M
mapleoak
Guest
Burying living human beings would murder.
- Status
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
“…have a soul?..” IMO, no they do not. It is not very different than cloning. Science has cloned a monkey and believe that human cloning is a babystep away. IMO, clone have no souls.
If a clone is an exact reproduction from a human containig ALL of the genes then only God can breathe a souls into a new human life. Human life is handed down by the conjugal act of husband and wife. A clone cannot have a soul because it would have to “split” the soul from the host and that enters into an entirely different realm.
Frozen embryos are “manufactured” by fertizing an egg and sperm OUTSIDE of the donor bodies. This is done in a laboratory using syringes and other apparatus.
I do not believe that God breathes into the laboratory egg and sperm a new soul.
Not sure, but the Church may be still mulling over the many aspects of Frozen embryos. So, not knowing the position of the Church in detail this is my opinion. I do not see a conformity with God’s blueprint for human life with artificial fertilization producing human embryos.
S
Stolen_Rutters
Guest
Stickler point. The egg and sperm united into an embryo before being frozen. If i’m not mistaken, this is the point the church teaches the soul is given, at the point of union. It’s true, he doesn’t “breathe” a soul in to the egg or sperm, but they’re not freezing them separately.
I take it that you are implying that “frosties”, never having been concieved naturally, don’t actually have a soul. That’s hundreds of thousands of people now. The oldest are in their mid-twenties.
This is why I think it is a mistake to deny anyone a soul, born or not.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Is that really how many FET births have occurred? Wow. I didn’t think it was that common.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
It’s an opinion and it is not uncharitable. The numbers of people who have been brought into the world by artificial means does not mandate that numbers, be they great in number, alter the blueprint set by Above.
This is not being “mean” or “uncharitable”. What is very strange, if we wish to make a parallel is: extraordinary means to keep one alive after being declared “brain dead” is not a Church mandate…the Church endorses the natural death.
Conversely, I do not believe the Church endorses “unnatural conception” and its resulting birth.
A “frozen embryo” must have impaired components because of the deep freeze. I do not believe these are normal in the natural order of things. It almost, to me at least, is like an “artificial resurrection.” The “frosties” as you called them are not alive while in the freeze tube. They are clinically dead. Somehow, by scientific thawing they become viable.
To my reasoning it is not different than a Frankenstein kind of story…it is tampeing into a realm that is God’s and His alone. I expect we will see a chastisement for this and other trespasses we today have ventured.
This is MY OPINION…it is not meant as being heartless. It is nothing more than trying to understand God’s will. The world of science is not always in confomity with God’s will.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Vatican II
IMHO If there was no soul involved then it would not be “an unspeakable crime”
**
** trosch.org/exc/page2.htm**
**
Major premise:** All human beings come into existence in the same manner, i.e., the spirit is united with the body in the moment conception (the instant of fertilization of the ovum). *[Jesus was no exception. The created seed of God the Father was united with the ovum of Mary by the operative action of the Holy Spirit and in that moment the Incarnation occurred. The spirit of Jesus then existed in a human body. Conception had taken place. The Blessed Virgin Mary and the rest of the human race came into existence in the same manner with the only difference being that Mary and the rest of us had our spirits created by God the Father while it was the male seed of God the Father which fertilized the ovum of Mary that was then in that moment the body of Jesus. The sinless or Immaculate Conception of Mary – dogmatically defined – was by exception a special grace given to her and had nothing to do with a special existence, in her regard, at the moment of conception.]
Minor premise: Mary is a human being and by dogmatic definition she existed fully in the moment of conception.
Conclusion: All human beings, by logical extension of dogmatic definition, exist fully in the moment of conception.
**
IMHO If there was no soul involved then it would not be “an unspeakable crime”
Deductive logic
**
** trosch.org/exc/page2.htm**
**
Major premise:** All human beings come into existence in the same manner, i.e., the spirit is united with the body in the moment conception (the instant of fertilization of the ovum). *[Jesus was no exception. The created seed of God the Father was united with the ovum of Mary by the operative action of the Holy Spirit and in that moment the Incarnation occurred. The spirit of Jesus then existed in a human body. Conception had taken place. The Blessed Virgin Mary and the rest of the human race came into existence in the same manner with the only difference being that Mary and the rest of us had our spirits created by God the Father while it was the male seed of God the Father which fertilized the ovum of Mary that was then in that moment the body of Jesus. The sinless or Immaculate Conception of Mary – dogmatically defined – was by exception a special grace given to her and had nothing to do with a special existence, in her regard, at the moment of conception.]
Minor premise: Mary is a human being and by dogmatic definition she existed fully in the moment of conception.
Conclusion: All human beings, by logical extension of dogmatic definition, exist fully in the moment of conception.
**
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
How does frozen embryos equate with abortion? Just asking.
R
rlg94086
Guest
If I understand the process correctly, it is similar to a standard IVF. They will implant multiple embryos, and then have “selective terminations” if too many take. According to this article though, there aren’t very many abortions actually performed as part of IVF and fertility treatment pregnancies. Of course, one is too many IMO.
ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=134 (numbers mentioned are in England and Wales)
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Creation of a being then selection of the one that will continue to live is deliberate.Look at the news about those that choose to have a new baby to save another child. Hundreds might be created but only one or two are selected to continue.
Any loss of a created being is an abortion. Now don’t flame me. But there are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and deliberate abortions. The spontaneous abortion is not within the control of the mother and the deliberate one is.
Any loss of a created being is an abortion. Now don’t flame me. But there are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and deliberate abortions. The spontaneous abortion is not within the control of the mother and the deliberate one is.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
The mother of John the Baptist was barren and unable to give birth. She and her husband were in advanced years which compounded the malady.
Nonetheless, John he Baptist was formed in the womb through a natural conception. We know this because there was no “in vitro” or “in vitro” laboratories anywhere near Jerusalem.
The point is that NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD. I sense a contortion of life when many embryos from combinations of different donors and similar donors. It isn’t inconceivable that legions of “humanoids” bearing the same genes and some with half the same gene pool come into being.
This, if it becomes a “norm” would be a sustainable argument for siblings to marry; polygamy to be the law of the land. There is no definable lineage but a hodgepodge.
This subject of reproduction through frozen embryos is not from God. Sperm banks are no different. A single sperm donor can impregnate hundreds of women…it is like a having an anonymous, faceless, nameless, other-dimensional concubine.
Christians must take a deeper look into what is happening and disregard the “touchy-feely” expressions of “wanting a child.” Children are a gift from Almighty God…frozen embryos, IMO, are a manufactured entity from a laboratory.
Man has ventured somewhere that God is left out of the very process that was intended for procreation. IT IS ALL ABOUT MAN. This is my opinion and formed by trying to understand the Mind of God. It is MY OPINION. It is formed from being a Roman Catholic from the day of my Baptism as an infant.
Beware of this movement; ther is nothing holy in it. Again, my opinion.
Nonetheless, John he Baptist was formed in the womb through a natural conception. We know this because there was no “in vitro” or “in vitro” laboratories anywhere near Jerusalem.
The point is that NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD. I sense a contortion of life when many embryos from combinations of different donors and similar donors. It isn’t inconceivable that legions of “humanoids” bearing the same genes and some with half the same gene pool come into being.
This, if it becomes a “norm” would be a sustainable argument for siblings to marry; polygamy to be the law of the land. There is no definable lineage but a hodgepodge.
This subject of reproduction through frozen embryos is not from God. Sperm banks are no different. A single sperm donor can impregnate hundreds of women…it is like a having an anonymous, faceless, nameless, other-dimensional concubine.
Christians must take a deeper look into what is happening and disregard the “touchy-feely” expressions of “wanting a child.” Children are a gift from Almighty God…frozen embryos, IMO, are a manufactured entity from a laboratory.
Man has ventured somewhere that God is left out of the very process that was intended for procreation. IT IS ALL ABOUT MAN. This is my opinion and formed by trying to understand the Mind of God. It is MY OPINION. It is formed from being a Roman Catholic from the day of my Baptism as an infant.
Beware of this movement; ther is nothing holy in it. Again, my opinion.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
But then the children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents. We each still have parents even if they don’t acknowledge us. When I was born a child born out of wedlock was sometimes considered as a non-person. Thank God that has changed. I don’t believe that children should be created except within a valid marriage. But it is the parent and human manipulator that should be punished and not the child.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
I think we are on totally different wavelengths. So, rather than get into a deeper analysis of “parents” of emryos and the “births” of embryos is treading in very, very deep spiritual waters.
It comes down to how one alines his/her heart and soul with the mind of God. It is an individual process and ironically different outlooks emerge. That is foreboding. There is no middle ground.
Embryos was something we never should have ventured.
It comes down to how one alines his/her heart and soul with the mind of God. It is an individual process and ironically different outlooks emerge. That is foreboding. There is no middle ground.
Embryos was something we never should have ventured.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Agreed
M
manualman
Guest
Some of the reasoning on this thread is apalling! If I hear it right, some deny that anyone conceived by this method has a soul!?! So if the 22 year old guy who works for me right now was one of the early ‘test tube babies’ then he has no soul, even though he looks and acts no different than anybody else around me!?! Would I not be guilty of a sin if I killed him!?! Not survivors of it, you say? If he didn’t receive his soul at conception, when did he come upon it?
Clones have no souls? Get real. That means that of identical twins, only one has a soul and the other is just a phony! Cloning is an immoral and artificial means of forcing what happens when identical twins form naturally. There is no theological reason to suppose that a clone doesn’t have a soul. Just because God grants the soul to the new life doesn’t mean he approves of the method of creating it. If that were so, all the out-of-wedlock conceived kids out there today would have no soul!
Its not just important to get the answer right (IVF and cloning are wrong). The reasoning by which you get there matters too!
Clones have no souls? Get real. That means that of identical twins, only one has a soul and the other is just a phony! Cloning is an immoral and artificial means of forcing what happens when identical twins form naturally. There is no theological reason to suppose that a clone doesn’t have a soul. Just because God grants the soul to the new life doesn’t mean he approves of the method of creating it. If that were so, all the out-of-wedlock conceived kids out there today would have no soul!
Its not just important to get the answer right (IVF and cloning are wrong). The reasoning by which you get there matters too!
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Well said thank you.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I say that they should be put up for adoption so that couples who wish to bring them to full term can do so.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Transplantation of a thawed frozen embryo to bring forth a “child” is so against the process that God has created since Adam and Eve…it is so deviant…it is mindnumbing.
It is like an “assembly line.”
Go to: … spiritdaily.com … TODAY and the top story and headline touched on how the anti-Christ could probably enter the world and take on a “carnal nature.” If that be the case then the anti-Christ being Satan incarnate has NO soul.
It is like an “assembly line.”
Go to: … spiritdaily.com … TODAY and the top story and headline touched on how the anti-Christ could probably enter the world and take on a “carnal nature.” If that be the case then the anti-Christ being Satan incarnate has NO soul.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
I don’t agree with this reasoning at all. That would mean that if a husband cheats on his wife and gets another woman pregnant, the child is then “soul-less” because it wasn’t created using God’s blueprint? The soul comes from God and God alone and is not part of our physical biology, regardless of how we are conceived.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
Socio_Momma has a really good point here and I am suprised that mapleoak never responded. A surrogate mother is not the same as someone who would adopt an empryo. A surrogate mother would be complicit in the act of artificial fertilization since she is donating her womb and possibly her agg and giving up the child. A family who adopts an embryo would not be doing this.Okay I typed out a longer post but I don’t know where it went (probably for the best it was too long) and I am now out of time
Anyway…the document in question defines surrogacy as the following:
"By “surrogate mother” the Instruction means:
*the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of “donors.” She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy. *
the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with the pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy."
Surrogacy is not the same in its core definition as what human embryo adoption is. The woman carrying the child here would be the adoptive mother, not a surrogate mother. Surrogate means another woman is really the legal mother and would mother the child. Here the mother (who will continue to mother after birth) is the woman carrying the child.
IF were to apply the following as from the same document in question
" Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families."
Then these objections to surrogacy would mean adoption was wrong and illict. Without a framework for understanding how surrogacy is not adoption there is nothing to separate a couple who is raising a child that is not their biological child, or an adoptive mother who nurses her adopted child (this can & does happen). This is not what the Church teaches, instead adoption is seen as an acceptable option. St. Joseph himself is an example of adoption. Since he is either referred to as an adoptive and/or foster father of Jesus. A pretty good model of fatherhood even though Jesus wasn’t his biological child:thumbsup:
With human embryo adoption the parents who are bringing the child through the natural process of pregnancy would be the actual adoptive parents (the child is being brought into the world by his/her adoptive parents via this process). Not the same as surrogacy.
The option of embryo adoption is still possible and is not in contradiction with previous teaching. If the Church decides it is I would obey, as the Church has more wisdom than I do
The reason I am resurrecting this thread is because of a news article found in another thread: **UK IVF Clinics Have Intentionally Killed over One Million Human Embryonic Children . **
- Status