quote:
So… if someone has heart disease and gets a stent or bypass, that must be against God’s will right?

If someone gets cancer and goes through surgery and chemotherapy, that has got to be against gods will then ?

If an old lady with a bad hip gets a new one, boom against god’s will.

Seems like if IVF is bad and against the will of God, so is literally ANY medical treatment ever discovered.

I mentioned in the second point of my OP that the nanosecond of conception, it’s a human life, but related to that and what I didn’t mention in that post is that with IVF, there are multiple conceived embryos discarded. The Catholic Church thinks those are humans with a soul, so in both cases (discarded IVF embryos vs euthanasia) it’s humans causing a death by their choice.

And “playing God” was maybe not the most clear/accurate way to word it, but IVF is often a mindset of “I choose this one, I don’t choose those ones”, “I want this sample, I don’t want this sample”, product/consumer way to look at a human life. That’s not the case with a stent, chemo or hip replacement. (And it’s also not the case of a child conceived naturally.)

If you a) don’t think a fetus/embryo is human until a heartbeat or viability or any other later point and/or b) if you don’t think sex is only meant to be a unitive bond between a husband and wife in holy matrimony (with the open possibility but not necessarily definite guarantee/ultimate endgame of a child), then of course it’s not going to make sense or seem bad/immoral at all. But that’s what the Catholic Church teaches. So it’s not “fertility treatments” are bad/wrong, it’s that IVF is because of those two reasons.

LINK

Regardless, I haven’t looked it up, but I have no clue why Butker chose to go this route in a commencement speech. I haven’t listened and probably won’t listen to it, but it feels out of place, and I’m struggling to figure out how he’d tie it in to a message to 22-year-old college grads.

Now, 80-85%+ of the graduating class at Benedictine (if you know about the school) probably agree with him, but in that case, he’s not really telling them anything they don’t know/agree with. And he also had to know this would get out (so maybe that was his goal) but also had to know a lot of people wouldn’t get it, and that doesn’t seem the point of a commencement address. It’d be different if it was an interview with a journalist and a back-and-forth Q&A where he could expound to questions, but it’s hard for me to fully understand who his message was truly for/what he was trying to accomplish as a commencement speech.

This post was edited on 5/15/24 at 10:23 am