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?
... and therefore you reject a reasoned argument without addressing it. You would reject an unreasoned argument as well. Would it be fair to say you are not open to communication that disagrees with your point-of-view at all?
The rigidity of outlook in the article engendered a visceral response in me.
It certainly didn't engender a logical one. What about the rigidity of your own outlook, which apparently brooks no disagreement?
Because it involves masturbation IVF is wrong. Surely you jest.
Authentic Christian moral teaching rejects all sexual activity outside of marital intercourse, open to conception, between husband and wife. Look it up. NO mainstream, orthodox Christian group taught otherwise prior to 1930.