[Mongoose]

...didn't I already exemplify why the point you're making there is fundamentally flawed, Battuta?  I know we discussed that at some point in the past.  I'm still curious as to what logical framework equates a conscious informed choice with unconscious biological chance.

And yes, the Church does have a fundamental problem with IVF, primarily because it generally involves the creation and subsequent destruction/freezing of multiple embryos in every attempt.  Even if you don't personally have a problem with that as such, you have to admit that it's an intensely inefficient process.

I'll just kind of sum it up: Pedophilia = non-issue. The regression of science = SRS church beezwax!  

Cute.

[General Battuta]

...didn't I already exemplify why the point you're making there is fundamentally flawed, Battuta?  I know we discussed that at some point in the past.  I'm still curious as to what logical framework equates a conscious informed choice with unconscious biological chance.

The thought experiment I presented above with the artificial womb addresses that objection because the machine is performing as well as it can. It's trying to save every single embryo, it just fails 80% of the time - just like a real human uterus.

The Church should consider this method of IVF ethical if it also considers human reproduction ethical.

And yes, the Church does have a fundamental problem with IVF, primarily because it generally involves the creation and subsequent destruction/freezing of multiple embryos in every attempt.  Even if you don't personally have a problem with that as such, you have to admit that it's an intensely inefficient process.

The entire point is that its inefficiency is at least comparable with human biological inefficiency.

[Mongoose]

...didn't I already exemplify why the point you're making there is fundamentally flawed, Battuta?  I know we discussed that at some point in the past.  I'm still curious as to what logical framework equates a conscious informed choice with unconscious biological chance.

The thought experiment I presented above with the artificial womb addresses that objection because the machine is performing as well as it can. It's trying to save every single embryo, it just fails 80% of the time - just like a real human uterus.

The Church should consider this method of IVF ethical if it also considers human reproduction ethical.

I was kind of referring more to your original comment about the light in which natural human reproduction could be considered a "mortal sin," but I also fail to see what the thought experiment adds to the discussion.  In that case, you're building a machine that has a consciously-designed inefficiency to it...true, it happens to match the efficiency of the human body, but only because you wanted to make it that way.  You could theoretically create a similar design that controlled as many variables as possible and achieved a near-perfect success rate of implantation, but for whatever reason, you chose not to.  I don't see that as standing on the same ethical grounds as human reproduction.

And yes, the Church does have a fundamental problem with IVF, primarily because it generally involves the creation and subsequent destruction/freezing of multiple embryos in every attempt.  Even if you don't personally have a problem with that as such, you have to admit that it's an intensely inefficient process.

The entire point is that its inefficiency is at least comparable with human biological inefficiency.

But the ethical/moral context isn't comparable, which is the point I made to you in another thread.  (I can't remember which one it was at the moment, though.)  You go into an IVF procedure with the full foreknowledge that you're going to be sentencing multiple embryos to destruction.  It's completely within your control.  In contrast, a couple having sex for the sake of trying to conceive has no idea whether they will even produce a zygote, much less have an embryo implant...it's completely out of their hands.  That's the moral distinction at work here.

[newman]

In that case, you're building a machine that has a consciously-designed inefficiency to it...

Actually, once you've fed the "ingredients" into the machine you have no control over the outcome any more than you have control over the processes in the female body immediately after sexual relations. So unless you're suggesting humans are having unconscious sex, the level of intentionality is pretty much the same - which is "let's perform that baby-making thing". After that's been done, be it the machine or the Barry White/dimmed lights method, you have about the same chances of success.

[General Battuta]

...didn't I already exemplify why the point you're making there is fundamentally flawed, Battuta?  I know we discussed that at some point in the past.  I'm still curious as to what logical framework equates a conscious informed choice with unconscious biological chance.

The thought experiment I presented above with the artificial womb addresses that objection because the machine is performing as well as it can. It's trying to save every single embryo, it just fails 80% of the time - just like a real human uterus.

The Church should consider this method of IVF ethical if it also considers human reproduction ethical.

I was kind of referring more to your original comment about the light in which natural human reproduction could be considered a "mortal sin," but I also fail to see what the thought experiment adds to the discussion.  In that case, you're building a machine that has a consciously-designed inefficiency to it...true, it happens to match the efficiency of the human body, but only because you wanted to make it that way.  You could theoretically create a similar design that controlled as many variables as possible and achieved a near-perfect success rate of implantation, but for whatever reason, you chose not to.  I don't see that as standing on the same ethical grounds as human reproduction.

No, you build a machine that you try to make 100% efficient, but you can't do it because (whatever); it only ends up being 20% efficient. Your intentionality was to save 100% of embryos, but you can only save 20%.

The thought experiment presupposes that you can't do any better. In this scenario, if IVF inefficiency is the problem, the Church would be forced to concede that this mission was not sinful.

And yes, the Church does have a fundamental problem with IVF, primarily because it generally involves the creation and subsequent destruction/freezing of multiple embryos in every attempt.  Even if you don't personally have a problem with that as such, you have to admit that it's an intensely inefficient process.

The entire point is that its inefficiency is at least comparable with human biological inefficiency.

But the ethical/moral context isn't comparable, which is the point I made to you in another thread.  (I can't remember which one it was at the moment, though.)  You go into an IVF procedure with the full foreknowledge that you're going to be sentencing multiple embryos to destruction.  It's completely within your control.  In contrast, a couple having sex for the sake of trying to conceive has no idea whether they will even produce a zygote, much less have an embryo implant...it's completely out of their hands.  That's the moral distinction at work here.

Let me rephrase your statement:

You go into an attempt to get your partner pregnant with the full foreknowledge that you're going to be sentencing multiple embryos to destruction. It's completely within your control. You have no idea whether you will produce a zygote, much less have an embryo implant; it's completely out of your hands - but the odds are that 80% of your successful fertilizations will abort. (An IVF person could, of course, get lucky and have only 1 embryo form, and it would also implant.)

There's no moral distinction at work here.

[Mongoose]

In that case, you're building a machine that has a consciously-designed inefficiency to it...

Actually, once you've fed the "ingredients" into the machine you have no control over the outcome any more then you have control over the processes in the female body immediately after sexual relations. So unless you're suggesting humans are having unconscious sex, the level of intentionality is pretty much the same - which is "let's perform that baby-making thing". After that's been done, be it the machine or the Barry White/dimmed lights method, you have about the same chances of success.

...did you somehow miss the point that you're the one who designed the machine in the first place, so presumably you have a far greater level of control over its success rate than of the random chance inherent in human reproduction?  In other words, what practical purpose would building a device that has that same 20% success rate serve?  This is kind of why I've never seen much of a purpose of conducting thought experiments like this when it comes to ethical discussions...why complicate a situation that has immediate and concrete possibilities with an additional one that will never exist?

[General Battuta]

In that case, you're building a machine that has a consciously-designed inefficiency to it...

Actually, once you've fed the "ingredients" into the machine you have no control over the outcome any more then you have control over the processes in the female body immediately after sexual relations. So unless you're suggesting humans are having unconscious sex, the level of intentionality is pretty much the same - which is "let's perform that baby-making thing". After that's been done, be it the machine or the Barry White/dimmed lights method, you have about the same chances of success.

...did you somehow miss the point that you're the one who designed the machine in the first place, so presumably you have a far greater level of control over its success rate than of the random chance inherent in human reproduction?  In other words, what practical purpose would building a device that has that same 20% success rate serve?  This is kind of why I've never seen much of a purpose of conducting thought experiments like this when it comes to ethical discussions...why complicate a situation that has immediate and concrete possibilities with an additional one that will never exist?

Again: in this thought experiment, you built the IVF machine to be 100% efficient, but it can only achieve 20% efficiency, and nothing you can do or will every try to do will ever make it more efficient.

It thus performs exactly like a human body does today (actually a bit better?) The purpose of this thought experiment is to remove the intentionality element from destruction of embryos in IVF, present an IVF method that has unintentional wastefulness, and ask if it's still sinful since it is in every way identical to a human body.

[General Battuta]

Update. This discussion is pointless because the Vatican's objections to IVF are rooted in technophobia, not concerns over lost embryos.

Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) [...] 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."[52]

Couples unable to procreate naturally cannot be allowed to procreate by artificial means because they are, y'know, contributing to the domination of technology over the human soul. They can't give themselves to one another without him placing his penis into her vagina and moving it around.

In other news, the Vatican bans medical treatment for the ill because it promotes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

[Mongoose]

No, you build a machine that you try to make 100% efficient, but you can't do it because (whatever); it only ends up being 20% efficient. Your intentionality was to save 100% of embryos, but you can only save 20%.

The thought experiment presupposes that you can't do any better. In this scenario, if IVF inefficiency is the problem, the Church would be forced to concede that this mission was not sinful.

The "whatever" kind of proves my point above.  Why are we even making this device in the first place if it doesn't function any better than human biology?  I don't see where we can go with this.

Let me rephrase your statement:

You go into an attempt to get your partner pregnant with the full foreknowledge that you're going to be sentencing multiple embryos to destruction. It's completely within your control. You have no idea whether you will produce a zygote, much less have an embryo implant; it's completely out of your hands - but the odds are that 80% of your successful fertilizations will abort. (An IVF person could, of course, get lucky and have only 1 embryo form, and it would also implant.)

There's no moral distinction at work here.

But you don't have that foreknowledge that you're going to be sentencing anything to destruction when you have sexual intercourse.  You have no idea what's going to happen in there: if your sperm will even fertilize an egg, if said zygote will even make it to the uterus, if the embryo will manage to implant.  You're not playing any sort of deliberate odds here, just leaving everything up to chance..."in God's hands," if you will.  In contrast, the couple entering into IVF knows that there are going to be multiple embryos generated, and that those extra embryos that aren't implanted will either be destroyed or thrown into a deep-freezer.  That's a bare fact of the process.  I don't really see how this distinction is difficult to grasp.

On top of that, trying to promote the assertion that attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse is somehow morally wrong under the Church's own guidelines is kind of fundamentally laughable in the first place, as it's the basic natural process that all of the artificial methods are based on anyway.  It's the original design, so to speak.

[iamzack]

If we created an IVF procedure that was more efficient than natural reproduction in terms of embryo survival, would we be morally obligated to use it instead of the natural way?

[General Battuta]

No, you build a machine that you try to make 100% efficient, but you can't do it because (whatever); it only ends up being 20% efficient. Your intentionality was to save 100% of embryos, but you can only save 20%.

The thought experiment presupposes that you can't do any better. In this scenario, if IVF inefficiency is the problem, the Church would be forced to concede that this mission was not sinful.

The "whatever" kind of proves my point above.  Why are we even making this device in the first place if it doesn't function any better than human biology?  I don't see where we can go with this.

Already explained; see here -

The purpose of this thought experiment is to remove the intentionality element from destruction of embryos in IVF, present an IVF method that has unintentional wastefulness, and ask if it's still sinful since it is in every way identical to a human body.

But you don't have that foreknowledge that you're going to be sentencing anything to destruction when you have sexual intercourse.  You have no idea what's going to happen in there: if your sperm will even fertilize an egg, if said zygote will even make it to the uterus, if the embryo will manage to implant.  You're not playing any sort of deliberate odds here, just leaving everything up to chance..."in God's hands," if you will.

Factually incorrect. You know the probabilities of each of these events, and you know that even if the zygote forms, it will almost certainly abort. This is more risky to the zygotes than the IVF process, where you can decide what will be done with the leftovers.

In contrast, the couple entering into IVF knows that there are going to be multiple embryos generated, and that those extra embryos that aren't implanted will either be destroyed or thrown into a deep-freezer.  That's a bare fact of the process.  I don't really see how this distinction is difficult to grasp.

Why do they know that these embryos will be destroyed or thrown into a deep freezer? That is an outright fabrication. They could simply have the spare embryos donated to other needy women, or implant them at times of the cycle where they are less likely to take (entirely akin to the Catholic Church's rhythm method of contraception).

On top of that, trying to promote the assertion that attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse is somehow morally wrong under the Church's own guidelines is kind of fundamentally laughable in the first place, as it's the basic natural process that all of the artificial methods are based on anyway.  It's the original design, so to speak.

This is exactly what we are trying to promote, because it shows how absurd the anti-IVF guidelines are. If they forbid a process that is exactly akin to regular intercourse, they are absurd.

If we created an IVF procedure that was more efficient than natural reproduction in terms of embryo survival, would we be morally obligated to use it instead of the natural way?

I think this question should be answered, because the Catholic Church's current doctrine says 'no'. The Catholic Church would actively promote the death of embryos in order to support its own doctrine.

[Mongoose]

You know what, **** it.  I'm done with this bull****.  If it's apparently fine to **** all over people's personal convictions and ignore outright contradictions in GD, then **** it to hell.  I'm done with this ****, once and for all.  If I could find a way to delete the ****ing folder from my index, I'd do so.

Christal****ingmight, you people piss me the hell off.

[General Battuta]

You know what, **** it.  I'm done with this bull****.  If it's apparently fine to **** all over people's personal convictions and ignore outright contradictions in GD, then **** it to hell.  I'm done with this ****, once and for all.

Upon review I cannot locate any outright contradictions. The arguments presented to you seem logically sound.

That said I was about to say myself that I don't think this is going to go anywhere productive and should probably stop.

You should be aware that IVF spares can be donated to other infertile couples or implanted; they don't have to be discarded. This may be an important consideration for you if you and a partner ever face the choice of using IVF.

I think it's also important to be aware that Catholic doctrine objects to IVF for reasons not related to embryo discards.

[Mongoose]

You know what, **** it.  I'm done with this bull****.  If it's apparently fine to **** all over people's personal convictions and ignore outright contradictions in GD, then **** it to hell.  I'm done with this ****, once and for all.

Upon review I cannot locate any outright contradictions. The arguments presented to you seem logically sound.

That said I was about to say myself that I don't think this is going to go anywhere productive and should probably stop.

Well that's nice and big of you.

You should be aware that IVF spares can be donated to other infertile couples or implanted; they don't have to be discarded. This may be an important consideration for you if you and a partner ever face the choice of using IVF.

If my wife and I wind up being infertile, I can assure you that we'll look up one of those millions of children out there sitting on adoption waiting lists.  Sure as hell seems like a better option than picking embryos out of a petri dish to me.

I think it's also important to be aware that Catholic doctrine objects to IVF for reasons not related to embryo discards.

Consider that point noted, then.  I would have thought that Catholic doctrine regarding the purpose of sexual intercourse would have been fairly well-known regardless.

[General Battuta]

You know what, **** it.  I'm done with this bull****.  If it's apparently fine to **** all over people's personal convictions and ignore outright contradictions in GD, then **** it to hell.  I'm done with this ****, once and for all.

Upon review I cannot locate any outright contradictions. The arguments presented to you seem logically sound.

That said I was about to say myself that I don't think this is going to go anywhere productive and should probably stop.

Well that's nice and big of you.

You should be aware that IVF spares can be donated to other infertile couples or implanted; they don't have to be discarded. This may be an important consideration for you if you and a partner ever face the choice of using IVF.

If my wife and I wind up being infertile, I can assure you that we'll look up one of those millions of children out there sitting on adoption waiting lists.  Sure as hell seems like a better option than picking embryos out of a petri dish to me.

I think it's also important to be aware that Catholic doctrine objects to IVF for reasons not related to embryo discards.

Consider that point noted, then.  I would have thought that Catholic doctrine regarding the purpose of sexual intercourse would have been fairly well-known regardless.

Do you want to continue or not? You have several queries pending above you.

I'll let the implied slur to IVF children slide. Odd to see the same ideological line that says 'How can I support abortion when it could have made my beloved sibling not exist?' turn around and say 'These human beings are produced by an unnatural method; they should not have been allowed to exist'.

I don't understand why anyone would systematically deny human beings the right to reproduce through the use of a process that doesn't need to harm a single living thing. Apparently because it doesn't involve putting a dick in a ****.

[General Battuta]

You know what, this thread was essentially a troll topic from the very beginning. I'd rather have had all sides hold their peace. Discourse on this topic was never going to be productive, and posting something with this title essentially mandates reply from people with opposing views even if they don't want to get involved.

If Mongoose doesn't object I'm going to lock it.

And membership in the Catholic Church is a purely voluntary matter; the Church is not violating any human rights by advocating these beliefs, since it does not legally mandate such actions. Honestly I don't know why I feel the need to argue on the topic.

[Mongoose]

I'd have no qualms whatsoever about seeing it locked; the fact that I snapped that hard back there lets me know I shouldn't have become involved in the first place.  It really isn't going to go anywhere.

To make one thing clear, though, I have nothing whatsoever against the children conceived by IVF.  They had no part in any decision-making process whatsoever, and they have just as much right to exist as anyone conceived naturally.  I may morally disagree with the procedure, but there's no way in hell I'd think something like that.

[General Battuta]

Cost/benefit analysis suggests a lock is in order. Anyone who disagrees can take it up via PM.