As far as I understand it, more embryos are created than required. These are then either destroyed or frozen. The creation and destruction of human embryos, or their suspension in a frozen state are serious moral and ethical questions.
The majority of frozen embryos are eventually used by the couple who created them or donated to those who are infertile. I have a close friend who has been blessed by two children from donated embryos. The kinds of people seeking out IVF as a way to conceive are the kinds of people we want raising children (at least 99+%). Successful, employed, educated, and trying desperately to have children). I personally would join trump in advocating for more IVF.
The IVF process is used by infertile couples to produce children. The product of IVF, the embryo, is an extrauterine child. Therefore, the ruling is correct. Any embryo left suspended in a frozen state, even a single one, is still a living human being trapped in a state of limbo.
https://www.statnews.com/2024/02/22/alabama-frozen-embryo-ruling-threatens-ivf-clinics/ This article, from the pro-ivf camp, admits many more “fertilized eggs” are made than implanted. Such an “egg” is an embryo. (But these are the people who claim a “fetus” is not a child.) These excess “fertilized eggs” are then frozen or destroyed. Semantic redefinition is how clinicians deceive (e.g. the mRNA serum does not equal vaccine without the redefinition.)
Sometimes, people, not wanting to wait for God’s perfect timing, get pregnant by in-vitro fertilization out of impatience.
How is not waiting for God’s timing in pregnancy by reaching for a medical procedure different from other medical conditions and medical solutions?
Knee surgery? Maybe you should pray and wait for God to heal your knee on his timing. If he doesn’t, that’s a thorn in your flesh for you to bear (2 Corinthians 12). When the murders aspect of IVF is addressed and it’s only their argument of “God’s timing”, they open themselves up to this.
I disagree with their reasoning because I know that it doesn’t get applied consistently. God wants us to trust in him, and he gives us the task of stewarding creation to his glory and purposes. If evil is working to prevent offspring and conception through poisons, vaccines, and abortion, shouldn’t we use what we have available to increase fertility when it is does not violate God’s law?
Indeed science and knowledge are gifts from God, and He wants us to live healthy and active lives. However, the difference between knee surgery etc. and IVF is creating new life. Harari makes a lame argument that transhumanism is creating new life forms. It's not. It is simply assembling parts. Only God can create life.
A thorn in the flesh brings us closer to God, but this gets taken out of context all the time. This does not apply to a single knee surgery. What if you've had five surgeries and the condition does not improve? At some point you have to just offer that up and say God what do you intend for me.
The only reason we have our son is IVF. I have a genetic disorder called Familial Adenomatous Polyposis which makes someone with it predisposed to growing tumors/cancer. Have fun looking that one up.
We consider him our little miracle because he shouldn't even exist. Our insurance would only cover 2 rounds of IVF. Both rounds were unsuccessful BUT for some reason there was no paper trail for the failed second round. This allowed us to do a third round fully covered by our insurance. Our son was the last embryo we had and technically speaking he was considered a very poor quality embryo.
Now, only by the grace of God do we have an amazing 8 year old son without my genetic disorder and we couldn't possibly be happier or more appreciative to God. None of this happens without Him. He truly does Amazing things.
Sounds like all that was meant to be. We all tale different journeys in life. I'm hoping everyone involved is happy and leading a blessed life with their families.
My friend decided after several failed IVF rounds, and a failed attempt at adoption, to implant her last two “imperfect” embryos and ended up with two beautiful children.
The boy is here now and he deserves all the dignity a human is owed as commanded by God. How he came to be is immoral, like a child born out of wedlock was conceived immorally.
God bless you and your boy. I hope you will repent for using IVF to immorally create life. You are not OWED a child. God did not open your womb so you forced the matter in the face of God’s plan for you. That has no bearing on the child himself who did nothing wrong and deserves zero condemnation. It is you who did something wrong.
The way I see it God created everything we used for IVF. We had very limited embryos and we used every one that we had. Our son was our last chance. Take your Holier than Thou argument and pack sand.
I recently witnessed someone making a similar argument about tattoos, trying to point out the biblical basis for not having them, while also not realizing that there were people with arm sleeves in the room as he did so.
It is very difficult to apply the discouragement of the act, separate it from the outcomes, and simply encourage to not advocate or continue in the act, all without coming off as holier-than-thou, which the man speaking to you failed at quite considerably.
The verse denouncing HIS actions is 1 Corinthians 13:1.
If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
It is easy to fall into that.
Knowing others, also with beautiful children conceived through IVF, it is a delicate subject. We can also separate the outcomes from our dispassionate testing of the act itself, as we know very well that the ends do not necessarily justify the means, and it is the means that should be considered here. If multiple embryos are fertilized as part of IVF, and the divine spark occurs at fertilization, and multiple fertilized embryos are destroyed later, it is worth thinking about what might actually be taking place, while also looking into what sorts of decisions and social patterns result in the need for this procedure, whether it is correct or errant, as in either path it does contain health risks and severe expenses that could better be used elsewhere. Many IVF patients likely never considered this aspect of discarded, fertilized embryos, and the doctors probably don’t bring it up…
What’s most important is that we discern the truth and always seek to repent of any failures and walk in it, whatever it may be. Don’t let them affect the opinion of the past or present, but only of constructive, righteous thought and decisions moving forward, in the same way Jesus instructed the woman he saved from being stoned. “Neither do I condemn you.”
Firepit, an unusual name for someone seeking holiness, would do well to learn from that example. I have tried to allow the grace for his actions here as well, while also pointing out his failure. Hopefully this comment is more appropriate toward all involved. I felt his comment had to be corrected in its tone, rather than left standing.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Truth be told 10 years ago when we were going through IVF I was not a religious person or a man of faith by any stretch of thr imagination. We never to church, I never cracked open a bible.
Fast forward to today and I am 3 years into my journey with Christ. I've seen and read things that do make me question the ethics of IVF and multiple embryos.
I certainly do not regret that we chose the IVF route and honestly looking back there is evidence of the hand of God nudging things in our favor.
For instance my wife's insurance only covered 2 IVF cycles. Both cycles were a failure BUT some how some way there was no record at all of our 2nd cycle. It was definitely billed to our insurance but our insurance only had . evidence of 1 cycle being completed. That never happens. Insurances don't just pay an extra $50-70k. And the our son was our final embryo and his embryo was extremely low quality to the point the embryo would not normally be used.
I'm also a 28 year cancer patient/survivor. I was told I was going to die in 2002 by my doctors. I was given sorry we can't do anything but make you comfortable speech. But here I am making this post 22 years later as a happily married husband and father.
Today I feel excessively blessed to have a 9 year old son when we should not have a child at all. I pray and thank God profusely every single day. We are nothing without God and I strive to walk the straight and narrow every day. I'm very much a work in progress but I love the progress that I've made following His path and will continue to try my best for Him.
I just didn’t want to leave that sour reply as the final say, because there is good information to consider here, and he, if he sees it, needs to remember the guidance about not being a clanging cymbal as well. Glad it was worded better!
I don't see anything wrong with assisted reproduction if it used properly. That means between a married couple (edit to clarify: a male and female married couple), who are having difficulty conceiving a child. Lots of people are given handicaps to overcome in life, and I don't see this medical challenge as significantly different.
The problem is that some bad people misuse this technology for evil and malevolent purposes. Rather than shutting down the industry, I think it makes more sense to eliminate abuse of the procedure.
Often, couples decide to harvest more eggs than they plan to use, which means that some of the embryos end up being destroyed, or frozen for later use.
Isn’t the answer that would bring IVF into sync with Christian values contained in this sentence?
The IVF clinic should not fertilize more eggs than it will implant. Then, the eggs, not embryos, can be frozen if later attempts are needed. If not, then the eggs, not embryos, can be ethically discarded just as they are in a natural female menstrual cycle.
Yes, this will add more expense to the process, but not that much more. I doubt the cost of the technician who fertilizes the eggs is that expensive.
The Bible says it is a personal conviction of The Holy Spirit. If God wants the couple to have the gift of child then He will allow the conception to occur. It is part of His plan.
The verse that would apply is Romans 14:5 (taken somewhat out of context, but I believe still applicable here)
Let each man be convicted in his own mind.
I find it funny when likely the same people who would denounce the dietary laws with those verses, then turn and denounce IVF while ignoring those verses.
Matters of discernment are left to the individual, and while discussable, should not be used to condemn.
Some people cannot get pregnant without IVF. As Paul said, "all things are lawful but not all things are expedient". The Bible is does not address IVF so it would be up to the individual. The Bible does not address Chemo therapy so it is up to the individual. Regardless if you choose IVF, you will have to live with the consequence.
Have you ever read an e-book and found that the text did not match what was in the published edition? A book in your hand cannot be changed from what the author intended.
How do you know who's DNA is in that embryo if one man and one woman did not create it?
Because that isn't how the science works. An embryo comes from the egg of a single human female, otherwise you'd have two or more embryos, each from a single egg of a single human female. An embryo is created when sperm fertilizes that egg. If two sperm fertilize the same egg you end up with 69 chromosomes and a higher chance of miscarriage, and to avoid this the egg actually haws two outer layer to help prevent this from happening.
I have no problems with couples using IVF to get pregnant. It helps to mitigate the damage done to the people through vaccines and Rockefeller medicine. What they have done to us could lead to the extinction of our species in the worst case but even in the best case lead to depopulation and a dangerous choke point in the human genome.
It still comes down to God's Will for every child is a child of God.
Of course the Pope isn’t God. No Catholic would ever say as much. Straw man argument.
The moral law is defined in the Bible. The Pope is in charge of making sure the Catholic Church abides by the moral law. Another straw man.
What opinions? If he says he likes Oreo cookies better than chocolate chip, he is allowed to have that preference. His say on morality would be done from the Chair of Peter and any commentary on morality would fall directly in line with Bible teaching.
Before Luther rejected the Pope, the Pope had already rejected Luther by condemning him first in 1520 and then excommunicating him in 1521.
In his translation of Romans, Luther added the word alone to verse 3:28 (making it say “man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law”) in order to make it appear that he had biblical support.
Pushing IVF?
Big HARMA money makers.
Its another create a problem (Gardasil vax for teens original data stated increase infertility in its animal subjects)
Provide a *solution / IVF $$$$$
And re god and timing.
Knew a couple couldnt get pregnant.
Did IVF, failed.
Spilt up, both remarried, both having kids no dramas
The same so called "eletes" who are poisoning us now with all kinds of fertility killing drugs are the same people who want control over IVF, as mysteriosly in their future it may be the only way to reproduce. They think people will be forced through their backward medical program to conceive at a huge cost both finacialy and spiritualy. Thank the Lord God in his law of seed time and harvest that these people will reap what they sew, soon.
OK. I pretty much pray about everything. I will pray that I have a better understanding of your point of view.
btw, here's a quote from the link...
In-vitro fertilization is the process of joining a sperm and egg together outside of a woman’s body, then placing the fertilized egg, or zygote, in the woman’s body so that she can become pregnant. In-vitro fertilization is a controversial issue among Christians, and the Bible does not address it. Therefore, it becomes a matter of conviction from the Holy Spirit.
Sharing just in case some may have missed that part.
Just adding one more thing I found worth sharing... What did Jesus say about sin?
That article is absolute bullshit.
The article is SIDESTEPPING the issue. It is talking about what Jesus said about PRACTICING sin. It does NOT say anything about WHAT sin actually IS. Later in the article (which I will address), the author SPECULATES WITH HIS OWN DEFINITION of what sin is.
But we can ignore his blather, because we are TOLD -- in the Bible -- what sin actually IS at 1 John 3:4 --
sin is the transgression of the law.
Neither the writer of the article nor you local pastor will tell you this.
The "Jews" were NOT the people Jesus was talking to MOST of the time in the New Testament. Sometimes, yes. But not MOST of the time.
Of the 12 disciples, only Judas was a jew (specifically, an Edomite jew). Jews today admit that they are Edomites (in part).
Edomites were NOT Israelites. Jesus was an Israelite, NOT a jew.
And Jesus TOLD us what his PURPOSE in coming to Earth was. We do not have to "guess" or "speculate."
Read through Matthew, Chapter 13, and THINK about what it is telling us.
I realize that your local denominal church will NOT tell you all of this, but this is what the Bible actually SAYS -- especially when you unravel all the false translations and get back to the original meaning as written in Hebrew and Greek.
Matthew 13:1-2 --
The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
The "multitudes" were ALL the people of the region who came to hear him speak. This included his Israelite disciples, as well as jews, and others.
Matthew 13:3 --
And he spake many things unto them in parables
When he spoke to the MULTIUDES, he would HIDE the full meaning of what he was saying, because only HIS people could understand him, and he did not want those who were NOT his people to fully understand what he was saying. So, he spoke in PARABLES to the multitudes.
ALWAYS.
Later, at Matthew 13:10 --
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
You see? The disciples where AMONG the multitudes, but OTHERS were also there when he was speaking in parables. Later, the disciples were alone with him and asked why he spoke in parables.
BTW, did your local church -- or any church you have EVER attended or seen on TV or video -- EVER tell you or talk about any of this.
No. I bet not. And ... WHY not?
Because, like the medical schools who do not teach doctors about health, today's seminaries also do not teach preachers about the Bible. They teach them from the very beginning of seminary school that "we can't fully understand the Bible," so just go with the church doctrines when you preach.
But many of the church doctrines are ... WRONG.
Continuing ...
He said at Matthew 13:11 --
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Jesus wanted his Israelite people to understand his message, but no one else.
Matthew 13:13 --
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Matthew 13:34 --
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them
Jesus ONLY spoke to the multitudes in parables, but to his disciples he revealed the core truth.
A VERY important verse is at Matthew 13:35 --
I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
What is the "foundation of the world?" It goes back to the beginning, which is Genesis 1:1 and forward from there. IOW, Jesus is saying that that there are some things that were NOT revealed in the works of the Old Testament.
He came to reveal these truths.
This is why one cannot understand the Old Testament without also understanding the New Testament, for context.
The jews are NOT the Israelites of the Bible, which the article you cites claims (or implies).
Jews have ALWAYS followed the Tradition of the Elders, which are jews who claim that they are smarter than God, and therefore do not have to follow The Law (Mosaic Law).
Jews flat out REJECT the New Testament, which is why they do not understand the Bible.
In fact, their Talmud (a continuation of the Tradition of the Elders) is their attempt to get around The Law with all of their filthy garbage they spew about the Bible and Jesus.
Jews HATE Christianity.
That is because they are NOT the Israelites. They are the adversaries of the Israelites and Christ, who was an Israelite. We know who he was because the geneology of he Bible TELLS us.
Adam begat Seth, who begat a son, who begat a son, etc. down through to Noah. Noah begat Shem, who begat a son, etc. down to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob/Israel. Israel's 12 sons were the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel, one of whom was Judah. We can then go to the New Testament to see that Judah begat a son, etc. down to the Virgin Mary (both Matthew and Luke document this via different geneology pathways to her husband and father), and Jesus was her son.
So, Jesus was an Israelite, and NOT a jew.
THIS is the main reason WHY so much of today's denominational church doctrine goes AGAINST what the Bible ACTUALLY says in its ORIGINAL sctipture. Today's modern English versions have thousands of mistranslations, which have changed the meanings of many important things, such as who the jews really were. And who the Isarelites really were.
Contrast what your article says with the dialogue in Matthew 15:1-3 -
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Most of the scribes and Pharisees were ancestors to modern day jews.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Here, jews are challenging Jesus for his disciples NOT following the Tradition of the Elders. And Jesus responds with --
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
So, the jews were the ones who were NOT following The Law of God.
At Matthew 15:22, a woman from Canaan (NOT an Israelite) asked Jesus for help --
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
He ignored her, and he spoke to his disciples 15:23 --
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
At Matthew 15:24 --
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus ONLY came to Earth for the Israelite people (who were NOT jews).
This false idea that the Israelites were jews has turned modern Christianity upside down. Christianity was infiltrated early on, about 1700 years ago, but even then, most Christians still understood the truth. It was only about 100-150 years ago when the jews really got a foothold to make Christians believe false ideas and getting all the false transations of the Bible into all the modern versions.
But we can go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to find out what the words in those original languages actually meant. We can also use the discoveries in archeology over the past 150 years to reveal what has been found in the digs around Palestine, as well as the remaining historical records of historians who lived at the time of Jesus.
Suffice it to say, Jesus was an Israelite (not a jew) and came to reveal secrets to the Israelites (not the jews) about things that had not been revealed in the books of the Old Testament.
This is also why the books of the Apocrypha were removed from the Bible in the 4th century -- to hide some of the truth revealed in those books.
Later, in Matthew 15:25-28, the woman tries again. Only when she acknowledges that she is NOT an Israelite, and understands that Jesus has no obligation to help her, does he actually help her and heal her daughter.
Back to your cited article ...
The writer of your cited article asks a question:
So, should we, today, take care to obey every command of the law of Moses?
And he then answers his own question:
No.
He is probabaly a jew or influenced by false ideas promoted by jews. THIS is what the Tradition of the Elders/Talmud is all about -- how to GET AROUND The Law of God.
He later asks:
So, what is sin?
And answers:
Sin is selfishness and selfishness is sin. I reckon it’s that simple.
Well, he "reckons" wrong.
He IGNORES that the Bible TELLS us what sin IS at 1 John 3:4 --
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Excuse me, but I will take what the Bible SAYS DIRECTLY, over some putz who "reckons" this or that. Why does he IGNORE what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS?
It's a good question, is it not?
That website, clearly, has been created by someone who does NOT read or understand the actual Bible, but pontificates anyway.
He might actually be purposely trying to deceive his readers. Or maybe he is deceived himself -- a common problem (the blind leading the blind).
He wants people to IGNORE God's Law, and instead focus on some vague concep of "selfishness," which doesn't really mean anything, because it can mean almost anything. It is not defined.
If you read the bio of the man behind the website, it says:
From 2011 to 2016, I studied at Vose Seminary (now part of Morling College) graduating with a Master’s degree in Divinity. My main area of study was the New Testament, specializing in the Gospel of Matthew.
If he specialized in Matthew, then why does he NOT tell you what I told you?
This is the same problem we have with most denominational churches today.
It started 1700 years ago with the Roman Catholic Church claiming that mere mortal men -- popes and bishops -- could demand that everyone believe what THEY say the Bible says, rather than actually understanding the Bible for themselves.
This is why Martin Luther broke away from the RCC. He had good cause.
j]And write unto the Angel of the Church which is of Philadelphia, These things saith he that is Holy, and True, which hath the [k]key of David, which openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth.
8 [l]I know thy works: behold I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my Name.
9 Behold, I will make them [m]of the Synagogue of Satan, which call themselves Jews, and are not, but do lie: behold, I say, I will make them that they shall come [n]and worship before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee.
10 Because thou hast [o]kept the word of my patience, therefore I will deliver thee from the hour of tentation, which will come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come shortly: hold that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 [p]Him that overcometh, will I make a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: [q]and I will write upon him the Name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and I will write upon him my new Name.
13 Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.
14 [r]And unto the Angel of the Church of the Laodiceans write, These things saith [s]Amen, the faithful and true witness, that [t]beginning of the creatures of God.
15 [u]I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou werest cold or hot.
16 Therefore because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, it will come to pass, that I shall spew thee out of my mouth.
17 For thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not how thou art wretched and miserable, [v]and poor, and blind, and naked.
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried by the fire, that thou mayest be made rich: and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that thy filthy nakedness do not appear: and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be [w]zealous therefore and amend.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock, [x]If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 [y]To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and sit with my Father in his throne.
22 Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.
As far as I understand it, more embryos are created than required. These are then either destroyed or frozen. The creation and destruction of human embryos, or their suspension in a frozen state are serious moral and ethical questions.
The majority of frozen embryos are eventually used by the couple who created them or donated to those who are infertile. I have a close friend who has been blessed by two children from donated embryos. The kinds of people seeking out IVF as a way to conceive are the kinds of people we want raising children (at least 99+%). Successful, employed, educated, and trying desperately to have children). I personally would join trump in advocating for more IVF.
The IVF process is used by infertile couples to produce children. The product of IVF, the embryo, is an extrauterine child. Therefore, the ruling is correct. Any embryo left suspended in a frozen state, even a single one, is still a living human being trapped in a state of limbo.
The destruction or freezing of unused embryos exhibits Utilitarianism, which has given us all the great crimes against humanity in the Modern age.
Do you mean eggs instead of embryos?
https://www.statnews.com/2024/02/22/alabama-frozen-embryo-ruling-threatens-ivf-clinics/ This article, from the pro-ivf camp, admits many more “fertilized eggs” are made than implanted. Such an “egg” is an embryo. (But these are the people who claim a “fetus” is not a child.) These excess “fertilized eggs” are then frozen or destroyed. Semantic redefinition is how clinicians deceive (e.g. the mRNA serum does not equal vaccine without the redefinition.)
No.
My mistake. Sorry.
How is not waiting for God’s timing in pregnancy by reaching for a medical procedure different from other medical conditions and medical solutions?
Knee surgery? Maybe you should pray and wait for God to heal your knee on his timing. If he doesn’t, that’s a thorn in your flesh for you to bear (2 Corinthians 12). When the murders aspect of IVF is addressed and it’s only their argument of “God’s timing”, they open themselves up to this.
I disagree with their reasoning because I know that it doesn’t get applied consistently. God wants us to trust in him, and he gives us the task of stewarding creation to his glory and purposes. If evil is working to prevent offspring and conception through poisons, vaccines, and abortion, shouldn’t we use what we have available to increase fertility when it is does not violate God’s law?
Indeed science and knowledge are gifts from God, and He wants us to live healthy and active lives. However, the difference between knee surgery etc. and IVF is creating new life. Harari makes a lame argument that transhumanism is creating new life forms. It's not. It is simply assembling parts. Only God can create life.
A thorn in the flesh brings us closer to God, but this gets taken out of context all the time. This does not apply to a single knee surgery. What if you've had five surgeries and the condition does not improve? At some point you have to just offer that up and say God what do you intend for me.
My hope is that we seek God's guidance and that He provides. How? Pray. Apply.
u/#prayer
Can’t imagine why this would receive downvotes.
The only reason we have our son is IVF. I have a genetic disorder called Familial Adenomatous Polyposis which makes someone with it predisposed to growing tumors/cancer. Have fun looking that one up. We consider him our little miracle because he shouldn't even exist. Our insurance would only cover 2 rounds of IVF. Both rounds were unsuccessful BUT for some reason there was no paper trail for the failed second round. This allowed us to do a third round fully covered by our insurance. Our son was the last embryo we had and technically speaking he was considered a very poor quality embryo. Now, only by the grace of God do we have an amazing 8 year old son without my genetic disorder and we couldn't possibly be happier or more appreciative to God. None of this happens without Him. He truly does Amazing things.
I guess *god works in mysterious ways. I knew a couple who couldn't get pregnant. Even did IVF and failed. Both remarried both have children easy.
Sounds like all that was meant to be. We all tale different journeys in life. I'm hoping everyone involved is happy and leading a blessed life with their families.
I love the many ways God works! Great testimony. Thanks for sharing. It highlights many of the facets of this.
My friend decided after several failed IVF rounds, and a failed attempt at adoption, to implant her last two “imperfect” embryos and ended up with two beautiful children.
IVF is immoral
https://popepaulvi.com/PDF/Newsletter-FCYoungWomen/FCCO-Newsletter_V4n1_Issue10.pdf
Ok. I'll remember that when I watch my son all cozy sleeping in bed at night.
His existence doesn’t make IVF moral.
The boy is here now and he deserves all the dignity a human is owed as commanded by God. How he came to be is immoral, like a child born out of wedlock was conceived immorally.
God bless you and your boy. I hope you will repent for using IVF to immorally create life. You are not OWED a child. God did not open your womb so you forced the matter in the face of God’s plan for you. That has no bearing on the child himself who did nothing wrong and deserves zero condemnation. It is you who did something wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyvoaJaTlPE&t=790s
The way I see it God created everything we used for IVF. We had very limited embryos and we used every one that we had. Our son was our last chance. Take your Holier than Thou argument and pack sand.
I recently witnessed someone making a similar argument about tattoos, trying to point out the biblical basis for not having them, while also not realizing that there were people with arm sleeves in the room as he did so.
It is very difficult to apply the discouragement of the act, separate it from the outcomes, and simply encourage to not advocate or continue in the act, all without coming off as holier-than-thou, which the man speaking to you failed at quite considerably.
The verse denouncing HIS actions is 1 Corinthians 13:1.
It is easy to fall into that.
Knowing others, also with beautiful children conceived through IVF, it is a delicate subject. We can also separate the outcomes from our dispassionate testing of the act itself, as we know very well that the ends do not necessarily justify the means, and it is the means that should be considered here. If multiple embryos are fertilized as part of IVF, and the divine spark occurs at fertilization, and multiple fertilized embryos are destroyed later, it is worth thinking about what might actually be taking place, while also looking into what sorts of decisions and social patterns result in the need for this procedure, whether it is correct or errant, as in either path it does contain health risks and severe expenses that could better be used elsewhere. Many IVF patients likely never considered this aspect of discarded, fertilized embryos, and the doctors probably don’t bring it up…
What’s most important is that we discern the truth and always seek to repent of any failures and walk in it, whatever it may be. Don’t let them affect the opinion of the past or present, but only of constructive, righteous thought and decisions moving forward, in the same way Jesus instructed the woman he saved from being stoned. “Neither do I condemn you.”
Firepit, an unusual name for someone seeking holiness, would do well to learn from that example. I have tried to allow the grace for his actions here as well, while also pointing out his failure. Hopefully this comment is more appropriate toward all involved. I felt his comment had to be corrected in its tone, rather than left standing.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Truth be told 10 years ago when we were going through IVF I was not a religious person or a man of faith by any stretch of thr imagination. We never to church, I never cracked open a bible. Fast forward to today and I am 3 years into my journey with Christ. I've seen and read things that do make me question the ethics of IVF and multiple embryos. I certainly do not regret that we chose the IVF route and honestly looking back there is evidence of the hand of God nudging things in our favor. For instance my wife's insurance only covered 2 IVF cycles. Both cycles were a failure BUT some how some way there was no record at all of our 2nd cycle. It was definitely billed to our insurance but our insurance only had . evidence of 1 cycle being completed. That never happens. Insurances don't just pay an extra $50-70k. And the our son was our final embryo and his embryo was extremely low quality to the point the embryo would not normally be used. I'm also a 28 year cancer patient/survivor. I was told I was going to die in 2002 by my doctors. I was given sorry we can't do anything but make you comfortable speech. But here I am making this post 22 years later as a happily married husband and father. Today I feel excessively blessed to have a 9 year old son when we should not have a child at all. I pray and thank God profusely every single day. We are nothing without God and I strive to walk the straight and narrow every day. I'm very much a work in progress but I love the progress that I've made following His path and will continue to try my best for Him.
HalleluYah, and amein!
I just didn’t want to leave that sour reply as the final say, because there is good information to consider here, and he, if he sees it, needs to remember the guidance about not being a clanging cymbal as well. Glad it was worded better!
You were warned.
Oh yes holier than thou Firepit. Thank you for your holier than thou divine encouragement.
It’s not my opinion or my truth. It’s THE truth.
I don't see anything wrong with assisted reproduction if it used properly. That means between a married couple (edit to clarify: a male and female married couple), who are having difficulty conceiving a child. Lots of people are given handicaps to overcome in life, and I don't see this medical challenge as significantly different.
The problem is that some bad people misuse this technology for evil and malevolent purposes. Rather than shutting down the industry, I think it makes more sense to eliminate abuse of the procedure.
Isn’t the answer that would bring IVF into sync with Christian values contained in this sentence?
The IVF clinic should not fertilize more eggs than it will implant. Then, the eggs, not embryos, can be frozen if later attempts are needed. If not, then the eggs, not embryos, can be ethically discarded just as they are in a natural female menstrual cycle.
Yes, this will add more expense to the process, but not that much more. I doubt the cost of the technician who fertilizes the eggs is that expensive.
This.
DJT was pushing IVF at his S.C. rally.
The Bible says it is a personal conviction of The Holy Spirit. If God wants the couple to have the gift of child then He will allow the conception to occur. It is part of His plan.
Where does the BIBLE say that IVF is a conviction of the Holy Spirit?
I am not asking what some mortal man THINKS about it.
Where is that passage in the Bible?
Please cite book, chapter, and verse.
Thank you.
But I don't expect a response, for obvious reasons.
It doesn’t.
The verse that would apply is Romans 14:5 (taken somewhat out of context, but I believe still applicable here)
I find it funny when likely the same people who would denounce the dietary laws with those verses, then turn and denounce IVF while ignoring those verses.
Matters of discernment are left to the individual, and while discussable, should not be used to condemn.
Some people cannot get pregnant without IVF. As Paul said, "all things are lawful but not all things are expedient". The Bible is does not address IVF so it would be up to the individual. The Bible does not address Chemo therapy so it is up to the individual. Regardless if you choose IVF, you will have to live with the consequence.
Have you ever read an e-book and found that the text did not match what was in the published edition? A book in your hand cannot be changed from what the author intended.
How do you know who's DNA is in that embryo if one man and one woman did not create it?
Because that isn't how the science works. An embryo comes from the egg of a single human female, otherwise you'd have two or more embryos, each from a single egg of a single human female. An embryo is created when sperm fertilizes that egg. If two sperm fertilize the same egg you end up with 69 chromosomes and a higher chance of miscarriage, and to avoid this the egg actually haws two outer layer to help prevent this from happening.
I have no problems with couples using IVF to get pregnant. It helps to mitigate the damage done to the people through vaccines and Rockefeller medicine. What they have done to us could lead to the extinction of our species in the worst case but even in the best case lead to depopulation and a dangerous choke point in the human genome.
It still comes down to God's Will for every child is a child of God.
IVF IS IMMORAL
https://popepaulvi.com/PDF/Newsletter-FCYoungWomen/FCCO-Newsletter_V4n1_Issue10.pdf
The pope is not God.
He does not determine what is sin and what is not.
His opinion is irrelevant.
Martin Luther figured this out 500 years ago.
Of course the Pope isn’t God. No Catholic would ever say as much. Straw man argument.
The moral law is defined in the Bible. The Pope is in charge of making sure the Catholic Church abides by the moral law. Another straw man.
What opinions? If he says he likes Oreo cookies better than chocolate chip, he is allowed to have that preference. His say on morality would be done from the Chair of Peter and any commentary on morality would fall directly in line with Bible teaching.
Before Luther rejected the Pope, the Pope had already rejected Luther by condemning him first in 1520 and then excommunicating him in 1521.
In his translation of Romans, Luther added the word alone to verse 3:28 (making it say “man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law”) in order to make it appear that he had biblical support.
Pushing IVF? Big HARMA money makers. Its another create a problem (Gardasil vax for teens original data stated increase infertility in its animal subjects) Provide a *solution / IVF $$$$$
And re god and timing. Knew a couple couldnt get pregnant. Did IVF, failed.
Spilt up, both remarried, both having kids no dramas
The same so called "eletes" who are poisoning us now with all kinds of fertility killing drugs are the same people who want control over IVF, as mysteriosly in their future it may be the only way to reproduce. They think people will be forced through their backward medical program to conceive at a huge cost both finacialy and spiritualy. Thank the Lord God in his law of seed time and harvest that these people will reap what they sew, soon.
Just adding this sermon review of a Dusty Deevers sermon about IVF.
1:34:22 How Should Christians Respond To IVF? | A Dusty Deevers Se… 2K views3 months ago YouTubeHonestYouthPastor
As long as you are bringing the Bible into the discussion, there is nothing in the Bible about IVF.
The Bible specifically identifies what is a sin in 1 John 3:4:
The Law is God's Law. If you do not transgress (violate) that, then you are not sinning. Since the Bible does not mention IVF, then it is optional.
You might personally not like it for some reason, but that is irrelevant because you do not make The Law.
So, it is optional, and not morally wrong.
And no, I will not pray with you, because there is no moral wrong here.
OK. I pretty much pray about everything. I will pray that I have a better understanding of your point of view.
btw, here's a quote from the link...
Sharing just in case some may have missed that part.
Edit.
Just adding one more thing I found worth sharing... What did Jesus say about sin?
And this: The unforgiveable sin – slandering the Holy Spirit.
That article is absolute bullshit.
The article is SIDESTEPPING the issue. It is talking about what Jesus said about PRACTICING sin. It does NOT say anything about WHAT sin actually IS. Later in the article (which I will address), the author SPECULATES WITH HIS OWN DEFINITION of what sin is.
But we can ignore his blather, because we are TOLD -- in the Bible -- what sin actually IS at 1 John 3:4 --
Neither the writer of the article nor you local pastor will tell you this.
The "Jews" were NOT the people Jesus was talking to MOST of the time in the New Testament. Sometimes, yes. But not MOST of the time.
Of the 12 disciples, only Judas was a jew (specifically, an Edomite jew). Jews today admit that they are Edomites (in part).
Edomites were NOT Israelites. Jesus was an Israelite, NOT a jew.
And Jesus TOLD us what his PURPOSE in coming to Earth was. We do not have to "guess" or "speculate."
Read through Matthew, Chapter 13, and THINK about what it is telling us.
I realize that your local denominal church will NOT tell you all of this, but this is what the Bible actually SAYS -- especially when you unravel all the false translations and get back to the original meaning as written in Hebrew and Greek.
Matthew 13:1-2 --
The "multitudes" were ALL the people of the region who came to hear him speak. This included his Israelite disciples, as well as jews, and others.
Matthew 13:3 --
When he spoke to the MULTIUDES, he would HIDE the full meaning of what he was saying, because only HIS people could understand him, and he did not want those who were NOT his people to fully understand what he was saying. So, he spoke in PARABLES to the multitudes.
ALWAYS.
Later, at Matthew 13:10 --
You see? The disciples where AMONG the multitudes, but OTHERS were also there when he was speaking in parables. Later, the disciples were alone with him and asked why he spoke in parables.
BTW, did your local church -- or any church you have EVER attended or seen on TV or video -- EVER tell you or talk about any of this.
No. I bet not. And ... WHY not?
Because, like the medical schools who do not teach doctors about health, today's seminaries also do not teach preachers about the Bible. They teach them from the very beginning of seminary school that "we can't fully understand the Bible," so just go with the church doctrines when you preach.
But many of the church doctrines are ... WRONG.
Continuing ...
He said at Matthew 13:11 --
Jesus wanted his Israelite people to understand his message, but no one else.
Matthew 13:13 --
Matthew 13:34 --
Jesus ONLY spoke to the multitudes in parables, but to his disciples he revealed the core truth.
A VERY important verse is at Matthew 13:35 --
What is the "foundation of the world?" It goes back to the beginning, which is Genesis 1:1 and forward from there. IOW, Jesus is saying that that there are some things that were NOT revealed in the works of the Old Testament.
He came to reveal these truths.
This is why one cannot understand the Old Testament without also understanding the New Testament, for context.
The jews are NOT the Israelites of the Bible, which the article you cites claims (or implies).
Jews have ALWAYS followed the Tradition of the Elders, which are jews who claim that they are smarter than God, and therefore do not have to follow The Law (Mosaic Law).
Jews flat out REJECT the New Testament, which is why they do not understand the Bible.
In fact, their Talmud (a continuation of the Tradition of the Elders) is their attempt to get around The Law with all of their filthy garbage they spew about the Bible and Jesus.
Jews HATE Christianity.
That is because they are NOT the Israelites. They are the adversaries of the Israelites and Christ, who was an Israelite. We know who he was because the geneology of he Bible TELLS us.
Adam begat Seth, who begat a son, who begat a son, etc. down through to Noah. Noah begat Shem, who begat a son, etc. down to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob/Israel. Israel's 12 sons were the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel, one of whom was Judah. We can then go to the New Testament to see that Judah begat a son, etc. down to the Virgin Mary (both Matthew and Luke document this via different geneology pathways to her husband and father), and Jesus was her son.
So, Jesus was an Israelite, and NOT a jew.
THIS is the main reason WHY so much of today's denominational church doctrine goes AGAINST what the Bible ACTUALLY says in its ORIGINAL sctipture. Today's modern English versions have thousands of mistranslations, which have changed the meanings of many important things, such as who the jews really were. And who the Isarelites really were.
Contrast what your article says with the dialogue in Matthew 15:1-3 -
Most of the scribes and Pharisees were ancestors to modern day jews.
Here, jews are challenging Jesus for his disciples NOT following the Tradition of the Elders. And Jesus responds with --
So, the jews were the ones who were NOT following The Law of God.
At Matthew 15:22, a woman from Canaan (NOT an Israelite) asked Jesus for help --
He ignored her, and he spoke to his disciples 15:23 --
At Matthew 15:24 --
Jesus ONLY came to Earth for the Israelite people (who were NOT jews).
This false idea that the Israelites were jews has turned modern Christianity upside down. Christianity was infiltrated early on, about 1700 years ago, but even then, most Christians still understood the truth. It was only about 100-150 years ago when the jews really got a foothold to make Christians believe false ideas and getting all the false transations of the Bible into all the modern versions.
But we can go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to find out what the words in those original languages actually meant. We can also use the discoveries in archeology over the past 150 years to reveal what has been found in the digs around Palestine, as well as the remaining historical records of historians who lived at the time of Jesus.
Suffice it to say, Jesus was an Israelite (not a jew) and came to reveal secrets to the Israelites (not the jews) about things that had not been revealed in the books of the Old Testament.
This is also why the books of the Apocrypha were removed from the Bible in the 4th century -- to hide some of the truth revealed in those books.
Later, in Matthew 15:25-28, the woman tries again. Only when she acknowledges that she is NOT an Israelite, and understands that Jesus has no obligation to help her, does he actually help her and heal her daughter.
Back to your cited article ...
The writer of your cited article asks a question:
And he then answers his own question:
He is probabaly a jew or influenced by false ideas promoted by jews. THIS is what the Tradition of the Elders/Talmud is all about -- how to GET AROUND The Law of God.
He later asks:
And answers:
Well, he "reckons" wrong.
He IGNORES that the Bible TELLS us what sin IS at 1 John 3:4 --
Excuse me, but I will take what the Bible SAYS DIRECTLY, over some putz who "reckons" this or that. Why does he IGNORE what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS?
It's a good question, is it not?
That website, clearly, has been created by someone who does NOT read or understand the actual Bible, but pontificates anyway.
He might actually be purposely trying to deceive his readers. Or maybe he is deceived himself -- a common problem (the blind leading the blind).
He wants people to IGNORE God's Law, and instead focus on some vague concep of "selfishness," which doesn't really mean anything, because it can mean almost anything. It is not defined.
If you read the bio of the man behind the website, it says:
If he specialized in Matthew, then why does he NOT tell you what I told you?
This is the same problem we have with most denominational churches today.
It started 1700 years ago with the Roman Catholic Church claiming that mere mortal men -- popes and bishops -- could demand that everyone believe what THEY say the Bible says, rather than actually understanding the Bible for themselves.
This is why Martin Luther broke away from the RCC. He had good cause.
Also ...
Matthew 5:17 --
So, Jesus did not come to destroy or change The Law (Old Testament Law), but to fulfill (keep).
Mr. Oliver, the man behind the website, should KNOW this if he specialized in studying Matthew for 5 years.
j]And write unto the Angel of the Church which is of Philadelphia, These things saith he that is Holy, and True, which hath the [k]key of David, which openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth.
8 [l]I know thy works: behold I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my Name.
9 Behold, I will make them [m]of the Synagogue of Satan, which call themselves Jews, and are not, but do lie: behold, I say, I will make them that they shall come [n]and worship before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee.
10 Because thou hast [o]kept the word of my patience, therefore I will deliver thee from the hour of tentation, which will come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come shortly: hold that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 [p]Him that overcometh, will I make a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: [q]and I will write upon him the Name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and I will write upon him my new Name.
13 Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.
14 [r]And unto the Angel of the Church of the Laodiceans write, These things saith [s]Amen, the faithful and true witness, that [t]beginning of the creatures of God.
15 [u]I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou werest cold or hot.
16 Therefore because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, it will come to pass, that I shall spew thee out of my mouth.
17 For thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not how thou art wretched and miserable, [v]and poor, and blind, and naked.
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried by the fire, that thou mayest be made rich: and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that thy filthy nakedness do not appear: and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be [w]zealous therefore and amend.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock, [x]If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 [y]To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and sit with my Father in his throne.
22 Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.
I have to take off for the day, but will respond -- probably tomorrow.
Looks like you or a mod deleted your post.
So, I guess I won't respond.