Jesse Jane Online Streaming

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

1. The IVF is an assisted reproduction technique in which oocytes are fertilized with sperm in the laboratorio.Los embryos obtained were transferred into the uterus of the female with the intention of initiating a pregnancy.
IVF is a complex, expensive, not without risk for women of limited effectiveness, ethically unacceptable and can become a business that exploits the feelings of women willing to have a child.
may be homologous (gametes: egg and sperm come from the husbands) or heterologous (at least one gamete donors come from different husbands).
is estimated at 5 million number of people around the world who have born with this técnica.En in 2010 was awarded the Nobel Prize to RGEdwards medicanes, father of the IVF technique and succeeded in 1978 the conception and birth of the first test tube baby in the UK called Loise Brown (technique IVF had been used in veterinary medicine since the 50).
Because of the importance and topicality of interest we have found this publication, aimed at a general audience is this technique.

2. The cost of IVF is low and carries a high number of embryos sacrificed . The results vary greatly depending on the experience of the center that performs and the age of mujer.Consiguen have a baby per cycle 1 in 4 women who are detected in only the IVF success rate down to about 5% when the woman is over 40 years of age. And get between 4-8 births per 100 embryos created .

3. IVF is not without risk for women egg donor. It should be noted the "ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): ovarian excessive growth after administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to get the eggs needed for IVF .. The mature egg retrieval is performed by laparoscopic and can be time-consuming and troublesome for women.

4. For the egg donation and sperm in Spain is a "economic compen-sation" :30-40 € for the sperm sample and 600 € for the donation of ova. Couples detected in only a benefit that IVF-entre5.000 pay € 8,000 (for each attempt at fertilization) .

5. IVF compared to natural methods of birth control .
Natural methods (Billings method) are highly effective for both pregnancy and to search posponerlo.En a 2007 study by the Dra.Martínez Irazusta in 60 women (50 diagnosed infertility and waiting list for assisted reproduction techniques): 40 became pregnant in an interval of 6 months (66.6% success), as published in the journal "Mission" n º 19, p.44. The success rate for achieving pregnancy was 32% in natural fertility consultation in the La Paz hospital in Madrid (Alpha and Omega Weekly 20/11/2008).
natural methods, besides being more effective than IVF, pose no economic cost as well as being safe and enjoyable ... but not considered "politically correct."

6. The business of IVF : in "Medical Journal" (21-6-2007) reflected the statements of Robert Winston (Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and a British expert on fertility) in which he condemned the IVF industry because, he said, is being corrupted by money-giving and their doctors are exploiting women desperate zadas.Así pregnant stay the same, according to published "ABC" (01/07/2007), U.S. (in the Abraham Center of Life, of San Antonio, Texas) can get "embryos à la carte" for $ 10,000. The infertile couple comes to the embryo bank, called the "catalog" and select the desired embryo according to the characteristics of egg donors and espermatozoides.También provide surrogate mothers in the event that the mother did not want the embryo implanted chosen.! could not be easier! ... as if the embryo (a human being with all the dignity of the person) were a commodity any .
artificial insemination centers "forget", however, one important aspect: the prevention of infertility (perhaps because it is not profitable?).

7. IVF is not ethically acceptable. Following the Prof.R.Lucas
ethical trial on artificial insemination is based on three points:
A. Respect for the human embryo, which does not occur in IVF because the embryo is reified, regardless of their personal dignity
B. The nature of human sexuality and the act conyugal.La IVF is immoral because it profoundly, you divide the marital sexual act unitive dimension and not immorality procreativa.La requirement due to a "religious", but the objective fact that this contradicts an integral anthropology division
C. The unit family. IVF parent-child relationships are trastocan.El extreme case for a test-tube baby can be have three mothers (biological, legal and carrier) and two parents (biological and legal)
in the instruction "Dignitas personae" on the origin of human life (published in XII/2008) Church Catholic establishes two criteria for assessing the ethics of assisted reproduction: 1.The
human being should be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception
2.The conjugal act is worthy of truly responsible procreation
You should not allow human beings (and the embryo is) are treated as "things" that can be produced, handled or comercializar.Las people should not be produced in laboratories, but procreated by binding interpersonal esposos.El ends never justify the means.

8. Other negative aspects of IVF :
A. IVF may occur that siblings become parents later in the same child, with the risk of inherited diseases that entails
B. Being a "person test tube and psychological risks involved" co biological incest "(carnal intercourse between relatives)
C . The implantation of multiple embryos (for "secure" the child) causes high rates of multiple pregnancies and premature births, with negative impacts on offspring
D. IVF threatening human and social ecology as siblings can reach marriage (in Australia 30 women in a small city have children of the same biological father: weekly Alpha and Omega 20-11-2008)
E. The desire for someone to have a child can not override this fundamental right to know who their biological parent (very well regarded by society in the case of adopted children), which violates the heterologous IVF births
F. Do not apply to human reproductive cells the same legal and moral we give to a donor organ for transplantation (because the gametes do give rise to a new life, unique and different article of the parents)

9. The "right" to the child against the rights of the child .
There is no "right" to have a child hijo.El, however (for their personal dignity from the moment of conception), it does have the right to be treated with the utmost dignity and not as if "something" (which can produce "serial" or market manipulation). People should not be produced in laboratories, but procreated in the context of marriage esposos.Conviene interpersonal stress that the child is a gift, not a right or a product.

10. In defense of the weaker .
In conclusion I wish to refer back to the instruction "Dignitas personae" which states that the Church feels the duty to voice ... "who do not, and appealed" to all people good will "to" defend the fragile human condition in the early stages of his life. "Defend, ultimately, to the weakest person who is the embryo.

RECOMMENDED READING AND WEBSITES
-Instruction "Dignitas Personae" (12-12-2008) on some bioethical issues
-conferenciaepiscopal.es: documents of the EEC
-View on embryos entries in this blog especially entitled "Embryo and Human Dignity"
-ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in a 19 años.E.Amestoy et al. Clinical Medicine 135:720,2010 artificial.En
-fertilization: "Explain bioethics ". R.Lucas.Ed.Palabra, 2007
-Playing asistida.En:" Basic Issues of bioethics "p.167.A.Pardo.Ed.Rialp, 2010
asistida.En-reproduction techniques," Bioethics personalistic ": science and controversy and E.Postigo.Ed.Internacionales p.201.GMTomás University, 2007
-The alleged" right to a child ", children and orphans laboratory López.Semanario biológicos.M.Martínez-Alpha and 11/20/2008 Omega-
asistida.En reproduction techniques, "In defense of the family" p.178.B.Blanco.Ed.Espasa, 2010
-Preblemas ethical selection of embryos for therapeutic purposes ca . E.Collazo.Cuadernos Bioethics 21 (72): 231.2010
-aebioetica.org: English Society of Bioethics
-bioeticaweb.com
-observatoriobioetica.com: Life Sciences Institute (UCV)
-bioeticahoy.com.es

Kmap Tom Tom Portugal

Is gay marriage a fundamental and universal?

- No, not es.Según the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and no European state is obliged to admit (statement released 6/25/2010). The European Convention on Human Rights does not oblige a state to extend marriage rights to couples homosexuales.El recognition of homosexual marriage comes under the sovereignty of each State.

- English anomaly is observed in the European context the view that homosexual marriage is a derecho.Cabe realized that human rights imply equal treatment for those who are equal, but the homosexual metrimonio which is the same strata as the that are different, so can not speak of a universal right (forumlibertas.com :28-6, 2010).

- France has recently rejected gay marriage and regulates such couples through what she calls the Solidridad Civil Pact adopted in 1999 (ABC 1/29/2011). According LRJospin (prime minister of France from 1997 and 2002) two different things can not be treated the same way and marriage between heterosexual couples Homosexuals are different (forumlibertas.com :31-1-2011).

- Zapatero's Spain is an anomaly in Europe and the world because it is one of the few countries not only approve gay marriage sini also allows adoption by same-sex couples (along with the Netherlands, Canada and South Africa .)

- Although the above is intended to introduce in the European Union "harmonizing border" means that Member States would be obliged to recognize same-sex unions the same level as marriage but no such recognition in the respective country's legal system (and is collected in the "report Berlinger" presented at Parliament on 11.28.2010). According to legal experts if this report was approved would violate seriously the principle of subsidiarity, fundamental principle key European Union (forumlibertas.com :29-11-2010)

Labeled Electric Motor

EUTHANASIA (E)

• E: is defined as the act or omission with intent to kill to a terminally ill to end their sufrimiento.Actualmente is permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium and in the state of Oregon . In Spain there are voices in favor of approval, which is why it seems appropriate to publish these comments.
• means suicide assisted the situation midway between the E. and raises suicidio.Se like a choice in the life of the people, freedom of expression is intended that this course individuo.Se law prevails over the professionalism of doctors, which should assist the patient who requests it by providing appropriate means. The
• campaigns for the E. are aimed at manipulating public opinion the following strategy:
• exaggerating maximum publicity to limit demand on the E.
• present increasingly less dramatic cases until the public sees E. as "normal"
• described as "reactionary and intransigent" defenders of life, and "progressive" promoters of the E.
• convey the false idea that E. is a religious issue, and as no one should impose on others their ideas should be accepted in a society that do not support plural.Los E. be categorized as "fundamentalists"

Arguments
• anti-E. for social debate:
• makes no sense to raise the E. having palliative care quality control difficult manifestations of terminal patients.
• In countries where E. is legalized, the practice tends to expand more and more.-called phenomenon of the "slippery slope." eg in the Netherlands has moved from the strict requirements of the uncontrolled circulation (including newborns).
• Legalizing E. creates an intolerable pressure on certain groups defenseless (elderly, chronic, terminal ...) that feel almost obliged to apply in certain situations.
• Legalizing E. in a perverse way disrupts the function of the physician and may turn against the profession, ruining the relationship of dialogue and trust medical paciente.Supondría a new "model" of medicine, which is already noticeable in some Dutch hospitals.
• It is of great social importance legalize E. it means recognizing the right of doctors to have the lives of others personas.Afecta to all citizens and not just the patient who requested it.
• E. hampers medical research: does it make sense to spend much effort and financial resources to provide good palliative care if lethal injection with a simple "remove" the problem?. In fact, in Holland, palliative care are very little resources are desarrollados.Los limited ... and the temptation is to restrict attention to certain groups.
• E. Applying We have made a double injustice: to kill a person and not having previously cured the depression that led him to apply.
• What really solve the E:?. The E. does not help to resolve the major issues surrounding end of life: not in the family (which still has its pain) or in the patient (not really feel wanted or appreciated or helpful to others.)
• life of man, for his enormous dignity, can not be removed by anyone in a modern, developed democratic.
• Because when someone requests the taking of his life ... what is really asking is that you take away the pain and accompanying him on his soledad.Por that laverdadera alternative to E. is the humanization of death and quality of palliative care.

• The doctrine Catholic on the E. is clear and is perfectly expressed in the encyclical Evangeliuem vitae of John Paul II :"... the E. is a serious violation of the law of God as the deliberate and morally unacceptable for an individual. "

• To finish these comments, remember that there are several international provisions contrary to the E., eg: European Convention on Human Rights ("death can not be inflicted on anyone intentionally.")

The Renderers - Monsters And Miasmas

Reflections on human embryo

The current debate on the ethical permissibility of using embryos for research reflects important aspects of scientific mentality.
Researchers have an insatiable desire to know. When conquering a frontier, then raised how to get to the next. When curing a disease, then seek strategies to heal others or to "cushion" if that were possible, the same natural process of aging that irreversibly affects all human beings.
cutting-edge medical research wants to find the solution to many degenerative diseases. The stem cell research (also called stem) provides, in that sense, high hopes. These stem cells can come from embryos (in the early stages of development), or humans more developed (fetuses, children, adults). It is usually possible to obtain embryonic stem cells from the death or destruction of the embryos used in such experiments, unless they develop safer techniques to avoid any damage to the embryo of such cells are taken.
based research adult stem cells in itself poses no serious ethical objections. Instead, we discuss extensively on the ethical legitimacy of using embryonic stem cells, because obtaining such cells involves destroying or harming embryos.

"human embryos are" subhuman "?

Some argue, is informative level, is a scientific level, the character "subhuman" of those embryos. Since 1984 there arose the term "pre-embryo" to describe the embryo in its earliest stages of life, meaning, to that end, we are dealing with a "prehombre." Society can
scared if they hear that the research destroys human beings. The company, however, is more at ease if they are told they are being used (and destroyed) pre-embryos in the laboratory.
A study published in early September 2007 by the British authorities for the Fertilization and Embryology (short English is HFEA) clearly shows that the "use" of embryos is accepted when it can convince the public character of such sub-human embryos before they get to meet 14 days of development.

"Overall, any extra ..."

Another argument is put forward in favor of embryo research is that many of them are destined to an inevitable death. In the artificial reproduction clinics "leftover" embryos. Many parents are unwilling or unable to provide an opportunity to continue their existence as other human embryos.
Why not use them, if they are destined to certain death? For some scientists, are "biological material" very interesting, well used, will be used to discover and enhance modern medicine. Some even say they take these embryos is to give meaning to his death, offering a "dignified" to inevitable destruction purchase a humanitarian value to give hope to many patients awaiting help from science.
not lacking, however, scientists, bioethicists, lawyers, thinkers and philosophers who openly advocate that every embryo is a human being from the moment of fertilization. These authors believe, therefore, that the embryo must be protected: not just destroy it or damage to allow "progress" scientific.
No human being is worth less than others. No human being can be destroyed for the good of other human beings.
Those who wish to use embryos attack these authors as not serious. They think that proponents of embryo use religious or unscientific prejudices. Some authors who want to experiment on embryos say decisively that the early stages of our lives were not more than a disorganized cluster of cells with no value, and little by little he forged a more complex structure that allowed one day (do not become agree to say exactly what) on the emergence of a human being who then began to earn respect and protection.
It is difficult to give an answer to a complex discussion. There are many interests involved, and perhaps this should be the first item to consider.

examine who has interests

What's in those who defend the dignity (the value) of the embryo? It seems that very little. The child is born, or not to destroy an embryo, does not produce a great benefit to a philosopher or a scientist who defend the embryo.
What do they gain, however, those who attack the dignity of the embryo? A laboratory may make a lot, so it may request more funding for research, will be quoted on the stock, you get fame, perhaps patent a certain new drugs or even (where not prohibited) patented cell lines.
The first fact is quite indicative: the fact that the destruction of embryos to benefit some and not others explains the interest of some to deny the value of these embryos and to defend the "legitimacy" of their destruction for their own interests " scientists. "
But this is not enough to prove that the embryo deserves to be respected. Those who deny the very human identity of the accused embryos, as we said, their opponents will not be scientific, not to be serious. We ask ourselves: just scientists have a monopoly on the truth when it comes to defining what it means to be human? In a pluralistic world it would be logical to listen to everyone.
also believe that a mother and father have several frozen embryos can tell if a simple cluster of cells or for their children. Discover the relationship between these embryos and their parents gives us a new horizon of values, gives us a glimpse that these embryos are more than just a "handful of cells."
What if the parents have died or reject these embryos? There are also children abandoned by their parents (perhaps died in tragic circumstances) and are found by other adults. In these cases the corporation is involved in defense of abandoned children. Can not we raise awareness in society to defend the rejected embryos, frozen, treated in a gravely dangerous to their lives?

experiments that are ethically sound

Supporters of embryo research do not give up. Say, as we saw, that not using these embryos will cause a long delay for science, raise a barrier to self-autonomy obscurantist research.
We know, however, that science must accept ethical limits that can not be overcome without being dehumanized. Today, environmentalists have succeeded in respect to chimpanzees, rabbits and rats, they do not suffer, even to the detriment of scientific research. Is it less valuable to humans than chimpanzees? Is that a human embryo can be destroyed while it seems unfair that laboratories destroy eggs of birds in danger of extinction?
Humanity is faced with a debate of enormous importance. The defense of human embryos or underestimation faces two ways of looking at life and death, science and politics, human rights and the protection they deserve the weakest. Already there has been a huge injustice to the spread of abortion. Contempt embryos were placed under the same perspective of those who consider some humans as less important than others.
The defense of embryos and, consequently, the struggle to eradicate the injustice of abortion, are a challenge for people of good will. This implies, of course, some scientists are unable to carry out all experiments are on the agenda. Prohibit research involving destruction of human beings is not unfairly limit their freedom.
is simply show them the way of a true science ethics: what directs the use of their knowledge and money they receive from society to defend all human life, not to destroy some lives are seen as "less human ", even for the benefit of other human lives considered superior.
Thus his findings are based on respect for the weak, and may build a science that is really serving all people without exclusion or discrimination of any kind.

Article by Fernando Pascual
ForumLibertas.com and published in the 28/03/2011,
reproduced here due to its great interest.