Why does Christianity have something against IVF?

Chucken · 16-07-2012 04:34PM

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 · 16-07-2012 04:38PM

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 · 16-07-2012 04:43PM

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 · 16-07-2012 04:50PM

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 · 16-07-2012 04:52PM

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 · 16-07-2012 05:10PM

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 · 16-07-2012 08:48PM

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 · 16-07-2012 09:34PM

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 · 16-07-2012 11:53PM

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 · 16-07-2012 11:55PM

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 · 17-07-2012 12:00AM

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 · 17-07-2012 12:01AM

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 · 17-07-2012 12:15AM

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 · 17-07-2012 12:25AM

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 · 17-07-2012 12:43AM

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 · 17-07-2012 12:46AM

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 · 17-07-2012 01:02AM

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 · 17-07-2012 09:05AM

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 · 17-07-2012 09:40AM

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 · 17-07-2012 10:18AM

smokingman wrote: »

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

doctoremma · 17-07-2012 11:07AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

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

Not true for Down Syndrome. It's a sporadic genetic disorder that, in the vast majority of cases, arises anew with each baby. But your point stands for many many other genetic disorders.

Dades · 17-07-2012 11:21AM

IVF is never going to extinguish genetic disorders, only reduce their occurrence on a scale with the percentage of people who use IVF and choose not to use a fertilised egg with identified problems, against those who conceive the old fashioned way.

Any talk otherwise gets into Godwin territory.

jank wrote:

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?

Adoption is a good alternative for couples that can't conceive using IVF, or don't want to go through the process. The choice is always there. But the science exists to allow couples to have their own children (good friends of ours have three). Why ignore it and go through the adoption process that can be just as costly, stressful and potentially heartbreaking?

doctoremma · 17-07-2012 11:54AM

Dades wrote: »

Adoption is a good alternative for couples that can't conceive using IVF, or don't want to go through the process. The choice is always there. But the science exists to allow couples to have their own children (good friends of ours have three). Why ignore it and go through the adoption process that can be just as costly, stressful and potentially heartbreaking?

Just to say here, I have never ever wanted to have my own biological child - the thought makes me feel a bit sick - but I'd consider adopting a child. Not sure I'd be the best candidate if biological motherhood turns my stomach though!

CerebralCortex · 17-07-2012 01:32PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Just to say here, I have never ever wanted to have my own biological child - the thought makes me feel a bit sick - but I'd consider adopting a child. Not sure I'd be the best candidate if biological motherhood turns my stomach though!

While it doesn't make me nauseous, the thought of having devote so much time and effort to raising kids is quite daunting and unappealing, I wouldn't have the patience anyway. Why is everyone so mad to have kids? Is it just the biological imperative?

Knasher · 17-07-2012 01:49PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why is everyone so mad to have kids? Is it just the biological imperative?

I read a really interesting article about economics in China recently. Part of the article made the point that the reason that the Chinese have such a comparatively high savings rate, despite the fact that the banks offer an interest rate below inflation, is because of the one child policy. I think a lot of people have kids as sort of way of making sure they are looked after in their old age, hence why people with lower economic prospects tend to have larger families, so as to spread the burden, whereas people with larger economic prospects tend not to bother as much. People in china don't have the possibility of relying on their kids as much, after all it could end up being up to a single child to provide for 2 parents and 4 grandparents, so they tend to try and compensate by either saving money or investing it in property (the government doesn't really allow any other possibilities). (Hence why the current economic slowdown in China could have very far reaching effects)

CerebralCortex · 17-07-2012 02:36PM

Knasher wrote: »

I read a really interesting article about economics in China recently. Part of the article made the point that the reason that the Chinese have such a comparatively high savings rate, despite the fact that the banks offer an interest rate below inflation, is because of the one child policy. I think a lot of people have kids as sort of way of making sure they are looked after in their old age, hence why people with lower economic prospects tend to have larger families, so as to spread the burden, whereas people with larger economic prospects tend not to bother as much. People in china don't have the possibility of relying on their kids as much, after all it could end up being up to a single child to provide for 2 parents and 4 grandparents, so they tend to try and compensate by either saving money or investing it in property (the government doesn't really allow any other possibilities). (Hence why the current economic slowdown in China could have very far reaching effects)

Sounds unsettlingly like "children are their parents slaves".

joseph brand · 17-07-2012 02:39PM

The main reason is because they live by a 2,000 year old book.

Also, religion doesn't like to see people thinking for themselves. Science has overtaken religion in terms of respect and providing truthful answers. And it's far more intriguing and mind-blowing.

What is up with these pesky humans trying to escape the mental slavery of religion? Back to 'the flock' with you!! :rolleyes:

jank · 18-07-2012 08:08AM

smokingman wrote: »

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?

Ah, that old chestnut. One must be an expert or have direct experience before commenting...... Yet, there are plenty of people here who are also commenting,sooo... I suppose each one of them is a fertility doctor? Do you extend that prerequisite to them as well:rolleyes:

jank · 18-07-2012 08:31AM

Wiggles88 wrote: »

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.

So no proof then! OK.

Wiggles88 wrote: »

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

I think you should invest in a satire meter.....

Also you do know that there was always religion in the Middle East even before Islam?

Islam began in the early 600's AD. First crusade was near 1100 AD. So a good 300+ years before the west had contact with Islam in such a scale.
In that video the golden age of discovery in the middle east was about 800-1100 AD. Yet you are saying religion is solelyresponsible for its demise when Islam existed and flourished well before this age? That is a weak arguement as its not logical.

smokingman · 18-07-2012 09:10AM

jank wrote: »

Ah, that old chestnut. One must be an expert or have direct experience before commenting...... Yet, there are plenty of people here who are also commenting,sooo... I suppose each one of them is a fertility doctor? Do you extend that prerequisite to them as well:rolleyes:

Aww, aren't you cute.

I think you'll find that most people commentating on this thread don't base their opinion on a book of ****in ju-ju or what their local witch doctor tells them to think.

You seem to be a fan of absolutes seeing as there is no coherent debating in your ramblings - ironic given that you pick and choose what to believe in that magic book of yours and then scream hissy-fits at posters who point that out.

So, as a christian or whatever you are, what does your ju-ju book say about IVF?

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?

Comments