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.