IVF

  • Thread starter Thread starter vstead
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thankyou Jennifer

But don’t you find it odd that this is not something people seem very willing (or able?) to defend themselves? I am left with the strong impression that this is not a topic people find easily defensible.

But I shall leave it there.
We are willing and able to “defend” it. I have…very well. You have refused to read it. It is a very deep topic that is steeped in the dignity of the human person. Nothing about that is easy. The ends don’t justify the means.

I have defended it. You have refused to read it.
 
I have read everything you have had to say. I personally remain inconvinced of the evil of a form of IVF that only fertilises eggs that will definitely be implanted and given a chance to live. Others of course may have found your arguement convincing.
How 'bout you read what the Church has to say?

Begin with the Catechism. The footnotes will lead you to other documents. This is how one form one’s heart and mind.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2373

The gift of a child
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](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2374.htm’)😉 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](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2375.htm’)😉 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.
 
Thankyou Jennifer

But don’t you find it odd that this is not something people seem very willing (or able?) to defend themselves? I am left with the strong impression that this is not a topic people find easily defensible.

But I shall leave it there.
We can and do defend it, but you seem to be lacking in the basics for us to be able to discuss this topic. It would be great if you could meet us halfway and do some reading about what the Church actually teaches on the topic.

The natural end of marriage and marital relations is children (that doesn’t mean every couple is sent children). The marital embrace is, in fact, sacramental in nature–each act is a renewal of the marriage vows. There is no way that IVF renews the marriage vows. Every step is contrary to the sacramental nature of the marital embrace. In the same way that contraception is wrong, so is IVF. Separating the act and the outcome is wrong because each act is to be procreative (ordered toward procreation) AND unitive. IVF is neither.
 
I’m quite familiar with the arguement Jennifer - it depends on a certain interpratation of natural law. But I’m just saying that my opinion is that I personally don’t find it convincing. One must assume that procreation can never be separated from physical sexual intercourse - and there is little real basis to such an assertion. Another arguement put forward is that somehow it undermines the dignity of those born by such a method - but that again doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny (ask someone born by IVF whether they feel their dignity has been undermined).

Yes, I have read the arguements. They are speculative, and should not be confused with dogmatic teachings.

And I really will leave it at that now.
 
I’m quite familiar with the arguement Jennifer - it depends on a certain interpratation of natural law. But I’m just saying that my opinion is that I personally don’t find it convincing. One must assume that procreation can never be separated from physical sexual intercourse - and there is little real basis to such an assertion. Another arguement put forward is that somehow it undermines the dignity of those born by such a method - but that again doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny (ask someone born by IVF whether they feel their dignity has been undermined).

Yes, I have read the arguements. They are speculative, and should not be confused with dogmatic teachings.

And I really will leave it at that now.
You have NOT read the arguments. And it is Catholic doctrine, natural law, that cannot be changed. You haven’t even bothered to research it in order to be “convinced”.

Just staying complacent in ignorance with your convenient “opinion” does not help you.
 
I’m quite familiar with the arguement Jennifer - it depends on a certain interpratation of natural law. But I’m just saying that my opinion is that I personally don’t find it convincing. One must assume that procreation can never be separated from physical sexual intercourse - and there is little real basis to such an assertion. Another arguement put forward is that somehow it undermines the dignity of those born by such a method - but that again doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny (ask someone born by IVF whether they feel their dignity has been undermined).

Yes, I have read the arguements. They are speculative, and should not be confused with dogmatic teachings.

And I really will leave it at that now.
As a Catholic, you do not have to fully understand all doctrines. You do, however, have to submit to the Authority the Church has from God and accept teaching regarding the sanctity of the marital act and the dignity of the human person.

You should, of course, look further into this teaching to more fully understand it. Read things such as Dignitas Personae and Donum Vitae. Pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit to be guided to the Truth that the Catholic Church teaches.

You are in my prayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top