Posted on 03/04/2010 10:40:44 AM PST by NYer
"Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Some problems don't have an easy solution. This is one example. Lives are not commodities to be "created" (life isn't created by humans, but that's another topic...) for others' enjoyment. Now, these little unborn babies are living in a frozen condition - for how long? How long can they be viable? No doubt heartless utilitarians will want them - and many already are AFAIK - to be "used" for experimentation or industrial purposes.
This is not one whit different from what the Nazis did. Not a single bit different. It's the same thing - using humans as fodder. Another reason why IVF is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Just because some things are scientifically possible doesn't mean they are automatically morally right.
The Vedas teach the same thing. The soul enters the egg at the moment of conception. With no soul, there is no life. “Life” means “the soul is present”.
I just pinged this out - hadn’t rear your comment - you said it better than I did - same thoughts!
Perhaps the most idiotic active thread going.
This is at BEST a philosophical exercise - if you are a 10 cell blastocyst, do you feel pain?
If you live forever cryogenically, does your soul ever get to go to Heaven?
Does God’s Will extend to those born from IVF? Are they yet too fearfully and wonderfully made? Are they known from before they were in the womb?
Bottom line - put your other blastocysts up for adoption. Believe me, there will be takers.
As for my son, born from IVF, I better break the news to him that he’s an abomination before God. I’m going to miss him.
The original experimental endocrinologist was God. Abraham and Sarah had Isaac when Sarah was very, very old. John the Baptist was born of Elizabeth, who was barren. Dad was struck mute when he questioned God about the matter.
Jesus was born from Mary, for Heaven’s sake (actually, for our sake).
Then gentiles are basically ADOPTED. The Jews are God’s Chosen People. The rest were adopted through Christ.
If you produce blastocysts for research purposes, I’ll wager you’ll have to answer for that. For the rest of us that actually went in with a plan, I think we’ll be OK.
As for those families that will adopt an embryo, have it not take, and be broken-hearted about it. Well, words fail as to the utter stupidity of considering that a negative. Having lived it, the OPPORTUNITY is a miracle. If you have a child from that opportunity, then it is miracle upon miracle.
If you are called to parenthood, much the same way that you are called to Holy Orders, then you pray as if it were up to God, and you work as if it were up to you.
After all, the prayer asks, “Thy will be done on Earth as in Heaven.” God could have said, “No.”
Be cool...ignore the wing nuts. And God loves both you and your son.
“Be cool...ignore the wing nuts. And God loves both you and your son.”
Roger that.
I'm sorry, but how do you arrive at the above opinion? I know a handful of folks who have had kids using this procedure (and have watched it unsuccessful in my sister's case), and I cannot place any of them in that little box you create above.
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.
And there are parents who know that any children they conceive may be more subject to things like, say, Down's syndrome. Should those parents not conceive because their children are at a greater risk? Is your argument re: risk really smokescreen for your distaste for the procedure in and of itself?
10s of thousands of children conceived by this procedure, anonymously and quietly. Raised by loving parents in loving households. Some of them likely go to church with you, and unless you know them all that well, you’d have no idea.
Octomom was an aberration, using that as ammunition against the procedure is painting the vast middle with a tiny extreme.
You have a point of view which I respect.
Where is your concern for the millions of embryos in the pending files? Do you suppose they have souls? Consciousness?
“God may or may not have created limbo so man, always eager to improve on God’s work, created it.”
Is Limbo and purgatory the same thing?
Wow. Calling me out on the religion forum :-)
When I answer (and I will), I fully expect to take some heat. On an anonymous internet forum, hopefully I can handle it.
Unused embryos are frozen in the 3-5 day range (at least that is my understanding), and those embryos are, at that time, probably fewer than a dozen cells.
No, they do not have consciousness, as consciousness resides in, and is a function of, a developed brain.
I have no answer to your question about whether they have a soul, at least not an answer I could defend with any logic. I tend to believe not, as I'd probably suggest that the soul also requires that the individual have a developed brain.
My materialism is showing, and this is where I tend to get into trouble in these discussions.
No. The Catholic Church never "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally means "fringe." This came about because God has not chosen to reveal what happens to deceased unbaptized infants. We know that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (John 3:5) because God revealed this. We also know that something called "baptism of desire" is possible. Since unbaptized infants seem incapable of any "desire" or act of their will, theologians have speculated throughout the ages about their destiny in this context St. Augustine thought that it would be an offense against God's justice to suppose He would allow such creatures to suffer any pain, but that rather God places such infants in a state of "natural," but not supernatural happiness for eternity. This he called "limbo." Other theologians say that God's "universal salvific will" (1 Timothy 2:4) includes unbaptized people who do not have the use of reason when they die and that they enjoy supernatural happiness by some means we do not now know. Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in limbo.
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.