Posted on 03/04/2010 10:40:44 AM PST by NYer
God may or may not have created limbo so man, always eager to improve on God’s work, created it. Due to the widespread use of In Vitro Fertilization of which the Church does not approve, hundreds of thousands of “spare” or “extra” embryos now exist in a man-made refrigerated limbo.
This is nothing short of a horror. And of course, the natural question that comes to mind is: Can they be rescued? While our instincts to preserve life might make the answer seem easy, it isn’t. According to Church teaching keeping the embryos frozen, implanting them in a woman’s womb, and destroying them are all immoral responses to a terrible situation.
Dignitas Personae, the CDF’s 2008 instructions on bioethics states that “All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”
Some people have adopted these embryos and hundreds of babies have been born due to embryo adoption but the Church doesn’t approve of surrogacy so what we have here is a philosophical and theological standoff with dire consequences. Ave Maria Law Professor Brian Scarnecchia recently said in an interview that some have suggested that “rescuing or adopting” a frozen embryo would not make the woman a surrogate if she intended to carry the child to term and adopt the baby.
Scarnecchia said that he’d even spoken to a nun who said that if embryo transfers were approved by the Church she’d consider founding an order of nuns dedicated to rescuing frozen embryos. At once, that would seem to me to be a loving and horrifying thought that would utterly redefine religious orders. But such is the theological pickle of fatal consequences we have found ourselves in.
But the desire to help is typical of Christians. We see humans in need and we want to help. We feel we’re called to help these human beings frozen in what some have called “concentration cans.”
And how many of us know wonderful couples who would love to have babies but for some reason have been unable to. We think wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to adopt these embryos, give birth to them, and love them. But by doing this wouldn’t we, in effect, be approving of the consequences of IVF and even supporting the creation of more of these embryos?
No matter the stance taken on the solution (if one is indeed possible) I think we can all agree with the admonition of Pope John Paul II who urged people to just stop creating embryos through IVF.
I’m interested in your thoughts.
I probably should just keep my mouth shut about this one because my comments probably would not contribute to the discussion. So I will.
Ping!
I am not a supporter of IVF - for the reasons exposed in the article. Life suspended in a petri dish for whatever reason, is inhumane.
When science perverts the gift of life, it ends in death.
Another one to ping out.
He’s right, it is an insoluble situation. Even if there were no moral issues with embryo adoption, the survival rate for reanimated embryos is even lower than with immediate implantion. Many would die, and would-be parents would suffer great unhappiness and potential permanent health damage.
Pro-Life bump
I wrote an article on this myself, it’s a really bad situation. The only solution would be for the parents to implant their children immediately, rather then keeping them frozen.
One of the problems that the separation of “church and state” mentality has caused...is a degrading of ethics and humanity.
Humans are increasingly becoming commodities that you can make money off of, or can eliminate when they become too costly.
You can create them when they are wanted and discard them when they are not.
Science needs the guidance.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should.
I am not a supporter of IVF - for the reasons exposed in the article. Life suspended in a petri dish for whatever reason, is inhumane.
When science perverts the gift of life, it ends in death.
<><><><><><
Missing from your analysis is a glance at the children born as a result of this procedure.
What say you to them? You should never have been born in the first place? Those children are not a perversion of life, they are life itself.
JMO.
Octomom comes to mind.
amen on the children. The gift of life, regardless of science perverting it or not, inevitably ends in death - except of course for the soul. The only way the other poster’s statement makes sense is if their is a belief that science can somehow grow soulless children.
Agreed. From the Holy See:
“Development of the practice of in vitro fertilization has required innumerable fertilizations and destructions of human embryos. Even today, the usual practice presupposes a hyperovulation on the part of the woman: a number of ova are withdrawn, fertilized and then cultivated in vitro for some days. Usually not all are transferred into the genital tracts of the woman; some embryos, generally called “spare “, are destroyed or frozen. On occasion, some of the implanted embryos are sacrificed for various eugenic, economic or psychological reasons. Such deliberate destruction of human beings or their utilization for different purposes to the detriment of their integrity and life is contrary to the doctrine on procured abortion already recalled. The connection between in vitro fertilization and the voluntary destruction of human embryos occurs too often. This is significant: through these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree. This dynamic of violence and domination may remain unnoticed by those very individuals who, in wishing to utilize this procedure, become subject to it themselves. The facts recorded and the cold logic which links them must be taken into consideration for a moral judgment on IVF and ET (in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer): the abortion-mentality which has made this procedure possible thus leads, whether one wants it or not, to man’s domination over the life and death of his fellow human beings and can lead to a system of radical eugenics. “
Although IVF is wrong, how can we not save as many as these embryos as possible?
Since most other Christian churches do NOT have a problem with IVF, why not have THEIR members be implanted with, and adopt these babies? Why should it be considered a big, hairy deal that the Catholic Church teaches against the practice? Surely there are more than just Catholic families who would be interested in adopting these “Snowflake” babies.
Hence .. the dilemma. Our hearts go out to these innocent children frozen in time. We could save them through implanting them in a fertile uterus. However, as the author noted, this sets in motion a new fangled (probably gov't run program) that creates even more. It is much like folks who view purchasing a dog from a puppy mill as being comparable to a rescue. The miller concludes that this is a profitable business and breeds even more.
What say you to them? You should never have been born in the first place? Those children are not a perversion of life, they are life itself.
You tell them the truth! They were conceived out of desire and love .... period. The important thing is to eliminate this method of reproduction. It is selfish in that it fulfills the gratification of those who want their own children while providing no thought to the child itself. Only recently, I posted a thread detailing the fact that children conceived in a petri dish are exposed to more oxygen than those in the womb. As a result, they are at great risk of certain diseases.
If that makes any sense.
***********************
I agree.
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.