Sexual act resulting in deaths of embryos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerok
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jerok

Guest
In another forum this question was raised.

Suppose a woman can conceive normally, but shortly thereafter the fertilized egg (human with soul) dies every time.

Would it be moral wrong to have sex knowing that because of this humans with souls are being created and then are dying?

Perhaps it would be morally permissible to continue having sex as long as you are open to life/pray for a miracle, but would it be more saintly to abstain so as to not cause the death of any more humans?

Thanks
 
Jerok said:
In another forum this question was raised.

Suppose a woman can conceive normally, but shortly thereafter the fertilized egg (human with soul) dies every time.

Would it be moral wrong to have sex knowing that because of this humans with souls are being created and then are dying?

Perhaps it would be morally permissible to continue having sex as long as you are open to life/pray for a miracle, but would it be more saintly to abstain so as to not cause the death of any more humans?

Thanks
Click to expand...
I can’t think if a situation where this would happen or where she would know about it if it did. Even if it were possible as long as she is not doing anything actively to make the embryo die, but trusting the life of any possible conception to God, she commits no sin in having sex with her husband that might result in conception. She is not “causing the death of more humans” she is performing the God-given marriage act. Being open to life means accepting God’s lordship over life and death and giving up the human desire to decide who lives and dies.
 
Short luteal phase would fit the bill–since implantation of the embryo happens on the ninth day of the luteal phase, implantation can’t occur if the luteal phase is only seven or eight days long. Thus any baby conceived would be consigned to death.

I couldn’t conceive until I found the vitamins that corrected this.😦 Maybe I’ll meet my would-have-been children one day in heaven…
 
Jerok said:
In another forum this question was raised.

Suppose a woman can conceive normally, but shortly thereafter the fertilized egg (human with soul) dies every time.

Would it be moral wrong to have sex knowing that because of this humans with souls are being created and then are dying?

Perhaps it would be morally permissible to continue having sex as long as you are open to life/pray for a miracle, but would it be more saintly to abstain so as to not cause the death of any more humans?

Thanks
Click to expand...
No it would not be morlly wrong to have sex under thse circumstances, so long as the people involved are open to having children, should it please God to grant them that privilege.

There are many women who have gone through life, able to conceive but unable to carry to term and their doctors have informed them of this fact. These losses through mis-carriage, are unintentional and therefore no sin can be incurred. The same would apply to the scenerio you propose above.

Peace
James
 
Jerok said:
Would it be moral wrong to have sex knowing that because of this humans with souls are being created and then are dying?
Click to expand...
All humans die. The time of that death is decided by the one who created us. In this hypothetical situation, the Lord has called those people home very early in their journey.

Peace

Tim
 
Surely by having sex she is creating the scenario where life can begin, rather than causing the end of it. She starts the life, and whatever happens afterwards ends is. Does that make sense?
 
illmatic said:
Surely by having sex she is creating the scenario where life can begin, rather than causing the end of it. She starts the life, and whatever happens afterwards ends is. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
If you are so poor that you yourselves are starving and in poor shelter and cannot support another child, would it be more moral to abstain?
 
This is an interesting question. These answers seem somewhat dismissive of the moral dilemma here: competing values–having children and not causing unnecessary deaths. Seems like the answers ought to be a bit more subtle other than simply saying–“God chooses, so go ahead and proceed.” The truth is that both Goad AND humans make choices, and we are responsible for the consequences of our choices. I don’t see how one can so easily simply say that God is choosing that those children die. God isn’t choosing that you keep impregnating a woman that can’t bear live children. The humans are.
 
larkin31 said:
This is an interesting question. These answers seem somewhat dismissive of the moral dilemma here: competing values–having children and not causing unnecessary deaths. Seems like the answers ought to be a bit more subtle other than simply saying–“God chooses, so go ahead and proceed.” The truth is that both Goad AND humans make choices, and we are responsible for the consequences of our choices. I don’t see how one can so easily simply say that God is choosing that those children die. God isn’t choosing that you keep impregnating a woman that can’t bear live children. The humans are.
Click to expand...
There is a good here in the marital act, though. The couple may make the choice to abstain but they are not required to do so.Even though a child may be conceived and possibly be miscarried it does not take away the “good” of the marital act.
 
Seatuck said:
There is a good here in the marital act, though. The couple may make the choice to abstain but they are not required to do so.Even though a child may be conceived and possibly be miscarried it does not take away the “good” of the marital act.
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that it does. Nor is anyone claiming that the marital act is required for couples, nor is it required of couples in the most fertile time of the cycle.

The question here is actually quite complicated. I would think.
 
I agree with Larkin that it is more moral to abstain.

Do we all agree on this, that if you are so poor you are starving (and see no way of getting out of it in the foreseeable future) it would be better to abstain since you cannot raise a child.

Likewise, if the child will die in the womb it would be better to abstain.

However, the second option - if we Catholics really believe that children who die early will go to heaven, perhaps their deaths is not such a bad thing since we just created an eternally happy soul.

I agree with Larkin31 that it is more complicated than first glance dictates.
 
**Are we forgetting that our God is a God of miracles? Can the One Who designed our bodies, the Divine Physician, not also heal them? **

Why ever would it be wrong, if not breaking any natural or supernatural law, to have sex with one’s spouse, to conceive a child, and to beseech God to allow it to be born and bring us joy, also accepting that there’s a possibility (not a certainty) that He, for His own reasons, may instead decide to take it to Heaven early – and in either case, we will, if all goes as it should, all be reunited in the Communion of Saints in eternity?

Do we sincerely believe that regarding the consequences of any choice we make – even with our God-given free will – God doesn’t have the final say in the outcome? Every single breath we take we take because of Him. His eye is on the sparrow. Etc. We are not omnipotent. He is.

I wonder if this way of thinking could be something we have picked up by osmosis from the contraceptive culture? People – and I’m not meaning the OP, just people in society – are now so unfamiliar with the concept of being co-creators with God, and have gone from manipulating human embryos (wrong) to being paradoxically afraid of murdering them by doing things the way God set it up (puzzling)? :confused:

Maybe it’s an unconscious manifestation of collective guilt, which again could be in the cultural atmosphere just hovering to be picked upon by our minds, whether we’re guilty or innocent. Heavy stuff, but possible, IMO.

This isn’t meant in any way to overlook the fact that it’s hard on couples to go through miscarriages, but to try and have an outlook of hope rather than morbidness.
 
larkin31 said:
This is an interesting question. These answers seem somewhat dismissive of the moral dilemma here: competing values–having children and not causing unnecessary deaths. Seems like the answers ought to be a bit more subtle other than simply saying–“God chooses, so go ahead and proceed.” The truth is that both Goad AND humans make choices, and we are responsible for the consequences of our choices. I don’t see how one can so easily simply say that God is choosing that those children die. God isn’t choosing that you keep impregnating a woman that can’t bear live children. The humans are.
Click to expand...
You are right in that there are other questions that can spring from the OP, but let’s not get too far afield here either.
The OP asked, *"Would it be moral(ly) wrong to have sex knowing that because of this humans with souls are being created and then are dying?
*
The answer to this is that it would not be morally wrong.

A further question would be “is it morally wrong to abstain from having sex because of this?”
The answer to this is also, No it would not be morally wrong to abtain, assuming that such abstention is mutually agreed upon by the couple.

So - to answer the dilemma you pose about God and human’s making decisions, in this case there is more than one decision, or course of action, that can me taken and remain a moral decision.

peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top