In vitro fertilisation and the Virgin Birth?

[Heuchler]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

First off I want to apologize for missing the meat of your point. It wasn't my intention. And I want to thank you for having well thought out points in response to my question. I do mind being called Evil as that's adding a letter and calling me something bad. Also to address your PS first I'm sorry if it came across as if I was trying to equate IVF with the Virgin Birth. I know they are not one in the same. The point of me bringing them up in the first place was it seems to me that both situations share a few points, what seem to me to be the specific points used in the Catechism to decry IVF as evil. That it was unnatural, it separated one of the spouses out of the Marital act, and it denied the child the right to both spouses being it's parents.

You say "the immorality of IVF is based on God willing for marriage, sex, and procreation to be that way" but yet if this is the case then God has performed an immoral act by not having sex and procreation be done that way.

"That means that in this case that the will of God desired it to be in this form. IVF is only wrong because God does not want this." How do you know this? God has certainly sidestepped Sex in the past on the way to procreation.

I am clear on what happened. Just not how it morally differs from IVF. All I've heard are "It's God, he can do what he wants" which doesn't address the morality of the action, "God doing it makes it moral" which makes morality subjective to the doer, which as far as I've heard is not the case, and "God works in mysterious ways" which is a dodge and not an answer.

Wow, I feel stupid. So sorrry for calling you Evil, my mind literally took the P as an L. Did not mean that to be a random insult based on your name Evi and this was completely accidental. So I am sorry.

And also sorry for not writing the last post as well as I should have. It's been a long day (although i really shouldn't make excuses but just do better this time so let's just dig in).

I think one of the problems is the view of why IVF is wrong. You see it as wrong because it denies the child of a parent, but that would make adoption wrong because it denies the child of both of the birth parents. And in the case of Joseph, Joseph is Christ's adoptive father. This is wrong because instead of looking to adoption the couple try to replicate what happens in sex without sex. This also is in a sense the same as me going out and having an affair so I and this other woman may have a child that myself and my wife will raise. It is hurtful to both the child and the family. However, another woman bearing my child who is to be raised in my family is different from my wife conceiving a child virginally. The child conceived virginally is still connected to the parent involved in the child's conception, the mother. IVF is wrong because the child is conceived in what is essentially an adultery and that this union is intended to have the child raised away from at least one of the parents. However, with a virgin birth, all parties involved in the conception is involved in raising the child.

However there is another reason that IVF is wrong. Because the egg is fertilized outside of sex (where it is supposed to happen) this act is wrong as sexual reproduction needs to logically happen in the context of sex. Any other time when fertilization occurs it is wrong because sexual reproduction is designed to occur within sex So, the virgin birth is outside of this because it is not trying to replicate sex from sexual reproduction as there is not meant to be either of these in the virgin birth. While we don't know that the specifics of how, we do know that another human male was not involved which does not make it regular sexual reproduction. Because of this, these two would be under two different moral standards. Sexual reproduction would be judged on if sex was involved due to sex's integral part in how sexual reproduction is meant to happen. Therefore, since not having sex is specifically integral to a virgin birth, a virgin conception without sex is what is meant to happen.

Hope I answered your question this time. I focused on what I viewed to be the main point of the misunderstanding between the two of us. And once again, please forgive my slip there with my name, from now on I'll pay closer attention to someone's username.

[EviPolevhia]

Originally Posted by Aggies08

We may be bound by his laws; he is not.

Which then means that God's Law is subjective, does it not? If God wanted to send all the faithful to hell for a day and all the heathens to heaven for a day he could because as you say he is not bound by his own laws? And it wouldn't be immoral because his morality is not something he has to abide by?

Originally Posted by Heuchler

Wow, I feel stupid. So sorrry for calling you Evil, my mind literally took the P as an L. Did not mean that to be a random insult based on your name Evi and this was completely accidental. So I am sorry.

No problem. Ironicly enough it's short for Eviticus which is short for Leviticus. Very long story as to why I use that nickname. But either way you're not the first, nor will you be the last, to accidentally add an L.

Originally Posted by Heuchler

I think one of the problems is the view of why IVF is wrong. You see it as wrong because it denies the child of a parent, but that would make adoption wrong because it denies the child of both of the birth parents.

Actually I don't see IVF as wrong. The child being denied a parent thing is a reason listed in the Church's own Catechism of why IVF is wrong.

Originally Posted by Heuchler

This also is in a sense the same as me going out and having an affair so I and this other woman may have a child that myself and my wife will raise. It is hurtful to both the child and the family. However, another woman bearing my child who is to be raised in my family is different from my wife conceiving a child virginally.

I have a very hard time seeing it that way as IVF does not involve having sex with someone who is not your married spouse. I suppose it can but it's not an innate portion.

Originally Posted by Heuchler

The child conceived virginally is still connected to the parent involved in the child's conception, the mother. IVF is wrong because the child is conceived in what is essentially an adultery and that this union is intended to have the child raised away from at least one of the parents.

IVF is not 'essentially' adultery because you're only ever having relations with your wife. I think one of the miscommunications we're having here is the term IVF can refer to several different procedures. Some involving third parties but some also can involve just the two. For example if there is a defect in the male's sperm where it cannot successfully penetrate the egg then IVF is used to ensure that process happens. Then the egg is replaced inside the female and the couple has a child naturally from that point on. It is no more or less natural then someone who has breathing problems being put temporarily on an artificial lung machine. And in the case I pointed out, the child is the product of two and only two parents who are still active in the child's house and married. But yet, this is a grave and immoral sin to Catholics?

Originally Posted by Heuchler

However, with a virgin birth, all parties involved in the conception is involved in raising the child.

Out of curiosity based on what you just said if it was later on discovered that women could (this is silly but please go along for the sake of argument) induce pregnancy on her own, naturally, without any interaction from anyone else. Give birth to the child normally and in a hospital. This would be fine? "All parties involved in conception (are) involved in raising the child".

Originally Posted by Heuchler

However there is another reason that IVF is wrong. Because the egg is fertilized outside of sex (where it is supposed to happen) this act is wrong as sexual reproduction needs to logically happen in the context of sex. Any other time when fertilization occurs it is wrong because sexual reproduction is designed to occur within sex

Because breathing in an artificial lung happens outside the natural respiratory system this act is wrong as breathing needs to logically happen in the context of a human respiratory system. Any other time when breathing occurs it is wrong because the respiratory system is designed to occur withing the body. Please tell me where that differs logically from your phrase?

Originally Posted by Heuchler

So, the virgin birth is outside of this because it is not trying to replicate sex from sexual reproduction as there is not meant to be either of these in the virgin birth.

Except IVF doesn't replicate sex, it replicates impregnation. Which is what happened with Mary. We do not know how of course. But the How doesn't matter if the end result is still a breach of morality, right?

Originally Posted by Heuchler

Hope I answered your question this time. I focused on what I viewed to be the main point of the misunderstanding between the two of us. And once again, please forgive my slip there with my name, from now on I'll pay closer attention to someone's username.

Kinda. I think so far on my forums you've done the best at addressing my questions/comments. Thank you. And no worries about the name!

[Heuchler]

Ok, to address your many points, I will try to add in my comments in a nice shade of red within the below quote.

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

No problem. Ironicly enough it's short for Eviticus which is short for Leviticus. Very long story as to why I use that nickname. But either way you're not the first, nor will you be the last, to accidentally add an L.

Kind of wish we had the time as it's weird to find someone who defines their religion as none with a distinctly jewish name as a nickname but we do have work to do

Actually I don't see IVF as wrong. The child being denied a parent thing is a reason listed in the Church's own Catechism of why IVF is wrong.

Sorry I was trying to show that it is a little more then that.

I have a very hard time seeing it that way as IVF does not involve having sex with someone who is not your married spouse. I suppose it can but it's not an innate portion.

To catholicism, sexual reproduction is meant to occur within the parameters of sex. IVF takes the sperm or egg of someone else which is taking the effect of sex without actually having sex. To Catholicism, this is similar to Abraham trying to have a child with his slave instead of his wife. The difference is that one uses science to get around problems of fertility and the other uses an affair. Either way, the effect of having a child with someone else is seen as wrong to the child in the eyes of Catholicism

IVF is not 'essentially' adultery because you're only ever having relations with your wife. I think one of the miscommunications we're having here is the term IVF can refer to several different procedures. Some involving third parties but some also can involve just the two. For example if there is a defect in the male's sperm where it cannot successfully penetrate the egg then IVF is used to ensure that process happens. Then the egg is replaced inside the female and the couple has a child naturally from that point on. It is no more or less natural then someone who has breathing problems being put temporarily on an artificial lung machine. And in the case I pointed out, the child is the product of two and only two parents who are still active in the child's house and married. But yet, this is a grave and immoral sin to Catholics?

Now I'm not positive on the church's position in regards to IVF, but as stated in your quote earlier IVF is wrong because it infringes on the "right to become a father and a mother only through each other." along with the "child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage". So, by this definition of why it is wrong, the specific reason is that a third party comes in and has a child with one of the parents which is what I addressed. This is once again different from virgin birth which is where one person gives birth.

Out of curiosity based on what you just said if it was later on discovered that women could (this is silly but please go along for the sake of argument) induce pregnancy on her own, naturally, without any interaction from anyone else. Give birth to the child normally and in a hospital. This would be fine? "All parties involved in conception (are) involved in raising the child".

I would say yes. Catholicism does not preach that all asexual organism should be killed because they do not reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is not the only way of reproduction that is natural, but if it is sexual reproduction it needs to involve sex as I have pointed out in the past. If it naturally happens and is not some adverse affect of the hormones they have in our food or something () then yes this would be perfectly normal and fine.

Because breathing in an artificial lung happens outside the natural respiratory system this act is wrong as breathing needs to logically happen in the context of a human respiratory system. Any other time when breathing occurs it is wrong because the respiratory system is designed to occur withing the body. Please tell me where that differs logically from your phrase?

Oh come now, the problem is, breathing can't be wrong. You can't breathe in the wrong way to begin with. To the religous person, sex is meant to happen only in certain parameters and can be wrong in certain times. For even the possibility of a good analogy to occur, you would have to have times when breathing becomes wrong. Otherwise, that would be like me comparing murder to my immune system and saying that it is ok to murder people as it is natural for you to attack foreign things that offend you in the immune system.

Except IVF doesn't replicate sex, it replicates impregnation. Which is what happened with Mary. We do not know how of course. But the How doesn't matter if the end result is still a breach of morality, right?

Sexual reproduction is wrong without sex. The Catholic never claims that impregnation outside of sex is wrong. Sexual reproduction (which is what is replicated in IVF, not simply impregnation; yes this is impregnation but it is specifically impregnation by sexual reproduction) needs to be connceted to sex to be morally just to the Catholic. To claim that virgin conception is morally unjust is to claim that asexual reproduction in the wild is wrong without sex. When the conception does not involve any of the biological material of a man, then sex is not needed to cause that end. Since sex is not meant to cause a virgin conception, sex is not needed and therefore it is not immoral as it is nothing like sexual reproduction or anything which happens during sex.

Kinda. I think so far on my forums you've done the best at addressing my questions/comments. Thank you. And no worries about the name!

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Interesting and inaccurate phrasing. And entirely not addressing my point.



Stories are fascinating but I was hoping to get something more informative then a story by posting here.

You got what you did not expect and what you expect you do not get.
That's all dialogue is about.
To understand the other person's viewpoint which was behind the story and it seems you did not get.
I tell you that Heavenly things cannot be talked about with human terms that is your mistake. In vitro talking about the Virgin Mary? Is is like talking about ants when the subject is whales...

[vera dicere]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Which then means that God's Law is subjective, does it not? If God wanted to send all the faithful to hell for a day and all the heathens to heaven for a day he could because as you say he is not bound by his own laws? And it wouldn't be immoral because his morality is not something he has to abide by?

It all boils down to natures.

The nature of God is that he IS love, IS righteousness. As rightousness he cannot suffer to be in the presence of sin, which is what you find in all of us, but Christians accept Jesus' payment of the debt of sin. Jesus' death was in God's nature. God being love, which is self-sacrificing HAD TO give us a chance at salvation.

The nature of the human being is that IVF is against that nature. The nature of the human being is to be conceived in the fallopoian tube of the mother, float along, and implant in the uterus. The nature of humans is not for dad to read porn, wank off into a cup in a shadowy clinic room, have that sperm cleaned, inserted into the multiple eggs harvested from mum [or multiple strangers] after she had lots of hormone injections, then those embryos are screened, the defective destoryed, then implanted.

Jesus is God. Jesus both fully human and fully divine in one person. Therefore, the conception of Jesus represents this hypostatic union. The divine represented by the mystery of the Holy Spirit moving within Mary. The human represented by Mary's ovum - if God did indeed use one of her ovums.

Now, I'm one who accepts the theory of evolution, but if you look at Adam and Eve, if you're going to beleive God shoved his finger in dirt and spun it around and created man, then it really isn't outside his ability to create a zygote.

Anyway, its all about natures. And because of God's nature, he's probably more limited then we are. We can choose evil. God cannot.

[jumpfrog]

Hi EviPolevhia,

Further to the point that vera dicere makes above, one of the reasons that IVF is rejected by the church is that it violates the intimacy that should be the context to for conception. The action of God to achieve the conception of Jesus does not violate intimacy, in fact, because of the supernatural character of this conception, it can be thought of as being even more profoundly intimate.

I am sure you can see that, even more generally, God can and does have an intimacy with human beings that would not be proper for human beings to try to approximate. For example, if we develop technology that allows people to monitor the thoughts of others, and suggest ideas to others etc, this would proabably be rejected by the church (and by a whole lot of others too) because it is wrongly invasive...and would be so even if you had the best will in the world to use the technology. The fact that God is capable of doing these things supernaturally does not mean that it would be either equivilant or right for people to try to do them.

Finally, the church has very practical reasons for forbidding this practice, which should be a lot more commonly recognized and acknowledged...the fact that many unused embryos are created, the fact that people in non-family, or non-stable situations are using this technology in irresponsible ways, and even more importantly, the way it turns children into a kind of commodity. These elements are the 'end results' of the technology, and they, especially the last, are grave enough on their own.

[EviPolevhia]

I believe my question has been answered to the best of it's ability to be. Thank you for the replies.