Fertility argument

[MaryRita85]

I will say, 5 years ago, my husband and I completed a round of IVF ( I was agnostic and not yet converted). So I didn’t know better, my daughters are the light of my light but I realize that is not how we should have gone about things, I know this now. So, with this being said, I’m not the best person to argue this.
My question is how would you respond to this argument?
Fertility treatments are fine because…

1. The couple is still being intimate during the time ( though I know with some, intercourse is restricted.
2. It isn’t going against God because if he wanted to, he could make the treatment unsuccessful and yield no child.
   I’ve heard both these arguments, what would you say?

 

[polytropos]

God intends for children to come about through natural means. If He wills that, then it will happen. When we take things into our own hands, we are opposing God’s will, ie. sinning. That does not mean we will fail (in the same way that we can oppose God’s will by skipping mass on Sunday).

 

[MaryRita85]

God intends for children to come about through natural means. If He wills that, then it will happen. When we take things into our own hands, we are opposing God’s will, ie. sinning. That does not mean we will fail (in the same way that we can oppose God’s will by skipping mass on Sunday).

Oh duh, that’s obvious.lol
What about to the first part?

 

[Christy_Beth]

It isn’t like you could go back and change things. That you have been blessed with beautiful daughters does matter. I’d say, go to confession and then accept the forgiveness offered. If the priest won’t offer pardon on that, then he’s a jerk.

 

[MaryRita85]

It isn’t like you could go back and change things. That you have been blessed with beautiful daughters does matter. I’d say, go to confession and then accept the forgiveness offered. If the priest won’t offer pardon on that, then he’s a jerk.

Oh it isn’t for me, I’ve gone to confession many time since being received into the Church. I have some friends going through infertility treatments.

 

[polytropos]

Oh duh, that’s obvious.lol
What about to the first part?

I’d think my response addressed the first part as well. If the couple is currently intimate but is not getting pregnant, then it is not currently God’s will that they conceive. Still wrong to take it into their own hands and “fix” what God is doing.

 

[MaryT777]

I’d think my response addressed the first part as well. If the couple is currently intimate but is not getting pregnant, then it is not currently God’s will that they conceive. Still wrong to take it into their own hands and “fix” what God is doing.

I offer prayers for all going through infertility for it’s a difficult road; my SIL was a devout Catholic and thought of IVF then decided not to. She did later get preganant but you never know and she said it was so difficult she herself couldn’t believe how saddening it was for both her and her husband.

She said she was feeling desperate as can be to do anything for a child…
makes one wonder if desperation would lessen culpability.

 

[GEddie]

I’d think my response addressed the first part as well. If the couple is currently intimate but is not getting pregnant, then it is not currently God’s will that they conceive. Still wrong to take it into their own hands and “fix” what God is doing.

Problem is (ITASM) that the argument could be extended, to “If one’s body is not fighting off a life-ending illness naturally, then it is not the divine will that he live; therefore the illness should not be treated.”

Could someone non-philosophically dostinguish the two statements?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Christy_Beth]

I actually have a cousin who got pregnant several times. The last time she did carry the baby to term, but it was stillborn. She’s just six m onths younger than me. Anyway, I can only imagine how hard it would be to want to be a parent but then not be able to have a baby. I know my cousin would make a great mother, but it is apparently “God’s will” that she not be one.

 

[polytropos]

Problem is (ITASM) that the argument could be extended, to “If one’s body is not fighting off a life-ending illness naturally, then it is not the divine will that he live; therefore the illness should not be treated.”

Could someone non-philosophically dostinguish the two statements?

ICXC NIKA

I am saying that we leave the creation of new life to God. It seems to me that God gave us our intellects (in part) so that we could develop medicine etc. to treat illness.

I suppose one could further argue that God gave us an intellect which enables IVF treatment etc. when infertility is an issue. I imagine the sacredness of the sexual act also would play into it; children are only intended to come through the union of husband and wife.

 

[MaryRita85]

Thanks for the answers!

 

[Portofino]

I will say, 5 years ago, my husband and I completed a round of IVF ( I was agnostic and not yet converted). So I didn’t know better, my daughters are the light of my light but I realize that is not how we should have gone about things, I know this now. So, with this being said, I’m not the best person to argue this.
My question is how would you respond to this argument?
Fertility treatments are fine because…

1. The couple is still being intimate during the time ( though I know with some, intercourse is restricted.
2. It isn’t going against God because if he wanted to, he could make the treatment unsuccessful and yield no child.
   I’ve heard both these arguments, what would you say?

I would say that 2., in particular, is a strong argument, on reflection, because a Catholic is granting that:

-- a human being is made in the image and likeness of God
--every human being is born with an immortal soul

It’s the “immortal soul” part that would seem to necessitate God’s consent, on some level, given that a child born as a result of fertility treatments can be baptized, has an immortal soul that can be saved, etc. It’s hard to believe that a human being would “force God’s hand” in allowing an ensouled human being to be born, when it was “not God’s will” that the human being in question be born.

A case could be made that the creation of life is too important to occur without God’s consent, thus potentially swinging fertility treatment into the camp of the legitimate use of medical technology. Because of it, a human life is conceived, that would not have been conceived otherwise.

It would put pro-life Catholics in a strange position, to say that a child that is born “ought not” to have been born in the first place.

These are my thoughts, from the perspective of a non-Catholic who would put those who disavow fertility treatments in the same category as those who would disavow treatments to prolong life or to circumvent what naturally would have led to death (such as the rupture of an appendix).

One could as well make the broader argument, “only God should have control over life and death”, citing the example of someone – for example – who is clinically dead, and yet is “shocked” back into life, someone whose heart has stopped and whose heartbeat is shocked into beating again. Once a heartbeat stops, who are human beings to “jump start” a human being back to life?

 

[polytropos]

I would say that 2., in particular, is a strong argument, on reflection, because a Catholic is granting that:

-- a human being is made in the image and likeness of God
--every human being is born with an immortal soul

It’s the “immortal soul” part that would seem to necessitate God’s consent, on some level, given that a child born as a result of fertility treatments can be baptized, has an immortal soul that can be saved, etc. It’s hard to believe that a human being would “force God’s hand” in allowing an ensouled human being to be born, when it was “not God’s will” that the human being in question be born.

A case could be made that the creation of life is too important to occur without God’s consent, thus potentially swinging fertility treatment into the camp of the legitimate use of medical technology. Because of it, a human life is conceived, that would not have been conceived otherwise.

It would put pro-life Catholics in a strange position, to say that a child that is born “ought not” to have been born in the first place.

I am not sure that I would claim that it was “not God’s will” that the human being be conceived through IVF, or that the child “ought not” to have been born, in the same way that God still willingly creates the souls of those conceived out of wedlock. Those children are certainly no less human because their parents sinned. God brings good out of evil.

From a utilitarian standpoint, I understand where you are coming from. In a sense, fertility treatments would be fine if the goal were to maximize the amount of beings with human souls. But that is not really what Catholics are called to do, especially if the “means” are not good. Catholics are urged to “be fruitful and multiply” - that doesn’t mean that they are compelled to have as many children as possible. It means that they are to be open to any (and even inclined to have) children that come from their union, while not abusing the sexual act.

Extramarital sex also results beings with human souls that would not otherwise come into being, but because the means are not what God intended, it is sinful.

One could as well make the broader argument, “only God should have control over life and death”, citing the example of someone – for example – who is clinically dead, and yet is “shocked” back into life, someone whose heart has stopped and whose heartbeat is shocked into beating again. Once a heartbeat stops, who are human beings to “jump start” a human being back to life?

God does have ultimate control over life and death. That’s not to say that humans cannot transgress the boundaries God has set. God does not will any child to be aborted, yet thousands are. God does not will children to be born of extramarital unions or IVF, but in spite of the sinful choice of the parents, he creates the child’s human soul.

To be clear (since I think my phrasing is ambiguous in a couple places), God does not will the sinful act that begets children outside of traditional marriage and the sexual act, but he does will the creation of human souls for the children that result.

You make good points, Portofino.

 

[Vico]

I will say, 5 years ago, my husband and I completed a round of IVF ( I was agnostic and not yet converted). So I didn’t know better, my daughters are the light of my light but I realize that is not how we should have gone about things, I know this now. So, with this being said, I’m not the best person to argue this.
My question is how would you respond to this argument?
Fertility treatments are fine because…

1. The couple is still being intimate during the time ( though I know with some, intercourse is restricted.
2. It isn’t going against God because if he wanted to, he could make the treatment unsuccessful and yield no child.
   I’ve heard both these arguments, what would you say?

CDF - Regarding the Instruction Dignitas Personae (excerpts) - 2008

First Part: Anthropological, Theological and Ethical Aspects of Human Life and Procreation

The two fundamental principles
“The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (n. 4).

“The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage” (n. 6).
**
**
Second Part: New Problems Concerning Procreation

**
**
***Techniques for assisting fertility ***

Techniques are morally permissible if they respect: “the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being”, “the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse” and “the specifically human values of sexuality” (n. 12), which require that the procreation of a new human person come about as a result of the conjugal act specific to the love between a husband and wife.

Therefore, “techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted” (n. 12). In such procedures, the “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” (n. 12).

“Certainly, techniques aimed at removing obstacles to natural fertilization… are licit” (n. 13).

“Adoption should be encouraged, promoted and facilitated so that the many  children who lack parents may receive a home… In addition, research and  investment directed at the prevention of sterility deserve encouragement (n.  13).

In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos
The experience of recent years has shown that in all techniques of in vitro fertilization “the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high” (n. 14). Even in the most technically advanced centers of artificial fertilization, the number is above 80% (cf. footnote 27). “Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded”; a increasing number of couples “are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring”; of the embryos which are produced* in vitro* “some are transferred into the woman’s uterus, while the others are frozen”; the technique of multiple transfer in which “the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost… implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos” (n. 15).

​

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081212_sintesi-dignitas-personae_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

 

[manualman]

The most fundamental reason is that children are a gift from God that are intended to be the outcome of the loving union of a man and wife. It’s FAR beneath the dignity of a human being to be the product of a laboratory excercise in a petri dish. That’s what IVF IS.

You personally have repented and been forgiven for participating in IVF (which is great!). But the existence of IVF cheapens the meaning of human life in the larger societal context. Social acceptance of such a method contributes to a consumer attitude towards children instead of an understanding of children as a manifestation of humanity being made in the image and likeness of God. Having one’s origins in a petri dish is simply not the same.

That may seem cold comfort to an infertile couple that long for children of their own, but they really are contributing to the cheapening of life in civil society by doing so.

The bottome line of all catholic sexual teaching is this: marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are NOT separate subjects. They are a package deal gift of enormous importance and generosity. When we attempt to separate the package into component parts, we merely damage the whole. Keep it intact, folks. It’s worth it.