[ellery]

But with infertile couples, by definition procreation is separated from the conjugal act. That's how they know they're infertile.

As for reproductive technology, where do you draw the line? If I take medication to help me ovulate, I am relying on technology to help get me pregnant. Is that wrong too?

Finally, the creation of life cannot happen without God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is giving human doctors 'way too much credit.

[johnb2004]

"But with infertile couples, by definition procreation is separated from the conjugal act. That's how they know they're infertile."

That is not accurate at all. Someone infertile, through no fault of their own, is not intentionally separating love and sex. It is pathology beyond their control.

"As for reproductive technology, where do you draw the line? If I take medication to help me ovulate, I am relying on technology to help get me pregnant. Is that wrong too?"

Medicine that helps to correct a pathology would be licit as long as it does not pervert the intended nature of the conjugal act. That is separating love and sex.

"Finally, the creation of life cannot happen without God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is giving human doctors 'way too much credit."

God is the creator and married couples are to be pro-creators. IVF and the like allow humans to usurp God and create life outside the intended way. That is playing God.

[adiaireton8]

But with infertile couples, by definition procreation is separated from the conjugal act. That's how they know they're infertile.

There are different kinds of separation. One kind of separation is effect from cause, when the effect fails to result from the cause. The is the kind of separation you are talking about above. When procreation fails to result from the conjugal act, the effect is separated from the cause. This separation is, all things being equal, not caused by man. The couple per se is not causing procreation to fail. Hence, such a separation is not unethical. The kind of separation to which I referred, however, is that in which man separates that which is supposed to be united. In IVF typically man separates the conjugal act and procreation. The separation occurs in any act of procreation that is not the conjugal act (e.g. IVF), and in any conjugal act that is not open to procreation.

As for reproductive technology, where do you draw the line? If I take medication to help me ovulate, I am relying on technology to help get me pregnant. Is that wrong too?

If you carefully read what I wrote, you will notice that I used the word "supplant". In IVF typically, the technology is used to supplant the conjugal act. There are other kinds of reproductive assistance technology which assist but do not supplant the conjugal act. Medication that helps stimulate ovulation (all other things being equal), would be technology of the latter sort.

Finally, the creation of life cannot happen without God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is giving human doctors 'way too much credit.

I agree. But nothing I said is challenged by that. If humans can be cloned in factories, then just because the creation of human life cannot happen without God, it does not follow that such cloning is therefore ethically permissible. Likewise, just because the creation of human life cannot happen without God, it does not follow that IVF is ethically permissible.

-A8