Posted on 02/18/2006 12:20:36 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Aren\t you old people supposed to be golfimg and playing bingo and stuff like that?
There needs to be a guideline manual published
whats that old P O box in Pueblo Colorado?
Sonny, shouldn't you be cuddling your teddy bear or watching the Sunday morning cartoons and not prying into the behavior of us old people?
Well said, Mrs. Don-o. I too applaud women having babies as long as they can naturally. But as you said so well, utilizing IVF to have a child is a whole 'nother ball game, no matter the age a woman chooses to utilize it. I agree with you that it is a very grave evil.
You bring up a valid point. Doctors do tend to implant multiple embryos (increasing the chance of success) and then often abort the "extras" to either prevent a risky multiple pregnancy or to select the number of children- much as a gardner might thin radishes or carrots. Not a morally good thing to do, if one believes the soul joins the body at conception.
But how do we know that God doesn't give each embryo only the seed of a soul? Just as a fertilized egg is only the potential for a child, perhaps it only has the potential for a soul as well.
Does the unfertilized egg my wife "loses" every month have half a soul? What about the millions of sperm that don't quite make it to the egg? Do they have half-souls?
I don't have the answers- I'm not a priest, philosopher or mystic.
And as I think about it, if a naturally fertilized egg (embryo) naturally fails to implant, the baby is lost also. So should couples not try?
And what if a woman has had a natural miscarriage or two? Should they stop trying because of all the lost children?
There is a solution to the problem of the "left over" embryos after a woman has been successfully impregnated- donate them. There are quite a number of infertile women who would love to carry and give birth to a child.
I appreciate the sincerity of this question, and I'll try to answer it as clearly as I can.
The "soul" means the principle of being a unified, living organism. Plants and animals have souls of a sort inasmuch as they are alive (vegetative and animative souls); but human beings have souls of a higher order, souls which are spirit, because we have capacities which go beyond the physical.
In any case, the identifying characteristic is life: if a given plant, animal or human, at any age or stage, is alive, a soul is by definition present; if it is dead, then a soul is not present.
The Bible sometimes uses the word "life" as a synonym for soul, and sometimes uses the word "self."
It is incorrect to say that a fertilized egg is only the potential for a child. Actually, every child was a fertilized egg at his or her earlist stage. You were once a fertilized egg; and whose child were you then? Your parents', of course. You were at day one of your life, and so you were at day one of being a child--- not a potential child, but a child WITH POTENTIAL!
A sperm, a speck of skin or a bit of brain may be both human and alive, but it is not a "person" because it is not a unified living organism, and so it does not possess a soul. The earliest embryo of only one cell has the capacity, under the normal circumstances, to develop its own cells, tissues, organs, and systems as an integrated living whole; that's why we know that an embrypo is ensouled and a sperm or a skin cell is not.
You asked, "Does the unfertilized egg my wife "loses" every month have half a soul?"
No.
"What about the millions of sperm that don't quite make it to the egg? Do they have half-souls? "
No. They lack the capacity to develop their own cells, tissues, and organs as a unified organism.
"If a naturally fertilized egg (embryo) naturally fails to implant, the baby is lost also. So should couples not try? And what if a woman has had a natural miscarriage or two? Should they stop trying because of all the lost children? "
Well, everybody dies. These naturally occurring deaths are sometimes unnoticed and unmourned (when they are very early) and sometimes very much mourned (I grieved terribly over my two miscarriages) but still they are human deaths like any other. The universal fact that all of us die after some period of life, long or short, does not mean that life is not worth living.
The meaning of anybody's life--- the miscarried child, the newborn who lives but a few days, the man who lives to be 90 --- is a mystery wrapped up in God. We shall know in eternity what was valuable and what was not valuable in our lives of 60, 70, or 80 years!
You wrote: "There is a solution to the problem of the "left over" embryos after a woman has been successfully impregnated- donate them. There are quite a number of infertile women who would love to carry and give birth to a child."
A hopeful thought: but the majority of the parents who "own" these embyronic children don't want them to be adopted by others. They'd rather see them dead. And that's the cold, brutal truth.
Was her egg used in the in vitro process? If so, I cannot believe they would take such heredity risks for the child, not to mention having an infant at her age and condition.
Excellent point. Some people are misinformed about IVF and how it works. It is absolutely untrue that embryos (babies!) are killed to make one baby. IVF can be done 100% with respect for every embryo. If 20 embryos are created, the couple can put 2 or 3 back in, and freeze the others. The frozen ones can be put back for another try or donated to a loving couple just dying to have a baby. There are so many on waiting lists right now.
The truth is that we are fearfully made. It takes a LOT to make a human. G-d doesn't just let every sperm meet any egg and poof. 70-80% of the time when a sperm meets an egg, that embryo does not make it.
If a young, fertile, married couple is having regular relations (and always during her fertile time), it could easily take a year to conceive. However, sperm was meeting egg those other cycles (10-14 times in each year). What happens is that even in young women, a great percentage of her eggs are aneuploid (chromosomes not normal or normal in number). These eggs sometimes do result in a conception. Very few might result in a child with a genetic disorder, but most aneuploid eggs and embryos cannot keep dividing to become a baby. They really do stay embryos and have no chance at sticking around.
It is very important to understand that, whatever you feel personally about IVF. If embryos dying naturally is abhorrent to you, then no fertile people should have marital relations. It happens nearly every month. That is why doctors put back 2 or 3 embryos. IVF is costly. They know that most embryos don't have what it takes, regardless of how sperm met egg. They want the desperate couple to achieve a pregnancy. And the success rate of IVF is around 30%. That's about the chances a young fertile couple have of conceiving and staying pregnant, in any given month.
I cannot agree with you that donating one's own baby to another couple, when you conceived that child in an effort to have a child of your own, is giving "100% respect to every embryo." When a couple chooses to conceive a child it is their responsibility as his/her parents to raise and provide for that child.
Very few parents want to "donate" their babies to others, not knowing who is raising them or how they are being raised. Many therefore opt to have the "embryos" (babies) "destroyed" (killed) rather than "donating" the child or doing the right thing: having the baby themselves and raising the child that they intentionally conceived.
As far as your other justifications, I would like to see you post links to support your statement that 70-80% of the time embryos (babies) conceived in the womb do not make it.
most people do not realize the gravity of the sin.
it's too bad that most priests do not speak about this issue.
LMBO!!
There is this one man, his name escapes me, who over a course of several wives managed to have 80 children...
Yeah, men-o-pause!
The fact is that IVF virtually always involves the death of 2 or 3 embryos, and often many more. This in itself is a very grave evil.
Moreover, even if IVF didn’t involve generating human life and then destroying it, the process itself turns human procreation into a commercial transaction and a laboratory technique, which is inherently dehumanizing -—and it’s part of the larger project of the deadly “commodifying” of human values which we see all around us.
I am convinced that IVF is morally objectionable in all cases. So although I can respect this mother-of-12’s good intentions and wish her and her husband well with their precious little ones, I regret giving the impression that laboratory procreation is something to celebrate.
Please think this through carefully. I didn’t at first.
Thats why we have the nanny state. Takes care of what US citizens won’t ot can’t.
Didn’t composer J.S. Bach father 20 children? And he is considered a prolific composer, too....
No word in the article as to what, if anything, either parent does for gainful employment.
Very well said!
There have always been couples who, for whatever reason, could not have children. And it has always been my belief that God has a reason for this and that it is our place to abide by his will.
What many people also seem to overlook is that there are very few babies to adopt in the US (though there are plenty from Eastern Europe and China) and this is largely due to the fact that 50 million babies have been slaughtered in the past 33 years. IVF is extremely expensive and I can’t help but wonder how many of these people would prefer to save a baby from an abortionist’s knife if it were a more viable option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.