How would such a process even work?originally posted by me-
"Do you know if there is any research being done by the Church that would allow for the implantation of these embryos during the course of the marital act itself, rather than by a third party? If so, would this present a possible solution to the current problems with implantation?"
Not really, since even though the act is taking place, the embryo is still not the direct result of that act. And I’m still not understanding what the process would be.
The embryo has already been created, though - outside of the marital act. Causing him to go into a woman’s womb by means of a marital act (how ever that would work) will not have the effect of “re-creating” him.
Well, there would be practical issues for the family. The embryo is already partially gestated, so he would be born several days or weeks before the couple’s natural child is ready to be born. There would be issues of danger to the natural child (like, what if the natural child comes out with the adopted embryo child, but several weeks premature?)
I know that the marital act doesn’t “re-create” the embryo. I just figure one of the key drawbacks (from a licit-nesss standpoint) was that the implantation was done by a third party and therefore deprived the maternal gestation of its normal/natural source, which is the marital act.
Thanks for the link Magelaine! That was a very well thought-out argument from a Catholic perspective (a priest no less!) in favor of heterologous embryonic transfer (HET) i.e. prenatal adoption. I would say that the only area in his argument that wrinkles my nose is the suggestion of unmarried women taking on this responsibility/issue. While I agree with his premise that, if it is licit for HET to save the life of the child, a single women may do so, I think that it has the potential to cause serious scandal with regards to how society views family. But then again - “society” already has about as screwed up a view of “family” as it can get…
Just because it’s hard does not mean that it is not the right thing to do. A friend of mind opted to spend 10k on adoption instead of IVF and now has a lovely son from Cameroon.
The Church does not agree with you.
A: questioning whether technoloy exists, or could exist regarding a different method of uterine implantation outside of a clinical setting has NOTHING to do with IVF, or my knowledge of “how IVF works.”
My parents spent a couple of grueling years trying to adopt a child, and it never panned out. They were never able to have children again after me (and I was a blessing as it was). They’re people that wanted six to eight kids, so it was a big hole in their lives. Adopting isn’t always easy, no.
Having read the article by Rev. Peter F. Ryan, it is apparent that he considers thawing the embryos and letting them die morally reprehensible.
The problem is, there ARE embryos outside of the womb, due to invitro fertilization. They cultivate many embryos in case the one or ones they place back into the womb don’t make it.
My friend’s insurance would not cover IVF, which is why is was an either or decision for them. She was willing to look overseas, which meant less money to adopt (Major cost was airfare) and she took advantage of apostolates that are set up to provide funds for couples who want to adopt but can’t afford it, plus their relatives all donated thousands in order to cover the cost. They are not wealthy! But when Catholics and Christians work together, we CAN make adoption easier and provide loving homes for children than would otherwise face abandonment and death.
There are apparently millions of pro-abortion Catholics too, but that doesn’t mean that abortion is right. We are all sinners! But the Church is the body and voice of our Lord. How can we ask for forgiveness if we don’t accept her teachings on sin? Do you disagree with Christ?
I hate to be the wet mop, but these great ideas, I’m afraid are “pie in the sky.” Is it possible to get our priests to even mention the words abortion, pro-life, et. al., at the pulpit
There is definitly the case to be made that, even IF the Church were to allow embryonic transfer in this extraordinary circumstance for the sole purpose of saving innocent lives, how many embryos would be able to be implanted? Probably not all of them (just my guess as I have no idea how many there are - does anyone maintain a central database of how many frozen embryos exist?)
The amount of human embryos is way beyond the number of women who would be willing to have implanted IF the Church defined the situation as extraordinary and allowed transfer. The number is at least 400,000 in the U.S. and 50,000 in Canada. I googled the articles below. It would seem an impossiblility to baptize all of these embryos in the usual manner, but perhaps a bishop in authority could perform a general “spiritual” baptism. Afterall, there is such a thing as a “spiritual communion,” but that may have no relevance to the situation. It’s just an attempt at something comparable. General absolution was in vogue for awhile, but is not permissible although there are parishes that still use that form for the sacrament of Reconciliation.