Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican condemns IVF, the Pill (Why is this so surprising alert!)
Reuters ^ | December 12, 2008 | Philip Pullella

Posted on 12/12/2008 6:09:21 AM PST by NYer

THE Vatican today said life was sacred at every stage of its existence and condemned artificial fertilisation, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and drugs which block pregnancy from taking hold.

A long-awaited document on bioethics by the Vatican's doctrinal body also said the so-called "morning after pill" and the drug RU-486, which blocks the action of hormones needed to keep a fertilised egg implanted in the uterus, fall "within the sin of abortion" and are gravely immoral.

"Dignitas Personae" (dignity of a person), an Instruction of Certain Bioethical Questions," is an attempt to bring the Church up to date with recent advances in science and medicine.

It said human life deserved respect "from the very first stages of its existence (and) can never be reduced merely to a group of cells."

"The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person," the docment by the Congregations of the Doctrine of the Faith said.

It said most forms of artifical fertilisation "are to be excluded" because "they substitute for the conjugal act ... which alone is truly worthy of responsible procreation".

It condemned in-vitro fertilisation, saying the techniques "proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded."

The highly technical document said only adult stem cell research was moral because embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of embryos.

In the document, the Vatican also defended its right to intervene on such matters.

(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; cloning; ivf; moralabsolutes; pope; prolife; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-367 next last

1 posted on 12/12/2008 6:09:21 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
"There are those who say that the moral teaching of the Church contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her teaching is based on the recognition and promotion of all the gifts which the Creator has bestowed on man: such as life, knowledge, freedom and love," it said.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 12/12/2008 6:10:24 AM PST by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Gee, I’m stunned. Can’t believe they would take this position.


3 posted on 12/12/2008 6:17:18 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I hope this is a good sign of things to come under Benedict. He has been very vocal on much wrong with the church, and this is the most important of all. Unless we win this war against the culture of death, there is nothing to fight for.........


4 posted on 12/12/2008 6:20:06 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I hope this is a good sign of things to come under Benedict. He has been very vocal on much wrong with the church, and this is the most important of all. Unless we win this war against the culture of death, there is nothing to fight for.........


5 posted on 12/12/2008 6:20:08 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

How does someone weigh the right of people to ensure their genetic viability into the future, vs. the right of a fertilized egg? I’m curious.


6 posted on 12/12/2008 6:20:26 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
How does someone weigh the right of people to ensure their genetic viability into the future, vs. the right of a fertilized egg?

Perhaps you can explain that to me because it sounds like eugenics.

7 posted on 12/12/2008 6:24:12 AM PST by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

When did man alone become the author of life vs. a persons desire to have a “natural child” via in vitro? What ever happened to adopting if infertile and raising that child as your own? In vitro can be looked at as just as selfish as abortion if you think about what it says. Whether a person chooses to end a pregnancy via abortion because they don’t want that life or going to a lab and forcing life to be manipulated in a test tube and injected are both “me” thinking. We feel we are entitled to have “our own” child or abort “our own” child. Both are a symptom of our own selfishness.


8 posted on 12/12/2008 6:27:44 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

You can call it whatever you want, but the plain, hard, cold fact is, if you don’t reproduce, your physical existence, in terms of the genes that make you, is over. Unless you have clones, that is.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in making sure one’s genetics is preserved through lineage. To do otherwise is genetic extinction.


9 posted on 12/12/2008 6:29:07 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

If you’re infertile, shouldn’t those genes go extinct?


10 posted on 12/12/2008 6:31:04 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

No one has a right to “genetic viability”.

Given your reasoning IVF will be become an government entitlement for any an all who demand it.


11 posted on 12/12/2008 6:31:11 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

You’re being sarcastic, I assume. Why shouldn’t a bunch of old men sit around condemning fertility interventions?


12 posted on 12/12/2008 6:32:44 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

By the way, I am the mother of 4 children. Each is so different from the other they might just as well have been adopted.


13 posted on 12/12/2008 6:33:12 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb
"What ever happened to adopting if infertile and raising that child as your own?"

No matter how cruel it sounds, adoption is not going to prevent the ending of two individuals' genetic lineage, as a relevant biological entity.

There is absolutely nothing selfish in wanting to see one's genes preserved. In fact, it is the primary rule of life on this planet.

"We feel we are entitled to have “our own” child... ...symptom of our own selfishness."

Welcome to the rules of life.

14 posted on 12/12/2008 6:35:12 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
If you’re infertile, shouldn’t those genes go extinct?

Not if you can help it.

15 posted on 12/12/2008 6:36:24 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

“You’re being sarcastic, I assume.”

I am.


16 posted on 12/12/2008 6:36:32 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Each is so different from the other they might just as well have been adopted.

A DNA test would show otherwise.

17 posted on 12/12/2008 6:38:01 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

again- natural selection IS scientific- and since for millions of years it has happened naturally with God as the author of life, what gives us in the 21st century, the RIGHT to circumvent that process? Just because we CAN does not mean we SHOULD. a persons genetics is not what makes them a person. Adoption of a child as well as giving birth to a child both make that child YOURS. If a person cannot reproduce naturally, perhaps there is a reason bigger than just their plumbing that they should NOT reproduce, but because we are NOT God, we don’t know what it is. Funny how ever since we have manipulated fertility in this country, it has gone downhill so fast! Maybe due to alot of babies that needed to be born are NOT heredue to abortion,and babies that should have never been “made viable through in vitro” ARE. Time to think.......


18 posted on 12/12/2008 6:38:13 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
No one has a right to “genetic viability”.

You exist today, because those from whom you descended from, adhered dearly to the concept of preserving their genes- voluntarily or otherwise.

19 posted on 12/12/2008 6:39:49 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum

“If you’re infertile, shouldn’t those genes go extinct?”

Why SHOULD they?

Wait, wait, let me go down the street and tell the IVF kid he shouldn’t exist. Is that all right with you?


20 posted on 12/12/2008 6:39:54 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb

>>If a person cannot reproduce naturally, perhaps there is a reason bigger than just their plumbing that they should NOT reproduce,<<

Truth be told!
I know of two women who went through IVF who had children with massive medical problems and both had problem pregancies.

Sometimes we are not meant to breed.


21 posted on 12/12/2008 6:41:46 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
Such is your opinion. A natural desire to reproduce and an inherent right are two different things. You may think the latter exists; I (and most others on this Forum) do not. Such is the nature of our Republic; if you can convince people your position is correct, you can implement it. So far, it doesn't seem like your arguments are working.
22 posted on 12/12/2008 6:41:46 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb

I’m sure the IVF kid down the street will be glad to hear that he shouldn’t exist.


23 posted on 12/12/2008 6:41:50 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

“I know of two women who went through IVF who had children with massive medical problems and both had problem pregancies.

Sometimes we are not meant to breed.”

And the kid down the street is in perfect health (as far as I know) and is taking the most advanced high school classes possible. What does that prove?


24 posted on 12/12/2008 6:44:03 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

>>I’m sure the IVF kid down the street will be glad to hear that he shouldn’t exist.<<

Bet that kid down the street would be really glad to hear how many of his brothers and sisters gave up their lives for his right to exist too.


25 posted on 12/12/2008 6:44:32 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
I never think you should intentionally hurt children.

Why SHOULD they?

It isn't up to me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. However, do you believe we understand the human genome so thoroughly that we can safely say certain gene expressions are worth preserving, when apparently our genetics disagree?

26 posted on 12/12/2008 6:44:36 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

again, once life is created, no matter how it is created, life is precious. The question is not whether the invitro kids up the street are less valuable. It is going forward, is this something we should do, or not. I argue no, for the reasons I stated above.


27 posted on 12/12/2008 6:45:44 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The highly technical document said only adult stem cell research was moral because embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of embryos.

This isn't exactly true. Amniotic fluid stem cells, placenta stem cells and cord blood stem cells are all life giving, so they are all moral. It's the embryos themselves that die for embryonic stem cells.

28 posted on 12/12/2008 6:45:44 AM PST by Desdemona (Tolerance of grave evil is NOT a Christian virtue (I choose virtue. Values change too often).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
No one has a right to “genetic viability”.

No, but it is an option if you have the money and the desire to have children.

Given your reasoning IVF will be become an government entitlement for any an all who demand it.

BS...you are taking this to extreme absurdity. Again, it is not a right but should be an acceptable form of creating life if one has difficulty getting pregnant and chooses to do so. I don't understand the church's stance on that as, IMHO, it is a pro-life position.

29 posted on 12/12/2008 6:46:20 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

>>No, but it is an option if you have the money and the desire to have children. <<

How many little lives are made to have one or two survive?
That is the point.


30 posted on 12/12/2008 6:48:50 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

“Bet that kid down the street would be really glad to hear how many of his brothers and sisters gave up their lives for his right to exist too.”

That’s some really weird thinking there. These hypothetical brothers and sisters wouldn’t even be possible without IVF.

My guess is, although I certainly don’t plan on asking him, that he’s absolutely delighted to be alive. And I know his parents are ecstatic to have this wonderful child. Sounds like you’d be equally ecstatic to take him away from them.


31 posted on 12/12/2008 6:50:29 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum

“It isn’t up to me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your assertion.”

Nice try but wrong. Please explain why these genes should be extinct. Sounds a lot like eugenics to me.


32 posted on 12/12/2008 6:52:12 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

The egg would have died anyway or if fertilized in the womb, probably would have resulted in a miscarriage...so what is your point again?


33 posted on 12/12/2008 6:52:40 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

exactly. For one viable invitro baby on average, they fertilize 10, implant 6, selective reduction takes 2-4,you end up with one or 2 live birth. Looks like, on average, 6-8 brothers or sisters to me.......


34 posted on 12/12/2008 6:53:23 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

“Given your reasoning IVF will be become an government entitlement for any an all who demand it.”

Boy did you jump the shark there.


35 posted on 12/12/2008 6:53:57 AM PST by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
I’m sure the IVF kid down the street will be glad to hear that he shouldn’t exist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At some point this IVF child will learn that several of his brothers and sisters in the petri dish were deliberately created and destroyed so that he might live. Some IVF procedures go so far as to produce in multiple children that are then stabbed to death in the womb. That has consequences. What lessons does the IVF child learn about his value to his parents if his parents were so willing to kill his siblings?

Also...You have created a strawman argument. No one on this board is saying that once life is created it should cease to exist.

36 posted on 12/12/2008 6:54:55 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
I think the genes should be extinct because nature thinks they should be extinct. Not eugenics - nothing could be more natural. 100 years ago, those genes would cease.

What is your rationale? Because science can do something, we should?

37 posted on 12/12/2008 6:56:09 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

Boy did you jump the shark there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whose jumping the shark?

If IVF is a right ( as you say) then someone has to pay for it.


38 posted on 12/12/2008 6:56:13 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

>>These hypothetical brothers and sisters wouldn’t even be possible without IVF.<<

Hypothetical? Dude, do you know how IVF works?
Ever wonder why there are “left over” embryos? Or huge multiple pregnancies?

Exactly right, without IVF thoses babies would never exist. They were made so said “neighbor boy” could be born. Basically, they were made and slaughtered so he could live.


39 posted on 12/12/2008 6:56:30 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

>>The egg would have died anyway or if fertilized in the womb, probably would have resulted in a miscarriage...so what is your point again?<<

There is no guarantee of that. None. If an egg is fertilized and cannot adhere to the uterine wall, it’s natural and Our Lord’s will. But many IVF cases are not just the uterine wall. Some are sperm problems, some are egg problems. No life would be created in these cases.

However making 20 in a dish, to have one live is intentional and playing God.


40 posted on 12/12/2008 6:59:45 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
There is absolutely nothing selfish in wanting to see one's genes preserved.

At what price? This may be a normal and natural desire, but it still requires God's cooperation. To do otherwise is manipulative and destructive of life.

41 posted on 12/12/2008 7:04:25 AM PST by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It said human life deserved respect "from the very first stages of its existence (and) can never be reduced merely to a group of cells."

"The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person," the docment by the Congregations of the Doctrine of the Faith said.

*******************

These are very powerful and positive assertions. We are indeed blessed with our dear Pope Benedict, and his leadership during these difficult times.

42 posted on 12/12/2008 7:05:32 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb
"...natural selection IS scientific- and since for millions of years it has happened naturally with God as the author of life, what gives us in the 21st century, the RIGHT to circumvent that process?"

Why do you want to put Man as an entity separate from Nature? We too, are a part of the system, if you haven't realized it yet.

"Just because we CAN does not mean we SHOULD. a persons genetics is not what makes them a person.

Adoption of a child as well as giving birth to a child both make that child YOURS.

A DNA test would disagree, sadly.

If a person cannot reproduce naturally, perhaps there is a reason bigger than just their plumbing that they should NOT reproduce, but because we are NOT God, we don’t know what it is."

Mighty selfish of you to deny others their chance at preserving their genetic viability.

We don't know if God/s exist/s.

43 posted on 12/12/2008 7:07:58 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer

God is just a concept. To convince someone of God’s existence, you’d also have to explain that talking snake that deceived Eve, to put it simply.


44 posted on 12/12/2008 7:10:54 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

because we are on different pages here, you agnostic, me Catholic, we are not going to agree. You put your faith in the creation, I the creator. We will have to agree to disagree. In an non God based arguement, you are correct in worrying about your lineage being preserved as there is no afterlife except your genes. My faith tells me this life is not the end, but the beginning and therefore leaving my genetics behind matter not, for my true family is the Church and her members, and I have tons of “brothers and sisters” in Christ who are my lineage. I part ways with your arguement, and thank you for a valiant attempt :)


45 posted on 12/12/2008 7:14:17 AM PST by wombtotomb (since its "above his paygrade", why can't we err on the side of caution about when life begins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"At what price?"

Every life-form alive today has had its ancestors pay whatever price it took, for their genetics to be relevent this minute of this hour. To not pay that price at the cost of extinction as a genetic entity is a price that most life-forms are not tuned to pay, since to do otherwise is to willingly be put out of the scope of natural selection, into irrelevance as a living genetic entity.

46 posted on 12/12/2008 7:14:42 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NYer

No, really? I would never have expected the Vatican to say the same things they’ve been saying every time they ever say anything yadda yadda yadda. I thought they’d totally change their teaching on everything, just to see if we’re paying attention.


47 posted on 12/12/2008 7:14:52 AM PST by Tax-chick (If I can't go to Heaven right now, can I just go to Missouri?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

>>Mighty selfish of you to deny others their chance at preserving their genetic viability.<<

By killing how many of that person’s children to do it?


48 posted on 12/12/2008 7:15:10 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb

I agree to disagree, too.

Sadly, both of us can’t be right, regarding the argument.


49 posted on 12/12/2008 7:16:03 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
Every life-form alive today has had its ancestors pay whatever price it took, for their genetics to be relevent this minute of this hour.

Yes, and for those ancestors who could not reproduce due to infertility? What became of them? Natural selection works both ways, and, as you posted earlier, we are "part of Nature's system" - isn't IVF a work-around of what nature proposes?

50 posted on 12/12/2008 7:17:14 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-367 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson