Griswold vs. Connecticut: The Opening of Pandora's Box
Cardinal Criticizes Senator Frist
Amen to what the Cardinal says. And yet, to me, this situation has become exceedingly deplorable and out of control!
The fact that our country is pushing for the "farming" of human beings is based on the fact that we already allow the 'planting" of human beings through invitro-fertilization. Technology has entered the inner sanctum of the womb on a much more sophisticated level. So, what do we do with the multitude of frozen embryos? What's to stop us from harvesting what we need from them? They're not human, right? Besides, we have been conditioned to this sort of thing by a very popular yet barbaric technological practice of forcing a woman's cervix open to suck out a "non-human" fetus piece by piece into a sink. And to think that all of this barbarism came because at one time, our Supreme Court "found" that the same "penumbra" right to privacy which allowed a woman's right to contracept, also allows her to the right to abort the fetus she failed to contracept.
Who would have known back in 1963 that Griswold vs. Connecticut would be a portal to the living hell of this "Brave New World." The naysayers were ignored back then and look where it has gotten us: the devaluation of human life. In our contraceptive culture, we have all sorts of "creative" ways of human destruction. Human farming is just the latest addition to the "industry of death." What's next? The harvesting of human "products" from disabled or "brain dead" patients?
And to think that all of this began because married couples wanted to alter the act of marriage into an act of pleasure without the obligation that such act may put on them, the possibility of another human life.
For more information, see The Bad Decision That Started It All.
posted by Underground Logician @ 1:30 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
I have heard that stem cells aren't and don't create human beings, not even fetuses. Since I've heard the opposite of that, tell me what YOU think, Underground.
Also, I know that there is no evidence that stem cell research will help in any medical advances. If anyone claims to have that scientific evidence, I'd be interested in seeing it. I doubt it's out there...
There is no evidence at this time regarding the viability of stem cells. As to stem cells creating human beings...no. They don't. However, the stem cells in the frozen embryos are being harvested, to the destruction of the embryos.
Did I answer your question?
these stem cell lines start out as frozen fertiled eggs that are going to be destroyed anyhow. me thinks this is much ado about nothing. and yes, there is very promising research with stem cells in mice, especially where diabetes is concerned.
loved the crypto sporidium post. Fortunately our side of the big Lake was ctiiter free (or at least under control for my vacation at the beach this week!
i think there is a big difference between preventing a pregnancy and ending a pregnancy. and, after all, don't catholics practice family-planning using natural cycles?
i've spoken to a catholic friend about these matters; he explained the catholic view as playing within God-given boundraries.
TS:
Yes, Catholics use natural family planning. Which means they use restraint. They don't alter the marital act at all. There is no poison or abortive device or chemicals that alter the natural state of the man or woman. And when husband and wife do come together sexually, they are open to life. So, the marital act remains true to its purpose as God intended it.
GWB:
Welcome back from dunes of Lake Michigan!
Fertilized eggs are human, and you know this. Ethically, do we wish to destroy that which is human? We already do in abortion; euthanasia is in vogue. This is just another way to do it. What's next?
I am having a problem with many of the premises you operate under and the conclusions drawn from your attempts to support your point about Griswold v. Connecticut.
First of all, it is not the case that stem cells are actual lives in being. This whole concept is separate from invetro fertilization, which may or may not result in the forcing of a woman's cervices to be opened. There are many childless couples who spend money in an attempt to conceive. Do you want more and more governmental intervention in our lives telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies?
It is ironic that the Republicans say that they stand for less government, when this particular administration has yielded the most governmental control and power over individuals in the last 50 years.
"Do you want more and more governmental intervention in our lives telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies?"
You are making the assumption that the fetus is a part of the woman's body, like an appendage of some sort, and not a separate being in and of itself.
"It is ironic that the Republicans say that they stand for less government, when this particular administration has yielded the most governmental control and power over individuals in the last 50 years."
I'm curious as to where you are getting your information. Please elaborate. In what ways has this administration done this?
In our contraceptive culture, we have all sorts of "creative" ways of human destruction.
Contraception destroys nothing; it prevents conception.
You cannot destroy something that does not exist.
And to think that all of this began because married couples wanted to alter the act of marriage into an act of pleasure without the obligation that such act may put on them, the possibility of another human life.
Sexual intercouse requires an obligation? The possibility of another human life?
By that reasoning, it should be sinful for post-menopausal women or infertile couples to have pleasurable sex.
Afterall, that act is most definitely closed to the possibility of human life.
And now that women are reaching menopause at earlier ages and living longer, that means there'll be lots of pleasurable marriage acts without the possibility of conception.
Can god have it both ways? It's okay to have pleasurable marriage acts, without the possibility of conceiving, after menopause but not before? It's okay for infertile couples to have pleasurable marriage acts without the possibility of conceiving?
It seems to me that the Church's premise that it is sinful to have sexual intercourse in marriage without the possibility of conceiving applies in all circumstances--menopausal women, infertile couples, or women who for physical reasons (weak cervixes) cannot carry children--otherwise it makes no sense.
But if those circumstances are "natural" --a result of god's making these couples infertile or women menopausal, then wouldn't it be sinful to intercede with any sort of medical technology (hormone intervention for women, or help for low sperm count for men, for example)?
What I'm asking is: Is it virtuous for medical science to assist couples to override a god-given physical obstacle to conception but not to prevent it? If so, why?
Well, this is interesting. The Catholic Church isn't always against contraception, is it.
Dang! Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/7vp5u
Hello Barbara from California:
Yes, I realize that stem cells are not living beings. That is not my point, although, I'm writing this without checking to see if I was clear. My point is that in embryonic stemcell research, stem cells are harvested from human embryos. One must destroy the embryo to get the stem cells. The secondary point is that invitro produces these thousands of human embryos, do they not? What do we do with all these embryos? There just sitting around frozen. Let's do something with them. So, the entire contraception, abortion, invitro, embryonic stemcell research, euthanasia has a common theme and source for all.
As to having more and more government intervention that tells us what we can or can't do with our bodies, I say, let the government follow more natural law morals and principles and less sanctioning an industry which is driven by the wholesale slaughter of innocents.
Hi Isabella!
As always, you bring a spark to liven up the joint! Which is a good thing, by the way.
As to your comments, let me take them one by one.
1. "By that reasoning, it should be sinful for post-menopausal women or infertile couples to have pleasurable sex."
No, it doesn't. Is this the result of your Catholic upbringing? Your negativity shows me that you didn't get the real stuff of the Catholic Church. You probably got "Catholicism Lite." If couples have the capacity for conceiving children, they are to be always open to the possibility for pregnancy. As to pleasure, always live it up! A post-menapausal women has not the capacity for pregnancy, how could she sin by engaging in sex? Say, by a miracle, the woman conceives. Well, so be it. It's happened before, quite rare, but, it has happened.
I don't know if you are a reader, but will you consider something? There is a huge movement of people, protestant and catholic alike, who are reading "The Theology of the Body," by John Paul II. There are great study materials for the not so average gourmet chef or grad school student that explain the importance of our bodies and why we are to treat them as the Church teaches.
As to your final question, as a layman, I can only say that the answer is in the infinite dignity God has placed in the meaning of being human. Sounds philosophical, but it has practical sides to it. The marriage act is considered by the Church to be a supremely sacred act. Strange as it that seems, they do. They don't have the victorian view of the sinfulness of sex; the Church teaches the dangers of the vices that surround sex. So, it is important that human beings come into the world; it is also important to maintain the purity and dignity of this human act.
Medical procedures reduce the dignity of this sacred act. What is to be an intensely private event is invaded by medical staff and equipment. Hubby, who is not subject to the equipment per se, has to produce semen (I won't go there) in a cup for the medical staff to use to fertilize the eggs.
After this, you have several fertilized eggs, one of which is placed surgically in the womens uterus. What happens to the other zygotes? They're stored in a deep freeze for future "events." This technology opens a pandora's box of problems: choosing the sex of a child, eliminating children by sex who don't fit the "order;" altering their DNA for smarter, lovelier, stronger children. I could go on.
If you are interested, check out the "Theology of the Body" stuff that's out there. It may answer some questions you may have.
Isabella:
It was clear to me after reading the article that:
1. The arch-bishop didn't promote condoms or contraception. He's placing the onus on the woman by implying, "What were you thinking, woman? You have unprotected sex, which is a proven way to get pregnant, YOU GET PREGNANT and have a kid, and now the diocese is responsible to take care of you?"
2. The journalist is certainly trying to make hay on the implications of "unprotected." Besides, this is just another way to take a swipe at Benedict XVI. He includes what others have insinuated things that the Arch-bishop meant, not what he actually meant. No, I think the Archbishop is wanting her to accept responsibility in her own stupid choice. As to the priest, I think some reparations are due from this man to this woman.
As it stands, the Catholic Church has not changed its stance on contraception by the unfortunate and perhaps misguided statement by this Arch-Bishop. Ah, who the hell cares what this Bishop says anyway, 80% of Catholics have been contracepting before this. They rejected Humani Vitae and thought that Pope Paul VI was out of touch. Those who are devout Catholics know better.
Is this the result of your Catholic upbringing? Your negativity shows me that you didn't get the real stuff of the Catholic Church. You probably got "Catholicism Lite."
Nice. So if someone has a different opinion than you, you belittle their entire religion. Fuck you, and fuck your fucking pope and jesus. I hope you suffer in hell. Praise Allah.
Post a Comment
<< Home