Joseph P. Borg, Swieqi
IVF procedure is unnatural and immoral
Moral ethics have often been bypassed by financial greed and some members of the local medical profession are no exception to these manoeuvres.
IVF (in vitro fertilisation) is an unnatural and immoral substitution of the natural procreation of the human being as it replaces the conjugal act.
The medical profession intentionally refers to IVF as “assisted procreation” and even the Gift of Life Foundation has been gullible enough to accept this misnomer.
This unnatural technology, by which embryos are implanted in the womb, has opened up other ethical problems regarding the freezing of some embryos and the destruction of others when they are no longer needed.
Financial interest has led to advocates of IVF to refuse to accept that embryos are humans at their initial stage. He who acts against the will of the Creator must bear all the consequences.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph P. Borg
Feb 3rd 2011, 12:23
M. Cachia,
With a PHD in Molecular Biology you are correct in stating that you do know a thing or two about IVF. How is it then that you interpreted IV as " in vitrio" when it is commonly known to all as "in vitro". ?
You also stated that "there is no test tube utilised in the process at all".
"Test tube babies" is commonly used as a reference to the IVF process.
Among numerous publication available , I make reference to a 2003 publication by Ann Fullick titled " Test Tube babies in Vitro Fertilization".
I suggest you carry on with your studies while I continue with mine, so as not to waste time on petty disagreements; which brings to my mind the following quote - "Little things please little minds, while bigger fools look on"
Joseph P. Borg
Feb 2nd 2011, 17:18
M.Cachia
Just because I mentioned "test tube" again you concluded that I have no idea about IVF.
You would not have stated the above if you knew yourself the connection between "test tube " and IVF.
Let me quote from a reliable source
"IVF means In Vitro Fertilization. The terh -in vitro- , from the Latin root meaning - in glass- because early biological experiments were carried out in glass containers such as beakers, test tubes or petri dishes"
Does the above quote makes you think twice before commenting further
M.Cachia
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:31
Not really. There is no test tube utilised in the process at all. Also 'in vitrio' no longer subscribes to the use of glassware only, but rather to any process that occurs outside the body. May i point out (before you put your foot in it further) that I hold a PhD in Molecular Biology, I am currently working in a group doing stem cell research and as a Healthcare Professional I do know a thing or two about IVF.
Joseph P. Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 21:54
M.Cachia.
You should have understood the sarcastic way in which this abnormal way of procreation was ridiculed by my contribution. I do not need your expert knowledge to indicate that a child cannot be put up for sale in a test tube on a shelf in a supermarket. Thank you for nothing.
It is a fact which everybody interested in the subject knows that early human life lies in the test tube. The rest in the particular contribution to which you are referring was meant to ridicule the ultimate outcome of such experiments with nature for financial gain and personal gratification for some and greed for others
Enjoy life.
M.Cachia
Feb 1st 2011, 21:37
My point actually got strengthened when you mentioned test tube again. You really have no idea about IVF do you..
Gerry Cowie
Jan 31st 2011, 21:02
@Ramon Casha:- The end does not justify the means! The fact that something is possible does not make it right just as the fact that this is the 21st century does not automatically mean something is right as so many seem to think! Are you motivated by the religious fervour of the writer on this occasion? The parallels you draw are not relevant to this situation!
@Bill Khan - Your comparison with abortion makes no sense. Large numbers of "unwanted" foetuses are aborted on a daily basis. They are human too! The end does not justify the means, surely! "You cannot have your cake and eat it" as they say.
@Joseph Borg - What do you mean by your reference to GOL?
@jmicallef - respect for human life is not the sole job of religious persons. What an unnecessary jibe at religious persons you make when suggesting it is all about sex! And dragging up the abuse situation is ridiculous, especially as you do not mention the massive abuse, far greater than the Church, and covered up, in secular society. How about a constructive comment?
Rmangion
Jan 31st 2011, 21:01
Mr Borg,
stop taking medicines when you feel ill, as they all go against nature. After all every medicine is a drug with side effects :)
Joseph P. Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 19:34
Ms Ruby Jenner, You are comparing two instances which are totally diferent. One instance is the interaction between two human beings which is to be applauded while the other is the producing of a human being in a glass tube which is o be abhorred. The first case is done to prolong life while the latter, with all the resulting problems, leads to termination of a human being through the discarding of embryos or unwanted death in multiple pregnancies.
Ruby Jenner
Jan 31st 2011, 19:05
I think Mr Joseph P Borg you insult all those people who have gone through the trauma of not being able to conceive and turned to the procedure of IVF. I wonder if you needed a new heart or kidney you would say no thanks it's not natural.
Joseph P. Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 18:52
Dear Kris, I have just consulted -www.dictionary.com- and "natural" is said to mean - existing or formed by nature ( as opposed to artificial.) Now isn't IVF an artificial way in substitution of natural conjugal act. The thirdmeaning given - of or pertaining to nature or the universe - when reference is made to natural beauty. If you do not believe in the Creator of all existing matter and of all living things and creatures that is your prerogative. All atheist do so. However I believe in a Super Power that created life millions of years ago and whose capability and ingenuity we are still dicovering after all these years.
Kris DAmato
Jan 31st 2011, 17:55
Dear Joseph, last I looked in the dictionary "natural", in this context, was used to mean something like "pertaining to the universe". Again, you have equated it with "in accordance with God's will", and if you're reasonable enough, you'll understand that there are huge problems with that: 1. you are confusing the word intentionally, 2. you are assuming that God exists, 3. even if God exists, you are assuming that you understand his intentions. Related to 2. is another problem: you are egotistically assuming that the God that exists is YOUR God. That leads to a contradiction, because if you are born in an animist or a Buddhist community, it means that God intended you to believe in a whole motley of gods or in no god at all, respectively. So, wouldn't you say that the God you believe in is ironically self-defeating, if he intends you to believe in another god or no god at all? Furthermore, with your kind of reasoning I could just as well believe in Zeus and say he handed me a moral code of ethics. How am I going to choose between the Christian God and Zeus?
Joseph P. Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 17:42
Bill Khan, You stated that "we all know that a baby was produced through un-natural way" to two particular and well known human beings. But I do not share your view as that birth was in accordance with a NATURAL INTENTION superior to the inentions of the two unmarried persons. But having been born in this way, the child preached how we should conduct our way of living and I am one who follows his teachings
M.Cachia
Jan 31st 2011, 20:44
The fact that you think the concieved child is actually in a test tube and can be purchased in a supermarket shows you have zero i repeat ZERO understanding of this process and therefore any arguments you have are moot.
Joseph P.Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 17:25
Kris D'Amato - jmicallef et. It would be in tune if you were to declare what you mean by the word "natural" . It is having offsprings through IVF that is not what nature intended, but once these offsprings are born they have a right to life. Procreation by IVF may very well become a means by which childless couples and same-sex married ones could satisfy their wants by purchasing an offspring by choosing one from glass tubes being offerred for sale in a supermarket. These glass tubes wil be held in a freezing condition on shelves until a purchaser (the likes of a millionaire popular singer) decides to choose according to his whims. I believe this is the end result that those playing God and those who support their unnatural experiments will acclaim. The end does not justifies the need. (
Bill Khan
Jan 31st 2011, 16:29
Mr. J.P. Borg, without doubt IVF is indeed an un-natural way. However it does help create a baby giving immense joy to a childless couple including some woman or man unable to produce the required eggs or sperms. And there are different reasons for the inability to produce children. And of course we all know of a baby produced through un-natural way.
And that baby later on talked of nothing but spreading love, peace and joy to all man kind.
IVF brings lots of love and jopy to many couples. It does not harm any one.
Alice Taylor
Jan 31st 2011, 16:15
Does this affect your life?Have you had problems in conceiving a child?No?Well what on earth does it have to do with you?Keep your opinions to yourself when you have no experience of the problems other people face and the measures they have to take to overcome them.
jmicallef
Jan 31st 2011, 17:12
@ Alice Taylor I understand your frustration, but Mr. Borg has the right to air his views. What made me me off (apart from the uncalled for, intimidating closing sentence of Mr. Borg's letter) is the fact that Mr. Borg (and people that reason like him) is either misinformed or plainly naive. No medical condition is simple, and Mr. Borg can rest assured that if there is any financial greed from the side of the medical professionals and the possibility to 'cure' infertility, those finding the cure would become ver, very rich people indeed... I'm quite sure that any couple facing problems conceiving would be prepared to pay the same amount as for IVF if they know that they can be cured.
Charlene Bonnici
Jan 31st 2011, 15:54
yes go and tell it to the childless couples!!!!
maybe you have children or you're happy without, but why you have to judge the persons that need the IVF
Ramon Casha
Jan 31st 2011, 13:58
Yes, IVF is unnatural.
So is the printed media, such as the newspaper you're writing to. So is the web on which I am reading it. So is all medicine. The "natural" thing to do when someone is seriously ill is for that person to die. The natural response to a severe draught is for entire villages to become extinct. In nature, individuals born with, or which develop, a severe physical disability rarely survive long.
I appreciate nature, but I also appreciate our ability to use our brain to rise above these consequences. I appreciate the unnaturalness of medicine and science, of transportation and shelter, of entertainment and small material pleasures.
Joseph P. Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 13:48
Christian Sciberras
Material things which we produce are in accordance with natural law as they are the result of men's labour on the means provided by the Creator. It is the way in which we use them could be immoral.
Kenneth Cassar - Seems that we have a different meanig to the word "unnatural". My interpretation of the word is -" not in accoradance to the intentions of the Creator"
jmicallef - There is no taboo of sex - taboo could be in the minds of perverts who abuse of sex.
Anthony Borg - I do sympathise with any childless couple just as I sympathise with any handicapped person. However I urge the medical profession to make use of their intellectual capabilities to cure the physical fault of the party who is incapable of achieving the required results when carrying out the conjugal act .
Bill Khan - Fertilization should not be carried out in a glass tube. There is a natural way how this can be achieved.
Kris DAmato
Jan 31st 2011, 14:55
Then you are gravely and intentionally confusing the meaning of the word natural. You are equating it with what a writer that's been dead for two millenia says is the will of God. And then, when asked why God allows certain miseries to happen to innocent people, some will say that you cannot understand God and his intentions. But no, in this case God's intention is not to have IVF babies. Obviously, that means that God never intended for IVF offspring to be alive. Then should we kill them, because they were not divinely intended?
Your argument kills itself triply.
jmicallef
Jan 31st 2011, 15:46
I'm sorry to read what you just wrote...I think you have absolutely no idea of the subject matter.
As regards sex, taboo and perverts, well, the Church need not look very far for that.
Try casting the fist stone, Mr. Borg?
Christian Sciberras
Feb 17th 2011, 22:52
Joseph P. Borg - And aren't we His creation as well?
Doesn't that make any creation of ours, his as well?
I agree though, it's what you do that makes an action right or wrong, not the medium. Exactly why perfecting IVF to remove any overhead is "right" while causing unnecessary problems "wrong".
Anthony Cardona
Jan 31st 2011, 13:18
I do believe that IVF can be subject to financial greed. Yet IFV has been a helpful tool that brought happiness to many couples who without it faced the loom future of an empty cot for the rest of their lives. But as a knife can be used as a simple kitchen utensil it can also be used as a weapon. IVF process requires adequate regulatory monitoring including price tag, supervision of the process and recording of the outcome of such process.
IVF is considered immoral for the simple reason it removes the conjugal act from reproduction – for the Catholic Church (this seems is not the case with other religious denominations). My question is – if conjugal act is taking place but reproduction is failing should everyone give up, even if there is an option? After all it is the Church that regards marriage as fundamental for procreation. Some may argue an option could be adoption – yes, why not? Yet, if an option exists to have own biological children why say no to such possibility?
... cont
anthony cardona
Jan 31st 2011, 16:58
cont.. Unnatural technology, in my humble opinion, may actually assist to avoid ethical problems regarding the freezing of some embryos and the destruction of others by simply harvesting the eggs and sperm separately and join them when implantation takes place. This way no embryos need to be frozen or discarded – methods I am totally against, not because I am Catholic but simply because life for me equals God. I disagree with IFV application when someone decides out of their own free will when and how to have children – this for me is playing the Creator; hence acting against the Creator. This topic is burdened with various opinions and beliefs – what may truly assist is constructive education organised jointly by the state and the church so anyone seriously considering IFV would do so with an informed conscious and in good standing with both authorities and oneself.
Kris DAmato
Jan 31st 2011, 13:06
Say that to a person who is brought back to life by applying CPR or difibrillation. I guess that's unnatural too, isn't it? If you consider unimpeded biological functions as the only acceptable behaviour then we should all be running naked and lawless. The argument is dead.
carmelo aquilina
Jan 31st 2011, 12:27
..so are antibiotics, artificial heart valves, surgery and spectacles, flying in a plane, priestly celibacy and many other things ... logically you should be against these as well... !
RMangion
Jan 31st 2011, 11:52
if you had fertilisation problems and wanted to have children you would not have written this article .
Please lets stop trying to win the best catholics in the world contest
Bill Khan
Jan 31st 2011, 11:07
Mr. P Borg, IVF is merely the implantation of the fertilized sperm and egg to help a woman to have a baby. of course ou could legislate so that only married couple could have have IVF facility.
We are witnessing the murder of millions of babies (abortion) created through the conjugal act across the world. IVF is helping create a life for desperate couples. We should celebrate the fact.
Anthony Borg
Jan 31st 2011, 11:00
Mr. Borg obviously does not know the heartache that a childless couple go trough.
Why, But why, is there always someone always trying to impose his ideas of what is good on somebody else.
This has absolutely nothing to do with financial greed and please let some people have some happiness in this miserable world of ours.
jmicallef
Jan 31st 2011, 10:49
So that's it!
The ages-old Church-induced taboo of sex is the basis of the argument.
Who would have thought...!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 31st 2011, 09:53
All medicine is unnatural. And yet, only a few refuse them when needed.
Christian Sciberras
Jan 31st 2011, 09:15
Computers are unnatural and immoral, as are fridges, telephone, mobile phones (oh no!!)...
This argument is getting old.