What is the moral thing to do with "leftover" embyros?

[pickguard1]

Of course, along with that notion, any medical researchers/ technology developers and testers would have to share that same moral philosophy when developing the technology, and not wantonly disregard the safety of the embryos in needlessly risky trials - this is quite likely a pipe dream given the current state of things.

 

[Bear_Claw]

And then what? At some point, someone has to adopt all of these kids.
pickguard1;4933503:

That is, of course a difficult question. I would hope there would be enough charitable Catholic (and non-catholic for that matter) families that would be willing to adopt these children.

But…If the technology existed, when is the moral time to begin incubating the embryos? Immediately for all of them? Only if someone has committed to adopting that embryo? First one created, first one incubated?

That’s the problem with this whole in vitro/artificial insemination stuff - there are SO many subsequent moral dillemas created by the first immoral action.

Sorry guys, I only got to rejoin this now, I’m not on a computer on weekends or after hours.

I wanted to ask one thing:

Do we know how long the embryos have to live? It seems like some posters implied that there was a definitive timeframe involved. And it seems that this finite timeframe would essentially be the “natural” end to the embryo’s life. (I used “quotes” for natural since that term is not really quantified in this thread yet )
So, whatever actions we need to take, there is a time limit on them.

I also wanted to agree on the moral question of “Then what”

It seems like there are a lot of talk, but I honestly wonder how many people would really actually volunteer to adopt one of them and either implant them and give birth, or if the quasi-womb is invented, adopt one.

Anyway, just some ongoing thoughts from me.

 

[pickguard1]

Sorry guys, I only got to rejoin this now, I’m not on a computer on weekends or after hours.

I wanted to ask one thing:

(I used “quotes” for natural since that term is not really quantified in this thread yet )
So, whatever actions we need to take, there is a time limit on them.

I also wanted to agree on the moral question of “Then what”

It seems like there are a lot of talk, but I honestly wonder how many people would really actually volunteer to adopt one of them and either implant them and give birth, or if the quasi-womb is invented, adopt one.

As to the first point, “natural” implies that a death is not intended, either directly or indirectly. So, ESCR falls into the “not natural” category, as does thawing the embryos to “let them die.” The thawing without the intent to attempt to sustain the life has at least an indirect intent to cause death.

On the second point, as I said, I HOPE that there would be enough…but who knows how many babies have been created and stored using this method…thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions? billions even? One begins to see why this technology is in error from the start.
However, I digress on the second half a bit, because it would also be sinful to “implant them” since this causes another sin on top of the first. Morally speaking, procreation can’t be divorced form the marital act, and as was discussed earlier, doing evil to have a good outcome is not OK, no matter how great the good might be. So…we’re ultimately left in a situation that exists only in theory at this point. There is NO moral thing that can be done to or for the embryos right now, beyond preserving them with the intent to find a moral solution. There might be one in the future, but the solution is necessarily going to be very complex, since the problem is one that deals with the very essence of humanity.

 

[Bear_Claw]

As to the first point, “natural” implies that a death is not intended, either directly or indirectly. So, ESCR falls into the “not natural” category, as does thawing the embryos to “let them die.” The thawing without the intent to attempt to sustain the life has at least an indirect intent to cause death.

Exactly, hence the “quotes”. Does anyone know if there is a definite timeframe on the survivability of the embryos?

On the second point, as I said, I HOPE that there would be enough…but who knows how many babies have been created and stored using this method…thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions? billions even? One begins to see why this technology is in error from the start.
However, I digress on the second half a bit, because it would also be sinful to “implant them” since this causes another sin on top of the first. Morally speaking, procreation can’t be divorced form the marital act, and as was discussed earlier, doing evil to have a good outcome is not OK, no matter how great the good might be. So…we’re ultimately left in a situation that exists only in theory at this point. There is NO moral thing that can be done to or for the embryos right now, beyond preserving them with the intent to find a moral solution. There might be one in the future, but the solution is necessarily going to be very complex, since the problem is one that deals with the very essence of humanity.

As for the bolded sentence, I don’t think that it does. I think, for Catholics, it is a reality and a real concern.
The embryos are real and there is no moral thing to do to rectify the situation.

And I agree a solution that fits everyone is going to be complex, since the basic definition of life seems to still be un-quantified.

I really wonder if the existing embryos have a “lifespan” or if they can be held in stasis indefinitely.

 

[Daedelus76]

The whole IVF phenomenon was created by a culture that shames people with pro-natalist propaganda, traditional gender roles, and so forth. I think religion has as much blame in this issue as any secularist.

I see embryos as potential persons. I think personhood is a very nebulous concept. Maybe it’s better to be safe than sorry. The whole idea of genetic material and protoplasm alone making a “person” seems to go against human experiences having any value.

 

[pickguard1]

When I said the situation exists only in theory, I was referencing a point in time when the embryos might be developing and be able to be adopted, that’s all. Of course the situation is real insofar as there are human embryos, and they are being killed in the name of science. I also don’t think this is purely a Catholic perspective.

As for the question about lifespans and how long can these embryos be held in stasis, I think that is a good one. I haven’t seen any statements or research that shows they can’t be frozen indefinitely, but I believe an earlier poster did mention that the “leftover” embryos from the in vitro process may have “inferior” qualities (my paraphrase/inference) that may make them less appealing for scientific research. (the poster mentioned things liek genetic screening). Whether this means that the embryos age over time even when they’re frozen, I don’t know.

On a side note, the “artificial womb” idea, while I think as of yet has been the closest to a moral theoretical solution, I do recall reading Huxley’s Brave New World in high school, and that scenerio seems eerily similar. Creating an incubating technology that is able to allow a human embryo to develop entirely-from fertilization to “birth”(what would it really be called?) outside a woman’s womb-has its own set of dillemas that come with it.

1. If the morals of society and science havn’t changed by that time - that is, this incubation system should only be used to help the existing embryos develop, and no more embryos are being created - what would stop people who don’t like the idea of pregnancy/child birth from A) getting a designer baby and B) having it “developed” for them in some lab, to be later delivered a la stork style?
2. God forbid we end up under the thumb of a totalitarian state (but it’s possible, and even probable IMHO) what stops the situation in Brave New World from coming into reality. Where fertility is decided by the state and completely dissociated from human relations?

Seems like people have this problem with equating “we can do it” with “we should it”
just some food for thought…

 

[pickguard1]

The whole IVF phenomenon was created by a culture that shames people with pro-natalist propaganda, traditional gender roles, and so forth. I think religion has as much blame in this issue as any secularist.

I see embryos as potential persons. I think personhood is a very nebulous concept. Maybe it’s better to be safe than sorry. The whole idea of genetic material and protoplasm alone making a “person” seems to go against human experiences having any value.

No, it was created by a culture that has lost sight of God, and our roles in His creation, placing too much of an emphasis on the “human experiences” that you speak of, over our calling to know, love and serve the Lord.

As for the experiences, does that make someone who has “experienced” more, more of a “person?” How is THAT quantified? People don’t exist to have experiences, experiences exist to bring us closer to God.

 

[judechild]

However, I digress on the second half a bit, because it would also be sinful to “implant them” since this causes another sin on top of the first. Morally speaking, procreation can’t be divorced form the marital act, and as was discussed earlier, doing evil to have a good outcome is not OK, no matter how great the good might be. So…we’re ultimately left in a situation that exists only in theory at this point. There is NO moral thing that can be done to or for the embryos right now, beyond preserving them with the intent to find a moral solution. There might be one in the future, but the solution is necessarily going to be very complex, since the problem is one that deals with the very essence of humanity.

I have a question. Given our three criteria for determining the morality of a choice (object, intention, and circumstances) is the object of In Vitro Fertilization intrinsically wrong? Or, rather, is it subjectively disordered? If it is subjective, we may have a solution for our limbo situation. When dealing with a subjective object, it is my understanding that the circumstances surrounding the act can take greater sway in the morality of a situation. In this case, while we know IVF for normal, procreative purposes is morally disordered, it may be acceptable given the intention (respect for human life) and the circumstances (lack of alternatives). It’s kind of like obedience. Yes, we obey our superiors and others God has placed over us, but not if they tell us to do something evil. Likewise, when we have no other choice, we may have different options.

Of course, everything I’ve said this time is nothing if in fact IVF is intrically wrong, and if anyone can come up with an authoritative Church document stating that to be the fact, I will withdraw my arguement.

 

[Bear_Claw]

When I said the situation exists only in theory, I was referencing a point in time when the embryos might be developing and be able to be adopted, that’s all. Of course the situation is real insofar as there are human embryos, and they are being killed in the name of science. I also don’t think this is purely a Catholic perspective.

Ah, I understand, and agree.

As for the question about lifespans and how long can these embryos be held in stasis, I think that is a good one. I haven’t seen any statements or research that shows they can’t be frozen indefinitely, but I believe an earlier poster did mention that the “leftover” embryos from the in vitro process may have “inferior” qualities (my paraphrase/inference) that may make them less appealing for scientific research. (the poster mentioned things liek genetic screening). Whether this means that the embryos age over time even when they’re frozen, I don’t know.

On a side note, the “artificial womb” idea, while I think as of yet has been the closest to a moral theoretical solution, I do recall reading Huxley’s Brave New World in high school, and that scenerio seems eerily similar. Creating an incubating technology that is able to allow a human embryo to develop entirely-from fertilization to “birth”(what would it really be called?) outside a woman’s womb-has its own set of dillemas that come with it.

1. If the morals of society and science havn’t changed by that time - that is, this incubation system should only be used to help the existing embryos develop, and no more embryos are being created - what would stop people who don’t like the idea of pregnancy/child birth from A) getting a designer baby and B) having it “developed” for them in some lab, to be later delivered a la stork style?

1. God forbid we end up under the thumb of a totalitarian state (but it’s possible, and even probable IMHO) what stops the situation in Brave New World from coming into reality. Where fertility is decided by the state and completely dissociated from human relations?

Seems like people have this problem with equating “we can do it” with “we should it”
just some food for thought…

It seems like there definite dilemma moving forward for Catholic (We could make it broader saying Christians, but it wouldn’t hold true for all).

I see now that what the church teaches is a no-win situation for the embryos. They can’t be killed, they can’t be implanted and given birth to and they can’t be used.
That’s a real problem. Although one, I daresay, that is only a problem a) for Catholics and b) a problem on paper, since I doubt whether the Catholic influence is great enough to make the scientists even stop to ponder where the line is.

The fact is that this is already happening. Obama is allocating federal funds for this.
You all know where I stand on this, but I wonder with all these cries of murder and immorality, what the church is doing to combat this great injustice?

Did the Pope make a public denouncement of it? And even if he did, shouldn’t he (and the church as a whole) be doing more if it is that important? It goes against so many of your core beliefs, just referring back to the teachings in the CCC is not quite the most stern approach/rebuke available, no?

I mean, if a country was involved in crimes against humanity, or Genocide, etc, there are UN summits, talks, councils, and in stricter cases, even sanctions.
I mean, the Vatican is essentially a country in itself. Why is it not involved in this?
I’m sure it could even find a way to sanction the US from something or other.
I’m no expert, but sheesh, do something if it’s that important.

To me it looks like it’s only the lay-person giving a hoot and no one in power is…at least not to the extent that the world starts to realize that Catholic think this is wrong.

Isn’t inaction almost equal to condoning it?

 

[pickguard1]

The fact is that this is already happening. Obama is allocating federal funds for this.
You all know where I stand on this, but I wonder with all these cries of murder and immorality, what the church is doing to combat this great injustice?

What the church always does - praying for the conversion of the world and calling evil, evil.
For there to be any real change in what occurs in the political realm regarding this, people’s hearts must be changed. There are plenty of moral people out there, but how many of them get elected? It’s not popular to run on an agenda of stopping moral evils, especially in this society, since so much of our culture/law is based on the premise that there are multiple versions of right and wrong. That almost makes anyone running with a platform of “I’m a Catholic and I will try and bring forth laws that reflect my beliefs and vote against laws that go against those beliefs,” a non starter. There’s no way to “force” people to vote or believe in these doctrines. That doesn’t make them irrelevant though.

Protests (and this can from be out on the street down to letters to the editor) by Catholics (both laity and the heirarchy) happen all the time, regarding, abortion, ESCR, cloning, all the moral evils being perpetrated in society. Beyond voicing a consitent reasoning (through, radio, TV, etc), and prayer, there’s not much more that CAN be done, as the handling of these things stems from how (our democratic) society at large views these issues.

To me it looks like it’s only the lay-person giving a hoot and no one in power is…at least not to the extent that the world starts to realize that Catholic think this is wrong.

I think most people aware of the issue know the Catholic Church views ESCR as wrong.

Isn’t inaction almost equal to condoning it?

So , from my above answer, there isn’t inaction, it’s just not violent or forceful (as in the use of force).

 

[judechild]

Did the Pope make a public denouncement of it? And even if he did, shouldn’t he (and the church as a whole) be doing more if it is that important? It goes against so many of your core beliefs, just referring back to the teachings in the CCC is not quite the most stern approach/rebuke available, no?

I mean, if a country was involved in crimes against humanity, or Genocide, etc, there are UN summits, talks, councils, and in stricter cases, even sanctions.
I mean, the Vatican is essentially a country in itself. Why is it not involved in this?
I’m sure it could even find a way to sanction the US from something or other.
I’m no expert, but sheesh, do something if it’s that important.

To me it looks like it’s only the lay-person giving a hoot and no one in power is…at least not to the extent that the world starts to realize that Catholic think this is wrong.

Isn’t inaction almost equal to condoning it?

Bear Claw I can honestly say I agree at least partially with you! I agree that the bishops aren’t doing enough, but I also think they are trying to do what they can. In recent history, popes as far back as Paul VI with his encyclical Humane Vitae have made public denouncements on crimes against unborn life, (and in ancient history, as far back as the birth of Christianity). Here in Iowa, the Bishop of Des Moines has written letters to newspaper editors on embryonic stem cells; and C-FAM represents catholic social teaching in the UN.

We do seem to need to do more, but, then, I can’t throw stones because I know **I’m not doing everything I can do. **

Everyone reading this, let’s all pray the rosary tonight for guidance in this.

 

[pickguard1]

Everyone reading this, let’s all pray the rosary tonight for guidance in this.

Amen!

As to your previous post about authoritative documents, here is a link to the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith’s article regarding this topic
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

The document was given by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) in 1987.

 

[Bear_Claw]

What the church always does - praying for the conversion of the world and calling evil, evil.
For there to be any real change in what occurs in the political realm regarding this, people’s hearts must be changed. There are plenty of moral people out there, but how many of them get elected? It’s not popular to run on an agenda of stopping moral evils, especially in this society, since so much of our culture/law is based on the premise that there are multiple versions of right and wrong. That almost makes anyone running with a platform of “I’m a Catholic and I will try and bring forth laws that reflect my beliefs and vote against laws that go against those beliefs,” a non starter. There’s no way to “force” people to vote or believe in these doctrines. That doesn’t make them irrelevant though.

Maybe I just don’t believe in prayer the way you guys do, but that’s just not going to cut it…

Protests (and this can from be out on the street down to letters to the editor) by Catholics (both laity and the heirarchy) happen all the time, regarding, abortion, ESCR, cloning, all the moral evils being perpetrated in society. Beyond voicing a consitent reasoning (through, radio, TV, etc), and prayer, there’s not much more that CAN be done, as the handling of these things stems from how (our democratic) society at large views these issues. I think most people aware of the issue know the Catholic Church views ESCR as wrong.

Sure, but again, it’s the lay people. Protests and all that are basically, as far as the Catholic Church as a whole goes, a grassroots movement.

Reasoning through radio and TV? I honestly haven’t seen it on mainstream media. And I honestly don’t think that Catholic TV and Encyclicals are enough, since they only reach the catholic audience. It’s like preaching to the choir.

Take this example.
If democracy is threatened in countries, leaders speak up about it in international councils. They call press conferences and take action on a national level. The Pope, amongst his other titles are also the leader of the Vatican nation. He is a world leader and for someone as conservative as Ratzinger, I’m very surprised that this “evil” that encompasses such a lot of Catholic sins, sins against sex, the human person, murder, immorality, etc doesn’t get more attention from him and his “cabinet”
I’m talking main stream here, not EWTN and encyclicals.
They must know that Obama probably don’t even know what an encyclical is, or it’s not really high on his list of reading material.

Call meetings with heads of state, speak up against it, cause a stink, or at least something that it catches the eyes of mainstream folks.
Otherwise they are preaching to the choir.

 

[magdelaine]

Call meetings with heads of state, speak up against it, cause a stink, or at least something that it catches the eyes of mainstream folks.
Otherwise they are preaching to the choir.

The Pope speaks on these issues all the time (and with world leaders, too), but he is rarely covered by the main stream media unless there is a controversy that can be used to make him or the Church look bad. The Church is not a government. Just like God doesn’t force you to believe in or love Him, the Church doesn’t force people to believe or act one way or another.

I’m curious what your idea of the Church “doing something” might look like? I pray all the time that her Truth might be made more present in the world in one way or another.

 

[jmcrae]

Exactly, hence the “quotes”. Does anyone know if there is a definite timeframe on the survivability of the embryos?

From what I understand, they can survive indefinitely in the frozen state.

What this means in practice is that they will survive until a) a power failure causes the freezer to fail, b) someone needs the space in the freezer to store something else, or c) funding for the storage facility ends, and it is plowed under to make way for something else.

 

[stbruno]

To add to this discussion, I recommend everyone reading this blog from Judie Brown of the American Life League. It is absolutely horrific what she has to say.

all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2527
One of the world’s leading stem cell experts, British Professor Sir Richard Gardner of Oxford University, has startled some with a rather gruesome recommendation. Before I tell you about it, please note that the professor is a zoologist and that is what he teaches.

However, he is also somewhat akin to a modern day Mengele. I hesitate to make that comparison, but perhaps you will agree once you review his idea. The Catholic News Agency reports in a story entitled “Absolutely horrifying proposal calls for using aborted babies as organ donors,”

Expressing surprise that the possibility has not been considered, he said using fetal tissues for organ transplant is “probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others.”
Experiments in mice, he said, have shown that fetal kidneys grow extremely quickly when transplanted into adult animals.

The article goes into further detail about comparing fetuses to the embryonic stem cell research that is being now funded with our tax dollars thanks to the latest declaration by Pres.Obama.

We can’t stand by and do nothing. We are speeding to real destruction if we do.

More reasons to pray.

 

[jpm1977]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this is an interesting article on Slate by William Saletan, who writes about bioethics: Article

He discusses his trip to the Vatican to attend a bioethics conference at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. Anyone who doesn’t think the Catholic church approaches these issues from a rational perspective really should read this article. Saletan is not a Catholic, or even a Christian as far as I can tell, but her recognizes the rationality–to a fault in his view–of the Church’s position based on its presumptions, (i.e., that life begins at conception).

Toward the end of the article (after “Tuesday, March 8”) he talks about the debate between Father Tad Pacholczyk, a priest with a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Yale, plus a research stint at Harvard Medical School and undergraduate degrees in biochemistry and molecular biology, and Father Thomas Williams, the dean of university’s theology school, on the issue raised in this thread. The debate is clearly not settled within the Church.

This is a very interesting read.

 

[magdelaine]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but this is an interesting article on Slate by William Saletan, who writes about bioethics: Article

Facinating article. Thanks!

 

[pickguard1]

Toward the end of the article (after “Tuesday, March 8”) he talks about the debate between Father Tad Pacholczyk, a priest with a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Yale, plus a research stint at Harvard Medical School and undergraduate degrees in biochemistry and molecular biology, and Father Thomas Williams, the dean of university’s theology school, on the issue raised in this thread. The debate is clearly not settled within the Church.

As I read it, the author of the article, William Saletan, tried to imply that there is an unsettled debate; I found his attempt lacking:

“It turns out that Catholic faith in reason cuts both ways. It can dispel the yuck factor but can just as easily override our sense of goodness. That’s the inadvertent lesson of Pacholczyk’s morning presentation on women who “adopt”—i.e., implant and carry to term—IVF embryos. He asserts that such adoptions are intrinsically evil. I stare at him in disbelief, but he makes a case. Procreation is unitary; therefore, just as it’s wrong to have sex without openness to pregnancy, it’s wrong to get pregnant without sex. What if a woman has hired a clinic to cultivate IVF embryos and is on the table ready to have them implanted? Pacholczyk says she should “stop the train of evil”—get up and leave the clinic. The embryos must be left in limbo because they can’t be “licitly” implanted.”

The bolds (mine) are all esablished points of Catholic doctrine.

"Father Thomas Williams, the dean of university’s theology school, makes the opposite case. Pacholczyk’s theory collapses, he says, because it implies that IVF embryos are “partially procreated children.” “All beings are either persons or non-persons,” Williams argues. “From a Catholic perspective, there’s no such thing as partial persons, part something and part someone.”

I don’t disagree with Father Williams assertion that there is no such thing as a partially created person, but this doesn’t come close to arguing the “opposite” of Pacholczyk’s prior statements about the immorality of implanting IVF embryos. It also fails to demonstrate how Pacholczyk’s argument implies that the embryos are “partially procreated children.”

I think the article shows that, contrary to popular belief, the Church is at the forefront of science (not in the Dark Ages), but also tries to imply that because the Church has scientists/priests discussing certain issues, that more might be open to debate than previously thought.

 

[pickguard1]

Inlight of reading that particular article from the CDF, it appears that even an “artificial womb” would be illicit. Whether this could be considered different than an incubation method, I don’t know. Also, the document stated that freezing the embryos is also illicit in and of itself.

It’s kind of like an avalanche caused by a skiier. Once the first bit of snow goes, there’s nothing that can be done to reverse its course. The best course fo action would have been to not ski on the loose snow - and for others to learn from the skier’s mistake.

(We’ve probably all seen how often people learn from other’s mistakes.)