Embryo Adoption

[C_Bautista]

I just worry that as with most things acceptable in secular culture, the Church’s possible stance against embryo adoption will be a source of ridicule and scorn because most people won’t even try to understand the complexity of the situation nor do they know about the Church’s teaching on human dignity and human sexuality.

Do not worry about the Church’s appearance!
It is more important that she is the clarion voice of Truth rather than a “cool kids” club.

God will not abandon His Church, and so what shall we fear?

with only 1 or 2 embryos at a time, and continue until all 10 embryos are given a chance.

I’m a premedicine student… I’m curious as to why this couldn’t work?

And what’s preventing “compatibility” anyway? Just chance? Blood type? Other immune system issues?

In any case, it is my understanding that IVF is inherently evil regardless of whether the parents refuse to selectively implant, so I can’t see how it could be used in an embryo adoption procedure anyway?

The question is: is IVF so evil in and of itself that we must chose, instead, to take no action?

As I asked before… Is using IVF to save embryos using a good end to justify an evil means? Or is it choosing between the lesser of two evils (IVF vs. doing nothing or commiting murder)?

What I know for sure is that IVF is grave matter in the case of parents using it to bypass or “sub in” for natural fertilization in sexual intercourse. This is an answered question.

But is it so evil that it is not an acceptable means of saving lives?

I don’t pretend to have a real answer, just throwing the ideas out there.

 

[ribozyme]

But again here, as in another thread where you brought this theory up, you’re equating a high IQ with happiness. History has shown us that those who possess a high IQ are not necessarily the happiest people out there. This theory also ignores other forms of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence, which would lead to greater happiness.

What other forms? Only Spearman’s g matters in this world.

You are correct, intelligence is not a proxy for happiness. But higher intelligence will allow one to understand the mysteries of the world such as the origin of life, and the laws of the universe. It allows one to assimilate complex information in a facile manner.

 

[Jennifer123]

As I asked before… Is using IVF to save embryos using a good end to justify an evil means? Or is it choosing between the lesser of two evils (IVF vs. doing nothing or commiting murder)?

What I know for sure is that IVF is grave matter in the case of parents using it to bypass or “sub in” for natural fertilization in sexual intercourse. This is an answered question.

But is it so evil that it is not an acceptable means of saving lives?

I don’t pretend to have a real answer, just throwing the ideas out there.

Yes, I appreciate that none of us really have any answers, just discussing this moral dilemma BUT it is still my understanding that an evil act can not used to ensure the greater good, regardless of whether life is involved.
Maybe though there are extenuating (sp?? ) circumstances regarding this situation in particular that renders treatments like IVF morally permissable?

 

[Jennifer123]

What other forms? Only Spearman’s g matters in this world.

You are correct, intelligence is not a proxy for happiness. But higher intelligence will allow one to understand the mysteries of the world such as the origin of life, and the laws of the universe. It allows one to assimilate complex information in a facile manner.

I know what you are trying to say, but some mysteries will always be just that, we can’t, nor will we ever, know everything there is to know about our existance both as a species and as individuals.
It’s is this quest for knowledge at any cost that is destroying any notion of human dignity.

 

[GreenJeans]

Further concerns of moral and ethical significance include the denial of husband and wife to have children of their own as a result of their unitive and procreative love. If someone else’s child is in the mother’s womb, their act of love making cannot possibly be open to the creation of NEW life. This differs from a couple who conceived naturally and has marital relations with each other while pregnant in that the unborn child is the result of their love-making.
With natural adpotion their is no such denial of this procreative aspect. So there is no misunderstanding, what I pointed out previously was only that embryo transplants are not the same as artificial insemination. That certainly does not mean that embryo transplants are morally acceptable. Additionally, there is the violation of the sacredness of the mother’s womb among other things.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

It doesn’t matter where the embryo comes from. If the woman is pregnant intercourse is not open to new life.

 

[cor]

What other forms? Only Spearman’s g matters in this world.

You are correct, intelligence is not a proxy for happiness. But higher intelligence will allow one to understand the mysteries of the world such as the origin of life, and the laws of the universe. It allows one to assimilate complex information in a facile manner.

You’ll have all the intelligence (perhaps even a different mode of operation) in the afterlife to be understand the mysteries of the world. Why the urgency to have humanity understand it in this life?

While understanding the details may require high g, I think many of the concepts can be explained to those with a lower g perhaps by use of analogies like in the Nova special An Elegant Universe.

Non-controversial, ethical means of eugenics (like encouraging high IQ couples to have more children) do have their effect with time. Since even your favored “embryo selection” does have diminishing terms at least eventually, these two means in the long term will have the same effect on humanity’s course.

 

[cor]

Since there are some people on the forum who are opposed to embryo adoption, I am curious as to what alternative they would promote for the embryos.
Even if IVF were banned tomorrow, we would still have thousands of frozen embryos. If we cannot allow couples to adopt the embryos, what should we do with them? Destroy them? Destroy them by using them for research? Keep them frozen until the end of the world?

Cardinal Hume (he has passed away) opined that we should allow them to die a natural death.

*Britain is still faced with the dilemma of what to do with existing “spare” frozen embryos, Hume continued, and all suggestions for dealing with them are fraught with moral difficulties. “On balance I would myself argue that the `least worst’ solution is to allow such embryos to die,” Hume said. “It is the deplorable result of a bad law and a profligate technique,” the cardinal added.

Hume ruled out as “morally unacceptable” the idea of finding couples prepared to “adopt” spare embryos to be implanted in a woman’s womb, as one Vatican official recently suggested. Hume said the proposal raises substantial practical difficulties and theological problems.*

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n25_v113/ai_18666023

(note the above article refers to an opinion published by an author in the semi-official Vatican newspaper as an opinion of “the Vatican” which is not correct)

I’ve also read the suggestion that they be baptized (which would result in their deaths – perhaps too quickly, before the baptism is completed … so it’s problematic)

 

[ribozyme]

You’ll have all the intelligence (perhaps even a different mode of operation) in the afterlife to be understand the mysteries of the world. Why the urgency to have humanity understand it in this life?

While understanding the details may require high g, I think many of the concepts can be explained to those with a lower g perhaps by use of analogies like in the Nova special An Elegant Universe.

Non-controversial, ethical means of eugenics (like encouraging high IQ couples to have more children) do have their effect with time. Since even your favored “embryo selection” does have diminishing terms at least eventually, these two means in the long term will have the same effect on humanity’s course.

That is too slow to work, embryo selection can increase a population’s intelligence by one standard deviation unit per generation if we know all the genes that affect intelligence. How does your program accomplish that gain?

In three to four generations everyone in society will be able to occupy a place of honor and dignity.

The main reason why I advocate embryo selection is because it will help us in our pursuit for knowledge.

 

[GreenJeans]

This is an interesting question. It essentially highlights the fact that we are all really on our own in making moral decisions. When the systems which claim to offer guidance cannot do so because they are entangled in a web of their own legacy rulings, the individual has to stand up and act on his own. This is how leadership shifts. The old fails when confronted with a novel situation and something new emerges to take its place. We don’t have a history of leadership vacuums.

 

[GreenJeans]

That is too slow to work, embryo selection can increase a population’s intelligence by one standard deviation unit per generation if we know all the genes that affect intelligence. How does your program accomplish that gain?

In three to four generations everyone in society will be able to occupy a place of honor and dignity.

The main reason why I advocate embryo selection is because it will help us in our pursuit for knowledge.

Smart peopls can’t spend their time pursuing knowledge if they have to sweep the streets, empty trash, pump out septic tanks, wash cars, pick parsley, and anchor the evening news. We need an equally large cadre of the stupid. It’s the middlebrows who have to go.

 

[ribozyme]

Smart peopls can’t spend their time pursuing knowledge if they have to sweep the streets, empty trash, pump out septic tanks, wash cars, pick parsley, and anchor the evening news. We need an equally large cadre of the stupid. It’s the middlebrows who have to go.

It’s only for a few hours a week. Gee… sweeping the streets for a short amount of time is not the equivalent of a crucifixion!

 

[valient_Lucy]

It’s only for a few hours a week. Gee… sweeping the streets for a short amount of time is not the equivalent of a crucifixion!

How do you know that manual laborers work only a few hours a week? Have you ever done manual labor? And what about garbage collection? Or janitor work?

 

[valient_Lucy]

I am trying to learn as much as I can so that I can share that with others who have only listened to the secular argument or have surface knowledge of these situations. I am by no means an expert!!

In any case, it is my understanding that IVF is inherently evil regardless of whether the parents refuse to selectively implant, so I can’t see how it could be used in an embryo adoption procedure anyway?

Obviously, none of us our experts.

I just wanted to comment that while IVF is immoral, the embryos created from it are not evil, just as a child who is the product of rape is not immoral.

 

[ribozyme]

How do you know that manual laborers work only a few hours a week? Have you ever done manual labor? And what about garbage collection? Or janitor work?

Actually, it was a reference to this quote:

In the extremely unlikely event that even high salaries failed to produce sufficient people to do certain unattractive jobs, there could be a requirement that citizens perform a certain amount of community work, analogous to the military conscription that many countries now have. This would not be unethical or an intolerable burden. The Western democracies require their citizens to serve in the military and risk their lives in times of war; so it is difficult to raise any objection to their being required to devote a few hours a week to doing such jobs such as cleaning the streets or collecting the garbage, which no one wants to do. (Lynn 2001: 96)

 

[valient_Lucy]

A lot of people on the thread seemed disturbed at the prospect that some embryos would die in the implantation process. While I don’t deny that would be sad, I wonder if that is enough of a concern to rule out embryo adoption.

I guess my question is, is it wrong to treat any patients with cancer if we can’t cure all cancer patients?

I know it’s not a very good analogy, but medicine doesn’t always give us all 100% odds of survival or success, but we don’t declare that experimental medicine is in itself immoral because some potential cures may fail.

 

[Giannawannabe]

Very true. In fact, to the poster who was astute enough to notice that I purposely used the word 'typically" while illustrating a point, it most certainly is not the ‘end all be all’ argument in this matter. Lets look at it a little further.
The reason I point out the word “typically” is that “typically” indicates that it is “usually the case” or “something is usually performed in a certain way”. Of the couples I know who have used IVF, they use ALL of the embryos, not just select ones. It may take several attempts over a few years, but they did use all of the embryos.

Untrue. The parent(s) have very little say so in these matters, other than that they would like to have an implantation performed.
Unfortunately I was one of those people who used IVF (prior to understanding Church teaching and re-verting back to the Church). We had a lot of say in how many embryos we used, etc. In the beginning, we told the doctors that it did not matter if we conceived 30 embryos, all of them would be attempted(I know it does not excuse what we did, but truly we were ill-informed about the whole matter).

Yes they are.
If you are talking about being bystanders during the conception phase of IVF, then I agree. However, during the “insertion of the embryos” phase, the parents have complete say as to how many embryos are used.

Actually in-vitro fertilization is an entirely different animal. Here we are talking about already existing already conceived and very much alive human beings.
I totally agree with this statement. I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with.

Actually, no it doesn’t work that way.
It most certainly does work that way. I referred to the fact that if there were 10 embryos conceived, parents could choose to have 2 attempts,freeze the remaining 8. They could do this until all of the embryos have had a chance to implant and grow. This is exactly how it worked when I was involved in the process, and how it worked with my friends who have.

Yes there is. All human beings, regardless of how they were conceived, have a “right to life”.
Again, I’m not sure what your disagreement with me is. I believe that frozen embryos should have a right to life. I think our disagreement is in the type of life. Am I correct? You feel that they should remain frozen and I believe that they should be available for adoption.

Exactly. They deserve the same dignity and respect as any other human being, regardless of how small they are.
Any other human being is able to have a chance to grow, develop, and to be born(except those who are aborted). IMO, that is dignity and respect. Not being relegated to a freezer for an interminable amount of time.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[GreenJeans]

It’s only for a few hours a week. Gee… sweeping the streets for a short amount of time is not the equivalent of a crucifixion!

Given the amount of scut work necessary, it would be far more than a few hours. Why should I work in the fields when I can use my mind for the greater benefit of humanity? To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

We wouldn’t need any requirement for the smart people to do scut work if we had a docile cadre of the stupid.

 

[seekerz]

We wouldn’t need any requirement for the smart people to do scut work if we had a docile cadre of the stupid.

GreenJeans, why do you repeatedly use the word “stupid” to describe people? I find it highly offensive. Just so you know, I’m the granddaughter of janitors, washerwomen and housemaids. Their field of employment had absolutely nothing to do with their IQ or EQ as is evidenced by the fact that they raised children and grandchildren who are all highly educated, well-employed AND raised to think it’s wrong to label people as stupid.

 

[GreenJeans]

GreenJeans, why do you repeatedly use the word “stupid” to describe people? I find it highly offensive. Just so you know, I’m the granddaughter of janitors, washerwomen and housemaids. Their field of employment had absolutely nothing to do with their IQ or EQ as is evidenced by the fact that they raised children and grandchildren who are all highly educated, well-employed AND raised to think it’s wrong to label people as stupid.

What’s the problem? Your intelligent ancestors were obviously working below their capabilities. The job doesn’t define the intelligence level. But there are jobs that can be done by the stupid, and with embryo selection they can be reserved for the stupid while the smart work for the long term benefit of mankind. There is no reason smart people have to be trapped as congressmen or bishops when the jobs can be done even better by stupid people.

 

[mapleoak]

Smart peopls can’t spend their time pursuing knowledge if they have to sweep the streets, empty trash, pump out septic tanks, wash cars, pick parsley, and anchor the evening news. We need an equally large cadre of the stupid.

People who empty trash, pump out septic tanks, and wash cars, etc. are stupid? I suppose smart people sit in there ‘mind chairs’ all day and do nothing, but think?

Of the couples I know who have used IVF, they use ALL of the embryos, not just select ones. It may take several attempts over a few years, but they did use all of the embryos.

Let’s substitue ‘babies’ for ‘embryos’. It may take several attempts over a few years, but they did use all of the babies.

However, during the “insertion of the embryos” phase, the parents have complete say as to how many embryos are used.

No, they only have a say so in how many are actually implanted at one time. Guaranteed, there will be more embryos thawed out than are attempted to be implanted.

I totally agree with this statement. I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with.

No disagreement here, only that there appears to be confusion on the difference in the two procedures. One is the conception process - “In-Vitro” and the other is the “implantation” process. The two can be totally separate from each other.

It most certainly does work that way. I referred to the fact that if there were 10 embryos conceived, parents could choose to have 2 attempts,freeze the remaining 8. They could do this until all of the embryos have had a chance to implant and grow. This is exactly how it worked when I was involved in the process, and how it worked with my friends who have.

How much choice did you have in the fact that 10 embryos were conceived. If the parents were going to only USE two babies, why would they conceive eight more. Further, lets say it takes two attempts before a so-called success is attained. If two are thawed in hopes of getting one to take, there is a mortality rate of 50%. If it takes 10 attempts to get one to take, 90% mortality. If the babies are left frozen, they remain alive, 0% mortality. At what point does one say: “okay we have had x unsuccessful attempts, maybe we should stop killing embryos now”. Or does it go like this: “Gee were on our 100th attempt, I’m not stopping until I get a baby”.

Again, I’m not sure what your disagreement with me is. I believe that frozen embryos should have a right to life. I think our disagreement is in the type of life. Am I correct? You feel that they should remain frozen and I believe that they should be available for adoption.

Here we are talking about a plane full of hostages. The gunman is willing to make a deal, he will let half the hostages off and shoot the other half. Do we agree to such a deal. It would save the lives of 50% of the passengers. I don’t think so.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak