As a cub newspaper editor, I had a lot to learn. This proved especially true when it came time to coach the paper's only reporter, who happened to be perhaps 30 years my senior.
You can probably guess what happened next: differences of opinion. These differences are common to any hot-button issue, and that includes embryo adoption, as I'll explain in a moment.
Allow me to set the stage. Back at my first real newspaper job, a woman had been arrested on suspicion of hitting and killing a construction worker while driving drunk. We knew about the story early and had the opportunity to send our reporter out to the scene.
This would make any decent person uncomfortable. But as a reporter, your role is to understand the story, treat everyone involved with the greatest respect and share what you can--as dispassionately as you can--with your audience.
Well, our reporter didn't agree with me or my publisher. She didn't want to go. In the weeks that followed, a common refrain became her Christian faith, which prevented her from covering those stories. I argued just the opposite--my Christian faith compelled me to tell authentic, sometimes painful, stories in our community in as empathetic a way as I knew how.
You will quickly discover that there are a variety of reasons people give for opposing embryo adoption, just as our reporter had a number of reasons she couldn't cover certain stories. This has been one of the most surprising aspects of researching "Frozen, But Not Forgotten."
As you can probably guess, I don't adhere to any of the arguments I'm about to share. I'll provide what I believe are some solid counterarguments in future posts.
But for now, I think it's important for you to simply know what some of the arguments state, especially if you are considering embryo adoption. I am hopeful you will be surrounded by a host of supportive people, Julie and me included. But in case you encounter some unexpected opposition, perhaps this will provide context.
Argument #1: Embryo adoption encourages the use of in vitro fertilization. Some believe that by adopting embryos, adopting couples are encouraging couples facing fertility challenges to use IVF. In this way, adoptive parents support an endless loop of the reproductive technology where remaining embryos are bound to be created, while others do not survive the process.
Argument #2: Embryo adoption violates the sanctity of marriage. Another school of thought posits embryo adoption and surrogacy are comparable. Consequently, a woman who carries the embryo of another couple is carrying another man's child, which is against the nature of procreation that God intended, i.e. one man and one woman bound by marriage for life.
Argument #3: Embryos are better off destroyed and in heaven than allowed to come to term and experience life's sorrows. Among Christians who believe life begins at conception and is innocent and without sin, some believe embryos should not be brought to term out of compassion. Allowing an embryo to come to term means exposure to the evils of the surrounding world for a lifetime.
Argument #4: Many frozen embryos do not survive the thawing and transfer, which creates in needless destruction of innocent life. Christians who believe they are doing a good thing by adopting these embryos, and the adoption agencies that serve them, are actually doing harm, according to this belief. This is because they are openly participating in a practice where loss of the life of tiny embryos is more common, statistically speaking, than successfully carrying a baby to term.
If you have heard other reasons people oppose embryo adoption, I hope you will post them below. All of us have opinions, and we've undoubtedly thought many of them through carefully. Regardless, it's my belief that you can't appreciate all sides unless you've heard all sides. Knowing why some people conscientiously object to embryo adoption gives me pause and ensures I approach any related conversations with empathy and compassion.
You can probably guess what happened next: differences of opinion. These differences are common to any hot-button issue, and that includes embryo adoption, as I'll explain in a moment.
Allow me to set the stage. Back at my first real newspaper job, a woman had been arrested on suspicion of hitting and killing a construction worker while driving drunk. We knew about the story early and had the opportunity to send our reporter out to the scene.
This would make any decent person uncomfortable. But as a reporter, your role is to understand the story, treat everyone involved with the greatest respect and share what you can--as dispassionately as you can--with your audience.
Well, our reporter didn't agree with me or my publisher. She didn't want to go. In the weeks that followed, a common refrain became her Christian faith, which prevented her from covering those stories. I argued just the opposite--my Christian faith compelled me to tell authentic, sometimes painful, stories in our community in as empathetic a way as I knew how.
You will quickly discover that there are a variety of reasons people give for opposing embryo adoption, just as our reporter had a number of reasons she couldn't cover certain stories. This has been one of the most surprising aspects of researching "Frozen, But Not Forgotten."
As you can probably guess, I don't adhere to any of the arguments I'm about to share. I'll provide what I believe are some solid counterarguments in future posts.
But for now, I think it's important for you to simply know what some of the arguments state, especially if you are considering embryo adoption. I am hopeful you will be surrounded by a host of supportive people, Julie and me included. But in case you encounter some unexpected opposition, perhaps this will provide context.
Argument #1: Embryo adoption encourages the use of in vitro fertilization. Some believe that by adopting embryos, adopting couples are encouraging couples facing fertility challenges to use IVF. In this way, adoptive parents support an endless loop of the reproductive technology where remaining embryos are bound to be created, while others do not survive the process.
Argument #2: Embryo adoption violates the sanctity of marriage. Another school of thought posits embryo adoption and surrogacy are comparable. Consequently, a woman who carries the embryo of another couple is carrying another man's child, which is against the nature of procreation that God intended, i.e. one man and one woman bound by marriage for life.
Argument #3: Embryos are better off destroyed and in heaven than allowed to come to term and experience life's sorrows. Among Christians who believe life begins at conception and is innocent and without sin, some believe embryos should not be brought to term out of compassion. Allowing an embryo to come to term means exposure to the evils of the surrounding world for a lifetime.
Argument #4: Many frozen embryos do not survive the thawing and transfer, which creates in needless destruction of innocent life. Christians who believe they are doing a good thing by adopting these embryos, and the adoption agencies that serve them, are actually doing harm, according to this belief. This is because they are openly participating in a practice where loss of the life of tiny embryos is more common, statistically speaking, than successfully carrying a baby to term.
If you have heard other reasons people oppose embryo adoption, I hope you will post them below. All of us have opinions, and we've undoubtedly thought many of them through carefully. Regardless, it's my belief that you can't appreciate all sides unless you've heard all sides. Knowing why some people conscientiously object to embryo adoption gives me pause and ensures I approach any related conversations with empathy and compassion.
Comments