“the Church “feels the duty to give voice to those who have no voice,” he said, referring to the unborn.”
Well the fetuses also wouldn’t have an opinion so the RCC is “giving” them the RCC’s own opinion. How convenient. Next they’ll ask to vote for the “unborn”.

The severely mentally handicapped don’t always have “opinions,” either, nnmns, so perhaps we ought not burden ourselves with caring for them, either.

No Nate, they’ve been born. We should. In fact the RCC could serve real people far better if it shifted all those efforts for the bzefs it claims to love so much and targeted it on helping humans, born humans including the severely mentally handicapped and everyone without medical care and those needing food and jobs and places to stay. Think how much could be accomplished if the RCC enlisted its believers in working for social good, not working against women and families who need an abortion and same-sex couples who love each other and need to get married. If the RCC did that it could be something good.

Nate,
In all the places we have stood on opposing sides, never have I felt more in oppostion to you than now. Your blanket condemnation of the mentally handicapped simply highlights the stark and sterile purity of your theology. It may seem to work in academia, but it is as vacuous as space in the real world. My suggestion to you is stop whatever you are studying – right now – and go volunteer in a center for the multiply handicapped. THERE you will learn the presence of God in ways no rarified text or purified theory could. If we are to take seriously God’s preference for the powerless then there are few people as powerless than those who are multiply and severerly handicapped.
Put down your books, turn off the computer and go meet the face of God in the lives and unconditional love of someone who cannot speak for themselves, who cannot feed themselves, and who cannot clean themselves. Until you do you will never achieve your goal (as I understand it from your postings), to appreciate and participate in the life and ministry to which you seem to think God has called you. Until you can do that I am afraid your credibility is nonexistent.

Never once have you ever offered a remotely tenable reason that I or the Vatican or any other Christian or anyone else should care about your distinction between the born and the unborn. You’ve never made it clear what magical attributes the birth canal has that it can impart moral worth to something that five seconds earlier was just some parasite hitching a ride in a woman’s womb.
And by the way, the Catholic Church does enlist its believers in working for social goods of all sorts. There’s far more in Catholic social thought about the “preferential option for the poor” than there is about abortion. The unborn are just one vulnerable group among many–perhaps the most complete example of vulnerability–that the chuch cares for. Just because they don’t buy into every part of your liberal atheist agenda doesn’t mean they aren’t out there doing a lot of good work, serving “real people,” as you like to call them. (And hey, let’s just ingore the fact that through most of our history we haven’t called most of those people–the poor laborers, women, racial minorities, etc.–”real people.” ‘Cause now you’ve got it all figured out exactly who the “real people” are, right, nnmns? You sure must be a smart one!)

Jestrfyl,
First of all, you’re gravely misrepresenting the nature of both the academy and a great number of the churches out there if you construe our disagreements in terms of some academic-vs.-real world struggle. Academic theology isn’t some sanctuary for people to hiding behind traditionalist, orthodox theology and ethics; if anything, it’s increasingly becoming the opposite. I don’t get my convictions from that mean old academic world, I get them from the churches I’ve been raised in and my fellow Christians that I know outside of the academy. Believe it or not, not every church in America is a liberal one; far from it, actually.
And second of all, what “blanked condemnation of the mentally handicapped” are you talking about? My rhetorical point against nnmns’s belief that those who can’t form opinions don’t need to be protected? That’s not a condemnation of the handicapped, that’s a refusal to be satisfied with those who claim they care about the defenseless yet refuse to take a moment to consider that their concern might ought to apply to the unborn as well. I care for the handicapped deeply, obviously, which is why I can use my concern for them to attack someone else’s lack of concern for those who just haven’t had the luck of being born yet.
There’s no “stark and sterile purity” to my theology. My theology is this: that God became a human being and revealed the infinite worth of every human person, male or female, black or white, in good health or crippled, born or unborn. If a passion for human dignity is “sterile” to you, then I’m not sure what to say to that.

Nate,
I guess I missed the sarcasm in your respopnse to nnmns. Perhpas it is the late hour or that my head is stuffy. Subtlety missed me. I believe this, that preventing unwanted pregnancies (birth control in its many forms, as well as appropriate sex education) goes a long way. The RCC opposition to this seems to be inconsistent to the lessons of repsonisibility they otherwise teach.
Sorry for my typo. “Blanked” should have been “blanket”.
I guess I jumped ahead in my response. I once had ocassion to interview a well respected theologian who had been preaching, teaching and living Liberation Theology. I challenged him to try working with and for people who had no hope of raising themselves form a state of total dependence, and he accepted the challenge in a big way. He recognized the value of actual experience over virtual examples.
Finally, I am glad that churches are not alike. This causes us all to hone our theologies. What I resent is when churches of one persuassion feel compelled to try and make all churches the same. Liberals are as guilty as conservatives. We all benefit from diversity. So let’s continue our diversity and conversation appreciating the differences.

“There’s far more in Catholic social thought about the “preferential option for the poor” than there is about abortion.”
Be that as it may or may not, there’s far more in RCC political action about denying abortions to women and families who need them than there is about helping the poor.
And one way they sure don’t help the faithful poor is by denying them effective birth control.
“Never once have you ever offered a remotely tenable reason that I or the Vatican or any other Christian or anyone else should care about your distinction between the born and the unborn.”
Well actually of course I have, repeatedly. You just choose to ignore it. When a person is born their family can see them and touch them and of course hear them. They start taking part in family activities; it’s not just the mother to be who involves them. And of course governments and even churches start counting them as people. Look as hard as you like and you won’t find census forms with negative ages.
Now back to my initial comment that caused you all that trauma: ‘the Church “feels the duty to give voice to those who have no voice,” he [Archbishop Ferrer] said, referring to the unborn.’
The simple fact is, blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses all would have no opinion. No baby would have an opinion on bioethics; heck most adults don’t have one. But the RCC has the stones to claim to represent all the bzefs of the world on those issues. It’s laughable to most of us but apparently you just don’t get it.

nnmns,
The reason I “ignore” the logic behind your distinction is that it’s bad. What’s so magical about touching or hearing something that suddenly gives it dignity it didn’t have before? And so what if families and governments and churches start counting them as people (some governments and churches count them as people before they’re born, by the way)? Is our willingness to count someone else as a person the only thing that gives a person dignity? So what happens if you’re in a culture in which they don’t count infants as people with dignity (like many ancient societies), or don’t count the mentally handicapped as people with dignity? Do those people no longer have dignity just because no one wants to recognize them as having dignity? And what about when slaves, and women, and foreigners used to be considered less than fully human by families and governments and churches? Did they not have basic human dignity until someone decided to give it to them?
The reason I “ignore” your position is because you’ve never offered an even remotely consistent answer to questions like those, and until you do, you’re whole position is bunk as far as I’m concerned.
And I’ll return to my original point: the severely mentally disabled don’t always have “opinions” about their own lives either, so why should we not be allowed to define them out of personhood just like we do the person who hasn’t been lucky enough to be born yet? And for that matter, newborn infants have no more an “opinion” than they did the day before when they were still inside their mother, so why not call out the families and governments and churches for claiming to “represent” newborns?

Well, I guess the above posters once again have pretty much covered most of the pros (if indeed there are any) and cons to the RCC and it’s latest proclaimations.
I will probably be repeating myself, but I feel that the RCC, really should stay out of my business and my body…or also other women’s business and bodies. Telling them that IUD’s, condoms, the Pill, the morning after pill etc. shouldn’t be allowed, and that for sure one should never abort a pregnancy. Guess this event…restating their “official” strong opinion on personal issues is supposed to be important to all…scientists, doctors, women, men etc. Well, to me it is “same ole, same ole” redone.

I neglected to mention what to me is the most important distinction between a born person and a bzef. A born person can no longer imperil it’s mother’s life. I support a high bar for aborting a fetus near birth but if it’s a choice between its life and that of its mother I’d choose the mother in a heartbeat. Once it’s born that possibility no longer exists.
Now to your severely mentally retarded crowd you pulled out. Do you think the RCC should also be allowed to “give them voice”? To claim opinions for them they don’t have? You don’t seem to have noticed, but we’re not talking about abortion here. We’re talking about bioethics and in particular the Vatican’s silly claim to speak on behalf of the “unborn”.

There is just as many contradictions between members of the RCC, as there is between any Protestant members of theirs. What I’m saying is: Catholic’s do many compassionate services for all of us, and are not following the Pope’s Laws, instead they are following God’s laws, and because there are so many doing their best they can’t be followed up by the police of the Vatican. The same goes for the rest of the Religions. The people at the top have a way of becoming God, instead of letting the Holy Spirit lead they push.

The Church feels the duty to give a voice to those who have no voice. Yesterday I read about a little six yr. old boy, darling child, laying in his mothers arms looking at her with love, and having spasms in his little hands and feet, while she held on to one little shaking hand in the video, and told her story. He was born with a rare disease that will eventually affect his little brain. The doctors here did all they could do for him. She found out about a hosptal in China? Vietnam?, didn’t pay attention to this. She scraped money together to take him there for embryonic stem-cell treatment, from deceased infants of two or three days. After one treatment he was able to finish a rhyme they used to do together. He has now stopped again, and she is planning to take him back again for more stem-cells. She did put words back in her sons lips again, and I don’t think the Pope has a right to take words away from dying children to please his way of interpretation of his RCC faith for all of mankind.

This may help to clarify the distinction between the born and the unborn. Let us assume that the moment an egg is fertilized, it acquires the same “right to life” that any fully-fledged human has. As a born, adult human, if I were in need of a blood transfusion to save my life, I think we could agree that it is NOT within my rights to take blood from someone else by hook or by crook (in other words, I’m not entitled to another person’s blood just because I need it to live). That is because while I may have a right to not be murdered, that right does not extend to taking life from others. I may accept it as a gift but I cannot steal it, and the government cannot force someone to give it to me.
In the case of a fetus versus a newborn, while the fetus may have the right to live, it does not have a right to life of the mother. Just as someone who is hooked up to a machine that is taking their blood and putting it in the body of another to keep them alive, the donor has the right to stop the process. If the recipient cannot survive on their own they will die, but they would not have been denied their right to life – they will simply have expired naturally. Unborn children don’t have some mystical right that the rest of the world does not to the health and possibly the life of another. There may be exceptions to this rule, but at the very least on the subject of abortion we should be able to agree that it is not just a matter of one side’s rights being trampled; the rights of a fetus (if it does indeed have any) are coming into conflict with the rights of the mother. As the mother is the one being asked to put her life on the line for another, I would say she is the one who gets the final word.

Henrietta, not meaning to nitpick here, but one can’t obtain embryonic stemcell treatment from anything other than an embryo. I haven’t read the article but the stemcells may be iPSC’s (pluripotent stemcells) which are reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stemcells yet do not spread cancer the same way embryonic ones do. To my knowledge, scientists have yet to get a handle on this obstacle, which is why embryonic stemcell treatments have yet to yield any positive results. The Pope, to my knowledge, isn’t opposed to the use of iPSC’s.

Your name, independent studies seem to confirm that, for various reasons, mortality rates are much higher for those woment who have abortions than those who choose to cary their children to term. Perhaps there are a few exceptions but they seem to be few and far between. Overall, choosing life is a win-win situation for both mother and child.
http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.htmlY

nnmns,
A born child can’t endanger its mother? I thought one of the reasons that abortion was frequently necessary is that there are women out there who can’t afford to raise a child? The born certain can endanger the lives of mothers, and of fathers and other born children; that’s one of the reasons that infanticide was practiced in some of the more primitive societies. Families had to choose between feeding the new child or feeding themselves or the children they already had. So apparently, by your logic, infants in those societies weren’t “real people” that society needed to find a way to care for, because they presented a threat to the lives of their mothers–and apparently for you, a child can’t be a real person if it poses a threat to its mother.
Let’s face the facts, your argument is entirely pragmatic. It’s not about what makes the child a human person with dignity at all, because the argument you’ve given doesn’t speak to that–never in the history of thought has human personhood been defined in terms of whether or not something poses a threat to someone else; not even holding a gun to someone else’s head somehow makes someone no longer a real person. Can the unborn pose threats to the lives of their mothers? Sure. Might it be appropriate to give women a choice in such situations? Certainly. But does that mean that the child in question has no human dignity? That doesn’t follow. It sounds to me like you’re just coming up with excuses to salve a weak conscience, like you can’t deal with the tragic fact that sometimes human lives come into conflict with each other, and so you write off the human dignity of one whole group of human beings so as to erase all moral ambiguity. And then you go mocking anyone who has the moral sensitivity to stop and consider for a moment that the unborn might need care too and that we should do all we can to end the destruction of human life born or unborn.
Should the Vatican, or any other moral agent be allowed to speak on behalf of the unborn, or the severely mentally handicapped, or anyone else can’t express (and maybe can’t even form) a developed opinion about their own lives. MOST DEFINITELY. It’s the job of each and every one of us to stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. Do you support NOT speaking out in defense of the severely mentally handicapped, so that we don’t force our own opinions on them?

Your Name,
In most circumstances, yes, the unborn do have the right to live off the life of their mother. And when they’re born, they have the right to be nourished and cared for by their mothers, as well as by their fathers; they have a right to an ample share of the parents’ time and material resources to secure their basic health and well-being; they have a right to be loved and cherished.
The problem with your example is that it assumes a fundamentally individualistic anthropology that is anything but self-evident. In the real world, we’re not all just a bunch of autonomous individuals roaming around expressing our boundless freedom; we’re born into a world of social obligations, and our actions–our very bodies–connect us to others in ways that give us rights and duties in relation to thers. What applies in one relationship doesn’t always apply in others, so that I have different obligations to my family than to someone guy I don’t know in Taiwan. To be a parent or a child in relation to someone else bears with it certain responsibilities that we do not have the right to simply ignore; we may, in times of desperation, transfer those obligations to others (as in adoption), but we can’t ignore the social obligations that nature has written into our very flesh.
All rights are embedded in our inherent sociality. There’s no conflict of rights between a mother and child. There may be tragic cases in which the dignity of both mother and child can’t be defended with equal rigor, in which the mother may die or the child may have to be sacrificed to save her, but it’s only an impoverished moral philosophy that would see pregnancy as a clash of rights of two autonomous individuals. No one is autonomous; to be autonomous is to be the opposite of human.

“Your name, independent studies seem to confirm that, for various reasons, mortality rates are much higher for those woment who have abortions than those who choose to cary their children to term.”
No Tom, you are just wrong about that. : Here’s a good source on the kind of misconceptions you seem to have
From that source we are reminded that President Reagan ordered anti-abortion (but objective) Surgeon General C. Edward Koop to prepare a study on the health effects of abortion. Here’s what happened:

Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because “the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women.” Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.

Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop’s careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration’s best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the “obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president”

As to the mental health issue, Koop described anecdotal evidence going in both directions, but emphasized that “individual cases cannot be used to reach scientifically sound conclusions.” He discussed the methodological flaws pervading most of the research on this subject, and for this reason, he explained, he could reach no definitive conclusion about the mental health impact of having an abortion. Importantly, however, Koop did state that it was clear to him that the psychological effects of abortion are “minuscule” from a public health perspective.

So Tom I’m happy to say an expert but objective abortion opponent concluded abortion is not dangerous to a woman’s health.

Tom when I read and watched the video yesterday somewhere in the news, I didn’t try to remember everything so I could tell anyone. I’m sure you’re right. I do remember the stem-cells came from deceased babies who died naturally, and were 3 or 4 day old stem cells. They don’t use these here in the states, I don’t think, or why did she go to another country for them for her child.

“I thought one of the reasons that abortion was frequently necessary is that there are women out there who can’t afford to raise a child”
Well Nate you are right about that. I’m glad you realize it.
“your argument is entirely pragmatic. It’s not about what makes the child a human person with dignity at all”
Dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect. Well a fetus (let alone say a zygote) hasn’t earned a lot of respect yet, let alone esteem. Let’s face it, it’s people who give us all the rights we have. If they are wise they give others the kind of rights they’d like for themselves and their loved ones. Sometimes they give those rights based on figments of their imagination, which is probably what you are doing since you’ve devoted your life to studying figments of ancient peoples’ imaginations and editings thereof. It’s not too late for you to change majors.

It is good to see Fr. Thomas Berg put a positive spin on Dignitas. But advocates of “altered nuclear transfer” (ANT), like Fr. Berg or Stanford University’s Bill Hurlbut, can’t help but be disappointed that the Vatican has raised serious doubts about ANT. They were trying to interest scientists in ANT on the grounds that the Catholic theologians would agree–it’s not an embryo. Now the Vatican has raised doubts, which is going to make their case all the more difficult. Most scientists have lost whatever interest they might have had, especially now in light of the exciting advances in induced pluripotency.
On another front, Dignitas is also pretty negative about human germline modification. Most people think the Vatican opposes the very idea of germline modification, but not so, at least according to “Communion and Stewardship.” Sure, there were tough conditions attached to approval, such as no use of in vitro fertilization at any point in the process. But even if those conditions are met, Dignitas seems to frown on the core idea of helping couples conceive a child free of a known genetic risk. For more on this, see http://www.enhancingtheology.blogspot.com.

Nate, the mother of the little boy I mentioned stood up for her son, and found medical help that can’t be given in the U.S. Wasn’t she standing up for a child she loved who can’t speak for himself????
All reasonable medical discoveries should be left to the individuals, and their families to decide in their own moral and religious parameters as to how they chose to try and live or save their children, with the exception of witholding medical assistance as the parents in Oregon have done.

I love that you won’t come right out and answer my questions, nnmns. I’m sure it makes it a whole easier to feel like you’re position has prevailed when you refuse to give an answer any time someone tries to draw out an implication of your logic.
If “it’s people who give us all the rights we have,” then human rights are nothing more than a political power game. They have no objective moral content, and so you have no grounds on which to judge those who would deny rights to infants, or women, or minorities, or the handicapped, or anyone else; neither do you have grounds on which to criticize those who give rights to groups you don’t think should have rights. All you can do is express your own subjective preference (which is not even an opinion about reality, but a mere expression of personal taste), and then try to force it onto others by inscribing it into law.
That’s a dismal view of human beings, my friend. But hey, thanks, you’ve given me a good reason to stop caring about people I don’t get along with. If someone gets on my nerves, I’ll just stop giving them rights, and then I’ll be free to treat them however horribly I want to.

“Nate, the mother of the little boy I mentioned stood up for her son, and found medical help that can’t be given in the U.S. Wasn’t she standing up for a child she loved who can’t speak for himself????”
Sure. But what’s that got to do with what I’ve been talking about?
“All reasonable medical discoveries should be left to the individuals, and their families to decide in their own moral and religious parameters as to how they chose to try and live or save their children, with the exception of witholding medical assistance as the parents in Oregon have done.”
So you make an exception to indvidual freedom based on what you believe would be an objective violation of human dignity? Good job. You’ve done exactly what the Vatican is doing, you just happen disagree about what constitutes an objective violation of human dignity, and so you disagree about where the line of freedom should be drawn.

‘So Tom I’m happy to say an expert but objective abortion opponent concluded abortion is not dangerous to a woman’s health.’
Sorry, nnmns, but this statement (and the report) are riddled with logical inconsistencies.
‘(An eminent pediatric surgeon as well as an outspoken abortion foe, Koop had no prior experience or background in public health; both public health and prochoice advocates in Congress vehemently opposed his appointment, delaying his confirmation by several months.)’
This would disqualify Koop as an expert based on the fact that he had no prior experience or background in public health, though he may have attempted to be objective.
‘”the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women.” Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.’
“obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant.”
sequelae: 1)A pathological condition resulting from a disease.
2)A secondary consequence or result.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/effect_of_abortion.asp
This is contrary to Guttmacher’s/Koop’s assertion that abortion has the same sequelae as carrying to term. Any gynecologists or obstetritians who know otherwise, please feel free to weigh in.
‘” He discussed the methodological flaws pervading most of the research on this subject, and for this reason, he explained, he could reach no definitive conclusion about the mental health impact of having an abortion. Importantly, however, Koop did state that it was clear to him that the psychological effects of abortion are “minuscule” from a public health perspective.’
In other words he could reach no definitive conclusion about the mental health impact of having an abortion, yet in the very next sentence he reaches the definitive conclusion that the psychological effects of abortion are “minuscule” from a public health perspective.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, though, as I read Guttmacher reports from time to time. The wording of these documents merely confirms their blatent bias.

“If someone gets on my nerves, I’ll just stop giving them rights, and then I’ll be free to treat them however horribly I want to.”
Well I’m sure you’d like to be able to do that but the government, as a politically-driven representative of the people, has laws about that and more power than you have so I wouldn’t try it. But I thought you surely knew that much, anyway.
“If “it’s people who give us all the rights we have,” then human rights are nothing more than a political power game. They have no objective moral content, and so you have no grounds on which to judge those who would deny rights to infants, or women, or minorities, or the handicapped, or anyone else; neither do you have grounds on which to criticize those who give rights to groups you don’t think should have rights.”
I guess you haven’t read much history. Human rights are a political power struggle (I wouldn’t call something that serious a game) and through most of human history and pre-history they haven’t amounted to a lot, but in some areas as time went by people noticed life was a lot better if they did have several rights. But, as George Bush has reminded us, it’s a constant struggle to keep them and cowardice in the face of 9/11 gave a lot of Republicans and too many Democrats all the reason they needed to give away some of our rights. Brave men and women have fought and died in that struggle and it goes on.
As for judging people and politicians, I do that just fine; maybe you haven’t noticed but I do.

Nate it has everything to do with what you said about protecting the rights of infants and children that can’t express what they need. If you are unable to comprehend this that’s your problem. Yes I said that children shouldn’t be abused by their parents religion and not be able to be taken care of by doctors because the parents are waiting for a miracle. That is an abuse and in these cases in Oregon unplanned murder. Thank God there is the law and the government, secular, in this country and we are not under the Popes laws or any other Religious leaders laws dictating what all the citizens of America must do. Nnmns explained that rather well to you.

Why can’t you just answer my questions, nnmns?
If our dignity and rights are just something given to us by other people, then on what basis is it possible to condemn those who decide not to extend rights to people like the infants and the severely mentally handicapped? If our culture moved in the direction of not valuing such people, and so not wanting to make and uphold laws that defend their dignity, how could you protest that as wrong? Or would you even protest it?
Why not just answer my questions and quit trying to dance around them by picking out remarks that aren’t central to my argument?

‘Why can’t you just answer my questions, nnmns?’
‘Why not just answer my questions and quit trying to dance around them by picking out remarks that aren’t central to my argument?’
This is the nature of the beast, Nate, when it comes to debate with post-modern secularist agenda. They will not enable you to pin them down; rather you will inevitably be lured into a maze of circular logic.
A friendly word of advice: IT AIN’T WORTH IT! I know this from personal experience. You (along with cknuck) are one of the few posters on these discussion threads which I tend to identify with. Rather than work yourself into a frenzie, take a few deep breaths, refocus, and LET IT GO! Life is to short to waist on this. Besides, I truly value your insight and look forward to hearing from you on other topics rather than have you dissappear for weeks on end.
God bless!

Henrietta-
“Nate it has everything to do with what you said about protecting the rights of infants and children that can’t express what they need….”
When did I ever deny that it was related to what I said about giving a voice to the voiceless? What I don’t understand is why you felt the need to bring it up to me in the first place. You haven’t stated what it adds to the conversation I was having. Forgive me if I’m not a mind reader.
“Thank God there is the law and the government, secular, in this country and we are not under the Popes laws or any other Religious leaders laws dictating what all the citizens of America must do.”
But you’re fine with with dictating what Americans can and must do, as long as you agree with what’s being dictated. That’s the poin that you don’t seem to be grasping. You’re not opposed to forcing morality onto the country through law, as long as its YOUR morality that’s being forced instead of the morality of the Vatican or some other conservative group. You’ve got your own opinions on what’s moral and what’s not, who’s fully human and who’s not, who has human dignity and who doesn’t; and you have no doubt that you’re right on all those counts, and no doubt that the Vatican and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong.
Like most secularists, your position is rife with hypocrisy. “Don’t force your morality on me!” you squeal, “because I’m the one who’s supposed to be forcing MY morality on YOU!”

“If our culture moved in the direction of not valuing such people, and so not wanting to make and uphold laws that defend their dignity, how could you protest that as wrong?”
Easy. I’d point out how that makes it a worse society for us to live in. How would you do it? If you base your morality on an imagined god then anyone else can pick and choose what they want from that god and disagree with you. Or of course ignore you since your god won’t be of any help.
“when it comes to debate with post-modern secularist agenda. They will not enable you to pin them down; rather you will inevitably be lured into a maze of circular logic.”
Funny, I’ve seen Nate do that a lot, you do it some and cknuck at times, too but he and I go a lot farther back.

Oh, and Tom, post-abortion syndrome, forget about it.

“Easy. I’d point out how that makes it a worse society for us to live in.”
By “how” I mean “on what grounds?” So are you saying that the only reason we’re supposed to support the rights of other people is that we’re convinced that doing will somehow benefit us personally by creating a society that we enjoy living in more? So are you saying that if you weren’t convinced that defending the rights of infants and the handicapped might benefit you, there’d be no reason to defend them? Or if supporting abortion rights couldn’t help you in any way, there’d be no reason to defend them either. Or if you thought that freeing the blacks from slavery didn’t make your life better, it would be okay for people to own slaves?
That’s not morality, that’s selfishness. If that’s your motivation for doing any good thing, then you’re incapable of doing anything goodp; everything you do is an expression of your core.
“How would you do it?”
By finding a way to root human dignity in reality instead of in the whim of constantly-shifting cultural preferences.
“If you base your morality on an imagined god then anyone else can pick and choose what they want from that god and disagree with you.”
Except that theological discourse doesn’t proceed by “picking and choosing” but by rational debate and weighing the alternatives. No one here is suggesting that we base human dignity in irrational fideism.
“Funny, I’ve seen Nate do that a lot”
I’ll answer any and every question you give me, and I’m more than happy to state my opinion and my justifications for that opinion on any issue. You’re the one who has giving me a dozen different reasons for supporting abortion rights already, and who won’t give me a clear answer on whether or not you truly think there’s any objective moral reason to condemn societies that exclude certain segments of the population from the status of full humanity.

‘By “how” I mean “on what grounds?”"
You should start out by making yourself clear. But of course you’d be at a disadvantage if you did that.
“So are you saying that the only reason we’re supposed to support the rights of other people is that we’re convinced that doing will somehow benefit us personally by creating a society that we enjoy living in more?”
What do you mean by a reason we’re “supposed” to support the rights of others? If you want to convince someone to do something show them how it benefits them. That’s why your predecessors invented original sin and hell, to convince people to give money to the church and obey it, a fundamentally stupid thing to do otherwise.
” So are you saying that if you weren’t convinced that defending the rights of infants and the handicapped might benefit you, there’d be no reason to defend them?”
Well we could all become handicapped and I hope to have infants in my line again so there’s no danger of that. But what I support and oppose and why isn’t very important because I’m only one person with little money or persuasive skills.
“Except that theological discourse doesn’t proceed by “picking and choosing” but by rational debate and weighing the alternatives.”
Hah! Maybe in the occasional ivory tower but not in the homes and streets and forests and deserts where political decisions get made, one way or another.
“By finding a way to root human dignity in reality”
There’s a non-answer if I ever heard one. Care to go into some actual detail?

“The researchers reviewed all English-language, peer-reviewed publications between 1989 and 2008 that studied relationships between abortion and long-term mental health.”
Ooo La Laaaaaaa!! A study of a study (kind ‘o like a story of a story, INTERESTING!!!)
“They analyzed those that included valid mental health measures and factored in pre-existing mental health status and potentially confusing factors.”
And prey tell, nnmns: what criteria is used to discern ‘valid’ mental health measures?
“The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not,” they wrote.
Alluding to my previous question, what is the VALID criteria for determining the ‘BEST QUALITY STUDIES’?
“…studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion,” they added. “Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions.”
If scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions, then aren’t they WELL outside their area of expertise? Is this not the job of COMPETENT sociologists? (I don’t know the criteria of a competent sociologist, which is why I’m not posting any links.)
Do you ever notice that my links cite sources for their information, while your links rely on glittering generality? Ever notice a pattern?
‘Oh, and Tom, post-abortion syndrome, forget about it.’
Seeing as how I never had an abortion, it would be awfully hard for me to ‘forget about it’. Regrettably, your issue is with the tens and thousands of women who have written or oral testimonies regarding THEIR regrets of abortion.
And while your at it, please view this video which includes Testimony from a very close and personal friend of mine.
And if you’re really serious about your ministry to illuminate the myths about post-abortive syndrome, just say the word. I can introduce you to any number of women face to face so you can tell them about THEIR misconceptions.

http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=0011v0mdemvvbj6iCr2yOiIwUzsT67OuO3XgizZuedRTmbvmQq0An3B7FyejdRCU_Ib5KMe7-7_Nyw9RJ58AzjBKUXk3tP9dEeRoU4TOhH-ut_ikcOByOKFZKY3aPeDGuT9L22P_ypFFfQ1KJzCEgOlCzHRaZh8yjfh
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=0011v0mdemvvbj6iCr2yOiIwUzsT67OuO3XgizZuedRTmbvmQq0An3B7FyejdRCU_Ib5KMe7-7_Nyw9RJ58AzjBKUXk3tP9dEeRoU4TOhH-ut_ikcOByOKFZKY3aPeDGuT9L22P_ypFFfQ1KJzCEgOlCzHRaZh8yjfh

“You should start out by making yourself clear.”
As I wrote in the first half of the question, which you didn’t quote: “on what basis is it possible…?” Answering the WHOLE question certainly helps avoid confusion.
“What do you mean by a reason we’re “supposed” to support the rights of others?”
I mean exactly what any normal person would think it means: “supposed to,” as in “ought to,” as in “have a moral obligation to.”
“If you want to convince someone to do something show them how it benefits them.”
Convincing people is not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the grounds of moral judgments about extending dignity to certain groups of people. If you’d answer my WHOLE question and not just half of it, you might have picked up on that.
“That’s why your predecessors invented original sin and hell, to convince people to give money to the church and obey it, a fundamentally stupid thing to do otherwise.”
Sure, except that no historian of Christianity actually thinks that. Take some time to read the history of doctrinal development and you might be able to successfully insult me without making yourself look ignorant in the process. And maybe if you knew a little bit about the faith you bash so much, you’d realize that we Orthodox don’t even believe in original sin, and many of us think everyone’s going to heaven, and we still do our tithing the same as all the rest.
“Well we could all become handicapped and I hope to have infants in my line again so there’s no danger of that.”
Answer the question as I asked it, please. I couldn’t care less if you’re scared of becoming handicapped or if you want want descendants. I want to know if the only grounds a person has to “give” rights to someone else is because they think it might possibly benefit themselves in some way.
“Hah! Maybe in the occasional ivory tower but not in the homes and streets and forests and deserts where political decisions get made, one way or another.”
And in the “homes and streets and forests and deserts,” people often do plenty of other things that cause plenty of other problems and enact plenty of bad politics, so I fail to see how excluding God from the equation is somehow supposed to create perfect clarity and harmony on human rights questions.
“There’s a non-answer if I ever heard one. Care to go into some actual detail?”
There are thousands of sources about human rights out there that approach the topic from a non-relativistic, non-nihilistic viewpoint. Look some up and pick the ones you like best.
My point–my answer–is that human rights, if they’re real rights, are based in something objective, not in the whim of cultures that choose to value or devalue whomever they please.

Nate, your goal is to claim I’m not answering your questions and then direct me to look up my own answer to my questions. I call this session over; I’m sure there will be others.
Tom, you use biased sources and accuse me of it when I use as unbiased non-academic source as there’s likely to be. Unbiased sources in that area are hard to come by. And I clicked on one of your very long URL’s and got some sort of .wmv.asf file. I understand names like that are indicative of virus-bearing downloads so I’ll be real cautious about clicking on your URLs in the future. I’m also through talking to you about this now.

I answered your question, nnmns. My answer, as I clearly states, was that I’d seek to develop an objective grounding for human rights rather than the subjective one that you prefer. That’s the answer.

Google ‘wmv.asf file’ on the internet so you can read up on it, nnmns. It uses media configuration to run applications, like Media Player. I posted the same link twice by accident. As for viruses, they can come in a variety of different packaging. Shouldn’t be too much of a problem for the hacks at beliefnet. After all, look at all this spam free zone!
Have a nice day

My apologies – I was the Your Name from the 16th at 1:51pm. Tom, my point doesn’t rest on the idea that it is healthier to get an abortion than to carry a child to term, as that varies to either side depending on the situation. The point lies in the RISK to the mother’s health, which is very real in any pregnancy.
Nate W, you seem to suggest that we live in the kind society espoused by communist Russia, where the will of the nation automatically supercedes the rights of the individual. According to your view, if I was in need of bone marrow that only you could provide, I have the right to have you strapped to a table & forcibly remove it (as long as it doesn’t result in your death). As just another member of the herd, you get no say in the matter.
On the contrary, our government is built on the idea that every individual has certain rights that cannot be taken away, even if it is for the good of society. It’s true that the world is not entirely individualistic, but neither is it entirely communistic – it is a synthesis of the two, individuals working together. It’s interesting that you would say this matter doesn’t deal with the rights of two individuals, as that completely undermines the pro-life position, which is that an unborn child has its own rights that supercede the right of the mother to do as she pleases with her own body.
And please, spare me your hollow insults. I would say the truly impoverished philosophy is the one that views the rights of the individual as trivial. Not all pregnancies are a “clash” of some kind, but clearly there is a conflict of interests in the case of abortion.