Embryo Adoption? An Egalitarian Perspective

  • Mary B. Mahowald
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 95)

Ethical questions about embryos generally center on determination of what if any moral status or right to life1 is attributed to them; analysis of embryo adoption hinges not only on that determination but also on the decisions of and impact on those affected. In this essay I only minimally consider the moral status of the human embryo because different positions on this issue are apparently irresolvable on the level of social policy. Because these positions are applicable to all human embryos, policies about adopting them should be consistent with other policies and decisions about embryos, regardless of how and why the embryos are obtained. I do not, therefore, distinguish between embryos that remain after infertility treatment and those that may be created for adoption. Personally, my views about the topic are consistent with but more restrictive than policies about embryos. With regard to policy as well as personal decision-making, the perspective I bring to my account may be described as egalitarian.

Using the term adoption in the title of this book tends to prejudge the question of the embryo’s moral status by suggesting that embryos are already children. As such, regardless of whether an embryo is gestating within a woman, it has the same right to life as a newborn. Nonetheless, many people, including Catholics who have had children through in vitro fertilization (IVF), do not agree with this position. From the standpoint of some Catholics, therefore, it is possible to view obligations to children as different from those owed to in vitro embryos.


Moral Status Human Embryo Potential Parent Social Parent Prenatal Testing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adoption.com. Glossary [Online]. Available: http://glossary.adoption.com/adoption.html.
  2. Al Shawaf, T., Zosmer, Z., Dirnfeld, M., & Grudzinskas, G. (2005). ‘Safety of drugs used in assisted reproduction techniques,’ Drug Safety, 28(6): 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brakman, S.V. (2007). ‘Paradigms, practices and politics: Ethics and the language of human embryo transfer/donation/rescue/adoption,’ in M.J. Cherry & A.S. Iltis (Eds.), Pluralistic Casuistry: Moral Argments, Economic Realities, and Political Theory, Essays in Honor of Baruch Brody (pp. 191–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Brakman, S.V. & Scholz, S.J. (Winter 2006). ‘Adoption, ART, and a re-conception of the maternal body: Toward embodied maternity,’ Hypatia, 21(1), 54–73.Google Scholar
  5. Brody, B.A. (2003). Taking Issue: Pluralism and Casuistry in Bioethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (2003). Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. [Online]. Available: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_ homosexual-unions_en.html.
  7. Gilbert, S.F. (2000). Developmental Biology, 6th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Hoffman, D.I., Zellman, G.L., Fair, C.C. et al. (2003). ‘Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research,’ Fertility and Sterility, 79, 1063–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jonsen, A. & Toulmin, S. (1989). The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Larsen, W.J. (1997). Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  11. Little, M.O. (1999). ‘Abortion, intimacy, and the duty to gestate,’ Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahowald, M.B. (1993). Women and Children in Health Care: An Unequal Majority. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mahowald, M.B. (1995a). ‘As if there were fetuses without women: A remedial essay,’ in J.C. Callahan (Ed.), Reproduction Ethics and the Law (pp. 199–218). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mahowald, M.B. (1995b). ‘The fetus: Ethical and philosophical issues,’ in W.T. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Revised Edition (pp. 851–857). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Mahowald, M.B. (1995c). ‘Person,’ in W.T. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Revised Edition (pp. 1934–1941). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Mahowald, M.B. (2003). ‘Feminism, Socialism, and Christianity revisited,’ in R.E. Groenhout & M. Bower (Eds.), Philosophy, Feminism, and Faith (pp. 40–59). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mahowald, M.B. (2006). Bioethics and Women: Across the Life Span. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mahowald, M.B. (2007). ‘Prenatal testing for selection against disabilities,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 16, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. May, W.E. (2005). ‘On “Rescuing” frozen embryos: Why the decision is moral,’ National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 5, 1:51–57.Google Scholar
  20. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1975). Research on the Fetus [Online]. Available: http://bioethics.gov/reports/past_commissions/research_fetus.pdf.
  21. Noonan, J.T. (2005). A Church That Can and Cannot Change. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Parens, E. & Asch, A. (2003). Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  23. President’s Council on Bioethics (2004). Monitoring Stem Cell Research [Online]. Available: http://www.bioethics.gov/topics/stemcells_index.html.
  24. Rapp, R. (2000). Testing Women, Testing the Fetus. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Ravin, A.J., Mahowald, M.B., & Stocking, C.B. (1997). ‘Genes or gestation? Attitudes of women and men about biologic ties to children,’ Journal of Women’s Health, 6, 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thornton, J.G., McNamara, H.M., & Montague, I.A. (1994). ‘Would you rather be a ‘birth’ or a ‘genetic’ mother? If so, how much?’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 20, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tong, R. (1998). Feminist Thought. (2nd edition). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary B. Mahowald
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations