in vitro fertilization

I spoke to a friend the other night who said she read in vitro fertilization was a mortal sin. She was astounded and said the pope was an old man who was out of touch with the world today. Everyone is doing this. I approached her delicately since I was not sure (but inxtincitively thought) IVF was a mortal sin. I said the reason the pope said this might have been because of what this would lead to. She wanted to know what in the world it could lead to. This was an issue between married people who desparately wanted a child. I could get my thought together at the time so the subject dropped. This is a person who attends daily mass so I would think she had a better grasp on catholic doctrine. Please help me with an answer and help in defining IVF issues to her. Mainly, is it a mortal sin. Thank you.

[yochumjy]

Typical IVF is a mortal sin. Why? Because the process includes forcing the woman to pump out a large number of eggs. Fertilizing all of the eggs, and choosing a few to be implanted in the mother. Obviously, the worst part is fertizing a large number of eggs, then selectively choosing the "best". This is obviously an abortive technique. Less minor, perhaps, is the man will typically use self-gratification in order to get the semen for the fertilization. A more minor issue are all the drugs the woman has to take to make her body do the unnatural releasing of multiple eggs. This last issue has to do with repecting the body (my own take on it).

There are ways of helping a couple get past pregnancy issues that do not include abortive methods. Those methods, are obviously, the best.

Maybe someone else could comment, but it might be okay to use IVF, if only one egg was fertized (and sperm was collected via a "holy" condom) and that egg was placed in the womb. This isn't typically done because of the cost associated with the procedure.

John

[AmandaPS]

Another problem brought up is what to do with the remaining fertilized eggs that are not implanted.

[Mjohn1453]

The Church has always taught that the act of procreation should be both intimate expression of love and open to partaking in the act of creation. Contraception completely removes the aspect of being open to life. While IVF removes the intimate expression of love.

This is in addition to the other reason mentioned above.

[Strider]

Also, the only difference between IVF and growing embryos for embryonic stem cell research is that the cells are neither implanted in the woman's uterus nor frozen. Instead, several cells are removed from the developing blastula (which kills the baby), and used in experimentation.
Not only that, but cloning technology is very similar in many respects.
Why not adopt a baby that might've been aborted instead of going to all the trouble and sin and expense?

God bless

[Vincent]

IVF reduces a child to a product, an object to be used. On the contrary, children, like all of us, are gifts of self-giving--- subjects to be loved.

When society separates procreation and union, its members begin to use one another in the most fundamental sense. We started with contraception in which spouses objectify each other. Now, with IVF, we've objectified the child. It's one growing black hole: me, me, me and I'll turn "you" into an "it" in order to achieve my own utilitarian ends.

After years of chattel slavery, it's surprising that we still haven't learned our lesson.

[JimG]

IVF is the obverse of contraception, and is immoral for the same reason. It separates the unitive from the procreative aspect of conjugal relations.

In contraception, the unitive aspect is desired, the procreative is thwarted. In IVF, the procreative is desired, the unitive aspect is separated. Same thing.

In addition, as noted by others, it usually results in "excess embryos" which are discarded--killed or allowed to die.

JimG