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."

LISTEN TO THE POPE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please listen to what the Pope is saying!!! I'm Catholic and I strongly believe the Pope is right! He's always right! Humans shouldn't play God. Please listen to the Pope and just stop what you're doing!! :(

Re:

[MightyMartian]

First of all, I need you or the Pope to demonstrate that God exists. Then we'll talk about whether the Pope is any better informed on what this alleged being wants and demands than, say, your average auto-mechanic or a half-dead chipmunk.

Ethics?

[Plazmid]

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

Re:

[orclevegam]

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

Sure we do, I just don't think that the pope is in a position to judge the ethics of science. That's a job for the scientists that actually understand what they're doing.

Re:Ethics?

[PJ1216]

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]

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:

[orclevegam]

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.

Sure there is. If you nuked the mantle it would in addition to killing lots of people and therefore reducing that countries productivity, also tend to cause all kinds of environmental destruction which has the potential to destroy the biosphere.
At the bare minimum you could use economic and social theories to show why murdering people is wrong and leads to unsustainable societies. It's possible to argue against things scientifically it's just a lot harder then just saying "because I say so".

You missed the point

[moderatorrater]

If you nuked the mantle it would in addition to killing lots of people and therefore reducing that countries productivity, also tend to cause all kinds of environmental destruction which has the potential to destroy the biosphere.

You're missing the point. The results of nuking the mantle are bad, but science can't show what's bad and why. Your personal morals may say that destroying the biosphere is bad, but there's no experiment you can do to show that it's bad. There is no "evil particle" whose levels go up whenever something bad happens. There's no measurable way to say whether something's good or bad, ultimately it's about someone's opinion and their conscience.

Re:

[moderatorrater]

And religion can guide us in those decisions?...Why should their writings tell us what's right and wrong?

Religion can be viewed as a moral framework that's been handed down through the generations, being added to and subtracted from to reflect what the people of that time thought was good and just. Morals don't change all that much from one generation to another; as you said, they've been evolved into the human race. If this is the case, then having the wisdom of people that came before guide us in those decisions makes sense. Use your own brain, but don't believe for a second that religion doesn't have somet

Re:Ethics?

[Hatta]

But if you count the good and the bad that science brings us, we're unquestionably much better off because of science. You can't say the same for religion.

Re:Ethics?

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Flipping the Statement Around...

[jellie]

"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."

"Science certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of church teaching, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to reasonable and all men of good will rational-logical principles and direction for new, important questions."

As a pope myself

[Nimey]

I hereby excommunicate this very silly pope.

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

Sorry, its not something one can declare

[Shivetya]

The Pope is a position granted by adherents of the Catholic Church. You can try to minimize its importance all you want but your declaration is irrelevant and immature.

I certainly would not want his position, I am not as firm in my beliefs as he is. As such I am also not as trapped either. The Pope of modern days must first respect his fellow Catholics and that means staying the course with little deviation. He walks a fine line in that while he does have a great amount of knowledge; don't fool yourself in believing him ignorant, while that may offer you solace in your belief he is far from it. In fact I figure he is well educated in this issue and its that education which puts a great difficulty before him. The Church can no longer afford to ignorant of science but it does not have to sit idly by and allow science to run over man.

The mission of the Church for some time has been directed to preserving the dignity of man. Yes we can dig up history and throw that in his face and the followers of any religion. The important issue is how it goes forward. What used to amaze me no longer does, people will flock to a politician offering a chicken in their pot, knowing full well its a lie, yet begrudge a man for holding to his principles. We will celebrate a whoring celebrity, a deceitful politician, and the almighty dollar, yet laugh at someone who is offers his beliefs to us.

What does it say about us? What does it say about him? The Church will be here long after many of us. It is through declarations like this that give us insight into how its going forward. While all religions have their radicals the leader of any stable religion can no longer afford such. Still they cannot stand still. He has opened a large door and taken a big step but here many are chastising him for not taking more steps. Give them time. They are monolithic and essentially eternal. They cannot he held to the same clock we hold ourselves. We make a decision and it usually affects us solely, the Church makes a decision and it affects tens of millions. As such their steps must be much more carefully thought out and delivered. I think he has made a great opening. He has relieve many Catholics who are in this line of research of many choices of faith that burdens them. He has given them freedom that many felt they may not have had. While he still have put barriers up he has shown some flexibility which allows the Church and its followers to go forward.

Rome was not built in a day, don't expect the Church to change in one either.

ethics, science and morals

[rjamestaylor]

What do the candidates say about these subjects?

US citizens ... do you know?

And the Pope's moral authority comes from ...?

[A nonymous Coward]

We listen to engineers and scientists when they have demonstrated some expertise in their fields of expertise.

Considering how much scandal comes out of the religious leadership field, I'd say religious leaders are no more moral than ordinary people and have no better grasp of ethics than ordinary people.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[n-baxley]

>> If you don't like the research, refuse the treatments when you are sick in the hospital.
Well, okay I refuse all treatments derived from embryonic stem cells. Oh wait, there aren't any. Meanwhile research goes on with adult stem cells which have zero controversy around them and don't kill innocent embryos. How you make the leap from don't research embryonic stem cells to all medical research is beyond me.

And by the way, what does a person like yourself who doesn't want to hear the pope's views do

Re:

[theophilosophilus]

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.

While I agree with the sentiment that there are major problems with legislated morality (and the religious right's approach) - I need to point out the limits (fallacies) to your argument. The law, in every country, is legislated morality. There is a codification of right and wrong in the law. It is not simply the "religious kooks" that seek to impose their version of morality.

Gay marriage is a good example. There are groups of people that are fighting for acceptance of the word "marriage" to be affixed

Predictable comments...engage points instead?

[nebrshugyo]

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.

Re:Predictable comments...engage points instead?

[MightyMartian]

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.

The reason I point out the Church's sins, and that of most religions, is because it demonstrates rather well that whatever the particular claims of divine inspiration and guidance, religions are like all other human social constructs. There's no effective difference, either in governance or in command structure, between the Roman Catholic Church, China's Peoples Liberation Army or International Business Machines. The only meaningful difference is the leadership's particular claims as to the origins of their authority.

if my mother

[circletimessquare]

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]

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.

Re:Secular Humanism

[MightyMartian]

That's a lovely sentiment, but the idea of human dignity that most people find familiar does not have its origins in the Church, but rather in the Enlightenment, which was populated by more than a few great thinkers who did not find very much attractive in the Church's history, monolithic structure or its behavior.

There were enough Popes directly or indirectly ordering the imprisonment and burning of heretics and other non-conformists that it's pretty clear that this modern post-Vatican II church is attempting to rewrite its own history to make itself into the champion of human dignity, when its real history shows it to have been a powerful political force quite willing to trample any notions of human dignity in the pursuit and maintenance of power and influence.

Artificial insemination is not the only option

[ObiWonKanblomi]

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]

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.

Lots of Catholics disagree

[cryfreedomlove]

I can't believe I am posting about this. I'm a Catholic, I'm a scientist, and my kids are the result of artificial insemination.

In my local Catholic community, these things are not discussed. Instead I hear mostly about practicing non-violent conflict resolution and a life time of charitable endeavors. That all works for me on the local level. Beyond that, the Catholic hierarchy can go pound sand. The pope and most of the clergy that rank high enough to wear silly hats tragically waste their energy on needlessly divisive issues. I'd rather they worked on poverty and resolving conflict without war.

Artificial Insemination

[Irvu]

Artificial Insemination is an interesting one. Basically it is using externam equipment to produce a fertilized egg and then insert it into a woman who otherwize cannot succeed through normal means. It is a well-known practice and can even, for the squeamish, be performed for a married couple using only their eggs and sperm, no external players are needed.

Interestingly this procedure, well-accepted in most western societies is banned in Italy even for married couples using their own genetic material thanks to the Church. The argument goes something along the lines of: "If god wanted them to have kids he would let them do it normally."

It is interesting because most /.ers might scoff at the pope and in many countries even ones with large Catholic populations like the U.S. his claims don't carry the weight of law. But in modern democratic Italy he can still arrainge for consenting married couples who want to raise healthy children of their own to be denied it because the process is "an affront".

This is about mysticism, not ethics

[Sloppy]

He says some good common sense, "scientific progress should not be accepted uncritically" and that he "wanted [scientific progress] based on 'ethical-moral principles.'" No problem. Not even controversial. But then we get to the nitty-gritty:

Practices like freezing embryos, suppression of embryos in multiple pregnancies, embryonic stem cell research, the prospect of human cloning and artificial insemination outside the body had "shattered the barriers meant to protect human dignity," he said.

"Meant." See that word? Convert the verb to active voice, and look at the subject.

Aside from that..

"When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure 'biological material,' how can one deny that they are being treated not as 'someone' but as 'something,"' he said.

That's a fine thing to say, but based on the premise that embryos are people. If you can't find any support for the premise and reject it, then you're left with 'something' being treated as 'something' -- and technology that isn't conflicting with anyone's ethical principles.

This doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean he's unpersuasive. Asserting that an ethical principle has been violated, without explaining that it is an ethical principle, says nothing.

But he can't go beyond that, and show that an embryo is a person, because there isn't any information to support that. No one has communicated with an embryo, so we've been left with looking at their rather lumplike behavior, which different people subjectively interpret in different ways. Without information, that leaves..

..faith. We're not really talking about ethics. This is something else.

As a former Catholic and current geek,

[krog]

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:As a former Catholic and current geek,

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have a headache" is what I tell my priest when he wants to spend some quality alter time with me.

Re:As a former Catholic and current geek,

[THE anonymus coward]

As a Catholic Geek who is big into both (I am studying to be a priest and I write software that will serve me as a Priest), it is important to understand what is going on, the parallels to the Borg collective and what isn't parallel. In the case of the Borg collective, it is a community dedicated to unity through compulsive slavery. The difference is that when we chant our prayers in unison, we are affirming what we have individually chosen to believe (which ought to be in unison with every other Catholic). It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.

Re:As a former Catholic and current geek,

[Weirsbaski]

As a Catholic Geek who is big into both (I am studying to be a priest and I write software that will serve me as a Priest), it is important to understand what is going on, the parallels to the Borg collective and what isn't parallel. In the case of the Borg collective, it is a community dedicated to unity through compulsive slavery. The difference is that when we chant our prayers in unison, we are affirming what we have individually chosen to believe (which ought to be in unison with every other Catholic). It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.

From the Borg perspective, I doubt that many consider it "unity through compulsive slavery"; they consider it as they were created and taught in a group that needs common beliefs and goals, forgoing personal good for the group's good, and assimilation, to survive. Borg that stay in the collective do so "voluntarily", according to their beliefs.

Compared to the Catholics, which members consider it as they were born and raised in a society that needs common beliefs and goals, forgoing personal good for church's and society's good, and recruiting, to survive. Catholics that stay with the church do so "voluntarily", according to their beliefs.

From the members' point of view, they're not so different...

Individually chosen to believe?

[bigtangringo]

I'd suggest that the vast majority of believers haven't honestly considered the possibility there is no god, or that they might've been raised to believe in the wrong one. Indeed, to deny the existence of the Abrahamic god is an unforgivable sin.

Indoctrination does not really lend itself to free choice; people are tremendously easy to manipulate. It's one of the oldest skills, and now one of the most perfected.

Re:

[CrashPoint]

Your "greatest evidence" sucks [logicalfallacies.info].

Re:

[bigtangringo]

The greatest [skepticsan...dbible.com] evidence [skepticsan...dbible.com] that the God of Abraham doesn't exist, is from the very book[s] that proclaims he does. Then there's the whole mess about it being a ripoff of Egyptian mythology, with a healthy dose of Greek and Pagan mythology thrown in for fun.

Re:Individually chosen to believe?

[ajs]

Yea,, I looked into that rip off of Egyptian mythology thing and found it to be very lacking when you attempt to verify what is being said.

I'm not quite sure where that came from, but it sounds a bit questionable. There's some decent weight to substantiate the idea that most of the modern Judeo/Christian lore stemmed from multiple other traditions. The Genesis story is a prime example, and folds together strands of several other creation stories from the region in which it developed. As for the new Christian bits... well, I don't think anyone had a lock on the messiah idea. People had been doing that practically forever in any culture that had a messiah myth. After all, if someone says, "your new king will appear soon," someone's going to think, "hey, that could be me!" Jesus's only real contribution being yet another face in the crowd was in creating a stable following (probably more the work of those who came after) and in preaching an unusually pacifistic dogma, at least if we buy into the contents of Matthew.

We supposedly celebrate on the 25th because that is around the time conception would have happened and the birth of the soul that was Jesus. This is a big reason why religious organizations don't support abortion and claim that life begins at conception.

Someone's been retconning at you. The reason that that date was chosen was many-fold, but essentially it was a compromise. Celebrations such as Saturnalia [wikipedia.org] and the Feast of Sol Invictus [wikipedia.org] were terribly important to Pagan Rome at the time of its conversion to Christianity. Recall that the Unconquered Sun and the Crucified God were in a dead-heat for control of decaying Rome's theology at one point, and that Christianity won out was almost certainly as much a matter of politics as religion. In the end, setting a new official holiday on the solstice allowed Rome to bless all existing celebrations on the 25th as worship of their new god.

The whole conception thing is absurd. Conception and the exact period of gestation were part of women's Mysteries and not to be toyed with by men (the ones making the laws about holidays).

But this Christmas celebration in December is a relatively recent event, not something that has been around in religion.

Name a religion that did NOT have a solstice celebration prior to, say... 1300 AD (which neatly avoids the emergence of science and the demystification of celestial motion). Just one.

That entire Egyptian thing is a creation of someone's imagination.

Sounds plausible.

Either way, it doesn't matter much, There are people who will believe and people who will not.

What you believe is one thing. What you try to assert about history is another.

Baby can't even talk yet when it usually happens.

[Scrameustache]

we have individually chosen to believe (which ought to be in unison with every other Catholic). It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice.

How old were you when you were baptized?

Re:Baby can't even talk yet when it usually happen

[Danse]

Also, Baptism gives grace, and grace always enables the freedom of choice.

Not sure how you figure that one. Baptism gets you wet, but that's about it. Anything else is just the beliefs of the people performing the act. People who aren't baptised have freedom of choice as well.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:As a former Catholic and current geek,

[Herby Sagues]

This pope is a pussy. Until he reinstates wife beating, Sunday worker stoning and human sacrifices (all of them promoted by the bible), I'm not going back to church. This pope does not respect the Holy Scriptures. At least they are reinstating pedophilia.

Re:As a former Catholic and current geek,

[OSXCPA]

Former Catholic here - it is difficult to impossible to exercise choice in the Catholic faith when one is raised in it, as any deviation from orthodoxy results in the promise of a Nice Hot BBQ with you as the main course. If one does manage to do so (I did), then actually disentangling oneself from the clammy embrace of the church is another battle. My mother made me go to church - I tried to bail out of first communion and confirmation, and I refused to continue as an alter boy (phew! good thing, too... that was the 1970's and early 80's, when the church was still DELIBERATELY CONCEALING ACTIONS OF KNOWN PEDOPHILES AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY AND THREATENING ANY PARISHIONER WHO COMPLAINED TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WITH EXCOMMUNICATION see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6765175 [npr.org] for one example).

I finally got out by getting my mom to agree I could stop going to church if I made my confirmation. I believe this qualifies as 'duress'. I didn't realize the irony until later.

I found even at that time that while there were some good people in the church, the church itself had absolutely no basis for authority other than the fear they used to force its followers into line - I cannot count the number of times the priest would come up with some crackpot notion of 'how things should be in the home', particularly with regard to the place of women, and people in the congregation would discuss the subject rabidly afterward, yet it never occurred to them that the church was so wrong that they should think of leaving, and if the church was wrong on that score, what else could they be wrong on?

Oh, right - as the Catholic who posted about Gallileo noted, a Catholic CANNOT interpret scripture on their own. I forgot that.

Any organization that actually says "you cannot think for yourself, else you are damned" deserves no respect from me, and any organization religious, commercial or civil that actively protects child molesters as a matter of policy deserves to have any tax-exempt status it enjoys revoked and have the management prosecuted under RICO. Think about it - if a large US corporation concealed an employee pedophilia ring, what would happen?

Finally, to those in the Catholic church who would claim that the amount of abuse in the church is the same as in other organizations, so it is not as big a deal as people have made it - the church put itself out as an authority AND put all it's clergy (and laity, really) in positions of trust - like a teacher, but more so. The Catholic church also claims to be a moral bastion. You can't claim that on the one hand, then claim that it is ok to wallow with the Sodomites, statistically speaking.

If you are Catholic, and read this, you can get better - the first step is to leave. It is really less painful than you might think, and you won't miss it much. Your Catholic friends and family who may cut you from their lives will pretty quickly appear to you as they really are - I think of it as 'Taliban lite'. And not all of them will cut you off - just the idiots.

Re:

[Danse]

Like all mathematicians who believe that 1 + 1 = 2 or all software developers thinking that memory leaks are a bad thing?

Big difference between agreeing on verifiable facts and agreeing to have blind faith in something. As another Catholic poster pointed out, confirmation is supposed to be done based on faith alone or not at all.

Re:

[jacksonj04]

There are a lot of agreements on things that *aren't* verifiable facts, or are easily 'verifiable' either way depending on which side of the fence you're on.

Gay marriage is wrong. (Objective opinion held by lots of people)
America is a good/bad place to live. (Again, objective opinion which people pull various facts to prove either way)
Sex before the age of consent is bad. (Age of consent varies worldwide with no major issues, so the actual age is just an arbitrary value people agreed on)
Speaking ill of the

That's smokescreen

[cicho]

"The issue is not the baby, but the method."

I don't think so. The method is what the church attacks, but it's only to have a tangible handle on the issue. The church's problem, I think, is that the closer science gets to understanding life and how to bring life about, the more it strips away divinity or metaphysics from life and birth. And *that* the church cannot allow - the shrinking of its domain.

Once the sun was a god, because we had no way of understanding what it was. Currently, conception still carri

Re:That's smokescreen

[OSXCPA]

One interesting bit the Church is all about, and another poster alluded to it, is 'natural law'. The church has spent literally centuries documenting elaborate rationales for their beliefs. The Pope doesn't just bark out something that sounds good to him - he has a team of researchers and theologians write thse HUGE papers on it. The current Pope was, as I understand it, quite the prolific author of these when he was the chief guardian of the faith prior to being Pope (this is the modern equivalent of the Grand Inquisitor, but without the hot pokers and spikes).

My point - there is a convoluted 'logic' to their reasoning, which you can read for yourself, but having read through the relevant sections for this thread, I found them positively Escherian in their convoluted self-referentialality (is that a real word? You get the idea...) and all lead back to 'because we said so', which is the cornerstone of the Catholic churches' authority. They don't worry about their shrinking domain from an ideological standpoint, as you suggest - they have literally an entire theory of 'law' that says they don't have to worry. The pronouncements they put out are for the faithful - normal, rational people won't understand them because they are written in circular logic tarted up in faux-academic jargon - i.e., nonsense.

Re:

[Herby Sagues]

If it weren't for this "method" the boy wouldn't exist. Are you going to tell my nephew that the catholic church would rather see him not existing? I'm glad my brother is not raising him as catholic (despite his mother being a practicing catholic, the fact that the church officially considers her son undesirable is a very good argument for the father).

Re:On behalf of all geek catholics..

[KublaiKhan]

Well, it's not as if he had much of a choice of what to say, to maintain consistency with church doctrine. If he encouraged it, there would come some rather unpleasant questions as to what, exactly, would require baptism; if a cloned person has a cloned soul; whether you receive some of the soul of the fetus that gave the stem cells when, for whatever reason, you use said stem cells--all a bunch of nasty theological problems.

Frankly, is there anything else he -could- have said?

Re:

[Rolgar]

Well, it's not as if he had much of a choice of what to say, to maintain consistency with church doctrine. If he encouraged it, there would come some rather unpleasant questions as to what, exactly, would require baptism; if a cloned person has a cloned soul; whether you receive some of the soul of the fetus that gave the stem cells when, for whatever reason, you use said stem cells--all a bunch of nasty theological problems.

It's not so much an issue on the state of the soul, since all souls (if such a thing exists) are created by God on demand. I'm not sure how God would handle the issue of cloned beings and souls. What the Catholic Church is concerned with on this issue is that God is the Creator of all life, and he has created a perfectly good method of creating new individuals that also is an important way for humans to learn who God is. In Catholic theology, human sexual expression is an imitation of the Trinity, where

Re:How about silence?

[Altus]

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?

[Spy der Mann]

I don't recall any other popes calling it an affront to human dignity.

Perhaps not a pope, but the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith did. Donum Vitae, Feb 22, 1987.

Are test tube babies not allowed to be baptized because fertilization occurred outside the body?
It's not the babies that are wrong, it's how they were conceived.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Perhaps not a pope, but the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith did. Donum Vitae, Feb 22, 1987.

It is so surprising that Pope Benedict XVI [wikipedia.org] would criticize the same thing, and on the same basis, that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [wikipedia.org] had previously criticized under its then-Prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [wikipedia.org].

Re:How about silence?

[MenTaLguY]

The Catholic position is that human dignity and the value of human life are unconditional. Even if someone was conceived "wrongly", that still doesn't change. That's what unconditional means. This is the reason that the Church objects to the destruction of "surplus" IVF embryos, even while she opposes IVF.

Re:

[trolltalk.com]

> > "The Catholic position is that human dignity and the value of human life are unconditional."

Here, let me fix that for you " human dignity is unconditional - unless you're a heretic" - that really explains the Inquisition.

Also, seems to me that the Catholic position is in direct contradiction to the bible - the flood, the 7 plagues, genocide, slavery - hey, tell us how being a slave, or even owning slaves, is congruent with human dignity. And how torture is okay for the church. And how its all

Re:How about silence?

[OSXCPA]

Awesomely Catholic post - brings me back to my Sunday school days, but without Mr. Rheingold telling me I was going to hell for arguing with my sister. You gave us the what (natural law) without the why ('what is natural law, even briefly and how is it relevant').

For interested readers, here is the relevant passage from the link provided:

QUOTE ...They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."

Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person
END QUOTE

Did you get that? The conjugal act has intrinsic meaning, and if you get knocked up by any other method, the 'meaning' is not there, because the act itself has meaning that cannot be moved elsewhere, nor can any other act have that meaning. The church has bound a specific physical act (copulation between husband and wife) with a specific meaning and decreed that everyone must interpret this conglomeration their way.

So, even if you artificially conceive out of love, in a loving marriage, to raise beautiful children, sorry - 'natural law' says you can't, because the meanings the church has given cannot be changed, nor should they be. Nothing natural about it, actually...

Clearly, the Catholic Church does not have a 'humble' opinion. Must be nice to be right 100% of the time, whilst avoiding the sin of pride too.

Re:How about silence?

[n-baxley]

The babies that are born through artificial insemination are great. The problem with it lies in all of the fertilized eggs that are discarded once a pregnancy occurs or that are lost during "handling". Catholics, myself included, believe that life begins at conception and so when you get rid of an embryo, anytime after fertilization, you are destroying a life.

Re:How about silence?

[Tack]

Catholics, myself included, believe that life begins at conception and so when you get rid of an embryo, anytime after fertilization, you are destroying a life.

Life begins at conception, which presumably means the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. What happens when the zygote later divides, to form identical twins? Does God intervene and inject a new soul into the womb? What happens, in those rare cases, when two zygotes merge, to form a chimera? Does God intervene and pluck a soul from the womb? Where does it go?

To quote Sam Harris, "this arithmetic of souls simply does not make sense."

Re:How about silence?

[TheDormouse]

What happens when the zygote later divides, to form identical twins? Does God intervene and inject a new soul into the womb?

Nope. One out of every set of twins doesn't have a soul. Everybody knows that.

No no, you've got that backwards

[A nonymous Coward]

The zygote divides because God injected a second soul.

Sheesh.

Re:

[THE anonymus coward]

Since nobody has answered your questions...

Catholic teaching holds that life is good, and Human life is in the image of our creator in a unique way. This includes everything from how we come into being, through how we live, to how we die. The problem lies in the separation of the conjugal act from procreation, which is something that John Paul II harped on to no end... people just didn't get it.

As far as those who are the result of artificial insemination (or other fertility aids), they're not tainted. T

Re:

[Dolohov]

The problem lies in the separation of the conjugal act from procreation, which is something that John Paul II harped on to no end... people just didn't get it.

It's not that we don't get it. It's that we don't agree.

A while back, PayPal made a rather drastic change to its policies -- so drastic, that they made all their customers go to a page with the new policy. Underneath were two checkboxes, "I read and understand the new policy." and "I accept all of the changes above." If you checked the first box bu

Re:How about silence?

[Entropius]

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]

He's the fucking Pope. He defines reality.

And I'm a scientist.

[Weaselmancer]

He's the fucking Pope. He defines reality.

And I'm a scientist - so let's test that. I'll hold a piano over his head suspended by a pulley and a rope. The Pope can say that he declares gravity to be heresy. I'll let go of the rope.

If he really does define reality, he should be in no danger. I have a theory on how the test would end, though.

The short of it is these people should not be dictating to scientists. Why?

Read up on what they did to Galileo [wikipedia.org], for daring to suggest the Earth is not the center of the universe - which they just got around to forgiving him for, which took them until 1992 [bibletopics.com] to fucking get around to.

There is no way these people should have any input whatsoever in a scientific context.

Re:

[Weaselmancer]

One of us has been force fed, I just don't think it's me.

They had a problem with him telling people how to interperet the bible, which was their monopoly.

And therein lies the rub - what happens when an experiment contradicts what's in the Bible? If you discuss your results you are guilty of exactly that.

"And yet it moves."

Giordano Bruno

[Weaselmancer]

That may be the "official" reason, but the real reason is that he found an error in the Flawless Undisputed Work of God.

A quote: [geocities.com]

In 1614 a Dominican priest filed charges at the Office of the Inquisition. Galileo was to respond by writing extraordinarily long letters which were circulated and became subject of debate. The most influential churchman of his age, Cardinal Bellamarine was to say of Galileo's theories: "a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also likely to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false".

His actual crime was noticing that The Book has A Problem.

If you'd like to see an even better example of this, check out Giordano Bruno. His crimes were:

• Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
• Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
• Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
• Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
• Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
• Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
• Dealing in magics and divination.
• Denying the Virginity of Mary.

What did he say? Basically the same thing as Galileo - that the "heavens" are simply other stars like our sun, the comets weren't messengers from God, etc. Read it here. [wikipedia.org]

Oh yeah, they burned his ass at the stake for that.

Re:

[Zanth_]

Yes they were intertwined but only in so much as the state had a "recognized" religion. The idea of "Separation of Church and State" in the US was more an experiment in ensuring that every religion had equal opportunity under the law. That is, no one religion would usurp all others. True the Pope did wield quite a bit of power, again, when the monarchs so chose to go against the Papacy, they did so with ease more often than not. In fact, the Holy See was often under the thumb of state powers, particular

Re:And I'm a scientist.

[Weaselmancer]

It's a better comment than you're taking credit for. Religious people really DO think their beliefs shape the universe. That's why Galileo is such a wonderful example. The book says one thing - the telescope says another. Which is right?

Turns out the Inquisition thought the book was right. Didn't matter that anyone could duplicate Galileo's observations - they're right there in the sky. Anyone with good glass working skills can see the same stuff Galileo saw.

And it took the Catholics 359 years to admit it. Three hundred, and fifty nine years to admit that they were wrong about condemning a guy who dared to notice that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. Do we really want this medieval bureaucracy clogging down scientific progress?

A good example of what I'm talking about is artificial insemination. The Catholics are against it - it's another one of those "affronts to human dignity" they're talking about. But when an otherwise sterile couple gets to have a family because of it, it's hard to see how some ethereal affront to dignity has any context whatsoever to the joy having a family can bring you.

That's why these people shouldn't have any vote on scientific issues. The Church is a medieval institution. It becomes dangerously dated when discussing things in a modern context.

Picking on Poor Galileo Again

[iamlucky13]

The issue wasn't just "some book" that said the earth was the center of the universe. Almost everybody was convinced that's what they were seeing when they looked up in the sky. It's pretty darn hard to take a glance and figure all that out for yourself. There's a reason it took all of humanity several thousand years to establish that fact. We're talking generations of really hardcore science nerds like Aristotle, Archymedes, and Da Vinci. Almost no one besides Galileo had seen what he had, and few even had

Re:And I'm a scientist.

[Weaselmancer]

Are you trying to say that anything connected to science is "untouchable" when it comes to morality? Perhaps you would have had a successful career in Nazi Germany, doing scientific studies on Jews.

It's a lovely straw man you've constructed there, but I'll answer anyways.

Morality does indeed have a place in science. Just not medieval morality.

For instance, embryonic stem cells. If you object because you feel that one life is being traded for another, that is a modern and logical stance. You can back that up with rational argument. You can discuss this, make points, make counter-arguments. You can debate.

If you object because you think God put a soul in there at conception and you're committing an affront to the Creator by using them - well, that doesn't belong in a scientific context. There can't be any discussion, because faith is making the argument. Faith simply believes - there is no room for negotiation. God said it, that settles it.

That's why the Catholics had such a hard time with Galileo. God said one thing, and now any yutz with $100 to go buy a telescope can prove that wrong. In the end, the Catholics had to "adjust" how they were interpreting the scripture to make the whole "foundations of the earth" thing less literal and more figurative. They moved the fault to themselves, since clearly someone was at fault, and it can't be The Book since it's never wrong. A very clever sidestep, IMHO.

Re:How about silence?

[Confessed Geek]

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]

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.

Re:

[d3ac0n]

Well said lgw.

One might also point out, that Christianity reformed itself away from the corruptions of the Dark Ages quite some time ago. Indeed, Modern Christianity has been at the forefront of many of our most celebrated movements. These include the fight against Slavery (started by churches) and the Women's Suffrage in America (Started by Christian Women).

Meanwhile, Islam is still stuck in the 7th century, still talking about past glories, and still ignoring the horrifying state of it's own affairs. I

Re:On behalf of all geek catholics..

[spun]

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.

Re:

[ArAgost]

I think that catholics who can't conceive were already quite pissed off by the fact that they couldn't conceive.

A non religeous analogy

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

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:

[Abreu]

Well, some geek protestants had to change churches when the leadership all went creationist-crazy... I know I had to :(

Re:

[dcollins]

Hey, the guy quotes something God "said" in his sig. Maybe he's hearing voices.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I'm not too sure how an organization that spent decades hiding pedophiles has any business lecturing anyone on human dignity.

The only thing, apparently, more infinite than God is the human capacity for intense hypocrisy.

Mod parent down! (generalization = straw man)

[Spy der Mann]

I'm not too sure how an organization that spent decades hiding pedophiles has any business lecturing anyone on human dignity. The only thing, apparently, more infinite than God is the human capacity for intense hypocrisy.

Your statement sounds nice and everything, but it's awfully flawed.

a) The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have. By your standards, the United States should disappear from the face of the earth since they has decades abusing human rights. Right? RIGHT?

b) Usually the priests who lecture people on human dignity are NOT the ones hiding pedophiles. If you disagree, I challenge you to mention anything evil John Paul II has done, because he lectured A LOT about human dignity.

c) All catholics *ARE* the Catholic Church. If you want to say something bad about priests and bishops, don't say "Catholic Church". Say "the Clergy".

d) By generalizing, you make all the good priests look worse than the bad ones. Because it's the bad ones who are pedophiles, and the good priests are the ones fighting for human rights. Oh but since they're all catholic anyway, they're all part of the same corrupt organization and all should be labelled as hypocrites. Perhaps we should label Martin Luther King Jr. as a hypocrite too, since he endorsed christianity (he was a Lutheran pastor, after all) and Christianity is full of hypocrites?

I'm amazed how bashing and name calling granted you insightful. You'd be a wonderful Fox News reporter.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Oh come on. The widespread sex scandal involving the Church and a good many high-ranking clerics, and Rome was somehow ignorant of it all? For shit's sake, in Ireland alone, it paid out something like a hundred million pounds.

The Pope has no problem lecturing people on biotech, capital punishment, abortion, but where is the meaningful punishment of these priests? It spent decades moving them around and hiding them. It was an institutional approach, and now to defend as "just a few bishops" is not bourne

Re:Mod parent down! (generalization = straw man)

[KeithJM]

If you disagree, I challenge you to mention anything evil John Paul II has done, because he lectured A LOT about human dignity.

One evil thing that Pope John Paul II did -- he actively discouraged condom use in countries with almost pandemic levels of AIDS. Yes, he also discouraged premarital sex, but people are more easily convinced to avoid condoms than to avoid sex. I'm sure all of those sick and dieing people felt a lot more dignified than they would have if they'd used condoms -- after all, buying condoms can be kind of awkward.

Re:

[PJ1216]

Condoms can't stop spreading HIV 100% of the time. Abstinence CAN (at least sexual transmission). Plus, if you only had sex when married, it stops the spreading of HIV to only that one other person IF you have it. And then possibly to the child if there is one.

Your third statement ignores that it may take 10 years to find out they are HIV+. If you want to have children and have sex, it will just as easily spread HIV. You can't make an argument that condoms are the only way to stop it unless you also w

Re:

[Intron]

"You'd be a wonderful Fox News reporter."

Oh sure, accuse someone else of making blanket statements and then come out with this. You can't claim that all Fox News reporters are biased, rating-driven, spittle-faced lunatics just because 99% are.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Whoops, meant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country#Italy [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[hostyle]

In other news: Science denounces some pope as 'irrelevant theorist'

Re:

[sm62704]

That brings to mind two versions of an old joke.
----
A priest, a rabbi, and a lawyer are on the titanic when it strikes an iceberg.
The rabbi exclaims "save the children!"
The lawyer snarls "fuck the children!"
The priest exclaims "no time for that!"
----
A priest and a rabbi see a homeless child hudddled in a doorway shivering. The rabbi says "oh dear, what should we do for this poor child?"

The priest says "easy, take him home and fuck him!"
The rabbi says "out of what?"
----
PLEASE mod this disgusting comment down

Mod Parent Flamebait

[Bryansix]

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?

And while you're at it, mod this guy flamebait too

[CheekyBastard]

Such a comment just confirms what I've said before about Atheists.

Nice generalization. I'm an atheist, but just because I don't believe in that superstitious junk doesn't mean I give a damn whether you have an open mind (by my definition, or yours). I don't.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Affront to Human Dignity?

[krog]

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]

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

Sounds exactly like religion to me!

Re:

[Danny Rathjens]

One time I was at a boy scout event in Miami Beach and an old lady fondly said how we looked like the Hitler Youth in our uniforms.

Re:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And the Pope - as a cover-up artist for internationally-organized pederasty? That's NOT a problem?

Some pole-smoker in a gold hat? Jesus would kick that Pharisee from the temple!

Re:

[Lady Jazzica]

I think his point is that human beings shouldn't be made in labs, as if they were bacteria cultures or something like that.

Re:Interesting acusation

[BytePusher]

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.

Re:

[JustNiz]

>> let's just stipulate that there is no god and be done with the pope already?

Firstly let me make it clear that I personally do not follow any religion, so have no iterest in defending the christian church, however:
* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
* His point seems to be that this stuff is an affront to human dignity, which has nothing to do with religion. E.g. I for example have dignity yet am not a follower of any religion.

Actua

Re:

[J0nne]

* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.

There's no evidence that proves the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist either...

Re:dear pope:

[FroBugg]

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.

But can we discount potentiality of thought?

[physicsphairy]

You wouldn't say you could rightly kill someone sleeping, in a coma, suspended animation, etc., simply because they had temporarily ceased their conscious thought. You would bring into consideration their potential to resume conscious thinking. So I think it's far from clear that the line of humanity is drawn once consciousness initiates. The fact that it *will* initiate, provided you make no intentionally destructive interventions, seems suspiciously like other cases where we intuitively feel that it is wrong to end life. I'm not saying it is necessarily the same. I feel that it is, quite possibly, impossible to know. But, the thing is, you don't demolish a building until you're sure it's been evacuated, and you don't kill someone or something on a 50/50 hope that it isn't actually murder.