PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) — Cells taken from embryos hold therapeutic promise, but it is simply wrong to destroy human life in its early stages.
That’s the opinion of the chief stem-cell researcher at a medical school hospital in what some would say is one of the nation’s most liberal cities.
Dr. Markus Grompe, director of Oregon Health & Science University’s Stem Cell Center since 2004, is a devout Catholic and a member of St. John Fisher Parish in Portland.
"I support the church’s view on protection of embryonic life," Grompe told the Catholic Sentinel, Portland archdiocesan newspaper, in an interview in his office at the hospital. "That has sometimes put me in a difficult situation."
Grompe is looking forward to the day when a method is discovered to provide embryonic stem cells — or their equal — without destroying embryos. But for now, his lab works with cells taken from adults, and he is keen on those advances.
Grompe and his team are devising a way to repair diseased livers by injecting adult stem cells into the organs. The work has a special focus on children with genetic liver disorders. The method, which would nix the need for liver transplants, has worked in lab animals.
"There is a lot in favor of embryonic stem cells," said Grompe, a German citizen who studied at the University of Ulm in southern Germany. "But we need to make a choice based on ethics." He said the colleagues who disagree with him are not evil, but want to advance medicine.
The German-born Grompe has been active on the international level in the stem-cell debate. In April 2006, he went to the Vatican and addressed the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Grompe allows that the question of the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells is still open. But he insists that embryonic cells are likely to lead to a therapy that adult cells cannot reach.
"What makes embryonic stem cells so different is that they can be grown to unlimited quantities," he said. "You can make a lot of what you need to make and you can do it again and again. Adult stem cells don’t do that."
That potential makes the Catholic stand all the more difficult yet necessary, he said. "As Catholics, we need to stick to the facts and the truth. The reason we object to embryonic stem-cell research is not because the cells are not good or the adult cells are better. The real reason is that we have moral and ethical objections. We have to stick to our guns. Just because a medical procedure is immoral doesn’t mean it will not work."
This is an important point to make. Right now there is a lot of effort in the pro-life movement used in debunking ESCR because of the lack so far of actual cures. The main point should be that it is simply wrong to use a human person in experiments. Though you can easily understand by the ineffectiveness of ESCR so far has been much touted since it is an easy point to make. Much harder in the current culture to speak of the personhood of the human embryo. It is quite unlikely that in a sound bite society that arguments made by Peter Kreeft in his excellent article Human Personhood Begins at Conception are likely to be heard.
The January issue had a real good view of the science of ESCR and the fact that the morality of it goes beyond killing embryos for research and that it involved serious health risks to women who donate eggs for this research.
74 comments
I just have to add this. Mary Ellen, you wrote about the man quoted in the article, “I’m sure he doesn’t like the competition of other scientists who may find a better, more viable way to get what is needed from their research.”
That’s not charitable. Worse, it’s not true. Adult stem cells are more viable, in that a national association can collect adult stem cells in much the same way that blood is donated: by free donation or with a payment to the donor. Either way, they can be collected 1) with the full consent of the donor and 2) without harming anyone. Unfortunately, if cures are found using embryonic stem cells, the questions becomes how the doctors (and, more likely, pharmaceutical companies) get the necessary “materials”.
As for the argument that some Catholics will flock to cures regardless of destroying the life of others – that proves nothing. I know a delightful woman who works very hard for various charities and worthy causes who, unfortunately, is vain about her appearance. She once joked that if scientists discovered that rubbing horse manure on her face would shave 15 years off her appearance, she’d be buying it wholesale! No doubt there are vain women who would do the same if it were human fetal tissue instead of manure. That doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make ALL women guilty of that kind of vanity, does it?
Now I’m an atheist?
Bangs head against table. Repeat. Repeat.
No, that’s not what I meant. I’d go on, but I just give up.
Mary Ellen,
I don’t want to appear to be attacking anyone in my response. Writing online cannot display perfectly the tone of what is being explained, where in talking, tones of voice are more helpful. I also apologize if in anyway my messages appeared to be unkind to you.
First, Where does it say that God said life begins at conception? There are many parts in the bible that speak of unborn children, however as Catholics we see that we are not limited to the bible. For no where in the bible does it teach that we must know everything from the bible. With thousands of ethical issues bombarding us today I am particularly happy Christ established the Church to guide us. If you look at my last post the Church’s teachings were specific about life beginning at conception.
(Some bible verses are: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.’ Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; ‘My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.’ Ps 139:15. I know there are more I just don’t have enough time to find them right now. But, I could post them later, if you would like to see them.)
Where is it that He said that embryonic stem cells are life? Part of the process of embryonic stem cell research is the destruction of the human person in the embryonic stage. It is not a process of extracting cells from an embryo, but killing the embryo in the extraction of cells. The destruction of human life is the main part of why the Church specifically condoms embryonic stem cell research. That is why Catholics involved in stem cell research are hoping to find a morally permissible way to obtain embryonic stem cells.
I would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to Mary Ellen’s statements and tried to explain to her and others where things stand.
May I suggest that this weekend we all pray for all of us for when we are misguided by our egos to the point of thinking that WE have the truth and not the Church when we disagree with Her. May the Holy Spirit help us all to grow small so that He and His spouse may grow larger.
Well,it is interesting that Scott decided to slam the door of his blog in my face, as he has tried to slam the door of the Church in my face. All who do not adhere to the words of those who claim to be God, such as Scott, will be turned away.
Hmm..and those on this blog called ME a hypocrite! Don’t question the church and don’t question Scott. Too bad Scott thinks he IS the church.
I’ll be waiting for my letter from the Pope excommunicating me from the Catholic church because Scott and his little groupies think I don’t belong.
What a pathetic bunch of so-called Christians!
There is historical proof that Jesus existed. There are preserved writings that show those who followed him and knew him directly told of his life and what he said. I believe that and in those writings, the Lord Jesus spoke of those things, the Trinity, God, etc. Just as I believe that George Washington existed and the history written by those who knew him were correct.I don’t need to hear Washingtons voice to know what he said. You should know this yourself, Scott, this is the same thing I’ve told atheists who think I’m nuts for believing in God.
This goes to my point. The trinity is not explicit in Scripture. The reason we believe it is because the Church teaches it. Why is the Church right on this but wrong on other things? On what grounds?
This is not an error.
Yes it is. Show me one document from the Church that officially declares the cause of homosexuality.
At one time the church would not allow a person who is a homosexual be a part of the sacraments of the church. Now they do. What they do with their sexual life is between them and God. But, created them that way, you can’t compare a homosexual to an alcoholic. Alcoholism is a disease, homosexuality is not.
Yes, but you are talking about them in the abstract. The simple act of a alcoholic drinking or someone engaging in a homosexual act is objectively wrong.
Again, Jesus already proved to me that there is a Trinity, He said so and it is in the historical writings that He did. Just because I don’t believe the church is incapable of telling me about life, doesn’t mean that I believe that Jesus is incapable. He’s the Son of God, He’s already proven that to me by his death and resurrection.
Our Lord did not beam that knowledge into your head–it was taught to you by the Church. To say the Church is right about this but wrong about other things is to say God can decieve or be decieved. Our faith must be universal. We must believe ALL the tuths God has revealed through His Church, not just the ones we like.
I see, so how’s that working Scott?
If they obey Church teachings, very well.
Are you telling me that without the use of condoms, all of the sudden people who were raised in a totally different culture than ours is going to stop having sex unless they are married? Yeah…tell it to the baby born with AIDS that the church thinks that wearing a condom is immoral. This is one of the more laughable objections to Church teachings. If people are not going to listen to the Church and continue fornicating, why on earth would they listen to it about condom use either way?
So, you’re telling me that I have to leave the Church?
No, just that you have to be obedien to ALL the teachings, not just the convenient ones.
Hmmm…Who died and made you God?
No comment other than that you are being desperately overdramatic.
You are wrong on so many levels with that one.
Ok, let’s look at your reasoning:
I was Baptized as Catholic, I received and STILL receive Communion, I attend Mass more than just the obligated Sundays and am a part of the Perpetual Adoration adorers in my church. All of this with my priest giving me his blessings to be in YOUR church. I never had an abortion, I never DID research on embryonic cells and I am not a homosexual or performed homosexual acts.
Well this is good start, you just need to make it complete by assenting to all the Church teaches, not just the easy stuff.
So, tell me why I should leave YOUR church, Scott?
I would think the concern for personal integrety would make anyone leave an faith they don’t agree with. That is implied when one recieves the Eucharist. One is effectively saying they agree with ALL the Church’s teachings. This is one of the reasons non-Catholics are barred from communion. And it’s not just MY Church of course. This is another case of being overdramatic.
I have four children and three grandchildren…should I pull them out of YOUR church, Scott? All because I question the authority of the church?
Correction, you are not questioning the authority of the Church, you are outright rejecting it. Huge difference.
You really should think about that Scott before you start driving more people from the Church of Curt Jester.
The Church teachings are what they are and people either believe them or they don’t. Again, if I thought the Church taught error, personal integrity would demand that I don’t pick-and-choose, but that I find another faith.
Well,it is interesting that Scott decided to slam the door of his blog in my face, as he has tried to slam the door of the Church in my face. All who do not adhere to the words of those who claim to be God, such as Scott, will be turned away.
More drama. By showing you the door in a manner of speaking, it is my hope that you don’t actually do it, but rather be a Catholic as opposed to an Episcopalian at a Catholic Church.
Hmm..and those on this blog called ME a hypocrite! Don’t question the church and don’t question Scott. Too bad Scott thinks he IS the church.
Not true. I have demonstrated what Church teaching is and you have not and have even made some fundamental errors regarding what Church teaching is on IVF for instance.
I’ll be waiting for my letter from the Pope excommunicating me from the Catholic church because Scott and his little groupies think I don’t belong.
Ideally in a manner of speaking, your conscience should excommunicate yourself until you can find it in you to assent to all Church teachings.
What a pathetic bunch of so-called Christians!
Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy, so it is not pathetic.
For my part I am a sinner like everyone else. But I am only in real trouble when I start pretending Church teaching is something other than what it is and that sin is not really sin. You will be in my prayers and I thank you for the opportunity to defend the Faith. God bless.
Pontifical Academy for Life statement, 2004
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pont-acd_life_doc_20040316_x-gen-assembly-final_en.html
Pope John Paul II speech to same academy, 2004 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040221_plenary-acad-life_it.html (Sorry, only available in Italian).
Evangelium Vitae paragraph 63
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
Just read the whole thing …
Scott
You are in real trouble when you think that unless you accept every thing ever said by the church is the only way that you are worthy enough to receive the Eucharist. Maybe you should go back to your catechism classes. When one receives the Eucharist it is because they believe it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Does that ring a bell, Scott? When I say AMEN when the body of Christ is before me, it is because I am saying yes, I believe it is his body….not, yes I will follow every man made law that is part of the church. I’m saying yes to Jesus, not yes to an institution. Again, you should check your facts, Scott before you start teaching anyone what the Eucharist is and who can receive it.
I am not an Episcopalian..I am a Catholic. You may think that yours is the only interpretation of what the church teaches about homosexuality..and you may think that just because someone doesn’t agree with that, that this automatically bars them from the Catholic church. You are woefully wrong, my boy. If I practiced homosexuality, I would be in a state of sin according to the church. If I sympathize and doubt whether the churches teaching s on homosexuality is correct, does not make me a sinner or someone who is not in good standing with the church. Ask your local priest about that, dear.
If I am in doubt whether the church is correct in the science of embryonic stem cell research, and I want to find out more…I am not a sinner, nor am I not in good standing with the Catholic Church. YOU don’t make that decision. I may change my mind later…maybe not after listening to you, but the fact remains, Scott, I have not given any eggs for IV nor have I experimented on any eggs. I am not sinning by questioning science or the churches role in science.
The judgements coming from this blog has been amazing. I was personally attacked and called a hypocrite…and then left with “God Bless You”. Gee…you can cut the hypocrisy with a knife. I’ve had more than one person, including you, saying that I don’t belong in this Church. How dare you! You have committed the biggest sin of all. You put yourself in the place of God by judging me. You have decided…not God, that I am not worthy to receive the Eucharist.
I suggest you take the time to get out of your little EWTN cocoon and realize that you are not the one running this church before you drive even more people away from our faith. You should be ashamed for the lack of your own personal lack of integrity by claiming that you have the moral authority to tell me which church I belong in.
May God forgive you for your arrogance.
Mary Ellen,
I would like to clarify a few things for you so that you may understand that your stance on using embryos for research is flawed.
You keep refering to embryos as just cells. Actually embryos are whole complete organisms. Cells are defined as *subunits* of organisms. Scientifically, there is a big difference. With your usage of the word “cells”, we could all be defined as just clumps of cells.
God doesn’t need to tell us when human life begins, because science does. It is clear: a new distinct human organism begins at conception. That is a fact. The Catholic Church just acknowledges scientific fact.
As for ensoulment and personhood, the Catholic Church teaches that we cannot know when God ensouls us therefore we must treat every human organism as if they do have a soul.
Also, practically, the ESC debate is not about the “400,000” left-over embryos that you discuss. Actually, only about 1% of those are available for research, and only a small number of those will yield a useable stem cell line. Scientists would bust through those faster than you can imagine and will be asking for more. Do some research and you will find scientists really don’t want leftover IVF embryos. They want fresh embryos purposely made for research purposes either by IVF or cloning. Some even want to purposefully create embryos that have specific diseases so that they can study their diseased stem cells.
The Church is correct on this issue as it has been on IVF and abortion. The Nuremberg Code concurs. It is wrong to experiment on a human subject without their consent. Always.
Rebecca
Let me give you an example of how little the Catholic Church, specifically Pope Paul VI knows about the science of IVF
“IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.”
Now, I know of two children who were conceived by IVF. They are the most normal children I have ever met. They are sweet, loving, caring, and every much as stable as any child conceived through sexual intercourse. Yet, the church says that they aren’t.
Which begs another question. How many of you on this blog are willing to rescue all those embryonic cells and make them your adopted children? Or do you just want them to stay in a frozen state for eternity? Where are all your snowflake babies? Tell me about them, Rebecca. How many did you rescue? I guess the culture of death doesn’t include being frozen for eternity. Or, maybe it a good thing to talk about as long as you don’t have to really do anything about it.
What about you, Scott? How many snowflake babies did you adopt?
Mary Ellen,
Here is a friendly tip which I give to you with all sincerity:
When you use ad hominem attacks it screams that you have no argument. Honestly, it makes you look bad and doesn’t really advance the debate.
As for IVF children, the Church most certainly thinks they are precious. It is we (and the parents) who do not see them as the precious gift they are, but as man-made products. Look into pre-implantation genetic diagnosis that will soon be recommended for all IVF embryos and you will see what I mean.
Also, when human cloning becomes a reality, it will be accomplished in IVF clinics by IVF doctors. Nearly every human cloning laboratory has a corresponding IVF clinic. That is where they get the eggs, equipment and expertise.
As the Church rightly acknowledges, once you separate reproduction from the unitive act of sex, anyway to create a child is permissible, including cloning.
You are in real trouble when you think that unless you accept every thing ever said by the church is the only way that you are worthy enough to receive the Eucharist.
No I’m not in trouble. There are teachings from the Church that are binding on the faithful and there are things in which the Church allows free opinion. ESCR ain’t one of them. When one obstinately refuses to accept the binding teachings, their communion with the Church is false.
Maybe you should go back to your catechism classes.
You have yet to demostrate why.
When one receives the Eucharist it is because they believe it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Does that ring a bell, Scott? When I say AMEN when the body of Christ is before me, it is because I am saying yes, I believe it is his body….not, yes I will follow every man made law that is part of the church. I’m saying yes to Jesus, not yes to an institution. Again, you should check your facts, Scott before you start teaching anyone what the Eucharist is and who can receive it.
You are setting up a false dichotomy between Our Lord and His Church. One can’t say that the teaching of transubstantion is spot on, but this other stuff the Church teaches is man-made and be consistent.
I am not an Episcopalian..I am a Catholic. You may think that yours is the only interpretation of what the church teaches about homosexuality.
The Church unambiguously teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, there is no way to nuance that into something else.
and you may think that just because someone doesn’t agree with that, that this automatically bars them from the Catholic church.
No it doesn’t bar them in the sense that the Church is going to check and make everyone believes this, but the Church does teach that our faith must be universal.
You are woefully wrong, my boy.
I am answering in all sincerity and trying to avoid snarkiness as much as possible, please respond in kind by avoiding addressing me as “boy” or other such.
If I practiced homosexuality, I would be in a state of sin according to the church.
That would depend on your personal culpability, but in general a correct statement as homosexual acts are intrinsicly immoral.
If I sympathize and doubt whether the churches teaching s on homosexuality is correct, does not make me a sinner or someone who is not in good standing with the church. Ask your local priest about that, dear.
Again, you are not innocently questioning a binding Church teaching, you are outright rejecting it which is wrong.
If I am in doubt whether the church is correct in the science of embryonic stem cell research, and I want to find out more…I am not a sinner, nor am I not in good standing with the Catholic Church. YOU don’t make that decision. I may change my mind later…maybe not after listening to you, but the fact remains, Scott, I have not given any eggs for IV nor have I experimented on any eggs. I am not sinning by questioning science or the churches role in science.
There is no sin in questioning, there is sin in obstinate rejection of Church truths.
The judgements coming from this blog has been amazing.
When you attack Church teaching and can’t back it up, it will get called on. No need to judge because the facts stand on their own. I was personally attacked and called a hypocrite
not by me…
and then left with “God Bless You”. Gee…you can cut the hypocrisy with a knife.
I was and am 100% sincere with that.
I’ve had more than one person, including you, saying that I don’t belong in this Church. How dare you!
That is not what I said. My comments taken as a whole imply that if one can’t accept the teachings of the Church, they need to come to grips with that or find a faith more compatible with their beliefs. You have committed the biggest sin of all. Above you said I don’t get to make that call, but you do?
You put yourself in the place of God by judging me.
I have made no judgement regarding the state of your soul. You came on, poo-pooed a Church teaching, couldn’t back it up and got called on it.
You have decided…not God, that I am not worthy to receive the Eucharist.
I have not. I posed it as a hypothetical that if one formally rejects Church teaching, that is formal heresy, which would bar one from receiving the Eucharist.
I suggest you take the time to get out of your little EWTN cocoon
What’s up with this? I don’t watch EWTN.
and realize that you are not the one running this church before you drive even more people away from our faith.
I have defended Church teaching and as yet have not seen a serious rebuttal. It has nothing to do with me thinking I run the Church which I don’t.
You should be ashamed for the lack of your own personal lack of integrity by claiming that you have the moral authority to tell me which church I belong in. May God forgive you for your arrogance.
Now who is judging?
Jeff, I would suggest, in all charity, that you close this thread. Mary Ellen is obviously angry and cannot be swayed by any argument. She has made up her mind that she knows better than the Church what is right and wrong. This is sad, but I think continuing to engage her will just make her more obstinate in what she mistakenly believes to be true. My suggestion is that we all cease to argue/debate with her and pray that she will someday be truly reconciled with all that the Church teaches.
Actually, Mary Ellen, I just read through all these comments (a tall order) and you have been using ad hominem arguments. Look over your comments again.
Similarly, you’ve committed a philosophical error that any good philosophy professor would have corrected in a minute. You’ve confused the character and actions of a person holding an idea with the idea itself. For example, if Adolph Hitler told you not to drink gasoline and Ghandi told you you should drink gasoline, would this mean that drinking gasoline was good for you? Of course not! In such an instance, Hitler would be right and Ghandi wrong, even though Ghandi was the better man. The TRUTH is that drinking gasoline is unhealty, and this remains the truth no matter who chooses to advocate it.
When you write “The Church teaches” or “The Church has done X in the past”, you generally follow these words with generalizations about Church officials.
Let me humbly concede the following point: the Church’s heirarchy is now, and always has been, full of creeps, hypocrites, liars, fools, and incompetents of many stripes. In some times and places, “bad” bishops have even outnumbered “good” bishops. As they say, “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”. Many of the Popes have been the worst of the lot, and anyone familiar with the sex abuse scandal can tell you that Priests are not always paragons of decency.
Having admitted this, let me also make one thing clear: Nothing in the last paragraph in any way WHATSOEVER can serve to invalidate Church teaching- on ESCR, or any other issue. The teaching of “The Church”- the Bride of Christ- is not diminished or affected by the conduct of its members.
The simple truth is that an IDEA is totally unrelated to the personal failings of the advocate of said idea. If you want to argue, make sure you know the difference between Church teaching (the idea) and the personal conduct and personal musings of Popes, bishops, priests, and lay Catholics.
By the way, hypocrisy is not a matter of “saying one thing and doing another”- or, if it is, then all human beings are terrible hypocrites. This is nothing more than simple human failure.
True hypocrisy, I would argue, is not holding an ideal and failing to live up to it, but is rather holding two ideas that are inherently conflicting: i.e., “all people should be treated equally” and “Ethnic group A deserves to be treated badly”.
By this standard, Mary Ellen, you may want to look for the beam in your eye before you go calling the people who have charitably tried to correct you “hypocrites”.
I’ve wasted enough time on you, Scott. Honestly, you’re pathetic.
At least I’ll know where to look when I want a good laugh…zealots are funny, and there are plenty of them on this blog.
Dano
Your comment was the biggest load of crap I’ve seen so far. Congratulations. You’ve even outdone Scott.
How do you type with that big ol’ beam in YOUR eye?
I’ve wasted enough time on you, Scott. Honestly, you’re pathetic.
At least I’ll know where to look when I want a good laugh…zealots are funny, and there are plenty of them on this blog.
I am content to let readers decide who is what. I happen to believe deep down you know that the Church is right about ESCR, homosexuality, contraceptives, etc. Don’t give up hope on that. I won’t.
I’ve been pulling the beam out of my eye for a long time; and will continue pulling it out of my eye still longer. This debate has nothing to do with whether or not I am personally a good Christian. That, I’m afraid, is hard work, and I never do as well as I should. Nor is the debate about whether or not Scott is a good Christian.
The debate is over ESCR. The immorality of ESCR is an IDEA, one taught by The Church. What I was trying to say is that your arguments would be stronger if you stuck to arguing against this idea, rather than calling everyone arguing against you “hypocrites”.
Our personal failings are irrelevant to this discussion. What matters are the ideas that have been advocated.
I’ve spent years in and out of the world of competetive debate. I only wrote my last post hoping to help bolster your arguments. I said that if you want to accuse someone of “hypocrisy”, you need to establish a philosophical contradiction. Scott and the others have attempted to establish philosophical contradictions between your arguments. You have not refuted these attempts, and you have made no attempt to establish a philosophical contradiction in Scott’s ideas.
In short, if I were a debate judge, and this were a debate round, I would have to say you lost, simply because you did not respond to arguments and failed to address the ideas present.
If you want to argue over “hypocrisy”, you need to do the following:
1. Prove (not claim, PROVE) why your ideas are not philosophically conflicting; specifically, answer Scott’s claim that claiming to be a “faithful Catholic” is inconsistent with claiming that “Church teaching can be wrong”. Do so with EVIDENCE and do more than just repeat your old arguments.
2. Establish why Scott (and others) are holding philosophically conflicting ideas. You have alleged that they are insincere; this is not sufficent. Claiming that your opponent is “insincere” is not an ARGUMENT. It is just an ad hominem attack. Provide a concrete example of how one of your opponents is holding ideas that are inherently contradictory. THEN you can start using the word “hypocrite”.
Until this is done, I can only concur with marymargaret. If you want to debate, then start pulling out some arguments. If, however, you want to repeat your statements again and again, then we can all save ourselves a great deal of trouble by leaving this thread alone from now on.
I’d like to revisit a CCC quote Elizabeth gave:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
And point out that nowhere in the CCC to my knowlege does it get into theories of ensoulment. This is one of the great canards of pro-abortionists and ESCR advocates. That somehow soul=hands off, no soul=free game. Often we see the Pope Sixtus vs. Gregory (correct me if I am wrong) as evidence for this. It ain’t because they were talking about what ecclesiastical crime one was guilty of by procuring an abortion. Neither were in any way, suggesting that it was morally acceptable to destroy embryos no matter how young.
Dano (and others):
Your attempts to charitably assist Mary Ellen, and her responses, call to mind a Pink Floyd ditty:
So I open the doors to my enemy
And I ask can we wipe the slate clean
But they tell me to please go @#$% myself
Sometimes you just can’t win
Check out the embryos for sale here!
Brave New World Here we are.
God have mercy on us!
http://www.crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com
Mary Ellen, you’re probably gone, but I would beg you to please, just take a deep breath and calm down. The people here do not hate you, they’re simply asking you questions about your positions exactly as you’re asking questions about the church’s positions. And you are operating under certain misconceptions – for example, it’s absolutely true and easily verified that the church bans IVF, and repeatedly saying that they don’t or that they think IVF children to be inferior isn’t a good way to persuade people of the validity of your other statements. And I say this as as someone HAS done IVF and has a little boy by it who has never been treated a speck differently by any Catholic who was “in the know”, although I knew (and came to agree with them) that they believed his conception was under circumstances detrimental both to him and his siblings, because they were deprived of several essential things they should have had.
NB Rebecca, something you didn’t mention was that embryos can also die naturally; not everyone deliberately pitches or freezes them. That they die in conditions they shouldn’t have experienced is quite true, but if you’re trying to persuade someone against IVF it’s best not to present a distorted picture of it, because then they’ll think you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not saying this be rude, I hope you don’t take it that way. If you want to talk about this further, please feel free to email me.
For my part, while I think my comments were on, I probably should have made an extra effort to resist giving tit for tat. I don’t think anyone disputes that Mary Ellen came in swinging, and it is real easy to put up the dukes and swing back. I still fully maintain that the Church’s teaching on ESCR is both authoritative and binding on the faithful, and also think that formally rejecting binding Church teachings has serious implications for someone remaining in the Church and partaking the Sacraments, but I think I could have been less combative about it. So I am sorry for the head-knocking aspect the conversation and resolve to do better in the future.
Facts, not attacks:
1. Dr. Edward Green, Harvard University, submits his study for USAID about the cause for the decline of AIDS in Uganda. His conclusion: abstinence and marital fidelity, NOT condoms.
http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/aids/Countries/africa/uganda_report.pdf
2. The facts on condoms, including scientific studies of spillage from condoms up to 65-75% of the time:
http://www.hli.org/condom_facts_sheet_failure.html
3. Condom failures, even when used properly: 3-14%
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_bar.html
4. The Pope is reconsidering condoms? No. A certain (arch)bishop in 2006 suggested the idea, but the Vatican gave an answer then:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558
5. Dogma pertaining to embryos:
Humanae Vitae which states “that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons” is to be rejected. Note that embryos are products of conception. That’s the “generative process already begun”. One must realize that the only difference between the embryo — even hours old — and an infant already born is environment: one is in the womb, the other is outside. They both require no more than sustenance and time, and their own bodies take care of their own growth. No material is taken from the mother while the embryo grows inside her womb. All that is taken is sustenance, i.e., nutrition, oxygen, fluids.
6. “Those cells”: Mary Ellen, you refer to embryonic stem cells. You are correct, they are mere cells taken from the outer lining of embryos. The problem is that, in the course of harvesting them, the embryo is destroyed.
Mary Ellen, if abortion is wrong, then embryonic stem cell research INVOLVES a similar evil, because in abortion, an embryo or a fetus is killed. In the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, the embryos from which they are harvested are killed. What separates a 14-day old embryo and a fetus? Weeks. They are physically the same being.
Comments are closed.