I’m sorry – but with so very many children in desperate need of adoption, it strikes me as more than selfish to go this route.
There is also (and this is the dog breeder and natural sciences background in me coming through) the consideration that if a man and a woman can’t manage to conceive a child without IVF, then probably there’s a good biological reason for it and they should accept it and, I repeat myself, adopt.

@Panthera- comments like this always make me sad, since it certainly appears that you have never gone through the pain of infertility. For the record, I have 4 children- 3 through IVF and 1 through adoption. We had to avail ourselves of IVF due to complications from a surgery that my husband underwent at age 4- there were no other “biological” reasons. The argument that all couples suffering from infertility should just adopt due to the large pool of children needing homes would be more fairly generalized to any person who seeks to add to their family- through natural conception or not. To say that only infertile couples are selfish in this area because it is harder for them to conceive is a little silly.

Well, I am glad you have the children you wanted, but still – there are so very many children who need homes, it just does seem a bit selfish to me to forgo the opportunity to help them simply to reproduce.
If there were a dearth of children, then yes, I could understand investing so much money and time. As things stand now?

The great paradox of IFV is that it “destroys life” to create life. I don’t know the exact ratio, but Yale recently did a study and concluded that for every 100 embryos created, 5 resulted in life.
I even wonder how many couples are even fully aware of the extend of embryonic deaths (details in article)
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/8552/
That said, I certainly don’t mean to be insensitive to the pain of infertility, it’s just that killing embryos to create life is not a moral solution. But that’s not the only reason against IVF(in addition to the reason of the Vatican already mentioned). The reality is, unlike MellyMe, who had a truly heartbreaking case, many cases are not only curable, they created long term consequences to the women by not being treated. This isn’t the blog to get all techinal, but I suspect many reading know of situations where serious medical condidions were overlooked by immeditely running to IVF or prescribing Birth control pills for “medical reasons.”

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.” [3]
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.”170

“A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift.”
I don’t always agree with the positions of the Catholic church, but this hits the nail on the head.
It’s great to want to have kids, but I firmly believe it is better to raise a child in love than to demand the creation of a child of ‘your own’.
One of the biggest differences in our family business of breeding, in fact – I retire female dogs to live out their lives in peace and joy the moment a litter goes down in quality or size. Others in the family use every tool available and breed till they die in the process. It’s not that far removed from the inhuman approach to treating women as breeding machines which much of assisted reproduction is.
Goodness – if I can hold a newborn baby in my arms and feel that protective sense, that joy and wonder, then I sincerely doubt anyone ‘has’ to bear a biological child to experience the joy of being a parent.

This contribution had made many folks happy. The desire to be a mother is something that, IMO, a male can’t possibly feel. Those that disagree with this procedure for any reason, shouldn’t avail themselves this procedure. If the religious world ran science, many things would never have been discovered.
Panthera, I see where you are coming from, wanting adoption for the many children who are available. My mother was an adopted child, so I certainly have no reason to disagree with you. However, for some folks, it isn’t an option they choose. Everyone is different.

Correction: This contribution HAS made many folks happy.

pagansister,
You’re quite right, of course – I lack the means of knowing what a woman feels who desires to bear and give birth but can not.
I’m extrapolating, and, yes, my feelings on the matter are colored by several factors.
First, I don’t think creating 100 zygotes to have (maybe) five, at most, be viable is a particularly sound approach to human husbandry.
Second, and, yes, you recognized a point I’ve made here for years – there are an awful lot of children and teens stuck in orphanages and bounced around foster families who would reward their adoption by returning the love of a family which only feels complete with children.
Finally, well, yup – I don’t want kids, never did want kids and though I have certainly enjoyed the times in my life when I’ve babysat and participated in the rearing of children, I find dogs and cats eminently more loving and giving and caring. An emotional lack or not, I don’t know – the pot can not contain itself.
My husband’s first wife died in childbirth, losing the child as well. It was not until we’d been together for seven years that his nightmares and feeling he should have not wanted of her a child lessened. So, yes – I obviously don’t have that biological drive which many do.
I do note and I note it loudly and very very strongly – our family foundation has only been able to place 23 children this year who would otherwise have been aborted. I guess that is a motivational point for me.

This thread is interesting because I have been a part of both the infertility community and the adoption community. I have seen infertile couples who don’t even want to consider adoption because the biological imperative is so high… selfishness? Prossibly. But on the other hand, the idea to “just adopt” is a bit naive… it is so difficult to adopt. It is a huge leap of faith to bring a child into your house who probably had a less-than-ideal prenatal course, and was brought into a family that for whatever reasons could not keep him/her. Many adopted children have significant physical, psychological, and emotional scars. Not to mention the adoption process can be terribly long, complicated, and heartbreaking. A person should NEVER think about “just adopting” because they want a child. A person who is going to adopt needs to have a special calling to bring a child into their house, and no matter what the child’s issues, stand with them and help them face the world.
Just thinking out loud.

Panthera & Mellymel,
Both of you have excellent points about adoption. You, Panthera, wish for more adoptions, but Mellymel brings up the point that don’t “just adopt”. It is an expensive and complicated process, as is In-vitro. Life isn’t always simple, as we all know.

correction: Not my day— “…..but Mellymel brings up the point that ONE doesn’t “just adopt.” sorry for the 2nd correction, just on this article.

pagansister and Mellymel,
You both give me hope – I wish we could always have such discussions here.
Adoption is a commitment for life. I am also very well aware of the troubled circumstances from which many children come.
The statistics show that of the children living on the streets, nearly 40% were tossed out of their homes by their parents. Nearly all of them were cast out for being gay or lesbian or failing to adhere to the principles of conservative Christianity which their parents held higher than standing with their children.
Of the foster kids past puberty, nearly none can have hope of finding a permanent home with a family. They are nearly all destined to ‘age out’, at which point the American social welfare net which Republicans and non-liberal Christians have worked so hard to destroy abandons them.
At the same time, the criteria to adopt are set so unrealistically high, it is absurd. One must not be too young nor too old (as if age has anything to do with the capacity to love and nurture!). One must be better than simply well-off. Now, I agree that a degree of economic stability is necessary, but the requirements are absurd.
Education must be exemplary as must the profession, the rest of the family, the location of the residence. It is a good thing to be a conservative Christian, but it is a very bad thing to be a too loudly conservative Christian.
Gays need not apply, unless a child is developmentally disabled in which case gays are very much welcome.
In the end – perhaps I am being too harsh. I get very angry with people who deny the biological facts behind sexuality, since I don’t have a ‘biological drive’ to reproduce, I needs must accept the word of others that such exists and is an essential to be fulfilled.

DcnGreg,
I think when you made this post you made the point in the topic sentence:This news won’t fill the Vatican with joy. This is evident as the Vatican condemns this procedure for the reasons stated clearly in the catechism.
In the last comment at least 4 references have been made to conservative Christianity and 2 to homosexuality. Perhaps if your your time permits, we could all be reminded to stick to the point of the post and leave the agendas at the door.

RomCath,
Did you also snitch to your teachers as a kid? Were you the classroom monitor the teacher appointed when she left the room?
Goodness.
Now, it just happens that what I said is true, relevant to the topic at hand and easily backed up.
Several Catholic organizations which are not bound at the hip to the Republican party (there are some) lament, loudly, exactly these same sad statistics.
The horrible reality is: Cutbacks to the social safety net over the last years have led to an appalling increase in children being out on the street. Recent studies – some done by the Roman Catholic church, which is, and I thank God for this, not exclusively run by people like you, have come to the same appalling conclusions and it is frequently the case that the only shelters in many big cities which take in these gay teenagers are run by Catholics who are too busy doing God’s work to be bothered with your nastiness.
As for just exactly who has cut back on those social nets, well, it was conservative Christians and Republicans with a major helping hand from Bill Clinton, the best Republican president in years.
Why don’t you focus with the rest of us on trying to find a solution to these problems? I’ve sat through two very long and very boring board meetings so far this year at our foundation next to my brother who makes you look like a screaming liberal and generous Christian. If we can work together to aid these kids, then the least you can do is try to be productive with the rest of us.

Panthera,
If you think that the Church will change it’s position on homosexual unions it will never change. Please stick to the topic at hand, thank you.

A brief story, Panthera, related to the age issue in adoption. My sister’s minister is in his 2nd marriage, to a woman 15 years younger than he is. In his first marriage, he had 4 children. He and his wife tried to have a child biologically, but when unable to, decided to adopt. They were turned down—-he was too old—at 50! The fact that his wife was 35 apparently made no difference. As it turns out, they did conceive, and had a little girl a month ago. However the fact that he was too old—at 50— to adopt is outrageous!

The purpose of the post was to point out how the Vatican would not be pleased to hear that the person who pioneered IVF was being honored with a Nobel prize. It has veered off into conservative Christianity, homosexulality, Republicans etc etc.
The point is that IVF separates the child from the creative, conjugal love of his/her parents. I think most people would like to think they came from an act of their parents’ conjugal love than from a lab. Whatever.

I can’t for one moment understand why you brought that up, RomanCrusader. Stick to the topic here.
I don’t think it matters one bit whether children are conceived the traditional way, adopted or result through any of the modern techniques in terms of the obligation of their parents to love them and nurture them.
When we see the vast number of kids tossed out onto the street by their families, and look at the correlations between religious beliefs and accepting or rejecting these children, then things look pretty grim. That’s a fact and the more people push it away, the worse it gets.
In breeding, I avail myself of every technological advance available to me. Dogs are incredibly difficult to work with, those endlessly repeating sequences make it impossible to be certain of anything. And yet, unless a puppy is born with a condition that will cause permanent pain or suffering, I’ve always managed to find a home for every one. Why on earth that is not possible for human children is beyond my comprehension.

RomCath: IVF, the joining of the woman’s egg(s) and the man’s sperm, is done due to the LOVE of the 2 people who want to have a child together. The fact that they weren’t in bed, having intercourse, doesn’t take away the purpose —-to have a child together. Loving each other enough to go through what it takes for an IVF procedure, is a very good sign of lots of love. The child born from that procedure has no reason to think their parent doesn’t love them. In fact, some children might think they were really wanted, and weren’t an accident, because of all the work it took to “start” them!
It is fortunate that the Vatican has nothing to do with what is approved and not approved in science. The folks who don’t approve certainly will never be forced to have an IVF procedure.

“nearly 40% were tossed out of their homes by their parents. Nearly all of them were cast out for being gay or lesbian or failing to adhere to the principles of conservative Christianity which their parents held higher than standing with their children.”
Panthera, are you sure about that?!
It does seem to me that the explosion of reproductive technologies has created a sense of the child being thought of as a commodity. While it is true that there are many “risks” associated with adoption…there are extraordinary “risks ” with non-adoptive children as well. There are no guarantees in life! What is needed in all situations is “unconditional love”. If one is not prepared to practice it in marriage and parenting, there is little hope for success when life inevitably gets difficult
Isn’t this what Christ called us to?!

Eka,
Sadly, yes, yes I am certain that the number is in that range. See the link. Unfortunately, I can offer many other similar sources.

Panthera,
Thank you.
While the statistics in the article you linked to are truly heartbreaking, they don’t in fact back up your charge that “nearly all of them were cast out for being gay or lesbian or failing to adhere to the principles of conservative Christianity”. In fact it doesn’t even use the words “conservative” or “Christian”, but rather poverty and homophobia…not exclusive to those demographics.
The facts are sad enough. It is neither helpful nor necessary to exaggerate the claims and castigate an entire group.
Peace.

MellyMel writes @Panthera- comments like this always make me sad, since it certainly appears that you have never gone through the pain of infertility.
Pardon me if I find your situation hard to relate to. I figured out that I was gay at thirteen. By the time I was 18 I figured out that this would mean I should never marry because I would ruin the some woman’s chance at happiness and fulfillment. Just because I can marry doesn’t mean I would ruin your privelege of marriage.
Now, I find that my Church (your Church) denies me legal protection from discrimination even if I do follow it’s rules and that Church justifies denying me the one dream I had in life — to make a contribution through my work.
At 43 I recovered sufficiently from the abuse and brainwashing by the Church to realize I could better the lives of the next generation through teaching them advanced mathematics. But the Church tells me that if I do humbly offer my home to a child who has no home, I am committing violence against her.
You’ve spit in my face and Panthera’s face several times with a single thoughtless remark.

Eka,
The USCCB officially opposes mentioning the words “gay” and “lesbian” in any anti-bullying law or regulation even in public schools because it could lead to a right to same sex marriage.
I survived being bullied through junior high and high school in a Catholic all-boys institution. I got called “faggot” every day by students and faculty. My crime was to befriend the one everyone said was gay because I didn’t want him to endure ostracism alone. Moreover, while a virgin, I understood that I was gay and not to stand up for this boy would be the worst sort of hypocrisy. So I shared his cross.

Eka,
I tried hard to find a well documented source which steered clear of terms which tend to unleash the hounds of war on this blog.
May I respectfully suggest you do some digging through the proceedings before Congress on the Matthew Shepard Act? These awful facts are well documented and classifications by age, reason for homelessness, etc. very well separated out.
If you can’t find the data, just mention it and I’ll ask the Deacon whether I may post a few links to the information.
Frank, I was lucky – built like a brick, um, ‘garden building’ and with a solid family name behind me, going through school in Europe wasn’t that hard.
When I look at the names of these dead youth and see the absolute joy with which so many ‘Christians’ are proclaiming their suicides as nothing more but just desserts, it is obvious just exactly who their god is. Things always get very bad for the weakest members of an oppressed minority when the oppression is fist exposed to the light of day, we’ve read justifications here on this blog for being nasty to these children which are so far removed from Christ’s love it beggars the mind.

“RomCath: IVF, the joining of the woman’s egg(s) and the man’s sperm, is done due to the LOVE of the 2 people who want to have a child together. The fact that they weren’t in bed, having intercourse, doesn’t take away the purpose”
Pagan so its the “old ends justify the means” nonsense. Since this post is about what the Catholic position is, it seems that IVF is not all about love but about what a couple wants as though having a child is a right.
You can think what you want but I would hate to trace my geneaology back to a test tube.

RomCath,
I don’t think anyone should be criticized for not fulfilling the heteronormative standards of the conservatives in the United States, regardless of whether they are a school child being bullied and driven to suicide or a pope who happens to chose his words carefully and speak in a dialect which might seem less masculine than that of JPII or the long reign of Italians before him.
That said, you spend an awful lot of time here trying to get people into trouble with our host, under the condition that the represent views you don’t care for. When somebody who’s viewpoint you agree with goes over the line, you have never once spoken up to protest.
Mote, log, eye ring a bell?

RomCath,
I have no doubt in my heart, none whatsoever, that God loves every person, regardless of whether they were conceived through means you approve of or not.
There is a consistent tone in your threads of looking down upon people who have parents of whom you disapprove – whether it be the children of lesbians who are kicked out of Catholic kindergartens or babies conceived through modern medical intervention.

Panthera, yesterday you seemed to agree with the Church on IVF, today you don’t. I have no doubt God loves every child/person no matter how they were conceived.
Do you happen to know if there are any long term psychological effects in those who have been conceived through IVF? Never to know exactly where you came from.
Aside from that, sinking to the level of calling the Pope effeminate is really beyond words. You think that is loving and Christian?

hi, it is rightly said that “whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve”. Robert Edwards has achieved whatever he had conceived in his mind. well done … sir, many many thanks

“it is rightly said that “whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve”. ”
Chemist, who said it was “rightly said”? Hitler conceived many things in his mind. Sadly he achieved some of them. Not all human achievments are to be praised.

RomCath,
One major difference between us, and I suspect this is what you find confusing in my ‘positions’ is that I don’t feel a need to impose my personal view (I don’t think IVF is a good idea) upon others.
I’m don’t have children, I shall never have children, I have never felt the need nor desire to have children. I am not married to a person who desperately wants to have his own biological children. For all these reasons, I am totally unfit to argue that those who do want children but can not do so without assistance should be forbidden to receive that assistance.
You oppose strong government except when government can be used to take rights away from people or to force them to follow your religious beliefs. That’s the difference between us – if it doesn’t bloody my nose nor picks my pocket, it isn’t my concern.

Chemist, I think that is a profound statement.
It is the tragedy and the strength of our race that what we know how to do, we realize.

Pan…
RomCath complained about an earlier comment of yours — and rightly so. I edited it to delete the offending phrase. It was gratuitous, childish and disrespectful. Watch it, okay? Or do I have to shut down comments on THIS thread, too?
Dcn. G.

Deacon Greg,
When the pope says at Christmas that gays are a danger to the entire human race, he is handing razor blades to gay teenagers and telling them “You know what you have to do.”
If you’re not man enough or Christian enough to allow his role in anti-gay persecution to be discussed then own up to that fact.

“When the pope says at Christmas that gays are a danger to the entire human race”
Please provide the citation.

RomCath:
If I had been an IVF child (which I wasn’t as I’m too old and it wasn’t available) I would have found it wonderful that my parents wanted me enough to go through the extra effort to combine their sperm and egg, yes, outside my mother’s body, to have me. Love is expressed in many ways.
“I would hate to trace my genealogy back to a test tube”. RomCath
You probably wouldn’t have been here if your mom hadn’t been able to conceive “naturally”, so you wouldn’t have to find out that she (and your father) wanted you enough to go through the procedure.
A child conceived this way knows just where they came from, their mother and father, and the union of their egg and sperm, so how is that a problem? The baby is “grown” inside it’s mother, just like the old fashioned way of conception, and born just like any other kid. The baby isn’t in a artificial growth capsule, which is what you make this all sound like.
I agree, the end(in this case) justifies the means. You are so right!

“A child conceived this way knows just where they came from, their mother and father, and the union of their egg and sperm, so how is that a problem”
It is a problem because they were not conceived through an act of conjugal love but manufactured in a test tube. Second, do you think all IVF babies are born using the eggs and/or sperm from their own “mom and dad”? Many are born through donations of either or both from unknown donors. Who knows what genetic risks there are? How many times have the “ingredients” been mixed up and people wound up suing the IVF clinic because they did not get the baby they desired.
These ends do not justify the means.
And BTW I know two families with IVF children–a set of triplets and another with a boy. All four kids have severe learning disabilities. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Pagansister,what matters is not what you imagine these children ought to want, need, or feel.
What matters is the reality they actually do experience, not the reality you imagine they ought to experience.
Children born from manipulated circumstances have expressed strong and consistent issues – grief issues, loss and mourning, identity issues, and so on.
We all have a right to security and self-esteem, to be the center of our drama and not a bit player in someone elses. We all want to know who we are, where we came from, who our parents were, who our ancestors were, how we connect to the human race, what our “stories” are in all their fullness and completion – these things are not to be taken away from a person casually.

Kiro,
And you have actual, independent studies to back your assertions?

Panthera: First of all let me say that I like your use of the word “independent” – since it rigs the question: “independent” means “secular humanist assumptions”, since in all social science questions, certain values must be assumed – and “independent” means held to a standard defined by an overwhelmingly left-wing community: conservative values are coded in negative terms – “enmeshed” – and so on.
The problem, of course, is that there is no really honest way to use the “scientific method” to study values and ethical claims. But we do it anyway, don’t we? We just decide before the study starts what “good”, “bad”, and “happiness” mean, and if the study starts with left-wing assumptions it’s an “independent” study, and if it doesn’t it’s a “biased” study……
But, yes, even given the rigged nature of the question, there is in fact ample evidence to support my claims.
The actual studies I cited I got from a book called Being Adopted: The Lifelong Search For Self.

Oh I cited the wrong thing (I was thinking of the other thread, the gay marriage one) … the studies I cited here are from various sources.
But you can look it up, if you care. Because if you seek sincerely, you WILL find the truth.

In a simple search on google I did find a study earlier this year from East Virginia Medical School findind that the incidents of ADHD are higher among IVF babies. There others studies as well

Kiro, “independent” and “biased” have narrow technical definitions in statistics. You’re undermining your credibility by inventing definitions. Take a statistics course; you need it.

Frank, you missed what I said.
I do not question that the data collection and analysis techniques are valid and sound.
But the “scientific method” is incapable of measuring things that it pretends to be able to measure.
It goes outside of what it is capable of when it pretends it can speak meaningfully about human values and ethical considerations.
The specific example I cited was the use of the negative, derogatory term “enmeshed” to refer to people who live according to the rules preferred by conservatives.
This is a real example of how the left-leaning scientific community inserts its values. Science itself can say nothing about what level of interdependence human beings should hold as the ideal. It is outside of what science can measure – but the scientific community is a political unit, confusing and conflating “science” (the method) with “science” (the belief system).
The scientific method must be neutral with regards to whether “enmeshment” is a good or a bad state. But – as is visible from the negative connotations of the word “enmeshed” – the actual scientific community accepts as fact that “enmeshment” is pathological.
In actual practice, the rules governing how science is conducted are contaminated. Studies which are procedurally sound have been dismissed because they were conducted by conservatives with an obvious agenda, while obviously flawed studies are given a free pass (just look closely at the entire history of the scientific community’s methods in “proving” that children raised by gays and lesbians are “better” end products than ordinary children – which is also, btw, the ultimate in commodification, if you examine the goals in raising a proper unit…err, child…)

Did the studies all you folks mention above also check out children who are screwed up when born “naturally?” No. Did it tell the success stories of children born with IVF? NO. I’m so not impressed.

Pagan, instead of asking questions go search for them and read them. It is very simple.
I don’t know what the quotes mean around “naturally”. Certainly you don’t believe IVF is.
Whether you are impressed or not matters little. Read the studies. All isn’t dandy with IVF.

@Frank “You’ve spit in my face and Panthera’s face several times with a single thoughtless remark.”
Wow, what did I miss in one day? Frank, I am really perplexed-please explain again how I have spit in your face. I have not (nor never have) mentioned anything about gay marriage. I didn’t even mention that I was Christian. I think you are reading way, way too much into my statement, which was solely about infertility and IVF. Seriously, what am I missing here?

RomCath: “naturally” children born of 2 adults, male & female, who conceive the old fashioned way..intercourse. IVF, considered not natural by some. Everything is not always “dandy” with children conceived the old fashioned way either. The only difference with IVF is that the parent’s sperm & egg are joined in a dish, then inserted in the mother to be. Many times the egg and sperm are those of the people who wish to have the child. The woman, if lucky, carries to term and delivers the baby in 9 months or so.

Joining egg and sperm in a test tube could hardly be considered by anyone as natural no matter how you slice it.

Edwards, a professor emeritus at the University of Cambridge, began research on the problem of infertility in the 1950s. The first “test-tube baby,” Louise Brown, was born in 1978, an event that the Nobel expert panel called “a paradigm shift.” Since then, approximately four million babies have been born worldwide via IVF, many of whom now have children of their own.

Next year the prize will go to the scientist that figures out how to prevent pregnancy to curb the explosive growth of the world’s population.

British physiologist Robert Edwards, whose work led to the birth of the first ‘test-tube baby’ in 1978, is awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine and physiology.