Bioethics message lost in Vatican's "credibility gap"

Sometimes it is good for a story to get lost.

The Bioethics message is hopelessly flawed, as it ignores the fact that personhood and the soul cannot occur until gastrulation. If the soul is still regarded as the driving impetus to development - or even the energy that implements the software in human DNA - it is clearly present after gastrulation and not before (since there is no directed development before that point.

Aside from this basic flaw, a concern over Eugenics is admirable - especially in respect for the reproductive freedom of those who would be considered flaw for racial reasons (truth in packaging, I come from a long line of people with a predeliction for alcoholism and I would not want the family to be prevented from breeding without interference under some eugenic mandate).

Let me deal with the five concerns:

1. Genetic engineering may compromise human freedom by hard-wiring people toward certain behaviors, attitudes, and life choices. Critics often invoke C.S. Lewis' famous work "The Abolition of Man," in which he argued that the first generation to master genetic technology would become the architect of succeeding generations, thus eradicating "man" in the sense of a free rational agent.

Answer: If people are hardwired by their neurobiology, whether they are engineered or not makes no difference. Many neuroscientists believe that we are all "hardwired" and always have been. Coping with that hardwiring is the challenge of finding freedom.

2. Children may be subject to new forms of exploitation, such as the phenomenon of "savior babies" -- offspring deliberately conceived in order to provide genetic materials for siblings or other family members, obviously without informed consent.

Answer: This happens now without genetic manipulation. It is a concern for medical ethics generally. The issue is exploitation - not the means by which it is accomplished. It is no more savory when the child is conceived through normal means.

3. "Genetic profiling" could lead to new forms of discrimination in health care, insurance, employment, housing, and other sectors, as the rights of genetic "undesirables" are progressively curtailed.

Answer: One need not "genetically profile" someone to discriminate against them based upon their health conditions. It happens all the time - especially in pre-employment health screenings and pre-existing condition clauses. These are ethical issues which need to be dealt with through legislation and health care reform irregardless of the ability to genetically profile.

4. The high cost of genetic enhancement will likely mean that only the rich will be able to afford it. As a result, inequality will be deliberately encoded in our genes -- a prospect some refer to as "genetic apartheid". The children of the rich will not only be richer, but stronger, faster, better-looking, and smarter.

Answer: Enhancement is either good or it isn't. If it is good, then the inequality problem can be - and should be - dealt with through health care reform. There are many procedures the poor cannot get. This should stop. Again, this is a separate issue.

5. Genetic selection may disrupt human ecology. One already sees this potential in India and China, where widespread use of cheap ultrasound technology has led parents to abort female children at a much higher rate because they're perceived as less desirable. The natural sex ratio is about 105 boys for 100 girls, but in India today it's 113 boys for every 100 girls, and in some regions it's as high as 156 boys per 100 girls. In China, the sex ratio has gone as high as 120 boys for every 100 girls, which among other things could mean that a fifth of Chinese men won't be able to marry for lack of available mates.

Answer: This is infanticide by another name and it is a problem. However, the technology of genetic science is not the problem but human attitudes toward females. Eventually, this will be self-correcting as the folly of seeking only male children will become evident in a generation. If the Church is really concerned about making a statement about the worth of women, perhaps it should ORDAIN A FEW TO THE PRIESTHOOD and CONSECRATE SOME ABBESSES AS BISHOPS.

It should be taken as a given that no matter what the Vatican does some people will oppose it just because it comes from the Vatican. Therefore, thinking, compassionate people who put God first must avoid invoking Vatican authority when disputing other thinking, compassionate people who believe that science has the answers to human problems.

The reasoning behind Vatican directives such as no IVF is soundly rooted even if the scenarios of disregarding the directive tend toward alarmist fantasy. We cannot truly love ourselves and our neighbors if we are obsessed with eradicating what we perceive to be human faults and shortcomings.

Life's challenges should be embraced, not eradicated. Trees need to be buffeted by wind in order to grow straight and tall. Likewise people need personal challenges in order to become their best selves.

Many times, as we distill our thoughts, we are bumped and battered by the contradictions in our own thinking. Well, we're better at noticing the contradictions in others thinking... But to me the church is an important and strong voice in bumping up against people's thinking about sexuality, abortion, war, the death penalty, marriage between same sex partners. Gee, look at that short list. There are times I agree with the church, times I don't. But nowhere does the church look sillier than when it comes to its' stance on birth control, condoms and consistent life ethic.

What if suddenly every Christian took seriously the obligation to care for every child born on the face of the earth? And furthermore to care for the earth? We would see ourselves torn between some situations of equivalent good.

In the real hierarchical thinking of the world implicity the children of Europe and America are "more important" than the children of third world nations and the middle east. Thats a strong statement and probably more than one person is reacting viscerally to it. But, what are your standards for what your child or grandchild should be able to access? Do you implicitly accept that the same should be a standard for the children of Africa, of Iraq, of Iran, of Palestine?

What about the irresponsible over-burdening of persons upon the earth? If we are stewards of the earth, how is this okay?

I think it is these inconsistencies that renders the vatican statements less effective than they could be.

And BTW, I think genetic manipulation and IVF and alot of that technology is an example of Pandora's box already open. It's hard to discount the joy of people who couldn't conceive receiving a much loved child through this technology. I think our far greater moral task is to think about how to distribute essential health care to all rather than incredibly high end care to some and nothing to others.

God is the Giver of Life!

GOD is the Creator of LIFE!

Man, through the infinite magesty of God's creation of LIFE, knows how to put the necessary things together for the actual creation of this thing called an actual human being.

No matter how many times a mother goes in for an in vitro fertilization if God does not want this baby to be it will NOT be! I believe that God allows man to see the inhumanities to these precious human beings through the births of that woman in California who had conceived eight babies at the same time! THE DOCTORS WANTED her to abort some of those viable Infants. But She said NO!

I just wonder how many of us would have said NO!

I read somewhere that there is a "religious" gene. I presuppose that there is a "catholic" gene as well. I look forward to the day when genetic profiling will be able to eradicate catholics, which will free the world from a rigid and obsolete world-view. Bring on genetics!

I’m in my early 30s, grew up Catholic (family of more than 10 children) and worked for the Catholic Church. I continue to pay for COBRA benefits while now working for a different nonprofit. I pay $446 per month for health insurance which covers no infertility diagnosis or treatment. Being one of a large family myself, it is devastating to be unable to become pregnant again naturally. I had never taken birth control pills before beginning treatment for infertility. How many unhealthy people am I supporting monthly by my health insurance payment, many whose health problems are their own fault? I have no other regular medical needs, save periodic eye exams.

I have read about Catholics advocating for the Creighton Model System of natural family planning for treating infertility. What answer does natural family planning offer to men who lack vas deferens or women with fallopian tube damage? Until the Catholic Church comes out in full force in support of funding for research in reproductive organ transplant (not including ovaries or testes) the general public can assume The Church is not serious about supporting natural family planning for those who have reproductive challenges that prevent them from conceiving through sexual intercourse.

The Catholic Church response to families experiencing infertility has turned me away from the Catholic Church, in that it is so willing to advocate funding (private and public) for everyone else's children's needs, regardless of how many they have, how fit they are to act as parents, or whether they are contributing to providing for their own families, but I have been told in person by a prominent Catholic bioethicist that to conceive children through IVF is a grave evil, a sin for which I'd have to make a good confession. (Then, assumedly, all would be forgiven, seemingly on par with repentant women confessing to aborting their child). “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. I have procreated with my spouse using the two embryos we created. And I'm actually happy about it.” Does that sound Christlike?

It is hilarious to read about how many Catholics are ignorant about IVF and believe that for any couple to undergo the procedure at least one embryo must be destroyed. And how many Catholics willingly give up the possibility of becoming biological parents, to follow “Church teaching” while how many others undergo IVF or other unnatural procedures but still fill the pews on Sunday? (I have close experiences with families in both categories). Reading public opinion about IVF regulation and adopting guidelines similar to those for parents seeking to adopt, I truly wonder whether the adoption industry feels threatened by infertile couples being able at last to procreate, and whether taxpayers fear that if infertile couples are helped to become parents, then taxpayers will end up footing more expenses for children in the foster care system who otherwise might have been adopted by infertile couples.

Isn’t it illogical that the Catholic Church would prefer me to adopt frozen embryos that have no biological connection to my son and his father (whose enormous Catholic family, ironically, has been active for decades in the right to life movement), over creating embryos that would be our biological offspring? Why should any Catholic that might need IVF to procreate be stigmatized and told their only moral options are to adopt someone else’s child, whether born or in embryo state? Isn’t that akin to punishing the infertile for the irresponsibility of other parents who created more embryos, or children, than they could, or would, provide for as parents? If Catholics are so gravely concerned about all the embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen, why isn’t the Church recruiting Catholic women by the thousands to donate womb space to bring these embryos to life as infants? How many Catholic husbands would support their wives’ selfless decision to become surrogate mothers to these life-suspended embryos? And then who will raise all these babies?

If the U.S. government wants to regulate how many embryos are implanted in each IVF cycle, they should mandate that all private insurance cover the procedure. I find it amusing to read about people advocating for mental health screening of women undergoing IVF but I’ve read no one suggesting mental health screening for all women, regardless of current number of children, marriage status or income, before they chose to become pregnant. Truly, doesn’t all reproduction represent a facet of narcissism, whether parents have one or fourteen children?

Would it be considered God's will for a woman to become infertile through an act of rape? What about the Catholic women who do not have thousands to spend, out of pocket (as no insurance through a Catholic organization will fund infertility diagnosis, much less treatment), seeking out NFP doctors out of state and taking off weeks or even months of work to relocate to where they are to have their infertility diagnosed? What if they are counseled by their local RE o have their fallopian tubes removed, to prevent tubal pregnancy were they to undergo IVF? Once again, it is low-income women who suffer here. Does the Catholic Church refuse to support lung transplants for smokers who, say, made the decision to smoke? Of course they don’t. And the risks of smoking are well-known. Yet the Catholic Church is not at the forefront of reproductive organ transplant to restore fertility for those whose organs are damaged by genetics or environment.

I’m sorry to have such trouble understanding how the Catholic Church can sympathize with and forgive women who have chosen to have abortions – literally have innocent life ripped out of them – and welcome them back to church, and whomever they choose to bring with them (current spouse, children who may never know about their murdered sibling), yet one of the Catholic Church’s prominent bioethicists tells me my siblings who with their spouses have a number of children through IVF, utilizing all the embryos they created, have committed “a grave evil” and need to make a “good confession”. Forgive the murderers and pedophiles and self-sterilizers and welcome them back into the fold.

In the broader picture, where is the pro-life uproar over starving children in Africa? Does the Catholic Church have a well-recognized NFP presence in third world countries? Is it God’s will that destitute parents continue to procreate and divide the precious few resources they have to feed more new babies? Why aren’t they being investigated for child abuse if they can’t even feed their own children? Why don’t international authorities remove those children from their homes and redistribute them to people with financial resources?

And, on the snowflake situation end, what is to keep a couple from creating dozens of embryos solely for the selfish purpose of placing them up for adoption? Where does the line of narcissism get drawn? If we understand Suleman’s situation as media has reported it, she transferred 36 embryos, of which 14 grew into children. On record she said she has given a chance at life to all embryos she created. Wouldn’t it seem like the Catholic Church, in promoting embryo adoption, may also encourage future embryo creators to attempt to create, and donate, as many as they can for purposes of spreading their own DNA further than the amount of children they themselves want to raise and financially support? What is to keep a couple from creating dozens of embryos solely for the selfish purpose of placing them up for adoption? Where does the line of narcissism get drawn? If we understand Suleman’s situation as media has reported it, she transferred 36 embryos, of which 14 grew into children. On record she said she has given a chance at life to all embryos she created.

While we have our hope and change president in office, I hope he acknowledges, along with the thousands of women seeking to destroy their fetuses, the thousands of women and men in this country that could become loving, self-sufficient parents, and would only create embryos that they would transfer to the womb for a chance at life, but who lack $12,000 to randomly spend on repeated IVF cycles. Having worked for years advocating for the rights of the poor, and thus finding myself primarily in that income bracket, I have become more and more cynical about our country and how public funds reward irresponsible behavior, with women, and men, knowing they can naturally procreate on the governments’ dime without having to seek permission from anyone. (And how many government jobs are built upon people making poor choices, such as social workers and prison staff? How many more teachers could countries employ if they didn't have to pay for staff at welfare offices and prisons?)

Personally, I think a new parent needing government assistance should have the right to choose guaranteed childcare over guaranteed housing and food, as with stable childcare, a parent prioritizes their child’s physical and developmental needs and stability over the parent’s comfort. And, we assume, most parents had something to eat, and somewhere to lie at night, before they became parents.

For just one example of benefits abuse, check out the Times UK article February 14, Obama Warned Over Welfare Spendathon:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5733499.ece

"In Wisconsin, the state that forged a pioneering path in welfare reforms in the 1990s, residents were astonished by a newspaper investigation that disclosed that a $340m (£236m) programme offering taxpayer-financed child care to low-income working parents was riddled with fraud and expensive loopholes.
In one case, a family of four sisters who had 17 children between them put all of them together, took it in turns to babysit them and over the past three years claimed $540,000 (£374,000) in perfectly legal state childcare subsidies."

"Perfectly legal" for taxpayer funds to pay low-income women to stay at home with their own children. How many mothers in two-parent households would love to stay at home with their own children but must actually work outside the home to help provide for their families?

While the Nadya Suleman case in many respects is tragic, it does bring to glaring light the desperation of women, even those of low-income, to become mothers through such an expensive procedure, and the reality of the basic injustice shown by those who advocate for taxpayer funding of abortions but not taxpayer funding of fertility treatments for women that meet certain basic requirements for health and income.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my frustration and sadness. It would seem to me that the Catholic Church would gain more credibility in the IVF/eugenics argument if it clearly distinguished between couples using their own embryos, and ultimately transferring all those they create, and the other extremes of manufacturing more embryos than you would give life to, or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for the express purpose of selecting gender and other physical characteristics of potential children.

I have read much lately about the Catholic Church advocating for Catholics experiencing infertility to seek out physicians trained in NaPro Technology. I have insurance through a Diocese. Would this insurance pay for infertility diagnosis from a physician trained in NaPro Technology? If so, why aren't a list of these local physicians given to every Catholic Church employee of child-bearing age?

The Creighton Model website is:

http://www.creightonmodel.com/index.html

Thank you in advance to anyone that can answer this question.