The following comes from a November 24 Daily Mail article by Ashley Collman:
David and Melissa Pineda say they went to Torrance, California fertility doctor Dr Rifaat Salem in December 2013, after struggling to conceive a fourth child, and two months later Mrs. Pineda was implanted with a set of embryos.
But just two days after the procedure, while Mrs. Pineda was on ordered bed rest, she says she got a call from the doctor telling her to come into the office immediately – even though it was a Sunday.
When she got to the practice, Mrs. Pineda says she had a disturbing conversation with a nurse who said she came in to check on the couple’s remaining embryos on Saturday and found that all 14 original eggs were still in the petri dish – suggest that they had in fact been implanted with another person’s embryos.
Without any explanation, Dr. Salem said he wanted to check in on how the embryos were doing. But Mrs. Pineda believes she actually underwent a very painful dilation and curettage procedure – a scraping of the cervix which is the most common method used in first term abortions.
Mrs. Pineda was told to come in the next day to receive an injection of a drug that would stop some of her bleeding, but she later found out that what she really received was the drug methotrexate – a chemical abortion drug.
‘There’s no question in my mind that this was a viable healthy pregnancy that he wanted to make sure did not continue. That’s why he did two things: a chemical abortion and a surgical abortion. He wanted to be 1billion per cent sure this baby did not go to full term,’ Howard said.
The couple say they never would have agreed to an abortion and believe that the couple whose embryos they received should know the truth about what happened.
My mom and dad waited seven years, praying for number three. Her prayers were answered. I came as number four and my sister became the number five child in the family of five. A lesson to be learned: patience, timing, God’s will. Do not separate the marital act or interfere with it. See the results? Not love. Not peace. But commercial enterprise. The Catholic Church is wise to advise her children to keep the marital act holy and sacred without artificial interference. Check out the John Paul II institute not some quack doc who cares nothing for the families.
Great advice, One of the Sheep.
The morality might change under some extreme (and hypothetical) circumstances. Let’s suppose that a virus renders pretty much all human sperm on the planet non-motive. Essentially, that they can still impregnate an egg, but they don’t swim.
Would en vitro fertilization still be immoral? Or would God, and our Catholic faith, require us to wait for the end of the human race as all living humans inevitably die off?
If this answer is no, then what current reality makes it sinful to practice IVF today? I think there IS a strong argument here for the Church’s position. I’m just curious what everyone else thinks.
Jon J, I will give you the answer if you tell me how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. In other words, you worry your sweet little mind too much with all the what ifs. The Good Lord is not going to let that happen.
Perhaps. I was trained in theology by Jesuits.
However, I think it’s an interesting hypothetical that forces deeper understanding of the theology involved.
The Good Lord allows abortions to happen. The Good Lord allowed the holocaust to happen. The Good Lord allowed the Spanish Inquisition to happen. The Good Lord allowed an English ecclesiastical court to convict St. Joan of Arc in a heresy trial. I don’t think it’s completely out of line that the Good Lord could allow the consequence of a genetic engineering disaster to stand.
Jon J, I apologize if I made light of your question. You are much younger than I am, and sometimes I forget that these questions often bother the younger. If you want a good Jesuit type answer, I recommend you contact Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN or Fr. Joseph Fessio. You could also use the EWTN Q&A (Question and Answer) Forum on their website or contact the John Paul II Institute as One of the Sheep recommended.
Anne, I’m not really that young. It’s just I have a youthful outlook in that I reflexively don’t like conventional answers because they’re conventional. Now, I work as a health care IT entrepreneur, which rewards such an outlook because you constantly are looking for changes that allow you to blow up conventional wisdom in such a way as it yields a better product or service not practical before, or enables a better business model. That’s why startups are often risky endeavors, because conventional wisdom IS conventional for a reason.
It probably makes me bad at obedience, but also less likely to toss a torch onto St. Joan’s bonfire.
You do not speak or think for God. Stop being so arrogant, prideful, and pompous.
God gave us a free will. How we use our free will by commission or omission will determine our final destiny of Heaven or Hell.
All life from conception until natural death is precious.
The Catholic teaching is that the Lord permits evil because He will bring about a greater good. However, it is never permissible to do evil hoping God will bring about a good.
Donum Vitae teaches that if a given medical intervention helps or assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the intervention replaces the marriage act in order to engender life, it is not moral.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
Donum Vitae is not talking about in vitro fertilization.
Dissociating the sexual act from the procreative act is NOT permitted – ever.
See Doctrine of the Faith: CCC # 2376, 2377.
Donum Vitae IS about in vitro fertilization.
And you are correct , procedurs like in vitro fertilization are not permitted.
That is exactly what the previous post said.
JonJ, are you Catholic ?
In vitro fertilization is a mortal sin.
Have you ever read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” ?
Try reading Doctrine of the Faith #2376 & 2377.
if God wants married people to be fertile they will be fertile.
I’m aware of the Church’s position on IVF, I just don’t think it’s a moral absolute. Before you attack me for “moral relativism”, I’m not saying that moral absolutes don’t exist. I’m suggesting IVF isn’t properly one of them.
Jon J, I think another reason IVF is forbidden is because other embryos are involved that often are later destroyed. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.
Anne, my understanding is that IVF is forbidden for 2 reasons:
1) use of multiple embryos with only one implanted at a time. The others are frozen or discarded
2) the “Theology of the Body” problem due to separating out the reproductive function of sex
Jon J, I would be more worried about the world being destroyed by fire then by defective sperm, as that is how St. Paul and the Bible and other saints said it will be destroyed, and then a new world rebuilt at Christ’s returns.. Christ told the faithful not to worry if they are doing His will. But, of course, we know you do not really believe in any of that as your lack of faith and belief is showing.
Jon J, EVERYTHING in the
“CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, second edition”
(aka CCC; 1997; dark green cover in USA),
is REQUIRED of all Catholics.
The CCC contains the Doctrine of the Faith.
For quotes from Popes St. JP II, Benedict, and Francis about the CCC, please see: ” What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE ”
https://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com/
I suspect my scenario come to pass, that the Catholic Church would receive “inspiration” that IVF is, in fact, licit under certain conditions,. I doubt the Church would simply allow the human race to cease to exist in a world where sperm cannot swim and thus some kind of outside mechanical aid is required for reproduction.
The interesting question is why such techniques are immoral today, absent the threat of human extinction. If IVF were licit under such circumstances, of course the proscription is NOT a moral absolute.
JonJ – if a Catholic at all, is a Catholic heretic – using Church definition. – CCC #2089.
He has a habit of making up his own religion.
JonJ, you create a hypothetical situation and assume a hypothetical church response and then decide based on that, that IVF is not always immoral?
This is horrible. The whole situatuon. God have mercy!
MORTAL SIN – – –
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.”