J
jumpfrog
Guest
Hi EviPolevhia,
Further to the point that vera dicere makes above, one of the reasons that IVF is rejected by the church is that it violates the intimacy that should be the context to for conception. The action of God to achieve the conception of Jesus does not violate intimacy, in fact, because of the supernatural character of this conception, it can be thought of as being even more profoundly intimate.
I am sure you can see that, even more generally, God can and does have an intimacy with human beings that would not be proper for human beings to try to approximate. For example, if we develop technology that allows people to monitor the thoughts of others, and suggest ideas to others etc, this would proabably be rejected by the church (and by a whole lot of others too) because it is wrongly invasive…and would be so even if you had the best will in the world to use the technology. The fact that God is capable of doing these things supernaturally does not mean that it would be either equivilant or right for people to try to do them.
Finally, the church has very practical reasons for forbidding this practice, which should be a lot more commonly recognized and acknowledged…the fact that many unused embryos are created, the fact that people in non-family, or non-stable situations are using this technology in irresponsible ways, and even more importantly, the way it turns children into a kind of commodity. These elements are the ‘end results’ of the technology, and they, especially the last, are grave enough on their own.
Further to the point that vera dicere makes above, one of the reasons that IVF is rejected by the church is that it violates the intimacy that should be the context to for conception. The action of God to achieve the conception of Jesus does not violate intimacy, in fact, because of the supernatural character of this conception, it can be thought of as being even more profoundly intimate.
I am sure you can see that, even more generally, God can and does have an intimacy with human beings that would not be proper for human beings to try to approximate. For example, if we develop technology that allows people to monitor the thoughts of others, and suggest ideas to others etc, this would proabably be rejected by the church (and by a whole lot of others too) because it is wrongly invasive…and would be so even if you had the best will in the world to use the technology. The fact that God is capable of doing these things supernaturally does not mean that it would be either equivilant or right for people to try to do them.
Finally, the church has very practical reasons for forbidding this practice, which should be a lot more commonly recognized and acknowledged…the fact that many unused embryos are created, the fact that people in non-family, or non-stable situations are using this technology in irresponsible ways, and even more importantly, the way it turns children into a kind of commodity. These elements are the ‘end results’ of the technology, and they, especially the last, are grave enough on their own.