Why are Christians OK with invetro fertilization?

Question

They distroy all the other fertilized eggs and distroy them and just implant one of them. Isn't that like several abortions to have a chance for a child

http://www.asrm.org/Patients/faqs.html#Q5:

for those who don't think the eggs are fertalized by sperm and destroyed, or don't know what In Vetro is.

Answer 1

the eggs were not alive until they were fertilized. the life is in the sperm.

Answer 2

All Christians are not okay w/ it. There's a program called the Snowflake program that tries to place the frozen fertilized eggs into a woman who is willing to carry the baby to term for herself or another couple who wants a child. I believe the organization has to obtain legal clearance to do this which creates some problems. You bring up an excellent point and personally I believe only as many eggs as will be planted should be fertilized. Expensive? Yes. More expensive than killing the ones not implanted? No. God bless you. ~Nise~

Answer 3

no longer something morally incorrect in any respect. rather having a toddler is a blessing which you will in all probability relish something of your existence. One could take great factor approximately technological advances to strengthen the well-known of existence. on the scientific front, IVF is a tried and examined technique and has worked properly for many couples. purely genetically in great condition sperm and eggs stay to tell the story the technique in any case so the toddler is healthful and in great condition. of direction ethical themes are significant yet you are able to desire to constantly freeze the unused fertilized eggs or donate them while you're so vulnerable. this might additionally be of help to different couples who could be in a undertaking the place they can't have babies for different motives. Technically, fertilized eggs are no longer babies interior the strictest sense of the be conscious and each now and then fertilized eggs are lost from the uterus devoid of the mummy being responsive to the actuality. i'm advantageous you will sense grateful to GOD for having a toddler, regardless of your religious ideals and regardless of the way it became conceived.

Answer 4

Catholic Christian teaching is not ok with it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

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." "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."

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

Answer 5

It is fulling Gods command to reproduce and replenish the Earth. Its okay to do if the female eggs have to thick a membrane for sperm to penetrate on their own . or if the males sperm is sparse or to weak to go in its self . Then human help is needed if the couple wants a child.
To take fertility meds to accomplish this is like using a shot gun most will miss their target but those that do will either make a lot of them or just one and the rest will die . Just as they do with each unused menstrual cycle.or mistimed sex act also masterbation.

Answer 6

The fertilized egg becomes viable once it is implanted on the uterine wall.
That's where it starts.

Answer 7

If they kill a bunch of fertilized eggs and choose one , then I'm gonna have to agree with you, they[r'e murdering all the other kids. if that's what they do? do you know it for sure or just maybe heard it somewhere?

peace out,

a christian

Answer 8

Did ya ever think back to how Mary got pregnant and still remained a Virgin?
Honestly,I don't think most Christians are for that method.

Answer 9

Yes, it is like several abortions. That is why it is immoral. If Christians are ok with in vitro fertilization, they are ok with abortion. If abortion is ok, so is genocide and euthenasia.

guess whose next.


Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material". In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission". By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenceless human beings.

Methods of observation or experimentation which damage or impose grave and disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for the same reasons. every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others. It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained 'in vitro'. In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art not transferred into the body of the mother and are called "spare" are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued.

note to yahoo staff: there is no spamming or advertisement taking place here whatsoever, please stop deleting my posts on false (anti-Catholic) premesis.

Answer 10

Yes it is! I thought they were against any "spilling of seed." Many Christians are for the death penalty and support sending 17 year olds to die in a "war." Good point!