Kasich. Should we be mad at him?

[Nihil Obstat]

Sounds like exactly what I have been saying. "There seems to be no morally licit solution."

[dairygirl4u2c]

On 12/14/2016 at 2:11 PM, Anomaly said:

I almost hate to engage.  

Exactly what aspect of the heartbeat law is "obviously" unconstitutional?

i mean roe v wade made it clear what it considered unconstitutional, not what i think is or is not constitutional based on the document itself. roe v wade should be over turned, in my opinion, but that doestn't change the fact that the court has marked viability as the cut off point, not heartbeats or things earlier like that. i'm not saying kasich should or souldn't try to save money defending a law like that, im just saying that's what i heard he said.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Sounds like exactly what I have been saying. "There seems to be no morally licit solution."

I read it a bit differently but will have to get back to you later with the full explanation. I think that it is a more of a general statement that refers to the current impossibility of unfreezing millions of embryos without necessarily causing some of them to die, rather than a blanket prohibition in individual cases where transfer could occur without causing death.

Consider the situation where a woman goes through IVF and freezes an embryo. She then converts to the one true faith, confesses her sins, and receives absolution. 

How does she avoid further sin? If she keeps paying the bill and keeps the embryo frozen indefinitely she deprives her child the right to maternal gestation and development. It is a sin of omission. If she stops paying the bill or directs for the embryo's destruction she causes their death and she sins.

But from the standpoint of Catholic moral theology there is never a situation in which sin is inevitable.

[Maggyie]

Embryo adoption does not separate conception from sex. IVF separates the two.

There is no proscription against separating pregnancy from sex. Because of how nature works all 3 (sex, conception, and pregnancy/gestation) normally go together, but not in this case, and there's no clear rule against it. Yet. 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Maggyie

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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.

Transferring an adopted embryo into a woman does break the union of the conjugal act with the productive. The pregnancy (productive act), artificially achieved, would exist without the conjugal act between the husband and wife as the cause of the pregnancy.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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.

I see nothing that allows for impregnation without the conjugal act.

[Maggyie]

13 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Transferring an adopted embryo into a woman does break the union of the conjugal act with the productive. The pregnancy (productive act), artificially achieved, would exist without the conjugal act between the husband and wife as the cause of the pregnancy.

I see nothing that allows for impregnation without the conjugal act.

It doesn't address impregnation at all. It neither forbids or allows it. Personally I think it's pretty likely it will be condemned. But it hasn't been yet. When it is... it will be explicit. 

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

When it is... it will be explicit. 

That is not a word that typically describes our current pontiff.

[Peace]

Do you guys refer to sex as "conjugal act" at home too?

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

It doesn't address impregnation at all. It neither forbids or allows it. Personally I think it's pretty likely it will be condemned. But it hasn't been yet. When it is... it will be explicit. 

I believe we already have a clear answer to the question we are discussing. In the case of transferring adopted embryos pregnancy or gestational parenthood is still part of the procreative act. Donum Vitae does address pregnancy. It warns against the rupture between genetic parenthood and gestational parenthood by placing a embryo into a woman that is not related to her and or her husband. Transferring adopted embryos to achieve pregnancy would also represent a rupture between genetic and gestational parenthood of the husband and wife.

DV also makes clear that "it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation." And makes clear that a specific conjugal act is required for a specific procreative act within marriage. Transferring adopted embryos to achieve pregnancy clearly excludes a specific conjugal act just as "homologous artificial fertilization, in seeking a procreation which is not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal union, objectively effects an analogous separation between the goods and the meanings of marriage."

 

 

 

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I believe we already have a clear answer to the question we are discussing. In the case of transferring adopted embryos pregnancy or gestational parenthood is still part of the procreative act. Donum Vitae does address pregnancy. It warns against the rupture between genetic parenthood and gestational parenthood by placing a embryo into a woman that is not related to her and or her husband. Transferring adopted embryos to achieve pregnancy would also represent a rupture between genetic and gestational parenthood of the husband and wife.

DV also makes clear that "it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation." And makes clear that a specific conjugal act is required for a specific procreative act within marriage. Transferring adopted embryos to achieve pregnancy clearly excludes a specific conjugal act just as "homologous artificial fertilization, in seeking a procreation which is not the fruit of a specific act of conjugal union, objectively effects an analogous separation between the goods and the meanings of marriage."

 

 

 

Try again.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Do you guys refer to sex as "conjugal act" at home too?

What if I do? 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

What if I do? 

An extra 20 years in purgatory.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

An extra 20 years in purgatory.

I want to believe there are some threads on Phatmass that count as time served in purgatory. 

Discussing the morality of using artificial wombs to bring surplus embryos to term would probably count as time and a half. 

 

[Maggyie]

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I want to believe there are some threads on Phatmass that count as time served in purgatory. 

Discussing the morality of using artificial wombs to bring surplus embryos to term would probably count as time and a half. 

 

The director of the Catholic Bioethics Center, Fr Tad Polish Name I Can't Pronounce, who is one of the leading voices AGAINST embryo adoption, actually has suggested that maybe artificial (mechanics) wombs could be used to gestate these children morally. Not sure how he gets there. To me that seems much more clearly wrong. Plus think what the fertility industry would do with that for gay couples or women who don't want to lose their figure. 

[Anomaly]

The prohibition to embryo adoption and assistance to maturity seems like It's almost like prohibiting adoption for fear that adoption would encourage sexual activity or some gay couples or single people would adopt children instead of married heterosexual couples.  I can see the moral problems with artificial conceptions, but it's the embryo person that suffers either certain death or a perpetual state of suspension.