Yet another reason to hate the Catholic church. Here.
You know, it’s pretty fucking sad when your religious affiliation does more damage than Fred Phelps and his crazy clan.
I’d really like to know what part of the bible says IVF is a sin. Really, I would.
It’s thwarting God’s Will, so, you know. Not really a surprise that the Catholic church doesn’t like it.
Not that I don’t think they’re evil fuckers.
Well obviously it doesn’t reference it specifically, but it’s because sometimes “left-over” fertilized eggs are disposed of, which in the eyes of the Church is the same thing as abortion, because once an egg is fertilized, it’s a person and has a soul and all that shit.
How is it even possible to thwart God’s will? Isn’t His will…you know…omnipotent?
But total agreement on the “evil fuckers” part.
It’s right next to the part about the Greek inheriting the Earth, and blessed are the cheese makers.
I do like cheese…
You’re totally wrong.
Obviously, the bible is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy or soy-based products.
If I follow your line of thinking, any medical care is thwarting God’s will. Catholics are just Christian Scientists?
I bet they have some specific batshit insane hatey reason for IVF-gets-you-fired.
Here we go - it separates the ‘filial connection’ between child and parent.
Free Will…silenus. Silenus… Free Will. You are welcome to peruse the last 2,000 years of religious debate. We’ll wait.
Not that I agree with it. I happen to be totally non-religious.
But I disagree with the hot teacher part. She is Ok after being heavily made up for TV. No more than that.
It had been my understanding that the RCC considered it against Church doctrine because the acquisition of sperm to fertilize the eggs necessarily required an act of masturbation to take place.
Further research (sort of) [del]confirms[/del] supports this; in essence, the sexual act has two purposes: the unitive (emotional/spiritual) and the procreative (biological). By nature, the two belong together, and to separate the two is always wrong.
The document I consulted a.) is not a document promulgated by the RCC, and b.) did not mention anything about the likelihood of superfluous embryos being destroyed. Since Church doctrine apparently declares their creation to have been a moral wrong in the first place, one might suppose that the Church would be indifferent to their ultimate fate; however, the same page I linked to DOES mention that the RCC doesn’t want people monkeying around with embryos (unless therapeutically, to make the successful birth of a [eta: CATHOLIC] baby from each one a more likely prospect).
No they aren’t, they’re frozen for use later.
I have some Catholic friends who’ve done IVF and had leftover embryos that they were not able to use for various reasons. The way this is typically handled is the mother has them put in her uterus at a time in her cycle where they will not implant, allowing the embryos to die a ‘natural’ death.
It is possible to harvest sperm without mastrubation. I wonder what the church would think of that?
Doesn’t that require the intervention of an altar boy?
Oh, and she’s plenty hot and her looks would probably be improved by a paint stripper facial. I could never understand women who glop it on with a trowel, but she’s from Fort Wayne and that’s the fashion there, like men wearing mullets.
I don’t care what stupid crap the Church believes about IVF. That is their problem. I do care when a woman who in no way is teaching any kind of religion gets fired for personal decisions. I’m sure that any attempt to say she has the right to not practice all aspects of their religion will be considered anti-Catholic bigotry.
Where is Henry VIII when we need him, anyway?
But other options include “do nothing with the extras” and “dispose of the extras,” which people have complained about before.
It’s also “women exercising control of their own reproductive choices”, so you know that’s officially some Bad Shit right there.
That’s true. I don’t know why anyone would throw away the extra’s though. IVF is expensive enough, you keep all you get!
They may also be donated to those who want a child and for some reason cannot have one naturally but a woman is able to carry a child to birth.
Before I waste my time: is the purpose of this thread simply to have another place to rant against the Church, or is there any interest in the factual information concerning Church doctrine or the legal issues involved in the lawsuit?