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 ...
I’m saddened to see this thread deteriorate ,,, The Church/Pope is simply laying out it’s position in preparation to something much bigger .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your entire post is absolutely on the mark!
The Pope is laying a foundation in preparation of something much bigger.
on this you are correct. It all depends on what you put your faith in. I, in God I trust. In science, you trust. Since I believe God created science, I believe that even though we can do something, it does not mean we should if it conflicts with the teachings of christ. That is my lens, therefore in my mind I am correct and you are in error. That goes in reverse for you, and therefore I am wrong through your lens. I guess we will see on our last day who is really right.
Food for thought, If I am wrong, no harm no foul. I will die, end and that will be that. If I am right, your end may be, well, bad. Maybe that is the better question to sort out. Genetic viability will be very unimportant to you at your last breath if I am right. No judgement, just an observation and perhaps a different point of view to ponder..... Cheers, and have an excellent day :)
>>Some medication, and substances ingested by the mother, can do the same. Is that God’s will, too? Or are you just calling random events, ‘Lord’s will’? <<
Yes. Unless the woman intentionally took those meds TO avoid an embryo implanting in the Uterine wall.
>>Just the other year, this German man ate a willing victim. <<
There are deviants in every species. That is not the norm and it’s silly to proclaim that.
Strictly, yes. We are a part of the system, no matter how much you may want to believe otherwise.
Further, murder is an action of man, and therefore natural under your definition - does that mean it should be permissible?
When a soldier kills an enemy soldier, is that murder?
How do you derive a moral code by which to live? I will try and conform my arguments to that rationale, if possible.
That "moral code" would be a system of behaviors approved / disapproved based on how it supports a social system that is vital if Man is to maximize his chances of survival on this wild planet; and his rights, as an individual. We struck a balance, a long time ago, that resulted in every viable society shunning murder, because it is detrimental to the coherence of any social grouping, thus endangering the viability of each entity in that grouping if the society were to break down.
Same with those puppies.
The unused embryos can be stored perpetually, if one desires.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our Declaration of Independence states that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are endowments from our Creator.
Well,....deliberately frozen life is the imprisonment of a real person that has committed no crime. It is a frozen person that is not at liberty to pursue happiness.
Okay. Utilitarian, but legitimate. Now, the money questions - how do you define Man? And how do you delineate "rights"?
Here’s the full document in English, 23 pages:
http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/Dignitas_Personae_Inglese.pdf
Kittehs love it when I print long documents :-).
LOL, the same old security agreement! If that's what makes you believe, then it goes against the concept of your God having provided us "free will" to decide. You have been coerced into belief, by fear.
Plus, if I am right, then if you or any of your descendents willingly choose/s to cease to end their genetic lineage, then it ends up with you on the disadvantaged side. Cheers!
>>Same with those puppies. <<
No Dear. Anyone who breeds dogs will tell you that there is a risk of bitches destroying a first litter and an even larger risk of a non-sire destroying said litter.
You need to get your facts straight. Hang around a bit longer than three months here on FR and you will learn much.
Well,....deliberately frozen life is the imprisonment of a real person that has committed no crime. It is a frozen person that is not at liberty to pursue happiness.
Watch me turn this back towards you: What do you say in the case of those terminally ill, supported only by machines? Are they not "frozen," in a sense?
If bitches killing its offpring was the norm, dogs would have gone extinct a long, long time ago.
If women were taken and forcibly made to breed, repeatedly and often, I'd like to know how long it would take for them to mentally break down to do the same, to the offpring that is produced as a result of this forced intervention.
Coming to think of it, abortion might just be that- a scorned woman rejecting the offspring of a mating partner that has turned away.
(we’ve got a live one here)
>>If bitches killing its offpring was the norm, dogs would have gone extinct a long, long time ago.<<
How many puppies are in a litter? How many litters does a dog have in her lifetime? You are pitifully uninformed.
On one hand you talk about the need to have your genes continue and then talk about dogs being “forcibly breed”. LOL!
Silly newbie!
>>Coming to think of it, abortion might just be that- a scorned woman rejecting the offspring of a mating partner that has turned away.<<
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Geeze! One strawman deserves another.
As for rights, sadly, and I mean it, they are a luxury (and thus requiring defence). We do have lawless cultures (and societies) near home, on this very planet, who, by strict definition, have survived as an entity just for as long (in fact, longer) than us, the civilised, have. Now I am not trying to say that the uncivilised are in the right; just that when purely viewed as an entity of nature, their ways have not made them disadvantaged, genetically. Do I approve of their ways, personally? Of course not. Does nature? We don't know, and they don't abort as often as us. What will that lead to? Who wins?
Questions, questions!
I may not know this, but I would venture to say that in the wild, it would not be the norm among all species, to eat their own. Overall, the cold truth is a balance of numbers, like you just implied, which dictates the allowance of deviant behavior, for a species. Those multiple births in forcibly bred bitches might allow for more cannibalism by the bitch, of its own offspring. If in the wild, the picture might be different.
You are pitifully uninformed.
Regarding dog-breeding, maybe. I'm not interested in it. As for the arguments I made earlier, ha, no!
On one hand you talk about the need to have your genes continue and then talk about dogs being “forcibly breed”. LOL! Silly newbie!
I'll try my best to turn my other cheek (LOL!) and not return the rudeness. Look at it again. In dog-breeding, there's intervention that's not by will of the parties involved. In IVF, the couple wilfully goes to the specialist to get the procedure done. Is that clear enough?
Oh, and irrational threats are so passé! Aren't you skillful enough to make winning arguments? Or have I read you wrong?
What’s strawman in keeping embryos alive in perpetuity, and keeping the terminally ill, alive with machines?
I get it, you just wanted to run away!
LOL!
Ha, yes. You have used one example of human cannibalism to defend the killing of human offspring. Yet, in comparing humans to other animals, have not given examples of human cannibalism as the norm as I have given examples of this in the animal world.
>>I'll try my best to turn my other cheek (LOL!) and not return the rudeness<<
Fact is not rude. That's liberal think. You signed up for FR in September of 2008. You're a newbie. Fact.
>>Oh, and irrational threats are so passé! Aren't you skillful enough to make winning arguments? Or have I read you wrong?<<
Irrational threats? *snicker*
It's not "pro-life" to make 10 or 20 or 30 embryos so that one can survive until birth.
It's also not pro-life to convert human beings into manufactured products -- which is exactly where IVF tends to go -- in part because, inherent in the idea of a manufactured product, is the idea that you throw it away the "defective" ones.
IVF is not pro-life in any way, shape, or form.
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.