All those who miss out on the experience of having a child can hold out for a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Like the Catholic Church, I too wish the government would get its skates on, ignore the doctors who want a free hand at creating life in their labs with no regulation, and damn well legislate. For a country which professes to have so much respect for life, and so little tolerance for abortion, it’s very strange that doctors can mess around here as they please with fertilised eggs and embryos.
I’ve read with interest Josie Muscat’s remark that his business doesn’t freeze embryos, because it implants all fertilised embryos inside the customer’s womb. But that is a bad thing, too. He knows that any embryos in excess of five have next to no chance of survival, and that even figures as low as three are pushing it.
Also, as the doctor responsible for the Special Care Baby Unit at what was then Karin Grech Hospital pointed out during a televised discussion, the sudden influx of these twins, triplets and quadruplets provokes chaos at the state hospital, where they have to be cared for for weeks after a private hospital has created them in the first place. The private hospital in question has no special care baby unit, and produces the problem before passing it on to the state hospital.
Then again, unlike the Catholic Church, I don’t see anything wrong with IVF. If there are supportive couples who can’t have their own child by other means, then they should try this one, otherwise they will live to regret not having done so. Where I am in complete opposition to IVF is in the use of another man’s sperm or another woman’s eggs. It’s so distasteful, and has such scant regard for the child. It really shows that some people have no appreciation of the fact that sperm and eggs are not just sperm and eggs, but carry hundreds of thousands of years of the individual’s genetic heritage. You might as well adopt a child if you are going to do that. Indeed, an adopted child is by far the better option when you consider the future emotional minefield of having a child who is genetically hers but not his, or the other way round. But of course, you can’t legislate against something like this, just as you can’t legislate against a woman sleeping with a man other than her husband to conceive a child which she then passes off as his.
The Times, Tuesday, 13 January
Church ‘not open to IVF’
The Church can never accept artificial fertilisation, even if it does not involve harming, destroying, freezing or experimenting on the human embryo – and even if it is used by married couples who do not require third-party donations.”The union of the gamete should not take place in a lab or a test tube,” the president of the Theological Commission, Fr Hector Scerri said yesterday.
He was clarifying a statement issued by the Commission last Thursday in which it described the instances where artificial fertilisation should not be allowed. The statement was reported in an item entitled Church Leaves Door Slightly Open To IVF. Fr Scerri said the Church was open to IVF legislation, not IVF.
The Commission’s statement had said the embryo should not be used as a “piece of biological material” and should not be harmed, destroyed, frozen or experimented on, adding it should also not be used by unmarried couples or couples who require third-party donations.
Saint James Hospital director Josie Muscat had said his hospital did not freeze embryos because all the eggs that are fertilised are implanted into the woman, so the Church’s guidelines could and are being followed. But the statement did not specify that even if these safeguards were made, the Church remained against IVF because this went contrary to the natural process.
Therefore, while the Church is willing to participate in social dialogue about how IVF legislation should be introduced for it to be regulated, this would only apply to those who choose to act outside the Catholic faith.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Still, at least the church is not trying to ban it or even saying it should be banned but specifies that it is only laying down the law for practising Catholics.
It should now follow suit with divorce!
David:
Well, what the last sentence is saying is that their own members are strictly forbidden to even think about it and they want to participate in dialogue with non-members how they should do it.
[Daphne – That’s true, but then religion isn’t based on rational thinking.]
David – I think even in the case of divorce, the Church is of the same opinion – it is only laying down the law for practising Catholics – it is the state which legislates.
I don’t get it. They’re against IVF on the grounds that a sperm and an ovum meeting outside the human body is unnatural. But can’t this be extrapolated to not incubating premature babies as this is also unnatural?
I know it`s off topic but … There were also alot of discussions regarding research on embroys.
What do you think of this
NaturalNews Insider Alert (www.NaturalNews.com) newsletter
——————————————————————————–
Dear NaturalNews readers,
It’s a sad day for the future of the human race: A gang of self-congratulatory “God complex” doctors has announced they’ve created the world’s first “breast cancer gene-free baby” by throwing away fetuses until they found one without the BRCA1 gene. The level of medical madness and outright scientific quackery in this whole thing is beyond belief (the BRCA1 gene, for starters, doesn’t “cause” cancer in the first place).
But this playing God with viable fetuses does accomplish one thing: The unleashing of a new era of eugenics upon the human race, where humans are now going to be considered sub-class citizens based entirely on their genetic profile. (Time to watch the film GATTACA once again…)
Read my rebuttal to this outrageous medical development here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/025291.html
I think these sort of experiments make many people condemn things like stem cells research.
Chris, even taking antibiotics, blood transfusions, organ donations, and curing diarrhoea are unnatural. Heqq, jekk il-Mulej iridek tmut hekk, hekk se tmut…
Why don’t we throw out all medical advances of the last century, as they are unnatural? Why don’t we throw out all scientific and social advancement? God intended us to live as cave-men, right, so let’s live like that. How silly!
And who actually cares what the church thinks? Why do we even waste time debating what these people think and dictate is beyond me.
Anglie – there are many many people who do care what the church thinks! What people are debating or rather demanding is that church and state should be completely separate. What really irritates me is the `holier than thou` who seem to smile at everything and even if something really tragic happens remain smiling and saying it`s God`s will and He works in mysterious ways.
[Daphne – Yes, they make me mad, too. As if terminal cancer or the death of a child can ever be ‘God’s will’.]
Daphne is this “God’s will ” mentality of Arab origin? We say in Maltese “jekk Alla jrid” (God willing) and the Arabs say InshAllah.
[Daphne – I imagine so, as fatalism runs contrary to the essential Christian doctrine of free will and responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, or inaction. But then again, not necessarily so, as the idea of God or the gods ‘allowing’ things to happen is present in many different cultures in the present and through the ages. We also use mnalla and j’alla, which invokes God: the Spanish ojalá (que), and the Portuguese oxalá (que) are derived from the Muslim Arabic invocation pronounced ya Alla (oh God), which we retain intact in Maltese.]
[Daphne – Yes, they make me mad, too. As if terminal cancer or the death of a child can ever be ‘God’s will’.]
Of course it can. Remember what Melchett said: “As private parts to the gods are we; they play with us for their sport.”
I see absolutely nothing wrong with infertile couples seeking IVF treatment. I think babies conceived in this way are more often than not conceived with real love, because many, many sacrifices are involved. Besides the huge expense, the mother has to go through a battery of medication which include daily injections for three months.
This is not desperation to have a child, but determination and no couple will take this lightly. I wonder how many of us who have been conceived naturally came with love. I reckon that 70% of children conceived this way came by mistake. I know of so many couples who “mechanically” sleep with each other for the sake of conceiving a child, when they would have stopped loving each other but do so for the sake of having a child. On the other hand I know of one couple who were infertile and sought IVF, had their child, and it brings me joy to see them so much in love after many years of marriage.
If science is there, then why shouldn’t it be available to give these couples that little push? Rather than living in desperation of not having had the child one would have so much wanted.
I agree with you, Daphne that other means such as sperm donor, known or unknown and surrogate motherhood are distasteful indeed.
Uomo propone e Dio dispone. It’s not just the Arabs.
Church teachings or dictatorship apart, there is no such thing as an absolute right to have children. We should be more concerned about the right of each and every individual to
(a) be conceived as naturally as possible – i.e. without resorting to grossly over invasive fertility “treatments” because despite all the so-called medical “advances” simple, old fashioned natural conception coupled with responsible parenthood, healthy life style AND screening of potential parents BEFORE conception are still the best methods to maximise the probability that a child will enjoy long term physical, mental and emotional health.
and
(b) be brought up in an adequately safe, loving, healthy and emotionally balanced environment by SUITABLE adults and not just ANY adult who wants to flaunt the fact that he/she “has children”
Tell me all those of you who promote highly invasive fertility “treatments”, just how many couples do you know that begot a healthy child (who suffered from no long term health or behaviour problems) even though they resorted to highly invasive fertility “treatments”?
Or is it totally OK these days to have a child with “special needs” because the state provides so much free help at over taxed tax payers’ expense and/or because there are so many NGOs and private companies masquerading as non-profit organisations whose declared mission is to help those with special needs and their families and/or because handicapped children in Malta were labelled “angels” around 40 years ago?
This is precisely the kind of situation that increases resentment against those with expensive “special needs” as well as the parents and paramedics selfish enough to beget them in the first place.
It does not take rocket science reasoning to realize that although certain congenital handicaps just cannot be explained many congenital handicaps can – and indeed should – be prevented.
We should be educating our children to take parenthood seriously and strive to avoid having a child with “special needs” as was the norm among responsible families in Malta till about 30 years ago. To-day we are expected not to even dare to bring up the subject for fear of offending somebody and/or because it is considered by some to be politically incorrect and/or because somebody might imply negative eugenic connotations.