Having children in vitro, surrogate mothers etc

[bill5]

At the risk of starting up yet another cat fight, just curious what others may have seen/experienced regarding Catholics who think these things are "OK" when RCC teaches they are not. Seems to me these kind of "alternative" methods of having a child are increasing quite a bit these days, and while I can appreciate someone wanting a child and considering this if the normal way isn't working, if they're Catholic it seems many are ignorant of the Church's stance. To be fair, not helping is I've never heard as much as a single homily going anywhere near the subject or even something in the weekly flyers.

Also along with the issue of the Church itself, IMO there are other non-faith related issues people don't consider that they should as to why this might be a bad idea. For example, someone I know (not Catholic) who's daughter did this and had someone who'd done this before and they even knew personally so assumed was a great choice, shortly after becoming impregnated copped a major attitude and if they didn't kiss her behind in every little way, kept threatening not to take care of her health (eg start smoking etc) and so on. It was a nightmare. Granted this is likely an exception, but still things to consider.

Personally I would never agree to a surrogate as IMO that child then at least in part becomes her child as well; it's her body that's "building" that child, her blood coursing through its veins. Even if I wasn't Catholic, IMO it's just a bad choice.

 

[football5680]

If they openly reject the Church's teaching then they are not Catholics. If they are ignorant of the Church's teaching then they should be informed and then they must make a choice of whether they accept it and remain Catholics or become heretics.

 

[Hank77]

Personally I would never agree to a surrogate as IMO that child then at least in part becomes her child as well; it's her body that's "building" that child, her blood coursing through its veins. Even if I wasn't Catholic, IMO it's just a bad choice

Not commenting on your denominations belief but I wanted to point out to you one thing.
The mother's blood, whether surrogate or otherwise, is not coursing through the child's body. A baby makes it's own blood. Simple thought, if it was the mother's blood the child would have the same blood type as the mother, every time.
If the the mother's blood is Rh negative and the baby's blood is Rh positive and they mix there can be serious health issues. The mother's body may build up antibodies against the fetus, Rh factor.
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/rh-factor/

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Encyclopedia/Content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P02362

 

[bill5]

The mother's blood, whether surrogate or otherwise, is not coursing through the child's body. A baby makes it's own blood.

Nope. The link you provided disagrees, in fact; I quote: "Through the blood vessels in the umbilical cord, the fetus receives all the necessary nutrition, oxygen, and life support from the mother through the placenta."

Sure it's still the parents' genes, but from a biological standpoint quite literally a considerable part of the surrogate mother is going into creating the child.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

"14. The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life. Apart from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act, these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just failure in relation to fertilization but with regard to the subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for implantation in the woman's womb, and these so-called 'spare embryos' are then destroyed or used for research which, under the pretext of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human life to the level of simple 'biological material' to be freely disposed of." - Pope St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Abraham and Sarah tried using another woman as a surrogate, and the lesson from it is that it led them to problems.

 

[Hank77]

Nope. The link you provided disagrees, in fact; I quote: "Through the blood vessels in the umbilical cord, the fetus receives all the necessary nutrition, oxygen, and life support from the mother through the placenta."

Sure it's still the parents' genes, but from a biological standpoint quite literally a considerable part of the surrogate mother is going into creating the child.

What does the fetus receive? Oxygen and nutrients, Not blood. Through blood vessels in the umbilical cord does not mean the mother's blood enters the fetus or is the blood of the fetus.
But whatever, carry on.

 

[bill5]

What does the fetus receive? Oxygen and nutrients, Not blood.

? What fluid contains and delivers the oxygen and nutrients? Orange juice?

 

[Hank77]

? What fluid contains and delivers the oxygen and nutrients? Orange juice?

The mother's blood does not pass through blood vessels into the fetus. There is an exchange where only the oxygen and nutrients enter the baby's blood stream.
You don't have to believe me, study up or ask your physician.

 

[football5680]

? What fluid contains and delivers the oxygen and nutrients? Orange juice?

I don't know the process but it wouldn't make sense for the mothers blood to go through the baby and the slight research I did said this would be a rare and potentially serious problem. The only way this could work is if every single baby had the exact same blood type as their mother but this isn't the case.

 

[Fantine]

It seems as if many Hollywood conceptions occur this way. So many have boy/girl twins in a percentage that could never, ever occur in nature. The creepiest one, I think, is Neil Patrick Harris and his partner. NPH is the biological father of one "twin;" his partner is the father of the other. The baby was carried by a surrogate.

The Catholics who use in-vitro are probably not habitual or even frequent sinners. They are probably people who try to lead good lives; but they feel that this particular situation--dealing with infertility, or perhaps conceiving a baby when there is a 1 in 4 chance of a profound genetic disability and wanting to feel sure that the embryo that is implanted is a healthy one--warrants what they are doing. Chances are after they have the baby they will go back to living blameless lives.

In any case, the babies are wanted and loved

 

[Tallguy88]

If they openly reject the Church's teaching then they are not Catholics. If they are ignorant of the Church's teaching then they should be informed and then they must make a choice of whether they accept it and remain Catholics or become heretics.

I'm pretty sure ignoring Church teaching makes you a sinner, not a heretic. Heretics reject core parts the faith itself, not just moral laws.

 

[football5680]

I'm pretty sure ignoring Church teaching makes you a sinner, not a heretic. Heretics reject core parts the faith itself, not just moral laws.

The definition of heresy in the Catechism is, "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."

We are speaking about Catholics who think this is acceptable, not Catholics who may have had this procedure. A Catholic who thinks that it is acceptable even when they know the Church's stance is a heretic. They are denying something that the Church has said must be believed by the faithful.

Catholics who may have ignored the Church's teaching and had the procedure would be guilty of incredulity which is defined as "the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it." They are not denying what the Church has said so they would not be heretics, they would be sinners.

Another way of looking at this would be that a murderer is not necessarily a heretic, but somebody who thinks that murder is not a sin would be.

 

[Tallguy88]

The definition of heresy in the Catechism is, "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."

We are speaking about Catholics who think this is acceptable, not Catholics who may have had this procedure. A Catholic who thinks that it is acceptable even when they know the Church's stance is a heretic. They are denying something that the Church has said must be believed by the faithful.

Catholics who may have ignored the Church's teaching and had the procedure would be guilty of incredulity which is defined as "the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it." They are not denying what the Church has said so they would not be heretics, they would be sinners.

Another way of looking at this would be that a murderer is not necessarily a heretic, but somebody who thinks that murder is not a sin would be.

I'm not sure it's an issue "which must be believed with divine and catholic faith", however. Would contraception be a similar issue? In that case, it would make roughly 90%of Catholic women in the USA heretics, rather than "just" sinners.

I guess I'm asking where is the line drawn and who decides?

 

[football5680]

I'm not sure it's an issue "which must be believed with divine and catholic faith", however. Would contraception be a similar issue? In that case, it would make roughly 90% of Catholic women in the USA heretics, rather than "just" sinners.

I guess I'm asking where is the line drawn and who decides?

I don't know specifically where or if the line has been drawn but I would draw it when it deals with mortal sins and the Catechism says that this is "gravely immoral". If these women know the Church's teaching and say that it is wrong then they are heretics and should go find some Protestant denomination that suits their desires. I don't see the sense in somebody remaining Catholic if they think the Church can be wrong when it comes to a matter as serious as a mortal sin.

 

[Fantine]

staff edit

I hope you believe, as I do, that the strong in the world are responsible for empowering the weak--not only until the moment of birth, but throughout their lives.

Most people who use IVF are infertile couples--something you didn't address. And my point was that IVF was not a sin they were likely to repeat, and that most of them probably aren't habitually sinful people.

 

[Tallguy88]

I hope you believe, as I do, that the strong in the world are responsible for empowering the weak--not only until the moment of birth, but throughout their lives.

Most people who use IVF are infertile couples--something you didn't address. And my point was that IVF was not a sin they were likely to repeat, and that most of them probably aren't habitually sinful people.

I think everybody is habitually sinful. Or at least everybody sins everyday. I know I do.

If my future wife turns out to be infirtile (or I do, though there is no family history of such), then I would rather adopt or foster, than do something like IVF or surrogacy. Don't they have to cull (abort) several embryos when doing IVF?

And if my child were to have a disability, I would still want to keep it and raise it to the best of my ability. It is still flesh of my flesh and deserves a chance at life.

 

[JackRT]

First of all, let me identify myself as a former Catholic excommunicated for divorce and remarriage. Our youngest daughter and her husband were infertile. Testing revealed that 99% of his sperm were dead. Doctors harvested three of her eggs. Working microscopically they then identified three viable sperm and then individually implanted the three eggs. These three were then implanted in her womb. The result today is a happy healthy two and a half year old little boy. No one can tell me that this was in any way immoral.

 

[Tallguy88]

First of all, let me identify myself as a former Catholic excommunicated for divorce and remarriage. Our youngest daughter and her husband were infertile. Testing revealed that 99% of his sperm were dead. Doctors harvested three of her eggs. Working microscopically they then identified three viable sperm and then individually implanted the three eggs. These three were then implanted in her womb. The result today is a happy healthy two and a half year old little boy. No one can tell me that this was in any way immoral.

But what about the other two embryos? If they were culled, that's where my main objection would come from.

I'm not judging your daughter btw. That's not my place and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Just stating where I find the issue with this procedure.

 

[JackRT]

Doctors estimate that 50% or more of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted.