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 ...
Actually, your wording was quite typical of Cafeteria Catholics which is why I thought you could be one.
Well, given that sexuality, fertility and contraception all deal with Life issues, it's a natural preoccupation. These issues are all based in morals and ethics, a natural for religious/theological discussion.
And don't forget, all major Christian denominations were against contraception until the early 20th century. Now, only the Catholic Church remains steadfast in her teachings.
You being agnostic/atheist/whatever it was that was said means that you just won’t get it. I was there myself at one point. Catholic belief goes beyond the Bible alone, but let’s not get into that discussion. But of course, books tend to be man-made.
None of which (from the BBC I might add) proves that
1. Humans have instincts (unless the BBC is now the end all be all in Science)
2. Why if what you state is true, Europeans as well as most liberals are not fighting to perpetuate their genes.
Gotta go, the Marx Brothers Friday night film festival has started and I’m missing “A Night at the Opera”
Coming from someone who was just posting WikiPedia edits here, this is rich. LOL!
Why if what you state is true, Europeans as well as most liberals are not fighting to perpetuate their genes.
Allow natural selection some time... your descendents will then be asking, "Europeans, who???"
Liberalism is not transmitted genetically. Liberals are produced; man-made.
Have a nice day!
The correlation between godlessness and fascism has acquired another confirming data point.
You have the right to bear arms, but you have to buy your own firearms.
Can we use this argument against universal health care?
I don't see why not. Government can't deny you the right to have health care, but that doesn't mean the taxpayers are obligated to pay for it.
The Catholic Church has never demanded that the terminally ill be kept alive by artificial means. I believe that the position of the church is that people be made as comfortable as possible,( which includes hydration and nutrition, by the way)
Why are you using this strawman argument?
Freezing an embryo is imprisoning a human who is innocent of any crime. Keeping them perpetually frozen is denying them their God given right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is the Vatican's opposition to IVF solely due to the potential for discarded embryos? That is, if we get to a point wher there is a 1:1 rate of embryos to viable pregnancies (excepting natural miscarriages), would the Vatican drop its objections?
On this point we can agree.
As a Christian though we should be very generous ( privately) so that all can have access to medical care.
Wow...you just repeated it again...being on FR a short time somehow equates to being clueless and ignorant of the facts? I think not. It is more like you believe the poster is clueless because he/she doesn't follow lockstep in your beliefs.
And I don't have an ego problem, you are the one who is arrogantly saying that you are smarter than us and that you and only you, know the facts. Well, Miss Moral Superiority, last time I checked, arrogance was a sin, so you aren't as pure as you'd like to think you are. Have a nice Judgment Day!
Exactly the same with the terminally ill who have deteriorated to a vegetative state.
The Catholic Church does not demand that people be kept alive by extraordinary means. It also teaches that the terminally ill should be kept as comfortable as possible through the death process ( this includes hydration and nutrition.) This is a very humane and compassionate position to take whether or not they happen to be in a vegetative state.
Are you advocating deliberately killing the terminally ill who may be in a vegetative state? If you are, I can see how this is compatible with someone who as no problem with perpetually freezing and denying a human embryo its basic human rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
No, being on FR for a short time equates to not knowing how FReepers prove their opinions to be correct. When one’s facts are questioned, a FReeper will give a link to a reference. Normally a clickable link. In that way. one does not expect all other FReepers on the thread to just accept what may be erroneous facts.
>>you are the one who is arrogantly saying that you are smarter than us and that you and only you, know the facts. Well, Miss Moral Superiority, last time I checked, arrogance was a sin, so you aren't as pure as you'd like to think you are. Have a nice Judgment Day!<<
I'm sure you have a post number that you can share where I state that I “smarter than us and that you and only you, know the facts.”
To avoid the bankruptcy of his position.
From The Holy See:
" The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman".(38) This principle, which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's exalted vocation to parenthood"
Interesting isn’t it. It seems there are only a few ideological endpoints available to them. Not surprising, but interesting.
And you have yet to find ONE clinic that publicly states they will implant more than three.
I've had enough of your circumlocution. You go ahead and keep citing your hysterical 'facts'. When YOU have gone through IVF, or have been through it first hand with someone, let me know, k? Ciao.
>>And you have yet to find ONE clinic that publicly states they will implant more than three.
I’ve had enough of your circumlocution. You go ahead and keep citing your hysterical ‘facts’. When YOU have gone through IVF, or have been through it first hand with someone, let me know, k? Ciao.<<
I’m going to state it again. You have given no links stating your “facts”. The proof is in the references. I’ve asked you time and again to show a reference to a clinic and the number of living embryos that clinic implants.
At the same time I have given three references to women who stated that three or more embryos were implanted and Trisham gave a reference to three along with the procedure being repeated. 3 + 3 = 6.
Here is another for you.
On the second page it states this...
“Arthur Caplan, director of the Center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, believes that ethically, doctors must do whatever they can to prevent multiple births.
“I have long argued that nobody should be putting more than four embryos into any woman because of the high risk of super multiple pregnancies which are hugely dangerous to newborns,” said Caplan.
“We know that usually every one of these cases has the kids in a neonatal unit, that disability and learning disorders are common and death can even occur,” he said. “In my view, the ethical thing to do is to control against the possibly of super multiples occurring.”
But unlike in many European countries, where the number of embryos that can be implanted in women is kept to a maximum of three, the U.S. has no such regulation, said Caplan. That makes it harder for doctors to resist parents who want as many embryos as possible implanted.”
So as you can see, no this is not regulated in the states and doctors routinely implant “more than three”.
Those who are not prepared for these multiple births, “harvest” them. In other words, abort the unwanted.
I’m sorry you were misinformed.
All material from the BBC is excerpt/link only. Your post has been removed.