Vatican condemns IVF, the Pill (Why is this so surprising alert!)

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.

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.

>>“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.

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.

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....

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.