The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization and other invasive infertility therapies are inherently disordered and a serious sin. Often times, people cry out at the Church demanding alternatives to therapies when infertility is a rampant experience among first world people. With the expense of adoption being more expensive than in vitro fertilization ($25,000 compared with $15,000), other methods needed to be developed which were cost effective and just.

A method has been developed- NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology). It is infinitely less expensive than either. Like natural family planning, NaProTechnology is based on the principle of "listening to nature." NaProTechnology is gynecological health care cooperating with the natural procreative mechanisms and functions in such a way as to preserve the woman's procreative potential. When these mechanisms are working properly, NaProTechnology works cooperatively with them. When these mechanisms are functioning abnormally, NaProTechnology cooperates with the procreative mechanisms in producing a form of treatment which corrects the condition, maintains the human ecology and sustains the procreative potential.

Applications of NaProTechnology include: family planning, chronic discharges, targeted hormone evaluation, targeted hormone replacement, identification of ovarian cysts, the effects of stress, premenstrual syndrome, abnormal bleeding, dating pregnancy, psychosexual understanding, miscarriages, and infertility.

With regard to the application to infertility alone, NaProTechnology has a success rate of 76% in assisting couples to achieve pregnancy - remarkably superior to the 10-15% success rate of in vitro fertilization, and without the enormous financial cost and adverse emotional and other psychological effects of in vitro fertilization. In vitro fertilization is a relic of the Stone Ages. NaProTechnology has rendered in vitro fertilization medically and scientifically obsolete, even as the Church has always taught that in vitro fertilization is a serious moral evil which cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. Thus, for couples struggling with infertility, there is no need to succumb to the temptation of in vitro fertilization, nor in many cases may it be necessary to consider adoption. One can learn more about NaProTechnology by contacting its originator, the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha (402)390-6600, http://www.popepaulvi.com/NaPro1.htm.

This system as been scientifically documented in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, the Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Journal of Medicine.
Some of the statistics above require looking at a little more closely.

With regard to the application to infertility alone, NaPro Technology has a success rate of 76% in assisting couples to achieve pregnancy - remarkably superior to the 10-15% success rate of in vitro fertilization, and without the enormous financial cost and adverse emotional and other psychological effects of in vitro fertilization.
If a treatment is very cheap, recommended by the RCC and free of ``adverse emotional and other psychological effects,'' then it's going to become routine. It's going to be used by many women to increase their chances of having children. Often, it's used from the first time a woman tries to get pregnant.

If a treatment is very expensive, condemned by the RCC and prone to ``adverse emotional and other psychological effects'' (I've never heard of any such effects except those produced as a side effect of the RCC's propaganda, but we'll accept it for now) then it's only going to be tried after most other alternative have failed.

Comparing the success chances of one against the other without correcting for this bias is meaningless unless you're generating propaganda. Which, of course, the RCC is, because it believes it's fighting a war against evil.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.