Surrogate motherhood

[Dr_Paul]

• this woman had as strong a calling to motherhood as any seminarian has to priesthood.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;6835243:

There is a difference between “desire” and “right”. … One of the reasons why in vitro

fertilization is wrong is because it distorts this aspect of the generation of new human life. It aims to take from God what legitimately belongs to Him because of a misguided belief that we have a right to control life.

There is no “right” to dental care, or to eyesight correction, or to open heart surgery, or to correction of birth defects, or to viagra or fertility treatments. These can be good things because they enhance quality of human life, but there is no “right” to any of them.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Dr Paul;6835901:

There is no “right” to dental care, or to eyesight correction, or to open heart surgery, or to correction of birth defects, or to viagra or fertility treatments. These can be good things because they enhance quality of human life, but there is no “right” to any of them.

And that’s the problem with “reproductive technology”: It takes the Sacred transmission of human life and reduces it to the level of having getting glasses or having a cavity filled. Then, because here in the 1st World, having perfect teeth and vision enhances our quality of life, we must “deserve” a child too, if we feel being a parent will make us happier.

And the Catholic Church has always condemned “the ends justify the means” argument in all moral issues, so I don’t know why you think it’s ok in this case.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;6836638:

And that’s the problem with “reproductive technology”: It takes the Sacred transmission of human life and reduces it to the level of having getting glasses or having a cavity filled.

No, you’re wrong – it doesn’t reduce it. A male friend had to have an operation to have a blood vessel in his scrotum moved so that his sperm count could increase. To perform such an operation to allow a man to become a father is a good thing. A woman who was not ovulating had hormone therapy to produce more eggs so that she could become a mother; enabling a woman to become a mother is a good thing

Then, because here in the 1st World, having perfect teeth and vision enhances our quality of life, we must

“deserve” a child too, if we feel being a parent will make us happier.

It’s rather arrogant of you to place yourself in judgment on another couple and tell them that the reason they want to become parents is that it will make them happier.

And the Catholic Church has always

condemned “the ends justify the means” argument in all moral issues, so I don’t know why you think it’s ok in this case.

The end does not always justify the means, but sometimes it does.

 

[catharina]

StAnastasia;6835243:

There is a difference between “desire” and “right”. A seminarian does not have a right

to be ordained even if he intensely desires to be a priest. There may be factors that make a seminarian unsuitable to the priesthood. In the same way, a woman does not have a necessary “right” to have a child despite a natural longing to have children. Children are gifts from God. One of the reasons why in vitro fertilization is wrong is because it distorts this aspect of the generation of new human life. It aims to take from God what legitimately belongs to Him because of a misguided belief that we have a right to control life.

Paul, I completely admire you for your faithfulness.
Your brother is attempting to place you in the position of “approving” of his actions,
if I correctly understand your posts. That’s terribly unfair and terribly sad.

Prayers for you and
thanks for your good example.

 

[catharina]

ALLGIRLS;6837846:

StAnastasia;6836638:

No, you’re wrong – it doesn’t reduce it. A male friend had to have an operation to have a blood vessel in his scrotum moved so that his sperm count could increase. To perform such an operation to allow a man to become a father is a good thing. A woman who was not ovulating had hormone therapy to produce more eggs so that she could become a mother; enabling a woman to become a mother is a good thing

It’s rather arrogant of you to place yourself in judgment on another couple and tell them that the reason they want to become parents is that it will make them happier.

The end does not always justify the means, but sometimes it does.

It’s stunning to learn on CA that some Catholics reject Church teachings
and are happy to state their alternative, unlawful and dissenting views.

The end NEVER justifies the means.
I can only hope that you are speaking from an abyss of ignorance.
If instead you are speaking from arrogance - wow.

 

[StAnastasia]

[It’s stunning to learn on CA that some Catholics reject Church teachings and are happy to state their alternative, unlawful and dissenting views.

There’s nothing wrong with faithful dissent. If Paul hadn’t dissented, gentiles would not have been allowed in the Church.

The end NEVER justifies the means.

So you would not amputate a child’s gangrenous leg as a means of saving her life? That’s pretty arrogant of you.

I can only hope that you are speaking from an abyss of ignorance. If instead you are speaking from arrogance

• wow.

Not as deep as yours. I’ve taught ethics courses (including medical ethics) for thirty years.

[/QUOTE]

 

[catharina]

There’s nothing wrong with faithful dissent. If Paul hadn’t dissented, gentiles would not have been allowed in the Church.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

ALLGIRLS;6837846:

StAnastasia;6836638:

No, you’re wrong – it doesn’t reduce it. A male friend had to have an operation to have a blood vessel in his scrotum moved so that his sperm count could increase. To perform such an operation to allow a man to become a father is a good thing. A woman who was not ovulating had hormone therapy to produce more eggs so that she could become a mother; enabling a woman to become a mother is a good thing

**Straw man argument. That’s not what we’re talking about and you know it. Fixing defects that are preventing the marital act from being fruitful is totally different that in-vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood, and the Church has no problem with that (fixing defects). **

It’s rather arrogant of you to place yourself in judgment on another couple and tell them that the reason they want to become parents is that it will make them happier.

The end does not always justify the means, but sometimes it does.

One may never do evil so that good may come. This is basic Church teaching. In vitro fertilization, like artificial contraception, are intrinsic evils as defined by the Catholic Church. It’s not up for Catholics to debate.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[StAnastasia]

What has amputation as a life-saving measure to do with an end justifying immoral means? Nothing, IMO.

You don’t even remember what you said about the end never justifying the means?

 

[StAnastasia]

In vitro fertilization, like artificial contraception, are intrinsic evils as defined by the Catholic Church. It’s not up for Catholics to debate.

Of course it’s up for debate. In my classes we debate all the time – that’s the essence of philosophy! I’m glad that *in vitro *fertilization is available for couples with intractable fertility problems. We simply have to make sure no more eggs are fertilized than will be implanted.

 

[catharina]

You don’t even remember what you said about the end never justifying the means?

You might be making sense to yourself.
I can not imagine what point you are attempting to make.

Right. THE END NEVER JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.
Yet you state:
“The end does not always justify the means, but sometimes it does.”

WRONG.

What has that to do with any amputation???
Apples and oranges.

 

[catharina]

Of course it’s up for debate. In my classes we debate all the time – that’s the essence of philosophy! **I’m glad that *in vitro ***fertilization is available for couples with intractable fertility problems. We simply have to make sure no more eggs are fertilized than will be implanted.

Clearly then, you have invented your own religion.
What makes you “glad” is, in fact, the antithesis of Catholic teaching.

 

[catharina]

StAnastasia;6837954:

ALLGIRLS;6837846:

**One may never do evil so that good may come. This is basic Church teaching. **

In vitro fertilization, like artificial contraception, are intrinsic evils as defined by the Catholic Church. It’s not up for Catholics to debate.

In Christ,

Ellen

I agree: this is unchanging Church teaching.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Of course it’s up for debate. In my classes we debate all the time – that’s the essence of philosophy! I’m glad that *in vitro *fertilization is available for couples with intractable fertility problems. We simply have to make sure no more eggs are fertilized than will be implanted.

**But this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. We’re talking about what the Catholic Church allows and condemns. In Vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood are unequivocally condemned. **

You don’t even remember what you said about the end never justifying the means?

**Another Strawman argument! Evil or immoral means are never justified by the end result. I repeat: One may never do EVIL (in vitro/surrogate motherhood) so that good (a child) may come of it. **

Clearly then, you have invented your own religion.

So it seems.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[catharina]

**But this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. We’re talking about what the Catholic Church allows and condemns. In Vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood are unequivocally condemned. **

You don’t even remember what you said about the end never justifying the means?

Another Strawman argument! Evil or immoral means are never justified by the end result. I repeat: One may never do EVIL (in vitro/surrogate motherhood) so that good (a child) may come of it.

Clearly then, you have invented your own religion.

So it seems.

In Christ,

Ellen

Very very very sad for all - esp for her ‘students.’

 

[StAnastasia]

But this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. We’re talking about what the Catholic Church allows and condemns. In Vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood are unequivocally condemned.

Thankfully for the sisters mentioned in my first case, your opinion is irrelevant to the medical practitioners who made it possible for one sister to bring to term the children of the other. While as a Catholic professor I would never turn away from my Church, sadly I think many people do leave the Church because they perceive it as cold, heartless, inhuman, and rigidly uncompromising.

 

[catharina]

Thankfully for the sisters mentioned in my first case, your opinion is irrelevant to the medical practitioners who made it possible for one sister to bring to term the children of the other. While as a Catholic professor I would never turn away from my Church, sadly I think many people do leave the Church because they perceive it as cold, heartless, inhuman, and rigidly uncompromising.

So why do you rejoice at development of sinful procedures?
You claim to be “glad” that in vitro exists. How is a Catholic “glad” about that?

Can’t you see that you’re talking in support two sides re morality?
One of those sides is IMMORAL. How can it it make you glad?

 

[StAnastasia]

So why do you rejoice at development of sinful procedures?
You claim to be “glad” that in vitro exists. How is a Catholic “glad” about that?

I’m glad that in vitro exists for the same reason that I’m glad triple heart bypasses exist: life is good.

 

[catharina]

I’m glad that in vitro exists for the same reason that I’m glad triple heart bypasses exist: life is good.

No comparison between in vitro and bypass procedures.
As I said: apples and oranges.

Good night to you.