11 deaths a day. From a mere statistic it has become a mantra of the reproductive health (RH) movement. No matter how often it is repeated, 11 deaths a day still moves many to action and some to tears.
Yet the anti-RH — led by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and anti-choice Catholic organizations — doesn’t seem to care about 11 deaths a day. Some, such as Senator Sotto and his supporters, have more disparaging reactions, ranging from mere denial to outright ridicule.
Invariably, the anti-RH believe they are never responsible for 11 deaths a day. Yet even if they eventually realize that their anti-contraceptive position is indirectly responsible for thousands of maternal deaths — and even more due to AIDS and hunger, casualties that can also be minimized by effective contraception and sexual education — the realization wouldn’t make much of a difference.
Because for these anti-RH conservative Catholics, protecting human lives is not as important as respecting God. The act of disrespecting God — and the Church that claims to represent him — is called blasphemy:
Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name… The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.
— Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Gravity of Blasphemy
St. Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings also form the basis for opposing the RH bill, taught that blasphemy is a mortal sin punishable by death. For Aquinas, there’s no contradiction in killing someone for blasphemy, because he believed that blasphemy was even worse than murder:
If we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one’s neighbor, than blasphemy does to God. Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the deed, as was shown above, it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God’s honor, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously that the murderer.
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
If blasphemy is worse than murder itself, it is surely worse than merely letting mortals die. So it doesn’t matter if maternal deaths — or deaths due to poverty and AIDS — do infinitely more damage to people and the families they leave behind; no damage can be dealt to an immortal deity. What matters to Aquinas is the intention, not the effect; the gravity of the sin, not its actual consequences. Blasphemy must be avoided at all costs — even if the cost is suffering and death.
The Speckled Monster in Montreal
In 1885, one of the most horrible examples of avoiding blasphemy at the cost of human lives happened during the smallpox epidemic in Montreal, Canada. Smallpox was also called the “red death” and the “speckled monster” because of how it stained and ultimately killed its victims:
No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatar and its seal –the redness and the horror of blood. There were sharp pains, and sudden dizziness, and then profuse bleeding at the pores, with dissolution. The scarlet stains upon the body and especially upon the face of the victim, were the pest ban which shut him out from the aid and from the sympathy of his fellow-men. And the whole seizure, progress and termination of the disease, were the incidents of half an hour.
— Edgar Allan Poe, The Masque of the Red Death
Although he wrote one of the most poetic descriptions of the disease, Poe was wrong about one thing: It was not fear of their appearance that kept the diseased from the aid and sympathy of their neighbors. It was dogma — the fear of blasphemy.
If the Catholic Church hadn’t used dogma to meddle with the government trying to contain the disease, many lives would have been saved. As James H. Marsh, editor in chief of The Canadian Encyclopedia, wrote, this is the real tragedy:
Smallpox is one of the most contagious and loathsome diseases ever to menace humanity. But the real tragedy of the smallpox epidemic in Montreal was that it was preventable. The practice of vaccination, developed by Edward Jenner in England in 1796, was so widespread and so successful that it was widely believed that the disease had been eradicated.
Deaths that can be prevented. By a scientific solution. That has already become so widespread and successful. Sound familiar?
Red Death and Reproductive Health
When it comes to the Catholic Church, history often repeats itself. Contraception is not the first scientific solution to a serious problem that bishops have blocked because they considered it blasphemous. Many examples of this meddling are recorded in Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. The book chronicles how the Church prevented progress in several sciences — geography, astronomy, geology, archeology, anthropology, biology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, medicine, and many others.
In each instance, the story would be the same:
- Someone proposes a theory that is contrary to Church teaching — dogma, doctrine, or tradition.
- The Church does everything in its power — blackmail, torture, murder — to oppose inquiry into and development of the theory.
- Accepting or even considering the theory becomes difficult — especially when reputations and lives are at stake.
- After unnecessary delay, the scientific community — and then society in general — accepts the theory and develops it further.
- After even more delay, from years to centuries, the Church finally accepts the theory.
This pattern is especially pernicious when the Church hinders progress in Medicine. When it comes to medical progress, delay is measured not only in time wasted but in lives lost. The smallpox epidemic in Montreal struck me especially because it’s so similar to our RH experience. Below is White’s account interspersed with my comments, comparing Montreal’s experience with ours:
In that year [1885] the smallpox broke out with great virulence in Montreal. The Protestant population escaped almost entirely by vaccination; but multitudes of their Catholic fellow-citizens, under some vague survival of the old orthodox ideas [1 paste below the early protestant theological basis of the old orthodox ideas], refused vaccination; and suffered fearfully.
Many who have escaped Catholic brainwashing already use contraception effectively. More than their conservative counterparts, contraception users are capable of reaching their desired family size, avoiding HIV and AIDS, avoiding induced abortions, and preventing infant and maternal deaths.
When at last the plague became so serious that travel and trade fell off greatly and quarantine began to be established in neighboring cities, an effort was made to enforce compulsory vaccination. The result was, that large numbers of the Catholic working population resisted and even threatened bloodshed.
11 maternal deaths a day, 500,000 induced abortions a year, and 7 new HIV cases a day should be enough to convince us: the RH bill is badly needed. And unlike vaccination, contraception will not even be compulsory. Yet the resistance was just as intense: from misinformation and fear mongering to threats of revolution and civil disobedience.
The clergy at first tolerated and even encouraged this conduct [threatening bloodshed]: the Abbe Filiatrault, priest of St. James’s Church, declared in a sermon that, “if we are afflicted with smallpox, it is because we had a carnival last winter, feasting the flesh, which has offended the Lord; … it is to punish our pride that God has sent us smallpox.”
This is no different from religious leaders saying that HIV and AIDS are god’s punishment for promiscuity, homosexuality, and even contraception. This also reminds me of an anti-RH lecture, wherein the lecturer said that the disaster in Japan was sent by God to punish them for having population control.
The clerical press went further: the _Etendard_ exhorted the faithful to take up arms rather than submit to vaccination, and at least one of the secular papers was forced to pander to the same sentiment.
Rather than cooperate, the anti-RH threatened to react with revolution, civil disobedience, or by not paying taxes. And instead of just one secular paper pandering to the anti-RH, I’ve read several columnists and cartoonists whose opinion seems to be based on nothing but Catholic bias.
The Board of Health struggled against this superstition, and addressed a circular to the Catholic clergy, imploring them to recommend vaccination; but, though two or three complied with this request, the great majority were either silent or openly hostile.
Instead of helping the DOH educate those at risk, the CBCP and anti-choice organizations instead give out misinformation about contraceptives: they don’t work, they all cause cancer, they are abortifacients. They even said the RH Bill is worse than corruption.
The Oblate Fathers, whose church was situated in the very heart of the infected district, continued to denounce vaccination; the faithful were exhorted to rely on devotional exercises of various sorts; under the sanction of the hierarchy a great procession was ordered with a solemn appeal to the Virgin [2], and the use of the rosary was carefully specified.
By the time rosary was recommended, prayer had already been shown to be ineffective in other parts of the world. Inoculation and vaccination, on the other hand, had already saved countless lives. [3]
Maternal deaths, abortions, HIV, poverty — what does the Church recommend to solve today’s problems? Prayer. Faith, abstinence, natural family planning — we’ve tried these solutions and they’ve been shown to be inadequate at best, and outright failures at worst. And instead of just praying for solutions, the Catholic Church is even asking its flock to pray against the RH Bill, the most valid solution in sight.
Meantime, the disease, which had nearly died out among the Protestants, raged with ever-increasing virulence among the Catholics; and, the truth becoming more and more clear, even to the most devout, proper measures were at last enforced and the plague was stayed, though not until there had been a fearful waste of life among these simple-hearted believers, and germs of skepticism planted in the hearts of their children which will bear fruit for generations to come.
Like the other stories in White’s book, there was a happy ending for Montreal. But not before they paid the price. Smallpox is considered by many to be the most devastating disease known to man, killing more people than all other infectious diseases combined. The Catholic Church may not have known the extent of the devastation and the effects of their dogmatism then. But history and hindsight are now on their side.
True Blasphemy
They have a chance to learn from the smallpox tragedy for which they were indirectly responsible. But it seems they are content to continue committing the same mistakes. How much suffering and death must humanity pay before the Catholic Church finally learns that protecting human lives is more important than respecting an immortal God? And if there were a God, and if that God were good, I’m sure she’d agree.
If there were a good God, she’d take more offense at the Catholic Church’s hypocrisy: claiming to have the Truth while they continue to lie about contraception; claiming to be against corruption while they’re in cahoots with corrupt officials; claiming to be against poverty while they have billions they choose not to use for the poor; claiming to be experts on morality while they cover up and coddle clerical child abusers.
These hypocrites are the earthly representation of divine truth and righteousness? Now that’s blasphemy.
______________
[1] Theological Opposition to Inoculation and Vaccination
Below are excerpts from History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom showing how dogma made it difficult to accept inoculation and vaccination:
Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a sermon entitled _The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation_. In this he declared that Job’s distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is “a diabolical operation.”
Not less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Delafaye, entitled _Inoculation an Indefensible Practice_.
A large body of ministers joined in denouncing the new practice as “flying in the face of Providence,” and “endeavouring to baffle a Divine judgment.”
Having thus settled his case for this world, they proceeded to settle it for the next, insisting that “for a man to infect a family in the morning with smallpox and to pray to God in the evening against the disease is blasphemy”; that the smallpox is “a judgment of God on the sins of the people,” and that “to avert it is but to provoke him more”; that inoculation is “an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.”Among the mass of scriptural texts most remote from any possible bearing on the subject one was employed which was equally cogent against any use of healing means in any disease–the words of Hosea: “He hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.”
So bitter was this opposition that Dr. Boylston’s life was in danger; it was considered unsafe for him to be out of his house in the evening; a lighted grenade was even thrown into the house of Cotton Mather, who had favoured the new practice, and had sheltered another clergyman who had submitted himself to it.
“It was good that Satan should be dispossessed of his habitation which he had taken up in men in our Lord’s day, but it was not lawful that the children of the Pharisees should cast him out by the help of Beelzebub. We must always have an eye to the matter of what we do as well as the result, if we intend to keep a good conscience toward God.” But the facts were too strong; the new practice made its way in the New World as in the Old, though bitter opposition continued, and in no small degree on vague scriptural grounds, for more than twenty years longer.
The steady evolution of scientific medicine brings us next to Jenner’s discovery of vaccination. Here, too, sundry vague survivals of theological ideas caused many of the clergy to side with retrograde physicians. Perhaps the most virulent of Jenner’s enemies was one of his professional brethren, Dr. Moseley, who placed on the title-page of his book, _Lues Bovilla_, the motto, referring to Jenner and his followers, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”: this book of Dr. Moseley was especially indorsed by the Bishop of Dromore. In 1798 an Anti-vaccination Society was formed by physicians and clergymen, who called on the people of Boston to suppress vaccination, as “bidding defiance to Heaven itself, even to the will of God,” and declared that “the law of God prohibits the practice.” As late as 1803 the Rev. Dr. Ramsden thundered against vaccination in a sermon before the University of Cambridge, mingling texts of Scripture with calumnies against Jenner;
[2] The Church’s Failed Smallpox Solution: Devotion to Mother Mary
At high mass, yesterday, in the Roman Catholic Cathedral, the Rev. Father Emard read the Papal decree, which is considered as applying to the smallpox epidemic in Montreal, and which was issued by his Holiness Pope Leo XIII… The decree alludes to the ravages of epidemic and plagues among the faithful throughout the world last year, and impresses upon Roman Catholics the efficiency of prayer in crushing these regrettable calamities.
To Mary, therefore, we must fly – to her whom rightly and justly the Church entitles the dispenser of saving, aiding, and protecting gifts – that she, graciously hearkening to our prayers, may grant us the help they besought, and drive far from us the unclean plague.
— Leo XIII
[3] The Effectiveness of Vaccination
In Berlin, during the eight years following 1783, over four thousand children died of the smallpox; while during the eight years following 1814, after vaccination had been largely adopted, out of a larger number of deaths there were but five hundred and thirty-five from this disease. In Wurtemberg, during the twenty-four years following 1772, one in thirteen of all the children died of smallpox, while during the eleven years after 1822 there died of it only one in sixteen hundred. In Copenhagen, during twelve years before the introduction of vaccination, fifty-five hundred persons died of smallpox, and during the sixteen years after its introduction only one hundred and fifty-eight persons died of it throughout all Denmark. In Vienna, where the average yearly mortality from this disease had been over eight hundred, it was steadily and rapidly reduced, until in 1803 it had fallen to less than thirty; and in London, formerly so afflicted by this scourge, out of all her inhabitants there died of it in 1890 but one. As to the world at large, the result is summed up by one of the most honoured English physicians of our time, in the declaration that “Jenner has saved, is now saving, and will continue to save in all coming ages, more lives in one generation than were destroyed in all the wars of Napoleon.”
— Andrew Dickson White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
Sir, if I may, I'd like to comment on this statement: "How much suffering and death must humanity pay before the Catholic Church finally learns that protecting human lives is more important than respecting an immortal God? And if there were a God, and if that God were good, I’m sure she’d agree."
Actually, if that is what the Catholic church believes, then it is against God's teachings. Even just by operating within the Christian context, that kind of mentality is wrong. Matthew 22:36-40 says:
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I think it can be inferred from that statement that loving your neighbor is akin to loving God. If you do not love your neighbor, then you do not love God. So it can actually be said that at least in a Christian context (Catholics consider themselves Christians) that allowing 11 maternal deaths per day to continue in our society is not an expression of love for God.
dboncan,
"Not to me but that is what happens when there is no recognitionthat there can be an objective morality based on natural law"
— I don't know how you were able to infer from what I said that I don't believe in objective morality. If I say that some altruistic behaviours are rooted in evolution, that doesn't mean I think morality is subjective insofar as, as a theistic evolutionist, I believe God set the evolutionary algorithm to play.
I said we're talking in circles because you're bringing up something we've already discussed.
And, I just really have to point this out. Your contention about the diet of our ancestors having little to do with sugar just strengthens my point. Sugar is a high energy source and its rarity would actually make the pressure to desire it stronger. The bigger the need (high energy source) and the minimal supply would conduce to an increase in demand:
from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382217…
"'From an evolutionary point of view, junk food cravings are linked to prehistoric times when the brain's opioids and dopamine reacted to the benefit of high-calorie food as a survival mechanism.
'We are programmed to enjoy eating fatty and sugary substances, and our brains tell us to seek them out."
//It is deviant because it goes against natural law. //
"So is celibacy, but I don't hear you railing against it with regard to the priesthood."
Hahaha I think you are confused between our nature and the faculties that come with that nature. While we as men and women have a sexual faculty, not engaging in sexual acts does nothing to your being male or female. Celibacy is choosing not to make use of that faculty. Engaging in homosexual acts on the other hand means using it not in accordance with your being male or female. i.e. You are comparing two different things.
An Oklahoma mother, Stacie Crimm, was overjoyed to be pregnant with a child, but during her pregnancy, she was diagnosed with neck and head cancer. Instead of having an abortion or taking medication harmful to her baby, she rejected chemotherapy treatment in order to save her child, instead of herself.
She sent 159 text messages about her pregnancy to her brother in the months that followed. Many were joyful but then the bone-chilling messages came in during the predawn hours. She said severe headaches and double vision tortured her while tremors wracked her entire body.
“I'm worried about this baby,” she texted.
“I hope I live long enough to have this baby,” said another message. “Bubba, if anything happens to me, you take this child.”
Oklahoma Mother Gives Her Life to Save Unborn Child
At her family's encouragement, she visited a number of doctors. In July, a CT scan revealed that she had head and neck cancer.
Now she had to choose between her life and her baby's life. Phillips said she agonized only for a while before deciding against taking potentially lifesaving chemotherapy in hopes that she would soon hold a healthy baby in her arms.
In short, the mother made an informed choice. A very noble, and courageous.
Here is my question: Can you really claim such a luxury is available for our women, if you take away that freedom from them?
ABSTINENCE WORKS EVEN THE UGANDAN'S THEMSELVES ADMIT IT!
ABSTINENCE WORKS EVEN THE UGANDAN'S THEMSELVES ADMIT IT!
Abstinence is often dismissed as a potential prevention method. Condom promotion and "safe-sex" initiatives have long been thought to be the answer to stopping the spread of HIV: Instead of encouraging people to curb their libidos, these initiatives have tried to provide "safer" ways of exercising them. However, in many African nations condoms aren’t looked upon kindly: there are a variety of urban legends that circulate in some regions that condoms are either ethnic cleansing tools or actually spread HIV themselves. (During the Cold War, the Soviet KGB spread "disinformation" that the United States created the AIDS virus to kill off Africans.)
"Ugandans really never took to condoms," Dr. Vinand Nantulya, an infectious disease advisor to Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, told The New Republic.
The abstinence initiative in Uganda goes far beyond those who are already having sex — it starts with the education and promotion of an abstinence program for youth called "True Love Waits." Thirty thousand Ugandan youth are currently involved with the program. Launched in Uganda in 1994, True Love Waits focuses on abstinence until marriage as a way to prevent all sorts of adverse consequences associated with extra-marital sexual activity.
"Encouraging marriage, monogamy or abstinence, delaying the onset of sexual activity, discouraging promiscuity and casual sex, reducing the supply and demand of illegal drugs or providing treatment to drug addicts … are the absolute most effective approaches to reducing the risk of HIV," Rep. Mark Souder (R-Indiana) and six other members of the U.S. Committee on Government Reform said in a letter to the United Nations.
Go tell that to the Thais.
They wouldn't listen. Besides, Thailand's success is in large part because of the shifting mindset into avoiding sex. Once the condom people launched a campaign of awareness about HIV, sexual contact went down. Seriously, if you knew you knew that HIV was so rampant, would you even think of having sex with a prostitute even if condoms were available? That is like playing HIV roulette.
//Thailand's success is in large part because of the shifting mindset into avoiding sex. Once the condom people launched a campaign of awareness about HIV, sexual contact went down. Seriously, if you knew you knew that HIV was so rampant, would you even think of having sex with a prostitute even if condoms were available? That is like playing HIV roulette. //
And of course, your reply is one again full of shit. Let's hear what's really happening in Thailand: http://www.avert.org/thailand-aids-hiv.htm
"There are very few developing countries in the world where public policy has been effective in preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS on a national scale, but Thailand is an exception. In the 1990s, a massive programme that began to control HIV reduced visits to commercial sex workers by half, raised condom usage, decreased the prevalence of STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) dramatically, and achieved substantial reductions in new HIV infections.1
Thailand, though, is also a reminder that success can be relative. Its well funded, politically supported and comprehensive prevention programmes have saved millions of lives, reducing the number of new HIV infections from 143,000 in 1991 to 19,000 in 2003.2 Nonetheless, over half a million people in Thailand are living with HIV, and in 2009 28,000 people died from AIDS.3 "
ABSTINENCE WORKS EVEN THE UGANDAN'S THEMSELVES ADMIT IT!
Promotion of condom use is generally pushed by U.N. agencies, population control advocates and others, as the most effective way to combat AIDS. Reports by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health argue that the Uganda success story was partly due to use of condoms.
On the other hand, Dr. Vinand Nantulya, an infectious disease specialist who helped advise Museveni, said Ugandans "really never took to condoms."
The message that took hold was that young people, who are at a higher risk of being
infected, should not have sex until marriage and then remain faithful to their single partner.
The results, when they came, were remarkable by any measure. By 2001, the number of pregnant Ugandan women testing positive for HIV had fallen from 21.2 percent at the height of the epidemic in 1991 to 6.2 percent.
By contrast, in Kenya the rate in 2001 was roughly 15 percent of pregnant women, while in Zimbabwe it stands at 32 percent and in Botswana at 38 percent of mothers-to-be. Rates continue to rise in each country.
//ABSTINENCE WORKS EVEN THE UGANDAN'S THEMSELVES ADMIT IT! //
…Along with government push for promoting responsible condom use. How interesting it is that you love to gloss over just one aspect of a multi-faceted anti-AIDs program, especially when its other components don't agree with your sensibilities.
And for the record, I doubt Prof. Vinand Nantulya will appreciate people like you pretending to assume that he and his team are pro abstinence-only. They have been actively promoting the ABCs of AIDs prevention since day 1.
Let's get a clearer picture of the situation in Uganda, shall we?
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/…
Twin_Skies, I didn't want to go down to your level of discourse but I could not help point out the following for the benefit of those who believe the absurdity of your position:
1. Abstinence programs fail because people don't want to practice abstinence. Abstention does not have a sexual act so it is full proof and that was the heart of my argument which you missed. A study to show if abstention works is better. Look at Uganda
2. We were talking about vaccination and your allegation that the church was against it, I debunked that completely by giving references and you change topics to the RHBill which isn't what we were talking about …but why am I not surprised.
3. How many 9-year old girls are actually in this situation that you would allow the widespread prescription of OC's because of a rare occurrence such as this.
4. It is unethical and irresponsible to give a 9-year old girl contraceptives. One day if you do have a daughter you might remember this
5. Who is the ignorant moron now?
6. Verbal abuse is the refuge of people who have absolutely no fortitude …or do you need me to define that?
//1. Abstinence programs fail because people don't want to practice abstinence. Abstention does not have a sexual act so it is full proof and that was the heart of my argument which you missed. //
And of course, you're attempting to placate the accusation by revising the original statement I addressed, which is this:
//Consider this, the church is for abstention… show me where this solution can lead to the spread of STD's. //
I have shown you data indicating that abstinence-only education has not only failed to curb the spread of STDs, but in fact has led to their increased prevalence by denying people access to proper sex education. Have you even bothered to read the links I presented?
________________________
//2. 2. We were talking about vaccination and your allegation that the church was against it, I debunked that completely by giving references and you change topics to the RHBill which isn't what we were talking about …but why am I not surprised.//
Observe the statement you originally said (caps mine for emphasis):
//At any rate to show that the church opposes vaccination or MEDICINE, please show us evidence of church teaching that explicitly teaches this.//
Part and parcel of the RH Bill is providing our people with access to sex education, contraceptives and other birth control methods that allow them to space their families responsibly. And unless you've been living under a rock for the past few months, those are also the main points that the CBCP and its cronies have been opposing.
dboncan, did you seriously think that we can't draw up your older statement in case you attempted to rephrase your question to avoid looking any less ethical than you are now?
__________________________________
/3. How many 9-year old girls are actually in this situation that you would allow the widespread prescription of OC's because of a rare occurrence such as this. //
//3. How many 9-year old girls are actually in this situation that you would allow the widespread prescription of OC's because of a rare occurrence such as this.//
No, I pointed out that incident in reaction to your specific statement:
//You allege that the church is a murderer because of her opposition to what you think will work. //
In that given circumstance, your church attempted to deny an emergency abortion to a woman because the local bishop honestly believed that an abortion was a worse crime than rape. At no point did I even bring up Oral Contraceptives or the RH Bill in that example.
As for just how "rare" it is for the church to deny emergency medical care to women because of their self-proclaimed "Pro-Life" stance, there are studies for that too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26364…
Ergo, your church would rather see a woman suffer and die rather than provide her with emergency medical care due to birth complications.
But since you were kind enough to mention it, let's see how "rare" young pregnancies are actually in the Philippines context, hm?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/… http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/countri…
4.//IIt is unethical and irresponsible to give a 9-year old girl contraceptives. One day if you do have a daughter you might remember this//
Strawman argument here. At what point did I even say we should be giving contraceptives to nine-year-olds? And if I did
Abortion is murder. So yes homicide is worse than rape plus the homicide that you do is to the rape victims baby not even to the rapist! What cruelty to doubly jeopardize the life of the victim and make a victim of the baby who was not even part and parcel of the crime. What part of the train of thought does not make sense to your conscience. You would have to argue that the fetus is not a human being …in which case we really have nothing to discuss do we?
//What cruelty to doubly jeopardize the life of the victim and make a victim of the baby who was not even part and parcel of the crime. //
What greater cruelty is there in intentionally endangering the life of the mother just to sate the moral convictions of a holy roller.
//What part of the train of thought does not make sense to your conscience. You would have to argue that the fetus is not a human being …in which case we really have nothing to discuss do we? //
The women involved in this case is also a human being dboncan, lest you forget. a Nine-year-old child whose life was in danger if the doctors let the pregnancy run its due course.
And thank you for letting us all know that you'd let her die just so you can give yourself and your imaginary friend a pat on the back for "defending" the life of the fetus that was endangering her life.
So you would rather kill one to save another. I would rather try to save both.
//So you would rather kill one to save another. I would rather try to save both.//
All of us would. However, there are situations where that is simple impossible, and that regardless of what the doctor does, the baby will die, either due to birth defects, or being premature. That's the reality that I understand happens.
The same reality you are too bloody stupid to realize.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703442
all of us would you say? you're not! you cannot justify a good outcome by an evil act. Would you murder one person if that would save 20 others? How many would be proportional in doing evil to justify a good outcome 1, 2, 10, how about 5million. And who gave you the or any doctor or parent for that matter to determine life or death for an unborn human being?
all you ever do is mouth out curses… a sign of weakness and cowardice.
//Would you murder one person if that would save 20 others?//
It depends on the circumstance, honestly. Nobody in their right mind would answer you unless they knew the exact details of the scenario you're talking about.
///And who gave you the or any doctor or parent for that matter to determine life or death for an unborn human being? //
And what the fuck makes you think you know better than a trained doctor? Are you really so full of yourself that you think you'd do a better job than a medical expert?
//all you ever do is mouth out curses… a sign of weakness and cowardice. //
Right, this from the gobshite who thinks he knows better than a doctor presiding over a woman's pregnancy.
The same man who thinks he can tell teenagers to endure an unwanted pregnancy while denying them access to education because he believes that telling them about basic human biology is "blasphemous" to his personal fairy tale.
That's the funny thing about blowhards like you – you act all sanctimunious and "moral," but the minute we start calling out your bullshit, you become spineless, onion-skinned cowards who can't take a couple of F-bombs.
Grow a pair.
I will end this on this note : A person who has substance does not have to resort to invectives to get their point across no matter how pea-brained they think their opponents are. I have been there and done that. As an apologist for Mr. Tani, since it is his article, please tell him that I would like to hear from him and to stop hiding under someone else's skirt. Good day
//Abortion is murder.//
Denying women health care is also murder. http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives
How is denying contraceptives and abortion to women , murder?
//denying contraceptives and abortion to women , murder? //
You're denying them far more than contraceptives. You're denying them access to maternal health services and education programs that enable them to plan their pregnancies when they know they're ready.
And furthermore, abortions remain illegal even with the implementation of the RH Bill. Did it ever occur to you that giving our families the ability to plan when they'll have kids will remove the occurrence of abortions in the first place?
There is more than one study available proving this trend:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.h…
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/20/contra…
Show me how the church at present is denying women maternal health care!
1. Are contraceptives available right now?
2. Is pre-natal care available now?
3. Is sex ed being taught now?
the answer is yes to all three counts. soooooo why the bill?
it's about the money money money, it's all aobut money money money… my naive friend.
///1. Are contraceptives available right now? //
Not to the people who cannot afford them, who also happen to be the people in the lower social demographics that need them to plan their families responsibly.
//2. Is pre-natal care available now? //
11 women die due to maternal complications, with teen pregnancies on the rise for the past few years. My question to you is this: Are our current pre-natal services anywhere near enough?
//3. Not in public schools, where most of the children of our more impoverished countrymen go to. These are exactly the sort of people who need this information.//
you didn't answer my questions. at any rate I knew you would skirt it.
1.the government has been making contraceptives available in the health centers since marcos' time.
2. No current maternal care isn't enough so why not pour the money in prenatal care instead of on contraceptives. prenatal facilities, medications for prenatal infections,PICU units …wee where we are at?
//it's about the money money money, it's all aobut money money money… my naive friend. //
Your church would know all about money, wouldn't it? It's branches in the United States alone have invested over 2 billion dollars in legal settlements for its sex abuse cases. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopi…
The CBCP itself has billions in shares in various local corporations: http://www.pinoymoneytalk.com/church-philippines-… http://www.zimbio.com/President+Gloria+Macapagal-…
So really, quit being the self-righteous, limp-dicked sanctimonious fuckwit you are. We can all see that your so-called moral guardians are just as greedy as the politicos they've made their bitches.
Ahhh the sam-o sam-o sex abuse scandal etc etc… we were not talking about that. Same curses. That's it? Well that is the last straw. I gave it a chance and yet you really cannot manage to have a decent discussion without cursing and hurling invectives. you remind me of the atheists in the forum I joined before which is also the reason i left … cursing cursing cursing. Weakness and obstinacy. If this is what freethinking does to you, I don't know why any RATIONAL person would like to have anything to do with this group. Good day to you.
Your shallower than I thought you are. Imagine concluding that the church opposes medicine because it is opposed to the RHbill. The Church is opposed to the RHBill for many reasons including the violation of rights of parents, violation of Catholics to practice their faith freely and the inherent immorality of using artificial contraceptives. Your conclusion is so juvenile it's like saying I oppose technology because I believe that internet pornography is bad. Besides, pregnancy isn't even a disease that this government along with people like the "Free"-thinkers" are making it out to be. Have you read HUMANE VITAE? Perhaps you should read the church's position on the matter so you can stop making these skewed arguments.
//The Church is opposed to the RHBill for many reasons including the violation of rights of parents, violation of Catholics to practice their faith freely and the inherent immorality of using artificial contraceptives.//
1. Bueno, cite where in the bill where parents will be FORCED to use contraceptives.
2. And it is interesting that of all of the reasons you could have cited for for the church's opposition of the bill, you didn't say anything about defending women's rights. Instead, you decided to play the "religious freedom" bullshit card. Thank you for showing us what isn't part of their agenda.
//Your conclusion is so juvenile it's like saying I oppose technology because I believe that internet pornography is bad. //
//Besides, pregnancy isn't even a disease that this government along with people like the "Free"-thinkers" are making it out to be.//
It's not a disease, but pregnancies in themselves can result in several health problems, such as strokes, increased blood pressure, and weakened immune function. And these are the sort of complications that are killing 11 of our women each day, unless you fail to see that.
//Have you read HUMANE VITAE?//
Yup, read it. And most of us here consider it to be bullshit: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th…
//Perhaps you should read the church's position on the matter so you can stop making these skewed arguments. //
I invite you to read on the news more, specifically the sort of stupidity that your ilk loves to
parade around. https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/18/read-e…
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/09/07/sen-so…
Denying health care for contraceptives or abortion is murder, what baloney. ABORTION ITSELF IS MURDER! Will a contraceptive save her life? Perhaps if you said antibiotics or vaccines then yes but contraceptives… give me a break! The problem with your article ia simply that they define risk in very loose terms like psychological risk or similar and not actual medical risk because it is a known fact that the Church allows intentional abortions via the principle of double effect.
Teenage pregnancies as you so diligently linked is not the same as raped and pregnant 9 year olds. So stop drawing conclusions regarding abortions for teenage pregnancies from abused 9 YEAR OLD CHILDREN. A teenager of 16 or 18 can carry a child to term, a 9 year old cannot. In the case of abortion for teens or adults, you only see one victim, I see two. For you one can be murdered to preserve the other, for me both lives can be preserved. Tell me how many 9 year old cases have there been?
Contraceptive use isn't the same as having an abortion, genius.
didn't say it is. yet my erudite friend some contraceptives are chemical abortifacients. but of course you will deny this.
//Denying health care for contraceptives or abortion is murder, what baloney. // If pregnancy endangers the life of the woman involved, then yes, denying her an abortion is very well going to kill her. Did that ever occur to you?
Just so we have a good starting point, are you aware that the church permits abortions in some circumstances provided that it falls under the purview of the principle of double effect? So if a mom says she does not want to have the baby because of psychological incapacity, would you allow it?My point is the criteria for endangerment has gotten so loose that when the U.S. started down this road they started arguing exactly your point above then they expanded it to include, at present, no cause abortion. So much for the endangerment reason huh. Oh and abortion is merely the solution for failed contraception because why else would you intentionally abort?
//Just so we have a good starting point, are you aware that the church permits abortions in some circumstances provided that it falls under the purview of the principle of double effect?//
Under pain of excommunication, if the last few cases are any indicator: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…
//So if a mom says she does not want to have the baby because of psychological incapacity, would you allow it?//
It's not my choice to make, and neither is it yours. I'm not as self-entitled as you are. That decision should be left to the woman's doctor, her family, and loved ones.
//Oh and abortion is merely the solution for failed contraception because why else would you intentionally abort? //
It's never that simple dbconcan, and you're being disingenuous to think that it'd be so convenient as to lump all abortions together into "black and white" scenarios. Each situation will be different, and depending on the circumstance, it was chosen as the best course of action to protect the woman's welfare.
//My point is the criteria for endangerment has gotten so loose that when the U.S. started down this road they started arguing exactly your point above then they expanded it to include, at present, no cause abortion. //
And a valid response would be to impose an unconditional ban on all abortions, regardless of the circumstance of the mother. Yes, that's bloody brilliant, resorting to a false dichotomy fallacy. How many lives has your fucked-up mentality cost our people?
http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives
//A teenager of 16 or 18 can carry a child to term, a 9 year old cannot. //
They can, indeed, but they are also subject to higher risk of complications compared to the older demographics: http://www.marchofdimes.com/medicalresources_teen…
"Teen mothers are more likely than mothers over age 20 to give birth prematurely (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy). Between 2003 and 2005, preterm birth rates averaged 14.5 percent for women under age 20 compared to 11.9 percent for women ages 20 to 29 (5). Babies born prematurely face an increased risk of newborn health problems, long-term disabilities and even death."
"Teenage mothers are more likely to have a low-birthweight baby. Most low-birthweight babies are born prematurely. The earlier a baby is born, the less she is likely to weigh. In 2006, 10 percent of mothers ages 15 to 19 had a low-birthweight baby, compared to 8.3 percent for mothers of all ages (2). The risk is higher for younger mothers:"
"11.7 percent of 15-year-old mothers had a low-birthweight baby in 2006; 18,403 babies were born to girls this age, with 2,153 of low birthweight (2)."
"9.5 percent of 19-year-old mothers had a low-birthweight baby in 2006; 172,999 babies were born to these women, with 16,362 of low birthweight (2)."
Did you get all that? Or shall we have to ask an ob/gyn to make a personal visit to drum more facts into that thick skull of yours?
so these are supposed to justify killing the unborn?
No, these facts and figures should justify why it's essential that our youth should be granted access to comprehensive sex education programs that at least give them the chance to plan for having a family.
Less unplanned pregnancies = less abortions.
Do I have to spoonfeed you? You're a grown man – act like one.
The other non-medical complications of a teen pregnancy you're ignorant of: http://www.marchofdimes.com/medicalresources_teen…
Life may be difficult for a teenage mother and her child. Teen mothers are more likely to drop out of high school than girls who delay childbearing. Only 40 percent of teenagers who have children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared to 75 percent of teens from similar social and economic backgrounds who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21 (3).
With her education cut short, a teenage mother may lack job skills, making it hard for her to find and keep a job. A teenage mother may become financially dependent on her family or on public assistance. Teen mothers are more likely to live in poverty than women who delay childbearing, and more than 75 percent of all unmarried teen mothers go on welfare within 5 years of the birth of their first child (3).
About 64 percent of children born to an unmarried teenage high-school dropout live in poverty, compared to 7 percent of children born to women over age 20 who are married and high school graduates (3). A child born to a teenage mother is 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade in school and is more likely to perform poorly on standardized tests and drop out before finishing high school (3).
Not ignorant of teenage issues I have 2 of them. but the solution to teenage pregnancy cannot be the same solution the west has taken and has led them to the 50million abortions a year. if you don't see that, then …!
//But the solution to teenage pregnancy cannot be the same solution the west has taken and has led them to the 50million abortions a year.//
I was hoping you'd resort to this argument. If you're bothered to look carefully, you'd also notice that their implementation of comprehensive sex education and conteraceptives use has resulted in a decline in their abortion numbers over the years.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/ind… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26sat2….
In fact, the areas with the highest incidences of abortions and unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. happen to be in the Bible Belt: http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/imedia…
http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/biblebelt.ht…
These areas also happen to have the highest incidences of divorce in the nation. You were saying about this morality bullshit you were peddling?
Of course it is BS for people who have very little in terms of integrity or real honest to goodness reason! Imagine Tani and Bercerro cannot even defend his own video and hide behind you guys who are just as dishonest. You guys can't even defend what I have posted about your erroneous and ridiculous conclusions about the church. You call yourselves what… rational reasonable … pleeeeease! To prove something like the church's opposition to science you have to give a ridiculous quote from what 300 or 400 years and to mistake prayer as substitution for treatment as though the church teaches this. My friend you are so brash to think that your position is tenable, it is not and you let common decency in speech fly out the window. A little honesty in discussions goes a long way. Why doesn't Mr.Tani refute what i have posted and lets see who has, to use your lingo, the bigger "BS".
"1. Bueno, cite where in the bill where parents will be FORCED to use contraceptives."
This was not what I was referring to. I was referring to forcing parents to allow their kids to undergo mandatory sex ed. My issues here are:
1.That children do not have the same maturity level even if they are the same age.
2.Parents must not be forced to relegate to another person the moral education of their children in sexual matters because the teacher may have their own biases which may be taught to the kids and these biases are against the religious beliefs of the family.
3. As a Catholic, I want my children to be free from being taught by a stranger matters about contraception, deviant sexual behavior and STD's… THAT IS MY JOB!
"2. And it is interesting that of all of the reasons you could have cited for for the church's opposition of the bill, you didn't say anything about defending women's rights. Instead, you decided to play the "religious freedom" bullshit card. Thank you for showing us what isn't part of their agenda."
Are you saying that the Church is against women's rights? What rights? Tell me, aren't contraceptives freely available now? Isn't maternal/prenatal care available now? What rights …you mean to decide to murder their children by abortion?
aclarar su posición por favor!
"1.That children do not have the same maturity level even if they are the same age."
That's why it's call Age-Appropriate sex education.
2. Parents must not be forced to relegate to another person the moral education of their children in sexual matters because the teacher may have their own biases which may be taught to the kids and these biases are against the religious beliefs of the family.
Then don't put your kids through school. Imagine the shock a creationist family must feel when their kids come home asking about questions regarding evolution. The horror!
3. As a Catholic, I want my children to be free from being taught by a stranger matters about contraception, deviant sexual behavior and STD's… THAT IS MY JOB!
Then don't enroll your kids. Did it ever occur to you that other parents are perfectly fine with thier kids having access to education that they themselves have neither the time nor knowledge to provide at home? And look at the studies I have presented to you earlier – I've already indicated that the Philippines has a high occurence of teenage parents.
Doesn't that already indicate that their parents failed to pass on the moral lessons they need to avoid getting into early pregnancies? The signs and data is all there dboncan – burying your head in sand isn't a valid response.
"That's why it's call Age-Appropriate sex education. "
Hehehe you didn't understand or don't understand my point. Psychological maturity are not the same for all children of the same biological age …clear? On top of that, in co-ed schools, the psychological maturity of boys and girls differ too. So you actually have to problems of lumping your "age-appropo" sex ed advocacy. Some may be ready and some aren't.
"Then don't put your kids through school. Imagine the shock a creationist family must feel when their kids come home asking about questions regarding evolution. The horror! "
Oh you thought I was a creationist is that it? You really think Catholics are …ohhh poor boy. It may come as a big surprise that only a small segment of Fundamentalist Christians are creationists and surprise surprise Catholics are not. Sorry to disappoint you.
"Then don't enroll your kids. Did it ever occur to you that other parents are perfectly fine with thier kids having access to education that they themselves have neither the time nor knowledge to provide at home? And look at the studies I have presented to you earlier – I've already indicated that the Philippines has a high occurence of teenage parents."
Don't enroll my kids, that's your solution? How about making it optional for parents to opt in or out? Isn't this more fair?
" I've already indicated that the Philippines has a high occurence of teenage parents.
Doesn't that already indicate that their parents failed to pass on the moral lessons they need to avoid getting into early pregnancies? The signs and data is all there dboncan – burying your head in sand isn't a valid response."
Burying my head in the sand? You yourself said that you think parents have failed, in the first place, were the parents ever given the chance to educate their kids properly? Has the government tried to train or educate parents on how to educate their children about chastity? NO so naturally, they will fail. How about a government program on educating parents on how to talk to their kids about age-appropriate sex-ed after all parents are the ones who know when the kids are ready for it or not. Not having time is always an excuse in fact there are more educated and rich folk who make this an excuse …busy running the businesses. It's a matter of priority and love.
//4. It is unethical and irresponsible to give a 9-year old girl contraceptives. One day if you do have a daughter you might remember this //
If I had a daughter that age, I would have provided her with age-appropriate education on her sexuality. However, if I found the topic too complicated or delicate for me to express properly, I'd have relegated that to professionals, as is stipulated in the RH Bill when it discusses age-appropriate sex education.
On account of your apparent lack of understanding of the bill, and attempts to demonize it by making us think it'll be freely doling out contraceptives to kids, let's see what the current bill actually says: http://www.likhaan.org/content/section-13-mandato…
SECTION 13
Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include, but not limited to the following topics:
a. Values formation
b. Knowledge and skills in self protection against discrimination, sexual violence and abuse, and (een pregnancy.
c. Physical, Social and Emotional Changes in Adolescents
d. Children's and women's rights
e. Fertility awareness
f. STI, HIV and AIDS
g. Population and development
h. Responsible relationship
i. Family planning methods
j. Proscription and hazards of abortion
k. Gender and development
l. Responsible parenthood
I refer you to letter B of the proposed sex education program, which teaches kids to better defend themselves against sexual discrimination, violence, and abuse.
The Brazil incident I cited earlier was an due to rape. Our bill proposes our sex ed program teach kids to defense themselves against rape. My question to you is this: How exactly is that wrong?
A method like abstinence is only effective if people actually practiced it. Now comparing all other forms of contraception with abstinence, assuming they are used properly, I think not even you will argue that abstention wins hands down. I am not arguing the issue of failure from the perspective of not using it. It is like me telling you that condoms fail because they don't use it. Studies on condom USE failure rates have shown a 3-10% failure caused by material failure to inconsistent usage. If you read my article on Uganda you would notice that while ABC is the program, Ugandan officials actually claim that the biggest impact is A and B and not C. That was my point. Imagine if A and B are implemented in a global scale then we would see the same figures as Uganda.
Twin skies, you really are wily. we were talking about the article and Tani's allegation that the church opposed vaccinatio therefor science therefor the RHBill. I have shown that his assertions are false lets finish that topic before tackling the RHbill which is really don't care to discuss here as it has been over-argued already over the last two years. What I want to talk about and tackle are Tani's LIES and erroneous albeit calumnious rants about what the church did or believed in without even presenting a shred of evidence or documentation of official church teaching on the matter. Address this and we can continue otherwise you can take all your assertions or inventions and peddle them to the naive people who believe Tani's stuff.
//I have shown that his assertions are false lets finish that topic before tackling the RHbill which is really don't care to discuss here as it has been over-argued already over the last two years. //
And judging from your arguments and lopsided reasoning, you are literally asking to be called out for being a fundamentalist fucktard who wouldn't know what sex education was if somebody slapped you silly with it.
//Studies on condom USE failure rates have shown a 3-10% failure caused by material failure to inconsistent usage.//
And this is a problem because? it's still well within the safety margins of any medical test to be safe for public consumption. Seatbetls have a lower success rate, but I don't see you bitching about people not using them.
"If I had a daughter that age, I would have provided her with age-appropriate education on her sexuality. However, if I found the topic too complicated or delicate for me to express properly, I'd have relegated that to professionals, as is stipulated in the RH Bill when it discusses age-appropriate sex education. "
Professionals? What a naive dad. A teacher may be trained but what if that teacher was homosexual or lesbian or had a secret abortion or is living in with a boyfriend and considers these are normal. I would say, "YOU'RE A WIMP OF A DAD". Age appropriate is only true if children mature the same time at that given age and we know that they do not.
//A teacher may be trained but what if that teacher was homosexual or lesbian//
Then it would be a fabulous class 😀 Is that a problem?
And for the record, a handful of my professors in college WERE gay. Aside from their slightly distracting lisp, they were wonderful teachers.
//or had a secret abortion or is living in with a boyfriend and considers these are normal.//
What a teacher does in their personal life is none of my business, provided that it does not interfere with their ability to be a professional.
//I would say, "YOU'RE A WIMP OF A DAD".//
Mind your testosterone levels. Or are you desperately trying to compensate for something? Seriously, take the machismo down a notch.
//Age appropriate is only true if children mature the same time at that given age and we know that they do not. //
And you're an expert on determining each child's psychological development? let's see the psych degrees please.
I really had to cringe at dboncan's arguments which could be summarized as:
"The church also did a few good things in its time, so people have no right to complain about the atrocities they also committed"
If one were to embrace this line of reasoning, then there's also no reason why we shouldn't make Marcos a nation hero as well because he also did a few good works during his time. Let's forget all about the atrocities and human rights violations he committed and focus only on the good he did for the country. Let's forgot all about what we fought for in Edsa and remember Marcos only as a hero and a saint.
Wes, What part of my post did I say this? How did you come to this conclusion? Please clarify
The article of Mr. Tani above is an example of dishonesty. His citation of Dickinson is perhaps the worst. No serious historian takes this work as accurate. Mr. Tani also mistakenly cites the prayers of popes as "solutions" to the epidemic. Mr. Tani, you are confused or ignorant of what prayer is all about. I won't bother theologizing with you about prayer because it is something that requires faith. At any rate to show that the church opposes vaccination or medicine, please show us evidence of church teaching that explicitly teaches this. Otherwise it is a plain fabrication or an erroneous conclusion.
Blasphemy is indeed worse than murder because it is a sin against God. How does that relate to STD's? You allege that the church is a murderer because of her opposition to what you think will work. Consider this, the church is for abstention… show me where this solution can lead to the spread of STD's. You're logic is unbelievable skewed.
//Consider this, the church is for abstention… show me where this solution can lead to the spread of STD's. You're logic is unbelievable skewed. //
And you're an ignorant moron. Several studies showing that imposing an abstinence-only policy in sex education has caused an increase in STDs and unwanted teen pregnancies:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/21606.ph…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/ns/health-hea…
http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/abstinence_only_fail…
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2007/04…
//At any rate to show that the church opposes vaccination or medicine, please show us evidence of church teaching that explicitly teaches this. Otherwise it is a plain fabrication or an erroneous conclusion. //
May I direct your attention to the CBCP's attempts to railroad the RH Bill.
//You allege that the church is a murderer because of her opposition to what you think will work. //
dboncan, your church would rather a 9 year old girl give birth even if the pregnancy kills her. Yes, your church is a murderer. Deal with it. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00...
//Most atheists I have argued with always have to verbally abuse. I guess it's some kind of a hang up or a cowardly mask. Good day to you. //
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_troll
And lest I forget, you're now resorting to tone-trolling. Kindly grow a pair of balls, and stop being such a bitchy, onion-skinned, pompous blowhard.
//Nope i won't deal with it. As I said, your demeanor speaks highly of your upbringing and breeding. I have no time nor patience for people who cannot reason using decent language.//
Likewise. I don't suffer bigots, tools, and bible-thumping fuckwits. And I have little patience for people who remain entrenched in their discrimination against certain communities just because their favorite story book tells them it's wrong.
//I guess it's some kind of a hang up or a cowardly mask. // "Cowardice" is refusing to acknowledge the handful of links that your opponent has spoonfed you refute your baseless claims. That's not just being cowardly, that's being stupid, and ungrateful.
"dboncan, let me get this straight – you're willing to waste your time drawing upon apologetics, but can't be tasked with tracking down answers for elementary questions such as the existence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom?"
I would like to correct you: SEEMINGLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR!
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
You believe in evolution right? Homosexual behaviour is counter-evolutionary so i doubt that this instinct actually exists in animals who are driven by their instincts to survive. I think the explanation above is consistent with science and evolution as we know it.
//In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality: // Let me stop you right there.
You're citing a 1996 quote-mine of Levay's study. Have you bothered to checked his more recent works? http://sdgln.com/entertainment/2010/10/11/gay-bra…
//You believe in evolution right?//
Silly rabbit – nobody "believes" in evolution. It's a naturally occurring phenomena that will take place whether we believe it or not. We're talking about hard science, not tinkerbell.
// Homosexual behaviour is counter-evolutionary so i doubt that this instinct actually exists in animals who are driven by their instincts to survive. I think the explanation above is consistent with science and evolution as we know it. // And once again, what you think is very different from what real scientists observe in the natural world.
You claim that homosexuality is counter-evolutionary, and yet they claim it's not the case: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolu…
//I would like to correct you: SEEMINGLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR! //
Tell that to the scientific community: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14638-the-s…
Also for those who follow Mr. Red Tani's calumnies about the Catholic church, I suggest you follow this link and read the cheap shots he makes at his presentation at De La Salle: http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/ch…
dbdoncan,
Funny that you're mentioning cheap shots – your wordpress article acts as if author Dinesh D'Souza is in any way a credible source of information. he's not. And quite frankly, I'm not obligated to read through the ramblings of somebody who takes D'ASouza's word as the gospel truth.
Try harder. http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/11/114-din…
let's look at some other arguments your article cited:
//What he doesn’t say is most other Christian denominations, as well as most lay people, also fell into this superstition. The question is did anyone know any better?//
So basically, because other Christian denominations were just as superstitious, we shouldn't condemn the church for its own stupidity? That's like the man who runs a red light saying a traffic cop shouldn't arrest him because other people also break traffic laws.
// Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church as it pertains to masturbation, contraception and homosexuality?
If yes, would you care to point out what parts seem erroneous to you as a former Catholic?
I ask these because of your sweeping and inaccurate portrayal of the Catholic Church’s position on them.//
Read it, and using the link posted, your own church is susceptible to teaching the very same cheap shots you're accusing Tani of. To elaborate on my point, I present the link your article provides on the Catholic stance on homosexuality
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm
1. They are contrary to the natural law
Please – kindly define "natural law."
2. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
Being sterile also closes a sexual act to the gift of life, as does advances age, Tell us why the church isn't condemning sterile or elder couples. And if you really want gays to have kids, there is always the possibility of adoptions, or IVFs for lesbian couples.
As for actual gay parenting, your church is woefully ignorant on that too – studies have indicated that gay couples can raise good kids: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/…
2. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
So basically, the church is against it because the plumbing doesn't fit? Your article fails to realize that anals, blowjobs, and sex toys aren't the exclusive realm of the gay community – they're quite prevalent against straight couples as well?
"So basically, because other Christian denominations were just as superstitious, we shouldn't condemn the church for its own stupidity? That's like the man who runs a red light saying a traffic cop shouldn't arrest him because other people also break traffic laws. "
But everyone back then, including doctors, were quite "stupid" about what constitutes a disease process. The bigger question is, is that stupidity still being purveyed now by the church? As i said even a systematized form of medical care started with the Catholic church …and yet no credit is given where credit is due.
"Please – kindly define "natural law."
That which governs the nature of things. A man has a nature of a man, not a woman. A woman has a nature of a woman. A lion has a nature of a lion. When a man starts acting like a woman it seems you're all for it but when a man, like the Oslo shooter, starts acting like an animal you are up in arms. I think this explanation is simple enough and you get my drift.
//As i said even a systematized form of medical care started with the Catholic church …and yet no credit is given where credit is due. //
Alright, let's assume for a minute that the RCC did – once upon a time – created the foundation for modern medical care. Does that justify their bishops today acting to deny our women reproductive rights?
And speaking of Catholic Church-inspired health care… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26364…
''A man has a nature of a man, not a woman. A woman has a nature of a woman.'' So please, kindly define what exactly is "masculinity" and "femininity." What's your take on effeminate men or tomboyish women? Take note that just because they're not acting according to your stereotype, that they're automatically gay or lesbian. I've seen my fair share of gay men who act perfectly straight.
//like the Oslo shooter, starts acting like an animal you are up in arms.//
Please, tell me the last time that a lion, tiger or bear developed the intelligence necesssary to create several home made bombs, and plan an unprovoked attack against several youths for no other reason than to feed his insanity.
Sounds like human behavior to me.
Simile: LIke an animal …a figure of speech used in place of something else.
"Take note that just because they're not acting according to your stereotype, that they're automatically gay or lesbian. I've seen my fair share of gay men who act perfectly straight."
those are not my stereotype it's human nature. I am not talking being effeminate or being boyish I am talking about acting out ones sexuality in the way he or she is not. Get it?
//I am not talking being effeminate or being boyish I am talking about acting out ones sexuality in the way he or she is not. Get it? // I understand. And I also understand that people are no more able to stop being gay than they are being straight.
You are the one who does not "Get" it.
"Being sterile also closes a sexual act to the gift of life, as does advances age, Tell us why the church isn't condemning sterile or elder couples. And if you really want gays to have kids, there is always the possibility of adoptions, or IVFs for lesbian couples. "
I think you confuse having a disorder that doesn't allow you to have children and engaging in an act that purposely will not have children. One has no moral culpability because in sterility, either as a result of age or disorder, because it is part of the nature of man to age and lose that capacity. Sterility as a disorder, as it happens in some cases, is also part of the imperfection of mans nature. Both of these do not harm the natural moral laws that govern human nature. On the other hand, to engage in acts contrary to ones nature which result in sterility is obviously that, a result of going against one's nature.
"As for actual gay parenting, your church is woefully ignorant on that too – studies have indicated that gay couples can raise good kids:"…
I do not agree that gay couples may raise good kids. That is not the point of contention. The point is, is it a natural process for gays to raise kids? I have no stats but gay couples raising kids will probably end up being gay too. I base these on data from studies that a good number of children raised in physically abusive homes also become abusers. Certainly not all but many. Why would you want to expose children in an unnatural environment.
//Both of these do not harm the natural moral laws that govern human nature. On the other hand, to engage in acts contrary to ones nature which result in sterility is obviously that, a result of going against one's nature.//
What exactly is one's "nature?" Even your concept of what makes a man a "man" is a very fluid idea that changes from culture to culture.
//I do not agree that gay couples may raise good kids. That is not the point of contention. The point is, is it a natural process for gays to raise kids? I have no stats but gay couples raising kids will probably end up being gay too.//
If you'd bothered to look at my comment, you'd have noticed the link I posted from actual studies that indicate the ability of gay couples to raise children. Now in case you missed it: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/…
//I have no stats but gay couples raising kids will probably end up being gay too. I base these on data from studies that a good number of children raised in physically abusive homes also become abusers.//
In short, you're bullshitting because you don't have any ammo.
//Why would you want to expose children in an unnatural environment.//
Explain to me how putting a child in a loving home is somehow "unnatural" in the way it nurtures their personal growth.
//I do not agree that gay couples may raise good kids. That is not the point of contention. The point is, is it a natural process for gays to raise kids?//
It's your word against that of accredited doctors and researchers. Who do you think will I trust more?
What word, I said I didn't have the data. in the first place homosexual unions are a new thing. second, adoption by homosexual couples are new. therefor there is little data. i am basing my comments, as I said on the data re abused children and parents of alcoholics.
Actually, homosexual unions aren't "a new thing" at all. We've had those kinds of unions as far back as anything.
Homosexuality isn't new but has always been considered deviant even in ancient cultures. The recognition that they are a normal relationship, i.e. a legal union for example, is a new innovation. Prostitution has also been around long and yet it is still illegal now. Pederasty was present in ancient Greece and yet we condemn it now.
I guess this is where I disagree. While I agree with you on a lot of things, I don't think homosexuality is "deviant" in that the evidence seems to show it's caused by genetic, hormonal as well as environmental factors, and is hardly the pathological disease people use to think it is.
Be that as it may, I'm still against gay marriage because I think marriage between a man and a woman should be distinguished as the *ideal* way for nurturing children into productive members of society. I don't have a problem, however, with civil unions or other such.
//I'm still against gay marriage because I think marriage between a man and a woman should be distinguished as the *ideal* way for nurturing children into productive members of society.//
My idea of an ideal family is one where a child is able to grow up being loved and appreciated, and where the spouses involved have a stable relationship. Their gender or race is only an afterthought.
You're right. Homosexuality is an orientation, homosexual acts, i.e. sodomy is deviant behavior. From a histological standpoint the rectum was made to expel crap it is lined by a thin layer of epithelium and is easily perforated and injured. That is part of the reason why when HIV was not yet well known, it was mostly homosexuals who were first catching them. The rectum is not built to receive a male organ or any other device for that matter. Homosexual unions are counter-evolutionary because it is non-productive. It goes against the preservation of species, so at one level, it is unnatural because it is impotent. At another level, because man and woman was created (or evolved if you want) male and female, it is also unnatural for them to co-habitate. Well they can, but to call it a marriage is a bit of a stretch. The Church is against it because of reason no.2 meaning it goes against the very nature of man and woman as male and female. Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve remember?
dboncan,
Sad to say, you won't be winning with arguments like that. We all know busting one inside someone else's alimentary canal isn't evolutionarily advantageous. But if you're going to say anything that's evolutionarily disadvantageous is "deviant behaviour" then you'll have to say the same for 'loving one's enemy' which is what Jesus taught. I don't seem to see any evolutionary advantage by turning the other cheek, either.
And, i'd like you to look up the 'gay uncle' hypothesis. There are other such hypotheses that explain homosexuality as promoting evolutionary advantage, actually.
I'm only against gay marriage because the state should only concern itself with marriage *if* it has an interest to protect. It's interest in this situation is the welfare of children. And, since, under no circumstances is a child better off being adopted than being raised by his biological parents (everything else being equal, ofcourse), I think the *ideal* setup is between a man and a woman –when it comes to children. Ofcourse, I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes (with a few caveats) so I don't think their relationship should interest the state. It should only interest the state when kids are involved, and since, in a same-sex setup, raising children are more the exception than the rule, I don't think it should be equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
I don't care to win an argument what I care about is whether what is being said is true or not. It's not the alimentary canal, it's the rectum and anus. The alimentary canal is everything else above the rectum! When I say evolutionary advantage I mean it in the way of what will best propagate the species. Your analogy is erroneous but it actually proves my point that delineates man from animals. We can turn the other cheek to our disadvantage something animals won't do. The gay uncle hypothesis is merely a distortion of the kin selection theory except someone managed to shoehorn it in the context of homosexuality again.
You can only show whether "what is being said is true or not" by actually making arguments. And, it's irrelevant to the point being made, but the alimentary canal extends from the mouth to the anus. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/alimentary_canal.aspx), so, no, you're wrong.
I know what you mean by "evolutionary advantage", and the meaning you gave doesn't diverge from how I used the term, so it's not clear to me what you're getting on about by telling me what you mean by it.
This is just begging to be pointed out:
"Your analogy is erroneous but it actually proves my point that delineates man from animals. We can turn the other cheek to our disadvantage something animals won't do."
Clearly, my analogy isn't "erroneous" because in both cases, the 2 acts are evolutionarily disadvantageous, i.e., loving your enemy and homosexual sex.
Please show why my analogy is erroneous instead of making naked assertions.
It doesn't matter to me if it "proves your point" about man being delineated from animal, since YOU'RE the one who said "Homosexual unions are counter-evolutionary. […] ..so at one level, it is unnatural because it is impotent.. If man is different from animal, as you say, then his "counter-evolutionary" behaviour isn't a priori "deviant". If you're going to accept the argument for one, you'll have to accept it for all.
A convincing argument for why the 'gay uncle' hypothesis, or other such hypotheses, is a "distortion" would be appreciated. Because as it is, you're just asserting it.
Miguel, "turning the other cheek" has no evolutionary advantage because it not a practice that evolved, it is a tenet that was born out of Christianity! I think you are confused between what we mean by evolution.
Homosexual sex is by nature sterile and anything in nature that is sterile is a disadvantage. Remember that the gay uncle theory falls under kin preservation but is only a stretch of it. You won't even hear mainstream evolutionary biologists really argue for it (read Dawkin's). This theory, given the relatively minute occurrence of homosexuality in most animal species, yes including ours, is so improbable that it even has any evolutionary basis as opposed to direct kin preservation.
What's annoying is that you continue to clarify how you've used the word 'evolutionary advantage' as though I've misconstrued what you meant, yet, by the very clarifications you make, you continue to affirm to me that I've done nothing of the sort.
Evolutionary psychology will say that all behaviour is a product of socio-biological pressures. Homosexuality is a behaviour. So is hyperaltruism. Turning the other cheek may be a tenet of Christianity, but I can easily sidestep this by giving you a hypothetical scenario of someone who turns the other cheek yet has never heard of Christianity. In both cases, Jesus will be pleased.
My point is, they are both behaviours that conduce to acting in a way that's evolutionarily disadvantageous.
So, I guess I'll have to repeat my question again: what makes you say we know homosexuality is a priori "deviant" while other evolutionarily disadvantageous behaviours –like hyper altruism– aren't?
"all behaviour is a product of socio-biological pressures. Homosexuality is a behaviour."
Theories my dear boy theories. Of course they will try to shoehorn homosexuality as an evolutionary variant they have no choice they crossed the line almost 40 years ago. At any rate evolutionary pressures catalyze the survival of the fittest instinct and to say that homosexual behavior means you have to prove not speculate that homosexual behavior does impart a survival of the fittest principle.
"So is hyperaltruism. Turning the other cheek may be a tenet of Christianity, but I can easily sidestep this by giving you a hypothetical scenario of someone who turns the other cheek yet has never heard of Christianity. In both cases, Jesus will be pleased. "
Ohhh now we have a new term "Hyper-altruism" is that like hyper-selflessness or hyper-disintiersted behavior" What baloney. True Altruism cannot be explained by evolution like donating blood to a total stranger or jumping into a lake to save a person whom you don't even know or simply giving your seat on the bus to an old lady. Richard Dawkins even admits it!
"what makes you say we know homosexuality is a priori "deviant"
Lets clarify that we are talking here of homosexual acts.
Okay lets make this simple: When a man or woman who cheats on his girl/boyfriend, wife/husband the opposite partner will usually break relations with them,why? Because it is deviant behavior and is against the nature of what a monogamous relationship is. So similarly when a Man or Woman behaves sexually in a way not keeping with their nature, i.e. Male or Female, what else do we call that, Normal? For you to refute this, you would have to prove that we have three sexual natures variants, Male, Female and Homosexual. Now they want to add even Bisexual behavior.
"…while other evolutionarily disadvantageous behaviours –like hyper altruism– aren't?"
True Altruism is not evolutionary as I have said. It has a generally Christian origin. Evolution cannot explain this behavior because as Dawkins says, it runs counter to out genes.
I am a Christian. And, although I have much to say about every little misinformed argument you've just made, I think you lost all credibility in this discussion right here:
"True Altruism cannot be explained by evolution like donating blood to a total stranger or jumping into a lake to save a person whom you don't even know or simply giving your seat on the bus to an old lady. Richard Dawkins even admits it! "
Nice that you laugh at my coining the word "hyper-altruism" yet you bandy about this word "true altruism" as though there were ever a 'fake' kind. Oh well, to the meat of the issue: Some altruistic acts can scarcely be explained by evolutionary pressures, like loving your enemy –if that were even humanly possible. But those examples you've mentioned you say can't be explained by evolutionary pressures? They can. And, in case you didn't know, reciprocal altruism isn't 'fake altruism' –the phenotypic traits that conduce to this kind of behaviour have no way of telling you they do it for the reciprocal benefits, so humans do this unwittingly.
"I am a Christian. And, although I have much to say about every little misinformed argument you've just made, I think you lost all credibility in this discussion right here: "
What's your point? So refute it rather than whining.
"Some altruistic acts can scarcely be explained by evolutionary pressures, like loving your enemy –if that were even humanly possible. But those examples you've mentioned you say can't be explained by evolutionary pressures? They can. And, in case you didn't know, reciprocal altruism isn't 'fake altruism' –the phenotypic traits that conduce to this kind of behaviour have no way of telling you they do it for the reciprocal benefits, so humans do this unwittingly."
So how, how can true or let's use your term hyper altruism explain its origins from evolution? Reciprocal altruism … that is a contradiction in terms because altruism by definition means selfless and disinterested actions. I donate blood or give my seat on the bus not because one day I expect to be treated the same way. If you say you do so unwittingly, you mean to say it is instinctive? You have no choice on the matter? Seriously you believe this and you're a Christian?
I thought I was clear that I didn't have to refute the rest because you've already lost credibility this discussion about "evolutionary advantage" by saying something so blitheringly stupid.
Reciprocal altruism is not a contradiction in terms "my dear boy" because phenotypic traits, as I've said and will apparently have to say so again, don't have the ability to tell us why they conduce to altruistic behaviour. We don't actually consciously do it for the reciprocal benefits, even if our genes do.
And, stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that I do that unwittingly? I'm explaining the concept.
So it goes that way with you free thinkers huh you say I am stupid and so i have no credibility… how convenient! Let's see who really is? Something that you do not do consciously is instinctive. In almost all forms of altruistic behavior we choose to do that specific altruistic deed for Christians we call that compassion …you sure you are one? At any rate altruism cannot be instinctive because it is a compassionate act which is a freely chosen act.
dboncan,
Please read what I said. I said your argument is stupid, I didn't say you are. The latter would be an ad hominem.
"Something that you do not do consciously is instinctive."
— You are confusing altruistic acts and that which predisposes people to feel things that would conduce to doing altruistic acts. We can choose to do, but sometimes, we can't choose to feel, say, compassion, that disposes us to do.
Yes, I'm a Christian. No, I'm not part of the Filipino Freethinkers, in fact I've butted heads with the lot of them. And, please, don't be so arrogant as to suspect my Christianity.
"At any rate altruism cannot be instinctive because it is a compassionate act which is a freely chosen act."
— Altruistic acts aren't instinctive, but certain emotions are rooted in socio-biological pressures. There are many profound expositions on this, and luckily their validity doesn't rest on your ability to comprehend.
"You are confusing altruistic acts and that which predisposes people to feel things that would conduce to doing altruistic acts. We can choose to do, but sometimes, we can't choose to feel, say, compassion, that disposes us to do. "
If compassion is a mere socio-biological pressure why wasn't it practiced until after Christianity came to the west?
"Yes, I'm a Christian. No, I'm not part of the Filipino Freethinkers, in fact I've butted heads with the lot of them. And, please, don't be so arrogant as to suspect my Christianity. "
Okay point taken and my apologies.
" Altruistic acts aren't instinctive, but certain emotions are rooted in socio-biological pressures. There are many profound expositions on this, and luckily their validity doesn't rest on your ability to comprehend."
Well that may be true that certain emotions are rooted in socio-bio pressures but we are not talking about emotions but acts. I apologize for being such a pea brain.
"If compassion is a mere socio-biological pressure why wasn't it practiced until after Christianity came to the west? "
— Are you saying no one was ever compassionate prior to Christianity? Coz that would be odd. We are made in God's image, hence knowledge of good and evil is inherent in us, therefore we don't need "Christianity" to be compassionate. Jesus even taught this when he told the parable of the good Samaritan.
"Well that may be true that certain emotions are rooted in socio-bio pressures but we are not talking about emotions but acts."
— Well if someone is *acting* on his emotion, which you concede may be rooted in evolution, then what's the difference? I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I don't have any problem with this.
"I apologize for being such a pea brain."
— I apologize too. We agree on more things than you think. I'm pro-life, and from your discussion with the other guy, you seem to be too.
"Are you saying no one was ever compassionate prior to Christianity? Coz that would be odd. We are made in God's image, hence knowledge of good and evil is inherent in us, therefore we don't need "Christianity" to be compassionate. Jesus even taught this when he told the parable of the good Samaritan. "
Compassion and true altruism became widespread because of Christianity. Aristotle actually scorned compassion. The good Samaritan was a parable that made the point God's kingdom being given to those who show compassion and not just following the order of the law. Compassionate acts, or altruistic acts were few and far between which is to say that perhaps some it rubbed off from the "kin selection theory" yet it's widespread practice was born out of Christianity.
Well, yes, I don't think I disagree. Since the idea that people should be treated as ends in themselves is a wholly Christian idea. But an enlightened, self-interested kind of morality –like the golden rule– is wholly explainable in evolutionary terms. Jesus took it a step further though, in that he didn't tell us to treat others as we want to be treated, but he told us to love our enemy.
Just because it's a trait borne out of biological pressures, doesn't mean it's "instinctive" and we have no choice in the matter. People, for the most part, enjoy eating sweets. It's because we've evolved to fancy sweet things; our hunter-gatherer ancestors needed as much energy they could get to go about their business. Doesn't mean the act of eating sweet things is instinctive and we don't have a choice in the matter.
Okay you are comparing apples and oranges. Altruistic behavior is not like eating sweets or because this behavior has no evolutionary advantage. If any it is a disadvantage. How can our genes possibly pre-program us to do this if it has absolutely no advantage for our survival? Can you explain this? And ohhh I think you need to study a bit more because you have lost your credibility in mistaking the need for sweets as energy source, it's fat that hunter gatherers sought for energy. It wasn't like there were sugar canes growing all around. But because i am unlike you I won't cower and skirt the issue, I will allow you to answer my question and I will forget about the credibility issues. Again: How did altruistic behaviour evolve again?
"Okay you are comparing apples and oranges. Altruistic behavior is not like eating sweets or because this behavior has no evolutionary advantage."
— dboncan, will you please use your head. What I'm actually comparing is the phenotypic trait that predisposes us to altruism, and the one that predisposes us to fancy sweets. I'm not comparing altruism with the act of eating sweets!
And, there are many explanations of how certain altruistic behaviousr are rooted in certain socio-biological pressures, that's not to say that all kinds of altruistic acts are. I'm not a naturalist, I don't think they can all be explained by evolution, but certainly, your examples can.
"And ohhh I think you need to study a bit more because you have lost your credibility in mistaking the need for sweets as energy source, it's fat that hunter gatherers sought for energy."
— Seriously, you're not intelligent at all. There's not one thing that hunter gatherers needed for energy, there's all sorts of things. Sugar is a big source of energy, and you don't only get sucrose, lactose, and fructose from "sugar cane", buddy boy, you can get them from all kinds of food –certain fruits for example. So it's completely irrelevant whether there were "sugar canes" around during that time.
Don't call me a coward. I'm not skirting anything. You are showing a complete failure to understand what I said, and what I asked, all while thinking you've been able to refute it.
Again: How did altruistic behaviour evolve again?
— Just like any other kind of behaviour. Ants, for instance, self-immolate for their colony. That's altruism in a sense. It's the same thing. But I will concede that not all altruistic acts can be easily explained away by biological and social pressures.
"What I'm actually comparing is the phenotypic trait that predisposes us to altruism, and the one that predisposes us to fancy sweets. I'm not comparing altruism with the act of eating sweets! "
What phenotypic traits specifically predispose us to altruism? I can understand how it happens for food it is survival but please explain it for altruism.
"Seriously, you're not intelligent at all. There's not one thing that hunter gatherers needed for energy, there's all sorts of things. Sugar is a big source of energy, and you don't only get sucrose, lactose, and fructose from "sugar cane", buddy boy, you can get them from all kinds of food –certain fruits for example. So it's completely irrelevant whether there were "sugar canes" around during that time. "
Oh sorry mr. Intelligent but hunters hunted animals and gatherers gathered nuts and yes some berries. NO FRUITS because there were no fruit trees to cultivate. If you look at the history of Paleontology it will become apparent that your ancestors had very little if no sugar in their diets but fat and protein. Fat and protein was their main source of energy simply because fat provided long-term energy and kept them satiated longer but of course since your intelligent you knew that already and was just toying with me right?
"Ants, for instance, self-immolate for their colony. That's altruism in a sense. It's the same thing. But I will concede that not all altruistic acts can be easily explained away by biological and social pressures."
Ants are not altruistic because the self-immolation of ants is intended to defend their nest the same way wolves hunt in packs. Human altruism comes from compassion and it is something we chose to do. DO you see any apes rescuing other apes in a forest fire? The reason why you can't explain many cases of altruism by evolution is because there isn't any. So far your analogies have been very flawed.
"What phenotypic traits specifically predispose us to altruism? "
— The kind of altruism you're referring to could be an offshoot of kin-selection, for instance. Google the expanding circle theory.
"Oh sorry mr. Intelligent but hunters hunted animals and gatherers gathered nuts and yes some berries. NO FRUITS because there were no fruit trees to cultivate."
— Maybe you'd like to actually read and quit the knee-jerk answers because it seriously makes you look, well, stupid.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Fib…
"Despite its relatively low carbohydrate content, the paleolithic diet involves a substantial increase in consumption of fruit and vegetables"
"Human altruism comes from compassion and it is something we chose to do."
–Uh.. If you choose to feel compassionate, then that's up to you. Because, for the other normal people, they don't. They see a child suffering, they immediately feel compassionate. (obviously not all people, apparently). We don't choose to feel what we feel. I don't choose to feel compassionate. I don't choose to feel remorse. I do, however, choose among tensions between socio-biological pressures; for instance, I pity the beggar, but I'm hungry, so I might not give him my sandwich, and so forth.
DO you see any apes rescuing other apes in a forest fire?
— We've seen apes do more than that! Like rescuing other animals from predators. Haven't you seen the video of a Female Gorilla rescuing a girl? Youtube it.
"So far your analogies have been very flawed."
— Riiight..
"– Maybe you'd like to actually read and quit the knee-jerk answers because it seriously makes you look, well, stupid. "
I would certainly look stupid if the carbohydrates referred to in the Paleo diet refers to sweets. They don't they refer to plants, leaves and starch from root "crops". By and large fruit trees were not cultivated until about several hundred years maybe up to a 1000 BC much later than the existence of hunter-gatherer societies. Even now, primitive cultures use starch and protein and not sweets.
" We've seen apes do more than that! Like rescuing other animals from predators. Haven't you seen the video of a Female Gorilla rescuing a girl? Youtube it. "
Ha ha ha in the wild my friend! That is not an example of animal altruism that is kin selection. dogs that rescue their masters etc.. because these animals feel kinship. Altruism is a selfless disinterested act like what Mother Teresa of Calcutta that sort of Altruism.
Agree to disagree then. For me, homosexuality is not deviant, for you it is.
I know homosexual couples who would put others to shame in their loyalty and love for one another.
I'm still against gay marriage though, but for purely secular reasons.
I have cousin who is gay and yet we are very good friends and he is one of my best cousins. Homosexual couples, no doubt, can be successful in monogamous relationships but that isn't measure of why it is called deviant behavior. It is deviant because it goes against natural law. If we have no objective natural law then any behavior that has good intentions may become acceptable. Take for example pedophilia. What if an adult can convince a 12 year old child to have relations with them and they truly love each other, would you approve of that relationship, assuming that there is no sex until she reaches maturity?
So far as we know, 12-year-old kids aren't mature enough to even know what an adult relationship is. So, no, I don't approve of that. A kid can tell us all she wants that she knows what she's getting into, but there's a lot of reason to believe she doesn't know what she's talking about.
A homosexual relationship is between 2 consenting adults. Far too different from your example.
But who are you to say that they aren't supposing she is mature for her age? The point is we must have an objective way with which to judge behavior otherwise we fall into the dif'rent strokes for dif'rent folks culture.
With respect to your question, there is an objective way; we consider people above 18 to be adults. That's as objective as it gets. We know 12 yr olds aren't mature when we apply heuristics to evaluate their maturity. Stop making problems where none exist.
Acually the age is not objective in some countries its 21 in some 18. In fact the age of consent is so highly variable. In the U.S. a 12 year old can be tried for crimes because this is considered age of reason. My point being that there has to be an unchangeable objective way …age is arbitrary sorry just as relying on feeling or compassionfor homosexuals is as well. The objective way is simply are you built for it or is it in your nature to be acting that way. If it is not then you are deviating from that nature therefor it is deviant
We are pretty much talking in circles now.
Not to me but that is what happens when there is no recognitionthat there can be an objective morality based on natural law
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/10/06/sin-sm…
//It is deviant because it goes against natural law. // So is celibacy, but I don't hear you railing against it with regard to the priesthood.
//It is deviant because it goes against natural law. //
"So is celibacy, but I don't hear you railing against it with regard to the priesthood."
Hahaha I think you are confused between our nature and the faculties that come with that nature. While we as men and women have a sexual faculty, not engaging in sexual acts does nothing to your being male or female. Celibacy is choosing not to make use of that faculty. Engaging in homosexual acts on the other hand means using it not in accordance with your being male or female. i.e. You are comparing two different things.
//second, adoption by homosexual couples are new. therefor there is little data. //
The data we currently have indicates that gay parents are not detrimental to the child's growing up.
Again, I will ask you to read the link provided: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/…
As for other studies, here is another from the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.as…
//Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys & van Hall, 1997; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Victor & Fish, 1995). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2001; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971). Similarly, lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women have not been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Bos et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1998b; Pagelow, 1980). Lesbian couples who are parenting together have most often been found to divide household and family labor relatively evenly and to report satisfaction with their couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004; Brewaeys et al., 1997; Chan, et al., 1998a; Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Hand, 1991; Johnson & O'Connor, 2002; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a; Sullivan, 1996; Tasker & Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Research on gay fathers likewise suggests that they are likely to divide the work involved in child care relatively evenly and that they are happy with their couple relationships (Johnson & O'Connor, 2002; McPherson, 1993).//
A "few studies?" Really? Seems to me that you're just being lazy.
"Funny that you're mentioning cheap shots – your wordpress article acts as if author Dinesh D'Souza is in any way a credible source of information. he's not. And quite frankly, I'm not obligated to read through the ramblings of somebody who takes D'ASouza's word as the gospel truth.
Try harder. http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/11/114-din…. "
This the best you can do? D'souza has debated with the worlds most militant atheists and has won hands down. It is weak and juvenile to say someone is a loon without actually refuting what he says. I refuted every allegation that Tani said in his video …that is the proper, RATIONAL and decent way to do it. Your reply about D'Souza is like a child who can't reason and just says "you're stupid." His credentials and works speak for themselves. Now you want to refute what i said in my article do so there point by point the same way I did a point by point on Tani!
"So basically, the church is against it because the plumbing doesn't fit? Your article fails to realize that anals, blowjobs, and sex toys aren't the exclusive realm of the gay community – they're quite prevalent against straight couples as well?"
What is you're point that everyone straight of gay engages in deviant sexual behavior? Plumbing seriously you think it's about equipment, sorry m boy but you missed this one totally. .
//D'souza has debated with the worlds most militant atheists and has won hands down. I//
That's now what I hear from the greater atheist community. His tired old arguments have been repeatedly blown full of holes, and just about the only people who take him seriously a people like you.
The only moron who says D'Souza is winning is D'Souzam himself.
Let's look at some examples: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/09/the_in…
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/10/f.php?…
And if you can be bothered with a longer takedown, a piece-by-piece disassembly of one of D'Souza's books, by Andrew Sullivan: http://www.powells.com/review/2007_03_15
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/dinesh…
are you aware that you sent me link is a book review on American conservative politics which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. do you even bother to read what you send? are you aware that D'Souza has debated Dawkins, Hitchens and a host of others. Instead of relying on other people's opinions why not watch the debates in YouTube yourself? in fact i have yet to hear an atheist be able to stand up to D'Souza's arguments. you up to it?
//are you aware that D'Souza has debated Dawkins, Hitchens and a host of others. Instead of relying on other people's opinions why not watch the debates in YouTube yourself? //
I have. And from that I'm viewing, D'Souza doesn't need their help making himself look like a fucking moron.
//in fact i have yet to hear an atheist be able to stand up to D'Souza's arguments. you up to it?//
Only if the debate involves boxing gloves, a ring, and twelve rounds,
//are you aware that you sent me link is a book review on American conservative politics which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. do you even bother to read what you send?//
And are you aware that it was just one of the several links I sent you? PZ Myers himself is a tenured biology professor, while Ed Brayton is a well spoken for journalist. Both have taken their time ripping D'Souza's apologetics to shred.
You might want to link to people who don't have an axe to grind to give yourself more credibility.
D'Souza a Dartmouth grad PhiBetaKappa a moron, hmmm. The best way for any of these fellows to go about this the REASONABLE AND RATIONAL way is to refute his book. I can't understand why they so easily resort to blogs of those who obviously have an axe to grind. I dissected Tani's Video in my blog and so far Tani has not come out to refute my refutation, I wonder why?
/What is you're point that everyone straight of gay engages in deviant sexual behavior? // No, my point is that people like you don't have a monopoly on what counts as "deviant" sexual behavior. Who the fuck are you to tell people in a loving, nurturing relationship that what they have is an violation of God's Law?
//Plumbing seriously you think it's about equipment, sorry m boy but you missed this one totally. . //
It's called a metaphor. And what you have demonstrated is somebody missing the point by a mile.
//I suggest you follow this link and read the cheap shots he makes at his presentation at De La Salle: // Speaking of "cheap shots,"
What's your opinion on the RCC trying to (unsuccessfully) placate blame of its sexually abusive priests to hippie culture?
http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/05/24/a-worthless-…
What's your opinion on the previous criminal investigations in Ireland confirming that the Vatican is intentionally sidetracking attempts to prosecute priests who rape children?
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2011/07/20/bishop-ma…
You can blather on and on about what this pope or that theologian says about what the RCC claims it's all about. The fact is that their actual deeds paint a very different picture.
DFor comments related to the treatment of Red Tani's video in my site, I would like to address these things there point by point and not here. post comments at: http://astrugglingdad.wordpress.com/
Thank you
dboncan, explain why we need to travel to you wordpress account to comment on the article HERE. And you called me a coward.
I put into question your source. Andrew Dickinson White was not a friend of the Catholic Church so how objective can this book be? I suggest readers familiarize themselves will more objective treatments of the relationship between science and the Catholic Church. Rather than swallow this article by Tani hook, line and sinker. Here are a few sources that may set the record straight assuming of course that people are honestly seeking the truth.
1. James Hannam, PhD History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge and is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution http://blogs.nature.com/soapbox_science/2011/05/1…
2. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization; THOMAS E. WOODS, JR.
I challenge Mr. Tani to show is sincerity in addressing the claims of these scholars by disproving them. I suspect,Mr. Tani is just cut and paste fellow with very little understanding of the church's position on many things.
//I challenge Mr. Tani to show is sincerity in addressing the claims of these scholars by disproving them. I suspect,Mr. Tani is just cut and paste fellow with very little understanding of the church's position on many things. //
@dboncan, what the church did centuries ago – as illustrated in your first book – does nothing to justify the disingenuous methods they are resorting to today to justify discrimination against certain community, such as LGBTs. To cite a local example, the CBCP has been promoting a psychologist who pushes for gay conversion therapy, as if being gay is a disease.
It isn't.
And the psychologist in question is an affiliate of the NARTH group in the US, an anti-gay group that has already been dismissed by the greater US medical community as a quack organization.
http://www.cbcpforlife.com/?p=3588
/I suspect,Mr. Tani is just cut and paste fellow with very little understanding of the church's position on many things. //
Do all of us a favor, and read a newspaper or two on the several occasions that the Catholic Church sheltered rapists, and attempted on more than one occassion to placate the blame on society, instead of owning up to its own cock-ups.
"@dboncan, what the church did centuries ago – as illustrated in your first book – does nothing to justify the disingenuous methods they are resorting to today to justify discrimination against certain community, such as LGBTs. To cite a local example, the CBCP has been promoting a psychologist who pushes for gay conversion therapy, as if being gay is a disease. "
Yes, LGBT is a psychological disorder. An act that goes against one's nature is disordered. Are there any LGBT's in the animal kingdom?
//Yes, LGBT is a psychological disorder.//
You're either a liar, or a fucking moron.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation….
"No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.""
//Are there any LGBT's in the animal kingdom? //
*Ahem* http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718…
"From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals."
dboncan, let me get this straight – you're willing to waste your time drawing upon apologetics, but can't be tasked with tracking down answers for elementary questions such as the existence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom?
"Do all of us a favor, and read a newspaper or two on the several occasions that the Catholic Church sheltered rapists, and attempted on more than one occassion to placate the blame on society, instead of owning up to its own cock-ups."
Have you read my refutation of Mr. Tani's video where he just stretches these things in an incoherent manner? Please one topic at a time. Please do not try to bamboozle me by trying to introduce another topic.
//Please do not try to bamboozle me by trying to introduce another topic. // You have yet to answer my question as to how the church's contributions to society centuries ago somehow makes it immune to prosecution for hiding rapists.
//Andrew Dickinson White was not a friend of the Catholic Church so how objective can this book be? //
@dboncan, Thomas E. Woods is an advocate of traditional Catholicism and cultural conservatism. It seems to me that you're being guilty of the very same bias you're accusing Red of.
Yup so you see how this goes. the point is, lets get down to brass tacks and get with the real deal. either Thomas Woods is a revisionist or Dickinson is …right? It does not matter what reference I put forward for as long as you guys can prove what he says to be fabrications then i will shut up.
//It does not matter what reference I put forward for as long as you guys can prove what he says to be fabrications then i will shut up. // The burden of proof lies upon you dboncan. You stated that Dickinson is not a credible source. Bueno – you get the privilege of disproving his claims.
//the point is, lets get down to brass tacks and get with the real deal.//
The "real deal" is that your church has been caught-red-handed kneecapping programs that could have helped curb the spread of TDs in its bid to push its dogma. Their interference in anti-AIDs drives is one clear example:
http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/the-pope-and-ai…
You know what TwinSkies, perhaps you are one, I don't know but I will not converse with someone who has no ethics in language. It just shows breeding and upbringing. So just to address this for the last time, the apa abandoned this idea not born out of research but out of political correctness and pressure from its …errr homosexual members. Remember too that psychology is not a hard science. Psychotic behavior exists in different cultures too but we don't call it normal do we?
Regarding this: "The "real deal" is that your church has been caught-red-handed kneecapping programs that could have helped curb the spread of TDs in its bid to push its dogma. Their interference in anti-AIDs drives is one clear example: "
The church never hides that it is against condom and contraceptive use. The Church has actually proposed a far more effective and foolproof method to halt the spread of AIDS, it's called ABSTINENCE!
//You know what TwinSkies, perhaps you are one, I don't know but I will not converse with someone who has no ethics in language. It just shows breeding and upbringing.//
1. FYI, I'm straight, but that's irrelevant.
2. I can be polite and civil if I have to be, as was my upbringing. I am above all else also raised to be honest, and while you may not like it, I have a strong preference to get all pointless niceties out of the way, and to be painfully blunt.
I think that being honest and straightforward is a far better indicator of one's upbringing than one's ability to act like a condescending, passive-aggresive twat. So fuck you. Deal with it.
//So just to address this for the last time, the apa abandoned this idea not born out of research but out of political correctness and pressure from its …errr homosexual members. //
Wait just a moment. You have argued that we should all act like freethinkers, and base our reasoning based on evidence and facts.
You're accusing the APA of backtracking on its classification of homosexuality as a disorder because of gays within its ranks. So where is your evidence?
//Psychotic behavior exists in different cultures too but we don't call it normal do we?// Kindly explain how an mass-murdering psychopath is related to being gay.
In fact, I'd love to see you draw a link between Adolf Hitler and Neil Patrick Harris 😀
//The Church has actually proposed a far more effective and foolproof method to halt the spread of AIDS, it's called ABSTINENCE! //
"Propose" is a very different animal from actual application. And if you'd bothered to do your homework, you'd find that key to the curbing of AIDs spread is a comprehensive education program that teaches the responsible use of condoms, couple fidelity, and abstinence. So you're only about a third right.
http://www.avert.org/thailand-aids-hiv.htm
I am not sure that I agree with what Tani is saying. Although the anti-organization may not be providing the assistance that they could, if they did they would be committing blasphemy and betraying the teachings of their religion. I realize that the organization should be trying to help the sick in every way possible, but is it fair to blame so much of the problem on them? I also think that blasphemy should be taken more seriously in this article. Blasphemy, to Catholics, is considered to be worse than murder. Therefore, how can people be too angry when these people are just following the teachings of their religion?
Why is the pope against scientists wanting to play God? Because it is his job description, albeit being the voice of God.
It's not only contraception that they are against in these modern times (that they do so want to return to their golden years, the dark ages), they also are against stem cell research (not sure if in general or just the embryonic kind) that is so promising in terms of replacing failing organs.
Wait… how come some Catholic schools still refuse to teach evolution?
What do you know then? Let me see the logic of your question …why is the Church (not just the Pope) against scientists playing God? Seriously you don't know why it's wrong to play God? And which Catholic schools are you referring to that refuse to teach evolution?
Stem cell research now is similar to vaccination of yesterday- scientists finding a way to treat patients instead of praying and waiting for an answer in the form of a miracle.
Let's see, unless they have changed their curriculum since the last time I checked (by asking batchmates from schools such as St. Paul; I'm assuming you are from the Philippines), those schools?
Catholic by name …hmmm in a biography of Pasteur written by his son in law he states that Pasteur was a practicing Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Faith_and_spirituality). But let's say he was a nominal one for the sake of argument, the point is, if the Church was against vaccination, why don't you find any CHURCH DOCUMENT OR OFFICIAL TEACHING even remotely condemning Pasteur or vaccination? You erroneously confuse what prayer is and its role in people who have faith. The Church never claimed to substitute prayer with actual treatment.
Regarding stem-cell research, the Church is only opposed to EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH because it destroys embryos. The Church has no opposition to ADULT STEM CELL provided it is harvested in an ethical manner. Put your money where your mouth is and produce documents to back up your claim.
Interesting reference you have there. Doesn't it seem odd to you that an outspoken Catholic will make claims that his father-in-law is a practicing Catholic instead of what all other reference persons say? Of course, there aren't any such documentation due to their having differing opinions on the matter. They never claim, but some men of the cloth make it appear as though prayers make magic (ever heard of healing masses?). Just like any sane scammer avoiding to make bold claims that his method is much more effective than that of proven methods.
So it is perfectly ethical for you to simply throw away embryos that were fertilized in test tubes? Embryos that will never be allowed to grow due to their "parents" only wanting one or two of those.
One more thing, is your capslock malfunctioning? Why would I put my money where my mouth is? I put my money on where my hands are- it's more productive that way, Mr. All-Talk-Hope-They-Don't-Read-My-Sources.
"Doesn't it seem odd to you that an outspoken Catholic will make claims that his father-in-law is a practicing Catholic instead of what all other reference persons say?"
Missed the point my friend. Let me repeat incase It was too fast: regardless of whether Pasteur was a nominal Catholic or a practicing one, the Church never said anything regarding his discovery and use of vaccines …the point is to prove that the church was never opposed to it contrary to the lies and cheap-shots of Tani and Co.. Until now, this fact or lapse in honesty has never been addressed by any the cohorts in this website …you sure you want to get into this?
"So it is perfectly ethical for you to simply throw away embryos that were fertilized in test tubes? Embryos that will never be allowed to grow due to their "parents" only wanting one or two of those."
What on earth are you talking about? Do you understand what adult stem cells are? They are harvested from adult persons like bone-marrow, fat and skin. There are no embryos involved in adult stem cell lines. Look before you leap!
And you missed my point as well- I was referring to the condemnation of using embryos for stem cell research. I know what adult stem cells are, and their potency: still not as good as the potency of embryonic stem cells. Also, there is also the matter of culturing the stem cells. One more thing, isn't using stem cells considered as playing God by Ratzinger (one of those included in the new seven deadly sins)?
I was almost convinced that a lawyer took the time to read and comment on every comments here, but it appears that you miss points as well. Regarding honesty and whatnot, you point out some loopholes while introduce loopholes of your own by assuming that every place in the world has the same conditions that allow for abstinence to work successfully (you know, there is a satire about the internet being made for porn).
The problem with assuming abstinence to work everywhere is that it relies too much on the ideal- just like the environmentalists that say that zero waste is achievable. Wake up, we're not in a dream, you can't have process controls acting on a disturbance before it happens just so the process compensates for the time delay.
"you missed my point as well- I was referring to the condemnation of using embryos for stem cell research"
No I didn't. The condemnation for using embryonic stems are because the source and method of the harvesting. Embryonic stems comes from a murdered human being.
"I know what adult stem cells are, and their potency: still not as good as the potency of embryonic stem cells."
My dear boy you are ignorant of the progress of stem cell culturing. Please refrain from talking about things you have little knowledge of. The only advantage embryonic stem cells offer is price and ease of sourcing given the number of abortions permitted in the U.S.. Since adult lines have to be extracted and cultured they are more expensive. in terms of viability, adult cells are more viable and less prone to rejection especially if the donor will also be the recipient.
Here maybe you'll learn something:
"These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists."
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
" One more thing, isn't using stem cells considered as playing God by Ratzinger (one of those included in the new seven deadly sins)"
You are confused between culturing non-embryonic stem cells and cloning. You actually mean the latter but you don't know it.
"…loopholes of your own by assuming that every place in the world has the same conditions that allow for abstinence to work successfully"
My point is abstinence practiced is foolproof. Contraceptives practiced has a variable failure rate. My point is that the church recommends the former because it is foolproof and is in keeping with natural law …not to mention the side effects and risks to women who take them.
"The problem with assuming abstinence to work everywhere is that it relies too much on the ideal- just like the environmentalists that say that zero waste is achievable."
Unlike most people, the Church is an optimist. The benchmark has to be high. Moral benchmarks usually are high but people who have none or who want the easy way out, always say …well what you say
Ho ho ho. Hurray for finding a really recent article. However, it seems that you blatantly ignored this part from the reference you copy and pasted from: "Today’s papers do not settle the adult-versus-embryo dispute: they suggest that both could yield promising therapies. Different cell types might best treat different diseases, so most scientists advocate supporting both types of research."
And, no, scientists also have ethics, they take the excess fertilized eggs from test tube formation and not from aborted fetuses. The only way they can use aborted fetuses is if they are in a state in US or country that does not forbid such use and they use their own funding.
Isn't playing God messing with life at the cellular level? Making stuff out of the building blocks of life? That is what I mean, not what you try to make out of what I said.
I really approve of your cherry-picking from references. It reminds me of the CBCP news writers. It makes me smile whenever I see someone trying to force a moral high ground yet end up not telling the whole truth.
My friend, I will repeat my advice, do ot get into a discussion which you have very litle competency on. Adult lines have been found to be more stable, have better compatibility and lasts longer in cell culture banking. The European companies who are engaged in cell banking are using adult lines both because of harvesting ease and ethics …I know this dear boy because I am involved with some work with one of them. The reason why the U.S. is still pushing for this is because they have a lot of frozen embryos from Clinton's time which they can still use. It was halted by Bush for ethical reasons. An embryo that is in a test tube and is destroyed by cell harvesting is ABORTION.
"Isn't playing God messing with life at the cellular level? Making stuff out of the building blocks of life? That is what I mean, not what you try to make out of what I said. "
Again I am so sorry but you don't understand this fully but cell manipulation is not ethical if the cells being manipulated do not result in the destruction of human life. Leukemia treatment is a form of cellular manipulation. Cancer treatment by targeted therapy is another. Gene therapy for certain diseases is yet another.
By this I mean using adult stems to regenerate spinal tissue or atrophied endocardium. It is unethical to use it for cloning or if the source is from an embryo.
Here:
"The Catholic Church may be the last organization you'd expect to fund stem cell research, but that's precisely what they're planning to do.
The Church is expected to provide financial support to help establish the International Intestinal Stem Cell Consortium, which will kick off its research today in Rome.
No, the church hasn't done an ideological 180. In fact, this new research aims to do away with the need for the embryonic stem cell research that the Vatican has called "gravely immoral."
"We are trying to explore stem cell research aside from embryonic stem cells," says Dr. Alessio Fasano, lead researcher on the project and director of the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland School Medicine. "Of the adult stem cells out there, intestinal cells are the most active that we know of."
Fasano says they pitched this research project to the Vatican in hopes that the church would want to support an alternative to embryonic research.
"Rather than say they don't want [stem cell research], it would be more logical to say 'Is there a better way?'," Fasano says, and he believes that using adult stem cells, harvested from the intestines of the patients themselves, could be that "better way."
"I really approve of your cherry-picking from references. It reminds me of the CBCP news writers. It makes me smile whenever I see someone trying to force a moral high ground yet end up not telling the whole truth."
… and I do not approve of your brash but ignorant arguments. Honesty, sincerity and informed conscience.
"An embryo that is in a test tube and is destroyed by cell harvesting is ABORTION. "
And throwing those cells away isn't? Did you know that those iPS cells only lack a blastocyst with which to form a complete being? Only a step away from cloning, that is.
"I know this dear boy because I am involved with some work with one of them."
And what kind of work?
Pushing this further will only end in a debate of what defines abortion in for embryos formed in fertility clinics.
"Honesty, sincerity and informed conscience."
Keep thinking that, it will make you feel better for supporting a Church that protects molesters from authorities and stores billions of assets while there are people living in poverty.
"And throwing those cells away isn't? Did you know that those iPS cells only lack a blastocyst with which to form a complete being? Only a step away from cloning, that is. "
Wait wait wait, of course throwing an embryo away is immoral when did I say it wasn't?
"And what kind of work? "
I can tell you but then I'd have to kill you. No but seriously, professionally I cannot divulge this sorry. The current data is out there.
"Keep thinking that, it will make you feel better for supporting a Church that protects molesters from authorities and stores billions of assets while there are people living in poverty."
Oh so change tactics now and go to another topic, I see. Well that will be for another discussion and another day, seeing that you have been stymied by this stem cell discussion. Good day.
Basically, you're telling want to be parents to get all the embryos fertilized in the fertility clinics or face eternal damnation in Catholic hell?
You can tell, but I doubt that you'd succeed in the latter. Actually, I'm as surprised as the source regarding the Church going to fund for stem cell research. I didn't expect that to happen in a decade.
"Basically, you're telling want to be parents to get all the embryos fertilized in the fertility clinics or face eternal damnation in Catholic hell? "
I think there is some communication gap. What on earth are you talking about what parents? Embryonic stem cells come from fertilized and frozen embryos that people sold to these companies.
" regarding the Church going to fund for stem cell research."
There is nothing wrong with stem cell research for as long as they come from adult lines except if the use is for human cloning.
Are you serious? You don't know about the existence of fertility clinics that offer married couples a chance at having genetic children of their own? Haven't you heard of fertility problems? Women that have damaged wombs? Men with sperm cells incapable of penetrating the egg cells (or other cases)?
Of course I do so what do those clinics have to do with our exchange on stem cells?
Besides you original question above is erroneous: You asked: "Basically, you're telling want to be parents to get all the embryos fertilized in the fertility clinics or face eternal damnation in Catholic hell? "
in the first place, embryos cannot be fertilized because they are already embryos … meaning they are developing human beings already!
Those clinics obtain eggs and sperm in excess of what they need and place them in a test tube. They do this to ensure that there would be at least one fertilized egg (since not all eggs are ripe for fertilization). That is why the rest are to be discarded or donated for research.
I think you need to study a little more. Let me see if I can simplify it for you. A fertility clinic does exactly what the name says, it fertilizes a woman's egg with a donor male's sperm in a test tube then implants it in the mother. Not just one but several. In other words my friend, the clinic has several embryos. You know that a fertilized egg is an embryo or at least develops into one right?
No crap. That's what I've been telling you. It appears as though you lack the wit to actually read what I'm saying. Good Lord, I've said what you just said for like, three posts already.
Also, just to clarify, embryos are not fertilized, they are formed in fertility clinics.
One more thing, do you think that women who want to cancel their unwanted pregnancies would want to go to clinics just to have those eggs aborted? They'd rather go for the morning-after pill that would allow them to remove the embryos without having to go through the hassle of scheduling an appointment just to abort. Contrary to what you know, women who want abortion do not necessarily want to donate their fertilized eggs to science.
My friend, an embryo is formed by the fertilization of an egg by a sperm. A clinic does this procedure in vitro. I have to ask you this: Do you even understand what you are arguing about?
No shit. From this point on, I can't tell if you're not paying attention or if you are already trolling. Notice that I've been using the layman's term test tube just so you'd understand that it is conducted outside of the body.
I never knew the Catholic Church was once so oppossed to inoculation. You would think they were Jehovah's Witnesses with that attitude, although I don't think they refule blood transfusions because of a fear of meddling with God's Providence. What is the Catholic Church's current stance on inoculation? Have they finally accepted it as valid science? Are modern Catholics still oppossed to inoculation?
As stated in the article, they eventually accepted it — like they did evolution and many other scientifically proven theories.
The catch is that it took them several decades – and a good deal of politicking in their upper ranks – to finally catch up. By then, the damage has already been done. Nobody deserves to have to die for their senility and stupidity.
Well, at least nobody outside their cabal.
Mr Tani, for a rationalist you do really sloppy research or cut and paste. I think you don't know your history, you make the Catholic church your target but here are the facts from Wikipedia of all places:
"Anti-vaccination proponents were most common in protestant countries; those that were religious often came from minority religious movements outside of mainstream protestantism, including Quakers in England and Baptists in Sweden.[4]
Several Boston clergymen and devout physicians formed the Anti-vaccination Society in 1798, only two years after Jenner's publication of smallpox vaccination. Others complained that the practice was dangerous, going so far as to demand that doctors who carried out these procedures be tried for attempted murder.[5]"
and…
"Catholic and Anglican missionaries vaccinated Northwest Coast Indians during an 1862 smallpox epidemic.[1]
Iceland in 1816 made the clergy responsible for small pox vaccination and gave them the responsibility of keeping vaccination records for their parishes, Sweden also had similar practices.[2]
here are the references alluded to:
^ Boyd RW (1999). "A final disaster: the 1862 smallpox epidemic in coastal British Columbia". The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774–1874. Seattle: University of Washington Press. pp. 172–201. ISBN 0-295-97837-6.
^ Pétursson P (1983). Church and Social Change: A Study of the Secularization Process in Iceland, 1830–1930. Studies in religious experience and behaviour, nr. 4. Helsingborg, Sweden: Plus Ultra. pp. 70, 79. ISBN 9197035599.
^ Durbach, Nadja. 2005. Bodily matters: the anti-vaccination movement in England, 1853-1907. Radical perspectives. Durham: Duke University Press. pp 40-45.
^ Bourdelais, Patrice. 2006. Epidemics laid low: a history of what happened in rich countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp25-26.
You believe the article above? Then you should be more critical than to accept it because the fact is Louie Pasteur, the guy who discovered vaccination is a Catholic and was never censured for it. The church was sending missions to Canada to help with inoculation in the mid 19th century. The allegation above was at a time when even doctors practiced bloodletting to remove what they thought was the "bad humor". It was a time when the doctors thought that a wound that had pus was actually healing. Red Tani is demonizing a statement of 17h century people. No one knew any better.See the way he does it is he gives what someone in the church said 300 years ago, then transfers that to present day situations which the church opposes then tries to conclude based on that, "…see the church is opposed to science" what could be more dishonest than that?
Your saying that Pasteur himself was Catholic has as heavy a weight as someone else saying Rizal was Catholic- They are Catholic by name, but they do not allow their thinking to be limited and opposed by the teachings of the Church.
The secularist George Jacob Holyoake wrote, "All believe that God, if he exists, is the God of the honest, and that he respects conscience more than creeds, for all free thinkers have died in this faith.“
A very relevant quotation, Jong. I'm actually almost done reading his book now 🙂