In vitro fertilisation and the Virgin Birth?

[EviPolevhia]

So I’m not sure where else to put this since it crosses to broad topics. But a while back a very good Catholic friend of mine who’s been posting here for a while (and it was on his suggestion that I come and make an account here. I guess hoping some of the theology rubs off on me?) had a discussion with me after I brought up an article about how a teacher at a Catholic school was fired for having In Vitro Fertilization treatments. It being some several years since I was a Catholic, my knowledge of the Church’s teachings were rusty and I was actually rather surprised this happened.

But it wasn’t until some time later that I had though something. Didn’t the Virgin Birth of Jesus violate the -exact- same passage that’s used to define In Vitro as ‘gravely immoral’? I’ll quote the Catechism here.

“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.””

It was a divine technique that entailed the removal of Joseph from the marital act. The technique, according to the Catechism, infringed upon Jesus’s right (a right his Human part had) to be born to a father as well as a mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. I mean the only way this could make sense is if God was married to Mary. In which case she would be spiritually married to her own Child, which is another problem, and she would also be living in sin by living with a man not of her family but still as if she was married to him, Joseph.



So what’s the case? Is something a sin only when we do it and not when God does it? Why is In Vitro a sin when one of the major moments in Christianity involves a birth that disassociated a married couple and deprived the child a right to a father and mother?

Edit: Sorry if this is a trivial and easily explained away question. I’ve honestly looked for an answer on my own and have either found confused shrugs, or answers from other denominations that still make no sense and leave me with mostly the same questions.

 

[He_Man]

So I’m not sure where else to put this since it crosses to broad topics. But a while back a very good Catholic friend of mine who’s been posting here for a while (and it was on his suggestion that I come and make an account here. I guess hoping some of the theology rubs off on me?) had a discussion with me after I brought up an article about how a teacher at a Catholic school was fired for having In Vitro Fertilization treatments. It being some several years since I was a Catholic, my knowledge of the Church’s teachings were rusty and I was actually rather surprised this happened.

But it wasn’t until some time later that I had though something. Didn’t the Virgin Birth of Jesus violate the -exact- same passage that’s used to define In Vitro as ‘gravely immoral’? I’ll quote the Catechism here.

“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.””

It was a divine technique that entailed the removal of Joseph from the marital act. The technique, according to the Catechism, infringed upon Jesus’s right (a right his Human part had) to be born to a father as well as a mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. I mean the only way this could make sense is if God was married to Mary. In which case she would be spiritually married to her own Child, which is another problem, and she would also be living in sin by living with a man not of her family but still as if she was married to him, Joseph.



So what’s the case? Is something a sin only when we do it and not when God does it? Why is In Vitro a sin when one of the major moments in Christianity involves a birth that disassociated a married couple and deprived the child a right to a father and mother?

Edit: Sorry if this is a trivial and easily explained away question. I’ve honestly looked for an answer on my own and have either found confused shrugs, or answers from other denominations that still make no sense and leave me with mostly the same questions.

You could make the same argument about cloning, smoting, anything else God has or can do. God cannot use artificial means, by definition. The bible tells us Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. Why can’t I do that?

 

[EviPolevhia]

You could make the same argument about cloning, smoting, anything else God has or can do. God cannot use artificial means, by definition. The bible tells us Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. Why can’t I do that?

That’s not really answering my question. If God did it, why is it immoral for us to do? If God did the same thing and he cannot do evil then did he do evil by doing it? God separated the Marital act from the Procreative act. If God’s will would’ve been so he could have had Joseph be the biological father. As with the Immaculate Conception it’s not out of God’s character to influence the birth of a child born by a human mother and human father. Yet in the instance of Jesus he removed the father from the Marital act. Which is a clear violation of the Catechism.

 

[manualman]

God did not conduct an interesting scientific experiment in a lab in which Jesus was created. God poured out his love for humanity in a manner utter self-sacrificing and to which the human marriage relationship is but a pale reflection. His act of loving creation is the original. The human marital embrace though it also holds the power of bringing forth new life is just a reflection of that loving relationship inside the Trinity.

When human doctors extract eggs and semen and combine them in a petri dish, they are conducting an act of hubris, one of pride in scientific comprehension and achievement which bears little resemblence to what happens between man and wife or what that relationship reflects of the Trinity. In the process, the new life created is demeaned and debased.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

So I’m not sure where else to put this since it crosses to broad topics. But a while back a very good Catholic friend of mine who’s been posting here for a while (and it was on his suggestion that I come and make an account here. I guess hoping some of the theology rubs off on me?) had a discussion with me after I brought up an article about how a teacher at a Catholic school was fired for having In Vitro Fertilization treatments. It being some several years since I was a Catholic, my knowledge of the Church’s teachings were rusty and I was actually rather surprised this happened.

But it wasn’t until some time later that I had though something. Didn’t the Virgin Birth of Jesus violate the -exact- same passage that’s used to define In Vitro as ‘gravely immoral’? I’ll quote the Catechism here.

“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.””

It was a divine technique that entailed the removal of Joseph from the marital act. The technique, according to the Catechism, infringed upon Jesus’s right (a right his Human part had) to be born to a father as well as a mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. I mean the only way this could make sense is if God was married to Mary. In which case she would be spiritually married to her own Child, which is another problem, and she would also be living in sin by living with a man not of her family but still as if she was married to him, Joseph.



So what’s the case? Is something a sin only when we do it and not when God does it? Why is In Vitro a sin when one of the major moments in Christianity involves a birth that disassociated a married couple and deprived the child a right to a father and mother?

Edit: Sorry if this is a trivial and easily explained away question. I’ve honestly looked for an answer on my own and have either found confused shrugs, or answers from other denominations that still make no sense and leave me with mostly the same questions.

Sorry for the answer I am going to give but when I hear people talking like you about Heavenly Things and comparing them to Earthly Things, I tell the story of St. Augustin.

Two horses were discussing the King’s Feast up in the first floor. They were hearing the noise of the cutlery and the voices and the music playing, when one of the horses turned to the other and said: “What a tasteful straw must be eating our King!”

As I read your post and all the confusion and comparison between Earth and Heaven, I could not avoid telling the story…

 

[EviPolevhia]

God did not conduct an interesting scientific experiment in a lab in which Jesus was created. God poured out his love for humanity in a manner utter self-sacrificing and to which the human marriage relationship is but a pale reflection. His act of loving creation is the original. The human marital embrace though it also holds the power of bringing forth new life is just a reflection of that loving relationship inside the Trinity.

When human doctors extract eggs and semen and combine them in a petri dish, they are conducting an act of hubris, one of pride in scientific comprehension and achievement which bears little resemblence to what happens between man and wife or what that relationship reflects of the Trinity. In the process, the new life created is demeaned and debased.

Interesting and inaccurate phrasing. And entirely not addressing my point.

Sorry for the answer I am going to give but when I hear people talking like you about Heavenly Things and comparing them to Earthly Things, I tell the story of St. Augustin.

Two horses were discussing the King’s Feast up in the first floor. They were hearing the noise of the cutlery and the voices and the music playing, when one of the horses turned to the other and said: “What a tasteful straw must be eating our King!”

As I read your post and all the confusion and comparison between Earth and Heaven, I could not avoid telling the story…

Stories are fascinating but I was hoping to get something more informative then a story by posting here.

 

[jilly4ski]

Interesting and inaccurate phrasing. And entirely not addressing my point.

Stories are fascinating but I was hoping to get something more informative then a story by posting here.

The problem is that you are misunderstanding the nature of God. I suggest you go back and study the story of Abraham and Issac. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice (kill) Issac. If I, or anyone ordered you to do something similar that would be immoral, but God’s order was not immoral. God is the creator of life and thus can take it away.

In this case I am going to echo Pfaffenhoffen. This was not IVF, as God was not replacing marital relations (because he can not have marital relations). God’s ways are above our ways. He did not put sperm into Mary’s egg as God does not have sperm (as he does not have a body). We don’t know how God became man and born of a woman. This is a mystery that will probably never be explained because we do not fully understand God’s nature.

 

[aicirt]

Well, first God is God. He’s all LOVE and not capable of sin. We think we’re the same as He which got us into a big problem in the first place. He put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden so why weren’t we allowed to eat of its fruit? Because He said so.

God didn’t marry Mary. He wasn’t and isn’t like the pagan gods running around seducing Roman and Greek maids. And thank goodness for that! He did not have intercourse with Mary. The Holy Spirit moved in her and the Child was conceived.

His purpose in coming into existence as a man was to save us. Only way to do that was to be born a man through a woman.

Jews knew for centuries about the prophecy that a Jewish Virgin would give birth to the Messiah. There was also a sect of Jews that wed but did not have sexual intercourse. Some believe Mary and Joseph were a part of that group.

Sometimes we think things are a blessing and they turn out not to be. A woman I know couldn’t conceive but she could carry a child. Her husband’s sperm was put with another woman’s egg.
Another case is where a woman had 10 eggs removed and fertilized. She bore one child. There are x number of fertilized eggs still frozen. She anguishes over the fate of those eggs. She fully is aware that they are frozen humans.

God is God. His ways are His ways and sometimes they are not ours.

 

[Heuchler]

Ok, let’s see, where to start. Well, you would be completely right if two things about the virgin birth were different. First, God is not some scientist running around in a lab. Just like with the case of life where scientists should not be trying to create animals or clone things, God can create life. Similarly, if God wishes for life to come about without sex he may do that. In fact asexual reproduction exists within the animal kingdom. The point is that when humans use in vitro fertilization we are working against the will of God which is that life in humanity should generally come about in a certain way. However, in the virgin birth the will of God was specifically that the Birth would be a supernatural one which fundamentally means that this will not be a regular instance and will not fall under the usual norms.

Also, Christ is not a regular child. Yes a regular child should be conceived through regular means, but a child who is fully God and fully man is not going to come from regular means. Yes, you are right that Christ is a human and deserves two parents (which he did have), but He is also God meaning that he is not going to come only from human circumsances.

Now, why God chose to do it this way, well I won’t pretend to know. Surely he could have had Christ born from both Joseph and Mary (meaning that Joseph would also have had an immaculate conception) however, He chose to use a different route.

So, I hope this clears up anything.

 

[manualman]

Interesting and inaccurate phrasing. And entirely not addressing my point.

That’s your response! Hilarious.

Maybe you need smaller words and shorter sentences. You aren’t God. He is. You are a partial reflection of His image and likeness. For you to create a human being in a petri dish is demonstrably NOT what he did in the Blessed Mother.

 

[EviPolevhia]

If I, or anyone ordered you to do something similar that would be immoral, but God’s order was not immoral. God is the creator of life and thus can take it away.

Either an act is moral or it is immoral. You cannot have it both ways.

In this case I am going to echo Pfaffenhoffen. This was not IVF, as God was not replacing marital relations

…except that’s precisely what he did.

God is God. His ways are His ways and sometimes they are not ours.

God’s ways are above our ways. He did not put sperm into Mary’s egg as God does not have sperm (as he does not have a body). We don’t know how God became man and born of a woman. This is a mystery that will probably never be explained because we do not fully understand God’s nature.

And it comes out. “God Works In Mysterious Ways”. Could’ve said that from the beginning and saved yourself alot of typing. Also I’m amused you say we don’t know how God did it, and you also say how God didn’t do it. How do you know God didn’t do it that way if you don’t know in what way he did do it?

God didn’t marry Mary.

So if we break the laws given to us by God that’s an evil act, but if God does the same thing then it’s acceptable? Just trying for clarification here. Because if one person in Jesus’s time caused a woman he was not married to to become pregnant, that would be an evil/immoral act.

First, God is not some scientist running around in a lab.

So an act can be evil or good based solely on who does the act?

So, I hope this clears up anything.

Not really, but thank you for trying. I’d go more in depth to replying to your post but I think I may just call it quits on this because I feel like I’m seeing the same things posted a hundred times and still having the same questions.

 

[Heuchler]

Come now, Evil (I hope you don’t mind me calling you Evil). You asked for a response and then you look to the first and easiest sentence, call that my thesis and then rebutt this. You missed the meat of my argument.

The main point that I made was that the immorality of IVF is based on God willing for marriage, sex, and procreation to be that way. However, this is a case of a supernatural intervention. That means that in this case that the will of God desired it to be in this form. IVF is only wrong because God does not want this. However, in the case of something which never occured before (the birth of the God-Man), the circumstances are different meaning the norm will not apply here (for it is not normal birth). Therefore, God desired for the Holy Spirit to perform a miracle and to have a virgin birth as this is a different case than the normal.

P.S. As other people have told you, this is not IVF. Although I have played along within my arguments, it would take a large stretch to truly equate these two things. The Virgin birth is one woman giving birth to a child through herself and the will of God. A miraculous form of IVF would be that God mysteriously took sperm from some random gentleman and placed it miraculously within the virgin Mary. Completely different. The virgin birth takes one woman and the will of God which does not seperate something natural from sex as sex is not a natural part of virgin birth. Yes, humans giving birth to humans through normal procreative means should have sex and not IVF, yet this is not normal human birth. Mary giving birth to Christ through virgin conception is different as IVF implies that Male DNA from someone is involved; this is completely contrary to the ideas of a virgin birth. Just wanted to clear this up.

 

[aicirt]

And it comes out. “God Works In Mysterious Ways”. Could’ve said that from the beginning and saved yourself alot of typing. Also I’m amused you say we don’t know how God did it, and you also say how God didn’t do it. How do you know God didn’t do it that way if you don’t know in what way he did do. QUOTE]

Okay…that is the right answer “God Works in Mysterious Ways”. I think we rattled on because we don’t know how to explain what we don’t know but accept it.

There are things in this world I’ll never comprehend e.g. an atom. I’ve never seen one, never will but I accept it on faith because I accept this from people who do understand. I accept the fact that my mind is not as good as the mind of a nuclear physicist. And certainly I cannot comprehend the mind of God. I’m sure your intellect is limited in most aspects of this world too but you accept things you really haven’t experienced or don’t know first hand. You have to do the same with God. What He does will remain a mystery and that’s okay.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Come now, Evil (I hope you don’t mind me calling you Evil). You asked for a response and then you look to the first and easiest sentence, call that my thesis and then rebutt this. You missed the meat of my argument.

The main point that I made was that the immorality of IVF is based on God willing for marriage, sex, and procreation to be that way. However, this is a case of a supernatural intervention. That means that in this case that the will of God desired it to be in this form. IVF is only wrong because God does not want this. However, in the case of something which never occured before (the birth of the God-Man), the circumstances are different meaning the norm will not apply here (for it is not normal birth). Therefore, God desired for the Holy Spirit to perform a miracle and to have a virgin birth as this is a different case than the normal.

P.S. As other people have told you, this is not IVF. Although I have played along within my arguments, it would take a large stretch to truly equate these two things. The Virgin birth is one woman giving birth to a child through herself and the will of God. A miraculous form of IVF would be that God mysteriously took sperm from some random gentleman and placed it miraculously within the virgin Mary. Completely different. The virgin birth takes one woman and the will of God which does not seperate something natural from sex as sex is not a natural part of virgin birth. Yes, humans giving birth to humans through normal procreative means should have sex and not IVF, yet this is not normal human birth. Mary giving birth to Christ through virgin conception is different as IVF implies that Male DNA from someone is involved; this is completely contrary to the ideas of a virgin birth. Just wanted to clear this up.

First off I want to apologize for missing the meat of your point. It wasn’t my intention. And I want to thank you for having well thought out points in response to my question. I do mind being called Evil as that’s adding a letter and calling me something bad. Also to address your PS first I’m sorry if it came across as if I was trying to equate IVF with the Virgin Birth. I know they are not one in the same. The point of me bringing them up in the first place was it seems to me that both situations share a few points, what seem to me to be the specific points used in the Catechism to decry IVF as evil. That it was unnatural, it separated one of the spouses out of the Marital act, and it denied the child the right to both spouses being it’s parents.

You say “the immorality of IVF is based on God willing for marriage, sex, and procreation to be that way” but yet if this is the case then God has performed an immoral act by not having sex and procreation be done that way.

“That means that in this case that the will of God desired it to be in this form. IVF is only wrong because God does not want this.” How do you know this? God has certainly sidestepped Sex in the past on the way to procreation.

I am clear on what happened. Just not how it morally differs from IVF. All I’ve heard are “It’s God, he can do what he wants” which doesn’t address the morality of the action, “God doing it makes it moral” which makes morality subjective to the doer, which as far as I’ve heard is not the case, and “God works in mysterious ways” which is a dodge and not an answer.

You have to do the same with God. What He does will remain a mystery and that’s okay.

I will never stop searching for answers. If that makes me a good person, or a bad person, that is just something I will have to accept being.

 

[Aggies08]

Mary wasn’t trying to have a baby- God was.

We may be bound by his laws; he is not.

 

[Heuchler]

First off I want to apologize for missing the meat of your point. It wasn’t my intention. And I want to thank you for having well thought out points in response to my question. I do mind being called Evil as that’s adding a letter and calling me something bad. Also to address your PS first I’m sorry if it came across as if I was trying to equate IVF with the Virgin Birth. I know they are not one in the same. The point of me bringing them up in the first place was it seems to me that both situations share a few points, what seem to me to be the specific points used in the Catechism to decry IVF as evil. That it was unnatural, it separated one of the spouses out of the Marital act, and it denied the child the right to both spouses being it’s parents.

You say “the immorality of IVF is based on God willing for marriage, sex, and procreation to be that way” but yet if this is the case then God has performed an immoral act by not having sex and procreation be done that way.

“That means that in this case that the will of God desired it to be in this form. IVF is only wrong because God does not want this.” How do you know this? God has certainly sidestepped Sex in the past on the way to procreation.

I am clear on what happened. Just not how it morally differs from IVF. All I’ve heard are “It’s God, he can do what he wants” which doesn’t address the morality of the action, “God doing it makes it moral” which makes morality subjective to the doer, which as far as I’ve heard is not the case, and “God works in mysterious ways” which is a dodge and not an answer.

Wow, I feel stupid. So sorrry for calling you Evil, my mind literally took the P as an L. Did not mean that to be a random insult based on your name Evi and this was completely accidental. So I am sorry.

And also sorry for not writing the last post as well as I should have. It’s been a long day (although i really shouldn’t make excuses but just do better this time so let’s just dig in).

I think one of the problems is the view of why IVF is wrong. You see it as wrong because it denies the child of a parent, but that would make adoption wrong because it denies the child of both of the birth parents. And in the case of Joseph, Joseph is Christ’s adoptive father. This is wrong because instead of looking to adoption the couple try to replicate what happens in sex without sex. This also is in a sense the same as me going out and having an affair so I and this other woman may have a child that myself and my wife will raise. It is hurtful to both the child and the family. However, another woman bearing my child who is to be raised in my family is different from my wife conceiving a child virginally. The child conceived virginally is still connected to the parent involved in the child’s conception, the mother. IVF is wrong because the child is conceived in what is essentially an adultery and that this union is intended to have the child raised away from at least one of the parents. However, with a virgin birth, all parties involved in the conception is involved in raising the child.

However there is another reason that IVF is wrong. Because the egg is fertilized outside of sex (where it is supposed to happen) this act is wrong as sexual reproduction needs to logically happen in the context of sex. Any other time when fertilization occurs it is wrong because sexual reproduction is designed to occur within sex So, the virgin birth is outside of this because it is not trying to replicate sex from sexual reproduction as there is not meant to be either of these in the virgin birth. While we don’t know that the specifics of how, we do know that another human male was not involved which does not make it regular sexual reproduction. Because of this, these two would be under two different moral standards. Sexual reproduction would be judged on if sex was involved due to sex’s integral part in how sexual reproduction is meant to happen. Therefore, since not having sex is specifically integral to a virgin birth, a virgin conception without sex is what is meant to happen.

Hope I answered your question this time. I focused on what I viewed to be the main point of the misunderstanding between the two of us. And once again, please forgive my slip there with my name, from now on I’ll pay closer attention to someone’s username.

 

[EviPolevhia]

We may be bound by his laws; he is not.

Which then means that God’s Law is subjective, does it not? If God wanted to send all the faithful to hell for a day and all the heathens to heaven for a day he could because as you say he is not bound by his own laws? And it wouldn’t be immoral because his morality is not something he has to abide by?

Wow, I feel stupid. So sorrry for calling you Evil, my mind literally took the P as an L. Did not mean that to be a random insult based on your name Evi and this was completely accidental. So I am sorry.

No problem. Ironicly enough it’s short for Eviticus which is short for Leviticus. Very long story as to why I use that nickname. But either way you’re not the first, nor will you be the last, to accidentally add an L.

I think one of the problems is the view of why IVF is wrong. You see it as wrong because it denies the child of a parent, but that would make adoption wrong because it denies the child of both of the birth parents.

Actually I don’t see IVF as wrong. The child being denied a parent thing is a reason listed in the Church’s own Catechism of why IVF is wrong.

This also is in a sense the same as me going out and having an affair so I and this other woman may have a child that myself and my wife will raise. It is hurtful to both the child and the family. However, another woman bearing my child who is to be raised in my family is different from my wife conceiving a child virginally.

I have a very hard time seeing it that way as IVF does not involve having sex with someone who is not your married spouse. I suppose it can but it’s not an innate portion.

The child conceived virginally is still connected to the parent involved in the child’s conception, the mother. IVF is wrong because the child is conceived in what is essentially an adultery and that this union is intended to have the child raised away from at least one of the parents.

IVF is not ‘essentially’ adultery because you’re only ever having relations with your wife. I think one of the miscommunications we’re having here is the term IVF can refer to several different procedures. Some involving third parties but some also can involve just the two. For example if there is a defect in the male’s sperm where it cannot successfully penetrate the egg then IVF is used to ensure that process happens. Then the egg is replaced inside the female and the couple has a child naturally from that point on. It is no more or less natural then someone who has breathing problems being put temporarily on an artificial lung machine. And in the case I pointed out, the child is the product of two and only two parents who are still active in the child’s house and married. But yet, this is a grave and immoral sin to Catholics?

However, with a virgin birth, all parties involved in the conception is involved in raising the child.

Out of curiosity based on what you just said if it was later on discovered that women could (this is silly but please go along for the sake of argument) induce pregnancy on her own, naturally, without any interaction from anyone else. Give birth to the child normally and in a hospital. This would be fine? “All parties involved in conception (are) involved in raising the child”.

However there is another reason that IVF is wrong. Because the egg is fertilized outside of sex (where it is supposed to happen) this act is wrong as sexual reproduction needs to logically happen in the context of sex. Any other time when fertilization occurs it is wrong because sexual reproduction is designed to occur within sex

Because breathing in an artificial lung happens outside the natural respiratory system this act is wrong as breathing needs to logically happen in the context of a human respiratory system. Any other time when breathing occurs it is wrong because the respiratory system is designed to occur withing the body. Please tell me where that differs logically from your phrase?

So, the virgin birth is outside of this because it is not trying to replicate sex from sexual reproduction as there is not meant to be either of these in the virgin birth.

Except IVF doesn’t replicate sex, it replicates impregnation. Which is what happened with Mary. We do not know how of course. But the How doesn’t matter if the end result is still a breach of morality, right?

Hope I answered your question this time. I focused on what I viewed to be the main point of the misunderstanding between the two of us. And once again, please forgive my slip there with my name, from now on I’ll pay closer attention to someone’s username.

Kinda. I think so far on my forums you’ve done the best at addressing my questions/comments. Thank you. And no worries about the name!

 

[Heuchler]

Ok, to address your many points, I will try to add in my comments in a nice shade of red within the below quote.

No problem. Ironicly enough it’s short for Eviticus which is short for Leviticus. Very long story as to why I use that nickname. But either way you’re not the first, nor will you be the last, to accidentally add an L.

Kind of wish we had the time as it’s weird to find someone who defines their religion as none with a distinctly jewish name as a nickname but we do have work to do

Actually I don’t see IVF as wrong. The child being denied a parent thing is a reason listed in the Church’s own Catechism of why IVF is wrong.

Sorry I was trying to show that it is a little more then that.

I have a very hard time seeing it that way as IVF does not involve having sex with someone who is not your married spouse. I suppose it can but it’s not an innate portion.

To catholicism, sexual reproduction is meant to occur within the parameters of sex. IVF takes the sperm or egg of someone else which is taking the effect of sex without actually having sex. To Catholicism, this is similar to Abraham trying to have a child with his slave instead of his wife. The difference is that one uses science to get around problems of fertility and the other uses an affair. Either way, the effect of having a child with someone else is seen as wrong to the child in the eyes of Catholicism

IVF is not ‘essentially’ adultery because you’re only ever having relations with your wife. I think one of the miscommunications we’re having here is the term IVF can refer to several different procedures. Some involving third parties but some also can involve just the two. For example if there is a defect in the male’s sperm where it cannot successfully penetrate the egg then IVF is used to ensure that process happens. Then the egg is replaced inside the female and the couple has a child naturally from that point on. It is no more or less natural then someone who has breathing problems being put temporarily on an artificial lung machine. And in the case I pointed out, the child is the product of two and only two parents who are still active in the child’s house and married. But yet, this is a grave and immoral sin to Catholics?

Now I’m not positive on the church’s position in regards to IVF, but as stated in your quote earlier IVF is wrong because it infringes on the “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.” along with the “child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage”. So, by this definition of why it is wrong, the specific reason is that a third party comes in and has a child with one of the parents which is what I addressed. This is once again different from virgin birth which is where one person gives birth.

Out of curiosity based on what you just said if it was later on discovered that women could (this is silly but please go along for the sake of argument) induce pregnancy on her own, naturally, without any interaction from anyone else. Give birth to the child normally and in a hospital. This would be fine? “All parties involved in conception (are) involved in raising the child”.

I would say yes. Catholicism does not preach that all asexual organism should be killed because they do not reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is not the only way of reproduction that is natural, but if it is sexual reproduction it needs to involve sex as I have pointed out in the past. If it naturally happens and is not some adverse affect of the hormones they have in our food or something () then yes this would be perfectly normal and fine.

Because breathing in an artificial lung happens outside the natural respiratory system this act is wrong as breathing needs to logically happen in the context of a human respiratory system. Any other time when breathing occurs it is wrong because the respiratory system is designed to occur withing the body. Please tell me where that differs logically from your phrase?

Oh come now, the problem is, breathing can’t be wrong. You can’t breathe in the wrong way to begin with. To the religous person, sex is meant to happen only in certain parameters and can be wrong in certain times. For even the possibility of a good analogy to occur, you would have to have times when breathing becomes wrong. Otherwise, that would be like me comparing murder to my immune system and saying that it is ok to murder people as it is natural for you to attack foreign things that offend you in the immune system.

Except IVF doesn’t replicate sex, it replicates impregnation. Which is what happened with Mary. We do not know how of course. But the How doesn’t matter if the end result is still a breach of morality, right?

Sexual reproduction is wrong without sex. The Catholic never claims that impregnation outside of sex is wrong. Sexual reproduction (which is what is replicated in IVF, not simply impregnation; yes this is impregnation but it is specifically impregnation by sexual reproduction) needs to be connceted to sex to be morally just to the Catholic. To claim that virgin conception is morally unjust is to claim that asexual reproduction in the wild is wrong without sex. When the conception does not involve any of the biological material of a man, then sex is not needed to cause that end. Since sex is not meant to cause a virgin conception, sex is not needed and therefore it is not immoral as it is nothing like sexual reproduction or anything which happens during sex.

Kinda. I think so far on my forums you’ve done the best at addressing my questions/comments. Thank you. And no worries about the name!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Interesting and inaccurate phrasing. And entirely not addressing my point.

Stories are fascinating but I was hoping to get something more informative then a story by posting here.

You got what you did not expect and what you expect you do not get.
That’s all dialogue is about.
To understand the other person’s viewpoint which was behind the story and it seems you did not get.
I tell you that Heavenly things cannot be talked about with human terms that is your mistake. In vitro talking about the Virgin Mary? Is is like talking about ants when the subject is whales…

 

[vera_dicere]

Which then means that God’s Law is subjective, does it not? If God wanted to send all the faithful to hell for a day and all the heathens to heaven for a day he could because as you say he is not bound by his own laws? And it wouldn’t be immoral because his morality is not something he has to abide by?

It all boils down to natures.

The nature of God is that he IS love, IS righteousness. As rightousness he cannot suffer to be in the presence of sin, which is what you find in all of us, but Christians accept Jesus’ payment of the debt of sin. Jesus’ death was in God’s nature. God being love, which is self-sacrificing HAD TO give us a chance at salvation.

The nature of the human being is that IVF is against that nature. The nature of the human being is to be conceived in the fallopoian tube of the mother, float along, and implant in the uterus. The nature of humans is not for dad to read porn, wank off into a cup in a shadowy clinic room, have that sperm cleaned, inserted into the multiple eggs harvested from mum [or multiple strangers] after she had lots of hormone injections, then those embryos are screened, the defective destoryed, then implanted.

Jesus is God. Jesus both fully human and fully divine in one person. Therefore, the conception of Jesus represents this hypostatic union. The divine represented by the mystery of the Holy Spirit moving within Mary. The human represented by Mary’s ovum - if God did indeed use one of her ovums.

Now, I’m one who accepts the theory of evolution, but if you look at Adam and Eve, if you’re going to beleive God shoved his finger in dirt and spun it around and created man, then it really isn’t outside his ability to create a zygote.

Anyway, its all about natures. And because of God’s nature, he’s probably more limited then we are. We can choose evil. God cannot.