Céline Dion pregnant with 8-year-old frozen embryo
Flash back to December 2000, BBC News:
The Canadian singer Céline Dion has said she has a frozen embryo “twin” of her unborn child with which she hopes to become pregnant in the future.
Her first child, due in February, will be a boy.
The embryo “twin” is frozen at the NY clinic where she and… husband, René Angélil, had in-vitro fertilisation treatment.
The… performer… said: “I have a twin. It is called a laboratory twin.
“I do not know if it is good forever but I think it lasts for a very long time. I will go get it, that’s for sure. I told my mother.
“I surely couldn’t live knowing that child is there.”…
Just to clarify, fyi, according to the same article…
A spokeswoman for the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority said: “They will be no closer genetically than normal siblings, in the same way as non-identical twins are not the same genetically.”
This is because the embryos would have been conceived using separate eggs and sperms.
Flash forward to today, and according to People, August 18:
Making good on her expressed desire to have more children, Céline Dion is pregnant….
[A] rep for the 41-year-old singer confirmed the news to various outlets….
Dion only learned of her condition on Monday, reports Tuesday’s Journal de Montreal, after she and her husband, René Angélil, 67, conceived with the help of a team of fertility doctors in NY.
The couple’s one child together, son René-Charles [click photo to enlarge], was born January 2001. The rep tells ET Canada that he “starts his 1st day of private school today.”
Angélil also has 3 other children from 2 previous marriages.
According to reports… Dion, whose concert tour ended in March, took time off this spring to concentrate on becoming a mother again. She also visited the clinic of Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, the Manhattan-based fertility expert who helped with the birth of René-Charles….
I’m unclear whether there was more than 1 embryo frozen and/or implanted. According to another People story, posted yesterday:
Dr. Zev Rosenwaks,… director of the Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine at NY-Presbyerian Hospital/Weill Cornell Center Medical Center, implanted a embryo that had been kept frozen in liquid nitrogen for the past 8 years….
Dion had her embryos frozen when she went through IVF while trying to conceive her first child…. When she completed her performance run in Las Vegas in 2007, she consulted Rosenwaks about trying again. “She came back to have the embryos transferred back because she wanted to have another baby,” he says.
Don’t know why the doctor would have said “embryos” plural unless there he implanted embryos plural. Although perhaps he was misquoted.
Another fyi, from the latter People story:
According to the fertility specialist, freezing an embryo for 8 years is not necessarily a problem. “There have been embryos that have been [frozen] for more than 10 years, and even more than 15 years, that have successfully thawed and resulted in a pregnancy,” says Rosenwaks.
And 1 final fyi, from the National Catholic Register, August 19:
Dion is one of 14 children [click photo to enlarge] born to a large Catholic family in Quebec, and her first child, René-Charles, was baptized at Montreal’s Notre Dame Cathedral in July 2001, 6 months after his birth. The Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization is intrinsically immoral, even when utilized within a marriage to fertilize eggs harvested from the wife with the husband’s sperm as in the case of Angélil and Dion.
I agree IVF is problematic, morally and physically. That said, I’m glad Dion rescued her frozen offspring, and her son René-Charles, once conceived, was and is a blessing.
[HT: proofreader Laura Loo; photo attribution for Dion: People; for Dion and family: entertainment.msn.co.nz; for Dr. Rosenwaks: NY TImes]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This stuff about her recent pregnancy has changed my opinion of the Kardashian sister.
That being said, I don’t think there’s anything in the world that could make me like Celine Dion.
Totally off topic, but that boy needs a hair cut.
Yikes, how scary this all is…
Shame on the church allowing this child to be baptized in the Catholic church, despite IVF being against the church teachings…I KNOW it is not the child’s fault, but WHEN will these *parents* be held responsible? Likely, not in this life.
Hi eko.
As you know, what the Church requires to perform a baptism is an unbaptized person and the intents of the parents to raise their child in the Catholic faith. While the Eucharist can certainly be withheld from someone for causing grave public scandal, I’ve never heard of the Church even considering withholding baptism from someone because of the scandal his/her PARENTS cause. Because baptism restores sanctifying grace, washing away the stain of original sin, I can see very few circumstances in which it should ever be withheld from someone, especially an infant. I guess my point is that I don’t understand why you say “shame on the Church” because they simply don’t have a tradition of withholding baptism based on sins of the parents. Intent, yes, but sins, no. God love you.
I totally agree with Kristen…. that child really needs a haircut. Talk about confusing issues; a girl’s name; long hair. Hope the next child they have REALLY is a girl, because apparently that’s what they wanted…..
Back on topic:
Too bad they’re making IVF seem so “acceptable” to other Catholics. The church needs to take a stronger, more decisive stand.
Whoops… want to clarify my comment after reading Bobby’s. I wasn’t agreeing with the person who said baptism should have been withheld from the child; EVERY child deserves baptism. But I think the church should be more vocal about the intrinsic wrong of IVF. Although, since even our pastor once told me he had “absolutely no problem with it” (IVF) as his sister conceived this way, I won’t hold my breath on directives from some of the clergy!
Not mentioned in this report is the fact that Celine and her husband chose the IVF path just prior to his treatment for testicular cancer, which would have most likely ended the couple’s possibility to have children. She is going back and giving birth to the embryos they created, which is being responsible (speaking as a non-Catholic). — This is a far cry from Sarah Jessica Parker using a surrogate to give birth to her child so that the pregnancy wouldn’t mess up her figure or her role in an upcoming movie.
This is one instance where I totally disagree with the Catholic Church. I see nothing wrong with the use of IVF . For some couples, this could be the only means for them to have a biological child.
The so-called Church has no business telling a couple how many children to have; not to use birth control; nor do they have the right to tell a couple “how” to have children. Til the Catholic Church helps families financially in raising the children, they need to butt out.
Hi flgh.
“For some couples, this could be the only means for them to have a biological child.”
A child is not a right. Unfortunately in todays society, children are seen as product to be had rather than gifts. If you don’t want that product, you may abort it. If you want that product, we can create one in a lab for you. The problem that the Church has with IVF is the same problem it has with contraception; it destroys and separates the two aspects of the conjugal act, the unative and the procreative. Contraception is sex without babies. IVF is babies without sex. The two go hand-in-hand, to to artificially separate them goes against God’s design of the conjugal act. This is so beatifully and thoughly hammered out in JPII’s Theology of the Body, and as I am now learning, especially in Christopher West’s commentary “Theology of the Body Explained.”
“The so-called Church has no business telling a couple how many children to have; not to use birth control; nor do they have the right to tell a couple “how” to have children”
If the Church is Jesus’ bride and was given the authority by Jesus Christ to teach in his name, then yes, they do. Also, the Church never tells couple how many children to have. That is simply a myth.
“Til the Catholic Church helps families financially in raising the children, they need to butt out. ”
This is an ad hominem attack. The Church also speaks out against spousal abuse, yet no one would suggest that she then must find a husband who is willing to take the abused. The Church speaks out against theft, yet no one would then suggest that the Church must find an alternative method for the would-be thief to obtain the goods he otherwise would have stolen otherwise they should simply “butt-out” when it comes to speaking out against theft. God love you.
At one time, I think in the 1980’s, the CC did have some priests refusing to baptize the children of couples who were cohabitating. This was done in an attempt to have these couples “reconsider” their living situation in light of having a child.
However, this practice was discontinued because it was felt that this was endangering the soul of the child. Couples either never returned or went elsewhere to have the child baptized.
As to Celine Dion, most Canadians have an intense dislike for this women for many many reasons. I seem to remember her purchasing a home in Montreal and then having to sell it because there was so much opposition to her living there. She denied this was the reason for her leaving.
Secondly I personally don’t like this woman because of how she married her husband – she set out to steal this man from his wife and succeeded. I have zero respect for this woman based on this fact alone.
My understanding is that Celine had 3 embryos frozen.
Also when I look at the picture of her family with FOURTEEN siblings and I see the state of Catholic families now in Quebec it makes me want to weep.
Quebecois Catholics have shed their faith like a dirty garment. Having been the first Canadian province to embrace contraception, abortion and cohabitation, they are now the first to welcome euthanasia. An entire heritage wiped out by the culture of death. How sad.
Although a lot has been said whether IVF is right or wrong, I do believe that all life comes from God. If IVF is used with responsibility I don’t see anything wrong with it. If God chooses to bless a couple with a child through IVF, who are we to say that its wrong?
“Til the Catholic Church helps families financially in raising the children, they need to butt out. ”
The Catholic Church knows it isn’t Her responsibility to help raise the children. It is the parents’ responsibility. The Church DOES, however, assist families and orphans in need materially. How many churches do you know of that actually give away cash?
With regards to IVF: one part of the conversation that gets neglected is the degradation of men in IVF experimentation. A doctor extracts the egg from the woman. A man supplies the sperm all on his own.
Posted by: flgh at August 20, 2009 8:14 AM
Flgh…if you don’t agree with what the church teaches, you’re welcome not to follow said teaching, as is anyone else.
Hi NewMom.
“If God chooses to bless a couple with a child through IVF, who are we to say that its wrong? ”
The problem with this argument is that God also chooses to bless new life through fornication and even rape. Now I am not saying IVF is on the same moral level as rape. But what I am saying is that just because we see good ends, this does not mean that the means to that action are good. IVF needs to be considered as an action in-and-of-itself, regardless of the good and noble outcomes.
I find it sickening that the Catholic church takes such a stance against IVF. For the couples for whom this is their only possible method to conceive, it’s heartbreaking.
Bobby, having a child is a “right” as much as it is a command: The Lord tells us to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth.
Also, a child born through fornication or rape can indeed be an incredible blessing. The method of conception is not the child’s fault. Should he or she be aborted instead?
Good for Celine and her husband. She took a pro-life stance with this decision, and it should be celebrated, regardless of your religion’s twisted views.
I wouldn’t have a problem with IVF if people would IMPLANT EVERY EMBRYO THEY CREATE. In other words, don’t create 10 embryos. Try two, and implant them both at the same time.
But since people approach it with no care or concern for the little human lives involved, I do have a problem with it. There is absolutely no need to have “extra” embryos “left over”. The way IVF is done currently is shameful.
Hi Mrs. T.
“Bobby, having a child is a “right” as much as it is a command: The Lord tells us to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth.”
Again, you can not absolutize this command in the sense that any and every means that you take is OK as long as you have a good end. As I said before, IVF must be looked at in and of itself, regargless of the good means it brings about.
“Also, a child born through fornication or rape can indeed be an incredible blessing. The method of conception is not the child’s fault.”
Yes, I never denied that. My point was that just because you have a good end, it does not justify the means.
“Should he or she be aborted instead?”
Of course not. Where in the world did I suggest that?
army_wife, couples who end up with 10 embryos very often do go back and later implant the others. Would you have the mother implant all 10 at once and risk all the babies’ lives as well as her own? Couples often space out pregnancies the way a couple conceiving naturally would. I don’t like your assumption that they use two and the others are just destroyed or left sitting there.
Bobby, you’re the one who said that we “assume” that God “chooses” to bless new life through fornication or rape. It’s not your place to do any wondering about that. God will bless whom He sees fit and will call those whom He elects to Himself. It’s best you not pass judgment on a woman who was raped and chose to keep and love her child. You don’t have the right to do that.
The problem with IVF is that the children are created in a petri dish, and that’s not the way they were meant to be created. Plus, many of those “Excess” embryos end up being destroyed in experiment / research which will NEVER find a cure for any disease.
Children are a GIFT and are meant to be created during the conjuntal act between a husband and a wife.
The problem is doctors don’t want to actually search for the real problem causing the infertility.
At least Celine is going back and retrieving her 2nd embryo, that’s one thing I can say: good for her.
And yes, that BOY needs a hair cut! EWWWWW
“Bobby, you’re the one who said that we “assume” that God “chooses” to bless new life through fornication or rape. It’s not your place to do any wondering about that. God will bless whom He sees fit and will call those whom He elects to Himself. It’s best you not pass judgment on a woman who was raped and chose to keep and love her child. You don’t have the right to do that.”
I’m sorry Mrs. T, but I have no idea what you’re talking about nor how any of this relates to anything I said. I also have no idea where I passed judgement on a woman who chose to keep her baby and love it. I’m not convinced you’re reading what I’m writing carefully and giving thoughtful responses. The point I’m trying to make is that we, as Christians, are not utilitarians. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. Do you agree with that or not?
Also, Mrs. T, you have the word “assume” attributed to me in quotes, and I never once used the word assume.
Bobby your arguments are spot on (as usual) and thanks for posting such clear logical responses to what are essentially emotional arguments that do not involve correct reasoning or facts.
We make much of “rights” these days: the right to abort is one such bizarre example.
I see no where in theology and in the bible, the idea that having a child is a right. Having a child was always considered to be a blessing – given by God.
I totally agree with Kristen…. that child really needs a haircut. Talk about confusing issues; a girl’s name; long hair. Hope the next child they have REALLY is a girl, because apparently that’s what they wanted…..
René is a common French male name (ie, René Descartes, René Auberjonois, René Caillié). René-Charles is pretty identifiably not a girl’s name.
I don’t understand why long hair would be a confusing issue. Plenty of men have long hair and yet are still very masculine. I would never think that parents who allowed their daughter to wear her hair short had secretly wanted a son, so why make assumptions based on how parents let a son wear his hair?
Well the thing is, angel, I’ve barely given an argument AGAINST IVF. Currently, I’m only trying to establish the fact that the syllogism which says that “God commanded us to have children. IVF is a way to have children. Therefore IVF is morally permissible” is invalid. It could still be the case that there IS an argument in favor of IVF, but all I want to establish right now is that that one does not do it.
BTW angel (and anyone else who is interested) if you didn’t catch it below, I’m currently reading West’s Commentary of the Theology of the Body. It is REALLY good so far. He makes some brilliant insights, or at least is able to bring out the brilliant insights of JPII. Highly recommend it if you haven’t gotten around to it.
Bobby, your theological fallacies come out of the Catholic church. I really don’t need to explain anything further.
By the way, I welcome any of you to show me in the Bible where IVF is a sin. Show me exactly how a couple conceiving and having their own biological child is a sin. I look forward to the chapter and verse reference.
Thanks Mrs. T. God love you.
Bobby, your theological fallacies come out of the Catholic church. I really don’t need to explain anything further.
Posted by: Mrs. T. at August 20, 2009 10:09 AM
ah NOW we cut to the chase!
so sorry I can’t continue on here – got to get a kid to music camp today
Mrs. T,
Can you show me in the bible where it says that everything we believe needs to be found in the bible?
Bobby, you don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?
My question is how it’s possibly right to DENY a couple the biblically-commanded right to have children. God told us very clearly to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. Go ahead and explain to me, biblically, how IVF is a sin. I don’t want the Catholic church’s position; I want the Bible’s explanation.
The Catholic Church is the only major Christian denomination against IVF(that I am aware of at least). Other pro-life denominations just stress the need to not discard embryos.
“Bobby, you don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?”
No, I do believe it is inerrant, I just don’t believe that it teaches everything we need to know in the exact form that we need to know it i.e. I do not believe in the formal sufficiency of the scriptures. Saying that the bible does not contain everything we need in the exact form we need it in does not imply that the scriptures err.
“My question is how it’s possibly right to DENY a couple the biblically-commanded right to have children. God told us very clearly to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth.”
AGAIN, you keep going back to this invalid syllogism. Just because God commands something does not mean that we take all MEANS to fulfill that command. I can not rape a 13 year old to fulfill the clear command to be fruitful and multiply. I can not take on 32 wives to fulfill the clear command to be fruitful and multiply.
“Go ahead and explain to me, biblically, how IVF is a sin.”
I don’t have time to do this, nor am I up to it right now.
Lily,
I think you’ll find several non-Catholic Christians on this site who are against IVF. Perhaps they can give scriptural evidence, as I do have to get to work now.
Posted by: Mrs. T. at August 20, 2009 10:11 AM
Can you show us where it says IVF is fine and dandy? No. Because IVF could not have even been conceived (sorry for the pun) of during the time the Bible was written. So your statement is just ridiculous.
The Catholic faithful believe in what the Church teaches. If you are not Catholic you are not required to believe those teachings.
A baby is not a right, no matter how you would like to think so. It is a gift.
Issues like these are so complicated. You can’t make a morally correct decision starting from morally flawed principles.
Yes, I’m glad Celene is going to give birth to one of her frozen children. But, no, she shouldn’t have done IVF in the first place.
My two sisters are adopted, and nobody loved them less because they were chosen (rather than biologically created) by my parents. It’s sad that so many people feel the child needs to be biologically related to be yours. While I’d love to be blessed with being able to carry my own children some day, I would never do something morally questionable to bring that about.
On another note, if we are supposed to “be fertile” and “subdue the earth” in a very literal sense, that gives all men license to rape women just to get them pregnant. Obviously no one is in favor of this method of filling the earth, so why is it OK to create babies in petrie dishes for the sake of filling the earth with your own biological children? I’m with Bobby-ends don’t justify the means.
It’s impossible to have discussions with people who will not take the Bible at face value, but who instead follow to the letter what their man-made church says. Thank God for the Reformation. Good day.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church on IVF:
“In my opinion, Christians should avoid such procedures. If, in God’s providence, a Christian couple is unable to conceive, it may be that God has in mind a task for them which is ignored in the IVF process, namely, adoption. The Bible is rich with adoption language. For Christians who cannot conceive, adoption is a wonderful way to serve their neighbor—by taking a child to themselves who would normally not be raised in a Christian home, and giving that gift to them. The need for children without families to be raised in a good and godly environment is great. If a Christian couple were to go for IVF my question to them would be, “Are you unsatisfied with God’s providence? Why do you need a child of your own if God has apparently said no? Could God be calling you to a more self-sacrificial (and exciting!) mission”?”
http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=197
I just think her son’s hair is too long. Its one thing to be longish (to the shoulders) its another to be past the shoulders and making the poor kid look like a girl. He needs a little trim at least.
I’m afraid of this posting twice, but I don’t know why it didn’t show up. I’m going to leave our the URL in case that’s why. It’s from the Q&A at OPC.org on 7/26/06.
Mrs. T: This isn’t all about Catholics getting caught up in our heresies–
This is a statement from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
In my opinion, Christians should avoid such procedures. If, in God’s providence, a Christian couple is unable to conceive, it may be that God has in mind a task for them which is ignored in the IVF process, namely, adoption. The Bible is rich with adoption language. For Christians who cannot conceive, adoption is a wonderful way to serve their neighbor—by taking a child to themselves who would normally not be raised in a Christian home, and giving that gift to them. The need for children without families to be raised in a good and godly environment is great. If a Christian couple were to go for IVF my question to them would be, “Are you unsatisfied with God’s providence? Why do you need a child of your own if God has apparently said no? Could God be calling you to a more self-sacrificial (and exciting!) mission”?
She was always kind of weird. Her husband is this old man she met when she was a child, for heaven’s sake.
Is anyone disturbed by the idea of a couple starting a family by handing the father an empty cup?
Fertilizing eggs in a Petri dish(not talking about stem-cell research or throwing away the embryos) doesn’t hurt anyone like rape does. Children conceived this way are not upset about it. Also, if we were required to accept medical conditions as God’s will, heart transplants and chemo therapy would be prohibited.
I also gotta say that I really get upset at the ignorance of those who see adoption as the perfect answer to infertility. They have clearly never talked to anyone who has waited years on a list and spend thousands of dollars only to have the whole thing fall through at the last minute or be told that they have to live in foreign country a few more years before they would have hopes of adopting a toddler or young child. In most industrialized countries adoption is nearly impossible.
How about
Job 31:15
Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Psalm 71:6
From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother’s womb. I will ever praise you.
Psalm 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
None of these say you knit me together wherever you please…
Lily:
You seem to assume that IVF is always successful on the first (or second or third) try and that it doesn’t cost tons of money–both of which are simply untrue.
The Jones Institute claims a success rate of 50% for women under 30, with declining rates as a woman ages. Wikipedia says this about achieving pregnancy with IVF: “one study reported 45% to 53% for three attempts, and 51% to 71% for six attempts”. SIX tries!!!!
So your comparison of a sad family waiting years to adopt and a happy couple getting pregnant immediately with IVF is unfounded.
And the idea that IVF is cheaper than adoption is laughable! Wikipedia cites it as $41,000 to achieve live birth through IVF! (Not counting the mental and physical strain of the whole procedure!)
Don’t tell me that I’m ignorant to families dealing with adoption. When my (step)mom found herself infertile, she went through a lot of tough times before she was able to adopt my sisters. But that wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) justify her creating children in a dish just so she could have what she wanted when she wanted it.
And, as a matter of fact, I am against heart transplants. But that’s a topic for another day.
Excellent discussion!
It’s impossible to have discussions with people who will not take the Bible at face value, but who instead follow to the letter what their man-made church says. Thank God for the Reformation. Good day.
Posted by: Mrs. T. at August 20, 2009 11:09 AM
As for being man-made, I’m not sure what you mean. The Reformation was certainly “man-made” so why does it hold water with you?
Anyways, a few points. The earliest Church leaders were friends (disciples) of Jesus. They continued the tradition that Jesus established that became His “Catholic Church”. (I may be off a few years, but I believe the Church was first called “Catholic” around 100 AD.) His disciples traveled all over and preached Jesus’ Word and struck down any heretical thinking they encountered that might alter Jesus’ message. While the Bible can be taken at face value, it cannot be taken literally. ( It is written in a historical context and must be interpreted that way.) Also, the New and Old Testaments reflect each other and one cannot be understood without the other. Those who do not pay attention to the historical Church (I can’t stress historical enough) are missing the fullness of the Church’s teachings.
An excellent book I recommend: “Four Witnesses – The Early Church in Her Own Words” by Rod Bennett (Ignatius Press)
I should clarify my statement @ 11:54 AM:
“While the Bible can be taken at face value, it cannot be taken literally. ( It is written in a historical context and must be interpreted that way.)”
I should have said that EVERY word should not be taken literally.
The per fresh cycle success rate for women under 35 is over 50% for most clinics. Some clinics have a success rate of 70%. This is per cyccle!
“Is anyone disturbed by the idea of a couple starting a family by handing the father an empty cup?”
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 20, 2009 11:29 AM
Good to see you, Cranky. Yes I am, and I’m also bothered by the cost of these IVF procedures. This a business for profit and they make their money whether the result is a baby or not. I don’t know the failure rate of IVF, but I would suspect that it is considerable.
Here are some per cycle success rates. These are per ONE cycle:
http://fertilitysuccessrates.com/report/United-States/women-under-35/data.html
And don’t forget that some human embryos are “Screened” for genetic defects and discarded if they have any. And also don’t forget the people that go to lengths to get babies that will be born with genius dna (or so they hope) or a certain eye color.
And the idea that IVF is cheaper than adoption is laughable! Wikipedia cites it as $41,000 to achieve live birth through IVF! (Not counting the mental and physical strain of the whole procedure!)
Just thought I should note that many insurance plans cover IVF, making it significantly cheaper than adoption.
“Just thought I should note that many insurance plans cover IVF, making it significantly cheaper than adoption.”
Posted by: Alexandra at August 20, 2009 1:03 PM
And we all end up paying for it in the end with higher premiums.
The story of Abraham and Sarah comes to mind…
God said “I’ll give you children.” Abraham and Sarah got impatient, so Abraham fathered a child with a servant. That made God angry because that was not the child He had planned for them. They tried to create their own child, but that wasn’t God’s best plan for them.
Lily, you say for women under 35 the success rate is rather high. But what percentage of all IVF cases are among women that age? Women that age are still in their natural childbearing years, thus they don’t need unnatural methods to help get pregnant. It’s the women in their 40s (or even 50s and later!) who seek IVF to make up for the years they spent trying to not get pregnant while they were younger.
Also, I forgot to mention earlier: the Billings Ovulation Method has a great track record for helping women who could not conceive even with IVF become pregnant. Knowing the signals of when you are fertile (and working with nature) is a great way for couples to achieve pregnancy. No nasty chemical stimulation for the woman’s body. No man in a dark room with a cup. No scientist making embryos on a glass dish. No tiny babies being discarded for not being good enough, being implants 8 at a time (so the doctor can encourage a selective reduction abortion to give those who don’t get killed a better chance), or being frozen to probably remain until they’re trashed or torn apart for spare-parts-research. etc, etc, etc.
poor baby..freezing cold!
Yes Janet. My point was not that IVF is free, or without cost to society, but that for the individual couple, it is often significantly cheaper to choose IVF over adoption, contrary to what was claimed here.
Posted by: Alexandra at August 20, 2009 1:03 PM
Most plans also cover adoption.
Alexandra–I want the insurance coverage that you have!! After I meet my (high) deductible, the insurance will only cover 80% of my costs up to a certain point (so I’m paying 20% up to a very high limit), after which THEN they’ll finally pay it all. But there are caps on how much they’ll pay towards certain conditions ($1,000 limit on chiropractor, $2,500 on TMJ/jaw conditions, etc). Are you really going to tell me that insurance will cover so much of $41,000 IVF treatments that it be “significantly cheaper” than adoption? I know mine wouldn’t…
It’s funny that, with the Obamacare debate raging, and so many people complaining about being uninsured or underinsured that we’re OK with our insurance companies paying out tons of money on elective procedures like this…
If adoption is so difficult/expensive as people here are arguing (and I do agree in part), then we should be reforming the system, not trying to justify an immoral procedure because of adoptions’ difficulty.
Til the Catholic Church helps families financially in raising the children, they need to butt out.
They do – it’s called Catholic Charities. And …. up until the liberal objectors took control education of the children was pretty much free as well. The Church certainly has a history of doing so that probably outweighs most.
The scandal so often these days is how the high profiled appear to get all kinds of earthly strings pulled in order to get annulments rather quickly in order to satisfy an already established fornicating relationship. Rarely are cohabitating couples made to make any kind of public expression of cooperation with the Faith BEFORE the postponed marriage is acquired. But that is what is expected in order to demonstrate recognition and conversion. Are we now to assume that after the first baptism granted in this situation with its own parental preparation (requiring parents to lead a faithful Catholic example for the child) that said parents have done just that???
I always thought that it was a given that to whom more is given, more is expected.
Current proposed legislation in Congress:
Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act
Bill # H.R.213
About This Legislation:
The Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act of 2007, authored by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC.), would make permanent a tax credit of up to $10,000 for expenses relating to certain domestic and international adoptions. Under current law, the credit will expire in 2010. NRLC supports this legislation.
Corrinna, I did not say MY insurance plan covers IVF. I am currently — temporarily — uninsured, due to bureaucratic obnoxiousness. When I sort out the stupidity I’ll be insured again, but having no interest in IVF myself, I don’t know the coverage that plan will have. It’s good coverage in general, though — Mr. Alexandra suffered a traumatic injury this past spring and paid I think $20 total, for the ambulance ride, trauma center care, plastic surgeon fees for sewing his thumb back together, etc. His prescription insurance took care of the painkillers, and he goes for physical therapy at no (or minimal) cost. Reconstructive surgery is an option in the future, as well. We are very lucky, because there are about 50 ways he could have died had any one thing gone differently in the one second it took for the accident to happen — and to not be bankrupted or financially put out by the expense of saving his hand and thus his livelihood, well, we are quite lucky indeed. He is a public high school teacher and has insurance through the union. The costs were covered by his insurance with some help from the school’s secondary insurance.
For expenses that were not trauma-related it was similar. He woke up one night almost unable to breathe (he was fine, it was an almost comic series of chain-reaction conditions and physical reactions that eventually triggered a stress-related sort of hyperventilation) and we went to the ER, and all he had was a co-pay.
I have two separate friends (well, one friend and one acquaintance, plus my boss, who I suspect just conceived via IVF) who both receive insurance through their workplace (not teachers) and are covered for IVF expenses; at least one is definitively not covered for adoption.
Are you really going to tell me that insurance will cover so much of $41,000 IVF treatments that it be “significantly cheaper” than adoption? I know mine wouldn’t…
I’d be happy to ask my friends for the specific company and plan their insurance comes from. It’ll take me a day or two to get back to you on it, but I am absolutely 100% positive that two separate people I know have almost all IVF expenses covered by their insurance. I’m talking, they are paying a couple hundred dollars or so. As someone who hopes to adopt, it really bothers me — not necessarily that they are covered, but that IVF is covered when adoption is often just left up to the couple (excluding a tax break and occasional workplace “aid” policies).
If IVF is used with responsibility I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Except for that little missing nuisance fact in the discussion of millions of lives being relegated to the trash bin of technology – if not through viability selection (or sex choice) immediately, then through the eventual absence of any kind of legal guardian – yes … millions – and….those considered not “up to snuff” then attempting some kind of moral relevance through embryonic stem cell experimentation.
By the way, I welcome any of you to show me in the Bible where IVF is a sin.
“Thou shalt not kill” – and obviously the modern technology system of “procreation” mingles that real possibility, intentionally, into its workings by the selectivity, number and unnatural settings involved. That’s why reason goes hand in hand with faith. Hopefully what you did not see in the automobile driving manual you DO incorporate into your varying methods/approaches necessary to prevent unforeseen conditions from ending in catastrophes.
Bobby, your theological fallacies come out of the Catholic church. I really don’t need to explain anything further.
Oh yes you definitely do have to explain – and with truthful facts. The Church of everyone’s history (if you like it or not) is just that one born of the blood of martyrs and intended never to be divided by Jesus, its beloved Founder – “that all may be one”
Lily,
can you explain to me where it forbids to use crack cocaine in the bible?
As someone who hopes to adopt, it really bothers me — not necessarily that they are covered, but that IVF is covered when adoption is often just left up to the couple (excluding a tax break and occasional workplace “aid” policies).
I should add that I don’t think it’s necessarily the place of health insurance companies to cover adoption costs, as many adoption costs are not related to healthcare. It is becoming more common for the adoptive couple’s insurance to cover medical costs for the birth mother, which is great. Some employers have adoption benefits, and there is the $10,000 adoption tax credit, which is really awesome. But I think that there desperately needs to be some kind of reform to the system, because there is something wrong when there is more support for people going through rounds of hormones and science-lab conceptions, but a scrape-it-all-together-somehow approach taken towards supporting people who want to open their family to a child who needs a home.
I was conceived through artificial insemination, though my parents refused IVF because they couldn’t find a place that would only make, say, three embryos and implant all three. Religious reaction to artificial insemination bothered me much more as a young child than the process itself. I thought being conceived through artificial insemination meant Jesus didn’t want me to be born. I’m not saying people shouldn’t voice their beliefs lest they upset little kids – that’s not a good way to have an honest exchange of opinion – but real people are affected by this.
(For the record, my parents didn’t tell me I was conceived through artificial insemination, but they didn’t believe in lying about anything if I asked them a question about it.)
I don’t have an issue with reproductive technology as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone – either of the parents or any embryos. Nobody died or was injured because I was conceived through artificial insemination. My parents tried for ten years to have a baby, about six without medical help and four with. After I was born they tried to have another kid until I was six, but that didn’t happen. My mom didn’t get any health problems from it and I don’t have any embryonic siblings sitting around on shelves.
On the topic of the Catholic Church baptizing Celine Dion’s baby, I think it would be horribly unfair if they didn’t allow the child to be baptized. S/he can’t help how s/he came into this world. Not baptizing the baby would be akin to saying, “We think you sinned while conceiving your child, so we’re going to punish you by not allowing your baby to be washed clean of original sin.”
Alexandra, many insurance plans cover costs of adoption as well. There are also government tax incentives for adoptive parents.
I think it really depends on your particular policy if one is cheaper than the other.
Posted by: Corrina at August 20, 2009 2:05 PM
The story of Abraham and Sarah comes to mind…
God said “I’ll give you children.” Abraham and Sarah got impatient, so Abraham fathered a child with a servant. That made God angry because that was not the child He had planned for them. They tried to create their own child, but that wasn’t God’s best plan for them.
—————————————————-
I don’t mean to be contentious but I believe the ‘book’ indicates Ishmael was Sarah’s idea, not Abrahams.
Not matter who got the flash of inspiration, the proposed solution has not worked out well. We are still experiencing the negative consequences today thousands of year later.
Bad things usually result when we human get involved in the business of assisting GOD in implementing what HE said HE would do.
A friend of mine told me about a contemporary christian band who wrote a song with a line that went something like this:
‘Some Christians would not welcome Jesus in their buildings today. HIS wounded feet would leave blood stains on their carpet.’
Jesus was slandered and scandalized, as well as HIS mother, for the circumstances surrounding HIS conception.
Just read the gospels you will see how the ‘relgious’ folks turned up their noses at HIM and HIS mother.
There is nothing new under the sun.
yor bro ken
Lauren, do you have more information on that? I have only heard of insurance plans covering the medical costs of the birth mother.
It’s impossible to have discussions with people who will not take the Bible at face value, but who instead follow to the letter what their man-made church says. Thank God for the Reformation. Good day.
Posted by: Mrs. T. at August 20, 2009 11:09 AM
What the mess? When did anyone involved in the debate reject biblical teachings in favor of “man-made” teachings? The dispute seemed to be over the interpretation of scripture and whether or not relevant verses existed. You got huffy when other’s religious opinions didn’t jive with yours, even though their arguments were logically solid and they did an excellent job of moving the debate forward despite some incoherence on your part.
It makes my blood pressure sky-rocket to see Christians malign Catholics over things as petty as differing church policies regarding IVF. I’m a Baptist (not actively religious, for the record), but I realize that Catholics are our allies in the pro-life movement, charity work, and other issues of ethical importance. Consider dropping the catty remarks, please.
I can not take on 32 wives to fulfill the clear command to be fruitful and multiply.
Well Bobby, your wife sure wouldn’t be pleased! ;)
Besides you already have three lovely ladies in your life!
Nice to see Mrs. T was keeping an open mind and stomped off in a hissy fit. Way. To. Go.
Otherwise a very interesting discussion.
Bobby I’m going to see Chris West later this year! Can hardly wait.
‘”Go ahead and explain to me, biblically, how IVF is a sin.”
I don’t have time to do this, nor am I up to it right now.’
Mrs. T., in the Bible, Christ gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom and told him whatever he bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. He certainly wasn’t going to list very conceivable evil man could dream up. Our Church teaches with this very same authority, handed down thru the papal succession directly from St. Peter. Hence, if the Church teaches it is wrong, that is an infallible truth, on the authority of Christ Himself.
BTW, how’s Mr. T?
The so-called Church has no business telling a couple how many children to have;
The “so-called” Church?
The Church does not tell people how many children they should have. Get your facts straight.
nor do they have the right to tell a couple “how” to have children.
Why not?
I find it sickening that the Catholic church takes such a stance against IVF.
I really think you ought to be able to engage in a debate aboput such things whereby you actually bother to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Which in this case, you are.
IVF is wrong and ought to be illegal.
For the couples for whom this is their only possible method to conceive, it’s heartbreaking.
Sterility for couples who want to have children is undoubtedly heartbreaking. While every couple has a natural right to found a family (not to be taken away from them by anyone) they do not have a right to this over and above ethical means of conceiving children. Certain types of fertility treatment which respect the connection between sex and procreation within marriage, are certainly acceptable.
Bobby, having a child is a “right” as much as it is a command: The Lord tells us to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth.
He does not say we can do this by every possible means.
Strictly speaking there is no right to a child. Children are persons, not possessions. It’s exactly that kind of thinking that leads to abortion.
Arguments about IVF aside (as a faithful Catholic, my stance is clear and obvious), Celine Dion professes to be a Catholic. Therefore, on matters of intrinsic evil (such as IVF), it is hypocritical and without foresight to simply ignore the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I am not saying that everyone is held to the standards of the Church. Let me make that perfectly clear. However, Celine Dion claims to hold herself to those moral standards within the Church. She makes that claim every time she accepts the Eucharist. She makes that claim when she gets her child baptized Catholic. She makes that claim when she calls herself a Catholic.
Were this not a matter of INTRINSIC EVIL, it would not be such a sticking point.
Furthermore, as a public figurehead, Celine Dion has an additional responsibility for any organization with which she claims to be in accord. Simply stated, she represents Catholics, in part. And she’s doing a terrible job of representing the Church.
Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Theology of the Body” very adequately argues the points against IVF for those Catholics wondering about the reasoning behind the Church’s stance on IVF. There is a gentleman named Christopher West who writes a simple explanation of “Theology of the Body” called “Theology of the Body Explained” and an even easier read called “Theology of the Body for Beginners”… for a Catholic only now beginning to delve into the deeper meaning of the Catechism, “Theology of the Body for Beginners” is a fantastic start. For a student of Catholic Theology, “Theology of the Body Explained” is right about on target.
It’s impossible to have discussions with people who will not take the Bible at face value, but who instead follow to the letter what their man-made church says. Thank God for the Reformation. Good day.
Well, if you are stating that Christ WAS true man (as well as true God) you’ve at least got it half right about that “man-made” Church. But thanking God for the origin of His Own Church’s division by man is something like certain people praising God for other things that go against His Love – like obliterating part of His own creation as something He would be pleased at!!
And you do realize that that “Reformation” was actually forming a new religion – not just “reforming” the original one – since words of actual scripture had to be changed and were in order to placate the personal fear of a just God by the “reformer”. And, BTW, with all the “churches of what’s happenin now” being formed and “reformed” each and every day it would appear that once “reformin” begins, like new bills in congress, it just never stops!! A good book on the subject – “By What Authority”.
Thanks to Bobby, MaryRose, and KC for book recommendations!
Just got caught up with the thread and I too was thinking about the result (Ishmael) that came about when mortals thought they were smarter than God when it came to making babies.
This is a barley tangent thought that occurred to me as I was reading everyone’s posts, but I thought I’d share for a chuckle’s sake:
My maternal grandmother had a lady-friend whose husband divorced her after 10 years of marriage because she was “barren” (yes, that word belongs in quotations…) and never conceived him a child.
She remarried shortly thereafter and proceeded to give birth to no less than SEVEN children with her new husband….no IVF required.
Talk about just desserts…..
oooh…Janet,
I, too, have a book recommendation!
I recommend a book that is God’s revelation from beginning to end to mankind.
It’s a book that while reading it, God will speak to you. He will reveal Himself to you when you read it!
It’s a book that allows you to form a true and close relationship to God.
It’s the B-I-B-L-E. May I recommend the NASB?
Marie,
Excellent recommendation. I’ll look into it ;)
:)
Mrs T.:
I am definitely not a Catholic, and I will answer what you have said here.
On the Church telling people how to have children and whether to use birth control:
If I refuse to pray for my enemies, as the Bible commands, am I in sin? If I refuse to honor my parents, am I in sin? If I refuse to tell others about our savior’s love for us, despite clear opportunity and prompting, am I in sin? Of course all of these things are sin–they are against direct Biblical commandments. Not doing the “thou shalts,” when opportunity presents itself, is no less sinful than doing the “thou shalt nots.”
So if God said to us, “Be fruitful and multiply,” and we take drugs or mutilate our bodies or introduce a foreign object into the marriage relationship for the express purpose of not multiplying, how is it that we are not in sin? Do you assign any special significance to Jesus’ last words in His time on earth? (“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”) Most Christians do. What about God’s very first command: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Please tell us where in Scripture the command to multiply is repealed.
Also, every form of birth control is an affront to God, creation, and/or marriage. The most obvious example is hormonal birth control. Please, if you are using “the pill”, “the patch,” etc., look into what it can do. These forms of birth control operate first by altering the way a woman’s body was meant to work, preventing her from ovulating (releasing an egg) at the proper time in her cycle. But that doesn’t always work–sometimes “breakthrough ovulation” (ovulating while on the pill) occurs. The hormones also change the cervical mucous to make it harder for sperm to reach their destination. Lastly, if these two mechanisms fail, and the egg is fertilized–creating a new human being in God’s image–the hormones have also thinned the woman’s uterine lining, making it harder for the newly created child to implant. Sometimes the child manages to implant anyway, but often he or she is just expelled from the body. This is proven by the fact that a much higher percentage of pill pregnancies are ectopic–the egg implants in the wrong place, where there is not enough lining to sustain it, like the fallopian tube. The change in percentage must mean that either the pill makes the uterus less hospitable, or that it somehow causes ectopic pregnancies. Either possibility should be completely unacceptable to a Christian. Also, non-hormonal IUDs actually work almost entirely by making the uterus inhospitable to a newly conceived child.
Hormones also alter the way one’s body works, breaking what is already working–the reproductive system. If you believe that God created human beings, and said that it was good, why would He want us to disable or break our bodies to avoid children, which He has called a blessing? Why would it be okay to have working fallopian tubes destroyed to prevent God from creating a new life? Where in the Bible do you get the idea that such an act is okay?
Barrier methods are less problematic–they do not alter our perfectly created bodies or kill our children before we know they exist. But they do come between a man and woman in the act of marriage, and I find that disturbing. Again, it is still deliberately circumventing a command from God. It renders the marital act infertile. It introduces a third party into the act, even if that party is an inanimate object.
Marriage is supposed to reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church. That relationship is fertile, open, welcoming. The Church is always open to new believers. Why, then, should our marriages not always be open to new life? Have you ever been to a Christian worship service where only members were allowed to attend?
This is also the problem I see with NFP (a natural, effective method of preventing conception by learning the signs that a woman’s body is fertile and avoiding sex when conception is possible). Do you know of a church which tries to meet when no outsiders will be able to attend? Does the Spirit inhabit the Body only when no one may be converted? Does Jesus only answer prayers at certain times of the month? No–the church is always open to new professing believers. The relationship between Christ and His Bride is a fertile one that is intended to keep bringing new regenerated life into the fold. The Church does not (I hope!) stop its outreach when the pews are full, or when it has run out of Sunday School classroom. Yet I hear Christians afraid of another child because they would have to buy a bigger car.
Is that being like Jesus, who said “let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them”?
Not to mention, the motives of those who prevent children are largely the same as those who abort them.
(This, by the way, applies mostly to those families avoiding conception for reasons of convenience, finances, etc.–not because a woman’s life is in danger from a pregnancy, or any child they had would die or be killed. Those rare, extreme cases are beyond the scope of what I am writing here.)
As for IVF–
Here is the way IVF is usually done:
Drugs are injected into a woman’s body to make her ovulate far greater than the normal number of eggs. She is put on the pill to regulate her cycle (which I am pretty sure does more harm than good, because it harms the uterine lining–so there is less chance of a child conceived by IVF, or accidentally by natural means (overlooking an egg?) surviving).
She gives herself painful shots of drugs every day to make her body behave in a way it was never designed to. This is an affront to the way God created her body.
Then, in a laboratory, a doctor extracts the eggs that have been produced. There may be over a dozen. The father extracts the sperm on his own, which is an affront to the act of marriage.
In a sterile laboratory setting, the sperm and the eggs are combined. Not all of the eggs will be fertilized–I believe that God is still sovereign over this process, and still creates each child. But the attempt will be made to fertilize as many eggs as possible.
Usually–although sometimes parents can and do opt out of this procedure–each of the children created this way has one of their cells removed and tested for genetic anomalies. Most scientists believe that this does not have any permanent effect on the child. Children with genetic anomalies (such as abnormal numbers of chromosomes) are killed or slated for research. It is also possible to select the children by other desired genetic traits, such as hair color or gender (gender being the most commonly used), or genetic diseases. Often IVF is recommended for parents who carry genes for recessive or sex-linked disorders, so that children with genetic ailments can be killed rather than born. It is also possible to sort sperm by gender beforehand, thus greatly reducing the chances of a child of the wrong gender. I am hoping that, as a Christian, you see a problem with killing disabled children, and especially with killing children due to their “undesirable traits” such as brown eyes or a y chromosome.
The children who are acceptable according to the standards of the doctors and/or parents are then divided into groups, usually of two or three. One group will be transferred to their mother’s uterus at the optimum point in her cycle. This is the group that has the best chance. The other groups will be frozen for later use. Often the parents do not plan to “use” all of their frozen children–they want a set number of children, often one or two, and do not view these embryos as having value. The process of freezing and thawing the children kills many of them.
Leftover embryos are discarded or used for research. Occasionally, they are donated/adopted, and another couple tries to carry the children to term. (I have no problem with a couple pursuing embryo adoption.)
Here is how the process could work and be much more ethical:
Either they could harvest naturally occuring eggs, or they could stimulate the ovaries less so that less eggs were produced. They could attempt to fertilize only two or three eggs, so that all of the children could be transferred at once and none would have to undergo the freezing process. They could transfer the embryos without testing them for anomalies. They could work with the woman’s cycle rather than trying to control it, eliminating the need for the pill.
If this were the way IVF worked, your position would have some merit–but as it is, it disrespects not only sexuality and the order of creation, but the lives of the children it helps to bring into being. The death toll associated with IVF is my main problem with it.
I have a thought (likely several) that maybe a non-Catholic can respond to: (no offense, I just sometimes feel that arguments ensue when verses from the bible are being discussed!)
The 8 verses in Genesis in regards to “be fruitful and multiply”, I think that we can agree that God was speaking to Noah after the flood. God also told Noah to let the birds multiply on earth (Gen. 1:22). Does this then mean that we are commanded not to keep just one parakeet in a birdcage?
The remaining 3 verses in Leviticus, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, I think we can agree that God was speaking to the Jews. All throughout the bible, God made a point of doing things so that the Jews knew that He was Lord. They were His “special people”.
I think we can also agree that (at least for me) that I am a Gentile, and not a Jew. God had the Jews kill people in the Bible that worshipped other gods. I, for one, don’t apply that command that God gave the Jews to my life at all. There are many people on earth that worship something or someone other than God, and I don’t feel as though I’ve been commanded to kill them.
I truly believe that it is very important when reading and studying the bible, that one understands and is aware who God is speaking to at the time. There is a HUGE difference between the Jew and the Gentile, and the age of law and the age of grace.
That being said, I think that God is happy when we multiply, but I don’t think that He commanded us, the Gentile, to do so. I also believe that a child is a blessing from God. If one chooses to not have a child (i.e., birth control, NFP, etc. (but not abortion!)), they are not breaking a commandment, but rather missing out on a blessing …A HUGE BLESSING! from God. I also believe that people who use IVF understand that a child is a blessing, and they go to these desperate means to acquire that blessing.
I’m definitely not a fan of IVF (especially when “leftovers” are discarded!), but I can certainly understand why a person would go through the means of doing so to have a child if every other means have failed. I’m a much bigger fan of adoption and I think any desperate attempt to have a child from someone’s own gene pool is highly overrated!
It’s your brain that’s twisted, Mrs. T.
Marie, when God said what he said in Genesis 1:22, Noah wasn’t around–even Adam and Eve weren’t around yet. He was talking to the birds, or just setting up their behavior. And later, in 1:28, He was definitely speaking to Adam and Eve, not to Noah. Not sure where you got Noah from. God did tell Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply as well.
God did not tell the Jews to multiply. Each of us is descended from Adam and Eve and Noah–the Jews were descended from Shem, but the command to multiply was given to Ham and Japheth as well. And the command to be fruitful and multiply was never countermanded.
Also, why would God not want His people (now both Jewish and Gentile Christians) to multiply? Why would he want their marriages, which are supposed to be a picture of Christ and the Church, to prevent the blessings he said? Does the church put a condom on its teachings to prevent the gospel from generating new life in unbelievers, once its congregation is big enough?
Where in the Bible do you see that it is okay to circumvent the reproductive system God created in us in order to prevent a thing that he calls a blessing?
What form of birth control respects God’s creation of our bodies, and the oneness and exclusiveness and unity of the marriage bond, and the sanctity of human life? I know of none.
YCW,
Yes, re-reading my post after I read yours I do realize that I cannot type as fast as I can think. Sorry that it was confusing. My brain meant to seperate them, but my words didn’t quite work out that way. Oops!
Anyway, I really don’t see a problem at all with using a condom or NFP. Like I said in my other post, the couple that uses condoms or NFP may miss out a blessing (child) given to them by God. If I had three children and didn’t want anymore, well, I’ve mulitplied and I don’t really think that God will be upset with me for not wanting any more. However, God does speak to people, and if He really moved me to have another child, well…I would listen to Him. (and if I didn’t, He could always make the condom break, you know!)
I’m just really not understanding the concept of multiplying ’till you drop…that’s all.
Thank you for your response! :)
oooh…Janet,
I, too, have a book recommendation!
I recommend a book that is God’s revelation from beginning to end to mankind.
It’s a book that while reading it, God will speak to you. He will reveal Himself to you when you read it!
It’s a book that allows you to form a true and close relationship to God.
It’s the B-I-B-L-E. May I recommend the NASB?
Posted by: Marie at August 21, 2009 8:44 PM
I’ve heard of it, although I prefer the NAB. The Catholic Mass each day is chock full of readings from the Bible and the Mass reaches its apex with the celebration of the Eucharist with Jesus being truly present (as found in the Gospels). In the last 40 years or so, Catholics have been encouraged to turn to the Bible for inspiration in addition to the Mass much more than in the past generation.
I’m really not understanding not wanting as many of God’s blessings as He wants to give me, or changing my openness to my husband to avoid another child.
YCW @ 2:35,
I think sometimes our fears get the best of us and we aren’t as open to life as we should be. (We fail to see “the blessing”.)
Janet,
Yes, I have heard that the church has been allowing Catholics to turn to the bible more. When I first heard that I was so excited! God tells us through the writings of 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that:
15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Did you know that Muslims are coming to Jesus Christ in record numbers these days that started with reading the scriptures? It’s so exciting, isn’t it?
And yes, since the scripture is inspired by God, I also agree that the bible is inspirational as well!
YCW & Janet:
If God gave me the desire to adopt one the countless orphans in this world instead of multiplying me & my husband’s own gene pool, would that be a good reason for using a condom or NFP? Couldn’t my blessing come from someone else’s original blessing? Would that be considered having a fear of receiving blessings? Isn’t the adopted child a blessing as well?
Just curious.
Marie,
Wow, I had no idea that Muslims are converting to Christianity in record numbers. I’d be interested to know more on that!
If you are limiting your own fertility in order to adopt a child, I’d say you are not open to all of God’s blessings. Consider this – how often does it happen that a couple having trouble with infertility will finalize an adoption, only to find out a month later that they are pregnant? Should the adopted child be cast aside for the natural one, or vice-versa? Of course not. Both are blessings for the couple in God’s eyes. Would the couple have been better off using BC so they wouldn’t get pregnant while working on an adoption? It almost sounds silly to ask that question, right?
I think it is pretty wonderful for her to consider that life has already begun for he child- when it the embryo was fertilized. As a giant celebrity, I hope her story does get out and inform the uninformed about the importance of life.
It is not for us to determine Age of Reason like Obama would like to enforce, nor that of the proposed plans for anyone that is elderly. Life is important and must be cherished.
Janet,
When I googled “muslims converting to christianity in record numbers”, 37,200 sites came up. However, the first one that did, ironically, was a book that I read from the author of the the blog listed below. And trust me, you’ll love it, because the first paragraph talks about the pope! Granted it was from March of 2008, but if you read it, you’ll see the trend!
See, I’d much rather adopt a child like the one that left her family in Iowa (i think) for Florida because she converted to Christianity and is fearing an honor killing by her father.
Janet, I’m being totally honest here, and you may not understand it, but I would much rather adopt or provide foster care for one (orten, or as many as God will allow me to care for), of these Muslim converts that are fearing for their lives than to have another child from my own genepool. I know that sounds crazy, but I’m being honest! I do have a child from my own genepool, but I don’t every want to have one of my own again. I get what you’re saying, though. thanks!
anyway, here’s that link. (andall of the way at the bottom, there’s a link to the article about the pope.) ENJOY!
joshuafund.blogspot.com/2008/03/big-untold-story-in-middle-east-2008.html
“Janet, I’m being totally honest here, and you may not understand it, but I would much rather adopt or provide foster care for one (orten, or as many as God will allow me to care for), of these Muslim converts that are fearing for their lives than I know that sounds crazy, but I’m being honest! I do have a child from my own genepool, but I don’t every want to have one of my own again. I get what you’re saying, though. thanks!”
I don’t think you sound crazy…. I don’t want to live your life for you, I’m just explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching. What does sound a bit odd though, is how you describe giving birth to your own child naturally as “to have another child from my own gene pool.” It makes it sound a bit selfish, although that may not be your intent….
Thanks for the info on the Joshua Fund. I hadn’t heard of it before. I read the link you posted, and while it is encouraging to hear that conversions to Christianity are on the rise in the Muslim world, it is important to also get the message out that the acceptance of overt Christianity is still extremely limited in many places. For example, in a recent article from the Catholic News Service – In Afghanistan, there is only one priest and one Catholic chapel – it is located inside the Italian embassy. Of the 250 Catholics in the country, 150 attend mass regularly. The Catholic presence is limited to aid workers and preaching Christianity is strictly forbidden.
For the CNS article, google: archdioceseoftoronto.blogspot.com/2009/08/afghanistans-lone-priest
Janet,
Your welcome. I didn’t hear about the Joshua Fund either until I read one of his books. The one I’m reading now is Inside the Revolution. It’s pretty interesting.
And, my “genepool” comments were just to show that to me, at least, a child of my own can mean a child with my DNA or someone else’s DNA. If I mothered an adopted child, I would still look at that child as my own, regardless of his/her DNA. I really don’t see a difference, other than DNA, of adopting 3 children, or giving birth to 3 children. Children are blessings no matter who gave birth to them. I also think that there are way too many children in the world longing for parents. What a gift that would be for those children. It’s unbelievable sometimes what we take for granted is what others may go to bed crying over at night. :(
If I were ever to have another child, I would adopt.
I hope that cleared it up!
I am absolutely open to adoption. I don’t see that as having much to do with my decision not to block my fertility. I am not looking to fill a certain number of slots in my family, or have my children at certain times, or reach some goal with one child before moving on to the next. I want to enjoy them as individuals, love them as they come, accept what God has given me.
So the position of “If I had another child, I would adopt” makes no sense to me. Why would having a child of my body mean not adopting, or why would adopting mean not conceiving? I know some adoption agencies don’t want to work with people who are pregnant or have a young child, but it’s by no means universal.
And I recognize that pregnancy is not always easy–my current pregnancy has had some very difficult months–but certainly adoption is not either. We started the process but could not complete it because we got pregnant with our daughter. I wish we had gotten through the process quicker, and given Hannah an older brother or sister (in this life)–but I don’t wish I’d never had her!
It bothers me that the attitude of those who limit their children is the same as that of those who abort them. Certainly there is a difference between a woman who says “I do not want more biological children, so I will use a condom” and “I do not want more biological children, so if I get pregnant I will abort,” especially if the first woman would never abort–but all too often what starts as the first becomes the second.
What would you offer to a woman who had one child, wanted to adopt, used condoms, got pregnant anyway, and wanted to kill her baby because she would rather adopt? Your positions would be the same. Whatever you said about her child’s life, she might just think, “easy for you to say–your condom didn’t break. Maybe if it did, you’d be doing what I am.”
I think that opposition to life can be best battled by openness to life, not mere opposition to killing.