On October 4,  Robert Edwards, the pioneer of in vitro fertilization received the Nobel Prize for medicine.  This medically assisted reproductive procedure accounts for over 4 million births in the last 30 years.

However, the Vatican criticized the choice of the British researcher as “completely out of place.”

According to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church reproductive rights are not available to faithful Catholics.  This normally expresses itself in the condemnation of  Pro-Choice legislation which allows for the possibility of abortion.  While many non-Catholic Christians have personal ethical misgivings about abortion, they do not necessarily accept the views of the Roman Catholic Church regarding contraception or in vitro fertilization.

For many couples, in vitro fertilization has provided the opportunity for pregnancy and childbirth, when otherwise impossible.

It is ironic then, that the Catholic Church, which prides itself in its “pro-life” stance does not celebrate the right to conceive and bear children with medical assistance. Its prohibition of in vitro fertilization is based on the same tenant that forbids contraception — that every sexual expression between husband and wife must be open to procreation, and that procreation with medical assistance is “unnatural” and therefore immoral.

While it is not the intent of this post to advocate for abortion, there is a question that begs to be answered:  Which of the various views regarding the prohibition of conception, medically assisted fertilization, and abortion should be forced upon the country by federal legislation?

Even among those who are conflicted by the use of abortion as birth control, there is not unanimity of thought concerning when a human life actually exists.

It seems clear that our federal laws must of necessity allow the element of choice thus providing space for individuals to practice their personal religious convictions as they see fit.