The use of fertility treatment is wrong because it interferes with God’s plans

Troubled_Heart

Any opinions on this and what religion are you?

The use of fertility treatment is wrong because it interferes with God’s plans

firecracker

I am not a Christian, but I think fertility treatment could be considered God's way of helping people who couldn't have kids by themselves. That's just my view.

Megan1

I'm not going to say whether it's right or wrong because I don't know....but I will say that I wouldn't personally use fertility treatments. If I did, there would always be that doubt in my mind wondering if I went against God's plan and if I wasn't really supposed to conceive. I understand what you mean about God using fertility treatments to help people to have babies, and I'm not saying you're wrong.....I just don't know for sure and really don't want to have to doubt for the rest of my life whether or not I did the right thing. If I was ever not able to conceive naturally, I would pray for a miracle to be able to. And if that didn't happen, I would adopt. But that's just me personally; I'm not saying that fertility treatments are wrong, because I don't know. I've always wondered about this.

EDIT: Oh, and you asked us to put our religion. I'm Christian (protestant to be more specific).

Sythan

I am Pagan, so we have many Gods and Goddesses. However the main Deity is the Mother Goddess, so I will speak from that point.

There are many stories of Women who cannot concieve throughout our history, to us it is not wrong. When a woman could not conceive, she would go to a Priestess, the Priestess would then give the woman a tea or a type of drinkable substance to increase fertility, that could be seen as fertility treatment.

I could not see a reason why the Christian God would not accept it, some women simply cannot conceive and need help.

Kitty.

I'm a Christian and I see nothing wrong with fertility treatments at all.
The only problem I see with fertility treatments is when people use them irresponsibly. Other than that, they are perfectly fine.

Gavroche

When speaking about fertility treatments, there are so many that it is good to be specific. I'm Catholic, and there is nothing wrong with trying to improve your fertility to conceive under normal circumstances, but the only qualm about it would be if the fertility treatment involves doing something immoral in order to obtain the benefit of being fertile. IVF for example is something I and the Church oppose for the main reason that numerousl human embryos are created in this procedure, but only one is implanted into the woman (which is a separate moral issue) and the rest of the embryos are discarded. And if you are pro life and know that life begins at conception, these human embryos are human beings that are being discarded as trash. So that is just one type of fertility treatment I would disagree with, but the concept of trying to become fertile is not immoral in the slightest imo, its just how that goal is gone about that makes something right or wrong.

Kryptonite

I mean. What if 'God's Plan' was the development, and the use of the fertility treatment? I'm agnostic.

Jocelyn. · 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kryptonite

I mean. What if 'God's Plan' was the development, and the use of the fertility treatment? I'm agnostic.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

The use of the phrase "God's plan" has always confused me. Who are we to determine what his plan is? If it wasn't part of his plan, then in my mind it just wouldn't happen. I assume because we have the technology for it that it was apart of his plan for fertility treatment to exist and be used.

I'm not really one to speak, as I have no relationship with any god whatsoever. I'm agnostic as well.

Xujhan

"God's plan" is simply a way for people to force their views of morality on others. If a preist says that something like this goes against god's plan, I'd happily wager that it also happens to go against the priest's morals. If there is a god and god does actually have a plan, there's no way any person would know what it is. Furthermore the idea that god would actually object to you doing something not because it's immoral but simply because he'd rather you do something else is just nonsensical; having sushi for dinner instead of Korean barbeque might be "against god's plan" too, but you'll note that no one ever worries about that.

Megan1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon

IVF for example is something I and the Church oppose for the main reason that numerousl human embryos are created in this procedure, but only one is implanted into the woman (which is a separate moral issue) and the rest of the embryos are discarded. And if you are pro life and know that life begins at conception, these human embryos are human beings that are being discarded as trash.

Oh, I didn't even think about that! I am against this kind of fertility treatment too now that you mention it if they do discard the other embryos.

But as far as other fertility treatments, my opinion remains as I said above.

OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!

I'm atheistic and I find nothing wrong with fertility treatments. The argument "god's plan" is pathetic because those who use it admit they haven't a clue what this plan is. It MAY go against it or it MAY not. 50/50. When those say it goes against god's plan with a more definite view, that suggests they know what his plan is, which in the bible is echoed as wrong. It's an argument based on the fear that one doesn't want to be on the other side of the 50% chance without knowing which side they ever are on. If people truly did adhere to this idea, they'd have gone mad because they'd be in supermarkets going crazy debating whether they should buy a whole turkey or just a turkey breast, trout or salmon, chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream, run down the stairs or walk down the stairs, etc... . Such decisions are made so often yet this "god's plan" argument is blatantly ignored.

You can call those examples ridiculous but if you adhere to the god's plan argument, you should be debating said things in the view of "oh no, what if I get the trout and put a lemon slice on it but god wants me to get salmon and put a lemon slice on it!!! Oh no, what do I do, god help, I don't know!! I know, I'll get carrots... but what if god wants corn! God, what do I do! Please don't send me to hell for not eating salmon and corn instead of trout and carrots!"

John 6:29

That which doesn't come from faith is sin. To some it may be, to others it might not be, but whatever their choice be it should be done in private so it does not provide occasion for another to stumble.

~Mr. Self Destruct~

I'm an atheist, and I've researched thoroughly and heard almost everything that people claim "is against God's will". Fertility treatment has never been raised as one of them.

Tara.

I think that's b.s. Becuase not being able to have children is a medical issue. I'm sure there are people who used fertillity treatments, adopted, or have step children and are still great parents despite the fact they used other means to get there.

darlingllnikki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon

When speaking about fertility treatments, there are so many that it is good to be specific. I'm Catholic, and there is nothing wrong with trying to improve your fertility to conceive under normal circumstances, but the only qualm about it would be if the fertility treatment involves doing something immoral in order to obtain the benefit of being fertile. IVF for example is something I and the Church oppose for the main reason that numerousl human embryos are created in this procedure, but only one is implanted into the woman (which is a separate moral issue) and the rest of the embryos are discarded. And if you are pro life and know that life begins at conception, these human embryos are human beings that are being discarded as trash. So that is just one type of fertility treatment I would disagree with, but the concept of trying to become fertile is not immoral in the slightest imo, its just how that goal is gone about that makes something right or wrong.

With IVF they usually put more than one egg back into the woman. That's why there is such a higher chance of multiples. This is because if the problem conceiving is with the woman, it gives the embryos more of a chance to develop.

TheNumber42

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapparappa

Any opinions on this and what religion are you?

The use of fertility treatment is wrong because it interferes with God’s plans

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I think it's kind of an absurd argument. Assuming for a moment that God does exist, then where does this logic stop? Wearing seatbelts is a sin because it interferes with God's plan? What if you were meant to die in the car crash? Cancer treatment is a sin because it interferes with God's plan? Maybe it was meant to kill you.

Honestly, if God were all-powerful, then mortals couldn't mess up his plan anyway unless he let us. It's a dumb argument.

Ali Baba

If they are infertile in the first place then 'god' did that to them because for some reason he wanted to torture them by not allowing them to conceive. If 'god' did not want them to have children wouldn't he intervene once again with his powers and prevent fertility treatments from working? I think it interferes with Darwinism more than anything else.

Ocean*girl2

God's plan may invovle fertility treatments. I think those who say something "Interferes:" with God's plan are presumptuous. There's nothing wrong with the treatments.

I'm Christian, but not in a very traditional way.

jhor

No, that's ridiculous.

I'm an atheist for starters, but even if I believed in god what so ever, I still would find that stupid.

Just my opinion that is.

dancinfool

Quote:

That which doesn't come from faith is sin. To some it may be, to others it might not be, but whatever their choice be it should be done in private so it does not provide occasion for another to stumble.

eh?? whats that supposed to mean? :P

I have no problems with fertility treatments but I think that parents who go through them probably have enough on their plate without being told they're 'going against Gods plan'.

Quote:

If I did, there would always be that doubt in my mind wondering if I went against God's plan and if I wasn't really supposed to conceive. I understand what you mean about God using fertility treatments to help people to have babies, and I'm not saying you're wrong.....I just don't know for sure and really don't want to have to doubt for the rest of my life whether or not I did the right thing.

I really don't understand this point of view. Once you have a child, you love that child, how can you possibly look at him/her and wonder whether you did the right thing??

ICantCreateACoolUsername

By saying fertility treatments interfere with god's plan, you must also mean that chemotherapy or any other medical treatment interferes with "god's plan".
It's ignorant, it's like saying we should go back to the dark ages.

ertyuio

Oh, and if using fertility treatments is an event...and that event happens....then isn't it a part of God's plan? If we could do things that would go against what God had already planned, then how the hell do you think we can DO THEM? The argument is inherently flawed, and I don't understand why it's still going on. According to Christians, anything that happens already must be a part of God's plan, so humans doing what they've been doing for a while inherently cannot violate it. Think about the argument before you speak it and make a fool of yourself.

And, as a few people here have already stated -- if you're against fertility treatments because they give opportunities where none should be given, then are you against seat belts in cars? Air bags? Chemotherapy? ANY sort of preventative or cautionary system - just because God might have wanted them to die? In that event, I suppose we should just eliminate all smoke alarms, emergency response systems, safety inspections, earthquake-resistant buildings, tornado warnings, flood levies, emergency first aid, hospitals, medicine in general...you see my point.

If your argument is valid for you in one aspect, is that just cherry-picked so that you overlook all of the others in which it simply goes against common sense?

Fucking Done

If they can give 100% proof god exists, then they can say that.
Religion is so stupid, i'm agnostic.

JKmadu619

I'm Christian (Luther) and I do not support fertility treatments in most cases. It's not a religious issue, but rather there are many boys and girls each year waiting to be adopted. And many more who could use an adult/mentor figure in their life. TO me helping a friend's child or adopting one is a better choice. That being said, if someone chooses it I think no less of them, but if they choose adoption or simple help above it, I think more of them than before. I would never tell someone who has or is doing it that they are wrong, but if someone asks for advice or an opinion I would say just what I said above.

- Justin

Sythan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I'm Christian (Luther) and I do not support fertility treatments in most cases. It's not a religious issue, but rather there are many boys and girls each year waiting to be adopted. And many more who could use an adult/mentor figure in their life. TO me helping a friend's child or adopting one is a better choice. That being said, if someone chooses it I think no less of them, but if they choose adoption or simple help above it, I think more of them than before. I would never tell someone who has or is doing it that they are wrong, but if someone asks for advice or an opinion I would say just what I said above.

- Justin

I agree with this.

MegaMadness

If there is a god, I think he would want people to be happy, so this is part of his plan to help people who couldn't naturally have children.

noveras

I am a Muslim and Islam we don't have any problem with this because God has said in the Quran that God will change the fate of mankind when mankind work hard to change it them self.

So if someone want to have a child but unable to due to infertility they can work it using fertility treatment.If God decided that they are not going to have child than no matter what kind of treatment use will be unable to help them.

ertyuio

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I'm Christian (Luther) and I do not support fertility treatments in most cases. It's not a religious issue, but rather there are many boys and girls each year waiting to be adopted. And many more who could use an adult/mentor figure in their life. TO me helping a friend's child or adopting one is a better choice. That being said, if someone chooses it I think no less of them, but if they choose adoption or simple help above it, I think more of them than before. I would never tell someone who has or is doing it that they are wrong, but if someone asks for advice or an opinion I would say just what I said above.

- Justin

So, in essence, you are saying that it's selfish to want to have your own child as opposed to adopting a different child.

Fantastic logic there.

Based on that, is it selfish for two completely fertile parents to have their own child? There are still children who are in need of adoption, in both regards. You're basically saying that wanting to have your own children is selfish, and it has nothing to do with whether or not fertility treatments are involved; in the end both circumstances involve the possibility of fertility in both parents. Is that really what you mean to imply?

JKmadu619

Because bringing another child into this world instead of adopting is wrong to me.
Single mothers are having children through sperm banks, I am not saying single mothers are wrong, but brining a perfectly normal child into a somewhat chaotic situation is wrong to me. However an adopted child had no chance to live in any event. Correct? To me living with a single mother is worse than living with both parents, but having no parents at all is worse yet.
To me if people cannot have a child naturally, it's for a reason. Take it as an excuse to save a child.

Mythic

I'm define myself as a non-theistic spiritualist. Yes, sounds fancy and self-righteous.

I think that humans are presented with challenges and conflicts in order to improve collective and individual thinking, problem-solving, and innovation. Furthermore, I believe that humans are meant to shape and mold the world in constructive ways, and as long as their intentions are constructive, they are doing essentially good things (unless such actions have large negative repercussions). If a woman or couple believe their lives would be improved or positively transformed by a child, then it should be their right to do this.

ertyuio

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Because bringing another child into this world instead of adopting is wrong to me.
Single mothers are having children through sperm banks, I am not saying single mothers are wrong, but brining a perfectly normal child into a somewhat chaotic situation is wrong to me. However an adopted child had no chance to live in any event. Correct? To me living with a single mother is worse than living with both parents, but having no parents at all is worse yet.
To me if people cannot have a child naturally, it's for a reason. Take it as an excuse to save a child.

Now you're just creating a scenario that you can mold to your point of view. What you said in your previous post is essentially that anyone capable of having children naturally is being selfish by not adopting. If you and your future wife are completely fertile, would you still adopt disregarding the fact that you are completely able to have healthy children -- not because of a mutual decision to do so for other reasons, but because having your own children is "wrong"?

I'm not talking about single women. And besides, if a single woman was financially, physically, and mentally capable of supporting a child, why shouldn't she? There is absolutely no justification in saying that a situation with a single mother and child is inherently "chaotic". I know plenty of women who are in their prime, single, and perfectly financially capable of supporting a child on their own if that was what they decided to do. That decision shouldn't be based on how your beliefs operate. (I make the same case, in a different light, for abortion -- but I think that I can already see what your views on that are.)

Also, do you believe that it's wrong to wear seat belts, or to have chemotherapy treatments? Maybe the former was a sign from "God" that they were actually meant to die in that crash, and the latter a sign that he/she was actually meant to die of cancer. If that's truly what you believe, then I feel terribly sorry for anyone close to you who is a victim to circumstances like that...

Aversion

Couples should adopt, rather than use a clinic like this. It's just bringing more unnecessary life into an already overpopulated world. We should make ues of what we've got, rather than just keep creating more. We're already at a population rate that is unsustainable in the future, we don't need even more to add to that. Single mothers are a.. I know this will sound harsh, but they're a bad idea. I say single mothers, because almost no men are single parents as very few get custody. It's a very unideal lifestyle for children to grow up. Studies show a direct correlation between single parent families and crime. I'm not saying all will be bad, but in 90%+ cases, single parent families raise delinquent children.
Citation: http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/prevention/family_life.html | http://www.enotes.com/single-parent-...-violent-crime | http://pos51.org/post/711712733/the-...arent-families

Xujhan

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Couples should adopt, rather than use a clinic like this. It's just bringing more unnecessary life into an already overpopulated world. We should make ues of what we've got, rather than just keep creating more. We're already at a population rate that is unsustainable in the future, we don't need even more to add to that. Single mothers are a.. I know this will sound harsh, but they're a bad idea. I say single mothers, because almost no men are single parents as very few get custody. It's a very unideal lifestyle for children to grow up. Studies show a direct correlation between single parent families and crime. I'm not saying all will be bad, but in 90%+ cases, single parent families raise delinquent children.
Citation: http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/prevention/family_life.html | http://www.enotes.com/single-parent-...-violent-crime | http://pos51.org/post/711712733/the-...arent-families

While I agree that intact families on average probably fare better than divorced families and single-parent households, I think you're overstating the effect to a massive degree. Also, while I'll credit you for bothering to cite sources at all, a study by a Texas community college that you have to pay to actually read is really not the most convincing thing in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Because bringing another child into this world instead of adopting is wrong to me.
Single mothers are having children through sperm banks, I am not saying single mothers are wrong, but brining a perfectly normal child into a somewhat chaotic situation is wrong to me. However an adopted child had no chance to live in any event. Correct? To me living with a single mother is worse than living with both parents, but having no parents at all is worse yet.
To me if people cannot have a child naturally, it's for a reason. Take it as an excuse to save a child.

That's awfully fallacious. Absolutely it would be wonderful if a couple/parent would choose to adopt a child instead of having one, but that doesn't mean that having one is wrong. You literally just argued that having children is wrong. The only significant difference between an average couple and those who use fertility treatments is the amount of effort they go to to get pregnant.

JKmadu619

Xujhan: I don't believe in injecting female eggs with sperm, not simple injections to increase sperm count or reception. I don't know if it's not God's plan, but I do think it's nature functioning. If you cannot naturally have a child, take it as a sign that you should adopt. Single parent's often have tough times raising children, and I don't know how healthy it is to not have a male/female figure in life. So to me saving a child is better than brining more in to a potentially chaotic situation.

- Justin

Xujhan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Xujhan: I don't believe in injecting female eggs with sperm, not simple injections to increase sperm count or reception. I don't know if it's not God's plan, but I do think it's nature functioning. If you cannot naturally have a child, take it as a sign that you should adopt. Single parent's often have tough times raising children, and I don't know how healthy it is to not have a male/female figure in life. So to me saving a child is better than brining more in to a potentially chaotic situation.

- Justin

That's senseless. "Signs", as you put it, are completely open to personal interpretation - in other words, they're meaningless. If you're born nearsighted, is that a sign that you should never drive? Of course not; it means you get glasses. I agree that choosing to adopt a child is an admirable thing to do, but that doesn't make having a child of your own bad. As for the chaotic situations: if you're not prepared to care for a child of your own, how would you be any better prepared to care for an adopted child? Other than a vague "it's against god's plan", why are you against in vitro fertilization? It's no better or worse than simply getting pregnant normally; it just takes more effort.

Kate*

I'm not religious and I say it's a personal choice. I know someone who wanted kids desperately and tried for years. She started fertility drugs and got pregnant, then wanted another, did the same thing and had twins. They then had a fourth child naturally and they couldn't be happier.

JKmadu619

Xujhan: You put up a very good argument. But getting glasses as opposed to brining a life into this world is alot different, no?
To me the people who cannot have children are nature's way of making them adopt, so all children feel loved. However to me like many of nature's natural ways of balance, humans have corrupted it with technology. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not.

- Justin

Xujhan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Xujhan: You put up a very good argument. But getting glasses as opposed to brining a life into this world is alot different, no?
To me the people who cannot have children are nature's way of making them adopt, so all children feel loved. However to me like many of nature's natural ways of balance, humans have corrupted it with technology. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not.

- Justin

Following the analogy it would be driving that is comparable to having a child, not getting glasses. I think it's a fitting comparison; in either case you have the possibility of destroying lives if you aren't responsible.

Nature's balance includes a life expectancy of around 30 years and a high probability of being eaten by lions. In nature, adoption is much rarer than in human society; usually animals are only concerned with their immediate families. Nature may be the beginning of society, but it should not be considered the end.

JKmadu619

Xujhan: Yes, nature is cruel, but that's why the ozone is burning, why the globe is warming, why we have less and less forestry. I'm not saying that's bad, but once you start messing witht he balance of things, who knows what will happen.

- Justin

LiveLongAndProsper

I thought I'd add my two cents.

I'm a Christian and I believe that fertility treatment is fine.

However, I don't think I would use it because of the heart break it can cause when it doesn't work. I think that if I had a problem with conceiving then I would adopt. That view might change if I was actually in that position, though.