A serious question to Catholics

Can anyone please explain to me how the Roman Catholic church can be against in-vitro fertilization, when Jesus was a product of asexual reproduction? That's seriously confusing me.

Thanks

offs drop it Taco! grr!

*slap*

I don't think it was asexual according to my memory of the scriptures.

I guess i used the literal term for it rather than the standard term which would apply to plants and whatnot. What i meant was, if the catholic opinion of in-vitro is that it's immoral because

"IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life. "

wouldnt that apply to Jesus as well? Just curious.

That's it. Get your ass on EVE, Taco. Imma come podkill you.

OMG! You're right! This is a serious violation of Church Dogma! Quick, alert the Vatican....The Roman Catholic Church has just excommunicated itself in a fit of self-heresy!!!!

People have opinions. Doesn't make them right. The reason I'm not a Catholic is that I don't believe in the infallibility of the Papal Council. Quit ragging on Christianity.

Asking a question is "ragging" on Christianity? Please dont' attempt to turn this into a TOS violation; that's a form of harrassment.

Well, as former Catholic, I would answer it this way.... Jesus wasn't denied access to His father, rather, He had a very close relationship, spending hours or days in prayer. He was so close, He refered to Himself as the the Father when asked by a disciple to show them the Father, He said.. I paraphrase... 'have I been with you so long and you don't know me?'.

In the last hours of His life He is quoted talking to the Father as if they are together.

So it seems He was very close to His Father, to the point of being one with His Father.

Riiiiiiight. This is a serious discussion. Unique, in fact. I mean, hypocrisy in Christianity...that's never been discussed on this forum before....

You might want to check that horse yer floggin' for a pulse, pardner.

Discussing the specifics of a faith with respect is not a tos violation

thanks dude!

So did God and Mary commit adultery?

~Ulrika~

Dunno Taco - I'm still trying to work out why they're against cannibalism myself.

I myself think Mary was a virgin because they didn't count anal back then.

I think the main argument against in-vitro fertilization is that the procedure fertilizes more eggs than is needed, and only one is implanted in the womb. That is, the procedure results in the destruction of embryos. If you believe that human life starts at conception, then this is abortion, and thus sinful.

I asked a serious question, and got a serious answer - Thank you Flyingroc. I wasn't getting it.

I would agree with that, although Taco pointed to a Catholic teaching showing it was a matter of leaving a child fatherless, or without a biological father.

Personally, I would think the church would support the creation of a life that otherwise wouldn't be, even if some lives that wouldn't have been, without the effort of doctors, are lost.

This is a common misunderstanding of the nature of life. In reality, life is a continuous never-ending chain reaction. The sperm and egg are as much alive before the combination of genetic material as the zygote is afterwards. It's as if humans discriminate against haploid gametes. Well, I've seen them and I assure you they're just as alive as a diploid cell.

~Ulrika~

Neither sperm nor egg can ever be a human on their own. Unless the two unite, there is no human. Once they become one they are a human at the earliest stage of life.

Hm, I've always only heard the argument about the embryo destruction, so I did a bit of research. Though the argument is not that the child is deprived of a biological father, there is in the Catechism (2376, 2377), an argument agains artificial means of conception based on the idea that it separates the unitive and the procreative aspects of sex. This is also the argument against artificial means of contraception. While this is still being taught by the clergy, a large number of Catholics believe this is, um... outdated. Wait another 150 years, the hierarchy will come around to the right way of thinking.

Taco, what is your source for that quote?

sorry, I got it here , and I further apologize for not indicating that the bold was my emphasis.

Heh . Well, but are the haploid cells human? Do they have a human identity separate from the person who produced them? I think most will answer no.

Now ask the question for the fertilized egg. Is it human? Does it have a human identity separate from the people who produced it? To me, this is the difficult question.

Two paragraphs up from the quote in your post, there is also this:

"The Church teaches that a human being must be respected-as a person-from the very first instant of his existence as a human being, and therefore, from that same moment, his rights as a person must be recognized among which in the first place, is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life."

I think that is the stronger argument.

So a human being is a derivative of two non-human living organisms?

I'm pretty sure it's because they sometimes take positions that make no sense.