Jump to content

Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pogi said:

It depends on who you ask, I guess.  For some, apparently the impact is on the term  "being".  That seems to be the philosophical hinge point for seekingunderstanding.  If it is not a being, it can be denied the philosophical unalienable natural rights innate to all human beings.   I guess you could ask the same question to seekingunderstanding.  Why does it matter philosophically?  Apparently it matters to him too, so why are you asking me only?  

Because you are the one trying to assert that biologists have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion. 
 

For my part I think anything beyond “plan b” is a tragedy of competing rights that are extremely difficult to navigate. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And what specifically is the impact, philosophically/religious speaking, of accepting the scientific fact that a zygote is a human life?  

Perhaps it should encourage us to reconsider how we treat human beings even in their earliest stages of existence. 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I will state emphatically for the record that there is no doubt a zygote is a human life scientifically speaking. 

A human life but not a human being, correct?  What about homo sapien?  Is it a homo sapien if not a human being?

Quote

According to taxonomy, all humans have been classified into Class: Mammalia and Phylum: Chordata. The scientific name of human beings is Homo sapiens and it was coined by Carl Linnaeus in the year 1758. Homo sapiens was derived from the Latin word, which refers to a wise man. Homo refers to the human being, which refers to wise or knowing.

https://byjus.com/biology/scientific-name-of-human-being/

 

Link to post
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because you are the one trying to assert that biologists have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion. 
 

For my part I think anything beyond “plan b” is a tragedy of competing rights that are extremely difficult to navigate. 

If it makes no difference, why are you even hesitant to use the semantical term human being for a zygote?

Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not retracting anything.  You are just as capable as I am to research the bibliography.  I have already provided the reference where she claims that these are not her opinions and that it is all referenced.  If you don't believe her, then prove her wrong.  I have no reason to doubt that she is telling the truth.  
 

Right so you and she assert without reference the fact that zygotes are human beings. I will point out that my LDS fertility doctor has no problem throwing these blastocysts in the trash. Does he consider them human beings? I will note that hundreds of biologists around the country have no problem conducting destructive research on these human lives. Do they consider them human beings? In what sense is it settled science then that zygotes are human beings?

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

“They are equivalent terms in science.”

You keep saying that. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it makes no difference, why are you even hesitant to use the semantical term human being for a zygote?

Because when most people use the term human being they use it in a philosophical sense to mean “person”. It seems like you want to play a semantic game where you say, “killing innocent human beings is murder.” “Zygotes are human beings.” Therefore “fertility doctors are the worst serial killers on the planet!”  
 

To preempt this definitional slight of hand, I am refusing to play your word game on your terms. 

Link to post
18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right so you and she assert without reference the fact that zygotes are human beings. I will point out that my LDS fertility doctor has no problem throwing these blastocysts in the trash. Does he consider them human beings? I will note that hundreds of biologists around the country have no problem conducting destructive research on these human lives. Do they consider them human beings? In what sense is it settled science then that zygotes are human beings?

She has provided references to her claim that this is not based on her opinion.  You refuse to believe her.  Well, they are right there for you to verify if she is telling the truth or not.  But you CANNOT claim that she has provided no reference.  You are calling her a liar without even checking her references. Lazy and unethical.   

The fact that a biologist has not problem throwing a blastocyst in the trash says nothing about his belief about it being a human being or not.  

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You keep saying that. 

Actually, that was the first time that I noted that a "human being" is scientifically equivalent to "homo sapien".  I provided a reference too.  (that is not a catholic anti abortion biologist)

Edited by pogi
Link to post
20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because when most people use the term human being they use it in a philosophical sense to mean “person”. It seems like you want to play a semantic game where you say, “killing innocent human beings is murder.” “Zygotes are human beings.” Therefore “fertility doctors are the worst serial killers on the planet!”  
 

To preempt this definitional slight of hand, I am refusing to play your word game on your terms. 

I think you are playing the same semantical games in the opposite direction.  If it is not a "human being" then you are not killing/murdering  innocent human beings.   The fact is that science gets to decide the semantical nomenclature, not you.  Homo sapien = human being.  

If Ryan is reading, now perhaps you can see why I am making the effort.   Because it seems to matter to both sides philosophically. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

She has provided references to her claim that this is not based on her opinion.  You refuse to believe her.  Well, they are right there for you to verify if she is telling the truth or not.  But you CANNOT claim that she has provided no reference. 
 

There is no footnote to establish that claim. The foot notes establish here biology which is sound. Not the semantics. 

1 minute ago, pogi said:

The fact that a biologist has not problem throwing a blastocyst in the trash says nothing about his belief about it being a human being or not.  

Actually, that was the first time that I noted that a "human being" is scientifically equivalent to "homo sapien".  I provided a reference too.  (that is not a catholic anti abortion biologist)

see my post above. I decline to participate in your definitional slight of hand. I fully accept the science that each individual zygote with human dna is human. I reject that a zygote or blastocyst is in anyway a person with the same rights as a human infant. I fully support research on donated human embryos. I think a viable fetus is indistinguishable from a human infant when it comes to personhood. I think everything in between is a careful balance of a human woman’s rights weighed against the growing rights of the developing human fetus she is carrying. I think in balancing these rights we need to remember that making abortion illegal will not stop it. Women are willing to risk death to obtain abortions. Are we willing to sacrifice these women (and their unborn children) for the sake of morality? 
 

I will not play anymore semantic games with you, so if you would like to continue in that vain you can have the last word. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

The fact is that science gets to decide the semantical nomenclature, not you.  Homo sapien = human being.  

Are you saying you fully accept science’s ability to weigh in on morality? I did not realize that was your position. 
 

I will also add that 85 percent of the biologists in your survey are pro choice, but I assume most of them are anti-murder. You can say this makes them hypocrites, but I think the easier simpler answer is that they just define the terms differently than you and that’s okay. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are playing the same semantical games in the opposite direction.  If it is not a "human being" then you are not killing/murdering  innocent human beings.   The fact is that science gets to decide the semantical nomenclature, not you.  Homo sapien = human being.  

If Ryan is reading, now perhaps you can see why I am making the effort.   Because it seems to matter to both sides philosophically. 

In Irving's paper, Myth and Fact 7 addresses the philosophical/ethical/political importance of terminology. 

Quote

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a pre-embryo and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day...

...The scientific fact is that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo" in the real world. The term is a complete myth. It was fabricated out of thin air in order to justify a number of things that ordinarily would not be justifiable. Quoting O�Rahilly, who sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica, again:

"The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disk, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book.34 (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the convenient but mythological term "pre-embryo" will be used to "scientifically" justify several of the other "scientific" myths to follow, which in turn will be used to justify public policy on abortion and human embryo research world-wide.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying you fully accept science’s ability to weigh in on morality? I did not realize that was your position. 

Huh?  That isn't my position.  It is a matter of nomenclature for them.  Not morality.   You simply refuse to accept their nomenclature, - because it may have moral implications that you have a hard time swallowing.  

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will also add that 85 percent of the biologists in your survey are pro choice, but I assume most of them are anti-murder. You can say this makes them hypocrites, but I think the easier simpler answer is that they just define the terms differently than you and that’s okay. 

Just goes to show that some people can actually be scientifically honest about nomenclature and still come to different moral conclusions.  

Link to post
26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will not play anymore semantic games with you, so if you would like to continue in that vain you can have the last word. 

Don't pretend like you aren't playing the same game.  I wouldn't call it a "game" though.  What a human being aka homo sapien is matters.  

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In Irving's paper, Myth and Fact 7 addresses the philosophical/ethical/political importance of terminology. 

 

Interestingly Latter-day Saints and Catholics still visit fertility clinics where more embryos are made than can be used. Some elect for a “compassionate transfer” where the embryos are killed by transferring them when the woman is not fertile. Others throw them away. Others donate them for research. In your perfect world what should be done with these embryos? Ban IVF? Force women to carry them all to term? Prosecution for murder of the non compliant? Please explain. 

Link to post
Just now, pogi said:

Don't pretend like you aren't playing the same game.  I wouldn't call it a "game" though.  What a human being aka homo sapien is matters.  

When a human becomes a person with legal rights absolutely matters and it’s THE question. Abortion is about balancing competing rights. 
 

The word game is you twisting pro-choice biologists words to mean something that they did not intend when they said them. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just goes to show that some people can actually be scientifically honest about nomenclature and still come to different moral conclusions.  

Honest about nomenclature? Did I miss the question about where they were asked if zygotes should be considered persons (which you take as a scientific synonym for human being)?

Done done done. Good day. Peace. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When a human becomes a person with legal rights absolutely matters and it’s THE question. Abortion is about balancing competing rights. 

So a human being only matters if it has legal rights?  Slaves didn't matter then I guess. 

I agree that is the dispute as to when to endow the human being with legal rights.  But there is also the philosophical question of when does a human being become endowed with the natural and inalienable right to life (I philosophy that our country subscribes to)?  Why should one human being have the right (which is not necessarily a legal right) and not the next?  If it is a natural right, then all human beings are endowed with the right.  I understand that there are competing rights, and that needs to be balanced.  By saying as much, is this you agreeing that a zygote has rights - rights which need to be balanced?

Edited by pogi
Link to post
29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Interestingly Latter-day Saints and Catholics still visit fertility clinics where more embryos are made than can be used. Some elect for a “compassionate transfer” where the embryos are killed by transferring them when the woman is not fertile. Others throw them away. Others donate them for research. In your perfect world what should be done with these embryos? Ban IVF? Force women to carry them all to term? Prosecution for murder of the non compliant? Please explain. 

There is no perfect world yet. 

These are questions that strike at the very foundation of our humanity. Why would anyone think it is a good thing to create and then kill embryos? That is choosing one human being to live over many that will die. I notice you do not call embryos human beings, which is the whole point of the quoted article. As you are wont to say, that is telling. Perhaps we really should continue to question the direction we are headed as we tinker with the most sacred processes in our human existence. To repeat, these are very difficult questions that cannot simply be brushed away with terminology and emotional appeals.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

There is no perfect world yet. 
 

You don’t seem to be able to answer hard questions but have no problem passing judgement on those that try. 

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

These are questions that strike at the very foundation of our humanity. Why would anyone think it is a good thing to create and then kill embryos?

No one does!? Read up on IVF. You don’t get to choose the number of embryos. You create them to make a baby not to kill them. Again you seem incompable of answering the simplest questions. 

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

To repeat, these are very difficult questions that cannot simply be brushed away with terminology and emotional appeals.

And what do you call your fellow Saints that do IVF and kill their embryos? If they are truly people nothing short of murderers should suffice right? What is your answer?

Link to post
34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honest about nomenclature? Did I miss the question about where they were asked if zygotes should be considered persons (which you take as a synonym for human being)?

 

I swear you don't read a word I write.  I have already stated (I think several times) that "person" is not a scientific term.  "Human being", or homo sapien, is the term under consideration that you refuse to accept.  I provided dictionary references which all describe the person as a "human being", an "individual" - all of which ARE used in science to describe the zygote.   Is a person really different from a human being?  Is "person" biologically different?  No, because "person" is not a biological term, and therefore has NOTHING to do with biology or anatomy or human development stages.  They are trying to detract from the real sciences by making up definitions for unscientific terms and applying them to biological processes that science doesn't acknowledge.   For some reason the undefined "person" is more worthy or rights than the "human being".  Who is really playing semantical games here???  

A person is some obscure thing that science can't define, but for some inexplicable reason it gets rights that the human being doesn't.   If the person is not the human being, then what is it?  It is not a stage of development.  It is not a part of anatome or physiology.  What exactly is the person?  The soul?  The spirit?  what? 

I'll tell you what the "person" is.  In terms of abortion, the term and definition (if there is one) is a made-up term used to pacify the conscience when killing another human being. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
On 10/6/2020 at 2:28 PM, smac97 said:

Hmm:

Bishop Hanefeldt is bishop of the Diocese of Grand Island in the state of Nebraska.

The article goes into politics, which I want to avoid in this thread.  Instead, I wonder what your thoughts are about abortion as the “preeminent evil in our culture.”  I feel that we as a society have come a long way in advancing and refining and improving our approach to race and gender issues.  Things that were previously enshrined in law (Jim Crow laws, lack of suffrage) have been changed.  But abortion - specifically, the elective killing of babies in utero - was generally legalized in 1973.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, I think it could be said that the "preeminent evil in our culture" was slavery.  Now, is it abortion?  And is it in our collective moral "blind spot," much in the same way slavery was for our ancestors?

Thanks,

-Smac

Making something legal is a political process, no matter the justification. The justification might be based in either faith or science, but is nonetheless politicized and ultimately concerns the economy (markets and/or taxes). When the popularity of evils change with culture, politics are always involved.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You don’t seem to be able to answer hard questions but have no problem passing judgement on those that try. 

No one does!? Read up on IVF. You don’t get to choose the number of embryos. You create them to make a baby not to kill them. Again you seem incompable of answering the simplest questions. 

And what do you call your fellow Saints that do IVF and kill their embryos? If they are truly people nothing short of murderers should suffice right? What is your answer?

I already gave my answer: EDIT: If it is correct that at its first stages of development a human being is created, then it is wrong to discard it as an unwanted mass of tissue. If it is not a human being, then anything goes. My position is that perhaps we should think more carefully about what we do with the sacred process of creating and ending of life. That is all, nothing more.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I already gave my answer: perhaps we should think more carefully about how we treat the creation and destruction of life. That's all. Take it or leave it.

So in the face of your fellow Saints killing innocent human beings, “perhaps” we should do more thinking? It doesn’t sound like you take your belief in the personhood of embryos very seriously. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:
1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And what specifically is the impact, philosophically/religious speaking, of accepting the scientific fact that a zygote is a human life?  

It depends on who you ask, I guess.  For some, apparently the impact is on the term  "being".  That seems to be the philosophical hinge point for seekingunderstanding.  If it is not a being, it can be denied the philosophical unalienable natural rights innate to all human beings.   I guess you could ask the same question to seekingunderstanding.  Why does it matter philosophically?  Apparently it matters to him too, so why are you asking me only?  

Well, I'm asking you because you seem to think it has some sort of special relevance.

I am quite confident that seekingunderstanding agrees with science's description of human conception and development. And he agrees explicitly that a zygote is a "human life," when looked at from a strictly scientific point of view. Pretty much everyone in the conversation agrees with that statement, if you qualify it appropriately. Since science doesn't have anything to say about human value or rights, and is only able to offer a description of human physiology and biological processes, I'm not sure what the point is of focusing on its use of terms--terms that virtually everyone agrees with, if you are careful to not attach additional moral/religious value to them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So in the face of your fellow Saints killing innocent human beings, “perhaps” we should do more thinking? It doesn’t sound like you take your belief in the personhood of embryos very seriously. 

Please see my edit. I did not see this response when I made it.

Yes, I take it very seriously, but others may think differently. Our brothers and sisters are free to make their own choices based on the information they have. I am sure they are acting in good faith. There is only one judge, and I am not he. 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...