How would you like your Bible served Mam?

[thessalonian]

The local paper had a story yesterday called "Views Shift on Stem Cells". I post a few choice excepts:

"Peggy Willocks describes herself as a consdervative, anti-abortion Christian in the heart of the Bible Belt", Johnson City Tenn. So when she considered embryonic stem-cell research two years ago, she found it naturally repulsive.
The view changed as it has for other religous Americans.This religious support or lack of it, could be instrumental as Congress and President Bush grapple with a bill to exampnd fedral funding....
"I was equating it with killing a child", said Willocks, 54, who gives talks in support of such research. "I though of it as grinding up fetuses and all of that, so I didn't want any part of it."
What changed Willocks was a personal experience. (Here it comes folks).
She watched a frience and a fellow Parkinson's sufferer get to where she could move only her eyes for two months before dying. Willocks then went back to her BIBLE. (she interpruted scripture on her experience rather than the other way around folks. Sorry, I had to interject.) recalled God's compassion for the living, and determined that cells in a petri dish aren't sacred because scripture informs her that "life begins in the womb" she said. Surveys show that Willocks is not alone in her reassessment.

Incredible is what I say. She is evidently an evangelical or fundamentalist bible alone Christian. If this doesn't scare the hell out of Fundamentalists and evangelical Bible alone Christians I don't know what will. How easy it is to interprut the Bible WRONGLY for yourself. Incredible. I say it again. Incredible. Of course the scriptures do say "before I formed you in your mothers womb I knew you" so perhaps she has a point. Surely God knew there would be petri dishes and how babies could be made in one so he surely would have covered all the bases in scripture on this one.

Blessings

[jezic]

it is sad yes, but not unexpected. Honestly in America today things are just diving. It is not slowly degrading, i think it is close to a free-fall.

[Jaime]

Your right Thess

Its a tough tough subject. The fact that good comes out of stem cell research makes it a much more clouded issue for folks who struggle with it. The end certainly does not justify the means. But the extraordinary "promises" given out casts a far stronger spell than riches ever could.

I truly feel bad for the woman in the story. You can feel the hopelessness and desperation come through the words and I can empathize completely. And when we get to a point of desperation, we can rationalize things that aren't firmly grounded.

The truth is that this is one more brilliantly diabolical idea to lead us away from the knowledge that life is sacred.

[musturde]

Of course the scriptures do say "before I formed you in your mothers womb I knew you" so perhaps she has a point. wacko.gif Surely God knew there would be petri dishes and how babies could be made in one so he surely would have covered all the bases in scripture on this one.

Especially since they were written by man with the inspiration of God. There's no way God would have planned it like that lol.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 10:55 AM'] Your right Thess

Its a tough tough subject. The fact that good comes out of stem cell research makes it a much more clouded issue for folks who struggle with it. The end certainly does not justify the means. But the extraordinary "promises" given out casts a far stronger spell than riches ever could.

I truly feel bad for the woman in the story. You can feel the hopelessness and desperation come through the words and I can empathize completely. And when we get to a point of desperation, we can rationalize things that aren't firmly grounded.

The truth is that this is one more brilliantly diabolical idea to lead us away from the knowledge that life is sacred. [/quote]
Yes, I felt for both the woman dying and her friend in reading the story. But we agree that the end does not justify the means. Matt 7 about the house built on sand vs. the house built on the rock comes to mind. Protestantism cannot stand against the winds of moral relativism where every moral position is at the whims of the person who finds some reason why what is wrong might be right.

[scardella]

It would help the other position if all the embryonic stem cell research had actually produced something useful that proponents could point to and say "Here, look what [i]embryonic stem cell therapy[/i] could do that other types of stem cells could not." However, embryonic stem cell research has produced zero effective treatments.

On the other hand, other types of stem cell therapies, e.g. nerve stem cells from up in the top of the nose (I forget the name) or umbilical cord stem cells, have already produced viable treatments for things.

The problem with the embryonic stem cell research is that it kills the embryo in its quest for the stem cells. It also requires an IVF (in-vitro fertilization) embryo, a process which is in itself wrong.

[Cam42]

Catholic side up, please.....




















Oh it's not like eggs? Thanks for clarifying that hot stuff.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 09:55 AM'] And when we get to a point of desperation, we can rationalize things that aren't firmly grounded.

[/quote]
very very true...

[Jaime]

You know since the invitro thing has been brought up as well. Two people that I am very close to went through invitro to have their children. Both are very very Catholic and both struggled immensely with the decision. Now both are mothers of beautiful children.

When I am holding their children and they ask me earnestly "Why was this so wrong?"

I really don't want to argue with them. I just sing to the child.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:32 PM'] You know since the invitro thing has been brought up as well.  Two people that I am very close to went through invitro to have their children.  Both are very very Catholic and both struggled immensely with the decision.   Now both are mothers of beautiful children. 

When I am holding their children and they ask me earnestly "Why was this so wrong?"

I really don't want to argue with them.  I just sing to the child. [/quote]
To have those children, other children of theirs had to die.

No "very very Catholic" will have invitro... Someone who is Catholic and fell would have invitro. I think most would agree that a "very very Catholic" person would go by the Magisterium, not their own desires... we all make mistakes, but they asked why is it wrong...

The most simple answer: because the Church said so, and God speaks to us through the Church. God makes right and wrong known to us through His Church.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited June 2, 2005 by ironmonk

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:25 PM'] Catholic side up, please.....




















Oh it's not like eggs? Thanks for clarifying that hot stuff. [/quote]
Amen.

[Jaime]

[quote]To have those children, other children of theirs had to die.[/quote]

Sigh..

Again we find ourselves in an area that you have no knowledge and yet you feel so freely to speak.

Both mothers went through invitro with three embryos only.
Both mothers are now the mothers of triplets.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:32 PM'] I just sing to the child. [/quote]
Smart.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 04:11 PM']
Sigh..

Again we find ourselves in an area that you have no knowledge and yet you feel so freely to speak.

Both mothers went through invitro with three embryos only.
Both mothers are now the mothers of triplets. [/quote]
I think Monk should not recieve too much criticism for what he said. In-vitro generally does involve the destruction of some fertilized eggs. I don't believe that the Church says it is right even if they did have triplets. If you can show me that it does then by all means.

[Jaime]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:02 PM'] I think Monk should not recieve too much criticism for what he said. In-vitro generally does involve the destruction of some fertilized eggs. I don't believe that the Church says it is right even if they did have triplets. If you can show me that it does then by all means. [/quote]
Thess I'm not saying invitro is right

I'm saying they were very fortunate that none of the embryos died.

And I'm saying that if Ironmonk would make that statement to a mother holding a child she has been desparately praying for for the past five years, then he would be completely heartless.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:07 PM'] And I'm saying that if Ironmonk would make that statement to a mother holding a child she has been desparately praying for for the past five years, then he would be completely heartless. [/quote]
In that sentence hot stuff, I would have used the indicative mood rather than the subjunctive.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:07 PM'] Thess I'm not saying invitro is right

I'm saying they were very fortunate that none of the embryos died. 

And I'm saying that if Ironmonk would make that statement to a mother holding a child she has been desparately praying for for the past five years, then he would be completely heartless. [/quote]
Intent over outcome is the primary concern. They violated Church teaching. Now I don't think you need to run in ant tell them they are going to hell but they did committ a grave sin if they were in fact as you say "very, very" Catholic. They knew the Church teaching and went against it. That is as serious as eating a juicy steak on a friday evening in early march I would think. It's wonderful that they have three children, praise God, but they need to reconcile with God and the Church on this one and that is being compassionate in my book. Now of course charity in all things but I think your vent on Ironmonk is unwaranted. Can you image anything more trying then being asked to deny Jesus under the threat of death, or perhaps the threat of your childrens death, and yet the Church made it very difficult for people who did deny him to reenter the Church. Admonish the sinner is a work of mercy last I checked.

Edited June 2, 2005 by thessalonian

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:53 PM'] Intent over outcome is the primary concern. They violated Church teaching. Now I don't think you need to run in ant tell them they are going to hell but they did committ a grave sin if they were in fact as you say "very, very" Catholic. They knew the Church teaching and went against it. That is as serious as eating a juicy steak on a friday evening in early march I would think. It's wonderful that they have three children, praise God, but they need to reconcile with God and the Church on this one and that is being compassionate in my book. Now of course charity in all things but I think your vent on Ironmonk is unwaranted. Can you image anything more trying then being asked to deny Jesus under the threat of death, or perhaps the threat of your childrens death, and yet the Church made it very difficult for people who did deny him to reenter the Church. Admonish the sinner is a work of mercy last I checked. [/quote]
There's a time and a place for everything. While holding an innocent child is probably neither the time nor the place. Having a serious theological discussion with them at some point, if they are open to such a thing, would be helpful. However, slamming down the catechism on their heads isn't helpful.

Besides which, it's really hard for people who can have kids to know what it's like to not be able to do so.

[kateri05]

wait, if you USE all the invitro babies, its still wrong? just checkin


edit: oh wait, i'm dumb. you have to extract the semen through immoral means plus separating pro-creative and unitive functions... lalalala. ok, just kidding, i know the answer! sorry!

Edited June 3, 2005 by kateri05

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 2 2005, 07:07 PM'] Thess I'm not saying invitro is right

I'm saying they were very fortunate that none of the embryos died.

And I'm saying that if Ironmonk would make that statement to a mother holding a child she has been desparately praying for for the past five years, then he would be completely heartless. [/quote]
Not quite.

It is heartless to rationalize a sin. Even if it was something that they wanted... we are to rely on God, not men.

For you not saying something is the very type of thing for the reason why this country is so screwed up and so many Catholics are ignorant of their own faith because of rationalization and failure to correct our Catholic family.

We must do the right thing, not the things that make us "happy" if that means going against God.

When the question is asked, a real answer should be given. The answer can be delivered in a soft way, but it must be given.

It is heartless to allow someone to live in a mortal sin. It is heartless to allow someone to go through life thinking something is ok when it is wrong in God's eyes. It is foolish to rebel against God. It is mindless to think that feelings are more important than the salvation of our souls.

There is a Hell.


[quote]
...
In vitro fertilization itself has also come under closer scrutiny in recent years because it has produced so many "spare" embryos whose fate is now uncertain. More generally, IVF has given rise to a mentality in which human lives can be subjected to "quality control," selective discarding, intentional overproduction, and "selective reduction" (abortion) when more embryos than expected begin to develop in the womb. In addition, a growing body of evidence has begun to document an increased rate of serious birth defects among children conceived by IVF, and especially those conceived by particular IVF procedures such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).30 For all these reasons, efforts to promote the value of respect for human life in its earliest stages should include efforts to help move our society away from use of IVF as a reproductive procedure.
...
Of special concern are methods which introduce outside third parties into the marriage relationship for purposes of reproduction. It is now possible for a child to have as many as five parents: the "genetic" parents or sperm and egg donors, the gestational mother, and the couple that intends to raise the child. In such arrangements the child is denied his or her right to a unified family, and the moral and legal responsibilities traditionally seen as inherent in being a biological parent are diffused and rendered problematic. These practices have given rise to lawsuits in which several parents sue for custody of a child – or in which no parent is willing to claim parental responsibility. Family relationships tend to be redefined in terms of commercial contract law, risking the reduction of human beings to the status of objects. Surrogate motherhood has rightly been criticized along these lines for its tendency to exploit the biological mother as a "surrogate uterus" and to reduce the child to a commodity for sale.

A more difficult but equally important question is whether even the "simple case" of in vitro fertilization, performed using sperm and egg from husband and wife, undermines values inherent in the institutions of marriage and family. Catholic moral teaching, as well as some analyses not based on specifically religious principles, hold that it does.
...

When we manufacture offspring according to preset specifications, we are violating a fundamental aspect of human procreation. We are treating our children as our "creatures." The other abuses of human cloning — the fixation on producing a child "just like me"; the willingness to subject cloned humans to high risks of death and disability; even scientists' willingness to clone embryos solely to exploit and destroy them — flow from this first fundamental error. Human cloning would create a human being who deserves to be treated as our equal, but would do so in a way that undermines or fails to appreciate this equal dignity.

Though to a lesser extent, and despite any positive motives on the part of couples who resort to it, the procedure of in vitro fertilization poses this same problem. By its nature, it fosters (at least among the scientists and technicians who actually perform it) an attitude toward children at their embryonic stage of development that invites further abuses, such as destructive experimentation and the creation of embryos for research. At the very least, then, government should not promote IVF through public funding but should discourage its use, instead promoting infertility treatments that do not pose such serious moral problems.
[url="http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/embryo/test61203.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioeth...o/test61203.htm[/url]
[/quote]


[quote]
[url="http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/birth/#4"]http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/birth/#4[/url]
[i][b]Is it immoral for infertile couples to get involved in "in vitro" fertilization? Is it immoral to freeze human embryos?[/b][/i]

Yes, it is immoral. [b][u]All [/u]"in vitro" fertilization in general is [u]seriously [/u]sinful for those who are involved in it, including the medical and technical personnel, the couple and all who cooperate in the act.[/b] It is well to know that there are good Catholic doctors, who abide by the teaching of God and His church on these issues and who are often able to assist infertile couples to have children in a morally acceptable way. Also there is one type of "gamate transfer" that some reliable and truly Catholic theologians (but not all) claim could fall into the realm of the morally permissible. Your parish priest should be able to direct you to a proper source for more advice about these issues. Those who are involved in "in virtro" fertilization often form more human babies in test tubes or dishes than they need and they destroy the "leftovers," thus incurring the additional dreadful mortal sin of those abortions and the ecclesiastical excommunications that fall upon those who do such crimes. Freezing human embryos for future use or destruction, of course, is gravely sinful and might also involve excommunications. Because all these issues can have myriads of aspects and circumstances involve in them, I recommend you talk over these questions and problems with your priest.

[/quote]


God Bless,
ironmonk