Talk:Gamete intrafallopian transfer

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gamete intrafallopian transfer.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Bioethical issues: the Catholic Church's position

I modified this paragraph, because the Church has never taken an official position on GIFT. Some moral theologians have objected to the practice, as the article correctly mentions, but other moral theologians have said that it is OK. Both camps include theolgians committed to doctrinal orthodoxy, and so the issue is still considered open.

See, for example, http://www2.loras.edu/~CatholicHE/Arch/Sexuality/Gamete.html and http://books.google.ch/books?id=If9MQQoHg7IC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=moral+theologians+Gamete+intrafallopian+transfer+in+favor&source=bl&ots=ikueHEwbxW&sig=6Q54aioU5soDBqL_TmOWtBA25LY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wwtkUNb1KabU4QT334GABg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=moral%20theologians%20Gamete%20intrafallopian%20transfer%20in%20favor&f=false. (The latter source, in my opinion, is in error in saying that Catholic theologians faithful to the Magisterium would be in favor of artificial insemination, which is a very different act, unless what they mean is gamete intrauterine transfer, which, morally speaking, is similar to GIFT.)

AthanasiusOfAlex (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamete intrafallopian transfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211135839/http://www.videojug.com:80/interview/assisted-reproductive-technology-2 to http://www.videojug.com/interview/assisted-reproductive-technology-2#what-is-a-gamete-intra-fallopian-transfer-or-gift

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]