Why does Christianity have something against IVF?

Adnimistrator

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?
Do most IVF fertilisations result in miscarriage?

Does it involve the mass fertilisation of egg and sperm outside of the womb and then get destroyed?

If a parent gets IVF in Ireland and the baby is proven to be female for example and a female baby is unwanted, can they decide to terminate the foetus before it is implanted?

What if I had a hereditary illness that could be genetically transferred, is it possible to look at individual sperm to see if that particular gene is in it? Or would this have to wait until after fertilisation takes place to know whether or not the baby has acquired it?

al28283

Adnimistrator wrote: »

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?
Do most IVF fertilisations result in miscarriage?

Does it involve the mass fertilisation of egg and sperm outside of the womb and then get destroyed?

If a parent gets IVF in Ireland and the baby is proven to be female for example and a female baby is unwanted, can they decide to terminate the foetus before it is implanted?

What if I had a hereditary illness that could be genetically transferred, is it possible to look at individual sperm to see if that particular gene is in it? Or would this have to wait until after fertilisation takes place to know whether or not the baby has acquired it?

None of that, It's mainly because IVF is seen as a form of creating life in a way god didn't intend

Stuck Cone

Probably due to the fact the UVF not unlike the IRA killed many innocent civilians

Adnimistrator

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Probably due to the fact the UVF not unlike the IRA killed many innocent civilians

Hear, Hear.

john why

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Probably due to the fact the UVF not unlike the IRA killed many innocent civilians

Lols

jhegarty

It's because the unused embryos are discarded.

dvpower

We do have a christianity forum here - wouldn't this question be better posed there?

MagicMarker

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Probably due to the fact the UVF not unlike the IRA killed many innocent civilians

Random.

Adnimistrator

jhegarty wrote: »

It's because the unused embryos are discarded.

But if the unused embroyoes are unfertilised then it's not abortion
same thing happens in a period (or a **** in a mans case) :cool:

robindch

Adnimistrator wrote: »

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?

Broadly speaking, because it can result in the production of more embryos than will be used, hence it's believed to be tantamount to abortion.

Oh yes, and at least one religious acquaintance of mine says that IVF babies have no souls.

jhegarty

Adnimistrator wrote: »

But if the unused embroyoes are unfertilised then it's not abortion
same thing happens in a period (or a **** in a mans case) :cool:

They wouldn't be embryos if they were not fertilised.

Adnimistrator

robindch wrote: »

Oh yes, and at least one religious acquaintance of mine says that IVF babies have no souls.

How awful :eek:

Sarky

We're starting to discover all sorts of ways in which we can get around our own limitations, be it a genetic disorder, infertility, vulnerability to disease or what have you. We no longer have to sit down, shut up, and accept ourselves "the way god made us". I think that terrifies organisations that rely on the poor, downtrodden and guilt-ridden for their power.

They say IVF is playing god, and playing god is bad, so they hate it. Damn right it's playing god. God sure as hell won't step up, so someone has to do it.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

God sure as hell won't step up, so someone has to do it.

As you say, there could be a large dollop of jealousy there too.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Oh yes, and at least one religious acquaintance of mine says that IVF babies have no souls.

I'm not sure if I find that offensive or not.
On one hand it's vile but on the other I don't believe that IVF babies (and everyone else) have souls either.

It's a conundrum...

Chucken

Adnimistrator wrote: »

But if the unused embroyoes are unfertilised then it's not abortion
same thing happens in a period (or a **** in a mans case) :cool:

You do know how babies are made right?

SerialComplaint

Adnimistrator wrote: »

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?
Do most IVF fertilisations result in miscarriage?

Does it involve the mass fertilisation of egg and sperm outside of the womb and then get destroyed?

If a parent gets IVF in Ireland and the baby is proven to be female for example and a female baby is unwanted, can they decide to terminate the foetus before it is implanted?

What if I had a hereditary illness that could be genetically transferred, is it possible to look at individual sperm to see if that particular gene is in it? Or would this have to wait until after fertilisation takes place to know whether or not the baby has acquired it?

Why would a first-time poster post the same query on a fairly technical matter in three separate forums, and then demonstrate that they really don't know much about the matter in question? Something smells here.

al28283

Adnimistrator wrote: »

But if the unused embroyoes are unfertilised then it's not abortion
same thing happens in a period (or a **** in a mans case) :cool:

A woman's egg and a man's sperm are not embryos. Embryos by definition are fertilised. that's very basic biology right there

Dades

If the church decrees that as soon as an egg is fertilised it becomes a human with a soul, then they don't really have any choice on matter. They have to condemn a procedure that might, as a by product, see a fertilised egg destroyed.

Whatcha gonna do.

jank

Adnimistrator wrote: »

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?
Do most IVF fertilisations result in miscarriage?

?

I think you will find that Christianity doesnt have a problem with IVF per say its just they see it as opening up pandoras box in relation to creating and designing humans.

jank

Sarky wrote: »

We're starting to discover all sorts of ways in which we can get around our own limitations, be it a genetic disorder, infertility, vulnerability to disease or what have you. We no longer have to sit down, shut up, and accept ourselves "the way god made us". I think that terrifies organisations that rely on the poor, downtrodden and guilt-ridden for their power.

They say IVF is playing god, and playing god is bad, so they hate it. Damn right it's playing god. God sure as hell won't step up, so someone has to do it.

I dont really know what you are saying in this post? Are you saying that nobody should get in the way of advancing science, whatever that may enatil?

CerebralCortex

jank wrote: »

I dont really know what you are saying in this post? Are you saying that nobody should get in the way of advancing science, whatever that may enatil?

No he's saying that morphological freedom takes the power from the church.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

If the church decrees that as soon as an egg is fertilised it becomes a human with a soul, then they don't really have any choice on matter. They have to condemn a procedure that might, as a by product, see a fertilised egg destroyed.

Whatcha gonna do.

reintroduce acquinas

gives ya 40 days or something leeway

Gbear

More sock puppetry?

Incidentally, I'm delighted to say that thanks to IVF I have 2 extra cousins and another 2 (twins!! YAY!) on the way from another aunt and uncle.

Hooray for science!

jank

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No he's saying that morphological freedom takes the power from the church.

I don't think that's what he was getting at. Anyway if so, kinda ironic to hold such an steadfast extreme view when the first hospitals were largely created by religious organisations and who's doctors were mostly trained in universities with endowments and an ethos of a religious nature. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

CerebralCortex

jank wrote: »

I don't think that's what he was getting at. Anyway if so, kinda ironic to hold such an steadfast extreme view when the first hospitals were largely created by religious organisations and who's doctors were mostly trained in universities with endowments and an ethos of a religious nature. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

What are you getting at? Setting up hospitals means you get control of those you treat? Our hospitals, our rules? It's like the school situation all over again.

jank

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What are you getting at? Setting up hospitals means you get control of those you treat? Our hospitals, our rules? It's like the school situation all over again.

Nothing at all, atheists view the world of the religious in the most negative absolute aspect. However we all know that's not being truthful to oneself.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Nothing at all, atheists view the world of the religious in the most negative absolute aspect. However we all know that's not being truthful to oneself.

And catholics are pedos, yay for generalisations.

The Mad Hatter

MagicMarker wrote: »

And catholics are pedos, yay for generalisations.

He's probably going to say "see what I mean?"

CerebralCortex

jank wrote: »

Nothing at all, atheists view the world of the religious in the most negative absolute aspect. However we all know that's not being truthful to oneself.

No I just think science and reason trump dogmatism when it comes to medical ethics.

smokingman

They're against it because they are hideously out of touch with reality.
I've seen, with my own eyes, the horrible wait for news of success or failure, the heartbreak involved when it doesn't work, the penny-pinching to try and raise enough cash for another cycle and the eventual euphoria when it works.

How a bunch of sexually frustrated men in frocks believe they have any authority in having a say in the availability or use of this procedure, I'll never know.

Is it because they are jealous?
Is it because they are confused by science?
Is it because they see a bunch of cells as capable of thinking? (funny enough, even before a brain forms)

Nope, none of the above; it's because they're a bunch of ****ing simpletons.

Chucken

Gbear wrote: »

Incidentally, I'm delighted to say that thanks to IVF I have 2 extra cousins and another 2 (twins!! YAY!) on the way from another aunt and uncle.

Hooray for science!

And I have a beautiful 12 year old step daughter whose mother btw is a practicing catholic and a good person.

Sonics2k

jank wrote: »

I don't think that's what he was getting at. Anyway if so, kinda ironic to hold such an steadfast extreme view when the first hospitals were largely created by religious organisations and who's doctors were mostly trained in universities with endowments and an ethos of a religious nature. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

If you want to be technical, this was basically a European event mainly, and there was a very good reason all the Universities and Hospitals were religious.

It's because one Church or another owned bloody everything.

Mickeroo

I remember watching a documentary a few months ago, psooibly last year. It was Dr. Alice Roberts one, I think it might have been just about humans in general or it could have been about the genome, not sure.

Anyway, she was talking to a geneticist and he basically said we are now capable of more or less genetically designing babies, a parent could pretty much pick hair colour, eyes etc. They could also make it so the baby would be born without any physical defects whatsoever. They said the only reason these services aren't available to joe public is because of the hubbub it would cause.

Ellis Dee

The question is rather vague, because "Christianity" is a very broad church (pun intended). It covers everything from mild, approaching sane, like Anglicanism and Scandinavian Lutheranism, to as whacked as a whack-job can be, with a thousand shades of grey in between.:rolleyes:

How many of the countless Christian denominations are against IVF, or is it actually the kiddy-fiddler church that the OP has in mind?

As for why certain religions are against anything, it would be an exercise in futility to try and figure out what goes on in those minds.:)

Gbear

Mickeroo wrote: »

I remember watching a documentary a few months ago, psooibly last year. It was Dr. Alice Roberts one, I think it might have been just about humans in general or it could have been about the genome, not sure.

Anyway, she was talking to a geneticist and he basically said we are now capable of more or less genetically designing babies, a parent could pretty much pick hair colour, eyes etc. They could also make it so the baby would be born without any physical defects whatsoever. They said the only reason these services aren't available to joe public is because of the hubbub it would cause.

It's a bit silly really.

As it is, I think there are alot of abortions in one scandinavian country (or all of them?) where prenatal tests identify incidences of Down's Syndrome.
One of my friends' brother has Down's. He was born with a hole in his heart and has been in and out of hospital with renal failure.

Imagine if you could instead just fix them? It'd be the same person, just without Down's, or cystic fibrosis or any other litany of things that take away from people's lives.


Who gives a **** if some parents decide they want a boy?
It could be regulated so that you'd have to essentially construct a "normal" person - no genetically engineering a cock-shaped birthmark on your baby's forehead.

Mickeroo

Gbear wrote: »

It's a bit silly really.

As it is, I think there are alot of abortions in one scandinavian country (or all of them?) where prenatal tests identify incidences of Down's Syndrome.
One of my friends' brother has Down's. He was born with a hole in his heart and has been in and out of hospital with renal failure.

Imagine if you could instead just fix them? It'd be the same person, just without Down's, or cystic fibrosis or any other litany of things that take away from people's lives.


Who gives a **** if some parents decide they want a boy?
It could be regulated so that you'd have to essentially construct a "normal" person - no genetically engineering a cock-shaped birthmark on your baby's forehead.

It could essentially make things like Down's Syndrome extinct which is why I would be for it.

robindch

Gbear wrote: »

Who gives a **** if some parents decide they want a boy?

Society should, since gender imbalances cause social problems which can be hard, or impossible, to solve.

India, Pakistan and China have all begun to have populations which are seriously out of kilter -- ~900 girls for ~1000 boys in India, if memory serves.

Sarky

jank wrote: »

I don't think that's what he was getting at.

You'd be wrong. But go on, continue as if you weren't. You were going to do that anyway, weren't you?

jank

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

He's probably going to say "see what I mean?"

What so your saying religious organisations have done some good?

This forum is going to implode if too many people think like that, nice sweep under the carpet though.

jank

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No I just think science and reason trump dogmatism when it comes to medical ethics.

So what is the reason not to have human cloning? We know science can deliver it but should we? Medical ethics is not finite.

jank

smokingman wrote: »

Nope, none of the above; it's because they're a bunch of ****ing simpletons.

Religious organisations are reserved about IVF because they are stupid. Great argument there!


Anyway back to more mature and reasonable discussion on the topic we don't hear much about adoption these days. Just wondering would it not be a good alternative? Is there a "need" to have a child by ones own blood?

Wiggles88

jank wrote: »

So what is the reason not to have human cloning? We know science can deliver it but should we? Medical ethics is not finite.

No they're not, and that is a very interesting ethical question. However I hope to zeus thor and the tooth fairy that such a question would be debated on using logic, reason and scientific understanding and not the deranged ramblings of first century desert dwellers.

jank

Sonics2k wrote: »

If you want to be technical, this was basically a European event mainly, and there was a very good reason all the Universities and Hospitals were religious.

It's because one Church or another owned bloody everything.

Damm those evil church's owning things while providing care, medicine and education for wider western society, they should only be allowed to abuse power (and kids!).

Sonics2k

jank wrote: »

Damm those evil church's owning things while providing care, medicine and education for wider western society, they should only be allowed to abuse power (and kids!).

Please, read a history book.

1) Care. Was given provided they agreed to the Dogma or rules of the Church in question. If they did not convert, they died.

2) Medicine. Very little was discovered by the Church run hospitals, in fact they often kept to the archaic methods used by the Romans and Greeks. A lot of our modern day medicine and techniques stemmed from the Middle East and Muslim doctors.

3) Education. The only books they 'masses' or average person was permitted to read was the Bible or other religious texts. All education was biased toward the Vatican.
Once again, a lot of our modern day Mathematics and Science came from the Middle East as a result of the Crusades, and anything that was taught by Christian run Universities was only shown to the wealthy and politically connected.

Even now, the various Churches (eg the Vatican) are teaching complete nonsense to people in Third World Countries such as the evil of Homosexuality, Creationism, how contraception is evil and women should be subservient to men.

So yeah, what was this you were saying about providing to the wider western society?

jank

Gbear wrote: »

It's a bit silly really.

As it is, I think there are alot of abortions in one scandinavian country (or all of them?) where prenatal tests identify incidences of Down's Syndrome.
One of my friends' brother has Down's. He was born with a hole in his heart and has been in and out of hospital with renal failure.

So I presume this is something you agree with? Aborting babies because of 'defects'? You make it sound as if people are buying a TV.

Gbear wrote: »

Who gives a **** if some parents decide they want a boy?
It could be regulated so that you'd have to essentially construct a "normal" person - no genetically engineering a cock-shaped birthmark on your baby's forehead.

What if 90% of people want a boy, don't you see a problem with that?

jank

Sarky wrote: »

You'd be wrong. But go on, continue as if you weren't. You were going to do that anyway, weren't you?

Ah yes more of the same sarky.

jank

Sonics2k wrote: »

Please, read a history book.

You mean the 'right' books you want me to read? Recommend me one so on this very topic.

Sonics2k wrote: »

1) Care. Was given provided they agreed to the Dogma or rules of the Church in question. If they did not convert, they died.

Proof that this was the case 100% of the time?

Sonics2k wrote: »

2) Medicine. Very little was discovered by the Church run hospitals, in fact they often kept to the archaic methods used by the Romans and Greeks. A lot of our modern day medicine and techniques stemmed from the Middle East and Muslim doctors.

What muslim doctors? I thought they were crazy feckers who only wanted to blow themselves up and stone women to death!

Sonics2k wrote: »

3) Education. The only books they 'masses' or average person was permitted to read was the Bible or other religious texts. All education was biased toward the Vatican.

:rolleyes: You do know the story behind the printing press? Such ignorance knows no bounds.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Once again, a lot of our modern day Mathematics and Science came from the Middle East as a result of the Crusades, and anything that was taught by Christian run Universities was only shown to the wealthy and politically connected.

You mean there was a good outcome from the crusades? Surely not!

Sonics2k wrote: »

Even now, the various Churches (eg the Vatican) are teaching complete nonsense to people in Third World Countries such as the evil of Homosexuality, Creationism, how contraception is evil and women should be subservient to men.

Change the record.

Sonics2k wrote: »

So yeah, what was this you were saying about providing to the wider western society?

And yet by all accounts western society is in general the most advanced and prosperous.... Sonic you are an idealogoue. You see something religious, you see only bad in it. Your letting your heart rule your head. So much for being rational.

smokingman

jank wrote: »

Religious organisations are reserved about IVF because they are stupid. Great argument there!

Oh do please regale me with your personal experience of anything to do with IVF.
Surely, coming on here and giving your opinion in such a way would indicate you're either a fertility doctor, someone who has gone through the process or someone who knows what they're talking about.

Surely you wouldn't be sprouting rubbish from an uninformed position of ignorance on a subject you know **** all about?

Wiggles88

jank wrote: »

Proof that this was the case 100% of the time?

Why does it have to be 100% of the time? Of of course there were and still are members of the clergy who are good people who only wish to give the best care however the standard practice of the RCC was to recruit then help.

What muslim doctors? I thought they were crazy feckers who only wanted to blow themselves up and stone women to death!

Thats quite a view you have on the middle east. The middle east was actually the center of the scientific world for quite some time until religion put an end to that. Neil deGrasse Tyson does a very good presentation explaining this here

Sarky

smokingman wrote: »

Surely you wouldn't be sprouting rubbish from an uninformed position of ignorance on a subject you know **** all about?