The scientist was wrong to create the embryo in the first place. We wouldn’t be in the wrong if we allowed the embryo to implant in a mother. The scientist was the one who fertilized the egg outside a mother, so they’re the one who’s guilty of using IVF.If a scientist forms a human embryo in a lab and we were to rescue one, what would be the moral thing to do if they cannot develop unless used for IVF or if they are not killed from embryonic stem cell research? Since the other two are also evil, what are we suppose to do with these “test tube babies”, also, is it morally wrong to freeze the embryos?
Okay, I’ll go out on a limb on this one. First, the embryo’s are the children of the parents; whomever they may be. So taking them would be kidnapping perhaps? What to do about embryo’s in a frozen state? They are in a unnatural state, outside the womb. So perhaps the moral thing to do would be to allow them to die? Anyone else want to tackle this?:banghead:If a scientist forms a human embryo in a lab and we were to rescue one, what would be the moral thing to do if they cannot develop unless used for IVF or if they are not killed from embryonic stem cell research? Since the other two are also evil, what are we suppose to do with these “test tube babies”, also, is it morally wrong to freeze the embryos?
Actually, I think it’s a bit dicier than this. There was a thread made a bit ago about this specific issue: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=745169The scientist was wrong to create the embryo in the first place. We wouldn’t be in the wrong if we allowed the embryo to implant in a mother. The scientist was the one who fertilized the egg outside a mother, so they’re the one who’s guilty of using IVF.
Whether it’s wrong to freeze a human… is really a question that ought not come up, since they’re not supposed to be in freezers. But assuming the blastocyst needs to be stored before we can get them to the mother, I think the morality of freezing them would depend on whether it was a risk to their healthy development. I don’t know how freezing affects humans at the earliest stages. I should look it up.
(How far along is this “embryo”, though? I’m pretty sure the blastocyst needs to implant before it becomes an embryo, so I’m not really sure how this hypothetical child is still alive.)
Oh, I see. But we can’t just let them die, so…? :ehh:Actually, I think it’s a bit dicier than this. There was a thread made a bit ago about this specific issue: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=745169
Basically, it boils down to the fact that implanting an embryo even with an adoptive mentality still “presents …] various problems” according to Dignitas Personae.
It’s one of those gray areas in which every option seems bad. It’s like one of those philosophical dilemmas that asks people to choose between the lesser of two evils… It’s so unfortunate that this has even become an issue, what to do with frozen children. How sad.Oh, I see. But we can’t just let them die, so…? :ehh:
That thread was an amazingly interesting and depressing read. It seems this really is a big issue we have to deal with. I didn’t realize this. I assumed the “extra” children were always discarded- had no idea they stored them so long.It’s one of those gray areas in which every option seems bad. It’s like one of those philosophical dilemmas which asks people to choose between the lesser of two evils… It’s so unfortunate that this has even become an issue, what to do with frozen children. How sad.
can doctors please allow embryos to stay peacefully in their comfortable natural home? we should stop dethroning God in order to enthrone science.wait a minute! did you mean FROZEN EMBRYO like a chunk of flesh cut off from a cow and kept in the freezer until we are ready to cook? definitely the human person has more worth (than harvesting embryos as if from a lab rat)
anyway you should not bother about these questions until science can create living cells in the lab from non-living things. until then please don’t harvest embryos for ivf, cloning, surrogacy or alternative forms of reproduction. there is only one moral form of reproduction: conception by sexual intercourse between a married couple.
wait a minute! did you mean FROZEN EMBRYO like a chunk of flesh cut off from a cow and kept in the freezer until we are ready to cook? definitely the human person has more worth (than harvesting embryos as if from a lab rat)
anyway you should not bother about these questions until science can create living cells in the lab from non-living things. until then please don’t harvest embryos for ivf, cloning, surrogacy or alternative forms of reproduction. there is only one moral form of reproduction: conception by sexual intercourse between a married couple.
Yes, we know that they shouldn’t exist in their current circumstances. But they already do. The question now is, what do we do with them? They could be saved, but it would require someone to “adopt” one and carry them to term. Many people believe that this is immoral, as they consider pregnancy to be part of the procreative act that should only take place between a husband and wife. The Church hasn’t ruled either way, she has only said that both options present problems. Yet to do nothing would be to kill the embryos through inaction, and I can’t see how that is acceptable.can doctors please allow embryos to stay peacefully in their comfortable natural home? we should stop dethroning God in order to enthrone science.
let’s take some parts of st JohnPaul II’s humanae vitaeYes, we know that they shouldn’t exist in their current circumstances. But they already do. The question now is, what do we do with them? They could be saved, but it would require someone to “adopt” one and carry them to term. Many people believe that this is immoral, as they consider pregnancy to be part of the procreative act that should only take place between a husband and wife. The Church hasn’t ruled either way, she has only said that both options present problems. Yet to do nothing would be to kill the embryos through inaction, and I can’t see how that is acceptable.
This situation should never have happened. But it did, and we need to know what to do about it now.
OK, but that’s literally not possible at the moment. We can’t save the embryos without implanting them. They will die if they don’t have a means of gaining nutrition. In effect, they will starve to death.let’s take some parts of st JohnPaul II’s humanae vitae
from these pieces (though not specifically directed at this case, but still applicable) we may hold it as more moral to try to save the embryos within the labs were they were made
The Church opposes IVF. If you believe that IVF is not immoral, nobody will stop you from arguing that point, but it must be understood that it is unacceptable according to the Church. I’m also aware that in many cases the “extra” embryos are indeed discarded.It is interesting reading this just how little people know about IVF. I am guessing this is why the Church is not able to handle the moral questions that surround it. If you do not know with certainty why people choose to go this route, what happens, the associate scientific and medical issues, etc., how can you possibly form an opinion, let alone a “teaching”, on the subject? It is scary that people who know so little can feel so strongly.
Yes, we did go through IVF. Yes, we have a frozen embryo. Yes, we plan on trying to have the child. And we have two beautiful children already from it. You all accuse doctors and people who go through the process of viewing children as commodities. The fact that you are even having the debate you are having suggests you are guilt of the same. Go talk to a child born because of IVF, and you’ll have your answer of whether the embryo should be “saved”.
You might also want to talk to some IVF parents. You’ll learn that the decision was extremely difficult and so was the process, 95% of the time. You’ll learn that they did it because they loved each other and wanted to create a life together, but for whatever reason it wasn’t possible naturally (and you’ll learn they never stopped trying). Then talk to doctors and learn the real science behind it, including natural selection.
Then go look a few IVF children in the eye and tell them “you’re beautiful, but you’re not really supposed to be here”, because that’s effectively what you’re saying. I’d challenge anyone who so forcefully opposes IVF to do this. No one is playing God. They’re taking the gifts God gave them to help people who aren’t able to have children “naturally” create lives that are as much God’s children as any others, and that He intended to be born.
to respond to what you say about the embryos definitely dying without IVF i will quote the catechism of the Catholic church on embryos and how she considers killing them even by OMISSIONOK, but that’s literally not possible at the moment. We can’t save the embryos without implanting them. They will die if they don’t have a means of gaining nutrition. In effect, they will starve to death.
If we say that it is immoral to implant an embryo in someone who is not the biological mother, we are saying that thousands of people who could theoretically be saved must be allowed to die.
while Kamaduck’s response is exactly what I have in mind, let me draw your attention to something else.It is interesting reading this just how little people know about IVF. I am guessing this is why the Church is not able to handle the moral questions that surround it. If you do not know with certainty why people choose to go this route, what happens, the associate scientific and medical issues, etc., how can you possibly form an opinion, let alone a “teaching”, on the subject? It is scary that people who know so little can feel so strongly.
Yes, we did go through IVF. Yes, we have a frozen embryo. Yes, we plan on trying to have the child. And we have two beautiful children already from it. You all accuse doctors and people who go through the process of viewing children as commodities. The fact that you are even having the debate you are having suggests you are guilt of the same…
The procedure we are discussing here, as I understand it, is not IVF. IVF has already occurred in this instance- the egg has been fertilized outside the womb. This was immoral. The question is whether it is moral to then save the child by allowing them to implant in another woman’s uterus.to respond to what you say about the embryos definitely dying without IVF i will quote the catechism of the Catholic church on embryos and how she considers killing them even by OMISSION
2274 Since it must be treated from
conception as a person, the embryo
must be defended in its integrity,
cared for, and healed, as far as
possible, like any other human being.
2277 Whatever its motives and means,
direct euthanasia consists in putting
an end to the lives of handicapped,
sick, or dying persons.
It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of
itself or by intention, causes death in
order to eliminate suffering
constitutes a murder gravely contrary
to the dignity of the human person and
to the respect due to the living God,
his Creator.
The error of judgment into which one
can fall in good faith does not change
the nature of this murderous act,
which must always be forbidden and
excluded.
—while these two articles seem to support IVF in this instance, let’s take a step further before reaching an early conclusion
2278 Discontinuing medical
procedures that are burdensome,
dangerous, extraordinary, or
disproportionate to the expected
outcome can be legitimate; it is the
refusal of “over-zealous” treatment.
Here one does not will to cause death;
one’s inability to impede it is merely
accepted.
— so you might not kill the embryos even by omission. however their extraordinary IVF treatment can be discontinued legitimately.
Here one does not will to cause death;
one’s inability to impede it is merely
accepted.
this is what I meant earlier by saying science seeks to dethrone God. we can try to save a life. but do you wish to say that there is no limit for man when he is trying to save a life? How far can one go to save a life?
The Church had to reason her way to her teaching on this subject, Divine wisdom likely did not flat out tell Church leaders “IVF is wrong”, it would have been invoked to interpret the facts about IVF and come to a conclusion about them. This leads me to “if the facts are wrong, the teaching may be as well”, since the facts are gathered using human mechanisms. Keep Pope Francis’ statement that faith and reason naturally work together. Divine wisdom does not (rarely?) gives THE answer. It guides reasoning to it. I do not believe the Church fully understands the topic, I also know Catholic theologians who realize that it is an evolving practice with many, many complexities and variations. Hence I do not believe in this case that the Church’s teaching is well-founded at this point.however our ‘debate’ is not based on issues surrounding human wisdom but on issues surrounding divine wisdom.
Honestly, your condescending tone does nothing for your position. Second, it’s not that hard to understand the basics of IVF, and plenty of people inside and outside the Church understand the complexities as well.It is interesting reading this just how little people know about IVF. I am guessing this is why the Church is not able to handle the moral questions that surround it. If you do not know with certainty why people choose to go this route, what happens, the associate scientific and medical issues, etc., how can you possibly form an opinion, let alone a “teaching”, on the subject? It is scary that people who know so little can feel so strongly…
I talk to a child born of IVF all the time, two in fact. They are dear friends of my daughter. They are very cute and awesome kids.Yes, we did go through IVF. Yes, we have a frozen embryo. Yes, we plan on trying to have the child. And we have two beautiful children already from it. You all accuse doctors and people who go through the process of viewing children as commodities. The fact that you are even having the debate you are having suggests you are guilt of the same. Go talk to a child born because of IVF, and you’ll have your answer of whether the embryo should be “saved”…
I talk to the parents of the children mentioned above. They are great people. It doesn’t mean that IVF is moral because they are nice and the children are great.You might also want to talk to some IVF parents. You’ll learn that the decision was extremely difficult and so was the process, 95% of the time. You’ll learn that they did it because they loved each other and wanted to create a life together, but for whatever reason it wasn’t possible naturally (and you’ll learn they never stopped trying). Then talk to doctors and learn the real science behind it, including natural selection…
Why would someone do this? What is wrong with you?Then go look a few IVF children in the eye and tell them “you’re beautiful, but you’re not really supposed to be here”, because that’s effectively what you’re saying. I’d challenge anyone who so forcefully opposes IVF to do this.
Of course they are God’s children, but that doesn’t mean we should be doing IVF. God can create IMMENSE good out of our bad actions. It doesn’t mean He wants us to continue doing those bad actions.No one is playing God. They’re taking the gifts God gave them to help people who aren’t able to have children “naturally” create lives that are as much God’s children as any others, and that He intended to be born.
It’s not a cop-out. Do you think that children concieved in rape are not precious? Of course they are. They have souls. They are children. Their lives are every bit as sacred as yours or mine.That notwithstanding, to the point about “even children of rape…” and they’re all God’s gifts, etc… I’m sorry but that’s a bit of a cop-out. If the child is God’s gift, then is not the means of delivery implicitly also? You cannot on one hand say, “your parents did wrong to go through the process so you could be born” and on the other say “but you should be here, you are God’s gift”. You can massage that any way you want to, but it just does not make sense.