A couple weeks ago a friend at work told me about a situation in her church where one lady (43 years old at that) offered to be the surrogate mother for another couple in the church. Seems the biological mom can't carry a baby to full term. The two couples went through all the necessary legal and insurance matters to set this in motion, and the baby will be delivered later this year. The two couples attend all the doctor's appointments together, and the biological mom even requested that the surrogate mom breastfeed the baby. Wisely, the surrogate mom declined, saying once the baby is born, her part is finished. But they attend church together, and it just seems as though she would not be able to emotionally detach herself from the baby she carried in her womb. This stimulated further discussion about In Vitro fertilization. Taking the position that life begins at conception, is it ethical to fertilize a number of extra eggs and have them "on hold" in a freezer just in case the couple might want more children in the future? And the number of embryos most likely exceeds the number of desired future children, so what happens to the remaining embryos? That led to another discussion about "snowflake adoptions," a new term to me. Couples with fertility problems can "adopt" frozen embryos, and the adoptive mother carries the baby to term in her own womb. I really would like to get some feedback from you readers about these situations. How are we to see them in view of God's design for reproduction and as the Author of life?
I'm mulling this one over.
ReplyDeletegrnnyof9
Please let me know when you come to some conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIf we really believe that life begins at conception I think that the frozen embryo questions aren't particularly difficult. If that embryo is a human life we could ask the question would we do this with a newborn? Would we do this with a child? Would we do this with an adult? I think we need to be careful not to fall into the mindset that there are different rules for a person who is exceptionally tiny and out of sight. As Horton says, "a person's a person, no matter how small."
ReplyDeleteHere's another question. Also, please understand I don't intend to come across as snarky. It's tough to convey emotional nuance in a blog comment... anyway, with the tens of thousands of children awaiting adoption both here and around the world, what would cause folks to tread on this ethical thin ice in the first place? If God has closed the womb, I don't understand why such extreme measures are taken when there is a wonderful and unquestionably ethical option readily available.
ReplyDeleteAs a pastor I can't help viewing this through the lens of a pastor offering pastoral counsel to those in the story. This is basically how I would counsel those involved (by the way, there is no mention of a pastor in this story counseling these couples. Hello, this is really big stuff).
ReplyDeleteFirst off, is everyone aware of what happens with in vitro fertilization? Several eggs are harvested from the mother and then fertilized in the laboratory. From that group a number of fertilized eggs/embryos are implanted into the womb (in this case of the surrogate mother). The rest are left in a state suspended animation in a test tube in a liquid nitrogen bath (-200C) where they can remain viable up to 7 years. "Snowflake babies" are those children who have been rescued from this state of suspended animation by people willing to adopt them and take them as their own (the embryos are implanted into the mother's womb and they go through a relatively normal pregancy).
Doctors monitor the development of the implanted embryos to see how many have begun growing (not all will develop). If 8-10 embryos are implanted and if more begin developing than the mother can carry (or more than the parents want) then doctors recommend "selective reduction" which is code for abortion. They simply select the embroyos that are smaller/weaker/less desirable and eliminate them with an injection into the heart.
So to both couples I would explain this basic procedure and point out the ethical matters that need to be considered -- extra embryos left in a state of suspended animation, pressure from the medical community to 'reduce' the number of children that are being carried, etc.
I would also challenge the surrogate mother along these lines: 43 is not a normal age for child-bearing. Is she aware that 5, 8, 10 embryos will be implanted into her womb? Doctors cannot tell which ones will begin to develop so they must put in extra ones to assure success. What will she do if her body cannot carry 2, 3 or more children? What will the parents do if this situation should arise? What will all of them do if the doctors insist that 'selective reductions' must take place for the sake of the surrogate mother's health? Finding a younger surrogate mother might mitigate this problem.
I agree with the earlier comment about adoption: if God has closed the womb then why not consider adoption? While I understand the desire to raise one's own biological children there can also be an element of idolatry in that desire. I would explore that angle with the parents. Another issue I would explore is the financial concerns -- unless they have fantastic insurance a lot of these costs will come out of their pocket. Adoptions, even international adoptions are relatively cheap. I'm aware of couples that have spent 6 figures in order to have children via in vitro fertilization.
Let me relay a story that goes along with all that has been said so far. In the early 90s before I went to seminary I was exploring this entire issue by reading RC. Sproul's book, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (there is a fine section in it about in vitro fertilization). About that time a story was hitting the national newswires about a couple in Tennessee who had gone through in vitro fertilization but were now divorcing. At issue were the frozen embryos still in storage: the mother was suing for custody and the father was refusing to grant custody for a number of reasons but also for fear of being forced to pay child support.
Rush Limbaugh picked up the story and commented that the the man was "being forced to become a father against his will." I faxed him a short note (this was before email was widespread) citing RC. Sproul's book and the fact that the man had already become a father -- the frozen embryos were real humans in a state of suspended animation. I challenged him to re-think his views on this matter and on his stated belief that life begins at conception. He never spoke about this matter again in the terms of 'the man being forced to become a father against his will' and from what I can tell understands to this day that frozen embryos are as much human as you and I. That's why embryonic stem cell research is so detestable -- it is taking human embryos, most of whom would survive is placed into the womb, and performing experiments on it and with it (often destroying it in the process).
This is a very complex issue and as a pastor I would counsel these people to go VERY slowly in pursuing this course of action. It is fraught with ethical dilemmas that cannot be 100% eliminated.
Dave Sarafolean, Pastor
Christ Covenant Church PCA
Midland, Michigan
Thanks for your insightful information and perspectives. I have also come to the same conclusions, and conventional adoption should be the preferred course of action. Interesting thought about the idolatry, Pastor Dave. And Jeremy, I love the Horton quote! :) By the way, I looked up "snarky" in the dictionary, and it isn't listed, so please define it for me. Would that be legit in a game of Scrabble?
ReplyDeletecheck your email
ReplyDeletegrannyof9
I looked at Websters online dictionary and it defined snarky as: Crochety, Snappish, Sarcastic, impertinent or irreverent in tone or manner.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty close.