online shoes store xkshoes,here check the latest yeezy shoes click here.

know more about 2020 nike and adidas soccer cleats news,check shopcleat and wpsoccer.

April 28, 2000

U.S. Senate
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.  20510

Subject:  Additional Ethics Information on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

Dear Senator,

    As a student and amateur educator of Theology, Human Ethics and Philosophy, I would like to explain my position on the issue of Embryonic Stem-Cell research.  True, in-vitro fertilization is contrary to the Natural Law [1].  There are mitigating circumstances that would make the completion of the implantation process a viable alternative in the situation discussed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee.

    I believe it better for the implantation process to be completed to save the continuity of the distinctive life within each living embryo.  Since the original violation of the Natural Law occurred with the unnatural fertilization of the embryo, the subsequent use of that embryo begins a new moral question.  Three scenarios become possible:

    First, the embryo could be used for the purposes of Stem-Cell research.  This scenario intends the destruction of human life for the temporary benefit of prolonging another.  This scenario becomes a violation of the Natural Law by virtue of the direct intent to destroy human life for the benefit of another.  The ends do not justify the means, basically.

    Second, the embryo could be destroyed so that its captured life may reach its intended destiny of death, which all living beings are destined.  This scenario becomes a violation of the Natural Law by virtue of one acting as the direct cause of death.

    This third scenario is of particular importance because it was assumed to be an inviable alternative within the subcommittee dialogue due to its apparent violation of the Natural Law.  The third scenario is that of introducing the fertilized embryos into the wombs of adoptive mothers for the purpose of continuing their existing lives.  (This scenario assumes that no additional unnaturally fertilized embryos be added to the existing count.  Such additions are in themselves contrary to the Natural Law as shown below [1].)  This scenario is not contrary to the Natural Law because the unnatural fertilization (which is a violation) has already occurred.  The intent of allowing the introduction of the live embryos to adoptive mothers is that of allowing human life to continue on its natural course.  This scenario acts to correct the previous violation of the Natural Law and is thus not a violation of the Natural Law in itself.

    A good analogy would be that of an unwed couple having a child that they decided to abandon.  Such is a violation of the Natural Law because of its disregard for God�s plan for stability within the sexual relationship (outside of marriage) and the maltreatment of another human life.  In this example, the moral solution would be to give the child to an adoptive family.  Similarly, it is also a moral solution to implant an abandoned embryo into the womb of an adoptive mother so that it may continue its life as would be intended with the adopted child.

    Another analogy would be a medical procedure that extracted a fertilized embryo from a blockage in the mother�s fallopian tube so as to implant the embryo into the mother�s womb and save the embryo�s life.  Again, such implantation is moral by its intent to protect and secure human life.  The same principle applies to the completion of the implantation process with abandoned fertilized embryos in storage.

    In conclusion, I believe the Natural Law teaches that the in-vitro fertilization process is immoral, but the implantation process is not with the main intention of saving the embryo's life.  I also believe that the scenario of completing the implantation process for those abandoned fertilized embryos that exist is the one alternative that the Natural Law urges be done for the protection and reverence of human life.

Sincerely,

Steve S.
Editor of www.CatholicQandA.com

[1] In-vitro fertilization is contrary to the Natural Law for two main reasons:

    First and most importantly, the Church finds the methods used to be destructive and/or disrespectful to human life after it has begun at conception.  Current, accepted methods require the fertilization of several embryos that are watched as they develop.  As the level of each embryo�s development is made known, only the one embryo that develops best is used while the others are destroyed or suspended in storage by nitrogen freeze.  This destruction and irreverent treatment of human life is the greatest violation found in relation to the Natural Law.

    The second reason is that it is an unnecessary extraction of the egg and sperm to be used for an unnatural form of fertilization.  Instead of one�s life being started in the course of a loving embrace between one�s father and mother for the natural purpose of expanding that love through a growing family, in-vitro fertilization forms the conception in an insensitive, cold environment similar to that of a scientific experiment.  Such an environment reduces the miracle of human life to a mere commodity.  The natural process of conception is usually done with a particularly natural, artistic beauty.  That beauty becomes vacant in the context of in-vitro fertilization.  Human life must not be treated like a piece of medical equipment or a piece of body tissue.  The individual identity of that life must be recognized.  Every life deserves recognition as a sacred miracle and thus should be generated within its natural temple�his or her mother.  Any valid form of fertility treatment must co-exist with the act of love-making and produce fertilization within the mother�s body.  It�s one thing to aid a miracle, it�s another thing to force it.

---

Return to Home Page