[Mrs. Don-o]

This article did not reference the pope, nor did it rely on an argument from authority. Even the links provided by Coleus led to articles based on moral reasoning, not the "say-so" authority or any man or group of men.

How is your comment relevant here?

Wouldn't it make more sense to comment on the cases discussed in the article, and their moral evaluation?

[JayGalt]

That makes even less sense than suggesting that the rejection of IVF is based on church teaching. What can be reasoned one way can be reasoned another way. The rigidity of outlook in the article engendered a visceral response in me.

The article made many assumptions in the manner of logical syllogisms and as though all the conclusions the article lays forth are absolute and indisputable.

Because it involves masturbation IVF is wrong.
Surely you jest.
Even if no embryos are created that are not implanted IVF is wrong because fertilization is outside the body?

I believe that it is what is in someone’s heart not the mechanics of the reproductive act. If a child is conceived of in love and in full knowledge of the awesomeness of creation, in the sight of God what does it matter if science helps?