Friday, December 12, 2008 | Science : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Vatican tightens in vitro opposition

by HealthZone.ca

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/552805

Philip Pullella
REUTERS

VATICAN CITY–A Vatican bioethics document released today condemns artificial fertilisation and other techniques used by many couples and also says that human cloning, "designer babies" and embryonic stem-cell research are immoral.

The long awaited document from the Vatican's doctrinal body marked a big step by the Vatican into the brave new world of biotechnology, an area in which governments around the world are struggling to formulate legislation.

The document also condemns new drugs that block pregnancy from taking hold, such as 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.

These drugs, as well as the IUD (intrauterine device), which has been in use for decades, were deemed to fall "within the sin of abortion" and are gravely immoral.

But the Vatican also says in the document that it approves of some forms of gene therapy and encourages stem cell research using adult cells.

And it says parents ccan, in good conscience, inoculate their children with vaccines produced with cells derived from aborted fetuses.

"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.

The document, the most authoritative of its kind from the Vatican in 20 years, says human life deserves 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," says the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's document, approved by Pope Benedict who headed the same office before his election in 2005.

It says most forms of artificial fertilisation "are to be excluded" because "they substitute for the conjugal act ... which alone is truly worthy of responsible procreation."

Condemning in-vitro fertilisation, it says the techniques "proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded."

The highly technical document says that only adult stem cell research is moral because embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of embryos. It also condemns freezing embryos.

Governments around the world are grappling with legislation on embryonic stem cell research.

The outgoing administration of President George W. Bush has placed restrictions on federal funds for embryonic stem cell research but president-elect Barack Obama has promised to lift them.

The 35-page document also attacks the concept of "designer babies", either by pre-implantation diagnosis during in vitro fertilisation where embryos are selected before being transferred to a woman's womb, or in attempts at human cloning in the future.

It brands as "shameful and utterly reprehensible" diagnosis aimed at ensuring that only embryos free from defects or having the desired sex or other particular qualities are transferred into a woman's womb.

It condemns the concept of human cloning "to satisfy certain specific desires, for example, control over human evolution, selection of human beings with superior qualities, pre-selection of the sex of a child to be born, production of a child who is the "copy" of another, or production of a child for a couple whose infertility cannot be treated in another way".

Saying life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, the document also defends the Roman Catholic Church's right to intervene on such matters.

"There are those who say that the moral teaching of the Church contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her teaching is based on the recognition and promotion of all the gifts which the Creator has bestowed on man: such as life, knowledge, freedom and love," it said.

— With a file from The Associated Press

Posted: Friday, December 12, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 107 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #300834 by Eshto on December 12, 2008 at 6:13 pm

It says most forms of artificial fertilisation "are to be excluded" because "they substitute for the conjugal act ... which alone is truly worthy of responsible procreation."

Responsible. Right.

In other news, my partner was asked by a lesbian couple for his sperm because they want to have a child. I think it's a great idea (we're certainly not using it for anything constructive).

A couple actually wanting to have a child, and planning for it. I can't think of any more responsible way to decide to become a parent.

Other Comments by Eshto

2. Comment #300847 by j.mills on December 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm

human life deserves respect "from the very first stages of its existence (and) can never be reduced merely to a group of cells".

...even when it is merely a group of cells.

It condemns the concept of human cloning "to satisfy certain specific desires, for example, control over human evolution,

Was that ever really on the table?!

*Sigh*. What is all this nonsense about? If god wants you to be pregnant, there is clear theological precedent to show that he is capable of bringing it about. How can anyone think it coherent to believe in an omnipotent interventionist god whose will can be thwarted with a scrap of latex? [Bangs head on keyboarpijaddf'#dafj.]

Other Comments by j.mills

3. Comment #300850 by ty90 on December 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Designer babies?
Is that even humanly possible?
And if so, would it even be unethical?

Other Comments by ty90

4. Comment #300854 by Hawker on December 12, 2008 at 7:20 pm

"condemns artificial fertilization"? Hmmm, you would think that with the whole Jesus, virgin Mary bit they would be a little more tolerant. After all wasn't that whole thing their idea? Call me crazy but when mom is a virgin and you still have a Baby Jesus...

Seriously, when is their opinion just not going to count any more!?

Other Comments by Hawker

5. Comment #300872 by JemyM on December 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm

The vatican is immoral.

Other Comments by JemyM

6. Comment #300875 by glenister_m on December 12, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Comment #300850 by ty90 on December 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Designer babies?
Is that even humanly possible?
And if so, would it even be unethical?

That depends on what you mean by designing. Choosing the sex of your child is currently possible and definitely occurring in many parts of the world eg. China. By the same token, any prenatal test that is used to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not is technically designing a child eg. not with Down's Syndrome.

As far as designing like in the movie Gattaca, that isn't far off - at least in terms of choosing an embryo out of several candidates. Gene chips are available now that can test for hundreds of different gene sequences, so by taking a sample of embryonic tissue, you could theoretically decide whether you wanted the blonde or brunette child, blue or brown eyes, etc. assuming you could identify the important gene sequences. Gene therapy would allow you to make changes.

However it will be a while before medical ethics will allow that...unless we are threatened by virus x or something and need to ensure all embryos are born immune.

Other Comments by glenister_m

7. Comment #300881 by EvidenceOnly on December 12, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Nothing sounds more hollow than a statement of what is immoral from the world's largest bastion of child abuse with a hierarchy that is all male dressed in outfits that don't anywhere near look as funny as circus clowns.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

8. Comment #300883 by Laurie Fraser on December 12, 2008 at 8:27 pm

they substitute for the conjugal act ... which alone is truly worthy of responsible procreation

This from a bunch of cross-dressers who have sworn never to engage in self-same "conjugal acts". Sheesh - the stench of hypocrisy has drifted right across to the Antipodes.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #300885 by Brian English on December 12, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Laurie, was that an ad-hominen in vestibus attack? ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

10. Comment #300886 by Laurie Fraser on December 12, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Well, I don't know about homos in the vestibule, Brian, but...

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

11. Comment #300891 by steveroot on December 12, 2008 at 8:37 pm

2. Comment #300847 by j.mills on December 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm

*Sigh*. What is all this nonsense about? If god wants you to be pregnant, there is clear theological precedent to show that he is capable of bringing it about. How can anyone think it coherent to believe in an omnipotent interventionist god whose will can be thwarted with a scrap of latex? [Bangs head on keyboarpijaddf'#dafj.]

Beauty! LMFAO. Who writes your stuff? ;-)
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

12. Comment #300904 by Philster61 on December 12, 2008 at 9:35 pm

I find it beggars the imagination that the Vatican thinks it has the right to interfere with an individuals decision to have children in an alternative way from the normal.
That 100 or so so called "celibate" old men think they have this divine right really really pisses me off.
To the Vatican Id say."Mind your own fucking business"

Other Comments by Philster61

13. Comment #300907 by Philster61 on December 12, 2008 at 9:40 pm

My partners mother is diabetic.Diabetes is also in my family.If there is any way that I could "design" diabetes out of the immediate gene pool and give my future children the best possible health.I wouldnt hesitate.Not for a second.I am actually a little envious of future generations because they have the chance to be born free of the diseases that most of us will succumb to at some stage of our lives.Thats if the medieval metality of the Vatican doesnt have their way.If they are against science and research then Id suggest the next time one of their own gets sick then he should have bloodletting instead of modern medicine.Or how about leeches.Thatd give them something to think about.

Other Comments by Philster61

14. Comment #300911 by Laurie Fraser on December 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm

And I'm all for getting those cats out of the Catican, Philster!

Edit: Mind you, I wouldn't mind souveniring some of those vats from the Vatican, either.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

15. Comment #300913 by Philster61 on December 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Haha.Yes Sorry Laurie.Its too early in the morning for me to be here.Haha.Thanks for pointing it out.

Other Comments by Philster61

16. Comment #300932 by Metch on December 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

So anyway, anyone who's interested in watching an incredibly well made series, based on actual events that took place in ancient Rome, should watch "Rome" the HBO series. It's phenomenal. Actually, it's beyond phenomenal, it's supernatural.

Oh, the article written above? ...My eyes read it but my brain turned off.

Other Comments by Metch

17. Comment #300939 by Metch on December 12, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Seriously though, Christians really don't care about human suffering. They care about getting into heaven. They try their whole lives to be as selfless as possible, and are ignorant to the fact that they are actually being selfless for one incredibly selfish reason.

To live life in paradise after death. This infuriates me to my core.

Hypocrites.

Other Comments by Metch

18. Comment #300953 by rod-the-farmer on December 12, 2008 at 11:41 pm

It condemns the concept of human cloning "to satisfy certain specific desires, for example, control over human evolution"

Hmm. Isn't this tantamount to admitting there is human evolution ? If I had been there, I would have jumped on this bit immediately.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

19. Comment #300956 by Eshto on December 12, 2008 at 11:51 pm

The Vatican doesn't generally reject evolution, rod.

Other Comments by Eshto

20. Comment #300961 by Fifth Ape on December 13, 2008 at 12:04 am

So they still want it both ways. The science of artificial insemination is immoral because it substitutes for the conjugal act? Presumably if their imaginary friend in the sky had wanted you to have a pacemaker he'd have given you one but you don't see the Vatican arguing against science prolonging life.

Other Comments by Fifth Ape

21. Comment #300965 by irate_atheist on December 13, 2008 at 12:46 am

Fuck 'em.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

22. Comment #300970 by cyberguy on December 13, 2008 at 1:31 am

My two beautiful boys aged seven and nine would not be here today without IVF and embryo freezing.

Fuck the RC church, and the know-nothing pricks who run it! May the RC church continue its slide into total irrelevancy.

Bastards.

Other Comments by cyberguy

23. Comment #300983 by iType on December 13, 2008 at 3:20 am

Thinking the opposite of whatever comes out of the Vatican seems to me a pretty good formula.

Other Comments by iType

24. Comment #300986 by Wosret on December 13, 2008 at 3:43 am

Let us collectively ignore these crazy old men.

Other Comments by Wosret

25. Comment #300987 by Raldo on December 13, 2008 at 3:43 am

says the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's document, approved by Pope Benedict who headed the same office before his election in 2005.

And there was me thinking it was divine guidance that led to them picking a Pope. Next time there's an election we've got to get RD on the ballot.

Other Comments by Raldo

26. Comment #300988 by submoron on December 13, 2008 at 3:44 am

Excuse me your holiness but when are you going to demand urgent action to save every human embryo that is spontaneously aborted? Such inaction is surely sinful. And are you still practising ante-natal baptism by syringe?

Other Comments by submoron

27. Comment #300995 by Logicel on December 13, 2008 at 5:20 am

...the moral teaching of the Church contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her teaching is ...
________

You antiquated, useless dipshit, your pathetic church is an it not a her. If you attribute gender to an organization then no wonder everything else about sexuality is beyond your comprehension.

Beware of the weaselly use of language by all religious believers. Just like the believers in woo, they twist, contort, and abuse language to promote their disgusting agendas of misinformation, bias, and confusion. Bunch of fucktopusesTM (Quetz's coinage).

Other Comments by Logicel

28. Comment #300997 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 5:54 am

Comment #300995 by Logicel on December 13, 2008 at 5:20 am

It's a common linguistic usage. You will hear the same of countries and ships.

Calm down.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

29. Comment #300999 by Clairebear on December 13, 2008 at 6:11 am

Surely, as these people believe in god and that everything is 'god's plan', wouldn't it then follow that it was 'god's plan' for people to discover IVF and let a couple have their wish? Sheesh.

This religious opposition to IVF and contraception is incredibly misogynistic. I am a person, but in their eyes, I'm a baby-making machine who shouldn't try to deny my 'destiny' by trying to limit the number of kids I might have, or choose not to have any. They would rather a woman or girl go through nine months of pregnancy and give birth in excruciating agony to an unwanted child, rather than have her use the morning after pill. But a couple who actually WANT a child, getting help from scientists and doctors to have one? That just won't do.

Other Comments by Clairebear

30. Comment #301004 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #300999 by Clairebear on December 13, 2008 at 6:11 am

Well said.

While seeking to assert the humanity of us all, the Catholics, and I must say all religious adherents, simply devalue us all.

It is tempting to follow the line that such adherents are just as much victims - by dint of their theistic brainbug - as the rest of us, especially women, but I am finding it harder and harder to see it this way.

My anger is as strong as these fuckers' faith. May I enjoin all of us to agree on this. Especially Irate...

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

31. Comment #301005 by Dinah on December 13, 2008 at 6:38 am

It brands as "shameful and utterly reprehensible" diagnosis aimed at ensuring that only embryos free from defects or having the desired sex or other particular qualities are transferred into a woman's womb.

And presumably, the Vatican will guarantee to spend as much of its untold wealth as necessary on providing the extra support disabled children born as a result of its ban on abortion and embryo selection will need throughout their lives.

Other Comments by Dinah

32. Comment #301006 by beanson on December 13, 2008 at 6:41 am

"There are those who say that the moral teaching of the Church contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her teaching is based on the recognition and promotion of all the gifts which the Creator has bestowed on man: such as life, knowledge, freedom and love,"

What about the gift of sexuality, most pertinently, homosexuality; what about the gift of rational thought with which we blow away their abitrary dictates, their declaration by fiat that human cells (and only human cells) are sacred, What about the gift of perspicacity by which we understand the catholic church to be a pervayor of nothing but hippocrisy and venom designed to dominate the weak in body and mind- a cynical bunch who consider the rape of children in their care to be something to cover up and keep in-house

Other Comments by beanson

33. Comment #301007 by Butler on December 13, 2008 at 6:43 am

Always good to see the Vatican expanding the breadth of their ignorance.

Other Comments by Butler

34. Comment #301008 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #301007 by Butler on December 13, 2008 at 6:43 am

And so it is that wide ignorance breathes wisdom into the hardest hearts.

Therefore god.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

35. Comment #301010 by Dinah on December 13, 2008 at 6:53 am

Re: Comment #300999 by Clairebear

This religious opposition to IVF and contraception is incredibly misogynistic. I am a person, but in their eyes, I'm a baby-making machine who shouldn't try to deny my 'destiny' by trying to limit the number of kids I might have, or choose not to have any.

Absolutely right. To be a good Catholic woman, you either have to marry and endure multiple pregnancies throughout your reproductive life, regardless of your health and means to support the progeny, or you have to stay single and remain a perpetual virgin. Neither seems like a whole lot of fun.

The Catholic view also totally ignores the crisis of world population, due to rise from 6 billion today to around 9 billion by the middle of the present century. By denying contraception to the world's poorest women, the Church will condemn millions to alternative ways of controlling numbers, including war, disease and starvation.

Other Comments by Dinah

36. Comment #301011 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #301006 by beanson on December 13, 2008 at 6:41 am

Tut tut. Wash your mouth out.

The pope is infallible, don't you know.

Even when he's wrong and apologises.

I wish such infallibility on you, you doubting Thomas.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

37. Comment #301012 by beanson on December 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

Does Ratty's infalibility extend back to before the popeship was conveyed on him

like back when he was a Nazi?

Other Comments by beanson

38. Comment #301013 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 7:03 am

Comment #301010 by Dinah on December 13, 2008 at 6:53 am

It's most often the case that the matriarchal catholic mother of 15 will insist that her daughters do exactly what she did, in between attending compulsory Masses. And not getting a proper education, because her future man will look after her, so she doesn't need it.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

39. Comment #301014 by notsobad on December 13, 2008 at 7:05 am

We need to fix the flaws caused by religious inbreeding somehow.

Other Comments by notsobad

40. Comment #301015 by c_mullark on December 13, 2008 at 7:06 am

[quote]
"There are those who say that the moral teaching of the Church contains too many prohibitions. In reality, however, her teaching is based on the recognition and promotion of all the gifts which the Creator has bestowed on man: such as life, knowledge, freedom and love," it said. [/quote]

Didn't the creator intend for us to have none of these, but instead remain blissfully ignorant of all of the above (most notably KNOWLEDGE). I think it is much more prudent to thank that talking serpent.

Other Comments by c_mullark

41. Comment #301016 by beanson on December 13, 2008 at 7:09 am

The document, the most authoritative of its kind from the Vatican in 20 years, says human life deserves respect "from the very first stages of its existence (and) can never be reduced merely to a group of cells".

but where's the reason for this- or is it just an assumption because they then go on to build this argument:

"The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person,"

they just make it all up

Other Comments by beanson

42. Comment #301018 by Amira on December 13, 2008 at 7:11 am

Reality has never been a valid currency amongst Catholics. They have to make it all up. If they didn't grip so tightly to their lies regarding birth control, there wouldn't be as many Catholic children to carry on their traditions.

Other Comments by Amira

43. Comment #301019 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 7:13 am

What's wrong with cells?

I'm rather glad I have mine.

Not so glad, though, that the pope has any at all.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

44. Comment #301022 by TIKI AL on December 13, 2008 at 7:21 am

Amira@42: "Reality has never been a valid currency amongst Catholics".

Aren't you forgetting the stellar research they have compiled regarding witch flotation verification?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

45. Comment #301023 by Amira on December 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

I have actually read quite a bit of that research :) I found it to be a highly entertaining way to waste time. Enjoy!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/index.htm

Other Comments by Amira

46. Comment #301025 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 7:38 am

So here we are again, listening to the vile shite of the elderly male virgins telling us all what we should and shouldn't be up to. The becloaked old male non-fuckers who have:

- Never had personal experience of hetero or homo relationships
- Never had sex
- Never had children
- Never been desperate to parent a child
- Never been raped

Such are the qualifications of the old male cunts who are deciding the fate of billions of people on this planet.

There is a ridiculous and foolhardy response to all of this. A response which would make all the shit these fuckers come up with simply disappear overnight. It's almost unthinkable, it's dreadful, it's horrendous, but it's...possible.

Ignore them.

I wonder if such a tremendously difficult procedure such as I've carefully devised above could ever happen.

The Vatican on this proposal will require just a touch more time to consider its position.

In the meantime all the above instructions remain absolutely mandatory.

Except mine.

In the meantime, and while we wait, just go out and enjoy yourselves and don't worry about a thing.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

47. Comment #301035 by blakjack on December 13, 2008 at 8:15 am

Does anyone, except a diehard Catholic, pay the slightest attention to what the Pope says?

Jack

Other Comments by blakjack

48. Comment #301036 by Styrer- on December 13, 2008 at 8:19 am

Comment #301035 by blakjack on December 13, 2008 at 8:15 am

I fear yes, in great numbers.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

49. Comment #301038 by ahmunnaeetchoo on December 13, 2008 at 8:22 am

"from the very first stages of its existence (and) can never be reduced merely to a group of cells".
Because somehow, a soul is created when a sperm joins with an egg.....or maybe a sperm and an egg have half souls.....

'every sperm is sacred!'

Other Comments by ahmunnaeetchoo

50. Comment #301043 by sunbeamforjesus on December 13, 2008 at 8:32 am

'The document also defend's the catholic church's right to intervene on such matters'
Well in that case I will issue my own document that defends my right to ignore the whole catholic/xtian crock of shite.The fucking arrogance of the greasy old cross-dressers is simply breathtaking!

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last