Destruction of Frozen Embryos

[Corki]

Can people use iv techniques to save the embryos? If not, then i see no reason why medical experimentation is not morally wrong (for reasons i explained above)

There is no IV technique that could save the embryo. As I have said before IV technology is about fertilization. Since they are embryos the fertilization has already happened.

You can use embryonic implantation technology (such as used in surrogate mother instances) to rescue the embryo.

Medical experimentation is never acceptable on a human without his/her consent nor when it would lead to his/her death. I cannot see any way that medical experimentation on embryos could currently pass those hurdles.

That being said, there has been some talk about a technique to extract just certain cells from an embryo for testing without endangering the embryo. This is a technology that has been discussed for prenatal testing and/or homologous stem cell growth. This is not a proven technique now but could be in the future. That might be ok if there was a way to extract the cells from a frozen embryo without killing him/her.

 

[tjm8]

Really? Not even God Himself could stop it? REALLY?

Is there any moral position the Church can take, given your position, or are they all a waste of time because some people will ignore that teaching because they want to?Does morality stop at the bedroom door? If so, why? If not, why shouldn’t the Church teach sexual morality?

Peace

Tim

Didn’t I list some areas where I think it would be useful for the Pope to concentrate his efforts? As for the question “Does morality stop at the bedroom door?”, I would say as long as there are two consenting adults behind it, they can have sex any way they want, with or without the benefit of birth control or NFP which is by the way just another form of birth control.
That said, I would not allow abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy except in the cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as defined by the Dr. and patient.

 

[Orogeny]

Didn’t I list some areas where I think it would be useful for the Pope to concentrate his efforts?

How about God? What areas should He concentrate on?

As for the question “Does morality stop at the bedroom door?”, I would say as long as there are two consenting adults behind it, they can have sex any way they want, with or without the benefit of birth control or NFP which is by the way just another form of birth control.

So homosexual sex and incest is ok by you? Do you REALLY believe morals stop at the bedroom door as long as it involves consenting adults?

That said, I would not allow abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy except in the cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as defined by the Dr. and patient.

What an inconsistent position! Why would you support the murder of a human being at 5 weeks and 6 days but not at 6 weeks?

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

Didn’t I list some areas where I think it would be useful for the Pope to concentrate his efforts? As for the question “Does morality stop at the bedroom door?”, I would say as long as there are **two consenting adults **behind it, they can have sex any way they want, with or without the benefit of birth control or NFP which is by the way just another form of birth control.
That said, I would not allow abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy except in the cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as defined by the Dr. and patient.

Are you saying what I think you’re saying? Are you saying the pope should allow non-married couples to “do it”?

You do realise your position allows “Pornography” to slowly become “Morally acceptable” because the act is between “two consenting adults, who can have sex anyway they want to”.

You see this is why I hope the Pope sticks to his guns so to speak, because give Satan an inch and he’ll take your life and moral compass away from you.

Even if any immoral practise is prevalent on any issue, Benedict still needs to retain his strong moral position and guide us in what is righteous and what is not right, otherwise he is unfit to be God’s representative on earth and becomes the very thing he is trying to fight against.

 

[tjm8]

How about God? What areas should He concentrate on?

The Pope is God’s representative on earth, correct! God himself can do what ever He wants

So homosexual sex and incest is ok by you? Do you REALLY believe morals stop at the bedroom door as long as it involves consenting adults? What an inconsistent position!

 

[Catholig]

Didn’t I list some areas where I think it would be useful for the Pope to concentrate his efforts? As for the question “Does morality stop at the bedroom door?”, I would say as long as there are two consenting adults behind it, they can have sex any way they want, with or without the benefit of birth control or NFP which is by the way just another form of birth control.
That said, I would not allow abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy except in the cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as defined by the Dr. and patient.

Tjm8,

Please, find a good priest to talk to. Your view is so off base - its sad Birth Control is immoral. Cheating on one’s spouse is immoral. Sex outside of marriage is immoral. To allow any of those things is to allow sin - and to condone any of those things is to condone sin.

Catholig

 

[Polaris]

Im not sure but the church does no really seem to care for these babies very much. Its not moral to kill them. Its not moral to implant them. So are they cursed and damed to a frozen eternity through no fault of there own because thats the best option according to the church?

 

[Corki]

Im not sure but the church does no really seem to care for these babies very much. Its not moral to kill them. Its not moral to implant them. So are they cursed and damed to a frozen eternity through no fault of there own because thats the best option according to the church?

The Church has never said, as far as I know, that it is immoral to implant them. There are some moral theologians, in fact, who have said that it is a fine act of charity, especially since the woman has to undergo some uncomfortable pre-implantation treatments and a relatively high risk of miscarriage.

 

[Polaris]

Who are these theologians, and how do they circumvent the churches teaching against the implantation which is an assult on the sacrament of marriage?

 

[wanner47]

Timj8 - FWIW, NFP is not just “another form of birth control.” It’s used for pregnancy achievement as well as family spacing. With NFP, all acts of intercourse are open to life. You can’t say that with any form of birth control.

Also, I had a miscarriage in December. The baby was only measuring 7 weeks, 5 days gestation. We still had him/her buried in a Catholic cemetery, complete with a graveside service and a memorial Mass.

My midwife said that one of the hardest things to deal with in terms of miscarriage is the fact that our society has no rituals for grieving or closure, and personally I think that’s because society doesn’t recognize embryos as children.

That’s what’s at the crux of the whole “frozen embryos” debate. Either they’re people, or they aren’t.

I think my baby was a person. I cried when I found out that s/he had died, and I will mourn his/her loss for the rest of my life. We had him/her buried because s/he was a beloved, precious human being deserving of a proper burial.

I did read a paper, written by a Catholic theologian, in which he said that he thought (in his opinion) that it would be morally permissible to “adopt” frozen embryos that were meant for death, because it would be an act of charity to save their lives.

For example, if a Catholic couple knew of a Protestant couple who had done IVF and had leftover frozen embryos that they were planning on having destroyed, the Catholic couple could offer to “adopt” those embryos and give them a chance at life.

Same as if a couple does IVF and later convert to Catholicism – they could have their remaining frozen embryos implanted in the woman’s womb, because the alternative would mean the death of their embryos.

Here is a good article from This Rock on the subject.

 

[Orogeny]

Consenting adults can and do what ever they please behind closed doors. As long as it is between competent adults I don’t think it is any of my business or your 's.

Well, I’m not sure what it is you think the Church ought to be teaching. You clearly have separated yourself from the Magesterium.

Just because you and the Pope define the beginning of viable life as the moment of conception doesn’t mean that I agree with you or that you are actually correct.

Sorry, science is what determines when life begins and it is unequivicable - it begins at conception. That is science. Disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. The opinion of anyone who advocates the murder of the most innocent humans in the face of the teaching of the Church AND science carries absolutely no weight with me because you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge.

Also, that is the minimum time I want to be sure a woman has to decide what she wants to do.

What do you base that on? Why is it right to murder a baby before it is 6 weeks old but not older?

Sorry, I forgot you don’t believe the woman has any right when it comes to her pregnancy.

You are right, I don’t believe a woman has the right to murder her baby.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

You are right, I don’t believe a woman has the right to murder her baby.

Peace

Tim

 

[meat_spin_man]

OK, so now the question remains.

1. Is it consistent with Church teaching to implant the babies into wombs?
2. If not, then what should be done with frozen embryos?

 

[colliric]

The Pope is God’s representative on earth, correct! God himself can do what ever He wants

 

[Rosalinda]

meatspinman asked:[sign] Is it consistent with Church teaching to implant the babies into wombs?
[/sign]

As far as I know this question has not as yet been directly answered but it would seem unlikely the Church would ever recommend this. The following from The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly :

…Normally a woman’s husband participates in her conception of a child and hence his fatherhood is part of her motherhood because the child is his child coming to be through their union…
The intimacy of the bodies of man and woman are given to that communion exclusively. In doing so they give to each other exclusive rights to attempt parenthood through each other. Becoming pregnant, the union of mother and unborn child, belongs exclusively to that communion of the spouses. It would be an infidelity to marriage for them to permit the woman to be made pregnant by an embryo transfer procedure, for such a making pregnant would be a formation of a new union outside of, and not within, their communion of persons. The child would relate to her exclusively, not to her husband…

From the Embryo Rescue Debate lifeissues.net/writers/ton/ton_01embryorescue2.html

 

[Rosalinda]

As for meatspin’s second question[sign]If not, then what should be done with frozen embryos?[/sign]

This same article by Nicholas Tonti-Filippini concluded:

the solution I would advocate for the plight of embryos kept frozen and anhydrous in embryo banks is simply that they be thawed in moist conditions (in which hydration and the removal of the anhydrating chemicals can occur), in order that they may be restored to their natural dynamic state, a state more fitting their sacredness as human beings than the state of frozen and anhydrous suspended animation. Those few days in which they would return to their natural state of growth and dynamism would constitute a rescue, albeit short-lived, because of the absence of any licit means ultimately of preventing death. Death would result because they would develop to a state of maturity in which their vital needs could not licitly be met. This is one of the great evils of IVF in which life is produced in an environment that ultimately cannot sustain that life.

lifeissues.net/writers/ton/ton_01embryorescue1.html

 

[tjm8]

tjm8;1993145:

If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby she should abstain from sexual relations. That is how you morally do a pre-emptive abortion, you don’t have sex. That is when she gets her choice, right at the very start.

After she has made the decision to have sex, she should accept the consequences of pregnancy that may accompany the act of sexual relations. It is not ok to have sex just for the fun of it, one must accept the consequence of pregnancy and not treat Sex as a thing you only do “to have fun”.

Chastity and Abstinence is the only contraception which is morally and biblically(safe sex is outlawed in the bible directly) valid.

You might say “what about rape?” that is an insignificant issue because less than 5% of abortions are done because of Rape. And the Adoption option takes care of that. If she doesn’t want the baby she can adopt it out and not kill it.

If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby she gets the choice at the very start of proceedings…

OK, you got all he answers and a good grasp of the morality too. Now if only you could convince all those Catholic women who use birth control and vote Pro Choice. Some of them must think sex for fun is acceptable.

tjm8

 

[Corki]

Who are these theologians, and how do they circumvent the churches teaching against the implantation which is an assult on the sacrament of marriage?

This article quotes one of those theologians, from the Vatican:catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2790

Here’s an article from This Rock that gives both sides of the debate:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp

and another one explaining why it may be permissible

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/0809-96/1/1.html://

 

[tjm8]

Sorry, science is what determines when life begins and it is unequivicable - it begins at conception. That is science. Disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. The opinion of anyone who advocates the murder of the most innocent humans in the face of the teaching of the Church AND science carries absolutely no weight with me because you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge.What do you base that on? Why is it right to murder a baby before it is 6 weeks old but not older? You are right, I don’t believe a woman has the right to murder her baby.

Peace

Tim

First off, murder is killing as defined by a law. Last I checked abortion is legal in this country under some conditions. There are a lot of women who aren’t really interested in what you or I think about them having a the right to choose.

Just what is your fascination with my choice of limited abortions after six weeks of pregnancy? The Supreme Court at one point picked three months. It is a choice. Just like your choice them Zero.

 

[Orogeny]

First off, murder is killing as defined by a law. Last I checked abortion is legal in this country under some conditions.

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being (see the 6th Commandment).

There are a lot of women who aren’t really interested in what you or I think about them having a the right to choose.

There are a lot of pedophiles who aren’t interesed in what you or I think about their activities. Do you support their right to choose?

Just what is your fascination with my choice of limited abortions after six weeks of pregnancy? The Supreme Court at one point picked three months. It is a choice. Just like your choice them Zero.

Because that is an incredibly asinine approach. If it is wrong after three months, how can it be ok before 3 months? What is magical about 3 months? I guarantee you that from a science AND a theological standpoint, that is an argument without any basis whatsoever. If it is wrong anytime during the pregancy, it is, well, wrong anytime during the pregnancy.

So my “fascination” with your arbitrary cut-off date is simply that you have no real reason to use that as a guideline. If you are using the Supreme Court as your go-by, you should be asking what was their basis for chosing that date.

Peace

Tim