IVF babies have higher birth defects - well now, is anyone really surprised by this?!

reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE4AG6QK20081117

Now honestly - when you totally bypass natural selection and FORCE an egg and sperm to be chosen, wouldn’t you EXPECT to have a higher rate of birth defects?:rolleyes:

I’m no genius, but this is just common sense to me!!

~Liza

No kidding, eh. :rolleyes:

Why must people feel that they have a better idea how these things work than God does? :confused:

I guess the thing that totally floors me is that it appears that the cause of the defects is being looked for in the process or technique or treatment, and not in the fact that they are forcing something to happen that probably would have NEVER happened naturally!!! :rolleyes:

And THEY are the scientific experts!!! :eek:

~Liza

Ugghh! :rolleyes:

People use/devoloped/turn to IFV because they think it is a better way to conceive than the natural way (God’s way)? You don’t really believe that do you?

–Rico

I don’t know about this, but I do know that babies made from frozen embryos are healthier than other babies made “fresh”

This was in the news.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7720166.stm

So if you are going to go artificial, it is better to go with the frozen route it would seem from current medical evidence. This is breaking news from just this November.

For Catholics IVF is NEVER a moral option.

~Liza

Why bother, then? :shrug:

People generally do IVF only after more traditional methods have failed.

This fact appears lost on jm.

–Rico

Um - wouldn’t you take that as a sign from God that He is not sending you any children at this time? :confused:

This is what I mean by, God knowing what He is doing, and trusting God to know what is best for us.

Rather than assuming that God forgot something, or made some other kind of a mistake. :shrug:

If I had cancer, I wouldn’t automatically take that as a sign that “God” wanted me to die.

So it is OK for non-Catholics? That’s fine with me as long as you don’t say it’s wrong for other people.

This is one area where I find it hard to understand the Church’s teaching. The doctor combines the egg and sperm to make the embryo but the Church said that this shouldn’t happen because it is not what God intended. If God didn’t intend for this, how does the child get a soul? The Church says that man can use his brain for healing people but can’t help in creating life. If God didn’t want this, then the embryo would not receive a soul. Or is the argument that these children are born without souls? I don’t believe that to be the case so why can’t there be IVF?

Try this

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml

And this

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/begetting.htm

I think there is more than one reason they give but one of them is that the child deserves to be conceived in the natural way, that that has special meaning. I can understand that. It’s nice to think of yourself as conceived in that way rather than in some test tube.

However, with IVF, these are couples who can’t conceive in that way anyway. You wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t used IVF, so I don’t understand the applicability of that part of their reasoning. So I’m with you on that.

Another reason they give is just old school natural law which focuses on different bodily organs having specific purposes. But that old school natural law seems to be more and more now being contradicted by modern science. Modern science is discovering that organs once thought to have one purpose actually have another or have several different purposes … it’s more complex than initially thought.

So it may be that when old school natural law moral theology was developed it seemed clear for example that the genital organs had certain specific purposes for certain contexts.

Now modern science has revealed that certain activities (intercourse, masturbation) have great health benefits (lower risk for some diseases – apart from the risk for STDs --; and more recently lowering of blood pressure apparently, though check with your doctor first). So it is reasonable to with this new scientific data change the moral theory accordingly and acknowledge that these genital organs may have a function beyond what we initially believed.

It’s taken some time for non-scientific fields to incorporate science into their theories. We already do it for some areas of moral theology like brain death (though now the Vatican seems to want to reverse course on that and reexamine the data … good to look at data, that’s what we need for everything)

Morally wrong is morally wrong. Morality is absolute - it applies to everyone. This is not the Church telling anyone what to do, this is a matter of right and wrong - period.

It is not acceptable to create embryos for medical purposes - EVER. I don’t care what religion you are or aren’t.

So however you wish to interpret this is up to you. :slight_smile:

~Liza

I agree with you that it’s better to do it the natural way if you can and there’s no added benefit (which there isn’t right now) from going artificial. I just don’t see it as black and white. God made a world of grays and colors, different shades (grays) and hues (colors).

I agree with you Morality is absolute. It is one beautiful thing. But it is like light. Light is beautiful. But we are not as wispy in our grace like light and so we see light refracted through a prism, showing all the different hues of light and we see also different shades. Morality also is refracted like that in different people. Morality manifests itself in one way in one person and in another in another. One person is moral by being a surgeon; another by being a realtor; another by being a divorce lawyer; another by being a drug counselor.

How weird is the world we live in?

We now have sex without procreation.

And procreation without sex.

I just feel that God is just :banghead: over us.

Don’t mind me, just an observation. As you all were.

Sex without procreation has existed forever, and Church doesn’t always say it’s wrong. Take a post-menopausal woman, for example or a married couple using NFP to avoid having children.

And procreation without sex.

I think there’s a story in the Bible somewhere about that too. :wink:

rose blue, this is the way God made the world. There are animals God made that procreate without sex with another animal, not as some defect, but as characteristic of the animal species. I bet you didn’t know that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

“Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including … invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids, some bees, some scorpion species, and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g. some reptiles,[1] fish, and, very rarely, birds[2] and sharks[3]) … The term is sometimes used inaccurately to describe reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species which can reproduce by themselves because they contain reproductive organs of both sexes.”

So the Virgin Birth is for some species something that happens all the time (though for the non-hermaphroditic species, it would usually be a female that is born, not a male)

We know evolution is true. So we know we came from a biomass that included species like this. So it can’t be wrong to, especially if we have good reason, have sex without procreation or procreation without sex. Fun is a good enough reason IMO. God isn’t all serious. Chesterton said angels are able to fly because they take themselves lightly.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.