tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post8320553833005824126..comments2024-03-22T05:53:17.342-04:00Comments on On This Rock: IVF in Fort WayneFather John Hollowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12850864104003705536noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-22231212171416611842012-05-02T21:28:25.959-04:002012-05-02T21:28:25.959-04:00If you don't mind, I'll jump in on one mis...If you don't mind, I'll jump in on one misleading point in the video. In several places the piece suggested that the Church's teaching against IVF is based on the destruction of embryos. NO. NO. NO! That of course is a wicked thing, but that is after the fact of the main reason it is wrong before anyone even gets on the examination table: <i>it divorces procreation from the marital act</i>.<br /><br />Here is the Catechism:<br /><br /><i>2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169</i><br /><br />To wit: even if there was an IVF technique that did not involve involve embryonic destruction, it would still be wrong.<br /><br />As far as the case goes, like you, I will wait for more facts.Scott W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-47836481911551501722012-05-02T20:37:39.691-04:002012-05-02T20:37:39.691-04:00Such a dilemma to be punished for telling the trut...Such a dilemma to be punished for telling the truth, but of course this truth concerns one of the non-negotiables; those who would lie or keep this action secret go without punishment. Another example of a situation where a male may not suffer for such a family procedure done in private... except for suffering with his conscience... Prayers for all involved...timhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06062778573544803680noreply@blogger.com