Kasich. Should we be mad at him?

[Nihil Obstat]

In vitro fertilization is not a moral practice.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

In vitro fertilization is not a moral practice.

Sure. But The act here is not IVF. We are talking about people who want to give those frozen embryos a chance to live, not the people who caused them to be in that state in the first place.

The act would be transfer of an embryo, which by itself does not seem intrinsically evil. If med tech advances to the point where and ectopic embryo can be transferred to the womb, I don't think anyone would object, for example.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

Sure. But The act here is not IVF. We are talking about people who want to give those frozen embryos a chance to live, not the people who caused them to be in that state in the first place.

The act would be transfer of an embryo, which by itself does not seem intrinsically evil. If med tech advances to the point where and ectopic embryo can be transferred to the womb, I don't think anyone would object, for example.

 

Certainly, because that would be saving the life of a child conceived through the marital act. But all our theology of sexuality tells us that to separate the marital act from conception is gravely evil, and this applies to the implantation of frozen embryos. Tragically, for all of us.

[Anomaly]

 So the fact these people came into existence outside of "the marital act" means they aren't "sacred" or actual persons?  They're some sort of hybrid entity?  An cognizant animal,  soulless human?

[Nihil Obstat]

56 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

 So the fact these people came into existence outside of "the marital act" means they aren't "sacred" or actual persons?  They're some sort of hybrid entity?  An cognizant animal,  soulless human?

No, they are fully human and that is why destroying the embryos is murder. But implanting them is also unlawful. That is the tragedy we are facing with these frozen embryos.

[Peace]

31 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Certainly, because that would be saving the life of a child conceived through the marital act.

I am not sure why that matters.

An infant conceived through IVF has the same rights as an infant conceived through sex. It is not as though you must feed the latter and can let the former go hungry.

Why then should an embryo conceived through IVF have lesser rights than an embryo conceived through sex?

What about an ectopic pregnancy that resulted from a rape? Would a woman in that situation have no moral duty to transfer because of the sinful circumstance that resulted in conception? But a married woman would have a duty to transfer because the child was conceived under ideal circumstances?

It seems rather clear to me that the circumstance under which an embryo was  conceived does not determine the rights or duties that we have towards it.

31 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

But all our theology of sexuality tells us that to separate the marital act from conception is gravely evil,

Sure. But adopting an embryo does not do that.

31 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

and this applies to the implantation of frozen embryos.

I don't see how this logically follows. Implantation of frozen embryos does not separate sex and conception.

You would be implanting something that has already been conceived.

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

But implanting them is unlawful.

Under what rationale?

As I said, transfer by itself is not intrinsically evil. I don't see why it should matter if you are transferring from point A (Fallopian tube) or point B (pitri dish). And we have already established that the circumstances of conception do not vary the value of the life.

So I it is tough for me to see how you teach that conclusion.

[Nihil Obstat]

The hypothetical 'rescuing' of an ectopic pregnancy takes an embryo conceived in the marital act which ended up in the wrong place, and puts it in the correct place. If the technology existed (and I am confident that one day it will), it would be a simple intervention to correct a defect.

Taking frozen embryos and implanting them removes the marital act from its rightful place at the centre of the co-creative process. It is this separation which is inherently immoral.

[Papist]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Alas. If only the rest of the world were as brave as our beloved Papist.

Yes! If only.

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Taking frozen embryos and implanting them removes the marital act from its rightful place at the centre of the co-creative process. It is this separation which is inherently immoral.

That doesn't seem to follow logically. Perhaps transfer is unethical for some other reason that has not been articulated, but I don't think your rationale works.

You say that "implanting them removes the marital act from its rightful place at the centre of the co-creative process" but the only role that sex has in the creative process is in the moments before conception. The sex is long finished by the time the egg has been fertilized. After fertilization sex makes no contribution to the creative process whatsoever. It is not as though sex is some supernatural being that lingers around for the next 9 months and attends to the proper development of the child . . . 

Transfer would not undermine the role that sex has in the creative process, because the role that sex would play in the creative process would in any case have ended before the time of conception and the time of making the decision to transfer. Put another way, it is the IVF that undermines the role of sex in the creative process, by causing conception by means  of a Petri dish instead of allowing for conception the natural way. By the time of transfer the damage has already been done. Transfer then is only the attempt to remedy the bad situation of frozen embryos.

Your argument seems to be based on an assumption that transfer would be an acceptance of the illicit acts that gave rise to the conception (in this case, IVF). But that assumption does not hold true as a general principle. One clear example would be the case of rape (which I doubt would fall under the definition of "marital act" as used by the Church). If rape results in an ectopic pregnancy and the mother decides to transfer the embryo to her uterus, doing so would not then be an an acceptance of the act (rape) that caused the pregnancy. She is not under an obligation to "do nothing" because the egg was fertilized under illicit circumstances.

Why should transfer in the case of rape not be considered an acceptance of rape, but transfer in the case of IVF be considered an acceptance of IVF? I do not see any reason for that.

Also, at some point (I do not think the Church has definitely taught when) God chooses to ensoul the embryo or fetus that results from IVF. If God deems them worthy of life to the extent that he creates their souls, how then can it be considered a sin by giving those lives a chance to flourish? Transfer as an assistance would seem to pale in comparison to what God has already done for the embryo that was fertilized under illicit circumstances.

[KnightofChrist]

According to the CCC (and Church teaching it is based upon) the transfer or implantation of a embryo is gravely immoral. Implantation would require the intrusion of another person and that act would dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.  

My question would then be how can we commit an immoral act so good may come from it?

CCC 2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

[Nihil Obstat]

Donum Vitae:

Methods of observation or experimentation which damage or impose grave and disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for the same reasons. every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others. It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained 'in vitro'. In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art not transferred into the body of the mother and are called "spare" are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued.

[...]

The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo - cryopreservation - constitutes an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible.

[...]

It has already been recalled that, in the circumstances in which it is regularly practised, IVF and ET involves the destruction of human beings, which is something contrary to the doctrine on the illicitness of abortion previously mentioned.(49) But even in a situation in which every precaution were taken to avoid the death of human embryos, homologous IVF and ET dissociates from the conjugal act the actions which are directed to human fertilization. For this reason the very nature of homologous IVF and ET also must be taken into account, even abstracting from the link with procured abortion. Homologous IVF and ET is brought about outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose competence and technical activity determine the success of the procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.

Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person".(50) These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case", i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it. Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo. Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

 

[...]

A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed",(56) On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born. The humanization of medicine, which is insisted upon today by everyone, requires respect for the integral dignity of the human person first of all in the act and at the moment in which the spouses transmit life to a new person. It is only logical therefore to address an urgent appeal to Catholic doctors and scientists that they bear exemplary witness to the respect due to the human embryo and to the dignity of procreation. The medical and nursing staff of Catholic hospitals and clinics are in a special way urged to do justice to the moral obligations which they have assumed, frequently also, as part of their contract. Those who are in charge of Catholic hospitals and clinics and who are often Religious will take special care to safeguard and promote a diligent observance of the moral norms recalled in the present Instruction.

[...]

 

[Peace]

@KnightofChrist @Nihil Obstat

It is not as if I have not looked at either of those beforehand. . .

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

@KnightofChrist @Nihil Obstat

It is not as if I have not looked at either of those beforehand. . .

The Church teaches the conjugal act and procreative act cannot be separated. The implantation of a embryo separates the conjugal act from the procreative. There is no amount of time that passes that allows separation between the two. Unless you would like to provide Church teaching that does.

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Church teaches the conjugal act and procreative act cannot be separated. The implantation of a embryo separates the conjugal act from the procreative. There is no amount of time that passes that allows separation between the two. Unless you would like to provide Church teaching that does.

Transfer does not separate sex and procreation. IVF separates sex and procreation. I have responded to this already above. Please feel free to read what I wrote because I would rather not repeat myself.

As for the portion of the Catechism that you quoted - it does not address the specific issue that is being discussed in this thread. There is a Church document that does discuss the specific issue that is being discussed in this thread, and I will post it below for your reference.

[Peace]

@Nihil Obstat

I will have to get back to you later, but in the meantime take a look at this document instead, which is specifically on point:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html#_ftnref37

Quote

 

19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them?  Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.[37]

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

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. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.[39]