Provas da Existência de Deus

Começa aos 2m e 30s

State of Marriage - Raymond Arroyo with Dr. Robert George

Entrevista começa aos 9m e 11s

Interview begins at 9m and 11s

New Study Confirms Overwhelming Death Rate of IVF Human Embryos

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

DENVER, Colorado, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A report by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) on a study of IVF "efficiency" states that just 7.5 percent of all artificially fertilized embryos will go on to become live-born children.

“It should surprise no one that the vast majority of sperm and eggs never get together to even begin the fertilization process,” said Dr. Robert W. Rebar, Executive Director of the ASRM, in a press release. “But, it is very important to understand that even once joined together for fertilization, an overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs do not become viable embryos, and only a small percentage of embryos thought to be viable produce a child. While this data come the IVF lab, natural conception is also very inefficient.”

The study was conducted at the Shady Grove Fertility Center in Maryland in order to "quantify the fate of the eggs retrieved in the IVF process," and will be presented at the annual ASRM conference in Denver this week.

Researchers reviewed all the in vitro fertilization cycles conducted at Shady Grove between 2004 and 2008. In 14,324 IVF cycles, clinicians retrieved 192,991 eggs. Initially, 110,939 of the eggs were successfully fertilized. However, only 44,282 continued to develop into "viable embryos."

Usual IVF practice is to implant just one or two living embryos into the womb per IVF cycle, with the others being frozen.

"Using the most optimistic set of assumptions that all the frozen embryos will eventually be used," the ASRM report says, "this will result in 8,366 babies. Thus, only 7.5% of all the fertilized eggs will go on to become live-born children."

In reality the frozen human embryos are more likely to be used in research or abandoned, rather than be allowed to continue growing in their mother's womb.

When British physiologist Dr. Robert Edwards, a pioneer of in vitro fertilization whose work led to the birth of Louise Brown, the “first” IVF baby in 1978, was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine earlier this month, Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, the recently appointed head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, pointed out that the award ignores the moral and ethical questions raised by artificial methods of reproduction, and disregards the destruction of countless human beings.

Without Edwards’ work, de Paula said, there would be no market for selling ova, or “freezers full of embryos waiting to be transferred to a uterus, or more likely, to be used for investigation or to die forgotten and abandoned by everyone.”

“In the best of cases they are transferred into a uterus but most probably they will end up abandoned or dead, which is a problem for which the new Nobel prize winner is responsible.”

An aspect of IVF not mentioned in the ASRM report is the necessity of "selective reduction," or the abortion of one or more of the children growing in the womb in cases where two or more embryos are implanted.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of twins has jumped 65 percent in the past two decades. A record 138,961 twin births - 32.2 per 1,000 live births - were recorded in 2007, according to the CDC's statistics. In addition, there were 5,968 triplet births, 369 quadruplets and 91 quintuplets or higher.

However, most multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF are "selectively reduced" by abortion.

David Picella, a Family Nurse Practitioner with specialty training as a medical consultant and teacher of the Creighton Model Fertility Care system, wrote in an article titled "10 Reasons to Choose NaProTechnology Over InVitro Fertilization" that "One of the most objectionable things about IVF is that it can result in a situation where a woman is forced to deal with a dangerously high multiple pregnancy rate.

"Pregnancy risk increases dramatically with the number of babies in the womb. Frequently, women are compelled to selectively ‘reduce’ (i.e., kill) additional babies in the womb due to unacceptably high pregnancy risk."

The complete article by David Picella is available through the Human Life International website here.

Contact info for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
1209 Montgomery Highway
Birmingham, Alabama 35216-2809
Telephone: (205) 978-5000
Fax: (205) 978-5005
Email: asrm@asrm.org

See related LSN articles:

Vatican Official Criticizes Nobel Prize for IVF Pioneer
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100512.html

Landmark Study Demonstrates Natural IVF Alternative Effective in Helping Infertile Couples Conceive
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102309.html

Study Finds Common Infertility Treatments Are Unlikely To Improve Fertility
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080801.html

GRANDE Bispo

SAO PAULO, 25 Oct. 10 / 04:32 pm (ACI)

A unos días de la segunda vuelta electoral por la Presidencia de Brasil y tras ser amenazado por denunciar la postura abortista de candidatos como Dilma Rousseff del Partido de los Trabajadores (PT), el Obispo de Guarulhos, Mons. Luiz Gonzaga Bergonzini ... en una entrevista con la revista Veja –recogida por el periodista católico Reinaldo de Azevedo– el Obispo afirmó que fue agredido por militantes del PT que hace diez días se apostaron en las afueras de su casa de madrugada para proferir groserías y detonar petardos.

Mons. Bergonzini aseguró que ha presentado una denuncia policial por las cartas anónimas que recibió con amenazas de muerte. Sin embargo, aclaró que "no tengo miedo. Si hacen cualquier cosa contra mí, será un disparo en el pie. Sería peor para ellos".

Indicó que "nadie puede poner un candado, una mordaza, en mi boca. Pueden confiscar un papel, pero nada altera mis convicciones", en referencia a la orden del Tribunal Superior Electoral que ordenó a la policía federal requisar un millón de ejemplares del "Llamado a todos los brasileños y brasileñas" de la Regional Sur 1 del Episcopado brasileño (CNBB) que él había ordenado imprimir y distribuir. Este documento de los obispos de Sao Paulo alienta a los católicos a no votar por políticos que estén a favor del aborto.

Para el Obispo "fue un acto totalmente antidemocrático, una agresión a mi persona. Al final de cuentas, yo había autorizado la publicación. Esa anulación impidió no solo la impresión del documento sino su distribución. Siento que soy perseguido. El gobierno habla mucho de libertad de expresión, pero esta confiscación fue un atentado a un principio constitucional. Mi opinión fue censurada".

Mons. Bergonzini agregó que su recomendación es no votar por Rousseff "debido a su ideas favorables al aborto. En 2007, en una entrevista, dijo que era absurdo no despenalizar el aborto en Brasil. Entonces está a favor de eso".

"Ahora, después de la primera vuelta, dijo ser muy religiosa y contraria al aborto e incluso contraria a la unión de personas del mismo sexo. Esto quiere decir que todo aquello que estorbó su elección en la primera vuelta lo ha quitado de su campaña. ¿Puede usted confiar en una persona que asume posiciones contradictorias? Nadie cambia de ideas de esta manera. El lobo pierde el pelo, pero no pierde el vicio. Ella (Rousseff) no es confiable", señaló.

"Yo he dicho, lo repito, firmo y afirmo: ‘No tengo partido político’. Yo soy un ser político, sí, pero no partidario. Si tomé partido en esta elección, no fue a favor del PSDB, fue contra el PT y Dilma. Las razones son claras: estoy contra el aborto y a favor de la vida. ¡No fui buscado por partido político ninguno!", precisó, rechazando así su supuesto apoyo al PSDB del candidato presidencial José Serra.

"No me arrepiento de haber hablado lo que hablé. ¡Haría todo de nuevo! Si surge un candidato que esté en contra de los principios morales, contra la dignidad humana y contra la libertad de expresión, me levantaría de nuevo", insistió.

Recurso ante el tribunal electoral

El miércoles 20 de octubre el Obispado de Guarulhos presentó un recurso para liberar el millón de copias del "Llamado a los brasileños y brasileñas" confiscado por la policía federal.

Sobre este recurso los miembros del Movimiento en Defensa de la Vida (MDV) lanzaron una campaña en la que solicitan a los ciudadanos que escriban al tribunal electoral para que se pronuncie lo más rápidamente posible, dirigiéndose a: cge@tse.gov.br y a cge@tse.jus.br

Tenía ocho meses de embarazo y autoridades chinas la obligaron a abortar

LONDRES, 25 Oct. 10 / 04:46 am (ACI)

El diario Daily Mail informó que en China doce policías propinaron una salvaje golpiza a una mujer embarazada de ocho meses, la llevaron a un hospital y le practicaron un aborto forzoso como parte de la polémica política poblacional de un solo hijo por familia que ya cumplió 30 años de vigencia.

Según el diario inglés, el caso ocurrió cerca de la ciudad de Xiamen un mes después que el gobierno de Beijing anunciara que no modificará sus leyes de planificación familiar a corto plazo.

La ciudadana Xiao Aiying de 36 años de edad recibió repetidos golpes en el vientre y fue trasladada al hospital donde los médicos le inyectaron una sustancia abortiva.

El padre del bebé, Luo Yanquan, un obrero de construcción, denunció que los agentes "le agarraron de las manos y golpearon su cabeza contra una pared. Luego la tiraron al suelo y le patearon el vientre".

"Nuestra hija de 10 años estaba encantada con la idea de tener un hermanito o hermanita. No sé cómo le explicaremos lo que ha ocurrido", añadió.

El 25 de septiembre de 1980 una circular del Partido Comunista de China ordenó oficialmente a sus miembros y a los de la afín Liga de la Juventud Comunista que tuvieran sólo un hijo, una norma que después se aplicaría a toda la población. La aplicación de la norma prevé abortos forzosos, multas y hasta cárcel para quienes tengan más de un hijo.

Anti-Depressants and the Dying: Depression Can Be a Factor for the Terminally Ill

by E. Christian Brugger, Senior Fellow in Ethics

In Culture of Life Foundation

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 20, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: What are some ethical issues surrounding the taking of anti-depressants? Does their mood-altering affect raise moral problems for people preparing their consciences for death? -- K.N., Augusta, USA.

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response.

A: There are many brands of antidepressants on the market today divided over several drug categories (or classes). An older class known as tricyclics came into widespread use in the 1950s and 60s. Common brand names include Elavil and Pamelor. A newer class known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) came into common use in the late 1980s and 1990s and are still widely prescribed (including the famous drugs Prosac and Zoloft). One of the newest classes of the last 10 years, called selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSNRIs), includes the popular brands Cymbalta and Effexor. In addition to depression, antidepressant drugs are also prescribed for anxiety, bipolar disease, eating disorders and chronic pain.

All three classes work at the cellular level of the brain blocking the absorption of brain chemicals known as neurotransmitters, believed to be involved in mood. The two most common neurotransmitters targeted by these meds are serotonin and norepinephrine.

Some fear that because they are involved in the altering of a person's mood, taking antidepressants is morally analogous to the taking of illicit mood-altering drugs.

I believe this is incorrect. Neurotransmitter medications, at least for depression and anxiety, when effective -- and they often are ineffective even when medically indicated -- ordinarily do not induce a "high," but work rather by restoring mood to a measure of statistical normality in one whose mood has grown flat and darkened, or has been shadowed by anxiety.

Whether or not antidepressants are advisable or promise symptomatic relief for certain individuals is a clinical question; and nobody reading this article should take what I say as clinical advice. My purpose here is to address moral questions surrounding the legitimacy of taking antidepressants for clinically indicated conditions.

The principal purpose of legitimately prescribed medications is therapeutic, that is, ordered toward the restoration of health. People suffering from major depression, dysthymia (low level chronic depression), chronic anxiety, panic attacks or bipolar disease are suffering from real health disorders. Medicine has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that these conditions have a distinct biological dimension. Data indicates that that dimension can be positively benefited by antidepressant medications.

These conditions might also have what clinical psychology calls a behavioral dimension. And I firmly believe that one's voluntary choosing and thinking can contribute to the exacerbation or minimization of the effects of many psychic disorders. It is unquestionably the case that for persons diagnosed with these types of disorders, some behavioral changes will be necessary to restoring long-term therapeutic health. But antidepressants can and should sometimes be part of a comprehensive therapeutic plan.

That said, antidepressants can cause significant side effects that burden one's life, affect one's relationships and limit one's range of activity. Moreover, similar to wearing glasses, one's neurochemistry after taking antidepressants for extended periods can establish new levels of normality on the medication. And so people who cease taking the meds will sometimes feel worse than before going on them. Finally, the newer classes of antidepressants are very expensive and can burden one's budget especially during economic downturns such as our own.

In making a good morally informed decision about beginning or continuing treatment with one of these drugs, consideration of these possible burdens should be factored in.

The question above asks specifically about the use of anti-depressants for persons preparing for death. The only uses of the meds for which I am familiar in end-of-life care are for treating the psychic states of those with terminal conditions. Those conditions, involving as they do bodily deterioration, can precipitate or exacerbate the types of neurochemical imbalances that correspond to states such as depression. In other words, as one's biology deteriorates, the biological basis for depression will often increase. Fear of dying might also play a role in one's mental state.

If such persons exhibit signs of depression, not only is it legitimate to treat them with antidepressant medications, it can be, in my opinion, a requisite part of palliative care (i.e., relieving distress involved in the dying process). Studies consistently illustrate that those patients most vulnerable to euthanasia are suffering from (among other things) treatable depression. For persons consigned to a bed because of incapacitating illness, behavioral options may be limited, so medications may be one of the few options available.

If health care workers appear unconcerned about the mood of the dying, then family members and other caregivers should insist that the patient's mood be taken seriously.

If the administration of antidepressants causes severe side effects that inhibit a person from conscientiously preparing himself or herself for death, then patients might rightly forgo their use as "excessively burdensome."

But if a patient is suffering from psychological distress of some sort as a (biological and/or environmental) result of a terminal condition, or if they have a history of mood disorders, and antidepressant medications can promise some relief, then treating them with these medications is no more morally suspect than treating them for chronic pain.