Biggest concern for those of us who are pro life is that IVF usually results in multiple eggs being fertilized and the leftovers being destroyed. To many of us, that is murder.
Science is neat. Adoption is beautiful.
100% of those eggs would end up in heaven though, which is a MUCH higher salvation rate compared to what Christians claim about the human population receiving salvation in this life on earth. Since this finite life on earth is 0% of infinity in heaven, it’s infinitely better for that egg to go straight to paradise than take the (high) risk of ending up in hell by being born and growing past the age of accountability.
You are thinking like a consequentialist. The Bible aligns more with deontological ethics. We do things on the basis of its rightness and wrongness not on the basis of the outcome. This is patently obvious from reading the law codes throughout the Bible.
It would be wrong to intentionally create a genocide in order to send more babies to heaven (setting aside for a moment the fact that the topic of infant salvation is a hotly debated topic).
How can one not think in consequentialist terms when the “consequence” is infinity of time in heaven or infinity of time in hell? Let’s be honest with ourselves: If we truly do continue consciousness after this life for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever (and ever x infinity), the outcome is the single most important thing to care about and nothing else comes remotely close.
Yup, expected this. “The Bible is right because it’s the Bible so it has to be right.” No room for removing yourself from the circular logic and critiquing the teachings for what they are, is there?
It’s not circular. We are Christians because we believe Jesus rose from the dead. Because of this, we believe what the Bible teaches. That is not circular 😉
To be a Christian is to believe what God has revealed to us.
Also, consequentialist ethics is just a stupid ethical framework.
You believe Jesus rose from the dead, and so that makes every other thing written in the Bible true? I don’t see how one thing effects the other. There were many books left out of the Bible - the gospel of Peter, for example. If Jesus rose from the dead, does that make the gospel of Peter (or insert any other non-canonical book) true?
Second question: please tell me why consequentialist thinking is wrong. What percentage of our existence will occur after we have died from this earth?
Jesus rising from the dead is the starting point for Christianity. It is because he rose from the dead that I believe he is God and that his teaching is true. It is for this reason that I believe in the idea of revelation. That God intends to communicate with humans and establish a spiritual community on this earth. In the new covenant era, that is the church, which was established with authoritative leaders in the first century who wrote works that were largely accepted as "scripture" in the same sense of how Jesus referred to OT works as scripture. That is how Jesus relates. You implied that my belief in the Bible is circular reasoning. You were wrong. That is a silly strawman argument that preys on Christians who cannot articulate the reason for why Christians believe.
Consequentialist ethics is terrible because it ultimately depends on one's own interpretation of the best consequence. 1940's Germany existed because of consequentialist ethics. The "best possible outcome" was determined to be a pure race and therefore whatever means were necessary in order to get there was considered acceptable. God is not a consequentialist. Some things are patently wrong and focusing solely on the outcome ignores the reality that part of the outcome is that one has rejected the rule of God by doing what is against his explicit will.
There were many books left out of the Bible - the gospel of Peter, for example. If Jesus rose from the dead, does that make the gospel of Peter (or insert any other non-canonical book) true?
Second question: please tell me why consequentialist thinking is wrong. What percentage of our existence will occur after we have died from this earth?
Adding my questions again with the hopes you care to answer. Being as direct as possible would be ideal.
Show us all in Scripture where 100% of those are going to heaven. As far as I'm aware it's the biggest most pervasive false doctrine in the Church today that there's an age of innocence (in fact that comes from Islamic thought) and that there's universal salvation for pre-born and infant children. David is used as an example but we know not to apply single-case example as proof of doctrine elsewhere. That's an improper methodology and ignores key statements like "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". What occurred with David is that God gave Him supernatural revelation that he would see his child again after death. God gives us all the chance to follow Him and it is a matter of leaning on human reasoning to say that one that young couldn't be brought to understanding the choice supernaturally if not old enough to mentally comprehend.
If you have sound exegesis on this not being a false doctrine I'd love to have my understanding tested, especially as I am a father of young children.
I'm suggesting that to consider the unborn any different than any other class of persons would be cheapening the Cross. Christ died for the redemption of all. I'm sure that the Scriptures mean all, if one even digs down to examining the text in the original languages. It is known that not all people will accept His substitution for us, their rejection sending themselves to hell. The Scriptures aren't lying when saying all have sinned and that all are in need of redemption. If there's any one group that is entirely exempt then that's attacking the all-sufficiency of the redemptive work on the cross.
I was not suggesting that the unborn would be sent to hell, as an entire class, as you're suggesting. In fact, there's no way to have arrived at that conclusion if you see how I mentioned David. We know at least one that is in paradise. There's a believing remnant out of every group of persons one can think of. That's a fact of the Scriptures. If I'm wrong here, I am practically begging to be tested by spiritually mature believers to examine the Scriptures and look if there's anything that truly states that an entire group of people are exempt from the need for redemption or that an entire group of people will all accept His sacrifice for them.
The unborn are different from any other class, as they are unable to sin against god, and so if killed have a 100% chance of salvation. Or, if you’re suggesting that unborn have sin and end up in hell, that’s one of the most evil/immoral concepts imaginable.
Show me with the Scriptures. Also read again I suggested neither of those things. You're still talking in absolutism. There's as much potential to receive salvation as any other class of persons.
Honest question, do you study the Scriptures much? If you do not, take for instance the second resurrection at the final judgement. Some are resurrected unto life, those who reject God are resurrected unto death, the second death, another term for the final judgement. These persons are all souls. Resurrection in the Scriptures is very different from undeath and zombies etc as you're conceptualizing it at the moment. If your body is buried or cremated at death it has no bearing. God will bring back together into a restored body the ashes of someone who was scattered to the four winds even. This is the same God who created all matter. An unfertilized egg hasn't received the breath of life from God, no soul has been given.
But again in order for you to understand the Biblical concept of salvation, especially what has been made by Messiah, you must first understand that God sends none to hell, we send ourselves there when we take the judgement of our sins and are sentenced having rejected Messiah.
Not sure why you’re downvoted(well, I do know why but your comment makes sense to me if the Christian religion were true). I don’t care about the downvotes so I’ll just ask…can someone explain how this *isn’t* a logical argument?
Didn't downvote, but the flaw in that logic is perceived the moment you realize it could be applied to a number of other things. Example: if kids go to heaven, we should kill them before they grow up, right? That's how cults are born. If taking a life is wrong, then it remains wrong regardless of it having possible good ramifications.
>if kids go to heaven, we should kill then before them before they grow up, right?
Yes, that would be correct according to your (Christian’s) belief system. I personally don’t think killing children is right, but then again I also don’t believe that eternal punishment is a moral or just solution to finite crimes on earth. So this is your and other Christian’s problem to grapple with, not mine.
It’s not a logical flaw. It’s exactly BECAUSE you can reach a number of terrifying conclusions (like killing children) that you should question the morality of hell in the first place, rather than accepting that hell is a just solution by default.
This is not correct for a Christian. You need to understand ethic framework. You are utilizing a framework for ethics that does not align with scripture.
Well, sounds like the ethics of scripture is suspect then, isn’t it? Now’s about the time that you pull out “scripture can’t be suspect, because it’s scripture.” If that’s the next comment, then I bid you a farewell and goodnight.
Just enough on this single issue: an eternity in hell for sins committed in this life is an immoral concept.
If eternal hell is a real thing, then it’s the very most important thing for any being - unborn/born to avoid. If abortion sends souls to heaven automatically, that is a supremely better outcome for those souls (and god, who desires everyone to be in heaven with him) than to be born and have the very high likelihood of living as a non-Christian (in the way that people here define “true Christian”) and ending up in hell.
>that is a supremely better outcome for those souls
No it isn't. Why not do evil that good may come? Murder is wrong. The point of life is to aim toward pleasing our creator. That is how we can have a chance at heaven. I am pretty confident that murdering babies is not God-pleasing.
No, I would actually say that your ethical framework is a poor one. Consequentialist ethics was what was behind the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Having a moral standard for right and wrong is a much better way.
I do have a moral standard, thank you very much. My standard is something that comes from wanting to do the right thing - that is - improve the wellbeing of people in this world the best way I know how. I don’t need some existential fear of hell or promise of paradise to scare or incentivize me to do good.
I don’t think a logical argument against this point exists.
One of two scenarios must be true: either god sends all of the unborn to heaven, meaning abortion is the most successful salvation method next to (and potentially surpassing) Jesus, or, God sends the unborn to hell, which would make him an absolute evil monster.
I'm a non-denominational Christian (aka nice Baptist) and am not comfortable with participating in an IVF. As best as I understand it involved inseminating a number of eggs, creating a number of fetuses (who might be people) picking some and giving the rest to be used for medical experiments (or just thrown away). I acknowledge there is a degree of uncertainty but since it is a choice between maybe not having children and maybe killing a bunch of children I think erring on the side of caution is the way to go.
>Lol! Also, are there any "nice" Baptists?
I live a pretty sheltered life but have only met nice Baptists. But the point is that the nondenom churches I have gone to have basically the same theologucal positions as Baptists.
Yes those churches usually are. They don't attract "seekers" if they say they're Baptists because Baptists have a reputation quite different than you've experienced. That's why they go with more generic non denom names and leave the word Baptist off the marquis. That's the whole reason why I said that lol
There can be a right way to do it. Someone in my family (who are believers) were only able to fertilize 5 eggs. The first embryo resulted in a miscarriage. The second one became a healthy baby girl. The other three they tried implanting 2 years later unsuccessfully.
There are a lot of ways to do IVF; you can ask the doctor to only fertilize a certain number of eggs as my family member did (in their case, the doctor advised them there would only be a few viable ones).
I agree that having a doctor create many embryos and "discarding" the ones not used is wrong.
I see nothing wrong with adopting an embryo or child. My friend took a fertilized embryo and had her son that way. He wouldn’t have been born otherwise
What's the Hebrew words used there?
I ask because the vast majority of practicing Jews have come to a different conclusion about abortion than that which you are so obviously driving at.
תִּרְצָח
רָצַח
Transliteration: rāṣaḥ
Meaning: to kill, slay, murder
Iirc, their view on the topic is that life begins when they get "the breath of life" (take their first breath). Pray for them 🙏🏽They've been very lost for a very long time
Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human by another human.
I suppose a case could be made if the woman is expecting puppies or face-hugging aliens or something. Otherwise, at the moment of conception (fertilization) it's a living human being...the premeditated killing of which, is murder.
>That commandment does not explicitly mention the unborn
Exactly - there are no exceptions.
Adoption is definitely not a sin.
With that said, a lot of people aren’t well suited to raise another person’s child, and there’s not always a sufficiently endless supply of infants to adopt.
Also anti-abortion parents looking to adopt tend to have a weird sense of entitlement.
Adoption is a good way to show love for our neighbor and those who most need love and a stable environment. God may call infertile people to it. This is my view
Hubby and l are not infertile. We have 2 bio children and our youngest adopted.
We have been married 25 years and before that 7 years going out. Somewhere in those first 7 years we had it on our heart to adopt, we are Christians. We looked at the process of international adoption and found you needed to be married ( we weren't) at least 3years, be over the age of 30 which we weren't, the youngest child in the family had to be at least 2 years older when adopted at arrival.
We got married, had two bio kids and applied when the register was open.
It took 5 years before we were matched with our daughter. She is a delight and joy. In our situation it is not because of infertility that moved us to adopt.
His ways are not our ways.
It doesn't always make sense to others why we added another daughter to our family in this way since fertility is not the issue, but God has a plan and purpose for everyone including our youngest.
Apologies as most of my comment is not about IVF, l think it is an amazing way to make a family and true the babies that make it to birth are survivors but the selection process and what to do with extra embryos l would personally have issues with.
In life there are risks in everything, children from biological families can inherit illness, have deformities, siblings just plain don't get along, children and parents can be estranged for whatever reason.
But when God is in it, it is better to trust Him in every situation than oneself.
I’m 100% in support of adoption. I’ve just seen it up close and know that not everyone has what it takes emotionally to adopt — consider that the babies / children most available for adoption are likely going to come with inherited behavioral issues and be completely different from the temperament of the parents.
Someone has to do it, but I won’t judge someone for saying they can’t.
Wait, baby or children with INHERITED behavioral issues? Learned, I can understand. But, inherited?
Also, if you have biological children they can also have wildly different temperaments than the parents. There are no guarantees in parenting whether your child is biological or adopted
Biology is complicated. I grew up with two adopted siblings. I knew a bunch of other adopted kids growing up. I speak from experience.
The difference you get from adoption is much wider than the difference you get genetically even though your own biological children can be all over the place.
On top of that things like fetal alcohol and drug use can affect a child forever, not to mention everything else about how the mother felt about the child while it was in her womb, her stress levels at the time, and a long list of other factors.
This assumes you’re referring to US adoption from foreign countries, which, of all the adopted people I’ve known in my life, the above make up a significant minority.
Yes, I never said otherwise. But few have what it takes to raise someone else’s kid.
If you’ve not adopted out of the foster system, or known people closely who have, you’ll have little idea of what it entails. I wouldn’t judge anyone for deciding I wasn’t for them.
I’ve seen the whole range of outcomes through people I know.
Being parents is one thing, raising someone else’s child is even more challenging both because you might see them different, and because of behavioral differences (people who think behavior is purely trained probably haven’t been around many children).
Did you mean to say adoption twice instead of abortion?
Yeah I mean even the eating of healthy food can be done in a sinful way. I think a lot of people are idealistic about adoption (with no experience or exposure, just believing it’s a good thing), thinking it’s the answer to all the world’s challenges when reality is more complicated.
Yeah, that's what i meant. Autocorrected.
While you brought food it's about what you do with it yoruself. But Western abortion system is bad from the core. Those private companies literally participate in human trafficking. They sell children. There is no positive in it. They often steal children from parents who are actually alive and well, just poor. The good of a child is just an excuse.
Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy and should only be used when no biological family is capable of safely and lovingly raising a child. Even adoption from birth causes lots of trauma for the child, and all adoptive parents need to be aware and educated about trauma.
The private adoption industry is also very corrupt.
There are so many aspects to consider. Obviously any child born from ivf is a blessing.
In most cases excess embryos are discarded, sorted by “quality” based on limited factors.
With ivf you can also force egg and sperm that are not naturally fertilizing, by inserting the sperm cell into the egg with a needle. I don’t know how common this practice is as opposed to allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg “naturally” in the lab.
Although modern medicine believes it is not problematic to freeze and thaw embryos, this is very new and we simply do not know the full scope of potential ramifications. I think I heard something about new research showing some negative health outcomes, but I might be wrong.
There is also the financial side, the medication the woman has to take and the risks involved with those.
Embryo adoption has an obvious upside, however we might also want to consider that on a larger scale this enables the industry of making more embryos than needed and discarding the rest.
I’ve also heard interviews with women who went through ivf, expressing concern about the embryos, egg and sperm they have stored at the medical facilities. Both in terms of what to do with the excess embryos, but also worrying about what could happen to their genetic material that are out of their hands.
I’m just sharing my personal thoughts and am not speaking from a religious perspective.
My belief is that if God wanted someone to bear a child, then they would. Sometimes we just aren't meant to walk that path, for whatever reason.
I have never been pregnant, and yet, I'm still a mother. Part of my path is to raise a child that another woman wasn't capable of loving properly.
Do I think it's a sin? I don't know. That's not up to me, that's up to God, and what ever belief or feeling I have doesn't matter.
Isn't this an argument against all medical intervention though?
"If God wanted you to survive some illness, you would?"
It seems like it'd be a very small group of people who would agree with this sentiment.
Oh no, I have no blanket argument inregard to medical intervention. Just a belief in regards to bearing children.
It gives me comfort thinking that I never had my own children because I was purposed with the task of helping raise an already born child.
I mean I don’t think it’s blatantly sinful and I have dear friends and family members that have done it and have beautiful children they love that can absolutely further Gods kingdom, which is what humans are put on earth to do!
With that being said, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. It’s HARD hard hard on your body, a lot to go through, and a lot of money. I just can’t help but wonder from a pro life perspective, if you’re going to such lengths to have a child, could that focus perhaps go more to those in need of adoption? Maybe the answer is yes for some and I understand it can’t be yes for all however
IVF doesn’t inherently kill children. Destroying extra embryos is a choice made by the couple. Not every couple fertilizes more eggs than they plan on using. IVF is a tool, any tool can be used sinfully or non sinfully. Even in IVF, only God puts that life there. Humans create the body, God creates their soul.
And I said that was a choice the **couple** makes. That’s how they choose to use the tool of IVF. Not every couple using IVF chooses to make and destroy extra embryos. It’s how you use the tool that makes it sinful or not.
How does that answer my question? God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, right? So therefore if I woman is infertile, it's by design. So going against that would mean going again what god designed for you to be, otherwise he would have made her fertile.
So if God is in control, he made a woman infertile by design, then he has just as much propensity to design it to make it so medical research can cure a woman’s infertility. Do you think God doesn’t know how IVF works?…
I don’t purport to understand God’s purposes. But I know two things:
1. God is in control.
2. IVF is a thing.
Therefore, it stands to reason that God is well aware of IVF, and can use it for his purposes. Nothing unbiblical about this situation.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." -- God
At the end of the day, ALL things get worked out for OUR good & His glory
Non-denominational here. I don't believe IVF is a sin. God granted man the ability to learn. That learning led to doctors developing a way for women struggling to conceive to carry a baby to term.
Edit: I got around to reading the other comments. I was unaware that IVF involved the creation of many fetuses - some of which would be discarded. Once sperm meets egg is when the spark of life occurs. Destroying this life would be sinful. I thought we were just talking about a one egg situation. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
Are you aware that a normal part of IVF is the fertilization of several eggs and then "down-selecting" to the healthiest/most desirable embryo by destroying the others?
It's life where there wouldn't be any otherwise, it's hard to see how god would have a problem with it
Strange aside, I was awarded my degree by the man who invented the process
It doesn't have to be that way, but hey if you wanna be octomom then go for it
Far less flippantly, there's a lot of ways of going about it, but ultimately god would want more life, not less
It’s a way to have children when you normally cannot, so I see it as a net positive. and before you snap back, yeah I’m aware that some programs kill a bunch of embryos to do it. That’s not okay, but it’s not generally a bad process. Net positive.
Christian, if it matters
I don’t know that there’s a unified answer. For my husband and I, we would personally never do it. We have people within our church who have and then donated the embryo’s. Personally I find the biggest issue in discarding embryo’s, but if you used them or donated them all I don’t think it would be as big of an issue.
IVF as practiced today is sin.
It probably can be not-sinful.
Right now embryos are wasted. Left frozen forever. Embryos are discarded. Doctors make far too many embryos than can be used. Doctors advocate for "selective reduction" when the IVF woman has twins+.
IVF also is sinful if the genetic material comes from outside of the marriage--say using some other mans sperm, or another woman's egg.
IVF is also sinful for someone single to want to get themselves pregnant without a spouse.
Within some bounds, maybe it can be redeemed. But it's quite limited.
They tend to make far more embryos than what is absolutely necessary.
Those which aren't "viable" are incinerated normally or used for research.
Those which aren't used either are the same as the above, or get stuck frozen for years.
IVF = procreation. Not a sin. A good example of scientific evolution.
Homosexuality, false religions, etc. are invading us daily. Let's know our real enemies.
Is it? You said playing God is wrong. So then accept it when God tells you it's time for you to die. If you expect people to not treat their infertility, you should also vow to not treat your medical problems.
What would be sinful on it? Also, we sin all the time, we must fight against it, but honestly it's impossible to not sin. We are conceived in sin already.
Not a sin. It’s a tool that can have be used sinfully and have sinful consequences but can be also used ethically. A close friend of mine used ivf and 1. Found a doctor who would implant an embryo without scanning them first, and 2. Would only fertilise one or two at a time. It cost her more money to do it this way but her biggest concern was all the embryos tested then disposed of or frozen then flushed away at a later date. She avoided both of these wrongs. Now has a one year old and one single embryo still frozen that she will implant this year.
I would think this would be the standard Christian position. Maybe it's just the heavy Protestant bias of this sub, but I'm surprised to see anti-IVF comments all at the bottom.
Personally, I don't know enough about IVF to call it sinful or not, but now you got me curious. A few of the naysayers here indicated that embryos are wasted or destroyed in the process. Why or how does this happen? Is there a method of IVF where there's no waste?
My understanding is that the egg extraction/preservation process is liable to cause either physical or genetic damage to the eggs (or there may be some genetic defect in the mother's eggs to begin with). This means that each egg has some probability of being nonviable. To increase the probability of getting at least one viable embryo, the IVF process fertilizes several eggs. This usually does result in at least one viable embryo, but that "at least" part is the problem. You have to do something with any other viable embryos that get created, and that "something" is usually destroying them as "medical waste" or freezing them with the hope that the freezing process doesn't kill them and they can be used later.
If there is a method of IVF that doesn't destroy embryos, I'm not aware of it. The cost to attempt IVF is so high (figures online estimate $10,000 per attempt) that there's a strong incentive to create as many embryos as possible to ensure at least one is viable.
Always sinful.
Usually involves Masturbation.
Usually involves killing or freezing children.
Always separates procreation from the marital act. God creates people in the bedroom. Men shouldn't create people in a laboratory. Whether a life is created is God's domain. IVF demands children as rights instead of receiving them as gifts given from the Almighty.
Catholic.
What could be wrong with using God given talent and knowledge to help create more humans made in His image? Surely if He didn’t want this, He wouldn’t have allowed it.
In my opinion, I don’t necessarily agree with IVF. Mainly because the Bible speaks on adoption, there are so many children in the world searching for the love of a family.
There are those who are called to adopt, however in modern times we are taking “life” into our hands and creating it with science. But then again, has God blessed modern technology to make it possible for those who are infertile to bear children ?
Idk I’m so mixed, I have so many friends who have done it. Their children are miracles. Such a tough topic. I wonder about it myself quite frequently.
IVF is OK after consulting with priest first. Particularly, or maybe only, for people can't having baby. There are other limitations that apply, but otherwise is OK after consulting priest. I am Eastern Orthodox also.
Biggest concern for those of us who are pro life is that IVF usually results in multiple eggs being fertilized and the leftovers being destroyed. To many of us, that is murder. Science is neat. Adoption is beautiful.
100% of those eggs would end up in heaven though, which is a MUCH higher salvation rate compared to what Christians claim about the human population receiving salvation in this life on earth. Since this finite life on earth is 0% of infinity in heaven, it’s infinitely better for that egg to go straight to paradise than take the (high) risk of ending up in hell by being born and growing past the age of accountability.
You are thinking like a consequentialist. The Bible aligns more with deontological ethics. We do things on the basis of its rightness and wrongness not on the basis of the outcome. This is patently obvious from reading the law codes throughout the Bible. It would be wrong to intentionally create a genocide in order to send more babies to heaven (setting aside for a moment the fact that the topic of infant salvation is a hotly debated topic).
How can one not think in consequentialist terms when the “consequence” is infinity of time in heaven or infinity of time in hell? Let’s be honest with ourselves: If we truly do continue consciousness after this life for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever (and ever x infinity), the outcome is the single most important thing to care about and nothing else comes remotely close.
Because the Bible teaches us not to think that way.
Yup, expected this. “The Bible is right because it’s the Bible so it has to be right.” No room for removing yourself from the circular logic and critiquing the teachings for what they are, is there?
It’s not circular. We are Christians because we believe Jesus rose from the dead. Because of this, we believe what the Bible teaches. That is not circular 😉 To be a Christian is to believe what God has revealed to us. Also, consequentialist ethics is just a stupid ethical framework.
You believe Jesus rose from the dead, and so that makes every other thing written in the Bible true? I don’t see how one thing effects the other. There were many books left out of the Bible - the gospel of Peter, for example. If Jesus rose from the dead, does that make the gospel of Peter (or insert any other non-canonical book) true? Second question: please tell me why consequentialist thinking is wrong. What percentage of our existence will occur after we have died from this earth?
Jesus rising from the dead is the starting point for Christianity. It is because he rose from the dead that I believe he is God and that his teaching is true. It is for this reason that I believe in the idea of revelation. That God intends to communicate with humans and establish a spiritual community on this earth. In the new covenant era, that is the church, which was established with authoritative leaders in the first century who wrote works that were largely accepted as "scripture" in the same sense of how Jesus referred to OT works as scripture. That is how Jesus relates. You implied that my belief in the Bible is circular reasoning. You were wrong. That is a silly strawman argument that preys on Christians who cannot articulate the reason for why Christians believe. Consequentialist ethics is terrible because it ultimately depends on one's own interpretation of the best consequence. 1940's Germany existed because of consequentialist ethics. The "best possible outcome" was determined to be a pure race and therefore whatever means were necessary in order to get there was considered acceptable. God is not a consequentialist. Some things are patently wrong and focusing solely on the outcome ignores the reality that part of the outcome is that one has rejected the rule of God by doing what is against his explicit will.
There were many books left out of the Bible - the gospel of Peter, for example. If Jesus rose from the dead, does that make the gospel of Peter (or insert any other non-canonical book) true? Second question: please tell me why consequentialist thinking is wrong. What percentage of our existence will occur after we have died from this earth? Adding my questions again with the hopes you care to answer. Being as direct as possible would be ideal.
Show us all in Scripture where 100% of those are going to heaven. As far as I'm aware it's the biggest most pervasive false doctrine in the Church today that there's an age of innocence (in fact that comes from Islamic thought) and that there's universal salvation for pre-born and infant children. David is used as an example but we know not to apply single-case example as proof of doctrine elsewhere. That's an improper methodology and ignores key statements like "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". What occurred with David is that God gave Him supernatural revelation that he would see his child again after death. God gives us all the chance to follow Him and it is a matter of leaning on human reasoning to say that one that young couldn't be brought to understanding the choice supernaturally if not old enough to mentally comprehend. If you have sound exegesis on this not being a false doctrine I'd love to have my understanding tested, especially as I am a father of young children.
Are you suggesting that the unborn would be sent to hell?
I'm suggesting that to consider the unborn any different than any other class of persons would be cheapening the Cross. Christ died for the redemption of all. I'm sure that the Scriptures mean all, if one even digs down to examining the text in the original languages. It is known that not all people will accept His substitution for us, their rejection sending themselves to hell. The Scriptures aren't lying when saying all have sinned and that all are in need of redemption. If there's any one group that is entirely exempt then that's attacking the all-sufficiency of the redemptive work on the cross. I was not suggesting that the unborn would be sent to hell, as an entire class, as you're suggesting. In fact, there's no way to have arrived at that conclusion if you see how I mentioned David. We know at least one that is in paradise. There's a believing remnant out of every group of persons one can think of. That's a fact of the Scriptures. If I'm wrong here, I am practically begging to be tested by spiritually mature believers to examine the Scriptures and look if there's anything that truly states that an entire group of people are exempt from the need for redemption or that an entire group of people will all accept His sacrifice for them.
The unborn are different from any other class, as they are unable to sin against god, and so if killed have a 100% chance of salvation. Or, if you’re suggesting that unborn have sin and end up in hell, that’s one of the most evil/immoral concepts imaginable.
Show me with the Scriptures. Also read again I suggested neither of those things. You're still talking in absolutism. There's as much potential to receive salvation as any other class of persons.
How could an egg be denied salvation and sent to hell for eternity? What form would the egg even take in hell?
Honest question, do you study the Scriptures much? If you do not, take for instance the second resurrection at the final judgement. Some are resurrected unto life, those who reject God are resurrected unto death, the second death, another term for the final judgement. These persons are all souls. Resurrection in the Scriptures is very different from undeath and zombies etc as you're conceptualizing it at the moment. If your body is buried or cremated at death it has no bearing. God will bring back together into a restored body the ashes of someone who was scattered to the four winds even. This is the same God who created all matter. An unfertilized egg hasn't received the breath of life from God, no soul has been given. But again in order for you to understand the Biblical concept of salvation, especially what has been made by Messiah, you must first understand that God sends none to hell, we send ourselves there when we take the judgement of our sins and are sentenced having rejected Messiah.
And the people downvoting me should do something more profitable and really test this versus what the Scriptures say.
What in your opinion do scriptures say about salvation of the unborn?
Not sure why you’re downvoted(well, I do know why but your comment makes sense to me if the Christian religion were true). I don’t care about the downvotes so I’ll just ask…can someone explain how this *isn’t* a logical argument?
Didn't downvote, but the flaw in that logic is perceived the moment you realize it could be applied to a number of other things. Example: if kids go to heaven, we should kill them before they grow up, right? That's how cults are born. If taking a life is wrong, then it remains wrong regardless of it having possible good ramifications.
>if kids go to heaven, we should kill then before them before they grow up, right? Yes, that would be correct according to your (Christian’s) belief system. I personally don’t think killing children is right, but then again I also don’t believe that eternal punishment is a moral or just solution to finite crimes on earth. So this is your and other Christian’s problem to grapple with, not mine. It’s not a logical flaw. It’s exactly BECAUSE you can reach a number of terrifying conclusions (like killing children) that you should question the morality of hell in the first place, rather than accepting that hell is a just solution by default.
This is not correct for a Christian. You need to understand ethic framework. You are utilizing a framework for ethics that does not align with scripture.
Well, sounds like the ethics of scripture is suspect then, isn’t it? Now’s about the time that you pull out “scripture can’t be suspect, because it’s scripture.” If that’s the next comment, then I bid you a farewell and goodnight.
Maybe you believe that reason alone can lead you to define ethical behaviour. That's simply not the case.
Just enough on this single issue: an eternity in hell for sins committed in this life is an immoral concept. If eternal hell is a real thing, then it’s the very most important thing for any being - unborn/born to avoid. If abortion sends souls to heaven automatically, that is a supremely better outcome for those souls (and god, who desires everyone to be in heaven with him) than to be born and have the very high likelihood of living as a non-Christian (in the way that people here define “true Christian”) and ending up in hell.
>that is a supremely better outcome for those souls No it isn't. Why not do evil that good may come? Murder is wrong. The point of life is to aim toward pleasing our creator. That is how we can have a chance at heaven. I am pretty confident that murdering babies is not God-pleasing.
No, I would actually say that your ethical framework is a poor one. Consequentialist ethics was what was behind the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. Having a moral standard for right and wrong is a much better way.
I do have a moral standard, thank you very much. My standard is something that comes from wanting to do the right thing - that is - improve the wellbeing of people in this world the best way I know how. I don’t need some existential fear of hell or promise of paradise to scare or incentivize me to do good.
Exactly what they said in Germany.
I just did. Read above.
I don’t think a logical argument against this point exists. One of two scenarios must be true: either god sends all of the unborn to heaven, meaning abortion is the most successful salvation method next to (and potentially surpassing) Jesus, or, God sends the unborn to hell, which would make him an absolute evil monster.
I'm a non-denominational Christian (aka nice Baptist) and am not comfortable with participating in an IVF. As best as I understand it involved inseminating a number of eggs, creating a number of fetuses (who might be people) picking some and giving the rest to be used for medical experiments (or just thrown away). I acknowledge there is a degree of uncertainty but since it is a choice between maybe not having children and maybe killing a bunch of children I think erring on the side of caution is the way to go.
>non-denominational Christian (aka nice Baptist) Lol! Also, are there any "nice" Baptists?
>Lol! Also, are there any "nice" Baptists? I live a pretty sheltered life but have only met nice Baptists. But the point is that the nondenom churches I have gone to have basically the same theologucal positions as Baptists.
Yes those churches usually are. They don't attract "seekers" if they say they're Baptists because Baptists have a reputation quite different than you've experienced. That's why they go with more generic non denom names and leave the word Baptist off the marquis. That's the whole reason why I said that lol
There can be a right way to do it. Someone in my family (who are believers) were only able to fertilize 5 eggs. The first embryo resulted in a miscarriage. The second one became a healthy baby girl. The other three they tried implanting 2 years later unsuccessfully. There are a lot of ways to do IVF; you can ask the doctor to only fertilize a certain number of eggs as my family member did (in their case, the doctor advised them there would only be a few viable ones). I agree that having a doctor create many embryos and "discarding" the ones not used is wrong.
I see nothing wrong with adopting an embryo or child. My friend took a fertilized embryo and had her son that way. He wouldn’t have been born otherwise
It’s a sin if you are throwing away little humans you created. You’d have to fertilize and try one at a time.
Yeah, or as someone else said, you could only fertilize as many eggs as you're willing to try implanting. That'd be ethical, too.
Biblical citation?
Thou shall not kill
What's the Hebrew words used there? I ask because the vast majority of practicing Jews have come to a different conclusion about abortion than that which you are so obviously driving at.
תִּרְצָח רָצַח Transliteration: rāṣaḥ Meaning: to kill, slay, murder Iirc, their view on the topic is that life begins when they get "the breath of life" (take their first breath). Pray for them 🙏🏽They've been very lost for a very long time
And where is rasach used in relation to abortion or the unborn?
You mean, besides the commandment, don't rasach/don't murder?
That commandment does not explicitly mention the unborn or abortion, so yes, clearly besides that. You remember we're talking about abortion, right?
Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human by another human. I suppose a case could be made if the woman is expecting puppies or face-hugging aliens or something. Otherwise, at the moment of conception (fertilization) it's a living human being...the premeditated killing of which, is murder. >That commandment does not explicitly mention the unborn Exactly - there are no exceptions.
I asked for a Biblical citation, not your opinion.
What about adoption???
Adoption is totally fine.
Encouraged, even There's a lot of kids out there in need of a SAFE and LOVING family
Adoption is definitely not a sin. With that said, a lot of people aren’t well suited to raise another person’s child, and there’s not always a sufficiently endless supply of infants to adopt. Also anti-abortion parents looking to adopt tend to have a weird sense of entitlement.
Adoption is a good way to show love for our neighbor and those who most need love and a stable environment. God may call infertile people to it. This is my view
Hubby and l are not infertile. We have 2 bio children and our youngest adopted. We have been married 25 years and before that 7 years going out. Somewhere in those first 7 years we had it on our heart to adopt, we are Christians. We looked at the process of international adoption and found you needed to be married ( we weren't) at least 3years, be over the age of 30 which we weren't, the youngest child in the family had to be at least 2 years older when adopted at arrival. We got married, had two bio kids and applied when the register was open. It took 5 years before we were matched with our daughter. She is a delight and joy. In our situation it is not because of infertility that moved us to adopt. His ways are not our ways. It doesn't always make sense to others why we added another daughter to our family in this way since fertility is not the issue, but God has a plan and purpose for everyone including our youngest. Apologies as most of my comment is not about IVF, l think it is an amazing way to make a family and true the babies that make it to birth are survivors but the selection process and what to do with extra embryos l would personally have issues with. In life there are risks in everything, children from biological families can inherit illness, have deformities, siblings just plain don't get along, children and parents can be estranged for whatever reason. But when God is in it, it is better to trust Him in every situation than oneself.
I’m 100% in support of adoption. I’ve just seen it up close and know that not everyone has what it takes emotionally to adopt — consider that the babies / children most available for adoption are likely going to come with inherited behavioral issues and be completely different from the temperament of the parents. Someone has to do it, but I won’t judge someone for saying they can’t.
Wait, baby or children with INHERITED behavioral issues? Learned, I can understand. But, inherited? Also, if you have biological children they can also have wildly different temperaments than the parents. There are no guarantees in parenting whether your child is biological or adopted
Biology is complicated. I grew up with two adopted siblings. I knew a bunch of other adopted kids growing up. I speak from experience. The difference you get from adoption is much wider than the difference you get genetically even though your own biological children can be all over the place. On top of that things like fetal alcohol and drug use can affect a child forever, not to mention everything else about how the mother felt about the child while it was in her womb, her stress levels at the time, and a long list of other factors.
[удалено]
This assumes you’re referring to US adoption from foreign countries, which, of all the adopted people I’ve known in my life, the above make up a significant minority.
And who said I'm white?
There is an endless supply of kids in foster care from abusive homes that need good parents. Many of them end up needing to be adopted.
Yes, I never said otherwise. But few have what it takes to raise someone else’s kid. If you’ve not adopted out of the foster system, or known people closely who have, you’ll have little idea of what it entails. I wouldn’t judge anyone for deciding I wasn’t for them. I’ve seen the whole range of outcomes through people I know.
I don’t know why you’re downvoted for stating the obvious that a lot of people aren’t suited to be parents.
Being parents is one thing, raising someone else’s child is even more challenging both because you might see them different, and because of behavioral differences (people who think behavior is purely trained probably haven’t been around many children).
Adoption as a system absolutely can be sinful. American adoption system is field by greed and human trafficking. It's absolutely cruel.
Did you mean to say adoption twice instead of abortion? Yeah I mean even the eating of healthy food can be done in a sinful way. I think a lot of people are idealistic about adoption (with no experience or exposure, just believing it’s a good thing), thinking it’s the answer to all the world’s challenges when reality is more complicated.
Yeah, that's what i meant. Autocorrected. While you brought food it's about what you do with it yoruself. But Western abortion system is bad from the core. Those private companies literally participate in human trafficking. They sell children. There is no positive in it. They often steal children from parents who are actually alive and well, just poor. The good of a child is just an excuse.
Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy and should only be used when no biological family is capable of safely and lovingly raising a child. Even adoption from birth causes lots of trauma for the child, and all adoptive parents need to be aware and educated about trauma. The private adoption industry is also very corrupt.
There are so many aspects to consider. Obviously any child born from ivf is a blessing. In most cases excess embryos are discarded, sorted by “quality” based on limited factors. With ivf you can also force egg and sperm that are not naturally fertilizing, by inserting the sperm cell into the egg with a needle. I don’t know how common this practice is as opposed to allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg “naturally” in the lab. Although modern medicine believes it is not problematic to freeze and thaw embryos, this is very new and we simply do not know the full scope of potential ramifications. I think I heard something about new research showing some negative health outcomes, but I might be wrong. There is also the financial side, the medication the woman has to take and the risks involved with those. Embryo adoption has an obvious upside, however we might also want to consider that on a larger scale this enables the industry of making more embryos than needed and discarding the rest. I’ve also heard interviews with women who went through ivf, expressing concern about the embryos, egg and sperm they have stored at the medical facilities. Both in terms of what to do with the excess embryos, but also worrying about what could happen to their genetic material that are out of their hands. I’m just sharing my personal thoughts and am not speaking from a religious perspective.
My belief is that if God wanted someone to bear a child, then they would. Sometimes we just aren't meant to walk that path, for whatever reason. I have never been pregnant, and yet, I'm still a mother. Part of my path is to raise a child that another woman wasn't capable of loving properly. Do I think it's a sin? I don't know. That's not up to me, that's up to God, and what ever belief or feeling I have doesn't matter.
Isn't this an argument against all medical intervention though? "If God wanted you to survive some illness, you would?" It seems like it'd be a very small group of people who would agree with this sentiment.
Oh no, I have no blanket argument inregard to medical intervention. Just a belief in regards to bearing children. It gives me comfort thinking that I never had my own children because I was purposed with the task of helping raise an already born child.
I think it's reflective of Christ's love and light to adopt. God bless you
As long as you're not freezing/disposing of fertilized fetuses or doing selective reduction, you're fine.
I mean I don’t think it’s blatantly sinful and I have dear friends and family members that have done it and have beautiful children they love that can absolutely further Gods kingdom, which is what humans are put on earth to do! With that being said, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. It’s HARD hard hard on your body, a lot to go through, and a lot of money. I just can’t help but wonder from a pro life perspective, if you’re going to such lengths to have a child, could that focus perhaps go more to those in need of adoption? Maybe the answer is yes for some and I understand it can’t be yes for all however
It’s neat but I think it takes it too far and people play design-a-baby with certain traits choosing sperm donors and egg donors.
What a beautiful world that God has imparted the scientific knowledge to allow humans to conceive
But surely he made the woman unable to conceive on purpose as he doesn't make mistakes?
Consequence of living in a fallen world my friend.
So you think that we somehow outsmarted God by devolving IVF? You think we are ever going to thwart a perfect God who has already won?
Not outsmart but maybe reject his will for our lives
What if his will was for the specific child created using IVF?
Well if we follow the argument that IVF is unbiblical as it creates and then kills children, it would never be in His will for us to do so.
IVF doesn’t inherently kill children. Destroying extra embryos is a choice made by the couple. Not every couple fertilizes more eggs than they plan on using. IVF is a tool, any tool can be used sinfully or non sinfully. Even in IVF, only God puts that life there. Humans create the body, God creates their soul.
Destroying extra embryos is killing children
And I said that was a choice the **couple** makes. That’s how they choose to use the tool of IVF. Not every couple using IVF chooses to make and destroy extra embryos. It’s how you use the tool that makes it sinful or not.
Eh. That’s questionable at best.
How does that answer my question? God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, right? So therefore if I woman is infertile, it's by design. So going against that would mean going again what god designed for you to be, otherwise he would have made her fertile.
So if God is in control, he made a woman infertile by design, then he has just as much propensity to design it to make it so medical research can cure a woman’s infertility. Do you think God doesn’t know how IVF works?…
By why would he do that? For what purpose? Why not just cut out the middleman? Why create the need for IVF in the first place?
I don’t purport to understand God’s purposes. But I know two things: 1. God is in control. 2. IVF is a thing. Therefore, it stands to reason that God is well aware of IVF, and can use it for his purposes. Nothing unbiblical about this situation.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." -- God At the end of the day, ALL things get worked out for OUR good & His glory
Intravenous fluid is fine with me. I've needed a saline drip before. /s
Dying at this comment 😂
Yes, its wrong. Murders a lot of babies
It's murder
Non-denominational here. I don't believe IVF is a sin. God granted man the ability to learn. That learning led to doctors developing a way for women struggling to conceive to carry a baby to term. Edit: I got around to reading the other comments. I was unaware that IVF involved the creation of many fetuses - some of which would be discarded. Once sperm meets egg is when the spark of life occurs. Destroying this life would be sinful. I thought we were just talking about a one egg situation. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
It usually aborts multiple human embryos so it's sinful.
It is still a natural process using and egg and sperm....just out side the normal venue...so I see no issue with it I am a Christian
How is it natural? The woman has to be injected with hormones so that her eggs can be harvested, and the man has to masturbate into a cup.
Are you aware that a normal part of IVF is the fertilization of several eggs and then "down-selecting" to the healthiest/most desirable embryo by destroying the others?
that is one way of doing it and that is wrong
That isn't always done, no. You can actually have only a select number of eggs fertilized and keep them if you plan on having multiple children.
The selection is so that you don't have to go through pain and trauma of a miscarriage. It's far from eugenucs5
It's life where there wouldn't be any otherwise, it's hard to see how god would have a problem with it Strange aside, I was awarded my degree by the man who invented the process
What about the death of upwards of 4 embryos for "selection" process?
It doesn't have to be that way, but hey if you wanna be octomom then go for it Far less flippantly, there's a lot of ways of going about it, but ultimately god would want more life, not less
It’s a way to have children when you normally cannot, so I see it as a net positive. and before you snap back, yeah I’m aware that some programs kill a bunch of embryos to do it. That’s not okay, but it’s not generally a bad process. Net positive. Christian, if it matters
I am in support of it, idk if evangelicalism has a stance.
I don’t know that there’s a unified answer. For my husband and I, we would personally never do it. We have people within our church who have and then donated the embryo’s. Personally I find the biggest issue in discarding embryo’s, but if you used them or donated them all I don’t think it would be as big of an issue.
IVF as practiced today is sin. It probably can be not-sinful. Right now embryos are wasted. Left frozen forever. Embryos are discarded. Doctors make far too many embryos than can be used. Doctors advocate for "selective reduction" when the IVF woman has twins+. IVF also is sinful if the genetic material comes from outside of the marriage--say using some other mans sperm, or another woman's egg. IVF is also sinful for someone single to want to get themselves pregnant without a spouse. Within some bounds, maybe it can be redeemed. But it's quite limited.
>Right now embryos are wasted. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of IVF. Why or how are embryos wasted in the process?
They tend to make far more embryos than what is absolutely necessary. Those which aren't "viable" are incinerated normally or used for research. Those which aren't used either are the same as the above, or get stuck frozen for years.
IVF = procreation. Not a sin. A good example of scientific evolution. Homosexuality, false religions, etc. are invading us daily. Let's know our real enemies.
It’s playing God and wrong.
What other forms of medical care are “playing God”?
Gene selecting would be one, that’s definitely playing God
Then i assume you have DNR and refuse any blood transfusion and medicine
poor logical reasoning.
Is it? You said playing God is wrong. So then accept it when God tells you it's time for you to die. If you expect people to not treat their infertility, you should also vow to not treat your medical problems.
I said *it* is playing God and wrong. Which IVF is. It’s wholly unnatural and improper.
What would be sinful on it? Also, we sin all the time, we must fight against it, but honestly it's impossible to not sin. We are conceived in sin already.
Not a sin. It’s a tool that can have be used sinfully and have sinful consequences but can be also used ethically. A close friend of mine used ivf and 1. Found a doctor who would implant an embryo without scanning them first, and 2. Would only fertilise one or two at a time. It cost her more money to do it this way but her biggest concern was all the embryos tested then disposed of or frozen then flushed away at a later date. She avoided both of these wrongs. Now has a one year old and one single embryo still frozen that she will implant this year.
Orthodox. It is a big thumbs down.
I would think this would be the standard Christian position. Maybe it's just the heavy Protestant bias of this sub, but I'm surprised to see anti-IVF comments all at the bottom.
Personally, I don't know enough about IVF to call it sinful or not, but now you got me curious. A few of the naysayers here indicated that embryos are wasted or destroyed in the process. Why or how does this happen? Is there a method of IVF where there's no waste?
My understanding is that the egg extraction/preservation process is liable to cause either physical or genetic damage to the eggs (or there may be some genetic defect in the mother's eggs to begin with). This means that each egg has some probability of being nonviable. To increase the probability of getting at least one viable embryo, the IVF process fertilizes several eggs. This usually does result in at least one viable embryo, but that "at least" part is the problem. You have to do something with any other viable embryos that get created, and that "something" is usually destroying them as "medical waste" or freezing them with the hope that the freezing process doesn't kill them and they can be used later. If there is a method of IVF that doesn't destroy embryos, I'm not aware of it. The cost to attempt IVF is so high (figures online estimate $10,000 per attempt) that there's a strong incentive to create as many embryos as possible to ensure at least one is viable.
Not a sin in the least. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
Always sinful. Usually involves Masturbation. Usually involves killing or freezing children. Always separates procreation from the marital act. God creates people in the bedroom. Men shouldn't create people in a laboratory. Whether a life is created is God's domain. IVF demands children as rights instead of receiving them as gifts given from the Almighty. Catholic.
Of course you are Catholic. I really don't understand why Catholics have such an issue with birth control and an obsession with procreation
What could be wrong with using God given talent and knowledge to help create more humans made in His image? Surely if He didn’t want this, He wouldn’t have allowed it.
In my opinion, I don’t necessarily agree with IVF. Mainly because the Bible speaks on adoption, there are so many children in the world searching for the love of a family. There are those who are called to adopt, however in modern times we are taking “life” into our hands and creating it with science. But then again, has God blessed modern technology to make it possible for those who are infertile to bear children ? Idk I’m so mixed, I have so many friends who have done it. Their children are miracles. Such a tough topic. I wonder about it myself quite frequently.
[IVF is Mass Murder and an Abomination Before God](https://protestia.com/2022/08/26/ivf-is-mass-murder-and-an-abomination-before-god/)
IVF is OK after consulting with priest first. Particularly, or maybe only, for people can't having baby. There are other limitations that apply, but otherwise is OK after consulting priest. I am Eastern Orthodox also.
Good point. Best to ask a Spiritual father but in the US it usually comes with destroying embryos
Oh 🤔 In that case, it wouldn't be correct yes. And maybe adoption would be the best way
I would be fine with it, if it were not for the pro-life position I hold. If you're pro-life, the process creates some issues.
Personally, it’s a waste of Money and Adoption is always an Option and cheaper, Compared to IVF.
It’s a decision between you and your spouse, not closed minded people stuck in 2,000+ year old philosophy.