Latest News on Stem-Cell ResearchFollow

Quick question -- what's the "F" in IVF stand for? Second question (a tougher one) -- what's the "IV" stand for in IVF and what does it translate to? Third question -- What is the common term for IVF?

So, in finding the Church's published stance explictly on artificial fertilization, I have embarassed myself in finding the Church's explicit stance on artificial fertilization. Boy, is my face red.Ah, "presumably". Because one would think that, if the Church was opposed to IVF on the grounds of excess embyros, they would say so in their previous rejection explicitly of the process. Of course, if we all listened to the Church's stance on the procedure itself (based on marital action), there'd be no excess IVF embryos to worry about caring for. For that matter, if IVF produced no excess embryos or if every embryo was "adopted" or if some other circumstance made the embryo:birth rate for IVF 1:1, the Church would still be just as opposed to IVF as it is today.

Your thinking is that of me saying "I am against kidnapping little girls and I am against feeding their strangled corpses to wild dogs" and you saying "Jophiel is obviously against kidnapping little girls because their strangled corpses may be fed to wild dogs!"

Funny how that works. But it's nifty that you've given up on every one of your major arguments and ran away from every request for actual data to back the claims you keep making and are reduced to squabbling about this

Edited, Jun 14th 2007 6:03pm by Jophiel

Well, you wouldn't. then again, you also believe that one woulkd respond to a "trick question" from a reporter by giving lengthy elaborations upon your response. I think we've established that what Gbaji thinks would happen in any given circumstance is whatever will help Gbaji's case the most.No, I'm saying that the Church's objection to IVF isn't based on the excess embryos.

Just as, while being eaten by wild dogs would add insult to injury for someone and I'm strongly opposed to feeding corpses to said canines, my basic objection to kidnappings and murder isn't based on what may potentially happen to the corpse. If you were to guarantee that every kidnapping/murder victim would be buried properly in hallowed ground, I'd be no less opposed to kidnapping and murder than I am right now.

Likewise, while the Church is opposed to destroying embryos, their basic objection to IVF is not the existance of excess embryos but rather the issue of said embryos represents yet more insult to injury. As I previously stated, even if every IVF procedure represented a guarenteed childbirth, the Church would continue to oppose IVF. Therefore, and this was obvious from the beginning, your statement that the Church's opposition to IVF is based on the creation of excess embryos is simply wrong. Shit, even your stupid Wiki quote was smart enough to put the cite mark after the quote from the Vatican regarding natural conception and before the bit about excess embryos. If Wikipedia can amage to noodle this stuff out, it shouldn't be that hard for you.

So, while you might try to finally score a point in this little debate by calling it "wriggling" to accept that the Vatican is actually against IVF for the very reasons that it says in the "Why we're against artifical fertilization" section, I'm feeling pretty good about my argument. Once again though, your vain attempts to finally get a tiny victory through minutia continue to amuse me greatly.

Edited to add that, even if the Church's total stance against IVF was based upon the excess embryos, it wouldn't have affected my "ethical" stance one bit. For the -nth time, my original statement was that I hadn't heard a reason why ESC research is worse than fire. The Church is equally opposed to both research and fire. While I might not agree with them, at least they're not being hypocritical about it and wish to end IVF entirely. If Bush & Co. were actually scared for the baby embryos, they'd be on more solid ground to work at banning IVF entirely than taking the hypocritical stance that research is a greater sin than incineration.

Edited, Jun 14th 2007 10:19pm by Jophiel