Posted on 08/11/2004 6:34:48 AM PDT by NYer
She sees the whole situation demanding these services as very concerning. In the case of an otherwise healthy woman with tubal defects or other reproductive injury, neither of us sees an ethical problem with offering a treatment whereby the patient could have a baby. However, both of us agree that a large fraction of these fertilizations should not be performed both for medical and ethical reasons.
First of all, there are usually good reasons the patients are having trouble conceiving. A lot of them have poor egg or sperm quality with markedly higher percentages of observable defects. Poor sperm with low motility normally wouldn't survive the trip up the uterus and into the tubes to fertilize. Low counts have a lower probability of successful implantation. Poor eggs more often fail to accept a sperm. In-vitro bypasses those deficiencies, but at a price. Babies born by in-vitro fertilization have higher birth defects, more immune system problems, and lower intelligence quotients than children conceived naturally (this in a population of parents able to afford the procedure). It would seem that the process abets undesirable combinations by failing to cull poor sperm and bad eggs. Then we take these (for lack of better words) less optimal combinations and implant them under ideal or even augmented circumstances doing everything possible to make sure they survive where they might otherwise be rejected by the body through a spontaneous abortion.
More disturbing is the ICSI process (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection), wherein a sperm is injected directly into the egg. The rate of birth defects and other congenital problems subsequent to this process is very high, in part because the procedure bypasses the usual process wherein an egg selects a compatible sperm. If you ever wanted to see the hand of God in conception, it is there.
Also disturbing (to her) is the number of couples entering the clinic who seem, upon first appearance, to be totally incompatible, just plain bizarro couples. She says half her job is managing frayed emotions of unstable women jacked up with hormones and suffering in rotten relationships. This is to say nothing of the number of lesbians visiting the clinic.
It used to be that the clinic only accepted stable married couples. In recent years with fewer cash patients and lower rates paid by insurance companies, the clinic is now accepting larger numbers of just about anybody in order to remain a profit center for the hospital. If the work wasn't so interesting, I don't think she would be doing it, preferring to take care of babies instead.
"we're just trying, in our weakness, to toe the line"
Whose line?
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
I'm not sure what they mean when they say "the deliberate use of the sexual facility outside of marriage." Does that mean it's o.k. for married people to masturbate?
Not that it'll make a difference to you but the cold hard facts are that the vast majority of fertilized eggs never make it -- whether in-vitro or in-vivo. They weren't "sacrificed". You'd be surprised how many babies you (or your wife if you're a guy) "sacrificed" in order to have your children.
My point was that the way the system is set up (quite deliberately I might add), the clock is against families producing enough babies to maintain the society. I don't think you would dispute that.
Having a child right now would be incredibly selfish. And since I want something better for my children than what I had growing up in a single-parent home, I am not willing to put my personal needs above the best interest of my child.
Your choices are more complex than that. Please see post 41.
Don't bet on that. My older daughter (11) is a year into college calculus. I know professors who will attest to her work. She'll attend a JC for chemistry, biology, and physics lab work.
Homeschooling is nice and everything, but there is just no way a parent can teach college level physics or engineering as well as a good professor can (unless that parent is a physicist or engineer themself, but then I seriously doubt they would be staying at home).
I am a trained engineer.
And many people meet and get married in grad school, so your age of 35 for marriage makes no sense.
Those "ages" were for completion of the process. My estimated age for marriage of post graduate educated parents is 30. By the time they get settled financially to have kids, it was 35. It's far more common than you think, especially with more kids starting school at an older age. My wife sees them all the time.
True. Masturbation is a mortal sin, and has always been considered so, as is evidenced by the fact that when Onan in the Old Testament committed coitus interruptus, God slew him for it. The punishment for it, obviously, is not what it was back then, but the gravity of the sin is still the same. I believe every Protestant denomination would have condemned it similarly even just a half century ago.
Regarding the folks on here who can't agree with the Church's teaching in this area, the reason in vitro has to be considered immoral is because the husband has to commit a mortal sin in order for this process to work. Even if no abortions are involved. You can't commit evil so that a good may result, therefore, no in vitro.
As the article points out, also, it is trying to do an end run around normal reproduction anyway. Doctors should be trying to help couples conceive naturally.
It is different for everyone, I guess.
Thanks! I knew someone would explain it. That's why I adore FR - there's an expert around here on just about any subject.
Studies are all over the map on this. I've never heard of the immune system problems. The IQ claim is bogus as followup studies have no lasting effect on IQ. You also have to be careful when reading the studies to find out if there were early deliveries, etc.
More disturbing is the ICSI process (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection), wherein a sperm is injected directly into the egg. The rate of birth defects and other congenital problems subsequent to this process is very high...
Only if you consider going from 4% to 6% "very high".
So what do I with my children? Should I let someone like you adopt them, since I've mortally sinned to conceive them?
By the way, would it be immoral if my wife assisted me in producing the sperm, and I did not handle myself?
And really, Claud, if you're a man, are you asserting that you've never committed this sin?
Include allergies and asthma.
The IQ claim is bogus as followup studies have no lasting effect on IQ.
IQ can be compensated over time, and we are talking about an affluent population. That it can be mitigated does not mean that there is no effect.
Only if you consider going from 4% to 6% "very high".
Last I heard it's 10%. That's very high. It is second hand information from my wife.
Good post.
Need help from orthodox Catholics here:
-- What do you say to Lance Armstrong when he had testicular cancer? He froze his sperm so that he could be a father in the future. I don't know the exact procedures by which his wife was impregnated, but they have 1 or 2 kids now.
No cheap shots about the fact that they're divorced now and he's seeing Sheryl Crowe. That's irrelevant to the question at the moment, which is whether or not he was wrong in doing what he did so he could have a chance to be bio father in the future (his chances for being one as a result of intercourse ended when the testicular cancer operations were performed).
And if The Church sees this as wrong (which I suspect it does), exactly why?
True indeed. It's a tool. It's not the best way to do things, but it can be the best alternative under the ciricumstances. Like any tool, it can be abused and, sadly, often is.
Seems that you've got a problem with lower IQ folks being conceived. How do you feel about Down's Syndrome? How about other physical impairments. Ignoring your second hand statistics, I think you're attitude towards other's intelligence would make you a big fan of Eugenics.
By the way, both of my IVF children are normal and seem pretty smart, but maybe I'm just too dumb to know there's something wrong with them.
At the risk of exposure for ignorance, how does the Pope Paul VI Center find out a guy's sperm count is low without having a sperm sample to count from?
I would think the husband would have to masturbate to provide the sample. Surely the Center doesn't ask the husband to commit a mortal sin--or do they have an onsite confessional for this purpose? (weak attempt at humor)
I merely point out that there are risks attendant to a process that doesn't completely replicate the original.
Ignoring your second hand statistics, I think you're attitude towards other's intelligence would make you a big fan of Eugenics.
This comment is beneath contemptable.
By the way, both of my IVF children are normal and seem pretty smart, but maybe I'm just too dumb to know there's something wrong with them.
Now we get to the real issue (which my wife brings home daily). Best you get some counseling for that.
Tell me about it. I have been trying to explain this to Catholic family and friends all my adult life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.