If only it were inconceivable...

Mary, The BBC reported on Louise Brown's birth back in 1978: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/26/newsid_2499000/... In that report, they stated: 'None of the main religions have an official policy on artificial insemination, but the Roman Catholic Church has raised the strongest objection. The Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh Cardinal Gordon Gray said: "I have grave misgivings about the possible implications and consequences for the future."' Nine years later, the Catholic Church did issue an official policy against in-vitro fertilization and other artificial reproductive technologies: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm which states: 'In conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous in vitro fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo. Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.' The current push for the creation of chimeric embryos was foreseen in that document: 'Techniques of fertilization in vitro can open the way to other forms of biological and genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as attempts or plans for fertilization between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human embryos in the uterus of animals, or the hypothesis or project of constructing artificial uteruses for the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage. Also, attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through "twin fission," cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union.' The same document also had this to say about how the law should treat experimentation on embryos: 'When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. The political authority consequently cannot give approval to the calling of human beings into existence through procedures which would expose them to those very grave risks noted previously. The possible recognition by positive law and the political authorities of techniques of artificial transmission of life and the experimentation connected with it would widen the breach already opened by the legalization of abortion. As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights. The law cannot tolerate -- indeed it must expressly forbid -- that human beings, even at the embryonic stage, should be treated as objects of experimentation, be mutilated or destroyed with the excuse that they are superfluous or incapable of developing normally.' As far as I know, all Protestant churches now explicitly, or tacitly approve of IVF for married couples, with the sole exception of some who may object to IVF procedures during which "spare" embryos are discarded. In Christ, John

>> Why do our pastors preach against abortion but say nothing about IVF? I'm sure there are others here more qualified to answer this than I am, but I'll list what I see as the major reasons: 1) The acceptance of contraception. The historian, Allan Carlson (whose publication Tim Bayly recommends in a post above), wrote an article for May issue of Touchstone Magazine entitled "Children of the Reformation, A Short & Surprising History of Protestantism & Contraception": http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f In it, he documents the switch that took place in Protestant pastors use of, and then teaching about, contraception. Over the course of a few generations, they converted from almost universal opposition to birth control to its almost universal use and acceptance. Once one has accepted the separation of sex from conception created by birth control, it is very difficult to object to the separation of conception from sex created by IVF. Yes, embryos are destroyed in some IVF procedures, but then some methods of birth control cause embryonic death as well. 2) Lack of denominational and peer support. It takes a strong pastor indeed to preach an unpopular and complex message when he has no institutional support and his fellow ministers do not understand the moral issues involved. Thank God, there are such men - but they will always be a minority in every age. I am reminded of the line from the movie, "A Man for All Seasons", where the Duke of Norfolk tries to persuade his friend, Thomas More, to deny his conscience and accede to Henry VIII's demand that he approve of the King's marriage. After listening to the arguments on the matter, Norfolk pulls holds out a list and exclaims: "Oh, confound all this . . . I'm not a scholar and I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at these names . . . Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?" 3) Confusion about ends and means. Instruction in Moral Theology has been ignored or deemphasized in many seminaries in recent decades: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9901/reviews/charles.html A few years ago, Touchstone published a comprehensive article laying out the moral issues surrounding IVF and the proper Christian response to the new methods of manipulating embryos: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-01-028-f It begins: "The man across the table from me was articulate, passionate, zealous, brilliant, principled, and committed to doing good. I had sat spellbound as he delivered for my personal benefit one of the most fascinating and lucid microbiology lectures I had ever heard. He was also engaged in research that I found morally reprehensible." "[A]s we spoke in his boardroom, in his laboratories human embryos were lying in petri dishes, subjected to experimentation, dissected, and killed; some were frozen for future use. Human embryos — embryonic human beings — it does not matter how it is put; they were beings who were human." 4) Pastoral difficulties. If John and Jane Doe approach their pastor with their new daughter, Susie, how is he to tell them that her method of conception was immoral? "But, she's here, alive and beautiful! How could anything that produced such a wonderful result be wrong in any way?" It's a delicate question to answer charitably, but Touchstone again managed it very well in its editorial, "Gifts of the Womb": http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-02-003-e In Christ, John