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 ...
That's your right to choose. You have willingly chosen to place yourself in that position, accepting the risk that follows from removing yourself from the mad game life on this planet sets for all. Whether you will be rewarded or your genetic legacy punished, in the long run, will depend solely on whether the entity of God exists, or not.
The primary reason for IVF, let's assume, is for an infertile couple to become parents, right? (I'm going somewhere with this, honestly)
Perpetual wrongful imprisonment. How Soviet....
First, placing an innocent and defensive life, wrongfully, in a position where it is likely to languish and die is certainly murder when death results, if not homicide. There is no true "perpetuity" here, more like "indefinitely."
Secondly, and more important, there are other evils besides murder. Indefinite wrongful imprisonment is certainly one.
Everyone who supports these things has already been born.
Don't let that distract you. I used that to symbolize that whole block of text that you had typed. I was lazy to put it all again, here. But you knew that, but wanted to distract, nonetheless. Don't worry, I've gotten used to that from you.
Some of us never left it.
Yes, you did establish a physical presence in the discussion, no doubt. But most of your arguments were more aimed at attacking the poster than the original argument. Don't try to claim otherwise; it is evident for all to see, here.
“...defensive...” should of course read “...defenseless...”
In addition, you stated in Post #95 that frozen embryos degenerate over time. If they do, then perpetuity is not possible. Plus that other bummer that humans will not exist forever, so the whole point of freezing embryos in perpetuity is moot anyway, but you knew that.
But most of your arguments were more aimed at attacking the poster than the original argument.
Your posts here are not the 'original argument.' I'm attacking neither you nor the original argument. I'm attacking your fascist arguments.
You didn’t fix anything. You made my point. Your “fix” is a sin.
Aw, what was I looking for again... oh yea, "YAWN!!!"
Those arguments were regarding the comparison between the terminally ill, in vegetative states, being hooked up to life-support machines and frozen embryos. Both are more or less in the same predicament.
I think I read that the “oldest” frozen embryo to actually lead to a live birth was an embryo that had been frozen for 10 years.
Just wanted to add this to the discussion.
There is nothing wrong in wanting to be biological parents. Just because you have the means to be so, does not negate the right of another to enjoy the benefits of the same. You cannot choose for them, whether they may have a genetic legacy or not.
Well, a couple does not have to necessarily be infertile to use IVF to become pregnant.
I read that Angelina Jolie chose IVF to have her last baby instead of having sex with Brad Pitt because she thought it would be “faster” or whatever. (Hugely debatable.)
Personally, I’d rather have sex with Brad Pitt than undergo an IVF cycle.
Things seem funny when you are incapable of understanding the underlying basics...
Stop the machines that keep the embryo or the patient alive, and you will have lumps of dead organic mass.
>>IVF is no different.<<
Yes it is. In nature one egg a month, maybe two is lost when it does not adhere to the uterine wall. It certainly doesn’t happen every month.
In IVF, according to the references here, 5 to 17 eggs are fertilized. 3 or more are attempted to adhere. The rest are frozen or thrown away. Those that are frozen have a good chance of deteriorating and are not viable in the end.
So we have created 5 to 17 humans. CHOSE to do that.
Think of it this way. The difference between a natural miscarriage and the intentional destruction of embryos is precisely the difference between the unfortunate case of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome vs. the unconscionable case of smothering an infant with a pillow. What Mother Nature does and what I freely choose to do as an acting person are two separate realities, not to be confused. To put it dramatically, the fact that Mother Nature sends tsunamis that claim the lives of thousands of victims doesn’t somehow make it OK for me to shoot a machine gun into a crowded stadium and claim thousands of victims of my own.
(quoted from a dear Priest)
Oh yea, the rules of life, are "fascist" for you. How quaint!
Like I mentioned earlier, there is no defined moment of transition, with respect to time, when the embryo stops being a living entity. Since the boundary is not sharp, and as per the trend over here to define such phenomena as "chance," "upto God" and all that, ahem, jazz, I included that. You really can't prove that you can't freeze embryos perpetually.
I included this to compare the situation with the terminally ill, on machines.