![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
molly_oDefinitions first: Embryo adoption (EA) (and some folks object to that term, because it makes embryos sound like babies, but I haven't seen anything more apt) involves taking frozen embryos (left over from someone's fertility treatment) and transferring them to someone else's uterus, in the hopes they will successfully implant there and eventually result in a child.
From an infertile couple's POV, there are some good things about EA. It is significantly cheaper than (as in, well under half the price of) either IVF or domestic infant adoption (EA runs about $5,000; IVF and domestic infant adoption are typically $10,000-$15,000 or more). Also, the "adoptive" mother is able to experience pregnancy and breastfeed her baby, which are things some women (e.g., me) might want to do and which aren't possible with traditional adoption.
There are, of course, a couple downsides: It's slightly less successful than IVF (because the embryos are frozen, not fresh), and embryos used in EA are no longer available for research purposes. Still, to me, speaking pragmatically, EA is a no-brainer: There are an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos out there, more than enough for the researchers and the infertile couples to share.
However, the folks actually doing EA -- matching infertile couples together with frozen embyos -- are just about all, as far as I can tell, people who want to criminalize abortion and stem-cell research, and they're advocating EA to "save babies." And that means many science-type people are opposed to EA, because its proponents threaten their research.
And I'm in a quandary, because I think EA could be a perfect option for me and RM. I'm not too thrilled with the folks we'd have to work with to do it, and I don't want to be misconstrued as supporting their agenda, but I'm also kinda pissed with the sciencey-types for forcng it to be an anti-science option. (What I mean is, if the sciencey-types blessed EA, then it would no longer be something done by "save the babies" types, it would just be another fertility option. Like I said, there are plenty of embryos out there.)
From an infertile couple's POV, there are some good things about EA. It is significantly cheaper than (as in, well under half the price of) either IVF or domestic infant adoption (EA runs about $5,000; IVF and domestic infant adoption are typically $10,000-$15,000 or more). Also, the "adoptive" mother is able to experience pregnancy and breastfeed her baby, which are things some women (e.g., me) might want to do and which aren't possible with traditional adoption.
There are, of course, a couple downsides: It's slightly less successful than IVF (because the embryos are frozen, not fresh), and embryos used in EA are no longer available for research purposes. Still, to me, speaking pragmatically, EA is a no-brainer: There are an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos out there, more than enough for the researchers and the infertile couples to share.
However, the folks actually doing EA -- matching infertile couples together with frozen embyos -- are just about all, as far as I can tell, people who want to criminalize abortion and stem-cell research, and they're advocating EA to "save babies." And that means many science-type people are opposed to EA, because its proponents threaten their research.
And I'm in a quandary, because I think EA could be a perfect option for me and RM. I'm not too thrilled with the folks we'd have to work with to do it, and I don't want to be misconstrued as supporting their agenda, but I'm also kinda pissed with the sciencey-types for forcng it to be an anti-science option. (What I mean is, if the sciencey-types blessed EA, then it would no longer be something done by "save the babies" types, it would just be another fertility option. Like I said, there are plenty of embryos out there.)