Pope Denounces Some Biotech as Affront to 'Human Dignity' 1158
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."
Re:Big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Far too many registered voters and politicians.
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, is there anything else he -could- have said?
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the Pope's moral authority comes from ...? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about silence? (Score:2, Insightful)
John Paul II might have considered it, but Benedict is extremely conservative and is living up to the 'placeholder' assessment that most people had of him at the time of his election.
Predictable comments...engage points instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Interesting acusation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing, apparently, more infinite than God is the human capacity for intense hypocrisy.
Pot, meet kettle. (Score:1, Insightful)
Organized religion.
Secular Humanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big deal (Score:1, Insightful)
Close, anyway. First thing I thought when I saw the headline "Pope denounces some biotech as affront to human dignity" was "Most religion is an affront to human dignity, Catholicism right at the head of the pack."
I don't feel that it is my place to tell them what to believe, but that doesn't make me think they're anything but a bunch of whacked-out loonies, driven by insecurity, fear and an inability to deal with the idea that some questions may not have answers, and others we may never know the answers to.
Religion is the crack-pipe of the masses. Makes some of them hyper, drives others to euphoria, costs them much time, treasure and effort, all the while debilitating their faculties of reason.
Re:How about silence? (Score:5, Insightful)
When given a choice between remaining consistent with earlier doctrine and remaining consistent with reality, why should we choose the former?
Re:Big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, man. There is no god, let us move on. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Actually without reading more than the headline, I think the pope's point is very well made. Personally I feel scientists in some cases are definately going too far. I also have seen more than enough evidence to prove that most companies will do anything to make money for now, regardless of the ethics or wider implication of their actions.
Re:dear pope: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Artificial insemination is not the only option (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Affront to Human Dignity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds exactly like religion to me!
Re:LISTEN TO THE POPE!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod Parent Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Newsflash: if there exist invisible super-beings, then there's no way to tell! If you get all holier-than-thou because you are so certain that unprovability is equal to nonexistance, you really need to read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Your faith that there do not exist invisible super-beings is just as irrational as the Pope's faith that there are.
Re:How about silence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting acusation (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Artificial insemination is not the only option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Predictable comments...engage points instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh, man. There is no god, let us move on. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, man. There is no god, let us move on. (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no evidence that proves God doesn't not exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
That's why proving imaginary things don't exist isn't science.
if my mother (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Oh, man. There is no god, let us move on. (Score:1, Insightful)
Your point is easily refuted by simple subsitution.
"There is no evidence that proves an invisible pink/purple unicorn with 12 teeth is not sitting on my desk".
Should you accept that based on faith alone until someone proves me wrong?
THINK!
Mod parent down! (generalization = straw man) (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And I'm a scientist. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Here we go again. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're truncating his argument to make it sound ridiculous. What's hated is the use of embryos. He's arguing that a human embryo has the same dignity the rest of us do. You may reject that -- and that rejection has its own moral danger -- but you shouldn't mis-state his argument.
Re:How about silence? (Score:2, Insightful)
And in some places, this works. Catholicism has been gaining a lot of ground in Africa and South America even as it loses influence in the 'richer' countries--leading to, amongst other things, rather amusing conflicts between hereditarily Catholic (but not actively participating) Quebecois and immigrants to Quebec who are 'taking over' the old Catholic churches.
JPII actually endorsed evolution at one point--though Benedict has made a few noises about that 'intelligent design' nonsense. (And I hear that Ben Stein's buying into that old fallacy with some movie that makes him look like he's trying to be the next Michael Moore--but I digress.)
As Christian churches go, though, the Catholic church really isn't that bad. Its main problems are its pre-eminence as the largest christian denomination and its two millenia (minus a couple hundred years, if you're counting from the Council of Nicea) of institutional inertia. Benedict does represent the inertial side of things, yes, but he's not forever--and the next pope, the way these things go, should be a bit more on the progressive side.
What you really have to watch out for are certain of the protestant denominations--they're the ones who're trumpeting creationism, setting up creationist museums, actively picketing abortion clinics, etc.
Artificial Insemination (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Oh, man. There is no god, let us move on. (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no evidence that proves ghosts don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that ghosts don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves midichlorians don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that the force doesn't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves invisible giant elephants don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that they don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves undetectable/invisible spherical beings don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that they don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves the Mormon golden plates didn't exist. Until that is found, Mormons are right.
There is no evidence that proves we're not part of the Matrix. Until that is found [your argument that the Matrix doesn't exist] [has no merit]
Same goes for anything.
Proving that some things don't exist is practically impossible.
We gather evidence. The evidence points to possible conclusions. Some more likely than others.
There is no proof of the tooth Fairy, we don't believe in it (her?).
There is no proof of Santa Clause, we don't believe in him.
There is no proof of many other creatures from many other cultures, we don't believe in them.
As kids you believed in them because there was evidence... you got presents. Then you got told the truth.
Same goes for God. Why do adults still believe in God?
You do not need to believe in God to have ethics.
As for ethics, I do agree that science has many gray areas. There are gray areas for any Society.
Re:Oh, man. There is no god, let us move on. (Score:2, Insightful)
A non religeous analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And I'm a scientist. (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Hey, no problem Mr. Pope. (Score:1, Insightful)
Would you argue that the Pope (and your local authorities) should stand by and let you make any decision your heart desires, including killing your neighbor? I doubt it.
Re:Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:Affront to Human Dignity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some pole-smoker in a gold hat? Jesus would kick that Pharisee from the temple!
Re:Ethics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about silence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr100Percent says:
Re:And I'm a scientist. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the common misconception that the Church does not like sex is strongly misguided, otherwise the Church would be doing God a great disservice to associate him so closely with sex. The Church just disagrees with the way that many people chose to express their sexuality.
For more or this teaching, look up the Theology of the Body, a phrase that refers to the sexual teachings of John Paul II.
You missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
The other aspect of this is that people change as they go through their lives. I'm only 23, but I know a lot more about life and morality than I did at 18. I'm sure that perspective will change again by the time I'm a father and again by the time I'm a grandfather. Getting more knowledge of what other people have thought were moral through their lives can help balance your own perspective.
Re:Mod parent down! (generalization = straw man) (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disagree, I challenge you to mention anything evil John Paul II has done, because he lectured A LOT about human dignity.
Re:Hey, no problem Mr. Pope. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 doing commenting? Why not just change the channel. Or maybe you're just trying to protect the rest of us. Well, I appreciate your concern, but I think that the Pope's probably got a little more altruism to his views than you do. I don't know you, but it's just a guess.
And while you're at it, mod this guy flamebait too (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:And I'm a scientist. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:John Paul II WAS Conservative (Score:2, Insightful)
Fair enough. But once we start making that choice to extinguish one life to save another, where does it end? We could just as easily go to the other end of the scale and say, exterminate all the muslims pre-emptively rather than risk a nuclear attack on the West, thus saving millions of lives by killing a billion. Or, for that matter, vice versa.
The point is, once you've given yourself the right to kill to save a life, regardless of the tiniest smattering of cellular humanity that it might be, someone else is going to claim the right for themselves as well, and you've turned discussion about something that we intuitively think should be sacred, into a political punting game. For a more real example, consider the death penalty. Murderers have very high recidivism rate, particularly serial killers. If you kill them, then, you obviously save lives. But some people won't make that moral choice. It all rather depends on whether you think a fetus has more social redeeming value than the likes of John Gacy.
Re:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:1, Insightful)
What you've essentially said above is that the Catholic church doesn't forcibly brainwash and enslave. Instead it relies on the weakness of the individual ad that you personally think this is wonderful. Hey, most Nazi's weren't forced to march or rally in the beginning either. (Please invoke Godwin if you wish, I have no interest in long protracted arguments with people that refuse to reason)
The problem is simply this. No religion is logically consistent. Whenever I bring up this fact in discussion with a religious person they start rambling about metaphysics, what can and can't be proven, different kinds of knowledge etc. but the fact is this. You believe things that are unlikely and/or proven false to the best limits of human knowledge. You don't construct arguments on a logical basis but rather on cultural history in the form of books. This simply doesn't allow for self correction the way scientific method does. Religions only change very slowly over time, otherwise they lose their identity and splinter. Instead religions reinforce falsehoods and confuse moral argument (which admittedly is very difficult to construct on logical grounds, but that doesn't mean we should be sheep who chant and look to myths written hundreds or thousands of years ago for our morality).
Re:Modern interpretation of medieval law (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the "charges" brought against him, those listed were for his excommunication indeed, but after the "guilty" verdict, his excommunication was finalized. The secular authorities then burned him not because of his excommunication, nor by the request of the Inquisition but because of his practicing magic and divination. Reading Firpo among others will shed much light on this.
The point though that must be driven home is that the Catholic Church (as an entity) did not put people to death, secular institutions did. If in particular places examples exist where people who were Catholic and held power killed people (as in Spain for instance) this must be distinguished from claiming "The Catholic Church did it!" Because that is not the case. Rogue individuals or extremists in any organization act on their own in such matters. When discussing the horrors that went on during the Spanish Inquisition, the Pope was attempting to gain control of the rogue bishops and cardinals but was oftne thwarted by the Spanish monarchy at the time.
But can we discount potentiality of thought? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's smokescreen (Score:3, Insightful)
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 carries a lot of metaphysics about it. When that goes away, what will remain? The church will think of something, but they'll have to backpedal a lot, so they do what they can to avert it.
Re:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? No "except when" statements you say? You say this about the organization that moved Priests around to avoid them being discovered as/prosecuted for being child molesters?
Sorry, but the Catholic Church has no claim to the moral high ground in my eyes. I can respect them slightly more then the typical Evangelical Baptist church, because I haven't had any Catholics try and convert me, but they still don't get to claim any sort of moral high ground in my eyes.
Re:Baby can't even talk yet when it usually happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Individually chosen to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:3, Insightful)
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 dead is not polite. (Some cultures don't care, others have *any* speaking of the dead as not polite)
The atom is the smallest possible particle. (For a time, it looked to be)
Slim women are attractive. (Pick a culture, any culture...)
Guns are good. (See NRA)
Re:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey, no problem Mr. Pope. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gay marriage is a good example. There are groups of people that are fighting for acceptance of the word "marriage" to be affixed to a union of a same sex couple. The law currently affords the legal equivalent (not tax consequences - the marriage penalty etc.) through contract (marriage is a contractual relationship) and power of attorney. However, the "legal equivalent" is insufficient - the word "marriage" must be used. Why? acceptance - forcing a version of morality on society.
The better position, in my opinion, is not to reject legislated morality (because the law is legislated morality) - it is to define the parameters that are acceptable for legislation. We must first recognize that every one has a definition of morality that they would prefer the world recognized. For example, even advocates of gay marriage legislation (from the courthouse or the state house) will draw lines as to what is moral. In the varied surveys I have taken, advocates draw the lines for marriage at children-adult, incestuous, multiple persons, and human-animals. The same people that claim that, by not being allowed to use the word "married", their rights are being infringed on would deny others loving relationships. It is not irrational to set differing standards of morality.
Next, we have to observe that some behavior, while consistent with our personal rights, infringes on other's rights. The "if you don't like it - don't do it" approach is really insufficient because the same reasoning works for actions which are (nearly) universally decried as immoral such as rape and pedophilia (or even murder).
The third step is to use our understanding to define the boundaries of legislation. A logical approach would to be legislate at the boundaries where exercise of personal rights intersect and conflict with other's personal rights. Therein lies the point of contention in the controversy presented by the Pope. It is perfectly rational to reason that life begins at conception (science tells us this). It is also within the ambit of reason to put a high value on life and to have differing opinions on where the line should be drawn in bestowing the rights granted to all humans. For those that set the line low your argument is similar to "don't think killing your newborn is good, then don't do it." The fact is, you've drawn a moral line somewhere (late term pregnancy? 2 years old? 4? 15?), and you weren't irrational in doing it. Further, you want to impose your version of morality on everyone else. Sure, people that use a religious text as a science book have logical problems but maybe you aren't too far off from the "religious types" you deride.
Re:How about silence? (Score:4, Insightful)
For interested readers, here is the relevant passage from the link provided:
QUOTE
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Mod parent down! (generalization = straw man) (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true, but since people aren't going to stop fucking because the pope says it's a bad idea, I'm fairly certain the next best thing is not to tell them they will suffer eternal torment if they use a condom.
Re:On behalf of all geek catholics.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of Catholics disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a former Catholic and current geek, (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You missed the point (Score:3, Insightful)
I once read Mao's book on guerilla warfare and he points out that you have to polarize the target culture. You want people to be with you or against you...no middle ground willing to "negotiate" because they keep you from accomplishing your goals. I wonder if the black-and-white mentality so pervasive is an artifact of the culture wars going on or what.
Anyway, very good observations here. I keep reading religious or scientific people basically painting themselves into a corner with these extreme statements and I wish more people would realize...you don't have to agree with the Pope or with Dawkins or whomever, but you really ought to be thinking and talking about the issue instead of imagining it's universally "settled" and ignoring its existence.
Does the Catholic Church still exist? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the modern world where religion has less and less impact on the operation of governments, corporations and educational institutions. During a time when people regularly openly mock Christians in general as being brain dead (if you haven't noticed it, you're not listening). In an era where people are actually turned down for jobs because they wear a cross around their neck, the Churches will need to now, more than ever show they're evolving with the times. More and more, their followers are the sheep of society, not the leaders.
If the Church genuinely wants to make a difference, they need to, instead of playing the "Moral grounds card", since most people working on the projects do see themselves on higher moral grounds than the Church, provide research to show it's not a good idea. Hire independant (non-religion, possibly atheist) scientists to research the topic as well and present good reasoning that would specifically back up their arguments.
If we go back, long before the Catholic church to the days of exodus, Kosher was presented to a weak people dieing from tape worm, food poisening and other such issues an uneducated population travelling in the desert would be forced to survive. The morals behind Kosher had deeper meaning than "You should not cook thine cattle in the milk of its mother". The problem was that Egyptians classically would baste their meat in milk overnight to cause it to be much more tender. The moral was in reality that deadly tiny little bacteria would form in the meat when it's left on a rock in the desert overnight.
If the Church genuinely feels they have out best interest in mind, remember, we're not a bunch of uneducated brick makers with families travelling in a desert. Do the research to tell us what in fact is morally wrong. Show us the actual answer, we are reasonable and rational people. If you can show that a certain form of scientific progress will has a very highly likelyhood of having a morally negative impact on humankind, we will listen... at least we'll alter our research to avoid the complication.
Re:Individually chosen to believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:No no, you've got that backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of Catholics disagree (Score:3, Insightful)