Despite the odious use of the term “reproduction” to describe the loving generation of children, most of us, secular or religious, would agree in principle that children are not products. However, since the advent of in-vitro fertilization (IVF), we have treated them that way. Unfortunately, the moral ambiguity bill is coming due: more and more families are turning toward IVF in their despair and more and more people of good will are remaining silent.
Amen. You can see in my life essay on my substack that I used NFP to get pregnant, then adopted. Even though I wasn't very Catholic at the time, the rational me saw through the IVF racket. And that's what it is. A big lie.
Thank you for this article, which so needs to be stated. I recall the general applause a few decades ago for 'the first test tube baby' and my heart sank. And as a Catholic, I dislike the way those outside the Church say 'I know your Church says it's wrong but...' Yes, it is wrong supernaturally because Christians believe that God designed the act of mutual love between a married couple to be also life-affirming and life-giving. That is where its intrinsic dignity lies. But IVF is also wrong for natural reasons, as the article points out: it involves often depriving children of knowledge of their genetic parentage; it exploits poor Third World women and poorer western countries such as Ukraine; the conception involves masturbation to release the sperm; it turns babies increasingly into market products; it is intrinsically soulless. I too read the Emily Stimson Chapman article and thought highly of it. And writing from the UK, I know of an excellent website dealing with natural ways to investigate infertility: www.FiatFertilityCare.co.uk I also know of a married woman who could not have children and who adopted six. Adoption is an ancient and humane way to become parents. IVF is very costly, puts huge strain on a couple's relationship and is very often unsuccessful. And as yet there is little research into the negative long-term health aspects of this form of conception.
We can never have too many people talking about how we approach fertility, think about sex, and treat our bodies (and those of our children). As you said, "the moral ambiguity bill is coming due".
Amen. You can see in my life essay on my substack that I used NFP to get pregnant, then adopted. Even though I wasn't very Catholic at the time, the rational me saw through the IVF racket. And that's what it is. A big lie.
Thank you for this article, which so needs to be stated. I recall the general applause a few decades ago for 'the first test tube baby' and my heart sank. And as a Catholic, I dislike the way those outside the Church say 'I know your Church says it's wrong but...' Yes, it is wrong supernaturally because Christians believe that God designed the act of mutual love between a married couple to be also life-affirming and life-giving. That is where its intrinsic dignity lies. But IVF is also wrong for natural reasons, as the article points out: it involves often depriving children of knowledge of their genetic parentage; it exploits poor Third World women and poorer western countries such as Ukraine; the conception involves masturbation to release the sperm; it turns babies increasingly into market products; it is intrinsically soulless. I too read the Emily Stimson Chapman article and thought highly of it. And writing from the UK, I know of an excellent website dealing with natural ways to investigate infertility: www.FiatFertilityCare.co.uk I also know of a married woman who could not have children and who adopted six. Adoption is an ancient and humane way to become parents. IVF is very costly, puts huge strain on a couple's relationship and is very often unsuccessful. And as yet there is little research into the negative long-term health aspects of this form of conception.
Well done.
We can never have too many people talking about how we approach fertility, think about sex, and treat our bodies (and those of our children). As you said, "the moral ambiguity bill is coming due".