Open Thread

Now for some good news... Leukaemia treatment 'cures' man of HIV.

(LSV affirming the importance and power of science? Dear dear, whatever next....?!)

Has God Gone Global?

Philip Dodd chaired this discussion which included a good contribution from Maryam Narmazie, spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Controversial theologian and philosopher Phillip Blond was also a guest.

One religionist pointed out that there are 85,000 new Christians every day; but how many of them choose to become Christians? This guest also quoted scripture (must be true!): "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God."

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wfxwh

LSV

Your joy is a tad previous. Here is a story from the US which shows just how obnoxious and sickening the church can be when it is given access to an area it should be kept well away from. This is happening right now, btw...

https://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/phoenix-bishop-gives-ultimatum-hospital

RJB -

From the article:

"When Olmsted found out, he declared McBride and other Catholics who participated in the procedure to be excommunicated."

Maybe I'm just too much of a Prot to understand the significance of this, but I remember when I was once effectively 'excommunicated' from a particular Christian fellowship many years ago. It was one of the most liberating experiences of my life.

That may be, but the point so many of the bloggers on that site rightly focus on is that this Bishop is power mad. He wants a written document from the Board at the hospital confirming that HE is the moral authority for the hospital, not the doctors.

The Vatican, of course, will do nothing.

RJB -

You're preaching to the converted when telling me this.

In principle I see no conflict between 'theism' and 'medical science', but I do see a conflict between 'megalomaniacal religious institutionalism' and a form of ethically based medical science that recognises the reality of moral dilemmas (as in this case).

Of course 'megalomaniacal religious institutionalism' is idolatry, which is the antithesis of theism, since it involves making a 'god' out of a natural power structure. It's a pity some people (some of the denizens of W&T included) can't tell the difference between this form of idolatry and the Real McCoy, but there you go...

Primary school league tables: faith schools dominate top positions

"Primary school league tables: faith schools dominate top positions"

Despite their claims, 'faith' school do select pupils (ref). So it's no wonder they dominate top positions.

If they insist on trying to push creationism as science then they'll find that position slipping.

Natman -

Yeah, I see your logic. If we push the 'intelligence' theory it will undermine intelligence. Ergo we must improve intelligence by promoting the 'mindlessness hypothesis'.

Good one, Natman. I like your logic. It's fun.

"He wants a written document from the Board at the hospital confirming that HE is the moral authority for the hospital, not the doctors."

Many people of course would say that once you deliberately kill an innocent human being through abortion you automatically lose all moral authority.

LSV,

Yeah, I see your logic. If we push the 'intelligence' theory it will undermine intelligence. Ergo we must improve intelligence by promoting the 'mindlessness hypothesis'."

For every example of 'intelligent design you can show in biological organisms, I will give at least 2 examples of poor design. Guaranteed. Then we'll see what's so intelligent about it.

Blogster

Read the article and comments. They saved the mothers life instead of letting both die.

romejellybeen;

Where do you stand on the question of a doctor's right to refuse to perform an abortion? Is the killing of an unborn child just another medical procedure? Has not everyone reason to be grateful that in October the Council of Europe decisively rejected an attempt to force doctors to carry out abortions?

Theo

I'm for freedom there. I have long since thought that one of the worst things a person can do to another is to force them to do something which goes against their conscience.

Thats why I have had so much struggle with the Catholic Church over the years.

With regard to this Bishop, he did nothing and said nothing about the abuse and cover up of the rape of children. Yet he issued excommunications to everyone involved in this case where there were overwhelming moral justifications for taking the action these doctors, nurses and nuns took.

And just a small theological point here. Which is worse? Someone who performs a medical procedure in order to save a life, or someone who condemns a group of people to hell fire for all eternity?

Blogster,

"Many people of course would say that once you deliberately kill an innocent human being through abortion you automatically lose all moral authority. "

What ever happened to Original Sin? When non-believers point out to the vast amounts of misery many people live in or die from (not to mention the world of suffering that is most of the animal kingdom), believers will often come up with Original Sin as the excuse for a supposedly loving god allowing terrible things to happen. We're all supposed to be in need of salvation and we need to accept jesus for that. And since we are in that state from the moment we came to exist, that goes for babies too.

But talk about a medical procedure to save a woman's life and then the believers come up with 'innocent human being'.

Seems rather inconsistent to me. You would get on with one of the believing regulars on the blog here like a house on fire.

"He wants a written document from the Board at the hospital confirming that HE is the moral authority for the hospital, not the doctors."

Actually this Bishop doesn't want confirmation that HE is the moral authority, only that the Church is the moral authority. Liberals accept the idea of such authority, but want it on their own terms. This is essentially the type of "moral authority" which prevails in the UK, which is why an average of 500 innocent 'babies' (glad to see you admit that's who they are, PeterKlaver) are sacrificed each day - over seven million since 1967.
Anyone interested in 'irony' should reflect on the outrage our schoolchildren are taught to feel when considering appalling customs in history, such as "child sacrifice" in ancient Sparta.

Theophane,

From the article; "Olmsted’s chief complaint is that hospital has “not acknowledged my authority to settle this question.”"

So it -is- all about his authority here. He doesn't care that it was an abortion, or that a womans life was saved. He's just stamping his foot and showing that he's got the biggest manhood.

Creating strawmen by insisting we address the entire question of abortion is low, even for a fundamentalist.

Answer this: would you seriously prefer to see both mother and child die? Is your precious dogma worth so much to you that you'd prefer to see doctors let people die when they could be saved?

Natman,

The "authority" which the hospital fails to acknowledge is Bishop Olmert's - in his capacity as the local ordinary of the Catholic Church, under whose auspices this hospital functions; it is a Catholic hospital.
It should also be noted that "the chances of her [the mother's] survival, and the foetus’, had slipped ever closer to zero"; this is not the same as saying that the chances of her and the foetus' survival was actually zero.
The point here is that pro-death ("pro-choice" is a fatuous euphemism)
campaigners exploit cases like this to make abortion more readily available. You raise the canard of fundamentalism; if that's what people who speak out on behalf of the very smallest, weakest, most utterly voiceless and defenceless members of our society (a condition which we all ourselves were in once) are accused of - so be it. Abortion is a fundamental human wrong.

Theophane,

I know you're doing your best, but your ability to draw your own meaning out of the words rivals another regular poster on this thread.

If the bishop had meant that the authority was that of the Church, it would've been very simple for him to state that. As it is, he specifically stated it was -his- authority, making it clear he deemed that it was him and him alone that was in charge.

You're avoiding the question and perhaps it's not suprising, it's a difficult choice, deciding who to save and who to let die. I doubt many people could do that and not be left with a heavy conscience. However, doctors are obliged to save as many people as they can, in a situation where the mother can be saved at the expense of an unborn, then they should be allowed to do so. Banning it because it offends your religous morals makes no sense at all.

To clarify, because this subject is always better when all sides are open; I'm pro-choice (call it pro-death if you like, but only if I can refer to your stance as anti-choice), but I dislike abortion. It should, however, be allowed in certain circumstances (never as a lifestyle choice) and the term limit should be reduced drastically. As a tool for doctors to employ in saving lives, however, it shouldn't be denied. Far more deaths could occur if we insist on giving semi-aware, underdeveloped, embryos the same rights as sentient, feeling beings.

Far more deaths could occur if we insist on giving semi-aware, underdeveloped, embryos the same rights as sentient, feeling beings.

It's very simple Natman. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion, the younger and less developed a person is, the less right to life they have.

Romejellybeen said: "Blogster

Read the article and comments. They saved the mothers life instead of letting both die."

RJB I have and it doesn't change anything I said. You too should read a bit more into the subject and even bother to find out exactly how many abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, the answer will (or should) astound you.
One authority you should consult is Dr. C. Everett Koop who, while he was United States Surgeon General, stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.

Theophane,

If this woman had been a catholic in a Jehovah's Witnesses ethos hospital and the only way to save her and her foetus was a blood transfusion. Would you support the hospital in letting both die even if the woman wished for the transfusion.

Blogster,

Dr. C. Everett Koop is an interesting character and very good at creating smokescreens of his own.

Take the statement you attribute to him :

..stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother

How many patients do you think he had in paediatrics presenting with a condition which would require an abortion. He did not work in the area where abortions would be part of the medical armoury so of course he would not be aware of any details.

He was also philosophically and religiously opposed to abortion and suppressed a report which President Reagan asked for on the long term effects of abortion on the female because it showed no medical long term effects and it did not suit him to have that information made public. The report had to be leaked.

He may be an authority figure in paediatrics but hardly in abortion where he is more of a religious objector and manipulator of information.

"If you follow this to it's logical conclusion, the younger and less developed a person is, the less right to life they have."

Note, here, subject A, a classic example of a straw man often used to uphold certain opinions that lie in grey areas of morality. Observe, if you will, the attempt to thrust a black and white line into the debate and insinuate that the original opinion is worse than it actually is.

An invalid responce would be to claim a straw man of my own, observe:

Theophane, to take your opinion to the logical conclusion, then we should abandon all medical procedures that might, even in the slightest, harm the small collection of cells in a womans womb. Ectopic pregnancy? Kill them both! Amniocentesis test for Down's? Forget it! Be surpised at birth! Fall over accidentaly and cause a miscarriage? Excommunicate the mother! She must have done it on purpose!

See how easy it is? Now. I'm not going to do that, I'm just going to nod sagely at Theophane's remark and ask how on this good green Earth he possibly drew that 'logical' conclusion from my comment.

Blogster

I know the arguments, I've studued it, struggled with it and am still in the position where I cannot in conscience give a definitive view on the cases which are border line.

Your original post on this subject smacked of you seeing things in black and white and from a very one sided view - ie "Once you deliberately kill an inncoent human being...."

Yip they just strolled in there and murdered someone!

You have not taken seriously the acute moral dilemna of this particular case - an eleven week old foetus, a mother who would have died (as well as her baby), three other children who need a mother, etc..

You might make a Bishop one day!

Dave

You're not adverse to a few smoke screens yourself are you? If you bother to read this article you will see how far wrong you really are with your statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop

You will note of course that the Wikipedia account of the Koop report is completely at odds with what you have written and elswhere on the internet you will find that the actual report produced by George Walter was called into question for its validity due to the influence of the Guttmacher Institute, who as you will know are a rabidly pro abortion and euthanasia grouping.
Expand your horizons Dave and don't sheepishly take all your information from the pro death lobby.

Blogster,

Hmm, I don't know anyone in any pro-death lobby nor do I see how labelling any legal scientific group as rabidly pro abortion and euthanasia helps your argument. I simply view it as evidence of a lack of a rational point of view. Are you suggesting that they want all foetuses aborted and every one else killed, that would seem rather short sighted if I may sheepishly suggest. I would also point out that there are significantly more Pro-Life folk who are either convicted or suspected of unlawful murder and criminal damage than those you seem to be suggesting as pro death. Not that I think that will phase you at all.


Ok

I said

How many patients do you think he had in paediatrics presenting with a condition which would require an abortion. He did not work in the area where abortions would be part of the medical armoury so of course he would not be aware of any details.

Your link said,

For 35 years, from 1946 to 1981, he was the surgeon-in-chief at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)

a place where abortions were not carried out and supported by

When one of the surgical fellows replied that next door at the university hospital abortions were being performed on healthy babies, Koop was stirred to write The Right to Live, The Right to Die, setting down his concerns about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

suggesting he had not much awareness of abortions being carried out next door and especially as he wrote about his concerns, not his research or experience, and then went on to make a series of films of his concerns with "Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer".

When I said that he was philosophically and religiously against abortion and the article you linked to said Though Koop was philosophically opposed to abortion on personal and religious grounds... I am not sure how I seem to be misrepresenting things.

Now I said that he had blocked and stymied a report requested by Reagan, and the link you gave substantiates that. When the report was released (despite his trying to block it) TIME magazine hailed it as "Health: A Setback for Pro-Life Forces", Hardly the sort of document Koop wanted published, and his attempts to rubbish it were not very successful.

So I do not note that the accounts are different.

Does your browser point to a different link than the one mine does.

My point still stands, you brought him into the subject as an "authority" on the subject of abortion, he is not he is an authority on paediatrics and a conscientiousness objector to abortion (he may be a religious and philosophical authority) but what was required to support your position was a medical authority. His status as Surgeon general does not make him a medical authority on every branch of medicine.

Dave

I stopped reading your post at the following line:

"I would also point out that there are significantly more Pro-Life folk who are either convicted or suspected of unlawful murder and criminal damage than those you seem to be suggesting as pro death. Not that I think that will phase you at all."

You have absolutely no evidence in support of this drivel and therefore I won't waste my time reading any further.

Blogster,

If you're referring the pro-choice camp as pro-death, can we call you anti-choice?

Oh, btw have a look here. There's a noticable lack of a 'pro-abortion violence' article.

Funny that. It's always those who profess to fight for those without a voice that commit the most violence. It's the same with extremist animal rights activists.

Natman,

Thanks, saved me a job.

Blogster,

as I said Not that I think that will phase you at all

I realise it might be uncomfortable for you to read things which are at odds with what you seem to want to relate, but you provided the link to the article which contradicts what you were saying and supported my position.

Maybe you just felt daft and needed an excuse to disengage.

Dave and Natman,

Your defintions of what constitutes "violence" are artificially confined only to people who have been allowed to be born. You refer to "those without a voice" Natman; those unborn children are NO LESS HUMAN than you or i, and abortion is an act of savage violence against them. We could argue about the statistics for the relative handful of pro-life campaigners who commit violence; in any case such behaviour is not justified, and is counter-productive. But there were slaves who commited acts of violence against their masters. Did that justify slavery?

Theophane,

I think you'll find that, medically and scientifically, embryos before a certain point in gestation -are- less than human by almost any definition of the term, and to assign them the same rights as an independant being is deeply flawed. I don't like abortion, and am certainly against it for late-stage pregnancies, but to deny it completely on the basis of sentimental and theological grounds is wrong. The vast majority of abortions performed are in early stages, when the foetus is little more than a collection of specialised cells.

But there were slaves who commited acts of violence against their masters. Did that justify slavery?

Again with the strawmen, slaves have a functional, independant existance and are seeking to escape from a life of being forced to work against their will. Slave owners are using the work of others to benefit themselves. Besides, your implication there is that all slavery is wrong. If we make prisoners work whilst incarcerated or when offenders perform community service, isn't that slavery? If you want to call it indentured labour, you can, but a rose by any other name...

Natman;
"...medically and scientifically, embryos before a certain point in gestation -are- less than human by almost any definition of the term"

So, when YOU were an embryo, before a certain [totally arbitrary] point in gestation, if you weren't human, what were you?

Theophane,

I think you will find it is "legally" confined not "artificially" confined.

those unborn children are NO LESS HUMAN than you or i, and abortion is an act of savage violence against them

Is opinion based on beliefs not medical fact or Law, no matter how much you shout and use emotive language and hyperbole. These are medical decisions and should be made by medical people unconstrained by ancient myths and the morals spawned from them. From my perspective the origins of your morality on this subject have a very poor record when it comes to the veracity, validity, integrity or indeed common sense on issues such as this.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dave;
"I think you will find it is "legally" confined not "artificially" confined."
In the case of slavery, the law cried out to be changed. Abortion, ditto.

With slavery people cried out for it to be changed because they were sentient human beings being oppressed and brutalised (justified by religious morality too). As Natman has expressed, and I agree, embryos are not the same and so different rules apply.

The discussion here is whether we allow a woman and an 11 week foetus to perish or save the woman at the expense of the foetus. Sad as it is, it should be a no brainer to save the mother when the foetus will perish either way.

To be honest if you believe that an abortion is violent to the foetus then you must accept that it is more violent to subject it to a longer and more stressful natural 'death' (as it's mother dies) as the Bishop in this case wants to happen.

Theophane,
Just as an aside to the abortion topic- what's your stance on the morning after pill? There are countless situations in which someone may find themselves in need of this alternative. How would you feel about its use post rape? Im sure around the world there are countless women who find themselves in this traumatic predicament, sometimes very young. I wonder how a right wing conservative Catholic would react (if the pill isn't acceptable) to having a young teenage daughter raped. Would they prefer their child not to take the pill and risk 9 months of trauma the child or they might not be able to handle, plus the implications of a life long , enduring legacy from that one moment of rape? It seems an awful burden to place on a teenager or young adult who might not have the emotional strength to endure such an additional prolonged trauma, when the event itself was traumatic enough

Theophane,

"So, when YOU were an embryo, before a certain [totally arbitrary] point in gestation, if you weren't human, what were you?"

Er, a pre-term foetus. A collection of mindless, unfeeling cells. My humanity came much later.

"In the case of slavery, the law cried out to be changed...

Correct, yes

...Abortion, ditto"

Erm, nope.

Popular biblical names given to baby boys born in Scotland in 2010

Noah 41st (159)
Jacob 46th
Daniel 5th
Aaron 7th

There has been rather a flood of Noahs...

Blogster

"Dave, I stopped reading your post at the following line.........."

"You have absolutely no evidence in support of this drivel and therefore I wont waste my time reading any further."

That would get you about as far as the second sentence of the Bible.

Theo, Blogster
You haven't answered the direct question: should the mother should have been allowed to die in this case? Are you saying that the right to 'life' must be respected no matter what the cost? Where does that POV end? If a terrorist was about to blow up a building full of people but could be stopped by a snipers bullet, then morally he should be allowed to carry out his attack as killing him would be contrary to his right to life? I'm simplifying things I know, but the fall back position appears to be killing is wrong whether to save a life or not.
It appears there are a lot of sidesteps and non-answers, other than a few statements saying abortion is morally wrong. Perhaps it is, but there are clear scenarios when the decision becomes less and less of a choice and more of a neccesity. The argument as to whether embryos equate to human life is one thing, but the rights of the mother must play a part.
If your stance is based on a religious text containing various passages where god directly orders the killing of children, then it seems even more difficult to follow your logic. The moral view and the words of the bible seem at odds to some extent.

RJB - "That would get you about as far as the second sentence of the Bible"
Truer words have rarely graced these threads...

From reading the Pharyngula blog, it seems the Catholic Church has withdrawn itself from associating with the hospital that dared to save a womans life by giving her an abortion.

As PZ Meyers says, they didn't give any money to the hospital, so all the hospital has lost is the 'right' to give Mass. In return the Church has shown itself to care more about it's precious authority than saving people's lives.

Whoopee do. Hard liner fundamentalists shoot themselves in the foot, again.

Ryan

I heard a very powerful testimony from a young woman who was conceived in rape. A question which arises here is; "Should the rapist be executed for his offence?" Very few people would say so, but they would pass a death sentence on the child who may have been conceived. There's something amazingly primitive about our determination to believe that someone who is extremely tiny is not human.

E-Volve

This bogus claim that the abortion was carried out in the absolute certainty that it would save the woman's life is being trotted out over and over again. To quote again from the article; "the chances of her [the mother's] survival, and the foetus’, had slipped ever closer to zero" - not the same as saying that it was "zero". In any case, as Blogster pointed out, these cases are a 'smokescreen'. They are exploited by people who would be happy to make a trip to the abortionist as routine and everyday as a trip to the dentist.

Pro-Life campaigners, whose ultimate victory is assured (simply because we have right on our side), make no apology for being guided by faith.
If you are right about the hospital being no longer Catholic Natman, it means that an unborn child who enters no longer has the same respect and protection as, say, an adult who can speak for themselves.

In the words of Pope John Paul II;
"The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his [or her] life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God Himself, the author and guarantor of that law."

Bishop Holmsted has indeed withdrawn the title 'Catholic' from the hospital concerned. He has also stopped priests from going into the hospital to say Mass - something they do in every other hospital (regardless of how many abortions they perform) when invited to do so. Is he going to apply the same to every hospital?

The Bishop isnt a moral theologian. If he was he would have simply referred to the principle of double effect and this nonsensical, stupid and evil behaviour on his part could have been avoided.

Theo, aah so thats why JPII supported Maciel. He was supporting his illegitimate children.

Theophane,

I heard a very powerful testimony from a young woman who was conceived in rape.

The only thing that proves is that your ears work, it has nothing to do with an 11 week old foetus within a sick woman.

This bogus claim that the abortion was carried out in the absolute certainty....

No one claimed absolute certainty, the medical professionals made a call that the chances of the mother surviving were approaching zero and decided to act. I accept their authority and capacity to make such judgements and to act on them. The only people who disagree with this are the non medical people in the church who have no qualifications to make such a judgement so should keep their beaks out.

Blogster tried to introduce an 'authority' on this to show a smokescreen, but the authority was not an authority just another conscientious objector.

Pro-Life campaigners, whose ultimate victory is assured (simply because we have right on our side), make no apology for being guided by faith.

Pride comes before a fall. You be guided by your faith just don't force others to. If my faith told me that life was imbued at the point of birth and that any abortion prior to natural birth was OK would you let me be guided by my faith. If not why should all mothers to be be guided by yours. Yours is a recipe for the nutters to be running the asylum.

In his time JP2 talked a load of nonsense. The catholic church did not regard children as innocent and worthy of reverence until some spells were cast on them some time after birth which is why those who died before the jiggery-pokery were not innocents and could not be buried on consecrated ground. Thousands of babies in unmarked mass graves with parents having no place to grieve - that is a crime against humanity. The catholic church does not seem to care what evils and cruelties it perpetrates as long as it is revered and obeyed. Well it is losing ground every time one of its soldiers does something as idiotic as this bishop.

Dave
can you get your email ad to me, possibly through the guys who organise the yearly dinner. (If thats okay.)

Theo

JPII's words were, "The deliberate and direct killing..."

Moral Theologian M Therese Lysaught was called in to judge this case in Phoenix. She quoted JPII as well as Pius XII as well as the Opus Dei theologian, Fr Martin Ronheimer and even St Augustine!

Conclusion - This was NOT a direct killing.

Martin Ronheimer states that to allow the mother to die in such a case is "irrational." The foetus could not have survived outside the womb and was in effect dying anyway. The only moral action was to save the mother. And that from one of the most consevative theologians on the planet!

She even states that the principle of double effect doesnt even apply here as no action can save the life of the child.

In short, as our American friends would say, this case was a 'no brainer.'

As pressure mounts on Bishop Olmsted and the medical and theological communities expose his irrationality, he does of course attempt to move the goalposts. It is not now just this case he was thinking about when he excommunicated the nun and removed the title 'Catholic' from the hospital, it was also because the hospital has been involved in offering contraceptive advice and sterilisations.

He will of course shortly be carried off to Rome to take up a post there beside Cardinal Law.

You might like to study Lysaught's findings before you come back on here with crass nonsense like your response to E-volve, above, which is nothing more than the havering of an ill-informed, religious zealot.

Your Bishop should remove your right to call yourself Catholic since you insist on coming on here and making the Catholic faith look idiotic.

RJB,

Not sure how to do that, I have no probs swapping email addies though if you can find a way which is not public on the blog.

I think Theophane and Blogster are trying to make generic pro life propoganda and avoiding both the facts (and specifics) of this case and the real life decisions which have to be made by real people. These are not hypothetical moral dilemmas to while away a social evening.

From what you (RJB) have said they have not even checked out the facts properly or seen what other theologians have to say on the specific case.

I wonder will we see blind obstinacy in the face of facts, squirming to align with the more senior figures, more deflection from the specifics or silence from them.

Dave, contact info can be obtained from

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/will_testament_bloggers_dinner.html

Once you get through to me I can put you in touch with RJB.

Dave;
N.B. The first part of post 45, on the subject of rape, was a reply to Ryan at post 38.

If the mother's life is gravely endangered by carrying her child to full term, why don't we hear of myriad cases where, in countries where unborn children are accorded their full complement of human rights, mothers (and their children) have been "allowed to die" in appalling circumstances? As Bishop Olmsted puts it in his statement "In this case, the baby was healthy and there were no problems with the pregnancy; rather, the mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church (Cf. Evangelium Vitae, #62)."
Call me old-fashioned, but i actually am inclined to believe this Bishops words. One of the reasons i suspect you probably do not is indicated in your post 27, where you say "..nor do I see how labelling any legal scientific group as rabidly pro abortion and euthanasia helps your argument." The question of whether a scientific group is "legal" is decided by politicians, who are not scientists, and who, frequently, are 'wrong' (if not downright criminal, but that's another topic).

You ask; "If my faith told me that life was imbued at the point of birth and that any abortion prior to natural birth was OK would you let me be guided by my faith?" This is preposterous. On that basis, it could be decided, for example, that society no longer wanted any twins; one twin in every pregnancy would be killed. Naturally there would be an outcry from all twins who have been allowed to be born - they would recognise that they have no greater entitlement to life than their sibling.
The great difficulty for unborn chidren, and the reason why, horrifically, the womb is actually by far the most dangerous place for anyone to be in our society, is that they cannot speak for themselves, and can only rely on people like Bishop Olmsted to speak on their behalf.

Theo
You are still not informing yourself with the facts of this case which are laid out in at least six articles on NCR.

You have taken your own anti-abortion stance, Olmsted's lunacy, and simply made hysterical claims about abortion.

And the most dangerous place for a child to be over the last fifty years was not in a womb but in a sacristy.

Theophane, you probably don't know this, but the majority of perfectly healthy human embryos fail to implant post-fertilisation, and end up being flushed down the loo.

If the RC Church were being anything other than complete hypocrites, they would regard this as the most enormous public health emergency facing mankind - the tragic loss of countless millions of "children" every month. They would be pouring billions of dollars into the development of little nets to catch these hapless babes, to nurture and protect their eight cute little cells, and to allow them to be retrieved for reimplantation into the willing uterus of some poor lassie who has volunteered for the chance.

The fact is that embryos and fetuses in utero are *not* regarded as equivalent to children, by the various churches or anyone else, unless is expedient for them to do so. There is no real effort among the head-in-the-sand-brain-somewhere-else "moral theologians" of the churches to get to grips with whatever it is about human systems that seems to make them worthy of respect - the sole issue is to maintain the ghoulish hegemony that these people wish to exercise over the whole issue of life and death. They don't care what is *really* going on - their objective is control. Morality is irrelevant to them - they have already decided where their boundaries lie, and part of the whole charade is *designed* to be in opposition to upstarts like us, who would actually seek to place moral reasoning on a more solid footing.

So I'll waive my patent - away you go, Theophane - invent your little net (morality compels you!), make your millions, and save these billions of little souls from flushery-doom. You'll be the next Edward Jenner, you will. The next Dr Snow. The next Alexander Fleming. Wee nets; put 'em in toilets to catch embryos. Go for it. See you on "Dragon's Den".

Or perhaps secretly you realise that life doesn't really begin at fertilisation, and all you're trying to do is extend the cold gnarly grip of religion beyond what is remotely seemly.

Theo,

You ask; "If my faith told me that life was imbued at the point of birth and that any abortion prior to natural birth was OK would you let me be guided by my faith?" This is preposterous. On that basis, it could be decided, for example, that society no longer wanted any twins; one twin in every pregnancy would be killed. Naturally there would be an outcry from all twins who have been allowed to be born - they would recognise that they have no greater entitlement to life than their sibling.

I am glad you understand why belief has no place in these decisions even your beliefs. Hopefully the Bishop will realise this to and leave the hospital alone.

Theophane,

I find it quite amusing that you're stressing over the loss of a collection of cells, done to save the life of the mother, when you believe that someone exercises their 'god given' free will and chooses not to subscribe to your zombie mythology then they will burn in hell forever and ever.

You seriously need to organise your priorities, and instead of worrying about unfeeling, unthinking proto-humans, either reconcile the glaring gap of logic in your religion or get out there trying to save people from it.

A famous person once said (I can't remember who) "If you Christians really believed in your hell, then you'd never stop trying to save people from it."

Natman

I did point that out to Theo a week ago at least. They are quite happy to consign someone to hell for all eternity, as the Bishop has done to the nun - by all accounts, an outstanding human being - and all those who had anything to do with the procedure.

Helio;
"...perhaps secretly you realise that life doesn't really begin at fertilisation..."
You probably don't know this(!), but there isn't a scientist on earth who doesn't realise that life begins at fertilisation. The trouble is, to use Churchill's memorable phrase, there are proponents of "perverted science" who evade the inconvenient acknowledgement that FULLY HUMAN life begins at fertilisation, despite the fact that our unique DNA fingerprints are completed at that precise moment. Human beings have never and will never bear responsibility for the fate of embryos that do not implant in the womb; but there is a responsibility, accepted by the Church but shirked by much of society and fashionable opinion, to protect those that do, if for no other reason than the fact that we ourselves were afforded that protection at that stage of our lives.
In addition, as Christians we are fortified in our determination to accept this responsibility by Our Lord's words; "...in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it to Me." Mt 25:40

Theo, it depends on what you mean by "life", don't you think? If you mean the mindless biological process of chemical reactions that we share with yeast and flatworms, then certainly one particular facet of it seems to begin during the conception process. But I have to say I have a higher regard for that human capability that attracts the very high value we attach to life. I don't attach it to that process, but to a process that occurs much later.

So why do you shirk the responsibility for those millions of "children" that do not implant? Just because you never have in the past surely can't mean that you can glibly refuse to do so now! Are you agreeing now that non-implanted embryos do not require protection? If that is the case, how on earth can you justify the irrational opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to embryo research?

You have your thought processes all in a muddle, old bean!

Helio;

My hunch is that Pope Paul VI's encyclical 'Humanae Vitae' is not the first place you go for clarification of these questions, but the following passage seems useful;
"...to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. 'Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,' Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. 'From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.'"

Then there's your description of the transmission of human life as a "...mindless biological process of chemical reactions that we share with yeast and flatworms..."
As so often, Pope Benedict may be helpful here;
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."(Inaugural address, April 2005)

Theo, you quote "Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source"

I wonder if you're aware of your own selective reasoning when it comes to assessing exactly what's applicable to Gods will & dominion and what isn't.

I assume you're happy with your right to choose to go to a doctor or hospital to preserve your health and extend your life and not leave it solely up to God to cure you. You see no spiritual quandry in putting your life in the hands of a doctor or treatment?

Maybe you'd be selective enough in your reasoning to see the extension of your life and health by human medical advancement as Gods hand working through the medical benefits you receive.

You also feel quite happy to take God's role into your own hands and out of the Doctors or the raped individual and sanction on their behalf whether they can or can't have a morning-after pill or an abortion, or as the example Romejellybeen gives, take it on a case by case individual basis determined on health and prognosis

God's will is not channelled through you to decide what is or what isn't in someone else's best interests physically or emotionally. It's up to them, their choice. If a rape victim decides to take a morning after pill or not, it's only her choice to make and no-one elses. If a woman goes through the harrowing ordeal Romejellybeen quotes then , again no- one but those who are directly involved have any right to make a judgement over them. You are not God. It seems for many religious people this is the crux of the problem. They wish to strip God of his power and cloak themselves in it & control other around them in matters that do not concern them

Ryan;

You're referring to things romejellybeen may have said on a different thread, but i don't know about them. One thing though; virtually all the important medical advances acquired over the last 2500 years have been made in adherence to the Hippocratic Oath, whose strictures were always clearly understood to include "First, do no harm" and elsewhere "I will not give a woman a destructive pessary [to induce abortion]"

Theo, I have of course a dual purpose - one is finding out what people actually do think on this issue, and the other is showing them where they are wrong. I would suggest you put your little popes away and turn on ze little grey cells on this; you can refer back to my post above to refresh your memory.

My hunch is that Pope Paul VI's encyclical 'Humanae Vitae' is not the first place you go for clarification of these questions

That would be correct; you'll need to show me how the pronouncements of these non-experts is remotely relevant.

"...to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.

And it's not looking promising so far - what "laws of conception" are these? As a biologist and a doctor I think I know about them in substantially more detail than some past pope. I am guessing this chap was wanting to suggest a modicum of normativity in this knowledge. Let's see how he gets on...

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.

OK, no help there. That is not an argument - just a flat statement supported by flawed analogy. Things are not looking good. Even if we *did* believe that "God" is the "source" of life, that has absolutely no implications for what we do with embryos, any more than it has implications for what we do with dental plaque. Very very poor arguments, Theo.

'Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,' Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. 'From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.'"

And yet more waffle that has no normative arm whatsoever. Indeed, there would seem to be a fallacious piece of twisted logic there. There are two forms of human life - one is the purely biological process by which you might argue that Henrietta Lacks lives on (or even our remote ancestors live on - after all, we are in full genetic and cytoplasmic continuity with them). The other is something special. It is that little thing real ethicists (as opposed to the pontifical pontificators) sometimes call "personhood". It is something more than the organismal processes that we share with our ape cousins and even bacteria and carrots. Now are you chappies any closer to catching up with ethical development and figuring out what that is and how we should respond to it?

Then there's your description of the transmission of human life as a "...mindless biological process of chemical reactions that we share with yeast and flatworms..."

Oh dear - I have repeated myself somewhat, at least in stylistic terms.

As so often, Pope Benedict may be helpful here;
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."(Inaugural address, April 2005)

Well, it's unclear how helpful Benny actually has been on this point, and it is also unclear how you think this relates to the part of my post that you quoted. I have indicated that there is a difference between "human life" understood as a purely biological process (and, contra Benny, we most certainly *are* the product of evolution - calling it "casual and meaningless" suggests he is a bit ignorant of biology, but hey), and "human life" understood as that Behaviour of the human System that we attach value to.

So if you think the pope's comments impact even slightly on my argument, I suggest you are mistaken. You should go back and read my post, read "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert Thouless, and come back with a rational argument, rather than some soundbites from people who probably know only marginally more than you do about what they are talking about, and that is not saying a great deal.

I mentioned that if you really believed what you claim to believe, that you would be doing your darnedest to save all these little butterfingered blastocysts - sorry, "Children" - that plunge incessantly down the Armitage Shanks. The fact that you are not doing this indicates that really you (and Benny and Paul6, whoever he was, and JP2) actually accept that you don't *really* value embryos the same as children. And, of course, your protestations to the contrary would carry a tad more weight if it transpired that the Roman Catholic version of Christianity actually valued children as anything more than a means to a number of distasteful ends, including corporate dominance.

To put it plainly, I don't think Jesus would have a problem with contraception, the Morning After Pill or first trimester termination of pregnancy. I think he *would* have a significant problem with ignorant and power-hungry clergy dictating what is and what is not ethically acceptable in the management of medical or ethical issues that they are simply not equipped to comprehend.

And incidentally, the Hippocratic Oath is a quaint historical relic; it has no normative, legal or ethical hold over medicine, which is governed by far more rigorous codes of ethical conduct and governance. Many medical schools do not use it at all.

Eh and Humanae Vitae went against everything that Catholic Bishops and Theologians had voted on at Vatican II.

So let me count, thats Paul VIth, JPII, Benny, Theophane and MCC...

Right then Helio, back we go to your post #54.
"The fact is that embryos and fetuses in utero are *not* regarded as equivalent to children, by the various churches or anyone else, unless [it] is expedient for them to do so."
So, as i asked Natman, what about you? What about when YOU were an embryo, or foetus in utero? If at that stage of your purportedly "non-human" existence, you had been annihilated in one of the manifold techniques we have developed for this purpose, do you recognise that there would be no "you"? No one to monitor and correct the views on this blog? No one to attend to the patients you've no doubt been able to help? You'd be, how to put this delicately, "dead", wouldn't you?

Something for you to turn your grey cells to. You dismiss the Hippocratic Oath as "a quaint historical relic". I don't know the exact figures, but scientists are often keen to point out that a literal interpretation of the Bible would make Earth only about 6000 years old, whereas current estimates put it at more like 4.5 billion. Can you see therefore, that in the light of such a vast timescale, the difference between 'today' and, say, 150 years ago (when the Hippocratic Oath retained a very strong legal and ethical hold over medicine) is miniscule; equivalent, as it were, to a tiny fraction of a split second?

The truly marvellous thing about Pope Benedict's visit in September is that he has put so many arguments of the more virulent strains of atheism 'beyond use'; and there's no way back...

God, I cant wait for the next few posts. Brace yourselves.

@Theophane #67

Which arguments are they, then?

All I remember of Ratzo's oratory was a clumsy juxtaposition of atheism and nazis, bleating about marginalisation of religion and striking Christmas from the calendar. And BTW, I hope one and all - godded, godless and all stages in between had a merry old Crimbo.

Back to the pope, he's apparently a bit concerned by aggressive secularism, by which he seemed to mean er, secularism. As for arguments beyond use - all the religious arguments have been beyond use for centuries, but that doesn't stop the godded from trotting them out at every opportunity. I wouldn't expect us virulents to shut up any time soon, not least because it such fun.

Theo, many of your posts are so borderline , it's hard to know whether you're a Benedict supporter or whether your tongue is firmly stuck in cheek. It's so easy to read your posts as Private Eye style wit

Theophane,

"So, as i asked Natman, what about you? What about when YOU were an embryo, or foetus in utero?"

And as I said, I was an unthinking collection of unsorted cells, albeit ones with potential.

And I'd love to hear these arguments that you claim have been put 'beyond use'.

Oh, I wait with bated breath.

Theo, a lot of "could haves" combined to make "me"; those cells provided the biological component, but I do not identify them as "me" in any meaningful sense, and I suggest such simpleminded thinking is unhelpful. But, like I said, your lack of a position on butterfingered blastocysts reveals a deep illogic and indeed self-serving mendacity in the "official" position of the Roman church. I know that many Catholics do not blindly accept the discredited ethics of the Vatican, but there you have it.

As for Benny putting atheists' arguments "beyond use", you are surely having a laugh. He did no such thing. Yeah, god sometimes surprises us. Like by not existing - that surprised me when I discovered it. But, again, there you have it.

"the majority of perfectly healthy human embryos fail to implant post-fertilisation"

This is a very important point. If never heard a Catholic cleric say anything about catching these ones and finding a womb to stick them in.

"the majority of perfectly healthy human embryos fail to implant post-fertilisation"

newlach; The words from Humanae Vitae above were intended to clarify this point;

"Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source."

i.e. neither man nor woman has 'dominion' over the fate of those human embryos which do not implant in the womb. However, by fudging the issue of their humanity, we have arrogated to ourselves a right to decide whether or not an embryo that has implanted (like you and i) should be allowed to live, and then call it things like a "first trimester termination of pregnancy" (post #63) instead of the reality; the killing of one human being by another. In all cases and at all times, as Christians, we trust in the unfathomable Mercy of Our Lord - and the supreme perfection of His justice. For human embryos and for all the chidren who perish, we trust that they have come from God, and will return to Him. Incidentally though, because today is his feast day, i can't help contrasting this with the apparent fate of the man widely held to be responsible for St. Thomas Becket's murder (you mention him on the "Top 10" thread), King Henry II. According to their contemporary St. Bernard of Clairvaux, "He came from the devil, and he will go back to the devil".

Briefly to the success of Pope Benedict's visit. Blessed John Henry Newman rightly points out "It is as absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing." Nevertheless, a crucial part of his message was given in his address to politicians, diplomats, academics and business leaders at Westminster Hall, where he said;
"Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life."

Bishop to Public Square 1.

Theophane.

What about ectopic pregnancies?
What about fully implanted embryos that miscarriage after a few weeks?
What about those unfortunate pregancies that don't result in a viable baby?

Shouldn't the Catholic church be seeking ways to prevent these heinous evil deeds that are murder of poor innocent unborns? Won't somebody think of the children!

On another point:

unfathomable Mercy of Our Lord sounds like "Sometimes he's merciful, sometimes he isn't. Darned if I can figure out why. Perhaps he's just moody?"

Theo, you're very lucky to be here for us to fix your sloppy thinking. You probably think your i.e. above follows from what some old punter said in the quote you gave. But there is no argument there, nor is there any justification for your position.

Or perhaps there is - perhaps this attitude of the Roman church to children is indeed *precisely* typified by its attitude to unimplanted perfectly healthy embryos. Maybe you also feel that because you don't have "dominion" over Africa, you should not bother helping starving children there. Maybe earthquake victims in Haiti should not have been dug out of the rubble because earthquakes are the "dominion" of this unfathomable sockpuppet that you pretend to be "god".

So, sorry, your position is inconsistent, and the drivel that is "Humanae Vitae" is of no use to man or beast.

Let me be very clear - religion has every right to be in the public square - what you DON'T get is a privileged position. You are haggling in the marketplace of ideas along with the rest of us - you don't get (as one person put it) to drive through it in an armour-plated tank. Benny is entitled to his views, as is Jonathan Ross or Katie Price.

Once again, your position is inconsistent. You do NOT treat embryos and fetuses as "fully human" (indeed, your church doesn't even treat children as fully human or as victims when they have been abused). You wash your hands of these non-implanted "children" like Pilate. If you want to justify your position, you are going to have to try a LOT harder.

theo,

In addition to the points Helio makes I would like to ask,

If your religion holds the view that all life is sacred from the fusing of egg and sperm (or even before as MCC does not even countenance masturbation) can you explain why children who die before baptism were not allowed to be buried properly and had to be secretly buried in unmarked graves as close to consecrated ground as their parents could manage in unmarked massed graves.

Helio

"If you want to justify your position you are going to have to try a LOT harder."

I dont think you are getting it yet. Theo and MCC dont have to justify anything to anyone, not even themselves. Such is the power of their church, the power of selfrighteousness, the power of fear, reinforced over and over again from the moment those brain cells start to form in that Catholic womb, these people are lost.

Jesus pointed to such attitudes again and again in the Pharisees. So ingrained is the arrogance that nothing can penetrate it, not even someone coming back from the dead, and certainly not some atheist - albeit a very literate one - on a blog site.

They are not here to learn or to be informed. They are here to save you - or to condem you should you insist on 'thinking.'

It's a bit disheartening on a number of fronts. I was rather hoping for a rational argument from the laddies; sure, we could disagree, but at least we'd be able to engage in some fine reasoning. Not to be. Then there is the continual batting back of irrelevant guff from popes and bishops who have no more clue about, or interest in, developmental biology, evolution or neuroscience than I have about the contents of Oliver Plunkett's sock drawer.

And it's not that I dispute their right to engage in these debates - their somewhat wacky viewpoint has every right to be heard, but a right to be heard also gives me the right to criticise and expose the ethical and logical flaws behind these statements.

Similarly, despite the robe-rending lamentations of trendy apologists (and, let's face it, it is *sooooo* chic to love up the pope and bemoan the trials and tribulations poor little christiannywistiannies have to put up with from these nasty aggressive new atheists boo hoo), there is no secular campaign to do a Christectomy on Christmas, or to demand that religious people keep their views to themselves. Do I need to state it again? They are welcome to both have and voice their views, and they should be prepared and willing to *stand up for them* instead of whingeing about all this "oppression".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall a single verse from the gospels where "Jesus whinged".

And I also have reservations about going to heaven and finding that I can't move for fear of treading on an embryo with tiddly wings, microscopic halo and a wee nano-harp. Or what happens if you *breathe one of them in*?

I agree Helio, it's disheartening but Romejellybeen's right, Theo and Mcc don't have to justify anything to anyone because It's not like having a discussion with an individual,it's Vatican PR. They are the Church.They are the Pope. They are God. By dissolving who they are as individuals and merging into the Catholic Church they feel protected and self righteous. It's a shame it blinds them from the wrong doing and the cruelty & lack of humanity that also lurks there.By being unable to ever critisize the faults they shoot themselves in the foot and limit the effectiveness of what they say. They don't realise the power in words comes from those that are able to reach out,accept and acknowledge everything that is wrong & blatantly obvious for everyone to see before they start preaching what's right

Well, to try to throw Theo a bone here, if embryos and fetuses were "fully human" in the personhood sense, then, yes, termination of pregnancy would be a terrible thing. However, it is perfectly clear (and I have just given the example of embryos) that this is a/ not the actual case, and b/ the Catholic Church don't *really* think that this is the case, even though they say it is. Theo is trapped by the inherent nonsense of his church's position.

So why the statements in direct contradiction of their perfectly observable stance? Why the failure to make their case? Why the failure to comprehend the arguments presented by those they disagree with?

Basically, the sum total of Theo's argument has been that embryos are children because some pope said so. That cuts no ice with *any* ethicist. Most people who have actually *thought* about this (including such luminaries as John Polkinghorne, and I have my issues with him, but hey) recognise that the important aspect of human existence is not the mere mess of biology, but what is going on with the *brain* - where the consciousness and awareness and what we might call the "personhood" of the individual reside. And that it is part of an evolving informational system, not a static item or attribute like a "soul".

It is therefore frankly absurd to talk about embryos being treated like "slaves", or being "the most vulnerable members of society" - because they're not. They are systems that are arguably on their way to giving rise to a person, but they are not to be confused with a person.

Human reproduction is not a closed book. We have the technology and we have the ethical frameworks to do real good and to help real people who honestly and avidly love their children and want to make a good life for them. The people who should make decisions about their reproduction are the couple themselves, and doctors and nurses and counsellors and laboratory personnel should do what they can to help, be that for family planning, prenatal diagnosis, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, IVF, etc. This is no place for the intrusive interjection of ignorant and insensitive clergy who toe some party line handed down from ancient autocrats.

What really bugs Theo is that the human reproductive system has escaped from the Roman church. Catholics are just as likely to request assisted conception and IVF as Protestants, and there is not one darned thing that the Roman church can do about it, other than reveal itself to be morally and ethically bankrupt. The "top theologians" (suppress a titter) of the main Protestant churches have realised this; it is only a matter of time before Rome changes too, and realises that a/ it cannot speak for "god", and b/ it cannot intrude into an area of ethics where it simply has no right to be.

Natman;
The product descriptions for some 'morning after' pills actually state that, if pregnancy occurs after use, a woman should be evaluated for ectopic pregnancy - a significant cause of maternal deaths.

The Church recognises that resistance to interference in the laws of nature is consistent with defending the human rights of innocent unborn children; not even the most imaginative scientists (or entrepreneurs) are given license to come up with more 'sophisticated' alternatives; they unfailingly will be destructive. Pope John Paul II put it this way, in Poland in 2002;
"Frequently man lives as if God did not exist, and even puts himself in God's place... He claims for himself the Creator's right to interfere in the mystery of human life. Rejecting divine law and moral principles, he openly attacks the family."

In the description of "unfathomable" Divine Mercy, this is not intended to mean "incomprehensible"; but rather it is limitless in its depth; it is endless, inexhaustible; infinite. A Polish nun who wrote in the 1930s, St. Faustina Kowalska, stated that Mercy is the greatest of all the innumerable attributes of God; "there you have it", as Helio might say.

...and now i notice that Helio has said various other things. Well, there'll be some discord, because we don't recognise the same authorities. One thing i might say though, is that if these new ethical experts show anything like the endurance and resilience of the Catholic Church over the last 2000 years, they will be formidable indeed.

Well JP11 was certainly formidable. He stopped anyone from doing anything about Maciel for 25 years.

Oh, on second thoughts Helio, let's not call it "discord", let's call it "diversity", at least while it's still Christmas. Irreconcilable diversity perhaps, but diversity nonetheless.

Theophane,

Is the catholic church 2000 years old or is it just a 1000 year old schism from Orthodox Christianity. That would make the pope heretical as opposed to inerrant.

Theophane,

"The Church recognises that resistance to interference in the laws of nature is consistent with defending the human rights of innocent unborn children"

I take it from that statement then you'll not be taking any antibiotics, under going surgery or eating prepared food? And by prepared, I mean cooked meat, non-native vegetables and anything you didn't catch yourself.

We, as humans by definition almost, interfere with the 'laws' of nature in everything we do.

If it were truely against the 'laws' of nature, we wouldn't be able to do it. Breeding beans and pigs, flying elephants and magic are against the 'laws' of nature.

Your arguments are incoherant, contradictory and make no sense, even for a theist.

As Natman the first said in his recent visit to the kitchen when he quoted the first book of Meaningless; "stop quoting me religous books and figures, for lo, they mean nothing to those who don't believe in them."

Helio: **And I also have reservations about going to heaven and finding that I can't move for fear of treading on an embryo with tiddly wings, microscopic halo and a wee nano-harp.** .....Love it!!

Theo: you propose to some other bloggers what would happen if they had been aborted and say they would be dead. There are other possibilities to consider. Although the physical matter of a foetus is destroyed in an abortion, the spirit that was to live in that body is not destroyed for it is eternal. Just as when an adult dies - the spirit carries on and some have used the analogy of the body just being like an overcoat that is taken off at death. I would go further and propose that the spirit is available to reincarnate, to carry on its spiritual journey - which is ultimately to return to the soul, to God. In addition it is possible that the spirit does not occupy the body of the foetus until the 12-13th week of life and most abortions are before that time. As a Christian I would have thought that you would know that the spirit is eternal and thus there is no real death as such. If anything, Christians should perhaps be more accepting of abortion given this understanding as they would know/realise that abortion is not really the end.

So abortion does not go against God and there is no punishment from God and it is a choice that each woman should be free to make if she so chooses. Unfortunately many woman who make this choice are then filled with guilt due to the imposition and carry over of religious teachings - rather than honouring the choice they made and accepting that it was not the right time for them to be a mother for whatever reason. You perhaps do not realise the harm that comes from the religious teachings that you wish to perpetuate for if you did I doubt that you would wish to perpetuate them. Ryan made the point well earlier - it is up to the people involved to make that choice.

Here we go, shamelessly stolen from Pharyngula.

How to debate

I'm not a Roman Catholic so I don't really have a fight here; for one I'm not against contraception and second, I would accept that abortion is permissible when the child threatens the life of the mother, although this would require some groundwork.

It is worth pointing out though, if you believe that a woman has the 'right' to abort in principle then distinctions made to justify any given abortion become essentially irrelevant; they become mere trivia. The rape victim's abortion is morally equivalent to the careerist's and each of these equal to the abortion of the 'defective' foetus and the teenage pregnancy.

Natman said:

As Natman the first said in his recent visit to the kitchen when he quoted the first book of Meaningless; "stop quoting me religous books and figures, for lo, they mean nothing to those who don't believe in them."

I see, and just how long has Natman the first been debating with the kitchen?

As Psalm 19 says 'The kitchen declares the glory of God, and the home cooked meal His handiwork'

Your [Theophane] arguments are incoherant, contradictory and make no sense, even for a theist.

As ever you treat 'rationality' as a lapel badge, with your hand firmly grasping it's underside, shoving it in other peoples faces. Judging by your performance on this blog you didn't earn it, more likely you mugged a boy scout.

Okay,
for the sake of 'diversity', JPII allowed a very wicked man to continue to operate with impunity, stealing money from widows, getting some of them pregnant and them abusing the children who were born.

I can't agree with you Andrew when you say " The rape victim's abortion is morally equivalent to the careerist's "
Abortion should never be treated as an easy option for the careless and ill-prepared. Or for those who decide a career is more important than a potential life they're carrying- but there are instances of rape, when sometimes the victim is merely a child or the victim has been too traumatised to tackle the situation from day one- in these instances, on a case by case basis, it may be in the best interests to abort to protect the victim from anymore trauma. Maybe a window of up to 8 weeks could be allowed. Ruining one life to allow a rapists right to procreate by force is twisted. The victims life , wellbeing and rights over her own body & who she procreates with have to come first.

Ryan - I often agree with you but not on this one! Why is it not ok for a woman to decide to have an abortion because she feels it is not the right time for her to be a mother for whatever reason - whether she was careless, ill-prepared or furthering her career?? Why is it ok for you as a man to deem that there are only a few situations where abortion is acceptable - and that is the extreme case of some rapes??

It is easy for those who will never be in that situation (all men on here for a start) to make proclamations and judgments about other people's lives (all of whom are women) and situations that they themselves will NEVER have the full experience of - even if it involves their partner. Your last sentence would be ok if it replaced victim with woman!

Ultimately it is the woman's choice and if she has an abortion then so be it - the spirit of the unborn will continue unharmed and reincarnate - sometimes to the same woman later on or perhaps to another. All choices have consequences and so does abortion - none of those consequences involve punishment from God or any form of hell/damnation other than from the judgmental attitudes of other mostly religious human beings.

I think abortion is a matter for the person who wants to abort. Whatever we think, whether it is lawful or not, it will happen. A woman who has an abortion can give birth to baby later in life at a time more convenient.

If abortion was not a possibility there would be around 200,000 additional unwanted births in the UK - and how many of these babies would grow up to be criminals? More burglaries, muggings, car-thefts and escalating insurance premiums. I'm fed up hearing the "could be a Mozart" argument. More likely a criminal.

But let's not get too hung up on abortion. Long term contraception and sterilization are good ideas.

I do understand your spiritual outlook Eunice- it's just that nowadays with the wealth of contraceptives and options available there's no need for anyone to have an unplanned,unwanted pregnancy (under regular circumstances). That's just my personal feeling. Ultimately, as I said before, it's no-ones right to be push their will onto the situation , it's just a matter for those directly involved. Anyway doesn't UK law offer alot more flexability on these issues than the Republic

Ryan

I said, if abortion is a right then it follows that reasons for aborting are morally equivalent. In each case the woman exercises her right over her womb. It is not the case that there is no difference between aborting a pregnancy for rape or for career but that the differences do not tell us anything about the moral justification of the abortion.

Aborting a pregnancy because it resulted from rape is not more justified than aborting a pregnancy because a child would interfere with a career. Indeed, it is not more justified than abortion on mere whim.

Once it is argued abortion is a legitimate choice for a woman because she has dominion over her body then further debate about rape, threatened lives, 'defective children' is embarrassed.

The only qualification required is that this right to abort exists only whilst the thing in the womb is not human, after which the right no longer exists, at least it no longer exists in its prior form. Volition is no longer sufficient.

Yet 'pro-choice' advocates will often use cases such as rape and life threatening pregnancies when debating with 'pro-life' people, as if conceding the legitimacy of abortion in either case also gives legitimacy in ever other case. For their part, many pro-lifers seem to agree and so there appear to be only two choices, abortions for all or abortions for none. This unnecessarily polarises the debate.

For instance, I accept that there are real difficulties in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, the arguments for why abortion is justifiable in these circumstances are much more compelling than in most other cases. And since I reject abortion as a general right, aborting a life threatening pregnancy requires a more nuanced justification, a justification which cannot apply to abortion generally.

Andrew,

"I see, and just how long has Natman the first been debating with the kitchen? "

Again, do you actually read the posts here, or just pull out the bits you feel you can use for an ad hominem attack to make yourself feel better?

If you'd read Theophanes comment previously, you would see he used a quote from the Pope when he visited someplace. I was, perhaps using humour too complex for yourself, putting my comment in a similar perspective.

I'd make a comment about your stance on abortion, but your extreme 'black and white' way of looking at things makes that impossible. Life is never so easy and to force a theistic outlook onto it will always cause conflict.

Again, do you actually read the posts here, or just pull out the bits you feel you can use for an ad hominem attack to make yourself feel better?

I enjoy reading yours since you're such a l22t ratiocinator.

If you'd read Theophanes comment previously, you would see he used a quote from the Pope when he visited someplace. I was, perhaps using humour too complex for yourself, putting my comment in a similar perspective.

Have you ever noticed that people go places and say things

Come to mention it, have you ever noticed that people say things then go places

*audience laughs..."It's funny because it's true"*

I opened with that one night when I visited someplace and the audience didn't get it, so I asked them why no laughing? And no one answered. It turns out they only say things then go places.

I'd make a comment about your stance on abortion, but your extreme 'black and white' way of looking at things makes that impossible.

Deploying 'extreme' and 'black and white', is mere weaselling. Still, weaselling is as weaselling does.

Life is never so easy and to force a theistic outlook onto it will always cause conflict.

and arguing is never so easy as burning strawmen.

Natman, I dunno - I thought Andrew's latest post #96 (OK, he was ribbing you a bit about the kitchen - surely he got that??) is a fairly well thought out and reasoned position. I *disagree* with it because I disagree with the premises, but it's several orders of magnitude more intelligent than the Theophannying around that we've seen upstream. As such, I think it gives reasonable grounds for discussion. I have to say that if I thought that the necessary level of neurological complexity existed in a fetus for it to be self-aware, and therefore to be considered a "person", existed at point A during a pregnancy, then I would most certainly regard the termination of that pregnancy to be unacceptable.

But the evidence is that the required degree of neurological complexity is simply NOT there. Fetuses are not "persons", certainly prior to the point of viability (let's arbitrarily say 23 weeks).

Andrew, you are right in that pro-choice advocates frequently use the rape and life-threatening scenarios when debating anti-abortion advocates; that is not (in my view) an attempt to open the floodgates, but to demonstrate that attitudes to fetuses in utero *are* different to attitudes to people. That much is simply a *fact*, and the "what if" scenarios are a/ not that rare, and b/ serve to establish the principle.

Previously you suggested an 8 week cut-off. On the basis of what? Why not a 24 week cut-off?

And a very particular set of what-ifs: what if a baby is diagnosed during the pregnancy to have an abnormality that is incompatible with survival outside the womb? This is a *common* scenario - let's say the baby has triploidy - an entire extra set of chromosomes. That baby *will* die; if this is diagnosed at (say) 21 weeks, would you say to the devastated couple that they should continue with the pregnancy, in the knowledge that the baby will die? Should you force the neonatologists to attempt resuscitation on this hopeless wee scrap?

Or do you think that doctors and midwives should be allowed to do their jobs to provide the best patient care without interference from people who really have very little insight into the traumas and tribulations of an abnormal or unwanted pregnancy?

But once again, thanks for your comments - they are helpful.

Setting out with purpose to end a human life (other than one's own) is always gravely morally wrong: it is wrong in war, it is wrong in state-sponsored executions, it is wrong in the context of on-demand abortion. 

It is not necessarily wrong, however, to embark on a course of action which, lacking that intention, nonetheless ends in the death of an individual. The relief of pain in the case of terminal illness far outweighs any need to prolong a life in any event nearing its end. Equally if a foetus has no prospect of survival and there is risk to the mother's life then I would advocate preferring the mother even if it were very late term: when one reads of, say, some of Warren Hern's more extreme cases one can only extol his extraordinary skills. 

The deliberate, considered, and purposed ending of a life for reasons of personal convenience, however, is one of the gravest moral wrongs of which I can conceive, a manifestation of that blinding selfishness which is of the very essence of sin. It is wrong on a personal level, it is even more profoundly wrong on a societal level: in a society which does not fundamentally respect human life we all have potentially something to fear.

Eunice - welcome back, just in time - my vitriol was getting stale!  I see you play the poor suffering women (men don't understand) card. Nice one. 

Very few of us have had experience of running a former world power struggling with punitive reparations and crippling inflation while battling our personal demons and the wholly unrealistic expectations of our followers, what right then have we to judge someone in that position? So what if the physical matter of a few million Jews, Commies and homosexuals got destroyed, their reincarnated spirits have probably been largeing it up in a selection of Indian ashrams ever since.

(I claim Goodwin for myself - I felt the quality of the argument merited nothing less).