But hello! It’s a name for killing IVF because it creates more fertilized embryos than can be implanted.
The people of Alabama, according to one of the justices, have adopted the “theologically based view” that “life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”
Good thing these decisions are not being based on theology, as we were assured today.
But no self respecting jurist/representative would say these laws are therefore religious and should therefore be repealed or not passed.
Just because there are religious people in Alabama that believe those laws come from the Bible, would you oppose those laws?...of course not. These laws should stand or fall based on secular reasoning. For example, is there a physical victim or not...that is consequential, not theological, reasoning. I guess we can at least agree on that?
Also, as an aside, federalism is good for the country, is it not? What Alabamans do can be ignored by you, right? Or, is the goal to make all 50 states the same?
“Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote in a concurring opinion.
Would you want a Muslim making law based on his faith? The decision has to be based on the constitution.
Granted, Muslims would make the same decision, and the punishment for violations would be far worse than anything concocted by a Christian. Many of them would throw every "LGBx for Palestine" person off the top of the nearest building, after all. Christians don't do that.
But, our homicide statutes are not religious based...properly so. You don't need to go to God to decide that ending a human life is wrong. You just need to use consequential logic. By consequential logic, ending an innocent human life is wrong (victim protected), but wearing a condom is fine (no victim). Religion is free to condemn both if it wants.
Put another way:
1) Religion should be free to define both non-consequential and consequential morality for its adherents, and to use the persuasive authority of the pulpit to persuade everyone to avoid both non-consequential and consequential immoral acts.
2) Governments should stick to consequential morality, and use the coercive power of the state to stop consequential immoral acts (acts with victims).
Because governments use coercion, they should be limited to consequential morality. Because religions are limited to persuasion, they are free to say what they want on any moral issue.
Abortion is often stated to be a religious issue, but because it does entail the ending of an innocent human life, it can be analyzed (and bans can be enacted...at the state level, without our federal system) without having to resort to religious values.
You know the sexual assault damages awarded with no evidence or witnesses, or the fraud with no victims?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Nice try.
However, ( You know there is always a "however.") I was referring to God being the arbiter in a court decision. I don't believe God has been brought up in Donald's cases.
(no message)
The sins were committed years ago when they knowingly did this (both doctors and patients) in order to bring the success rates per cycle up…..and of course the selective reductions for when more than desired number were achieved.
The live embryo’s in stasis still exist. By theological standards, it is life (I know that you reject these standards), but by biological standards, it is life also.
I believe that you wish to designate them a less significant form of life as the are the property of the people who froze them. Where have we seen that before?
This is all I will be posting. This is the long term problem from years ago coming home to roost in the last few places with a conscience. Many of us warned about it back then as well.
The success rates from IVF could be improved a bit per cycle with more embryos implanted than were safe each cycle (should all of the embryos implant successfully since high multiple pregnancies such as quadruplets have much higher risks) saved money sometimes by resulting in less cycles than otherwise would have been required. (Thus, the selective reduction horror of intentionally creating life and then arbitrarily killing the undesired or weaker babies). It also saved money for the couple who wanted to be pregnant yesterday and it allowed the doctor and his lab to publish better success rates and costs that brought in all of the yuppie patients. (Thus, the many frozen embryos stockpiled in storage).
It also saved money to “make a bunch of embryos ahead of time” and then freeze them - as they didn’t know how many that they would need. Both doctor and patient all committed to taking responsible care for those embryos and finding other patients to which to donate them (they even signed legally binding contracts which is the the reason they are upset now) even though they had no answer for the fact that there wasn’t nearly the demand to meet the supply. They knew but didn’t want to look in that direction. Now, they wish to save their yearly small fee, a move that was all too foreseeable.
There are no adult victims here. All knew what they were doing, though the doctors also marketed and profited from it. Very, very sad.
...legal status ascribed to the unborn at different times in history.
From the Catholic Catechism:
Abortion
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.71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.
Magisterium, in which the Pope has a preeminent position of influence...so, when he says that the Personhood of a fetus is "Debated", that has meaning above and beyond the CCC...so, you cannot just let that statement float away in the wind.
btw, read a little further in the CCC...to Notes 2307-9...i.e. the part covering "Just Wars"...everyone knows that 'Killing' is always a step in the wrong direction (a Sin), but yet, under certain conditions, it is accepted...so, with this logic in mind, it is reasonable to debate Pope Francis' comment on Personhood in the context of Abortion.
fyi...I'll be coming back to that in future posts...
the silly argument put forth by the Left that personality (personhood) was required for life. It is a legal term as well as a term only applicable to those far along enough to develop a personality, but obviously this is not present yet in the still precious unborn life and in those precious lives with severe mental disorders and conditions.
That is because the Church (and Pope Francis for the libs that will only listen to selective statements out of context from him) recognizes that we humans all possess a soul from conception onward. Thus, any and all conceived life is equally precious regardless of organ function (personality is a brain function) or whether through IVF or natural conception.
Seems like we addressed this and cleared it up a while back too. Thanks for the help, Ned. Not sure if Chris even reads posts that don’t agree with his viewpoints these days, but I hope that he does.
Francis noted that the theology is still debated to this day. The RCC has no rites for miscarriages, no records kept...and no knowledge whatsoever of un-implanted embryos.
For once in your life, Baron, acknowledge the rights of the only "Person" in this story...the woman with the unwanted and undesired, biological attack, pregnancy...I'll repeat what I've said before..."Women are not Brood Mares to be controlled by government".
It is an invitation to total chaos for the government to involve itself with criminal investigation of every miscarriage, and every attempt to bring love and joy by IVF...the same holds for every abortion request...government cannot know or determine the reasoning in each and every case, especially when there is very limited time, as was the case with Roe v Wade.
Get to understand the meaning of "Prudential Judgement" and apply it to the issue of Abortion...just as the RCC does with its determination of "Just Wars". If we can ever get enough zealots to think clearly we just might be able to join together on measures that tackle the root cause of abortions...i.e. Unwanted Pregnancies...through Contraceptives, Sex & Sexuality Education, and funding for programs that offer encouragement for women to CHOOSE carrying pregnancies to term.
So Alabama and many from the right want to protect a 2-5 day old IVF embryo with no brain or heart.
How about protecting the 10 year old Uvalde children? Nah … they are just collateral damage for our “freedom.”
Can we be any more fxxxed up?
My question, what do they propose to do with the extra embryos?