason, would hurt bitterly. And I'm sure it does.
However, now I wonder if the genetic parents might suffer just as deeply too. Every day they stare into the face of their children, little beings that bring them so much joy, and know that there are more out there. Children who look just like their own kids, yet call another woman "Momma" and another man "Daddy". Do their children even know they have more siblings?
In mid-November we heard from the genetic parents for the first time since the twins were born, a polite request for an update. We sent a brief update and some pictures. We haven't heard back. I have to wonder, do the pictures hurt? Do they remind the genetic parents of what might have been? Cora is the splitting image of one of her genetic sisters. Mac and his genetic brother have the same chin, the same "Winston Churchill" protruding bottom lip. Do the genetic parents see this too?
I can't pretend to understand the "other side". I've never been there. I have no frame of reference. All I know is the two little beings whom I love so very much would not be here if someone else had not made that infinitely hard decision. And I pray that God may soothe their hurts and calm their fears.
Cora and Mac will be eighteen months old tomorrow. Everyday I marvel at their progress, their physical growth, their developing language skills, their ever expanding interest in the world around them... I cannot imagine life without them.
I'm sure every adoptive parent wonders what prompted the placing parents' decision. Was it financial? Emotional? Mental? Did physical limitations push the placing parents in one direction?
I used to think it would be harder for birth parents to give up their infant through regular infant adoption than genetic parents through embryo adoption. I guess I always thought that nine months would build such a deep connection that severing it, even for the most noble of reason, would hurt bitterly. And I'm sure it does.
However, now I wonder if the genetic parents might suffer just as deeply too. Every day they stare into the face of their children, little beings that bring them so much joy, and know that there are more out there. Children who look just like their own kids, yet call another woman "Momma" and another man "Daddy". Do their children even know they have more siblings?
In mid-November we heard from the genetic parents for the first time since the twins were born, a polite request for an update. We sent a brief update and some pictures. We haven't heard back. I have to wonder, do the pictures hurt? Do they remind the genetic parents of what might have been? Cora is the splitting image of one of her genetic sisters. Mac and his genetic brother have the same chin, the same "Winston Churchill" protruding bottom lip. Do the genetic parents see this too?
I can't pretend to understand the "other side". I've never been there. I have no frame of reference. All I know is the two little beings whom I love so very much would not be here if someone else had not made that infinitely hard decision. And I pray that God may soothe their hurts and calm their fears.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Perspective as a "snowflake" mom
I'm sure all parents hear a running commentary on who their offspring favors, the dad or the mom. For us it's been kind of an inside joke as people say "oh Mac looks just like you!" or "Cora looks like her daddy!" These are mostly passing comments, from strangers we'll never see again. These are easy to handle - we just smile and half-nod in agreement and stroll on.
Even the comments of how little they favor me are normally pretty easy to handle. "We like to keep people guessing!"
I guess I could always go into more detail. But really, the person behind me in line at the grocery store check out does not need to hear Cora and Mac's life story.
I couldn't get away with a simple answer anyway. Most of the time people point out how different they look from each other - Cora has brown hair, grey eyes, and olive skin; Mac blonde hair, blue eyes, creamy skin. If I were to say they're adopted, then whomever is asking the questions automatically assumes they're not related to each other.
So then I have to explain that while they're adopted, Cora and Mac are 100% related to each other. That's when either the questioner turns into a nosy nellie and fires away questions, or looks away quickly, brow furrowed in confusion.
Sometimes I've had great conversations - both my dental hygienist and my endocrinologist were fascinated by embryo adoption. Other times, the conversations just get awkward. Umm, no, we didn't purchase fertilized eggs.
Most of the time, I just stick with smiling and nodding.
********************************************************************************
We were strolling around a local bookstore's children's area today and Cora picked out a book called "Snowflake Baby". I was halfway to putting it up when I realized the irony, that my snowflake baby had just handed me "Snowflake Baby". I bought it. The short story has nothing to do with embryo adoption but instead shows colorful pictures of a baby romping in the snow with a puppy. Ah well.
********************************************************************************
Now that we're in Advent, we've been reading a lot of Christmas themed books. And playing with a child-friendly manger scene. I try to use consistent language when introducing the holy characters to Mac and Cora. "This is Mary; she's baby Jesus's Momma". "Here's a picture of Christ the King - that's baby Jesus when He's all grown up". About half the time I introduce St. Joseph as "Jesus's adopted Daddy".
It's true the kids are still young (almost 17 months) and can't understand the concept of adoption yet. Nonetheless, I want them to grow up realizing that adoption is a positive thing. After all, we do have St. Joseph as a pretty amazing example!
Even the comments of how little they favor me are normally pretty easy to handle. "We like to keep people guessing!"
I guess I could always go into more detail. But really, the person behind me in line at the grocery store check out does not need to hear Cora and Mac's life story.
I couldn't get away with a simple answer anyway. Most of the time people point out how different they look from each other - Cora has brown hair, grey eyes, and olive skin; Mac blonde hair, blue eyes, creamy skin. If I were to say they're adopted, then whomever is asking the questions automatically assumes they're not related to each other.
So then I have to explain that while they're adopted, Cora and Mac are 100% related to each other. That's when either the questioner turns into a nosy nellie and fires away questions, or looks away quickly, brow furrowed in confusion.
Sometimes I've had great conversations - both my dental hygienist and my endocrinologist were fascinated by embryo adoption. Other times, the conversations just get awkward. Umm, no, we didn't purchase fertilized eggs.
Most of the time, I just stick with smiling and nodding.
********************************************************************************
We were strolling around a local bookstore's children's area today and Cora picked out a book called "Snowflake Baby". I was halfway to putting it up when I realized the irony, that my snowflake baby had just handed me "Snowflake Baby". I bought it. The short story has nothing to do with embryo adoption but instead shows colorful pictures of a baby romping in the snow with a puppy. Ah well.
********************************************************************************
Now that we're in Advent, we've been reading a lot of Christmas themed books. And playing with a child-friendly manger scene. I try to use consistent language when introducing the holy characters to Mac and Cora. "This is Mary; she's baby Jesus's Momma". "Here's a picture of Christ the King - that's baby Jesus when He's all grown up". About half the time I introduce St. Joseph as "Jesus's adopted Daddy".
It's true the kids are still young (almost 17 months) and can't understand the concept of adoption yet. Nonetheless, I want them to grow up realizing that adoption is a positive thing. After all, we do have St. Joseph as a pretty amazing example!
Friday, August 19, 2011
Basic Defense of Embryo Adoption, Part II
I originally wrote this in January 2009, right as we were entering into the matching phase with the Snowflake Program. Part Two addresses major objections raised in Dignitas Personae.
Objection Four: Embryos, as “treatment for infertility” are not ethically acceptable. The direct quote from DP is “ the proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood…”
Refutation: (Here I deviate slightly from providing specific rebuttals to asking pointed questions.) By “treatment for infertile couples”, does the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) mean offered as standard practice by reproductive endocrinologists or fertility clinics? If so, then yes, EA under these auspices would be morally reprehensible as it denies the individual worth of each embryo, treating one as a commodity instead of a precious life. Many defenseless lives would be bartered for the sole goal of experiencing pregnancy. The needs of the parents would supersede the dignity of the embryonic life. The end goal would be experiencing pregnancy, not becoming a parent and thereby saving a life.
Contrast that to embryonic adoption in a different context. A couple accepts their infertility and ceases the barrage of testing and treatments. They begin wading through paperwork with adoption agencies and complete a home study. Matches are made between genetic parents and adoptive parents. The only involvement a fertility clinic plays is the transfer itself. The end goal is saving the life of the child and achieving parenthood.
By the use of the word “treatment”, the CDF seems to imply that some sort of cure is being sought. And, for most people, cures are obtained at a medical facility, not an adoption agency. As a couple dealing with male infertility, neither some sort of embryo “treatment” nor pregnancy could cure my husband. Why such an odd phrase by the CDF? Furthermore, embryo adoption is not even specifically referred to in this paragraph - how exactly does EA fit into all this?
In America there is a marked difference between embryo adoption and embryo donation. Perhaps the CDF was referring to embryo donation when using the term “treatment for infertility”? With donation, the couple (or individual) goes to the local fertility clinic and essentially buys a leftover embryo. It’s cheaper, faster, and incredibly impersonal. The embryo is considered in its legal sense, as property, rather than in its true sense, a human being.
Objection Five : Another quote from DP: “This practice [treatment for infertility] would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological, and legal nature.”
Refutation: Through our adoption process with Nightlight, we have been required to complete a rigorous home study and education on rearing adopted children and ART children specifically. We will be privy to three generations of the genetic family’s medical history once a definite match is made. Our contract is considered to be legally binding. We are planning on maintaining written contact with the genetic family (mediated through the agency) precisely so we will be able to administer to the psychological needs of our adopted children. Both family members and close family friends have first hand experience with adoption and/or rearing of special needs children, if we would need such expertise. All in all, we feel that we are doing everything possible in preparation for offering life to some of the least of God’s children.
Objection Six: There is only one paragraph in Dignitas Personae that clearly deals with some form of prenatal adoption. The fourth paragraph from section 19 states: “It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above [in paragraph on “treatment for infertility”].
Refutation: Embryos cryopreserved in England have a very limited life span as most (if not all) cryo-banks have a strict three year freezing time limit. When the last cryo-bank “cleansing” came up, many many individuals, couples, and even nuns offered their wombs so that these orphaned embryos would not suffer such indignity at the bidding of the government. However, these well intentioned individuals were offering their wombs just for the sake of gestating the endangered embryos. After birth, the women planned on offering the newborns for adoption.
This scenario is fully an act of “embryo rescue” and is a far cry different from embryo adoption. Furthermore, these actions constitute surrogacy. The “adoptive” mother raises the embryo only for the duration of the pregnancy. In the end, the embryo has been spared death, but is left abandoned once again. “Prenatal adoption” that is solely rescue and devoid of concern for the post-birth life of the child is not granting the child the dignity he/she is due.
As mentioned previously, by pursuing embryo adoption through Nightlight’s Snowflake program, we are signing legally binding documents to care for our adopted embryos for the full duration of their life, be that a few moments or several decades. Furthermore, embryos in America are not in imminent danger of destruction though our current President could change that… The contrast is pronounced.
Objection Seven (last one!): Pope John Paul II’s quote “there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the … frozen embryos…”
Refutation: For starters, reading JPII’s quote in its original context is extremely enlightening. His whole speech is concerned with the natural rights of the embryo, beginning with the most basic, the right to life. Similarly, he rightfully claims that it is the duty of each government to preserve such a right. I feel it’s necessary to look at not just JPII’s quote in Dignitas Personae, but also the surrounding lines in his original speech:
John Paul could not be more clear that the right to life is one of these aforementioned inalienable rights. How is EA not awarding these neglected embryos some chance at a normal, just life?
DP precedes John Paul’s quote with the statement that the “thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.” I agree. No amount of human atonement can make up for the injustices these embryos have already received due to the illicit nature of their creation. There is no way to undo the injustice of being conceived in a lab, man and wife forsaken for a doctor and syringe. While the injustice and illicitness of their creation cannot be resolved, one can, perhaps, begin to restore the God-given inalienable right to life via embryo adoption. It is only out of the cryo-bank, and in the womb, that these embryos will finally get the chance to live as God intended. When such an option exists, one that will provide these embryos not only a chance at life but a family, how can one refuse?
Objection Four: Embryos, as “treatment for infertility” are not ethically acceptable. The direct quote from DP is “ the proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood…”
Refutation: (Here I deviate slightly from providing specific rebuttals to asking pointed questions.) By “treatment for infertile couples”, does the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) mean offered as standard practice by reproductive endocrinologists or fertility clinics? If so, then yes, EA under these auspices would be morally reprehensible as it denies the individual worth of each embryo, treating one as a commodity instead of a precious life. Many defenseless lives would be bartered for the sole goal of experiencing pregnancy. The needs of the parents would supersede the dignity of the embryonic life. The end goal would be experiencing pregnancy, not becoming a parent and thereby saving a life.
Contrast that to embryonic adoption in a different context. A couple accepts their infertility and ceases the barrage of testing and treatments. They begin wading through paperwork with adoption agencies and complete a home study. Matches are made between genetic parents and adoptive parents. The only involvement a fertility clinic plays is the transfer itself. The end goal is saving the life of the child and achieving parenthood.
By the use of the word “treatment”, the CDF seems to imply that some sort of cure is being sought. And, for most people, cures are obtained at a medical facility, not an adoption agency. As a couple dealing with male infertility, neither some sort of embryo “treatment” nor pregnancy could cure my husband. Why such an odd phrase by the CDF? Furthermore, embryo adoption is not even specifically referred to in this paragraph - how exactly does EA fit into all this?
In America there is a marked difference between embryo adoption and embryo donation. Perhaps the CDF was referring to embryo donation when using the term “treatment for infertility”? With donation, the couple (or individual) goes to the local fertility clinic and essentially buys a leftover embryo. It’s cheaper, faster, and incredibly impersonal. The embryo is considered in its legal sense, as property, rather than in its true sense, a human being.
Objection Five : Another quote from DP: “This practice [treatment for infertility] would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological, and legal nature.”
Refutation: Through our adoption process with Nightlight, we have been required to complete a rigorous home study and education on rearing adopted children and ART children specifically. We will be privy to three generations of the genetic family’s medical history once a definite match is made. Our contract is considered to be legally binding. We are planning on maintaining written contact with the genetic family (mediated through the agency) precisely so we will be able to administer to the psychological needs of our adopted children. Both family members and close family friends have first hand experience with adoption and/or rearing of special needs children, if we would need such expertise. All in all, we feel that we are doing everything possible in preparation for offering life to some of the least of God’s children.
Objection Six: There is only one paragraph in Dignitas Personae that clearly deals with some form of prenatal adoption. The fourth paragraph from section 19 states: “It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above [in paragraph on “treatment for infertility”].
Refutation: Embryos cryopreserved in England have a very limited life span as most (if not all) cryo-banks have a strict three year freezing time limit. When the last cryo-bank “cleansing” came up, many many individuals, couples, and even nuns offered their wombs so that these orphaned embryos would not suffer such indignity at the bidding of the government. However, these well intentioned individuals were offering their wombs just for the sake of gestating the endangered embryos. After birth, the women planned on offering the newborns for adoption.
This scenario is fully an act of “embryo rescue” and is a far cry different from embryo adoption. Furthermore, these actions constitute surrogacy. The “adoptive” mother raises the embryo only for the duration of the pregnancy. In the end, the embryo has been spared death, but is left abandoned once again. “Prenatal adoption” that is solely rescue and devoid of concern for the post-birth life of the child is not granting the child the dignity he/she is due.
As mentioned previously, by pursuing embryo adoption through Nightlight’s Snowflake program, we are signing legally binding documents to care for our adopted embryos for the full duration of their life, be that a few moments or several decades. Furthermore, embryos in America are not in imminent danger of destruction though our current President could change that… The contrast is pronounced.
Objection Seven (last one!): Pope John Paul II’s quote “there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the … frozen embryos…”
Refutation: For starters, reading JPII’s quote in its original context is extremely enlightening. His whole speech is concerned with the natural rights of the embryo, beginning with the most basic, the right to life. Similarly, he rightfully claims that it is the duty of each government to preserve such a right. I feel it’s necessary to look at not just JPII’s quote in Dignitas Personae, but also the surrounding lines in his original speech:
“I therefore appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in
particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into
account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of “frozen” embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons. I also call on all jurists to work so that States and international institutions will legally recognize the natural rights of the very origin of human life and will likewise defend the inalienable rights which these thousands of “frozen” embryos have intrinsically acquired from the moment of fertilization.
John Paul could not be more clear that the right to life is one of these aforementioned inalienable rights. How is EA not awarding these neglected embryos some chance at a normal, just life?
DP precedes John Paul’s quote with the statement that the “thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.” I agree. No amount of human atonement can make up for the injustices these embryos have already received due to the illicit nature of their creation. There is no way to undo the injustice of being conceived in a lab, man and wife forsaken for a doctor and syringe. While the injustice and illicitness of their creation cannot be resolved, one can, perhaps, begin to restore the God-given inalienable right to life via embryo adoption. It is only out of the cryo-bank, and in the womb, that these embryos will finally get the chance to live as God intended. When such an option exists, one that will provide these embryos not only a chance at life but a family, how can one refuse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)