As a nutritionist working in a supplement and health food store, I frequently met women seeking holistic answers for fertility problems. Many were suffering from gaslighting by doctors who couldn't manage to diagnose PCOS, thyroid problems, or blatant nutritional deficiencies. A significant percentage was strict vegetarian/vegan and fat-avoidant. They had no idea that successful conception and pregnancy depend on essential nutrients only found in foods from animals. The work of Dr. Weston A. Price and Frank Pottenger a century ago makes even more sense today.
I would add to your note that in addition to animal fats minerals are key to a healthy body that is able to conceive. Specifically, copper, magnesium and zinc.
High, uncomplicated rates of conception are easily achieved in certain ethnic groups, such as American Hasidic Jews, Haredi Jews in Israel, Amish and other sects where early marriage is frequently a variety of pre-arrangement.
Explore those cultures, and the problem of infertility in mainstream "first-world" industrialized society is not difficult to understand.
Explore those cultures and they will not be using the contraceptive Pill and neither will they be promiscuous as is the way of it in modern Western societies. Yes, there has always been some promiscuity but it was at minimal levels. Many sexual partners also has an impact on the microbial nature of the vagina.
I have known two women friends who both developed autoimmunity to their husband’s sperm following surgical abortions. One was later able to conceive after taking an aspirin a day for the anti-inflammatory effect; the other used IVF to conceive.
I have ethical issues with IVF and have been frustrated with the lack of honest discussion. It makes SO much sense to focus instead on solving the problem of infertility. I have some ideas about why so many couples are infertile (not any one problem, but many possible reasons including long-term hormonal birth control, diet, postponing pregnancy until late 30s, etc.). I stopped going to a primary care doctor years ago and now have a naturopathic doctor. Her partner's specialty is solving infertility problems by addressing the root cause. Yet ... most insurance companies don't cover naturopathic medicine.
Not me! I have 5 kids and never had any problems getting pregnant. (I started youngish -- 24 -- and never used hormonal birth control.) I started going to an NP when I gained weight during menopause and she has been super helpful. Her partner specializes in fertility issues, and we've just chatted about it.
Good article. The desire to bring a child into the world can be overwhelmingly difficult for some couples. We do need to find the many causes of infertility such as dangerous chemicals in our food, water and air, overwhelmingly long list of childhood vaccinations with no gold standard clinical trials for long term safety, mRNA gene therapy mandated to our citizens, a very stressful life, and many others. Really solving the problem is a huge feat. We can help couples have children for now but more importantly get to the root of the problem too!
Surely a year spent trying is not long enough. Clearly too long in a quick fix world.
No doubt being on the contraceptive Pill for years, and for some women from puberty so they have never had a normal menstrual cycle will have an impact. There was a time when women were told to take a break from the Pill but no longer after they invented artificial bleeding. The Pill is one of the most destructive and unnecessary medications in human history. It will ultimately be found the contraceptive pill which poisons people and planet is responsible for the shocking increase in both Breast and Prostate Cancer.
Weren't we clever helping to stop pregnancy with toxic medications? NOT
And then poorly informed couples opt for IVF which remains unproven in terms of negative side effects and will do so for another century. Artificial conception is so unnatural that the old rule of two generations growing up to live relatively normal lives, the first who had the treatment giving birth to the second, should be applied. But not when there is money to be made.
If we take 70 as an average life than 140 years are required to finally sign off on the effects of such unnatural conception. The oldest artifically created humans are in their thirties so we still have around a century to go. They are indicating issues for the artificially conceived with infertility, not surprising given the unnatural nature of the process, and mental illness, also not surprising given the invasive, traumatic and unnatural nature of the process.
How could any sane doctor or scientist think there would not be negative side effects when a woman's body is drowned in synthetic hormones to force it to release far more eggs than could ever happen in nature. Those eggs are then sucked up and deposited in a medium produced in a laboratory which may well be chemically identical but which as a synthetic, can never be identical at the molecular level and stored.
Then mostly a sperm too weak to do the job - in nature the egg decides which sperm will be allowed to penetrate - is forced mechanically into the egg, in ways impossible in nature, and if conception occurs, which mostly it does not, the fertilised egg is frozen, also impossible in nature. And yes, mistakes also happen in Nature but rarely. With IVF they happen frequently and so frequently common sense would say that even where conception occurs there will be problems given the deformity rate in general.
Then a woman's body, possibly with zero genetic connection to egg or sperm, is prepared with more synthetic hormones before the egg is forced into the uterine lining. HOW COULD ANYTHING GO WRONG WITH ANY OF THAT?
The hubris, ego and arrogance of modern science-medicine is quite simply dangerous, unethical, immoral and a crime against the lives brought to being through no choice of their own.
"In ventre fertilization—the other IVF—is an approach that not only respects human life at all stages, it also offers a recipe for happier parents and healthier children."
All very well, except that it doesn't work.
From JP II we have the following:
"Each human person, in his unrepeatable uniqueness, consists not only of the spirit but also of the body, and therefore in the body and through the body the person himself is reached in his concrete reality. Respecting the dignity of man therefore entails safeguarding this identity of man corpore et anima unus, as the Second Vatican Council affirms (Const. Gaudium et spes, 14, 1). It is from this anthropological vision that the fundamental criteria for decision-making must be found, when it is a question of procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, such as, for example, those which aim to improve the human biological condition "
From Donum Vitae we have this:
"In the common practice of in vitro fertilisation, not all embryos are transferred into the woman's body; some are destroyed."
I assert a fundamental falsehood with this statement. Some or all embryos may later prove to be not viable, and they literally fail to "grow in the dish" and from a medical point of view, would never result in a new life, whether in a female uterus or in a dish. The passage of time in a dish results in the embryonic cells ceasing to grow and therefore die a natural death. Disposing of these failed embryos cannot be "illicit" in such a case.
"Even today it presupposes superovulation in the woman: several eggs are collected, fertilised and then cultured in vitro for a few days. Usually not all of them are transferred into the woman's genital tract; some embryos, usually called "supernumerary embryos", are destroyed or frozen. Some of the embryos already implanted are sometimes sacrificed for various reasons: eugenic, economic or psychological. This voluntary destruction of human beings or their use for various purposes, to the detriment of their integrity and their life, is contrary to the doctrine mentioned above concerning procured abortion."
My twin boys were first frozen embryos. After a first implantation attempt failed (with unfrozen embryos) they were thawed and implanted in a seond attempt, which worked. The other thawed embryos became observably not viable, stopped growing in the dish, entirely, and died a natural death.
"The procedure of IVFET must be judged in itself, and cannot receive its moral qualification final from the totality of conjugal life in which it is inscribed, nor from the conjugal relations that may precede or follow it."
"Homologous IVF is carried out outside the body of the spouses by means of gestures of third parties, whose skill and technical activity determines the success of the intervention; it entrusts the life and identity of the embryo to the power of doctors and biologists, and establishes a domination of the technique over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality which should be common to parents and children."
"These reasons make it possible to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered by the doctrine of the Church as the only place worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons, the so-called "simple case", i.e. a homologous FIVET procedure free of any connection with the abortive praxis of embryo destruction and masturbation, remains a morally illicit technique, because it deprives human procreation of the dignity that is proper and connatural to it."
Translation: it's not natural, therefore it is always illicit. Even where you proceed in good conscience to avoid "abortive" aspects, it's still illicit. But then we have both an admission that it's not the worst thing in the world (especially when compared to other ethically negative things, like getting someone else pregnant outside the marriage) and then a doubling down on the Church's "moral opposition."
"Certainly, homologous IVFET does not have all the ethical negativity of extra-marital procreation; the family and marriage remain the sphere of the birth and upbringing of children. However, in conformity with the traditional doctrine on the goods of marriage and on the dignity of the person, the Church is morally opposed to homologous "in vitro" fertilisation; it is in itself illicit and contrary to the dignity of procreation and of conjugal union, even if every means were taken to avoid the death of the human embryo."
This sounds clear cut, but I say "so what." And then consider the final sentence:
"Even if it is not possible to approve how human conception is achieved in IVFET, every child that comes into the world must in any case be welcomed as a living gift of divine goodness and must be brought up with love."
I assert that this is an admission that those in charge of the doctrines of the faith, truly, do not know what they are talking about. My own venture through the IVF process was completed as ethically as possible. No viable, living embryos were destroyed. My twin boys are gifts from God. Any "doctor of the Church" who objects to this as fundamentally "illicit" can, respectfully, go pound sand.
The Church should reconsider IVF done within ethical constraints.
As a nutritionist working in a supplement and health food store, I frequently met women seeking holistic answers for fertility problems. Many were suffering from gaslighting by doctors who couldn't manage to diagnose PCOS, thyroid problems, or blatant nutritional deficiencies. A significant percentage was strict vegetarian/vegan and fat-avoidant. They had no idea that successful conception and pregnancy depend on essential nutrients only found in foods from animals. The work of Dr. Weston A. Price and Frank Pottenger a century ago makes even more sense today.
I would add to your note that in addition to animal fats minerals are key to a healthy body that is able to conceive. Specifically, copper, magnesium and zinc.
High, uncomplicated rates of conception are easily achieved in certain ethnic groups, such as American Hasidic Jews, Haredi Jews in Israel, Amish and other sects where early marriage is frequently a variety of pre-arrangement.
Explore those cultures, and the problem of infertility in mainstream "first-world" industrialized society is not difficult to understand.
Explore those cultures and they will not be using the contraceptive Pill and neither will they be promiscuous as is the way of it in modern Western societies. Yes, there has always been some promiscuity but it was at minimal levels. Many sexual partners also has an impact on the microbial nature of the vagina.
I have known two women friends who both developed autoimmunity to their husband’s sperm following surgical abortions. One was later able to conceive after taking an aspirin a day for the anti-inflammatory effect; the other used IVF to conceive.
Yet another reason to BAN THE COVID SHOTS which cause both spontaneous abortion and infertility!!!
Thank you for writing this. I've long heard about "the problems with IVF" but had NEVER heard a discussion of "in ventre" solutions.
I have ethical issues with IVF and have been frustrated with the lack of honest discussion. It makes SO much sense to focus instead on solving the problem of infertility. I have some ideas about why so many couples are infertile (not any one problem, but many possible reasons including long-term hormonal birth control, diet, postponing pregnancy until late 30s, etc.). I stopped going to a primary care doctor years ago and now have a naturopathic doctor. Her partner's specialty is solving infertility problems by addressing the root cause. Yet ... most insurance companies don't cover naturopathic medicine.
Are you still trying to conceive with the NP doctor?
Not me! I have 5 kids and never had any problems getting pregnant. (I started youngish -- 24 -- and never used hormonal birth control.) I started going to an NP when I gained weight during menopause and she has been super helpful. Her partner specializes in fertility issues, and we've just chatted about it.
Good article. The desire to bring a child into the world can be overwhelmingly difficult for some couples. We do need to find the many causes of infertility such as dangerous chemicals in our food, water and air, overwhelmingly long list of childhood vaccinations with no gold standard clinical trials for long term safety, mRNA gene therapy mandated to our citizens, a very stressful life, and many others. Really solving the problem is a huge feat. We can help couples have children for now but more importantly get to the root of the problem too!
Well said. Thank you
Do we have the stats on how many woman who have the problem have been on birth control meds and for how long?
Surely a year spent trying is not long enough. Clearly too long in a quick fix world.
No doubt being on the contraceptive Pill for years, and for some women from puberty so they have never had a normal menstrual cycle will have an impact. There was a time when women were told to take a break from the Pill but no longer after they invented artificial bleeding. The Pill is one of the most destructive and unnecessary medications in human history. It will ultimately be found the contraceptive pill which poisons people and planet is responsible for the shocking increase in both Breast and Prostate Cancer.
Weren't we clever helping to stop pregnancy with toxic medications? NOT
And then poorly informed couples opt for IVF which remains unproven in terms of negative side effects and will do so for another century. Artificial conception is so unnatural that the old rule of two generations growing up to live relatively normal lives, the first who had the treatment giving birth to the second, should be applied. But not when there is money to be made.
If we take 70 as an average life than 140 years are required to finally sign off on the effects of such unnatural conception. The oldest artifically created humans are in their thirties so we still have around a century to go. They are indicating issues for the artificially conceived with infertility, not surprising given the unnatural nature of the process, and mental illness, also not surprising given the invasive, traumatic and unnatural nature of the process.
How could any sane doctor or scientist think there would not be negative side effects when a woman's body is drowned in synthetic hormones to force it to release far more eggs than could ever happen in nature. Those eggs are then sucked up and deposited in a medium produced in a laboratory which may well be chemically identical but which as a synthetic, can never be identical at the molecular level and stored.
Then mostly a sperm too weak to do the job - in nature the egg decides which sperm will be allowed to penetrate - is forced mechanically into the egg, in ways impossible in nature, and if conception occurs, which mostly it does not, the fertilised egg is frozen, also impossible in nature. And yes, mistakes also happen in Nature but rarely. With IVF they happen frequently and so frequently common sense would say that even where conception occurs there will be problems given the deformity rate in general.
Then a woman's body, possibly with zero genetic connection to egg or sperm, is prepared with more synthetic hormones before the egg is forced into the uterine lining. HOW COULD ANYTHING GO WRONG WITH ANY OF THAT?
The hubris, ego and arrogance of modern science-medicine is quite simply dangerous, unethical, immoral and a crime against the lives brought to being through no choice of their own.
"In ventre fertilization—the other IVF—is an approach that not only respects human life at all stages, it also offers a recipe for happier parents and healthier children."
All very well, except that it doesn't work.
From JP II we have the following:
"Each human person, in his unrepeatable uniqueness, consists not only of the spirit but also of the body, and therefore in the body and through the body the person himself is reached in his concrete reality. Respecting the dignity of man therefore entails safeguarding this identity of man corpore et anima unus, as the Second Vatican Council affirms (Const. Gaudium et spes, 14, 1). It is from this anthropological vision that the fundamental criteria for decision-making must be found, when it is a question of procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, such as, for example, those which aim to improve the human biological condition "
From Donum Vitae we have this:
"In the common practice of in vitro fertilisation, not all embryos are transferred into the woman's body; some are destroyed."
I assert a fundamental falsehood with this statement. Some or all embryos may later prove to be not viable, and they literally fail to "grow in the dish" and from a medical point of view, would never result in a new life, whether in a female uterus or in a dish. The passage of time in a dish results in the embryonic cells ceasing to grow and therefore die a natural death. Disposing of these failed embryos cannot be "illicit" in such a case.
"Even today it presupposes superovulation in the woman: several eggs are collected, fertilised and then cultured in vitro for a few days. Usually not all of them are transferred into the woman's genital tract; some embryos, usually called "supernumerary embryos", are destroyed or frozen. Some of the embryos already implanted are sometimes sacrificed for various reasons: eugenic, economic or psychological. This voluntary destruction of human beings or their use for various purposes, to the detriment of their integrity and their life, is contrary to the doctrine mentioned above concerning procured abortion."
My twin boys were first frozen embryos. After a first implantation attempt failed (with unfrozen embryos) they were thawed and implanted in a seond attempt, which worked. The other thawed embryos became observably not viable, stopped growing in the dish, entirely, and died a natural death.
"The procedure of IVFET must be judged in itself, and cannot receive its moral qualification final from the totality of conjugal life in which it is inscribed, nor from the conjugal relations that may precede or follow it."
"Homologous IVF is carried out outside the body of the spouses by means of gestures of third parties, whose skill and technical activity determines the success of the intervention; it entrusts the life and identity of the embryo to the power of doctors and biologists, and establishes a domination of the technique over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality which should be common to parents and children."
"These reasons make it possible to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered by the doctrine of the Church as the only place worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons, the so-called "simple case", i.e. a homologous FIVET procedure free of any connection with the abortive praxis of embryo destruction and masturbation, remains a morally illicit technique, because it deprives human procreation of the dignity that is proper and connatural to it."
Translation: it's not natural, therefore it is always illicit. Even where you proceed in good conscience to avoid "abortive" aspects, it's still illicit. But then we have both an admission that it's not the worst thing in the world (especially when compared to other ethically negative things, like getting someone else pregnant outside the marriage) and then a doubling down on the Church's "moral opposition."
"Certainly, homologous IVFET does not have all the ethical negativity of extra-marital procreation; the family and marriage remain the sphere of the birth and upbringing of children. However, in conformity with the traditional doctrine on the goods of marriage and on the dignity of the person, the Church is morally opposed to homologous "in vitro" fertilisation; it is in itself illicit and contrary to the dignity of procreation and of conjugal union, even if every means were taken to avoid the death of the human embryo."
This sounds clear cut, but I say "so what." And then consider the final sentence:
"Even if it is not possible to approve how human conception is achieved in IVFET, every child that comes into the world must in any case be welcomed as a living gift of divine goodness and must be brought up with love."
I assert that this is an admission that those in charge of the doctrines of the faith, truly, do not know what they are talking about. My own venture through the IVF process was completed as ethically as possible. No viable, living embryos were destroyed. My twin boys are gifts from God. Any "doctor of the Church" who objects to this as fundamentally "illicit" can, respectfully, go pound sand.
The Church should reconsider IVF done within ethical constraints.
NaPro technology should be more commonly known as an alternative to IVF, because it is entirely natural!