One of the few good elements of George W. Bush’s presidency was his ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, despite strong pressure from both ranking Democrats and Republicans in Congress to permit the funding. This past election cycle we had two pro-death candidates for president, and we knew that this ban would fall under both men. John McCain likely would have waited until another bill for funding passed through Congress (he supported the first two). President Obama had no such patience. Today, by executive order, the president lifted Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Will there be outcry from the Republican Party? If there is any, most of it will be describing the executive order as a “distraction.” The moral voices have faded in the GOP. There are virtually none in the Democratic Party. This is the world we live in now–conservatives and liberals willing to permit the experimentation on human persons for purely utilitarian ends.
UPDATE: Democrats for Life released the following statement today:
“Democrats For Life of America disagreed with the Mexico City Policy reversal but had an opportunity to air our concerns with representatives of the Administration. But the announcement that President Obama would allow expanded use of embryonic stem cells came as a surprise. DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.
One issue we can find agreement on is the Pregnant Women’s Support Act . We believe this should be put on the front of the legislative burner. We will work with the President to pass this landmark abortion reduction bill and we are hopeful that he will see the PWSA is a far better way to work with pro-life Democrats than focusing on divisive issues that highlight our differences on issues dealing with life and the unborn.”
No doubt, David and Michael will soon be here to explain to us this has nothing to do with destroying life and that we pro-lifers are simply overreacting.
This is really an indictment of all American Catholics regardless of party.
We had nearly 8 years to
Correct the fallacies of the benefits of embryonic stem cell research-
-talk about the benefits of adult stem cell research
-correct the misconception that the President was banning private research
-and talk about the related human life issues
We in the ned the people in the pews could barely even correct the misconceptions of our neighbors on this issue. The same basic falsehoods (Such as this research was banned) are still out there in the smae degree
Depressing
The legal strategy of the pro-life movement has always been fundamentally flawed. Given that the U.S. is a pluralistic society, such strategy has no staying power. What prevails at one time can easily be overturned the next.
Thoughtful people are moving beyond this paradigm.
Hopefully “thoughful” people will take advantage of opportunities in the future that are presented.
Seems like a horrible waste of 8 years in which we had resources to change Hearts and minds.
I think the Pro-life movement needs to hire the NRA folks. They seem to succeed and even be feared even in what is a more hostile environment to them from what I am seeing. At least they get their calls returned I bet.
Congressman Smith is among a vocal minority of members of Congress that have been superb on this issue, and all issues of the unborn:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15304
It is vital that Roe v. Wade be overturned, and that we as a people and a community and a culture and a family come to value the unborn more than we do ourselves.
We must also agressively pursue legal protections, and all Catholic politicans are absoutely obligated to do so. All strategies save actual lives. Otherwise, they should lay down the label Catholic and claim it no further.
Now this is to not defend Republicans, but it should be recognized that:
-all parties are extremely poor vehicles of change
-the democratic process has been usurped
-only in one political party do voices for the unborn have a voice and an opportunity for influence. The other has been bought wholesale by the abortion lobby
-the protections this party and its allies have sought and achieved matter and should be extended
-the other political party is completely unacceptable on the issue of unborn life
This is why I may or may not vote for a Republican but will not vote for a Democrat unless they are strong on the unborn. Unfortunately, there are very, very, very, very few of these. We need many more Heath Schulers. (And who else is there? Not Sen. Casey, sadly)
This administration is toxic thus far: overturn Mexico City, former legal director for NARAL to head Office of Legal Counsel, former director of Emily’s List as WH communications director, overturn this ban, a “reproductive-rights” advisor for Sen. Kennedy as WH domestic policy advisor, “abortion rights” science advisors, and at HHS the most “pro-abortion” politican one can imagine (and one who also wishes to claim Catholicism). All in less than three months.
No doubt, David and Michael will soon be here to explain to us this has nothing to do with destroying life and that we pro-lifers are simply overreacting.
Alex,
Surely what is important here are the policies themselves and not your beefs about positions and personalities here on Vox Nova.
The pro-life movement has failed to convince even many in its own ranks (John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Nancy Reagan) that embryonic stem-cell research is a “pro-life” issue. Many people simply do not believe that a fertilized egg is automatically a human person with fundamental rights. Non-Catholics are under no moral obligation to accept Catholic doctrines.
The moral voices have faded in the GOP.
There were never any to start with.
“It is vital that Roe v. Wade be overturned …”
Well, then, go overturn it.
Or am I correct in assuming you can’t?
I stopped caring about what the GOP has to say or what the Democrats have to say: both parties only look out for themselves and no one else.
It is a sad day indeed.
As pointed out in the Times, restrictions still remain on research. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is still in effect and is explained here:
Meanwhile, there is no sign that the pro-life movement is attempting to do anything about fertility clinics who engage in in vitro fertilization and are the primary source for embryos used in embryonic stem-cell research.
Question: Suppose as a direct result of embryonic stem-cell research cures are found for Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. Will the medical treatments be so morally tainted that Catholics will not be permitted to undergo them?
I have proposed in the past that taxpayers who so choose should be exempt in some way from contributing their tax dollars to stem-cell research as long as they agree to forego any benefits that come from the research for themselves and their descendants.
There were never any to start with.
Both parties have their moral voices, yet the GOP has become the political home for those who rightly consider our abortion lobby and regime to be a grave moral evil, as any homocide on the order of tens of millions is. Where are the Democrats? What is stopping the elected officals of this party from establishing their moral voice? Why are there so few of them who will work to legally protect the unborn? Why are there so few of them who will even lend their rhetoric to the unborn?
Well, then, go overturn it.
Or am I correct in assuming you can’t?
We came close in Casey, and let’s pray the opportunity comes up again. Justices from both parties have usurped the democratic process, which is why it is vital to exist in a strong coalition that places great pressure on presidents for the cause of unborn life, a coalition that President Bush listened to and valued.
Would I be correct in assuming that you might state Justices Alito and Roberts would vote to keep Roe? There is much reason to doubt that, but answer me this: who is more likely to see abortion as a “constitutional right” – justices like Alito and Roberts (judges in good standing with the aforementioned coalition), or an Obama appointee?
Crap!
I would look at this in a slightly different way. I wouldn’t say Obama overtuned a ban on federal funding for ESCR, but he added to the federal funding which was first established by GW Bush. President Bush was the first president to give federal funds to ESCR (as his campaign reitterated for the 2004 campaign), and he begun the process by which what happened today could happen. Indeed, he made it clear when he first gave funding he could increase it in the future. That he didn’t is true, but, to say it was a ban on funding is not right, since there was limited funding.
Thus, if I were to write the headline, I would write, Obama increases Bush’s federal funding for ESCR. That’s what happened, since there was no ban, only more limitations than what we have today. Obama took Bush’s iniative and moved it further along. And if Bush hadn’t done that initially, what we see today might have been different, too. Neither side would like to acknowledge this, I suspect, because of the political implications, which is why the discussion is on “the ban” instead of limitations.
David,
You bring up the lack of pro-life voices regarding IVF clinics. My understanding is that this was a political move on the part of the pro-life movement to *gradually* bring about change. Start first with the abortion issue, then deal with IVF.
Is it your opinion that the movement will have to move away from the gradual position and come back with a “zero-tolerance” message for change? Is this the only morally credible option?
As an aside, if I discuss the issue with friends, I personally do not with-hold criticism of IVF clinics. Additionally, when my wife and I underwent infertility treatments, we told the doctor up front that IVF was not an option.
-Mike J.
Justices from both parties have usurped the democratic process . . .
I thought judges were a vital part of the democratic process.
We have not had it in the United States, but other countries have had national referendums on abortion where the majority of the people have voted for abortion. Do you think a national referendum on abortion in the United States wouldn’t be pro-abortion? It seems the only hope of criminalizing abortion in at least some parts of the United States would be to overturn Roe and fight battles in individual states. There every reason to believe that the American people as a whole support abortion rights.
But what does Roe v Wade have to do with stem-cell research? Nothing that I can determine.
Henry,
Your characterization doesn’t make any sense. Bush very clearly banned federal funding concerning days-old embryos that were to be destroyed so as to obtain cells. Obama has reversed this policy, which is noteworthy for both the morality involved and the high percentage of federal dollars used in these processes.
So while it’s correct to say that Bush funded stem cell research and that Obama is continuing and increasing that, the point is irrelevant.
Jonathan,
“The Bush Administration was the first to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research” (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040714b.html ) They made great use of that fact through the 2004 election; I remember being more than a little sickened about it being used as a good thing in a Meet the Press debate.
Since Bush (by his own admission!) was the first to give federal funding to ESCR, therefore, it can’t be said he banned it; he opened it up to limited use! From time to time, he even hinted at removing some of the limitations he put into effect. Thus it is impossible to consider “giving funds” means “a ban.” It wasn’t a ban, it was just strict limitation as to how it would be done under his presidency.
David,
You may remember this discussion, which states why I believe the best thing we could do for the unborn is to return the abortion question to where it belongs in a pluralistic, democratic society – back to the legistative. This will greatly aid Catholic arguments, and save many lives.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/02/07/roe-must-be-overturned/
Roe v. Wade and all abortion policy, as with ESCR, are highly responsive to political arguments and actions, which is why we should all hope the Democratic Party leaves its completely selling out to the abortion lobby behind, and that politicans of both parties seek legal protections – protections that will be hugely aided by the overturning of Roe.
Or how about this, from the 2004 election, from one group which was trying to go against the Republican claims:
Summary: USA Today uncritically reported that President Bush “has pointed out that he is the first president” to provide federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Similarly, Glenn Beck stated that “[i]t was George Bush who opened the doors for federal funding [for stem cell research]. He was the first president to fund it,” and that “Bill Clinton in 1995 opposed” research on embryos. In fact, the Clinton administration proposed federal funding and, later, drafted guidelines to fund embryonic stem cell research, but those rules had yet to take effect when he left office.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607260001
That’s right. The Republicans, right or wrong, claimed Bush was the first, and Clinton was the one who opposed, and used this to show the world why they thought Bush was better! Nice to see how the Republicans forget. Will they go to confession, telling their priest they voted for someone who actively embraced ESCR? I doubt it.
Henry,
You are arguing a strawman and failing to address the very large differences of Bush and Obama executive orders, the crux of which, again, is this:
the destruction of embryos to create stem cell lines.
Obama’s actions today mean that taxpayers will fund this destruction.
Thanks to Bush, they already have given funds to their destruction, and, as Glen Beck pointed out, it is Bush who opened up the way for this kind of research getting federal funds. Obama is just following a Bush legacy. Shame on both, but, again, it is strange to see how people try to avoid the obvious.
I remember reading that Bush’s compromise on stem-cell research — which some called Solomonic — could actually be considered Solomonic only if Solomon had actually cut the baby in half.
“Opened up the way”? Really?
Henry,
The obvious is being avoided here:
there is a very, very, very big difference between the destruction of embryos to create stem cell lines and federally supporting stem cell research.
Your equation makes no sense at all.
Bush’s executive order of August 2001 barred the funding of research that entailed killing human embryos. Obama overturned this.
Embryology states a human embryo, inception to about ten weeks, is a person with unique DNA.
Our Catholic Church teaches, in Catechism 2270:
“human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person ― among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life”
Embryonic stem-cell research, which is now federally funded, involves the killing of a unique person.
This is NOT the same, at all, of research which takes cells from adult tissues, umbilical cords, ect. This does not kill life.
Once again, Jonathan, BUSH was the FIRST PRESIDENT to FEDERALLY FUND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. Read what HE said, what his SUPPORTERS like BECK said. HE started it; HE funded it. Limited, but it was a funding. IT STARTED IT OFF. GLEN BECK himself said as much.
Talk about blind.
Both parties have their moral voices, yet the GOP has become the political home for those who rightly consider our abortion lobby and regime to be a grave moral evil, as any homocide on the order of tens of millions is. Where are the Democrats?
Was I defending the Democarts here? No. I was pointing that the statement about “moral voices fading” in the GOP as erroneous, as there were none to start with. Sure, many can talk the talk on abortion, but they most assuredly do not walk the walk. And at the same time, one of the “their principles” includes a huge military build-up, including the stockpiling of (thoroughly non-negotiable) nuclear weapons, and the tendency to see war as a first, not a last, resort. And more recently, the whole party has joined in supporting torture. Whatever moral voices they had faded a long time ago.
I don’t care what Beck or any cable tv blowhard says. Look at the 2001 executive order, and look at the NIH response, which can be read here:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/NIHFedPolicy.asp
These restrictions were a political compromise and also a significant step in the pro-life direction against strong currents the other way. It is a policy that is to be commended.
Stem-cell lines formed in ways that create, destroy or harm human embryos were not eligible for funding.
I have not disputed that Bush funded ESCR. I have not said the Bush policy was ideal. I have said what is obvious: by making and enforcing these distinctions, a legal protection that should be extended, there is significant difference between the 2001 executive order and the unfortunate action we see today, which is likely decades of destroyed embryos and (maybe, let us hope not) billions for research in public money, which should be hugely offensive to Catholics and all who value unborn life.
Destroying a human embryo is an intrinsic evil. Bush kept public money out of this – not in a way you or I would have done, as the NIH summary makes clear – but his actions were radically different from Obama’s.
“Would I be correct in assuming that you might state Justices Alito and Roberts would vote to keep Roe?”
Jonathan, you’re wedded to a failed strategy. It’s time for a divorce. The path ahead runs not through Roe or any other legal instrument. Indeed, the culture wars have largely been counterproductive. They have not been an efficacious remedy to cure the ills of our society and culture.
Since 1990, abortion rates in the U.S. have declined, even though Roe has long been the law of the land. I suspect those rates will continue to decline for reasons having little or nothing to do with legislation, Executive Orders, or Constitutional Amendments.
If such is the case, why not change strategic focus? Why not use one’s moral energy more effectively. After all, the overturning of Roe is not a magic bullet.
My view is simple: a new strategic approach is needed to reinforce the dynamics that are already bringing down the incidence of abortion. These dynamics should be the real locus of our nation’s resources and attention.
Whether or not Roe exists, it seems to me, has little relevance to the outcome we both seek. Abortion can be dramatically reduced even though Roe prevails. It’s time to do an end run around Roe. In my view, it’s been given far more significance than it deserves.
MM: So long as any political party has prominent voices for the causes of life – and first among these causes for the tens of millions of children slaughtered in the womb – then it may be stated that there are moral voices.
Thus I hope great champions like Rep. Smith, former Rep. Hyde, Sen. Coburn, Rep. Paul, and many others become more successful and prominent – and there have been real successes despite the stranglehold of Roe -, and that the Democratic Party finds at least a small voice.
Henry,
If this is just a continuation of what Bush started, then why did Obama state that NOW… science (ie “facts”) would guide what was done with respect to ESCR and not ideology (ie religious convictions.)?
Gerald,
Abortion can certainly be reduced in ways other than legal protections. This does not mean, however, that legal protections do not matter very much or should not be pursued. And all Catholics who wish to claim the mantle are obligated to support legal protections. The notion that Sen. Kennedy or Gov. Sebelius or whomever can be “personally opposed” yet support policies that advance and protect abortion, with the notion that their vision of another policy will reduce the rate and so they are really “pro-life” is simply false.
And how is it exactly that Roe is insignificant when it is precisely that decision that lords over all actual and possible state-level restriction, resulting in so many legal challenges to restrictions? The effect is deeply chilling both in reality and future possibility. If Roe were overturned, a large number of states would immediately enact significant restrictions. Some would not. But those restrictions matter, and they shape behavior. They are, in other words, significant, even as we both might agree that the fundamental problem is one of morality and personal responsibility and family breakdown.
Will there be outcry from the Republican Party?
Will there be any outcry from pro-Obama Catholics? I’m not holding my breath.
A great deal more verbage has been spent in this thread trying to blame Bush than has been used to criticize President Obama.
The theme remains “however bad Obama may be, he’s really not so bad at all because Bush was worse, and McCain would have done the same.”
Well maybe McCain would have done the same, but not without facing the pro-life wing of his own party. Will Obama face the pro-life wing of his party? Maybe someday, if there ever is one.
Who are these prominent voices presently in the GOP?
Name one who has had a consistent ethic of life in his/her platform and voting record? Leave out not the Iraqi War or the dehumanizing Islamo-fascist rhetoric of the mid-2000s. Then, we saw that certain colours, ethnicities and religious belivers were less valuable than others.
Jeff
Because both sides of the political debate enjoy the rhetoric of division, and use it to their benefit, when it suits them. Of course, there is an ideology involved behind the use of ESCR, so ideology IS being used to guide the science. But we must remember Bush was the first to get the funds for ESCR, and he started opening the door, which now Obama has in his hands, and has thrown wide open. I was critical of Bush when he gave funds for ESCR, and I’ve been critical on VN about it, too. That he and his team bragged about it says enough to me. But now both sides like to forget the 2004 campaign, and work on new rhetoric, and so both sides benefit by sustaining a false picture of what is going on.
Henry,
I believe the funding under President Bush was for stem cell lines already established. The rationale for this is that such line continue to divide and grow and new embryos are not destroyed in their production. From your link:
“Because stem cell lines divide continuously in culture, these lines can be used by hundreds of individual researchers.? One line alone has already resulted in 136 shipments to researchers.”
That is significantly different than what Obama has done today.
Mark -
Your argument seems to be that because the GOP doesn’t take a consistently correct Catholic stand on every issue, then it’s OK that the Democrats want to destroy embryos, protect abortion rights, export abortion, and all the rest of the their anti-life agenda.
You guys fought for Obama.
As someone who criticized Bush when I felt he was falling down on the job on the issues most important to me — the Harriet Meiers nomination is an example — let me tell you that it’s OK for you to criticize Obama when he does stuff like this.
Your refusal to do anything but cry “the Republicans are worse!” only enforces my suspicion that you’re all only continuing to applaud Obama’s every gesture and word.
But no. Not one of the Obama supporters at Vox Nova will be heard to criticize the president without making excuses for him, and without taking potshots at the GOP, Bush and/or McCain.
This is what you all campaigned for, what you endorsed, what you voted for. Andd it’s on you — all of it on you — until and unless you start telling the President and your fellow Democrats why they must be converted to the protection of the unborn.
It’s a task only you can take up.
Philip
They were destroyed. Funds were given to them. It was funding the death of children, even if it were funding the death after the fact. Consider those who did this as being rewarded for taking the initiative. That’s what Bush did. One could even look at it this way: Bush gave a monopoly to those who took the initial steps before anyone else, almost giving them the rights one would otherwise expect for a patent, because they killed embryos first.
You are arguing a strawman and failing to address the very large differences of Bush and Obama executive orders, the crux of which, again, is this:
the destruction of embryos to create stem cell lines.
Obama’s actions today mean that taxpayers will fund this destruction.
Jonathan,
I am not sure this is correct. Please see my earlier message above with the time stamp March 9, 2009 at 1:50 pm. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is still in effect. It is not at all clear to me that under this amendment, government money can fund scientific projects in which embryos are destroyed.
Now, I am guessing that what Obama has done opens the way to government financing of research on new stem-cell lines created without federal funding, as Bush’s compromise allowed funding for research on stem-cell lines that already existed.
I am sure you still would condemn that, but I don’t think what you are saying — that is, that the government will fund research that destroys embryos to create stem-cell lines — is correct.
(I may be wrong, but this seems to be the case based on what I quoted and linked to above.)
Paul,
That’s not my argument at all. My argument is no politician ((D) or (R)) can be an authentic spokesperson for human life who in some area(s)is radically at odds with its dignity.
If we as pro-lifers base put all of our energies with such inconsistent platform stances or their holders, we will continue to fail miserably.
Nope,
A related issue came up in England where one vaccine was grown in cell lines obtained from aborted fetuses. The Bishops there concurred that Catholics could use the vaccine as they were not complicit in the destruction of the embryos and there was not ongoing destruction of embryos.
As the lines that the Bush Administration approved already existed, the funding was for experimentation on already established cell lines and not for the destruction of embryos.
David,
I think it remains to be seen if the executive order will explicitly fund the creation of new lines that destroy embryos. What is much more clear, however, is that taxpayer money will be directed toward researchers who will make the case that such destruction is “necessary” (a dubious proposition in itself, which makes this executive order all the more shameful). I would be delighted if funds did not flow to embryonic lines, but all indicators go exactly the other way (another reason why the Bush policy was so important).
Paul I am against ESCR and its funding. I will speak out against it now, as I have in the past.
But if I remember correctly, the alternative candidate of this past election was also quite for such research and eventual funding.
Jonathan,
At this time, extra-legal means are most productive for reducing the incidence of abortion. Changes in law hold little promise. Moreover, coercive laws are here today and gone tomorrow. Care to guess the lifespan of Prop. 8?
“All Catholics who wish to claim the mantle are obligated to support legal protections.” The problem here is that there a wide range for disagreement. People who agree on ends are free to disagree as to means. Also, the means one chooses do not have to reflect those that have been tested in the United States these last 35 years. The Church doesn’t dictate strategy. Nor should it. Adherence to principle does not equate to adherence to strategy.
Coercive means are rarely an effective means of controlling behavior. When has this been the case in the United States? Don’t we live in a drug culture? Don’t we have laws against the use of illegal drugs? Don’t we spend annually 40 billion on the war on drugs? Where’s the chilling effect? I don’t see it. Don’t you know people who smoke pot? How did Al Capone make his fortune? Do you own a radar detector?
Should Jewish scientists at the National Institute of Health have their stem cell research efforts impeded by the U.S. government? How would such restrictions impact their freedom of conscience, assuming they are not persuaded by Christian views on life?
Gerald,
There is no room for disagreement with regard to legal protections. John Paul was particularly clear about this in many forums across the years:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/prochoice.shtml
Any support whatsoever for legal abortion is radically inconsistent with Catholicism. Any citizen or politician who helps to make abortion more widely available, or religious who teaches that it ought to be made available in some way, cannot claim the Catholic faith. It is damage to their soul and to the Church. Opposition to abortion and the destruction of unborn life is far far far far from an “adherence to principle.”
And if you honestly don’t believe that Roe has a “chilling effect” on actual restrictions and on the possibilities of restrictions, then it is necessary to ignore quite a lot of litigation appealing to Roe, and I am unsure we can productively have a conversation.
Will SOMEONE on this thread PLEASE explain to me how the Catholic Church can have an IOTA of credibility on this “embryonic stem cell research” issue when virtually all of its hierarchs IGNORE the SOURCE of the embryos that are being experimented on:
It’s so much easier to condemn Obama or governors or state legislators, isn’t it, than it is to go after the rich, sterile heterosexual couples who, in their relentless haste to replicate their own genes, produce, at ENORMOUS cost–primarily benefitting, of course, their greedy physicians–MOUNTAINS of discardable zygotes in petri dishes–zygotes which, if they weren’t harvested and sold to labs for research purposes, to benefit suffering patients, would be flushed down TOILETS!
(If I were a rejected embryo, I’d far rather have my body parts used to help somebody than to be put into a dustbin or flushed down a toilet!)
The real issue here is the pursuit of artificial insemination, at the expense of all the orphans and neglected children who could be adopted and given decent homes and adequate care. I’m sorry, but I believe the Church chooses to blackguard the easiest marks–the politicians–and to leave alone the sometime Catholic doctors and their rich patients who throw fat checks into collection baskets, because to criticise THEM would make your prelates far more unpopular with the truly powerful elements of the actual establishment of the so-called “culture of death.”
It is true that Bush was the first approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on existing lines. Obama has extended that funding to new lines. This is why the Vatican was disappointed with Bush’s decision (though it certainly was not as grave as Obama’s).
The only sensible comment on here is Katarina’s. Both parties are pro-death. That’s not to say that there aren’t individual pro-lifers in each party (and yes, there are more within the GOP than the Democratic Party), but overall, both parties are pro-death.
I remember the day after the election reading an article by Fr. Corapi, whom I generally respect. He stated that by electing Obama, the United States had exposed itself to divine chastisement. This seemed like an incredibly simplistic view to me. The bottom line is that Republicans are no more Messianic than the Democrats when it comes to the Culture of Life versus the Culture of Death. A decision such as this was inevitable; a gradual increase in the GOP’s willingness to compromise on abortion was inevitable (and continues to be demonstrated most clearly). I fear that we are overdue for a chastisement no matter who is in the White House, unless the pro-life movement figures out a way to dissociate itself from our corrupt two-party system and work to radically change our culture. But I don’t know if God’s patience will last long enough for that to happen.
Not a single criticism of Obama from his cheerleaders. It’s amazing that MM can come in a post like this and not even mention Obama by name, and not even level a criticism at him. Instead, he levels criticisms at the GOP.
Ridiculous.
MM – you have no credibility on this.
Jonathan,
I’m very aware of the work of JPII. I have studied his works for thirty years. But you are making things a little more neat than he does. Despite the crystal clarity of his writing, he would be the first to acknowledge that ethics and politics are intrinsically messy. The contingent resists the universal by necessity. It cannot be otherwise. For this reason, formal change takes time — even centuries. And, more than time, it takes forbearance.
Look … the West has been engaged in a struggle over the nature of the individual for nearly 500 years. It has yet to arrive at a consensus about the structure and meaning of the human person. What is the basis, then, for legitimate laws designed to prohibit abortion? Are we to set up a moral police state? If so, where would that lead? Is this something the American people want to do? Hardly.
It’s never easy, then, to re-inform a society and culture with deeper principles. JPII agree. Indeed, it was the failure to fully recognize this truth that has become the Achilles Heel of Vatican II.
Nor would JPII diminish the role of prudence in political action. A prudential act is that by which the universal AND concrete contingencies are brought together in uneasy accommodation. All well and good. But any measure of self-awareness reveals how troubled such accommodations are. They need not last forever, as the recent decision on stem cell research indicates. What makes them more enduring, however, is the support they receive from hearts and minds. Too many laws today fail to have that support.
It is well to recall that the Church negotiated an accommodation with the Soviet Union that lasted a very long time. It was the better part of prudence to do so. Yet, during that time, many tens of millions died — maybe a hundred million or more. What would you have suggested the Church do under circumstances that existed then? Likewise, during the Nazi era, the Church failed to take dramatic action against the Nazi police state. What culpability exists here? Finally, during the 450 year history of American slavery, what decisive stand did the Church take? Where was the Church during Jim Crow? They were AWOL, I’m afraid.
Now ask yourself: were the East European Bishops passive and lukewarm during the period of Soviet domination? Yes they were. Were the German Bishops guilty of omission during the Hitler era? Yes, of course. Were the American Bishops wrong to acquiescence in slavery? Absolutely. Did all of them act contrary to the principles intrinsic to Church doctrine? No question. But, generally speaking, would you have counseled any of these Bishops to act otherwise? What would have happened had they acted imprudently? What gains could they have made by being rash?
Against this record, isn’t it striking that so much venom is leveled at Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Sibelius? Is John Brown really the iconic Christian soldier? Not for me!
Finally, I don’t believe Roe is as important as you claim. It is not a root cause of abortion. Obversely, I don’t believe the drug laws are very important either. They don’t stop drug usage. A new strategy is needed for both challenges.
Thanks to all the so-called Catholics for giving us this crap sandwich of a president.
Digby: I have been waiting for the point you bring up. You CANNOT talk about ESCR without talking about IVF. Weird that no one talks about the massive elephant in the room.
The moral voices have faded in the GOP.
There were never any to start with.
What a sad statement. Good grief did a Republican run over your dog at age 5
I can not quite understand how a Catholic such as your self would look at republicans like me like we are members of the Nazi party
I trust your reply was just al ittle bit of bad timed sacrasism
Digby and RCM: absolutely true. I wonder how many Republicans would support banning IVF? Few, if any; they just want a convenient political wedge, and it’s much more convenient to (rightly) criticize ESCR without criticizing its root cause.
Again, nothing less than a total re-shaping of our culture will save us now. Since people have brought up JPII, it is worthwhile to remember how strongly he pushed for a “Culture of Life,” primarily because he recognized that even worthy coercive laws would ultimately be pointless unless they were rooted in a “Civilization of Love.”
Will SOMEONE on this thread PLEASE explain to me how the Catholic Church can have an IOTA of credibility on this “embryonic stem cell research” issue when virtually all of its hierarchs IGNORE the SOURCE of the embryos that are being experimented on . . . .
Digby,
If ever there was a time for a campaign to put regulations in IVF, the time is now, with “Octomom” in the news constantly, with here six previous children and her octuplets from IVF. Unfortunately, it looks like the pro-life forces are shooting themselves in the foot by making the attempts to regulate IVF are part of the anti-abortion agenda. See William Saletan’s recent columns in Slate.
Other countries have restrictions on the number of embryos that may be implanted and some have restrictions on freezing embryos. I think there are probably many people who are pro-choice that would agree to reasonable restrictions on IVF, but the possibility of compromise between pro-choice and pro-life on this issue will be impossible if the pro-life people see restrictions on IVF as another opportunity to try getting a fertilized egg declared a person.
“Because both sides of the political debate enjoy the rhetoric of division, and use it to their benefit, when it suits them. Of course, there is an ideology involved behind the use of ESCR, so ideology IS being used to guide the science. But we must remember Bush was the first to get the funds for ESCR, and he started opening the door, which now Obama has in his hands, and has thrown wide open.”
Thanks Henry. While I agree with the general thrust of the point that Bush did indeed start ESCR funding, I do think that this is a significan incremental step in the wrong direction. I can’t tell you how many “scientists” I heard on the radio today state that “Finally, after 8 long years….. we aren’t going to let religion get in the way of science.” Now, I agree that they themselves have an ideology, namely one evolutionary materialism and that their response is guided by their own presuppositions. However, I think that their response says very much with regard to the comparative restraint of evil that was part of the Bush position. The floodgates are now open.
Henry wrote:
It was funding the death of children, even if it were funding the death after the fact.
Retroactively funding something which already occurred is an intriguing concept. Have you approached the FASB with a proposed way to account for it?
Bush’s policy was wrong, but the notion that it is somehow equivalent to the new policy of the Vox Nova president doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Digby wrote:
Will SOMEONE on this thread PLEASE explain to me how the Catholic Church can have an IOTA of credibility on this “embryonic stem cell research” issue when virtually all of its hierarchs IGNORE the SOURCE of the embryos that are being experimented on
Yeah, IVF just gets completely ignored.
Will there be outcry from the Republican Party? If there is any, most of it will be describing the executive order as a “distraction.” The moral voices have faded in the GOP.
In the interest of fairness, Policraticus could easily look up the statements from House and Senate Republicans on this issue, which are available with a google search.
For what it’s worth, the state senate in Georgia has a bill before it (must be voted on this week) that clamps down on fertility clinics by forbidding the destruction of human embryos. Needless to say, it is the mean-spirited, evil, woman-hating Republicans who have put forth this proposal (backed by the reactionary Catholic Church), whereas the progressive forces of our university system and our state Democratic Party are frothing at the mouth about how backward it is. Perhaps MM and his clones over at Commonweal could fly down to Atlanta to cheer on Team Obama.
I support banning IVF.
I support banning IVF.
Me too.
I look at the comments and it’s the same old fake American distinction between so-called conservatives (in reality, anything but) and so-called liberals. There is the failure to note that this decision is a consequentialist decision and –like it or not– it is a popular decision because America likes its consequentialism. After all, how do you expect a county where the vast majority thinks it was right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki (to “save lives”) not to support this measure (also to “save lives”)? It’s time to stop creating false divisions and realizing that there’s plenty of (evil) consequentialist reasoning to go around.
Are all of you who voted for Obama really surprised this came to pass so quickly? So many of you so staunchly bought into the Obama as “social savior” lie.
We are reaping what you have sown. There are many who recognized Obama as the hollow shell he really is and could not cast a vote for evil. I hope the scales are falling from your eyes.
Me too.
Can you say this when you so fully and completely support a party that has FREELY AVAILABLE ABORTION AS A PLATFORM item?
Are you a joke, or are you serious?
In the interest of fairness, Policraticus could easily look up the statements from House and Senate Republicans on this issue, which are available with a google search.
In the interest in fairness, you should note that I did not say that there were no voices, but faded moral voices. To suggest that the moral voices in the GOP on embryonic stem cell research are loud, clear, or even noisy is disingenuous. Hence, we have to make use of an internet search tool instead of seeing and hearing the opposition from the heart of the party.
We are reaping what you have sown. There are many who recognized Obama as the hollow shell he really is and could not cast a vote for evil. I hope the scales are falling from your eyes.
And this is why many of us at this blog did not vote for McCain either.
But you sure don’t need a search engine to discover the loud voice of the head of the United State government and democratic party…
But you sure don’t need a search engine to discover the loud voice of the head of the United State government and democratic party…
See the post above.
As VN contributors have noted, every “pro-life” Republican in Congress actively supported Senator McCain, who supports ESCR funding. I can’t think of a single one who even bothered to criticize McCain for this position, because to do so would have hurt the Party. It’s not too big of a stretch to say that Republicans are more interested in political gain than in any meaningful (read: consistent) pro-life philosophy.
And for the record, I did not vote for Obama.
A majority of Americans as well as Catholics have no problem with Stem Cell Research because a majority supports the right of women to abort in case of rape ,incest and if her life is in danger.
It was rather interesting by the way to see the sudden majority emerging in the Senate (Republicans and Democrats) when the (as it turns out fake) Korean researcher Dr. Hwang announced a major breakthrough in cell manipulation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00127
As VN contributors have noted, every “pro-life” Republican in Congress actively supported Senator McCain, who supports ESCR funding. I can’t think of a single one who even bothered to criticize McCain for this position, because to do so would have hurt the Party.
This is important to remember. The twisted logic was, however, that McCain is “more” pro-life than Obama. However, at the rate in which embryos will be harvested for a funded science and how much less protection will be given to the unborn in general because of it, I cannot see how one can be at all “pro-life” if one supports ESCR.
“Zippy,” I have NEVER heard a sermon against in-vitro fertilization from a Catholic pulpit; on the other hand, I heard DOZENS of sermons against embryonic stem-cell research. Not only that, but I have heard governors and state legislators villified from those pulpits in the Southwest, where I recently lived in the United States, and not a WORD said about the doctors who are harvesting the zygotes.
Once, when I said something about this to a priest who had just finished a fulmination from the pulpit against the legalisation, by New Mexico’s governor and legislature, of stem cell research, the priest berated me for my “lack of charity” toward the “poor sterile couple” who were “just trying to be parents.”
I repeat: your Church in the United States has very little credibility on this issue.
I have NEVER heard a sermon against in-vitro fertilization from a Catholic pulpit; …
I have. But be that as it may, if you are right about this bias and think it ought to be stamped out, that is, that Catholic priests and bishops and laypeople should all be taking a clear stand unequivocally against IVF, then we’ve found something to agree about.
Hence, we have to make use of an internet search tool instead of seeing and hearing the opposition from the heart of the party.
Well, no. I suggested the internet search tool as a matter of convenience. It’s called Google News. Try it sometime.
House Republican Leader John Boehner, The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Sen. David Vitter, and Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. all had delivered responses to Obama’s measure.
Likewise two very prominent periodicals by American conservatives — the National Review and The Weekly Standard — published decent headline articles analyzing Obama’s move.
Don’t worry, I did your homework for you.
It just seems rather strange to me that you would post a single press release from the Democrats for Life, complain that the “moral voices have faded from the GOP” without bothering to mention a single one of the above.
Obviously, I think this is a bad decision by President Obama, but it really is a non-issue; both Republicans and Democrats were working to make this happen no matter who was elected. It is not “thanks to Obama,” and to put it in his hands is to ignore the reality, and I fear, to find a way to excuse one’s own guilt in what happens in America. We are all guilty, our system encourages this. And while it is clear Obama has opened the door far greater than Bush did, I would still say this is only possible because of what Bush did; Bush started the process rolling, and so must be implicated in what happened yesterday. But, do I think if Bush did not do so, it would not have happened? No, because I do think our system is geared towards consequentialistic ethics, as MM pointed out. Unless that is rooted out of our system, more than this will happen in the future.
“poor sterile couples who just want to be parents” must embrace adoption, a moral good for all concerned. IVF clinics instruct the prospective fathers to use pornography and masturbate to obtain the sperm sample. Some sperm is sold to lesbian and/or single women who are offered cataloges of the physical traits, career and other demographics of the sperm donors to aid their selection. Embryos are then fertilized and selected for implantation. If too many implant, selective abortion is an option to cull the unwanted. Many more embryoes are created than used. The surplus tiny people are filed, frozen in drawers, and now will be purchased, and eventually dismembered in the name of science Evil, evil, evil.
I have never heard a sermon on ESCR, IVF and have heard only a few tepid pro-life messages from the pulpit in the past 35 years. Many bishops have forsaken their roles as teachers of the moral good. Many have been concerned only about preaching what is popular and politically correct. Look where it has gotten us.
And the pro-Obama Catholics here continue to rail against Republicans, against conservatives, against McCain, and even against the Church.
Still not a single word from an Obama voter criticizing the president. If the Obama is to suffer any consequences for this, it must be his supporters who make it happen. And pointing out that Republicans are bad on this issue doesn’t count as a consequence for Obama.
You guys have worked to strip away support from the Republican Party. Today it is the minority in both legislative houses, and has lost the White House. It is foolish to then look to the GOP to oppose the president. What will you do to oppose the president?
On my blog, you can find posts before the election complaining about McCain’s wrong-headed stance on ESCR. During the election, Sen. Brownback made it clear that people close to McCain were trying to persuade him on the issue, and during the course of the campaign McCain’s rhetoric on the issue did moderate somewhat, as he began to discuss adult stem cells as a preferable line of research.
But on this blog, there are no posts taking the president to task for his actions regarding funding for China’s forced abortion policies through the UN, for his pro-abortion appointments, and now for his funding and expansion of this ghoulish high-tech cannibalism.
Indeed, did you you know that as a U.S. Senator, Obama had the opportunity once to vote for federal funding of adult stem cell research, and he voted against the measure?
It’s not that the president supports science, it’s that he wants to advance the killing of the unborn.
Silence implies consent.
Policraticus,
Do you have a link to the Vatican’s response to the 2001 Bush policy? I tried to Google one and couldn’t get it.
Likewise two very prominent periodicals by American conservatives — the National Review and The Weekly Standard — published decent headline articles analyzing Obama’s move
Why must you people persist in a misapplication of the word conservative? These magazines are pro-war pro-militarism pro-torture rags.
And the pro-Obama Catholics here continue to rail against Republicans, against conservatives, against McCain, and even against the Church
Paul, stop thinking like an American evangelical with the “us versus them” mentality. And what do you mean by “conservative”? I can assure you that those you deem “conservative” are no such thing. And yes, railing against “Republicans” is (my my view) quite appropriate for a movement that takes direction from Limbaugh and the psuedo-plumber.
Basic point: those of us who supported Obama did so on the grounds that he would do the least harm. I stick to that view. And for the record, I abhor his decisions on ESCR, abortion, his continuation of war policies and his lop-sided support for Israel. I wish you people would desist from this very American “with us or against us” notion. It’s tiresome, and it’s not a very Catholic approach. As Henry pointed out not so long ago, I shudder to imagine the grief you guys would have given poor Thomas More in the 16 century for his working with a morally tainted monarchy.
Well, that’s just the point MM. Your appreciation for working with morally tainted co-participants in the political process only works one way. Notice, you have no problem bashing Catholics who support Republicans. But the second a Catholic supporting a Democrat comes under criticism, suddenly you’re transformed into Thomas More.
John Henry
Let me step in for MM here (though I am sure he can and will speak for himself, as well). That is not what MM is saying or doing. He’s made it quite clear he has no problem with someone voting for a Republican, as long as they have a good, prudential reason to do so, and their reasons are not contrary to Catholic morality.
“Saskia” is MY kind of “conservative”: here’s a kind of moral and theological orthodoxy I can respect!
HK – MM’s comment above exemplifies the tendency I’m criticizing:
And yes, railing against “Republicans” is (my my view) quote appropriate for a movement that takes direction from Limbaugh and the psuedo-plumber.
Ok. So, it’s fine to bash Catholics who are Republicans.
I shudder to imagine the grief you guys would have given poor Thomas More in the 16 century for his working with a morally tainted monarchy.
But those who criticize Catholic Democrats would have persecuted Thomas More!
Granted, this is sandwiched by statements about how we are to avoid the ‘us’ v. ‘them’ mentality. But anyone with a passing familiarity with MM’s posting will be justified in questing the sincerity of this appeal. This is the same guy who was telling us a few months ago about his sneaking suspicion that there were more racists than pro-lifers among McCain voters. I’ve defended Catholics who voted for Obama on numerous occasions; but I think MM does himself a disservice by attacking those who criticize Obama’s policies far more than the policies themselves.
John Henry
MM is pointing out a needful lesson of conscience for those who VOTE for Republicans for the wrong reasons; he is also showing THE LOGIC of the arguments other make, showing why they should LEAD the people to make them to be huble. That’s the point. It is not hard to follow. He is employing a basic rhetorical device. Just look at the people who seem to think ESCR is all the fault of Obama and those who voted for Obama (implying, of course, voting for Obama means they support ESCR). If that is the logic, THEN what MM says about Republicans is also true. If it is not true, then MM’s point is made.
Basic point: those of us who supported Obama did not on the grounds that he would do the least harm. I stick to that view. And for the record, I abhor his decisions on ESCR, abortion, his continuation of war policies and his lop-sided support for Israel.
But, with Democrats in power in both the legislature and the White House, they’re not hearing from you on these issues, are they?
Pro-Obama Catholics will not cause the president a moment’s discomfort or pause in any of his anti-life policies.
When they put FOCA in front of him, will he pause and think, “if I sign this, there goes my Catholic support. Morning’s Minion will abandon me”?
No, because he’ll be able to continue to count on your support for him. You’ll write more against SUV’s than you will against Obama’s abortion policies.
My point is, you got your guy, what are you going to do to try to get him under control?
Admit it MM, you’ve made your peace with the intrinsic evil of abortion; you’ve partnered with the most pro-abortion world leader in history because to you abortion just isn’t that important. Given the choice between fighting abortion or embracing it so you can get whatever it is you think Obama will give you, you chose to get in bed with it.
So you’ll continue to rail against your enemies and call them “divisive,” and never once say to your friends, “you should be pro-life.”
And that’s why on my blog, I’ve named Obama’s new ESCR policy in your honor.
If the Obama Catholics were really pro-life, they would be storming the White House with emails, letters, and demonstrations opposing the president’s actions. Instead, you make excuses for him, and change the subject.
HK – I understand the argument. Where you see ‘a needful lesson of conscience,’ I see laughable inconsistency from someone who is one of the more committed partisans I read. MM lecturing others on the ‘us’ v. ‘them’ mentality? lol. Have you read his posts on Republicans or, still worse, Evangelicals? MM calling others to humility about their positions?
I think it might be nice every once in a while if he criticized Obama rather than providing ‘needful lessons of conscience’ about the ‘us’ v. ‘them’ mentality to anyone who criticizes Obama. As it is, likening those who criticize Obama to Thomas More’s persecutors is remarkably tone deaf.
John:
I fully agree with what Henry has written. I have never said that Catholics cannot vote Republican. What I have said is that many Catholics who vote for Republicans do so because of, not in spite of, their positions on many issues. This is one reason why I object so much to Catholic identification with the (ab)use of the word “conservative” for it denotes not only opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but a full-throttled defense of the free market system and (even worse) a militaristic approach to foreign policy and a division of the world into the good guys and the “terrorists”. Just look around you — look at your own group blog, for a start.
THEN what MM says about Republicans is also true. If it is not true, then MM’s point is made.
Henry, when Bush wavered on life issues, anti-abortion Republicans were the first to jump on him.
When Obama does stuff like this, where are his Catholic supporters?
It’s not enough to say “I disagree” to me. The Obama Catholics have to make the president feel the heat, just as we made Bush feel the heat whenever he made the wrong turns on these issues (I offer the squishy Harriet Meiers nomination, and pro-lifers’ opposition to it, as an example).
Instead, MM wants to change the subject. He wants to rail about Bush and McCain and Republicans and other historical topics, to quibble about the definitions of “conservative” or “liberal”, to call names and make accusations, but not to lift a finger to protect even one of the unborn.
We’ve seen his writing talents. We’ve seen what he can do with an issue he cares about.
What we haven’t seen from him — or any of the others who endorsed Obama on this blog — is any effort to persuade their Democrat allies to oppose abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, gay “marriage”, or any of the rest of the horrors that are in the pipeline.
What we haven’t seen from Obama Catholics — and what the president hasn’t seen — is the slightest hint that the most extreme pro-abortion policies by the current administration might cost Obama or Democrats a single Catholic vote in 2010 or 2012.
Paul,
I’ll not dignify your calumny with a response. All I will say is that you think more like an American Calvinist than a Catholic. I would encourage you to travel the world, and see how your fellow Catholics in places like Europe, Latin America and Africa view things. Cast off your Americanist blinkers; it’s spiritual poison.
This is one reason why I object so much to Catholic identification with the (ab)use of the word “conservative” for it denotes not only opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but a full-throttled defense of the free market system and (even worse) a militaristic approach to foreign policy and a division of the world into the good guys and the “terrorists”.
Well, I think that this is unfair in two respects. In the first place you’ve chosen a remarkably narrow and unflattering definition of conservative to start with. Then you’ve criticized Catholics who describe themselves as conservative on the basis of the inaccurate definition. It’s the equivalent of criticizing you based on the assumption that you are pro-choice just because you are an OBama supporter.
the most pro-abortion world leader in history
Paul,
This may be a small point, but either your definition of “world leader” excludes heads of state in Russia, China, India, and Canada, to name a few, or you are just plain wrong. Canada has no legal restrictions at all on abortion. Many European countries provide free abortions through national health services.
Regarding the “in history” part of your statement, how long have we had world leaders, and how long has legalized abortion been an issue.
To hear some people talk, you would think the United States is the only country in the world in which abortions are legal and common.
All I will say is that you think more like an American Calvinist than a Catholic.
I think Paul is being unfair and intemperate here, but I don’t see the need to define those qualities as uniquely ‘American’ or ‘Calvinist’. It’s human nature to be frustrated; it’s not ‘American’ or ‘Calvinist’, per se, and I would hope someone from another country would be less eager to engage in such ‘us’ v. ‘them’ labeling.
Paul
I’ve seen nothing but excuses for Bush’s role in ESCR. And just because some were critical of it, does that put aside the fact they voted for him, if they did? If so, then, you will and DO see, if you are honest, those who lent their support to Obama critical on this and many other issues. That you ignore it and then claim it isn’t there is one of the problems.
I said: Instead, MM wants to change the subject. He wants to … call names and make accusations, but not to lift a finger to protect even one of the unborn.
MM said: …you think more like an American Calvinist than a Catholic.
That sounds like name-calling to me. Especially given that he declines to [cannot] refute my points.
MM, for your information, I have lived 3 and half years in West Berlin, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. I have visited Canada, England, Wales, Spain, France, Austria and West Germany. I have studied Russian extensively and spent much time in the company of native Russian speakers.
I have no shame in having an American point of view, and no shyness in expressing my belief that an American point of view is superior to a European or Asian point of view.
I am not a Calvinist, I am a cradle Catholic, I accept all the authentic magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, and I don’t appreciate your calling me a Calvinist in such a cavalier fashion (if I may so mix my metaphors).
I have made a simple point. You endorsed Obama. Knowing his anti-life views and likely anti-life policies, you endorsed him. It is therefore your responsibility to criticize him when he falls short of your expectations.
You have either upheld this responsibility, or else you have not. Assuming that you have upheld your responsibility, and in accordance with the maxim that silence implies consent (I believe it was you who brought up St. Thomas More), I can only assume that you are content with the president’s actions and policies.
You call this a calumny, and then change the subject.
But I notice that news of the president’s bad acts on this blog are invariably posted without commentary from the poster.
But let the topic be SUV’s and the environment, and then there’ll be opinions aplenty.
We see what’s important to you, and what you’re willing to accept to get what you want. What I don’t see is, while claiming to be a Catholic, how you can sleep at night.
And just because some were critical of it, does that put aside the fact they voted for him, if they did?
Yes. There are no perfect candidates.
All I’m asking for is that those who supported Obama let him and us know when the president has done things they consider bad.
Look at the initial post all these comments are attached to. It’s a simple nonjudgmental statement of facts. The president did X today. This other group said Y about it. There’s no commentary there.
Then go look at MM’s post on SUV’s. No question there about how the man feels about SUV’s and the people who drive them.
I’m not saying the McCain or Bush were perfect. But they’re history now.
Obama is the president. Democrats control the White House and the Congress. If they don’t hear from the 54% of Catholic who supported them that their anti-life policies are unacceptable, and that there will be price for it, then why should they moderate those policies?
No one is addressing this point, which I have repeatedly made. Instead you guys are quibbling about history, other countries, other cultures, other faiths.
I am talking about the American president, American voters, and American policies and laws, and what we as Catholics can do to influence those in a positive way.
I am calling you all to fulfill your responsibilities as Catholic citizens and oppose the evil acts of our government as we perceive them to be evil.
And I am making the simple observation that opposition from Republicans will not have nearly the effect that opposition from Obama’s supporters would have.
MM says he opposes abortion, ESCR and the rest? That’s nice. Will he tell the president that? Will he tell other Obama supporters that?
If he won’t, I have no choice but to doubt the sincerity of his convictions; it’s not like he’s shy about expressing his opinion.
One can be biblically pro-war or unbiblically pro-war. This is not up for debate. Scripture and the teachings of the Church support war in specific circumstances. There is no room for pacifistic civil magistrates.
Therefore, it is misleading to make gross statements to the effect that National Review or the Weekly Standard are pro-war. There are both biblically pro-war and unbiblically pro-war positions held by different contributors at these journals.
Henry, I am a bit surprised to see you defending MM’s highly predictable bait-and-switch modus operandi. Nearly without exception, he refuses to decry a specific Obama policy without some sweeping over-generalized, and over-weighted disclaimer of how Republicans are much worse and always laced with ad hominem epithets. Notice that National Review is a “rag”, not a journal of opinion.
Why is it so difficult to simply say, “Yes, I stand with Democrats for Life and condemn President Obama’s decision…period.”?
Henry Karlson,
“Obviously, I think this is a bad decision by President Obama, but it really is a non-issue; both Republicans and Democrats were working to make this happen no matter who was elected. It is not “thanks to Obama,” and to put it in his hands is to ignore the reality, and I fear, to find a way to excuse one’s own guilt in what happens in America. We are all guilty, our system encourages this. And while it is clear Obama has opened the door far greater than Bush did, I would still say this is only possible because of what Bush did;” (my emphasis)
Are you actually arguing that it is only right that Obama should have committed this grave act of expanding the scope of the Holocaust because it would’ve happened anyway even under a Republican President (which, by the way, is pure speculation on your part) and that (according to you at least) Bush was the one who started it first?
You seem so determined to exculpate Obama from his crimes that you have gone to the very point of justifying his abominable acts to the extent of basically saying “We already began murdering the restricted few people (i.e., embryos) under George W. Bush; killing more of the innocent doesn’t really matter. This is a non-issue.”
I am greatly disappointed my friend.
Paul,
EVERYONE you have dialogued with in this thread has stated his vocal opposition to Obama’s stance on ESCR.
And the National Review is objectively a rag.
Ari
Read all I have said, and you will say I do not say Obama did good. What I am pointing out is the fact that, whether we had Obama or McCain, this was going to occur, and had already occured (with limits) under Bush. The people who saw that Obama and McCain would lead to the same end would thus not be able to use this as a reason to vote, and should not be held as supporting this decision just because they voted for Obama (which I did not, btw).
Ari
Secondly, McCain’s support for ESCR is on the record. So it is speculation, it is speculation based upon his words. If we cannot use them, then we couldn’t trust what he had to say, period. So it is part of the speculation one makes when one votes.
Paul
“I have no shyness in expressing my belief that an American point of view is superior to an European and an Asian poit of view”
You are quite arrogant Paul! If you visited Canada, Wales, Spain and so on with this narrow- mindedness you would do better to stay at home.
You are quite arrogant Paul! If you visited Canada, Wales, Spain and so on with this narrow- mindedness you would do better to stay at home.
I didn’t have a choice; I was serving in the Air Force at the time, deterring the Soviet Union.
As for my arrogance, do you say that because I don’t believe that, for example, an Italian viewpoint is superior? Do you believe that your viewpoint is superior? Or do you believe that your viewpoint inferior?
Of course I think my viewpoint is superior. If my viewpoint were wrong, and I knew it to be wrong, I would change it.
Have you been to Texas? Chicago? California? New York? The Great Plains? The Rocky Mountains?
People always tell me to get out the country, as if right thinking and America are incompatible. Oddly, they always tell me to go wherever they’ve been. They never offer to go find out where I have been.
What do you suppose is up with that?
Still no unequivocal criticism of Obama’s ESCR decision, I notice.
Henry Karlson,
Don’t get me wrong –
Though disappointed, I still continue to respect you nonetheless for your other works.
However, in this particular instance (and you are not at all the only one I am actually singling out with regards to this), it seems to me that folks are taking a rather cavalier attitude toward this ungodly act of Obama’s expanding this wretchedly heinous holocaust to even wider, far sweeping scope of the population of innocent people (for that, exactly, what those embryos are) to nothing more than something like a bad investment decision.
Also, among other things apparent in these discussions, it seems to me like sheer evasion to simply deflect the seriousness of such a crime as this by diverting attention away from Obama’s evident guilt in the matter and towards Bush by saying, “Well Bush started it first, so don’t blame Obama”.
Ari
That is not the implication of my words, either. I am trying to make it so people realize WE ARE ALL involved, and not Obama alone (or those who voted for Obama and Obama alone). Our system itself has set this up, and to complain now and act like it is all because Obama was voted in is to ignore the cause of this, and so not to see what needs to be done to overcome this great evil.
…people who saw that Obama and McCain would lead to the same end would thus not be able to use this as a reason to vote, and should not be held as supporting this decision just because they voted for Obama
I’m not asking anyone to apologize for who they voted for. I am asking people to take responsibility for who they voted for.
Someone who got out in the public view, climbed up on his virtual soapbox and loudly shouted that we should all vote for Obama — as several bloggers here at VN did — has a responsibility to climb back up on that soapbox and shout just as loudly at the president and his supporters when they do something bad.
Rights carry with them responsibilities, and this is one of the responsibilities that accompanies the right to free speech.
For a public commentator — yes, like a blogger — to continue speaking out in public and not criticize the bad acts of the president is to consent by his silence to those acts.
I’m not saying that people are pro-abortion because they voted for Obama. (I’ve said that before, but I’m not saying it here.) I’m saying that if you oppose abortion and voted for Obama, you have to let him know that. You have to let Congress know that. You have to let his other supporters know that.
And you cannot escape this responsibility just because you think that supporters of the prior administration didn’t fulfill it adequately. Of course we didn’t. You won’t either. No one can. But we have to do our best.
No one is denying this point. No one is refuting this point. No one is answering this point. Stop changing the subject and either show me where I’m wrong, or admit I’m right.
I am trying to make it so people realize WE ARE ALL involved, and not Obama alone.
True, but the immediate topic is a decision made by Obama. This statement of yours, Henry, makes it look like you’re trying to spread the blame to take the heat — such as it is — off the president.
Of course we’re all involved. But not all on the same side. Some of us think that ESCR, abortion, etc., were important enough issues to oppose Obama on, and some of us don’t.
paul
I have visited California,Oregon, Washington, New York,the Southwest, the New England, the rochy States, Montana,Wyoming…in 7 trips. And Japan, China, Vietnam and of course Europe.
America people are very friendly and I greatly esteem your democratic life and your public spirit. We italians can learn this from you, but I think that public health care, job laws are superior in Europe.
And these laws are very close to the catholic social teaching.
I mean sometimes Italian views are superior, sometimes are superior the americans, I didn’t refer to ESCR.
I don’t understand your (American’s, not Paul’s) obsession with abortion and embryons.
“I don’t understand your…obsession with abortion and embryos.”
Because that is part of Catholic social teaching also.
I don’t understand your (American’s, not Paul’s) obsession with abortion and embryons.
I’m not quite sure whose obsession you mean.
America, perhaps unlike Europe, is place that is and has always been obsessed with rights. Property rights, the rights of the people to keep & bear arms, free speech rights, freedom of religion rights, the Bill of Rights.
Our political language as always been about rights. The right to own property in slaves vs. the right to be free. The right to choose abortion vs. the right to life.
So in America, pretty much whenever a group wants something, they try to make it out as a “right” that others must respect.
In 1973, again I think unlike in Europe, the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion to be a right, one that can be infringed under only the most extreme circumstances. In practice, abortion is available throughout all nine months of a pregnancy, and was only recently outlawed during birth.
I think it was a year or two ago that the British parliament debated whether to change their abortion law; Britain forbids abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy (that may be wrong, if so someone here will doubtless correct me). The proposal was debated to change this to 20 weeks, given medical advances and survival of infants born earlier and earlier in pregnancy.
Such a debate couldn’t happen in the U.S. Congress, because abortion is a right. The fetus has no rights that a born person is obligated to respect.
Both reason and faith, science and theology tell us that life begins at the moment of conception. But U.S. law holds that we do not and cannot know when life begins.
My understanding is that in Europe, it’s just a question of how much regulation you’ll have of abortion, as on all other topics.
In the U.S. it’s a battle about fundamental rights: life vs. privacy. Every concession or regulation is seen — rightly so, I think — as another step on a slippery slope that will presently be used to justify the next concession or regulation.
That’s why Americans seem so convicted about these issues, and why our positions seem so extreme. If I admit that abortion in the case of rape is OK, then I have to admit that abortion can be OK. And I can’t admit that. If a pro-abort admits that partial-birth (and in the case of our president, even post-birth) abortion is not OK, that means that some abortions are not OK.
Once his nose is under the wall of the tent, the rest of the camel will follow.
Meanwhile thousands of innocents are lost to abortion in our country every day; a million and a half per year. For me at least, this lends a sense of urgency to the abortion issue that I cannot find in myself for any other issue.
Yes Philip
but the choice is not between legal abortion and no abortion at all,but between legal abortion and illegal abortion.
So I’m happy to live here where abortions are provided by public health care, are free, and are every year fewer.
but the choice is not between legal abortion and no abortion at all,but between legal abortion and illegal abortion.
So I’m happy to live here where abortions are provided by public health care, are free, and are every year fewer.
The choice is not between legal bank robbery and no bank robbery at all, but between legal bank robbery and illegal bank robbery.
So I’m happy to live where bank robbers are protected and safe, and more every year fewer.
What Abraham Lincoln said of slavery, I say of abortion, “if this is not wrong, then nothing is.”
Must we abolish every law that people break, lest there be too many criminals?
Henry:
Obviously, I think this is a bad decision by President Obama, but it really is a non-issue; both Republicans and Democrats were working to make this happen no matter who was elected. It is not “thanks to Obama,” and to put it in his hands is to ignore the reality, and I fear, to find a way to excuse one’s own guilt in what happens in America. We are all guilty, …
You keep pushing this nonsense, and you shouldn’t. People are responsible for what they actually choose to do. “Someone else would have done it anyway if I didn’t do it” is no excuse, at all, ever. Furthermore, acts of speech directed at deflecting criticism of the President on this issue are, themselves, new acts for which people will ultimately be accountable.
If John McCain had been elected and done this, and I agree that he probably would have, then McCain voters and especially McCain himself would bear responsibility for it. Even more, McCain voters who attempted in speech acts to minimisze the issue and deflect responsibility would bear additional responsibility for those acts. “Obama would have done it anyway, so everyone no matter how they voted or how else they acted is equally responsible for this” would have been false excuse-mongering coming from them just as much as it is false excuse-mongering coming from you now.
People who supported and voted for Obama, and who are going out of their way to deflect criticism of him on the point now, bear the bulk of the responsibility for this. People who supported and voted for Obama but are fighting him tooth and nail on the point, who do not make excuses and who support those who oppose this unequivocally, not so much.
Much as I disagree often with Policratus, his approach to these things has integrity; yours and MM’s, not so much.
Zippy
If your words had any indication that you actually understood and represented my own position properly, and that you had, before this time, shown any intellectual comprehension of the issues at hand, perhaps I would take your statement about my position having no integrity seriously. As it is… babble away.
Mary,
Then the Italian laws are far from Catholic social teaching.
Paul
at the referendum I voted to keep abortion legal.The italian abortion law is a very good law.I don’t want to live in a country where abortion is illegal.
When in Italy abortion was illegal it was never considered a murder, so your example about robbery…
Paul would you allow for Abortions in case of Rape/Incest and for medical reasons?
As you know a clear majority of your fellow proud American citizens and of your catholic brothers and sisters would.
Most scientist and a clear majority of citizens support Stem Cell Research – if it would be otherwise you can be assured Obama would not have touched the issue with a pole. For those of us who actually find it morally acceptable that a raped and/or sexually abused women and/or a women in danger of loosing her life has the right to choose it is not that difficult to envision morally very acceptable forms to conduct potentially life saving stem cell research.
The fact that such a clear majority emerged should have profound consequences for the churches somewhat antiquated ‘Natural Law’ line of arguments by the way.
I voted to keep abortion legal… I don’t want to live in a country where abortion is illegal.
That sounds pretty pro-abortion to me. What were you saying about Catholic social justice teaching?
When in Italy abortion was illegal it was never considered a murder
So Mary, because it wasn’t considered murder under the law, that means that it really wasn’t murder?
Got it. The King is not a tyrant in Pennsylvania (c.f. 1776) and abortion is not murder in Italy.
I don’t want to live in a country where abortion is illegal.
How would you feel about being conceived in a country where abortion is legal?
People who support abortion rights never seem to consider the issue from the perspective of the unborn.
“When in Italy abortion was illegal it was never considered a murder”
There was a time when in Germany, Killing a Jew was likewise also not considered Murder.
I guess Murder only happens when a person (or another) actually think it is.
Another sad illustration of how Relativism (not Truth) Rules!
I’m pro-choice, yes.
And I go daily Mass and I receive Communion. Here the huge part of catholic people have my same opinion.We never spoke about this in my parish, but if at the end of the Mass I’d say aloud what I wrote above certainly nobody matters.
I hope abortions are every day fewer, but meanwhile I want to have an legal abortion law.
I gotta ask.
Mary, why do you want “fewer” abortions? If abortion is to be legal, isn’t it a good thing? After all, as you pointed out, it’s not murder. In Italy.
What, in your view, is wrong with abortion to cause you to want fewer of them?
As to the communion thing, you and I have already resolved that question; support for abortion rights is not sinful. The whole world knows this, except some of us stupid Americans.
No Grega, I would not. Life begins at conception. Humans have an inherent right to life.
What’s hard about this?
Life begins at conception. Humans have an inherent right to life.
What’s hard about this?
Paul,
I would say that there are three hard things. First, many people honestly and sincerely don’t believe a fertilized egg or even an early embryo or fetus is a human person. Second, perhaps unfortunately, the commandment was “Thou shalt not murder” rather than “thou shalt not kill.” So even the Catholic Church has justified killing in self-defense (the most understandable), capital punishment, and killing in war. And third, if you stick to your guns, there are gut-wrenching cases, like the recent case in Brazil. Perhaps you would feel perfectly comfortable telling a 9-year-old girl raped by her step-father that she must bear his twins. It may be a no-brainer for you, but I think most people would disagree.
The good archbishop seems to believe what so many other pro-lifers seem to believe. The unborn don’t merely have a right to life. They have more of a right to life than the rest of us! “Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult.”
It may be a no-brainer for you, but I think most people would disagree.
Clarification. I did not mean to say most people would disagree with the decision (even though I certainly believe that), but rather to say most people would disagree, in this case, with your comment, “What’s hard about that?”
Any idea why Obama did away with research on adult stem cells?
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2786.html
Here the huge part of catholic people have my same opinion.
A perfect example of the effects of secularization in post-Christian Eurabia.
David, I don’t deny that there are hard cases. But frankly, they’re exceptionally rare.
From your repeated appeals to what “most people” or even “most pro-lifers” (how you define “pro-lifer” is unclear to me), it appears that you discern your morality based on what’s popular.
Me, I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m a walking, talking, blogging sign of contradiction.
Any idea why Obama did away with research on adult stem cells?
Why yes, I do have an idea about that. Adult stem cell research doesn’t desensitize people to abortion. Embryonic stem cell research does.
Jeff
we have this opinion since 1975 when we haven’t muslim people here.
I really don’t understand the stem cell debate at all. Recent research shows that stem cells can be made from skin cells. Why do people be want to destroy babies? I just don’t get it.
Last November saw that huge advance in stem cell research when scientists announced they had found a way to produce the biological equivalent of embryonic stem cells without creating, using, or destroying any human embryos. They’ve refined their techniques in the last year and last week’s success was just the latest to be revealed.
So given we are able to completely sidestep all of the moral and ethical concerns about destroying human embryos and still have all that “scientific promise” of breakthrough cures, why does Obama chose to keep on destroying embryos?
Does anyone else see the danger in Obama’s statement about cloning. The president only said he opposes “reproductive cloning” but was obviously just fine with human cloning for purposes of experimenting on the unborn.
I do think all people need to start speaking out against IVF. – It’s the same slippery slope.
Paul
I want fewer abortions obviously because fetus will be a human person, but I don’t think a woman must give birth in all cases.
I hope too a very good contraception to avoid pregnancy. And Catholic church maybe must chose between artificial contraception an abortion.
From your repeated appeals to what “most people” or even “most pro-lifers” (how you define “pro-lifer” is unclear to me), it appears that you discern your morality based on what’s popular.
Paul,
We’re talking about funding research in a democracy where the majority of the people approve of it and do not consider it immoral. I would certainly not argue that what is popular is always good or moral, but I would argue that in a democracy, the will of the people is extraordinarily important.
If the debate about ESCR was really about curing diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes and the like, then the tremendous and overwhelming success that adult stem cells, especially skin cells have had in pursuing goals like these would be widely celebrated. Federal research money for the use of adult stem cells would be poured into research facilities with the kind of reckless abandon.
But the fact that ESCR is still pursued with such tenacity when it has not been shown to produce ANY cures even in countries whose ideas of ethics are far more obnoxious than our own and where this research has been conducted for years is just proof of two things:
1) that a certain segment of our population is completely convinced that they are far too special to grow old and die and that ESCR is the key to giving them the eternal youth that endless plastic surgery can only imitate
and
2) that admitting even for a moment that it’s unseemly to cannibalize unborn children for this sort of research is tantamount to admitting that human embryos are, well, human, and that killing them either in early abortions or in inhumane and disgusting “research” might possibly be morally problematic–something a fair amount of our citizens would almost rather die than admit, except that they’re way too special to grow old and die, etc.
We’re talking about funding research in a democracy where the majority of the people approve of it and do not consider it immoral.
The majority also approved of the Iraq invasion when it began.
Certainly the will of the people is important. It can also be wrong.
we have this opinion since 1975 when we haven’t muslim people here.
Mary, sorry for the confusion. I blame Europe’s acceptance of abortion on the success of secularism, not on the Muslim invasion. The Islamicization of Europe is also due to the secularization of Europe and the concomitant embracing of multiculturalism. These are both signs of the post-Christian mindset in Europe. One can be a Catholic (Italy), or a Lutheran (Germany,Norway,Sweden) and see nothing wrong with abortion or homosexuality. The U.S. is on the same trajectory, but about 10 years behind.
The truth is that before this week the private sector could do all of the embryonic stem-call research they wanted. And they did and it has improved unsuccessful. The only change is now taxpayers are being forced to be part of this evil.
Embryonic stem-cells have major immune system problems, that is why adult stem-cell research actually has lead to cures since they are using the patient’s own stem-cells.
As for the bit about cloning, reproductive cloning iscreating a clone and allowing it to live but therapeutic cloning (clone and kill) will be totally allowed. If you follow embryonic stem-call research you find that the majority of the research is in creating a clone and killing it and not using human beings created via IVF.
I want fewer abortions obviously because fetus will be a human person, but I don’t think a woman must give birth in all cases.
Will be? The fetus will be a human person? What is it before that?
If it’s not yet a human person, why not abort it?
Contraception, eh?
And you’re Catholic because… what? You like the music?
Obviously, it’s not the truth of Catholic teaching that brings you around.
What else has the Church got wrong? The Real Presence? The Resurrection?
So given we are able to completely sidestep all of the moral and ethical concerns about destroying human embryos and still have all that “scientific promise” of breakthrough cures, why does Obama chose to keep on destroying embryos?
This paragraph and the article it is from answer some of your questions.
In order to make sure the artificially created “stem cells” work like the real thing, you have to compare them to the real thing. Consequently, scientist must continue to work with embryonic stem-cells for a time in order to make sure the artificial ones are true replacements.
Why do people be want to destroy babies?
Notice the part I boldfaced. Federal funding will not be used to “destroy babies.” Obama is making a compromise similar to Bush’s. Both Obama and Bush allowed federally funded research on existing stem-cell lines. It’s just that when Bush made his decision, there weren’t very many of them. (There is, of course, a difference, in that presumably the private sector can continue to create new stem-cell lines, and those can be used in federally funded research.)
Does anyone else see the danger in Obama’s statement about cloning. The president only said he opposes “reproductive cloning” but was obviously just fine with human cloning for purposes of experimenting on the unborn.
I wouldn’t agree with the way you put it, but I would agree that banning “reproductive cloning” does not ban artificially creating something that could, theoretically, be implanted in a womb and grow to be a human being.
Would God infuse a soul in a human clone? What if scientists try and try and try to create a human clone, and for some inexplicable reason they don’t get a human being when it has worked with mice and sheep and cats? A human soul is “immediately” created by God (meaning not “right away,” but rather as a direct act performed by God himself). Is he already “cooperating” by infusing souls when scientists in the lab transplant the nucleus of a human somatic cell into a hollowed out egg cell?
Mary, before receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ again (you do believe that’s what he Eucharist is, right?), I strongly urge you to read what the Church teaches on abortion and to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
David, every time you write I am reminded of ol’ Uncle Screwtape.
The truth is that before this week the private sector could do all of the embryonic stem-call research they wanted. And they did and it has improved unsuccessful. The only change is now taxpayers are being forced to be part of this evil.
This is why it is so exciting that scientists are on the verge of creating from adult skin cells the biological equivalent of embryonic stem cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS. In the future, unsuccessful embryonic stem-cell research can be abandoned in favor of unsuccessful induced-pluripotent-stem-cell research, and researchers can waste their time and the taxpayers’ money working on a substitute, when the real thing didn’t pan out.
“…but I would argue that in a democracy, the will of the people is extraordinarily important.”
The Will of the people is more important than what is Just & True?
No wonder Plato abhorred the concept of democracy altogether considering the utter stupidity of the general populace and how easily they are so influenced.
In other words, so long as the Will of the People so declares, even Evil can be called Good.
To people as these, one can only simply lament the sorry state of the world and reference the words uttered in Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good”.
David –
thank you for response and article link…. educational but a sad read.
David, every time you write I am reminded of ol’ Uncle Screwtape.
alex,
Now you know that’s not accurate. The last time you wrote, I was reminding you of Judas. Now I see I have progressed to reminding you of a demon.
To quote MM blah, blah, blah, you’re a calvinist, republicans (THEM) are bad, democrats (US) are good. Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, and you are consequentialists.
MM – it’s interesting that you say you voted for obama konwing he supports evils, but his evils will be outweighed by his supposed advantages. How is this not consequentialism on your part?
For all of your “us vs. them” blabber, you sure like to separate people into “calvinist” and “republican” groups…
Right Henry. You are just so deep, and wise, and learned, that it is just impossible for the poor plebes to tell that your position has no integrity.
This is why it is so exciting that scientists are on the verge of creating from adult skin cells the biological equivalent of embryonic stem cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS.
Yeah, but look what steps Obama also just took on that front.
Right Henry. You are just so deep, and wise, and learned,……
Actually, Zippy, he is. You could learn from him, if you ever tired of being a huckster whose sole qualification to speak on these matters seems to derive from having read two of JP2′s encyclicals. But your disdain for learning is so very American, so very predictable, and so very boring.
I know I’ve asked you guys before, but I never get an answer…
Is the level of contempt exchanged here really as deep as it seems, or is this all tongue in cheek?
Can we all agree on one thing: that the contempt is “their” fault?
But your disdain for learning …
Now THAT was really funny!
Is the level of contempt exchanged here really as deep as it seems,
Yes.
or is this all tongue in cheek?
No.
People here like to throw around labels and call other people bad things like “calvinist” or “american bigot” or “consequentialist” or “jerk” or “republicatholic”
And those are all just from so-called contributors. Apparently they take the “high road” and work in the lofty heights of pure philosophical and theological genius where insults and cracker jack wisdom have no place… hmm
Both reason and faith, science and theology tell us that life begins at the moment of conception. But U.S. law holds that we do not and cannot know when life begins.
“Reason” does NOT tell us something like “life begins at conception,” since the most recent scientific data tells us that we cannot even IDENTIFY the “moment” of conception (as sperm seem to fight each other for entry to an egg over a period of possibly as long as 24 hours), and the “moment of conception” has gone back to being a 24-hour-long MYSTERY during which an abortion-inducing drug would NOT be “killing” an embryo. The Church’s “faith teaching” that “life begins at conception” was one informed by 20th-century science (and the justifiable fear of the eugenics policies of 20th century totalitarianism), and it was completely reasonable and noble in the context of 20th century science. However, just as it DOES represent a modification of the beliefs regarding “en-soulment” of Augustine and Aquinas, it most certainly CAN be altered again by the magisterium of the Church, to make the principles of Catholic moral theology fit new evidence.
My understanding is that in Europe, it’s just a question of how much regulation you’ll have of abortion, as on all other topics.
In the U.S. it’s a battle about fundamental rights: life vs. privacy. Every concession or regulation is seen — rightly so, I think — as another step on a slippery slope that will presently be used to justify the next concession or regulation.
PLEASE notice the use of words like “fundamental” and “slippery slope,” OVER and OVER AGAIN, by what MM calls “American Calvinists.” He’s exactly correct, and, if these people who write here constantly and whom he refers to in this way would just STUDY the history of the Church which they presume to think has thrown them some kind of life-buoy to save them from being buffeted by the winds of modernity’s hard choices, they would discover that they are imbued with the spirit of Protestant fundamentalism BECAUSE of that “Americanized” and popular form of “Calvinism” they so resent being associated with.
Yes, they SAY they believe in the “Real Presence” and they SAY they adhere to the “infallibility” of their precious papal fetish in Rome–never understanding how those dogmas were fashioned and re-fashioned again and again throughout history.
What they DON’T understand, and what would curdle their blood, if they actually KNEW anything about it, is what “Mary,” from Europe (an actually IMPERMEABLY Catholic culture NO MATTER how much it has become “secularized”) understands so well: the one thing truly different about the Catholic Church which makes it different from EVERY SINGLE OTHER form of Christianity, is that it has a PERMANENT LICENSE from CHRIST Himself to change its mind about things; it is, as John Henry Newman clearly implies, in The Development of Doctrine the most perfectly neo-Hegelian dialectic that has ever been devised in human history, BECAUSE of its implicit claim not to be in “possession” of the Truth, but to be continually “guided” by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, through a time-and-space-bound continuum, in a “quest” that leads to “discovery” of the fullest Revelation of the “Truth” that, by dint of fallen human nature and circumstance, must be gradually teased out of the Gospels.
The notion that everything is “black and white,” that there are knowable “saved” and unsaved,” that the “Gospels mean what they say,” that one century’s “Truth” is another century’s “Truth,” each and every one of them applicable to each and every human circumstance, no matter how arbitrarily plucked from context–all of these are Protestant and FUNDAMENTALIST notions, and they are in REVOLT against the sacramental and Catholic view of religious life as being lived most successfully in communion with a “Body of Christ” that is as much physical, cultural, artistic and linguistic, as it is doctrinal, intellectual or textual.
What I think MM means by “American Calvinist” is a characterisation of a sect that is legalistic and prescriptive, because of Calvin’s historic separation of the “sheep from the goats,” rather than sacramental, holistic and eternally forgiving.
Abortion is terrible, yes, but losing the spirit of Catholicism is more terrible, and it is lost in North America.
The notion that everything is “black and white,” that there are knowable “saved” and unsaved,” that the “Gospels mean what they say,” that one century’s “Truth” is another century’s “Truth,” each and every one of them applicable to each and every human circumstance, no matter how arbitrarily plucked from context–all of these are Protestant and FUNDAMENTALIST notions,
Thanks for the aquittal. None of these statements describe what I believe.
Abortion is terrible, yes, but losing the spirit of Catholicism is more terrible,
In fact, there’s a whole list of things that are more terrible than abortion, aren’t there?
The “spirit of Catholicism” is nothing more than a shorthand construct that allows you to decide who is and is not Catholic without reference to the actual teachings of the Church, or the actual faith of the people under consideration. It’s a tool for dissenters, like Mary. And you?
MM
The problem is that Zippy is not interested in honest dialogue, but scoring points via strawmen. Look how he characterized my statement as a defense of Obama’s action. How anyone can say that, if they read my words, is beyond me. Once they do that, I will let them babble on. They are not interested in anything else.
alex Martin
” I urge you to receive the sacrament of the reconciliation” why???? I haven’t aborted. I think is good to have an abortion law and to keep is legal. My pastor knows very well my opinion, opinion shared by all the congregation. I don’t think I’m in mortal sin and I will continue to receive Comunion.
You American people are more catholic than the Pope.
Look how he characterized my statement as a defense of Obama’s action.
I looked. I don’t see him characterizing your statement as a defense of Obama’s action.
I see him characterizing your statement as an attempt to deflect criticism aimed at Obama, and I see him criticizing your attempt.
His criticism of your attempt may or may not be sound, but his characterization of your comments is entirely reasonable.
Tom:
How is a charge of “you are deflecting criticism” not a charge of “you are defending”? Please, explain that to me? What is the purpose of making such a charge? It is quite incorrect; I’ve not deflected criticism from Obama, either. I’ve suggested something entirely different. If people would actually pay attention, it would be nice. Moreover, it is clear that his comment comes out of the false belief that I’m someone who “voted for and supported,” Obama, an error easily discerned if he read my comments not only in this thread, but throughout the year (a multitude of times); the whole comment, with its false basis, proves how ridiculous it is. Which again is the issue — he is coming in, without reading my words, and makes things up as he goes along. Therefore, I would suggest, if you want to add to the babble, go ahead. I have given you one chance here; if you continue with such babble, I won’t find your comment worth responding to, because it is nonsense, just like Zippy’s.
I’ve not deflected criticism from Obama, either. I’ve suggested something entirely different.
What you actually said was:
Obviously, I think this is a bad decision by President Obama, but it really is a non-issue; both Republicans and Democrats were working to make this happen no matter who was elected. It is not “thanks to Obama,” and to put it in his hands is to ignore the reality, and I fear, to find a way to excuse one’s own guilt in what happens in America. We are all guilty, …
Now, either you are incapable of seeing that your own words propose to deflect criticism from Obama, or you do see it and refuse to acknowledge as much. Either way, the person who seems to have a problem with your words is you, not those of us who understand that your words in fact propose to deflect criticism from Obama.
Oh and this, by the way:
Moreover, it is clear that his comment comes out of the false belief that I’m someone who “voted for and supported,” Obama, …
… is just flatly false.
It is not necessary to assume that you voted for and supported Obama in order to conclude what is obvious: that your words in this thread in fact propose to deflect criticism from Obama.
Henry:
You’ve attempted to deflect criticism from Obama to Bush:
“Thus, if I were to write the headline, I would write, Obama increases Bush’s federal funding for ESCR.”
You’ve attempted to deflect it from Obama to the Republican Party:
“The Republicans, right or wrong, claimed Bush was the first, and Clinton was the one who opposed, and used this to show the world why they thought Bush was better! Nice to see how the Republicans forget. Will they go to confession, telling their priest they voted for someone who actively embraced ESCR? I doubt it.”
You’ve attempted to deflect it from Obama to nowhere at all:
“Obviously, I think this is a bad decision by President Obama, but it really is a non-issue….”
You’ve attemtped to deflect it from Obama to every American:
“We are all guilty, our system encourages this.”
Henry, I believe that the suggestion that you were deflecting criticism from Obama is concluded from your characterization that the step taken by Obama is merely a continuation of what Bush started. As I have pointed out, while you are technically correct with regard to the specific aspect of the federal government funding ESCR, I believe that this is a serious mischaracterization of the change that Obama is implementing and the Democrats for Life statement would seem to agree. Such an overt mischaracterization could be interpreted as a deflection of criticism.
That would be very different than defending Obama. A defense would have supported the decision and you clearly do not support it.
Jeff
If I saw two people who do wrong, and one is only blamed, how does pointing out the second person is also guilty deflect the blame from the one who was already charged with the action? It doesn’t. Seeing the greater picture is not a deflection, but a necessary step in order for there to be any real change.
If I saw two people who do wrong, and one is only blamed, …
Bush did not in fact do the new wrong that Obama did, which is to fund new destruction of embryos. So not only are you refusing to take responsibility for your own words; you are also committing calumny.
Bush did not in fact do the new wrong that Obama did, which is to fund new destruction of embryos.
Zippy,
Don’t facts count for anything?
Obama has not funded new destruction of embryos. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is still in effect:
Obama is pretty much doing the same thing Bush did — allowing federal money to be spent on research using existing stem-cell lines. It’s just that when Bush made that compromise, there were very few stem-cell lines in existence. Now there are over 1000.
Now, some Democrats in congress have talked about revisiting the Dickey-Wicker amendment. If you don’t want the federal government to fund destruction of embryos, you will try to prevent congress from deciding not to renew the Dickey-Wicker amendment. But you are incorrect to say that Obama has funded new destruction of embryos. It was not within his power to do so.
Those who are saying Bush began the whole thing are correct:
Bush did not in fact do the new wrong that Obama did, which is to fund new destruction of embryos. So not only are you refusing to take responsibility for your own words; you are also committing calumny.
Bush did not fund the destruction of embryos, but neither did Obama. You are just wrong on this issue. Say “Dickey-Wicker” five times fast. It’s fun to say, and it’s the relevant piece of legislation you are ignoring.
Henry:
You’re right, of course, that more than one person can be blamed at any given time.
What you’re missing, though, is that to add people to the list of those being criticized at a particular time is to deflect criticism from those already on the list. Time and effort spent criticizing the additional people are time and effort no longer spent criticizing the original people.
Under the new executive order, and completely congruent with Dickey-Wicker, the biotech firms can destroy the embryos then apply for funding. Because, legally speaking, tax money isn’t being used to destroy embryos. Which is exactly what Obama is going to fund, lines from embryos destroyed since 2001. D-W is not bad, but it is and will be surmounted.
They couldn’t do this under Bush, being limited to lines from embryonic human life destroyed prior to August 2001.
False!
Take out the “directly,” David, and he’s dead on. Actually, it depends on what your definition of “directly” is.
You aren’t acknowledging the fact this incentivizes destruction of embryos, thus meaning embryos will be destroyed as a result. This is the same semantic shell game played with the Mexico City policy and the funding of Planned Parenthood. The destination is the same, regardless of how many lights you have to go thorough first: destruction of human life.
Take out the “directly,” David, and he’s dead on.
Dale,
Then why did he say “directly”?
Actually, it depends on what your definition of “directly” is.
Please.
You aren’t acknowledging the fact this incentivizes destruction of embryos, thus meaning embryos will be destroyed as a result.
Actually, I don’t think we know all the details and the guidelines that will govern what will govern who gets federal funding. But granting for the sake of argument that you are correct, why not make that argument instead of falsely claiming the government will now be directly funding the destruction of embryos?
I have my own opinions of what is right and what is wrong about embryonic stem cell research, but what I have been asking in this thread is for people to to respect the facts.
I am curious… What have each of you actively done personally to protest (if you disagree with it) Obama’s expansion of embryotic stem cell research and reduction in funding for adult stem cell research? prayer? fasting? protest letter to the president? to your congressperson? what??
Or is this group just about whining? I would like to see more discussion of points and less name-calling and ad homem attacks. Maybe that’s just me.
For me the underlying issues are beyond the particualr reach of this president or that president.
At the core of our free modern western societies is our deep held believe that we very much should attempt to step out of the rather narrow confines of ‘natural law’ and the confined theological and philosophical musings and actively attempt to probe and discover what this wondrous place is actually made off.
Most scripture based Religions unfortunately tend to get a bit uncomfortable with that concept and vocal influential fractions within many Religions attempt to restrict such freewheeling desires – all the dogmas in the world however will not be able to stop Science from going places. Perhaps adult stem cell research will proof to be the preferred method in the end – but until this has been pondered and fully explored we will not know. The majority deeply desires to know.
That is why we had private financed stem cell research step in when President Bush followed his moral compass- for those around here that oppose stem cell research yet somehow find it important to tack something on Bush and the Republicans in my view you can say whatever you want about Bush – but he did succeed in installing within his sphere of influence a good number of true restrictions.
As Roger Simons on put it:” Some centuries ago, they didn’t like Galileo saying the Earth revolved around the sun, and they got him to recant (and spend the rest of his life under house arrest). That wasn’t good for science, but it was just fine for the Inquisition.
Monday, Obama said, in effect, modern inquisitions were over. He said scientists must be “free from manipulation and coercion.”
I found his commentary good and honest.
http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/
Plenty of Catholics fully support Obama and most leading Scientist and want to restore Science to it’s rightful place within our society.
The muddling of the born again crowd hurt more than it helped.
Kathleen Parker has written an excellent column today on Obama’s stem cell policy at http://tinyurl.com/dnzobp. Here’s the crux of her argument:
“In fact, every single one of the successes in treating patients with stem cells thus far — for spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, for example — have involved adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic. And though federal dollars still won’t directly fund embryo destruction, federally funded researchers can obtain embryos privately created only for experimentation. Thus, taxpayers now are incentivizing a market for embryo creation and destruction.”
RE: Henry Karlson’s Allegedly Exculpatory Pro-Obama Comments
I’ve already taken Henry to task concerning his past comments earlier on in this thread:
You seem so determined to exculpate Obama from his crimes that you have gone to the very point of justifying his abominable acts to the extent of basically saying “We already began murdering the restricted few people (i.e., embryos) under George W. Bush; killing more of the innocent doesn’t really matter. This is a non-issue.” (March 10, 2009 at 11:34 am )
- and -
Also, among other things apparent in these discussions, it seems to me like sheer evasion to simply deflect the seriousness of such a crime as this by diverting attention away from Obama’s evident guilt in the matter and towards Bush by saying, “Well Bush started it first, so don’t blame Obama”. (March 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm )
To which, Henry Karlson himself has already made reply to accordingly; whether or not one finds them sufficient would seem an entirely different matter altogether.
Yet, curiously, in view of the history of Zippy’s own comments at his blog (re: our civic liturgy that has been but an exercise in compromise, the Hegelian Mambo, the sources of meat exploited by both parties), I find it remarkably surprising that he does not actually find agreement with much of the things Henry Karlson has said within the body of this thread — for instance, that it isn’t actually Obama’s fault as much as it is the Republican party’s given its equally deplorable demeanor regarding the treatment of Pro-Life issues during the height of its own political reign.
Katerina, PLEASE, they don’t NEED the “incentive”; the “incentive” is coming fast and strong already from the selfish “coupled” partakers of in vitro fertilization, whom most of the people on this thread REFUSE to condemn and who wish to blame OBAMA et. al., instead.
It’s just ridiculous that American Catholics REFUSE to acknowledge this elephant in their own godless, Protestantized society’s living room!
The problem is, David, we do know this:
1. The government will be funding research into embryos destroyed since August 2001. Unlike Bush’s order, it sets no limits, apart from the ban on reproductive cloning which is seemingly irrelevant to ESCR.
Obama’s EO doesn’t even mention D-W.
2. By its terms, D-W does not prohibit research into lines destroyed prior to the funding request. If it did Obama’s entire EO would be as meaningless as his cloning ban.
3. The reproductive cloning ban is meaningful in this sense–it sets a guideline for what kind of cloning is acceptable. Thus, in conjunction with the above, it is difficult to see what kind of line drawing wil
4. On the same day Obama liberated science from the shackles of dogma (a/k/a offered a stimulus package to biotech corporations), he also rescinded the 2007 Bush EO funding non-destructive pluripotent stem cell research. There’s a signal for you.
All the incentives are one way–toward the destruction of embryonic human life. And you are flyspecking bishops’ statements in response.
You are straining at gnats and swallowing the camel herd. Show your cards–where do you stand on ESCR?
Oops–sentence fragment:
“…it is difficult to se what kind of line drawing will disincentivize embryo destruction.”
Oh, and FWIW, I am opposed to IVF, even as I sympathize with the pain of childlessness. At a minimum, I would require that anyone participating in it be required to offer the “extras” (God help us) up for adoption.
How IVF exonerates Obama’s actions is less clear, but there you go.
Of course it doesn’t “exonerate Obama’s actions,” but Obama is merely the representative of majority opinion in a barbarous, pagan society.
What it does is incriminate–at least by Catholic religious standards–the vast majority of people in the United States who see nothing wrong with IVF and who are pleased to ignore the suffering of the non-adopted.
dd: It appears we are in complete agreement.
What it does is incriminate–at least by Catholic religious standards–the vast majority of people in the United States who see nothing wrong with IVF and who are pleased to ignore the suffering of the non-adopted.
It incriminates the majority of American people who supported Obama, although they knew he would be deaf to the cries of the unborn, because they had other priorities.
Obama’s expansion of embryonic stem cell research and reduction in funding for adult stem cell research . . .
nathan,
You may think this is nit picking, but Obama didn’t reduce funding for any kind of research. Obama did rescind Executive Order 13435, which was not solely about promoting funding for research on adult stem cells, but about any non-embryo-destructive stem cell research. At the moment, research on iPS cells is hot, because it can take cells from an adult and transform them into the equivalent of the adult’s own embryonic stem cells. This is very important, because it does away with the problem of the body rejecting another person’s cells. So if it all works out, in the future, individuals can be treated with their very own cells, transformed to work like stem cells.
A lot of people are asking why Obama didn’t say he would emphasize this area of research. The problem with that is that there is general agreement in what I have read recently that the only way to test and perfect iPS cells, which will someday make embryonic stem cells unnecessary, is to compare them and test them to authentic embryonic stem cells. So the only way to get to useable non-embryo destructive iPS cells is to continue research on them alongside embryonic stem cells.
What Obama has done is actually a boost, in the long run, for non-embryo-destructive stem cells. However, it comes at the price of continued research, for a time, with embryonic stem cells. The Catholic position is no doubt that if getting to non-embryo-destructive stem cells requires even limited further research on embryonic stem cells, then the goal should be abandoned. Obviously Obama doesn’t agree with that, but it is not the case that Obama is trying to divert all research to embryonic stem cells. What he has done is extremely helpful for researchers trying to find alternatives to using embryonic stem cells.
David N – Yes, it’s a little nit-picking but that’s okay. Nuances are important in these types of discussions.
I would like to return to my other question – as catholics what are people on this blog doing about this? Yes, I can, like everyone else, whine about how I believe this is wrong and argue with those who disagree with me but what about faith in action? The Pope Benedict XVI quote on the about us page of this blog says, “the direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity.” what can we do?
I am reminded of the quote by Elie Wiesel,
Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate, “What hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander.”
. . . he also rescinded the 2007 Bush EO funding non-destructive pluripotent stem cell research. There’s a signal for you.
Dale,
I disagree with that statement, and my last message above dealt with it at length.
All the incentives are one way–toward the destruction of embryonic human life.
I don’t believe this to be true, either. As I said above, the hot area of research at the moment is induced pluripotent stem cells. They are the ultimate goal of researchers, and they seem to be close to being a reality. However, they require further research alongside embryonic stem cells. That can now more easily be done.
We do not yet have NIH guidelines for researchers getting government funding. I also don’t know (do you?) how many embryonic stem-cell lines, beyond the 1000 already in existence, will be needed or wanted.
What I am saying at the moment is that it is easy to mischaracterize what Obama did and say he “extended the ability of the federal government to directly fund the destruction of embryonic human beings,” but that is untrue. It is a lot more difficult to make the argument that what he did will lead to a significant increase in private entities continuing embryo-destructive work to feed government researchers massive numbers of new stem-cell lines. We don’t know what NIH guidelines will be along those lines, and we don’t know what will happen even if those guidelines are very permissive.
I also agree with some of what Digby is saying about IVF. The excess embryos used to create embryonic stem-cell lines would be thrown in the trash or piling up in freezers even if there were no stem-cell research. There is this huge outcry against stem-cell research, but there is no outcry against the fact that fertility clinics create embryos that will wind up just as dead from other causes if they are not used in stem-cell research.
You are straining at gnats and swallowing the camel herd. Show your cards–where do you stand on ESCR?
I find it very difficult to believe that an embryo a few days old is a person with rights, so I do not object to embryonic stem-cell research on the grounds that it is taking human lives. Basically, I support embryonic stem-cell research, and I don’t think there is any way to stop it even if I wanted to. What worries me is what will be done with it.
I have my own opinions of what is right and what is wrong about embryonic stem cell research, but what I have been asking in this thread is for people to … respect the facts.
Please. (A pretty lame retort, I admit, but since that’s the quality of argumentation you’ve apparently been reduced to, let’s just run with it.) So given this steadfast respect for the facts, why not address Dale Price’s 11:00 post directly, instead of shifting the argument to the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend? Why not stipulate your ignorance of all the details and guidelines before all that oh-so relevant Dickey-Wickering?
Or do facts only matter, and rise to relevance, when they happen to support those mysterious opinions of yours?
The problem with that is that there is general agreement in what I have read recently that the only way to test and perfect iPS cells, which will someday make embryonic stem cells unnecessary, is to compare them and test them to authentic embryonic stem cells. So the only way to get to useable non-embryo destructive iPS cells is to continue research on them alongside embryonic stem cells.
Really? The “only way”? Really truly? What, do we have to make sure that regular stem cells are just as prone to teratomas as the embryonic kind before we decide to go with the former? Otherwise, they wouldn’t be sufficiently tumor-prone? A credible citation, please, for both of the above sentences — hopefully from someone ooutside the ESCT lobby.
All these “surely, Obama must mean this” rationalizations would sound much more convincing without the growing suspicion that David and his like are grasping are grasping at whatever is available, or else concocting them out of thin air.
Digbydolben,
“…but Obama is merely the representative of majority opinion in a barbarous, pagan society.”
Oh really?
How about your native England? How about your current host country Germany?
Actually as you know to a degree quite a few Germans are rather fond of their ‘barbaric’ pagan ancestors.
Americans barbaric? You should not forget that hose transatlantic “barbaric’ people had to safe your noble European behind from actual true murderous and barbaric folks. And arguably your native countries “noble” Imperial history is nothing to brag home about either – in another thread you expressed your fondness for the British monarchy , while I tend to agree with you rather often in this instance perhaps your emotional noble ideals cloud your opinions.
I also can not see why you think catholic culture is in particular bad shape around here – catholic culture is currently purged out of mainland europe.
That said, the issue of IVF is of course very important in this context and yes it is telling that some folks have no problem with IVF but scream bloddy murder when it comes to ESCR.
Yes our church is here very clear and consistent – but do not forget our men and women of the cloth are (for the most part) the kind of folks that make a virtue out of self imposed childlessness.
I trust that our society eventually will find the proper balance – sometimes that means one has to sniff out the various possibilities.
IVF for me is such an area.
We make this stuff up as we go – has it really been ever different throughout history?
Aus Fehlern wird man klug – as they say in Deutschland.
So given this steadfast respect for the facts, why not address Dale Price’s 11:00 post directly, instead of shifting the argument to the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend?
HA,
I did not address that post of Dale’s because I had no substantive quarrel with it. My post directly following his was not addressed to him. If it was addressed to anyone, it was addressed to Zippy, as an example of someone else saying, incorrectly, that Obama was having the government “directly” fund the destruction of embryos.
“What I am saying at the moment is that it is easy to mischaracterize what Obama did and say he “extended the ability of the federal government to directly fund the destruction of embryonic human beings,” but that is untrue. It is a lot more difficult to make the argument that what he did will lead to a significant increase in private entities continuing embryo-destructive work to feed government researchers massive numbers of new stem-cell lines. We don’t know what NIH guidelines will be along those lines, and we don’t know what will happen even if those guidelines are very permissive.”
Arguing by relying on such hypotheticals as “We don’t know what NIH guidelines will be along those lines, and we don’t know what will happen even if those guidelines are very permissive” does nothing to combat the substance of the argument that Obama had signed an executive order which purpose is geared towards exactly that.
“I also agree with some of what Digby is saying about IVF. The excess embryos used to create embryonic stem-cell lines would be thrown in the trash or piling up in freezers even if there were no stem-cell research. There is this huge outcry against stem-cell research, but there is no outcry against the fact that fertility clinics create embryos that will wind up just as dead from other causes if they are not used in stem-cell research.”
Because “excess embryos used to create embryonic stem-cell lines would be thrown in the trash or piling up in freezers if there were no stem-cell research”, we should, therefore, not let these all go to waste and simply devote them to destructive experimentation?
Also, attempting to distract from the main point that ESCR research is morally wrong through constant disingenuous shouts of “Well, how about IVF?” does nothing to refute this.
I did not address that post of Dale’s because I had no substantive quarrel with it.
No substantive quarrel? Please. Those keeping track can stack up your 9:39 and 9:42 post with Dale’s at 11:00. As for the “direct” funding of the destruction of embryos, Dale had that one pegged, too, in his next post.
Aside from the Screwtape analogy (not that I’d dispute it) I see your arguments to be more reminiscent of “did God really say to never eat the fruit of any tree in the garden?”, or else, “What is truth?”, if for no other reason than that the attempt to enlighten is so paper thin, in comparison with the effort to dissemble. It’s not that your arguments are lacking in sincerity, but then, for all we know, neither were those others.
Because “excess embryos used to create embryonic stem-cell lines would be thrown in the trash or piling up in freezers if there were no stem-cell research”, we should, therefore, not let these all go to waste and simply devote them to destructive experimentation?
Indeed. I mean, if all those twins are bound for the oven anyway, why not have them stop by Dr. Mengele’s office on the way? Is a particular disdain for the doctor a sign of unwillingness to address the larger issue of how those twins came to be part of his research es in the first place?
HA,
If you want to discuss embryonic stem-cell research, I am willing. If you just want to be sarcastic and to criticize me personally, feel free. But don’t expect me to respond.
First, as I mentioned before, I do not post here in order to bait a response, so if you would rather not answer, I will be neither offended nor disappointed.
Second, I worded my posts as best I could in order to make clear that I find deep flaws in your arguments, as opposed to finding them in you personally. Granted, the distinction is sometimes a fine one, but if you would rather we assume that your own accusations about spreading falsehoods and about disrespect of facts are directed at posts and not individuals, then I encourage you to make the same assumptions about my posts.
It’s just ridiculous that American Catholics REFUSE to acknowledge this elephant [IVF] in their own … living room.
However despicable IVF is, I don’t recall that it was voted into place by any of the Vox-Nova left, nor was opposition to it shouted down here as being divisive, unhelpful, racially motivated, and part of a failed strategy. The same cannot be said for Obama.
Now, if restrictions to IVF were indeed to come up for a vote, perhaps digby and MM and Gerald C. and the other Obama boosters here would indeed be leading the charge for the Catholic position. But I’ll believe that when I see it.
Grega, I am well aware of the secularization of the majority of European society. However, I also believe that the Christian remnant in Britain, France, Germany and Italy (the European countries I’m familiar with) are FAR more “Catholic” in temper, affinities and religious spirit than American Catholics are (and that includes, interestingly enough, the Lutherans of Germany and the Anglicans of Great Britain).
Now as for “HA,” “Zippy” and “Paul’s” caterwauling about “Obama supporters,” all I can say in defense of myself is that I supported Obama because I thought–and still do think (especially after listening to the resistance by the GOP to most of his policy measures) that he was very much the lesser of two evils.
Fair points digby. There is nothing to be ashamed of being a Obama supporter. He is not the Head of the Vatican but of a free secular modern vibrant society.
He governs well within the laws and constitution of this land. The man very much represents for the most parts what this fine Republic is “thinking” right now.
And yes that means that quite a few of us support the return to policies governed not by the gutt but by a deep appreciation for science.
If it turns out that adult stem cells are the ones most promissing to find cures or to generate new skin,organs etc. as some scientific data indeed indicates scientists will be the first one to fully embrace this. Most maintain that the scientific process can be conducted within an acceptable ethical framework.
I find it actually more cynical and questionable what happened during the Bush years – unaccountable privately financed embryonic stem cell research while perfectly ethical and very capable fine scientist had to sit on the sidelines.
So digbydolben, Obama was “very much the lesser of two evils,” therfore you’re content with him and his polices, and you feel no need to criticize him. Got it.
For anything bad he does (if it is bad), no better could be expected of him because Bush started it, and McCain would have done the same. Ergo, Obama is above reproach.
And Europe, the home of St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Edith Stein, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and many other martyrs, the birthplace of Protestantism, where abortion is not even a political issue, has Catholicism down far better than America could ever hope. Even the Lutherans and Anglicans. Understood.
Paul
“Europe where abortion is not even a political issue”
Obviously it is not a political issue.Do you think it is?
“Now I see I have progressed to reminding you of a demon.”
You would consider that a progression.
Obviously it is not a political issue.Do you think it is?
It is the dominant political issue in the United States today, affecting nearly every other political issue and alignment.
Every Supreme Court nominee is judged primarily — by both sides — on his likelihood of overturning Roe v. Wade, and on little else. The abortion issue affects our laws, our judiciary, our legislation, and our elections.
The United States was once wracked with the slavery issue in the same fashion. Today, it is abortion.
digbydolben considers Obama “very much the lesser of two evils”.
Even given Obama’s record where even fellow democrats themselves have accused him basically of infanticide?
“But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby“ because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.”
In light of digbydolben’s most recent comment, I now find the more likely reason why he has attempted to divert the whole discussion concerning Obama’s criminal act herein towards his red herring of IVF.
As for his disingenuous cries for a genuine Catholicism, digbydolben should perhaps himself engage in more thorough examination just what such ‘genuine’ Catholicism actually consists rather than the sinister & twisted form he so now subscribes thereto.
Paul
“the abortion affects our election”. Happily the majority of US people don’t think this,so you elected Obama.
The European people thank.
Don’t fool yourself Mary; abortion was a huge issue in the last election. Had he not supported abortion in such an extreme fashion, Obama could not have won the nomination, let alone been elected. The Democratic Party is the Party of Abortion.
“The Democratic Party is the Party of Abortion.”
That may very well be true; however, so shall the Republican Party.
Obama could not have won the nomination, let alone been elected. The Democratic Party is the Party of Abortion.
Paul,
Aren’t you in effect saying that Americans have chosen abortion democratically? One of the arguments that is sometimes made about abortion in America is that it wasn’t chosen democratically (as in countries that have had referendums), but rather imposed by the Supreme Court.
If the American people are in favor of abortion, how effective would reversing Roe v Wade be? Seventeen states permitted abortion prior to Roe. It seems to me that if Roe v Wade is reversed, it would be easier for states to go pro-choice than to go anti-abortion. Has anyone attempt to project state-by-state what abortion law would look like if Roe is reversed?
“Ari,” you are absolutely right, and I plead “guilty as charged”: I do NOT consider abortion OR embryonic stem cell research–or “gay marriage”–to be the paramount or defining issues for modern Catholicism.
Instead, I feel that the social and economic injustice and the abandonment of the ancient Christian standards for “just war,” both of which, in my opinion, contribute to the increasing instances of what disturb you the most, are of considerably greater importance.
The main reason that I SUPPORT your efforts–with all of my reasoning and debating skill, by the way–to change people’s minds and re-direct their behaviours regarding these issues so important to you (–not regarding “homosexual” unions, about which I differ with you and most others writing here–) is that I recognise that the disrespect for viable, self-sustaining human life is clearly related to the secularized, pagan culture’s contempt for nascent human life. But it’s also related to the culture’s disrespect for the environment, to fellow creatures, to “sacred spaces,” etc.
In our struggles against the “culture of death,” we all have our greater interests and priorities, but it seems to me that, rather than heaping contempt on each other’s peculiar concerns, we should try to see the commonalities and forge alliances.
That should have been, in the above: “…FOR fellow creatures,” and “…FOR ‘sacred spaces, etc.’”
digbydolen,
It’s amazing that instead of engaging me you found it much more convenient to resort to utter calumny — that you should deliberately proceed to manufacturing such reprehensible lies concerning myself — most especially given the fact that I’ve not ever actually commented at Vox Nova at all until recently.
Perhaps you should consult Henry Karlson’s recent series on the matter concerning the subject?
Though I must say, it’s not so terribly surprising given the context of most of your comments here that you should actually behave (or, rather, misbehave) in such a manner consistent to an already deplorable set of values conspicuously inconsistent with ancient Catholic Teaching and values.
In South Dakota, a republican State, all the referendums to ban or restrict abortion law was defeated.
I think a referendum in all the US (I know it is impossible) to outlaw abortion would be easily defeated as well.
I agree with David, American have chosen abortion democratically.
Ooopss — I meant, “digbydolben”, as the case may be.
“I agree with David, American have chosen abortion democratically.”
Again with the hideous argumentum ad populum.
So long as the larger populace thinks something is okay, even murder such as this can be considered right.
Huh? Where is “utter calumny”? Wherever it is, I didn’t mean it.
Again with the hideous argumentum ad populum.
So long as the larger populace thinks something is okay, even murder such as this can be considered right.
ari,
I was not addressing the morality of abortion. Obviously the majority can be wrong. My remarks were addressed to the argument that the reason there is so much turmoil in the United States over abortion, and so little in Italy, is that in the United States the democratic process was short-circuited by the Supreme Court, and the debate over abortion was not completed, whereas in Italy they have had two national referendums, the democratic process has played itself out. That argument seems to be less plausible if Americans in effect just chose legal abortion by giving a big victory to Obama.
I find the argument weak, and I would imagine you do as well, since if the United States had a national referendum on abortion and the pro-choice side won, even by a large margin, I don’t think the pro-life movement would say, “Okay, the people have spoken. We won’t make abortion an issue any more.”
And of course democratically choosing to make abortion legal is not the same thing is declaring it moral. I am sure a great many people are opposed to abortion (and even more are ambivalent) but think it should remain legal. I would never conclude that because the majority of people voted to keep abortion legal, they were expressing the view that it is also moral.
David N.
I am curious. Is it immoral for those, who believe abortion is immoral, to live in a country where the majority thinks abortion is okay and where we pay taxes which fund, at minumum indirectly, abortions, IVF and birth control?? Why or Why not?
What is the moral thing for those, who believe abortion is immoral and should illegal, to do? Just ignore our fellow citizens who disagree with us? Move to another country?
What is the moral thing for those, who believe abortion is immoral and should illegal, to do? Just ignore our fellow citizens who disagree with us? Move to another country?
nathan,
I would say that the moral thing for abortion opponents while they are in the minority is (1) to keep attempting to criminalize abortion, and (2) find some common ground (like the 95/10 Initiative) with those who would like to see abortions reduced but not criminalized.
I was not intending to imply that if the majority democratically chooses abortion, the minority is obligated to drop their opposition. I was saying that I did not find it credible that the difference in the politics of abortion between Italy and the United States was that Italy had had a referendum and the United States had Roe v Wade. I think those who are fighting abortion in the United States are fighting it because they are opposed to it, not because it came to most of the United States through a Supreme Court decision.
Now, if you hold an opinion like this (from a post on Vox Nova from six months or so ago) . . .
. . . I don’t understand how you can remain in this country, pay taxes, and go about your everyday life. If you think you are living in a country that is worse than Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany and is perpetrating the worst crime against humanity in the history of the world, you have an obligation to remove yourself from it to the greatest extent you can. Voting Republican does not absolve you of cooperation in evil on that scale.
David N. – thank you that was very helpful.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943
Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It
Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It
Of course, Obama’s executive order did not okay federal embryo research. It rescinded the ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Federally funded research on embryos had been banned since early in the Clinton administration, and Obama’s executive order did not and could not change that.
David
I just thought I would post how the media is portraying what happened last week. Though, of course, the stem cells come from embryos, so it is research on embryos.
Henry,
The headline is misleading.
As I said, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment has been in effect since the Clinton administration. It was in effect when Obama signed his executive order. Obama had no power to okay “federal embryo research,” and his executive order did not okay “federal embryo research.” So when he signed legislation containing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, he wasn’t undoing something he had done two days before.
Blurring meanings is not a way to make a good argument.