A tragic situation (Erin)

John E., a first! Shall we raise a glass of union-stomped wine to celebrate? :)

Er, no, DJ, Erin was clarifying her *own* position.

And can I get in on the "WE FOUND IT!" ToasT?

Of course the Catholic Church condemns IVF. Its a cruel chimera of human trafficking, abortion, and a technological three-way.

Yes that is harsh. Its meant to be. Several thousands of unknown children are dead because of this practice.

Life is uncertain. Many men have conceived children well into their 70's and then imprudently died. And some women can harbor a pregnancy later than others.

I do not believe a medical treatment is immoral, unwise perhaps, but not immoral and most certainly not evil.

Sixty-six years old, while it is beyond the normal range of child-bearing, is not so old that one should reasonably expect to die within two years. So using the fate of this mother to prove that her pregnancy was "a grave moral evil" seems beside the point.

Let's imagine she was a good Catholic woman who had twelve children previously born. If she'd conceived at 66 without IVF, it would have been hailed as a miracle, and if she'd then died after giving birth to twins, her death would have been publicized as a saintly example for all. If she had expressed doubt that she would live long enough to care for the twins, and had elected to abort them, Erin would have been the first to condemn her. Plenty of older women, already worn out or even gravely ill, have conceived children they had no hope of caring for, but the Church has piously demanded they sacrifice what remains of their lives to give birth anyway.

If a woman is raped, the conception hardly takes place within the context of sacramental covenant marriage. Impregnating a woman by rape is, indeed, a grave moral evil. Yet the woman is still compelled to give birth, and her pregnancy is considered a blessing. Why is IVF, willingly undertaken by a woman who really wants the child, worse than rape? I don't see a consistent moral ethic of any kind here, and I certainly don't see compassion.

John E., a first! Shall we raise a glass of union-stomped wine to celebrate? :)

Yes indeed, Salud!

Children deserve to be conceived in the context of the marital embrace of their loving parents, and to be raised by them.

This is a false choice fallacy typical of social conservatives (we see it in the gay marriage debate, too). Kids may "deserve to be conceived in the context of the marital embrace of their loving parents, and to be raised by them." But the choice here is not between being conceived to a 60-something with IVF or the old fashioned way to a young church-going couple in their 20's. The choice is between being conceived via IVF or never existing at all.

These two children are unquestionably better off existing rather than not existing.

66? Spring chicken. In India a 70-year old woman gave birth. See link

Look, I understand that there is disagreement here on IVF, but what I don't understand is how people don't know why Catholic teaching opposes it. It's been hashed out here so many times.

Accept it or reject it, it goes something like this:

Human life begins at conception, id est, when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

That human life so created deserves to be protected just as much as anyone who has been born.

IVF produces many "extra" fertilized eggs to increase the odds of success in the proceedure.

These "extras" are kept in cryogenic deep freeze indefinitely and are eventually discarded and/or destroyed. This destruction runs counter to the position that they are individuals worthy of life and protection.

Additionally, as has been noted here, it treats these individuals as commodities, which runs counter to the dignity of the individual.

There's actually more, but this should be sufficient to explain the position.

Again, people accept or reject that position. It is what it is. But let's not act like we don't know what the position is. That's just lazy rhetoric.

Following the logic of the Roman Catholic Church’s argument..

Why is there no coordinated effort within the Roman Catholic Church to have women donate womb space to bring frozen embryos to life? Why isn’t the Roman Catholic Church at the forefront of advocacy for research into fallopian tube, vas deferens and uterus transplants? Catholics on sites such as Life News have shown vast ignorance in relation to assisted reproduction and a lack of compassion that cannot be considered Christ-like. They assume all IVF cycles involve destruction of embryos and they mock married couples that would like to become biological parents through IVF as selfish and ignoring God’s will for them in their lives. They assume these parents are too narcissistic to adopt, and that those who have conceived naturally (no matter the circumstances) have been “blessed” by God. I’d love to read a poll about what percent of Catholics who have had children naturally have in addition adopted children into their families? It seems so convenient to match up the unwanted babies in the world with couples struggling with infertility (and it certainly lifts the burden on taxpayers that otherwise would be supporting the unadopted children’s needs). If no babies were available for adoption (the supply is shrinking as we give greater support to single mothers), would the Life News writers and posters still feel so self-righteous in demanding infertile couples forgo fertility treatments?

For me, this issue is tremendously personal. My son’s father and I are each one of more than 10 children with strong ties to the Pro-Life movement. Due to several of my brothers’ being carriers of cystic fibrosis, they have together with their wives brought 6 children into the world with IVF. I know the parents are committed to giving all embryos they have created a chance at life, as they believe each one is unique and deserving of life. I also know the parents are committed to raising their children Catholic, and that our local priest supported their decisions to procreate through IVF (as my brothers, lacking vas deferens, could not conceive “naturally” with their wives).

I asked Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in person about the moral status of my brothers and their wives. He said that IVF is never morally acceptable and that it is a grave offense. When asked what my siblings should now do, he said that they need to make a good confession. I wonder, though, what have they done that is sinful? I interpret Fr. Tad’s perspective to be that, if my brothers and their wives were “good” Catholics, their children would not exist. I know firsthand the tremendous sadness that infertility can bring to a marriage, as another close family member’s spouse divorced them over disagreements about how to become biological parents while being faithful to Catholic Church teaching. How many Catholics turn to IVF when they have no other biological options, and how many other infertile Catholics chose adoption instead?

I also asked Fr. Tad about snowflake babies and the Catholic Church’s perspective on this procedure. He essentially said it is morally wrong to create new embryos and that while the Church had no official position on adopting frozen embryos, there are good arguments on both sides. He left me with the impression that, instead of pursuing a path that would produce a biological sibling for our child, my son’s father and I would find more favor with the Catholic Church if we adopted a snowflake baby instead. I would welcome Fr. Tad or other Catholic bioethicists to expand upon this reasoning. The way I see it is, then, if the Catholic Church recruited enough generous women to donate their womb space to bring all the frozen embryos to life, then those of us who have not abused the IVF process and will not abuse it by creating more embryos than we will give life to will then have a moral chance at procreating with our own embryos.

It is beyond my understanding, even as a theology minor at a Catholic college who has worked for several dioceses, how the Roman Catholic Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions, even welcoming them back into the
Church if they are now married with other children (who will never know about their murdered sibling), but the Roman Catholic Church completely condemns a Catholic couple who has never so much as used birth control to prevent pregnancies, who choose in response to infertility to procreate via IVF using their own eggs and sperm, and transferred all embryos to the uterus.

My son still attends Catholic school. At some point, will he be taught that, if his uncles and aunts were good Catholics, his 6 cousins would not exist? If so, please tell me now, so I can investigate other educational options before he is exposed to this hateful line of reasoning.

To "Following the logic of the Roman Catholic Church’s argument":

I don't know anything about "Life News" other than that whoever they are, they do not represent the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The local priest supporting IVF did so in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Fr. Tad was correct that your siblings, as Catholics, need(ed) to make a confession.

The Church does not condemn those who have had children via IVF while accepting those who have aborted.

The Church proclaims and argues that some things are sin, and that Catholics with grave mortal sin need to go to confession. This is not hateful.

You refer to "good" Catholics. I don't know that anyone is a "good" Catholic. We are all sinners.

I think your questions revolve around what is considered sin and why. I've posted why (in part) IVF is considered sin. As a theological student you should undertand the reasoning, even if you reject it. Though it strikes me that you don't understand.

Perhaps part of the problem is that you see the very real good of children that are the result of IVF and can't concieve of why the process is sinful. This is a fundamental question of ends justifying the means. I conclude that ends do not justify any means. Do you?

See article here:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=136743