What should be done with leftover frozen embryos?

[LadyCalvinist]

A few months ago I had a discussion with my father, who is an atheist, about what should be done with frozen embryos that are not used. He said that he thought it was fine for them to be experimented on since they are going to be thrown out anyway so they might as well be used. That got me to thinking, what should be done with them? What should the Christian response be to reproductive technologies? We now have people using frozen sperm or frozen eggs that are not theirs, and people paying women to rent their uterus for 9 months. What should we think of all this?

 

[caoclan]

The access to this technology should be limited. Bottom line is a human embryo is a person and should be treated as such. But, for the embryos already frozen, they should be given to those married couples who want to adopt and can carry the embryo to term. In no way should any human being be destroyed or experimented on, and to do any such thing would be homicide. There are adoptive agencies that handle the adoption of embryos and are referred to as "Snowflake" adoptions.

Great question, though.

 

[Scottish Lass]

 

[caoclan]

The problem with this technology is that it is so expensive that doctors promote the creation of many embryos at one time, then they will implant a few and freeze a few. Then, if the mother becomes pregnant the doctor will offer "selective reduction" of the excess implanted embryos. If the parents agree, the unwanted babies are aborted. Then the leftover frozen embryos are left to either be implanted at a later time, destroyed or experimented upon. Very deceptively evil for those who don't realize what they are doing and sinister for those who do.

Also, you will get those mom's who implant and keep all embryos, as in "Octomom" or John and Kate... enough said.

Just because we can do these amazing medical procedures doesn't mean we should.

 

[Peairtach]

If we take our Bible's seriously and are concerned about the direction in which our societies are going we should study these things ethically in the light of God's Word. There are many godly scholars who have studied these things and written about them.

A large part of reproductive technologies are unacceptable for the Christian because they involve the deliberate destruction of human life, or experimentation on viable human life that hasn't given its consent, or involve a third party intruding their ova/sperm into the marriage relationship.

The scientists would often be better employed asking why pollution that has come about because of science and technology has left so many infertile and finding ways to clean up the environment, rather than coming up with bizarre and unethical solutions to treat those often left infertile by the pollutants resulting from science and technology.

See e.g.

Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today: Amazon.co.uk: John Jefferson Davis: Books

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Just because we can do these amazing medical procedures doesn't mean we should.

 

[Sven]

Richard beat me to the punch. I was going to suggest Evangelical Ethics. It is a great book that deals with all these issues and more. Regarding what to do with frozen embryos, I think it is a good idea to give them up to adoption. I have friends who are doing what they call a "snowflake adoption." Experimentation is immoral plain and simple. I wrote on Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Law of God here if you want to read:
Beholding the Beauty: Positive Dogmatics: Bioethical Theses

 

[SemperEruditio]

Many people are donating their frozen embryos do Adoption Agencies. It is becoming widespread enough that some adoption agencies are even specializing in just handling these types of cases.

 

[Edward]

To answer your first question, leftover frozen embryos should be adopted out. And if a couple is willing to raise a child that is not biologically theirs, why not just do a post natal adoption? It certainly is no more expensive than the full range of 'reproductive assistance'.

 

[Blue Tick]

How about this:

There shouldn't be any frozen embyros. Limit the amount of embyros that can be produced to 3. Typically only 2 embyros take "naturally" during the in vitro fertilization process. In addition, embyros end up dying during the freezing procedure.

 

[Grace Alone]

I agree with limiting the number of embryos, and I think any couple who creates extras and freezes them should try to give birth to the babies. I am very pro-adoption, but I don't think you should create embryos you are not prepared to try to carry to term.

 

[Montanablue]

I realize that this may be a little off topic, but I simply do not understand why couples produce these embryos. There are SO many children available for adoption - especially if one does a foreign adoption. And the cost of in-vitro or the other reproductive technologies that lead to these embryos is just as expensive (if not more) than adoption. I absolutely understand the desire for children, but I don't understand why a couple would chose to skate on such ethical and moral thin ice when there are thousands of homeless children up for adoption. Just my

 

[Theognome]

Being a generally sick and twisted person with a most offensive sense of humour, I seriously considered posting a stir-fry recipe. But, after considerable thought, I decided that it would most likely not be an appropriate joke. Please do not read this post.

Theognome

 

[VictorBravo]

Please do not read this post.

Theognome

Thanks for the warning Bill. I'll remember to always read your posts backward.