Who would you save - 1000 Blastocysts or 1 Baby?

[surfinpure]

Technically speaking, you can’t save the blastocysts because there’s no reason to–they can’t be incubated without in vitro, which isn’t licit. Therefore it is permissible to let them die. You can’t kill them, but you don’t have to unnaturally preserve their lives.

Which means that these poor tiny souls who were created have no home but the laboratory.

In other words, when we choose to depart from God’s plan and His wisdom, we put ourselves into a quagmire from which there is no extrication without getting covered in mud. There ought to be no living frozen embryos anywhere, period.

 

[SoCalRC]

It doesn’t work, you’ll say.

You better tell the Nobel Prize committee, they think it’s pretty good.

(Edited)

For those who are curious, Mundell was awarded the Nobel Prize for work on “optimum currency area” (nothing to do with supply side economics). And Mundell did not just randomly support supply side policies, he made specific fiscal predictions (variations of the Mundell-Fleming currency models), all of which failed to match measurable results when his policies were most widely adopted (ex. 1981). Even Mundell has recently noted that price stability, his principle evidence of a positive effect, appears to not be holding up today.

To say that the Nobel prize committe embraces supply side economics is a spectacular stretch of the truth. At least 4 winners of the Nobel Prize for economics openly deride it as obviously debunked by measurable reality, and the lack of academic credentials, or even economic training among many movement leaders (ex. Robert Bartley and Jude Wanniski) is often cited as a reason for the lack of rigourous math in studies defending it.

 

[SoCalRC]

Which means that these poor tiny souls who were created have no home but the laboratory.

In other words, when we choose to depart from God’s plan and His wisdom, we put ourselves into a quagmire from which there is no extrication without getting covered in mud. There ought to be no living frozen embryos anywhere, period.

On that we can wholeheartedly agree.

I still think that the question has merit in helping us confront our own inabilities to fully embrace our pro-life teaching. Secularists imply that our ‘gut’ is right, but it just tells me that while we strive to embrace life in any stage and in any state, most of us still fall short of absolute acceptance.

Peace

 

[D317]

Of the 270B in Bush tax cuts (financed on the Nation’s credit card), $90B went to my income bracket (top 2%). $90B went to the 90th percentile and higher, and the remaining $90B went to everyone else.

[sign]First, tax cuts don’t go on any “nation’s credit card” because no such thing exists. Don’t forget, it is tough to give a TAX CUT to someone that does not pay taxes! The top 5% of Americans [financially speaking] pay about 54% of the taxes. The BOTTOM 50% of Americans pay only 3.6% of all taxes. Kinda staggering, isn’t it. [/sign]

Over the last 7 years, household income has actually declined a couple thousand dollars, while corporate profits hit record highs.

And your point is…? How much more would household income have declined if corporate profits fell?

I have no doubt that the nation’s current policies are overwhelming geared to benefit me and mine, I just doubt that it is morally right.

The policies shouldn’t benefit ANYONE. They should be neutral. What is wrong with simply providing for the common defense and promote the general welfare of AMERICA? Why should anyone be advantaged or disadvantaged? Let everyone pay 10% of their total income to the government and be done with it.

And, with respect to surf(name removed by moderator)ure (sincerely), I think it is a relevant issue. If we examine “right to life” in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (see #38), babies and abortion are just a very narrow aspect of a broad, and inalienable right.

Personally, when you start with ‘tax cuts’ as a right to life issue, it is kinda off topic. I agree that your other comments are within the scope of the thread.

 

[Hastrman]

(Edited)

But to return to the topic at hand, what about Milton Friedman? I wasn’t saying that the Nobel Prize committee embraces supply-side economics, only that they seemed to think trickle-down was a meritorious idea. I don’t need authorities to do all my thinking for me.

(Edited).

 

[Michael_Francis]

Please remain on topic and avoid personal slights or expect citations and possible thread closure.
MF

 

[ribozyme]

It took me a while to realize that you had asked me to respond to this. It didn’t reference me directly, but the quote was from another thread I posted. Sorry for the delay. Still waiting on some additional references from you as I research distributism, as I had promised.

I don’t oppose programs to help the poor. I oppose the confiscation of money from one person to help another person. I know, you don’t necessarily see “capital” as being money, but it is.

When we create systems to “rob from the rich and give to the poor” we end up with a system of hand-outs and don’t address the root cause of poverty/being poor.
…

I think the direct response to the post should have answered the question about human life. Based on your definition of a person, it would seem as though you exclude a large number of human beings from the category of “persons.”

I honestly **do not believe **redistribution to be the solution to the problem although I am sympathetic to that view. It is a way to treat it, but not cure it. (I do not feel like giving my ethical justification for redistribution in this thread) To reiterate I agree that it does not address the root source of inequality.

I do believe the way to solve the problem is to rectify certain “injustices” . I will intentionally be vague about the meaning of that word (it does not refer to the Marxist’s concern about exploitation of the lower classes or any of Grover Norquist’s agendas), but I remember being extremely irate about a remark you made in another thread… You said that God has allowed these “injustices” (and overtly acknowledging its existance) and it is for the greater good. Besides that, I respect your objections to redistribution although I do not agree with your reasoning.

Your exact remark…

There shouldn’t be an “cap” on the ability of people to perform in their vocation. We are all called to a vocation which is set within God’s plan. The Church recognizes that “talents” are not equally distributed as it is also part of God’s plan to have such differences. Those with more are obliged to give more to those less fortunate.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3132426

That’s all I am going to say about that topic in this thread.

Now back to the topic…
Yes, my definition of person excludes embryos in* in vitro *fertilization clinics and first trimester fetuses.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Have you ever noticed how terms are thrown around to take a focus away from what a baby in any stage of development really is? They are all baby’s. Ask any pregnant woman. They all say, “My baby”. This merely desensitizes people as to the horrors of what abortion really is, the murder of the most innocent and helpless in our society.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Bubble]

I’d save the already born baby because in a fire I would panic and all reason would will go out the window.

Unable to see the blastocytes with my eyes, they would seem more remote to me and I’d be able to more easily ignore their existance than I could a baby in a bassinet. I can see, hear and touch a born baby. I can’t see, hear or touch a blastocyte. This would help me rationalize choosing the baby in the bassinet over the ones hidden from my view.

I’m not saying that saving the born baby is the right choice, I’m merely saying in a crisis situation, knowing my lack of vision, I’m pretty sure that my animal instincts would take over.

I would probably go for the baby I could hear cry, see with my eyes, and touch with my hands. The blastocyte babies are out-of-sight, so they are easier to push out of mind and subsequently I could walk past them much easier than a baby in a bassinet.

My failure to save the blastocytes in the fire would stem from my inability to stay calm during the fire. My brain would lose the ability to think clearly, clouding my vision. Even though their were 1001 babies in need of rescue, I would only think to save the baby that I could see and I’d forget about the ones that I couldn’t.

Do you understand what I’m saying?