Over at Jill Stanek’s blog there is an interesting debate going on over IVF and pregnancy reduction. Catch it here.
A woman named Maria who has had three IVF babies, has been arguing in favor of the procedure, using all of the proabort definitions of when life begins, etc., and took strong exception to my statements from the post linked here. What follows is Maria’s response, and my rejoinder:
Maria:
Dr. Nadal,
Excuse me for my bluntness but I think you are crazy. I am completely aware of what happens during an IVF cycle because I did it TWICE. The fact that you keep calling embryos in its earliest form, before they even get transferred into a human body CHILDREN is ridiculous. Given shots to produce more eggs in my body is not SELFISH on my husbands part. In fact I am grateful for that since I was hardly able to produce any on my own.
And yes I am comparing what happens in a petri-dish to what happens naturally after intercourse because its the same damn thing, except sane people don’t call all these initial embryos that dont result in squat CHILDREN, either inside the womb or out!
Those who have engaged in this need to repent of the evil they have done, to themselves, their marriages, and most of all their children. There’s no sugar-coating this issue. It’s abortion on steroids, practiced by desperate couples who have entirely lost their perspective.
Dr Nadal, I have no need to repent for my 3 living children for having them via IVF. Having IVF to conceive them was the best decision I have ever made in my entire life! How you can refer to anything that happens outside of the female body as “abortion on steroids” is insane.
I originally found Jill Stanek’s website because I admired the courage she had to uncover the horrible live birth abortions that were taking place in the same hospital where I gave birth to my babies. However, seeing as there are a bunch of freaks on this site, I will probably take a peek at her posts now and then, but I will never associate with the weirdo’s on this site who make insane comments such as yours by commenting along with them.
And with that, I am out!
It is interesting to note that nobody ever told Maria to repent for her three children born of IVF.
My Response:
Maria,
LOL!! You aren’t the first person here to call me crazy, and you won’t be the last. That’s the sort of thing that happens when ideological worlds collide. The fireworks can be spectacular!!
Now, on to the reasons why I am crazy.
Calling embryos children. You’ll forgive my colloquial use of children to refer to your embryonic offspring. The colloquial usage is not sloppiness, or insanity on my part, but actually exactly how people use the language. When asked how many children a pregnant mother of four has, she does not respond with,
“Two actual children, one toddler, one infant and one embryo.”
Get real, Maria. A normal woman says,
“Four, and one on the way.”
She may then go on to break down the clan by sex and age. In truth, it is your response that sounds insane. Now, for the next issue regarding sanity.
I’m a scientist, specifically, a biologist. We are the ones who tell you what a living thing is, or is not. The field of embryology clearly teaches that a new human organism, a new human animal with its own genetic identity, its own body, set on its own dynamic developmental trajectory comes into being at the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. There is no such thing as potential or partial life in biology.
Either a thing is its own organism, or it is not. Either it is alive, or it is not. Your embryonic offspring are each a separate and distinct human being. You actually have even less place to hide than the post-abortive trolls here, because you can’t claim bodily autonomy and Roe v Wade’s protections in the killing of your offspring. They weren’t attached to you in the first place.
The fact is, that IVF IS abortion on steroids. You are people’s exhibit A of its callousness and cruelty:
Your offspring are only human beings when YOU say they are, not when science says they are.
Your offspring are merely property to be disposed of as you see fit.
Your offspring are only humans entitled to rights if YOU say they are.
Your body is yours to do with as you please, and not subject to any restrictions imposed by either morality or a well-informed bioethic.
Gee, where have we heard all of that before?
Yes, I do think your husband either terribly naive, or terribly selfish. In our desperation for a child of our own, I was not prepared to go to a fertility clinic and see my wife juiced up with frightening levels of hormones that would have increased her odds of developing cancer down the road. Even if she wanted to, I would not have consented.
There is such a thing as moral and ethical limits, Maria. There is also such a thing as human greed, and no shortage of scientists and physicians who are perfectly willing to cast morality and ethics to the wind as they prey on the desperation of childless (or, in keeping with your nomenclature, shall we say embryoless) couples.
Finally, you say:
“Dr Nadal, I have no need to repent for my 3 living children for having them via IVF.”
You will one day realize that those three children have quite a few dead siblings who never made it out of the lab, and that’s where our paths diverge.
I’m with science, you are not (though you are with technology). From the moment of fertilization a new human being comes into existence. You were evidently okay with killing as many as it took to get to where you are now. I’m not.
This process has less to do with marriage and family, and more to do with hi-tech animal husbandry in marriage (if you’ll excuse the pun).
Does that make me crazy? Perhaps from where you sit it does, but then, deviance distorts the lens of perspective.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that parents resorting to IVF require the same preconditioning (desensitization) as do parents resorting to abortion. Once we do not allow ourselves to be hindered by embarrassed “manners over morals” from enjoining these folks, we see this preconditioning rage to the surface almost instantly.
More to come.
.
.
.
Photo via N.Y. Times
I love that you have the courage to tell it like it is.
God bless you, Doctor!!
Hey, I have five and one on the way! I’m very early but I’m very certain I’m not going to pop out a set of speakers or a shelf… it’s definitely a baby. In fact, I’m going to predict from my own bodily hints that I’m having a girl. Now, this is long before the gender can be detected but I’m willing to bet it’s a girl. If it isn’t a girl, well, then it’s definitely a set of speakers.
That is the most brilliant and spot on target response to the insanity of IVF that I have ever read. In fact, it’s a “must read,” Bless you for intelligently speaking the truth!
Thank you for “sanity” on this insane practice. Oh yes…you will be spurned by many an outraged woman. How dare you suggest that what she has done (killing her own children) is morally reprehensible. And she thinks you’re self-righteous for pointing this out from a scientific standpoint? You’re just stating the facts mam…stating the facts.
God bless you, Dr. Nadal!
“Either it is alive, or it is not” I spend a lot of my time trying to convinve a pro-abort of this, but there’s no reasoning with them… sigh
Gosh: spent, convince
Oh now I get it! Gerry over here is a cult leader and all you freaks are his followers.
Meghann, I never said once you are actually pregnant that you aren’t indeed pregnant with a baby and not “speakers”. But embryos don’t turn into crying, breastfeeding babies in a petri-dish, no matter how long you leave them there. They will have to at some point be transferred to the uterus in order to have any chance in hell of becoming your girl speaker aka child.
And Gerry, I really don’t appreciate you copying and pasting my comments from another blog to create an attention-getting post on your own blog. But if this is what you need to do as a cult member to draw attention to yourself to impress your followers, then whatever floats your boat.
And an IVF mother scorned Gerry?? Very snazzy title, but I would hardly call all of my comments on Jill’s blog scornful or full of rage. I had been going back and forth for two days quite peacefully until you came along with your better than thou attititude. And to be quite honest, I thought it was comical. In my opinion you are indeed crazy and that does not make me neither scornful nor full of rage. Its my opinion. However, that obviously enrages you so much that you are still talking about me hours later while I have been long gone taking care of my children…oops, I mean my remaining embryos.
It would be great if you could cease discussing my baby-killing self and move onto other ways you can draw attention to your mighty being. But if you must continue to target me to make yourself more popular as a scientist, biologist, or whatever else you claim to be on the internet, I’m ok with that. Not at all enraged Gerry!
By the way, You throw out your doctor title as if this makes you so much more brilliant than all of your followers that they actually appear to be worshipping you. Doesn’t impress me at all. After all, Dr Kevorkian was also a doctor. Guess what? Crazy.
Oh, and you also moderate all your comments to make yourself look better! Brilliant!
Well, folks, that’s Maria.
You know, Maria, you won’t win any congeniality contests with this sort of commentary. I’m allowing the first rant to stay up.
It really doesn’t matter whether folks discuss atrocities here or at Jill’s with a Prozac smile. I said what I said because of the great evil that is IVF. Your lexicon is the same as the proabort’s, and that should give you pause.
Here’s a hint, Maria. Ever notice how the definition of what makes one a human is always conveniently located in some developmental stage just beyond that where the individual wishes to perform some manipulation such as tearing apart embryos for research, freezing them, or aborting embryos and fetuses?
A heartbeat, the ability to think, the ability to dream, the ability to live outside of the mother’s womb… It never ends. The definition of what is human is always arbitrarily drawn by those wishing to perform some immoral manipulation.
This is a serious bioethical issue, and you weighed in very publicly on a very public blog.
Now, you’ve managed to screech enough vituperation at some very thoughtful and discerning people. Treat it as just one more opinion in the crowd, Maria.
However, your vituperative comments are no longer welcome here, and neither are you.
Goodnight.
What do you recommend to an IVF mother who has repented and reverted back to the Catholic faith? How does she explain this to her children without them hating her? Does it help if the children were the means God used to reclaim her, and thus her children, too?
And this commentary by Maria is exactly what I mean by being cowed into silence by those who engage IVF.
For crying out loud, Dr. Nadal… you deliberately provoked Maria and then you lambasted her for responding to your attack. If you had read all her comments on Jill’s blog, you would know that she stated repeatedly that all her embryos were transferred to her womb, and that none were frozen or discarded. That is quite different from the usual way that IVF is practised. There are still ethical issues, of course, but not nearly as bad as what usually happens in IVF.
Wow… I don’t understand why she came here. I belong to a conservative (political) group/blog and there are many times when liberals come into the blog just to bate people. Do you think that might be the case with Maria? I just don’t get the fact that she just doesn’t get it, or she refuses to get it. How can any rational human being argue against scientific/medical fact? The only type of person who I can think of who would attempt such a trick would be a proabort.
Anyway, I, for one, appreciate every word you say because you say it with eloquence, dignity, and truth. People don’t like the truth because it stings.
Thanks again!
Thank you for not being cowed into silence by yet another temper tantrum. I believe she proved your point quite well. God Bless you and your work.
If you’re crazy for asserting that human life is sacred and we have no right to manufacture, manipulate and kill that life, then call me crazy, too.
Yep, we’re a bunch of nuts.
I’m terribly sorry folks, that you bore the brunt of an attack that was rightly and exclusively mine to absorb. Maria is much in need of prayer for healing. It isn’t ever an easy thing to see the means by which one has gained what one treasures more than anything in the world held up to intense ethical scrutiny and judged to be both an immoral and illicit means.
However, this is a serious national debate, and the stakes for how each of our dignity is perceived are simply too great for me to back down.
Gerard, we’re all big kids here, we can deal. Nobody engaging in this issue expects tea and crumpets with the opposition. I personally think Maria is a fascinating case study in the irrational emotionalism that compels people to pursue IVF. A baby with their own genes is an item to be procured at any cost. Get in the way of that, and you’re going to draw fire.
C, Gerard or another Catholic would be better to answer your question (it’s a really good one too). As a Christian though not a Catholic, I don’t think a mother should have such a discussion with her children until they are old enough to comprehend the depth of the issue (preferably adults themselves). At such a time, she can point to God’s redemption of her and her repentance (Colossians 1:13-14, and Ephesians 1:7-8). It is my experience that children will not hate their mother for something she did in ignorance before they were even born. And being told that they are evidence of God’s redeeming love for their mother doesn’t hurt either!
Dan,
Listen to yourself. I deliberately provoked Maria? How? By speaking up for the truth of human dignity that is shredded in the IVF lab? By correcting her fallacious assertion that the human embryo is not human until it has a heartbeat?
This is exactly the kind of emotional bullying that the IVF crowd engages in masterfully. It isn’t just their human nature that is on the line.
It’s everyone’s
Yes I read her comments. I read how every single embryo was transferred, and how many died and only three “took”, as it were. I don’t think you read her comments carefully. Go back over the thread.
She repeatedly chortled and sniped at several people who were trying to correct her misunderstanding of embryology. Read it Dan! She was a foul-mouthed troll from the start. And you need to read her comments very carefully to get what I did from the outset:
She first defines an embryo as not human until it has a heartbeat (3 weeks). Therefore, when she had several embryos implanted and only the “strongest” survived (Gee, where have we heard that before? Darwin?), she did nothing wrong, because she only ever had three humans made (those who survived).
Making many more offspring than the process could allow to ever live is evil, plain and simple. Does it matter, really, if they died in a freezer or in the uterus?
Maria thinks that what she did mimics the natural loss of embryos conceived in a marital embrace.
Wrong!
The IVF clinic intentionally creates far more offspring than have a chance, as happened in Maria’s case. She has been asked by a few people to add clarification, which she has not. This creation of excess offspring, knowing that many will die, is intrinsically morally evil. Consoling herself with having all transferred to her womb is nothing more than practicing a little virtue within a maelstrom of vice. Sorry, Dan. I’m not buying it.
Again, IVF technology proceeds from a certain set of assumptions about the very definition of what it is to be human, and the rights inherent to all human beings, beginning at the moment of conception. For society to smile benignly at this technology, it must surrender some of its collective dignity.
Maria seems to think that IVF was her intimate reproductive event, and is stung to fury that I assailed that event in her life. In truth, it is not private bedroom behavior. It is an assault on human dignity. Jill’s blog and mine are places where these hard truths are debated openly and passionately.
Maria began that thread as an imperious know-it-all and got slammed with the truth of science and the truth of natural moral law. Being utterly bereft of any fact-based rejoinder, she has set about a wild temper tantrum, calling everyone reading this blog a “freak.”
The old trial lawyers have a saying.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the table.
I leave it to the discerning readers here to judge who did what today.
Sister Therese,
Thank you. I’ve enjoyed reading all of your very kind comments over at Jill’s as well. I think you sell yourself short in the eloquence department. You are quite eloquent, and kind!
God Bless.
C,
In answer to your question, I think you do so when the children are adults, and with the assistance of a good spiritual director and a good counselor.
None of us is perfect, and all of us have sinned. Adult children are better able to grasp that, I think, than younger offspring in their teens or even in college, where idealism has not yet been tempered by reality and personal failure.
There is a great moral lesson in what you have intimated here, one that I claim often:
There is no life apart from the Magisterium. When we drift or rebel, we find ourselves in situations we could neither foresee, nor dream that we could ever be capable of. And then comes redemption.
Just keep loving your children, and they’ll love you and embrace you in return.
I was at the March for Life a few years ago and met a lovely woman my age who was there with her two daughters in their early 20’s. She had an abortion before she married and had her daughters, and finally told them three months before the March. They were shocked and saddened at first, but quickly rallied to their mother, whom they love more than life.
Mom was there to March with Silent No More, and her daughters were there to march with her and support her when she gave her witness before the Supreme Court Steps. It was a beautiful experience all around, and a testimony to God’s infinite healing love and grace.
You’ll do fine!
Thank you.
I wanted to make one more point in this discussion – particularly with the “IVF is abortion on steroids” comment.
Abortion and IVF both result in dead babies.
The babies that die from abortion are usually the unintentional result of irresponsible behavior (sex outside of marriage). IVF however, quite intentionally (entire industry, millions of dollars) creates babies in a “responsible” (technological) manner (and in excess) only to destroy them later. Both are bad, certainly, but to create with the intention to kill at the outset is far, far worse.
IMHO, the key to telling children the truth about their dead siblings later is *repentance*. If a mother is repentant, her children will forgive and love, as Dr. Gerard has said. But can you imagine if the mother tells the children and yet is not repentant but proud of what she did? That is horrific. In that case, she should ever be silent. But of course, if she is proud, she won’t be silent.
Animal husbandry and abortion on steriods! Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant! I should have read this post earlier!!! I must get to this blog every time you update!!
I’m wondering how many of the “finger pointers” on here..actually have not only read the bible front to back..but read, reflect and meditate on it every single night? I’m also wondering how many “finger pointers on here actually have intimate relationships with God? Do you talk to him throught your days? If so..shouldn’t the MOST important thing right now.. be to show and share this love and peace you’ve inherited? Shouldn’t you be spreading God’s word around and scattering his seeds..instead of acting like you’re the judges here? I mean SERIOUSLY..there are other things we could be focussing on for God! He who is without sin..let him cast the first stone. For those of you who DON’T know the bible..it’s John 8:7. So if you’re claiming to be a Christian..let’s get off our butts and gather his sheep instead of acting like we’re not only free of sin..but we’re here to judge! There’s only ONE judge..!!!!. It’s not up to us to decide if this is right or wrong…that’s between them and God!!! Now show some love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is brilliant. When one takes God out of creating life, things get strange.
We were told by 2 different doctors that we would have to do IVF to have children. We did not do IVF, we have one child and one in heaven, all conceived the old fashioned way.
IVF goes completely against natural law, even if one isn’t faithful can understand that life isn’t supposed to be created in a petri dish. That is just wrong.
Dr. Nadal, as always, excellent post, excellent points.
Maria, i really think it is not only rude but childish to call someone whose name is “Gerald” “Gerry”. I guess you’re trying to belittle him, but it really just makes you look foolish. It shows that you deliberately begin your words with an ad hominem attack (not that what follows ever really rises above that).
And we’re not cult followers, and he is not a cult leader. He is a well-known and well-respected doctor and a pro-life activist. He is on the side of truth. I don’t always agree with his tactics, but I always agree with his willingness to defend the truth. He is trying to save lives. I’m pretty sure that if Dr. Nadal was attempting to draw attention to his “mighty being”, he wouldn’t be doing it by taking an unyielding stand on what is arguably the most unpopular thing to defend these days.
In this sentence, “In my opinion you are indeed crazy and that does not make me neither scornful nor full of rage.” you used a double negative, which effectively cancel each other out. Your sentence actually says, “In my opinion you are indeed crazy and that does make me either scornful or full of rage.” See what I mean? The double negatives produce the opposite of your intent. You might want to grammar-check next time, as I’m pretty sure that is not what you meant to say. Language is important and how we use it matters.
You said, in your initial comments, “sane people don’t call all these initial embryos that dont result in squat CHILDREN, either inside the womb or out!”
There are, in fact, millions of people who do call these initial embryos children. I am one of them. I believe we are sane. But there are millions who do not, you are correct. I believe that they are also sane.
In the days of slavery, Africans were not considered people under the law. In fact, the word “person” or “human” was not used to refer to them. Often, abolitionists who called them “people” were labeled as “insane.” The issue wasn’t who was insane or who was sane, but who allowed themselves to be deceived by prejudice, a trick of the language, the status of the law, and the opinions of the masses.
You want to be careful there. Language has been, and is, and will continue to be manipulated in order to deceive. It has been done many times in the past, and countless lives have been lost. Words matter. The way we use them can change the way people feel about, for example, whether or not a living creature should be protected or allowed to be killed. I would hesitate to ever agree with what most people do or do not call something without careful consideration. You ought to examine the matter carefully, not stake your claim with the multitude or with the “sane”.
Erin said: This is brilliant. When one takes God out of creating life, things get strange.
pt says: I’d love to know the source of your certainty regarding God’s wherabouts when any life is created, or if any of us at all has the power to take God out of creating life. I am trying to become more religious in my own way, but that type of certainty I simply haven’t ever known.
Just wondering… if Maria had been more civil and less beligerant, and had tried to communicate very calmly, would this have led to a more productive discussion? I’m not here as a provocateur, but rather as a student of moral thinking and action. I know the host of this blog and he’s a brilliant and decent man, so I trust he will take no offense, as none is intended. For example (typing quickly, please forgive deficiencies of grammar, spelling, structure, content, flow, meaning, significance, importance, relevance, and interest):
MARIA: Dr. N, you have made many good points. Please let me respond to some of them here.
Dr. N: Your offspring are only human beings when YOU say they are, not when science says they are.
MARIA: Yes, they are human beings, those that wouldn’t have existed without IVF. I did everything in my power to allow them to live, but they didn’t. Did IVF kill those that didn’t make it, or give them their only chance at survival? I am only saying that both may be true.
Dr. N: Your offspring are merely property to be disposed of as you see fit.
MARIA: I did not dispose of any of the embryos intentionally, although I agree that the process resulted in several that failed to thrive in the environment in which they were conceived. If all survived, I’d have raised them all lovingly.
Dr. N: Your offspring are only humans entitled to rights if YOU say they are.
MARIA: At the point at which they became embryos, I did everything I could to help them survive. Prior to their becoming embryos, there was no chance of their conception without IVF.
Dr. N: Your body is yours to do with as you please, and not subject to any restrictions imposed by either morality or a well-informed bioethic.
MARIA: I have never felt this way. I see IVF as a means of allowing egg and sperm to meet in an environment that gives them a better chance of survival. Frankly, I don’t see this procreation as any more selfish than any adult who wishes to have a child. Furthermore, to suggest that IVF is (and can only be) the product of a poorly-informed bioethic denies the many ethics / bioethics treatments of this issue by noted ethicists in both the popular and scientific press, such as the following: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/church-must-accept-ivf-is-reciprocal-act-of-love/2009/01/19/1232213536672.html
Dr. N: Yes, I do think your husband either terribly naive, or terribly selfish. In our desperation for a child of our own, I was not prepared to go to a fertility clinic and see my wife juiced up with frightening levels of hormones that would have increased her odds of developing cancer down the road. Even if she wanted to, I would not have consented.
MARIA: I don’t think it’s that simple, Dr. N. There may be an increased risk or transient increased risk from hormones, but so also from pregnancy, and I was willing to increase my risk of certain outcomes due to pregnancy itself. Further, compared with being nulliparous, having children in the long run may lead to a longer, and most definitely has led me to a happier, life. My husband and I discussed the risks and benefits carefully and jointly, and we made the best decision for us.
Dr. N: Finally, you say:
“Dr Nadal, I have no need to repent for my 3 living children for having them via IVF.”
You will one day realize that those three children have quite a few dead siblings who never made it out of the lab, and that’s where our paths diverge.
I’m with science, you are not (though you are with technology). From the moment of fertilization a new human being comes into existence. You were evidently okay with killing as many as it took to get to where you are now. I’m not. This process has less to do with marriage and family, and more to do with hi-tech animal husbandry in marriage (if you’ll excuse the pun).
MARIA: Almost every child has dead siblings in those embryos conceived naturally that never implanted. All of my embryos were given a chance that they never would have had without IVF. The three embryos who survived may be grateful (at least it seems to me that they are), and if possible, the ones who didn’t survive may in their own way be grateful for those that did. And yes, I realize that fertilization is the beginning of a new human being. My husband and I believed at the time that this process had a great deal to do with our marriage and family, and everything that has happened since has confirmed this sentiment and understanding profoundly. Finally, I’m sorry that we disagree so vehemently, but as you said we both feel in our hearts and our souls that we are right, and in such cases, fireworks are the usual result. I do respect your point of view, regardless of how it might sound. Please forgive me for any offense that I may have – in the heat of passion – caused you. Yours sincerely, Maria.
“The babies that die from abortion are usually the unintentional result of irresponsible behavior (sex outside of marriage).” HeAdoptedMeFirst: I guess I have to take exception to your comment only in this one sentence. You see, most babies who die in an abortuary are usually the INTENTIONAL result of irresponsible behavior… You cannot possibly believe that men and women who engage in illicit sex (outside of the sanctity of marriage) are unaware that there MIGHT be a possibility of getting pregnant! Hello?? Let me see. If I (a woman of child-bearing age) go to bed with this man and have sex with him, gee…does that mean, I could get pregnant??? Anyone with a grade school education knows exactly (to my great chagrin!) what happens when a man and a woman have intercourse.
What makes matters worse, is that their solution then is to commit an even worse evil to cover their butts! Why…I’ll just let someone else pay for my/our inability to control ourselves! After all, we’re all trained to get what we can out of life and the heck with anyone else. Who suffers? Children do. Children suffer the most from every adult evil: divorce, separation, abortion, birth-control, greed, pride, unfettered self-indulgence to the nth degree, and on and on the list goes. And then those children who have been blessed with surviving the horrific death in an abortuary or IVF lab, go on to perpetrate the same behaviors learned by their irresponsible parents. What a vicious cycle! Where and when does it stop? Who stops it? At what point do we begin to accept responsibility for our actions?
When a woman, whether coerced or by choice (there’s that word again!), walks into an abortuary she has one intention: killing the life inside of her. That is intentional. If she were being tried for murder, it would be called pre-meditated murder. She thought about it, considered the consequences (the pros and cons of an abortion–mostly the pros–in her mind), and made up her mind that she was not going to pay for this “mistake”. “I can do with my body what I CHOOSE!” (There’s that word again!)
What is missing from all of this is the truth about making CHOICES! Normally, people make a choice BEFORE they act. Most rational thinking folks consider all the angles before engaging in any kind of venture. Then, and only then, do we make a choice to do this or that. Sometimes those choices turn out not to be what we’d hoped. But, most of the time, choices that we make thoughtfully and prayerfully (including God in the act!) turn out pretty good. Now, my point is that women are suposed to be so inelligent–right? After all, we’re as good as men, if not better, intellecturally, etc. Yet, when it comes to making rational choices BEFORE we engage in risky behavior, our IQ’s suddenly drop 50 points! DUH! Now, is that the kind of reality women want to espouse? If not, then all this talk about CHOICES, CHOICES, CHOICES, has to be understood in its proper definition. It all boils down to one simple statement: Women need to make their choices BEFORE they jump into bed with a man. (Men,too, but sometimes they revert to the cavemen that lives in each one of them lurking around waiting for an opportunity to escape!) However, if we (society in general) expect women to make these choices using their intellect and will (which supposedly is stronger than most men’s) and women buy into this idea, then make the CHOICES when it does not involve the destruction of another innocent victim. In any other scenario other than abortion, IVF, or other reproductive issue, society would be scandalized by the stupidity and callousness of women’s choices. It just doesn’t make sense. But, then again, double-standards never make sense and they are always about injustice. This is the ultimate injustice, and it amazes me that so many people, but especially women don’t or won’t see that.
“I deliberately provoked Maria? How? By speaking up for the truth of human dignity that is shredded in the IVF lab? By correcting her fallacious assertion that the human embryo is not human until it has a heartbeat?”
It’s not the factual content of what you said, but the way you said it and the way you painted her with the same brush as most IVF users. In fact, the most evil aspect of IVF, namely the deliberate killing of embryonic human beings, is not present in the approach she claims to have used. You engaged in calumny by implying otherwise.
While it is true that she lacks understanding of both human embryogenesis and natural law, that does not justify your attack on her character. Furthermore, by alienating her you have lost all hope of correcting her understanding, and you have in fact harmed the pro-life cause.
Sister Terese, I respectfully disagree. As having volunteered in our local Crisis Pregnancy Clinic, most of the pregnancy’s I saw were unplanned and unintentional. I do however share your frustration in the “women making poor choices department.” My point was that these types of pregnancies are very different from the IVF pregnancies that are expertly planned and are quite intentional with the full intent to destroy from the outset.
Calah: excellent!
Calah and All,
Thank you for your kind words.
PT,
No offense taken, ever. You said something very interesting:
“I am trying to become more religious in my own way, but that type of certainty I simply haven’t ever known.”
There are a few dimensions here, that I’d like to address. First, faith is a gift from God, not a work of man. We work at increasing our faith by practicing our faith, praying, drawing closer to God daily. However, faith is a gift that must be requested by us.
Yes, you and I are both men of science, and that last statement qualifies in our field as something bordering on the insane, or at least shameful. But therein lies a paradox.
Saint Anselm of Canterbury was a brilliant medieval philosopher/theologian. I highly recomend his book, Proslogian in which he introduces us to the term, “Faith seeking understanding.”
Here is a good paper I came across for you on the book:
While the author does a credible job, there is simply no substitute for the richness of Anselm’s work. I make the recommendation with all due sensitivity to your Judaism and to your family’s Holocaust experiences. However, you remarked on a Christian’s certitude of faith, and how you have never known such a certitude. For us, Jesus is the Promised One, sent of God, who is God. Anselm can take you to a fuller understanding of what Erin expressed, and the depth from which that expression comes.
Getting more into the perspective of many Catholics here, myself included, will take the equivalent of going to Universal Studios and entering the Catholic Simulator. Locked in for a time, you can take a tour from within and virtually look out of the Catholic windshield and see science and faith, faith and reason in their organic unity. I’ll admit that the ride may be somewhat bumpy, but there’s always the STOP button!!
As to Maria’s vituperation, it comes from her desperation and choice not being affirmed. IVF parents take the consternation of pro-lifers as a rejection of their children, a devaluation of them, which is a rich irony as they don’t see how they devalued their embryonic children who were created in excess for the express purposes of playing the implantation probability game. The children are all fully legitimate. It’s the parents who are the issue. Oh well…
Debbie, as a “fingerpointer” I’d like to address your accusation.
Murder of the innocent is not “just between them and God.” The creation and destruction of millions of babies through IVF is a collective crime against God and humanity. This IS our modern holocaust. We allow it, we practice it, we condone it. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that only those directly involved share the responsibility.
Genesis 4:10
The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
The Lord calls us specifically to protect the innocent and weak time and again. I ask you…what is more precious and vulnerable than a newly created human being?
These babies are martyred for the selfishness of this generation – and God hears them. There will be accountability – for all of us.
Lord have mercy!
HeAdoptedMeFirst,
Thank you for saying that so eloquently and succinctly. We cannot judge people’s souls, but we sure can judge actions.
Dan,
I think you need to revisit Jill’s blog and follow the unfolding contributions of Maria. I hurt the pro-life cause because I encountered an imperious, ill-informed snob and at first just matter-of-factly and politely laid out the truth?
Her response was to call me crazy.
Her response was to reaffirm that life begins when there is a heartbeat, rejecting the truth of science.
Now, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I did not imply that she engaged in:
“the most evil aspect of IVF, namely the deliberate killing of embryonic human beings.”
I stated that she actually did it. No implication. Therefore, there was no calumny, only an objective rendering of the ugly truth.
The fact is that she consented to the creation of more embryos than actually took, and admitted as much over at Jills. Here, read it for yourself:
As you are aware, Dan, there is objective guilt and subjective guilt associated with evil.
Objectively, Maria engaged in grave evil and radically disordered human behavior. She consented to the cold and vicious calculus of IVF that creates more human embryos than have a chance at either implanting or surviving the pregnancy.
That she chose for them to die in her womb rather than in liquid nitrogen is hardly a meritorious distinction.
Then there is the matter of what she understood about the nature of those embryos going in. Maria claims to be pro-life. I know of NOBODY who makes such a claim who does not understand that a human comes into existence at the moment of fertilization. This was either a willful rejection of that understanding in order to satisfy her desperate desire for a biological keeper, or else she’s really a proabort troll. Her definitions of the identity and status of the human embryo, her imperious demeanor on the entire thread before my arrival, her immediate denunciation of me as crazy, her coming here and maligning all the readers here as freaks, cult members, etc., are ALL the machinations of proabort trolls.
Did I hurt the pro-life cause? Pleeeeeeaase, spare me Dan. That’s a backdoor allegation of me being a larger-than-life cult leader. I’m not that big, and pro-lifers, being generally very close to the Lord are far too wise, far too discerning, far too led by the Holy Spirit to have been led astray by my calling out an IVF apologist on her objective guilt in strong language. As for the whole, “it’s how you said it,” nonsense, I said it forthrightly and politely until she launched into her ad hominems. Then, she got a taste of her own medicine.
Now, as for copying her comments and pasting them here, I’ll let you and Maria in on a little secret, but don’t tell anyone else, okay?
That’s what social commentary blogs do.
Here’s another secret, Dan.
It’s always okay as long as it’s someone else’s ox whose being gored.
HeAdoptedMeFirst nailed it beautifully; failure to speak against evil makes us all complicit in it. Leila, you are absolutely correct. It is the failure to judge actions, the failure to hold up God’s standard as a measuring stick and say “This falls short” that leads eventually to atrocities.
It annoys me no end the way people persist in equating judgment of behavior as the same as judging the state of someone’s soul. The latter belongs only to God. The former is the responsibility of any civilized society. We’ve turned judging behavior into the worst sin possible; let everyone just do what is right in their own eyes is the mantra today. And the result is all kinds of behavior that once was abhorrent or unthinkable being accepted, even applauded today. Including abortion, IVF, and all the other permutations of reproductive technology.
Sister Terese,
You wanted to know what other pro-life sites were around. You may have asked over at Jill’s blog.
I’ve listed a bunch of great sites in the gray side panels on your right hand side. Each panel has a name.
In “Categories” you can find all of the articles I’ve posted (~265 so far), by category.
In “Great Pro-life sites”, I link to several of the big pro-life organizations.
In “Blogroll” there is an assortment of blogs I enjoy reading, but that’s just my personal list.
The rest of the panels are loaded with pro-life and mainstream scientific sites bearing all the data supporting our side, which is ALL of the data! There are also great books, healing ministries, etc. I’ve compiled it all as a pro-life library for folks. I’m sure there’s material there that will edify and delight everyone.
HeAdoptedMeFirst,
I LOVE YOUR BLOG!!! With your permission, I’d like to add it to my Blogroll.
I’d also like to add a hearty second to your response to Debbie. I don’t think that she understands the nature of fraternal correction as Jesus taught it. She also doesn’t understand that admonishing the sinner is the most loving act one can engage in, and to do otherwise is to hide our light under a bushel. It is also a sin against charity to confirm another in their sin, either explicitly by cheering them on, or implicitly through silence.
Dr. Nadal: Thanks for pointing your side panel to me! You can be assured that I will be reading all of the blogs on your site! (I guess I’ll have to get a more comfortable chair and have someone bring me my meals!)
HeAdoptedMeFirst: Thanks for the clarification. I have not personally been involved in any pro-life pregnancy centers except when they have called for donations. However, I also want to say that I have had many women friends in my life and only a handful can I say made innocent mistakes when it came to relationships or sexual situations. Quite a number, well-educated and/or professional women that I knew had a number of abortions…my own sister, in fact. My sister is/was not uninformed or scared when she found herself pregnant. In fact, she had 2 deliberate abortions. Now, I can see a situation where a young woman gets pregnant, sperm donor takes off, woman gets frightened and makes a horrible and, perhaps, unintentional decision to abort the life inside her. I really question how “unintentional” that decision was/is. However, as only God can read the hearts and souls of humans, I leave that matter to Him.
Thanks for the clarification, though. And, I admire greatly your very important work in crisis pregnancy (pro-life) centers. There is where lives can be saved. God is so good!
Dr. Nadal, thank you so much for standing up for life and not allowing bullying to prevail over justice. I was telling my wife about this and Jill’s comment thread last night, and we had a good discussion about IVF in general. She mentioned that a local adoption agency offers IVF embryo adoption.
I’ve never given the topic much thought unfortunately, so my reaction was “oh, that’s good.” Her’s was quite the opposite. She said that – like stem cell research does for abortion – IVF embryo adoption helps legitimize a terrible act to would-be IVF parents. I’m not really sure what to think.
On the one hand, you have the chance to save real lives that will die without intervention. On the other hand, you have the apparent legitimization of an atrocity.
What’s your take on it? I trust your opinions and knowledge on IVF and life issues, so I’m keen to learn.
Oops… just disregard this and my previous comment. I just saw the post you published _yesterday_. Reading now…
Andrew,
I’m in the middle of a series of articles on the topic of embryo adoption.
Here’s Part I:
http://www.headlinebistro.com/en/columnists/nadal/080411.html
Here’s Part II:
https://gerardnadal.com/2011/08/17/the-case-for-embryo-adoption-open-or-shut-by-rome-2/
More to come.
When I first read about embryo adoption (just a few days ago!–I had no idea that this was even possible!), it just didn’t sit right with me. It seems almost contradictory in essence. On the one hand, it does provide an opportunity for those human beings to grow and develop fully. However, abortion, birth-control, IVF, and other medical procedures are a multi-million (billion?) dollar entity. They are not going to go quietly. Embryo adoption has the real potential of furthering the culture of death in the name of providing life for these embryos. I guess it’s like a two-edged sword. The more embryo adoptions there are brought to the public light, the greater the demand for them. Where is the demand for embryos going to be met?? In more IVF clinics. Although on the surface, embryo adoption sounds like a way to pacify the pro-lifers, underneath it seems almost as insidious as IVF. I don’t know. I guess I don’t know enough about it to make a judgement call, but it just gives me the “willies” for want of a better word!
Understandable, Sister.
Hang in there over the next couple of weeks. I’ll be posting 2-3 more articles.
Thanks, Dr. Nadal! I look forward to reading them, as I do everything you write! God bless you!
Gerard,
“Her response was to call me crazy.”
You provoked her by appearing to attack that which is most precious to her: her children. I know you didn’t exactly attack her children, but it came across to her that way (as did the responses of several others on Jill’s site, before you arrived), and you certainly hit a raw nerve. You shouldn’t be surprised by the response you got. It’s human nature. But that does not mean you should respond in kind.
“I stated that she actually did it. No implication.”
Well, that seals it then, Gerard. You are guilty of calumny.
“Objectively, Maria engaged in grave evil and radically disordered human behavior. She consented to the cold and vicious calculus of IVF that creates more human embryos than have a chance at either implanting or surviving the pregnancy.”
I don’t know how you could possibly arrive at that interpretation of her statements. She stated that she transferred every one of her embryos into her womb without any freeze/thaw cycles. That means she only created embyros that she intended to bring to term, and I would assume she did this one at at time, ie. create one embryo and then transfer it, after which she would create a second embryo only if the first one did not implant. Every embryo was given a fighting chance, and none was discarded.
“Maria claims to be pro-life. I know of NOBODY who makes such a claim who does not understand that a human comes into existence at the moment of fertilization.”
On the contrary, Gerard, I have known quite a few people who were unclear on this point, and yet called themselves pro-life. What those people need is a clear, complete, and non-judgmental (ie. free of emotionally loaded language) explanation of the relevant facts of embryology, along with a clear and non-judgmental explanation of the moral philosophical implications that follow from this. I have found that Robert George’s short paper on embryo ethics is a good place to start:
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.23
To put it quite bluntly, this was an opportunity to win Maria over, and you blew it. Furthermore, you have an obligation to publicly retract your calumny. Nothing less will do.
Did no one else pick up on the oh-so-ironic Dr Kevorkian mention by Maria?
Hmm.. a Dr who feels that people in a stage of life that is less than fully “capable” are expendible… hmmm… and yet, he’s crazy, but IVF Drs are not…
Dr Nadal, thank you for this post. As a 5-year Catholic infertile woman, I appreciate when others stand up for life in all forms, from conception to natural death.
God Bless!
Excellent thoughts, Dr. Nadal. As you know from fruitful years of blogging, not all within the same nominal faith express the same conclusions. Your thoughts in particular have helped to clarify my own on abortion, and I’m grateful to you. You’ve given clear voice to the “intuitive” discomfort that this Jewish boy has always felt with it. The IVF issue is less “intuitive” for me, perhaps because I see lives and families created, and I know some of these families personally; there is a profound love in all of them, whereas with abortion I see only destruction. Yet I realize that moral intution is not faith, and faith has been elusive in my life. That is why the suggestions you made for further study will be taken very seriously. Thank you.
Dan,
Definition of CALUMNY
1: a misrepresentation intended to harm another’s reputation
2: the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to harm another’s reputation
— ca·lum·ni·ous adjective
— ca·lum·ni·ous·ly adverb
Witnessing the truth about one’s behavior is not a false charge. I witness truth, and the Holy Spirit determines who brings in the harvest.
If that’s me, fine. If not, fine.
I’m called to witness the truth. You have read malicious intent into my behavior, which is a calumnus charge. Get your head screwed on straight, Dan.
P.S. Dan, your comments keep appearing in my spam folder, as are several others. I don’t know why. So if your comments are delayed in appearing, that’s why.
Interesting topic and great discussion.
I don’t support embryo adoption but I have enjoyed the articles you’ve written so far and I will eagerly wait for the third installment!
You’ve done NO harm to the prolife movement Dr. Nadal. You educate so many people and that is a great accomplishment. 🙂
I will have to check out the discussion at Jill’s blog.
I really hope this kind of dialog is made more public on many different blogs and networking venues. At least there is exposure going on of this sub-culture of the abortion issue.
//To put it quite bluntly, this was an opportunity to win Maria over, and you blew it. Furthermore, you have an obligation to publicly retract your calumny. Nothing less will do.//
//What those people need is a clear, complete, and non-judgmental//
//along with a clear and non-judgmental explanation//
Only you, can prevent the irony of self-calumnous, judgmentalism.
Definition of CALUMNY
1: a misrepresentation intended to harm (one’s own self reputation)
2: the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to harm one’s own self reputation
— ca·lum·ni·ous adjective
— ca·lum·ni·ous·ly adverb
Now reading (slowly) Proslogian. Also “How to think about God” by Mortimer J. Adler. Have you read the latter?
PT: Mortimer Adler was a true educator and philosopher. For anyone who is interested in what has happened in American schools, and what the remedy could be, read his “Paideia Proposal” (1982). A great man, a great philosopher, and he also converted to Catholicism a few years before his death in 2001 at the age of 98. He was also responsible for the “Great Books” educational model, and considered Aristotle & Thomas Aquinas his favorites–and it was his love of Aquinas’ Summa that brought him to the Church–some say that he converted to Catholicism very early on in his heart, but because of his wife’s religion (Episcopalian) he didn’t “Cross the Tiber” until after her death. Great man…
I have not read the latter, PT, but you can bet I will now! I can also recommend “The Time of Our Lives: The Ethics of Common Sense.” He wrote books so that the “common man/woman” could understand.
Paul,
I’ve read alot of Adler, but not that one. He was a gem! Funny story about him that you might not be aware of…
Columbia University has a swimming requirement for graduation. You have to swim three lengths of the pool. Don’t ask why, but compared to what you and I went through up there, that seems to be the least of it!
Anyway, Adler refused to take the test, so he never got a diploma and was not permitted to graduate from Columbia College (http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/mortimer_j_adler.html)
He did go on to earn his Ph.D. from Columbia, go to the University of Chicago and create the Great Books of Western Civilization Program.
Now for the killer…
Adler was recognized by Columbia for his exemplary life as a scholar and awarded his B.A. in 1984. He actually donned undergrad robes and marched with the graduating class!! He was a colorful man, and I’m glad Columbia made the exception. Probably the only time they ever yielded on their 2,000,000,000,000 Byzantine rules.
“Witnessing the truth about one’s behavior is not a false charge.”
But you haven’t witnessed the truth, Gerard. You imputed evil intent to Maria without a shred of evidence, and you made grave accusations against her in spite of her statements to the contrary. Furthermore, you continue to do this even after the truth has been pointed out to you, not just by me, but also by several others on Jill’s site.
I stand by my charge of calumny. I also stand by my claim that you have an obligation to repair the damage you have done:
http://catholicism.about.com/od/Catholic-Dictionary/g/Calumny-Definition-Of-Calumny.htm
Dan: I am, by no means, a scholar in anything. But, I can read. What I read in Dr. Nadal’s comments were RESPONSES to the inconsistencies in Maria’s statements. I don’t understand why you can’t see that. I’m no Einstein, but even I could see that. I understand that Maria may not have INTENTIONALLY entered into the IVF world, but certainly her statement at least give the impression that her beliefs (at that time, or now) were not consistent with being a staunch pro-lifer. Even I had trouble figuring out her thinking patterns.
//But you haven’t witnessed the truth, Gerard//
More sanctimonious judgementalism.
//You imputed evil intent//
More Judging.
//I also stand by my claim that you have an obligation to repair the damage you have done://
And if he doesn’t repair the damage, is Dr. Nadal evil then?
Is Dr. Nadal going to hell, purgatory, or heaven if he doesn’t obey your obligation to repair damage of a person who must lack good, as we all do.
Now, a definition is in order to keep the mind clear.
Evil, nothingmore then a lack of good.
Dan,
Playing the unctious Catholic card is bad business, and really reflects the same political tactics used by Kmiec, and continued by Obama to this day and his party(Culture) of Death. I demand your apology, by reason of your Fundamentalist Judgementalism which lack’s compassion, and actually any shred of Mercy—-loving those that don’t have a claim upon your love.
Do you love Dr. Nadal or not, Dan?
“More sanctimonious judgementalism.”
So, in your view, the truth cannot be used as a defense against a false charge? Really Astran?
Let’s be very clear: Dr. Nadal falsely accused Maria of creating “spare” embryos (ie. embryos she never intended to implant and bring to term) and deliberately killing them. In my view, this is the most serious accusation he leveled against her, and it is very clearly a false accusation.
“And if he doesn’t repair the damage…”
So, do you acknowledge that damage was done? And if so, do you care about Maria as a person, or merely as a means to an end, namely scoring points in an online argument?
“Do you love Dr. Nadal or not, Dan?”
Of course. Do you love Maria? Are you suggesting that I would be demonstrating compassion or Mercy if I back down and allow false charges against Maria to go unchallenged? Really Astran?
Sister Terese: I agree that Maria’s understanding is lacking and needs to be corrected. However, Dr. Nadal chased her away before any of us had a chance to give her a convincing explanation.
Dan:
“Let’s be very clear: Dr. Nadal falsely accused Maria of creating “spare” embryos (ie. embryos she never intended to implant and bring to term) and deliberately killing them.”
I’ve had enough of your mischaracterizations, Dan. If you are that severely deficient in critical reading skills, then get lost. On the other hand, if you’re trying to kick over a hornet’s nest, you just did.
Now, you know damned well I said no such thing, so either retract or get lost. I don’t suffer fools very well, even those claiming to be pro-life and Christian.
//So, in your view, the truth cannot be used as a defense against a false charge? Really Astran?//
A question is asked in response to a statement of fact, the fact of your severe case of fundamental Judgementalism. Oh Really Dan?
//So, do you acknowledge that damage was done? And if so, do you care about Maria as a person, or merely as a means to an end, namely scoring points in an online argument?///
More questions to divert the fact of your damage to Dr. Nadal’s “personage”.
//Of course. Do you love Maria? Are you suggesting that I would be demonstrating compassion or Mercy if I back down and allow false charges against Maria to go unchallenged? Really Astran?//
If you love Dr. Nadal, apologize, and ask forgiveness for the evil intention to destroy the Unity of Love that Dr. Nadal is defending as a Catholic. See, if you back down, and give of yourself, you can show Mercy to Dr. Nadal, and de-expand your ego. That’s how it’s done in the truly Catholic town, Dan.
[…] Dr. George Nadal says in this blog post: “The field of embryology clearly teaches that a new human organism, a new human animal with […]
Gerard, you said this to Maria:
“You were evidently okay with killing as many as it took to get to where you are now.”
And you also said the following:
“The IVF clinic intentionally creates far more offspring than have a chance, as happened in Maria’s case… This creation of excess offspring, knowing that many will die, is intrinsically morally evil.”
“This creation of excess offspring, knowing that many will die, is intrinsically morally evil.”
“Now, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I did not imply that she engaged in:
the most evil aspect of IVF, namely the deliberate killing of embryonic human beings.
I stated that she actually did it. No implication.”
“Objectively, Maria engaged in grave evil and radically disordered human behavior. She consented to the cold and vicious calculus of IVF that creates more human embryos than have a chance at either implanting or surviving the pregnancy.”
Gerard, please explain how your statements differ in substance from my brief characterization of them.
No, Dan. I’m actually through trying to explain things to you. If you understood IVF, or made a good faith effort at understanding my rather straightforward explanations, you wouldn’t be stuck on square one. The rest of the group has moved on.
I’m here to blog, not to do your critical thinking for you.
For me, this issue of creating life through IVF is tremendously personal. Due to some of my brothers being carriers of cystic fibrosis (and therefore lacking vas deferens), they have together with their wives brought 6 children into the world with IVF. I know the children’s parents are committed to giving all embryos they have created a chance at life, as they believe each one is a unique child. I also know that my siblings’ parish priest supported their decisions to procreate through IVF, with the understanding that the parents will assure all embryos created are transferred to the mothers’ wombs and that the children will be raised Catholic.
I find that Catholics on sites such as Life News have shown vast ignorance in relation to assisted reproduction (such as using the term “implant” instead of “transfer”) and a lack of compassion that cannot be considered Christ-like. They assume all IVF cycles involve destruction of embryos and a quest for “perfect” babies and they mock married couples that would like to become biological parents through IVF as selfish and ignoring God’s will for them in their lives. They assume these parents are too narcissistic to adopt, but that those who have conceived naturally (no matter the circumstances) have been “blessed” by God. How many of these Life News commentators have experienced infertility and forgone any “unnatural treatments”, and how many of them are fertile and have chosen to also adopt children into their families? (I challenge each of them to assert this data before each article or post they publish.) Following the logic of the Roman Catholic Church’s argument that all children should be conceived in the loving embrace of their married parents, why isn’t the Church at the forefront of advocacy for research into fallopian tube, vas deferens and uterus transplants?
In January 2008, I asked Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, in person about the moral status of my brothers and their wives. He said that IVF is never morally acceptable and that it is a grave offense. When asked what my siblings should now do, he said that they need to make a good confession. I wonder, though, what have they done that is sinful? I interpret Fr. Tad’s perspective to be that, if my brothers and their wives were “good” Catholics, their children would not exist. I then wonder if my son, who attends Catholic school, will at some point be taught that if his uncles and aunts were good Catholics, his 6 cousins would not exist. I think this information would be mind-blowing to a young Catholic who has always been taught to revere life and that marriage and child-bearing are considered gifts from God. You can be sure we will be leaving Catholic school if this occurs, and that a letter to the Diocese and an email chain will be forthcoming.
When I met Fr. Tad I also asked him about snowflake babies and the Catholic Church’s perspective on this procedure. He essentially said it is morally wrong to create new embryos and that while the Church at that time had no official position on adopting frozen embryos, there were good arguments on both sides. In relation to embryo adoption, I find the Church’s argument to penalize couples with no frozen embryos in favor of those couples who produced more than they wanted. The Church seems to say that the current frozen embryos deserve a chance at life, in their biological or adopted families, before any potential embryos may morally be created that would be guaranteed to grow up in their own biological family. If a couple, though, were to already have one or more biological children, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to produce biological siblings for their children through IVF (if other means weren’t successful) than to adopt frozen embryos with no biological relationship to their family?
The way I then see the crisis of frozen embryos is that if the Catholic Church recruited enough generous women to donate their womb space to bring all the frozen embryos to life, and surely the Church would do all in its power to ensure the former frozen embryos are adopted into loving homes, then couples who seek to utilize the IVF process and will not abuse it by creating more embryos than they would give life to would then have a moral chance at procreating with their own embryos.
These issues make me seriously wonder- How many Catholics turn to IVF when they have no other biological options, and how many other infertile Catholics chose adoption instead? What percentage of Catholics who have had children naturally have in addition adopted children into their families, and how many couples practice NFP so that they can afford to adopt and raise others’ children? It seems so convenient to match up the unwanted babies in the world with couples struggling with infertility (and it certainly lifts the burden on taxpayers that otherwise would be supporting the unadopted children’s needs). If no babies were available for adoption, though (the supply is shrinking as we give increasingly greater support to single mothers, many of them having chosen to conceive outside of marriage), would the Life News writers and posters still feel so self-righteous in demanding infertile couples forgo fertility treatments?
I also ponder – how many otherwise faithful Catholics leave the Church over feeling stigmatized for physical disabilities involving reproductive organs over which they have no control, especially when the Church consistently celebrates the new lives created by the “blessed”, fertile couples? Do we ever hear priests characterize those with, say, heart defects as unworthy to receive transplants, as God wanted them to suffer? It is beyond my understanding, even as a theology minor at a Catholic college who has worked for several dioceses, how the Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions, even welcoming them back into the Church if they are now married with other children (who will never know about their murdered sibling), but the Church completely condemns a Catholic couple who has never so much as used birth control, who choose in response to infertility to procreate via IVF using their own eggs and sperm, and transfer all embryos to the uterus.
Dear Confused, to be direct and with all the love I can muster – this is not about you or any of us, this is all about God. He has a plan. He’s God and he is the only one who can/should create life and the only one who should take it. Everyone complains about orphaned children, foster children, disabled children, but EVERYONE wants a DNA matched child. We are all called to be unselfish in our love for the Lord and that means accepting the challenges and blessings he sends to us. I was blessed with infertility because if I had been given the gift of dna children, I would never have known the wonderful children who were chosen for me through someone else’s fertility. Bottom line, we are all here to love and serve the Lord and each other – artificially creating life does neither.
LucyL: What a beautiful post! How can anyone argue with that?? God bless you!
LucyL –
Your children are most fortunate to have you and it is admirable that you view your infertility as a blessing. You seem to truly have so much love in your heart – I am curious then why it took so much effort to respond to my queries with love.
Just wondering – can the IVF assisted children not also love and serve the Lord and each other?
Yes, sweet lady, they can – Again, this is not about the children, or us or anything on this earth. It’s about God, the Creator. Like it or not, what people are doing with IVF is very evil – there are many good-intentioned people, committing evil acts because they just don’t want to see that God’s plan is fair in HIS way and HIS time, not ours. Our pride makes us believe that WE have a right to have the same gifts that our neighbor has and that just isn’t true. We are all unique and special in HIS eyes and HIS plan for me is not the same as HIS plan for you – but both are equally sacred and a true gift of love from HIM. We must humbly accept them as is…
Confused Catholic,
First, the priest that gave approval for IVF was either ignorant of the Church’s outright condemnation of the procedure, or else he was a coward. In the documents Donum Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and Dignitas Personae, IVF is roundly condemned. This priest is simply not free to prescind from Magisterial teaching. Therefore, everything he said was his own, rebellious position and not that of the Magisterium.
Secondly, I heartily support Lucy’s comments.
Next, God has a wise design for His creation, and for Catholics, the job of correctly interpreting, teaching, and upholding that design falls properly to the successors of the Apostles—the bishops. A faithful Catholic is bound to a solemn obligation of obedience to the bishops in areas of faith and morals.
In this light, no bioethicist or faithful Catholic needs to render an account of their fertility status, as you suggest. The truth is not subject to one’s reproductive rate. Witnessing that truth is the duty of every baptized and confirmed Catholic, whose legitimacy of commission issues forth from the waters of baptism, and not their loins.
When you say:
“It is beyond my understanding, even as a theology minor at a Catholic college who has worked for several dioceses, how the Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions, even welcoming them back into the Church if they are now married with other children (who will never know about their murdered sibling), but the Church completely condemns a Catholic couple who has never so much as used birth control, who choose in response to infertility to procreate via IVF using their own eggs and sperm, and transfer all embryos to the uterus.”
you must understand that the penalty for abortion is excommunication. Not so for IVF. Both are welcomed back into full standing and free to receive the Eucharist through confession. That’s the mission of the Church… to save sinners. So, actually, the woman procuring abortion incurs the greater penalty.
You are right to say that child-bearing is a gift from God.
It is not a right.
It is a gift.
When one feels that God is not gifting them, they have no right to overstep their bounds and create a new order for creation because they have grown impatient with God and graduated to outright rebellion. As Lucy says, perhaps God is calling them to adoption, etc.
As for your assertion that Catholic commenters at LifeNews are ignorant of IVF (and here I presume you include me), I say this with all respect, but your commentary indicates that it is you who is in the dark. Yes, IVF makes many more babies than will ever see birth. It matters not that all may be implanted. They are playing the odds ratio, knowing that the uterus has not been immunologically primed by the father’s semen and that consequently most of the embryos will not implant. Each of those embryos is a human being, and the parents consent to their manufacture in sufficiently large quantity so as to maximize the probability of at least one baby nine months down the road.
And yes, most embryos are winnowed with many simply being discarded, and many frozen indefinitely. This is the desperation of the parents trumping the rights and dignity of their offspring, as well as God’s wise design, meant to safeguard the rights and dignity of all persons.
Perhaps if your son is lucky, he will indeed hear the truth taught to him one day, the whole truth, which you have not told here today. He will be lucky to hear of the great dignity of each and every human being and how the Church teaches God’s wise design for safeguarding that dignity. And yes, he will come to understand that his aunts and uncles sinned, and that their sin is attenuated greatly by the fact that a priest lied to them, broke ranks with the bishops to whom he vowed respect and obedience on ordination day, and lead them, and his parents horribly astray.
Dr. Nadal,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions. It may also be instructive, for those who still have trouble following the Church’s logic on IVF, to read in the future a general format letter from the Church to children whose conception was aided by IVF. (If this document already exists, please respond here with a link.) If the letter were perhaps written to a child of, say, thirteen years old, then the terminology in and content of the letter may be more readily understood by the general population who may be unschooled in both the process of IVF and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Thank you for considering writing and publishing a letter of this sort!
Dr. Nadal: I am sorry if this is not the proper venue to ask you this, but here it is: I was talking to the other sisters at table this evening and telling them about an encounter with a young lady at the grocery store who asked for my prayers. She is 32 weeks pregnant with twins. Of course, I told her that I would pray for her as she said she was on bed rest and had been since she was 23 weeks. (She was riding around in one of those electric “go-carts”.) Of course, I was excited for her and still am. However, then I found out that she conceived (after 8 years of trying naturally) through IVF. Of course, I did not say anything in a public arena. Anyway, I was telling the sisters about this encounter and about your credentials and the whole story of “Maria” on the other blog. One of the sisters asked if you were associated with “Creighton” (?). I told her I did not know. She seemed to be familiar with your name and said that Creighton garners pro-life doctors from all over the country. She really didn’t explain to me what “Creighton” is/was. But, I was just wondering if you are associated with this organization. If not, do you know anything about it?
God bless you for your continued fight for life!
Sister Terese Peter, OSB
Hi Sister Terese,
No, I’m not associated with the Creighton folks. Here is the link to their page, and their self-description:
http://www.creightonmodel.com/
I’m not surprised that the woman you met was on bed rest. There are often difficulties in these pregnancies, some of which seem to stem from the lack of the mother’s immune system to tolerate the baby as a result of not having been primed by the father’s semen.
I’ve noted that you don’t use an “h” in your name. Are you still named for the Little Flower? We named our youngest, Regina Terese, after Mary and the Little Flower, but failed to use the “h”.
Dr. Nadal: Thanks for your response! I felt so bad for this lady…she’s been on my mind all day–and her babies, too. (Her name is Melissa.) Well, all one can do is leave her and her children in God’s hands at this point.
I am named after the LIttle Flower. Although my birth and baptismal certificates list my name as “Teresa”, my mother did not intend for me to have an “a” or an “h” in my name…I don’t know why. I love the Little Flower and have done extensive reading on her life and spirituality. (If you are interested, check out the title, “The Hidden Face.” EXCELLENT expose on her life and spirituality…very unusual.) However, as much as I love her, I feel a special kinship to “Big” Teresa. I admire her guts and sense of humor. When people ask me if I’m named after the “Little Flower”, I always say, “Yes, but I’m the Little Weed.”
Regina Terese is a beautiful name! And, it is spelled like my name, which is unusual. We will keep your family in our prayers during our daily Holy Hour before our Eucharistic Lord. God bless you! (Thanks for the link to Creighton!)