Implanting frozen embryos is wrong?

[mpartyka]

If the Church says that IVF is allowed to save the frozen embryos, then everything else that interferes with the unitive property will be acceptable as well.

You’re confusing IVF with implantation. IVF means to combine sperm and egg in a dish so that they form embryos. That’s wrong and the Church will never approve that, I agree. But after this illicit process has taken place, those embryos created by the process are either immediately implanted in the womb of a woman or frozen for later implantation or destruction. So the question is not whether IVF is moral – it isn’t. The question is whether implanting the results of IVF (i.e., frozen embryos) also constitutes a moral wrong. After all, these are already-created human beings, so one would think that if they have a right to life, they have a right to the fulness of life, not merely a frozen existence. (But maybe that’s not so? Is life itself, albeit in permanent suspension, the most we can morally offer?)

 

[mpartyka]

Sure you might give homes to some of those lives, but in the act of doing that you will create a market which will lead to the creation of even more frozen embryos. I think the Church would have a different response to the idea of prenatal adoption assuming the practice of creating embryo’s outside of the womb was ended and you were debating what to do with the frozen embryo’s that were left afterwards. I do not see anything which indicates prenatal adoption in the case described has been declared intrinsically evil, and thus what the Church is debating is whether the practice would bring more evil than good. Right now it would bring more evil than good.

How? Right now couples are indulging in IVF without any regard to what happens to the extra embryos that are created by the process, so what difference would it make to them whether the option of embryo adoption is now open for their leftovers? Take the adoption option away, and they’ll still do IVF.

Also, since when is it the teaching of the Church to leave good undone in case more evil comes by it? For example, would the Church refuse medical treatment to a violent anti-Christian extremist because that extremist will only go out and make further attacks on Christians?

 

[Rence]

You’re confusing IVF with implantation. IVF means to combine sperm and egg in a dish so that they form embryos. That’s wrong and the Church will never approve that, I agree. But after this illicit process has taken place, those embryos created by the process are either immediately implanted in the womb of a woman or frozen for later implantation or destruction. So the question is not whether IVF is moral – it isn’t. The question is whether implanting the results of IVF (i.e., frozen embryos) also constitutes a moral wrong. After all, these are already-created human beings, so one would think that if they have a right to life, they have a right to the fulness of life, not merely a frozen existence. (But maybe that’s not so? Is life itself, albeit in permanent suspension, the most we can morally offer?)

I’m not confusing IVF with implantation. The Church doesn’t allow IVF OR artificial implantation, because there is no unitive property involved. If there is no unitive property involved, then the activity is not licit and is a sin in the eyes of the Church. This is a very important and consistent Church teaching. And they will never allow it, and they can’t ever allow it – not only because it’s an infallible teaching, but also because if they do, then all other activities that omit the unitive property will have to be allowed too. Both the unitive, as well as the procreative, properties must be present, all the time, no exceptions - this is an infallible teaching. That’s a Church teaching that will never change. If you don’t believe me, then ask a good priest.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m not confusing IVF with implantation. The Church doesn’t allow IVF OR artificial implantation, because there is no unitive property involved. If there is no unitive property involved, then the activity is not licit and is a sin in the eyes of the Church. This is a very important and consistent Church teaching. And they will never allow it, and they can’t ever allow it – not only because it’s an infallible teaching, but also because if they do, then all other activities that omit the unitive property will have to be allowed too. Both the unitive, as well as the procreative, properties must be present, all the time, no exceptions - this is an infallible teaching. That’s a Church teaching that will never change. If you don’t believe me, then ask a good priest.

Actually, the Church hasn’t pronounced definitively on GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) either, so long as the male gamete was provided by licit means. Strictly, GIFT is also nonunitive.

 

[mpartyka]

The Church doesn’t allow IVF OR artificial implantation, because there is no unitive property involved.

Then how does the Church allow adoption? In adoption there is no unitive property between the adoptive couple and the generation of the life being adopted.

 

[SonCatcher]

Then how does the Church allow adoption? In adoption there is no unitive property between the adoptive couple and the generation of the life being adopted.

There’s another thread where this very issue is being discussed presently.

 

[Rence]

Then how does the Church allow adoption? In adoption there is no unitive property between the adoptive couple and the generation of the life being adopted.

You are arguing with the wrong person. Argue with the Church. Ask your priest. Ask an apologist, because everything I’ve written is evidently not making you understand this particular teaching. The adopted child was made way before adoption has occurred. The unitive property doesn’t exist in an adoption because it doesn’t apply to the situation. The generation of life being adopted was already born, and the conditions of the adopted child’s conception, implanation and birth have already happened - which, btw, the actions involved very well may not have been licit.

Whether one agrees with the teaching of the Church, or not, is irrelevent to the fact that it is still a teaching of the Church.

In order for the action to be licit, both the procreative and unitive properties must be met. The unitive property is nonexistent when artificial, any artificial means, interfere with it, or when it’s not between a Sacramentally married couple. This is the SAME reason why condoms are forbidden, homosexual relations are forbidden, heterosexual non-married sex is forbidden, IVF is forbidden, embryo transfer is forbidden, GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) is forbidden: the unitive properties don’t exist in these circumstances (and of course, in some of those examples, the procreative doesn’t either), and therefore the Church forbids it.

 

[Rence]

Actually, the Church hasn’t pronounced definitively on GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) either, so long as the male gamete was provided by licit means. Strictly, GIFT is also nonunitive.

You need to talk to a priest that you trust to be a good priest explain this to you, because you’re incorrect. Ask a priest, or ask an apologist:

According to the Church: 1) The only way agamete is provided is in its joining between a married couple, and with the unitive properties and procreative properties present. 2) There is no licit means to remove an embryo from a uterus, because we’re not allowed to tamper with the fertilized egg. This is not allowed. This is the reason why freezing eggs for use later is not allowed by the Church 3) transferring the embryo to another uterus or an artificial uterus is not allowed either, because we’re not allowed to tamper with the fertilized egg, and no unitive properties existed when the embryo was transferred.

 

[Rence]

Actually, the Church hasn’t pronounced definitively on GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) either, so long as the male gamete was provided by licit means. Strictly, GIFT is also nonunitive.

I would be thrilled and delighted if this was the case. I know it’s not licit because I was interested in it before I happened upon this forum and came across all sorts of Church laws and rules that I didn’t know about. I wish it were allowed because I would do it in a heartbeat. I was all ready for it, and then oops, found this website and all it’s resources

I don’t like these rules either, but they are what they are.

 

[Nate13]

You need to talk to a priest that you trust to be a good priest explain this to you, because you’re incorrect. Ask a priest, or ask an apologist:

According to the Church: 1) The only way agamete is provided is in its joining between a married couple, and with the unitive properties and procreative properties present. 2) There is no licit means to remove an embryo from a uterus, because we’re not allowed to tamper with the fertilized egg. This is not allowed. This is the reason why freezing eggs for use later is not allowed by the Church 3) transferring the embryo to another uterus or an artificial uterus is not allowed either, because we’re not allowed to tamper with the fertilized egg, and no unitive properties existed when the embryo was transferred.

I’m sorry I still believe your out there on a limb declaring things that have not been declared definitively.

#3 applies to a couple who chooses to use IVF because they are knowingly choosing to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. Lets say that couple does create some fertilized eggs outside the womb and freezes them. That couple then dies. You then have the equivalent of orphans that were all be it created illicitly but are still lives that deserve respect.

I would argue that a couple who adopts one of those embryo’s and has it implanted in the woman would not be separating the unitive and procreative meanings of sex.

These points:

we’re not allowed to tamper with the fertilized egg

I take this to pretty much mean “can’t touch” and that is ludicrous. I don’t know on what basis your making this statement. Birth can licitly be induced if it gives the baby a better chance at birth and if that isn’t “tampering” I don’t know what is. What you can’t do is put the baby in danger needlessly. Outside the womb the fertilized embryo has zero chance at life so any dangers in the procedure would easily be justifiable.

and

, and no unitive properties existed when the embryo was transferred.

No unitive properties exist during an adoption either. Assuming you already have a life this stage would seem not to be anything different. The “sex” has already occurred and you have a life. There is nothing left to separate.

 

[SonCatcher]

You need to talk to a priest that you trust to be a good priest explain this to you, because you’re incorrect. Ask a priest, or ask an apologist.

Actually, I am naturally disinclined to advise GIFT due to its questionable progeny. I am merely repeating information I have received from apologists and and faithful resources including this site. The question of GIFT is still under study because the gametes could ostensibly be recovered following the normal, unitive and procreative act and merely placed within close proximity within the woman’s fallopian tube. The Church does allow some forms of medical assistance. GIFT is not permitted of the couple cannot provide gametes through normal intercourse.

There’s also no moral problem with obtaining ova from a woman, so long as it is for legitimate diagnosis or research (the release of an ovum is completely disjoint from any act she could take).

edit to add: ZIFT (zygote intrafallopian transfer) is definitely expressly forbidden.

 

[mpartyka]

The adopted child was made way before adoption has occurred. The unitive property doesn’t exist in an adoption because it doesn’t apply to the situation. The generation of life being adopted was already born, and the conditions of the adopted child’s conception, implanation and birth have already happened - which, btw, the actions involved very well may not have been licit…In order for the action to be licit, both the procreative and unitive properties must be met. The unitive property is nonexistent when artificial, any artificial means, interfere with it, or when it’s not between a Sacramentally married couple. This is the SAME reason why condoms are forbidden, homosexual relations are forbidden, heterosexual non-married sex is forbidden, IVF is forbidden, embryo transfer is forbidden, GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) is forbidden: the unitive properties don’t exist in these circumstances (and of course, in some of those examples, the procreative doesn’t either), and therefore the Church forbids it.

The unitive property comes into play during the creation of human life. The only licit way to create human life is through natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage. Married sex is the only forum where the unitive property is maintained so as to make the procreation licit. No one is questioning that.

However, as you have rightly pointed out, sometimes human life is created via means that are not unitive in character. That is, even though there was no unitive property in play, the procreation did occur. There is a new human life on the table once sperm has met egg and formed an embryo. Procreation has already taken place at that point. The question now is not preventing procreation but caring for the results of that procreation.

You are speaking as though by “procreation” you mean both procreation and implantation. But these are two different things. In a totally natural process, first sperm fertilizes the egg, and only afterwards does the egg implant itself in the wall of the uterus (or not – sometimes these fertilized eggs do not implant and instead pass out of the uterus to die). So procreation is one thing, implantation is another. The former should only be done in the natural way, but I do not see why the latter has to be.

…transferring the embryo to another uterus or an artificial uterus is not allowed either, because we’re not allowed to tamper with the fertilized egg, and no unitive properties existed when the embryo was transferred.

Do you have a document that says this? Because I would maintain that if, as Humanae Vitae says, the unitive and procreative properties may not be separated, that would mean that the unitive propertes only exist so long as the procreative properties do, and those procreative properties end at conception, before implantation is even an option. Indeed, the reason that the Church condemns abortifacent drugs that prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall is not because the unitive property is not present but because a human life is present (i.e., procreation has already taken place).

 

[Rence]

I’m sorry I still believe your out there on a limb declaring things that have not been declared definitively.

Ok I have absolutely no problem with that

I would argue that a couple who adopts one of those embryo’s and has it implanted in the woman would not be separating the unitive and procreative meanings of sex.

That’s great for me Thanks for clearing that up! That is great news for many people, especially me

 

[Rence]

The unitive property comes into play during the creation of human life. The only licit way to create human life is through natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage. Married sex is the only forum where the unitive property is maintained so as to make the procreation licit. No one is questioning that.

However, as you have rightly pointed out, sometimes human life is created via means that are not unitive in character. That is, even though there was no unitive property in play, the procreation did occur. There is a new human life on the table once sperm has met egg and formed an embryo. Procreation has already taken place at that point. The question now is not preventing procreation but caring for the results of that procreation.

You are speaking as though by “procreation” you mean both procreation and implantation. But these are two different things. In a totally natural process, first sperm fertilizes the egg, and only afterwards does the egg implant itself in the wall of the uterus (or not – sometimes these fertilized eggs do not implant and instead pass out of the uterus to die). So procreation is one thing, implantation is another. The former should only be done in the natural way, but I do not see why the latter has to be.

Do you have a document that says this? Because I would maintain that if, as Humanae Vitae says, the unitive and procreative properties may not be separated, that would mean that the unitive propertes only exist so long as the procreative properties do, and those procreative properties end at conception, before implantation is even an option. Indeed, the reason that the Church condemns abortifacent drugs that prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall is not because the unitive property is not present but because a human life is present (i.e., procreation has already taken place).

Again, arguing with the wrong person. Bring it to a priest or apologist. Sorry…the unitive properties don’t exist in IVF, embryo transfer, etc.

 

[SonCatcher]

I would be thrilled and delighted if this was the case. I know it’s not licit because I was interested in it before I happened upon this forum and came across all sorts of Church laws and rules that I didn’t know about. I wish it were allowed because I would do it in a heartbeat. I was all ready for it, and then oops, found this website and all it’s resources

I don’t like these rules either, but they are what they are.

I am sorry you are having trouble conceiving. You are correct that you cannot do something against your own conscience. It is the burden of one who seeks to form his/her conscience well that he/she inevitably must turn aside from some things that might have previously seemed desirable. :sad_yes:

 

[mpartyka]

Again, arguing with the wrong person. Bring it to a priest or apologist. Sorry…

But you just agreed with Nate13, who said basically what I said!

 

[Rence]

I am sorry you are having trouble conceiving. You are correct that you cannot do something against your own conscience. It is the burden of one who seeks to form his/her conscience well that he/she inevitably must turn aside from some things that might have previously seemed desirable. :sad_yes:

I’m not having trouble conceiving, but thank you, that’s sweet. My conscience doesn’t tell me that IVF and embryo adoption are immoral. The Church says it is, so I changed my mind. If I ever find out that it’s allowed, which I’ve researched and found out it’s not, I’ll revisit it

 

[Rence]

But you just agreed with Nate13, who said basically what I said!

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s not that I don’t agree with either one of you, it’s that your information is not correct. Go ahead and do what’s best for you. But I’ve already researched it myself and know the Church doesn’t allow these things. You keep arguing and going around in circles and I don’t mean to be rude, but I feel like I’m in an endless loop here I realize how frustrating it is to be told by the Church, “no”, but that’s how it is. Why won’t you ask a priest or an apologist? Surely, they are more reliable sources than a random person online, right?

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m not having trouble conceiving, but thank you, that’s sweet. My conscience doesn’t tell me that IVF and embryo adoption are immoral. The Church says it is, so I changed my mind. If I ever find out that it’s allowed, which I’ve researched and found out it’s not, I’ll revisit it

My case is rather the opposite. Though I am neither scrupulous nor rigorous, I do find with surprise that some things that I automatically assume to be immoral (my own conscience is opposed to GIFT) have actually eluded official condemnation.

 

[Nate13]

Ok I have absolutely no problem with that

That’s great for me Thanks for clearing that up! That is great news for many people, especially me

My point was merely to point out that I think the question of prenatal adoption is still up for debate. What makes it different than say adopting the children who are the result of a rape is that no one goes out and tries to get raped. With IVF you have people who are willingly choosing to create orphans. This is why you see a lot of hesitation here. It is absolutely sick that this is happening and all these children are being brought into the world with no hope of having a family, when there are already so many children up for adoption that need homes. The Church does not want to do anything to support this absolutely disgraceful practice which is why I would tell any couple who wants to adopt to adopt a baby that has been born. Those children need help now. A frozen embryo is not going anywhere.