IVF and the embryos on ice

[NM505StKate]

In this situation it would be better if they adopted. That way they’d be giving a home to a child who who needs one, and the child would be theirs because they’d be the ones to raise and nurture it.

Artificial Wombs are not dehumanizing, anybody who claims they are is just thinking like a luddite. Artificial Wombs are fundamentally the same as the incubators used to keep prematurely born children alive.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_intensive_care_unit

I can see adoption.

 

[TCEL]

Do we really want to content ourselves with the bare minimum? The rabbi wasn’t obliged to help the maimed hebrew man he saw in the street, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be like the samaritan.

I understand what you’re saying, but Catholic teaching doesn’t say it’s immoral to not use extraordinary means to extend life. The question about what to do with these embryos is under discussion amongst moral theologians.

I agree that Eugenics is one of the worst lies humanity came up with, but the reason it is so evil and results in so much death is that it revolves around the idea that some humans do not belong. Eugenics is why children with down syndrome are disproportionately more likely to get aborted, despite how many people with that disorder go on to live productive lives.

The thing about societies, governments, and countries is that they are not living organisms in themselves. WE decide what they want, what they welcome, and what they reject. So if we don’t want eugenics to happen then WE can prevent it by deciding that it is bad. Artificial Wombs have the potential to be used as a eugenic tool, just like nuclear power has the potential to end all life on earth multiple times over; it depends on how we as members of society choose to utilize the technology.

The ideal scenario for me would be that EVERY frozen embryo is placed into an artificial womb (even the ones with deformities or genetic disorders), that Artificial Wombs make all abortion a thing of the past (unwanted children could be put up for adoption before they are born, the way unwanted children can be put up for adoption after they are born), that pregnancy is never life-threatening (because the child can be placed in a life support system where it can come to term without harming its mother), and that IVF ceases to be used on humans (the influx of extra children will more than meet the adoption demands). If we truly see unborn children as being just as human as born children, then Artificial Wombs are fundamentally no different than a Neonatal intensive care unit (the incubators that keep prematurely born babies alive).

I understand that these will take a lot of shifts in social thinking to occur (for starters people will need to let go of their obsession with gene-relation), but when faced with serious problems I think of them long-term. Bartolome de las Casas must have known that he would not live to see the abolition of slavery, but because he wasn’t willing to settle for merely decreasing slavery he laid the groundworks for others to follow.

It certainly would take a lot of shifts. If it’s already so difficult to convince women to place their babies for adoption, I’m not sure artificial wombs are going to solve that. It would have to be compulsory. I don’t see it happening, and in the meantime it makes more sense to speak out against the IVF industry to begin with.

 

[BornInMarch]

I understand what you’re saying, but Catholic teaching doesn’t say it’s immoral to not use extraordinary means to extend life. The question about what to do with these embryos is under discussion amongst moral theologians.

Well then I don’t think temporarily using a life support system is all that extraordinary. Resource-heavy maybe, but worth it in the end.

It certainly would take a lot of shifts. If it’s already so difficult to convince women to place their babies for adoption, I’m not sure artificial wombs are going to solve that. It would have to be compulsory. I don’t see it happening, and in the meantime it makes more sense to speak out against the IVF industry to begin with.

There’s no reason to think that the world as it is now is the way it will ALWAYS be. People in the 1600s didn’t see slavery ever being abolished, and yet today it is illegal in every country in the world. While I think IVF is bad (it discourages adoption), I don’t think murdering designer babies is the answer.

 

[TCEL]

Well then I don’t think temporarily using a life support system is all that extraordinary. Resource-heavy maybe, but worth it in the end.

There’s no reason to think that the world as it is now is the way it will ALWAYS be. People in the 1600s didn’t see slavery ever being abolished, and yet today it is illegal in every country in the world. While I think IVF is bad (it discourages adoption), I don’t think murdering designer babies is the answer.

Well, I don’t think murder is the answer either. Do you think the only reason IVF is bad is because it discourages adoption?

 

[cominghome1966]

This is just wrong. An artificial womb is no more dehumanizing than a dialysis machine; both are fundamentally just machines that keep a human being alive when its body is weakened. Think of it as being like a neonatal intensive care unit; ideally it wouldn’t be needed, but it’s certianly a better solution than “just let the baby die”.

As for masturbation, that is not necessary. A baby could be conceived in a natural womb and then moved to an artificial one (such as if the pregnancy would otherwise kill the baby, or the mother, or both), and then it could grow in peace and be born a few months later.

There is a lot of wishful thinking here.

First off, let’s talk about the real world as it exists right now. Masturbation is absolutely essential to these technologies as they exist today. People are reading over our shoulders who are considering these things right now. So we are discussing things that people are thinking about doing TODAY or next week or next year.

So if today people listened to the Church regarding the sin of masturbation, this whole industry would be shut down. And that would be a very good thing. Sure, in principle, maybe, someday, masturbation won’t be necessary for these technologies to work. BUT TODAY IT IS.

Second, artificial wombs are very disturbing. They are another step away from marriage, another reason people will reject marriage. For example, men will have an incentive to disregard the child’s mother. They already have that in so many ways, and this will be one more way. And can you imagine the number of babies that will need to be sacrificed in order to make that technology viable? And there are Catholics here OK with that? Goodness! No, just no.

Third, these technologies make peole think that they have a “right” to have a child. But nobody has that right.

Finally, these technologies require that many embryos get sacraficed or remain in a permanently frozen state. This is because doctors always create more embroys than they think they need. We have a glut of frozen embryos in the US that stood at 600,000 as of 2013.

 

[BornInMarch]

First off, let’s talk about the real world as it exists right now. Masturbation is absolutely essential to these technologies as they exist today. People are reading over our shoulders who are considering these things right now. So we are discussing things that people are thinking about doing TODAY or next week or next year.

Pretending that the future never exists, or that it isn’t important, is very short-sighted. No, I’m not going to ignore potential and how things can be in the future because the way things are today is not the way they will always be. A lot of serious problems in the world occur because people only think about the world “as it exists right now” instead of thinking long-term.

So if today people listened to the Church regarding the sin of masturbation, this whole industry would be shut down. And that would be a very good thing. Sure, in principle, maybe, someday, masturbation won’t be necessary for these technologies to work. BUT TODAY IT IS.

What are you talking about. IVF and Artificial Wombs are two VERY different things. In Vitro Fertilization is where eggs and sperm are combined inside of a petri dish and then reinserted into a woman’s uterus. Meanwhile Artificial Wombs are where a currently-existing unborn child is taken out of a woman’s uterus and moved to a life-support apparatus. Neither of these require the other one in order to work!

Second, artificial wombs are very disturbing. They are another step away from marriage, another reason people will reject marriage. For example, men will have an incentive to disregard the child’s mother. They already have that in so many ways, and this will be one more way. And can you imagine the number of babies that will need to be sacrificed in order to make that technology viable? And there are Catholics here OK with that? Goodness! No, just no.

You sound like a luddite right now, acting like if a technology is strange and unnatural it therefore it must be evil. You have yet to explain how Artificial Wombs are in any way different from Neonatal Intensive Care Units, and I suspect you will continue to completly ignore this glaring hole in your argument.

While it will provide an easy way to get rid of unplanned pregnancies, there already is a thing that does this. That’s why artificial wombs are a great thing; they are a non-murderous alternative to abortions and will save lives. As for possible risk to unborn children in the planning phase, that can easily be averted with animal testing (perfect the technology on rats or apes, then adapt it for humans).

Third, these technologies make peole think that they have a “right” to have a child. But nobody has that right.

I find it a bit jarring how you seem to value abstract unfeeling ideas over physical human beings. Would you just prefer if people kept getting abortions, because that’s the alternative.

Finally, these technologies require that many embryos get sacraficed or remain in a permanently frozen state. This is because doctors always create more embroys than they think they need. We have a glut of frozen embryos in the US that stood at 600,000 as of 2013.

Artificial Wombs would actually SOLVE this problem, as it would allow those embryos to develop in a safe environment and be born. Once born they would be put up for adoption and taken in by good parents.

 

[BornInMarch]

Well, I don’t think murder is the answer either. Do you think the only reason IVF is bad is because it discourages adoption?

Just letting them die when we have the means to save them feels like murder to me.

As for IVF, the two big reasons that make me oppose it are a) that it discourages adoption and helps perpetuate the myth that love only comes from genetic relation and b) that IVF kills off a lot of unborn children when the procedure goes wrong or when a couple sells their extra embryos to a research firm.

It helps that the church opposes it, but those two reasons mean I would oppose it even if the church didn’t.

Why do you oppose IVF.

 

[TCEL]

Just letting them die when we have the means to save them feels like murder to me.

As for IVF, the two big reasons that make me oppose it are a) that it discourages adoption and helps perpetuate the myth that love only comes from genetic relation and b) that IVF kills off a lot of unborn children when the procedure goes wrong or when a couple sells their extra embryos to a research firm.

It helps that the church opposes it, but those two reasons mean I would oppose it even if the church didn’t.

Why do you oppose IVF.

It’s best for me to quote on this, with a special emphasis on the first paragraph. It ultimately has to do with human dignity.

Human beings bear the image and likeness of God. They are to be reverenced as sacred. Never are they to be used as a means to an end, not even to satisfy the deepest wishes of an infertile couple. Husbands and wives “make love,” they do not “make babies.” They give expression to their love for one another, and a child may or may not be engendered by that act of love. The marital act is not a manufacturing process, and children are not products. Like the Son of God himself, we are the kind of beings who are “begotten, not made” and, therefore, of equal status and dignity with our parents.

In IVF, children are engendered through a technical process, subjected to “quality control,” and eliminated if found “defective.” In their very coming into being, these children are thoroughly subjected to the arbitrary choices of those bringing them into being. In the words of Donum Vitae: “The connection between in vitro fertilization and the voluntary destruction of human embryos occurs too often. This is significant: through these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree.” The document speaks of “the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage.” To be within and from marriage, conception should occur from the marriage act which by its nature is ordered toward loving openness to life, not from the manipulations of technicians.

The dehumanizing aspects of some of these procedures is evident in the very language associated with them. There is the “reproductive technology industry.” Children are called the “products” of conception. Inherent in IVF is the treatment of children, in their very coming into being, as less than human beings. Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology

 

[cominghome1966]

Pretending that the future never exists, or that it isn’t important, is very short-sighted. No, I’m not going to ignore potential and how things can be in the future because the way things are today is not the way they will always be. A lot of serious problems in the world occur because people only think about the world “as it exists right now” instead of thinking long-term.

Actually, I am thinking long term, as I indicated when I stated that artificial wombs will need quite a bit of experimentation in order to work. That experimentation will mean that unborn human life will need to be sacrificed. There is no way around this at all.

What are you talking about. IVF and Artificial Wombs are two VERY different things. In Vitro Fertilization is where eggs and sperm are combined inside of a petri dish and then reinserted into a woman’s uterus. Meanwhile Artificial Wombs are where a currently-existing unborn child is taken out of a woman’s uterus and moved to a life-support apparatus. Neither of these require the other one in order to work!

Yes, they are two different things but that doesn’t mean that the technologies won’t be used in tandem. Again, I think your scenario regarding a transfer from a real womb to an artificial womb is not something that the Church will ever support. Again,* real human life will need to be sacrificed in order to perfect the technology. *

You sound like a luddite right now, acting like if a technology is strange and unnatural it therefore it must be evil. You have yet to explain how Artificial Wombs are in any way different from Neonatal Intensive Care Units, and I suspect you will continue to completly ignore this glaring hole in your argument.

While it will provide an easy way to get rid of unplanned pregnancies, there already is a thing that does this. That’s why artificial wombs are a great thing; they are a non-murderous alternative to abortions and will save lives. As for possible risk to unborn children in the planning phase, that can easily be averted with animal testing (perfect the technology on rats or apes, then adapt it for humans).

I find it a bit jarring how you seem to value abstract unfeeling ideas over physical human beings. Would you just prefer if people kept getting abortions, because that’s the alternative.

Artificial Wombs would actually SOLVE this problem, as it would allow those embryos to develop in a safe environment and be born. Once born they would be put up for adoption and taken in by good parents.

Why did you ignore my criticism regarding how artificial wombs will need to sacrifice human lives in order to be perfected?

I stand by every word I wrote. Masturbation is a sin regardless of the reason it is done, and these technologies destroy much human life in order to be perfected and used. That is why I say they are inhuman.

 

[phil19034]

So if someone with plumbing outside or inside cannot have children for any reason and IVF is the best option are you saying that it is a bad thing? What about if we advance enough to have artificial wombs so that no one carries the child?

Kate - the Catholic Chuch has already ruled that IVF is a mortal sin. This is not just the opinion of people here, but an official belief of the Catholic Church.

 

[phil19034]

This is just wrong. An artificial womb is no more dehumanizing than a dialysis machine; both are fundamentally just machines that keep a human being alive when its body is weakened. Think of it as being like a neonatal intensive care unit; ideally it wouldn’t be needed, but it’s certianly a better solution than “just let the baby die”.

As for masturbation, that is not necessary. A baby could be conceived in a natural womb and then moved to an artificial one (such as if the pregnancy would otherwise kill the baby, or the mother, or both), and then it could grow in peace and be born a few months later.

At the time of this post, NO ONE has mentioned anything about artificial wombs. At last I’ve checked, the church has not mentioned anything about this.

 

[Wesrock]

In this situation it would be better if they adopted. That way they’d be giving a home to a child who who needs one, and the child would be theirs because they’d be the ones to raise and nurture it.

Artificial Wombs are not dehumanizing, anybody who claims they are is just thinking like a luddite. Artificial Wombs are fundamentally the same as the incubators used to keep prematurely born children alive.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_intensive_care_unit

Caring for an already existing child in an artificial womb for medical reasons may be appropriate, but it should not be the intent as part of child planning, even for infertile couples. Neither should surrogacy, or using donor materials. The Church teaches that these are immoral, that children have a right to be conceived in a marital, conjugal union.

And I’ve personal experience with marital infertility, just to make it clear I have a personal stake in this moral teaching.

 

[phil19034]

Pretending that the future never exists, or that it isn’t important, is very short-sighted. No, I’m not going to ignore potential and how things can be in the future because the way things are today is not the way they will always be. A lot of serious problems in the world occur because people only think about the world “as it exists right now” instead of thinking long-term.

What are you talking about. IVF and Artificial Wombs are two VERY different things. In Vitro Fertilization is where eggs and sperm are combined inside of a petri dish and then reinserted into a woman’s uterus. Meanwhile Artificial Wombs are where a currently-existing unborn child is taken out of a woman’s uterus and moved to a life-support apparatus. Neither of these require the other one in order to work!

You sound like a luddite right now, acting like if a technology is strange and unnatural it therefore it must be evil. You have yet to explain how Artificial Wombs are in any way different from Neonatal Intensive Care Units, and I suspect you will continue to completly ignore this glaring hole in your argument.

While it will provide an easy way to get rid of unplanned pregnancies, there already is a thing that does this. That’s why artificial wombs are a great thing; they are a non-murderous alternative to abortions and will save lives. As for possible risk to unborn children in the planning phase, that can easily be averted with animal testing (perfect the technology on rats or apes, then adapt it for humans).

I find it a bit jarring how you seem to value abstract unfeeling ideas over physical human beings. Would you just prefer if people kept getting abortions, because that’s the alternative.

Artificial Wombs would actually SOLVE this problem, as it would allow those embryos to develop in a safe environment and be born. Once born they would be put up for adoption and taken in by good parents.

I can foresee MAJOR ABUSES with an Artifical Womb.

For example: rich mothers opting to place their child inside an artificial womb in order to prevent being pregnant.

I can see Hollywood actresses doing this so they don’t miss out on a part. I can also see female athletes doing this so they don’t have to cut back on their physical training. And frankly, I can see several other rich women doing for other purely selfish reasons.

I can see feminists promoting this as a way for women to be on “equal footing with men” and using slogans like “if my husband doesn’t have to carry the baby to full term, why must I?!?”

I can also see some feminists saying “sure, have one baby natural so you get to experience that unique gift to women, but then you never need to have morning sickness again!”

I can also see adds like “want 4 kids - coupled with IVF, get all four kids at once so you can avoid being an ‘older parent’ and receive a discount for each additional kid after the first one!”

This would turn into an evil industry, which would lead to human beings being grown in factories and wearhouse, instead of inside his/her mother’s womb.

Like birth control, abortion, IVF, and surrogacy it will further damage the Human Family.

God Bless

 

[cominghome1966]

There is no way artificial wombs can come into being without sacrificing a lot of human life in the process. Some of that human life will be at more “advanced” stages of development–so not only will embryos have to be sacrificed, but babies as well.

I don’t understand why this point is being ignored by those who favor artificial wombs.

 

[Elf01]

There is no way artificial wombs can come into being without sacrificing a lot of human life in the process. Some of that human life will be at more “advanced” stages of development–so not only will embryos have to be sacrificed, but babies as well.

I don’t understand why this point is being ignored by those who favor artificial wombs.

I don’t see why sacrifice would be necessary. Testing could be restricted to cases where, with our current medical knowledge the child will die (i.e. etopic pregnancy or lifesaving treatment needed by the mother that will kill the child). I do however think that research should be done on finding alternative treatments that do not kill the child e.g. moving the child to the mothers womb or finding a cure for the mother that will not harm the baby.

My own view on artificial wombs is the same as Wesrocks.

 

[MJDorry]

I think what makes this a difficult topic doesn’t have much to do with the embryos themselves, but the surrounding circumstances.

How many thousands of embryos are on ice right now? And how many Catholic women would be willing to take on the burden of having the embryos implanted in their wombs?

Certainly, the Church could never force one of her faithful to take on such a burden, and likewise, for someone to do so would likely be handsomely rewarded by God. And how effective and humane is it truly to use Church funds to preserve the embryos until enough women come around to claim each embryo (Or the Second Coming of Christ)?

Just because the embryos can re-animate, is it proper to assume that in their frozen stasis, they are truly alive in the way they were at conception?

I do not have an answer to these questions, but I think they are the questions we need to be answering. We’re being saddled with the responsibility of deciding whether to save these lives or not because of the sins of cold medical research.

 

[BornInMarch]

I can foresee MAJOR ABUSES with an Artifical Womb.

For example: rich mothers opting to place their child inside an artificial womb in order to prevent being pregnant.

I can see Hollywood actresses doing this so they don’t miss out on a part. I can also see female athletes doing this so they don’t have to cut back on their physical training. And frankly, I can see several other rich women doing for other purely selfish reasons.

I can see feminists promoting this as a way for women to be on “equal footing with men” and using slogans like “if my husband doesn’t have to carry the baby to full term, why must I?!?”

I can also see some feminists saying “sure, have one baby natural so you get to experience that unique gift to women, but then you never need to have morning sickness again!”

I can also see adds like “want 4 kids - coupled with IVF, get all four kids at once so you can avoid being an ‘older parent’ and receive a discount for each additional kid after the first one!”

This would turn into an evil industry, which would lead to human beings being grown in factories and wearhouse, instead of inside his/her mother’s womb.

Like birth control, abortion, IVF, and surrogacy it will further damage the Human Family.

God Bless

I admit that I can see abuses occurring. In fact some of the abuses you listed already occur with Induced Labor (where a doctor causes a baby to be born days or weeks ahead of the natural delivery time - this should only really be done for medical necessity but sometimes it is done just to prevent delivery from conflicting with the schedule of the mother or the doctor).

But even combined, none of those are as bad as outright child-murder. If artificial wombs eliminate abortion then it will be a net gain for the human family and for the human race. Plus with abortion out of the way we can focus our energy and efforts towards other problems (such as the ones you listed).

And in addition to that Artificial Wombs will prevent deaths in childbirth as well as miscarriages, birth defects (if a baby is deformed then it can be taken out, surgically repaired in an artificial womb, and then put back into its mother with the problem corrected), and a host of other things all without ending human lives.

Scientists are already working on it, so it’s less a question of “Should this exist” and more a question of “how can we best use this”. Every technology has a positive use, but we only get to shape how it is used if we don’t immediately reject it out of hand.

 

[BornInMarch]

How many thousands of embryos are on ice right now? And how many Catholic women would be willing to take on the burden of having the embryos implanted in their wombs?

Certainly, the Church could never force one of her faithful to take on such a burden, and likewise, for someone to do so would likely be handsomely rewarded by God. And how effective and humane is it truly to use Church funds to preserve the embryos until enough women come around to claim each embryo (Or the Second Coming of Christ)?

Just because the embryos can re-animate, is it proper to assume that in their frozen stasis, they are truly alive in the way they were at conception?

I do not have an answer to these questions, but I think they are the questions we need to be answering. We’re being saddled with the responsibility of deciding whether to save these lives or not because of the sins of cold medical research.

Death is only the PERMANENT cessation of vital biological functions. If said functions can be resumed then it is only near-death.

 

[phil19034]

I admit that I can see abuses occurring. In fact some of the abuses you listed already occur with Induced Labor (where a doctor causes a baby to be born days or weeks ahead of the natural delivery time - this should only really be done for medical necessity but sometimes it is done just to prevent delivery from conflicting with the schedule of the mother or the doctor).

But even combined, none of those are as bad as outright child-murder. If artificial wombs eliminate abortion then it will be a net gain for the human family and for the human race. Plus with abortion out of the way we can focus our energy and efforts towards other problems (such as the ones you listed).

And in addition to that Artificial Wombs will prevent deaths in childbirth as well as miscarriages, birth defects (if a baby is deformed then it can be taken out, surgically repaired in an artificial womb, and then put back into its mother with the problem corrected), and a host of other things all without ending human lives.

Scientists are already working on it, so it’s less a question of “Should this exist” and more a question of “how can we best use this”. Every technology has a positive use, but we only get to shape how it is used if we don’t immediately reject it out of hand.

letting frozen embryos die is not murder. It’s a tragedy, but it’s not murder.

furthermore, the Church teaches that the ends do not justify the means. We cannot commit evil for a good outcome. In my opinion, artificial wombs and creating an infrastructure to sell embryos will be evil.

NOTE: The ONLY way I would be sort of ok with women inserting embryos into their wombs to grow the children to birth is if: they are adopted and for free (plus some modest, govt regulated fees for the implantation). It cannot turn into a for profit industry.

But even then, I see abuse.

And I fear these things will lead to more children born outside of wedlock, etc.

I just see the whole scenario a total tragedy no matter how many individual miracles take place.

 

[NM505StKate]

Kate - the Catholic Chuch has already ruled that IVF is a mortal sin. This is not just the opinion of people here, but an official belief of the Catholic Church.

So the church doesn’t want people to have kids?