Unwanted frozen embryos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doc_Keele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc_Keele said:
Biggies, post 14 seems to serve no purpose. Since I naturally read Dignitas Personae before posting, hence the quotations from it, I’m not too sure where you’re coming from.

The Church gives no answer as to what should be done. I presume that the Church would say that someone who has not committed a moral error (as the embryos have not) cannot be put in a genuine moral dilemma. So what explanation does the Church have for not being able to find a moral answer?
Click to expand...
You are attempting to set out a conundrum for the Church in the same way the Pharisees attempted to set out a conundrum for Our Lord. It seems to me your purpose is not in arriving at a truth, but in pointing out what you perceive to be an embarrassment the Church should own. It seems fundamentally dishonest to me.

The truth is apparent in the Church’s position in Dignitas Personae, and any honest seeker after truth would see it exactly. Were the secular world to behave in a moral fashion, as the Church has obviously, ceaselessly pleaded, the dilemma would not exist. So the Church pleads against an immorality, the immorality is carried out to the effect the Church has forseen. Immorality begets immorality and the world, not the Church, is faced with the conundrum.

The moral answer is to preserve the embryos as they presently exist and to cease the practices that brought this sin into the world. But I sense you are in sympathy with these practices. Your solution, therefore, should not involve a concern for morality. Destory the embryos in your own pogrom. Only do not ask the blessing of the Church.
 
I am not having to set out a conundrum at all, Biggie. I found the conundrum that the Church had created. My solution would preserve life more than the Church’s fence-sitting actually Biggie. I hope you will apologise for accusing me of wanting a “pogrom” (not the right term, but never mind). I would be all for implanting the embryos.
 
Doc_Keele said:
LOL I love this reply:)
If someone points out a problem, just deny it exists:thumbsup:

The mind boggles as to how keeping the embryos frozen indefinitely is respecting them as human life?
Click to expand...
Doc_Keele said:
Biggies, post 14 seems to serve no purpose. Since I naturally read Dignitas Personae before posting, hence the quotations from it, I’m not too sure where you’re coming from.

The Church gives no answer as to what should be done. I presume that the Church would say that someone who has not committed a moral error (as the embryos have not) cannot be put in a genuine moral dilemma. So what explanation does the Church have for not being able to find a moral answer?
Click to expand...
This is a very difficult question, and a good example as to why IVF is condemned as an immoral practice; no IVF, no moral problem as to what to do with these embryos.

But, bringing IVF into the discussion is like closing the barn door after the horse has run out. These embryos exist; now what?

Yes, this is a yet to have a difinitive delcaration of the correct moral way to handle these embryos. The Church works very slowly, much more so than the advances in modern technology and medicine. So to demand a moral ruling on this situation, while on the surface seeming reasonable, is a bit premature.

Perhaps there will be technology upcoming that will be able to identify which embryos are viable and which are not. Such would aid in making a decision as what do do with specific embryos; if they’re dead already, there’s no moral decision to make with them.

Unless I’m reading your posts incorrectly, you seem content, Doc, to sit on the sidelines and chortle while the Church works out her theology on this situation. If you’re genuinely interested in the Church coming to grips with this difficult situation, you’re going to have to be patient.

Personally, I favor the adoption of the viable embryos as a morally acceptably solution. To my way of thinking, this is similar to the teenager who becomes pregnant; whether or not she conceived out of wedlock is a moot point. That ship has sailed, and we have this developing human being to deal with. The difference between the frozen embryo and the embryo inside the teenager is that if we do nothing, the teenager’s baby will be born, and the frozen embryo will eventually degenerate and become unviable (die). In the case of the frozen embryo, how that embryo was conceived is a moot point, IMHO.
 
Newbie, you are reading my posts incorrectly. Since the Church has ALREADY deemed implantation of the embryos illicit, what other solutions are they? Saying the embryos must be kept frozen until the Church makes its mind up is abject failure in my book.
I’m not chortling, I just despair at the Church stopping people doing something constructive about the problem.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I am not having to set out a conundrum at all, Biggie. I found the conundrum that the Church had created. My solution would preserve life more than the Church’s fence-sitting actually Biggie. I hope you will apologise for accusing me of wanting a “pogrom” (not the right term, but never mind). I would be all for implanting the embryos.
Click to expand...
And in your mind, your solution represents a superior morality to the testimony of the Church. So let’s examine it.

First, the Doc morality approves of the techniques that produced a condition where children exist in a frozen state, unclaimed. We know this because Doc approves of the implantation that produced them in the first place.

Second, Doc morality says that one can manipulate the lives of helpless others at the convenience of the more powerful. We know this because Doc approves the implantation that produced the frozen children and was carried out because adults decided their desire to have a child was more important than the outcome for the children. Now the desire of the adults to find a disposition for the children that relieves their pangs of conscience takes precedence and Doc approves that manipulation of the children as well.

Third, the wanton loss of life inherent in implantation both as a solution and as a function of the original procedure need give no pause in Doc morality.

Fourth, in Doc morality, the debasing of the human being inherent in usurping a divinely consecrated purpose for human existence, procreation, by technology is of no concern.

Finally, I like the word pogrom to the extent that it implies the planned extermination of a class of people. The disposal of the embryos would in fact be a pogrom. But now we know you have taken the high ground and decided to kill them with kindness instead.
 
Goodness, straw man argument after straw man argument…
is this a record for the number of straw man arguments in one post!:confused:

so being in stasis indefinitely is better than having the chance of a life, especially when many naturally produced zygotes fail to implant?
bizarre logic

NB: pogrom does not mean the planned extermination of a group of people, that would be genocide
 
The word “pogrom” (Russian: погром) came from the verb громить, Russian pronunciation: ɡroˈmʲitʲ] “to destroy, to wreak havoc, to demolish violently”. In Russian the word pogrom has a much wider application than in English, and can be applied to any incident of wanton and unrestrained destruction on a mass scale, such as occur during wartime. The word pogrom may have come into English via Yiddish.[2]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom
 
Still not planned extermination though.
I have this useful book on my shelf called a dictionary:)
 
Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: \im-ˈplī
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Anglo-French emplier to entangle — more at employ
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : enfold, entwine
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly
synonyms see suggest
usage see infer
Click to expand...
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implies
 
pogrom means a massacre, but not extermination
a word cannot imply something that it doesn’t mean
 
Doc_Keele said:
Since the Church has ALREADY deemed implantation of the embryos illicit, what other solutions are they? Saying the embryos must be kept frozen until the Church makes its mind up is abject failure in my book.
.
Click to expand...
That’s why the theologians are studying the problem; it is entirely possible that the Church may deem morally acceptable, under certain very limited circumstances, the rescue/adoption (implantation) of already existing embryos, while maintaining the prohibition of IVF, further contributing to the problem.

Since many of these embryos are good in stasis for many years, perhaps the next question to ask is if it is morally objectionable to keep these embryos in a state of frozen stasis. If the duration becomes “too late” and the embryos degenerate and die, you may have a valid concern. One of the considerations in this moral problem is, “Is it moral to let these embryos die a “natural” death through frozen degeneration, or do we have an obligation to rescue them?”

From what I gather, allowing them to degenerate in a frozen state seems to be the Church’s preferable option at this time, although there have been no definitive decisions on the snowflake babies. There are theologians who do not hold this position.

Once again, the Church works…slowly…She wants to get it “right”.
 
…and getting it right slowly when there is the possibility of deterioration (the Church considers freezing embryos immoral) is the morally right thing to do?
 
Doc_Keele said:
…and getting it right slowly when there is the possibility of deterioration (the Church considers freezing embryos immoral) is the morally right thing to do?
Click to expand...
It is better to take the time to get it right, don’t you think, rather than making a hasty wrong judgment?
 
Doc_Keele said:
…not when there is time pressure
Click to expand...
So the clock or calendar is a factor as to whether we get God’s intention for us right or not?

Wow.

Never heard that one before. Odd theology. 🤷

That would suggest that we need to have every little detail about God correct, right now, as the fate of souls are on the line.
 
Newbie2 said:
So the clock or calendar is a factor as to whether we get God’s intention for us right or not?

Wow.

Never heard that one before. Odd theology. 🤷

That would suggest that we need to have every little detail about God correct, right now, as the fate of souls are on the line.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not the point being made.
As a vet or a doctor, are you always able to take as much time as you like to make sure your diagnosis is 100% right before giving treatment? Or do you have time pressure sometimes that means that doing something is better than doing nothing?
 
Doc_Keele said:
No, that’s not the point being made.
As a vet or a doctor, are you always able to take as much time as you like to make sure your diagnosis is 100% right before giving treatment? Or do you have time pressure sometimes that means that doing something is better than doing nothing?
Click to expand...
In my experience, bad things happen if I don’t take the time to get things right in my veterinary practice. So, I take the time to get things right.

Much more is on the line for the Church and the faithful, and I expect that she will take the time to get it right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top