Artificial Insemination On The Subject Of Artificial Insemination
Artificial Insemination On The Subject Of Artificial Insemination
Brothers, today Sara asked me about the possibility of my talking about the upcoming referendum on the subject of artificial insemination in one of our future messages; sweet Sara has specific documents with her for each one of the referendum questions and today we will slowly read each one of them and I will answer them with our thoughts, I will explain the reason for our thoughts to make you free to evaluate with your own heart and to decide whether to vote or not, and how to set your vote for each question.
Is that all right with you? Let's begin.
The first question is whether to vote or not.
I can not be the one telling you what to do, these are your own decisions because voting would be an obligatory action if, if we all think about it together carefully my brothers, if we believe that for example this referendum could be useful for expressing collectively the evaluation on this question. For example, why do you vote? Many of you vote because they feel that voting can affect your collective future, you believe that there are differences between the various opinion groups and when you look at these programs you believe that collectively it would be better to lean for one group instead of the other; in a similar fashion you can decide whether to go to the voting stations or not, depending on whether you feel that this referendum carries weight for the entire community or not, in this case your decision is not to vote, in the other case your decision would be to go and vote.
Many of your referendums over the last few years often have a tendency to repeal, to rescind however with time I would be pleased if I could see referendums that promote, that propose activities, projects that by leveraging the institution of the referendum can lead your society by always promoting new solutions for the well being of your community.
If you decided that you want to vote, then you will be presented with cards of various colors with a YES and a NO printed on them, you will also have a pencil and many questions to answer as quickly as possible, without talking, without interaction with others. This is your referendum, All questions must have been understood prior to going to vote.
Question: Regulations on limitations to access:
"Do you want to repeal the legislation dated 19th February 2004, number 40, titled 'Procedures for medically assisted procreation', limited to the following parts: article 1, paragraph 1, subsection 1, limited to the words 'with the purpose of aiding the solution to reproductive problems deriving from human sterility or infertility'; article 1, paragraph 2: 'resorting to medically assisting procreation is allowed when there are no other therapeutic methods that successfully remove the cause of the sterility or infertility'; article 4, paragraph 1: 'resorting to medically assisted procreation techniques is allowed only when the impossibility of procreation or the inability to remove the causes that inhibit procreation has been confirmed and in any case is limited to cases of unexplainable sterility or infertility documented by medical staff and cases of sterility and infertility due to medically documented ascertained causes': article 4, paragraph 2, subsection a, limited to the words: 'gradual condition with the purpose to avoid recurring to surgical procedures with a greater level of technical and psychological invasive nature for the patient, inspiring from the principle of'; article 5, paragraph 1, limited to the words 'notwithstanding article 4, paragraph 1, 'article 6, paragraph 3, limited to the words:" until the time of the fertilization of the egg'; article 13, paragraph 3, subsection b, limited to the words 'referring to paragraph 2 of this article'; article 14, paragraph 2, limited to the words 'to one single and contemporary implant, not to exceed three' article 14, paragraph 3, limited to the words ' for a serious and documented uncontrollable cause related to the state of health of the woman which was not foreseeable at the moment of fertilization'; and also the words "until the date of the transfer, to take place as soon as possible'?
We have read the long message on articles and paragraphs. My thought is that first of all to the woman and then to her companion should have a say in choosing to opt for this possible solution for the realization of the dream of having a baby. Every woman and her companion know what it means to wish for their own child and they also know that this technique is invasive and the outcome is uncertain, possibility means freedom to choose, with valid information given to the couple you put the individual people in the position to decide whether to undergo the process of medically assisted procreation, or not; at this point it's very correct that it must be the doctor to decide the best possible way to proceed in each individual case, because protecting the baby is the responsibility of the doctor, more specifically performing the necessary tests to exclude any pathologies inside that fertilized cell, means to protect your future child. My brothers I would certainly vote 'YES', but you need to consider your freedom to express and exercise a thought process that may be different from mine.
Question: Prohibition of external fertilization: "Do you want to repeal the legislation dated 19th February 2004, number 40, with subject 'Regulations on the subject of medically assisted procreation', limited to the following parts: article 4, paragraph 3: "It is forbidden to utilize medically assisted external fertilization procreation techniques', article 9, paragraph 1, limited to the words: 'in violation of the prohibition as per article 4, paragraph 3': article 9, comma 3, limited to the words: 'in violation of the forbiddance as per article 4, paragraph 3, article 12, paragraph 1: "any person who utilizes gametes from a person outside the scope of the requesting couple, in violation of what specified in article 4, paragraph 3, is punishable with a fine from 300.000 to 600.000 Euro': article 12, comma 8, limited to the word: '1'?
Brothers, I am sorry for those couples who have problems within their bodies and are not able to produce eggs or spermatozoids, but in our opinion, when your science makes it possible for you to utilize your own bodies to fulfill your desire, real possibility of success, we find ourselves in agreement, however when you resort to somebody else's body, or part of a body such as a spermatozoid, then I am sorry, but we are no longer in agreement, it's a form of exploitation and by exploitation we mean the improper utilization of what was not allowed for private purposes, this is exploitation, it is not right that a body or a part of a body of a brother is utilized for a purpose that does not involve that brother. This is the aspect of the exploitation, the donor will be left with nothing for his or her donation and if he or she should receive money as compensation, that is prostitution, sale of your own body, selfish interest of the buyers in disregard of the emotions, the heart of those who are selling themselves often for pure survival, it's double selfishness because instead of helping, you are taking away such a precious thing such as the possibility for life, for your own creation.
At this point my brothers I would vehemently vote 'NO', however you are free, you have the same freedom that I have to express your thought. Just think about it enriched with our own thought.
Question: Freedom of scientific research
"Do you want to repeal the law dated 19th February 2004, number 40, with subject "Regulations in matters of medically assisted fertilization' limited to the following parts: article 12, paragraph 7, limited to the words: "descendent from a single starting cell, eventually'"; article 13, paragraph 2, limited to the words: "connected to it aimed at the health and development of the embryo itself, and in those cases where there are no available alternative methodologies"; article 13, paragraph 3, subsection c, limited to the words: of cloning by transferring the nucleus or; article 14, paragraph 1, limited to the words: 'the cry conservation and '?
This is a very complex question, I am sorry but in this case I do not agree that science may utilize embryos to be able to extract stem cells, there are other important motives for which I do not agree and these important reasons regard mainly your use of science, in this precise moment I am sure that this repeal could bring a lot more damage than benefits to all of my brothers. I agree that there is freedom and scientists need this freedom to be able to continue to learn and to help you with progress, through the knowledge that they accumulate, but brothers, how many of them would have a correct ethic towards not only the life of those embryos but also your own lives?
Very very few of them right now, and what about the others? We are already witnessing unnatural creations, research must always be finalized to help you, not finalized to successfully creating men whom we don't even know what will turn out like? I see so many dangers, too many dangers right now and this saddens me my brothers because under different circumstances this experimentation could be very useful, but today I see too many dangers. I am sorry my brothers, but if I was amongst you I would vote 'NO', however you are free to accept my thought, or even better my many worries or not, you are free, this is your freedom.
Question: Regulations on the purpose and the rights of those people involved and on limitations of access. "Do you want to repeal the law dated 19th February 2004, number 40, with subject 'Regulations in matters of medically assisted fertilization', limited to the following parts: article 1, paragraph 1: 'in order to aid the solution of reproductive problems deriving from human sterility or infertility it is allowed to resort to medically assisted procreation, within the conditions and the procedures outlined by the current law, which guarantees the rights of all people involved, including the fertilized life", article 1, paragraph 2,: 'resorting to medically assisted procreation is allowed providing there are no other available effective therapeutic methods to remove the cause of sterility or infertility': article 4, paragraph 1: 'resorting to techniques of medically assisted procreation is allowed only upon documentation of the impossibility to remove those causes that impede procreation and it is in any case limited to cases of sterility or infertility that are unexplainable and documented by medical records in addition to cases of sterility and infertility derived by an ascertained cause and documented by medical records' ; article 4, paragraph 2, subsection a, limited to the words: "graduality with the purpose to avoid recurring to more technically and psychologically invasive interventions to the recipient, inspiring on the principle of the '; article 5, paragraph 1, limited to the words 'Notwithstanding what has been established by article 4, paragraph 1,'; article 6, paragraph 3, limited to the words 'until such time as the fertilization of the egg'; article 13, paragraph 3, subsection b, limited to the words 'as per paragraph 2 of the current article' ; article 14, paragraph 2, limited to the words 'to a single and contemporary transplant, not to exceed three in number'; article 14, paragraph 3, limited to the words 'due to serious and documented cause beyond control related to the state of health of the woman which was not foreseeable at the moment of fertilization'; in addition to the words: "until such time as the transplant, to take place as soon as possible"?
This is a very interesting point, when does a person acquire his or her rights? Is it at the time of fertilization or at the time of birth? Interesting debate. For us a creature is such when a Soul is assigned to that body, at that time, what you call a body becomes a person for us, for us it's the entrance of the Soul into that body that defines it as a person, but if this is a simple concept for us, we perfectly understand that for you it's very difficult to classify a body as person or a thing. Often implants of fertilized eggs do not transform into bodies, consequently no Soul chooses that body. For us the body is the container, when we define a person, the body is seen as the object that allows that Soul to experiment movement, perception with his own senses, experience between other bodies. When does the Soul enter the body? During pregnancy it begins to go in and out to experiment the physical sensation of compression and to understand the life conditions that await that Soul. In any case only when a body is destined to grow then we choose the Soul for that experience, that's when a body becomes a person. My brothers I feel that if I was amongst you I would again vote 'YES' to this question because a creature acquires his or her famous rights during pregnancy providing that there is an intention to carry on with the pregnancy, the intention is your clue to understand if from us, from this Sky, there can be a Soul that is assigned to that body that is forming.
Here we are brothers these are my answers to your referendum on medically assisted procreation. I really hope I have helped you understand our point of view.
My brothers, women have donated these precious brothers to us, take good care of these little brothers and help them always grow within Love and in the sweet hope of building a truly better world.
I kiss you today like always,
Your brother Jesus Christ
Message transmitted from the Sky 1st June 2005
Title Artificial Insemination On The Subject Of Artificial Insemination
Choose English version in www.leparoledegliangeli.com (the words of the Angels)