Ovary transplant - okay or not okay?

[pathia]

It refers to your abilit to transmit your personhood to create a new life. Yes you are missing that and that makes you incomplete in the are of procreative identity. As am I.

Area of procreative identity is not the same as ‘foci of identity’. There is nothing there but saying that they are foci, period. If I am missing half of my foci of identity, then obviously I have to be half a human being, which I do not agree with

 

[Seatuck]

Area of procreative identity is not the same as ‘foci of identity’. There is nothing there but saying that they are foci, period. If I am missing half of my foci of identity, then obviously I have to be half a human being, which I do not agree with

The Vatican document uses the more complete explanation of procreative identity. They also do not say half and half as you have done. There are no percentages assigned or implied.

 

[graceandglory]

Ovaries and testes. I hope you read the rest of that quote because it pretty much disagrees with your previous post. I know that was a significant piece for me in this discussion.

Seatuck,
Yeah, I went to the EWTN document and read it.
I am of the same mind as you in your earlier post.
If the Church said it, that settles it.

I spent what, 5-10 minutes of my life thinking it through…

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has spent much more time, and thought, and effort, and prayer, and discernment, and counsel. And the Church has spoken.

But, it is fun to apply what we know to new situations as they come up.

I’m glad the Church cares so much for us.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I’m hard put to see that an ovary transplant violates the above. I would think that as long as the transplant was to replace a diseased ovary so that the woman could produce the needed hormones IMHO it would be ok. The intent was not sexual but physical.

As far as I know, a *donated *ovum must be fertilized in vitro before being implanted, which means the baby is not conceived by the marital act. Again, surrogacy is either achieved by implanting a fertilized egg, or by adultery, both of which we know are wrong. You are correct.

Since the transplantation of the ovary allows the child to be conceived and born in the right way, I tend to think that the fact that the egg may not be genetically the mother’s is no more important than it is in adoption. As long as the intent was not to only have a child I can’t see any reason not to just consider the child as an extra blessing.

However, if the Church disagrees with me on this, I will change my mind. I agree.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

I don’t believe that a living donor would be acceptable for this. The Vatican needs to come out with a statement on the “snowflake” babies. Science seems to have gotten ahead of us in many ways.

 

[Seatuck]

Seatuck,
Yeah, I went to the EWTN document and read it.
I am of the same mind as you in your earlier post.
If the Church said it, that settles it.

I spent what, 5-10 minutes of my life thinking it through…

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has spent much more time, and thought, and effort, and prayer, and discernment, and counsel. And the Church has spoken.

But, it is fun to apply what we know to new situations as they come up.

I’m glad the Church cares so much for us.

It took me a while to arrive at the same conclusion . I had to wrap my mind around the whole concept for a bit. I’m still working on forming my conscience correctly. It’s great that I have so many resources to go to at my typing finger tips.

 

[porthos11]

I tend to agree with the above scenario of a woman preserving her fertility due to illness not due to postponement. I like you will wait to see what the church says on the matter.

I think this is not a problem, since the ovaries are the woman’s own, and upon re-implantation, she’d be back to normal function.

I think the Church frowns not on the act of ovary transplantation, but the transplant of ANOTHER woman’s ovary.