Pro Life Dogma Reveals Its Immorality

[Molly]

"Sure it's likely an extremely rare occurrence.......I hope it's rare for 9 year old girls to be raped".....

It's not.

[cybercoma]

In case you guys missed out on biology 101, a woman needs to be ovulating to conceive. We don't consider humans to go into heat the way animals do because humans ovulate once a month. I was simply drawing the parallel that this girl was necessarily sexually mature to conceive a child. In the animal kingdom, that's good enough for rutting. As I said earlier though, we are moral and ethical creatures; we should not compare the animal kingdom to humanity.

As for the topic, the Vatican has made poor ethical decisions for its entire existence. What's one more to add to the pile? Those that realize this already know; those that don't realize this, simply refuse. Another example, not as severe as this Brazilian abortion one, is that the Church has refused to approve divorces for women when they are in severely abusive relationships. Oh, but there has been exceptions for the upper-class of society. Princess Diana's divorce was approved and her relationship was not abusive. The Church, since it is a human organization, is highly inconsistent with its decisions. There is nothing holy, absolute or sacred about the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope or any of the Church hierarchy.

[kimmy]

I've noticed, WIP, how you are always very critical of Christianity in general, and have been on that side of many debates. I noticed yet again, in this thread which you started, you've dug out an extremely rare occurrence (pregnant 9 yr old) and are beating the church up over it.

Does the church not deserve criticism here?

Why is it unfair to criticize them for how they've handled this situation? Should they only get evaluated on how they handle happy situations?

Personally I think the way people respond to bad situations reveal a lot more about their character than how they react to the good.

-k

[sharkman]

Kimmy, I'm certainly not going to defend the RC church, I was simply pointing out that someone who continually attacks a specific entity, well it says more about them than it does the object of their ire.

For every ugly decision like this (in which there seems no right answer, and again, I am speaking from the church's perspective in which abortion is not an option) how many hundreds of decisions are good ones, and therefore are ignored by the media, whose mission statement is, "If it bleeds, it leads".

Edited March 10, 2009 by sharkman

[myata]

No, the 23 year old stepfather was not excommunicated by the Church:

He (the Archbishop) also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".

OMG! A greater outrage would be hard to come by, hard as one could try... The morals of this bishop (and has the Pope subscribed to that also?) are as mysterious to me, as of the divine itself.

[WIP]

In case you guys missed out on biology 101, a woman needs to be ovulating to conceive. We don't consider humans to go into heat the way animals do because humans ovulate once a month. I was simply drawing the parallel that this girl was necessarily sexually mature to conceive a child. In the animal kingdom, that's good enough for rutting. As I said earlier though, we are moral and ethical creatures; we should not compare the animal kingdom to humanity.

Not that I am going to make a point of rising to Oleg's defense, but the question was whether a sexually mature dog or primate would be having sex with an immature member of the group, since the step-father in this sordid tale began having sex with the girl when she was six years old, and I'm going to assume that was before she had her first period! I'm surprised that she had started puberty at such a young age, but the pregnancy is hard evidence of that fact.

Anyway, what stimulates a man's sexual desires is largely visual, and that is not the case in the animal world. My unneutered Shih Tzu will react the same way if he picks up the scent of a St. Bernard or Rotweiller in heat, as he will to an appropriately sized dog. He'll start frantically peeing on the grass and kicking up the sod to try to get the female's attention. If he actually does get close to the dog, he might actually start getting second thoughts when he sees the size of the challenge, but regardless, just like all other dogs, finding sexual opportunities is all about using his nose to find a female in heat. Therefore, I'm going to wager that a young female which hasn't started the estrous cycle is not going to be of interest to the male dog.

As for the topic, the Vatican has made poor ethical decisions for its entire existence. What's one more to add to the pile? Those that realize this already know; those that don't realize this, simply refuse. Another example, not as severe as this Brazilian abortion one, is that the Church has refused to approve divorces for women when they are in severely abusive relationships. Oh, but there has been exceptions for the upper-class of society.

I think the issues raised go deeper than the Vatican and the Catholic Church -- they are in this mess because they claim certain principles cannot be altered to conform better with real life events. Any church, religious institution, or any organization that claims to uphold transcendent ethical standards can be trapped in this dilemma, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about other churches or religions, or political philosophies such as Communism or Ayn Rand's brand of Objectivist philosophy -- they all claim that they have identified higher principles that must be adhered to regardless of whether or not they lead to harmful consequences.

For myself, the harmful consequences, especially when they reach the absurd stage of this case in Brazil, demonstrate the best we can do is develop objective ethical standards that are based on consensus and shared values; and even these can change over time as society changes -- slavery would be a good case in point, since it has been less than 300 years since the notion that it is wrong to deny human rights to some people and claim them as personal property, has been around. Before that time, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and every other religion and philosophy in the world considered slavery to be ethical.

Princess Diana's divorce was approved and her relationship was not abusive. The Church, since it is a human organization, is highly inconsistent with its decisions. There is nothing holy, absolute or sacred about the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope or any of the Church hierarchy.

In Diana's case, I think the divorce was provided by the Anglican Church, but I am aware that the Catholic Church has provided annulments for wealthy Catholics who pony up enough money to buy their way out of a marriage.

[WIP]

OMG! A greater outrage would be hard to come by, hard as one could try... The morals of this bishop (and has the Pope subscribed to that also?) are as mysterious to me, as of the divine itself.

Their error starts with claiming that some rules are higher than human needs and concerns. It's sort of like if we declared that honesty was a higher principle, and that it is always wrong to tell a lie. Fine and dandy, but what if there is a situation where you know that giving an honest answer will put someone's life in danger: during the Holocaust, when the Germans were seeking out Jews being hidden by Dutch supporter of the Underground, would they have been doing the right thing if they were asked by German soldiers if they were hiding any Jews -- yeah, there's a family of Jews upstairs in our attic...I was trying to save their lives, but damn it would be more wrong to tell a lie....usually sensible people know what to do in these situations, and if the Vatican wasn't so hung up on their unalterable rules, they would realize the absurdity of treating people who save a nine year old girl's life worse than the man who violated her!

[MontyBurns]

-- slavery would be a good case in point, since it has been less than 300 years since the notion that it is wrong to deny human rights to some people and claim them as personal property, ...

It is OK to deny human rights to the unborn. Right?

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I'm certainly not going to defend the RC church,

It certainly seems like you're defending them. You keep criticizing people for discussing this issue. Isn't that basically defending them?

I was simply pointing out that someone who continually attacks a specific entity, well it says more about them than it does the object of their ire.

What? Why? I've written dozens, probably hundreds, of posts about the idiocy done in the name of Islam. Are you suggesting the problem is actually with me and not the idiots?

If you feel that WIP has used up his quota of critical messages about the Catholic church, is it ok if I take his place? I haven't blasted the Catholics for months, and I'm pretty outraged at this too.

For every ugly decision like this (in which there seems no right answer, and again, I am speaking from the church's perspective in which abortion is not an option) how many hundreds of decisions are good ones, and therefore are ignored by the media, whose mission statement is, "If it bleeds, it leads".

What are you suggesting? That people should ignore this because the RC church does nice things for people?

The Muslims raise lots of donations for the poor and needy... should we ignore it when they blow crap up in the name of Allah or stone people to death because the Quran told them to? Do their acts of kindness mean we should turn a blind eye when they completely shit the bed?

What are these hundreds of good decisions you'd like to talk about? What heartwarming decrees from the Vatican have you got for me that'll brighten my day?

-k

[sharkman]

It certainly seems like you're defending them. You keep criticizing people for discussing this issue. Isn't that basically defending them?

What? Why? I've written dozens, probably hundreds, of posts about the idiocy done in the name of Islam. Are you suggesting the problem is actually with me and not the idiots?

If you feel that WIP has used up his quota of critical messages about the Catholic church, is it ok if I take his place? I haven't blasted the Catholics for months, and I'm pretty outraged at this too.

What are you suggesting? That people should ignore this because the RC church does nice things for people?

The Muslims raise lots of donations for the poor and needy... should we ignore it when they blow crap up in the name of Allah or stone people to death because the Quran told them to? Do their acts of kindness mean we should turn a blind eye when they completely shit the bed?

What are these hundreds of good decisions you'd like to talk about? What heartwarming decrees from the Vatican have you got for me that'll brighten my day?

-k

I am being critical of exactly one person for their views on christianity, that hardly constitutes defense of the RC church, I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. Other than that, I've tried to see the whole picture, not just the knee jerk one presented by various media outlets which swarm the story like sharks with blood in the water. I look for an objective relating of the facts, which is impossible for some to see when the words abortion, rape and the RCC are all in the same story.

If you want to rant on the RCC for a while, be my guest. Like I said to WIP, swing away.

[WIP]

It is OK to deny human rights to the unborn. Right?

That depends what stage of "unborn" you're talking about! Do frozen embryos sitting in cold storage at an IVF clinic deserve full human rights?

[WIP]

I am being critical of exactly one person for their views on christianity,

And I have offered detailed reasons for the reasons I believe that the RC Church is causing unnecessary harm; and I've demonstrated why the root of the problem is promoting the concept of transcendent, unalterable rules. This leads to absurd situations like this one in Brazil, and I've mentioned that it is a pitfall of any movement that is unwilling to base their rules on achieving the best outcomes.

If you have the initiative to do anything more than whine about someone criticizing your religion, you could take the time to read the counter-arguments by fundamentalist theologians who specialize in defending Christianity. But I'm not going to do your homework for you! If you took the time to educate yourself, you could challenge statements that you don't agree with instead of just whining about them endlessly.

[Molly]

That point "It's okay to deny human rights to the unborn. Right?" is utterly specious under these circumstances.

I reserve the right to use deadly force to prevent myself from being killed, as does the pregnant 9-year-old, and pretty much everyone else, including MonytBurns.

Though one might suppose human status for a glob of cells, and trump up a case of 'conflicting interests' to prevent the girl from recieving assistance, in this case, the question is one of "1 survivor vs. 0 survivors", so no such conflicting interest exists.

[myata]

It is OK to deny human rights to the unborn. Right?

In the course of history, the church tried to speak for any number of people (women; savages; "poor"; etc), pretty much always with the same result: i.e their wishes and desires eventually proved very different from the chuch's grandiouse plan for them.

The "unborn", surely, are the ultimate prise, in that regard. They'll never be able to speak for themselves, by definition.

I find all the obsession with the potential, future, non existent life, in contrast to all the problems that exist right here and now, no less that irrational and bizzare. What if church turned the same efforts, as it now spends fighting abortions, e.g. to prevention of wars? Unless of course, in the (church's) big picture, what's happening here and now is far less essential that the future glory.

[MontyBurns]

That depends what stage of "unborn" you're talking about! Do frozen embryos sitting in cold storage at an IVF clinic deserve full human rights?

If the embryos are human shouldn't "human rights" apply at any stage of development?

[sharkman]

If you have the initiative to do anything more than whine about someone criticizing your religion, you could take the time to read the counter-arguments by fundamentalist theologians who specialize in defending Christianity. But I'm not going to do your homework for you! If you took the time to educate yourself, you could challenge statements that you don't agree with instead of just whining about them endlessly.

You don't understand. I'm not going to waste your time and mine by entering into a debate to which there will be no end. And I am not under the false assumption that it is possible for one side to convince the other(as if) where abortion or religion is involved. But by all means, swing away.

I merely made the observation that you seem to have a Catholic/Christian chip on your shoulder, which seems to have upset you.

[Molly]

The whole cloning thing is going to be a quite the ethical dilemma. When there ceases to be any concrete reproductive difference between an embryo and a sloughed-off skin cell, the task of saving all those 'humans' from their murderous hosts will become overwhelming.

[myata]

It won't. For the next couple hundred years the church will insist that there's only one rightful and god given way to procreate, everything else being mortal sin. And then who knows - maybe the big flood will come, or church will go out of existence. In the worst case, they will apologise - as with Galileo, some 300 years postfactum.

[GostHacked]

It is OK to deny human rights to the unborn. Right?

There is a name I have not seen in a very long time. Unborn babies never had human rights to begin with. That might be called fetus rights. Can't deny what they never had to begin with.

If the embryos are human shouldn't "human rights" apply at any stage of development?

Should we keep granting them rights after they are long dead?? Civil services don't give you a Conception Certificate. You get as Birth Certificate when you are borne.

Shady

You don't understand. I'm not going to waste your time and mine by entering into a debate to which there will be no end. And I am not under the false assumption that it is possible for one side to convince the other(as if) where abortion or religion is involved. But by all means, swing away.

So you don't plan on adding any real discussion to the debate then? That is not very nice.

I merely made the observation that you seem to have a Catholic/Christian chip on your shoulder, which seems to have upset you.

Religion needs to grow up for the most part. Civil entities have progressed over the years, why are churches so stuck in traditionalist mentalities?? I don't feel any love from God when the religious talking heads are spewing such idiocy. Replace Christian, with RC, with Judaism, with ect ect ... they all need to evolve or die.

[MontyBurns]

Unborn babies never had human rights to begin with. That might be called fetus rights. Can't deny what they never had to begin with.

Blacks and women never had rights at one point either. A fetus is human by the way.

[cybercoma]

Blacks and women never had rights at one point either. A fetus is human by the way.

You mean blacks and women out of the womb, right?

[MontyBurns]

You mean blacks and women out of the womb, right?

Yeah. Shouldn't "human rights" be for everyone.

[GostHacked]

Blacks and women never had rights at one point either. A fetus is human by the way.

They have always had rights under God's law. Just not under human civil law. It is a human fetus. Not a full human yet. So maybe we can grant it partial rights until it is born. THEN it will get full rights.

If God's rights supersedes all others, then we should always go with the church's laws, not civil law.

Grey areas are here for sure. I am willing to meet you in the middle, if you are willing to make some compromises so all will be happy. Until that time, this debate can rage on for the rest of humanity's existence.

[WIP]

In the course of history, the church tried to speak for any number of people (women; savages; "poor"; etc), pretty much always with the same result: i.e their wishes and desires eventually proved very different from the chuch's grandiouse plan for them.

The "unborn", surely, are the ultimate prise, in that regard. They'll never be able to speak for themselves, by definition.

What really bothers me about most of the "pro life" voices that are driving this issue is that unborn life seems to be the only kind of life they care about! In general, conservatives do not feel motivated to show concern for children after they are born -- that only creates a moral hazard according to their moral theory -- attempting to alleviate child poverty will reward laziness, and it is more important to punish the mothers who are on social assistance and living in public housing, than it is to help their children......doesn't make any sense to me either, even back when I considered myself to be a conservative, I could not understand this callous attitude by the conservative mouthpieces on the TV and radio. Their concern for the sanctity of life ends once the baby is born.......from then on, they could care less what happens to the new child who has been brought into this world!

Do warmongering conservatives demonstrate a sanctity for life when they anxiously try to start new wars even before the old ones are settled? Maybe that's why they are concerned about the unborn; banning abortion (and birth control if the Catholic Church has their way) will lead to a dramatic increase in birthrates, and a fresh supply of new soldiers to fight on the battlefields for God and Country in 20 years!

I find all the obsession with the potential, future, non existent life, in contrast to all the problems that exist right here and now, no less that irrational and bizzare. What if church turned the same efforts, as it now spends fighting abortions, e.g. to prevention of wars? Unless of course, in the (church's) big picture, what's happening here and now is far less essential that the future glory.

Potential life should not be given precedence over actual life. Bioethicist Michael Gazzaniga uses what he calls the "Home Depot" example: the local Home Depot may have enough building materials to build 300 houses, but you can't use that fact to make a claim that the store contains 300 homes. It's not a home before someone has built it, and it is not a baby before gene expression and responses to environmental pressures have built the new baby.

[Oleg Bach]

Got a point there! Sooner than the rightist false Christians destroy the most noble and ancient society on earth (Iraq) - then even before finishing what they started the parasites are all ready talking about destroying Persia (Iran) ..You would think they would learn that any fool can destroy and it takes goodness and wisdom to create.