The Immoral The Sanctity of Human Life Act

[mercytruth]

This sort of attitude is the typical outgrowth of the edicts of 380 and 445 AD that proceeded forth from the civil/religious hierarchy of Rome.

First, to grant civil authority to persecute those who do not **perfectly **agree with the very complicated and intricate issues of theology.

Second, to grant the religious heirarchy of Rome universal jurisdiction over all who profess their faith in Jesus Christ.

The religious progeny of these two edicts have made such children unyielding, religiously proud, and closed minded.

Even when I say, that you are free to express your convictions. and I respect you for them, you want to turn around in your own religious arrogance, and refuse to respect those who do not agree with you perfectly.

You are sadly, the religious children of the edicts of 380 AD and 445 AD. And because I refuse to acknowlege the legitimacy of the authority behind these edicts, I am effectively anathematized.

May God show all of us the roots of our own religious and spiritual pride so
that we do not think we are better or wiser than anyone else.

Without him we are nothing, and can do nothing.

May God’s humble peace prevail over all of us

micah

I have vented my frustrations over the fact that we can not have dialogue without rejecting another person’s convictions. Whether this sort of attitude is systemic, and is an outgrowth from certain declarations from Rome, or it is systemic to our human nature, I will let God be the judge.

God’s peace be with you all

micah

 

[LilyM]

This sort of attitude is the typical outgrowth of the edicts of 380 and 445 AD that proceeded forth from the civil/religious hierarchy of Rome.

First, to grant civil authority to persecute those who do not **perfectly **agree with the very complicated and intricate issues of theology.

Second, to grant the religious heirarchy of Rome universal jurisdiction over all who profess their faith in Jesus Christ.

The religious progeny of these two edicts have made such children unyielding, religiously proud, and closed minded.

Even when I say, that you are free to express your convictions. and I respect you for them, you want to turn around in your own religious arrogance, and refuse to respect those who do not agree with you perfectly.

You are sadly, the religious children of the edicts of 380 AD and 445 AD. And because I refuse to acknowlege the legitimacy of the authority behind these edicts, I am effectively anathematized.

May God show all of us the roots of our own religious and spiritual pride so
that we do not think we are better or wiser than anyone else.

Without him we are nothing, and can do nothing.

May God’s humble peace prevail over all of us

micah

I would not give a fig if it were merely a matter of disagreeing with my views. I’ve been wrong personally before, and will be again.

But when you say, as you have done, that ‘there is no way that God could do such-and-such’, based as you have admitted on absolutely nothing beyond your own gut feeling, well, it makes you no better than those people of Nazareth who said ‘there is no way the Messiah could be from our town, someone we’ve known from childhood, the son of a carpenter and Mary.’ without a shred of evidence to back what they said than their own prejudices.

For someone professing to want humility and calling us arrogant it is an attitude that is the polar opposite of humble and very arrogant to presume to know the mind of God on such an issue. I suppose He’a given you some special revelation that He has thus far denied the Magisterium, that you alone of all know for a fact that He would never ensoul a clone?

 

[mercytruth]

I would not give a fig if it were merely a matter of disagreeing with my views. I’ve been wrif personally before, and will be again.

But when you say, as you have done, that ‘there is no way that God could do such-and-such’, based as you have admitted on absolutely nothing beyond your own gut feeling, well, it makes you no better than those people of Nazareth who said ‘there is no way the Messiah could be from our town, someone we’ve known from childhood, the son of a carpenter and Mary.’ without a shred of evidence to back what they said than their own prejudices.

For someone professing to want humility, it is an attitude that is the polar opposite of humble.

These are my own convictions Lily. I am not dictating my convictions on others, it is the Republican Congress that wishes to do that. For Congress to enact laws that would be potentially binding on all Americans, the proof of evidence belongs in their court, not mine.

True, I would like to see human cloning and genetic engineering of the human being outlawed. This could be construed as dictating my own personal convictions on others. If it is construed that way, then I will cease and desist.

I have not judged you for your convictions, I have very strong convictions about duplicating or distorting God’s original creation in the labs of science. If that sounds proud to you, I can not help it. I think we are allowing science the freedom to intrude into the sovereign domain of God. Maybe we should let science in the name of science, and not in the name of God to do what ever it pleases, if it appears to you that I am dictating my convictions on others.

micah

 

[LilyM]

These are my own convictions Lily. I am not dictating my convictions on others, it is the Republican Congress that wishes to do that. For Congress to enact laws that would be potentially binding on all Americans, the proof of evidence belongs in their court, not mine.

True, I would like to see human cloning and genetic engineering of the human being outlawed. This could be construed as dictating my own personal convictions on others. If it is construed that way, then I will cease and desist.

I have not judged you for your convictions, I have very strong convictions about duplicating or distorting God’s original creation in the labs of science. If that sounds proud to you, I can not help it. I think we are allowing science the freedom to intrude into the sovereign domain of God. Maybe we should let science in the name of science, and not in the name of God to do what ever it pleases, if it appears to you that I am dictating my convictions on others.

micah

You have completely, but completely, missed the point we are trying to make. Not one of us approves of cloning in any way shape or form . All of us, so far as I can tell, would love to see it outlawed as much as you would. On all our behaves I am saddened that you would construe us as being anything less than totally anti-cloning.

What we cannot do, what you are in danger of doing, is ignore the plight of those at least potential human souls that could come into existence when cloning happens - and legal or illegal it certainly will happen. Possibly already has.

Even the Church doesn’t deny that clones might be ensouled by God. That being the case, it is not your place to deny it either. You do not know more or better than the Church on this matter. And being that we do not know, we are bound to protect clones as if they were human - because the consequences of treating them as if they were unensouled when it is possible that they are ensouled, are are simply too horrible to contemplate. As horrible as the consequences of those who currently treat babes in the womb as if they were not human and ensouled, and abort them.

Look at our current attitude to IVF. Of course we would all like to see IVF outlawed. Od course we don’t in any fashion approve of it. But as long as it isn’t, as long as it happens, babies will be produced, and we need to look after their interests on exactly the same manner as we do the naturally-conceived ones. Similar considerations apply for cloning.

 

[mercytruth]

You have completely, but completely, missed the point we are trying to make. Not one of us approves of cloning in any way shape or form . All of us, so far as I can tell, would love to see it outlawed as much as you would.

What we cannot do, what you are in danger of doing, is ignore the plight of those at least potential human souls that could come into existence when cloning happens - and legal or illegal it certainly will happen. Possibly already has.

Even the Church doesn’t deny that clones might be ensouled by God. That being the case, we are bound to protect clones as if they were human - because the consequences of treating them as if they were unensouled when it is possible that they are ensouled just as we are are simply too horrible to contemplate. As horrible as the consequences of those who currently treat babes in the womb as if they were not human and ensouled, and abort them.

Look at our current attitude to IVF. Of course we would all like to see IVF outlawed. But as long as it isn’t, babies will be produced and we need to look after their interests on exactly the same manner as we do the naturally-conceived ones. Similar considerations apply for cloning.

This is my point, Congress has no proof that cloned embryos or genetically modified human embryos would be potential human souls. Until, (God forbid) that such a creature should be born and observed as a being with the sensitivities of a spiritual soul made in the image and likeness of God. At this point, Congress is proceeding from religious conjecture, and not observable proof.

God’s peace to you

micah

 

[LilyM]

This is my point, Congress has no proof that cloned embryos or genetically modified human embryos would be potential human souls. Until, (God forbid) that such a creature should be born and observed as a being with the sensitivities of a spiritual soul made in the image and likeness of God. At this point, Congress is proceeding from religious conjecture, and not observable proof.

God’s peace to you

micah

And what is wrong with legislatures catering to religious sensitivities - and yes, even conjectures? Is that not what we expect them to do when we demand that marriage remain defined as between one man and one woman? When we demand and get national
Public holidays for Christmas and Easter? When we demand and get overtime, at least in some industries, for workers working on Sundays or Christmas?

Are you suggesting that we should stop fighting for abortion to be outlawed? Or for prayer to return to schools for those who wish it? Or should be happy to elect pro-abort politicians as our moral ideas are none of the business of government? Our faith is meant to be lived in all
aspects of our lives, including the political and legislative where possible.

 

[mercytruth]

And what is wrong with legislatures catering to religious sensitivities - and yes, even conjectures? Is that not what we expect them to do when we demand that marriage remain defined as between one man and one woman? When we demand and get national
Public holidays for Christmas and Easter? When we demand and get overtime, at least in some industries, for workers working on Sundays or Christmas?

Are you suggesting that we should stop fighting for abortion to be outlawed? Or for prayer to return to schools for those who wish it? Or should be happy to elect pro-abort politicians as our moral ideas are none of the business of government? Our faith is meant to be lived in all
aspects of our lives, including the political and legislative where possible.

As long as this legislation does not punish those who would decide to abort a cloned or genetically modified human embryo

God’s peace

micah

 

[LilyM]

As long as this legislation does not punish those who would decide to abort a cloned or genetically modified human embryo

God’s peace

micah

Of course it should punish them!

From a purely secular point of view, there would be no dispute that a clone is human life. It certainly meets all scientific criteria for such. Whether it has a God-given soul is in one sense Irrelevant. There are plenty of people who do not even believe in God or a God given soul who nonetheless believe that human beings have an inherent right to life from the moment of their coming into being, ie their conception. Or who at least are sufficiently concerned about the drastically falling birth rates in the West and for that reason believe abortion is wrong.

Legislatures have never needed theological reasons to ban abortion - there are more than enough practical and philosophical non-religious reasons to do so. Banning the abortion of clones can be easily justified from a non-religious point of view, as can a ban on abortion in general.

Dear God, please do not tell me that you believe that clones should be aborted? When even by your own admission you have no evidence that they are anything but human, and no evidence that their souls are any different to yours or mine?

 

[LilyM]

Mt, I just thought of an analogy that might help you better appreciate my point.

Imagine that you are cleaning in the sanctuary of your church, and you come across what is clearly a wafer on the ground. You have no way of knowing whether that wafer has been consecrated or not. You have two choices:

1. you say to yourself ‘this might be the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord, and it would be terrible sacrilege to mistreat such, so I am going to hand it to the priest who I can trust to dispose of it respectfully’.
2. you say to yourself ‘this might be an ordinary unblessed wafer of bread, so I’ll just dump it in the nearest bin with all the other trash’.

Who on earth, genuinely loving Our Lord, would do anything other than number 1? Who would dare risk even the possibility of throwing Our Lord in the trash?

Same goes here - who, genuinely respecting and loving human life and human souls, would risk even a possibility that any human life or soul would be destroyed by abortion?

 

[mercytruth]

Mt, I just thought of an analogy that might help you better appreciate my point.

Imagine that you are cleaning in the sanctuary of your church, and you come across what is clearly a wafer on the ground. You have no way of knowing whether that wafer has been consecrated or not. You have two choices:

1. you say to yourself ‘this might be the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord, and it would be terrible sacrilege to mistreat such, so I am going to hand it to the priest who I can trust to dispose of it respectfully’.
2. you say to yourself ‘this might be an ordinary unblessed wafer of bread, so I’ll just dump it in the nearest bin with all the other trash’.

Who on earth, genuinely loving Our Lord, would do anything other than number 1? Who would dare risk even the possibility of throwing Our Lord in the trash?

Same goes here - who, genuinely respecting and loving human life and human souls, would risk even a possibility that any human life or soul would be destroyed by abortion?

Now let me give you an analogy. Are you aware of the story of Frankenstein? A monster that was put together in the laboratory by a mad scientist who took parts from deceased human beings? This bill would allow science to take the DNA from deceased dictators or whom ever, and manufacture a monster, and then bestow human personhood on such a creature.

God’s peace

micah

 

[LilyM]

Now let me give you an analogy. Are you aware of the story of Frankenstein? A monster that was put together in the laboratory by a mad scientist who took parts from deceased human beings? This bill would allow science to take the DNA from deceased dictators or whom ever, and manufacture a monster, and then bestow human personhood on such a creature.

God’s peace

micah

Irrelevant, and I’ll tell you why. Allowing abortion is not going to prevent any of the evils you imagine will result from cloning. Just like allowing abortion currently doesn’t prevent the evils of teen pregnancy, prevent child abuse or neglect or child poverty, lessen the crime rate or achieve any of the goods that its promoters initially promised it would.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Now let me give you an analogy. Are you aware of the story of Frankenstein? A monster that was put together in the laboratory by a mad scientist who took parts from deceased human beings? This bill would allow science to take the DNA from deceased dictators or whom ever, and manufacture a monster, and then bestow human personhood on such a creature.

And? If they manage to create a human, it still has a human soul.

It’s not the monster’s fault Frankenstein created it, but once created it cannot be killed.

 

[AdamP88]

Originally Posted by mercytruth
Scientists who change, distort, or even copy the life forms of God’s original sacred creation in a lab separate from the natural order of God’s sacred order of reproduction are not generating humans in the image and likeness of God.

Whoa, full stop. That is a contradiction. A human is made in the image and likeness of God and has a soul. Every time. If it’s biologically human, it has a human soul. It’s Thomistic philosophy 101.

A cloned human is a human. Humans have human souls.

Thank you Marc Anthony. One of the great Dominican philosophers and theologians to the rescue.

 

[mercytruth]

I would like to step back and re-iterate my original concerns about H.R. 212

First, there are no federal laws outlawing human cloning and the genetic engineering of human DNA. It was my perception that this bill as now written, and if it became an amendment to US Constitution would give rights of personhood to such cloned and genetically modified human DNA embryos. In doing so, it would in effect legalize such procedures.

My perception may be entirely incorrect. I am not a U.S. Constitutional expert on the law. So, I am willing to step back from this concern for the sake of peace.

Secondly, we have a difference of conviction whether God would eventually grant a human soul to such manipulated human DNA that is copied, or changed into something other.

These differences of convictions are convictions. They are not established biological or theological facts. No human clone or genetically modified human DNA embryo has ever been born, nor implanted into a female womb. We do not know if such an embryo would actually come to term and be born.

This is a very important factor to consider, before granting personhood status to such embryos, and thus outlawing the abortion of such embryos. Especially if the law states that any individual who aborted such an embryo would be punished.

The other difference of conviction that we have from a theological perspective is that no such human clone, or genetically modified human DNA embryo has been born in order to observe whether it would be truly endowed with a spiritual soul from God.

Both of these convictions are neither biological nor theological established facts.

For these reasons, this portion of H.R.212 should be expunged.

God’s peace

micah

 

[AdamP88]

It is the moral teaching of the Church is that the human embryo must be treated as if it were already ensouled, even if it might not yet be so. It must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception,** even if there exists the theoretical possibility that it might not yet be so.**

Therefore any human embryo must be treated as a person and with the utmost respect, as the Church does not definitively know when a soul is imparted.

But it is presumed to be from conception…

 

[mercytruth]

I need to apologize. It was wrong of me to call The Sanctiy of Human Life Act an immorally constructed bill. I assumed that this bill would authorize cloning and genetic manipulation of human DNA.

The chances of this bill ever becoming an amendment to the US Constitution are practically nil, so that assumption is immaterial.

One can have perfectly sound rationalizations for objecting to something, but being aware of the emotional impetuses behind those rationalizations is more important.

I have two emotions that I have not, or my Lord Jesus Christ has not conquered.

I have a mistrust of those in authority. This mistrust can sometimes develop into irrational paranoia. My irrational paranoia is that those with the wealth in this country decide who become our elected officials, and they have an agenda to abuse that power, and will lie to us to accomplish their agendas.

I thought there was a possibility that those corporations and government agencies, such as the Defense Dept. who have a vested interest in the pursuit of cloning and genetic engineering were trying to make such procedures legal through the back door.

(I have not completely recovered from the abuse of power which lied to the American people, and got us to invade Iraq.)

The other emotion that I have not overcome is the fear of being controlled in one’s thinking. Sad to say, I think there is some justification for this one. The Catholic Church can be so rigid in their teachings, especially those theological teachings which have so many nuances of complexity.

So basically, this thread has been driven by the underlying emotions of mistrust of those in authority and the fear of being controlled in one’s thinking. The fact that I have such an abhorrance of genetic cloning and genetic engineering seemed to drown out those underlying emotions.

So once again, my apolgies to all. I have no need to continue this discussion as I have already made it clear how much the genetic engineering of God’s creation disturbs me.

God’s peace

micah

 

[AdamP88]

I need to apologize. It was wrong of me to call The Sanctiy of Human Life Act an immorally constructed bill. I assumed that this bill would authorize cloning and genetic manipulation of human DNA.

The chances of this bill ever becoming an amendment to the US Constitution are practically nil, so that assumption is immaterial.

One can have perfectly sound rationalizations for objecting to something, but being aware of the emotional impetuses behind those rationalizations is more important.

I have two emotions that I have not, or my Lord Jesus Christ has not conquered.

I have a mistrust of those in authority. This mistrust can sometimes develop into irrational paranoia. My irrational paranoia is that those with the wealth in this country decide who become our elected officials, and they have an agenda to abuse that power, and will lie to us to accomplish their agendas.

I thought there was a possibility that those corporations and government agencies, such as the Defense Dept. who have a vested interest in the pursuit of cloning and genetic engineering were trying to make such procedures legal through the back door.

(I have not completely recovered from the abuse of power which lied to the American people, and got us to invade Iraq.)

The other emotion that I have not overcome is the fear of being controlled in one’s thinking. Sad to say, I think there is some justification for this one. The Catholic Church can be so rigid in their teachings, especially those theological teachings which have so many nuances of complexity.

So basically, this thread has been driven by the underlying emotions of mistrust of those in authority and the fear of being controlled in one’s thinking. The fact that I have such an abhorrance of genetic cloning and genetic engineering seemed to drown out those underlying emotions.

So once again, my apolgies to all. I have no need to continue this discussion as I have already made it clear how much the genetic engineering of God’s creation disturbs me.

God’s peace

micah

While the genetic engineering of humans may disturb you, this does not mean the results of this are sub-human.

Also, it may be worth taking note that the teachings of the church always have a rational reason behind them if you seek it.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

H.R. 212, The Sanctity of Human Life Act as passed by the Republican House in 2011 and supported by Rep.Akin and Rep.Ryan would be an immoral amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Why? In effect, as now written, it would legalize the cloning of human embryos. I urge you to write to your Congressman who supported this bill to strike the cloning portion out of the bill, along with any fertilization methods that would use genetic engineering. We don’t need any more Joseph Mengeles.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.
In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States–

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

opencongress.org/bill/112-h212/text

God’s peace

micah

What bill were you reading? It said it would defend the life of the human that came from cloning.

I hope all good Catholics support this bill.

 

[Contarini]

There is a false analogy here. Rape is illegal. Human cloning is not illegal in the U.S.

For your analogy to be true, human cloning would have to become illegal.

We can not legalize the illegal by this amendment, but we could justify the legality of that which has not been declared illegal. Could we not?

No. It wouldn’t have any effect on the legality one way or the other.

Your point about rape works against you. We know that the law protects the offspring of rape, and we know rape is illegal.

Therefore, if anyone were to argue that banning cloning violated this law, they would have no case, since clearly the law doesn’t contradict the laws making rape illegal.

Something is legal until it’s declared illegal–I think that’s the basic point you’re missing.

If this were a constitutional amendment, then maybe you’d have a case, though even then I think not, because anyone arguing this would also have to argue that the amendment made laws against rape unconstitutional.

But this is just a federal law, right? What one federal law does another can undo; what one leaves unclear another can clarify.

Edwin

 

[Nate13]

No. It wouldn’t have any effect on the legality one way or the other.

Your point about rape works against you. We know that the law protects the offspring of rape, and we know rape is illegal.

Therefore, if anyone were to argue that banning cloning violated this law, they would have no case, since clearly the law doesn’t contradict the laws making rape illegal.

Something is legal until it’s declared illegal–I think that’s the basic point you’re missing.

If this were a constitutional amendment, then maybe you’d have a case, though even then I think not, because anyone arguing this would also have to argue that the amendment made laws against rape unconstitutional.

But this is just a federal law, right? What one federal law does another can undo; what one leaves unclear another can clarify.

Edwin

Actually its a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3rds of both the Senate and House to ratify or 3/4ths of the State legislatures. The bill does not make cloning legal though, so its not an issue.