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 ...
I think a lot of people have the misunderstanding that fertility clinics destroy unused embryos, or that fertility clinics decide to donate them to science.
These decisions rest with the parents of the embryos.
Clinics are terrified to destroy embryos, even those whose parents have long ceased paying the storage fees.
So clinics—many of which don’t want to be in the frozen embryo storage business to the extent that they are—are faced with a growing problem of unclaimed frozen embryos, and more are going to collection agencies to try to get the storage fees paid from the parents who have vanished.
I read “committed Christian who supports IVF” and I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry.
I agree with you. It is a sin to keep an embryo frozen indefinitely.
There are a million frozen embryos in IVF clinics in the U.S., I think I read.
The parents of these should either implant them, donate them, or place them for adoption.
Life is more important than reproduction of life. Life itself is greater than reproduction, without life there is no reproduction.
In the long run, in strict terms, as a biological entity, the individual matters a mere fraction compared to its genetic legacy.
Sick.
In the dynamic, living, active, natural system, option 2 has been tested to be far more favorable compared to option 1, if available. There are forms of hydra / algae that can technically live forever. Yet, they are not the dominant mode of life on earth. Death necessitates reproduction, to pay for evolution.
You are in no position to read my mind, as this statement proves.
The individual is but a single cell in the greater organism eh?
Yes, in order for human societies to function at its best, we need to make rules that aim to guarantee that. However, in nature, that is a luxury- that right to life. If you want to verify it, stay away from civilization for a month. The experience will teach you.
Sick.
But true. Cold, harsh, and true.
Copper-as I stated several posts ago I am not going to change your view, or you change mine. Different lenses. Thank you for your point of view, it keeps my debate skills sharp and my mind working. I am ending this debate not because the arguements are bad, but they are circular. Have a great time and I look forward to many more debates in the future. Good day.
>>These decisions rest with the parents of the embryos.<<
It doesn’t make an ounce of difference to me if a clinic destroys a baby or a parent destroys a baby.
Someone is. And in England a million babies were destroyed.
Do either. It simply does not matter.
Then I guarantee you if the clinic that did that was ever found guilty of transferring six, they’d likely lose their accreditation as a fertility clinic.
You continue to focus on the society, the civilization.
I continue to focus on the individual.
Your position is that of fascism, mine is that of classical liberalism.
Very sad, is it not?
The same here too, wombtotomb! I enjoyed the discussion.
Have a great day! I’ll look forward to the next discussions.
Fascism is on the rise again.
>>Then I guarantee you if the clinic that did that was ever found guilty of transferring six, they’d likely lose their accreditation as a fertility clinic.<<
Got a reference for that? That’s not what I’m seeing on Google.
Yes, the UK is different because they have government mandated requirements. In the US most fertility clinics abide by a self-governing set of rules. Clearly the woman who had six embryos transferred was not at one.
The couples I know who have done IVF have only had two transferred, at the doctor's recommendation. Some will do three if the woman is over 37 and the embryo quality is poor.
I’m not sure what the law is in the UK, but in the U.S. the embryos are the property of the parents, not the clinics.
If a million embryos/yr are destroyed in UK clinics, and the parents of those embryos are deciding to do that, then those parents are individually making the sinful decision to do so. It doesn’t mean IVF per se is sinful.
I would say U.S. fertility clinics are very respectful of embryos, fresh or frozen.
>>Why don’t you go research what the latest recommendation are, k? <<
Why don’t you give a reference to what you are stating?
I’ve given you two.
Once from an actual clinic that said “over three” for older women.
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.