mazaje:

Because?. . .

Hallo Mazaje,

I was afraid someone was going to ask that question...Lol!!!

If I tell you that I have one super duper logic to defend my position on this, then I would be lying. I have reviewed some of the arguments against IVF and quite frankly, I can't find any plausible 'reason' why it should not be accepted.

Though I agree with some of the thought processes against the acceptance of IVF but still there seem to be something missing in the arguments against it.

Anyways, I do not accept IVF because accepting it would mean going against the teachings of the Catholic church which I subject myself to. It's basically because of the words of Christ that I accept this:

Matthew 16:19
New International Version (NIV)

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

I trust Christ, hence I trust the Church to guide me in everything that has to do with faith and morals.

I know this misses the 'mark' for you but it is my position.

^^^^ This is a sorry position to hold(no offense). So the catholic doctrine mandates members not to seek medical solutions for their problems, but rather to bound them? Do you know how many times pope John Paul II was hospitalized?? A lot of times. How many times was pope Benedict hospitalized?? Again a lot. And Pope Francis?? Do you know that He had one of his lungs surgically(medically) removed?? Do you really believe this your position??

You apparently don't do any research on this catholic doctrine that you follow.

its ok if its not used for sex determination

Hi Okey,

okeyxyz: ^^^^ This is a sorry position to hold(no offense).

I TRUST Christ, if you cannot trust him then that is not my worry!

okeyxyz:
So the catholic doctrine mandates members not to seek medical solutions for their problems, but rather to bound them?

That position up there is YOURS!!! Nowhere in my post did I say or imply such! If you disagree, please feel free to embarrass me with a quote.

okeyxyz:
Do you know how many times pope John Paul II was hospitalized?? A lot of times. How many times was pope Benedict hospitalized?? Again a lot. And Pope Francis?? Do you know that He had one of his lungs surgically(medically) removed??

Are you sure you know what IVF means? Let me see if I can help a bit here...

IVF is an acronym for In Vitro Fertilisation. It is an unnatural way of 'fertilisation'...it is a process whereby the sperm is used to fertilize the egg outside the body.

Have you heard of "test-tube babies"? That's the product of IVF...you can get more info online.

okeyxyz:
Do you really believe this your position??

Sure!!! I believe FIRMLY in MY position and hold dear to it but I do NOT believe in the position YOU hold up there. That 'baby' is yours not mine.

okeyxyz:
You apparently don't do any research on this catholic doctrine that you follow.

Are you sure you are in the best position to give that advise?

striktlymi:

Hallo Mazaje,

I was afraid someone was going to ask that question...Lol!!!

If I tell you that I have one super duper logic to defend my position on this, then I would be lying. I have reviewed some of the arguments against IVF and quite frankly, I can't find any plausible 'reason' why it should not be accepted.

Though I agree with some of the thought processes against the acceptance of IVF but still there seem to be something missing in the arguments against it.

Anyways, I do not accept IVF because accepting it would mean going against the teachings of the Catholic church which I subject myself to. It's basically because of the words of Christ that I accept this:

Matthew 16:19
New International Version (NIV)

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

I trust Christ, hence I trust the Church to guide me in everything that has to do with faith and morals.

I know this misses the 'mark' for you but it is my position.

Roger. . .

mazaje:

Roger. . .

Thanks man!

mcfynest: its ok if its not used for sex determination

Hi fynest,

I have been trying to understand the rationale for your belief as depicted above but can't seem to place my finger on it, so I told myself that it's best to ask you instead...

If you don't mind, could you elaborate on the above? I am quite curious to know why you believe IVF is okay, if it is not used for sex determination...

striktlymi:

Hi fynest,

I have been trying to understand the rationale for your belief as depicted above but can't seem to place my finger on it, so I told myself that it's best to ask you instead...

If you don't mind, could you elaborate on the above? I am quite curious to know why you believe IVF is okay, if it is not used for sex determination...

I will also want to know as well. . .

@striktly, @mazaje

The sex of the embryo can be determined before it is implanted into the mother's womb.

IVF shuld just be seen as a medical solution just like treatment for low sperm count or other related fertility diisorders. The process in itself shuld not undermine the results or make christians cringe

okeyxyz: @striktly, @mazaje

The sex of the embryo can be determined before it is implanted into the mother's womb.

Hi Okey,

Yes, you are correct, the sex of the child can be determined via IVF but my question has more to do with the "why" in his belief.

I just want to know why he accepts one position and rejects the other because of a 'minor' technicality?...why not reject IVF outrightly?

If IVF is okay in itself, why then would it be a problem if the parents decide to choose the sex of the child?

J.Sparrow:
IVF shuld just be seen as a medical solution just like treatment for low sperm count or other related fertility diisorders. The process in itself shuld not undermine the results or make christians cringe

Hi Sparrow,

Though I have some reservations in rejecting IVF outrightly but I do understand why some Christians would NEVER accept its use...the following are some implications of IVF which a lot of Christians will not accept:

1) 'Duplicity' of embryos which may result ultimately to their deaths.

2) Masturbation is a precursor in some cases.

3) Embryos are treated, in some cases, as lab rats.

4) Etc

okeyxyz: @striktly, @mazaje

The sex of the embryo can be determined before it is implanted into the mother's womb.

I see nothing wrong with that, people that want a specific sex for their child can get it. . .It is actually a welcomed development. . .

striktlymi:

Hi Sparrow,

Though I have some reservations in rejecting IVF outrightly but I do understand why some Christians would NEVER accept its use...the following are some implications of IVF which a lot of Christians will not accept:

1) 'Duplicity' of embryos which may result ultimately to their deaths.

2) Masturbation is a precursor in some cases.

3) Embryos are treated, in some cases, as lab rats.

4) Etc

Still not very convincing reasons , but i still get it. . .

mazaje:


Still not very convincing reasons , but i still get it. . .

Hallo Boss,

Hmmm...

If the reasons I gave are necessary implications for IVF then it would be reason enough for true Christians not to consider it.

For true Christians, anything that causes harm to another human (especially one so innocent) shouldn't be an option. I believe firmly, as should any true Christian, that life begins at conception.

The IVF procedure, as currently performed, necessarily would lead to the death(s) of one or more embryos (who I consider human). This alone makes it a NO! NO!! for me.

Now, if there is a procedure that would focus solely on getting the appropriate number of embryos e.g one embryo for one who needs just one child, two embryos for one who need two children etc without causing the death of any embryo deliberately and the procedure is such that the sperm can be gotten from the male without masturbation then I wouldn't ordinarily see anything wrong with it.

I also have some reservations when it comes to the ish with 'saving embryos'. This has a number of implications too but when one looks at it critically, the question MUST be asked: Is it wrong to save a human being (an embryo) in need when the 'good Samaritan' is not responsible for putting it in the condition it finds itself?

i am not against IVF, because IVF in itself a miracle and it serves as a solution to issues. so am not agaimst it. if you are against IVF then you should be against blood transfusion. Even in the UK and some other advanced country it is against the law to use IVF for the determination of sex. it is discrimination all child should have equal right because they are the same. so i am against IVF for sex determination because it is discrimination.

mcfynest: i am not against IVF, because IVF in itself a miracle and it serves as a solution to issues. so am not agaimst it. if you are against IVF then you should be against blood transfusion. Even in the UK and some other advanced country it is against the law to use IVF for the determination of sex. it is discrimination all child should have equal right because they are the same. so i am against IVF for sex determination because it is discrimination.

Nah mehn...you want equal rights for every child (in terms of the sexes) but say NO to the right of the child to life?

Blood transfusion is completely different...it's just like saying anyone who is against homosexuality must necessarily be against heterosexual relationships...it does not follow.

The view point you expressed is your own take on the matter which I respect as such but it is still far from acceptable, in my books...

Accepting IVF in its present 'form' is the same as accepting abortion, amongst some other implications...because for now, the way it is performed, suggests the death of at least one embryo.

If as a Christian I CANNOT accept abortion, then I CANNOT possibly accept IVF.

striktlymi:

Nah mehn...you want equal rights for every child (in terms of the sexes) but say NO to the right of the child to life?

Blood transfusion is completely different...it's just like saying anyone who is against homosexuality must necessarily be against heterosexual relationships...it does not follow.

The view point you expressed is your own take on the matter which I respect as such but it is still far from acceptable, in my books...

Accepting IVF in its present 'form' is the same as accepting abortion, amongst some other implications...because for now, the way it is performed, suggests the death of at least one embryo.

If as a Christian I CANNOT accept abortion, then I CANNOT possibly accept IVF.

k...i respect your opinion. and it still remains your opinion.

J.Sparrow:
IVF shuld just be seen as a medical solution just like treatment for low sperm count or other related fertility diisorders. The process in itself shuld not undermine the results or make christians cringe

that would be the general opinion.

.

striktlymi:


Nah mehn...you want equal rights for every child (in terms of the sexes) but say NO to the right of the child to life?

Blood transfusion is completely different...it's just like saying anyone who is against homosexuality must necessarily be against heterosexual relationships...it does not follow.

The view point you expressed is your own take on the matter which I respect as such but it is still far from acceptable, in my books...

Accepting IVF in its present 'form' is the same as accepting abortion, amongst some other implications...because for now, the way it is performed, suggests the death of at least one embryo.

If as a Christian I CANNOT accept abortion, then I CANNOT possibly accept IVF.

JUST WANT TO C=KNOW IF YOUR VIEWS HAVE CHANGED

mcfynest:



JUST WANT TO C=KNOW IF YOUR VIEWS HAVE CHANGED

No it hasn't changed. My view about IVF remains the same.

striktlymi:


Hallo Mazaje,

I was afraid someone was going to ask that question...Lol!!!

If I tell you that I have one super duper logic to defend my position on this, then I would be lying. I have reviewed some of the arguments against IVF and quite frankly, I can't find any plausible 'reason' why it should not be accepted.

Though I agree with some of the thought processes against the acceptance of IVF but still there seem to be something missing in the arguments against it.

Anyways, I do not accept IVF because accepting it would mean going against the teachings of the Catholic church which I subject myself to. It's basically because of the words of Christ that I accept this:

Matthew 16:19
New International Version (NIV)

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

I trust Christ, hence I trust the Church to guide me in everything that has to do with faith and morals.

I know this misses the 'mark' for you but it is my position.

#AlwaysBehindTechnology.

catholic defender....smh