Can somebody tell me where the National catholic Reporter gets their writers? Are they all a product of a modern Jesuit education? I mean, the theories they put forth are simply sophomoric, and that’s saying something coming from this relatively uneducated girl. That’s just how bad they are. I would think Thomas Reese, SJ, would want people a little loftier, being a Jesuit and all, but I guess this is what you get with those Jesuits who seek to undermine the Faith. Going beyond the sophomoric ruins their narrative, and we can’t have that!
Embryo destruction is the underlying wrong of IVF
Phyllis Zagano | Aug. 24, 2016 Just Catholic
Did Phyllis at least get her name right? Because the title itself is oh, so wrong. The “underlying wrong” of IVF is that it goes against natural law and the nature of marriage. How do we know this, dear Phyllis? We know this because even if not one embryo is destroyed, it is still wrong, wrong, wrong! Dead children are just one of the horrifying end results of defying natural law and the nature of marriage. As the Church has said about a hundred times, you do not separate the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage. When you do, a wave of destruction results. When you try to separate the procreative from the unitive and defy natural law, you end up with death all the way around. Death of people, death of marriages, death of morality, death of the family, etc. Humane Vitae’s prophecy was fulfilled.
Now why doesn’t Phyllis point this out and only focus on “dead embryos?” Well, to focus on natural law and the nature of marriage puts a little crimp in the liberal agenda of the National catholic Reporter. You can’t mention the nature of marriage or natural law, because then you’d have to apply those little items to the rest of the things the NcR really wants approved, like “gay marriage”, “the gay lifestyle”, divorce and “re-marriage”, and birth control. I somehow think that NcR is just hoping that scientists make that breakthrough in IVF where no embryos are killed so they can tell their readers their consciences can be clear. They would be wrong, regardless, and there’s a whole host of other victims they simply ignore. (Please see the links the end of the blog post for some of the victims NcR chooses not to see.)
They say that in 1978, on seeing newspaper photos of Louise Brown, New York’s Cardinal Terence Cooke said “a baby!” The complication: Brown was the first “test-tube baby,” born to an English couple with the aid of a physician who later won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Who are “they?” And yeah, Louise was still a baby, no matter how she was conceived. Is there some question there? I don’t believe anyone is saying anything to the contrary.
Cardinal Albino Luciani, then patriarch of Venice and soon to be Pope John Paul I, explained his similar response in detail. He said he only partly shared the excitement and enthusiasm about the baby’s birth, because to really make a judgement he would need access to all the scientific data.
Luciani went on to explain the possibilities and moral probabilities. He worried about the scientist unleashing an uncontrollable force, much like Goethe’s “sorcerer’s apprentice.” He saw the specter of a new industry of “baby manufacturing” as he called it, and he questioned the legitimacy of the methodology, now known as in vitro fertilization.
First of all, why are we quoting Cardinal Luciani? Are there not a wealth of quotes coming from the Church since then?
Next, why the heck aren’t we directly quoting him fully and in some sort of context? Hmmm…I can’t imagine why, but I’m reasonably sure my readers could draw some conclusions. Here is the part she skips:
Getting down, however, to the act in itself, and good faith aside, the moral problem which is posed is: is extrauterine fertilization in vitro or in a test tube, licit?… I do not find any valid reasons to deviate from this norm, by declaring licit the separation of the transmission of life from the marriage act. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_theology_of_John_Paul_I)
What?!?! Please note, Phyllis, “dead embryos” not mentioned. It is not licit because it goes against natural law and the nature of marriage. Oh, and did you also notice he didn’t need any “scientific data” to make that judgment?
Nothing has changed. Of course the birth of a child is a time for rejoicing. New life! What is troublesome is IVF’s continual collision with moral theology. Baby making is reduced to solitary activity in clinics, with petri dishes and sterile conditions replacing wine and roses.
(Insert game show buzzer sound.) The fact that it’s “unromantic” is also not the underlying wrong either. Sigh.
And the conundrum only begins there. You can’t blame the baby — or babies — resulting from these scientific advances.
There is no conundrum. There is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Nobody blames the baby. This is a complete red-herring! People have been suggesting for a while that we can’t possibly say that IVF is wrong, because what will the children who have been born via IVF think about themselves??? Once again, the circumstances of a child’s conception never attaches blame to them.
You can’t really blame the parents — assuming an infertile married couple is trying to create a family.
If the parents know what the teaching of the Church is, they are culpable no matter their desire.
The first are completely innocent. The latter are possibly invincibly ignorant — they don’t know the implications of what they are doing.
Are we really going to hang our hats on “possibly invincibly ignorant?” Yes, maybe they are, but far more often, the parents simply don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on the matter and reject it, or at least they have not done their due diligence in grasping the concept.
For those hoping to rely on invincible ignorance as they do the catchphrase “internal forum”, let’s look at what it is:
Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/ignorance-invincible-and-vincible
I guess if a person is not allowed to leave the IVF clinic and can only read NcR, they might have a case for invicible ignorance. Still, “possibly” in the grand scheme of things is actually irrelevant to the grand scheme or in determining the underlying wrong of IVF.
But there is too much too awfully wrong with IVF to ignore what our disposable culture has grown to accept.
And she’s pretty much going to stick with “dead embryos” as the only reason this is bad.
I am not crazy about the baby manufacturing industry Luciani predicted, which has grown to multi-million dollar proportions. These days, “designer children” cost as much as $80,000. The cost includes egg and sperm collection, creation of embryos, and implantation into and support of surrogate mothers.
From what I can tell, Luciani didn’t say “baby manufacturing industry.” He said he was worried about women being used as “baby factories” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_theology_of_John_Paul_I), which, by the way, is happening all over the world. (Please see “Breeders” linked below.) His concern had nothing to do with the cost. No, IVF is not wrong because only rich people can afford it.
Independent of that, to me at least, is the real underlying difficulty of IVF: the automatic disposal of unused fertilized embryos, whether immediately after their brothers and sisters survive implantation, or at some time in the future when they are no longer stored in clinic freezers. There may be as many as a million frozen embryos in the United States alone, each individually waiting for adoption or destruction. While the old-fashioned method of destroying embryos is now rarely used — just dump the extras down the drain — many can go for embryonic stem cell research, which is just about the same thing.
So many things are wrong with this paragraph. First of all, YOU are irrelevant, Phyllis. Next, there are far more victims of IVF then the discarded embryos. Finally, how the heck does the method of destruction matter? They all equal murder!
Opposition to this implicit destruction of embryos is at the heart of a recently passed amendment to the House’s appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services. The amendment bans the destroying of embryos created through federally-funded IVF services, including those provided by the Departments of Defense or Veterans Affairs. Maryland’s Representative Andy Harris argues, along with longstanding government policy, that federal tax dollars should not go toward destroying potential citizens.
The fact is only about 10 percent of the frozen embryos will be “adopted” in procedures that cost upwards of $12,000. Some are the result of eggs harvested and purchased from donors, who receive on average $8,000 per procedure. But cryogenics can only go so far. The largest number of frozen embryos will eventually be destroyed.
How have we become a culture that so disregards the value of human life?
Let me answer that for you Phyllis. We became that way because we first disregarded natural law, and the lovely publication that carries you aided and abetted that.
Why are Phyllis’ arguments bad, wrong, off base, etc.? Well, for a Catholic publication, they’re not fully Catholic. How long do you think it’ll be before scientists can narrow down exactly which egg and sperm to join and zero out the number of children killed in an effort to make it a “morally licit” procedure to those who don’t understand the teachings of the Catholic Church on sex and marriage? If the “dead embryos” is the underlying wrong, what happens if that goes away, Phyllis? Will it then just be wrong because it’s expensive? You’ve missed the underlying moral wrong by a mile, Phyllis.
For whatever reason, the National catholic Reporter constantly parses Church teachings, half quotes, paraphrases, etc . I’m reasonably sure it’s because if it doesn’t fit their narrative, they’re not going to use it. The phrase “natural law” is a no-no over there for obvious reasons.
Did you notice what this article left out, as do so many NcR articles? How about actual Church teaching on the marital embrace, reproductive technologies, etc.? It’s supposedly a Catholic publication, for goodness sake! Sadly they’re a bit reluctant to set the truth before the lemmings. Let me just give you a few things that you’ll likely never see over at the National catholic Reporter:
No matter how the science of IVF progresses, it will always be destructive, and that’s what you get when you reject natural law.