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 ...
>>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.
Too funny. The article is about the stance of the Vatican on IVF, and you have not yet made a comment on point.
But are you sure “*most* IVFers choose to destroy leftover embryos?”
It’s my understanding, that in the U.S. at least, last I read anyway, the vast majority of IVFers are choosing to do NOTHING AT ALL with all those frozen embryos.
They are torn and indecisive. Many of them pay increasing storage fees every year (the clinics hope that increasing fees exponentially will push them into making a decision about them) but nevertheless keep them frozen rather than destroy them.
Not that that’s much better, but theoretically they could all be chosen to be donated to other infertile couples or placed for adoption.
It is individual sin that’s the problem here, not a problem with IVF per se.
Petronski: “...All that jazz...”
Yes, yes, all that.
Like I implied before, I am not arguing pro/cons of various political dimensions of human society... but if you insist my opinion, yes, the Communist/ Fascist systems have already been relegated to the dustbins of history. Free Capitalism is the only system that works, and sadly, America has abandoned it.
Coming back to the thread, I’m arguing from the vantage point that has in its view all humanity, and the surrounding systems that are interlinked with it. I’m arguing the terms that nature has set, regarding our existence; not what we, as a civilization, have created, these 200-400 years ago. Our human rights are fragile, artificial creations that need our active protection, compared to the rules of life. Clarification enough?
>>The onus is on you to produce to the proof. <<
Actually, the onus is on you.
Putting up links to three clinics doesn’t really show me where they say they will not transfer more than three embryos, nor any regulations concerning it.
This is your alligation. I have provided links to two places where women state that they have had more. You state that a clinic would be shut down for doing this. It’s on you to prove it. Not give me links where I can “start”. I’m not doing your research.
Oh and for your last link, this is a quote
“ but some physicians say that most IVF patients are not interested in single-embryo transfer”
You mean, like, a Constitutional right? There's no such thing as a Constitutional right to have biological progeny. None.
Which doesn't have to do with the Vatican's stance on IVF and contraception.
Go through the length of the thread. Get back, once you’ve done that.
I don’t do re-runs.
It's not a mere Constitutinal right that requires the protection of men; it's the law of Life, as a whole. Unchangeable, universally applicable, and true.
No, on second thought, it makes perfect sense, since quoting my actual words would mean responding to them.
...the Communist/ Fascist systems have already been relegated to the dustbins of history...
As I said, Santayana was right.
Coming back to the thread...
Some of us never left it.
>>Its my understanding, that in the U.S. at least, last I read anyway, the vast majority of IVFers are choosing to do NOTHING AT ALL with all those frozen embryos.<<
So, I’m seriously asking here and not looking to debate on this, do you have a reference to that?
If I had a uterus, I’d take one!
Keeping embryos frozen in perpetuity is not homicide.