Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF  (Read 776 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6284
  • Reputation: +3571/-619
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
« on: August 05, 2022, 05:22:11 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • He makes a lot of good points and even, commendably, discusses the huge moral issues surrounding IVF, which is ignored by some among the "pro-life" crowd.

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    Offline Dingbat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 170
    • Reputation: +104/-16
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
    « Reply #1 on: August 05, 2022, 06:14:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • He makes a lot of good points and even, commendably, discusses the huge moral issues surrounding IVF, which is ignored by some among the "pro-life" crowd.


    Secular pro-lifers who actually want to remain consistent with their pro-life positions reject both rape exceptions and IVF. Some of them seem somewhat positive towards "ethical" IVF, in which only one embryo is fertilized at a time. Of course, as Catholics we have to reject IVF in either presentation. That being said, were I not Catholic, I would worry even about the survival rate of any embryo that was intentionally placed via IVF. The typical Pro-life position I see says that life begins at conception. Even atheist pro-lifers hold this opinion being that it is backed by science. Somewhat ironic given that your average baby-killer practically views science as religion. 


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6284
    • Reputation: +3571/-619
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
    « Reply #2 on: August 05, 2022, 06:38:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Even atheist pro-lifers hold this opinion being that it is backed by science. Somewhat ironic given that your average baby-killer practically views science as religion.
    Unsurprising, as even an idiot can come to the conclusion that a fertilized embryo will become a child, and nothing else but a child.
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    Offline Dingbat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 170
    • Reputation: +104/-16
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
    « Reply #3 on: August 05, 2022, 07:02:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unsurprising, as even an idiot can come to the conclusion that a fertilized embryo will become a child, and nothing else but a child.
    I would go so far as to say any idiot can come to the conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human. Arguing that it will become a child is something that the pro-death crowd likes to do. They assign "personhood" to every human besides the unborn ones, and say that being a human is different from being a person. This is part of how they can justify putting the mother's comfort over the child's life. After all, it isn't really a person. It's a "potential" person. 

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6284
    • Reputation: +3571/-619
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
    « Reply #4 on: August 05, 2022, 07:07:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would go so far as to say any idiot can come to the conclusion that a fertilized embryo is a human. Arguing that it will become a child is something that the pro-death crowd likes to do. They assign "personhood" to every human besides the unborn ones, and say that being a human is different from being a person. This is part of how they can justify putting the mother's comfort over the child's life. After all, it isn't really a person. It's a "potential" person.
    Indeed. I guess I wasn't giving them enough credit to make such distinctions.
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31373
    • Reputation: +18646/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
    « Reply #5 on: August 05, 2022, 07:15:58 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unsurprising, as even an idiot can come to the conclusion that a fertilized embryo will become a child, and nothing else but a child.

    Or just the simple logical realization that the preborn child is either life or not life, and you can't kill the child simply because of the crime committed against the mother.  If you can argue that trauma suffered by the mother justifies taking the innocent life that had nothing to do with it, then you're one step away from justifying the same thing for other hardships incurred by the mother.

    Offline Dingbat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 170
    • Reputation: +104/-16
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Michael Knowles on miscarriage and IVF
    « Reply #6 on: August 05, 2022, 08:35:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Or just the simple logical realization that the preborn child is either life or not life, and you can't kill the child simply because of the crime committed against the mother.  If you can argue that trauma suffered by the mother justifies taking the innocent life that had nothing to do with it, then you're one step away from justifying the same thing for other hardships incurred by the mother.
    For sure. There are basically two main thought processes in the secular pro-life movement from what I have seen. 

    The first states that abortion is murder, and this cannot be allowed under any circuмstances due to the child having a right to life. Typically these people allow for medical exemption in the case of a life threatening condition for the mother, but they often do not wish to include rape or (the even more dubious) incest exemptions. 

    The second says that unborn children are alive and do have a right to life, but they base their allowance for exemptions on the personal responsibility of the parents. If a women willingly did the action that she knew could lead to a baby (however small the likelihood due to birth control) she is responsible for taking care of it and should not be allowed an abortion. This is good and all, but is less logically consistent as people from this group generally wish for rape exemptions since the mother wasn't responsible for the existence of the child. I guess if your father is a rapist, your mother gets to decide if you're human or not :fryingpan: 

    It does make you wonder. What if the father shows himself to be a rapist after children have already been added to the mix? Is this where the idea of post-birth abortion comes from? :clown: