NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday the Vatican issued a lengthy document on bioethics that, amongst many other items, underlined its position (and therefore, I suppose, the position that all Catholics should really be taking) on in vitro fertilisation.

(Reuters) (http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BB2V220081212?sp=true)

The Vatican on Friday spelled out Roman Catholic moral teaching on a wide variety of scientific and medical procedures dealing with human reproduction. Catholic teaching on bioethics is based on the principle of unconditional respect for human life from conception to natural death and for the transmission of such life through sexual intercourse by married couples only.

The document therefore condemned virtually all forms of artificial fertilisation and genetic engineering and urged Catholics to oppose them in almost all cases.

The document declared the following procedures morally unacceptable:

-- in vitro fertilisation.

-- research in and use of embryonic stem cells.

-- post-fertilisation birth control methods such as morning after pills, the so-called abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) and the inter-uterine device (IUD).

-- surrogate motherhood.

-- human cloning, both reproductive and therapeutic.

-- hybrid cloning using animal oocytes (immature female germ cells) to reprogram the nuclei of human somatic cells.

-- freezing embryos or oocytes for use in artificial fertilisation.

-- pre-implantation diagnosis of embryos to avoid genetic defects or select for gender or other qualities.

-- reduction of implanted embryos to prevent multiple births.

-- intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) to overcome male fertility problems.

-- germ line cell therapy to modify genes transmitted to offspring.

-- genetic enhancement for purposes other than medical treatment.

-- use of human biological material of illicit origin, such as experimentation on human embryos.


The document declared the following procedures morally acceptable:

-- promotion of natural fertility including hormone treatment and surgery for endometriosis or obstructed fallopian tubes.

-- use of stem cells obtained from adult organisms, umbilical cord blood or foetuses dead by natural causes.

-- research into the prevention of sterility.

-- somatic gene cell therapy for strictly therapeutic purposes in an individual patient.

Their opposition to IVF is not new, of course. A 2003 article (http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml) spelled out that
Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."

IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings
about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.
The full Church document (Dignitas Personae, a pdf) is available here (http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf) if you fancy ploughing through it, and Reuters have a short set of excerpts available here (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKTRE4BB4Q720081212?virtualBrandChannel=10112), as well as a few other articles breaking it all down into easy chunks that can be found pretty easily. There are also, inevitably, already numerous blog entries screaming about it all, as I'm sure a simple google on Vatican+IVF will show, but I wouldn't count on any of them for an unbiased perspective.

And so, in the interests of avoiding penalisation for copy&paste spamming, some questions...

Given that the Church's stance on IVF is largely rooted in its views on abortion, will this latest set of proclamations reignite the abortion debate in those places that currently recognise a right to choose? (I suspect that it will, if only because the 'pro-life' lobby have never been shy of seizing any opportunity that comes along)

Is anyone here prepared to defend the idea, pushed in the second of the quotes above, that children born as a result of IVF treatments might somehow have the development of their personality hindered? (I see it as an absurd suggestion, but maybe that's just me.)

...

no that part is just silly

but the policy is consistent with all of the other stances that the vatican has on life.

but the policy is consistent with all of the other stances that the vatican has on life.

That being; we really don't actually care we just like pushing people around.

That being; we really don't actually care we just like pushing people around.
no

that being that life is up to god so you are religiously limited in those things that you can do or not do to start it, prevent it, or end it.

Jesus was the result of in-vitro fertilization. ;)

Jesus was the result of in-vitro fertilization. ;)

Debate over.

C'mon...this is ridiculous. You want children? Do whatever procedure that will allow it. Its laughable that a church supposedly 'pro-life' apparently opposes this on the basis that 'well, whatever's stopping you having them is evidence that God has decided you shouldn't have any'. Fine, well don't treat illnesses either, because God should have control of life, and its morally wrong to keep people alive if God doesn't want them alive. If God is really concerened about it, he will ensure that whatever steps you take to have children fail. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't cover IVF, so this is nothing more than idiotic dogma created by stupid men in silly costumes. Like a lot of what the Church says. Which is why sensible people avoid institutional religion and read whatever religious text they choose to believe and interpret it themselves.

no that part is just silly

but the policy is consistent with all of the other stances that the vatican has on life.
Yes, at least the Catholic Church tries to make its positions internally consistent. But many Catholics in the developed world are happy to ignore its more stringent pronouncements when it suits them. The American anti-abortion movement is actually made up mostly of fundamentalist Protestants.

no that part is just silly

but the policy is consistent with all of the other stances that the vatican has on life.

"Stop that. Stop That. It's getting too silly."
http://www.lesmonds.co.uk/smf/img/Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

"Stop that. Stop That. It's getting too silly."
http://www.lesmonds.co.uk/smf/img/Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

It's not terribly complicated. They believe that it's wrong to interfere with the process of conception and birth. It's no more illogical than any given claim to special knowledge of what our divine overlords want.

Hmm... summoning Godzilla to attack churches likely counts as bioethical, yet they seem to have no problem with it... :eek:

Fuck the Vatican.

The Vatican advising on bioethics is like Gov. Blagojevich and former Senator Ted Stevens advising on government ethics.

Jesus was the result of in-vitro fertilization. ;)

Sick burn. Anyways, the Vatican hasn't fully realized that the political legitimacy it wields has been a steady decline since the Protestant reformation. Plus, with the exception of some unfortunately irrational sectors of American politics, the West is making a notable shift towards social liberalism.

Fuck the Vatican.

They're mostly chaste (mostly) elderly European men. Do you really want to?

The people most likely to follow the Vatican line on sexual issues are the people least likely to be considering IVF in the first place. It is sort of funny, if you're starved for amusement.

Fuck the Vatican.

The Vatican advising on bioethics is like Gov. Blagojevich and former Senator Ted Stevens advising on government ethics.

More people need to realize this.

Nothing wrong with the Vatican voicing its views. If it's their belief that the natural order of birth should go undisturbed, then that's acceptable. Doesn't mean society has to follow those beliefs.

I'd be interested in hearing the Vatican elaborate on this one though:

"genetic enhancement for purposes other than medical treatment."

That seems to be a reasonable restriction.

I'd be curious as to why they don't support surrogacy. It's still allowing for new life to be given a change.

It's no more illogical than any given claim to special knowledge of what our divine overlords want.
I, for one, welcome our new divine overlords.

I'd be curious as to why they don't support surrogacy. It's still allowing for new life to be given a change.

One of the major points appears to be this nonsense --surrogacy separates fertility from "the conjugal act" between a married couple:

Respect for that dignity is owed to every human being because each one carries in an
indelible way his own dignity and value. The origin of human life has its authentic context in
marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal
love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-à-vis the child to
be born “must be the fruit of marriage”.9

Marriage, present in all times and in all cultures, “is in reality something wisely and
providently instituted by God the Creator with a view to carrying out his loving plan in human
beings. Thus, husband and wife, through the reciprocal gift of themselves to the other –
something which is proper and exclusive to them – bring about that communion of persons by
which they perfect each other, so as to cooperate with God in the procreation and raising of
new lives”.10 In the fruitfulness of married love, man and woman “make it clear that at the
origin of their spousal life there is a genuine ‘yes’, which is pronounced and truly lived in
reciprocity, remaining ever open to life... Natural law, which is at the root of the recognition of
true equality between persons and peoples, deserves to be recognized as the source that inspires
the relationship between the spouses in their responsibility for begetting new children. The
transmission of life is inscribed in nature and its laws stand as an unwritten norm to which all
must refer”.11

....

These two dimensions of life, the natural and the supernatural, allow us to understand
better the sense in which the acts that permit a new human being to come into existence, in
which a man and a woman give themselves to each other, are a reflection of trinitarian love.
“God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special
way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father”.16
Christian marriage is rooted “in the natural complementarity that exists between man
and woman, and is nurtured through the personal willingness of the spouses to share their entire
life-project, what they have and what they are: for this reason such communion is the fruit and
the sign of a profoundly human need. But in Christ the Lord, God takes up this human need,
confirms it, purifies it and elevates it, leading it to perfection through the sacrament of
matrimony: the Holy Spirit who is poured out in the sacramental celebration offers Christian
couples the gift of a new communion of love that is the living and real image of that unique
unity which makes of the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of the Lord Jesus”.17

...

With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three
fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from
conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the
right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse;19 c) the
specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person
be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”.20
Techniques which assist procreation “are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are
artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must
be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to
realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life”.21

In light of this principle, all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,22 as well
as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization23 which substitute for the conjugal act,
are to be excluded. On the other hand, techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and
its fertility are permitted. The Instruction Donum vitae states: “The doctor is at the service of
persons and of human procreation. He does not have the authority to dispose of them or to
decide their fate. A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist
the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its
objective once it has been normally performed”.24 And, with regard to homologous artificial
insemination, it states: “Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted
except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act, but
serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose”.25

Yesterday the Vatican issued a lengthy document on bioethics that, amongst many other items, underlined its position (and therefore, I suppose, the position that all Catholics should really be taking) on in vitro fertilisation.

You supposed wrong.

You supposed wrong.

So pronouncements of the Vatican are not putatively Catholic views? Interesting.

The Vatican has absurd and stupid views. In other news, water is wet.


Seriously, fuck the Vatican.

Nothing wrong with the Vatican voicing its views. If it's their belief that the natural order of birth should go undisturbed, then that's acceptable. Doesn't mean society has to follow those beliefs.


Unfortunitally, the Vatican's stance is in theory supposed to be a catholics stance, and enough Catholics are weak minded enough to agree just because the Pope said so.

They can voice their views. I just wish they werent fucking stupid and actually were based in reality.

So pronouncements of the Vatican are not putatively Catholic views? Interesting.

What he was wrong about was that if the Vatican says something all Catholics will hold the same view.

What he was wrong about was that if the Vatican says something all Catholics will hold the same view.

Do you even try to read anymore? He said the view they all "should" be taking. And the Vatican will agree. All "good" catholics take the view the Vatican tells them to take, like good little sheep.

Do you even try to read anymore? He said the view they all "should" be taking. And the Vatican will agree. All "good" catholics take the view the Vatican tells them to take, like good little sheep.

Why read when I can get the point I want to get across regardless of what is said. :wink:

Of course he did say should, (something I noticed the second time round, but I had already started), he never said good though. But hey no point going on when saying that good catholics will be taking this. But then the Vatican would be aware that not all catholics follow the same view that that express but whatever.

Catholic teaching on bioethics is based on the principle of unconditional respect for human life from conception to natural death

Riiiight. Should read "Catholic teaching on bioethics is based on the principle of unconditional respect for Catholic human life from conception to natural death"

he did say should, (something I noticed the second time round, but I had already started), he never said good though. But hey no point going on when saying that good catholics will be taking this. But then the Vatican would be aware that not all catholics follow the same view that that express but whatever.
I quite deliberately chose the words that I used in the OP, and felt no need to qualify them by differentiating between 'good' Catholics and any other kind. I'm well aware (as is the Vatican, as you rightly pointed out) that there are people who consider themselves to be Catholic but who do not espouse the same positions on <insert issue here> that the Vatican takes. Of course, one might question whether or not people who blatantly disregard the teachings and guidance of the Vatican should be regarded as Catholic at all, but that falls outside the scope of this thread.

This phenomenon, presumably, is one of the reasons that the Church has so rarely played the ex cathedra card that it decided to give itself in 1870, since doing so on matters such as this would alienate a lot of Catholics whilst at the same time making it ruinous for them to admit that they were wrong in the future. A more cynical view is that limiting the headcount label of 'Catholic' to those who religiously (no pun intended) follow Church teachings to the letter (as opposed to counting all those baptised into the Church long before they got to start thinking for themselves) would greatly reduce the apparent size of the Church - something that I am sure they really want to avoid.

This phenomenon, presumably, is one of the reasons that the Church has so rarely played the ex cathedra card that it decided to give itself in 1870, since doing so on matters such as this would alienate a lot of Catholics whilst at the same time making it ruinous for them to admit that they were wrong in the future. A more cynical view is that limiting the headcount label of 'Catholic' to those who religiously (no pun intended) follow Church teachings to the letter (as opposed to counting all those baptised into the Church long before they got to start thinking for themselves) would greatly reduce the apparent size of the Church - something that I am sure they really want to avoid.

That may be a good point and the reasons why these views expressed by the church that aren't "ex cathedra" are because they aren't really official teachings and allows other church leaders to express their views. Which is why you see church leaders (bishops and cardinals and even priests) expressing different views on various issues.

*Snip for length*

They make thier argument rather clear there, even if its a stupid one.

I'd be curious as to why they don't support surrogacy. It's still allowing for new life to be given a change.
they dont support non natural methods of conception any more than they accepts non natural methods of contraception.

its not a matter of wanting as many babies to be born as possible but of leaving the matter up to god.

in surrogacy there is no life to give a chance until you use medical intervention to create it.

they dont support non natural methods of conception any more than they accepts non natural methods of contraception.

its not a matter of wanting as many babies to be born as possible but of leaving the matter up to god.

in surrogacy there is no life to give a chance until you use medical intervention to create it.

But why don't they? Who do they think they are? (Thats a rhetorical question I know exactly who they think they are)

If God only wanted people to have children from the "conjugal act" between two married people than only married couples would have children.

If God was against us using contreceptives, they wouldn't exist; there are plenty of contraceptives to be found in nature itself.

If God didn't want people to have surragate births, or Invetro Fertilization, they simply would not work.

If God harbored half the views that the Vatican has harborerd he wouldn't be a God worth worshipping.

But why don't they? Who do they think they are? (Thats a rhetorical question I know exactly who they think they are)

If God only wanted people to have children from the "conjugal act" between two married people than only married couples would have children.

If God was against us using contreceptives, they wouldn't exist; there are plenty of contraceptives to be found in nature itself.

If God didn't want people to have surragate births, or Invetro Fertilization, they simply would not work.

If God harbored half the views that the Vatican has harborerd he wouldn't be a God worth worshipping.
huh?

because they are setting out a program of religious ethics not describing the way the world works.

huh?

because they are setting out a program of religious ethics not describing the way the world works.

I'm simply trying to say that
A) They don't make any real sense.
B) It shows me they are backwards, they want things to go back to how they were 2,000 years ago.
C) It proves how arrogant they are by pretending that they can speak for God.

I'm simply trying to say that
A) They don't make any real sense.
B) It shows me they are backwards, they want things to go back to how they were 2,000 years ago.
C) It proves how arrogant they are by pretending that they can speak for God.
i dont see what doesnt make sense about leaving life and death to god (as a principle)

speaking for god is what churches DO.

i dont see what doesnt make sense about leaving life and death to god (as a principle)

I do. Why leave it to someone who's going to stand there and observe, and not do anything? Seems to me God gave us the ability to help ourselves so we could, you know, help ourselves.


speaking for god is what churches DO.

Yes they do, and its not what they should be doing.

I do. Why leave it to someone who's going to stand there and observe, and not do anything? Seems to me God gave us the ability to help ourselves so we could, you know, help ourselves.



Yes they do, and its not what they should be doing.
yes but we have free will so that we can do bad things as well as good.

we need to have a way to figure out what good and bad IS in this new technological world. the church is issuing guidelines for catholics to follow that have a consistent moral basis.

you dont have to agree with it to see that it is consistent.

yes but we have free will so that we can do bad things as well as good.

we need to have a way to figure out what good and bad IS in this new technological world. the church is issuing guidelines for catholics to follow that have a consistent moral basis.

you dont have to agree with it to see that it is consistent.


Vatican City: Aborting babies = bad.
I agree

Vatican City: Having babies = Good...
I agree

... but only if they are born to two married adults (a man and a woman) through totally natural means.
I do not agree.

Give me a good reason why its morally wrong for a woman who has fertility problems to have a surrogate child, or to get the child implanted artificially. Its still the child of the parents, it was just helped along by the friendly Doctor. Is the child born some kind of soulless abomination? Is it going to chew its way out of the mother's womb and kill every person in the room? Is it significantly more likely to be a serial killer?

Come on Ashmoria, its a stupid suggestion that makes no sense. They should be worried about much more important things.

Vatican City: Aborting babies = bad.
I agree

Vatican City: Having babies = Good...
I agree

... but only if they are born to two married adults (a man and a woman) through totally natural means.
I do not agree.

Give me a good reason why its morally wrong for a woman who has fertility problems to have a surrogate child, or to get the child implanted artificially. Its still the child of the parents, it was just helped along by the friendly Doctor. Is the child born some kind of soulless abomination? Is it going to chew its way out of the mother's womb and kill every person in the room? Is it significantly more likely to be a serial killer?

Come on Ashmoria, its a stupid suggestion that makes no sense. They should be worried about much more important things.
of course it makes sense.

you not agreeing with it doesnt make it senseless.

it has a rational religious basis. as does every other church teaching on the subject of life and death.

that there are other rational religious bases that would end with a "ivf is just fine" policy doesnt negate the basis of this one.

of course it makes sense.

you not agreeing with it doesnt make it senseless.

it has a rational religious basis. as does every other church teaching on the subject of life and death.

that there are other rational religious bases that would end with a "ivf is just fine" policy doesnt negate the basis of this one.

Where is the rational basis?

Where is the rational basis?
conception should be done in the natural way as god designed it.

conception should be done in the natural way as god designed it.

And hence deny people the right to have children?

And hence deny people the right to have children?
god denies it, not the church.

do the ends always justifiy the means? nope.

god denies it, not the church.

do the ends always justifiy the means? nope.

I have never seen where it states that if there is a means to have children contrary to the natural way that is suddenly wrong. There are some pretty clear guidelines laid out in the bible, 10 of them actually, and not a single one could be interpreted to say that Invetro Fertilization is wrong. But then again when have the Leaders of the Catholic Church cared about them...

I have never seen where it states that if there is a means to have children contrary to the natural way that is suddenly wrong. There are some pretty clear guidelines laid out in the bible, 10 of them actually, and not a single one could be interpreted to say that Invetro Fertilization is wrong. But then again when have the Leaders of the Catholic Church cared about them...
given that neither ivf nor any other means of artificial conception were possible in biblican times what bible passages to you think makes it OK?

and...so what?...if you disagree with the catholic church's interpretation of god's law, dont follow them. join a church whose interpretation matches yours.

and...so what?...if you disagree with the catholic church's interpretation of god's law, dont follow them. join a church whose interpretation matches yours.

Or better yet don't be duped by anyone who claims to speak for God.

Or better yet don't be duped by anyone who claims to speak for God.
as is anyone's right.

and dont get all worked up over the edicts of the catholic church any more than you would of a local sect of snake handlers.

as is anyone's right.

and dont get all worked up over the edicts of the catholic church any more than you would of a local sect of snake handlers.

As a rule I get peeved by anyone trying to take away people's choices without good reasons.

As a rule I get peeved by anyone trying to take away people's choices without good reasons.
geez they arent taking away choices they are giving guidelines.

what do you think its going to happen to a catholic couple who gets ivf?

geez they arent taking away choices they are giving guidelines.

what do you think its going to happen to a catholic couple who gets ivf?

I don't know, but people are very often irrational. Maybe nothing will happen, maybe someone will flip out and excomunicate them, or burn down thier church, or house, or put sugar in the gas tank of thier car, or refuse to baptise the baby because its unnatural? Maybe it will get kidnapped and raised in a monestary in secret until its used as a human sacrifice to prevent the world from ending at 12:21 am on 12/21/12.

Ok, so I overreacted a bit. I am tired and bored; it seemed like a good thing to debate about and you obliged me :p.

They're mostly chaste (mostly) elderly European men. Do you really want to?
Well you could always copulate with the buildings, and not the people in it...

*Tries to imagine half human, half building children*

What I find odd is that they now stick catholics (that need IVF) in a catch-22 situation - It's a sin to use non-sexual ways for pregnancy and their god tells them they have to procreate.

Just remember people: if we can convince enough people to ignore it, the Vatican WILL go away.

What surpised me is that they approved any stem cell research much less the other items they approved off. That seems rather progessive for the Church. Still it is only guidelines and there is likely conservative catholics who are struck with horror that the church approved of any of it.

What surpised me is that they approved any stem cell research much less the other items they approved off. That seems rather progessive for the Church. Still it is only guidelines and there is likely conservative catholics who are struck with horror that the church approved of any of it.
what is horrifying about poking around in adult stem cells?

what is horrifying about poking around in adult stem cells?

Some people feel its messing with things man has no business messing around with and that it opens up pandora's box. There are other people feel it is an feel it is an offense against god to interfere with what he brought into existance. Me I am more of the opinion that sciencists tend to mess with things with out thinking wither they should be messing with such things.

Some people feel its messing with things man has no business messing around with and that it opens up pandora's box. There are other people feel it is an feel it is an offense against god to interfere with what he brought into existance. Me I am more of the opinion that sciencists tend to mess with things with out thinking wither they should be messing with such things.
the church isnt against medicine or science. but it is against using adult stem cells for cloning people.

Well being against cloning is something I'd call reasonable. From what I have read and heard, the clones they have made like dolly the sheep, have all devoloped serious heath problems.

*snip*

This is another example of why I'm no longer Catholic.

Vatican City: Aborting babies = bad.
I agree

Vatican City: Having babies = Good...
I agree

... but only if they are born to two married adults (a man and a woman) through totally natural means.
I do not agree.

Give me a good reason why its morally wrong for a woman who has fertility problems to have a surrogate child, or to get the child implanted artificially. Its still the child of the parents, it was just helped along by the friendly Doctor. Is the child born some kind of soulless abomination? Is it going to chew its way out of the mother's womb and kill every person in the room? Is it significantly more likely to be a serial killer?

You DO realize that we already have about seven times as many humans as earth can support and that feelings like that only make things worse, right?

Meh...Screw the Vatican...Ive never considered their opinions valid...and im sure the feelings mutual...

they dont support non natural methods of conception any more than they accepts non natural methods of contraception.

its not a matter of wanting as many babies to be born as possible but of leaving the matter up to god.

in surrogacy there is no life to give a chance until you use medical intervention to create it.
"Natural" is a word without a meaning; everything artificial is technically natural since it all goes back to nature. The distinction is rather arbitrary.

EDIT: And I think you're just trying to clarify their position, but I'm just trying to express mine at the opportunity.

"Natural" is a word without a meaning; everything artificial is technically natural since it all goes back to nature. The distinction is rather arbitrary.

EDIT: And I think you're just trying to clarify their position, but I'm just trying to express mine at the opportunity.
it does become arbitrary in its execution.

you can say "no ivf" but what about other medical procedures to aide conception? where are those lines drawn?

god denies it, not the church.
How do you know? Who gets to say what "god" approves?

How do you know? Who gets to say what "god" approves?
in this case, the church does.

i thought that was obvious.

its so much easier if you give past posts some kind of context....

if god doesnt want us to use artificial means of conception and someone is unable to conceive without them, then it is god's decision to leave them childless.

in this case, the church does.

i thought that was obvious.

its so much easier if you give past posts some kind of context....

if god doesnt want us to use artificial means of conception and someone is unable to conceive without them, then it is god's decision to leave them childless.
But why would this "god" (though I don't believe in god to begin with) then give us the ability to create those supposedly "artifical" means?

And are you saying church authorities' claims about what "god" wants are more valid than ours, or are you just saying they think so?

EDIT: And after this post, I might not have access to the computer for quite a while, so if I don't respond that's probably why...

But why would this "god" (though I don't believe in god to begin with) then give us the ability to create those supposedly "artifical" means?

And are you saying church authorities' claims about what "god" wants are more valid than ours, or are you just saying they think so?

EDIT: And after this post, I might not have access to the computer for quite a while, so if I don't respond that's probably why...
god does all kinds of shit that leaves us on the short end of the stick of life. i cant guess at his reasons.

all im saying is that the church has a point of view on life and death and that it is consistent and that the "no ivf" thing is a part of that consistency.

and that i dont see any reason for anyone to get all upset about it. following the guidelines of the catholic church for reproduction is optional.

Some people feel its messing with things man has no business messing around with and that it opens up pandora's box.

How does this apply to adult stem cell research any more than it applies to researching new drugs? Or new surgeries?

There are other people feel it is an feel it is an offense against god to interfere with what he brought into existance.

The Catholic Church isn't one of the ones that is opposed to all medical intervention.

Me I am more of the opinion that sciencists tend to mess with things with out thinking wither they should be messing with such things.

You'd be wrong. There certainly are scientists like that, but they are hardly in the norm. The ethical discussions on these things most often begin long before the technology is there and continue long after.


it does become arbitrary in its execution.

you can say "no ivf" but what about other medical procedures to aide conception? where are those lines drawn?

Apparently, it's all about the sex. As long as the sperm gets to the egg by swimming to it inside the woman, it's apparently all good (well, as long as the two are married).


But why would this "god" (though I don't believe in god to begin with) then give us the ability to create those supposedly "artifical" means?

Temptation.

It's the devil leading us to research such things. =)

Catholic Church= dated institution.