So what is the problem with In Vitro Fertilization?

[BlueLantern]

I want to convince my catholic mother there isn't any problem.

 

[kallipolis]

^This article might assist. :

http://www.staycatholic.com/what_is_wrong_with_in-vitro_fertilization.htm

 

[Kulindahr]

Good luck. If she's one that believes the pope's every word, you're sunk.

And that article is a superb example of the narrow, shallow thinking employed on the issue.

 

[FirmaFan]

^This article might assist. :

http://www.staycatholic.com/what_is_wrong_with_in-vitro_fertilization.htm

What a [Text: Removed by Moderator] person you must be Kalli to offer this kind of advice to a person seeking genuine help. This article demonstrates so much about what is wrong with religion. What this article basically does is do away with scientific enlightenment in favor of bronze age myth in order to manipulate others into abiding by subjective religious dogma that is both hateful and harmful.

I mean, the article specifically states that masturbation is immoral. How fucked up does a person have to be to believe this kind of thing, and how even more fucked up does a person have to be in order to believe that the propagation of these ideas is a morally correct task? Masturbation is a natural biological process NECESSARY for proper development. I pity the innocent child who must resist all biological natural impulses for fear of repercussions from imaginary gods they are told are fact by so-called "loving" parents. Such detrimental acts can only be defined as mental child abuse.

Nice of them to throw in the bit about contraception use, too. Sure, millions are dying of AIDS in Africa, the spread of which is easily prevented with condom use, but, instead, they insist on promoting non-use of contraception, so thousands of babies infected with AIDS can be born to unwanting parents, while, in the same article, they seek to deny parenthood to loving and apt couples who are biologically incapable of doing so simply because it involves medical procedures they have deemed immoral because of their particular interpretation of bronze age lunacy. I promise you this, no where in either the new or the old testament are condoms or in-vitro fertilization mentioned.

While I would feel it appropriate for moderators to remove your response from this thread, Kalli, [Text: Removed by Moderator] I think it better to leave your post as is, so everyone on here who has been in one way or another violated by religious bigotry (trust me, gay people see more of this kind of bigotry than any parents seeking IVF have ever known) can see what terrible, harmful, and absolutely horrid beliefs [Text: Removed by Moderator].

 

[opinterph]

While I would feel it appropriate for moderators to remove your response from this thread, Kalli, [Text: Removed by Moderator] I think it better to leave your post as is, so everyone on here who has been in one way or another violated by religious bigotry (trust me, gay people see more of this kind of bigotry than any parents seeking IVF have ever known) can see what terrible, harmful, and absolutely horrid beliefs [Text: Removed by Moderator].

Let’s give him a chance to respond to the points of your criticism.

 

[Irish Queer]

I thought we Catholics generally accepted IVF now. Maybe it's on the QT like living in "sin" and christening "out of wedlock" children.

 

[Kulindahr]

I thought we Catholics generally accepted IVF now. Maybe it's on the QT like living in "sin" and christening "out of wedlock" children.

Many Western Catholics are very out of tune with the [STRIKE]Kremlin[/STRIKE] Vatican -- or, more accurately, the Vatican is out of tune with the flock. It's why I have long maintained that North America, for starters, ought to have its own Patriarch, equal to Rome. History and tradition both show that patriarchates had geographical and political bases, which means they're a matter of practicality subject to human government in the church. If the British Isles Catholics wanted to politely tell Rome they had their own Patriarch now, they'd have solid grounds for doing so; same with North American. It's a point on which Rome actually is in error compared to the ancient church -- and since Jesus' promise of infallibility applies to the entire church, not just the Roman denomination, it's not an error that can be brushed away.

 

[kallipolis]

What a [Text: Removed by Moderator] person you must be Kalli to offer this kind of advice to a person seeking genuine help. This article demonstrates so much about what is wrong with religion. What this article basically does is do away with scientific enlightenment in favor of bronze age myth in order to manipulate others into abiding by subjective religious dogma that is both hateful and harmful.

I mean, the article specifically states that masturbation is immoral. How fucked up does a person have to be to believe this kind of thing, and how even more fucked up does a person have to be in order to believe that the propagation of these ideas is a morally correct task? Masturbation is a natural biological process NECESSARY for proper development. I pity the innocent child who must resist all biological natural impulses for fear of repercussions from imaginary gods they are told are fact by so-called "loving" parents. Such detrimental acts can only be defined as mental child abuse.

Nice of them to throw in the bit about contraception use, too. Sure, millions are dying of AIDS in Africa, the spread of which is easily prevented with condom use, but, instead, they insist on promoting non-use of contraception, so thousands of babies infected with AIDS can be born to unwanting parents, while, in the same article, they seek to deny parenthood to loving and apt couples who are biologically incapable of doing so simply because it involves medical procedures they have deemed immoral because of their particular interpretation of bronze age lunacy. I promise you this, no where in either the new or the old testament are condoms or in-vitro fertilization mentioned.

While I would feel it appropriate for moderators to remove your response from this thread, Kalli, [Text: Removed by Moderator] I think it better to leave your post as is, so everyone on here who has been in one way or another violated by religious bigotry (trust me, gay people see more of this kind of bigotry than any parents seeking IVF have ever known) can see what terrible, harmful, and absolutely horrid beliefs [Text: Removed by Moderator].

Clearly your view of life, and mine are never going to be in sync.

I posted a link to a Catholic site that addresses the question raised by the OP in regards to his Catholic mother.

I have not offered my own opinion.

 

[TX-Beau]

I believe England did just that in 1534. Didn't stop Catholics from looking to the Pope, or from disagreeing with him either.

 

[FirmaFan]

Clearly your view of life, and mine are never going to be in sync.

I guess that would ultimately depend on what you have defined as "life". My view of life is such: all human life has value, and I need no belief in mythical god that grants value to life in order to feel as I do about life. This life is the only life that any of us are guaranteed to have - such fragility makes its value unquantifiable, and that ensures that I treat both my life and the lives of others as such. So help the person who believes this life is merely a rest stop on the way to the "true" life that will be awarded in the afterlife. If the afterlife is the important one, if this life now is just some sort of cosmic test, fear those who believe the passing answers to this test include flying planes into buildings or shooting abortion doctors.

I posted a link to a Catholic site that addresses the question raised by the OP in regards to his Catholic mother.

The original poster wanted to be able to tell his catholic mother why IVF is not wrong. Imagine if he had come here, looking to be able to tell his mother why being gay isn't wrong, and you come along and post a link to an anti-gay website with the message "this article may assist."

I have not offered my own opinion.

If your motive was to simply show the OP the arguments that the religious make against IVF, while not expressing your own opinion on the matter, I know I would want to clearly make it known that I do not agree with such hate filled bigotry and am presenting it simply as a way to explain where the other side is coming from. But that isn't what the OP was asking for. What the OP really needed was a refutation of the insanity presented in the article you mentioned. Not only did you not provide one single shred of argument against the position presented in the article, you let your only response to the request for help refuting such thinking be "this article may assist", which sure made it sound like you were promoting the same hate-filled ignorance that the article is promoting.

Imagine if a JUB user (maybe even a catholic user) who was conceived in-vitro came to this thread and saw your message. The article makes claim that they are the result of a god-forbidden immoral practice. What kind of person does it take to believe that promoting such nonsense was an act of righteousness, so much so that they are ignorant to the hatefulness and bigotry towards couples wanting to conceive, and, even more so, towards the person that was conceived via artificial means? Certainly I would hope that you are not such a person, however, your response to the OP makes it impossible to tell.

 

[opinterph]

But that isn't what the OP was asking for. What the OP [requested] was a refutation of the [ideology] presented in the article you mentioned.

I agree with your observations with regard to the [edited] text of your response that I’ve quoted above (in this post).

 

[kallipolis]

I guess that would ultimately depend on what you have defined as "life". My view of life is such: all human life has value, and I need no belief in mythical god that grants value to life in order to feel as I do about life. This life is the only life that any of us are guaranteed to have - such fragility makes its value unquantifiable, and that ensures that I treat both my life and the lives of others as such. So help the person who believes this life is merely a rest stop on the way to the "true" life that will be awarded in the afterlife. If the afterlife is the important one, if this life now is just some sort of cosmic test, fear those who believe the passing answers to this test include flying planes into buildings or shooting abortion doctors.



The original poster wanted to be able to tell his catholic mother why IVF is not wrong. Imagine if he had come here, looking to be able to tell his mother why being gay isn't wrong, and you come along and post a link to an anti-gay website with the message "this article may assist."



If your motive was to simply show the OP the arguments that the religious make against IVF, while not expressing your own opinion on the matter, I know I would want to clearly make it known that I do not agree with such hate filled bigotry and am presenting it simply as a way to explain where the other side is coming from. But that isn't what the OP was asking for. What the OP really needed was a refutation of the insanity presented in the article you mentioned. Not only did you not provide one single shred of argument against the position presented in the article, you let your only response to the request for help refuting such thinking be "this article may assist", which sure made it sound like you were promoting the same hate-filled ignorance that the article is promoting.

Imagine if a JUB user (maybe even a catholic user) who was conceived in-vitro came to this thread and saw your message. The article makes claim that they are the result of a god-forbidden immoral practice. What kind of person does it take to believe that promoting such nonsense was an act of righteousness, so much so that they are ignorant to the hatefulness and bigotry towards couples wanting to conceive, and, even more so, towards the person that was conceived via artificial means? Certainly I would hope that you are not such a person, however, your response to the OP makes it impossible to tell.

These are the words contained in the opening post:

So what is the problem with In Vitro Fertilization?
I want to convince my catholic mother there isn't any problem.

end

I can only respond to the words of the original post and not what you may have imagined the OP should have said to make his request crystal clear.

In other words I never pretend to read the mind of another person.

 

[FirmaFan]

These are the words contained in the opening post:

So what is the problem with In Vitro Fertilization?
I want to convince my catholic mother there isn't any problem.

end

I can only respond to the words of the original post and not what you may have imagined the OP should have said to make his request crystal clear.

In other words I never pretend to read the mind of another person.

Fine. Now that you have very explicitly established what some people believe is wrong with IVF, I think it now only appropriate for this topic for people to begin to discuss everything that is wrong with the kind of thinking the article you posted presents. No matter that you have taken an untra-literal approach to OP and say basically "well, he never actually asked for a refutation of what people believe is wrong with IVF", it at least would be good information for others that view these threads, don't you think? Several points, such as the claims of immorality of masturbation and contraception, have already begun to be addressed by myself.

 

[kallipolis]

Fine. Now that you have very explicitly established what some people believe is wrong with IVF, I think it now only appropriate for this topic for people to begin to discuss everything that is wrong with the kind of thinking the article you posted presents. No matter that you have taken an untra-literal approach to OP and say basically "well, he never actually asked for a refutation of what people believe is wrong with IVF", it at least would be good information for others that view these threads, don't you think? Several points, such as the claims of immorality of masturbation and contraception, have already begun to be addressed by myself.

Kindly note that I have not addressed the topic of IVF and will not be so doing.

 

[FirmaFan]

Kindly note that I have not addressed the topic of IVF and will not be so doing.

Fair enough. I most definitely will be addressing more of the arguments made in that article.

 

[palbert]

The fundamental wrong is that it leads to the birth of children. Can't understand why all of the religious fulminating. So, if it's right for you there is no wrong in it. No one will grade you when class is over.

 

[Ganoderma]

Kindly note that I have not addressed the topic of IVF and will not be so doing.

I would like to tell Kallipolis that he posted:

August 29th, 2011 10:24 AM kallipolis Re: So what is the problem with In Vitro Fertilization? This article might assist. : staycatholic.com/what_is_...tilization

Towards my opinion, this means that Kallipolis wanted to share his opinion about IVF towards the OP. Kallipolis knows very well what he is doing, and he could also have choosen not to make this posting.

-------------------

FirmaFan, please go on with your debate with Kallipolis

 

[Ganoderma]

I want to convince my catholic mother there isn't any problem.

hi BlueLantern,

In general, non-religious people have no problems with IVF, as long as IVF is done in a good hospital and with qualified doctors. IVF is legal my country. This means that people who want do to IVF don't need to go abroad, and that hospitals / clinics offering IVF are just normal hospitals / clinics with full qualifications / licences and so on.

IVF is just a moral issue for catholic people. More or less similar like having a gay son or a lesbian daughter is a moral issue for catholic mothers.

I think you should get more precise answers when you provide us with more details about the type of problems your mother has, and how strong she (still) follows the catholic rules. What is her opinion about gay people, what is her opnion about a civil marriage open to 2 people of the same sex, what is her opinion about divorce, eg.

But that are just my 2 cents.

Best wishes.

 

[FirmaFan]

FirmaFan, please go on with your debate with Kallipolis

Unfortunately, since Kallipolis refuses to post his opinion on this issue, it makes it difficult to debate him. All I can (and will) do is address the position made in the article he posted. It is true that he has not explicitly expressed his opinion on the subject (and says he will never do so), but I understand your inference on his position from his silence. Kind of like a person who, when asked by police to answer questions about a robbery, instead asks for a lawyer and remains silent. True, none of those actions are admissions of any positions, but it does raise suspicions. I will not pretend to not make the same assumptions (as most would) but I will give Kallipolis the respect to not to argue against some inference of his opinion I can not verify when it is obvious he does not want to make his opinion known. I'll stick to what the article has to say.

It seems that the catholic church has an excessive preoccupation with sex, specifically controlling who can do it with whom and when. Anytime something comes along to upset the church's arbitrary rules on fucking, it is labeled as immoral and against god. Contraception and the HPV vaccine greatly demonstrate this. It is assumed by the church that only married, heterosexual couples should be conceiving children, so the use of contraception should, you would think , be something they would be on board with, but no, because it is only married, heterosexual couples that should be having sex (why? I don't know...is it in the bible? Maybe...here is the biblical definition of marriage: http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/165997_700b.jpg). Contraception is also a way to prevent STDs, however, the church likes STDs, they feel it makes a great deterrent for anyone who is not a married heterosexual couple to have sex. Now, think of the implication of that...that means that anyone who has contracted an STD is DESERVING of that disease in their eyes. Its the same kind of logic that makes Pat Robertson blame 9/11 on Jews and gays.

What is really great is when religious make testable claims, because it's so satisfying to be able to just find evidence contrary to what they claim. One approach they take to get people off the idea of IVF is to claim that there is an increased risk of birth defects, and go on to specifically mention retinoblastoma. Now, the data supporting increased birth defects is inconclusive at best, but consider the patients. People seeking IVFs are mainly ones who have been unable to conceive naturally. Something's not working quite right, and if the genetic makeup of the parent is such that birth defects would be more common, trouble conceiving in the first place fits appropriately, and when aided by artificial means, those birth defects that once before were only manifesting themselves as infertility are now manifesting in the genetic makeup of their offspring. To say that IVF should not be done because of increased risk of birth defects is like saying people should not be given prosthetic legs because those with them have an increased risk of falling down. Sometimes, that is the nature of the patients.
Oh, and retinoblastoma has the highest cure rate of all childhood cancers (up to 98%).

What really bothers me about this article is how the authors don't seem to realize how hateful their message truly is. They are so blinded by their self provided view of righteousness that they have no capacity left to understand how what they are saying is extremely hateful. Think of the Fred Phelps type. Do you think Fred Phelps believes that what he is doing is righteous or hateful? I'll point to the part of the article that states that conceiving in-vitro is "manufacturing life laboratory as if it were a commodity." Does anyone here know a person conceived via IVF? Would you consider that person a commodity? I see a great irony here, as the bible many many times makes references to people as commodities. The bible is many things, and one thing it is is a step-by-step guidebook detailing who you can enslave, how much you should pay for them, how long you can keep them (including detailing a loop hole allowing you to keep them forever), how much you can beat them - which, BTW, is just enough so that they do not die within 2 - 3 days (death from the beating after 3 days is considered okay). How horrible it is for IVF to diminish a person to the worth of a commodity...now where's that bible o mine, I gots me some people to buy and sell.

What's wrong with IVF? Not nearly as much as what's wrong with the religion that inspired that article.

 

[Ganoderma]

Hi FirmaFan,

Thanks alot for your long and friendy reply. You are totally right that people who seek for IVF almost always will be unable to get offspring on a natural way. The male can have sperm of a low quality (or spermcells which don't move very fast, eg.), and there are various reasons why a particular female cannot get pregnant easily on a natural way.

Maybe OP should advise his mother to make an appointment with a doctor who can explain to her what are the risks when X will undergo IVF. You are right, there is no 100% guarantee that IVF is succesfull, and one needs good advise from a skilled doctor to decide if its wise or unwise to start with IVF. Going through IVF is not easy, and some of the risks involved are age dependent. Often, a balance need to be found between the wish of a female (mostly) to get (another) child, and the risks involved when one starts with IVF. However, similar considerations and talks with a doctor are also often needed in the case of many common surgeries, eg with problems connected with the heart, especially when people are of an advanced age.

I would not bother too much about people like Kallipolis. Towards my opinion, Kallipolis reacts exactly like most christian fundamentalists by not argueing with people like you and me. Christian fundamentalists living in The Netherlands always refuse to debate with people like you and me, because they know they will loose the debate. Well, and then it is much better not to debate at all, and only talk with people with the same opinions. It is simply the only way how such people can survive, see e.g. how Amish people in the US survive. Or relocate to rural areas in countries like Belize (I have met such kind of people over there).

Besides that, fundamental christians need censored information (so no free press, no free access to internet, often also no TV, and no evolution and so on), and they also don't want to discuss about their wish to censor various items. Well, its up to them.

I don't see any difference between people believing in Sinterklaas (typical part of the Dutch culture, excluding the village of Grou where people believe in SintPieter), and people believing in the christian god. For me, the bible is just a book with alot of stories of things that have happened in the past. Obviously, some items in the bible are true, and some items are obviously just a fairy tale. Besides that, we will never know which items are true or just a fairy tale. We also never will know everything about the Maya culture and the Maya people in America, from let say the period 150 BC to 1450 AD. Its similar, and the more you go back in time, the less you know. That's how history is working.

Within The Netherlands, only a very tiny majority of the catholic people still follow the strict rules of the pope in regard to eg. sex, using condoms, IVF, etc. That's something of the past, and the large majority does not bother about the opinions of the pope. Most of them still consider themselves as catholics, but often they don't go to church anymore (well, maybe once a year), and most of their childeren have no religion.