Understand Why Embryo Adoption Isn’t Surrogacy: A Child-Centered Response to Jennifer Lahl

Why the comparison between embryo adoption and surrogacy gets it wrong, and why children’s rights must come before adult desires.

Jennifer Lahl, founder of the Center for Bioethics and Culture had a long-form interview with Allie Beth Stuckey on the Relatable podcast last week.

I’ve long admired Lahl’s work. I watched her 2014 documentary, Breeders in theaters shortly after I was first exposed to the issue of surrogacy, and it was part of what motivated me to speak out publicly for the first time.

Where We Disagree: Language and Framing

While I think Lahl’s conversation with Stuckey captured much of the nuance needed in discussions about embryo adoption, I disagree with her use of surrogacy language, and her recent assertion on Twitter that embryo adoption is legalized gestational surrogacy. Surrogacy is the intentional, contractual, and often commercial separation of a child from his or her birth mother. That’s fundamentally different from embryo adoption.

Woman-Centric vs Child-Centric: A Foundational Divide

Lahl tends to approach these issues from a woman-centric perspective. At Them Before Us, we’re laser-focused on the rights and needs of the child, and I believe this difference in framework is the reason we disagree. I can understand why she draws comparisons to surrogacy, the risks for the birth mother can be similar, but coming at the question solely from the question of health risks for the birth mother misses key distinctions. In surrogacy, the separation is built into the design. In embryo adoption, that separation is not intentional; it’s a tragic consequence of the IVF industry’s recklessness.

Attachment, Identity, and the Reality of Adoption

Yes, genetic connection matters to kids, especially as they grow older, but it’s not the only thing that matters. Equating embryo adoption with surrogacy overlooks the critical role of early attachment. And I agree with Lahl: communicating an embryo adoptee’s origin story is a deeply complex process. Unfortunately, not all couples pursuing embryo adoption have fully wrestled with that reality and many are not prepared to navigate complex conversations. Too often, embryo adoption is treated like just another fertility treatment. That mindset is completely at odds with a child-centric approach to adoption. Children are not treatments, and adoption does not exist for the sake of meeting the family-building goals of adults, but to give a family to a vulnerable child.

Understanding True Adoption

To understand embryo adoption well, we must understand adoption. Adoption is a child-centric institution that exists for the sake of children who have lost their parents or are unable to be raised by their parents due to difficult circumstances, abuse, neglect, or unwillingness. These children need to be welcomed into the safe, loving homes of adults who are willing to take on the responsibility of becoming their parents. When we approach adoption from a child-centric framework, it’s clear that it’s something very different from fertility treatment and that it doesn’t exist for the sake of adults, but for children. This doesn’t mean that couples struggling with infertility are not called to adopt, but it does mean that they are not the only ones and that glibly telling a couple facing infertility to “just adopt” fails to grapple with the tremendous grief and loss of infertility, as well as the true nature of adoption.

Adoption vs Donation: Words Matter

Another important clarification is the difference between embryo adoption and embryo donation. Embryo donation treats embryos as property to be exchanged and does not require the adults gaining parental rights to undergo adoption-level screening. Embryo adoption, on the other hand, recognizes that embryos are not potential persons, but are already persons and requires screenings, background checks, and home studies to ensure that the embryos go to a safe and loving home.

The Risk Is Real, and the Heroism Too

Lahl is also right to point out that embryo adoption carries health risks for both mother and child. That should be part of the discernment process. But all adoption comes with risks. Choosing to step into those challenges for the sake of a child is not only acceptable, it’s heroic. That said, it’s also wise to recognize your limitations. A family with very young children may not be well situated to adopt an older child with a history of significant behavior challenges. Similarly, a couple with a history of high-risk pregnancies may not be in the best position to adopt an embryo. For couples who are navigating infertility, the higher risks of pregnancy with a genetically unrelated embryo may mean that embryo adoption isn’t the best option for them or for that child. IVF pregnancies are a higher risk for mother and baby in the first place, and those risks increase when a woman is genetically unrelated to the child she’s carrying. The additional risk factors that come with many infertility-causing conditions may mean that a couple facing infertility should not pursue embryo adoption, no matter how strong their desire to save those lives and no matter how well they understand the importance of helping that child navigate the complexities of being created via ART and abandoned by their genetic parents.

Born or Frozen: The Need Is Urgent

Finally, Lahl encourages people to adopt the children who are already born. I agree that there is a pressing need for this, as well as for people to open their homes to children in foster care who are not eligible for adoption, but urgently in need of a home. The pressing nature of this need does not mean that there isn’t also a need for embryo adoption. At the same time, it’s fair to ask why someone is drawn to embryo adoption but unwilling to consider adopting or fostering a child who has already been born. Is this truly about giving a home to a child who needs one? Or is it about only welcoming a child who checks all the boxes: infant, healthy, sex-selectable, and emotionally uncomplicated? This mentality shouldn’t pervade any adoption space, and if embryo adoption becomes a new way of ordering your preferred child, we’ve missed the point entirely.

Frozen in Time: The Injustice of Stored Embryos

The reality is, the existence of millions of frozen embryos is a massive injustice. These are vulnerable, voiceless human beings, our tiniest brothers and sisters, trapped in limbo. And time isn’t on their side. Studies on the vitrification method of freezing embryos, now standard in IVF clinics, show that after more than five years frozen, successful implantation rates and live birth rates decrease, while pregnancy complications increase. The U.S. must stop freezing embryos. Simply promoting embryo adoption without demanding change and accountability from the fertility industry will create an excuse for continuing to create more embryos than couples intend to use. Embryo adoption is not and cannot be treated as a bail-out for the fertility industry. But stopping the irresponsible practices of the fertility industry doesn’t solve the crisis we already have. Estimates range from 1 to 10 million embryos sitting in freezers. The tragic reality is that, even if more people gave those embryos a chance at life through embryo adoption, embryo adoption will not save every life.

Duty To Your Children

As Lahl pointed out, the first and best option is for the biological parents to rescue their embryos from storage, implant them, and raise them. These embryos are their children, and as parents, they have a responsibility to take care of their own children, beginning by giving them a chance at life. But when that’s not possible, due to death, abandonment, advanced age, or medical complications that make it truly impossible to carry another pregnancy, embryo adoption is how these little ones are given a chance at life.

The Hard Work of Child Advocacy

There’s nothing simple about adopting a child who has spent the first years of their life in frozen storage and been abandoned by their first parents. But as children’s rights advocates, we recognize that adults are called to do hard things on behalf of children. Yes, we should encourage families to be open to traditional adoption, foster care, and aiding in family reunification. There is an urgent need for this. But we should also recognize the urgent needs of the lives abandoned in freezers and their equal rights and dignity as persons.