Philosopher who backs legal abortion appointed to Vatican pro-life academy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JPUSC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JPUSC

Guest
Philosopher who backs legal abortion appointed to Vatican pro-life academy

Nigel Biggar has said: ‘It’s not clear that a human foetus is the same kind of thing as an adult’

Pope Francis has appointed 45 new ordinary members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, according to a statement on the Vatican website. They include Nigel Biggar, who has said that he thinks the limit for legal abortion should be 18 weeks.

In a dialogue with fellow philosopher Peter Singer in 2011, reported by Standpoint magazine, Biggar said: “I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness. In terms of maintaining a strong social commitment to preserving human life in hindered forms, and in terms of not becoming too casual about killing human life, we need to draw the line much more conservatively.”

He said: “It’s not clear that a human foetus is the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being, and therefore deserves quite the same treatment. It then becomes a question of where we draw the line, and there is no absolutely cogent reason for drawing it in one place over another.”

Biggar, the Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, has opposed the legalisation of assisted suicide, saying that its proponents are “naive”, and that changing the law “would give us a radically libertarian society at the cost of a socially humane one”. His book In Defence of War criticises pacifism, and argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq met the criteria for a just war.

Other members on the list include Cardinal Willem Eijk, Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney and Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus.

In November, the 172 members of the Pontifical Academy for Life were removed – though some may be readmitted – and the academy’s statutes were changed. The statutes previously required that members promise to defend human life in accordance with the Church’s magisterium.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the head of the academy, responded: “The new statutes require a stronger commitment on the part of Members to the Church’s pro-life teaching than do the old. The new statutes themselves require Members to promote and defend the principles of the value of life and the dignity of the person, interpreted in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church.”

One former member, Mercedes Wilson, has said that members of the academy should be people of “proven courage that have been defending the teachings of the Church, in particular human life and the family that is under attack as never before”.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/philosopher-who-backs-legal-abortion-appointed-to-vatican-pro-life-academy
 
Philosopher who backs legal abortion appointed to Vatican pro-life academy

Nigel Biggar has said: ‘It’s not clear that a human foetus is the same kind of thing as an adult’

Pope Francis has appointed 45 new ordinary members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, according to a statement on the Vatican website. They include Nigel Biggar, who has said that he thinks the limit for legal abortion should be 18 weeks.

In a dialogue with fellow philosopher Peter Singer in 2011, reported by Standpoint magazine, Biggar said: “I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness. In terms of maintaining a strong social commitment to preserving human life in hindered forms, and in terms of not becoming too casual about killing human life, we need to draw the line much more conservatively.”

He said: “It’s not clear that a human foetus is the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being, and therefore deserves quite the same treatment. It then becomes a question of where we draw the line, and there is no absolutely cogent reason for drawing it in one place over another.”

Biggar, the Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, has opposed the legalisation of assisted suicide, saying that its proponents are “naive”, and that changing the law “would give us a radically libertarian society at the cost of a socially humane one”. His book In Defence of War criticises pacifism, and argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq met the criteria for a just war.

Other members on the list include Cardinal Willem Eijk, Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney and Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus.

In November, the 172 members of the Pontifical Academy for Life were removed – though some may be readmitted – and the academy’s statutes were changed. The statutes previously required that members promise to defend human life in accordance with the Church’s magisterium.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the head of the academy, responded: “The new statutes require a stronger commitment on the part of Members to the Church’s pro-life teaching than do the old. The new statutes themselves require Members to promote and defend the principles of the value of life and the dignity of the person, interpreted in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church.”

One former member, Mercedes Wilson, has said that members of the academy should be people of “proven courage that have been defending the teachings of the Church, in particular human life and the family that is under attack as never before”.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/philosopher-who-backs-legal-abortion-appointed-to-vatican-pro-life-academy
This kind of thinking might work for Judaism but not for Catholicism. On the surface of it, this seems to be an odd appointment, but, as often occurs, religious matters do become misinterpreted through the media.
 
In terms of maintaining a strong social commitment to preserving human life in hindered forms, and in terms of not becoming too casual about killing human life, we need to draw the line much more conservatively.”
Gee, ya think???

It never ceases to amaze me how casually people can discuss the willful, violent destruction of human life with no more concern than looking at an insect in a microscope.
 
This kind of thinking might work for Judaism but not for Catholicism. On the surface of it, this seems to be an odd appointment, but, as often occurs, religious matters do become misinterpreted through the media.
This isn’t a misinterpretation through the media, he actually does support abortion and has confirmed it to Catholic newspapers since his appointment was announced. He also isn’t Catholic, and is actually an ordained anglican priest. Perhaps one reason the oath to uphold Catholic moral teaching and oppose abortion was removed…

Here is the original interview in which he expresses approval of abortion up to 18 weeks.

standpointmag.co.uk/node/3990/full

From the article:
My view is that we should draw the line much more conservatively. This is simply because the killing of any human being is a morally hazardous business, even if it is permitted at an early foetal stage. It isn’t something that we should do casually and wantonly, and I suspect that Peter would agree with that.
So I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness. In terms of maintaining a strong social commitment to preserving human life in hindered forms, and in terms of not becoming too casual about killing human life, we need to draw the line much more conservatively.
So a child of up to 18 weeks does not warrant dignity or protection, but 18 weeks and one day? That’s murder.
 
Philosopher who backs legal abortion appointed to Vatican pro-life academy

Pope Francis has appointed 45 new ordinary members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, according to a statement on the Vatican website. They include Nigel Biggar, who has said that he thinks the limit for legal abortion should be 18 weeks.
And in other news, the Vatican has named Professor Fox a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Henhouses. :mad:
In a dialogue with fellow philosopher Peter Singer in 2011, reported by Standpoint magazine, Biggar said: “I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness. In terms of maintaining a strong social commitment to preserving human life in hindered forms, and in terms of not becoming too casual about killing human life, we need to draw the line much more conservatively.”
Cicero said it best: “There is no idea so asinine that some philosopher hasn’t already said it.”
 
Not sure saying Professor Nigel Biggar backs legal abortion is accurate.

He’s probably looking at the legal and political area of abortion and not supporting abortion himself.

Fact is, in the West, outlawing abortion before 20 weeks just isn’t going to happen, and he’s giving the reasons why not.

Doesn’t mean abortion after conception is right or that he views it as morally licit, but the reality we live in is that 18 weeks is probably the cutoff for most lawmakers.

Either way, the Pontifical Academy for Life is more of a think tank and the Pope has named 50 people to it.

They will discuss, debate, consult the Pope on the issue of abortion, euthanasia and war from both the ethical and political points of view.

They are not going to change the position of the Church, so you can relax.

JIM
 
It never ceases to amaze me how casually people can discuss the willful, violent destruction of human life with no more concern than looking at an insect in a microscope.
agree, Its probably because so many have become desensitized to it over the years.
 
This is pure speculation on my part but maybe his appointment is to play the “devils advocate” similar to how they bring in people to argue against the canonization of someone as part of the process of being named a saint.
 
This is pure speculation on my part but maybe his appointment is to play the “devils advocate” similar to how they bring in people to argue against the canonization of someone as part of the process of being named a saint.
That would make sense.
 
This is pure speculation on my part but maybe his appointment is to play the “devils advocate” similar to how they bring in people to argue against the canonization of someone as part of the process of being named a saint.
I thought this too and think it can be a positive contribution.

I think though that there is understandably rigid defensiveness from many Catholics because of the horror of the last 80 years where the Devil’s advocate has ended up with great influence in many Catholic parishes, schools and universities to the detriment of the Church and her people.,

I think in general, faithful Catholics are right for the foreseeable future to be ‘eternally’ vigilant and prevent a further slide.
 
This is extremely disturbing news.
The modernists are now running the show in the Church, at least they are the ones being spotlighted in the media. Never was it more important that the faithful KNOW their faith and be faithful to the TRUE Church. The Catechism must be read and internalized. We still have wonderful faithful prelates, but those faithful that are running into and being led by dissenters must not listen to them when they spew this nonsense, for if they do, they will be led to believe that abortion is ok as long as it is before a certain week of gestation. This is HERESY. Plain and simple. :mad: Prelates that preach this nonsense are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
 
The Vatican seems to recognize that appointing Biggar to the Academy was a mistake and is now saying that he will not participate in discussions of abortion.
In an interview with Italy’s La Stampa, Paglia reaffirmed the Vatican’s unwavering opposition to abortion. He said Biggar had been personally recommended by the archbishop of Canterbury, had never written about the issue and wouldn’t engage in abortion debates as a member.
thestar.com/news/world/2017/06/17/vatican-defends-christian-ethicists-membership-despite-abortion-comments.html
 
The modernists are now running the show in the Church, at least they are the ones being spotlighted in the media. Never was it more important that the faithful KNOW their faith and be faithful to the TRUE Church. The Catechism must be read and internalized. We still have wonderful faithful prelates, but those faithful that are running into and being led by dissenters must not listen to them when they spew this nonsense, for if they do, they will be led to believe that abortion is ok as long as it is before a certain week of gestation. This is HERESY. Plain and simple. :mad: Prelates that preach this nonsense are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
I thought this too and think it can be a positive contribution.

I think though that there is understandably rigid defensiveness from many Catholics because of the horror of the last 80 years where the Devil’s advocate has ended up with great influence in many Catholic parishes, schools and universities to the detriment of the Church and her people.,

I think in general, faithful Catholics are right for the foreseeable future to be ‘eternally’ vigilant and prevent a further slide.
Wishful thinking! The Vatican just admitted they may be aware of his stance on abortion, so he won’t participate in discussions pertaining to it 😂.
 
This is pure speculation on my part but maybe his appointment is to play the “devils advocate” similar to how they bring in people to argue against the canonization of someone as part of the process of being named a saint.
The Pope has spoken out in black and white terms on abortion, so it could be something in that vein.
 
Not sure saying Professor Nigel Biggar backs legal abortion is accurate.

He’s probably looking at the legal and political area of abortion and not supporting abortion himself.

Fact is, in the West, outlawing abortion before 20 weeks just isn’t going to happen, and he’s giving the reasons why not.

Doesn’t mean abortion after conception is right or that he views it as morally licit, but the reality we live in is that 18 weeks is probably the cutoff for most lawmakers.

Either way, the Pontifical Academy for Life is more of a think tank and the Pope has named 50 people to it.

They will discuss, debate, consult the Pope on the issue of abortion, euthanasia and war from both the ethical and political points of view.

They are not going to change the position of the Church, so you can relax.

JIM
This was pretty much my take. I know it doesn’t fly on a Catholic site but I’m not sure I saw anything at all suggesting NB supports abortion himself. He merely seemed to be looking at where to draw the line legally and the drawing of a conservative line at that. Perhaps the Pope and the Vatican academy as a think tank simply want a discussion of various views that realistically do exist in the legal and political world on the issue. I’m sure Francis as a son of the Church will remain steadfast on what the Catholic view should be for the faithful.
 
This was pretty much my take. I know it doesn’t fly on a Catholic site but I’m not sure I saw anything at all suggesting NB supports abortion himself…
His position doesn’t fly with the Catholic religion.
 
Not sure saying Professor Nigel Biggar backs legal abortion is accurate.

He’s probably looking at the legal and political area of abortion and not supporting abortion himself.

Fact is, in the West, outlawing abortion before 20 weeks just isn’t going to happen, and he’s giving the reasons why not.

Doesn’t mean abortion after conception is right or that he views it as morally licit, but the reality we live in is that 18 weeks is probably the cutoff for most lawmakers.

Either way, the Pontifical Academy for Life is more of a think tank and the Pope has named 50 people to it.

They will discuss, debate, consult the Pope on the issue of abortion, euthanasia and war from both the ethical and political points of view.

They are not going to change the position of the Church, so you can relax.

JIM
No one fears the last line you mentioned.

But it does beg the greater question of why was this done? Was it ignorance and stupidity on someone’s part, or willful, and if the latter, why?

The point is to advance the pro-life ethos in society, not simply assure folks that the Church’s teachings aren’t changing. But for the Church to actually infect society and make a difference, it needs the right , committed people in the right positions. This guy ain’t it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top