Implanting frozen embryos is wrong?

[mpartyka]

I realize how frustrating it is to be told by the Church, “no”, but that’s how it is.

Sure, but I also expect a rational reason behind being told, “No,” and I’m not seeing one aside from Nate13’s recent argument:

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.

That at least makes sense.

 

[Nate13]

That at least makes sense.

Exactly. Explain the motivations to me of a couple who wants to get one of these frozen embryo’s to implant rather than adopt a child that needs a home right now? I’m not sure there are any motivations as the situation stands right now that would not be considered objectively selfish. If you go down this line of thinking though you find the Church says prenatal adoption is wrong at this point, but not because its intrinsically evil.

 

[Rence]

Sure, but I also expect a rational reason behind being told, “No,” and I’m not seeing one.

I can relate, believe me. But you shouldn’t expect a “rational” reason behind being told “no” by the Church for all the teachings. There are many rules that don’t have a “rational” reason. And there are many people who don’t find reasons for a particular teaching “rational”, while others don’t seem to have a problem with it at all. The teachings of the Church regarding the unitive properties are quite “rational” to the Church, even if some people don’t find it so.

 

[Nate13]

I can relate, believe me. But you shouldn’t expect a “rational” reason behind being told “no” by the Church for all the teachings. There are many rules that don’t have a “rational” reason. And there are many people who don’t find reasons for a particular teaching “rational”, while others don’t seem to have a problem with it at all. The teachings of the Church regarding the unitive properties are quite “rational” to the Church, even if some people don’t find it so.

Is rationality subjective?

 

[Rence]

Is rationality subjective?

Some would say it is. Have fun trying to convince someone that one ‘rational’ is rational when they don’t find it rational. And does it matter what they think? Yes - because it drives their actions.

 

[Nate13]

I can relate, believe me. But you shouldn’t expect a “rational” reason behind being told “no” by the Church for all the teachings. There are many rules that don’t have a “rational” reason. And there are many people who don’t find reasons for a particular teaching “rational”, while others don’t seem to have a problem with it at all. The teachings of the Church regarding the unitive properties are quite “rational” to the Church, even if some people don’t find it so.

You came up with a pretty rational reason here. I also came up with some pretty rational reasons.

Unfortunately, it will only create a market for them. It will result in more already-existing humans frozen to be adopted. The only thing that will help is to stop freezing them. But the rules of the Church have nothing to do with that. It has to do with the required unitive property not being present during IVF. 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.

The problem is you then precluded to a false belief in why the Church says its wrong even though you don’t know that’s why it says its wrong. Your basically saying here you believe the Church has said prenatal adoption is intrinsically evil because if it did separate the unitive from the procreative meaning of sex it would. If the prenatal adoption is preplanned then that is occurring and you have an intrinsic evil. If the situation is laid out as the OP has put it, this is no longer the case and saying prenatal adoption is wrong is based on the fact that the Church believes allowing it at this point will bring more harm then good.

 

[Nate13]

Some would say it is. Have fun trying to convince someone that one ‘rational’ is rational when they don’t find it rational. And does it matter what they think? Yes - because it drives their actions.

Well it does happen because people change their minds everyday! When you change someone’s mind you either convince them their belief was irrational or that something they based that belief on was irrational.

 

[Rence]

The problem is you then precluded to a false belief in why the Church says its wrong even though you don’t know that’s why it says its wrong.

I didn’t basically say anything. I actually said:
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.

Your basically saying here you believe the Church has said prenatal adoption is intrinsically evil because if it did separate the unitive from the procreative meaning of sex it would. If the prenatal adoption is preplanned then that is occurring and you have an intrinsic evil. If the situation is laid out as the OP has put it, this is no longer the case and saying prenatal adoption is wrong is based on the fact that the Church believes allowing it at this point will bring more harm then good.

I didn’t basically say (or say at all) anything about “prenatal adoption”, which I take to be someone adopting a child before it’s born. I spoke about artificial insemination and embryo transfer itself.

 

[Rence]

Well it does happen because people change their minds everyday! When you change someone’s mind you either convince them their belief was irrational or that something they based that belief on was irrational.

Ok, and?

 

[mpartyka]

If the situation is laid out as the OP has put it, this is no longer the case and saying prenatal adoption is wrong is based on the fact that the Church believes allowing it at this point will bring more harm then good.

Here’s a monkey wrench for you: What if a facility that is maintaining frozen embryos announces its intention to destroy them? Doesn’t the fact that these embryos are going to die outweigh the situation of children who might live without parents but will at least live?

 

[mpartyka]

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

But again, implantation is something that takes place after procreation has already occurred (i.e., you now have a human life because sperm has already met egg, albeit in a petri dish), so the unitive property does not come into play.

 

[Rence]

But again, implantation is something that takes place after procreation has already occurred (i.e., you now have a human life because sperm has already met egg, albeit in a petri dish), so the unitive property does not come into play.

Will you argue with the catechism then?

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."167

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."168 "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."169

 

[Rence]

Here’s a monkey wrench for you: What if a facility that is maintaining frozen embryos announces its intention to destroy them? Doesn’t the fact that these embryos are going to die outweigh the situation of children who might live without parents but will at least live?

According to the teachings of the Church, you cannot do evil to do good. That’s in the catechism too. So while we mourn the loss of those embryos, which is a terrible injustice, the Church still doesn’t allow transferring them into someone’s uterus according to the Catechism.

 

[mpartyka]

Will you argue with the catechism then?

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."167

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."168 "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."169

I don’t think I am arguing with the Catechism. Everything mentioned in these passages refers to the creation of a human embryo. These passages say nothing about the implantation of an already-created embryo in the womb of a woman.

 

[Nate13]

Here’s a monkey wrench for you: What if a facility that is maintaining frozen embryos announces its intention to destroy them? Doesn’t the fact that these embryos are going to die outweigh the situation of children who might live without parents but will at least live?

Your forgetting that embryo’s right now are basically viewed as property in the laws eyes. Many couples do not want their children being born into other families. If you had orphaned embryo’s the embryo’s would be seen as property and you would not have any ability to try and claim those either. The best course of action in the case your talking about would be probably be to try to get together the funds to buy the facility. In all reality though I’m not sure the facility would have the ability to destroy any embryo’s inside unless it had the permission of the people who own them.

 

[Rence]

I don’t think I am arguing with the Catechism. Everything mentioned in these passages refers to the creation of a human embryo. These passages say nothing about the implantation of an already-created embryo in the womb of a woman.

Have you checked with a priest or an apologist yet?

 

[mpartyka]

Your forgetting that embryo’s right now are basically viewed as property in the laws eyes. Many couples do not want their children being born into other families. If you had orphaned embryo’s the embryo’s would be seen as property and you would not have any ability to try and claim those either. The best course of action in the case your talking about would be probably be to try to get together the funds to buy the facility. In all reality though I’m not sure the facility would have the ability to destroy any embryo’s inside unless it had the permission of the people who own them.

Granted, the situation is unlikely, but if such a situation were to arise – the biological parents sign off, saying, “Do whatever you like to them, we don’t care,” and the facility says, “Hey! Get these embryos before they’re toast! Get yer frozen embryos here!” – then would the imminent death of the embryos outweigh the plight of the already-born children needing adoption?

 

[Nate13]

Will you argue with the catechism then?

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."167

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."168 "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."169

1. infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.

This does not occur in the case up for debate unless you see all adoptions as going against that.

1. The second gives this qualifier “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.”

Procreation has already occurred. We are trying to figure out what to do after that with a baby that has been stripped from the natural place he/she would be. The Catechism provides no new teachings here.

 

[Nate13]

Granted, the situation is unlikely, but if such a situation were to arise – the biological parents sign off, saying, “Do whatever you like to them, we don’t care,” and the facility says, “Hey! Get these embryos before they’re toast! Get yer frozen embryos here!” – then would the imminent death of the embryos outweigh the plight of the already-born children needing adoption?

If I was in a position to adopt then I would seek the advice of a Catholic bioethics center which is who you should go bug lol

 

[Rence]

1. infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.

This does not occur in the case up for debate unless you see all adoptions as going against that.

1. The second gives this qualifier “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.”

Procreation has already occurred. We are trying to figure out what to do after that with a baby that has been stripped from the natural place he/she would be. The Catechism provides no new teachings here.

And have you bugged the folks at the Catholic bioethics center regarding this issue?