Embryo Adoption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NickVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Newbie2 said:
Easy, see below.

That’s precisely the point! Adopting these pre-existing embryos is not IVF. It’s like what has been already been said:

Rape is a morally unacceptable way to make a baby. Babies from rape are adoptable.

IVF is a morally unacceptable way to make a baby. But you seem to be saying that babies from IVF are not adoptable.

The question methinks that really needs to be answered is if **embryo implantation **is morally acceptable. It would seem not, in cases of surragacy (witness recently Nicole Kidman and her guy). However, in cases of rescue of an already “made” embryo, ???

The problem is that if not specifically limited, embryo implantation as a morally acceptable procedure could be twisted so as to include surrogacy, which is morally unacceptable.

Enter, in a few years (possibly) the artificial rescue uterus.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Victorious said:
The reason that there is no moral solution to this problem is that the ends do not justify the means: you cannot do evil (in this case, in vitro fertilization) in order to achieve good.
Click to expand...
Perfectly true. Thank you.
 
Newbie2 said:
Wrong.

Embryo adoption of an **already existing embryo **does not necessitate the use of IVF for that adoption procedure, if that’s what you’re saying.
Click to expand...
Nope. You’re wrong.

Adopting of embryos is giving support to the in-vitro industry.
It’s really as simple as that. The Church has already decided the matter.
Catholics are not ever free to engage in the adoption of embryos.

I’m sorry if you do not understand that fact.
 
catharina said:
Nope. You’re wrong.

Adopting of embryos is giving support to the in-vitro industry.
It’s really as simple as that. The Church has already decided the matter.
Catholics are not ever free to engage in the adoption of embryos.

I’m sorry if you do not understand that fact.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking of the morality of the act of a couple rescuing a previously made and frozen embryo. The medical procedure of such a rescue does not involve IVF. That is my point.

That and I’m not questioning the morality of embryo (rescue) doption, merely saying that it is a different and separate moral question than of IVF
 
Newbie2 said:
Please don’t be smarmy. We’ve had this discussion before and I fully understand your point.

I’m speaking of the morality of the act of a couple rescuing a previously made and frozen embryo. The medical procedure of such a rescue does not involve IVF. That is my point.
Click to expand...
SMARMY? HUH???

The issue is that adopting frozen embryos
indicates support for the process of in vitro.
(BTW, I have ne memory of discussing any
of this with you, prior to now.)
 
catharina said:
SMARMY? HUH???

The issue is that adopting frozen embryos
indicates support for the process of in vitro.
(BTW, I have ne memory of discussing any
of this with you, prior to now.)
Click to expand...
Please calm down. I may have mistaken you for another CAFite who has discussed this with me back and forth. My bad. I edited my post.

A couple wants to adopt an frozen embryo. They wish that no more babies ended up frozen, and work actively to put an end to IVF.

Are you saying this scenario is impossible?
 
Newbie2 said:
Please calm down. I may have mistaken you for another CAFite who has discussed this with me back and forth. My bad. I edited my post.

A couple wants to adopt an frozen embryo. They wish that no more babies ended up frozen, and work actively to put an end to IVF.

Are you saying this scenario is impossible?
Click to expand...
You made a MISTAKE so I should calm down? Nice.

I’m saying it is impossible for Catholics to adopt a frozen embryo -
with the approval of the Church.

As Victorious said:
“The reason that there is no moral solution to this problem is that the ends do not justify the means: you cannot do evil (in this case, in vitro fertilization) in order to achieve good.”

PS - is “my bad” 21st century speak for “I apologize?”
 
catharina said:
You made a MISTAKE so I should calm down? Nice.

I’m saying it is impossible for Catholics to adopt a frozen embryo -
with the approval of the Church.

As Victorious said:
“The reason that there is no moral solution to this problem is that the ends do not justify the means: you cannot do evil (in this case, in vitro fertilization) in order to achieve good.”

PS - is “my bad” 21st century speak for “I apologize?”
Click to expand...
Yes. My bad. All my fault. Mea Culpa. I’m sorry.

That is exactly my point. This entire discussion centers around the morality, medically speaking, of embryo implantation, not IVF, and I’m not making any moral judgments on embryo implantation.

We all know IVF is wrong. However, couples that are considering embryo implantation are not formally cooperating with IVF; it is material cooperation at worst. I beg to differ that such couples are de facto supporters of IVF. Some are, no doubt, but not all. I personally know a couple who did go through embryo adoption and are vehemetly against IVF.
 
Newbie2 said:
Yes. My bad. All my fault. Mea Culpa. I’m sorry.

Lovely. Thank you.

That is exactly my point. This entire discussion centers around the morality, medically speaking, of embryo implantation, not IVF, and I’m not making any moral judgments on embryo implantation.

We all know IVF is wrong. However, couples that are considering embryo implantation are not formally cooperating with IVF; it is material cooperation at worst. I beg to differ that such couples are de facto supporters of IVF. Some are, no doubt, but not all. I personally know a couple who did go through embryo adoption and are vehemetly against IVF.

Yet as a graduate student in Theology (presumably,
CATHOLIC Theology), you know (and accept) that
the Catholic Church does NOT allow adoption of
frozen embryos, do you not?
Click to expand...
 
Debora123 said:
Sometimes members of the Church only see the written rule - “IN VITRO IS WRONG,” and they fail to remember that Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Reminds me of when Jesus was picked on for “working on the Sabbath” when he was miraculously healing lives. Pharisees could only see the written rule “No Work on Sabbath,” and to hell with the lives that needed help that day.
Click to expand...
Not an applicable analogy. What we are talking about here is not a mere tradition of man, but an intrinsic moral evil – an offense against the infinitely good and almighty God. We ought to fear offending God above all else. It is in the only thing that can separate us from Him forever.

And the moral law against the procedures in question is not as narrow as you make it out. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
**2376 **Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

**2377 **Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
Click to expand...
Newbie2 said:
Rape is a morally unacceptable way to make a baby. Babies from rape are adoptable.

IVF is a morally unacceptable way to make a baby. But you seem to be saying that babies from IVF are not adoptable.
Click to expand...
These situations are not analogous. To adopt a baby who was conceived as the result of a rape does not necessitate an additional gravely immoral act in order to accomplish it. To adopt a frozen embryo does (see above). Not only does it involve the commission of another grave sin; it also widens the circle of those tainted by guilt. And it is not only my opinion that these embryos are not adoptable. The Vicar of Christ on Earth himself said as much when he said there is no moral solution to this problem.

Again we are back to the principle that you cannot do evil in order to achieve good. As soon as we are faced with a situation in which we can only achieve the desired good by sinning, then we have reached the end of our own resources. That is the time humbly to acknowledge that we are utterly powerless in the situation, and must trust in God for the rest.
 
Victorious said:
Again we are back to the principle that you cannot do evil in order to achieve good. As soon as we are faced with a situation in which we can only achieve the desired good by sinning, then we have reached the end of our own resources. That is the time humbly to acknowledge that we are utterly powerless in the situation, and must trust in God for the rest.
Click to expand...
👋:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Like I said, I don’t see how caring and nurturing for a human being who’s been frozen is evil. This whole attitude reminds me of the pharisees.
 
It seems to me that when one describes a point of Church Teaching
as an “evil” then there is little reason to attempt discussion. Case closed.
 
Sometimes one must repeat that Church Teaching
is to be upheld rather than personal opinion - for
those who are unaware of that FACT.
 
catharina said:
Sometimes one must repeat that Church Teaching
is to be upheld rather than personal opinion - for
those who are unaware of that FACT.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this “teaching.” Repetition won’t make a difference.
 
When one disagrees with a Teaching,
it helps if one says that at the start.

Ortherwise calling oneself Catholic might confuse the innocent reader.
 
I did a search on EWTN re this topic:

Here are a few of the responses:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=595275&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=embryo+adoption&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=2&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=572827&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=embryo+adoption&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=9&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=565193&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=embryo+adoption&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=11&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=493493&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=embryo+adoption&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=26&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

There are more

Should/could the parents of these babies rescue them? Would that be problematic?
 
Victorious said:
These situations are not analogous. To adopt a baby who was conceived as the result of a rape does not necessitate an additional gravely immoral act in order to accomplish it.

Agreed, but my point was that adopting a baby conceived through rape does not connect one to the sin of rape. My point is that doing an embryo adoption does not necessarily connect with the immoral act of IVF that created the baby.

**Not only does it involve the commission of another grave sin; it also widens the circle of those tainted by guilt. **

I’m not sure I agree with you here. Let’s assume for discussion that embryo implantation (EI)is not a grave moral sin, for discussion.

It seems from the bolded statement above that you would say that EI “widens the circle of those tainted by guilt”. Do you mean that by participating in EI (again, making the proposal that it were deemed moral) would still be “tainted by guilt”, as in being related to IVF?
Click to expand...
catharina said:
It seems to me that when one describes a point of Church Teaching
as an “evil” then there is little reason to attempt discussion. Case closed.
Click to expand...
That’s not what’s being said. Read the post again. The “evil” is what the Church describes the act as; the poster is not saying that the teaching is evil, if I understand correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top