IVF and the embryos on ice

[BornInMarch]

How is being able to prevent pregnancy at any percentage better than nothing? That’s sin, as straightforward as sin gets.

Not always. Natural Family Planning is condoned and permitted by The Catholic Church, and it can be as effective if not more so than most contraceptives.

 

[cominghome1966]

NFP is not contraception.

 

[TCEL]

NFP is not contraception.

(My husband is a convert, and at first NFP bothered him because he thought it was the same as contraception. He’s had time to think about it. I asked him once what he thought the differences were, and one striking difference he mentioned is that contraception can’t be used to achieve pregnancy. I hadn’t thought about that, but it’s pretty obvious. This is, however, a little off-topic.)

 

[MJDorry]

Not always. Natural Family Planning is condoned and permitted by The Catholic Church, and it can be as effective if not more so than most contraceptives.

NFP, as cominghome states, is not contraception. It’s cycle-tracking designed to have better influence on when you get pregnant, with openness to the procreative act. It’s not just knowing when children are least likely to be conceived, but also when peak fertility is, so that attempting couples can maximize chances of pregnancy. It is not designed for having wanton sex and preventing conception, and it is only as effective as the couple’s skill at timing. I know couples who claim to have never had a child at an unintended time. I know another couple who claim that all three of their daughters were conceived when they weren’t trying.

There’s an old joke:

What do you call couples who use NFP?

Parents.

 

[cominghome1966]

(My husband is a convert, and at first NFP bothered him because he thought it was the same as contraception. He’s had time to think about it. I asked him once what he thought the differences were, and one striking difference he mentioned is that contraception can’t be used to achieve pregnancy. I hadn’t thought about that, but it’s pretty obvious. This is, however, a little off-topic.)

What an interesting observation! I had not thought of that way before.

 

[JoeFreedom]

I know. But it’s not that we are against them being born… we would be against the evil that would most likely surround their birth.

The problem is that two wrongs don’t make a right. This is also why it is so important that we pray for an end to abortion and IVF; and help others to see the immorality of IVF.

I’ve even met pro life Protestants who didn’t see anything wrong with IVF because they are unfamiliar with the number of aborted embryos that are often part of the process.

God Bless

This is such an intriguing question and I’m not sure I can contribute much and I’m positive that there are theologians out there 100 times smarter than me on this stuff, but here’s my two cents, and btw, I’m 100% Catholic and hopefully I’m not saying something against Church teaching here, that’s totally not my intention.

Not sure I’m getting this right, but couldn’t the implantation be considered a “double effect”, whereas I do one thing and by doing that one thing, something else happens? In this case, saving the life of the child by implanting it, since the IVF process already conceived of the child? In this case, wouldn’t we want to and shouldn’t we try to do everything we can (without committing any evil) to bring that child to life? For example, if a pregnant mother were to die in an accident, the doctors may have to place the baby in an incubator. Could not another woman be that medical incubator?

But then again, couldn’t it also be said that since we could go on forever to keep them on ice, we would be keeping them alive and not performing an evil by finishing up the IVF process?

Wow… totally good question. I’ll be following this thread.