IVF

[Michael96]

Just jumping in, but it may be possible that there is an additional “layer” of sin here. In IVF, more eggs are fertilized than needed. Sometimes, many embryos are implanted into the uterus and once they get going for a bit, all but one is aborted. Usually, not all the embryos are implanted. They freeze some and discard them as “trash.”

If any discarded or aborted, the couple may have formally cooperated in the grave evil of abortion. This is something they need to talk about with their confessors and perhaps a canon lawyer.

And that, to me, is the key problem with IVF. I think IVF could actually be a wonderful gift to a couple if only 2 eggs are fertilised at a time and both implanted. IUI also overcomes this problem, but I think IVF can be used responsibly and ethically as well.

 

[agapewolf]

And that, to me, is the key problem with IVF. I think IVF could actually be a wonderful gift to a couple if only 2 eggs are fertilised at a time and both implanted. IUI also overcomes this problem, but I think IVF can be used responsibly and ethically as well.

Impossible. It is not ethical to take away sex from making babies. Birth control is sex without babies and ivf is babies without sex. One cannot be torn from the other.

The ends don’t justify the means.

 

[Michael96]

Impossible. It is not ethical to take away sex from making babies. Birth control is sex without babies and ivf is babies without sex. One cannot be torn from the other.

The ends don’t justify the means.

Well, they *can *be separated - because they are.

And I would encourgae all people to consider whether the use of IVF without destroying babies could actually be a gift.

And this (natural law) is an area that is based on Greek philosophy rather than the Gospel of Christ - which, for me, makes it very open to ongoing discussion and debate.

 

[Seatuck]

Well, they *can *be separated - because they are.

And I would encourgae all people to consider whether the use of IVF without destroying babies could actually be a gift.

And this (natural law) is an area that is based on Greek philosophy rather than the Gospel of Christ - which, for me, makes it very open to ongoing discussion and debate.

No, children have the right to be conceived during an act marital union of their parents. No Third party should be taking involvedin this act.

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml

 

[Michael96]

No, children have the right to be conceived during an act marital union of their parents. No Third party should be taking involvedin this act.

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml

I’m not sure I remember my conception sufficiently to care about the mechanics of it; what is very much more important to me is that I was/am the product of a very loving relationship.

That’s just my opinion. I wonder what IVF babies think?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m not sure I remember my conception sufficiently to care about the mechanics of it; what is very much more important to me is that I was/am the product of a very loving relationship.

That’s just my opinion. I wonder what IVF babies think?

It may be beneficial to read this document:
usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.shtml

Specifically check out this section of that document:
usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.shtml

Is Homologous ‘In Vitro’ Fertilization Morally Licit?​

The answer to this question is strictly dependent on the principles just mentioned. Certainly one cannot ignore the legitimate aspirations of sterile couples. For some, recourse to homologous IVF and ET appears to be the only way of fulfilling their sincere desire for a child. The question is asked whether the totality of conjugal life in such situations is not sufficient to insure the dignity proper to human procreation. It is acknowledged that IVR and ET certainly cannot supply for the absence of sexual relations [47] and cannot be preferred to the specific acts of conjugal union, given the risks involved for the child and the difficulties of the procedure. But it is asked whether, when there is no other way of overcoming the sterility which is a source of suffering, homologous in vitro fertilization may not constitute an aid, if not a form of therapy, whereby its moral licitness could be admitted.

The desire for a child–or at the very least an openness to the transmission of life–is a necessary prerequisite from the moral point of view for responsible human procreation. But this good intention is not sufficient for making a positive moral evaluation of in vitro fertilization between spouses. The process of IVF and ET must be judged in itself and cannot borrow its definite moral quality from the totality of conjugal life of which it becomes part nor from the conjugal life of which it becomes part nor from the conjugal acts which may precede or follow it. [48]

It has already been recalled that, in the circumstances in which it is regularly practiced, IVF and ET involves the destruction of human beings, which is something contrary to the doctrine on the illicitness of abortion previously mentioned.[49] But even in a situation in which every precaution is taken to avoid the death of human embryos, homologous IVF and ET dissociates from the conjugal act the actions which are directed to human fertilization. For this reason the very nature of homologous IVF and ET also must be taken into account, even abstracting from the link with procured abortion.

Homologous IVF and ET is brought about outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose competence and technical activity determine the success of the procedure. Such fertilization 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.

Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of ‘de facto’ existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become “cooperators with God for giving life to a new person.”[50]

These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called “simple case,” i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.

Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous ‘in vitro’ fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

 

[agapewolf]

Well, they *can *be separated - because they are.

And I would encourgae all people to consider whether the use of IVF without destroying babies could actually be a gift.

And this (natural law) is an area that is based on Greek philosophy rather than the Gospel of Christ - which, for me, makes it very open to ongoing discussion and debate.

Babies are aborted too. That doesn’t make it right.

This is wrong. Read humane vitae and theology of the body.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Well, they *can *be separated - because they are.

And I would encourgae all people to consider whether the use of IVF without destroying babies could actually be a gift.

And this (natural law) is an area that is based on Greek philosophy rather than the Gospel of Christ - which, for me, makes it very open to ongoing discussion and debate.

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
Natural Law

Clear Church teaching on the matter states that IVF is sinful. There is nothing to discuss or debate. We should encourage researchers to find ethical ways to help infertile couples.

 

[Michael96]

Babies are aborted too. That doesn’t make it right.

I agree totally - and that is the point: *can *and *can’t *are different from *right *and wrong.

I have heard no convincing arguement here that it is wrong to bring a child into the world using IVF (assuming no embryos are created that are not given the chance of life). Others, of course, must follow their own conscience on this matter.

 

[agapewolf]

I agree totally - and that is the point: *can *and *can’t *are different from *right *and wrong.

I have heard no convincing arguement here that it is wrong to bring a child into the world using IVF (assuming no embryos are created that are not given the chance of life). Others, of course, must follow their own conscience on this matter.

Our job here isn’t to convince you HERE. I gave you reading material. Have you read it? THEN come talk about how you aren’t convinced.

The deal is the church teaching stands. We don’t try to bend church teaching to what we believe is right and wrong. The church stands and we must conform our hearts to her, by informing ourselves.

Why is it someone else’s job to convince you? Its actually your job to learn it yourself.

 

[hamburglar]

Well, they *can *be separated - because they are.

And I would encourgae all people to consider whether the use of IVF without destroying babies could actually be a gift.

And this (natural law) is an area that is based on Greek philosophy rather than the Gospel of Christ - which, for me, makes it very open to ongoing discussion and debate.

You are in conflict with Catholic teaching. I encourage you to pray and realize that IVF is never a “gift” like the world wants us to believe.

Please do not spread heresy and scandalize the faithful. I will pray for you and for all that have been duped by the secular world.

 

[Michael96]

Why is it someone else’s job to convince you?

It’s not - I’m just presenting my opinion that IVF without destruction of embryos may be a good and precious gift. And I’m just saying personally I haven’t seen anybody put forward a convincing arguement against it. I’m not looking to be convinced one way or another - I just go where scripture and reason takes me.

Others of course may have an entirely different opinion - I’m not trying to convince anyone else.

 

[agapewolf]

It’s not - I’m just presenting my opinion that IVF without destruction of embryos may be a good and precious gift. And I’m just saying personally I haven’t seen anybody put forward a convincing arguement against it. I’m not looking to be convinced one way or another - I just go where scripture and reason takes me.

Others of course may have an entirely different opinion - I’m not trying to convince anyone else.

But this isn’t a matter of opinion. Your “opinion” is not in line with Catholic teaching, which means your “opinion” is dangerous. I have offered to you ways to read and learn so you can understand why that is so.

You still put it out there “no one has offered anything convincing”. Well, yes I have. You haven’t bothered to read it.

 

[Michael96]

You still put it out there “no one has offered anything convincing”. Well, yes I have. You haven’t bothered 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.

 

[agapewolf]

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.

You have read humanae vitae and theology of the body?
RIiiighhht

 

[Michael96]

I said I read everything you have to say on the matter. If you found what you thought were convincing arguements elsewhere I felt sure you would present them yourself. This *“I know a really good reason, but I’m not going to tell you myself” *arguement doesn’t convince me of anything (but of course I accept it may convince others).

 

[agapewolf]

I said I read everything you have to say on the matter. If you found what you thought were convincing arguements elsewhere I felt sure you would present them yourself. This *“I know a really good reason, but I’m not going to tell you myself” *arguement doesn’t convince me of anything (but of course I accept it may convince others).

Look, I cannot just type out theo of the body. Its got very deep concepts that one has to read for himself to get. I’m telling you myself where to find it. It’s not just a cut and paste kind of thing.

I HAVE the convincing arguments and they are found in those works. Again, you are expecting me to convince you when rather it is YOUR job to figure it out. You are the one not in line with Catholic teaching, not me.

I’ve given you the means to find it. Go and read it.

 

[Michael96]

Thanks - probably best we leave it there as we don’t seem to be getting anywhere with this.

God bless you agapewolf

 

[Jennifer_J]

Thanks - probably best we leave it there as we don’t seem to be getting anywhere with this.

God bless you agapewolf

The problem you are having is the fact you are refusing to actually READ what the Church teaches on the topic. You want someone to give you a synopsis and see whether you agree with it. However, since it is YOU who are arguing against the Church, it is up to YOU to actually do some reading on the matter and not depend on internet people to do the work for you. Part of Catholic teaching is to form your conscience properly and at this point, it sounds like you need some work. Putting personal opinion over and above the teachings of the Church is a problem–esp since it seems you haven’t really studied the issue and just “think” its moral and okay. This teaching isn’t about “feelings” or what seems “okay”–it’s about fundamental truth and the sanctity of human life.

 

[Michael96]

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.