Posted on 02/24/2006 11:36:30 AM PST by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While some scientists, legislators and even some parents see the human embryo as material that can be studied, frozen or destroyed, for the Catholic Church an embryo is human and has "a special relationship with God," said Bishop Elio Sgreccia.
The bishop, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that before allowing scientists to study the possibilities for manipulating human embryos, wider society should be asking itself when does life begin and when does life begin to have value.
Bishop Sgreccia and other experts from the academy met the press Feb. 24 to introduce a Feb. 27-28 conference titled, "The Human Embryo Before Implantation: Scientific Update and Bioethical Considerations."
"It is a theme that, at first glance, can seem strictly scientific or biological," the bishop said. "But this theme represents, in our opinion, the key question both for anthropology -- which asks, 'When does life begin?' -- and for ethics -- which asks, 'What value should be given to the embryo in its earliest stages?'"
Only when the basic questions are answered, he said, can one really discuss the ethical implications of creating embryos in a laboratory, performing experiments on them, selecting certain embryos for implantation and freezing or destroying the others.
Bishop Sgreccia said that while the speakers on the conference program share the Catholic Church's point of view, the public was invited to the meeting "because we wanted to put all our cards on the table."
Respect for the human embryo from the moment of conception, he said, is an "ethically sustainable position supported by scientific data and philosophical reasoning."
The academy chose to look specifically at embryos before implantation, which begins to occur about seven days after fertilization and is complete by 14 days after fertilization, because some scientists and ethicists insist that pregnancy does not begin until the embryo is implanted in the uterus.
Dr. Adriano Bompiani, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Rome's Sacred Heart University and former president of the Italian National Bioethics Committee, said that from a rational point of view, it is clear that human life begins when the sperm penetrates the egg and "the progressive differentiation and acquisition of complexity" begins.
Dutch Bishop Willem Eijk of Groningen, a physician and bioethicist, said the progressive movement from fertilization to implantation, the beginning of cerebral activity, the ability to feel pain and finally the ability to survive outside the uterus point to the fact that the embryo is a developing human from the very beginning.
"Modern anthropologies that attribute to the embryo the status of a human person only from the moment when there is self-awareness -- at the end of the pregnancy -- or even when there is a manifestation of rational consciousness -- which occurs long after birth -- are characterized by a profound dualism not able to explain the human being as a substantial unity" of body and mind or spirit, the bishop said.
Jesuit Father Kevin T. FitzGerald, who holds a doctorate in molecular genetics and is a professor at the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University in Washington, spoke about pre-implantation diagnosis of human embryos.
Initially, he said, diagnosis and screening was conducted in connection with in vitro fertilization procedures to help doctors choose the embryos most likely to survive.
Then, he said, it was used to identify embryos with genetic malformations and diseases, but "there are already discussions in several countries regarding the use of PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis) to pursue 'family balancing,'" the preference of the parents to have a boy or a girl.
Father FitzGerald said the risk is a move "from seeing a child as an unconditionally welcomed gift to seeing him as a conditionally acceptable product."
Again, inevitable death vs induced death is the critical distinction. A baby who is implanted in the fallopian tube is no less a baby than one who is implanted in the womb. Though the baby has virtually no chance of survival, and his or her mother will not be able to carry him or her beyond a certain point, there remains a difference between intentional killing and death of the child as a tragic and unpreventable circumstance. There is no choice but to remove the part of the fallopian tube that contains the child, who, sadly, will not survive, but it is essential to note that the child will not be harmed deliberately or directly. The baby's life span is virtually the same as it would have been, had his or her part of the fallopian tube remained; the difference is that the mother's life will be removed from danger. The principle of double-effect is visible here.
"Just to be clear hormonal birth control works by supressing egg release, not by flushing out embryos. In fact pro choicers should love birth control pills because they save millions of abortions from happening."
Feel free to check up on a few of the sources listed in my second post, or simply read the insert to a pack of birth control pills. It will say that the hormones work in one of three ways: 1) To alter the viscosity of the cervical mucous, preventing sperm from reaching an egg, 2) To suppress ovulation, and 3) To thin the uterine lining, "PREVENTING THE NITTIDATION OF A FERTILIZED OVUM." This, which results frequently from the "breakthrough ovulation" common to low-dose or progesterone-only pills and patches, as well as Depo-Provera, is the abortifacient function to which I referred.
Thank you. :-)
Okay, natural vs forced is the deciding factor. Then...Does that mean that birth control is abortion?
Thank you for posting the link to "Bork on Life"....what a wonderful piece.
Ping to Badray and SmokeyB and GeneralHavoc
Birth control that works after conception--most hormonal methods and the IUD often do this--is, by definition, abortion. Only birth control methods that prevent the union of sperm and egg can properly be referred to as contraception; regardless of their trade names, birth control methods that end unborn lives after they have begun are not contraception, they are abortifacients.
Thanks for the ping!
No surprise here. Leftists ALWAYS manipulate vocabulary to make it "compatible" with their desired political positions---ALWAYS.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Duh, my wife and I had to use fertility treatmenst to ahve our daughters. But we NEVER would use IVF.
That's a natural process.
Well Said.
Repeat that to yourself a few times... that can't make sense, even to you.
Is birth control natural by outside means?
I've been reading your comments.
I really hope you're asking because you want the facts... not because you want to feel better about what you might have done, helped someone else do or plan on doing in the future for convenience. How about you bring some links to the discussion to view and discuss with others?
Thanks.
I'm glad to see another NFP supporter here!
"NFP is Birth Control..."
Though the Sympto-thermal, Creighton, and Billings methods of Natural Family Planning are all more effective than any form of artificial contraception, in preventing pregnancy in any given month, I wouldn't refer to them as "birth control," for one who is using NFP is not trying to "control" anything external to himself or herself. The couple using NFP does not believe it is within their power to control the miracles of conception and birth; what they do believe, and know, is that they are able to control their actions, with an eye to the consequences that follow.
Billings Ovulatory Method, over 99.5% accurate: www.woomb.org
Sympto-Thermal Method, over 99.3% accurate: www.ccli.org
Creighton Model, nearly 100% accurate: www.creightonmodel.com, www.popepaulvi.com
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.