[Nemesis6]

(CNN) -- An official with the Vatican criticized the decision to award the Nobel prize for medicine to British doctor Robert G. Edwards for his work on in vitro fertilization, Italy's official news agency ANSA reported Tuesday.

Ignazio Carrasco de Paula, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said giving the award to Edwards was "completely inappropriate," according to the news agency.
He said Edwards' work had created a market for human eggs and created problems of embryos being frozen, the news agency said.

Edwards, known as the "father of the test tube baby," won the Nobel Prize for medicine on Monday.
His contributions to developing in vitro fertilization (IVF) "represent a milestone in the development of modern medicine," the award committee said.

"As early as the 1950s, Edwards had the vision that IVF could be useful as a treatment for infertility," which affects about 10 percent of all couples worldwide, the committee said.


"He worked systematically to realize his goal, discovered important principles for human fertilization, and succeeded in accomplishing fertilization of human egg cells in test tubes (or more precisely, cell culture dishes). His efforts were finally crowned by success on 25 July, 1978, when the world's first 'test tube baby' was born," the committee said.

His work has led to the birth of about four million babies, the committee said in praising his work.

The prize is worth 10 million Swedish kronor (about $1.5 million).

Born in Manchester, England, in 1925, Edwards is based at Cambridge University in England.
The announcement marked the beginning of a week of prizes, to be awarded for physics, chemistry, literature and peace. The prize in economics will be announced next Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/05/sweden.nobel.medicine/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I'll just kind of sum it up: Pedophilia = non-issue. The regression of science = SRS church beezwax! 

[NGTM-1R]

I think they had a point, but went about it completely wrong. There were doubtless more interesting and more changing advances than IVF.

[karajorma]

Bear in mind that the idiot who said this did state that it was his own personal opinion. So he's moronic but let's not assume the rest of the Vatican agree with him.

[Bobboau]

except i'm pretty sure they do, last I heard catholics are against IVf because it's "unnatural".

[Galemp]

In other news, a man sitting on a solid gold throne in his own personal kingdom teaches us how to be more like Jesus.

[General Battuta]

In other news, a man sitting on a solid gold throne in his own personal kingdom teaches us how to be more like Jesus.

Okay that was a pretty good burn.

[Titan]

In other news, a man sitting on a solid gold throne in his own personal kingdom teaches us how to be more like Jesus.

Okay that was a pretty good burn.

Don't forget the giant flowing robe that you could easily hide a small child under. Or the fact that he's a vampire.

[Flipside]

except i'm pretty sure they do, last I heard catholics are against IVf because it's "unnatural".

Says the Pope whilst travelling around in a 4-wheeled box powered by creatures that died before some religions think the universe even existed...

[NGTM-1R]

except i'm pretty sure they do, last I heard catholics are against IVf because it's "unnatural".

As far as I know the Catholic Church doesn't actually have an opinion on IVF. Certainly the pastor at Saint Gregory didn't express one when I asked back when I still was religious.

[General Battuta]

except i'm pretty sure they do, last I heard catholics are against IVf because it's "unnatural".

As far as I know the Catholic Church doesn't actually have an opinion on IVF. Certainly the pastor at Saint Gregory didn't express one when I asked back when I still was religious.

Brief Google says otherwise.

In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos.

References:
1. Donum vitae (Respect for Human Life), Instruction on respect for human life in its origin, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987. (Available from Catholic Insight under the title "Vatican, High Tech"). Note: see also "Moratorium" in News in Brief, under Great Britain, p. ????

2. Encyclical letter Humanae vitae, No. 14, AAS 60 (1968), 488-489.

3. Donum vitae.

[Topgun]

I am not catholic but this probably has more to do with the fact that in IVF, a lot of fertilized eggs are destroyed.

[General Battuta]

I am not but this probably has more to do with the fact that in IVF, a lot of fertilized eggs are destroyed.

Probably.

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

[Sushi]

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

 

If you arrange a process, it's not exactly "random and unintentional," is it? I don't see how you can get around the intentionality.

[General Battuta]

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

 

If you arrange a process, it's not exactly "random and unintentional," is it? I don't see how you can get around the intentionality.

Here, I'm gonna build an artificial womb, and every month my machine is going to feed a fertilized embryo in and we'll see if it catches. If it does, we'll move it to the lucky momma.

Unfortunately it's gonna fail and destroy the embryo 80% of the time. Unavoidable side effect.

[Sushi]

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

 

If you arrange a process, it's not exactly "random and unintentional," is it? I don't see how you can get around the intentionality.

Here, I'm gonna build an artificial womb, and every month my machine is going to feed a fertilized embryo in and we'll see if it catches. If it does, we'll move it to the lucky momma.

Unfortunately it's gonna fail and destroy the embryo 80% of the time. Unavoidable side effect.

Still avoidable by not building/using the machine. It no more destroys intentionality than randomly distributing blanks and real bullets to the firing squad.

[iamzack]

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

 

If you arrange a process, it's not exactly "random and unintentional," is it? I don't see how you can get around the intentionality.

Here, I'm gonna build an artificial womb, and every month my machine is going to feed a fertilized embryo in and we'll see if it catches. If it does, we'll move it to the lucky momma.

Unfortunately it's gonna fail and destroy the embryo 80% of the time. Unavoidable side effect.

Still avoidable by not building/using the machine. It no more destroys intentionality than randomly distributing blanks and real bullets to the firing squad.

God already built the machine. It's called the female body. Guess God's a murderer.

[General Battuta]

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

 

If you arrange a process, it's not exactly "random and unintentional," is it? I don't see how you can get around the intentionality.

Here, I'm gonna build an artificial womb, and every month my machine is going to feed a fertilized embryo in and we'll see if it catches. If it does, we'll move it to the lucky momma.

Unfortunately it's gonna fail and destroy the embryo 80% of the time. Unavoidable side effect.

Still avoidable by not building/using the machine. It no more destroys intentionality than randomly distributing blanks and real bullets to the firing squad.

So you advocate universal abstinence, then? 

See, you've fallen into my clever little trap!

[StarSlayer]

I am not but this probably has more to do with the fact that in IVF, a lot of fertilized eggs are destroyed.

Probably.

Unfortunate that under these criteria human reproduction also has to be considered a mortal sin. (yes there is a greater element of intentionality to destruction of embryos in IVF, but one could probably trivially arrange a process in which that IVF destruction was just as random and unintentional)

See if you cook a fancy dinner turn down the lights and play some Barry White I would argue there's some element of intentionality as well. 

[Sushi]

So you advocate universal abstinence, then? 

See, you've fallen into my clever little trap!

The "normal" way is also certainly intentional, but I think we've drifted a bit in terms of exactly what is intended. They're both intentional in the sense that you are intending to make babies, but in the IVF scenario you also intend to do so in a way that could be considered playing God. I'm not Catholic either, but I'm pretty sure that the main philosophical difference is that one way you're using the system "as designed," the other you're "playing God" and trying to hack the system to get the results you want.

[General Battuta]

So you advocate universal abstinence, then? 

See, you've fallen into my clever little trap!

The "normal" way is also certainly intentional, but I think we've drifted a bit in terms of exactly what is intended. They're both intentional in the sense that you are intending to make babies, but in the IVF scenario you also intend to do so in a way that could be considered playing God. I'm not Catholic either, but I'm pretty sure that the main philosophical difference is that one way you're using the system "as designed," the other you're "playing God" and trying to hack the system to get the results you want.

The original assertion was that IVF was a sin because many fertilized embryos were destroyed.

I suggested an artificial IVF system that destroys fertilized embryos at the same rate and with the same degree of intentionality as a real human womb. It's trying to waste no embryos, but unavoidably, it happens to munch 80% of them.

Would the Catholic Church accept an IVF system of this design as non-sinful, given that it performs with the same failure rate and the same degree of intentionality as a human reproductive system?

You suggest that the difference is not one of embryo waste, but of 'playing God'. If playing god means giving otherwise childless couples a chance to experience the joy of babbies, I think we should play God.