Pope Denounces Some Biotech as Affront to 'Human Dignity'

eldavojohn writes "Today in a speech the pope denounced human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and artificial insemination, citing them as a violation of 'human dignity.' That said, the pope did 'appreciate and encourage' research on stem cells from non-embryonic cells in the human body. The pope encouraged the Vatican to be a leading voice in the philosophy and discussion of bioethics. 'Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions,' Benedict said."

Ethics?

[Plazmid (1132467)]

Ethics? We don't need no steenkin' ethics!

Re:Ethics?

[PJ1216 (1063738)]

ehhh, that position is arguable. That's like saying we should leave it up to a bunch of cannibals to decide if we should be allowed to eat humans in our society. Or leaving it up to the IRA to decide whether more restrictions should be imposed on the sale of shotguns in the US. There's a huge bias involved in saying, "hey, let the scientists decide if we should allow science to progress unhindered or not." Science inherently comes with no ethics. Its a dangerous deal to say let science take care of it. I know my analogies are obviously extreme, but they focus on the point i'm trying to make. You're giving a very important decision to a very biased group. I'm not saying the church is the right one, but I know they at least consider that which isn't scientific (dignity for one is not a scientific principle).

Re:Ethics?

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

if he can come up with a rational scientific reason for not cloning

There is no rational scientific reason for not doing ANYTHING. Nuking the entire crust of the planet to see if you can get it to liquefy and join with the mantle is a valid scientific experiment. It's an extreme example, but that's the point: science has no morals whatsoever, its only pursuit is knowledge.

What we need to determine is whether it's right or moral to do something. Is a single sperm considered a human life? I would say no. Is an egg? I would say no. What about a blastocyst? Fetus? It's easy to say that a baby's not a life until they're born, but what if my wife's going into labor, but outside the hospital some jackass punches her in the stomach until the baby dies? Is that assault or is it murder?

Science doesn't have these answers. If you look purely to science to see whether research should be done or not, you end up skinning Jews alive to see how long they live just as easily as you end up shooting beta particles at a thin gold sheet. Science can give us the information to make those decisions, but science can't make them for us.

Re:Ethics?

[Roger W Moore (538166)]

That's a job for the scientists that actually understand what they're doing.

Actually, as a scientist, I would disagree with that. I agree that ethics should be judged by someone who understands what the scientists in question are doing (which clearly excludes the pope) but it should be judged by someone with a little more distance from the issue. Otherwise you end up with a conflict of interest between wanting to see if you are correct vs. doing the right thing.

As a pope myself

[Nimey (114278)]

I hereby excommunicate this very silly pope.

PS: Every man, woman, and child is a pope. Non serviam.

Hey, no problem Mr. Pope.

[zerofoo (262795)]

If you don't like the research, refuse the treatments when you are sick in the hospital. Why do some religious types feel they need to impart their beliefs on everyone else?

Don't agree with or like abortion - fine - don't have one. Don't like what you hear on the radio or see on TV - fine also, change the channel.

Just don't tell me what to do - I have a brain in my skull and I know how to use it independently.

-ted

Predictable comments...engage points instead?

[nebrshugyo (1216152)]

Lets try a thought experiment: pretent that the Dalai Lama had spoken the Pope's words. Are those words more or less palatible based on who says them?

You don't even need to be religious to see that the commodization of human life, to say nothing of unfettered transhumanism, are not, on their face, good things. Call me a pesimist, but I'm more with Bill Joy than Ray Kurzweil.

A final thought: if there was the slightest chance that, by a snap of the fingers, I could remove all the harm to others attributed to the Roman Catholic Church, I'd do it - and I'm Catholic. Unfortunately, none of the evils attributed to Catholicism in particular or religion in general would disappear. So the cause must be elsewhere.

if my mother

[circletimessquare (444983)]

was in a emotional or financial situation where bringing a baby to term would cause her undue stress, resulting in a child she did not love, and all the psychological f***ups that accompany that, i would prefer that my mother not continue her pregnancy past the 3 month old part, and she would have done nothing wrong by my judgment

because before 3 months, what i was inside my mother was not me, and was not alive in any human sense

there is hamburger on my plate. i will eat it, and it will become the stuff of my organs and bones, it will become human life. so i should look at the hamburger on my plate with the spiritual and legal reverence of a human life?

pfffffffft

same observation applies to the blob inside a woman before 3 months

it's POTENTIAL human life. NOT human life. in any spiritual, intellectual, logical, moral, or legal consideration you can devise

Secular Humanism

[katorga (623930)]

The "dignity of man" referenced by the Catholic Pope, regardless of modern religion, is the basis of the enlightenment and of all modern secular humanist societies and of the concept of human rights. Once the concept of innate human dignity is gone, you end up with societies where human beings are nothing more than raw material for the State machine. As the concept fades you see inhumane state practices appear such as denying health care to the obese in the UK or mandatory abortions in China. The needs of people can be ignored when they become inconvenient or expensive to the state if there is no innate dignity of man.

Artificial insemination is not the only option

[ObiWonKanblomi (320618)]

It is odd, backwards thinking, and outright excessive for the vast majority of the posters who are stating the denouncement of artificial insemination is the only option for couples who can't have children.

In many countries across the globe, there are large legitimate orphanages with many orphans seeking new parents. I find it closed-minded the posters here choose not to recognize many of these orphanages are backed by religious organizations including the Catholic Church. It's not like the Church denounces abortion and artificial insemination... they actually "walk the talk" when funding the alternative.

In contrast to adoption, artificial insemination costs a lot of money and time. The procedure is not perfect, fails many times, and each time can cost in the tens of thousands of US dollars.

Re:Artificial insemination is not the only option

[cryfreedomlove (929828)]

I have a lot of experience with this. Its a complex emotional process whichever way you decide to go. It is so emotional and personal that I think both options should be widely available and I respect anyone who makes a choice in this area. I don't assign any moral ranking to these two choices. As for me, I've done both. Both are tough roads but the outcome is pure joy.

As a former Catholic and current geek,

[krog (25663)]

I gotta say: if this is the first, or second, or tenth issue that "is gonna cause some serious headaches for you at church", you aren't paying very close attention.

Re:On behalf of all geek catholics..

[spun (1352)]

Catholics who can't conceive are gonna be pissed too. Though I thought nowadays it was acceptable to simply ignore the pope when he makes an ass out of himself.

A non religeous analogy

[Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286)]

Oil tycoons, and the auto industry were not very happy when scientists started saying that their products were hurting the earth. Of course, they kept on doing it and encouraging every one else to. And they can continue to now. However, there are long term consequences for doing the wrong thing, even if you disagree that its wrong. Rush Limbaugh can get together a bunch of people and have an anti global warming party, and they can feel all nice a fuzzy that its culturally acceptable to disbelieve in global warming and laugh at Al Gore and the Nobel committee. It still doesn't mean they are correct, or that there won't be severe consequences for everyone if we don't do something about it.

The Pope is speaking on similar moral truths. If allow ourselves to start restricting further and further the definition of life, it will become easier for us to eliminate everyone else that falls outside those boundaries. Humans can't be trusted to decide who lives and who dies.

Re:How about silence?

[Altus (1034)]

we have had artificial insemination for a long time now. I don't recall any other popes calling it an affront to human dignity. Are test tube babies not allowed to be baptized because fertilization occurred outside the body? what about the natural children of test tube babies? Are they tainted as well?

Re:How about silence?

[Entropius (188861)]

he has to remain consistent with earlier doctrine

When given a choice between remaining consistent with earlier doctrine and remaining consistent with reality, why should we choose the former?

Re:How about silence?

[krog (25663)]

He's the fucking Pope. He defines reality.

Re:How about silence?

[Confessed Geek (514779)]

I'm no fan of any of these monotheisms but one correction regarding Women's Rights issues in Islam - They had them LONG before Christians did.

AT THE TIME when Islam started its teachings were the most progressive towards women of any of the monotheistic religions. Women were considered people, could own land and property _as_individuals_ , could not be forced to marry, were guaranteed support by their husbands, were guaranteed the equivalent or alimony if divorced, were allowed to work and own their own business, were allowed to decide if they wanted children, were guaranteed support for their children by the child's father even after divorce, and could divorce her husband if he did not sexually satisfy her. (I'm not making any of this up.)

Now mind you her testimony in "court" carried only the fraction of the weight of a man's and there are a whole bunch of other chauvinistic rubbish as well, but up until the 18th Century in western Civil Law an Islamic women had more rights than most women in the western world (in Theory).

Now in practice a lot of these rights were voided and ignored by those who called themselves Muslim but still practiced their own tribal cultures, but according to the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed she had them. MOST of the practices we find so abhorrent and attribute to "Islam" are also considered abhorrent by the actual teachings of the religion and condemned. They are cultural artifacts, not religious ones. Sadly, like the teachings of Christ, mean spirited, bigoted, hate mongering, power grabbing, control freaks have thouroughly confused most people about what those teachings are and twisted them into an evil that would horrify the original prophet/divinity.

The ridiculous Scenario you described is more shaming for you than the religion you are so ignorantly trying to insult. The actions you described would have _by_religious_law_ sentenced the Man to death.

SO now... Who looks like a fool?

I would never raise a daughter in Islam but I at least did the study to find out before making a jackass out of myself by spraying my bigotry around.

Is Christian Faith dangerous too? Hell yeah, and more so because while going to a fundamentalist Madrassa is considered a bad thing, going to a fundamentalist homeschool/bibleschool is a plus when running for US government office.

Many of the teachings are identical. Many of the ideas are equally terrifying for the future of humanity. Its like looking in a mirror. If your not looking its because your afraid of what you will see.

Re:How about silence?

[lgw (121541)]

They're turning to the true Islam, not that of terrorists.

As it wasn't the "true Christianity" that murdered hundreds of thousands of people during the time of the Inquisition, it was merely the "actual Christians"? Sure, whatever, "true Islam" may be all rainbows and unicorn giggles, but meanwhile the "actual Muslims" are really sentencing rape victims to 200 lashes for being sluts, and murdering women who don't marry who they're told to (the latter even in America).

Mr100Percent says:

Have you ever been in a mosque? It's a peaceful and relaxing place.

Muhammed says:

The best mosques for women are the inner parts of their houses.

I'd thinking the guy with the 9-year-old bride has the more informative quote when it comes to how women are treated.

Mod Parent Flamebait

[Bryansix (761547)]

Who gives two shits what a kook who believes in invisible super-beings things? The man is irrational and would gladly have us living back in the dark ages.

Such a comment just confirms what I've said before about Atheists. They don't want people to really have an open mind. Yet they won't agree that everybody is open-minded until they agree with them!

Look, I don't even recognize the papacy; but the silly attacks on this Pope on Slashdot have got to stop. You aren't even using logic and reasoning in your arguments. You just made two disjointed statements. The fact that the Pope belives in God (obviously) does not imply that he thinks we should abandon Science and Technology. In fact he never attacked anything regarding science. He just made his and the Catholic Churches opinion about the moral-ethical debate surrounding certain research and procedures known. There is nothing wrong with that. Religious people are not the only people who see an ethical dilemna within certain research and procedures. Do you mean to imply that all research is acceptable including research on unwilling medical subjects?

Re:Big deal

[CRCulver (715279)]

So the majority of people who don't have legs use wheelchairs?

Though people in religious traditions might disagree with the pope, they nonetheless would express some opinion about his pronouncements, as opposed to Slashdot atheists, who think he says nothing of import for or against their own metaphysical views (or lack thereof).

Re:Affront to Human Dignity?

[krog (25663)]

In his defense, basically everyone was in Hitler Youth. It was the Boy Scouts for Good Germans. Most children didn't have a whole lot of choice regarding their participation.

Re:Affront to Human Dignity?

[Just some bastard (1113513)]

Most children didn't have a whole lot of choice regarding their participation.

Sounds exactly like religion to me!

Re:dear pope:

[FroBugg (24957)]

As a scientist and agnostic, the most sensible delineation I've heard was outlined by Carl Sagan (though I don't know if it was originally his idea or not). At about sixth months, the fetus actually begins to think. There is a point where neural activity undergoes a significant change.

It seems reasonable to me that what most makes us human is our minds, and thus once a fetus has a human mind, it should be considered human.

Re:Interesting acusation

[BytePusher (209961)]

He might mean humanity as a whole rather than an individual human. It's a somewhat abstract and foreign concept to most Americans(Mostly Christian protestant or post-Christian protestant). I think a crime against humanity doesn't imply that the victims are only those directly harmed by the crime, but humanity as a whole. So, it calls all of humanity to respond to the crime. Catholicism is, by definition, not individualistic. So the pope is in essence trying to act as a voice of caution in the human conscience.

I think his concern is that certain humans are being selected to die while others are being selected to live depending on their genetics. This is nearly identical to being opposed to genetic-screening during job interviews if you believe that a human embryo is a human life, except on even more ruthless terms(life and death). In other words genetic pre-screening during the interview for a 'job' as someones child.

I am not Catholic, but I can see why he is concerned.