Why Not Embryo Adoption

After reading “Adopting Embryos: Why Not?” by Janet E. Smith (April 5), I was rather dumbfounded. It would appear that adoption of embryos is a laudable act.

But, after reading her arguments, I am even more convinced it is not.

In artificial reproductive technologies, 16.9 lives are created to produce one live birth (source: St. Gerard Fertility Care Center brochure).

An industry that destroys and uses life is not acting morally. Frozen embryos exist because of bad moral judgment.

To suggest adopting embryos and implanting them in a womb is aiding the industry.

Besides the fact it would not be cost effective to implant just one embryo in a woman’s womb, you are still using techniques that do not allow two persons to give themselves to one another.

You are entrusting that life to the power of doctors and biologists. “‘Such a relationship of domination [of technology] is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children’” (Catechism, No. 2377).

Man cannot manipulate life for his cause.

I am a breast-feeding mother. And my grandmother wet-nursed a child for another woman. Gestating another woman’s child is not comparable to breast-feeding another woman’s child.

God created a woman wisely; a woman’s breasts are easily accessible, while a woman’s womb is hidden. A woman’s womb is not an incubator or gestational organ to be used. It should be a safe home for a growing person conceived by natural means.

When a woman’s cancer diagnosis occurs while she is pregnant, this is a very difficult situation. This is one of the reasons the Church has given us St. Gianna Molla.

There have also been cases of women diagnosed with cancer whose pregnancies actually saved their lives. God at work, not man.

This brings me to my final point about frozen embryos.

Maybe man has put himself into a corner that he cannot get out of.

These tiny embryos are frozen through no fault of their own. They are there because of their parents and doctors’ immoral actions. This act is an outcry to God; the Church must continue to seek divine wisdom on this matter.

But there are many thousands of babies and children who need a home now: Why not adopt these living and breathing children and give them the love they deserve?

Mary-Lynn Ott, R.N.

Modesto, California

I was surprised and disappointed to read Janet Smith’s article, in part, because it was named so closely to her most famous work, and, therefore, I expected it to explain just that: why not.

Smith’s assertion that gestating a child not conceived with one’s spouse does not break the marital bond seems to reduce the bond of marriage to one of will alone.

If both spouses agree to “adopt” this embryo, Smith seems to suggest, then there’s nothing wrong with it. But when a man and a woman marry, the marital act that joins the two in one flesh is not simply a means to an end (either babies or unity), but one that expresses the truth of who they are now: given to one another.

In this way, the entire process of the conception and gestation of a new life is a continuation of this expression of the love of husband and wife. It is the continual presence of the love of the man physically within his wife.

It is only because her husband loves her and has given himself to her that she can become a mother. One does not marry motherhood or fatherhood, but a person who may become one or the other, if God wills it.

Certainly, if life begins at conception, it continues without interruption in gestation and should be respected and allowed to mature in this context of love.

I am shocked that Smith would suggest that “some forms of ‘surrogacy’ be permissible,” when the Church has uniformly spoken against it (see Donum Vitae 3, The Gift of Life, for a very clear explanation of why), and Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of the Person) is clear about this, saying it is not licit “in any form” (19).

Regardless of intention, the woman’s body is being used as the means to an (admittedly desirable) end.

I will just echo the words of Dignitas Personae that deal with this question specifically that Smith never quotes in her article: “All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved” (19).

Regardless of the technology that is made available, the basic principles outlined again and again by the Church reiterate that sex and procreation may not be separated. Not for any reason, however noble.

Sara Perla, M.T.S.

Silver Spring, Maryland

Iowa Marriage Decision

Regarding “Democracy 101” (Daily Blog, April 5): Great job.

By the way, look at the quote from John Sarcone, the Polk County attorney: “Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions.”

I’d respectfully point out that he has it wrong.

The court didn’t say what the law is, but what the court wanted it to be.

The court had no precedent on its side, nor any binding authority to do what it did. It acted as a super legislature.

Joe Giles

Phoenix, Arizona

Notre Dame and Obama

I don’t think the graduates should miss their graduation because they are upset about President Obama’s appearance there (“‘Prestige Over Truth,’” April 5). They worked hard to get to this point.

They should all go, get their diplomas, and then as a group exit the graduation ceremony. This would make a powerful statement to all present — and to the media, who will no doubt cover his talk in depth.

Jean Tuman

Honesdale, Pennsylvania

When I first heard that Notre Dame, my beloved alma mater, was not only having President Obama speak at graduation, but giving him an honorary degree (a doctorate in law, no less!), it felt like a gut punch.

I wrote an e-mail to Father Jenkins, feeling like a little speck of nothing effective, but I did it for the principle of it. I received my copy of the Register, and I saw that a response is growing.

I’m writing to the Register to add my voice.

Speaking up now is critical for Catholics: What is happening at Notre Dame is a small-scale version of what is happening to our faith in the country at large.

The Notre Dame I loved was not ashamed to be Catholic.

I am appalled that, at this critical time, Notre Dame is choosing secular prestige over Christian values.

It’s a scandal for ND to claim to represent the faith when they are unwilling to actually represent the faith.

Notre Dame’s website said it always invites the president; it doesn’t mean anything.

I could accept that — except for two points.

One point: Who really thinks it doesn’t signify anything when the most anti-religious, pro-abortion president of all time is honored and feted at one of the best-known Catholic universities? Obama knows it means something or I guarantee he wouldn’t be speaking there.

Second point: Letting the president speak is one thing; honoring the man with a doctorate is a whole new level of wrong.

I call all Notre Dame alumni to discontinue donations. In fact, let’s give that money to those protecting our faith, like the Register. It’ll cost you football tickets, but we all know this is the most effective way to change the university’s behavior. Let’s show them the real spirit of the Fighting Irish.

I am disappointed with Notre Dame and our country on many levels, but I am clinging to hope. (Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a religion-clinger.) I have to, because without hope, I can’t keep fighting the fight.

I am praying that the Holy Spirit intervenes with an amazing resolution.

One of the most amazing powers of God is that he can take a bad situation and make it better than it would have been before. I also pray for all Catholics to stand for what’s true. Onward, Christian soldiers!

Michelle Porter

Elberfeld, Indiana

Everyday I feel like the world is spinning out of control. Each and every day I have begun to cling to my Catholic roots more and more to feel some sense of comfort in the midst of all of these radical beliefs.

I am a member of St. John’s Westminster parish. Several weeks ago, we were asked to write to our legislators to oppose the abortion bills up for consideration. Then, on the way home from work, I heard that the morning-after pill is now approved for 17 year olds.

When I think it can’t get any crazier, now Notre Dame invites President Obama to speak at graduation.

I have a 22-year-old daughter and a 20-year-old son; both attended Catholic schools for 12 years because I believe in our core values. I felt that the sacrifices we made were priceless.

I now debate with my kids on issues like abortion: My daughter and I disagree.

Now Notre Dame does the unthinkable. My daughter will interpret that gesture as a significant expression that she is right and the Church supports her views because it is good old “Catholic” Notre Dame — and I am wrong.

We have to stand up to this. This is just the beginning.

We are seeing our values disappear right before our eyes; now, I feel like some factions of the Church are facilitating the demise of who we are.

I need your support to be an example to my children.

Mary Lee Bortner

Baltimore, Maryland