PhuturePriest Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 This thread has gone in so many unexpected directions. Sexual abuse, then how to deal with it properly, then IVF, then contraception, and now condoms. This is what makes Phatmass so special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 How has this made it to page 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Like I said, beyond me, but... Apparently because fertilization takes place inside the body it's a grey area. Intrauterine insemination is similar. You can get the sperm from the normal marital act and then the doctor washes it and reinserts the filtered swimmers. So technically it's the same act just with an extra help at the end. I think that IVF often involves a woman with obstructed Fallopian tubes. Her eggs and his sperm are combined and injected into her uterus, as her tubes are blocked. With blocked tubes, there is no chance that she can become pregnant. So it doesn't replace intercourse, it completes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Hmm, as the OP, I can see where the thread has diverged in several areas. As infertility is also my area of expertise, I have to point out IVF per se doesn't require embryo discarding. Beatitude if you really think "there's no way to have IVF without embryo destruction" you're just misinfomed about it. And the vast, vast majority of IVF doesn't involve embryo adoption, surrogacy, egg/sperm donation, etc. Like 95%. So separation from the natural parents is not something that applies very often. If the Catholic argument rested on these 2 legs there wouldn't be much there. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gave a public statement on the destruction of 170,000 embryos per year in the UK, explaining that this is a necessary part of the IVF process - they create many embryos, select the best, discard the remainder. They are the IVF regulatory body so I doubt that they are misinformed on what they're saying. Possibly there is some hypothetical world somewhere out there where IVF wouldn't involve any embryo destruction at all, but that world doesn't currently exist and embryos are being destroyed on a huge scale. This is the ethical world that Catholics have to navigate as of now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I think that IVF often involves a woman with obstructed Fallopian tubes. Her eggs and his sperm are combined and injected into her uterus, as her tubes are blocked. With blocked tubes, there is no chance that she can become pregnant. So it doesn't replace intercourse, it completes it. Insofar as the procreative aspect of intercourse is considered, IVF renders it unnecessary. Risking causing pain, but saying it because it needs to be clear: no-one has a right to have a child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gave a public statement on the destruction of 170,000 embryos per year in the UK, explaining that this is a necessary part of the IVF process - they create many embryos, select the best, discard the remainder. They are the IVF regulatory body so I doubt that they are misinformed on what they're saying. Possibly there is some hypothetical world somewhere out there where IVF wouldn't involve any embryo destruction at all, but that world doesn't currently exist and embryos are being destroyed on a huge scale. This is the ethical world that Catholics have to navigate as of now. Right, but when they say "necessary" they are just talking about what's necessary to make it efficient (pretty chilling to have efficiency brought into baby making). From a strictly technical perspective the discarding of embryos is not a necessary part of the process. A patient could even request that only one egg be fertilized at a time. Good luck finding a doctor to do that in the real world, of course. My point is, even if somehow regulations changed and you were forbidden to discard embryos, or have 3rd party reproduction, the ethical problem of IVF would still not be solved. Of course the church is against throwing out the babies, but that's NOT why the church is against IVF. Yaatee, this whole area involves splitting of hairs and intellectual gymnastics. Like the whole "use of a perforated condom to obtain sperm for medical testing" a lot of it seems to involve Angels dancing on pinheads and ritual gestures that don't make sense. But the people who have the proper authority have determined IVF doesn't complete anything, blocked tubes or no. Nothing will change that. I'm sure it definitely is horrible for people with blocked tubes. The church has little to offer infertile people in general other than "offer it up" or "just adopt" and we can even see these attitudes on this thread, which any adoption professional will tell you, adoption is not a treatment for infertility and thinking of it that way is a prescription for disaster. Even the catechism gives this exact advice so if you're coming at it from a personal perspective, I get it! It's frustrating and so painful. I'm glad I converted in my teenage years because the Christian God is very "hands-on" in terms of reproduction and at this stage in my life that would bounce me right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnatiusofLoyola Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 How has this made it to page 10? Like the Duggars themselves, this thread appears to be very fertile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancilla Domini Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Like the Duggars themselves, this thread appears to be very fertile. That was almost worth the 10 pages. ...almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4LoveofJMJ Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 My point is, even if somehow regulations changed and you were forbidden to discard embryos, or have 3rd party reproduction, the ethical problem of IVF would still not be solved. Of course the church is against throwing out the babies, but that's NOT why the church is against IVF. But what about the embryos that are left frozen for a women who will never use them? I once read an article about a woman who couldn't have children so she adopted a frozen embryo that was then implanted within her womb so that she could give birth to him/her. I mean the women is offering the child a chance to be born instead of being discarded or remain frozen in an embryonic state. What would the Church's stance be on that? Is it still under the "everything related to IVF is bad umbrella"? I've been wondering about this for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 But what about the embryos that are left frozen for a women who will never use them? I once read an article about a woman who couldn't have children so she adopted a frozen embryo that was then implanted within her womb so that she could give birth to him/her. I mean the women is offering the child a chance to be born instead of being discarded or remain frozen in an embryonic state. What would the Church's stance be on that? Is it still under the "everything related to IVF is bad umbrella"? I've been wondering about this for a while. It is wrong. Less wrong certainly than destroying the embryo. But wrong nonetheless as it perverts the intimate union between a married couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 The Church's opinion on embryo adoption is actually not that firm. You can still be a good Catholic and be an embryo adoptive mother! For now. But it's trending that way (against I mean). In the world of reproduction the Church usually eventually finds a way to say no. Then later on what do you tell the child? At the time you were "approved" or at least not "unapproved." Now you are verboten and we would never adopt you again. Personally I can't see how embryo adoption is a perversion at all, any more than another form of adoption which involves a couple choosing to parent an unrelated child. The fact that a pregnancy is involved is what blows people's minds. For some reason the act of gestating the already existing child is extremely fraught for some people. If the child was a day-old newborn they would not think anything of the adoptive mother taking over nurturing and feeding etc. If that was needed. I think most of the opposition is rooted in a "this is gross" feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think that IVF often involves a woman with obstructed Fallopian tubes. Her eggs and his sperm are combined and injected into her uterus, as her tubes are blocked. With blocked tubes, there is no chance that she can become pregnant. So it doesn't replace intercourse, it completes it. IVF is forbidden by the Church. It separates the conception from the marital act - which should go together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The Church's opinion on embryo adoption is actually not that firm. You can still be a good Catholic and be an embryo adoptive mother! For now. But it's trending that way (against I mean). In the world of reproduction the Church usually eventually finds a way to say no. Then later on what do you tell the child? At the time you were "approved" or at least not "unapproved." Now you are verboten and we would never adopt you again. Personally I can't see how embryo adoption is a perversion at all, any more than another form of adoption which involves a couple choosing to parent an unrelated child. The fact that a pregnancy is involved is what blows people's minds. For some reason the act of gestating the already existing child is extremely fraught for some people. If the child was a day-old newborn they would not think anything of the adoptive mother taking over nurturing and feeding etc. If that was needed. I think most of the opposition is rooted in a "this is gross" feeling. I wouldn't say its really because of a "this is gross" feeling - regarding Catholics probably the reason is not wanting to give the impression of approving IVF in some way. The children are not any less value than others - but since IVF remains wrong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) It is wrong. Less wrong certainly than destroying the embryo. But wrong nonetheless as it perverts the intimate union between a married couple. I guess its the whole thing about - we can't do something wrong even for a "good end"? I read that we can't sin even out of wanting charity for another - because God should come first I think.. It should be a neutral or good act. Is it true if something is wrong in itself it can't be turned to good through a better intention? Some acts have decreased gravity depending on intent though... Or theres less culpability through lack of choice. What would be the best thing to do with these frozen embryos that already exist? Edited June 3, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I guess its the whole thing about - we can't do something wrong even for a "good end"? I read that we can't sin even out of wanting charity for another - because God should come first I think.. It should be a neutral or good act. Is it true if something is wrong in itself it can't be turned to good through a better intention? Some acts have decreased gravity depending on intent though... Or theres less culpability through lack of choice. What would be the best thing to do with these frozen embryos that already exist? Just to add to the above... Some acts seem to depend on the context because they are not evil in themselves, and in those cases charity potentially can make it ok even in another context. Like - how charity on Sunday ceases to be work, or if a person gives up chocolate for Lent but has to have it out of charity. Because eating, working, are not bad unless you do them when you shouldnt - and if in a case you shouldnt, then it would in fact be wrong (working on Sunday to buy a nice car). However acts that are implicitly wrong *always* - contraception, IVF... Are always wrong. Am I correct? Edited June 3, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now