Posted on 07/29/2012 2:13:13 PM PDT by NYer
“I’m not Catholic, so this doesn’t apply to me.”
Some respond thus to the government’s mandate that employers pay for health insurance that covers contraception, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs.
The Health and Human Services Department mandate is part of the 2010 health care reform law, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that this law is an acceptable exercise of Congress’ taxing powers.
But Catholics are not saying that paying for contraception is bad for Catholics; they’re saying it’s bad for society, according to Christopher Klofft, assistant professor of theology at Assumption College.
He cautioned against getting into arguments about this issue, urged charity if one does, and offered reasons for hope.
He spoke about “What it means to be Catholic and American” at the diocese’s closing of the Fortnight for Freedom Monday at St. Stephen’s Church. Bishop McManus and several priests celebrated Mass there, assisted by several deacons.
The June 21-July 4 Fortnight was a campaign supporting religious liberty, which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called for, partly in response to the HHS mandate that would force Catholic agencies to pay for procedures and drugs they oppose. Limits on Church service to immigrants is another concern.
In his homily Bishop McManus recalled Pope John Paul II warning about threats to religious liberty in the United States 20 years ago. Improper responses are recoiling in fear or reacting in anger, he said. Prayer is the ultimate source of strength; with God, all is possible.
St. Paul, the diocese’s patron, said everything works for good for those who love God and urged Christians to live according to what they’ve learned, the bishop said. He said Catholics have learned from their faith that everyone is made in God’s image, and civil authority has no ability to diminish their freedom.
Faith without works is dead, Bishop McManus said. Christians are called to serve, especially the most vulnerable – the unborn, the immigrant, the poor and unemployed – and will be judged on this.
He said Catholics have stood together to counter threats to their freedom, and this is not about one political party, but about the moral fabric of society.
Risking one person’s freedom risks everyone’s freedom, he said. He said they want to be able to say America is a place where there is “liberty and justice for all.”
“All persons have a right to basic health care,” Professor Klofft said in his talk. But the issue here is freedom of conscience.
“What we stand up for is the Truth,” the way the world really is, he said.
He used ideas from “The Sources of Christian Ethics,” by Servais Pinckaers.
Some might say: “I am free to do whatever I want to do,” but that is “a freedom of indifference” that doesn’t care about others or oneself, Professor Klofft said. In contrast, Pinckaers writes about “the freedom for excellence.”
“You can either accept God’s will for your life, or you can not accept God’s will for your life,” Professor Klofft said. “Are we faithful to the call” to relationship with God?
One’s choices in life should work toward answering the question: “What is it I am called to do to be a human being? … When we sin we choose not to live the way God has called us to live. It’s like sitting on a tree branch and sawing off the branch.”
Professor Klofft, using Pinckaers, spoke of forming a character that continues to make good decisions, likening this to learning to play a musical instrument.
At first, one might practice because one’s parents insist on it. Later, one might be encouraged to continue because of praise. Later, one might play for the beauty of the music. So too, people might do right to avoid punishment, reach a point where they are praised for being responsible, and later act as they do because “if I was to not do this, I would not be who I am.”
“In Catholic moral theology your conscience must be followed,” Professor Klofft said, referring to Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1776-1802. “Our conscience is the very life of the Spirit” indwelling in us.
How does one develop this?
“We make the conscious, willed decision to make good choices.”
“Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions,” the catechism says in section 1782. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
Professor Klofft spoke of people saying, “The Church nowadays is so obsessed with authority.”
His response?
“Our shepherds are to help us be the best human beings we can be. Thank God I don’t have to figure all this out myself.”
Listeners applauded.
“Can a Catholic disagree with Church teaching?” he asked.
“No!” responded a listener.
People choose to be American first and “fit our Catholic beliefs” into that, Professor Klofft said. But how can one be a good American without a relationship with God, which makes people good human beings, who are needed to form a good state. He said people must stand for truth, human rights and freedom for excellence.
He said he believes there is reason for confidence and spoke of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which may be used to challenge the mandate. People must have conversations about this, he said.
“This is not about winning arguments,” however, he said. “Don’t ever start a conversation over the internet and expect it to reach a fruitful” conclusion.
He suggested asking something like, “Why are you opposed to me having my conscience protected?” Catholics tend to go on the defensive, he said, and urged, “Control the conversation if you’re going to have the conversation.” He also offered Jesus’ advice: “Do not cast your pearls before swine.”
“Always remember to conduct yourselves with charity,” Professor Klofft urged, saying people will win more hearts with love than with “intellectual bullying.” Listeners applauded.
“God has already won; it was won on the cross,” he said, and urged listeners to show others the reason for their hope.
“I like his reasonable thinking,” John Martin, of St. Luke the Evangelist Parish in Westborough, said of Professor Klofft.
“Chris’ advice was just so good,” said Herman Millet, also from St. Luke’s. “Rather than be confrontational, we should just ask a question.”
“I thought the presentation was very good,” said Frances E. Pike, executive director of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the Worcester Diocese. “We really have to get people out to pray and stand up for what we believe in. The reason we … take care of the poor is because of our Catholic faith.
And we pray every day. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is a spiritual ministry. I think that each one of us has a personal responsibility to see their friends and neighbors are getting the care they need.”
Speaking about the Supreme Court decision, Rose Thoman said: “I was heart-broken; I cried; I could relate it to Roe v. Wade. I’ve worked in the pro-life movement for 40 years.” A member of St. John, the Guardian of Our Lady Parish in Clinton, she worships at St. Benedict Abbey in Still River.
The decision will degrade society as “abortion destroyed morality among our young,” and the mandate could lead to killing the elderly, she said.
What solution does she see?
“That’s what I’m worried about,” she said. “I don’t see it happening under this administration. Our only hope is to replace our president with someone who will overturn the Supreme Court decision. That’s what Romney promised.”
Speaking of President Barack Obama, running for re-election against Mitt Romney, she said, “He’s holding the life of every person in his hands through this Obamacare,” and people don’t recognize its power.
Ping!
“That’s what I’m worried about,” she said. “I don’t see it happening under this administration. Our only hope is to replace our president with someone who will overturn the Supreme Court decision.”
"[Obama is] holding the life of every person in his hands through this Obamacare,” and people don’t recognize its power.
Forced abortion.
Killing the elderly.
The loss of 1st Amendment freedom.
The enablement of the complete socialist takeover of America.
Fear, loathing, and anguish.
And yet, with millions of people literally grieving, who will even read the ruling the way it was written? Between the extremes of fighting for liberty and dying in a concentration camp, the almost zero percent of the population's willingness to learn is astonishing. And on Free Republic, it's heartbreaking.
As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed, "If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
And that's why people talk big talk, either of resistance or persecution, and yet refuse to face the realities of the ACTUAL problem. Watching Americans do this is hard enough, but when the moral fraud is openly committed by Christians and Catholics, it becomes sickening to see.
I'm not talking generalities.
You want labor camps and euthanasia, or do you want to learn? Careful, though - with learning, comes responsibility. For once you understand, what will you DO?
No they do not. This claim reqires that some folks exist for the purpose of serving others. It destroys freedom and institutionalizes theft.
"Some might say: “I am free to do whatever I want to do,” but that is “a freedom of indifference” that doesn’t care about others or oneself, Professor Klofft said.
Freedom is freedom, it does not depend on, nor is it defined by any subset of possible choices.
"“Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions,” the catechism says in section 1782. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”"
This contradicts his previous statement regarding freedom.
"People choose to be American first and “fit our Catholic beliefs” into that, Professor Klofft said."
No. Freedom comes first. The only legitimate purpose pof govenment is to protect rights and freedom is a fundamental right. Freedom includes the right to choose one's beliefs, including religious beliefs. When the govenment acts to destroy the condition of freedom, it should be opposed to restore freedom.
Freedom comes before the government is established and may not be reduced by it, but freedom does not supersede the Catholic Christianity because without Catholic Christianity the individual cannot execute informed moral choice, and therefore cannot achieve freedom.
This is easy to see in the example before us today. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches that all artificial contraception (even when not abortifacient) is sinful, so therefore Catholics may not be forced to use contraception or pay for others to use contraception. People of other religions do not necessarily subscribe to that teaching, so their freedom of religion is not violated. That is as far as the issue of freedom of conscience goes. As far as that, it is analogous to forcing a Jew serve pork: pork in Judaism is considered not a moral wrong generally, but a prohibited food for Jews and Muslims.
But there is a larger issue. Contraception is not merely a demand that the Church puts on her faithful, it is also a universal moral wrong, — i.e. a sin, regardless of what one knows or thinks. Obamacare is forcing all people, regardless of confession to pay for that sin. It is therefore an issue of religion freedom for Catholics only, but it is an issue of mandating evil for people of all faiths or lack of faith.
All people should oppose Obamacare not only because it violates the rights of Catholics, but also, and perhaps, more importantly, because it violates the rights of everyone, even those who don’t recognize that they suffered this injury to their rights.
If you facilitated someone’s use of barrier contraception in a free society (not speaking to anyone personally), you made a wrong moral choice, but your culpability is measured against the moral education you and the user of contraception, and his partner received; unless you are Catholic, you probably received none on this subject. If, however, you are forced to pay for the contraception of others, you have been deprived of your freedom of conscience even before you have a chance to consider it.
Since most chemical contraception is also abortifacient, the moral choice is graver, it is that of murder. Again, the law takes away your right to consider your choice.
This is therefore worse that forcing a Jew serve pork, it is more like forcing someone drive the train to Auschwitz.
Freedom is a condition that exists, because ones fellows honor and gift it to their fellows. That is what God did. The idea that morals are being dependent is ridiculous. If one can not come up with an objective moral code, w/o referring to some being, then the code is neither objective, or moral. That includes being dependent codes which rely on democratic methods, such as Catholicism. Only a rational construction can be objective and universal.
...the Catholic Church teaches that all artificial contraception (even when not abortifacient) is sinful, so therefore Catholics may not be forced to use contraception or pay for others to use contraception.
If the condition of freedom exists, then members of the Catholic Church are entitled to believe an act according to their own decision, as anyone else should be allowed to do so long as all rights are respected. Note the Catholic Church can not justifyably define, or dictate what is a right. Rights are defined by an objective universal purpose which is being independent. IOWs rights must apply to everyone, evey single being equally, else they are not objective.
"But there is a larger issue. Contraception is not merely a demand that the Church puts on her faithful, it is also a universal moral wrong, — i.e. a sin, regardless of what one knows or thinks."
No it is not. This dictate is not based on reason. Neither is the sin claim.
"All people should oppose Obamacare not only because it violates the rights of Catholics, but also, and perhaps, more importantly, because it violates the rights of everyone, even those who don’t recognize that they suffered this injury to their rights."
Yes, because the dictate violates free will.
"If you facilitated someone’s use of barrier contraception in a free society (not speaking to anyone personally), you made a wrong moral choice, but your culpability is measured against the moral education you and the user of contraception, and his partner received;"
Ridiculous.
"Since most chemical contraception is also abortifacient, the moral choice is graver, it is that of murder."
You may believe that, but others do not. A petri dish full of embryos is not a pool of people. Whether, or not the embro, or some biological stage close to it is a person, depends on the intent of it's creator(s), which are the parents.
"This is therefore worse that forcing a Jew serve pork, it is more like forcing someone drive the train to Auschwitz."
The Jews never believed an embryo was a full person either. Nor did they ever believe in original sin, except as an ad hominum.
bttt
“I’m not Catholic, so this doesn’t apply to me.”
Well for years I have gotten off on telling baptist “I’m not Baptist, so this doesn’t apply to me.”
Now I think it just came back to me.
Or did it? Maybe it came back to them?
Indeed. Such is the Catholic moral code: it is rational and objective, and applies equally to Catholics and different believers. You are not confusing Catholic moral code with matters of obedience such as going to Mass, to confessions, etc?
This dictate [against contraception] is not based on reason
Sure it is. You defeat the procreative mechanisms in your physiology: that is self-mutilation, i.e. sin against your own God-given nature.
Ridiculous.
Deep, man. Deep.
A petri dish full of embryos is not a pool of people.
If these are human embryos then it is a pool of people at certain age. If it is dog embryos, then of dogs, etc.
[his] creator(s), which are the parents
Not, God is the Creator. The parents just obeyed His command to procreate.
The Jews never believed
It does not matter what they believed; the pork example is simply to illustrate the religious freedom argument and how it is applicable, but only partly applicable.
**This is therefore worse that forcing a Jew serve pork, it is more like forcing someone drive the train to Auschwitz**
And while forcing him to speed the train to Asuchwitz, telling him all the passengers are his former co-workers, former neighborhood residents AND his family.
That’s destroying what God has wrought!
Depends on the "it", doesn't it?
A baptist takes on certain obligations as baptist, e.g. not to drink alcohol, not to smoke tobacco, etc. These are not obligations on non-baptists.
Secondly, a baptist also hears from his pastor that one must love God. That is an obligation that exists on everyone, you just heard it from a Baptist. If one makes him curse God, that violates his rights not as a Baptist but as a human being.
Thirdly, the baptist has a right to choose the obligations of him being a Baptist. If one make that baptist serve a bar, he has violated that Baptist's rights to practice his religion.
While the present controversy seems like it is of the first and the third kind, it is really all three.
The obamoids probably thought that because the proscription of contraception is uniquely Catholic, unpopular even among the Catholics, and poorly understood, they could get away with it.
This is similar to how Satan made it look to Eve that it is just a choice of dessert.
What makes it objective and rational.
Re: "This dictate [against contraception] is not based on reason
"Sure it is. You defeat the procreative mechanisms in your physiology: that is self-mutilation, i.e. sin against your own God-given nature."
Deciding not to procreate is not morally wrong and can not be a "sin". Deciding to do that while still enjoying sex is also not morally wrong. Man's nature is predominantly that of a rational being. Deciding not to procreate is within one's God given nature and is a right under the condition of freedom. A rational man is not limited by his physiology, else he wouldn't be able to fly, ride, make intelligent machines, or cure disease ect... Deciding to procreate and leaving the responsibility of taking care of the offspring to everyone else is evil.
Re: A petri dish full of embryos is not a pool of people.
"If these are human embryos then it is a pool of people at certain age.
Says who?
Re: its creator(s), which are the parents
"Not, God is the Creator. The parents just obeyed His command to procreate.
The sole creator of one's children is their parents. The image that man was created in was complete. God gifted man with freedom and the capacity to create life as per his own decision. Neither the Church, nor any other org gets to modify what is. They can attempt to deny that and deny other folks right to their own free will, but that can not erase what is.
Re: The Jews...
" It does not matter what they believed"
It most certainly does. It gives the history of their thought with regard to "thou shalt not kill" and when life begins. As "God's chosen" it matters very much what they thought and believed.
Did you miss God telling Adam and Even to go forth and multiply?
Of course, contraception is against the wishes of God. And His dictates too — “Thou shalt not kill.”
Contraception kills the possibility of a child.
Well now that you asked...and geronl I am pulling you in on this because you are Baptist. Yes I guess it does depend on “it”.
Lets see....
“A baptist takes on certain obligations as baptist, e.g. not to drink alcohol, not to smoke tobacco, etc. These are not obligations on non-baptists. “
REALLY? Yes I mean that to REALLY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u70EYe4vy8U&feature=fvwrel
The last place I lived was chock full of Baptist who bashed me left and right telling me I was going to hell because I was Catholic. They drank beer every weekend and smoked like chimneys. So I ask you again REALLY? In fact before I left that white trash behind one day I let them have “it” and told them that if I was going to hell for being catholic they were too for smoking and drinking!” I even asked if their pastor had ever preached against such things esp smoking and they said “no” as they starred at me blankly. I, the Catholic had to be the one to tell them that smoking was a sin and this is because their bodies is a temple of the Lord. They had never heard that.
So I take it these people only hear from their pastor that it is okay to go around and tell Catholics (and anyone basically that did not go to THEIR baptist church) that they were going to hell but drinking and smoking was fine.
Bars? HAHA they were in one (was a opry house) that sold booze every weekend.
So what was that about “it” again?
I think a lot of people hear only what they want to hear at church and disregard the rest (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi et al).
Just because I do not believe that a church is practicing proper doctrine doesn’t mean I think every member would be finding a hot place in the after life.
That isn’t normal.
There is nothing stopping any old independent church from calling themselves Baptist
This was not a command, it was a blessing. God gave the gift of sentient rational life, in His Image, AND freedom per Gen 1:26,27. That image included the capacity to create life, as per the parent's decision and not per anyone else's decision. Such a command is rupugnant to freedom and logically can not be understood to be a command.
"Of course, contraception is against the wishes of God. And His dictates too — “Thou shalt not kill.”
The decision regarding whether embryos and similar in age are persons belongs to the parents, not to anyone else. That is the essence of contraception. Once the baby resembles a baby, then the concept of contraception no longer applies and the words killing and murder are appropriate topics for legitimate law.
"Contraception kills the possibility of a child."
No. The parents never intended to create a child. That is the decision made and rightfully belongs to them, not anyone else.
If you are fruitful in other commensurate ways, it is not morally wrong. Contraception, the way it is sold and moralized about does not make that distinction: it simply is something that allows one to avoid the obligation of having children.
while still enjoying sex is also not morally wrong
So let us consider someone, say an inventor, a military commander or an artist, -- certainly he has to be an exceptional person able to improve the lives of many, -- who decides to also be enjoying sex while unmarried, and therefore he has contraceptive sex. While his decision is a superior one to have sex and abandon the child, it is not a moral one. God gave him the procreative instinct and he should either have the moral strength to suppress it for the good of his chosen vocation -- countless priests, nuns and monks do it successfully, -- or else find a suitable spouse who would enjoy supporting him or her in the vocation; plus his exceptional talent that had led him to consider unmarried life is a good indication that he MUST leave an offspring.
Finally, there is a case when one in married life has grave reasons to avoid a pregnancy for the time being. The reasons might be a medical condition or poverty. That the spouses can do by avoiding the intercourse in fertile periods, morally, -- as periodic infertility is a part of the physiological design of a woman.
Says who?
Says the antecedent of the query: "these are human embryos".
God gifted man with freedom and the capacity to create life as per his own decision.
First, however significant the role of the parent were, it would not give them the right to destroy their children: the moralist all around agree that it would be morally reprehensible to kill a child of some age. That some make an exception for killing the children of a certain age is simply an irrational aspect of their moral theories.
Second, the parents make do everything right and still be infertile. This is an empirical evidence of them not being the sole creators. Finally, from a theological standpoint, it would be strange of God Who can count the hairs on your head to leave that act entirely to the free will of the parents. Surely, the Bible paints the portrait of God who defeats the laws of nature in that regard granting parenthood to the very old.
It gives the history of their thought with regard to "thou shalt not kill" and when life begins.
Yes, the Old Testament matters very much in giving us insights. However, the moral revolution is Christianity and modern people must reflect on the ethical while being informed by Christ primarily and by the rabbinical interpretations secondarily.
This is not a thread about baptists. You gave an example of some kind, and I elaborated on your example. If my experience differs from yours, then you might want to elaborate on it in the light of your particular experience.
I have met many baptists who treat their obligations of abstinence very seriously, so I used that in my example. The point is however, not so much what precisely the baptists undertake to obey (some baptist communities are less strict than others), but the fact that different confessions have each different sets of disciplinary obligations and in a free country they, whatever they are, must be protected from government intrusion.
Ping for reference
May the Lord convert your mind and soul.
Contraception is pure selfishness.
No one is obliged to have children.
"While his decision is a superior one to have sex and abandon the child, it is not a moral one."
There is no child to be abandoned. Embryos are not children. The Church may believe so, but they have no authority, or justification to impose that belief on anyone else. Rationally, the idea that embryos are children is unsupportable. The biological machinery is just not there.
"God gave him the procreative instinct and he should either have the moral strength to suppress it for the good of his chosen vocation -- countless priests, nuns and monks do it successfully, -- or else find a suitable spouse who would enjoy supporting him or her in the vocation;"
Man is a rational being gifted by God with free will. He is not a deterministic being driven by instinct, nor was man created to obey some arbitrary Church directives.
"Finally, there is a case when one in married life has grave reasons to avoid a pregnancy for the time being. The reasons might be a medical condition or poverty. That the spouses can do by avoiding the intercourse in fertile periods, morally, -- as periodic infertility is a part of the physiological design of a woman."
Freedom requires that the choice belongs to the parents, not to anyone else. It is thier decisions that count, not anyone else's.
Re: "If these are human embryos then it is a pool of people at certain age." and Says who?
" Says the antecedent of the query: "these are human embryos"."
That would be some human(s).
Re:God gifted man with freedom and the capacity to create life as per his own decision.
" First, however significant the role of the parent were, it would not give them the right to destroy their children:"
The parents do not believe embryos are children. IOWs, they have no faith in; they do not believe what the Church says on the matter. It is their decision to make, because an embryo is not equivalent to a child and does not come close to having the requisite machinery. The intent then of the parents rules, not the intent of the Church, or anyone else.
Potentential also is irrelevant, because there is no limit to what can be claimed under potential. Rational applies. A petri dish full of embryos is not a pool of people.
"Second, the parents make do everything right and still be infertile. This is an empirical evidence of them not being the sole creators."
No. It is evidence that someone's biological machinery doesn't work. At least until someone with sufficient knowledge, understanding and solutions can affect a change. The folks at the fertility clinic can often affect a change by augmenting the machinery.
"Finally, from a theological standpoint, it would be strange of God Who can count the hairs on your head to leave that act entirely to the free will of the parents."
So says some man. Other men say that God has gifted man with free will and claim that all observable evidence supports that conclusion.
"the Bible paints the portrait of God who defeats the laws of nature in that regard granting parenthood to the very old."
If one wishes to believe the ages given in the OT for folks are accurate, then they can do so. I do not believe a 90 y/o woman can be pregnant w/o being also granted youth. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant, because according to the parable in Genesis 3, man is to do all on his own. God will not do one's thinking for him, provide goods and services, or intervene in nature for him in ways other than provided for in the creation.
Re: It gives the history of their thought with regard to "thou shalt not kill" and when life begins.
"the moral revolution is Christianity and modern people must reflect on the ethical while being informed by Christ primarily and by the rabbinical interpretations secondarily.
What was believed by one organization prior to the advent of another, regarding the very same concepts and considerations most certainly does matter. Modern knowledge and understanding also matters, because the decisions to be made require rational examination. God's command was "love your neighbor as yourself". Most folks just don't consider embryos to be neighbors, children, or persons. They also do not believe the Church on the matter, because their argument is a slippery slope one that claims arbitrary "moral decay" will result from contraception.
Others have concluded otherwise.
May I inquire exactly when a living human embryo acquires the necessary machinery to be designated a person? As a followup, how did you acquire the authority to determine when a living human being transitions to the legal and or moral status of “person?” And as a followup to that, what is your definition of “person?”
BTW, I am Reformed Baptist and have many points of serious disagreement with my Catholic brethren. But I do believe the question of the legal and moral status of a conceived human life is a proper place to apply natural law, without which your much vaunted freedom would be meaningless, the right to life being the foremost of our formal freedoms, as well as probably the easiest of the natural rights to defend on a purely rational basis.
The truth is not a product of human reason and is certainly not arrived at by collective reason. Neither can an individual's or a majority's collective thoughts negate a truth.
When we discuss the substance of a human being, we call upon those "things" that differentiate a person from an animal or an object. First and foremost is the soul. Another is the ability to know right from wrong and with it free will to act in accordance. These are not to be confused with the physical properties like race, beauty, level of intelligence, athletic ability, height, or age. In this regard even an embryo is human. In contrast an adult chimpanzee, although it possesses many of the same properties of a human, is not human. Similarly, a dead human body does not possess the same substance, rights and potential as a living person.
Peace be with you.
I decided that I had the authority by virtue of my rational capacity.
"what is your definition of “person?”"
A person is a sentient, rational being.
"May I inquire exactly when a living human embryo acquires the necessary machinery to be designated a person?"
That decision belongs to the parents, insofar as the development of the subsequent fetus has not substantially developed a working nervous system and other working characteristics of "baby" that allow a clear distinction to be made from contraception.
"I do believe the question of the legal and moral status of a conceived human life is a proper place to apply natural law, without which your much vaunted freedom would be meaningless, the right to life being the foremost of our formal freedoms, as well as probably the easiest of the natural rights to defend on a purely rational basis."
The right to life includes the right of sovereignty of will that is an integral part of that life. No embryo, or similar has consciousness, or will. Freedom applies to the parents, not not an embryo.
Reason is reason; it is not being dependent. Humans are capable of reason just as any other sentient rational being. Truth is a product of reason.
"When we discuss the substance of a human being, we call upon those "things" that differentiate a person from an animal or an object.
The substance of the machinery that provides the functional capacity of of a sentient rational being, or equivalently person, is irrelevant, because that substance is common to each of those. Only the characteristic functional capacity matters for the distinctions.
"First and foremost is the soul."
What is a soul exactly?
"the ability to know right from wrong and with it free will to act in accordance. ... In this regard even an embryo is human.
Embryos can not distinguish right from wrong, nor can they "choose" anything, know anything, or understand anything.
You are getting to one of the key differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. For Catholics Faith precedes reason and predicates Truth. It concedes to God a capacity and capability in excess of human intellectual limitations. For much of Protestantism Faith is a product of reason in which only those concepts and interpretations that make sense to the individual believer are accepted as Truth and places anthropomorphic limitations on an infinite God.
"Embryos can not distinguish right from wrong, nor can they "choose" anything, know anything, or understand anything."
For great periods of your life neither do you. But you surely aren't saying that in those moments you forsake all of your personhood and the associated rights that go with it, are you?
I am not referring to your own personal gestation period and very early childhood, but to your daily and future conduct as well. When you are in unconscious or in a coma, in REM sleep, when you are sedated or under anesthesia you lack the ability to do any of those things but retain your personhood because of a presumption of achieving a future cognitive state. It is the same with embryos.
Peace be with you
Faith is simply belief in something someone has said, based on trust. It is independent of reason. Truth is always a product of reason. That includes those instances where it is an observable.
"It concedes to God a capacity and capability in excess of human intellectual limitations."
God created man in His image per Gen 1:26,27. That means the functional capacities are the same, minor details notwithstanding. What was Jesus excess capacity and capability?
"For much of Protestantism Faith is a product of reason in which only those concepts and interpretations that make sense to the individual believer are accepted as Truth and places anthropomorphic limitations on an infinite God.
I do not believe this. Making sense to an individual is not reason. Reason requires perfect logic and evidence to support the quality truth. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants accept the doctrine of Original Sin on faith — faith in Paul and faith in Augustine. It is contradicted though by Ezekiel 18, not indicated in the parable of Genesis and God points out in John 9 that it's simply an ad hominum, because the Jews never believed in the concept. As with Catholics, faith rather than reason is a common methology for belief.
"and places anthropomorphic limitations on an infinite God."
Who said God was infinite? What does that mean exactly?
Re: "Embryos can not distinguish right from wrong, nor can they "choose" anything, know anything, or understand anything."
"For great periods of your life neither do you.
Since when is something less than 1% of a lifespan a great period?
"you surely aren't saying that in those moments you forsake all of your personhood and the associated rights that go with it, are you?"
No, but I would not protest if I was an embryo, or close to one and my parents made the relevant decision(s). Anyone else that interferes with my parents' decision I may not forgive.
"I am not referring to your own personal gestation period and very early childhood, but to your daily and future conduct as well. When you are in unconscious or in a coma, in REM sleep, when you are sedated or under anesthesia you lack the ability to do any of those things but retain your personhood because of a presumption of achieving a future cognitive state."
There is a person in all these instances. The functional capacity and machinery to provide that capacity are present.
"It is the same with embryos."
No it is not. The machinery is not developed and if it is the intent of the parents not to create a child at this point, it is their decision. It is the same with embryos in a petri dish, generally only one of them would be chosen, because the intent is to create a child, not to select one. The choice is made by the parents as a solution to biological problems presented that preclude the normal development of pregnancy.
So I take it these people only hear from their pastor that it is okay to go around and tell Catholics (and anyone basically that did not go to THEIR baptist church) that they were going to hell but drinking and smoking was fine.
Bars? HAHA they were in one (was a opry house) that sold booze every weekend.
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
So,
an embryo is not equivalent to a child
If it is a human embryo and has come from an egg of Mrs. X fertilized by the sperm of Mr. Y, then it is a human child of Mrs. X and Mr Y. This is just meaning of words. He is not equivalent to a developed child, but a child he is.
I don't see much sense in your opinions beyond that simple fact.
The intent then of the parents rules
The folks at the fertility clinic can often affect a change by augmenting the machinery.
Yes, -- by your logic then the folks at the fertility clinic are now parents and THEIR freedom to kill the child or let him live rules?
God has gifted man with free will
Very true, I never argued otherwise. Man has the free will to have sex or not have sex, or have contracepted sex, or masturbate. All these acts, however, have a moral content.
their argument is a slippery slope one that claims arbitrary "moral decay" will result from contraception.
There is no such argument. The use of contraception is a moral wrong in and of itself, quite regardless of the damage it also does to the human soul down the road, and -- but I repeat myself,-- regardless of what the people doing it believe.
By the way -- I have the impression that you do not understand that the argument against barrier contraception is not the same argument as against abortifacient contraception and abortion itself? If you don't, perhaps I should explain?
Thank you.
Observe that “person” often has a connotation of sentience as in “he has a lively personality”. Obviously a human embryo lacks personality in that sense. But is he then killable?
Freedom to drive a car or make an egg salad, perhaps not, but the right to live certainly applies to him.
"an embryo is not equivalent to a child"
This is an assertion. It is also a conclusion and a belief, as were the other beliefs given.
"If it is a human embryo and has come from an egg of Mrs. X fertilized by the sperm of Mr. Y, then it is a human child of Mrs. X and Mr Y. This is just meaning of words.
All you are doing here is giving someone's preferred definition of child. Most folks recognize that a child is not an embryo and visa versa, unless the parents intent says otherwise.
Re: The intent then of the parents rules. The folks at the fertility clinic can often affect a change by augmenting the machinery.
"Yes, -- by your logic then the folks at the fertility clinic are now parents and THEIR freedom to kill the child or let him live rules?
The folks at the fertility clinic are technicians, not parents. The parents will probably choose one to be their child. That means to become. Prior to that, it was just an embryo, as the others remain.
"Very true, I never argued otherwise. Man has the free will to have sex or not have sex, or have contracepted sex, or masturbate. All these acts, however, have a moral content."
A moral content on what basis? If it's as given above in this thread — that it is contrary to God's intended purpose, then opening a door with ones foot is also a sin. Morals are rules that when violated, infringe on someone's right. The Church claims that God has a right to make decisions for individuals. That is expressly repugnant to free will and not something claimed by God. That means the ones claiming the right to interfere are the Churches.
"regardless of the damage it also does to the human soul
What exactly is a soul?
"By the way -- I have the impression that you do not understand that the argument against barrier contraception is not the same argument as against abortifacient contraception and abortion itself? If you don't, perhaps I should explain?"
Human life begins at conception. The Church places the full value of personhood on an embryo. The Church considers the intent of the parents and their valuation of their own embryo as irrelevant.
Barrier contraception is considered by the Church as a deliberate act to keep God out of the procreation. The Church also considers any contraception as disobedience to an order to procreate.
Me: “how did you acquire the authority to determine when a living human being transitions to the legal and or moral status of “person?”
You: “I decided that I had the authority by virtue of my rational capacity. “
You mean that same self-confident decision to assert to power by which the self-styled German supermen determined that Jews were subhuman and therefore could be eradicated morally? If you mean something different, you aren’t giving me much of an objective criterion by which to discover it. Why do you suppose you are more rational than one who supports the value of human life at all stages of development?
Me: “what is your definition of ‘person?’”
You: “A person is a sentient, rational being.”
Rational:
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic:
able to think sensibly or logically:
endowed with the capacity to reason:
2. Mathematics
This is problematic, as many humans I know, and several on this forum, would have trouble qualifying as a person under this definition, as they are not particularly bound by the laws of logic. How much “logic” is enough to become a person?
Sentient:
1. Having sense perception; conscious
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
If an adult human temporarily loses consciousness, or perception, or the capacity for sensation or reason, then recovers those capacities, did they cease to be a legally protectable person during that interval? Put another way, if you could render someone you wanted dead unconscious first, would it then be morally acceptable to kill them while they are unconscious? Do you think the law would agree with you on that? The law defines murder as:
The unjustified, unexcused, intentional killing of one human being by another.
There is no legal criteria that the victim be conscious in any degree.
If you would form a rational framework for the destruction of embryos, you must at least, I should think, form a basis for killing them that falls outside the formal definition for murder, and you have not done that yet.
Me: “May I inquire exactly when a living human embryo acquires the necessary machinery to be designated a person?”
You: “That decision belongs to the parents, insofar as the development of the subsequent fetus has not substantially developed a working nervous system and other working characteristics of “baby” that allow a clear distinction to be made from contraception.”
No, you made an assertion that sounded as though you had a clear definition for what sort of biological machinery was necessary to qualify as a “person,” and you have instead deferred that decision to the parents, who might be far less knowledgeable than you regarding biological machinery. At least you draw an arbitrary line at a working nervous system, which is pathetically vague in itself. But some parent seems to think their toddlers can be left in a hot, closed car while they go clubbing. Surely in your quest for a rational basis for distinguishing person from nonperson you can offer something more objective and concrete than the functional equivalent of “whatever.”
Me: “I do believe the question of the legal and moral status of a conceived human life is a proper place to apply natural law, without which your much vaunted freedom would be meaningless, the right to life being the foremost of our formal freedoms, as well as probably the easiest of the natural rights to defend on a purely rational basis.”
You: “The right to life includes the right of sovereignty of will that is an integral part of that life. No embryo, or similar has consciousness, or will. Freedom applies to the parents, not not an embryo.”
This is nothing but a naked repackaging of the Nietzschean will to power. You worry about a slippery slope, and you are right, there is one, but not where you are looking for it. The slippery slope is in defining personhood as a matter of degree, because it empowers the worst sort of tyrants, those who would kill another because they are not sufficiently “developed,” up to and including not having the right political opinions.
But defining humanity by degrees has no hope of providing a stable rationale for distinguishing persons from nonpersons. A small collection of embryonic human cells is not a dead, static collection of tissue, but a complex symphony of amazing life processes, which, if allowed to progress according to the software encoded in the dna, will lead inexorably to feeling, perception, consciousness, and, in some cases, even genius. The child from its earliest moments is continuously unfolding, blossoming, and waking up. They have a right to finish waking up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
and
Re: “I decided that I had the authority by virtue of my rational capacity.
“"You mean that same self-confident decision to assert to power by which the self-styled German supermen determined that Jews were subhuman and therefore could be eradicated morally?"
Free will and rights are independent of any particular choice. Particular choices can be judged, but whatever judgment ensues does not apply to free will itself.
"Why do you suppose you are more rational than one who supports the value of human life at all stages of development?"
Logic is machine, or being independent. There is no such thing as "more rational" there is only rational. Whether any particular conclusion, or hypothesis is true, or not depends on the evidence, or priors used for the determination, not on the individual, or machine doing the thinking.
Re: A person is a sentient, rational being.
"This is problematic, as many humans I know, and several on this forum, would have trouble qualifying as a person under this definition, as they are not particularly bound by the laws of logic. How much “logic” is enough to become a person?
The functional capacity of mind is rational, regardless of any beliefs, or priors. An intelligent machine, or person works by Bayesian logic. The machinery of mind is logical regarless of the quality of the priors, or beliefs. GIGO applies and a person is no less a person based on their beliefs and priors. Also, pathologies do not render a person any less of a person.
"If an adult human temporarily loses consciousness, or perception, or the capacity for sensation or reason, then recovers those capacities, did they cease to be a legally protectable person during that interval?
No.
"If you would form a rational framework for the destruction of embryos, you must at least, I should think, form a basis for killing them that falls outside the formal definition for murder, and you have not done that yet."
An embryo is not a human being, or a person, without parental intent, so murder does not apply.
Re: “That decision belongs to the parents, insofar as the development of the subsequent fetus has not substantially developed a working nervous system and other working characteristics of “baby” that allow a clear distinction to be made from contraception.”
"No, you made an assertion that sounded as though you had a clear definition for what sort of biological machinery was necessary to qualify as a “person,” and you have instead deferred that decision to the parents, who might be far less knowledgeable than you regarding biological machinery.
The determination of whether, or not an embryo is to be considered a person belongs to the parents regardless of intelligence, or educaiotnal level. The point at which a fetus is considered a person under the law belongs to the legislature as a political decision. For the purposes of this discussion, if the fetus resembles baby, rather than embryo, the distinction is made.
"At least you draw an arbitrary line at a working nervous system, which is pathetically vague in itself."
It is only a consideration to identify some working gestational age where the applicaiton of person by those other than the parents does not apply. The consideration should be that of a woman who becomes pregnant in violation of her free will. Whether by rape, or another process does not matter. The task is to determine when the pregnancy can be terminated and not justifyibly be called murder, or the termination of a person. The answer is as soon as possible, and must contain particulars about when is too late.
It is ridiculous to claim that a fetus resembling something closer to an embryo is a person and may not be terminated simply because of where it resides, or may be terminated because of where it resides. It is human life that was not intended to be created by the parent and the parent does not want to continue on to personhood. The decision belongs to that parent, not to anyone else.
"“I do believe the question of the legal and moral status of a conceived human life is a proper place to apply natural law, without which your much vaunted freedom would be meaningless, the right to life being the foremost of our formal freedoms, as well as probably the easiest of the natural rights to defend on a purely rational basis.”"
Fine. Freedom though has not been granted, because the parents right to determine personhood at that early stage has been violated. Also, it is a stretch of logic to equate the potential person of an embryo with full person for anyone other than the parent.
"The slippery slope is in defining personhood as a matter of degree, because it empowers the worst sort of tyrants, those who would kill another because they are not sufficiently “developed,” up to and including not having the right political opinions.
I gave no "matter of degree". Either a person is a person, or they are not. There is no fractional person.
"A small collection of embryonic human cells is not a dead, static collection of tissue, but a complex symphony of amazing life processes, which, if allowed to progress according to the software encoded in the dna, will lead inexorably to feeling, perception, consciousness, and, in some cases, even genius."
Very nice. So you don't believe in spirits?
"The child from its earliest moments is continuously unfolding, blossoming, and waking up. They have a right to finish waking up:"
Yes. Nevertheless, an embryo, or close is not a child, unless intended by the parents.
It is all that. But it is also irrelevant in the question "is a human embryo killable?". My answer and that of the Church is rational: It is human and it is alive, therefore it is capable of exercising the right to life that humans have, yet incapable of offence (for which we sometime kill), therefore not killable. As you see this definition is indeed "preferred", but it is preferred because it has logic behind it.
Most folks recognize that a child is not an embryo and visa versa
What most folks "recognize" is not a criterion anyway. People recognize what they are taught to recognize. Modern man has not been taught anything of value in that regard.
unless the parents intent says otherwise. [...] The parents will probably choose one to be their child.
That is even a logical impossibility: the embryo is either a child of his parents or a child of someone else regardless of any parent's intent.
The folks at the fertility clinic are technicians, not parents
There goes your argument that the parents are owners of their child because they had sex to make him.
Morals are rules that when violated, infringe on someone's right
No, these are crimes. Abortion for example is a crime because it violates the right of a human being at a certain gestational age to live. Morals are stricter rules: they also involve intentions. So, for example, use of barrier contraception, or masturbation (its moral equivalent) is immoral but not criminal, because the intent is to defeat the good in the human nature of one's own self.
What exactly is a soul?
The souls is the part of a human being which when united to a body produces life. The soul contains people's reason, will and passions.
Human life begins at conception ... Barrier contraception is considered by the Church as a deliberate act to keep God out of the procreation.
Yes, that's it. Thank you. It is not the same sin as abortion, which takes an existing life. It is sometimes said that contraception violates the First Commandment, and abortion, -- the one against murder (different people number the Commandments differently).
Good grief. I thought you were of the opinion that "The only legitimate purpose [of] govenment is to protect rights and freedom" (#4). Now those professional shysters also decide what a person is?
You may believe this and prefer it, however you left out the other part of "the life". The mother's body is required for the embryo to live and develop further. That means the decision regarding valuation and rights is hers(the parents), not the Church's, or anyone elses. It is the parents intent that counts. That is logical.
Re:Most folks recognize that a child is not an embryo and visa versa
"What most folks "recognize" is not a criterion anyway. People recognize what they are taught to recognize. Modern man has not been taught anything of value in that regard."
No, they made a decision and simply do not believe what they're being told with regard to embryos. Being taught and believing are 2 different things.
Re: (embryos in a petri dish) unless the parents intent says otherwise. [...] The parents will probably choose one to be their child.
"That is even a logical impossibility: the embryo is either a child of his parents or a child of someone else regardless of any parent's intent."
It is logical. Although the embryos are human life, they are definitely not children, unless the parents designate one of them as such by having the embryo implanted. The rest are like skin cells in a petri dish, which are human life also.
Re: The folks at the fertility clinic are technicians, not parents
"There goes your argument that the parents are owners of their child because they had sex to make him."
That's not my argument. The parents own the embryos regardless and they also have exclusive right to raise their child.
Re: Morals are rules that when violated, infringe on someone's right
" No, these are crimes. Abortion for example is a crime because it violates the right of a human being at a certain gestational age to live. Morals are stricter rules: they also involve intentions. So, for example, use of barrier contraception, or masturbation (its moral equivalent) is immoral but not criminal, because the intent is to defeat the good in the human nature of one's own self.
Morals are rules that when violated, infringe on someone's right. An embryo's rights come from their parents, not the Church, or anyone else. When the parents decide to call their embryo a child, of their own free will, then the embryo is a their child and is endowed with the rights thereof. No one else has a say in the matter, unless the parents wait too long.
The claim that contraception and masterbation are intended to defeat the good in human nature is ridiculous.
"The souls is the part of a human being which when united to a body produces life. The soul contains people's reason, will and passions.
The physics of the world are sufficient to provide for machinery that provides all of the functions of life, including reason(rational capacity) and sentience, which includes consciousness and emotions. Will is simply the decision making process provided by rational capacity. The soul must be something else.
" Good grief. I thought you were of the opinion that "The only legitimate purpose [of] govenment is to protect rights and freedom" (#4). Now those professional shysters also decide what a person is?
That is the only legitimate purpose of govm't. Rights come from the decisions of the parents to create a child. They must designate an embryo as a child and that decison is where personhood and rights come from. The legislature must decide how much time is allowed for that decision to be made, else folks that brought teenagers into the world will be feeling free to take them out.
It is the same with God. At some point in time God had to decide when to call man, a man(male and female) and only at that point was man gifted with personhood and rights and the promise of eternal life. It is the same with parents and embryos. The sovereignty of will governing creation of life belongs to the parents. That sovereignty of will is an integral part of the life of the parents. Without respect for the parents decisions, there is no respect for life.
I refrained from theological discussions with you because your thoughts are so very divergent from orthodox Christianity I did not think I could address them in this forum, but you have now strayed equally far from the political orthodoxy that makes this country unique and great. You are professing a statist view of rights that is contrary to this republic and to Free Republic.
Our founding fathers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the proposition that rights are unalienable and endowed by our Creator. Anything else and they are merely license issued from the state. Yours is the very thought process that has lead to 54 million babies murdered in the name of "choice", the institution of Slavery, and the millions of "untermensch" destroyed in the holocausts of the 20th century. I pray your eyes are opened before your soul is lost.
Peace be with you.
You are mistaken. Freedom is not a statist view. What can be said to be statist is the attempt to apply Catholic theological and moral constuctions and concepts as law.
"I refrained from theological discussions with you because your thoughts are so very divergent from orthodox Christianity I did not think I could address them in this forum,"
Divergent? I pointed out how both Catholics and Protestants are wrong about the doctrine of Original Sin. The Orthodox, from which the Roman Catholics split from, never accepted the Council of Orange. I observe that divergence from God's teaching is inherent in Roman Catholic Doctrine itself. As I pointed out in John 9, God pointed out that the doctrine of Original Sin is simply an ad hominum attack on man. That attack was again brought to life by the Roman Catholic Bishops influenced and led by Augustine at the Council of Orange.
"Our founding fathers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the proposition that rights are unalienable and endowed by our Creator. "
In order that rights be honored, man must extend them to their fellows. That begins with the parents and is one of the important elements of the family. Note that the founding fathers did not respect theocracy and penned the first amendment as law to establish their desires in writing and their intentions to protect the free excercise of religion.
"but you have now strayed equally far from the political orthodoxy that makes this country unique and great."
Freedom is what allowed this USA to become great. Freedom doesn't exist when the reference for rights and proper moral behavior comes from various contradictory and divergent religious councils. Either ones proposiiton is correct, or it is not. Freedom and the first amendment require that no preference be given to the dictates of any particular religious council.
"Anything else and they are merely license issued from the state.
Freedom is not licence, it is a fundamental right.
"Yours is the very thought process that has lead to 54 million babies murdered in the name of "choice", the institution of Slavery, and the millions of "untermensch" destroyed in the holocausts of the 20th century."
Nonsense! An embryo is not a baby, nor is it a child. As I observe, Protestants and Catholics supported slavery, most notably the Christian Paul. Paul is the one that gave Romans 13 that said God gave you the leaders that directed the various holocausts. I say rubbish, men did that all by themselves and in order to do so, their very first step was to deny and abolish the condition of freedom.
I will support the Catholic's and every other persons right to believe as they see fit with regard to their religious convictions in this matter. That is something the "Catholic" Chief Justice of the SCOTUS would not and did not do, regardless of his Catholic teaching. He disrespected freedom, disrespected the founding father's intent and disrespected his fellows.
I will also believe what I do regarding contraception as laid out here and will protect that belief and the freedom, which is the sovereignty of will that God and my parents extended to me.
As I have already stated I am not going to engage in an antagonistic debate with anyone who is so seriously flawed in their understanding of Christian and Catholic dogma and doctrines. When you can get your basic historical facts correct come back and we can try to discuss history. This is the second time that you have made the same historical errors and brought up the Council of Orange with respect to an event that took place hundreds of years later. The previous time was in the context of a discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas who lived 800 years after the Council. The East-West Schism took place in 1054 AD. The Council of Orange preceded the schism by nearly 600 years and representatives from the east actually participated in it. The disagreement you are alluding to is with respect to St. John Cassian, a Gaulish theologian who is still today celebrated in both the Eastern and Western Church. The two Churches only disagree over portions of his teachings on Grace and Semi-Pelagianism.
And for the record, the "Roman Catholic Church" did not split from the Eastern Church.
Not and it hasn't been demonstrated.
"This is the second time that you have made the same historical errors and brought up the Council of Orange with respect to an event that took place hundreds of years later."
No. Here are the very first products of the Council of Orange:
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
"The East-West Schism took place in 1054 AD. "
No. The split began when Stephen I claimed primacy as Pope during his tenure. (254-257)
"And for the record, the "Roman Catholic Church" did not split from the Eastern Church."
from Websters: Origin of SCHISM
Middle English scisme, from Anglo-French scisme, cisme, from Late Latin schismat-, schisma, from Greek, cleft, division, from schizein to split — more at shed First Known Use: 14th century
It was Rome's act of claiming greater than thou that caused the split. As with the protestants, so with Rome.
Yes; so a nurse's care may be required for the sick or the child's care for the elderly parent, yet neither the sick or the elderly are killable. Further, the parental care is required for a child after he is born, -- are all children killable till maturity?
Although the embryos are human life, they are definitely not children, unless the parents designate one of them as such by having the embryo implanted. The rest are like skin cells in a petri dish, which are human life also.
They are all human and alive; by choosing to not implant some they choose to kill these children. Also, a child-parent relationship is a genetic one, not based on "designation".
Other body parts (e.g. skin cells) are a form of life but they are not human life: a human being does not develop from them.
The parents own the embryos regardless
Eh, based on what then? You earlier said the ownership was based on doing the wild thing successfully; now it turns out it is based on "designation". Can I designate you as my child and then, ahem...
An embryo's rights come from their parents, not the Church, or anyone else
You have not shown how they come from the parent (see above), nor why do they magically detach from the parent at birth. Whereas the Church's position is logically consistent: the right to life is with the human being who is alive and does not come from any other human agent.
The claim that contraception and masterbation are intended to defeat the good in human nature is ridiculous.
Can you explain why?
The physics of the world are sufficient to provide for machinery that provides all of the functions of life
Even if so, that which they, according to your naive belief, sufficiently provide, is ordinarily called soul. You asked what it is and I answered.
From your next post: The legislature must decide how much time is allowed for that decision to be made
The government may provide legal fictions like that, but the individual rights exists independently from the government. A government may not grant rights and it may not take them away; as you correctly pointed out elsewhere, the right is an objective reality of not taking away a right of another. Thus a right to life is wholly a function of not initiating aggression, and not any legislature granting a right to life. I have a feeling you got carried away with your pro-death rhetoric and got lost in your libertarianism.
"Yes; so a nurse's care may be required for the sick or the child's care for the elderly parent, yet neither the sick or the elderly are killable.
The nurse doesn't have to stick them in her body, or otherwise provide her body parts to care for the person. Also, someine must pay her. She is not obliged to do it for free.
I'll note that the Churches chose to use other people's money to provide for charity when they pushed for various the socialist programs. God told His followers to provide that charity on their own, not to violate the command that thou shalt not steal to make "charity" happen. Charity He said, was for His glory, not the state's.
"Further, the parental care is required for a child after he is born,
The parents chose to have an raise a child, as per what I said above.
" -- are all children killable till maturity?"
An embryo is not a child.
"They are all human and alive; by choosing to not implant some they choose to kill these children.
they are embryos, not children.
" Also, a child-parent relationship is a genetic one, not based on "designation".
So much for adoption...
"Other body parts (e.g. skin cells) are a form of life but they are not human life: a human being does not develop from them.
They are human life, whether one likes it, or not. So are the stem cells that might be derived from them.
"You earlier said the ownership was based on doing the wild thing successfully;"
No.
"Can I designate you as my child and then, ahem... " Re: An embryo's rights come from their parents, not the Church, or anyone else.
"You have not shown how they come from the parent (see above)
Yes I did. The rights God extended in Gen 1:26,27 included the power and right to create life and to extend, or further grant rights to their offspring, just as He did and exactly in the same way. Neither the Church, nor any bystander was given those powers. They are powers held exclusively by the parents. The rights protected by govm't and others are the rights granted as herein described.
re: The claim that contraception and masterbation are intended to defeat the good in human nature is ridiculous.
" Can you explain why?
The claim requires evidence. The only way to provide the necessary evidence is to collect some data. Good luck finding folks who will tell you that they used contraception to, "defeat the good in human nature". The same applies for all those teenagers the Church will need to interview.
Re: The physics of the world are sufficient to provide for machinery that provides all of the functions of life.
"Even if so, that which they, according to your naive belief, sufficiently provide, is ordinarily called soul. You asked what it is and I answered."
The soul is not the body, or machinery that provides the functions of life and spirit in this world. It is the machinery which provide the functions of life in the next. The body provides for life in this world, the soul in the next.
"Thus a right to life is wholly a function of not initiating aggression,"
Does this come from the Libertarian party? It is their fundamental moral code.
“Free will and rights are independent of any particular choice. Particular choices can be judged, but whatever judgment ensues does not apply to free will itself.”
I don’t know what you are saying here, or how it relates to my original point. Epistemologically, there must be some subjectivity in any personal decision about the nature of human life. But protecting a right, such as the right to life, is a social project, and requires some measure of cooperation among two or more minds, inferring they must arrive at some uniform and universal rule of right reason that will guide them as to when that right is in danger and when it is not. In the case of a child, there must be an objective description of when that right to life applies, and it cannot be left to purely subjective speculations, either by you personally, or the parents, or the legislature.
The example I used, Jews in Hitler’s Germany, demonstrates the importance of this idea. A collective but horrifically subjective decision was made that Jews, even adults, were subhuman. This was based on irrational and primarily emotive judgments, and not on anything remotely like a uniform and universal rule of right reason. Yet an entire society, including the German legislative department, cooperated with this false determination of what constitutes a human.
Principles of international law emerged from the Nuremberg trials asserting that private individuals, even when operating under the full apparatus and sanction of government, were obligated both to know what they were doing was wrong, and to defy their own government if necessary, to defend the right to life.
“Personhood” here could not have been the product of a legislative fiat. It was expected in this case to be a universally understood property of human life that any rational observer could discern and should discern. Legislatures may choose to recognize these realities, or they may choose to ignore them. That changes neither the fact of their objective existence, nor the fact that their objective existence may be discovered by only a very slight exercise of reason. In short, natural law.
But what you have described is legal positivism, precisely the opposite of natural law, that rights are not inherent in the human life that possesses them, or endowed by the Creator, but are conditional upon various degrees of functionality, and endowed by the Legislature. Your theory provides no basis for objecting to our own legislators determining, for example, that people who wear pink shirts on Thursdays are subhuman and as useless subhuman eaters should be exterminated to save resources for the rest of us. If the legislature determines personhood, what possible objection can you have?
Worse still, under your theory, a parent might determine their two-year old child is not a person, though they can draw like Michael Angelo, or play like a young Mozart, because they really wanted a child with blue eyes instead of brown. And so they drown the child in a bathtub, and according to you, no one has any right to think the less of them. Parental intent, I believe you called it. You speak much of the machinery of logic, but you never provide the detailed nuts and bolts of how a culture may know when a living human acquires a right to retain the life they already have.
Oh but wait, I almost forgot. You did provide a means of distinguishing a child from an embryo. How they look. You even embellished your argument for “looks” personhood by calling it ridiculous to dissent from that opinion, without offering a shred of substantial logic to back it up. What then, the lack of fingers and toes, no eyes, no nose? Is that what makes a human a human? An embryo is just a very young human. The hands, the feet, the teeth, the smile are all there, only in programmatic form, encoded in the dna.
In sum, you have provided no rational basis for distinguishing a very young human from a somewhat older and more developed human. You have even surrendered your consciousness argument, because you have admitted it would be wrong to kill a human whose only fault was that they were, at a given moment, unconscious.
Instead, you appear to be relying entirely on the visual nuances that accompany the terms “child” and “embryo,” without providing a sound biological basis for determining personhood.
Which leads me to suggest a variation on Pascal’s Wager. If you are not sure whether someone is a person with a right to live, and you do not wish to violate that right, why not simply let that person live? If you kill them, and they did have such a right, God will hold you to account, and society will be damaged by your disregard for the rights of others. However, even if your potential victim had no such right, but you let them live, even you have agreed they will one day acquire that right, and you have avoided doing harm during the period of uncertainty. Therefore letting them live is the better wager.
As for spirit, yes, of course I believe that. God exists, and he is a spirit and he is as real as it gets. Indeed, it is the unearthly reality of Him that puts me in a caution not to deprive others of the rights He gave them, whether I am a parent or a legislator. Do you know when he gives the incipient child a right to live? Based on your argument so far, the answer to that has to be no. Then why should you act as if you did? Is that logical?
NL: “who is so seriously flawed in their understanding of Christian and Catholic dogma and doctrines.”
SP: Not and it hasn’t been demonstrated.
Um, anyone who can call the teaching of Paul the basis of despotism and therefore rubbish, while they are certainly free under the First Amendment to believe that, cannot reasonably be thought of as Christian in any traditional sense. Jesus promised his apostles the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. Paul is accepted by all traditional Christians as an apostle and his teaching is therefore God-breathed. See 1 Tim 3:16. Some of it is hard to understand, and some of it can be twisted by those willing to twist it for their own purposes. But to reject it outright is to reject both the authorship and the authority of the Holy Spirit, and thus to deny the teaching of Jesus himself, and there is no good Christian thing that can come of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.