Skip to comments.Vatican condemns IVF, the Pill (Why is this so surprising alert!)
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.
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.
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, theyd 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.
Again, the standard embryo transfer is two, three if the woman’s age is over 37 and has poor embryo quality. I challenge you to find a reproductive clinic that publicly states they’ll transfer over 4.
The natural right of an individual to reproduce, that you want to oppose, is what's fascism.
And at the level that this specific right applies, the rights of the individual are a noble, but not naturally existing, rights. It needs a healthy society and active effort to preserve. The maintenance of the right to reproduce, on the other hand, manages to survive without those. That's the law of life. Yours are the law of man.
The arguments are not fascism vs. liberalism. The arguments are regarding the nature of life, and our place in the system that supports life, as a whole.
So the first time you said, “None over three”
Now it’s “None over four.”
I already gave references.
I believe at this point U.S. fertility clinics are very unregulated.
I don’t think there are any legal limits in the U.S. on how many embryos they can transfer.
Many reproductive endocrinologists have their own clinic policies they adhere to though. They don’t want to see higher-order multiples result any more than the parents do.
Yes, when I said ‘you,’ I was not referring to that individual ‘you’ alone. I was referring to all the genetics’ that lead to that ‘you,’ and the inherent, intrinsic nature of the system that lead to the ‘you’ to continue the legacy of the ‘you’ and its ancestors, in the best way the ‘you’ can.
Fine, three. And no, you gave a woman’s account. You didn’t give the clinic.
Sadly, nature would reward the individual that ensures that balance, IF it comes down to that. That's the rule of life.
I agree with you that it is sinful to destroy a frozen embryo, whether it is the clinic’s decision or the parents’ decision to do so.
I’m just saying that doesn’t make IVF itself sinful.
I gave a reference to IVF Connections
This is a reference board for more than “one woman”
You have not given a single reference/link.
>>Im just saying that doesnt make IVF itself sinful.<<
Understanding that at some point a baby will be killed, by parent or clinic, IMO it is.
To put it shortly, as far as nature is concerned, you are your genes. That is the only part that you will have, that has a chance at perpetual existence, in one form or another, as it relates to physical reality. Everything else, will be forgotten. Of course, if a god / God exists, all that changes. So far, I'm skeptical regarding the latter.
This is the first site I found:
“Appropriate patients are offered IVF, after some initial testing such as a sperm count, a few hormone tests and an evaluation of the uterine cavity to establish the cause of infertility. The first stage involves stimulating the womans ovaries so that several eggs mature. Normally, a woman produces one egg in each menstrual cycle, but with IVF, many ovarian follicles are produced by hormone stimulation and several eggs are obtained (usually 7-15) and a number of embryos are produced after oocyte fertilization. Two or three embryos are replaced into the womans uterus to increase the chance of getting pregnant the first time...However, one of the most important things to remember about IVF is that it only works about half the time in the best couples. So sometimes the patient needs to repeat the cycle.”
It is sinful if one is Catholic.
Well, I’m truly puzzled why you think it’s funny or sad that I’m a pro-IVF Christian.
I know a lot about IVF and I know a lot about Christianity.
Here’s an analogy: saying IVF is sinful because some IVFers choose to destroy leftover embryos is like saying alcohol is sinful because some choose to drink too much and subsequently end up in a whole host of sins.
I think IVF per se is not sinful in the same way I think alcohol per se is not sinful. But in both cases, Christians should be very careful with both.
You did not answer the question. A mistake, no doubt. Here the are again: Which would YOU choose? Second, are those who would choose the first option wrong in their choice?
There is absolutely no need to kill anything with IVF. Ever. The whole point of IVF is to make life.
There's something kind of neat they did downtown, I hate to admit...last summer the four way stop at the intersection of Michigan Ave and Washington Square was replaced with a roundabout. I hate those damn things and I avoid them like the plague. Well, I took a visiting niece nighttime sightseeing after Thanksgiving, and we found ourselves downtown...in the island of the traffic circle, there is a nice Christmas tableau (okay, not Christmas, but still very pretty). Nutcracker standing with wrapped gifts. What's nice is that it's in line with the Capitol and state Christmas tree. You can pose for pictures in the island and get quite a nifty shot. I have a pic of it up on my facebook page, and I'm going to take all three boys back for more picture fun tonight. Whether they want to or not.
So what became of bigotroll?
>> the so-called “morning after pill” and the drug RU-486,
This is not what many think of as “the pill” (contraception) which is mentioned the title.
>>There is absolutely no need to kill anything with IVF. Ever. The whole point of IVF is to make life.<<
But it’s happening. Those babies who never make it out of the freezer and those who are implanted and are the second or third when the parents only wanted one.
If this was one embryo was made and one baby was born, it’s wouldn’t be a problem.
The problem is that IVF is to make life, but only the strong survive.
The natural right of the individual is to LIVE. Your fast and loose treatment of their right to live is appallingly (and, of course, fascist).
And at the level that this specific right applies, the rights of the individual are a noble, but not naturally existing, rights.
Yours are the law of man.
The right to life requires the protection of the law of man...protection against the savagery of those who would infringe it.
The arguments are not fascism vs. liberalism.
It is quite natural from your point of view to want to make this denial.
Yet the elevation of the society or the state over the fundamental natural rights of man is precisely a tension between fascism and liberalism.
Yikes! I detest the roundabouts too. Around here, no one knows how to work them. Tons of near accidents as people approach them and slam on the brakes!
The troll is still here. *sigh*
If you want to see what the actual clinics do, why don't you research THEM instead?
I'll get you started:
And you may be interested in this:
>>some IVFers choose to destroy leftover embryos <<
It’s not some, it’s most.
Oh, but a long time lurker.
Personally, I might put your right to life ahead of my right to procreate... but that’s just me. I might be punished for it, through the ending of the genetic legacy behind me, with me, as a result of that choice of mine.
However, another individual, might not choose likewise. And when it comes to that point, the one who chooses to ensure his right to procreate over your right to live, and kills you, as a result, would be rewarded, by having his genetics preserved for a future generation.
That’s how nature operates. That’s the core of the system we are a part of. Morality and all its entrails, are a luxury, that we’ve had as a species, for a fraction of our collective existence.
How would a society come to terms with this very bitter reality? By inventing God.
But “only the strong survive” with natural procreation too.
In a natural pregnancy, many, many naturally fertilized embryos fail to implant or grow further, and many, many fetuses miscarry naturally. Nature is imperfect and there is a lot of attrition.
IVF is no different.
Not every fertilized egg makes it to a live birth, whether with natural or IVF pregnancies.
At least you’re consistent. Down side, of course, is that you’re on record stating that you believe homicide is justified in your quest to make a baby.
Thanks for the direct answer.