Search
User login
Navigation
Recent comments
- Apophis Keyhole
3 years 28 weeks ago - Polkinghorne
3 years 40 weeks ago - Apophis
3 years 42 weeks ago - immigration effect Europe
3 years 49 weeks ago - paleoclimatologists
3 years 50 weeks ago - immigration
3 years 50 weeks ago - From Junk Science
3 years 50 weeks ago - out of pocket
4 years 1 week ago - Third: Sacrament Controversy
4 years 2 weeks ago - Second: Nature of Sacrament
4 years 3 weeks ago
I am sure that he meant to say that it is unethical to destroy innocent human life in the hopes of saving others. . .
This is how the issue on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research has always been framed - the president does not intend to reframe the issue by leaving the word "innocent" out. He was after-all giving a speach on the subject of stem cell research.
No irony here. Let's not devolve into blogging via seagull dropping fly-overs. Or, proceed to explain your ethics - by all means. I suspect you are headed for Iraq - which is a different ethical situation. And, we are not so simple minded as to have to treat them on the same footing, or even in the same thread.
js
I am a seagull...watch me soar.
None of us are innocent.
I desire that humanity move towards valuing life consistently. In the womb, in the inner city, in the prison, in the foreign country.
The irony to me is that many of us take such principled stands about embryos and fetuses while enthusiastically supporting the execution of criminals, the use of torture, and bombing of foreign nations. I suppose that nations, in their self-interest, can hardly avoid such muck for long...but they are not following the example of Christ when they engage in such things.
"_________ your enemies."
a) love
b) torture
c) execute
d) bomb
The answer can't be a). That's not practical. That is foolishness. That is what Jesus said.
Jonathan - i deeply disagree with Joey's defense of GWB, and i agree largely with your position as apparent from the thread, but i disagree that loving your enemy means pacifism (which i feel is what you're driving at).
i think when you are being attacked, even indirectly, you have to self-defense. this would appear under the heading of "choosing the lesser of two evils". IF: saddam hussein had had nukes and IF he had threatened to nuke someone, then IF you had a reasonable chance of stopping the nuking, you'd have a right to bomb him.
Joey - the IFs are important, read the catechism. war is only justified if there's a reasonable chance of stopping a greater evil. american intervention in wwII is a prime example.
abortion is different: you are not stopping an evil by aborting a child. so i can rationalize opposing abortion but not categorically opposing war.
i was thinking about this more deeply today (precipitated by some analysis of jesus' parables in ratzinger's book), and i am not sure how i need to interpret "turning the other cheek". jesus clearly was completely humble, and turned the other cheek to the end. my question is: if christians had "turned the other cheek" faithfully (as in the times of persecution by the romans) throughout the millennia, would the world be a better place today? would the bad guys have found themselves subverted from within by goodness (like the roman empire eventually)?
whichever way i think about it, you'd have to be willing to sacrifice almost everything(as in times of genocide: your family, children, friends, yourself, your culture, your country) and utterly hope, that after the destruction is over, things will be better.
if you find an answer, let me know....
food for thought - the catholic position is given here: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm
personally, i find the argument given in the link logical and convincing.
I desire that humanity move towards valuing life consistently. In the womb, in the inner city, in the prison, in the foreign country.
I do too.
The irony to me is that many of us take such principled stands about embryos and fetuses while enthusiastically supporting the execution of criminals, the use of torture, and bombing of foreign nations. I suppose that nations, in their self-interest, can hardly avoid such muck for long...but they are not following the example of Christ when they engage in such things.
First, I do not support in any way the execution of criminals, the use of torture, or the bombing of foreign nations.
Second, this is a matter of gravity for me. We have 48,589,993 aborted human beings that are not walking among us since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. This is a very large number. How can we move toward "valuing life consistently" (your words) when the numbers are like this?
For comparison sake the war in Iraq has numbers like the following:
Coalition fatalities: 3-2003 to 6-2007: 3841
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths: 31329
Now, please do not misconstrue that I am underwhelmed by 35,170 deaths. Notably, however, as for the unborn, they are totally defenseless. The ethical error is therefore much more grave and over 1000x greater in magnitude than this war.
Actually, there are other atrocities now taking place in the world that are still greater than the Iraq totals. Are not the occurrences of genocide etc. across the world also grave ethical errors?
In June 2005 GWB was the first to break with the UN and called Darfur a place of genocide. We are talking about 200,000 lives claimed and more than 2 million displaced from their homes.
So, how do we "value life consistently" without looking at the gravity from a common ethic and its magnitide? And, how can the magnitude and gravity of the error regarding the unborn be overwhelmed by any current event or event of recent history (say post 1970...)???
js
I guess I'm not all that fixated on the relative magnitudes, but certainly the magnitude of abortion is horribly large...not overwhelmed by the others.
I guess I may be disproportionately fixated on the bombings, executions, and torturing is that they are done in my name.
Why are bombings being done in your name but abortions are not? I thought you were a US citizen? Isn't the blood of 48 million children on all our heads? What will the Lord say to us about our indifference? At some point, the error becomes so heinous that the entire society becomes guilty. Are we like the citizens of Nazi Germany? Have we stood by and watched a holocaust?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
I'm certainly very bothered by abortion...I'm certainly not indifferent, but it isn't the only factor that determines my vote. On this I guess we'll have to disagree. Getting back to the issue of consistency, which major candidate has not made an exception for the cases of rape or incest? Why shouldn't the life of the fetus be protected in that case too?
But, yes, the US government has been intentionally torturing people, accidentally bombing civillians, and executing prisoners as my representatives. No one who represents me has been aborting fetuses for my benefit.
Frankly, for me, this is more a public education problem and less a political candidate problem.
Fundamentally, I believe that once people understand the procedure and the outcome including the negative effects on women's physical and mental health they will see that this is not a choice for women.
Incidentally, many women are coerced into this act by family members or boy friends.
If you want all the facts I can post a new thread on abortion.
js
"No one who represents me has been aborting fetuses for my benefit." - JM
Ironic that you make this comment - here's why.
This thread started on the subject of embryonic stem cell research. The whole ethical problem with embryonic is that it ultimately leads to the "aborting of fetuses for my benefit" problem.
So, I guess we can conclude that you are against embryonic stem cell research?
Please confirm,
js
I haven't studied the issue carefully, so I'll have to speak mostly from ignorance. Yes I am rather ignorantly opposed to embyonic stem cell research...assuming it relies on destroying embyros. I'm not keen on destroying embryos.
Why is IVF not as controversial as ESCR?
IVF as every bit as controversial as ESCR, as far as the RC church is concerned. both involve destruction of human life, with probably even less justification in the first case than the second. IVF just doesn't get a lot of flak because few people are aware that the left-over embryos are arbitrarily disposed of...
Click on this link to see, for example, someone's explanation of why he view's GWB's statement as hypocritical.
I'm not claiming that many of the issues aren't complicated, but the whole picture is suggestive to me of a person who doesn't have a credibly consistent ethic regarding the value of human life and hesitancy to be responsible for taking it.