Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican condemns IVF, the Pill (Why is this so surprising alert!)
Reuters ^ | December 12, 2008 | Philip Pullella

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; cloning; ivf; moralabsolutes; pope; prolife; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-367 last
To: netmilsmom
The Poster refered to has spent so little time here that he/she is clueless to the idea of facts backing opinion. I’m sure you know this.

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!

351 posted on 12/12/2008 2:07:53 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
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.

Exactly the same with the terminally ill who have deteriorated to a vegetative state.

352 posted on 12/12/2008 2:24:45 PM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
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.

353 posted on 12/12/2008 2:40:23 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
>>being on FR a short time somehow equates to being clueless and ignorant of the facts?<<

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.”

354 posted on 12/12/2008 2:44:17 PM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Why are you using this strawman argument?

To avoid the bankruptcy of his position.

355 posted on 12/12/2008 3:22:42 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
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?

******************

No.

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"

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

356 posted on 12/12/2008 3:38:35 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Interesting isn’t it. It seems there are only a few ideological endpoints available to them. Not surprising, but interesting.


357 posted on 12/12/2008 3:39:32 PM PST by BMiles2112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
They are frozen or they are not viable! You are truly clueless to the entire procedure.

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.

358 posted on 12/12/2008 4:00:18 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: rintense; trisham

>>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.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/Story?id=6291477&page=1

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.


359 posted on 12/12/2008 5:47:29 PM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

All material from the BBC is excerpt/link only. Your post has been removed.


360 posted on 12/13/2008 3:47:02 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Being pro-life can be complicated. Things may not always be what they seem at first glance, and the desire to have a child can be overwhelming.
361 posted on 12/13/2008 5:17:53 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Oh I see. So if you repeat the procedure, it counts as six? Oh brother.

I have given links to the actual clinics that state their procedures. You have yet to find one that will transfer MORE THAN THREE AT ONE TIME, as you have claimed.

I'm sorry you are relying on hysterical allegations instead of clinical facts. Come back to me when you have PROVEN DOCUMENTED FACT FROM A CLINIC that they will transfer MORE THAN THREE EMPRYOS in ONE cycle. Otherwise, do not reply to me again.

362 posted on 12/13/2008 6:02:22 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: rintense

>>“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.

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 now, again it’s on you. Capital letters or not, you have not given a single link where any clinic states it does not implant more than three.

I haven’t seen a link of any procedure. I’ve seen links to clinics that apparently, you have not read, or you would be able to produce the quote.

Like I said, I’m sorry you were misinformed. There is no regulation of the amount of embryos implanted in the US.


363 posted on 12/13/2008 6:16:08 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

marking


364 posted on 12/13/2008 7:49:03 AM PST by Running On Empty ((The three sorriest words:"It's too late"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
Nice way to sidestep my assertion. Going to extraordinary lengths (and IVF would certainly qualify) to fulfill a biological urge is sinful. If all you are going to do is keep arguing from a purely biological standpoint, don't bother responding to me again. You're wasting my time.

Broken record time: The article is about the Vatican's stance on the issue. If you want to take religion out of the equation, do it on another thread and in your own spare time.

365 posted on 12/13/2008 11:24:56 AM PST by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: grellis

Bookmark again.


366 posted on 12/13/2008 11:58:08 AM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
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.

Not true....my reward is based upon my existance...in this world...and...perhaps in the next...

Children, whether they be biological or adopted, equate to family and support....supoort both physically and emotionally....and if that should transcend this realm of existance...so be it...

I find no proof that having biological children (when compared to non-biological children) will benefit me more while I am alive....and as you might suppose from my previous posts....if this world is the end all of my personal existence...having biological children will mean little after my death since my conciseness will cease to exist to appreciate it...

Perhaps by not adding oneself into the human gene pool for future generations might degrade humanity in some minor way....but that would be of little consequence to me after I die....

BTW, from my study of anthropology....it appears that many cultures value children and family (both biological and non-biological) based on the consequences of aging....and the need for support during those years.....this might explain why western cultures do not see the need to procreate in mass....the government has become the perceived care-giver...and replaced the extended family...

Again, I find your beleifs interesting....although I do not necessarily agree with them....
367 posted on 12/15/2008 5:11:51 AM PST by PigRigger (Donate to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org - The Troops have our front covered, let's guard their backs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-367 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson