Abortion laws and embryo research, according to the leader of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, is like the eugenics experiments in Nazi Germany in Nazi Germany.
[Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor]who created waves a fortnight ago by injecting the abortion issue into the pre-election campaign in his praise for Michael Howard's support for a reduction of the time limit, argued that the majority of British people backed his stance.
The church has also come out in recent days in opposition to a divided Commons select committee report arguing for more embryo research and for allowing couples to choose the sex of their child.
The cardinal said: "The terrible truth is that it is the strong who decide the fate of the weak; human beings therefore become instruments in the hands of other human beings.
"That way lies eugenics, and we know from German history where that leads. We are already on that road, for what else is the termination of six million lives in the womb since the Abortion Act was introduced, and embryo selection of the basis of gender and genes?
Indeed, telling someone what they can and can't do to her uterus is not fascist in any way.
sigh...of course he doesnt mention catholic duplicity in the holocaust, or the fact that catholic priests were instrumental in allowing war criminals to escape justice after the war
I haven't understood the stance of the church on the embryonic research since the beginning. The fruits of embryonic research will include theraputic cloning, the reproduction of human organs, which will make organ transplant much faster and without rejection. That would look to me like it would help people will illness and save lives. Why would the church be opposed to saving lives through this research?
On the issue of eugenics, you do not want people to suffer with chronic genetic diseases. The elimination of bad genes is vital to creating a healthy human gene pool. The commercialization of unnecessary genetic modification seems like an issue lawmakers must tackle, not a valid reason to stop research that will be a immeasurable benefit to society. Not only that, but you would not have to condemn a child to a life of suffering because of a curable genetic condition. I don't understand sometimes why people would stand in the way of progress.
Noxeos said:
I haven't understood the stance of the church on the embryonic research since the beginning. The fruits of embryonic research will include theraputic cloning, the reproduction of human organs, which will make organ transplant much faster and without rejection. That would look to me like it would help people will illness and save lives. Why would the church be opposed to saving lives through this research?
On the issue of eugenics, you do not want people to suffer with chronic genetic diseases. The elimination of bad genes is vital to creating a healthy human gene pool. The commercialization of unnecessary genetic modification seems like an issue lawmakers must tackle, not a valid reason to stop research that will be a immeasurable benefit to society. Not only that, but you would not have to condemn a child to a life of suffering because of a curable genetic condition. I don't understand sometimes why people would stand in the way of progress.
"The elimination of bad genes is vital to creating a healthy human gene pool."
This is an interesting point...are you arguing that natural selection is no longer clearing these genes, and that we need to do it ourselves?
The abortion debate is a bit scary in the UK at the moment. The political parties don't have official views on it, so the members of parliament have a "free vote" on any abortion issue (they don't have to follow the party line). Tony Blair, a catholic, has said that he does not want abortion to become an election issue. Michael Howard has said that he favours a reduction time in the legal limit for abortions, from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but also that he doesn't want it to be an election issue.
But the church keeps dripping these stories into the press every few days, to keep the issue alive.
I just hope peope realise that a tiny numbe of women get abortions after 20 weeks, and they do it in extreme circumstances, and that we do not have abortion on demand in the UK.
JohnFM1 said:
"The elimination of bad genes is vital to creating a healthy human gene pool."
This is an interesting point...are you arguing that natural selection is no longer clearing these genes, and that we need to do it ourselves?
Marie Stopes, a birth control campaigner in the UK, was invovled in the Eugenics movement.
When people raise disability in abortion threads I have two conflicting views.
I don't want people to lead painful miserable short lives suffering form some horrible disease. But then some disabled people say the problem with disability isn't being disabled, but society's attitude to it. Someone gave me an analogy (I don't think it's great, but it's mildly useful): 'Normal' people can't see infra-red. Would I undergo a painful, risky, experimental operation that might let me see infra-red? Or would I be happy to live my life with my limited, disabled, vision?
"The elimination of bad genes is vital to creating a healthy human gene pool."
This is an interesting point...are you arguing that natural selection is no longer clearing these genes, and that we need to do it ourselves?
Actually, natural selection stopped having any meaningful influence on the human genome when our altruistic desire to care for our fellow humans led us to invent Medicine. Prior to the introduction of advanced medicine, human civilization was still making a point of keeping alive (and allowing to reproduce) genes that Natural Selection would have just as soon eliminated.
In effect, Natural Selection has been trumped by Unnatural Selection.
JohnFM1 said:
"The elimination of bad genes is vital to creating a healthy human gene pool."
This is an interesting point...are you arguing that natural selection is no longer clearing these genes, and that we need to do it ourselves?
Marie Stopes, a birth control campaigner in the UK, was invovled in the Eugenics movement.
When people raise disability in abortion threads I have two conflicting views.
I don't want people to lead painful miserable short lives suffering form some horrible disease. But then some disabled people say the problem with disability isn't being disabled, but society's attitude to it. Someone gave me an analogy (I don't think it's great, but it's mildly useful): 'Normal' people can't see infra-red. Would I undergo a painful, risky, experimental operation that might let me see infra-red? Or would I be happy to live my life with my limited, disabled, vision?
The issue is now and has always ben insurance. Companies won't hire people if they know they are going to get MND, CP, huntington's or any of the diseases that can pop up later in life. Life insurance and medical cover is the same, how much would your health cover be if the provider knew that you were going to MS at the age of 30.
I work with people with disablities every day. All of them would be dead if there was screening for bung genees, because the only choice at the moment is to terminate the fetus, "fixing" it is still beyond science and will be for a while yet.
the catholic church has to fight stem cell research. since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, they spent $819 million to make their churches wheelchair accessible. thats money down the drain if ol' Gimpy MaGoo trades in his wheelchair for a fresh pair of Reeboks.
A Catholic preist is gonna try to tell me what to do with my body yet they can take my son into a back room and have their way with him???? I say if I abort a fetus and it can help another person live more power to it.
demetrius_z said:
I don't want people to lead painful miserable short lives suffering form some horrible disease. But then some disabled people say the problem with disability isn't being disabled, but society's attitude to it. Someone gave me an analogy (I don't think it's great, but it's mildly useful): 'Normal' people can't see infra-red. Would I undergo a painful, risky, experimental operation that might let me see infra-red? Or would I be happy to live my life with my limited, disabled, vision?
I would. That would be fucking awesome.
Just sayin' is all.
Christopher
Portland, OR
November 2002
MAR 29, 2005 05:55 PM