Updated: Praying For And Saving Conceived Eggs Before Implantation

[dairygirl4u2c]

technologies that remove defects aside, i could actually see as possible or probable.... many or most arguing that we should pray for them, but we shouldn't try saving them. that would be tremendously ironic. to pray for someone but do nothing to help them.

 

----------

pushing the limits of science fiction and science fact, to inject the possibility of saving these people, and making sure any defects they have that prevente them from implanations and such, were removed. as has been argued, it is a natual death, so i doubt one could be accountable for not doing anything. but when it's possible to save them, fully health and intact, it becomes more and more pushing obligatory.

 

if your child has a disease, are you not obligated to save them with a techology if you can? would it be okay to just say "they will die of natural causes so i can't be faulted"?

in a way, to not want to save them, is akin to a situation like .... "well, i'd want to save my healthy child if the technology was available, but this child is deformed so i wont try to". actually, it's even worse than that ""well, i'd want to save my healthy child if the technology was available, and while i have the technology available to save the deformed child AND remove the deformity, it is a deformed child, so i will jsut let it die of natural causes"/

[Credo in Deum]

technologies that remove defects aside, i could actually see as possible or probable.... many or most arguing that we should pray for them, but we shouldn't try saving them. that would be tremendously ironic. to pray for someone but do nothing to help them.

----------
pushing the limits of science fiction and science fact, to inject the possibility of saving these people, and making sure any defects they have that prevente them from implanations and such, were removed. as has been argued, it is a natual death, so i doubt one could be accountable for not doing anything. but when it's possible to save them, fully health and intact, it becomes more and more pushing obligatory.

if your child has a disease, are you not obligated to save them with a techology if you can? would it be okay to just say "they will die of natural causes so i can't be faulted"?

in a way, to not want to save them, is akin to a situation like .... "well, i'd want to save my healthy child if the technology was available, but this child is deformed so i wont try to". actually, it's even worse than that ""well, i'd want to save my healthy child if the technology was available, and while i have the technology available to save the deformed child AND remove the deformity, it is a deformed child, so i will jsut let it die of natural causes"/

A child with a disease and a fertilized egg that will be lost due to natural causes are not similar situations. One allows a realistic use of technology while the other one doesn't. If you have to go out of the scope of reality in order the come to your conclusions then this is a red flag. It would be like asking; "if I had a time machine would I be morally obligated to try and prevent the holocaust?" And then responding with "yes, provided I have the technology that also ensures nothing else from that point changes or alters current events."

[dairygirl4u2c]

it is outside the scope of current technology, but it is not outside the scope of what is possible.

 

given it is possible, it is not the same as a time machine, which seems to be outside of what is possible.

 

given it is possible, a disabled child could pretty much be analogous 'on all fours' to the feralized egg.

[Credo in Deum]

given it is possible, a disabled child could pretty much be analogous 'on all fours' to the feralized egg.

In what way? A fertilized egg is neither a state of deformity, or disease for a human being. How can one be morally wrong in not saving a fertilized egg from a natural death only a fertilized egg experiences? Would someone be morally wrong to not reverse the natural aging process and experience a natural death as a result of old age, if the technology to reverse the aging of cells was available?

[dairygirl4u2c]

one could age and die, even if the means were available to reverse aging. because it is a natural death.

 

but then we have on the opposite end, the anaology that we have a moral obligation to save people, at least children, those we are responsible for, with the techonlogical means, if possible. a parent here could try to argue that he would let the deformed child die a natural death, even though that would be wrong.

 

to some extent, i could see, saying it's a murky in between, is it more like letting one die a natural death, or more like treating it as an obligatory situation. to prevent a natural death.

 

but then again, what makes the fertilized egg like those analogies? it would mostly be the parents involvement. not reversing aging has no parents. so why isn't it more like the deformed child situation?

 

i can see something to the fact that it might seem excessive, any attempts to 'rescue' the fertilized eggs. it would surely be invasive. but that doesn't mean it isn't possible, and perhaps, even obligatory to do so.

 

parents might think "gee i dont want half our children to die" as is the statistics for fertilized egg death. and then opt into the procedures. but this is where it's permissible. we still haven't settled the question of whether it's obligatory. i might think as counter intuitive as it seems, that it is most analogous to the deformed child.

 

cause to answer the question, they are basically deformed children. they dont get fertilized because usually or at least often (which raises the question moreso for those who are not rejected for being bad, but for another reason)have defects to them. deformed children have defects to them. both face sitations where they can die a natural death, or intervention can occur, and they can be 'rescued'

Edited June 28, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[Perigrina]

 

if your child has a disease, are you not obligated to save them with a techology if you can? would it be okay to just say "they will die of natural causes so i can't be faulted"?

 

 

The Church teaches that people are not obliged to take extraordinary measures to save a life.  There are circumstances under which we are allowed to let nature take its course.  This principle is alluded to in the CCC discussion on euthanasia

 

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

[CatherineM]

I think about frozen embryos as a human on life support.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like the most i hear is 'we don't have to if we don't want to'. even if you don't have to save the children, shouldn't you?

 

the most ive got so far, is someone who said they pray for all the living and dead. but not even a specific mention or intention for infertilized eggs.

 

 

too much defensive stuff where it would seem entirely more expected that ya'll should be supportive.

[dairygirl4u2c]

those standards given for 'overzeolous' treatment and such are petty vague. i wonder how far you could take that in less uncommon situations. there's no question what it would take to save those eggs is pretty far out there. (not that it should'nt be done, or supported). you have an obligation to use care on one hand, with a 'too far is too far' standard on the other.

[Perigrina]

those standards given for 'overzeolous' treatment and such are petty vague. i wonder how far you could take that in less uncommon situations. there's no question what it would take to save those eggs is pretty far out there. (not that it should'nt be done, or supported). you have an obligation to use care on one hand, with a 'too far is too far' standard on the other.

 

It is a moral principle rather than a rule and it needs to be applied in specific circumstances,  As new technologies and situations become common the Church often gives specific guidance on them.  In recent years, the principle has been applied to feeding tubes. Here is an article to give you an idea of how the reasoning works: https://cbhd.org/content/feeding-tube-dilemma-key-questions

[Lilllabettt]

something else to consider is that the reason these human beings are on life support is because of what they have been unjustly denied.  its not as if their condition is a consequence of natural circumstances. there is nothing medically wrong with them. they have simply been denied ordinary aid due to all human beings after conception (i.e., a womb.)