I can't normally receive EWTN but I was out of town at the weekend and tuned my radio to EWTN. I caught the tail end of a question posed by a caller. She asked whether the Catholic Church regarded the adoption of a frozen embryo to be ethical. My first thought was that the answer couldn't possibly be "yes, it's OK", but that was in fact what happened. I'm not sure who the person was who was taking the call, but I believe it was a Bishop.

I was a bit taken aback at that response, but then got to thinking of it as a possible "rescue operation". Now I don't know what to think. Any thoughts?

-- Dee (Dee@none.sorry), November 15, 2004

Answers

Dee, and anybody correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the Church forbids a woman and man from having invetrofertilization done in the first place. It is a sin because when a woman has this done usually several embryos are created and seldom are they all used especially if the woman becomes pregnant with multiple births the first try. More times than not the remaining embryos are destroyed which is the same as an abortion except it is outside of the body. (Doesn't really matter, it is still murder in the eyes of God.) anyway I do not believe the church would frown on a family wishing to adopt these embryos. When someone adopts one (or more) they are adopting an unwanted child (or children) and thus saving that child's (or children's) life. I hope this helps. Have a great day and God bless.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 15, 2004.

Suzanne is correct in what she said about in vitro fertilization. But I believe the original question refers to already existing embryos which were produced through someone else's in vitro feretilization. In that case, what exactly does "adopt" mean? If it means having the embryo implanted in the uterus and carrying him/her to term, then no, that is not ethically or morally acceptable because it circumvents the essential nature of the couple's sexual relationship. Intercourse with one's spouse, not implantation of someone else's baby, is the sole means God has provided for bringing children into the world. Pregnancy achieved any other way is unnatural and immoral. Implanting an already existing embryo who is not the result of your own marital union is really just another way of being a "surrogate mother", and is not morally acceptable

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.

Paul, is that the case even if the embryo will be destroyed? Either way it is a sad, sad situation. The thought of it makes me want to cry. Also what does the church feel about adoption; If my husband and I wanted to adopt a baby from someone who decided to give birth but not keep the child?

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 15, 2004.

Suzanne,

Yes, that is the case even if the embryos will be destroyed. Destroying human embryos is immoral. Saving them would, in itself, be a good thing. But we cannot commit an intrinsically immoral act in order to achieve a good result. Or, as it is usually stated, the end does not justify the means.

The Church fully supports and encourages adoption, and Catholic adoption agencies are among the very best, at least in my area. We adopted a little girl some years ago. There is nothing unnatural or immoral about caring for an already born person who is in need. In fact, just the opposite is true. Adoption is a beautiful expression of unconditional Christian love and compassion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.

Thank you, Paul. It is so sad to think that not only do women and girls who DON'T want children destroy innocent lives, but a woman who would intentionally create life and then when she has no use for the lives.....My heart is aching! And to think there is no way to morally save these innocent ones.

Paul, I ask about adoption because my sister and I were adopted as babies. No child could ever ask for more loving parents than we had growing up. Thanks and God bless you, Paul!

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 15, 2004.

"If it means having the embryo implanted in the uterus and carrying him/her to term, then no, that is not ethically or morally acceptable because it circumvents the essential nature of the couple's sexual relationship. Intercourse with one's spouse, not implantation of someone else's baby, is the sole means God has provided for bringing children into the world. Pregnancy achieved any other way is unnatural and immoral. Implanting an already existing embryo who is not the result of your own marital union is really just another way of being a "surrogate mother", and is not morally acceptable."

Everytime i defend abortion this is where i always seem to stop defending it logically and start defending it with my beliefs. It kind of puts me in a rut. It's like I'm defending the killing of innocent children no matter what the means, but when they say if I think like this, then I should also be trying to save the imbryos at all costs. When I start the old, "it would be against the moral law of God to do this" then it looks like i'm trying to push my religious beliefs on them. My question is this. Is there anyway around this so that i can make one understand the immoral implications of invitro fertilization without just saying...because the Church says it's wrong?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 15, 2004.

I have to disagree with you Paul and agree with the bishop. I would say adopting an embryo who would otherwise be killed is morally the same as adopting an already-born child who would otherwise suffer or die. The couple who adopt the embryo are not bringing a child into the world. The child is already in the world. They are providing a place (the adoptive mother’s womb) to give it shelter, warmth and sustenance to enable it to grow, the same things that adoptive parents provide to a born baby. You could equally argue that an infertile couple adopting a born baby and bringing it up as if it was their own natural child, are also circumventing the natural order of reproduction. Yes, the embryo should never have been created in vitro in the first place. But now that it has, if it is “unwanted”, the adoptive couple are saving its life. You are saying the moral thing to do is to kill it?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 15, 2004.

There is another option here. Legally, I believe if a frozen embryo is adopted..it cannot be destroyed because it then has legal standing. The person or persons adopting it need not "do" anything with it except keep it frozen.

This of course, creates all sorts of interesting ethical issues in and of itself over a long term. Yet it does prevent the destruction of the embryo.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 15, 2004.

No Steve, I am not saying that killing is moral. I am only saying that one cannot commit an intrinsically immoral act, even with a morally good motive. A woman's body is not supposed to be an incubator for someone else's child. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me; however, the problem in agreeing with this bishop is that this bishop disagrees with the Church, which clearly teaches ...

"Techniques which entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. ... They betray the spouses' right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

Another example of placing compassion over morality, emotion over truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.

What! Steve, we agree on something!

It is not the baby's fault (life begins at conception) he/she was conceived artificially. I also agree with the earlier poster that the Church's view in this instance supports pro-abortion arguments. You can't have it both ways....

You may as well say any and all medical intervention that wasn't used duing Jesus' time on earth is wrong, because it's unnatural and prolongs life past natural death.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 16, 2004.

But Paul, they are NOT, strictly speaking, “becoming mother and father”, except in the same sense that any adoptive couple is "becoming mother and father", when actually a different pair of people are the child's biological mother and father. The teaching you quote bars a couple from ARANGING THE CREATION by somebody else of an embryo in vitro for the purpose of implantation in the woman’s womb. It does not bar them from adopting and nurturing an embryo that has already been created. I believe what the bishop said is quite orthodox. The Church’s view does NOT support pro-abortion arguments.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 16, 2004.

"Techniques which entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. ... They betray the spouses' right to become a father and a mother only through each other." -- Paul

Paul, I respect you and you are very knowledgeable about church teachings, but according to this statement adoption in and of its self would be immoral because it is not the mother's ovum or the father's sperm and denys the spouses' rights to become parents only through eachother. Now I am not saying you are wrong about what the church teaches, but any child that is adopted weather it is a embryo or a child born already is not the product of the parents that will care for him or her. I am my parents child, even though they didn't convieve me, just as much as my children concieved in my womb are mine. No, it isn't a natural thing to carry this child, but adoption of an already born child really isn't either. God never meant for girls and women to fornicate and get pregnant only to either murder or give away their children, but it happenes everyday. Do we condemn these children to die simply because they are of someone else's body? Do they not have the same right to life as any child, born or unborn? I have so many unanswered questions regarding this issue that my heart aches.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 16, 2004.

The teaching says nothing about "making arrangements". It is straightforward and absolute - any technique which involves any person other than the couple IS thereby gravely immoral. Note: The technique ITSELF is gravely immoral, and therefore the gravity of participating in such a technique cannot be mitigated by circumstances. And if the general, all-inclusive statement isn't clear enough, the teaching specifically mentions "surrogate uterus" - which is precisely what you are advocating - as one such gravely immoral act. It doesn't allow for exceptions when motives are good. A gravely immoral act may not be committed for ANY reason. That's the whole story.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.

This whole discussion just reinforces my belief that in-vitro fertilization is a monstrously evil procedure. My heart hurts and my head spins and it's hard not to be emotional I think most people don't realize that in-vitro fertilization produces "spares". I didn't. The destruction of frozen embryos is a horrendous thought, but I guess there's an even more evil prospect - experimentation. I thank God that the Catholic Church does not condone or allow IVF. This is one very good reason why not.

God guide us.

-- Dee (dee@none.sorry), November 16, 2004.

I feel like you do, Dee. My heart aches for these that will never be born. It is a monsterous practice!

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for the innocent little souls!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), November 16, 2004.

Well, rape is evil and immoral too, but I don't see the Church saying those babies are worthless and should be aborted....

And while we're on the subject anyway, is is evil and immoral to give your baby up for adoption?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 16, 2004.

GT - I consider it evil and immoral when a woman knowingly and with forethought conceives multiple children in order to choose only THE BEST and have the rest adopted.

-- Dee (dee@none.sorry), November 16, 2004.

> "Well, rape is evil and immoral too, but I don't see the Church saying those babies are worthless and should be aborted...."

A: The Church doesn't say that ANY babies are "worthless" or "should be aborted". The Church teaches that every human life is sacred from the moment of conception, and the willful destruction of that life is a moral evil. However, we cannot prevent a grave moral evil on the part of others by committing a grave moral evil ourselves.

> "And while we're on the subject anyway, is is evil and immoral to give your baby up for adoption? "

A: No, it it is not, if the objective reality is that the parents absolutely lack the means of caring for a child. Obviously all kinds of motives could be involved, and rejecting parental responsibility for a child for insufficient or inappropriate reasons could be sinful. However, when the physical, emotional and spiritual welfare of the child is clearly in great jeopardy, the child's welfare must be safeguarded, even if it means separation of the child from his/her birth parents, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.

Dee, actually, I think it is the doctor who makes any decisions along that line (I mean, really, the parents have no clue), but I thought that it was because they couldn't do only one at a time, due to technology constraints. What if you could? Would that change anything?

I just don't like the idea of punishing an innocent party (a baby, at whatever stage we're talking about here) for someone else's actions, when it is clearly now within our power, with the help of technology (I do think that God gives us the gift of technology), to help that baby to grow up.

Also, some of you seem to think that in vitro is a common procedure. It isn't. And it isn't cheap, either. we're not talking about baby farms and wombcubators here....

Either every human life is sacred or it's not. If these were perhaps your granchildren when their parents had died in a car crash perhaps you'd feel differently.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 16, 2004.

"Yes, that is the case even if the embryos will be destroyed. Destroying human embryos is immoral. Saving them would, in itself, be a good thing. But we cannot commit an intrinsically immoral act in order to achieve a good result. Or, as it is usually stated, the end does not justify the means."

This is one of the toughest teachings that I accept cause it seems so contradictory. I mean, we are committing an intrinsically immoral act (with the intentional destruction of a human being) in order to achieve a good result(the non-implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Doesn't the Church state over and over again that any intentional destruction of a human being is intrisically evil and never to permitted? So either way, the same situation seems to apply.

But i believe that it can be understood if "allowing" the embryos to die naturally would be the moral way since it would come under the extraordinary conditions that Paul mentioned before on another post.

-- D Josheph (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 16, 2004.

> "I mean, we are committing an intrinsically immoral act (with the intentional destruction of a human being) in order to achieve a good result (the non- implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Doesn't the Church state over and over again that any intentional destruction of a human being is intrisically evil and never to permitted? So either way, the same situation seems to apply."

A: The key here is that "we" are not committing the immoral act of destroying embryos. Someone else is. It is their sin, not ours. If we intentionally permitted that destruction to occur even though we had available a morally acceptable means of preventing it, then we would be complicit in that immoral act and share to some extent in the guilt. However, that is not the case. We do not have a morally acceptable means of preventing this moral evil from occurring; and we cannot personally commit a gravely evil act ourselves, removing sanctifying grace from our own souls, in order to prevent someone else from committing such an act.

Allowing the embryos to "die a natural death" would not apply here either. That would be valid for a terminally ill person - someone who is actually in the process of dying a natural death - who does not wish to pursue extraordinary means of artificially extending life. This principle does not apply to healthy persons, and the embryos in question are presumably healthy. That's the dilemma. Evil begets evil. Because of the evil of producing such embryos, a situation develops where the only possible solutions are likewise evil. Our only choices are to commit evil ourselves, or to allow someone else to commit additional evil. We are first responsible for personally obeying the will of God, and only within that context can we reach out to others.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.

"Our only choices are to commit evil ourselves, or to allow someone else to commit additional evil."

Then shouldn't we fight to keep the embryos frozen untill we have the means of allowing them to grow outside a human uterus rather than have somebody else intentionally destroy them? Or would this also be immoral? Basically, what i'm getting at is this. What if there wasn't anybody left who wanted to destroy the embryos? What then?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 17, 2004.

Keeping the embryos frozen, while it involves ethical/moral problems of its own, does seem to be the least of all evils at the present time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

"Our only choices are to commit evil ourselves, or to allow someone else to commit additional evil."

Does that mean that adopting babies of rape (and I haven't even touched on marital rape, mind you) is committing evil, and therefore will encourage more evil? Sorry, but that is where that argument goes when you take it to its logical conclusion. Remember, rape too is evil and immoral.

And again, when you adopt, remember, you did not cause the bad situation, you're trying to save a life.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 17, 2004.

There is no comparison. Rape is evil but adoption is not. Production and freezing of human embryos is evil and so is implantation in a surrogate uterus.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

"Does that mean that adopting babies of rape (and I haven't even touched on marital rape, mind you) is committing evil, and therefore will encourage more evil?"

Well apparently, adoption is not evil however implantation of an embryo is. I believe Paul already answered it in the 4th response of this thread.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), November 17, 2004.

And what I'm trying to get at is that if you get hit by a car you should be left to die in the street because medical care is unnatural and immoral because it interferes with natural death. Gee, people shouldn't wear glasses, or take medicines, etc.

The difficulty with the Church's position is that it seems to support abortion. What if the couple agrees to keep ALL 6 (or however many) kids (giving birth yourself one after the other)? Of course, if you're using in vitro as a baby farm it is wrong. But for one couple for their own family, I don't understand the big deal, honest I don't, and the arguments that have been advanced here don't make any sense.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 17, 2004.

"Unnatural" in the moral sense doesn't just mean something that the body doesn't come equipped with, like crutches or glasses. Or clothing! It refers to an act which is intrinsically immoral because it constitutes a direct violation of Natural Law.

The theoretical situation you propose - a couple being willing to accept all embryos produced - wouldn't solve any of the moral problems, even if it were possible. In fact, it is not really possible. First of all, a fertility clinic, in order to produce a number of normal, viable embryos, starts by fertilizing a larger number of ova than they will need. The early development of the embryos is observed, and those most likely to implant successfully are selected. Any embryos that are defective or in any way less than optimal are discarded at that point. The selected embryos are used for the implantation, and then if there are additional normal embryos left after the implantation procedure, those may be frozen. However, a number of embryos have already been discarded before the process ever reaches the implantation stage. You cannot perform IVF without killing human embryos. Also, the majority of implanted embryos do not "take". Many couples have to try several times, with several embryos implanted each time, before achieving pregnancy. While the deaths of these embryos are not directly intended, it is nevertheless known before the fact that many of the implanted embryos will in fact die. Going forward with the procedure in spite of that realization at least constitutes depraved indifference (a legal term, not a moral term, but I believe it applies here). Also, a couple desperately wanting a child is one thing; but what couple, after spending a couple of years repeatedly undergoing the difficulties and expense of IVF and finally having the child they desire, will continue to go through the process until either all their embryos are dead (likely) and/or they have more children than they want (unlikely)?

In the final analysis however, all of the above is irrelevant. Even if it were possible to absolutely ensure that every embryo produced in the IVF process would have the opportunity to develop normally and be born, the fact remains that pregnancy achieved in any manner other than normal intercourse between a man and a woman is unnatural, as defined above, and therefore is intrinsically immoral.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

Sorry Paul you’re wrong. It is FERTILIZATION (not “pregnancy”) achieved in any manner other than normal intercourse between a man and a woman which is intrinsically immoral. “Pregnant” merely describes a woman who is carrying a child in her womb. It is not a definition of the existence of the child itself.

To be logically consistent you would also have to argue that it is immoral for mother adopting a newborn to wet-nurse him/her (assisted if necessary by milk-stimulating drugs).

Yes the technique of IVF is immoral. But we are talking about what happens AFTER IVF has been completed. A “surrogate uterus” refers to a woman who bears another woman’s child, then gives it back after birth. The mother who adopts an embryo is NOT a surrogate uterus.

As you yourself said, “when the physical, emotional and spiritual welfare of the child is clearly in great jeopardy, the child's welfare must be safeguarded”. Who could be in greater jeopardy than these “unwanted” extremely immature children destined for the trash can unless someone adopts them?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 17, 2004.

"A “surrogate uterus” refers to a woman who bears another woman’s child, then gives it back after birth."

A: Sorry Steve, but "surrogate" simply means "substitute". "Surrogate uterus" refers to a woman who bears another woman's child. Period. It has nothing to do with where the baby lives after he/she is born. And any situation involving a surrogate uterus is described in the teaching of the Church as "gravely immoral".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

The question of Embryo Adoption has not been definitively resolved by the Magisterium, is currently being studied by the Vatican and debated by Catholic moral theologians (who _are_ faithful to the Magisterium).

Bishop Elio Sgreccia is the Vice President for the Pontifical Academy for Life, the department of the Roman Curia at the Vatican which serves as an advisory body to the Pope and publishes reports on the scientific and ethical aspects of life issues: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/

In an interview with Catholic World Report, Bishop Elio Sgreccia was asked the following:

"At this point, what can be done about frozen embryos? Should they be left frozen, or can they be “adopted,” as some theologians are proposing? (By adoption, these frozen embryos would be implanted in the uterus of women willing to adopt the children, even though the embryos were not genetically theirs.)

Sgreccia: The idea of adoption, per se, has an end which is good. Theologians say it is licit, but there is an extremely high rate of failure. It seems that out of 100 attempts to implant, only three or four would work. We know this because of experiments on animals. About 90 percent don’t work because when you unfreeze an embryo, it dies. Or it won’t implant itself.

Even if it does work, there are no guarantees that the child won’t have serious handicaps. The risk of handicap increases the longer an embryo is frozen: one or two years or five years.

Can we really counsel women to do this? It would mean counseling heroism. Many attempts would fail. Also, you would have to do it at certain periods of the month when the uterus is ready. And if the baby is born handicapped, she must still take care of it, because it would be cruel to abort it.

The issue is one big question mark. The point is, we should never have gone down this road to begin with. It is full of problems." (Catholic World Report, May 2001, p. 57.)

Bishop Sgreccia has also said that "in order to investigate this subject, the Academy for Life has set up a multidisciplinary task force which will study all the aspects of the whole question and then publish a work on the subject." ("The Embryo: A Sign of Contradiction", Zenit.org, July 7, 2001)

For a good survey of the debate, I would recommend the following articles by Catholic Answers and Human Life International:

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp www.humanlifereview.com/2001_summer/caulfield_s2001.php

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), November 18, 2004.

_Donum Vitae_, Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation (February 22, 1987), condemns surrogate motherhood and gives a precise definition of the term "surrogate mother" which _does_ include an agreement and pledge on the part of the surrogate mother:

"By 'surrogate mother' the instruction means: a) The woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of "donors." She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy. b) The woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy."

The use of the term "surrogate uterus" in CCC 2376 (quoted in previous responses above) does not come with an explicit definition of the term, but the section does make several explicit references to Donum Vitae (in footnotes 167-170).

The intention of a person who did not condone or cooperate in an act of invitro fertilization and is now seeking to save the life of the resulting embryo is different than the intention of a surrogate mother who both condones and formally cooperates in such a process. For this reason, some moral theologians do not believe that such a person fits the above definition of surrogate mother.

Personally, I do not think that CCC 2376 is precise enough to resolve the question of embryo adoption.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), November 18, 2004.

To me , a life created outside the mother , it's a life and has the right to live !! __ Cloning life is creating a life !! __ But both are forcing nature , but still are a life !!

As I said once before , don't mess with nature , it's dangerous !! __ But , strange enough , I'm not against , but people can misuse it to create the "perfect" life , and that's 100% morally wrong !!

But , but , but , The Future: a "surrogate mother", probably the kid would like to know who the natural mother is , and in that case , it has the right to know this !!

A question: Suppose , a woman who can get kids the natural way (via sex) , but only can get kids via in vitro fertilization (sperm of her own husband) ?? __ Is this wrong ??

[i](Sorry , English is not mother tongue)[/i]

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 18, 2004.

Thanks, Father Donahue,

I believe the reason surrogate motherhood is defined as it is in Donum Vitae is that 15 years ago the the only known cases of surrogate motherhood were either those where one woman carried a child for a friend or relative who could not do so herself; or commercial arrangements, so-called "uterus for hire", where a woman was paid a substantial sum to carry a child to term for another couple. In both these scenarios, the child was given to someone else after birth, as pre-arranged. But that fact is only subsequent to the fact of surrogacy. Otherwise every woman who places her baby for adoption would thereby be classified as a surrogate mother. Surrogacy consists of the fact that the child she is carrying is not biologically the child of herself and/or her husband, regardless of what happens to the child after he/she is born. So, what has to be finalized is whether the act of surrogate motherhood itself is intrinsically immoral. If it isn't, then embryo "adoption" might be morally justifiable under clearly defined circumstances. But if it is, then the existence of current, more morally acceptable motives could not justify the act under any circumstances.

That's it as I see it. Your comments are appreciated.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.

Thanks for your illumination Fr Donahue.

Paul, I’m sure if the writers hadn’t considered that the intent of the woman was so important, they wouldn’t have included it in their very specific definition of surrogacy. No it does NOT mean that a woman who gives up her OWN natural-born child for adoption is a surrogate mother. A surrogate mother is one who TEMPORARILY bears SOMEONE ELSE’s child for the purpose of giving it back to them.

Laurent, yes, in vitro fertilization is always wrong because it removes procreation from sexual intercourse. In the case of an infertile married couple who use their own sperm and ova for IVF of an embryo to be implanted in her own womb, that is less seriously wrong than using other people’s gametes, but it is still wrong. I sympathize with those couples who yearn for a baby and can’t have one. But I would make the following points:

1. If all infertile couples helped work to stop abortions, there would be more babies available for adoption.

2. Many couples today find they are infertile only after having put off marriage and/or children for many years until late in their 30s. Often having used contraceptives for 20 years, only to discover that either the contraceptives have made them permanently sterile, or that they had always been sterile and never needed the contraceptives in the first place. Or that they had "marginal" fertility, and their only real chanvce of having a baby was at their age of maximum fertility in their early 20s.

3. ALL couples should ask themselves why they want a baby so much. Is it because I want to love and serve God through the love and service to children, the full fruits of the sacrament of marriage? Or do I want a baby just to satisfy my own needs and wants? Do I think of it as like any other commodity I can buy? Shouldn't we rather trust God to give us as many or as few children as He knows we should have?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 18, 2004.

Paul,

Glad to be of help. I agree that the central issue is "whether the act of surrogate motherhood itself is intrinsically immoral", (specifically the act of implanting an embryo into the womb of another mother to be carrie to term).

If it is intrinsically evil, then it may not be done under any circumstances. If it is not, then there may be circumstances in which it is justified, when all of the other alternative actions are worse. Another issue is the possible unintended side effects of embryo adoption, were it to become widespread - could it lead to a demand for frozen embryos? I expect that the Pontifical Academy for Life would include a discussion of these circumstances in its upcoming study.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), November 19, 2004.