Ok, this is another zygote question. Since we recognize them as human beings, why isn't there more done to save the unsuccessfull zygotes that do not implant themselves in their mother? I mean, with science of today, I'm sure we can save these little guys. I know there is the problem of not knowing, but if it is possible to save them, shouldn't it be every woman's responsibiliy to keep checking her water in case there are some there. Also, if we do have the means of doing this, this increase families by 30-35 children.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), August 19, 2004

Answers

bump to new answers

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), August 19, 2004.

It is not humanly possible so there is little point in worrying about it. Besides, embryos that fail to implant are usually fatally flawed.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 19, 2004.

why dont we place every old person on indefinate life support... they won't die that way right? no. there is a HUGE difference between natural death (such as cancer, failed zygote implantation, etc) and murder (euthenasia, abortion, etc).

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), August 19, 2004.

Q: "why isn't there more done to save the unsuccessfull zygotes that do not implant themselves in their mother?"

A: Well because if the zygote isn't brought naturally to a full human being and if nature made them "unsuccesful" like you said there's nothing to do then to let nature follow it's course. Also you should know that having children is an act of co-creation with God of a human being us being able with the grace of God to conceive the material part of a human and God insuflates a spirit in the flesh. Knowing that we cannot create a human being alone we have to realize then that it is a gift a God to have children and if God wants to happen it will and if not it won't. He works in mysterious ways we say and we cannot know the purpous of all created beings why some die in their mothers womb and some die at 100 years old. But trying to interfere with nature to much by playing God isn't the right way. And being a microbiologist I know that interfering with an embryo (or zygote) is risky business, life being in it's most fragile state.

-- Charles W. (cwhite24@yahoo.com), September 04, 2004.

Charles,

Good answer.

There is a problem of when life starts. If before birth, then should we baptise before birth? If at the age of reason, should we then? and if at the zygotes level, what should we do? If by your answer, life starts early but if and only if that life would have been born, then the fetus is in an inderterminate state.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 09, 2004.

You fellows seem a little confused. As soon as a man's sperm fuses with a woman's ovum, a unique new individual human life starts. There is not one embryologist who doubts that this is the moment when a new human life starts, and it is from that moment "a full human being" with the same genetic makeup it will have throughout life as a zygote, fetus, neonate, infant, child, adolescent, adult and elderly person. There is nothing "indeterminate" about a zygote or fetus. Its genetic nature has been fully determined. This is not a "problem" of definition to those who know anything about the subject. The only "problem" is with those who would like, for their own purposes, to propose, without any scientific foundation, some later time for "when a human life starts".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 09, 2004.

Steve,

And if we took your defination of when life starts, (and you have good arguements for that), we would end up with some real changes in our religious practices if we were consistant in our logic. A friend of mine can not get the zygote to stick to her womb, and is still sexually active (I presume) with her husband. Should she have ceramony for the expelled zygotes that are to be expected from such a practice?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 12, 2004.

Sean,

The fact that the life of an individual organism begins at the moment of fertilization is not Steve's personal definition. It is basic biological science. When two gametes unite, a new genotype exists which has never existed before in the history of the universe, a genotype which defines a new, unique, living individual, and will continue to define that individual until he/she dies.

You ask "Should she have ceremony for the expelled zygotes that are to be expected from such a practice?"

In fact, funeral services would be appropriate for a deceased human being of any age; however, that is not possible in the case of very early miscarriages because the physical remains of the deceased are not recoverable, and in most cases are not even identifiable. I have however attended more than one funeral for deceased children who were miscarried/stillborn at various ages, whose parents appreciated the immeasurable human dignity of their unborn child, and desired to recognize that fact the same way they would for any other deceased family member.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2004.

I was not thinking of last rites, though that would also be good. How about baptism? The Church seems to be trying to have things two ways there. It is a child for purposes of Legal stuff, and not a child for purposes of Baptism. Or even a related rite. Birth is such a tramatic experience. People die in it. So should we move Baptism to a pre- birth sacriment? And for women who have miscarried before, maybe a many-months prebirth? And for my friend, a generic sacriment to take care of the zygote? It is all logical, but would change things a bit.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 13, 2004.

sean,

RE: Baptism of unborn children... we must assume that since devotion is written in the hearts of men, and children have unique ability to be perfectly devoted to faith, that the zygote stage child would indeed be baptised by desire if it died, and therefore would require no physical repetition of the sacrament by man.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 13, 2004.

Sean,

I was not speaking of sacramental last rites, but only of funeral rites. No sacrament may be administered to a person who is already dead, though sometimes last rites and/or baptism are administered "conditionally" to a person who is "apparently" dead or recently "clinically" dead, just in case a spark of life remains. If a person is obviously dead however, no sacraments may be administered, and if someone does administer them in such circumstances, they are invalid.

The pre-born child is most certainly regarded as a human person by the Church, and there is no theological reason why pre-birth baptism would be inappropriate. However, it seems there are pretty obvious practical reasons. HOW would you do it?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 13, 2004.

Sean, the Church's liturgy includes the Blessing of a Mother and her Child in the Womb, which can be performed as soon as the pregnancy is known. No, it's not one of the Big Seven capital-"S" Sacraments, but it is in a sense a "sacrament" ( a means of accessing God's grace).

Baptism requires pouring on or immersing in water - impossible for a zygote too small to see, or an embryo or fetus enclosed in its sac of fluid. But if a fetus is miscarried and is in danger of death it is immediately baptized - there is no need to wait until 9 months after it was conceived.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 14, 2004.

D Joseph,

Mankind may not possess the means to detect or save the zygotes you are worried about; however, we do possess the means to prevent children murdered by abortion... In one case we have no choice but to accept what is natural; in the other case we have a choice to not murder...

hmmm.... It would seem to follow that genuine worry over such matters is misplaced and but perceived contradiction if genuine...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 14, 2004.

Paul,

In this forum I am often wrong. But I believe that a Baptism can be performed by a layperson using available water and touch. In the womb there is both. The mother baptises the kid.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 14, 2004.

Sean,

First, a baptism can be licitly performed by a lay person only when there is imminent danger of death.

However, more to the point, because baptism symbolizes death to sin and resurrection in Christ, a valid baptism requires an entrance into water (symbolizing burial) and an emergence from water (symbolizing resurrection). In addition, this action must be ministered to the recipient of the sacrament by the minister of the sacrament. The minister of the sacrament must either physically immerse the recipient in water and then withdraw him from the water, or alternatively, initiate the pouring of water upon the head of the recipient and then stop pouring. The minister for example could not stand on the shore of a pond while a person walked into the water and immersed himself, then say the words of baptism while the person was immersed. That would not constitute a valid baptism. Likewise, the minister could not say the words while the person poured water on his own head. Since there is no way to pour water upon the head of a baby in utero, or to immerse and withdraw the baby from water, baptism would not be possible.

Also, I doubt that amniotic fluid would qualify as "water" for purposes of baptism. I'm not 100% certain about that, but sweat and tears don't qualify, so I'm pretty sure that other body fluids wouldn't either.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2004.

Hey Daniel, I orginally stated this question because someone who I was taking to about zygotes being human, stated that if I believed this, then he for a fact knows that they all can be saved today, with the advancements in technology in today's world, and wondered why we don't do more to save them. I asked the question to see if anyone else heard of this claim as I certainly did not. I guess his intention was to show how we preach but we don't seem to back it up with action and try to get us to realize how we don't take it as serious as we should if we do believe this. That was a while ago and our discussion ended just with my saying that if it was possible then we should save them and my view on the fact that human life begins at conception still stands. He believes it begins after gastrulation takes place. (around 14 days after conception). It also seems he may have been trying to make excuses in order to not acknowledge a zygote as a person.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), September 14, 2004.

"It also seems he may have been trying to make excuses in order to not acknowledge a zygote as a person. "

Actually, not. I have not said anything to that end.

I wanted to talk about the logical consequences of that end, and how the expression of religion would change when these consequences are considered and accepted.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 14, 2004.

Sean, I wasn't referring to you in my last response but to another person not of this forum who gave me a reason to create this new topic to begin with last month.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), September 15, 2004.

Sean, you mean YOU were the person D Joseph was talking to?

D, I doubt very much whether “advancements in technology” could possibly save more than a tiny proportion of the zygotes who die. And even to spend the tens of thousands necessary to save each one of these, would be an obscene distortion of priorities at a time when millions of people die for lack of simple things like a $2 vaccine or antibiotic. And we probably will NEVER have the technology to save more than a very few of the dying zygotes. Probably just as well, because if every married couple had 35 surviving children then the much vaunted myth of “the world population crisis” would be actually true.

“I doubt that amniotic fluid would qualify as "water" for purposes of baptism. I'm not 100% certain about that, but sweat and tears don't qualify, so I'm pretty sure that other body fluids wouldn't either.”

I can’t put my finger on the reference, but the Church has ruled that water for baptism can be fresh, salt or brackish water, but it must be what people normally describe as water. Other fluids like sweat, tears, saliva and fruit juice, even though they consist overwhelmingly of H2O, are specifically ruled out, so I’m sure amniotic fluid would be ruled out too, both on this basis and because people do not call amniotic fluid "water".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.

"Probably just as well, because if every married couple had 35 surviving children then the much vaunted myth of “the world population crisis” would be actually true."

Steve, I don't think the word overpopulation should even come into the conversation if it became possible to save them in the future. One cannot let another die out of neglect, and that to me would be neglect, just because there may be a population problem. It would be like allowing pre-mature babies to die because of that same reasoning. I know this was not your intent but I just wanted to clarify that with my own answer. Anyways, my response here only stems from the fact that if of course it became possible and within our grasp to save the zygotes.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), September 15, 2004.

just getting self centered enough to think that you might be talking about me, I guess.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), September 16, 2004.