Education

An analysis of the ethics of embryo adoption – Katie Breckenridge, Author of Silent Sorrows: Let’s talk about abortion, reproductive technologies, and adoption

Embryo adoption is often viewed as a “pro-life” solution regarding how to rescue the “excess” embryos created through In Vitro Fertilization and can be motivated by good intentions and a desire to protect the inherent right to life and dignity of every human person beginning from the moment of fertilization. However, there are several aspects of embryo adoption that must be considered before the Church condones the practice. This paper analyzes the ethics of embryo adoption through examining exactly what occurs in the In Vitro Fertilization process that leads to so many “leftover” embryos, such as the creation of several embryos at once to increase success rates. Next, the laws surrounding the “personhood” of embryos in various states, the transfer of embryos as “property” to adopters, different home study requirements for adopters, the varying motivations of embryo adopters and recent embryo adoption stories are discussed. Further, the downsides of embryo adoption are discussed such as how embryo adoption can contribute to the continuation of the IVF industry, how certain motivations for adopting, such as wanting to treat infertility or become a mother before one’s “biological clock” runs out, can impact the well-being of adoptees. The psychological issues and physical and intellectual disabilities that can ail embryo adoptees are also explored. There is further analysis of how embryo adoption fits into Catholic ethical principles such as the principle of double effect and the permanent principles of the Church’s social doctrine, as well as how embryo adoption distorts the unitive and procreative nature of the conjugal act and the viewing of children as gifts who are “begotten, not made.” The paper concludes with suggestions for morally licit ways to move forward with honoring embryonic life and solving the issue of what to do with “leftover” embryonic human persons.  

Introduction 

There are approximately a million frozen human embryos in the U.S. alone (Bioethics Observatory, 2017) because of the reproductive technology industry continuing to treat human lives as expendable commodities. One possible solution to rescue the overwhelming number of frozen lives is embryo adoption. There have been several public cases of embryo adoption recently, such as that of Timothy and Lydia Ridgeway, who were frozen for 30 years (Zylstra, 2022), and Emma and Molly Gibson (Ertelt, 2020), who were frozen for 24 and 27 years. I will be providing an overview of embryo adoption, motivations for embryo adoption, some downsides to consider with embryo adoption, and then I will examine this issue through the principle of double effect and the four permanent principles stated in the compendium of the social doctrine of the Church. 

Why it is important to address this issue/the bioethical dilemma 

Embryo adoption is the process where couples, or single persons, who have undergone the IVF process donate their “leftover” embryos to another couple or single person with the intention of carrying and raising the child. Embryo adoption is a seemingly “pro-life” solution for couples who want to avoid contributing to the on-going creation of embryos through In Vitro Fertilization. However, even though embryo adoption provides a “solution” for “excess” embryos and has a slightly higher implantation success rates than IVF (56 to 70% per cycle (Global Fertility Network, n.d.) compared to 30 – 50% per cycle (Spaczynski, n.d.)), the treatment of embryonic persons as expendable commodities that still exists within the embryo adoption process calls for further examination into this “pro-life” practice. 

Church teaching on embryo adoption 

The Church does have a definitive teaching on embryo adoption, though it cautions against it given its teachings on the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. As stated in Dignitas Personae, “it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an ‘appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2008). Dr. Joseph Meaney of the National Catholic Bioethics Center states that while Dignitas Personae commends the efforts of pro-life persons who want to save these frozen lives, embryo adoption presents many of the same issues found in the IVF process, and “embryo adoption raises major questions regarding how far one should go in protecting the right to life, the nature of the marital covenant, and sexuality” (Meaney, 2025).  

Unitive and Procreative nature of the conjugal act 

As stated in Donum Vitae, “The Church’s teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the ‘inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987). The very first chapters of the Bible tell us that God created man in His own image, male and female, that “a man leaves his mother and father and cleaves to his wife,” and that they “become one flesh”—two lives becoming one life, sharing a harmony of purpose both human and divine. The male and female complement in marriage reflects, uniquely and mysteriously, the image and likeness of God in Trinity, meaning that marriage shows the inner relationship of love among the persons of the Holy Trinity. Just as all three members of the Trinity work together in harmony, marriage reflects, through its equal but distinct members (husband and wife) abiding together in mutual communion, the communion and equality of the distinct persons present within the Trinity. The IVF process, and embryo adoption, violates this “one flesh” union by separating husband and wife, the two members who exist in mutual communion, and distorting the process by which they give the reciprocal gift of themselves to the other.  

The IVF process 

Embryo adoption comes out of In Vitro Fertilization, a procedure that does not value the worth and dignity of every human being from the moment of fertilization. IVF is the process whereby eggs and sperm are retrieved and then allowed to fertilize “naturally” in a petri dish, or sperm are directly injected, through Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or ICSI, individually into each egg.  

Even the “best prognosis” patients, those under 35 years of age, have an average of two egg retrieval cycles, and those over 40 can undergo up to nine (Stuckey, 2024). Having about ten to 12 mature eggs after egg retrieval is recommended for successfully having one child, and, on average, depending on the woman’s age, about 80 percent of eggs will fertilize (Franasiak, 2022). Even just two retrieval cycles create 16 people who won’t all survive. These innocent embryonic human persons are certainly not having their right to life from conception until death honored.  

Embryos are also often tested for “viability” to determine which are worth transferring to the woman’s uterus (or for sex selection purposes) (CNY Fertility, 2021). As endocrinologist Dr. Lauren Rubal states, if an IVF cycle yields 12 embryos, about half of the embryos will continue to mature, and about half will be considered “chromosomally normal,” after they undergo preimplantation genetic testing, leaving the other three to be outright discarded. Dr. Rubal stated that it’s possible to biopsy the wrong area of chromosomes in an embryo and be incorrect about a diagnosis (Stuckey, 2024). However, even diagnoses that are indeed not “incompatible with life,” such as those with down syndrome, trisomy 18, or Turner’s syndrome, are automatically deemed “non-transferrable.” And if these embryonic persons are fortunate enough to be deemed “transferrable,” then they run the risk of being “selectively reduced” if further imperfections are found, or if “too many” children implanted (Beriwal, Impey, & Ioannou, 2020). The “extra” embryonic human persons who are not transferred are either placed into frozen limbo, where they may or may not be granted the privilege of eventually being transferred and surviving, or they’re destroyed by outright disposal or by being donated to scientific research (Rossant, 2024).  

Embryo adoption laws 

Embryo donation and adoption laws vary by state. Kansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Georgia, and Iowa recognize the personhood of embryos, while Hawaii, Delaware, Maine, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Oklahoma have no laws pertaining to embryonic personhood, nor do they have laws regarding embryo donation and adoption. Every other state has laws that do not confer personhood on embryos (American Surrogacy, n.d.). The handful of states that have laws regarding embryo adoption are as follows: 

California 

In California, those who donate gametes or embryos are not considered the legal parents of the resulting child. In the states’ “AB-2495,” passed in 2022, it is explained that the bill would  

“…establish that a provider of an embryo for use in assisted reproduction to an intended parent who is not the provider’s spouse or nonmarital partner is treated in law as if the provider is not the natural parent of a child thereby conceived unless the court finds satisfactory evidence that the provider and the intended parent intended for the provider to be a parent. If the provider of ova, semen, or embryos is not the original source of the ova or sperm, the bill would require each original provider’s written consent to the donation unless the person has executed a writing to consent, waive, or relinquish their right to the genetic material, or as otherwise ordered by a court of law” (Legiscan, 2021).  

Further, there are no laws requiring any type of adoption procedure, and embryo adoption can be done solely through a contract (Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers, n.d.). 

Georgia 

Under Georgia’s “Option of Adoption Act,” embryo adopters must file a petition for adoption or parentage and present it to a court to terminate the parental rights of the embryo donors and grant parental rights to the intended recipients (Justia Law, 2024). However, if an expedited order of parentage is needed, a written contract between the donors and the recipients in the presence of a notary public and witness (Justia Law, 2022) will suffice as a surrender of rights (Justia Law, 2024). Contrary to California’s law, “If the embryo was created using donor gametes, the sperm or oocyte donors who irrevocably relinquished their rights in connection with in vitro fertilization shall not be entitled to any notice of the embryo relinquishment, nor shall their consent to the embryo relinquishment be required” (Justia Law, 2022). 

Louisiana 

Since embryos are considered persons in Louisiana, they “cannot be owned by the in vitro fertilization patients who owe it a high duty of care and prudent administration.” Couples must renounce, by notarial act, that they are giving up their parental rights to another couple, who must then undergo a notarial act of adoption. Louisiana is noteworthy in its embryo adoption laws, as it only allows embryos to be adopted by married couples instead of opening it up to single parents (Justia Law, 2022). 

Mississippi 

Mississippi House Bill 1318 requires donors and adopters to relinquish and obtain rights of the embryonic person prior to implantation. This bill states that the relinquishment must be made by the genetic parents of the embryo, since a “petition for the transfer of a human embryo must be accompanied by a sworn statement from the genetic mother and father, unless the embryo was derived from donor gametes, in which all rights to the embryo are surrendered.  The written surrender of rights to the embryo shall cancel any prior written agreement governing the future disposition of the embryo” (Mississippi Legislature, 2012).  

Embryo adoption contracts 

In states where embryonic personhood is not recognized, embryo adoption is not considered a regular adoption, but a transfer of “property,” which is completed through property transfer contracts. These contracts can be purchased for $400 through the “National Registry for Adoption” (National Registry for Adoption, n.d.), or completed through an embryo adoption agency, both under the guidance of an attorney (National Registry for Adoption, n.d.). The contract covers the transfer of ownership of the embryos as well as the transfer of parental rights to any children born from the embryos, the medium and frequency for communication between the donors and adopters, the status of children born from embryo adoption such as the children having no inheritance rights from the donors and the adoptive parents names being listed on the birth certificate. It also states the plan for any remaining embryos that the adoptive parents choose not to transfer (Zapf, 2023).  

Home studies 

Couples who pursue adoption through embryo adoption agencies are often required to undergo background checks, home screenings, and psychological evaluations by a social worker or other licensed professional prior to being matched with embryo donors (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, 2020). These home studies are meant to make sure adopters are following “best adoption practices,” since these children have no biological relation to the homes to which they are going. Home studies evaluate adopters for financial, marital, and emotional stability, and provide them with educational tools to navigate the challenges that come with embryo adoption such as parenting obstacles and communication with the genetic family (Zapf, 2024). Home studies also provide the embryo donors with peace of mind, knowing that the family raising their genetic children are properly vetted, prepared, and dedicated to raising the children (Schaedel, 2022). Couples may choose to undergo a traditional adoption home study, or one designed specifically for embryo adoption if they do not wish to do traditional adoption in the future (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, 2020).  

However, since home studies are not required by the FDA or any state laws for embryo adoption, not every embryo adoption requires a background check, home study or psychological evaluation (American Surrogacy, n.d.). This is especially the case when embryo adoptions are done independently through two matched parties that do not work with an agency (Zapf, 2022), or certain agencies simply don’t require them because they are trying to make the process “easier” (Stomp, 2024). Since embryos are often treated as “property,” they are regulated under the requirements for handling human tissues and cells, and the gamete donors of the donated embryos are required to be screened for communicable diseases unless they have already been frozen for use by a couple or individual (American Surrogacy, n.d.). 

The lose-lose of embryo classification 

The variation in state laws over classifying embryos as persons or property shows an unfortunate reality of creating human beings in laboratories. When children are created in laboratories and not viewed as persons, there is no clear-cut way to define them unlike in traditional adoption where there is an “obvious” transfer of a child. Yet, most states require relinquishment of parental rights before transfer even if the official adoption is completed post-birth. However, legal adoption is not always required post-birth since the woman who gives birth is automatically legally considered the child’s mother (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, 2014).  

As Piedmont Reproductive Endocrinology Group stated, “the term “embryo adoption” is often used, but should be discouraged as this does not represent an adoptive process” (Piedmont Reproductive Endocrinology Group, n.d.). It is worth considering how there can be any transfer of parental rights, and subsequent adoption of what was once considered “property.” When embryos are only considered “potential children,” then the In Vitro Fertilization industry can better get away with treating these embryonic persons as expendable.  

Regarding the “potential children” classification, in a letter written to the FDA, shared with me by the executive director of the second-oldest embryo adoption agency in the world, “Embryos Alive,” she shared her concerns over Trump’s recent Executive Order that seeks to make access to IVF easier. Her first concern was that lower-cost IVF will increase the demand for IVF and result in an increase in leftover embryos, which will raise “both logistical and ethical challenges regarding their indefinite preservation” (Bernard, 2025). Contrarily, she makes the point that five-day-old embryos should not be classified as persons, because this classification “creates serious legal and operational challenges, and while she “deeply respect[s] embryos as potential life, equating them to a fetus, baby, or child imposes undue burdens on clinics. If a clinic experiences a power outage, flooding, or another unforeseen event that leads to embryo loss, they could be held liable for the destruction of ‘life.’ This could have far-reaching consequences, potentially discouraging clinics from offering IVF and embryo-related services altogether” (Bernard, 2025). If embryos are simply “potential life,” then what is the problem with low-cost IVF producing more embryos? When embryos can be classified based on the whims of individual states, then the undignified freezing, being passed to other couples as property, and the use of embryos in scientific research will continue.  

Motivations for embryo adoption 

Many couples will choose to donate to research or discard their embryos over donating for adoption because, as stated by those who were placed in this position, they are not comfortable with other people raising their children, don’t trust anyone else to treat their children well, and don’t want the “complicated mixed family dynamics” that come with embryo adoption (Reddit, 2022). It speaks volumes about the conflicting nature of the IVF industry when women would rather let their children die than allow them to be raised by others.  

Those who decide to donate their embryos often do so because they want to give the gift of parenthood to other people, they want to allow other women to experience pregnancy, and/or they want to give their embryos a chance at life (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, 2019). However, there are questions to consider in addition to the aforementioned issue of whether couples would want another family raising their children. Some of these questions include whether it’s fair to the children knowing they have full genetic siblings in another family, whether these children would feel “leftover” and like science-fiction projects, whether the parents would disagree with the adoptive parents’ style of parenting, and what future relationship with the child will look like in general (Glazer, 2021).  

Those who choose to adopt embryos often do so because both partners suffer from issues with their eggs and sperm, they are women with fertility issues who want to pursue being single mothers by choice, they may transmit genetic diseases to their children (Shauli, 2024), they have had numerous IVF failures or miscarriages with their own gametes, they do not have fertility issues, but feel compassion towards embryos and want to “rescue” these embryonic persons from the freezer (Rodrigo, 2025), and because it’s a quicker way to adopt an infant than traditional adoption (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, 2019). Embryo adoption is also cheaper than IVF and traditional adoption since embryo adoption costs $7,500-$19,500 (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, n.d.) as opposed to $15,000-$30,000 per IVF cycle (Watson, 2024) and $20,000-$60,000 for traditional adoption (Snider, 2019). 

Embryo adoption stories 

In the following stories of embryo adoption, a wide-range of motivations for adopting embryos are illustrated – from wanting to honor the life and dignity of pre-born human persons, to simply desiring children and wanting to treat infertility.  

Timothy and Lydia Ridgeway adopted embryos who had been frozen for 30 years because they felt burdened by the huge number of children abandoned in freezers. They specifically sought out the children who had been waiting the longest—the ones who were most likely to be forsaken and had no chance of being reunited to and raised by their biological parents. The Ridgeways insisted on implanting all three viable embryos despite their physician’s concerns, which resulted in two of the children surviving. As Rachel shared with me,  

“My husband and I had four children of our own prior to proceeding with embryo adoption. We began the process of adoption when we had three children and then the Lord blessed us with a fourth, causing us to put our adoption plans on hold until after her birth. We chose embryo adoption because of our faith…the Bible says that God adopts sinners to be His children…It wasn’t a plan B. He wanted to show His amazing love by creating adoption…Since He chose my husband and me, before the foundation of the world, how can we not show that same love by adopting children? Especially those who are stuck in a freezer, oftentimes, not even viewed as children. Our embryo adoption story isn’t our story really. It’s God’s story. He simply chose us to be the characters in it. He could have used anyone.” 

She further explained about their motivation to choose children who had been waiting the longest:  

“When the Lord allowed us to continue with our adoption plans, I was doing research on the NEDC’s website and found information on a category called ‘Special Considerations.’ Profiles are placed in this category if the biological parents of the embryos have anything in the medical portion of their profile that the clinic needs to inform adoptive parents of. Examples include history of testing positive for an STD, history of genetic disorder, etc. My husband and I talked about it and we thought that these might be profiles that we would want to focus on in our adoption process…We found the embryos that had waited the longest and picked that profile as our primary donor.” 

Another recent embryo adoption story is that of Emma and Molly Gibson. The couple, Tina and Ben Gibson, decided to adopt embryos due to Ben’s struggles with cystic fibrosis impeding his ability to conceive children naturally. The couple adopted five embryos and transferred three embryos during their first round of IVF, which resulted in Emma. In the second round, they transferred the remaining two embryos, which resulted in Molly (Flanders, 2022).  

Another couple, Tracy and Barton Jeffs, decided to pursue embryo adoption after years of struggling with infertility and a “failed” traditional adoption. The reasons they provided for choosing embryo adoption included that there is little to no wait time, it’s less expensive than traditional adoption, they have access to the donors’ medical information, they were allowed to choose a closed adoption, and they were able to pick donors who matched their physical traits such as eye and hair color, and height and weight. Embryo adoption also allowed them to both be involved in the birthing process that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred through traditional adoption (Emett, 2016). As Jennifer Lahl stated, once sperm and egg are taken out of the body, children become like a project (Stuckey, 2022). Children become “made to order” through genetic testing, gender testing, the choosing of certain physical characteristics, etc. 

Lastly, a “single mother by choice” vowed to herself that if she were still unmarried by age 35, she would artificially inseminate herself. After her inseminations failed, she discovered embryo adoption and was given nine embryos from a couple. She had a “ritual” with her pastor and a friend to help her let go of her dream of having a biological child, where she wrote a letter to the “child of her dreams” and released nine balloons for the nine times she had tried to conceive. Four of the nine embryos she adopted survived the thawing process, and one, a daughter, ultimately made it to birth. She stated that there’s an uncanny resemblance between the child and her mother, and she just knows that this child was “the child who was waiting for her all along” (Single Mothers by Choice, 2022).  

The downsides of embryo adoption 

Furthering the IVF industry 

When I asked Rachel Ridgeway if she thought that embryo adoption continued the IVF industry, she replied,  

“Embryo adoption does not encourage the continuation of the IVF industry. This industry will continue with or without embryo adoption. What embryo adoption does is help frozen children continue with their lives…One of the reasons we chose NEDC [National Embryo Donation Center] is because of their biblical view of embryos and the sanctity of human life. They see each embryo as a child and treat them as such. NEDC works with Southeastern Fertility Center, which is a non-discord facility. They don’t throw away any embryos…They encourage Embryo Adoption for couples who are truly infertile. Because of this partnership, the conflict of interest between embryo adoption and a fertility clinic is eliminated.” 

While Southeastern Fertility Center is to be commended for refusing to create embryos in their facility using donor gametes, offer genetic testing, facilitate surrogacy, or freeze or discard any embryos, creating children in laboratories should be discouraged even if no children are thrown away, as manufacturing children in laboratories is an affront to human dignity. Even if fertility centers don’t freeze embryos and require their couples to either transfer them or donate them, they are still complicit in the commodification of embryonic human beings that comes with the inherent trial-and-error of the transfer process.  

Contrary to Rachel’s remarks, by participating in embryo adoption, couples are showing the IVF industry that there is a market for “excess” embryos. Through the embryo adoption process, society is continuing a culture that doesn’t respect human life, human dignity, the totality of human persons, or the sanctity of the marital act. As Catholic author and adoptive mother Emily Stimpson Chapman states of embryo adoption,  

“The more we researched the process…the more uncomfortable we became with it. This was primarily because it would require us working with doctors and clinics who are part of the IVF Industry. At one point, I was researching how the process worked and started looking over information on the website of the local hospital that provides that service. There, I noticed that on the same page where the clinic talked about embryo adoption, they also were offering to buy the eggs of healthy young women. To give those people money and credibility seemed like material cooperation in the evil they were committing. We also didn’t want to encourage the continuation of their industry by creating a market for unwanted embryos” (Chapman, 2023).  

As Father Tad Pacholczyk stated,  

“If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos; IVF clinic operators would be able to placate themselves by saying, ‘We really don’t need to worry about producing extra embryos, because there will always be somebody willing to adopt any that are left over.’ It could offer the clinics an excuse to continue and even expand their current immoral practices” (Pacholczyk, 2009).  

Narcissism and the savior complex 

Rachel Ridgeway also shared that she wanted her adopted children to “grow up always knowing about their adoption and how God used it to bring glory to Himself. They are to always know that they are loved, chosen, and that God protected them and gave them to us to raise…We couldn’t be more humbled and amazed that in 30 years, God waited for Philip and I to be their parents.” While not necessarily the case with the Ridgeways, this type of “God chose us” thinking exists in narcissistic and savior complex tendencies that can often motivate adults to adopt. For example, the desire for validation may cause people to adopt because they want to be perceived as saviors who are rescuing children from unfortunate circumstances, and their self-worth is tied into the approval and admiration of others. They may seek control over the lives of others, a desire to reinforce their own self-perceptions as being generous and selfless (Karanova, 2014), and a desire to manipulate and elicit empathy from others by presenting themselves as virtuous people who are focused only on the well-being of their adopted child. Since adoptees grow up without genetic mirroring, they are susceptible to the manipulation of narcissist tactics, and they may struggle with feeling obligated to fulfill the expectations of these adoptive parents (Bouel, 2023). Regarding a “savior complex” that may leave adopters feeling like heroes that have done their adopted children a favor by adopting them, and who they are and what they have is solely because of the adopters, the adopters must always remember that adoption is about the child, not them, and adoptees should not be made to believe that their worth is tied to being “saved” by their adopters and whether they show appreciation for being adopted (Payne, 2022). 

The seven core issues in adoption 

When adoption, whether it be traditional or embryo adoption, is treated as a means of healing infertility, healing “singleness,” or comes about as a result of narcissism or a savior complex as opposed to being motivated by healing the trauma that comes from children losing their biological families, children miss out on the support necessary to be treated for and heal from what adoption expert and therapist Sharon Kaplan Roszia states as the “seven core issues in adoption” (Roszia, 2020). These core issues include loss, rejection, shame and guilt, grief, identity, intimacy, and mastery and control.  

“Loss” is the beginning of every adoptee’s story upon losing their first families and genetic connections. This loss can manifest as feelings of sadness or a sense that something is missing in their lives that they can’t explain. Feelings of loss can also manifest as a fear of abandonment, since they were “abandoned” by their first families. Next, “rejection” stems from the reality that they were placed for adoption, even if they are incredibly loved and wanted by their adoptive parents. Feelings of rejection can manifest as believing it was their fault they were placed for adoption, feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, sensitivity to criticism, struggling in friendships for fear of being “left out,” and sensitivity to any further rejection. Adoptees often become “people-pleasers” to lessen chances of rejection from their adoptive families (Melina, 2009).  

The next issue, “shame and guilt,” stems from not only feeling “at fault” for having been given up for adoption, but guilt from having questions or curiosity about their genetic families, as well as shame from feeling different from their adoptive families. Shame and guilt can manifest by not feeling worthy of love or feeling like they’re “not good enough” by proclaiming that “everything is their fault” or they “can’t do anything right” (Bauer, 2024). “Grief” comes about through the experience of loss and can manifest as irritability or anger due lingering sadness for connections with genetic family of which they are deprived.  

Next, struggles with identity can arise from being adopted, and can be a life-long journey of piecing together one’s sense of self and who they really are in the context of their adoptive families. The search for identity formation can manifest through frequent shifts in how they act towards people, changes in likes and dislikes, questioning where they belong and who they really are, desires to know more about their genetic families, cultural heritage, and desires to connect with their birth parents and other adoptees (A Family Tree, 2024). The emotional well-being and self-esteem of adoptees can be impacted when they struggle with understanding themselves and feel conflicting loyalties between both sets of parents and cultural identities.  

The struggle with “intimacy” stems from issues of loss and rejection, and impedes adoptees’ abilities to form close, trusting relationships through issues with attachment, vulnerability, and fear of abandonment. Adoptees experiencing intimacy issues may keep others at arm’s lengths, be hesitant to share feelings with others, or long for closeness but keep their distance for fear of getting hurt. Intimacy issues might also manifest as a “push-pull” dynamic in relationships—they want closeness but fear getting hurt, so they keep a little distance, resulting in a “push-pull” relationship dynamic.  

The final core issue is a loss of “mastery and control,” as adoptees can feel powerless in their lives since they had no control over the decisions that led to their separation from their genetic families. The struggle for mastery and control manifests in having difficulty with rules or transitions, feeling as if their autonomy is threatened, and trying to control their environment and routines to maintain a sense of stability (Bauer, 2024).  

Adoptive parents can help their children heal from these core issues by following Nancy Verrier’s “Five Cardinal Rules.” The first cardinal rule is to never threaten adoptees with abandonment even if the adoptee pushes for it, because this is what adoptees expect, but not what they want. The second rule is to acknowledge the feelings of adoptees and never say to the child that they shouldn’t feel a certain way. Third is to allow adoptees to be themselves without holding expectations that don’t fit their personalities, proclivities, and talents. Fourth, adoptive mothers must not try to take the place of the birth mother, and acknowledge that both mothers, biological and adoptive, are the “real mother” of their children. Lastly, adoptive parents must know that they can’t take away all their children’s pain, but they must acknowledge their children’s feelings and provide the means to allow them to work through their pain (Verrier, 1993). 

Psychological impacts 

Children adopted through embryo adoption are subject to the same psychological impacts such as struggling with a vague or nonexistent genetic identity (Rose, n.d.) and a variety of externalizing disorders (Keyes, et.al, 2008) that donor conceived and traditionally adopted children face. Children conceived through gamete donation and traditional adoption and those conceived through embryo adoption must deal with the psychological issues that come from being “unwanted” by their genetic parents, and embryo-adopted children have the extra issue of knowing they were “extra” embryos their parents didn’t want to implant. These issues can be intensified through the fact that not every embryo adoption is an open adoption (Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, 2018). 

Over 80% of donor-conceived children desire to know the identity of their biological fathers and/or mothers (Mahlstedt, LaBounty, & Kennedy, 2010) donor children disproportionately struggle with questions about their identity, depression, delinquency, and substance abuse, 64% of donor-conceived adults agree “My donor is half of who I am,” 78% agreed being donor-conceived was a significant part of their identity, and 81% often wondered what personality traits, skills, and/or physical similarities they shared with their donor (Institute for American Values, 2010). Embryo adoption opens the door for children to experience genealogical bewilderment and feelings of rejection, as well as physical separation from biological siblings. These children are not brought into the world by an act of love between their parents, but were picked out of a freezer and know that they are the “excess” children that their biological parents did not want to transfer. Even with the best of intentions from the adoptive parents, what does being conceived in this manner do to one’s dignity? To one’s sense of identity?  

Intellectual and physical disabilities 

The long-term health impacts on children who are frozen for extended periods of time are still unknown, as humans are not made to be frozen, which is evidenced by not every embryo surviving the freezing and thawing process (Pavone, et.al, 2011). However, studies do show that children conceived through IVF are at greater risk of developing physical and intellectual disabilities. As stated by the Perth Hospital’s Telethon Kids Institute: “…children conceived through ART were in fact a touch more likely to develop a mild to severe cognitive impairment…Children conceived using ICSI [Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection] had the greatest chance of impairment, for example, with 1 in 32 children diagnosed with some level of intellectual disability compared with 1 in 59 children conceived without any help from fertility treatments” (McRae, 2018).  

A study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that “children born through ART had higher blood pressure overall and eight of the children in this group were above thresholds for clinical hypertension, compared to one of the 43 control participants” (Meister, et.al, 2018). This may be due to embryonic human persons being subjected to unnatural conditions in the very beginnings of their lives, which can impact the development of their major organs (Matthews-King, 2018). Similarly, a study published in the European Heart Journal found that “children born via assisted reproductive technology were 36% more likely to develop heart defects” (Gerlach, 2024). Further, researchers at Cambridge University reported that: “The prevalence of major birth defects such as chromosomal and musculoskeletal defects diagnosed by 1 year of age is two-fold higher in infants conceived by IVF or ICSI than in naturally conceived infants born between 1993 and 1997 in Western Australia” (Chen & Heilbronn, 2017).  

Analysis of the bioethical issue using Catholic moral teaching 

Principle of Double Effect 

The concept of embryo adoption can be justified through specific ERDs, such as defending the right to life and human dignity by allowing these children to be born, as well as the goal of healing, as embryo adoption saves these children from death (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018). When analyzing embryo adoption through the Principle of Double Effect, the process seemingly fits every condition for the principle. First, embryo adoption saves embryonic human lives, so it is an act which is morally good, or morally neutral. The subsequent conditions are that “the ‘evil effects’ of an artificially induced pregnancy can be ‘tolerated’ because saving life takes absolute priority: The good effect of saving a life is caused ‘as directly as the bad’ and the good effect of saving a life is ‘proportionate to compensate’ for the bad” (Hay, 2020). 

It is important to thoroughly examine embryo adoption because, on the surface, it seems like a wonderful opportunity to respect life that was created through a morally illicit practice. However, upon further examination, the aforementioned justification of embryo adoption according to the Principle of Double Effect fails to take many aspects of the process into consideration. Upon further examination of the Principle of Double Effect, the act of continuing the lives of those embryonic persons abandoned to the freezer is indeed a good, or at least morally neutral act. In this scenario, persons pursuing embryo adoption would be keeping in line with the ERD “…to respect the sacredness of every human life from the moment of conception until death” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018). However, this act may not be good or morally neutral if a woman is simply pursuing embryo adoption because she wants the chance to carry a child herself as a last resort option to treat infertility, as the motivation is not on giving the child life, but rather, the desire to experience pregnancy. Secondly, according to Austriaco: “…the intention of the agent must be directed toward realizing the beneficial effect and avoiding the foreseen harmful effect of his actions.” The intention of the agent is most often towards giving these children life and avoiding any negative consequences of the act, though the harmful effects of these actions are still vast. The final conditions of the Principle of Double Effect, that “…the beneficial effect must not come about as a result of the harmful effect,” and that “…the beneficial effect must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects” (Austriaco, 2012), are where the moral concerns with embryo adoption truly lie.   

The beneficial effect of giving children life can indeed come about as the result of a harmful effect if couples who undergo IVF know that embryo adoption is an option and they haphazardly create an excess of embryos in the process upon learning that there is a “pro-life” solution for what to do with their excess children. This mindset is harmful because it is one of many acts which continues to feed an industry that, unfortunately, promotes the reality that the beneficial effects of embryo adoption are not equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects.  

Further, women receiving embryos must undergo the processes with medications required for preparing the uterus for transfer, which risk unnecessary side effects in them when they literally do not need the medication for their overall well-being (American Surrogacy, 2025). The risk of side effects with unneeded medications does nothing to improve health or prevent illness, even though the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence require that the physician only take actions that benefit the patient and do not cause harm (Quill & Cassel, 1995). 

The ERDs state that, “since a Catholic health care institution is a community of healing and compassion, the care offered is not limited to the treatment of a disease or bodily ailment but embraces the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of the human person…Catholic health care extends to the spiritual nature of the person” ‌(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018). At the start of the embryo transfer process for the transfer of adopted embryos, women are instructed to use birth control pills to suppress ovulation, as well as use estrogen and progesterone to prepare the uterine lining and increase the chances of successful implantation (Shady Grove Fertility, n.d.). However, birth control pills as well as synthetic hormones in general increase the risk of cardiovascular issues such as heart attack, stroke, and blood clots (Saji, 2024). The providing of medications that are accompanied with potentially fatal risks in order to treat a bodily ailment in a manner that is not necessary is not keeping with the directive to care for the totality of the person and promote health and relieve human suffering. Women who use fertility drugs to undergo IVF are also at an increased risk of ovarian cancer (Tomao, et. al, 2014). Further, studies show that women pregnant with donor eggs, which is the case in embryo adoption, had a more than three-fold higher risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension than the routine IVF patients…and an even higher risk of pre-eclampsia” (European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, 2014).  

Embryo adoption also enforces the idea in society that it is morally licit to separate the marital act from procreation. In embryo adoption, the woman is literally carrying the one flesh of another marital union and raising that flesh as an extension of her own marital union, while at the same time, the child is primarily, in fact, not of her flesh at all. Further, embryo adoption creates a distorted view, and a scandal, of the marital act to the children conceived in this manner who may come to view the separation of the marital act from procreation as morally licit. 

In upholding the Principle of Double Effect’s conditions: “…the beneficial effect must not come about as a result of the harmful effect,” and “the beneficial effect must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects” (Austriaco, 2012), and upholding the sanctity of human life, human dignity, the totality of human persons, and the sanctity of the marital act (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018), we should be striving towards the ideal, not going out of our way to create more non-ideal situations. 

Permanent Principles of the Church’s social doctrine 

The dignity of the human person      

The first principle is “the dignity of the human person” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). This recognition of the dignity of the human person is where human rights come into play, but this becomes distorted in government and society, as it is not about the right to personal empowerment that comes through the use of one’s autonomy. Rather, this focus is on rights that flow from one’s dignity and their eternal destiny. With these rights comes the responsibility to live out one’s dignity publicly and also to honor the dignity of others. There is a lack of the recognition of the dignity of the human person in certain aspects of embryo adoption. As stated in “Caritas in veritate, “a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized” (Pope Benedict XVI, 2009).  

While there exist life-honoring motivations for adopting embryos such as the aforementioned act of taking compassion on embryos who are “looked over” and wanting to give every adopted embryo a chance at life, embryo adoption still devalues and violates human life where it is weak and marginalized. Not only are these embryos denied the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, and raised by their parents, but many states still refuse to give embryos “personhood” and embryo adoption still treats embryos as potentially disposable through the trial-and-error transfer process that transfers multiple embryos in the hopes that one child will survive the entire process, such as the couple who initially transferred three embryos and ended up with one child. Another self-proclaimed “life-honoring” couple had embryos shipped to them via FedEx before they were transferred to the wife four years later – a process that treats embryonic human beings as merchandise to be shipped (Wilson, 2018), and occurs often in the embryo adoption process as embryos often need to be shipped from clinics to agencies (Embryo Solution, n.d.). Further, these children are often treated as commodities by women who desperately want to be mothers, such as “single mothers by choice” (Thomas, n,d.) such as the aforementioned woman who only had four out of nine embryos survive and then only one living child. These women are often focused on their own desires to “have a child at all costs before their time runs out” instead of providing the child with the benefits of having both a mother and father. Those who pursue embryo adoption because they want an infant and it’s a quicker, cheaper way to obtain one are also treating children as products and not honoring their dignity. One embryo adopted woman stated, “Sadly, this is the reality of embryo adoptees. Treated like consumer products for the benefit of other family making desires and a lucrative industry” (Instagram, 2020). 

Further, all embryo adoption denies children of, as stated in Donum Vitae, the right to be “conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage, [because] it is through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development,” as IVF distorts the parents’ ability to “…find in their child a confirmation and completion of their reciprocal self-giving: the child is the living image of their love, the permanent sign of their conjugal union, the living and indissoluble concrete expression of their paternity and maternity” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987). 

The common good 

The second principle is the “common good,” which promotes social conditions which are owed to the common dignity of the human person that allow for not just material, but spiritual fulfillment. Those who pursue embryo adoption often believe they are contributing to the common good by allowing lives to flourish who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten to continue living. There are also embryo adoption agencies who promote the fact that life begins at conception, and they strive to uphold the dignity of every embryonic person (Nightlight Christian Adoptions, n.d.). As Pope Francis stated, “When the dignity of the human person is respected, and his or her rights recognized and guaranteed, creativity and interdependence thrive, and the creativity of the human personality is released through actions that further the common good” (Pope Francis, 2020). 

The ERDs also state that “…Catholic health care services are called to respect the inherent dignity of every human being and to contribute to the common good” ‌(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018). We are not contributing to the common good nor respecting human dignity while we are continually fueling an industry that risks unnecessary harms in women through unnecessary medications and commodifies embryonic human beings.  

Subsidiarity 

The third principle, subsidiarity, states that the higher power should always empower the lower, and that those with more ought to be helping those with less, particularly in government. Every person has the right to participate both politically and economically in society, and if anyone is not included in upper structures, then it is an offense to their human dignity (Pope Benedict XVI, 2009). Subsidiarity is concerned with giving the powerless as much personal agency as possible, of which frozen embryos have absolutely none and are entirely in the hands of whomever, and for whatever reasons are important to the adopters.  

Solidarity  

The fourth principle, solidarity, is “…a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State” (Pope Benedict XVI, 2009). We all share in the same human dignity and human nature, and are all responsible for each other. Every human being is given the gift of dignity, and it is up to us to act in accord with that dignity by making choices that do not cause scandal and lead others astray (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2284-2286). IVF reinforces the idea in society that it is morally licit to separate the marital act from procreation and paints an image to the children conceived in this manner that the separation of the marital act from procreation is morally acceptable. We must give the gift of dignity back by manifesting the dignity of God in our actions, and treating children as commodifiable, manufactured objects always stands opposed to that holy dignity. 

Summary 

In summation, while it is indeed a noble thing to give those stuck in frozen limbo a chance at life, that impulse to good needs to be understood in the light that embryo freezing, regardless of what happens with the embryos later, often promotes the creation of more embryos and the continued treatment of embryonic children as commodities that are expendable. This concern is unrelated to any altruistic motives that embryo adopters may have while trying to do the best they can to respect human life and remedy an unethical situation.  

Conclusion 

Regarding a path forward, there needs to be a continued push for restorative reproductive medicine practices (International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, 2018) for fertility issues and more restrictions and regulations for the IVF industry, starting with laws such as Germany’s that condemn egg donation, the freezing of “excess” embryos, and experimentation (Kinderwunsch Zentrum Dresden, 2022).  

For embryos that are currently left in frozen limbo, as Fr Pacholczyk states, “there is very little we can do with the frozen embryos except to keep them frozen for the foreseeable future…perhaps after a few hundred years, all the stored embryos would have died on their own, and they could finally be thawed and given a decent burial (Pacholczyk, 2009).” There is the possibility of limiting embryo adoption for those embryos that are truly abandoned, such as when the genetic mother has passed away, but even then, people may still be contributing to the intrinsic evils of the IVF industry, as Catholics should not try to remedy an intrinsically evil act with another intrinsically evil act. Although some generous people are willing to sacrificially adopt frozen embryos, our society should not continue to meddle with and bypass natural procreation by creating parentless embryos in the first place. Embryo adoption is a generous intention responding to a broken process, but ultimately that broken process needs to end. 

References 

Academy of California Adoption-ART Lawyers. (n.d.). FAQ Regarding Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART). https://www.acal.org/assisted-reproduction/#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20embryos%2C%20although%20a%20form%20of,embryo%20donation%20may%20be%20done%20by%20contract%20only 

A Family Tree. (2024, February 21). Understanding the Seven Core Issues in Adoption: Identity. https://www.afamilytree.org/post/understanding-the-seven-core-issues-in-adoption-identity 

‌Austriaco, N. P. G. (2012). Biomedicine and beatitude : an introduction to Catholic bioethics. Catholic U. Of America Press. 

American Surrogacy. (2025). A Comprehensive List of Surrogacy Medications for Surrogates – American Surrogacy. Americansurrogacy.com. https://www.americansurrogacy.com/surrogate/surrogacy-medications 

American Surrogacy. (n.d.). Adopting Embryo Laws. https://www.americansurrogacy.com/parents/Adopting-embryos-laws 

American Surrogacy. (n.d.). Embryo Laws By State. https://www.americansurrogacy.com/parents/Embryo-laws-by-state 

Bauer, H. (2024, November 18). Understanding the 7 Core Issues of Adoption and How They Might Show Up in Your Child’s Life. https://www.hadassahbauer.com/blog/7core-issue-adoption. 

Beriwal, S., Impey, L., & Ioannou, C. (2020). Multifetal pregnancy reduction and selective termination. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, 22(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12690 

Bernard, B. J. (2025, February 20). Input on IVF and Related Services. 

Bioethics Observatory. (2017, November 25). Increases the number of cryopreserved embryos in the United States. Institute of Life Sciences – UCV. https://bioethicsobservatory.org/2017/11/cryopreservated-embryos-is-continuously-increasing/1588/ 

Bouel, S. (2023, September 16). The Explicit Dominant Objectification of Adoption via Narcissism. Medium; Thoughtless Delineation. https://medium.com/thoughtless-delineation/the-explicit-dominant-objectification-of-adoption-via-narcissism-9c8d8f340fe7 

‌Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Sections 2284-2286. Liguori Publications.  

‌Chapman, E. S. (2023, March 30). Becoming Doers of the Word, Embryo Adoption, Infertility, Parenting Styles, and More. https://emilystimpsonchapman.substack.com/p/becoming-doers-of-the-word-embryo?utm_source=publication-search 

Chen, M., & Heilbronn, L. K. (2017). The health outcomes of human offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Journal of developmental origins of health and disease, 8(4), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174417000228 

CNY Fertility. (2021, December 28). Gender Selection with IVF: Treatment Details & Cost. https://www.cnyfertility.com/gender-selection/ 

‌Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2008, September 8). Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions. www.vatican.va. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html 

‌Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1987, February 22). Instruction on Respect for Human Life. www.vatican.va. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html 

Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. (2019, September 3). 15 Reasons to Choose an Embryo Adoption Agency. https://embryoadoption.org/2019/09/15-reasons/ 

Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. (n.d.). Cost of Embryo Adoption. https://embryoadoption.org/embryo-adoption/cost-of-embryo-adoption/ 

Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. (2018, September 18). Open Adoption, Closed, or Anonymous? https://embryoadoption.org/2018/09/open-closed-anonymous/ 

Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. (2020, July 6). The Embryo Adoption Home Study: What Are Your Options? https://embryoadoption.org/2020/07/embryo-adoption-home-study-3/ 

Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. (2014, March 21). The Legal Side of Embryo Adoption. https://embryoadoption.org/2014/03/the-legal-side-of-embryo-adoption/ 

Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. (2019, June 18). Why Should I Donate My Embryos? https://embryoadoption.org/2019/06/donate-my-embryos/ 

Embryo Solution. (n.d.) About Embryo Adoption. https://www.embryosolution.com/embryo-reception 

Emett, Narda. (2016, October 24). Why We Chose Embryo Adoption. https://adoption.com/why-we-chose-embryo-adoption/ 

Ertelt, S. (2020, November 30). Baby Molly Sets World Record: Born 27 Years after She Was Frozen as an Embryo. LifeNews.com. https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/30/baby-molly-sets-world-record-born-27-years after-she-was-frozen-as-an-embryo/.  

European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. (2014, July 1). Pregnancies following egg donation associated with more than 3-fold higher risk of hypertension. EurekAlert! https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/572139 

Ferera Swan on Instagram: “Thank you @gretchen.sisson for your new book, ‘Relinquished’ and @tatumrhunter at @washingtonpost for this article. Link in stories. #adoption #adoptionawareness #relinquished #adoptee.” (2020). Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/C4N39xIsEsK/?img_index=1 

Flanders, N. (2022). FACT: Treatments for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy are legal in every state. Live Action News. https://doi.org/1011927/LAN_300_by_250_top 

Franasiak, J. M. (2022, April 7). Are 9 eggs good for IVF? In Vitro Fertilization Number of Eggs. RMA Network – Fertility Clinic. https://rmanetwork.com/blog/number-of-eggs-good-ivf-in-vitro-fertilization/ 

Gerlach, A. (2024, October 4). Children Conceived Through IVF Are More Likely to Develop Congenital Heart Defects. Pharmacy Times. https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/children-conceived-through-ivf-are-more-likely-to-develop-congenital-heart-defects 

‌‌Glazer, E.S. (2021, December 3). Embryo donation: One possible path after IVF. Harvard Health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/embryo-donation-one-possible-path-after-ivf-202112032649 

Global Fertility Network. (n.d.). Embryo Adoption: How Long Does it Take & What Are the Success Rates? https://ovu.com/blog/embryo-adoption-how-long-does-it-take-what-are-the-success-rates 

‌Hay, K. (2020, June 30). Abandoned Embryos and the Ethics of IVF. Catholic Arena.https://www.catholicarena.com/latest/2020/6/30/2xqypb9cz99xplxrqlkdhyrnqmckoh 

Institute for American Values. (2010). My Daddy’s Name is Donor. https://fluxconsole.com/files/item/441/56197/My-Daddys-Name-is-Donor-Full Study.pdf.  

International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine. (2018, September 1). RRM Shows New Hope for Couples After Failed IVF. Hope After IVF : Restorative Reproductive Medicine | International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine 

Justia Law. (2022). ‌2022 Georgia Code :: Title 19 – Domestic Relations :: Chapter 8 – Adoption :: Article 2 – Embryo Transfers :: § 19-8-41. Release of Responsibility by Legal Embryo Custodian; Procedures; Presumption of Parentage. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-19/chapter-8/article-2/section-19-8-41/ 

‌Justia Law. (2024). 2024 CODE OF GEORGIA :: Title 19 – DOMESTIC RELATIONS (§§ 19-1-1 — 19-15-7) :: Chapter 8 – ADOPTION (§§ 19-8-1 — 19-8-43) :: Article 2 – OPTION OF ADOPTION ACT (§§ 19-8-40 — 19-8-43) :: Section 19-8-43 – Finality of orders of adoption or parentage. (2024). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-19/chapter-8/article-2/section-19-8-43/ 

Justia Law. (2024). 2024 CODE OF GEORGIA :: Title 19 – DOMESTIC RELATIONS (§§ 19-1-1 — 19-15-7) :: Chapter 8 – ADOPTION (§§ 19-8-1 — 19-8-43) :: Article 2 – OPTION OF ADOPTION ACT (§§ 19-8-40 — 19-8-43) :: Section 19-8-42 – Petition for expedited order of adoption or parentage; notice; waiver of technical requirements. (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-19/chapter-8/article-2/section-19-8-42/ 

‌Karanova, P. A. (2014, November 29). The Narcissistic Adoptive Mother. Pamela Karanova. https://pamelakaranova.com/2014/11/29/the-narcissistic-adoptive-mother/ 

Keyes, M. A., Sharma, A., Elkins, I. J., Iacono, W. G., and McGue, M. (2008). The Mental Health of US Adolescents Adopted in Infancy. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 162 (5): 419. 

Kinderwunsch Zentrum Dresden. (2022). Legal basis of fertility treatment. Ivf-Dresden.de. https://ivf-dresden.de/en/Legal-basis.php 

LegiScan. (2021). California AB2495 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2495/id/2604343 

‌Lu, Y., Wang, N., & Jin, F. (2013). Long-term follow-up of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B, 14(5), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.b1200348 

‌Mahlstedt, P. P., LaBounty, K., & Kennedy, W. T. (2010). The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertility and Sterility, 93(7), 2236–2246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.119 

‌‌Matthews-King, A. (2018, September 3). Children born through IVF face higher risk of cardiovascular disease, warns study. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/ivf-heart-disease-high-blood-pressure-cardiovascular-fertility-a8521391.html 

‌May, W. E., Lawler, D. R. & Boyle, J. M. (2011). Catholic sexual ethics: a summary, explanation & defense. Our Sunday Visitor Pub. Division. 

Meister, T. A., Rimoldi, S. F., Soria, R., von Arx, R., Messerli, F. H., Sartori, C., Scherrer, U., & Rexhaj, E. (2018). Association of Assisted Reproductive Technologies With Arterial Hypertension During Adolescence. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 72(11), 1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.06.060 

McRae, M. (2018, November 15). There’s a Surprising Link Between IVF And Intellectual Impairment For The Baby. ScienceAlert. https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-surprising-link-between-assisted-fertility-technology-and-intellectual-impairment 

‌Meaney, J. (2025, March 18). The Question of Embryo Adoption. The National Catholic Bioethics Center. https://www.ncbcenter.org/messages-from-presidents/ethicsofembryoadoption 

Melina, L. (2009). NACAC speakers describe seven core issues of adoption. Session-2-NACAC-speakers-describe-seven-core-issues-of-adoption.pdf 

Mississippi Legislature. (2012). HB1318 (As Introduced) – 2012 Regular Session.  State.ms.us.https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2012/html/HB/1300-1399/HB1318IN.htm 

National Registry for Adoption. (n.d.). Embryo Contract Service – $399. https://nrfa.org/embryo-contract/ 

National Registry for Adoption. (n.d.). Making It Official: The Embryo Donation Contract. https://nrfa.org/embryo-donation-contract/ 

Nightlight Christian Adoptions. ‌Embryo Donation | Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program. (n.d.). Nightlight. https://nightlight.org/snowflakes-embryo-adoption-donation/embryo-donation/ 

‌Pacholczyk, T. (2009, June 30). Making Sense of Bioethics: Column 048: What Should We Do with the Frozen Embryos?https://www.ncbcenter.org/making-sense-of-bioethics-cms/column-048-what-should-we-do-with-the-frozen-embryos 

Pavone, M., Innes, J., Hirshfeld-Cytron, J., Kazer, R., & Zhang, J. (2011). Comparing thaw survival, implantation and live birth rates from cryopreserved zygotes, embryos and blastocysts. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 4(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.82356 

‌Payne, B. (2022, July 5). Addressing the Savior Complex in Adoptive Parents. Havenwood Academy | Healing for Teen Girls with Trauma and Attachment. https://www.havenwoodacademy.org/addressing-the-savior-complex-in-adoptive-parents/ 

Piedmont Reproductive Endocrinology Group. (n.d.) Donor Egg IVF | Third Party Reproduction | Selecting an Egg Donor. https://pregonline.com/treatments/third-party-reproduction/ 

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. www.vatican.va; Libreria Editrice Vaticana. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html 

‌Pope Benedict XVI. (2009, June 29). Caritas in veritate (June 29, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI. www.vatican.va. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html 

‌Pope Francis. (2020, October 3). Fratelli Tutti. www.vatican.va. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html 

‌Pope Paul VI. (1968, July 25). Humanae Vitae. www.vatican.va. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html 

Quill, T. E., & Cassel, C. K. (1995). Nonabandonment: a central obligation for physicians. Annals of internal medicine, 122(5), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-122-5-199503010-00008 

Reddit. (2022). Leftover embryos from IVF. What would you do and why? https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/wi60nv/leftover_embryos_from_ivf_what_would_you_do_and/ 

Rodrigo, A. (2025, March 3). What is embryo adoption and when is it recommended? inviTRA.https://www.invitra.com/en/embryo-donation-and-adoption/#when-is-embryo-adoption-recommended 

 Rose, J. (n.d.). A Critical Analysis of Sperm Donation Practices: The Personal and Social Effects of Disrupting the Unity of Biological and Social Relatedness for the Offspring. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/32012/1/Joanna_Rose_Thesis.pdf.  

Rossant, J. (2024). Why study human embryo development? Developmental Biology, 509, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2024.02.001 

Roszia, S. (2020, May 30). Seven Core Issues in Adoption and Permanency: A Comprehensive Guide to Promoting Understanding and Healing in Adoption, Foster Care, Kinship Families and Third Party Reproduction. http://www.sharonroszia.com/2020/05/30/seven-core-issues-in-adoption-and-permanency-a-comprehensive-guide-to-promoting-understanding-and-healing-in-adoption-foster-care-kinship-families-and-third-party-reproduction/ 

Saji, S. (2024, November 25). 10 most common birth control pill side effects. Healthline Media. Birth control pill: Side effects, risks, alternatives, and the shot 

Schaedel, K. (2022, March 1). Do We Need a Home Study for Embryo Adoption? https://nightlight.org/2022/03/do-we-need-a-home-study-for-embryo-adoption/ 

Shady Grove Fertility. (n.d.). Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET). https://www.shadygrovefertility.com/treatments/frozen-embryo-transfer-fet/ 

‌‌Shauli, N. (2024, May 22). Embryo adoption: Everything you need to know. ELITE IVF – Global IVF Clinic. https://www.elite-ivf.com/embryo-adoption/ 

Single Mothers by Choice. (2022, April 22). Child of Mine: A Story of Embryo Donation. https://www.singlemothersbychoice.org/2022/04/22/child-of-mine-a-story-of-embryo-donation-2 

Snider, S. (2019). What Adoption Costs – and Strategies to Pay for It. US News & World Report; U.S. News & World Report. https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/what-adoption-costs-and-strategies-to-pay-for-it 

‌‌Spaczynski, R. Z., (n.d.). IVF Success Rates. FertilityIQ. https://www.fertilityiq.com/fertilityiq/ivf-in-vitro-fertilization/ivf-success-rates 

Stomp, M. (2024, February 12). Breaking Down the Costs: Embryo Adoption vs. Embryo Donation. https://donornexus.com/blog/donor-embryo-cost. 

Stuckey, A. B. (2024, June 12). Former IVF Doctor Blows the Whistle on Shocking Practices | Guest: Dr. Lauren Rubal | Ep 1018. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l2Z12OcAzQ 

‌Stuckey, A. B. (2022, January 27). IVF, Embryo Adoption & Surrogacy: Answering the Hard Questions | Guest: Jennifer Lahl | Ep 554. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8L_CE3ehKI 

Thomas, C. D. (n.d.). I Adopted Embryos as a Single Mom After Years of Waiting & Gave Birth to My First Baby at 50. MSN. I Adopted Embryos as a Single Mom After Years of Waiting & Gave Birth to My First Baby at 50 

Tomao, F., Lo Russo, G., Spinelli, G., Stati, V., Prete, A., Prinzi, N., Sinjari, M., Vici, P., Papa, A., Chiotti, M., Benedetti Panici, P., & Tomao, S. (2014). Fertility drugs, reproductive strategies and ovarian cancer risk. Journal of Ovarian Research, 7(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-2215-7-51 

‌United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2018). Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services Sixth Edition. https://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/upload/ethical-religious-directives-catholic-health-service-sixth-edition-2016-06.pdf 

‌Verrier, N. N. (1993). The primal wound: understanding the adopted child. Baltimore Gateway. 

‌Watson, A. M. (2024, February 12). How Much Does It Cost to Get Pregnant From IVF? GoodRx. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/fertility/ivf-costs 

‌Wilson, A. (2018, April 16). Why My Wife and I Chose to Adopt Embryos – Lifeway Research. Lifeway Research. https://research.lifeway.com/2018/04/16/why-my-wife-and-i-chose-to-adopt-embryos/ 

Zapf, P. (2023, July 3). Embryo Adoption Contracts: Are they necessary? Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. https://embryoadoption.org/2023/07/embryo-adoption-contracts/ 

‌Zapf, P. (2022, May 17). Four Options to Receive Donated Embryos. Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. https://embryoadoption.org/2022/05/receive-donated-embryos/ 

Zapf, P. (2024, March 5). Revisiting Trauma During the Home Study Process. Embryo Adoption Awareness Center. https://embryoadoption.org/2024/03/revisiting-trauma-home-study/ 

‌‌Zylstra, S. E. (2022, November 18). Welcoming the World’s Oldest Babies. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/worlds-oldest-babies/.  

‌