In Vitro fertilization

  • Thread starter Thread starter tTt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tTt

Guest
Is it wrong?
I believe that it is.
  • The specialists create the embryoes, (more than you need )
  • then they implant, (more than you need.) that increases the likelihood of one surviving.
  • Then possibly 3- 6 start growing. Guess what, then they advize you to reduce the number because of the risk.
  • Under ultrasound guidence a needle is inserted to kill the ones not wanted.( otherwise known as abortion)
  • if you have extras then they place them on ice, trash’em or sell them for research. ( stem cell)
This sounds pretty twisted to me, what do you think?
Should people pursue pregnancy at all costs?
 
In Vitro fertilization, as well as artificial insemination, and anything else they may have out there are wrong. They go against God’s design for sex and procreation. The ends just do not jusify the means.

Selective reduction…hmmm, remember all the slack Bobby McCaughey got for choosing not to reduce? Sorry, do not know how to spell her name. Almost like she was attacked for choosing to carry, birth, and raise all her babies!
 
Yes, it’s wrong. First, because it creates more embryos than are used; and the excess are killed. Or if more than one begin to grow in the womb, the excess are often again killed by ‘selective reduction.’

Second, like contraception, it separates the procreative from the unitive aspects of conjugal relations. Whenever we separate the procreative from the unitive, there is trouble.

JimG
 
IVF reduces children into products to be used for one’s own utilitarian ends.

Even if the other embryos (children!) were not “created” or destroyed (murdered!) in IVF, the process would still be an affront to humanity because it treats children as “things” that are deserved.
 
Is it still wrong if all embryos are implanted and all resulting babies carried to term? About 6-7 years ago this subject was bought up as hubby and i had been trying for years to have a babe and had been unsuccessful. Eventually we managed to conceive our son naturally.
 
40.png
Matthewsmumau:
Is it still wrong if all embryos are implanted and all resulting babies carried to term? About 6-7 years ago this subject was bought up as hubby and i had been trying for years to have a babe and had been unsuccessful. Eventually we managed to conceive our son naturally.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are asking. Do you mean is it wrong to fertilize eggs outside the womb with the intention of carrying all to term? If so, it would be wrong because the marital act was removed from the equation as JimG mentioned.

OR do you mean is it ok for someone who, after fertilizing eggs outside the womb, realized the wrongness of the act, asked and received forgiveness, to go ahead and implant the embryos? Good question. Seems like it would be permissible because something other than destruction must be done with them.

Scott
 
In 1987, the CDF issued an instruction called “Donum Vitae.” It explains why IVF is always immoral, with reference to clearly established Church teaching.

nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.htm

Regarding the implantation of previously fertilized embryos - this is still a grey area. The biggest issue is whether or not couples can “adopt” leftover frozen embryos from other couples. Catholic theologians disagree on the morality of this procedure, and, as far as I know, the Church still hasn’t made a definitive statement.

losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1999/0599jmc.htm
lifeissues.net/writers/watt/watt_07embryoadoption.html
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/0809-96/1/1.html
 
40.png
tTt:
  • The specialists create the embryoes, (more than you need )
  • then they implant, (more than you need.) that increases the likelihood of one surviving.
  • Then possibly 3- 6 start growing. Guess what, then they advize you to reduce the number because of the risk.
  • Under ultrasound guidence a needle is inserted to kill the ones not wanted.( otherwise known as abortion)
  • if you have extras then they place them on ice, trash’em or sell them for research. ( stem cell)
Click to expand...
To answer your last question first, no I don’t believe people should pursue pregnancy at all costs. However, I believe there are ways to respect and preserve the sanctity of life while doing ART.

Because the process of IVF is often misunderstood, let me clarify some things. To get a woman to create more follicles (eventually released as eggs), she will be put on a regimen of injectible drugs. This is wholly licit. She will be monitored by ultrasound to measure and evaluate whether she will have too many follicles. At this point, anyone who sees too many follicles can choose to forego the cycle.

The follicles are aspirated off the ovary and are joined with sperm taken from the husband. The taking of sperm can be done in a morally licit way with the husband wearing a condom with a hole punched during intercourse.

Yes…the follicles are joined with sperm in a petri dish. However, there does NOT need to be an unlimited number fertilized. In fact, one can choose to have only one or two (whatever they would be able to carry if all implanted) potentially fertilized.

I know this presents a contradiction with established catechism, but in my heart, I think this can be done in a morally licit way. I.e., the husband and wife can engage in intercourse with the existing follicles ovulated, in the hopes of becoming pregnant in the traditional way.

Once the embryos have grown – and I hate that you say the doctors “created” embryos, because ONLY God can create life…injecting an egg with sperm doesn’t equal an embryo…only God can make that miracle happen – the couple can choose to transfer ALL the embryos at once – not freezing or disposing of any.

Finally, there’s no reason why anyone would have to do selective reduction – doctors and patients should discuss the thresholds for what a woman should be able to carry to term and only retrieve, fertilize and transfer that many.

So, your description of IVF is not an absolute.
 
40.png
justLaura:
The follicles are aspirated off the ovary and are joined with sperm taken from the husband. (…) Yes…the follicles are joined with sperm in a petri dish.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why the Church teaches that it’s always immoral, even in the hypothetical “simple case” where all the other parts of the procedure are done in acceptable ways. We can’t separate the unitive and procreative functions of our sexuality. God intends for human life to be conceived during marital intercourse…not in a petri dish. (“In vitro” = “in glass”)
I know this presents a contradiction with established catechism, but in my heart, I think this can be done in a morally licit way. I.e., the husband and wife can engage in intercourse with the existing follicles ovulated, in the hopes of becoming pregnant in the traditional way.
Click to expand...
Could you please explain further? I can’t see what would be “traditional” about this. :confused: Unless you just mean that the wife’s ovaries would be stimulated to induce ovulation, without harvesting the eggs to perform IVF.
 
What I mean is…they are open to life through the traditional means as well…they will have intercourse at ovulation in addition to augmenting their efforts through ART.
 
40.png
justLaura:
What I mean is…they are open to life through the traditional means as well…they will have intercourse at ovulation in addition to augmenting their efforts through ART.
Click to expand...
IVF isn’t wrong because of a lack of “openness to life.” It’s wrong because it involves joining an egg and a sperm in a glass dish. Sure, the couple might have normal marital intercourse as well…but that won’t change the immorality of the IVF procedure.

From “Donum Vitae”:
  • The conjugal act by which the couple mutually express their self-gift at the same time expresses openness to the gift of life. It is an act that is inseparably corporal and spiritual. It is in their bodies and through their bodies that the spouses consummate their marriage and are able to become father and mother. In order to respect the language of their bodies and their natural generosity, the conjugal union must take place with respect for its openness to procreation; and the procreation of a person must be the fruit and the result of married love. The origin of the human being thus follows from a procreation that is “linked to the union, not only biological but also spiritual, of the parents, made one by the bond of marriage.” Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons.*
 
The Rigbys:
IVF isn’t wrong because of a lack of “openness to life.” It’s wrong because it involves joining an egg and a sperm in a glass dish. Sure, the couple might have normal marital intercourse as well…but that won’t change the immorality of the IVF procedure. .
Click to expand...
I understand that, and I know I won’t change your (or many of those here) mind, but it’s just one of the things that I think represents that the church is (understandably) wary and reluctant to adopt new technology…but will eventually come to see as potentially licit (when done with a respect for the creation and preservation of life). Just as a person can be put on an artificial heart-lung machine during surgery to correct a health problem, IVF is an artifical tactic to fulfill the marriage covenant due to health issues.
 
40.png
justLaura:
Just as a person can be put on an artificial heart-lung machine during surgery to correct a health problem, IVF is an artifical tactic to fulfill the marriage covenant due to health issues.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that that’s a proper analogy.

The consent of the man and the woman makes marriage. Yes, the matrimonial covenant is ordered to procreation, and the conjugal act consumates the covenant, but the covenant is “fulfilled” even if no children are conceived. Sterility does not impede the validity of the covenant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top