Posted on 08/11/2004 6:34:48 AM PDT by NYer
Gotta let this thread go, but I wish all of you so dogmatically opposed to IVF would take a moment to consider the judgemental nature that you've taken here. I've been called selfish, sinful, my wife has been insulted, and I'm sure the abuse will continue.
Doesn't matter to me, as I will now go to lunch with my kids and wife and enjoy my day. I will also continue to work towards being a better Father and Husband and servant of God.
For those who've chosen adoption over IVF, I respect and understand your choice. However, making that choice should not be a platform to assert moral superiority over those who chose differently, or have done both.
You're lives might be richer if you weren't stalking FR for sinners to jump on. Moral superiority and presumed knowledge of God's will (whether it's your presumed knowledge or the Pope's) is a form of pride. Need we discuss the sin of pride?
One is permitted to have sexual intercourse with a perforated condom in order to collect sperm for medical examination.
Congratulations, per Goodwin's Law, you just lost the debate.
I would NEVER deny that evil. In IVF, you do not need to "throw away" ANY embryos. If some are really genetically damaged, they will simply stop dividing (this is what happens even in the woman) or not divide normally. You can put the rest back.
The fact that good results from an act does not make the act good. The end does not necessarily justify the means. For example, a child can be conceived by rape, but that does not make rape an ethical act. Therefore, the fact that children can be produced by IVF does not show that IVF is not unethical. Of course rape and IVF are not equally unethical. But the example of rape shows that it is a fallacy to argue that good results (i.e. children)justify IVF.
Also, the fact that in the natural process many fertilized eggs fail to implant does not show that it is ethically permissible to destroy fertilized eggs. That would be equivalent to arguing that since miscarriages happen, it is ethically permissible to intentionally abort one's child. Or, since many people die of starvation, it is therefore ethically permissible to starve people to death. Clearly, that kind of reasoning is mistaken. It fails to recognize the difference between a good act that happens to have an evil consequence and an evil act.
- A8
"We know what you think."
You sound like an Earth-Firster.
Why are unnatural things wrong?
"As it turned out, both had reproductive issues that their previous fertility clinic had never diagnosed. Anthony’s sperm count was low, and Stephanie suffered from endometriosis and blocked fallopian tubes."
I see nothing wrong with fixing this problem. That isn't playing God.
"Six months later, following treatment of their conditions at the Pope Paul VI Institute and at the age of 42, Stephanie conceived naturally. Their daughter, Claire Marie, was born Oct. 31, 2002."
Atleast this has a happy natrual ending. I'm happy for them.
My next door neighbor is Roman Catholic. They went the IVF route twice. If they were aware of this Catholic teaching or not would not have mattered. They WANTED kids. She had a problem with ovulation because of a deformity that could not be corrected. Their desire for children was more important than what is stated in your post. Their emotions took over.
I'm not obsessed with semen. I think the people climaxing anywhere and everywhere but where God obviously intended are the one's with the semen problem, since they (like yourself) are the ones who tend to bring it up.
Especially the effeminized males who indulge in oral and anal sex. They might as well be doing it with a guy, instead of practicing their pseudo-faggotry on their wife or girlfriend. What, after all is the difference? A mouth or an anus is the same whether on a man or woman. Sodomy is sodomy.
Are these some of your vices perhaps?
"If he wanted to become a father, he certainly could have done so prior to his treatment. He and wife were probably to busy with birth control at the time."
There's one heck of an assumption. I think Lance met his wife after his battle with cancer.
"As the article points out, also, it is trying to do an end run around normal reproduction anyway. Doctors should be trying to help couples conceive naturally."
Exactly. There is more money to be made with IVF and couples are emotional and in a hurry so IVF prospers.
I bet that every month a couple "tries" to get pg, they actually produce a fertilized egg. Anyway, I've read thousands of documents, etc. on this topic and from experience it looks like the largest embryo failure rate occurs between day3 and day6 following fertilization. That's when initial specialization occurs (into fetal and placental cell lines). The direct failure cause isn't known but probably half are genetic and the other half are "energy supply" problems. I knew a couple who had 18 beautiful embryos on day3 and only 2 made it to day5/6.
"Now, those who oppose IVF and cherish life so dearly, what would you have me do with my children? "
IS adoption not in your lexicon?
What about the embryos that don't get implanted? I think that is what is at issue. They are people who will never have a chance to be born.
"Yes it is wrong. It involves the seperation of conception from sex. It is unnatural. It also probably involved masturbation.
If he wanted to become a father, he certainly could have done so prior to his treatment. He and wife were probably to busy with birth control at the time."
Here you go ...
...Armstrong, also a victor over testicular cancer, met his wife in January 1997, just weeks after he had completed intense chemotherapy to treat an advanced stage of the disease. The two started dating in June 1997 and were married 11 months later...
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/09/05/PeopleInTheNews/Armstrong.Wife.Plan.To.Divorce-458562.shtml
I'm willing to bet that many IVF clinics and their clients do not operate within strict parameters to ensure all fertilized embryos get implanted. There are millions of frozen embryos that will never be used.
Can't let that one go. Read my previous posts on this topic, I also have an adopted daughter. Or do you want me to give my children up for adoption. Get a life.
How weird. I really have no interest in where people deposit their semen. You however, seem to have a fetishistic obsession with where semen goes.
Especially the effeminized males who indulge in oral and anal sex. They might as well be doing it with a guy, instead of practicing their pseudo-faggotry on their wife or girlfriend. What, after all is the difference?
It seems like you're scared that engaging in oral and/or anal sex will turn you gay. Don't worry, unless you have those type of tendencies already, it won't turn you into a poofter.
A mouth or an anus is the same whether on a man or woman.
So, then, you would have no problem French-kissing another man. A mouth is the same whether on a man or woman. Right?
Are these some of your vices perhaps?
Sure. Vice is what makes the world fun. I'm quite proud to consider myself a hedonist.
All unnatural things are not wrong, but all unnatural human acts are because we are meant to behave in certain ways and not in others.
That is the basis of natural law theory. You are free to disagree with it, I suppose, though I would wonder what you substitute into its place.
Earth-Firsters mistakenly twist this to make unnatural things (i.e. human inventions) wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong in any human invention. They are just inanimate objects and procedures. Its the uses they are put to by humans which create good and evil, right and wrong.
Right and wrong are determined by human acts, not human objects.
Boy I'd have a tough time doing THAT in a confessional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.