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 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 361-367 next last
To: wombtotomb
The design is perfect, imperfections come only when the design is not followed for some known or unknow reason.

Genetic deformalities are not a new phenomena. Spontaneous abortions as a result of genetic abnormalities is not new, either. It is hilarious to see how you would fit these two to defend the case of an "Intelligent" designer.

as to those infertile christian couples, they are not practicing what they preach. they are practicing selfishness instead of selfLESSness. Taking in a needy unwanted child as your own is the ultimate act of selflessness. Only caring about perpetuating your genetic line, consequences be damned (creating 10 embryos, implanting only 6, selectively reducing 2-4 to make one viable baby) is the ultimate act of selfISHness, imho.

Since it is your humble opinion, it is best that it remains just that. You have zero right to decide whether certain individuals or couples need to have their chance for lineage terminated, or not.

The ethics are complicated, aren't they?

121 posted on 12/12/2008 9:06:05 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: trisham

>>No one ever said that being pro-life was going to be easy. :) <<

Truth be told!!!


122 posted on 12/12/2008 9:06:33 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

*sigh*

Long-time lurker.

Missed that, Sweetie?


123 posted on 12/12/2008 9:06:48 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
I think the genes should be extinct because nature thinks they should be extinct. Not eugenics - nothing could be more natural. 100 years ago, those genes would cease.

100 years ago, a case of appendicitis had a good chance of killing you. 100 years ago, children born a couple of months prematurely were as good as dead.

The fact that, in the past, we were not able to cure or treat certain illnesses and disorders isn't an argument for stopping the advance of medical technology.

What is your rationale? Because science can do something, we should?

If science can improve the human condition, then yes.

124 posted on 12/12/2008 9:08:06 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

>>Long-time lurker.

Missed that, Sweetie?<<

I’ve seen many a troll say the exact same thing.


125 posted on 12/12/2008 9:09:00 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
If IVF is a right ( as you say) then someone has to pay for it.

Sure, but the taxpayers are not required to pay for anyone's exercise of their rights. You have the right to bear arms, but you have to buy your own firearms.

126 posted on 12/12/2008 9:10:19 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Not every woman produces multiple eggs. And, those who do freeze embryos to use at a later date. This whole misconception about embryos being left to die is silly. Does it happen? Sure, some choose that. But far more women have none or use the ones that are frozen. I blame the stem cell research freaks for perpetuating this over inflated lie about embryos going unused.


127 posted on 12/12/2008 9:11:17 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rintense

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004889.html


128 posted on 12/12/2008 9:12:40 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb

Your stats are completely made up. There isn’t an RE in the United States who would transfer 6. More hysterical lies.


129 posted on 12/12/2008 9:12:53 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins; netmilsmom

We have lots of democrap agitprop liars claiming they are ‘long-time lurkers’. When you’ve been a member for a year or so we’ll revisit your bonefides. In the meantime, murdering human beings to give yourself descendants isn’t pro-life. Your agenda gets revealed by such blurting as the following misdirection: “You have zero right to decide whether certain individuals or couples need to have their chance for lineage terminated, or not.” What a disgusting effort to twist the perspective. typical


130 posted on 12/12/2008 9:13:36 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
Flushing unused embryos is not strictly IVF.

Sure. And nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear waste. They just somehow, magically occur together.

131 posted on 12/12/2008 9:13:53 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
What is the difference? Creating a human life just to have it disposed of is the product of human will.

You can't compare something you do on purpose with a natural happenstance.

132 posted on 12/12/2008 9:15:47 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
You didn’t address the relationship of frozen embryos with artificial intervention in vegetative states.

That's because I am not interested in helping you change the subject.

133 posted on 12/12/2008 9:16:30 AM 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 105 | View Replies]

To: wombtotomb

Quite right. From The Holy See:

“Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable “biological material”. In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman’s body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’ for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of “twin fission”. By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenceless human beings.

Methods of observation or experimentation which damage or impose grave and disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for the same reasons. every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others. It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’. In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which art not transferred into the body of the mother and are called “spare” are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html


134 posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:12 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 119 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
And perhaps they were not informed of how many of their other children they killed to get the “strong one”.

I think the issue comes down to the fact that only a relatively small percentage of people consider a recently-created embryo to be a child or a person.

That's sort of the reality here- even without Roe v. Wade, I doubt you would be able to find more than a handful of States where the majority of people would ban IVF treatments.

It's an interesting debate, of course, but it seems like it is purely academic.

135 posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:27 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
I’ve seen many a troll say the exact same thing.

Again, ASSumptions...

136 posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:27 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
I was speaking of Nazi rhetoric, but you make a good point: it's quite likely they conceived (in vitro) multiple children, brought one to birth, and discarded the rest...a pretty cheap way to treat individual human beings.
137 posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:57 AM 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 108 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

I never said “racial.”


138 posted on 12/12/2008 9:19:23 AM 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 109 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
That's because I am not interested in helping you change the subject.

Ummm, no. You're just trying to run away.

139 posted on 12/12/2008 9:19:35 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Sure. And nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear waste. They just somehow, magically occur together.

Read up on preserving embryos. Once done, get back.

140 posted on 12/12/2008 9:20:34 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 361-367 next 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