Infertility

[caoindealbhan]

My wife and I have tried for years to have a child of our own. But we have not been successful. We are raising 4 children from her first marriage. We had decided, that 4 were enough. However, if we had no children, we would not bar using artificial insemination or in vitro to bring about a pregnancy. Science is a gift from God to help us spread our love to others.

But, seeing that we have 4 children, we have decided that it would be irresponsible to enlarge the family, given our limited resources and time for quality time.

Did we ever think of adoption or foster care? No. We wanted our own children, nolt some stranger’s.

God bless all those considering the options. Remember, once the child if here, no one still harps on how it got here.

 

[crazzeto]

My wife and I have tried for years to have a child of our own. But we have not been successful. We are raising 4 children from her first marriage. We had decided, that 4 were enough. However, if we had no children, we would not bar using artificial insemination or in vitro to bring about a pregnancy. Science is a gift from God to help us spread our love to others.

But, seeing that we have 4 children, we have decided that it would be irresponsible to enlarge the family, given our limited resources and time for quality time.

Did we ever think of adoption or foster care? No. We wanted our own children, nolt some stranger’s.

God bless all those considering the options. Remember, once the child if here, no one still harps on how it got here.

Yes, but that doesn’t make IVF acceptable nor does it make artificial insimination acceptable. Both are explicitly condemned by the Church, and not for no good reason (many of which have been discussed at length already in this thread). You are in my prayers, it’s a diffcult situation to be in wanting (more) children but not being able to have any.

I would not resort to seperation from the Sacraments however, in order to “solve” this problem. Given the fact that your wife has 4 children from a previous marriage, it would seem likely that you are the one that is infertile. I’m very sorry for your, this is very difficult. However it would be worth noting that these condemend practices you cite, do not solve the fundamental problem of infertility. They attempt rather to do an end run around it, ie. give some one the impression that they’re no longer infertile.

I would suggest rather, investigating the latter course you mention. Yes, look at foster and adption. These are wonderful things.

God bless,

 

[caoindealbhan]

It is true, that I am probably the one that has “the problem.” However, as I had said, why would we want to raise a child that is not our own? Science is not from the devil. In fact, I believe even Galileo has been allowed to go to Heaven now, for daring to say that the earth was round.

We may have “fears” about what science can accomplish but usually they derive from a pre-Vatican II noltion that man is inherently pre-disposed towards evil. If there wasn’t hell hanging over our heads, why would people do what is right?

To deny the use of modern science to bring about and to work with “God’s design” in conceiving is a lot like the helicopter sent to rescue the man drowning. He refused the modern equjipment because he was waiting for God. Did you hear this one?

So, again, the birth of a children is ultimately God’s miracle. All avenues to this result should be exhausted, because in actuality, do you want to answer to God as to why you did not cooperate with his design, because others caused you to fear and set aside your God-given ability to think?

 

[kevinsgirl]

My wife and I have tried for years to have a child of our own. But we have not been successful. We are raising 4 children from her first marriage. We had decided, that 4 were enough. However, if we had no children, we would not bar using artificial insemination or in vitro to bring about a pregnancy. Science is a gift from God to help us spread our love to others.

But, seeing that we have 4 children, we have decided that it would be irresponsible to enlarge the family, given our limited resources and time for quality time.

Did we ever think of adoption or foster care? No. We wanted our own children, nolt some stranger’s.

God bless all those considering the options. Remember, once the child if here, no one still harps on how it got here.

Honestly I find it interesting that you tried for years to have a child because you also posted this on another thread:

Contraception should be implemented if predicting a woman’s period is not effective. To have more than four children is irresponsible, selfish, and abusive.

So after you didn’t get pregnant with another child everyone who has more than 4 children is now selfish, irresponsible and abusive? That seems a bit harsh.

I belive that the Church assists us in determining which scientific means are moral and which are not. Obviously there are immoral medical practices like selective reduction (abortion) that are frequently used in reproductive circles. The Church has made clear which medical practices are moral and which or not (for the most part). IVF and IUI are out. Embyro adoption is still in debate with no official ruling. Contraception for contraceptive use is out. Science is neutral. It can be immoral or moral. Not every intervention/procedure is good simply because it can be done.

KG

 

[kevinsgirl]

It is true, that I am probably the one that has “the problem.” However, as I had said, why would we want to raise a child that is not our own? Science is not from the devil. In fact, I believe even Galileo has been allowed to go to Heaven now, for daring to say that the earth was round.

We may have “fears” about what science can accomplish but usually they derive from a pre-Vatican II noltion that man is inherently pre-disposed towards evil. If there wasn’t hell hanging over our heads, why would people do what is right?

To deny the use of modern science to bring about and to work with “God’s design” in conceiving is a lot like the helicopter sent to rescue the man drowning. He refused the modern equjipment because he was waiting for God. Did you hear this one?

So, again, the birth of a children is ultimately God’s miracle. All avenues to this result should be exhausted, because in actuality, do you want to answer to God as to why you did not cooperate with his design, because others caused you to fear and set aside your God-given ability to think?

You are already raising children that are not your own biologically, and yet they are yours. Adoption is not from the devil either. I agree that the miracle of a child comes from God. And what if God’s design was that you adopt?

KG

 

[caoindealbhan]

Adoption may be fine for people who recognize this as a viable alternative. Since my wife and I really don’t see it that way, then adoption is not possible. Once again, I see science as a gift. It relieves the pain and suffering of those who want their own children. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t pursue those means.

 

[sacredcello]

Adoption may be fine for people who recognize this as a viable alternative. Since my wife and I really don’t see it that way, then adoption is not possible. Once again, I see science as a gift. It relieves the pain and suffering of those who want their own children. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t pursue those means.

As one who suffers from Infertility myself, I can sympathize with anyone who is faced with this struggle. We have to make difficult moral choices that others do not. However, I agree fully with kevinsgirl in that the Church guides us in these decisions and there are sound philosophical, ethical and moral reasons for these guidelines. Please see below for the Catechism of the Catholic Church passages related to this topic.

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, “for I continue childless?” and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!”

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.”

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.”

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union … Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.”

 

[caoindealbhan]

As one who suffers from Infertility myself, I can sympathize with anyone who is faced with this struggle. We have to make difficult moral choices that others do not. However, I agree fully with kevinsgirl in that the Church guides us in these decisions and there are sound philosophical, ethical and moral reasons for these guidelines. Please see below for the Catechism of the Catholic Church passages related to this topic.

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, “for I continue childless?” and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!”

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.”

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.” **(I would not endorse a donor’s sperm or egg)
**
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” **(I disagree with this concept of domination. Doctors help us all the time in areas of health. They pose no threat to a parent and their child.) **“Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection (Nothing is perfect, only God is perfect) when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union … Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,”(if necessary, with help) and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.”(of course)

 

[sacredcello]

The act of procreation, in the case of IVF, is totally deprived of its meaning.

According to God’s plan, the renewal of the marital covenant says, “I love you. I give myself to you totally, freely, faithfully and fruitfully.” (whether or not the couple actually conceives as a result of that act, as in the case of menopause). The act itself is still meaningful and is ordered toward procreation according to God’s plan.

With IVF, the domination of the medical profession hovers over it. The act of procreation involves masturbation which is intrinsically evil. The act says, “I manipulate you. I use you. I do not love you. I demand my own will to be done, and not God’s will.”

On the day of your being joined sacramentally in marriage with your wife in the Catholic faith, you were asked the following question, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

If you choose IVF, you are violating that promise.

 

[caoindealbhan]

The act of procreation, in the case of IVF, is totally deprived of its meaning**(I disagree).
**
According to God’s plan, the renewal of the marital covenant says, “I love you. I give myself to you totally, freely, faithfully and fruitfully.” (whether or not the couple actually conceives as a result of that act, as in the case of menopause). The act itself is still meaningful (of course) and is ordered toward procreation according to God’s plan**(if the couple wants children). **

With IVF, the domination of the medical profession hovers over it. The act of procreation involves masturbation which is intrinsically evil. The act says, “I manipulate you. I use you. I do not love you. I demand my own will to be done, and not God’s will**(I disagree)**.”

On the day of your being joined sacramentally in marriage with your wife in the Catholic faith, you were asked the following question, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”(I said, “Yes!”)
**
If you choose IVF, you are violating that promise.(I disagree)**

 

[sacredcello]

God gave each of us a free will. As Catholics we are free to enter into mortal sin by violating the teachings of the Church on faith and morals. To claim that we are not in violation of the Church’s teachings while advocating for IVF, is a lie.

 

[caoindealbhan]

I’m not in violation of “most” of the Church’s teachings.

 

[crazzeto]

It is true, that I am probably the one that has “the problem.” However, as I had said, why would we want to raise a child that is not our own? Science is not from the devil. In fact, I believe even Galileo has been allowed to go to Heaven now, for daring to say that the earth was round.

We may have “fears” about what science can accomplish but usually they derive from a pre-Vatican II noltion that man is inherently pre-disposed towards evil. If there wasn’t hell hanging over our heads, why would people do what is right?

To deny the use of modern science to bring about and to work with “God’s design” in conceiving is a lot like the helicopter sent to rescue the man drowning. He refused the modern equjipment because he was waiting for God. Did you hear this one?

So, again, the birth of a children is ultimately God’s miracle. All avenues to this result should be exhausted, because in actuality, do you want to answer to God as to why you did not cooperate with his design, because others caused you to fear and set aside your God-given ability to think?

Your views on science are frankly, not very healthy… And honestly your understanding of the Gallilao is flawed. the history freebe is, he wasn’t condemed for dareing to say the earth was flat.

Science is a gift from God, and it is not, in it’s self the devil. Yes, I agree. That doesn’t meant it can’t be misused. For instance, the Nazi’s conducted all sorts of “scietific experimentation” on living Jews. We understand it’s value as worthless today, but back then these Nazi’s truely throught they were being cutting edge… Still think all science is good science?

IVF and artificial insimination are condemed for good reason. I would ask you to read back in this thread and find out why.

 

[caoindealbhan]

So, then you are afraid of what science can do?

 

[crazzeto]

So, then you are afraid of what science can do?

You make far far far too many assumptions, frankly to the point of being rude. Please read my postings. Thanks,

 

[crazzeto]

With no fear of science, what so ever, and fully embrasing it as a gift from God:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2377

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.163

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166

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."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

The problem isn’t science as some would like to suggest… The problem rather, is how we go about persueing Gods gifts. God’s gifts are not some toy with which we are free to bash and break (though it’s worth noting, it would be rude even for a child to bash a break a gifted toy, this is a misuse of a gift). God’s gifts are a awe inspiring thing, which should be treated with respect and dignaty. This goes for all of Gods gifts, not just sexuality (for instance) or life, but rather science and frankly, everything around us.

Thus there must exist a certain morality to govern what we should and should not do with Gods gifts, in this case science. IVF is a grave misuse of Gods gifts, which lead to graver misuses such as the act of playing God via genetic manipulation (already starting to happen) for eugenic purposes.

The ability to have and bare a child is something which we should accept in humility, as is the inability to have and bare a child. When God tells us “no, not that way” to natural conception, we should accept that and view other, holy means to “have children” such as adoption and fostering. In this way, we can build the Kingdom of God and successfully serve our roles as stewards of God’s children.

 

[caoindealbhan]

So, then IVF is a great evil, even though great good can come of it. How does that happen?

 

[crazzeto]

So, then IVF is a great evil, even though great good can come of it. How does that happen?

“The ends do not justify the means”, this can be found in Romans…

Where do you get this logical fallocy that if something good can come out of a specific process, then the specific process must be morally acceptable?

 

[caoindealbhan]

Well, usually we use this logic to explain why God lets such “terrible” things happen in the world. He will bring a far better good from the ashes of that tragedy. I can’t think of something more valuable to God than the birth of another human being to love and serve him, can you?

 

[crazzeto]

Well, usually we use this logic to explain why God lets such “terrible” things happen in the world. He will bring a far better good from the ashes of that tragedy. I can’t think of something more valuable to God than the birth of another human being to love and serve him, can you?

Whoa whoa whoa… No no no… You’ve gone and jumped the shark… First and formost understand this, God allows evil to happen in the world not necessarly so that “good can come of it”. We say this, but it doesn’t necessarly ring true. No, evil is allowed because God respects us so much that he allows our free will primacy over his own will (predesitnation) for us. We are all predestined to live in Christ and be saved, not all of us choose to live out this predestination.

More over, even if we accept as an axiom what you say… I repeat my question, where do you get the logical fallacy that if something good comes, that the means must also be good?