Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
At which point, Mad Geo, does a "human life" become worthy of protection?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Besides Amnesty, are there other organizations promoting a more acceptable list of human rights that a Roman Catholic could support in good conscience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
For a guy that usually tries so hard to be logical, that you can't see that a Zygote which can't think, and a person, that can, are two different things speaks volumes about the hideous contortions that religious belief does to "logic".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
A view which would have baffled St Thomas.

---

quote:

---

"Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life" by John Haldane and Patrick Lee, Philosophy 78 (2003) 255-278:
So, can the reasons for Aquinas’s position that human ensoulment occurs after conception (fertilisation) still have force today once they are freed from erroneous embryological assumptions? The reasons which led Aquinas to hold late human ensoulment are basically four, three embryological points and one metaphysical. First, on his Aristotelian view, the male is the sole active cause; second, the material (the menstrual blood) upon which the semen (as instrument of the male) works has only a very low degree of perfection or organization, not even possessing vegetative life; third, as a consequence, the distance between the initial point (menstrual blood) and the end point (a body sufficiently organized to receive a human soul) is quite long. The general metaphysical point is expressed by Aquinas as follows:

Now it belongs to the natural order that a thing is gradually brought from potency to act. And therefore in those things which are generated we find that at first each is imperfect and afterwards is perfected.

We believe that the general metaphysical principle is demonstrably true, and that the application of it in the second sentence is plausibly so. All three of the embryological beliefs, however, are known to be false. Modern embryology shows that the female provides a gamete (the ovum) which is already a highly organized living cell, containing highly complex, specific information, in the genetic structure of the nuclear chromosomes. This information (together with that provided by the genetic structure in the chromosomes of the male sperm) helps guide the development of the new living organism formed by the fusion of the sperm and the ovum. Hence the ovum is actually very close to readiness for rapid embryological development; it only requires fusion with the sperm and the activation that occurs with that fusion. To a certain extent the gradual transition from the simple to the complex that Aquinas sought actually occurs during gametogenesis (of which, of course, he was unaware).Thus, applying Aquinas’s metaphysical principles to the embryological facts uncovered since his time leads to the conclusion that the human being is present from fertilisation on.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Unrelatedly, but to push IngoB. OK, make the hypotised person a primed suicide bomber. And accept the view commonly held by experts that the only adequate way to prevent the person attacking is through a gunshot to the head (which will kill). Do you maintain your position?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
Is this actually official AI policy yet? I've been looking at their website but cannot see an announcement.

---

quote:

---

HRW notes that the question of access to safe abortion as an option for victims of rape is not openly discussed in any health facility receiving international humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Chad or elsewhere. There has been little or no discussion of how to operationalise WHO/UNHCR standards in a field setting and health providers are left to use their own initiative to find out about local ‘safe’ abortion services. Humanitarian agencies seem to assume it is not essential to provide abortion services or accurate information for victims of rape in camp or IDP settings. It is likely that US government anti-abortion policies have contributed to reluctance to provide safe abortion services...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gareth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Here's Amnesty's press release.

They're saying that in cases of rape, incest, or poor health of the woman, she should be able to choose, without coercion.

I think they're right.

---

In which case, you can donate your money and devote your time to whichever causes put your opinion into action.

The RCC disagrees. Whatever your or my opinion about that might be, I cannot deny that the RCC has every right to use its resources, agencies and influence to put its opinions into action.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To the best of our knowledge, a newborn can't "think".

---

quote:

---

Scientists from several fields have shown that from the first weeks of life, babies are active learners. They are busy gathering and organizing knowledge about their world.

---

quote:

---

Newborns begin right away to use and integrate their senses to explore their world. Most infants can:

• See clearly within 13 inches
• Focus on and follow moving objects, including human faces
• See all colors and distinguish hue and brightness
• Distinguish the pitch and volume of sound
• Discriminate sweet, sour, bitter, and salty tastes
• Respond with facial expressions to strong stimuli (like odors)
• Prefer high contrast items and geometric shapes
• Begin to anticipate events (for example, sucking at the sight of a nipple)

  ---

quote:

---

Is it OK to kill it, too?

---

quote:

---

If you require elementary self-awareness to be in place, then perhaps we can kill infants till about two years of age? Or is it the age of reason we are looking for? So can we get rid of children under six? How about mentally handicapped people? At what stage do they not think enough, so that we can dispose of them and save the money for their care? If you do a Singer, at least do it consequently.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Newborns begin right away to use and integrate their senses to explore their world. Most infants can: ...

• Begin to anticipate events (for example, sucking at the sight of a nipple)

---

Anticipating events? Why that is THINKING! Go figure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I have already stated that I am not okay with Partial Birth Abortion. Ergo, I am okay with real live living babies being left to their thinking.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I can see how the argument flows from the decision to regard a ZEF as a human person, and although it's not self-evident to the rest of the world, this belief may be regarded as revealed and non-negotiable.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:
The US supreme court said that because we do not know when human life/personhood starts, we should not make abortion illegal. But this is just nonsense. If we are to be skeptical, abortion should be made illegal.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
mmm.

So you define what is not human, and anything that is not not human must be is human.

mmm.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermes66:

If the Vatican wants to stop abortion in cases of sexual violence, perhaps it should put its considerable wealth into orphanages and shelters for those born to mothers forced into pregnancy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermes66:
How a woman could nurture and love a baby foisted on her by rape is beyond my comprehension - I don't think I could.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

And large numbers of the most prominent anti-abortion Catholic campaigners are in fact women.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petrified:

One thing pro abortionists seem to have real trouble with is that there are women who don't agree with them.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

FACTS

The Vatican formally abolished the death penalty from its constitution in 2001.
The revised Vatican constitution that took effect on February 22, 2001 removed the death penalty from the text of the Fundamental Law, equivalent to a constitution, which dates back to the 1929 creation of the modern Vatican city-state. Pope John Paul II approved the new law for the abolition of the death penalty in November 2000.
Vatican use of the death penalty persisted into the 19th century, with hangings under Pope Pius IX, but no execution was carried out since the establishment of the modern state in 1929. Capital punishment was banned within the walls of the Vatican by Pope Paul VI in 1967. Under Pope John Paul II, the Vatican is strongly anti-death penalty. (Vatican City State, Abolitionist)

---

quote:

---

Vatican on the Death Penalty, Not Inherently Evil, but "difficult to justify today"

By John-Henry Westen
VATICAN CITY, February 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A declaration of the Holy See regarding the death penalty was released today. It was delivered at a world congress on the death penalty, held in Paris, France from February 1 to 3.

Rather than condemning the practice outright, the Vatican used nuanced language to indicate that while it found the practice "an affront to human dignity", it could in some circumstances be necessitated. The language is starkly different from that used to condemn abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage which can never be justified.

"The Catholic Church continues to maintain that the legitimate authorities of State have the duty to protect society from aggressors," says the document on the death penalty. "Some States traditionally include the death penalty among the means used to achieve this end," an option "that is difficult to justify today." (Vatican on the Death Penalty, Not Inherently Evil, but "difficult to justify today")

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I just checked Cardinal Winning's biography on Wikipedia, because it does read above as though Triple Tiara said that he was raped and brought up the resulting baby. Surely a woman can't be a cardinal I was thinking until I read what he did do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermes66:
Why won't the Vatican look at the bigger picture?

Because they're all MEN. Not one of them will ever have to face pregnancy by rape or incest. As a female I have complete sympathy with any woman who cannot carry a foetus to full term - for whatever reason. How a woman could nurture and love a baby foisted on her by rape is beyond my comprehension - I don't think I could.

If the Vatican wants to stop abortion in cases of sexual violence, perhaps it should put its considerable wealth into orphanages and shelters for those born to mothers forced into pregnancy. Then they can salvage their principles and actually help people - specifically, women.

---

I wondered how long it would take before THAT tired argument would be trotted out!

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petrified:

One thing pro abortionists seem to have real trouble with is that there are women who don't agree with them.

---

I don't know any 'pro-abortionists'.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Myrrh

I think the answer to that is that on the one hand the RCC is talking to its members and other individuals. On the other it is talking to State Authorities, ie, Governments which as we all know have no soul.

Sioni

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

[responding to Seraphim Sarov: incidentally SS, why is the Hauerwasian argument 'tired'?]

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia...

...When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
...and with all respect to my RC shipmates, I can't not believe that the official RC positions regarding issues of families and sexuality would be substantially different if the hierarchy were not celebate old men.

---

Speaking as a discontented Catholic, I have to agree with this.

However, it could have been worse. It could have been a hierarchy of celibate old women.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelica37:
I want to know why Amnesty can't look at the bigger picture and see that they are going to lose an awful lot of support by doing this.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelica37:
I want to know why Amnesty can't look at the bigger picture and see that they are going to lose an awful lot of support by doing this. [/URL]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gareth:
OK, I have been doing a bit of my own reading around this subject - as a lot of other people obviously have, too - and there seems to be a precedent for allowing a Catholic to continue to support AI in spite of its pro-abortion stance.

It dates back to when Holy Joe was merely Prefect of the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,) before he became Pope.

In 2004, the question was raised in the USA as to whether a voter could, in conscience, support a candidate who supported abortion but was otherwise the ideal choice of the voter.

Holy Joe sent a memo to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick which was published in the summer of 2004, and included these comments:

quote:

---

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia...

...When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

---

OK, it's not a direct precedent, but it appears to be similar enough to give Catholics some wiggle room - even if it does so by relying on the vague and subjective concept of proportionality.

( CNS version of the story
Washington Post version )

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tembrina2:
Lets assume that we all agree that:

1. It is wrong to torture
2. It is wrong to execute people
3. It is wrong to perform or have an abortion

How will this debate between AI and the RC stop one more person from being tortured, one more Chinese or American person from being executed, or one more fetus from being aborted? Is there any way that this split will reduce any of these? Or won't it just undermine human rights and fetal protections, as applied in our world, by splitting a great collaboration.

My first reaction is to think that AI is incredibly unwise to announce this policy because a reaction like this was so very predictable. What leads AI to conclude that taking a position on the decriminalization of abortion in certain cases (arguendo that it is the ideologically correct position) is worth the practical loss of support from such a strategic ally?

It is frustrating and sad because the RC and AI have worked together to confront some of the worst human rights abuses throughout the world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
feastofstephen:

interesting question. As I see it there are many who feel themselves to be *in-line* with Catholic (presumably you mean Roman Catholic) teaching and, indeed, practice, who, however, for whatever reason, choose not to undergo the formalities required for entry into the RCC. Should they choose to do so, I'm afraid they would be bound to support the teachings of the church on such matters, no matter what their status, President or Joe Blow in the back pew.

If you are asking whether a non-professed member of the RCC who is in sympathy with some teachings of the RCC, who also happens to be President of the US needs to bind him/herself to the totality of the RCC doctrine, clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, would have to say that such a person has put themselves outside the faith.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
..clearly, since they are sympatico on some issues but not others, particularly those which the Magisterium has handed down as binding on the faithful, that same Magisterium, the *Vatican*, if you will, would have to say that such a person has put themselves outside the faith.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
And it's always interesting to me that people pick the *hardest of the hardest* cases to illustrate their points: things are often a bit different on the ground v. the ideals to which we are asked to aspire.

---