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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-367 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-367 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