Posted on 10/09/2006 7:25:37 PM PDT by Coleus
****************
The good Archbishop has written an eloquent and compassionate article regarding this issue. Thanks to both of you for bringing it to our attention.
Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do something.
The moral opinions of the Catholic Church are guidance. The Church tells you which way is North. It's up to you whether you go that way or not.
Presumably, a democratic government steps in when it is or appears to be in the interest of the whole of the people to do or not do a particular thing.
Although I fall into the category of those who think cloning, IVF, etc. is "self will run riot," it is up to individuals to make the choice to follow the guidance of the Catholic Church. The consequences of the choices can seem remote and worth the risk, but ultimately, the price will be paid.
Not necessarilly. Identical twins have the same set of human DNA. Yet they are considered different people. Therefore it's not the genetic code that defines them as a person.
The only possible reason anyone can possibly have to question the humanity of a baby from conception is so that they can kill it without any guilt or ethical or moral consequences (so they think). If it's not human, it's not murder so let's label it as *not human* so that we can *dispose of it* in any way we see fit. Murder by any other name...
You're begging the question here. You're assuming the point of conception is what makes it a person. Therefore the only reason to not declare it a person, would be some nefarious intent.
The fact is that Jewish law holds that the fetus is due respect as a potential human, but is not yet a human. The specific basis of this is Exodus 21:22, in which accidentally causing a miscarriage is punished by a fine, but accidentally injuring the mother falls under the old eye-for-an-eye. This clearly indicates that the mother's life is worth more than the fetus.
As noted, a zygote is due respect as a potential human being. As such, abortion as birth control strikes me as savage and I am hesitant to support embryonic stem cell research. However, in the case of IVF -- the attempt to create a child for a couple who could not otherwise have one -- I have only minimal moral scruples.
Those are the very things which are wrong about artificial reproduction: the intrusion of impersonal, laboratory, and commercial values into what was designed to be an embodied message from God: making love makes life.
Please do not take offense. Your litle boy is as precious as all the love a mother and father's heart can hold. Nobody here has said your little boy shouldn't exist. You are imagining or misunderstanding an insult against your boy when none was given.
Birthing tank?
If "brain activity" is the sole measurement of humanity, then the so-called PVS people can all be killed without remorse.
And then, of course, people can calibrate the various levels of "brain activity" - those that are worthy of life and the lower levels that aren't worthy.
I don't believe that. I have no problem with in vitro as a procedure. Where I begin to have a problem is where choices start being made as to characteristics of the baby. Nature may not meet our expectations of perfection, but who are we to imagine we can do better? Some will mention this or that genetic disease that we can overcome, which is a fine feeling, but just what we are doing--who knows.
He's got his opinion and I have my own. People have a right to use this kind of medical technology to have children. Thank goodness the church doesn't get to make law in this area.
I invite you to think of the difference between an active live being and a passive material. It's like the difference between a block of marble which a sculptor might turn into the semblance of a lion, and a lion zygote.
A block of marble is passive. It has no inherent leonine nature. A sculptor, acting on it externally, could turn it into the image of a lion or of a senator, or turn it into a bench or a tabletop. A lion zygote is a lion. All it needs is nutrition and a suitable environment to unfold, from within, its own intrinsic nature. It's all lion, and only lion.
A human zygote is like that. It's all human, and only human.
Brain power? It's therein the DNA, and not just in blueprint form. You can't plant a blueprint and watch it develop its own cellar, kitchen, and three bedrooms, but you can "plant" a human zygote and watch it develop its own brain.
The fact that it's not yet in peak form doesn't make it different from a "real human being"; it is in that respect the same as every other human beings. First, I was like that once, without a developed brain, and so were you. And second, it's right there in the process of developing, as mine is, and I'm almost 55. (And you--- you haven't stopped developing, have you?)
In other words, to be a developing human being is to be a human being tout court.
That should be pretty obvious from a libertarian point of view. If a person has a right to have children, then somebody else has an obligation to make sure he can exercise that right. But nobody has that obligation: nobody is obliged to become your wife. If you were, say, a prisoner in a state penitentiary, the state wouldn't be obliged to supply you with a concubine so you could have childen. Hence, you do not have a "right" to have children.
What any ordinary person has, is the right to seek marriage with a spouse who, via sexual union, may be able to jointly procreate with you.
As for a right to exist--- I don't know what to make of that. If a person has already begun his existence --- that is, if he has already been begotten --- he has the right to be nurtured and cared for by his parents. If no such person exists, then a "right" cannot exist.
*************
Mrs. Don-o, you are on a tear today. Excellent.
Wonderful---another reason to add to the long list of "why I'm no longer a Catholic."
This is not so. The soul exists at conception (fertilization) because life begins at conception, and the soul is the life.
Are you saying that soul depends on brain function--- that it arises with brain function, declines with declining brain function, disappears if brain function falls below a certain level, comes back if brain function advances to a certain level? Are you saying, therefore, that a human being can be alive but have no soul?
That's nice. I'm just telling you what was said at the time. People were horrified in the 70s when children were created in a test tube. No one (very few people) cares anymore.
Since so many test are being developed for "genetic dispostions" how soon before they eliminate unborn children for things that are not life threatening, just annoying or inconvenient for the parents/family? That's rhetorical, they already abort children with cleft palates and downs.
He's got his opinion and I have my own. >>>
yep, you sure do and if one is catholic they have to abide by what the church says and if you don't want to be catholic, then there is the protestant church which is much more liberal.
Logically, an excellent question.
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.