In a WaPo article no less. Shameful omission by our board libs.
Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-francis-calls-surrogacy-deplorable-calls-for-global-ban/ar-AA1mE28U
Why is it fundamentally different from adoption? Is it only OK to raise someone else's baby when that someone else got pregnant by mistake? If the mother is infertile, why can't the father be a father?
Or is it objectionable mainly because so many gay couples turn to surrogacy? That's probably it, now that I think about it.
One of the areas that I think the Church has things wrong.
Adoption is a wonderful choice that should be available to help kids whose natural parents can't or shouldn't raise them.
Creating a child to rip it from its natural relationship with its mother is not good.
(no message)
(no message)
Those really pro-life should be in favor.
Not only are there are no victims, there are only beneficiaries.
Opposition is medieval bullshit.
(no message)
(no message)
It does mean protecting life that has been created, though. Once a human life exists, it should not be killed.
After all, a bunch of eggs were probably fertilized and flushed.
Then again, those eggs were going nowhere anyway. Seems like a +2 for life to me, but GOAT tells me I am a “secular humanist,” which he seems to think is a slur of some nature.
Why do you have trouble grasping the facts?
I'm not going to comment or judge your family's situation. I can only comment on Church teaching...and even that I will stop short of fully explaining.
I will say this: Eggs are one thing. Sperm cells are other things. Those are pre-new-life biological elements.
Post fertilization, you have a human. At that point, a new life exists. Basic rules of humanity and non-barbarity apply at that point.
I do not bother myself with the theological reasons underpinning the Church's views on pre-life procreative proscriptions. I just accept the authority of the Church on them. So, I will have to defer to someone who has more of a theological background on those issues. The life side of the equation is quite simple, though.
...even critics of Francis' statement acknowledge this fact.
Note that miscarriages (~1M/yr in the U.S.) have no official recognition by the Church...and no Rites established...no Baptisms...you will find no Parish records of such painful events for women and their families...so much for 'Personhood at Conception' by the RCC.
(no message)
Link: Pope Francis and the personhood debate
it is not RCC teaching that Personhood...or Ensoulment...occurs at conception. There's no debate over that statement. Now are you willing to discuss what that means going forward?
Here is the last paragraph of your link...I've posted it before...no misinformation on my part...
----------------
What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition.
-------------------
btw, I am in full agreement that we "Should" indeed foster and protect human life...potential or realized...at all times...but not at the price of denying the very real "Personhood" of the woman who has become pregnant. ..e.g. in cases where the pregnancy was never wanted, sought or consciously risked by her behavior...as in rape.
There's more to discuss here, so feel free to respond.
explains precisely what you are trying to do and why it is of no relevance.
I get that you worship at the altar of Progressivism over everything else. As such, just state your position as your own and have at it.
However, don't pretend that the Catholic Church supports your position in any way.
You are purposefully misrepresenting the words of the Pope. Knock it off.
said...I'll repeat it for you...It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this.
Now, let's discuss what this means moving forward...
does NOT teach that human life begins at conception...and Pope Francis acknowledges that...otherwise he could have come right out and say that Personhood did begin at conception...he didn't.
What does that mean?...that's part of the debate we need to have...my position is that...as in the case of "Just Wars", where circumstances may allow for killing of human life at any and all stages of development, "It Depends" as to whether the killing is acceptable....and therefore, in certain cases, totally unwanted pregnancies (rape, etc.) may be terminated...
Let's discuss this.
You're as tedious and disingenuous as ever.
I'm here for a diversion whereas you're quite clearly here for a purpose.
As before, just wanted folks to know that you were deliberately misrepresenting the position of the Pope for your own designs.
As propagandizing is quite clearly your raison d'etre, I'll cede you the last word...as you've demonstrated it's of utmost importance to you.
Adios, Ty.
...like myself....viscerally support the option of abortion in at least some cases...and you're seeing that not only in polls, but in voting booths..
You and others who refuse to open your eyes are in a distinct minority...you don't hold the moral high ground...so it's high time you take the time to face facts. Rest assured, I'll be here to help.
"It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition."
Find support for your position elsewhere. Creative excerpting is one of your many hallmarks..
The point, of course, was always clear. Make your case without the pretense that Pope Francis supports it in any way...
(no message)
(no message)
To be clear, I don't advocate any laws around surrogacy. Free country.
Man and science have eliminated the need for God. All Catholics are neanderthals.
And what about the denisovans?
Neanderthals did not have rational souls. That is, they were not made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27).
So they weren’t a different species. When closely related different species mate, the offspring is not fertile. For example, a horse and donkey make a mule, which cannot reproduce. The offspring of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens could reproduce, otherwise we wouldn’t have Neanderthal genes in our DNA.
(no message)
And, at least for me, Revelations would be the last place I'd look to try to resolve it. But I also have a lot of questions about the concept of the soul. What would be the "Turing-test" to determine if a living thing has a soul?
Link: https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2023/03/what-were-neanderthals-really-like-and-why-did-they-go-extinct
I quoted Genesis, not Revelations.
I spoke of “rational souls”.
The idea that the soul is the source of life and there are "vegetative, sensitive and rational" versions of it is ridiculous. It's dogmatic lunacy.
It Isolates individuals of diverse backgrounds from each other who may have perspectives that can be mutually beneficial.
Don't be the Pharisees. You aren't God and no amount of scripture inspired arrogance will change that fact. Be open.
Pharisees observed the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.
Your accusations are vain and arrogant.
You’re not God either.
But your thinking is literally Neanderthal.
They would have been the most faithful of Catholics I think.
Do you read your own posts?
Wowza.
I understand why you don't pay attention to your own posts.
(no message)
(no message)
The reason it's interesting is that humans interbred with neanderthals in Europe and indeed most people of European descent still have around 2% neanderthal DNA.
But it doesn't change the fact that you brought up neanderthals, as an insult, without understanding the subject matter.
Referring to Neanderthal thinking is not the same as touting Neanderthals.
You are fighting a loser battle.
As far as Dogmatic Lunacy. Get serious.
You wanna believe Neanderthals had rational souls?
Be my guest.
Discard Genesis and the Bishops.
Be your own pope.
See how that goes.
so you shouldn't be making any Absolute statements on this....here is the opening excerpt from the attached link...which, btw, has numerous references to Catholic teachings...
----------------
The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church.
---------------
Also, while we're invoking Pope Francis' comments, keep in mind he has also said recently that fhe issue of "Personhood" (i.e. Ensoulment) of a fetus is also the subject of debate in the Catholic Church.
Read more...post more cautiously.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#:~:text=The%20Catholic%20Church%20holds%20no,parameters%20established%20by%20the%20Church.
(no message)
Seems that God is AOK creating life through surrogate moms. It’s just you who is not.
I win.
Rape and incest are not pleasing to God. But Human Life is. The end does not justify the means.
(no message)
God does not object to human life. He objects to rape and incest, for example. The ends do not JUSTIFY the means. That is not to say that particular Human Life is an abomination to God.
Stop the nonsense.
God does not object to human life. He objects to rape and incest, for example. The ends do not JUSTIFY the means. That is not to say that particular Human Life is an abomination to God.
Stop the nonsense.
but just going to an outright ban without any attempt to support the compassionate and beneficial instances of surrogacy is surprising...perhaps, his observations leave him little hope of stopping the abuses.
Here's an excerpt from the end of the article....
---------------
With widespread accessibility of reproductive-assisted technologies and globalization of communications and services, surrogacy is increasingly practiced with emerging and conflicting laws among parents based in different legal jurisdictions. Children have legitimate questions regarding their medical history. Absence of international regulation leaves surrogacy largely up to the brokers and the vulnerable parties. International guidelines and protections regarding surrogacy, perhaps similar to conventions and protocols concerning children, adoptees or refugees, would be a vital step towards guaranteeing the rights of the surrogate and intended parents as well as safeguarding the wellbeing and interests of the baby.
------------------
I hope there's more discussion in the Vatican on this issue.
Link: https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/surrogacy-human-right-or-reproductive-exploitation#:~:text=Critics%20argue%20that%20surrogacy%2C%20also,and%20social%20consequences%20for%20women.
You are a secular humanist. So you will never see the difference.
The Church is kind of traditional when it comes to creating life, as I'm sure you have noticed. It even opposes non-marital heterosexual activity to create life, so this has nothing to do with a certain favorite issue of the Left.
Once a life has been created, though (regardless of how) it must be protected like any other life.
So, you are talking about 2 issues, life creation and life sustainment.
Just for example, some infertility treatments (and surrogacy processes) result in many deaths to select one life, so such "treatments" are opposed because they involve killing humans. Again, nothing to do with gays, and everything to do with life creation, and then sustainment, morality.
Others can explain it better than I can. It gets quite theological on the creation side. The sustainment side is easy though: don't kill.
Adoption is only OK if the woman didn’t want to get pregnant? How does that make sense?
And the Church’s opposition to IVF is medieval, anti-life barbarism. But thats a different issue.
You said, "Adoption is only OK if the woman didn’t want to get pregnant? How does that make sense?" That doesn't make sense. That is also not the position of the Church.
You said, "And the Church’s opposition to IVF is medieval, anti-life barbarism. But thats a different issue." How so? Being pro-life relates to protecting life once created. Many IVF processes kill many humans. That seems barbaric, don't you think?
they are conducted under "Certain Conditions"...and that passage includes the term "Prudential Judgement"...which discernment and rationale thought would allow it to be applied to abortions...or IVF procedures.
You think they - and millions like them - are abominations, I guess, since some fertilized eggs were discarded along the way.
Who is pro-life here, exactly?
I’d ask who is the Neanderthal, but that’s obvious.
You didn't read the article. You are not Catholic. You just like to bash Catholics.
Can you see the difference?
I invite you to come look at those kids and explain that they are abominations in the eyes of Gos because of wasted fertilized eggs.
Pro life my ass.
and 'niece-in-law' who are proud parents of two children through IVF...this is a good thing for all involved.
Where do I say your niece and nephew "are abominations in the eyes of God" (you can't even spell His name correctly}.
God Creates human life.
Unless you think science duped Him somehow.
Your position is equal parts inconsistent and stupid.
Please feel free to believe the petrie dish is God.
Idols have been around since neanderthal times
(no message)
You refuted nothing. Proclaiming condescension does not abate that.
Adoption is only OK if the woman didn’t want to get pregnant? How does that make sense?
And the Church’s opposition to IVF is medieval, anti-life barbarism. But thats a different issue.
(no message)