In an earlier post I had questioned what the Catholic Church's position was on placing its doctrines into law in the U.S. The earlier position-pre-vatican II- was that the Church for reasons of expediency might accept laws which they considered contrary to Catholic doctrines, but would maintain the right to make and enforce laws acceptable to the Church if Catholics were in the majority. Vatican II seem to modify this position, but I am not clear what the Church's actual position is on this issue.
We know, of course, that our democracy is supposedly based on the rule of the majority WITH protection for the right of the minority. The Church's position is, and I assume still is, that error has no right to exist.
Now obviously we see this conflict in the abortion wars. The majority of Americans would seem to agree that abortion under some circumstances (rape, incest, health of mother etc) is legal. The Church argues that abortions should always be illegal except for immediate danger of death to the mother. The Church argues that this is strictly a matter to be decided by 'majority rule' with no rights for the minority. The Church considers abortion murder; most Americans do not. Assume, for the sake of argument that 51 percent of Americans in a state agreed with the Church could the 'rights' of the 49 percent be eliminated and the death penalty opposed on those who have abortions?
Now let's go further. The Church considers contraception a major sin. Now, if in a state, the majority agreed it was sinful, could, under Catholic thinking, those who use contraception (49 percent we'll say) be subject to criminal penalties.
A step further. The Church believes orgasm outside of male sexual penetration of the female is sinful. Would masturbation and any other act of orgasm not meeting the sexual penetration criterion be considered criminal behavior with legal penalties and punishments?
Would sexual intercourse outside of marriage be considered a criminal offense?
I believe the Church already considers the state has a right to ban same-sex relationships.
My point should be clear. Since the Church considers all sexual conduct sinful/evil that does not conform to their standard, are there any minority rights in this area exempt from legal censure and punishment should the Church gain a majority in any state of the country.
I should make this clear. I have no objections to the Church enforcing these strictures on their members with what tools they have. But should the Church attempt to enlist the state to enforce its definitions of sin/evil on all others? Assuming as Catholics do that the magisterium is almost never, if ever, in error.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not all of morality needs to be or ought to be enforced by the state. But one of the most fundamental purposes of a secular state is to protect the life, health, and property of its citizens from attack by someone else. An attack on someone's life, unlike some other moral issues, is definitely a matter where it is appropriate and acceptable to involve the state.
ReplyDeleteAs for your majority/minority thing: if 49% of Americans believed that blacks were not people and it was ok to kill them, should we protect that minority from having the majority make it illegal to kill blacks? If 51% of Americans believed it was ok to kill blacks, does that make it right for the law to make it legal to kill blacks?
God bless,
Anna
Anna, so you agree that despite the great majority of Americans not agreeing with the Church on the abortion issue, that its theology should be made law? In what way is a one cell a citizen? Your apparent argument that a single cell is a citizen is not very widely accepted. Even if you and a few others believe so, what right does the Church have to force others to accept its theology? Jack
ReplyDeleteAnna, so you agree that despite the great majority of Americans not agreeing with the Church on the abortion issue, that its theology should be made law?
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that all Catholic theology should be made law. I am saying that I believe abortion should be illegal. I believe abortion should be illegal for the same reason that I believe killing blacks or Jews or rich people should be illegal. It doesn't matter to me how many people believe that the unborn or blacks or Jews aren't people or don't deserve the full protection of the law; I believe they are people, and so I fully support making it illegal to kill them.
The Church has as much right to urge people to support the illegalization of abortion as it has to urge people to support the illegalization of slavery, regardless of whether or not a majority of Americans accept slavery as permissible.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, of course you have that right. But does the Church have the right to crimalize all other teachings because they do not conform to Church teachings and thus defy God. Could you expand your answer? Should judges follow their oaths or not follow them if the Church does not like a particular law. My point is where do you stop. If one institution, or man, can define all moral issues what does that do to democracy or the rights of any minority? Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteGovernment and laws should seek the greater good. I think the most basic right of people is to life, and so I think issues of life (abortion, war, death penalty, for example) should be a top priority in politics. Other attacks on a person or their property, such as assault, rape, torture, and all forms of theft/burglary should be the next highest priority.
When it comes to all other questions - how we should treat illegal aliens, sex outside of marriage (straight or gay or adulterous), drugs like cocaine, universal health care, welfare etc. - we have to weigh the pros and cons that any particular action will actually have. This is almost never a simple analysis, because people and societies are complicated.
As far as conclusions go, I think it is a waste of time to try to outlaw consensual sex or marijuana; I'm inclined to trust the bishop's judgement that recognizing homosexual unions as marriage is a bad idea; I favor making it easier for immigrants to get work/school visas or citizenship and I REALLY think we need to treat them more humanely in general; I don't know that I like our welfare system, but I'm not sure what would be better.
This judge issue that you bring up because of Weigel - I don't know what he said, and I don't particularly care. Judges should follow their conscience; I don't pretend that I know enough about a judge's job to know what he should do better than that.
If one institution, or man, can define all moral issues what does that do to democracy or the rights of any minority?
I think you are confusing morality with legality. God defines all moral issues; what does that do to democracy or the rights of a minority? The Church is right when it has formal teachings on moral issues, because God has protected those teachings. Despite the conservative Catholics like Weigel that you like to think represent "the Church", "the Church" is not actually planning to take over America and do away with democracy or the Constitution. So why are you so bothered by it?
God bless,
Anna
Anna, you still insist one cell is a person. Is that not a metaphysical question on which people disagree, most people and our laws saying one cell is not a person.
ReplyDeleteJudges are to follow the LAW, not their own personal prejudices.
Are you saying that the pope is the FINAL word on all moral issues if he so desires. Most people do not accept that one man is the only one to determine morality.
This is even more shocking than what the Taliban claims!!!! So on all moral issues, Americans must do what the Pope says because he is the only one who cannot make an error on anything he calls "faith and morals.". Unbelievable!!Is it evil for you and me to discuss these issues since Ratziner's opinion is God's law!!! Far worse than the Taliban!!!! Is Roe V Wade not to be followed? My heavens why have minds? Just ask one man. Sounds like bad science fiction.:) Jack
O, BTW the Church for centuries claimed the right to set all laws. I see a movement back to that. Democracy is based on the principal that no ONE person has the right to determine things because God has told them so. Do you believe in a democratic society even if that society does not conform to your views? Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteYeesh, Jack, I didn't mention the Pope at all. Why bring him up?
Judges are to follow the LAW, not their own personal prejudices.
So if there is a law that says it is ok to kill black people, and a case comes up before a judge where a white man killed a black person, he should support finding the white guy not guilty of murder? I'm not so sure it's that simple. Although, in general, I do favor judges not trying to play law-makers, as that is the job of the legislative not the judicial branch. (I think, to be more specific, that it is the fault of Roe vs Wade that the judicial branch got mixed up in the law-making question to begin with).
Do you believe in a democratic society even if that society does not conform to your views?
Eh. Hitler was freely elected. I think the American system is the best political system that I've seen so far, on balance, but that doesn't mean that I idolize democracy as the cure for all mankind's evils.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, again. Are judges to follow the law or use their own personal views? You would realize I'm sure that the LAW must be followed not the personal religious views of the judge. That would be chaos. Is Roe v. Wade the 'law ' of the land or can lower court justices disregard it? Come on Anna, a straight answer:)
ReplyDeleteAs to your second point: Do Americans have a right to disagree with the Pope on matters of faith and morals and to incorporate that difference in our laws?
Please comment on the other examples I gave on evil in the eyes of the Church and its right to force "correct" conduct on other people? .Would you rather live in the U.S. or Brazil? I would hate like hell to turn you into Chaney:) Do you think our country should be a theocracy run by the Church? Jack
Honestly, Jack, I don't care that much about politics. I'd much rather see what you answer on the other thread about what begins at conception.
ReplyDeleteGod bless,
Anna
Anna, I wasn't really talking about politics. I was talking about should the Church enforce its views on others.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens at conception? A cell is formed, which potentially could be a person. As a cell it has DNA, can reproduce, but is no more a person than a piece of skin off my arm.
In good spirits, could you reply to my argument that veritable eunuchs would use arguments exactly as the Church does if its priests wanted to retain their 'superiority' and power.Jack
Anna, I wasn't really talking about politics. I was talking about should the Church enforce its views on others.
ReplyDeleteThat depends on what you mean by “enforce”? The Church isn't threatening to take over America and make everyone be Catholic. I do agree with the Church that abortion should be illegal, though.
What happens at conception? A cell is formed, which potentially could be a person. As a cell it has DNA, can reproduce, but is no more a person than a piece of skin off my arm.
I didn't ask what *happens* at conception. I asked what BEGINS at conception. This is what I want you to answer:
But what does it mean to say that human life BEGINS at conception? What is it that is beginning? A sperm is alive; and that sperm is human life. An egg is alive, and that egg is human life. A fertilized egg is alive and it is human life. So what is it that began at conception? Does a heart begin at conception? Does a scraping from an arm begin at conception? If a scientist says "human life begins at conception", is he making a meaningless statement? If it means something, then what DOES it mean?
In good spirits, could you reply to my argument that veritable eunuchs would use arguments exactly as the Church does if its priests wanted to retain their 'superiority' and power.Jack
Which arguments was this in reference to again? I don't think eunuchs-in-power would object to abortion; I think they would claim that not having babies is better than having babies, which is why (or part of why) they are superior to everyone else. They probably would teach that all sex is sinful or disgraceful or something, or at least they would say that sex makes one unworthy of being a leader, or something like that. In general, I don't think they would ever refer to sex as something sacred or beautiful, which the Church has done. There may be people in Church history who have had messed-up views of sex like your idea of eunuchs-in-power, but I don't think the Church teachings themselves represent that view.
God bless,
Anna
Jack,
ReplyDeleteGoing back to what you wrote on my blog about demons awhile back, I want to quote something my husband wrote on my blog and something a nearby bishop wrote recently in a column.
First my husband:
I think that demons can obtain a toe hold from objects as well as invitation. I don't think that people realize this. I have had personal experience from some demonic activity that I had no idea where it was coming from until one day I found a Ouiji board in my room on a shelf (as a kid my room was also a storage room in the basement and had lots of covered shelves in it). Because of reading the book I gave you I realized this might be the cause of it. Once I disposed of it I no longer had any strange happenings or apparitions. I truly believe an evil presence had entered through the object and once it was removed the presence could not enter so easily. Not to believe in something other than ourselves can be dangerous in my opinion. There are plenty of things that have been documented through media such as photography and film as well as other physical mainifestations if you are in need of proof. There are also cases of multiple people (sometimes a great many people) who witness things that have no scientific explanation. Just because you cannot see it or have not had to deal with it personally does not mean they do not exist. I believe in miracles yet I am still skeptical and do not just accept anything someone might say. There is a balance, but you have to keep an open mind. A closed mind can be just as dangerous spiritually as believing you are the chosen one of God in my opinion. Pat Robertson and others like him are just the extremes of the two. He seems to think he has the right to judge others and whatever he says comes from God. Keep in mind that in biblical times, if you spoke for God you had to be completely right 100% of the time. If you were wrong even one time you would be stoned as a false prophet. We do not hold such high standards anymore or there would not be people like most TV evangalists.
And from the bishop:
While there is a great deal of interest in and curiosity about the devil in the realm of possession and exorcism, there is much less interest in him in the realm of one’s day-to-day life. Indeed, in the realm of our own lives. For the most part, people of America generally proceed with their daily lives as if Satan did not exist at all. An undue fascination with the details of possession is perhaps not spiritually healthy but neither is ignoring the existence of the devil and the reality of evil. We can be sure he is not ignoring us.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, a cell is beginning which in some cases develops into a person, but is NOT a person. An oak tree begins with an acorn, but the acorn is not an oak tree.Is your argument that a cell which has no nerves, no body parts, no feelings, etc a person? Let me say again, I need to sweep the oak trees off my porch. Anna, do you not see the difference between something living, human life--hair, fingernails, cancer-- and a person?
ReplyDeleteYes, the Church says marriage is sacred and beautiful; otherwise there would be no more people. But the celibacy of the priest is superior to your marriage. Anna, you cannot deny that is what the Church teaches.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAnna, a cell is beginning which in some cases develops into a person, but is NOT a person.
How does that explain what it means to say that "human life begins at conception"? An egg is a cell which in some cases develops into a person, but is not a person. So that potentiality already existed; it did not begin at conception. So what DOES begin at conception?
An oak tree begins with an acorn, but the acorn is not an oak tree.
So tell me, then. At what point in time does an acorn suddenly become an oak tree?
Is your argument that a cell which has no nerves, no body parts, no feelings, etc a person?
Is YOUR argument that being a person requires having nerves? If there was some disability where a child was born without nerves, would that make them not a person? Or if there was some sort of cancerous mutation that caused a baby to be born as an amorphous blob without arms or eyes, would they not be a person? Why do you think that being a person, a human being in the image of God, has anything to do with having a body similar to that of a normal adult?
Anna, do you not see the difference between something living, human life--hair, fingernails, cancer-- and a person?
Yes, I do see a difference. But my argument is that, in the case of every single example of a difference between human life and a human person that you can give me, other than an unborn baby, the difference is ALWAYS the difference between PART of a human person (= human life) and the WHOLE of a human person (= person). Hair, fingernails, etc. are human life precisely because they are part of a living human body, and they are not people precisely because they are not the whole of the living human body. The difference between human life and a person is ALWAYS the difference between a part and the whole; it is NEVER the difference between potential and actual.
Therefore, when it comes to deciding whether a fertilized egg is a person or not, the question is not whether it is a potential person or an actual person; the question is whether it is a part of a person (that is, a part of the mother or father) or a whole new individual. Science has labelled it a new organism and declared that it is not a part of the mother or father's body, but is a new whole body. And where there is a whole human body, even if it is only one cell, I think it is sheer foolishness to declare that you can know that it is not also a person.
Yes, the Church says marriage is sacred and beautiful; otherwise there would be no more people.
I don't think power-hungry celibates would really care much about whether there would be any more people or not. Power-hungry people are usually focused on maintaining their own power *now*, not on how to best maintain the power of some people in their group in future generations. (Ironically, the ones most likely to consider how to keep the power of future generations are the ones who want to keep the power in their own family, that is, the one who want to secure power for their own sons/grandsons, etc., which would not apply to celibate males.)
And teaching that not having babies is superior to having babies would strengthen the superiority of a group of celibates/eunuchs more than teaching that having babies is sacred and holy. And I think that almost everyone would figure that, even if you tell people that having babies is immoral, it is not actually going to stop the human race from continuing.
But the celibacy of the priest is superior to your marriage. Anna, you cannot deny that is what the Church teaches.
Well, actually, I am not at all sure that that is what the Church teaches. It is definitely something that many Catholics believe, and it is something that some individual Catholic priests or bishops have taught, but I don't know that it is actually Catholic *doctrine*. (Keep in mind that not everything that makes it into a Catechism is doctrine, especially Catechisms that are written just by some individual or another).
Whether or not the Church teaches it, I would say that in a certain way, it is something that I believe; that celibacy for the sake of God is a higher path than marriage for the sake of God. I think you find this insulting to married people. To me, it is like God is directing a play. To one he appoints the lead role, to another he appoints a supporting role. To be jealous that someone else got the lead when you have a supporting role - that will eat away at your soul like a disease. Each person does best when they take the role that God gave them and fill that role as well as they can. And having the lead role does not guarantee that a person will actually play it better than the supporting cast plays theirs. Does that make any better sense of how I see it? Or would you actually be offended to play a supporting role in a play?
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I repeat, a cell begins.
ReplyDeleteAnna, asking for the EXACT time of anything is futile. But I do know an acorn from an oak tree. Your argument is they are the same. Language would mean nothing if there were no real difference between an acorn and an oak tree Even atomic clocks are not totally exact.
Please cite a scientist who says a single cell is a whole new body.
Name ten traits of a human person--hands, nerves, brains,organs etc that that single cell has. Suppose a person is burned to death,BUT one cell is still alive. Is that a person?
You keep calling a single cell a baby, the fact that one cell has no characteristic of a baby, except DNA as a skin cell has---where do you get that?
You lost me. Is one cell a whole human body?
Do we not owe that one cell a decent burial as it is just as much a person as you and I.
I believe that one cell is part of the women. Where are the one-cell doctors. I never heard a doctor say that the few cells in a pregnant womman are separate human persons. Even in the most catholic countries---except, of course, in the VERY ADVANCED African nations you cite.
The Church DOES teach that you are inferior to a priest.
Yes, I would be offended to play a supporting role in a play,if a requirement for the lead was I had to be a veritable eunuch!!
Anna, I'll just put in plainly. A priest who has sworn to never be a parent is intinsically my ( and your) better repulses me. Most priests I know have no concept of parenthood or sex, but they lord it over peasants like us. They are supposed to be our servants not our masters, as that repulsive Archbishop from Denver claims. I think he is a creep and in all probability was a maladjusted kid and a strange adult. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAnna, I repeat, a cell begins.
Cells begin all the time. Why would a scientist not say that human life begins when a woman's egg is made, or when you get a new skin cell? If a scientist says human life begins at conception, what is different about that new cell from other new cells that are made, that makes the scientist say what he says? Or is his phrase meaningless? (I contend that what he means is that YOUR life began at YOUR conception).
Anna, asking for the EXACT time of anything is futile. But I do know an acorn from an oak tree. Your argument is they are the same. Language would mean nothing if there were no real difference between an acorn and an oak tree Even atomic clocks are not totally exact.
I'm not looking for the exact second that an acorn becomes an oak tree. I'm asking for the essential difference between an acorn and an oak tree. If an acorn sprouts and there is a single centimeter of upward growth, is that an oak tree? If there is one foot of growth, is that an oak tree? Five feet? 10? How big or how old does that thing need to be before it becomes an oak tree?
Other than maybe the moment that the acorn first sprouts, there is no sudden change from an acorn to a tree. There is only a continual process of growth. We call the early phase "acorn" and the later phase "tree" the same way we label the phases of human life "newborn" and "adult". But there is no sudden change between a newborn and an adult, no point at which there used to be one living thing and now there is a different living thing. This is why science refers to organisms; an acorn is the same organism as the oak tree that it grows into, and the words acorn and oak tree simply refer to different phases in the life of that one living object.
Please cite a scientist who says a single cell is a whole new body. ... I believe that one cell is part of the women.
Some quotes for you:
"Fertilisation[1] (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species." (from here.)
"a new organism" - that means a different organism than the father or mother. That means the new organism, the one cell, is not a part of the mother's body.
"Together, meiosis and fertilization constitute sexuality in the eukaryotes, and generate genetically distinct individuals in populations."(from here.)
"genetically distinct individuals" - That certainly sounds like they are saying a new individual, not the mother or father, is there, yes?
"Most organisms produce offspring by a process of sexual reproduction, in which a gamete from one parent joins a gamete from the other parent to form a zygote (or fertilized egg). This process results in offspring that have a combination of parental chromosomes and provides a source of genetic variation for species." (from here.)
"offspring" they call it. Again, not a piece of the mother's body, but a new living plant/animal/organism, a genetically distinct individual.
Name ten traits of a human person--hands, nerves, brains,organs etc that that single cell has.
A somewhat facetious answer - mitochondria, DNA, cell membrane, cell nucleus, nucleolus ribosomes, cytoplasm, golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, and lysosomes.
Seriously, why would you consider any one or all of those traits - hands, nerves, etc. - to determine personhood? People can be missing hands or organs and still be people.
Suppose a person is burned to death,BUT one cell is still alive. Is that a person?
Probably not, because one human cell is not USUALLY a whole organism. If the organism that is the person's body dies as a whole, then the person is dead, even if one cell is still alive.
You keep calling a single cell a baby, the fact that one cell has no characteristic of a baby, except DNA as a skin cell has---where do you get that?
Because it is where a baby begins. There simply is no other point in the development of an organism at which I consider it rational to conclude that a baby suddenly exists where it did not exist before.
You lost me. Is one cell a whole human body?
Not usually, but in the case of a fertilized egg, yes. It is a new organism, and that means it is a new human body.
Do we not owe that one cell a decent burial as it is just as much a person as you and I.
If a war buddy is blown into one-celled pieces all over the place, do we owe it to find all those cells in order to bury him? If we could bury a one-celled person, I'd say go for it, but I don't see how it is physically possible in general, and God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.
The Church DOES teach that you are inferior to a priest.
Prove it?
Yes, I would be offended to play a supporting role in a play,if a requirement for the lead was I had to be a veritable eunuch!!
Why? I would think that taking that kind of offense, being jealous of someone else's role in that way, would be like taking poison.
Anna, I'll just put in plainly. A priest who has sworn to never be a parent is intinsically my ( and your) better repulses me. Most priests I know have no concept of parenthood or sex, but they lord it over peasants like us. They are supposed to be our servants not our masters, as that repulsive Archbishop from Denver claims. I think he is a creep and in all probability was a maladjusted kid and a strange adult.
I've never personally experienced anything that I would describe as a priest lording it over me. Perhaps that is why I have no sympathy for your view of the Church heirarchy as power-mad, sex-obsessed eunuchs. I assume the Denver thing refers to Arbp Chaput on Biden and the Eucharist? If you want to call that an example of clericalism, call it an abuse of power. I'm not claiming that the Catholic heirarchy never abuse their power. I just don't think that the Church's teachings on sex are themselves a result of the abuse of power, and I think the teachings are right.
God bless,
Anna
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI found some more quotes for you (via here).
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... "
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. ]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
Also, check out this.
And a set of quotes (found via this website):
(Note: Some of these quotes refer to human life beginning at conception, but you should notice that they say "a human life", not just "human life". One skin cell is human life, but it is not a human life, because "a human life" implies the life of a whole human. Some of the quotes are even more explicit about a human being.)
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."
The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, you use so many terms, I feel like chasing a fly:) Life, person, individual, primordium, human being. Now remember our discussion is only and just only is one cell a person. I could respond to all of your claims. I have no problem with "life" beginning at conception, but your other examples do not deal with one cell AS A Person. Just one example: your quote from some scientist about primordium clearly does not fit; primordium clearly implies more than one cell.
ReplyDeleteYour quotes show nothing as to one cell being a person. I believe almost all scientists and philosophers regard some type of mental activity as necessary to a person. A group of cells with no mental or nervous activity is not considered a person under law, custom or any othher criterion. So your quotes are interesting but not germane to the argument.
Personhood or person is obviously a metaphysical or philosophical consideration, And WE know their is considerable disagreemtnt in the church over this matter.Aquinas disagrees with the idea of person at conception. Okay, for the sake of argument let's say he was wrong. The church declared him The Philosopher. Now you say he is wrong. What about the poor deluded sould of his time and before who thought he was right. Well, too bad; off to Hell for murder.
Now original sin. All people are born with a disposition to some degree for evil. But how can one cell have a disposition to evil? Clearly absurd! What is their overlasting status?
Anna, you are a great potentiality-actuality proponent. Why not stay with that.
Now why does the Church stick to arguments that so few accept. Well, they are opposed to abortion (so am I). But with its billion members it cannot get in a discussion as to when a cell becomes a person--to confusion to the faithful. So, and its heart is in the right place, let's just make it easy and same immediately at intercourse. After all what harm will it do?
A bit off the subject be I don't believe it can be denied that the Church as at least two centuries of being anti -sexual. ("disgusting", only for procreation. revolting ,debased. So in the last 150 years they have softened this to well it's all right if open to procreation. Hunaba Vitae is ludicrous. The key is, Paul VI says, natural law clearly support our position, but only we have the authority to say what natural law means.Absurd again.
Now are we to assume that, as almost all the fathers said, sex is only for procreation, but now in the last 80 years we've changed. Was the Church giving out false teaching for hundreds of years, and, oh well, now we have changed.
Prove that the Chuch considers the celibate state superior to the married state in service to God. You are smart, Anna, read your catechism. Sugared up, yes.But clearly there.
I'm rambling, but on our discussion of life, person etc. You are akingme to prove the negative. Is not the burden on you.
I loved your defense of only eunuchs getting the role. :)
BTW have you noticed the Colorado bishops opposed the constitutional amemdment to dclare those one cells persons. Except, of course, old Chaput, who apparently thinkks catholicism is a branch of the anti-abortion movement. I never hear of him on anything else.
Kind of a joke, Anna. I would love to have twenty pregnant girls in a class. You would present your case that abortion is murder, and I'd tell them the trials and joys of kids. I bet I would prevent more than you from having abortions. Jack
Anna, correct "two centuries of being anti-sexual" to two thousands years. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteRemember, we were talking about whether one cell was part of the mother's body or whether it was a new human being. You said you had never heard a scientist refer to one cell as a human being. Remember, a skin cell is human life, but it is not a human being. So keep that in mind as you read these quotes, which I have pared down to make my point:
"This fertilized ovum, ... is a large diploid cell that is the beginning ... of a human being."
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization"
"The development of a human begins with fertilization"
"This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm ...represents the beginning of a human being."
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... "
(Remember your argument that life stretches continuously back to the first cell that ever existed, and we just make distinctions to be useful? This scientist is saying that, while there is a continuation of life, fertilization is the critical landmark for determining the existence of a new living human.)
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
(Do you understand this? This scientist is saying that YOUR individual life history began when you were a single cell).
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
(Again, this scientist is saying that it is not a matter of opinion, but a plain fact that YOU, as an individual, began at your conception.)
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."
"The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." [My emphasis]
A skin cell, a cancer cell, a piece of hair; none of those are human beings. You have (I repeat) decided that what science declares to be a human being is not a human person. On what grounds can you justify this? Can you really not come up with any argument better than "lots of people agree with me" or "I can't imagine it any other way"?
People in comas with no more mental activity than the brain stem keeping the lungs breathing and the heart beating can be and are considered living persons, as far as I know.
Oh, and check out this.
There has been disagreement in the Church throughout history about when ensoulment happens, which is pretty much the religious take on personhood. I would say that, now that the scientific evidence is in, the Church is moving towards a consensus that personhood begins at conception. And yes, I do say that Aquinas was wrong about when a baby becomes a person. Just because someone is declared a Doctor of the Church doesn't mean they were right about everything. Surely you know this? As for poor deluded souls that believed Aquinas and went off to Hell for murder, I would say that (1) anyone who actually HAD an abortion because of Aquinas wasn't listening well enough, since I believe he said abortion was still a sin, even if it was done before it was murder; (2) and we believe as Catholics that God offers forgiveness even to murderers, so there's no guarantee that being a murderer means going to hell; and (3) I'm pretty sure the guilt for an abortion would be seriously reduced if the person simply didn't know that it was a person in there. God generally holds us responsible for what we know, not what we don't know through no fault of our own.
How can one cell have a disposition towards evil? The same way an unborn baby who has brain waves but doesn't yet know how to open his eyes or breathe can have a disposition towards evil. Really, we generally don't accept children as capable of personal sin until they reach age 7 or so; the real question is what a disposition to sin means in absence of being able to make a responsible choice, not whether one cell can have something an older unborn baby can have.
Now why does the Church stick to arguments that so few accept.
Because they are true. :)
Now are we to assume that, as almost all the fathers said, sex is only for procreation, but now in the last 80 years we've changed. Was the Church giving out false teaching for hundreds of years, and, oh well, now we have changed.
Haven't you ever heard of development of doctrine? Besides, it is not everything that comes out of the mouths of the fathers that makes church doctrine. Why is it so hard to say that they were right to object to the behaviors that they objected to, even though their understanding was incomplete and their justifications for objecting were not always completely right? And now the Church's understanding has been growing, through the work of the Holy Spirit.
I'm rambling, but on our discussion of life, person etc. You are akingme to prove the negative. Is not the burden on you.
No. Can you prove that a black man is a person? Can you prove that a Jew is a person? No, because personhood is not something that can be proved. We have a moral obligation to default to treating every living human being as a full person made in the image of God.
I loved your defense of only eunuchs getting the role. :)
That wasn't a defense. It was a genuine question. You say you would be offended if God gave you a supporting role in a play, if a requirement for the lead role was to be celibate. I want to know why that would offend you.
Let me share something personal so that you can better see how I see this. I have a serious ambitious streak in me, although it doesn't always come out. One of the ways that it does show itself is that I have always been jealous of Mary. Mary is the Queen of Heaven, the sinless one. You can't get any better than her. I wanted to be the best human ever, and I hated it that that spot was already given away to Mary, and there was nothing I could do about it. Not to mention the privilege of carrying Jesus in her womb; I never liked the thought that I couldn't be the one to do that.
Sometime, I think during the last months of 2007, I started praying differently and in my prayers I became more aware of God's presence. Then one day, I was thinking about Mary, and all of a sudden I had a sense of her presence. Having a sense of her as a real woman instead of just an idea made me realize that I could not be her without not being me, and all of my jealousy disappeared. Because the truth is, I like being me. I don't want to be someone else. And I don't want the path that God made for someone else; I want the path that he made for me, because he suited it just for me.
So when you say that you would be offended if God asked you to play a supporting role instead of the lead role, if a requirement for being in the lead role was being celibate... it seems to me like a waste of time to be offended by something like that. God's plan for someone else has nothing to do with God's plan for you - the role he wants you to have is a good one, worth putting your all into. How you or your role compare to someone else is unimportant; it only matters how you compare to what God wants from you.
BTW have you noticed the Colorado bishops opposed the constitutional amemdment to dclare those one cells persons. Except, of course, old Chaput, who apparently thinkks catholicism is a branch of the anti-abortion movement. I never hear of him on anything else.
I hadn't heard of this before you mentioned it. And actually, Chaput is included in those who are not supporting the Colorado amendment. Did you look at their reasons why they are not supporting the state amendment? You can read it here. I get the impression that they agree with what the amendment says, but think that passing it will have the effect of setting back the pro-life movement instead of advancing it. It seems strange to me; I'm not sure I agree with that judgment.
Kind of a joke, Anna. I would love to have twenty pregnant girls in a class. You would present your case that abortion is murder, and I'd tell them the trials and joys of kids. I bet I would prevent more than you from having abortions.
Aw, Jack. I'm not trying to convince twenty pregnant girls not to have an abortion. Believe me, if I was, I would approach it differently. (I'd start with pictures of the unborn, probably, and talk about the negative side-effects many women experience from abortion, and all sorts of other stuff). But I'm not talking with them; I'm talking with you. And so I am trying to tailor my arguments to the issues and objections you have, not the issues they might have.
God bless,
Anna
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAny response to the human being thing, or the being-offended thing?
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I'm sorry. I just didn't look carefully enough.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall saying no scientist considers a single cell a person. If I did I misspoke. I say I can find no respected scientist who says a single cell is a PERSON.I don't believe your examples say person, but say being. I may be wrong. Of course this is the core to the dispute. None of our laws accept the idea of a single cell as a person, as the "human rights" amendments show.
Again to repeat,your argument implies that almost all americans favor murder, as most agree abortion should be legal in cases of incest and rape. I believe the Church position is that an abortion is NEVER acceptable.
Again Anna an acorn is the beginning of an oak tree, but is not an oak tree.A test:Removethat one cell and ask 1000 people to view it under a microscope. How many will say "that's a person.". But, of course, you say the majority makes no difference.
Hey, on the play, did I say God wrote it? Yes, I would be offended if the only requirement for the lead role of Hamlet be that it be played by a Eunuch. I don't get your point.
You don't find priest and bishops a bit smug and superior acting. I do. Different of opinion I guess, but I don't like for eunuchs to dictate my private life and political views.
Anna, I checked again and can't find in your quotes the word "person." I might be wrong. Could you be wrong?:) Jack
Just got the computer from Frank. I'm too old to help on his question I told him to ask you. I think he wrote you. Give your honest opinion; I just don't know. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteMain Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən\
Function: noun
...
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes "chairperson""spokesperson"
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing "unlawful search of the person"
5: the personality of a human being : self
6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
____________________________
So tell me, what is the difference between a human being and a person?
God bless,
Anna
Anna,"The term person used in common sense to mean an individual human being. But in the fields of law,Philosophy, medicine and others,it means the presence of characteristic that grant a certain legal, ethical or moral standing." I have chosen a 'mild' definition. Most other definitions imply much more development. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution treats slaves as less than full people, as did almost all laws before the Civil War. Even after that, if you were a black man living in Georgia, there would have been legal and social precedent for considering you to not be a person or not be a full person.
In other words, what is legal or what is generally recognized is by no means necessarily what is moral.
Theologically - Do you have any moral basis for concluding that, what science has determined to be a human being, God has not given a soul to? Why would God not give any human being a soul?
Philosophically - If science calls that one cell a member of our species, then it is a human, what philosphers are like to call a Man, descendant of Adam. On what grounds do you determine that such a Man ought not to have legal standing?
God bless,
Anna
Anna, the Constitution does not say slaves were not people or persons, It was how they should be counted in apportioning representation. By your logic, we must count all fertilized eggs as persons and of course people.You can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteAnna, again you ask me to prove a negative about soul. What evidence do you have, an the burden is on you,to prove the existence of a soul and when it comes into being.
Again Anna you ask me to prove a negative. What is your evidence? Playing with words again. Concentrate on "person" which is what we look for. Do you say we all descended from one man? Is that science? Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteIf you define "person" according to whether or not someone is granted the legal rights of people, then the slaves were not full people, because they did not have the legal rights. (For that matter, one could argue that children in general are often not treated as people under the law).
The burden of proof is NOT on me. That is exactly like saying that the burden of proof was on the Jews to prove to the Nazis that they were people, or that the burden of proof was on the Northerners during the Civil War or on the civil rights activists during the 60s, to prove that blacks were people. It isn't possible to PROVE that blacks, or Jews, or Catholics, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or newborn babies are people. Especially when your definition of "person" boils down to "someone we accept is a person".
Think about it this way. Many cultures have, and some still sadly do, believe that infanticide - killing newborn babies - is ok. Does that mean that the burden of proof is on you to prove that a newborn baby is a person? If the newborn baby simply doesn't have any legal standing, does that mean they really aren't people? Is it up to you to prove that a newborn baby has a soul, and if so, how would or could you do that?
Think about precedent, too. Before the issue of abortion came up, think about every single time during history that a group of human beings was classified or just treated as being less than full people. The Jews during the Holocaust. Blacks during slavery and the discrimination against them later. The slaves of other empires. Foreigners, in many countries. Tutsis, during the Rwandan genocide. And now, we think that every single one of these are examples of serious evil.
Clearly, there is a pattern here. Defining human beings as not people is wrong and leads to serious evils.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, it is always the burden of those who make the statement, in this case one cell is a person and has a soul, to prove the argument. It is not good reasoning to ask a person to prove something is not something in reply.
ReplyDeleteIf it is so clear to you that a one cell is a person, why is that not recognized in any of our laws. The slave argument had nothing to do with whether slaves were persons or human beings. Please answer my question as to why these one cells are are not counted in Any legal way. Just a conspiracy? Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteOk, prove to me that newborns are people.
Laws are a reflection of what people tend to think. This may be whatever the majority tend to think, but it may just be the thinking of those in power.
Whole countries of people can be very wrong about what they think. See previous examples. Thus laws, especially of one place or time, is not enough for determining the actual meaningful morality of something.
Legally, we don't "count" babies until they are born. You yourself admit that they become people before this. So how do YOU explain that our laws don't match when you believe personhood begins?
God bless,
Anna
Every since I have been blogging I have been fighting "The Demon of the Absolute." This great essay by More points out we can have standards WITHOUT having absolute certainty. That is the world we live him. The abortion argument, as I have indicated before, has fallen into the hands of the absolutists. One hand:A single cell is as much a person as a newborn child. Other hand: It's my body and I can do anything I want with it. Neither position has much support in logic or law or personal support. The absolutist says there can be no standard but mine. This simply continues an endless war between the 10 percent at each extreme. Neither side can produce any evidence except their own personal belief systems. The great majority are right in saying 'this is a question that cannot be decided with absolute certainty; so we try and be reasonable and find an answer that is not ABSOLUTE to be sure, but is the best we can do. We have no exact, absolute, idea when our universe began, but we try to take in all facts and views and make the best estimate possible. That is the way the world works,but in this case the extremes say "it has to be my way and only my way." Yes, the Demon of the Absolute.
ReplyDeleteMost thoughtful people say a "person" developes somewhere between that one cell and birth. That is the best we can do; now let's see, taking into consideration science and all testable fields, what can we come up with. No, we cannot guarantee exact certitude, but it wll be better than two obviously extreme and non-real absolutes.By the way, the 3/5 compromise specifically refers to slaves as persons. Jack