Well, that’s unusual…

For what may arguably be the first time in its history, the Catholic Church has anticipated a new technology, rather than lagging a few centuries behind, as is more traditional.

Last year, Pope Sidious I Benedict XVI announced the addition of seven new deadly sins to the old list of seven deadly sins (which, frankly, I believe is flawed to begin with). On the new list is genetic engineering, which th Vatican defines broadly to include anything which changes DNA.

Eleven months later, researchers announced a major breakthrough in fighting HIV: a therapy that extracts the patient’s cells, genetically alters them to make them resistant to the AIDS virus, and then re-introduces them into the patient’s body.

The circle is now complete, as Darth Vader says. For the first time, with the newly updated list of deadly sins, the Catholic Church has a complete, end-to-end policy on HIV:

It’s wrong to wear condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, and it’s wrong to use gene therapy to treat AIDS.

Like many other religions, the Catholic Church has long viewed HIV as a behavioral problem, and felt that rigorous control of sexual expression, rather than condom use or research, are the ideal solution. They don’t go quite as far as to say that HIV is a punishment from God, but approaching HIV as a behavioral problem rather than a n epidemiological one still falls flat to me.

Folks who think that HIV is a consequence of an immoral lifestyle or a punishment for wickedness would do well to consider the case of a man who called in to the Playboy Radio talk show I was a guest on several months ago; he was HIV positive not because he’d had wild, deviant unprotected sex, but because he witnessed a car accident. One of the accident victims was thrown through the windshield and badly lacerated. In his efforts to save her life, he cut his hand on the glass and was exposed to her blood. She was HIV positive; now he is, too. Frankly, and I want to be very clear on this point: any omnipotent, merciful, benevolent god who is OK with that can suck my cock kiss my ass. If there is a god who would be fine with that, I think such an entity is manifestly and plainly not worthy of adoration.

But I digress.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other “sin” is invented nonsense. The idea of criminalizing lifesaving research by holding that certain forms of medicine are inherently sinful–and not just sinful, but mortal sins–that’s a level of wrong I can’t quite even find the words for.

106 thoughts on “Well, that’s unusual…

  1. Your implication that sucking cock is a bad thing/punishment/degradation aside…

    …the Catholic Church is facing it’s worst times these days. Biotech poses arguably the greatest threat to their quest for global social control and cohesion.

    Especially the day we have a complete and coherent neurochemical explanation for all or most of the processes of consciousness, war will ensue.

    • Heh. Good call in the implication.

      Biotech in general is, I think, likely to put increasing pressure on many social institutions, not just the Catholic Church, in the near future. The notion that people may soon no longer face ageing and death as natural and unavoidable things is likely to trigger tremendous backlash from many sectors of society, for instance.

      • I agree. I suspect that even many people who do not see themselves as very religious might be worried about the implications. A lot of those who consider themselves ‘spiritual’ rather than religious still presume we have a soul that lives on and does interesting stuff after we die. I predict a ‘Coping Strategy War’ 😛

        Also, if you look at humans in a materialistic way, then concepts like ‘free will’ become moot. The will is then dependent on the brain and nervous system, leading perhaps to a revival of pseudo-determinism….?

        Now, how do we speed this up? I am sad to see that there is currently no distributed computing project directly linked to life extension….

        • The notion that once we get past the grave, everything becomes perfect forever, and thus life is a burden that one must simply get through with gritted teeth in order to reach the prize at the end has powerful cultural resonance, no doubt about it. I think you’re right that even a lot of folks who aren’t religious in the conventional sense of the word still embrace that idea.

          That’s why a lot of folks who are into radical life extension are careful not to talk about “immortality,” and instead couch it in terms of making death optional. Presumably, the fact that we may soon be able to stop the ageing process does not mean that folks can’t die at all.

          As far as free will goes, I think that both the notion of free will as it’s commonly portrayed and the notion of determinism as it’s commonly portrayed are both flawed. The brain is a physical organ, and everything it does, it does in a physical way–but the interactions between people and the environment are so complex that it amounts to a Lorenz system, whose behavior can not be predicted with any sort of precision. Which I’ve written about to great length before. 🙂

          • I sometimes mention ‘clinical immortality’, but hasten to add that this of course does not make us immune to new and exciting diseases™, psycho-killers or freak accidents on the superhighway. It doesn’t make people claim I’m blaspheming but rather they either say it’s so far away we don’t need to consider it ‘in our lifetimes’ or ‘but maybe it’s OK that we have a limited lifespan’.

            The main problem here in Denmark is more often apathy than religious conservatism….

            *sigh* Maybe I should get my shit together and start an H+ organisation here. After all, I did manage to kickstart the Copenhagen bisexual community, and perhaps this will be even more challenging 🙂

          • Btw, I agree with your views on free will and deterministic state machines. This of course implies that it is theoretically possible to build a strong AI. But what Kurzweil et. al. have failed to convince me is that it’s something that will happen within a few decades. I think around the year 2100 is more like it.

  2. Your implication that sucking cock is a bad thing/punishment/degradation aside…

    …the Catholic Church is facing it’s worst times these days. Biotech poses arguably the greatest threat to their quest for global social control and cohesion.

    Especially the day we have a complete and coherent neurochemical explanation for all or most of the processes of consciousness, war will ensue.

  3. Hmmm well I have strong views on organized religions, period. Beyond the fact that we need a true separation of church and state, we also need to get to a separation of religion vs spirituality. One is giving the other a very bad name.
    And nobody can truly know what someone’s life experience will do for them. I have a g/f who used to be a drug addict / hooker in her younger days and now (after clean up, schooling etc) she is a counselor for street kids.
    Your caller may still be alive in 20 years, and I hope he is, like my brother-in-law who has been HIV positive since 1997. And maybe by living with HIV, he will be a huge inspiration to others – we just don’t know. Personally, all I can do is my part. And when someone comes to me and starts to cry about how awful their life is because their child is a crystal meth addict and living in a box in the street, I say to them “Hey – let me tell you my story and how I got through it….”

    Odd – your post must have touched a nerve here, didn’t know I was going to say all that. I’ll shut up now 🙂

  4. Hmmm well I have strong views on organized religions, period. Beyond the fact that we need a true separation of church and state, we also need to get to a separation of religion vs spirituality. One is giving the other a very bad name.
    And nobody can truly know what someone’s life experience will do for them. I have a g/f who used to be a drug addict / hooker in her younger days and now (after clean up, schooling etc) she is a counselor for street kids.
    Your caller may still be alive in 20 years, and I hope he is, like my brother-in-law who has been HIV positive since 1997. And maybe by living with HIV, he will be a huge inspiration to others – we just don’t know. Personally, all I can do is my part. And when someone comes to me and starts to cry about how awful their life is because their child is a crystal meth addict and living in a box in the street, I say to them “Hey – let me tell you my story and how I got through it….”

    Odd – your post must have touched a nerve here, didn’t know I was going to say all that. I’ll shut up now 🙂

  5. I remember a number of years ago, a debate that I was embroiled in. It was about CULTS and what the USA devines as a cult.

    one of the thing that cults do, (according to the criteria)? Control medical treatment.

    I was raised Christian, Married into a Jewish family for a decade and a half and I have finally settled on the idea that I am agnostic. I have FAITH, I do NOT have religion.

    I have always felt that the Catholic church had way too many uneducated hands in way too many issues to not be considered the worlds largest CULT.

    There is a reason they call followers a “flock (of sheep)” sheep are dumb.

    • You can state that for any followers, such as Obama followers (also sheep). In fact, most Americans are sheep, as they follow just about any trend which blows on the wind.

      It should have been written, “We the SHEEPLE.”

      • But couldn’t the Mcain or even the Blagojovick followers be considered the same way?

        Or for that matter people who follow “Lost” (if anyone can actually “follow” Lost?)

        You can have faith and not be a follower. I follow no specific god or non-god, I follow ME. I know the difference between good and bad and right and wrong and if there is a question in my mind of where something falls, then I look for reasons for it to take a side.

        Often there is no absolute. Taking a life is bad, I am sure we can all agree on that. But is assisted suicide for someone in enormous pain with a terminal illness? What about in self defense? How about aborting a malformed fetus to save the mothers life if both would die otherwise? Where is the line?

        I do not understand why anyone would spend their entire life atoning for living just to get into an afterlife when they will be dead. Wouldn’t it be better to live a life, doing good simply because you can, irregardless of what might or might not happen when you are dead. What is more important, LIFE or DEATH?

        The catholic church says “everyone is BAD until we say so”. I much prefer the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” mentality.

        • You raise some very good points, and indeed, I would go so far as to say that we are in agreement…on these points, at least. My point was simply that it is a tragedy that Americans seem to be incapable of critical thinking any more. It is a downright shame that most allow TV to think for them, and absorb way too much of the liberal media’s opinion as fact. “An open mind collects a lot of garbage”, and all that.

          Only one thing I would ask, and that is, how do you know your moral compass is calibrated correctly? Because you “know” the difference between right and wrong?

          Finally, I would bring up the age-old adage, “As it harms no other, do as you will”, which I believe is actually more stringent than the Golden Rule. No, I’m not a Wiccan.

          • I agree with your closing sentiment.

            BUT I view my very existence as harming something somewhere, be it the blade of grass that gets trampled or the fuel emissions I add to the air driving to school and work.

            My personal moral compass is based on a large number of ideals and factors. The 10 commandments (no killing, lying about someone else etc.), The golden rule (do unto others), and even the current commonly accepted standards and laws. (no drinking and driving, no car jacking, no stealing, not walking up to someone and punching them in the face etc.).

            Where My moral compass delineates is where many peoples compasses delineate. I am not perfect, I WILL state that right off and I do not think I am better than people who do not agree with me or believe as I do. I try to think about WHY something should or shouldn’t be wrong though. I do agree that the vast majority of the population refuse to think for themselves OR think ONLY of themselves anymore.

            Here is an example (or 2). I do not believe in abortion for me. I would never do it. I have made a conscious decision that after the age of 35(if I am single) or 36-37 (if with a new marriage) that I will NOT have any more children even though it has been my biggest desire for years. I work with disabled adults, I do not want to have a disabled child and since after a woman is 35,the risk of birth defects increases, I am choosing NOT to take that chance because even with a disabled child, I would never abort it for that cause. BUT I am Pro-CHOICE. I do not believe it is anybody elses job to tell me that I can’t have an abortion if I DID want one. This is where my moral compass can point in a slightly different direction than yours. Does it mean either of us is right or wrong? Not for me to decide if your wrong, I know my choice is right for me and does not hurt YOU in the process.

            I do not believe that being GAY is wrong, Why? Because if someone is gay it does no damage to me or anyone else that they are gay any more than my being straight would hurt a gay person. The same goes for people with dark skin, red hair or hazel eyes. These things do NO DAMAGE to me or anyone else, therefor I do not accept them as wrong. If it does no harm, why is it wrong.

            Limiting potentially life saving research in any way, shape or form, I feel, is wrong if it takes no life or harms no one to save a life.

            I believe the death penalty is wrong, I believe abortion is wrong, I believe a lot of things are wrong.

            Luckily for me, I live a pretty simple life and as of yet, have not had to make many of those hard moral decisions beyond calling the cops on an abusive (now ex) spouse. He will claim that I was wrong, that I “ruined his life” by having him arrested. But was I, if I did it to save my own and my children’s lives from whatever future abuse he might have inflicted?

            My current “is it wrong” dilemma is over a newly found friend/potential partner who is active duty military. Is what he does wrong? He is literally “trained to kill” just as every american soldier is. But are his causes a sufficient reason to do the job he does? For now I do not make it my judgment call. I just accept that it is not something I would ever or could ever do for a living and I am thankful that I do not have to.

            I am sorry if I lost the topic and went rambling…It has been a long day and I rarely get to have intellectual discussions any more that do not revolve around Middle school orchestra, boy scouts or the products we make where I work.

  6. I remember a number of years ago, a debate that I was embroiled in. It was about CULTS and what the USA devines as a cult.

    one of the thing that cults do, (according to the criteria)? Control medical treatment.

    I was raised Christian, Married into a Jewish family for a decade and a half and I have finally settled on the idea that I am agnostic. I have FAITH, I do NOT have religion.

    I have always felt that the Catholic church had way too many uneducated hands in way too many issues to not be considered the worlds largest CULT.

    There is a reason they call followers a “flock (of sheep)” sheep are dumb.

  7. “One of the accident victims was thrown through the windshield and badly lacerated. In his efforts to save her life, he cut his hand on the glass and was exposed to her blood. She was HIV positive; now he is, too.”

    Unfortunately, the result of his actions (contracting HIV) would be considered by many Catholics a punishment. It was God’s will that the victim be involved in the accident as part of His divine plan and how DARE anyone interfere with God’s plan by trying to save her life! Sadly, their reasoning doesn’t hold water (does any religious dogma, for that matter?)…”Love thy neighbor” and all that.

    Did Jesus (and also God) not teach love, compassion and mercy? Why, then, in a moment of compassion and mercy, in an attempt to save the life of anther, would that man’s actions be considered unacceptable and worthy of damnation? This only reaffirms my long-ago decision to abandon religion and religious dogma, and I firmly agree that any God who believes the resulting consequence of that man’s actions is acceptable is not only unworthy of worship and adoration, but is, for all intents and purposes, a fuckwad.

    • Unfortunately, the result of his actions (contracting HIV) would be considered by many Catholics a punishment. It was God’s will that the victim be involved in the accident as part of His divine plan and how DARE anyone interfere with God’s plan by trying to save her life!

      Hmm. To be fair, that sounds more like Evangelical Protestantism than Catholicism. Modern Catholics don’t have a problem with medical intervention per se, only with specific classes of medicine.

      Still, I get what you’re saying; the notion that one person coming to the aid of another would incur divine wrath is pretty reprehensible.

  8. “One of the accident victims was thrown through the windshield and badly lacerated. In his efforts to save her life, he cut his hand on the glass and was exposed to her blood. She was HIV positive; now he is, too.”

    Unfortunately, the result of his actions (contracting HIV) would be considered by many Catholics a punishment. It was God’s will that the victim be involved in the accident as part of His divine plan and how DARE anyone interfere with God’s plan by trying to save her life! Sadly, their reasoning doesn’t hold water (does any religious dogma, for that matter?)…”Love thy neighbor” and all that.

    Did Jesus (and also God) not teach love, compassion and mercy? Why, then, in a moment of compassion and mercy, in an attempt to save the life of anther, would that man’s actions be considered unacceptable and worthy of damnation? This only reaffirms my long-ago decision to abandon religion and religious dogma, and I firmly agree that any God who believes the resulting consequence of that man’s actions is acceptable is not only unworthy of worship and adoration, but is, for all intents and purposes, a fuckwad.

  9. you’re getting your information from fox news now? lol – I thought you knew better Franklin!

    This is old news. As I recall, they weren’t (and aren’t) considered “New sins” – but really more suggestions on how to conscientious living. And it wasn’t by the Pope, but by one of the Bishops, and mentioned in jest.

    You really need to be carefull when you read *anything*- but especially so-called “proclaimations” from the Vatican. 9 times out of 10, the press gets it wrong. Simply because a Bishop makes a stupid statement, doesn’t mean it is now policy of the Vatican, or that it comes from the Pope.

    Edited to add: The official view of the Vatican on genetic engineering, is that it needs to be done responsibily. For the Vatican, that means – *adult* stem cell research is fine; embryonic stem cell research, is not. The research you quoted is, I believe, adult stem cell research, which is really where most of the advances are coming from.

    If you ever wanna know what the Catholic teachings are – go to the source! – and not fox news, mkay? 😀

    • Heh. Fox News isn’t the only source, though. A quick Google search turns up over a million references to the same story, by Reuters, AP, ABC News, and the BBC, among others.

      Regardless of where these particular new sins may fall in Catholic doctrine, the fact remains that the Vatican opposes, in broad terms, several entire classes of medicine, including gene therapy, stem cell research, genetic engineering, and many forms of fertility medicine (including IVF).

      The issue with gene therapy isn’t related to the issue of stem cell research. Gene therapy uses no stem cells at all, adult or embryonic. Instead, it involves creating strands of DNA using a technique such a PCR, introducing that DNA into a specially engineered virus, and using the virus to transfer the DNA into the person’s cells. Once this is done, that person’s DNA is permanently altered. This constitutes “genetic modification,” which is specifically, directly condemned by Bishop Gianfranco Girotti.

      • yes, these stories often get passed around the same way, they find a catchy headline and reuse it over and over again.

        But I remember when those news articles came out, and I also remember the clarifications issued by the Vatican, that reflected as I stated.

        The ability to perform gene therapy, directly comes from stem cell research, so yeah, it is related. IOW, the scientists would have no clue which genes affect what diseases, without stem cell research.

        As to why they are opposed to different forms of fertility medicine, well, that has to do with the Catholic view of the sanctity of life, and submission to the will of God. The Church is certainly allowed to have their opinion on matters, and to voice that opinion. Who would it directly impact? no one but Catholics.

        • Are you asserting, then, that the Catholic church would have no objection to the HIV gene therapy I linked to, in spite of their proclamation that it is wrong to modify DNA? If so, can you show a citation to support it?

          I think it’s a mistake to believe that Catholic doctrine impacts no one but Catholics. The Catholic church is a political as well as a religious organization, and as a political organization it has a tremendous amount of power in many legislative bodies.

          For example, the law in Italy requires that every embryo used for IVF treatment must be implanted, regardless of the number of such embryos and the mother’s wishes. This law exists as a direct result of lobbying by the Catholic church, and it applies to everyone, Catholic or not.

          I have no problem with a church of any type imposing its values on those who are members. Scientologists can refuse psychological treatment, Catholics can refuse IVF, Jehovah’s Witnesses can refuse blood transfusions–perfectly fine with me. I think it’s stupid and misguided, and I’ll say so, but at the end of the day I’m not going to force these things on folks who adopt religious beliefs, as silly (and as harmful) as those beliefs may be.

          But to say that these beliefs affect only the members of the churches which believe them is patently false. Just as I would not force a Jehovah’s Witness to accept a blood transfusion, so he has no right to deny me one. Just as I would not force gene therapy or IVF on a Catholic, he has no right to deny these things to me. When churches become political organizations and use political power to enforce their various spiritual teachings through force of law, yeah, I have a really big problem with that.

          • “Are you asserting, then, that the Catholic church would have no objection to the HIV gene therapy I linked to, in spite of their proclamation that it is wrong to modify DNA? If so, can you show a citation to support it?”

            from here: Vatican Issues Instruction on Bioethics >

            The Vatican document reiterates that the church is opposed to research on stem cells derived from embryos. But it does not oppose research on stem cells derived from adults; blood from umbilical cords; or fetuses “who have died of natural causes.”

            Italy, is run by the Italian Government, not the Vatican. ANd they are often at odds with the Vatican; recently in fact. Google “Eluana Englaro” – and you will find a case very similar to the Teri Shiavo case.

            Regardless, just because you don’t agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t have a right to lobby any government, or politician, as a proponent of their views. That’s the same right as anyone else.

          • The Vatican’s position on stm cell research isn’t on point. What’s not clear to me is whether or not they approve of gene therapy involving permanent alteration to the patient’s DNA. The bishop said that “modifying DNA” is inherently immoral; that seems to me to rule out gene therapy for HIV.

            Most stem cell treatments involve coaxing stem cells into regrowing damaged tissue–a process that involves no changes to the patient’s DNA. The HIV treatment does not involve stem cells in any way, but does involve permanently altering the patient’s DNA.

            I do not believe that the Vatican, or any other church, has any right whatsoever to impose a moral view on society through force of law, by lobbying or by any other means. I recognize that that is a minority view, but I think history teaches very clearly the profound dangers in allowing any religious group to write its moral beliefs into law. I can not think of a single society whose laws are determined by religious orthodoxy that I do not think is an appalling evil, and I think the history of human civilization shows that any government treats its citizens with respect and decency in direct proportion to that government’s embrace of moral orthodoxy.

          • Again, one bishop is not the Vatican. Well, the Bishop of Rome is, but there are 2,000 other Bishops.

            In the first link I sent to you, it talked about “responsibility” in bioethics. Now there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of possible ethical delimmas when it comes to gene therapy. Is it ok to use our knowledge to cure illness? Of course. Is it ok to use our knowledge to make designer babies? I can’t imagine the Vatican ever agreeing to that.

            History teaches us very profoundly, that theologians have always been the safe-keepers of ethical and moral matters, not governments. And frankly, I wouldn’t want a government to be the sole decider of such things – just look at China and their governmental decisions on family size. Those regulations have lead to untold numbers of abortions of female fetuses, untold number of female child abandonments. You want to look at something appallingly evil? look there.

            Ideally, there should be a ethical panel comprising of theologians of all religions, scientists, government officials, lawyers, and lay people, to go over these issues and determine what is responsible, and what is not. Just because we *can* do something, doesn’t mean we *should.* I got a field full of kudzu, to prove that point, too.

            Edited to addPress Chided for Putting Words in Vatican Mouth – apparantly this has been an ongoing problem:

            VATICAN CITY, FEB. 22, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican spokesman requested journalists to refrain from attributing positions to the Holy See that it has not taken.

            A note published Saturday by the Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See’s press office, claims that “it is not rare that the media attribute to the ‘Vatican’ — by which they mean the Holy See — comments and points of view that cannot automatically be attributed to it.”

            He explained: “The Holy See, in fact, when it intends to authoritatively express itself uses the proper means and suitable ways — communiqués, notes, declarations. Every other pronouncement does not have the same value.”

            Father Lombardi concluded: “Even recently, there have been inopportune attributions.

            “The Holy See, in its representative organs, shows respect for civil authorities, which in their legitimate autonomy have the right and the duty to provide for the common good.”

          • History teaches us very profoundly, that theologians have always been the safe-keepers of ethical and moral matters, not governments.

            And with disastrous results, I would argue.

            And frankly, I wouldn’t want a government to be the sole decider of such things – just look at China and their governmental decisions on family size.

            Which is an excellent example of allowing ANY moral orthodoxy, regardless of whether it is spiritual or secular in nature, to drive legislation.

            When we have spiritual entities acting to write morality into law, we see everything from witch trials to burinings for heresy to laws which torture and imprison women for “immorality” and “adultery” after they are raped.

            When we have secular entities acting to write morality into law, we see everything from China’s Net censorship (which is done in the name of “protecting the common morality”) to China’s policy on Tibet to Stalinist purges.

            Ideally, there should be a ethical panel comprising of theologians of all religions, scientists, government officials, lawyers, and lay people, to go over these issues and determine what is responsible, and what is not.

            Ideally, sure. Practically, don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

            The US has such a panel; it’s called the President’s Committee on Bioethics. In theory, it’s staffed by both religious people and laypeople. In practice, since George W. Bush is an Evangelical Christian, for the last eight years it’s been staffed solely by Evangelical Christians. For the last eight years, it’s been headed by Leon Kass, the man who was instrumental in writing the Bush administration’s ban on stem cell research.

            What you might not know is that he also attempted unsuccessfully to lobby for a similar ban on longevity research (on the grounds of–and I quote–“Christians already know how to live forever” and that–again I quote–“death is a necessary and desirable end”). He also argues that any new medical technology must be banned, even if it would save lives, if it is possible to use that technology for human cloning. For example, he wants to ban attempts to use cloned cells to re-grow damaged organs or tissues, such as using cloned cells to re-grow hearts for patients with heart failure, because such techniques might also be used for human cloning.

            Klass also opposes all forms of birth control across the board, without exception, and all forms of “interference with natural procreation,” such as fertility drugs and IVF, on the grounds that these interfere with the natural, Biblical process of procreation.

            Now, riddle me this–are these the attitudes and “morals” you would like to see writ into law? I find these so-called “moral” values abominable and reprehensible, and I find the folks who hold them appalling and disgusting, yet they represent mainstream moral thought throughout much of Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

            Ultimately, I do not believe that religious morality is well-suited to grappling with these issues, and I’ll tell you why. Mainstream Christian religious thought teaches, and has always taught, that life is an unpleasant burden–something to be endured until death, at which point we all become happy forever and everything is perfect forever. Any ethical system that has at its core the notion that human life is an unfortunate and unwelcome burden, an impediment to the glorious paradise that awaits after death, is ill-suited to being able to wrestle with moral issues surrounding such things as radical longevity. When your moral system is set up to view life as bad and death as good (see Klass’ comment about “Christians already know how to live forever”), how can you reasonably expect this system to make moral judgments about medical techniques such as anti-ageing or cryonics?

          • alrighty then!

            ……but first things first. Since I’ve completely proven you *wrong* in your original post – that no, the Vatican has not come up with some new list of mortal sins, and that no, the Vatican isn’t opposed to responsibly stem cell research and treatments, I think it’s high time for a retraction in your blog. Otherwise, it just seems like you’re posting propaganda, even after you know better.

            Now, on to other points you brought up:

            And with disastrous results, I would argue.
            I dunno. We’re still alive and kickin; we haven’t killed each other off yet. Without such “restraints” as religious moral teachings, I doubt we would be. We as humans tend to cater to the lowest common denominator.

            Which is an excellent example of allowing ANY moral orthodoxy *snip*.

            soooooooo you’re saying, we shouldn’t have laws against murder? Rape? Stealing? Purgering one another? Unscrupulous business practices? …. all these laws stem from moral orthodoxy Franklin. You can’t get around them. And BTW, the Catholic Church is one of the BIGGEST proponents for the poor, the under-privledged, those who are harrassed by their governments for their beliefs, those who can not speak for themselves such as the severely disabled or insane. There are literally, thousands upon thousands of Catholic charities, without which many people would die, or go hungry.

            When we have secular entities… *snip*

            Which succinctly proves my point that governments should not be the sole ones to decide moral issues. Thank you.

            I also believe this in other ways; for instance – the issue of marriage. Who can get married (in this country, at least) – has been traditionally determined by the various Churches; the State’s job was simply to issue the marriage license. That has changed; now the State has been trying to legislate who can be married. This is wrong. If the UU Church wants to marry gays, or poly people – I say let them. But I don’t think you should legislate mandates that the Catholic church or the other denominations who are opposed to those ideas, to do the same.

            And for heaven sakes, PLEASE do not compare Bush and his crew to the Catholic Church. There really is *NO* comparison. The Holy See is almost completely composed of people of high intelligence who in most cases, have finished a Master’s or Doctorates; Bush’s crew, we’re lucky if they finished Jr. College. As I have stated, the Catholic Church holds no such thoughts on stem cell research, nor do I. I agree with the Catholic Church in this; as long as the research is done responsibly, then it’s fine.

            (BTW – Technically, Bush isn’t/wasn’t ever considered an “evangelist.” He’s Methodist; that’s about as traditional as you get in the Protestant faith, next to Episcopalian. He held similar views, but he wasn’t an evangelist.)

            As to birth control and IVF, I don’t think there should be legislation against it. The Catholic Church has very compelling reasons why they should not be done, but those beliefs – as I stated – affect only Catholics. But if you are interested in their reasonings, you can find it here.

            Ultimately, I do not believe that religious morality is well-suited to grappling with these issues, and I’ll tell you why. *snip*

            that’s *completely* false.

            Sheesh Franklin, don’t you read the papers? Watch the news? The Catholic Church, in particular, has always taught that life is sacred and should be preserved, and has fought hard to preserve life. Ever heard of the “right to life” movement? It doesn’t just involve abortion issues, but right to live with dignity, right to a just wage, right to allow nature to take it’s course and to die with grace.

            Why? Because we are formed after God. He gave us life. It’s through life that we are able to find God. Struggles are a part of life, yes; but that is how we learn and grow.

            Just because there are a few whack jobs who have read the “Left Behind” series – and take it literally – doesn’t mean that belief is shared by the entirety of people who are religious.

          • Re: alrighty then!

            I’m still not convinced you’ve “proven”what you claim to have proven, and you still have not answered my question. If this bishop says that anything that “modifies DNA” is immoral, and the gene therapy for HIV modifies the patient’s DNA irreversibly, then is it or is it not the case that that gene therapy is immoral under this theory?

            I dunno. We’re still alive and kickin; we haven’t killed each other off yet. Without such “restraints” as religious moral teachings, I doubt we would be. We as humans tend to cater to the lowest common denominator.

            Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Are you seriously going to tell me that you believe that the history of religion is one of restraint against immorality? What, then, would you call the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? It is arguable that more human beings have been put to death in the name of religion than for any other cause. Far from being the reason we’re still alive–it’s a bloody miracle religion hasn’t killed us all!

            The willingness to accept an idea on faith, with no proof and nothing to support it, is a necessary prerequisite to mass atrocity. The Crusades could not happen without it; the Holocaust could not happen without it. No society has ever committed mass murder out of an excess of reasonableness; only an excess of faith.

            Your argument about churches and marriage does not hold water. For example, in this country divorcees may become married, but no law requires the Catholic church to perform such weddings. The Religious Right often uses “but we shouldn’t force churches to do what they don’t want to do!” as an argument against gay marriage, but it’s a bullshit argument. Nobody, nobody is saying that they should. No church is compelled to marry any person that they don’t want to marry.

            Sheesh Franklin, don’t you read the papers? Watch the news? The Catholic Church, in particular, has always taught that life is sacred and should be preserved,…

            Which is why in 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture on suspected heretics. You do know the history of the Catholic church, right?

            They don’t do that any more–because they don’t have the political power to do that any more. History shows us that any religious structure is guilty of evil and atrocity in direct proportion to its political power, and is reasonable and tolerant in direct proportion to the degree of secular political power preventing its own political ascendency.

            I do not think it is reasonable to say that the Catholic church has always fought to preserve life. I think, rather, that the truth is the modern Catholic church sometimes fights to preserve life, as long as it doesn’t mean endorsing the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

            Bush may not be an Evangelical, but he sure did surround himself with them. John Ashcroft, a Cristian Dominionist; Leon Kass, a Fundamentalist Evangelical. I also find the argument about education unpersuasive; Klass holds both an MD and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, yet this does not in any way appear to impact his views on ethics, which are slanted strongly toward conservative religious morality.

            (Yes, I know that isn’t on the Catholic church; he isn’t Catholic. I merely use him as an example of what happens when one believes that religious morality is relevant to issues of biomedical technology. (I find the idea that lifesaving treatments should be discarded if there is any possibility that they might have applications for cloning pretty reprehensible; don’t you?)

            In all honesty, whenever I talk to someone who thinks that organized religions should be the arbiters of morality, I always have the same sense of baffled puzzlement that I have when I talk to supporters of Communism. We’ve tried this before, many times. It has always failed. Why would anyone believe that it would work now, when history has shown us on so many occasions that it has never worked before?

            We gave organized religion its chance. When we ask organized religion to be our deciders on morality, we get torture, murder, and burning at the stake. It’s time to gove someone else a shot. They could hardly do worse.

          • Re: alrighty then!

            This page lists current Catholic catechism; what is accepted (and taught) doctrine in the Cathoic Church. In there, you will find what is, and is not, considered a sin. What you will NOT find there, are the opinions of *one* Bishop. That would be akin to saying that one Senator’s opinion, goes for the whole of the US Government.

            *Assumes facts not in evidence.* – well, I’m here, you’re here, we’re still here! isn’t that evidence? Were there stupid Popes in the past? You betcha. Some Popes did horrible things, some Pope positions were *bought,* some Popes had wives, mistresses, and children. Popes are human. It is very rare, that they act infallibility, and that has to do with Church doctrine. Identifying Mary as the Mother of God, is one example of this.

            But Popes *aren’t* the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is comprised OF the laity of the church, the clergy and religious people of the church, the sacred traditions of the Church, and the Eternal Word of Christ. And yes, the Church is pro-life. How could it not be? Jesus was one very pro-life dude, and he’s our CEO.

            In all honesty, whenever I talk to someone who thinks that organized religions should be the arbiters of morality, I always have the same sense of baffled puzzlement that I have when I talk to supporters of Communism.
            Besides the fact I never said they should be the *sole* arbitrators of morality (I said they should be allowed to voice their opinion, and should be included in any ethical council) look at it this way:

            Would you have such an objection to say – the UAW having a say in worker’s rights in legislation? Of course not. They are there to promote what they feel is right for the people they represent. Religious organizations are not PACs, but they do have an obligation to promote what *they* feel is right, as well.

            It’s time to gove someone else a shot. They could hardly do worse.
            I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

          • Re: alrighty then!

            *Assumes facts not in evidence.* – well, I’m here, you’re here, we’re still here! isn’t that evidence?

            The “facts not in evidence” are the facts that support the idea that without religion, we would not be here.

            I think, honestly, that without religion, we’d still be here, and might be more prosperous. Organized religions throughout history and without any exception I’m aware of in any part of the world generally tend to oppose new discoveries and new technological advances. They also, again without any exceptions I’m aware of, tend to incite their followers to violence and war; there have been more recorded religious than secular wars through history.

            Were there stupid Popes in the past? You betcha. Some Popes did horrible things, some Pope positions were *bought,* some Popes had wives, mistresses, and children. Popes are human.

            Just so. That’s my point. Popes are just human, with no claim to morality above that of bakers, redheads, plumbers, Mexicans, or any other group of people. To believe that a church group has some special claim to making moral evaluations over and above any other particular group seems difficult to support to me.

            Would you have such an objection to say – the UAW having a say in worker’s rights in legislation? Of course not. They are there to promote what they feel is right for the people they represent.

            For the people they represent, sure. If the UAW wants to negotiate contracts for UAW members, hey, that’s fine with me.

            But if the UAW were to try to negotiate contracts that would be binding on lawyers, or IT professionals, or nurses, or any other people not UAW members? No way.

            If the Catholic church wants to lay down guidelines or rules for Catholics, that’s cool. If they want to lay down guidelines on me? No way.

            From the outside, the UAW looks to me like a corrupt, racketeer-influenced organization whose actions these days, whatever their origins, largely serve to benefit the interests of certain New Jersey and Detroit crime families. Do they also offer benefits to members? Some people think they do, or presumably they wouldn’t still have any. Should they be allowed to determine laws that affect non-members, or speak to the economic interests of non-members? No. They do not represent me, and I do not want to give money to a UAW pension fund that ends up in the pockets of the Tocco family.

            From the outside, the Catholic church looks to me like a corrupt, morally bankrupt, reactionary organization whose actions these days, regardless of their origins, largely serve to benefit the political institution of the church itself. Do they also offer benefits to members? Some people think they do, or presumably they wouldn’t still have any. Should they be allowed to determine laws that affect non-members, or speak to the moral interests of non-members? No. They do not represent me, and I do not want to give money to an organization that sends people into Third World countries mired in desperate poverty and gripped by an AIDS epidemic to tell these folks that condoms are morally wrong.

            In fact, to be quite honest, I would say that going into impoverished, AIDS-stricken countries and telling them that condoms are morally wrong is, if anything, more offensive to me than giving money to the Tocco crime family. The Mafia kills fewer people every year than poverty and AIDS, and family planning is a damn good way to address both poverty and AIDS. The fact that the Pope is willing to hold this non-Biblical, arbitrary ideal of human sexuality over the real-world human misery and suffering that simple condom use can help prevent is a morally unconscionable outrage that makes me ill. Frankly, I think that alone automatically disqualifies him from a seat at the table of bioethics.

          • Re: alrighty then!

            This would not be the first time Turtle continued to argue the point even after he’s been proven wrong.

            I went round and round with him back in the 90’s, and every time he’d be wrong, he’d change the topic.

  10. you’re getting your information from fox news now? lol – I thought you knew better Franklin!

    This is old news. As I recall, they weren’t (and aren’t) considered “New sins” – but really more suggestions on how to conscientious living. And it wasn’t by the Pope, but by one of the Bishops, and mentioned in jest.

    You really need to be carefull when you read *anything*- but especially so-called “proclaimations” from the Vatican. 9 times out of 10, the press gets it wrong. Simply because a Bishop makes a stupid statement, doesn’t mean it is now policy of the Vatican, or that it comes from the Pope.

    Edited to add: The official view of the Vatican on genetic engineering, is that it needs to be done responsibily. For the Vatican, that means – *adult* stem cell research is fine; embryonic stem cell research, is not. The research you quoted is, I believe, adult stem cell research, which is really where most of the advances are coming from.

    If you ever wanna know what the Catholic teachings are – go to the source! – and not fox news, mkay? 😀

  11. There’s another one they’re fuzzy on.

    As happens in Thailand especially, monogamous wives get it from their husbands who have sex with prostitutes. They’ve committed no sin, but are still going to die.

  12. There’s another one they’re fuzzy on.

    As happens in Thailand especially, monogamous wives get it from their husbands who have sex with prostitutes. They’ve committed no sin, but are still going to die.

  13. “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other “sin” is invented nonsense.”

    Exactly. Although I think hurting oneself is also a sin. I’m important, too.

  14. “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other “sin” is invented nonsense.”

    Exactly. Although I think hurting oneself is also a sin. I’m important, too.

  15. Heh. Good call in the implication.

    Biotech in general is, I think, likely to put increasing pressure on many social institutions, not just the Catholic Church, in the near future. The notion that people may soon no longer face ageing and death as natural and unavoidable things is likely to trigger tremendous backlash from many sectors of society, for instance.

  16. Unfortunately, the result of his actions (contracting HIV) would be considered by many Catholics a punishment. It was God’s will that the victim be involved in the accident as part of His divine plan and how DARE anyone interfere with God’s plan by trying to save her life!

    Hmm. To be fair, that sounds more like Evangelical Protestantism than Catholicism. Modern Catholics don’t have a problem with medical intervention per se, only with specific classes of medicine.

    Still, I get what you’re saying; the notion that one person coming to the aid of another would incur divine wrath is pretty reprehensible.

  17. Heh. Fox News isn’t the only source, though. A quick Google search turns up over a million references to the same story, by Reuters, AP, ABC News, and the BBC, among others.

    Regardless of where these particular new sins may fall in Catholic doctrine, the fact remains that the Vatican opposes, in broad terms, several entire classes of medicine, including gene therapy, stem cell research, genetic engineering, and many forms of fertility medicine (including IVF).

    The issue with gene therapy isn’t related to the issue of stem cell research. Gene therapy uses no stem cells at all, adult or embryonic. Instead, it involves creating strands of DNA using a technique such a PCR, introducing that DNA into a specially engineered virus, and using the virus to transfer the DNA into the person’s cells. Once this is done, that person’s DNA is permanently altered. This constitutes “genetic modification,” which is specifically, directly condemned by Bishop Gianfranco Girotti.

  18. yes, these stories often get passed around the same way, they find a catchy headline and reuse it over and over again.

    But I remember when those news articles came out, and I also remember the clarifications issued by the Vatican, that reflected as I stated.

    The ability to perform gene therapy, directly comes from stem cell research, so yeah, it is related. IOW, the scientists would have no clue which genes affect what diseases, without stem cell research.

    As to why they are opposed to different forms of fertility medicine, well, that has to do with the Catholic view of the sanctity of life, and submission to the will of God. The Church is certainly allowed to have their opinion on matters, and to voice that opinion. Who would it directly impact? no one but Catholics.

  19. “which th Vatican defines broadly to include anything which changes DNA.”

    so that makes bacteria a sin?
    sweet!
    now I have an excuse to go to confession every day!

    (yes, I joke, I kid)

  20. “which th Vatican defines broadly to include anything which changes DNA.”

    so that makes bacteria a sin?
    sweet!
    now I have an excuse to go to confession every day!

    (yes, I joke, I kid)

  21. Are you asserting, then, that the Catholic church would have no objection to the HIV gene therapy I linked to, in spite of their proclamation that it is wrong to modify DNA? If so, can you show a citation to support it?

    I think it’s a mistake to believe that Catholic doctrine impacts no one but Catholics. The Catholic church is a political as well as a religious organization, and as a political organization it has a tremendous amount of power in many legislative bodies.

    For example, the law in Italy requires that every embryo used for IVF treatment must be implanted, regardless of the number of such embryos and the mother’s wishes. This law exists as a direct result of lobbying by the Catholic church, and it applies to everyone, Catholic or not.

    I have no problem with a church of any type imposing its values on those who are members. Scientologists can refuse psychological treatment, Catholics can refuse IVF, Jehovah’s Witnesses can refuse blood transfusions–perfectly fine with me. I think it’s stupid and misguided, and I’ll say so, but at the end of the day I’m not going to force these things on folks who adopt religious beliefs, as silly (and as harmful) as those beliefs may be.

    But to say that these beliefs affect only the members of the churches which believe them is patently false. Just as I would not force a Jehovah’s Witness to accept a blood transfusion, so he has no right to deny me one. Just as I would not force gene therapy or IVF on a Catholic, he has no right to deny these things to me. When churches become political organizations and use political power to enforce their various spiritual teachings through force of law, yeah, I have a really big problem with that.

  22. “Are you asserting, then, that the Catholic church would have no objection to the HIV gene therapy I linked to, in spite of their proclamation that it is wrong to modify DNA? If so, can you show a citation to support it?”

    from here: Vatican Issues Instruction on Bioethics >

    The Vatican document reiterates that the church is opposed to research on stem cells derived from embryos. But it does not oppose research on stem cells derived from adults; blood from umbilical cords; or fetuses “who have died of natural causes.”

    Italy, is run by the Italian Government, not the Vatican. ANd they are often at odds with the Vatican; recently in fact. Google “Eluana Englaro” – and you will find a case very similar to the Teri Shiavo case.

    Regardless, just because you don’t agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t have a right to lobby any government, or politician, as a proponent of their views. That’s the same right as anyone else.

  23. Having read most of the Bible, I often wonder how many Christians stop to consider that their God might just be ummm, an evil hypocrite? Or perhaps merely human :P.

    • Well, the idea of an ever watching, controlling God who can send you to Hell with all it’s suffering, pain, torment and sorrow…..but at the same time LUVS you infinitely….

      …strikes me as the prototype of a power-obsessed, bad cop/good cop playing alpha male.

      Josef Fritzl, anyone?

  24. Having read most of the Bible, I often wonder how many Christians stop to consider that their God might just be ummm, an evil hypocrite? Or perhaps merely human :P.

  25. The Vatican’s position on stm cell research isn’t on point. What’s not clear to me is whether or not they approve of gene therapy involving permanent alteration to the patient’s DNA. The bishop said that “modifying DNA” is inherently immoral; that seems to me to rule out gene therapy for HIV.

    Most stem cell treatments involve coaxing stem cells into regrowing damaged tissue–a process that involves no changes to the patient’s DNA. The HIV treatment does not involve stem cells in any way, but does involve permanently altering the patient’s DNA.

    I do not believe that the Vatican, or any other church, has any right whatsoever to impose a moral view on society through force of law, by lobbying or by any other means. I recognize that that is a minority view, but I think history teaches very clearly the profound dangers in allowing any religious group to write its moral beliefs into law. I can not think of a single society whose laws are determined by religious orthodoxy that I do not think is an appalling evil, and I think the history of human civilization shows that any government treats its citizens with respect and decency in direct proportion to that government’s embrace of moral orthodoxy.

  26. That’s actually something that’s interested me for a long time.

    For example, the Boy Scouts of America, which have all but been taken over by the Mormon church in the last decade, no longer permit gay Scoutmasters because they believe that gays are “living in sin.” Yet Jesus clearly and explicitly stated (in Matthew 5:32) that any person who divorces ad remarries is living in sin, and yet divorcees are not forbidden to be Scoutmasters.

    If there is a more revealing example of the hypocrisy of organized religion, I have yet to see it.

    • Wondering how many divorced scoutmasters encourage their scouts to explore their ability to be divorced, and encourage them to accept their inability to stay married to their first mate.

      …yet you would find many gay scoutmasters who would be willing to encourage confused teens to explore their perverse feelings.

      Hm…why should scoutmasters be straight? No brainer.

      • Do you have kids? Boys? do you assume that scoutmasters are leading kids to explore monogamy or heterosexuality?

        I have kids, 2 boys in fact, both scouts.

        They are more concerned with camping, sports, and games.

        Just because a leader is GAY does not mean that they WILL spread GAY to the boys around them any more than a STRAIGHT leader will try to influence a confused teen that straight is the way to go.

        I am on the inside, if the topic of sex ever came up in any of the 2 cub scout packs or 4 boy scout dens that I and my children have been part of, it was immediately referred to the PARENT of said child. scout leaders are, BY THE RULES, not allowed to discuss these things with the kids. they are required to talk to the parents.

        • “spread” normality

          I do not have any boys, no. (I do have one daughter.) But if I did, I certainly would not want them to believe that homosexuality was in any way a viable choice. I guess I would ask you, how old are your boys? Are they old enough to wonder about their own orientation? If so, I submit that they are prime canidates to be influenced by someone they look up to…like a scoutmaster.

          “Just because a leader is GAY does not mean that they WILL spread GAY to the boys around them any more than a STRAIGHT leader will try to influence a confused teen that straight is the way to go.”

          But I WANT that Scoutmaster to be a good influence. I WANT him to let my son know that straight is normal, and IS the ONLY way to go. And BTW, I can’t figure out if you’re being naive or blind…whether deliberately or not. A young boy will look for a role model, and scoutmasters occasionally are seen as role models. If that scoutmaster is gay, then that young man will mistakenly see that as a good role model, whether the scoutmaster “spreads GAY” or not. If my son looks for a role model, I want that role model to be normal…and gay is decidedly NOT. I don’t care if that guy is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

          “I am on the inside, if the topic of sex ever came up in any of the 2 cub scout packs or 4 boy scout dens that I and my children have been part of, it was immediately referred to the PARENT of said child. scout leaders are, BY THE RULES, not allowed to discuss these things with the kids. they are required to talk to the parents.”

          Well, that’s certainly good news, but why should it have to be that way? I’m serious. There was a time when you could trust your scoutmaster to pass on GOOD information, which would have been right in line with what the parents would have told their kids. Nowadays, you have to make sure that your kids get the right information BECAUSE there are people out there who see perversions as “perfectly acceptable”, or “perfectly normal”. Good parents wouldn’t expose their kids to it.

          BTW, it’s good to know that there are safeguards in place to protect kids from those who have managed to make it to the “inside”…people who would pass on wrong information to the kids. But really, it’s a tragedy those safeguards have to be in place, and it’s one more sign of the decay of our society.

          • Re: “spread” normality

            I do not worry about my boys, who are at the age to be questioning their sexuality, becoming gay. I will love them no matter what they choose because I do not think that being GAY, Bisexual, Polyamorous, Straight or Monogamous are wrong.

            If they find that they are gay, I will accept their boyfriends in my home, with open arms, as I would anyone else. If they decide they are polyamorous, I will accept their entire family in my home as I would anyone else. If they find they are straight and only want one women in their lives and decide to save their first kiss for their wedding day, I will not try to dissuade them in that decision. They are my children, I brought them into this world so that they could grow into whatever they wanted to be, it is my job to show them the world and let them find their way in it.

            I started having “the sex and sexuality” conversations with my children around the time they turned 10. I didn’t wait for the schools to project their “monogamy and abstinence” fear mongering. I have continued that conversation as time has progressed into their early teens. They are becoming confident young men who are not scared of their own bodies and feelings. I am doing MY job as their parent and not letting someone elses fear be the sole source of information they receive.

            I KNOW that my children look up to their scout masters, I am glad they do. Being that their father is a sex addicted, convicted domestic abuser who they watched beat me, I am GLAD they prefer a man who can show them how to handle a knife, cook over a fire and maintain their own personal appearance. Their own father sure as shit could care less. If they go to him for advice on girls, they will have already taken a step more than I did at their age. I was scared to question anything and it took me 30 years to learn what my kids already are learning.

            If you want to shelter the boys you don’t have from the world, that is your choice. I decided that my children were better off knowing as much about the world as possible, that is MY choice.

          • Re: “spread” normality

            “normal” is a setting on a washing machine and not a designation of sexuality.

            WRONG information is what they teach in most public schools concerning “abstinence only” and the prevalence of STD’s.

            I am BI, POLY and proud TYVM.

            and I think you are WRONG.

    • Because if they didn’t allow divorced people as scoutmasters…there would be no more scouts…period.

      A much greater percentage of the population in this country can hold the title “divorced” (myself included), than hold the title of Gay.

      I have the feeling that the church does not care as much about “divorced” as “gay” mostly because they have a delusion that divorced people are no longer having, sex.

  27. That’s actually something that’s interested me for a long time.

    For example, the Boy Scouts of America, which have all but been taken over by the Mormon church in the last decade, no longer permit gay Scoutmasters because they believe that gays are “living in sin.” Yet Jesus clearly and explicitly stated (in Matthew 5:32) that any person who divorces ad remarries is living in sin, and yet divorcees are not forbidden to be Scoutmasters.

    If there is a more revealing example of the hypocrisy of organized religion, I have yet to see it.

  28. Well, the idea of an ever watching, controlling God who can send you to Hell with all it’s suffering, pain, torment and sorrow…..but at the same time LUVS you infinitely….

    …strikes me as the prototype of a power-obsessed, bad cop/good cop playing alpha male.

    Josef Fritzl, anyone?

  29. I agree. I suspect that even many people who do not see themselves as very religious might be worried about the implications. A lot of those who consider themselves ‘spiritual’ rather than religious still presume we have a soul that lives on and does interesting stuff after we die. I predict a ‘Coping Strategy War’ 😛

    Also, if you look at humans in a materialistic way, then concepts like ‘free will’ become moot. The will is then dependent on the brain and nervous system, leading perhaps to a revival of pseudo-determinism….?

    Now, how do we speed this up? I am sad to see that there is currently no distributed computing project directly linked to life extension….

  30. Again, one bishop is not the Vatican. Well, the Bishop of Rome is, but there are 2,000 other Bishops.

    In the first link I sent to you, it talked about “responsibility” in bioethics. Now there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of possible ethical delimmas when it comes to gene therapy. Is it ok to use our knowledge to cure illness? Of course. Is it ok to use our knowledge to make designer babies? I can’t imagine the Vatican ever agreeing to that.

    History teaches us very profoundly, that theologians have always been the safe-keepers of ethical and moral matters, not governments. And frankly, I wouldn’t want a government to be the sole decider of such things – just look at China and their governmental decisions on family size. Those regulations have lead to untold numbers of abortions of female fetuses, untold number of female child abandonments. You want to look at something appallingly evil? look there.

    Ideally, there should be a ethical panel comprising of theologians of all religions, scientists, government officials, lawyers, and lay people, to go over these issues and determine what is responsible, and what is not. Just because we *can* do something, doesn’t mean we *should.* I got a field full of kudzu, to prove that point, too.

    Edited to addPress Chided for Putting Words in Vatican Mouth – apparantly this has been an ongoing problem:

    VATICAN CITY, FEB. 22, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican spokesman requested journalists to refrain from attributing positions to the Holy See that it has not taken.

    A note published Saturday by the Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See’s press office, claims that “it is not rare that the media attribute to the ‘Vatican’ — by which they mean the Holy See — comments and points of view that cannot automatically be attributed to it.”

    He explained: “The Holy See, in fact, when it intends to authoritatively express itself uses the proper means and suitable ways — communiqués, notes, declarations. Every other pronouncement does not have the same value.”

    Father Lombardi concluded: “Even recently, there have been inopportune attributions.

    “The Holy See, in its representative organs, shows respect for civil authorities, which in their legitimate autonomy have the right and the duty to provide for the common good.”

  31. The notion that once we get past the grave, everything becomes perfect forever, and thus life is a burden that one must simply get through with gritted teeth in order to reach the prize at the end has powerful cultural resonance, no doubt about it. I think you’re right that even a lot of folks who aren’t religious in the conventional sense of the word still embrace that idea.

    That’s why a lot of folks who are into radical life extension are careful not to talk about “immortality,” and instead couch it in terms of making death optional. Presumably, the fact that we may soon be able to stop the ageing process does not mean that folks can’t die at all.

    As far as free will goes, I think that both the notion of free will as it’s commonly portrayed and the notion of determinism as it’s commonly portrayed are both flawed. The brain is a physical organ, and everything it does, it does in a physical way–but the interactions between people and the environment are so complex that it amounts to a Lorenz system, whose behavior can not be predicted with any sort of precision. Which I’ve written about to great length before. 🙂

  32. History teaches us very profoundly, that theologians have always been the safe-keepers of ethical and moral matters, not governments.

    And with disastrous results, I would argue.

    And frankly, I wouldn’t want a government to be the sole decider of such things – just look at China and their governmental decisions on family size.

    Which is an excellent example of allowing ANY moral orthodoxy, regardless of whether it is spiritual or secular in nature, to drive legislation.

    When we have spiritual entities acting to write morality into law, we see everything from witch trials to burinings for heresy to laws which torture and imprison women for “immorality” and “adultery” after they are raped.

    When we have secular entities acting to write morality into law, we see everything from China’s Net censorship (which is done in the name of “protecting the common morality”) to China’s policy on Tibet to Stalinist purges.

    Ideally, there should be a ethical panel comprising of theologians of all religions, scientists, government officials, lawyers, and lay people, to go over these issues and determine what is responsible, and what is not.

    Ideally, sure. Practically, don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

    The US has such a panel; it’s called the President’s Committee on Bioethics. In theory, it’s staffed by both religious people and laypeople. In practice, since George W. Bush is an Evangelical Christian, for the last eight years it’s been staffed solely by Evangelical Christians. For the last eight years, it’s been headed by Leon Kass, the man who was instrumental in writing the Bush administration’s ban on stem cell research.

    What you might not know is that he also attempted unsuccessfully to lobby for a similar ban on longevity research (on the grounds of–and I quote–“Christians already know how to live forever” and that–again I quote–“death is a necessary and desirable end”). He also argues that any new medical technology must be banned, even if it would save lives, if it is possible to use that technology for human cloning. For example, he wants to ban attempts to use cloned cells to re-grow damaged organs or tissues, such as using cloned cells to re-grow hearts for patients with heart failure, because such techniques might also be used for human cloning.

    Klass also opposes all forms of birth control across the board, without exception, and all forms of “interference with natural procreation,” such as fertility drugs and IVF, on the grounds that these interfere with the natural, Biblical process of procreation.

    Now, riddle me this–are these the attitudes and “morals” you would like to see writ into law? I find these so-called “moral” values abominable and reprehensible, and I find the folks who hold them appalling and disgusting, yet they represent mainstream moral thought throughout much of Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

    Ultimately, I do not believe that religious morality is well-suited to grappling with these issues, and I’ll tell you why. Mainstream Christian religious thought teaches, and has always taught, that life is an unpleasant burden–something to be endured until death, at which point we all become happy forever and everything is perfect forever. Any ethical system that has at its core the notion that human life is an unfortunate and unwelcome burden, an impediment to the glorious paradise that awaits after death, is ill-suited to being able to wrestle with moral issues surrounding such things as radical longevity. When your moral system is set up to view life as bad and death as good (see Klass’ comment about “Christians already know how to live forever”), how can you reasonably expect this system to make moral judgments about medical techniques such as anti-ageing or cryonics?

    • Funny, that’s what once said to me when I bemoaned my history of boyfriends who all tend to leave the same way, by calling me a bitch. He said “you’re not a bitch, it’s really easy not to piss you off … don’t be an asshole!”

      Seems like a good rule of life in general to me!

  33. I sometimes mention ‘clinical immortality’, but hasten to add that this of course does not make us immune to new and exciting diseases™, psycho-killers or freak accidents on the superhighway. It doesn’t make people claim I’m blaspheming but rather they either say it’s so far away we don’t need to consider it ‘in our lifetimes’ or ‘but maybe it’s OK that we have a limited lifespan’.

    The main problem here in Denmark is more often apathy than religious conservatism….

    *sigh* Maybe I should get my shit together and start an H+ organisation here. After all, I did manage to kickstart the Copenhagen bisexual community, and perhaps this will be even more challenging 🙂

  34. Btw, I agree with your views on free will and deterministic state machines. This of course implies that it is theoretically possible to build a strong AI. But what Kurzweil et. al. have failed to convince me is that it’s something that will happen within a few decades. I think around the year 2100 is more like it.

  35. alrighty then!

    ……but first things first. Since I’ve completely proven you *wrong* in your original post – that no, the Vatican has not come up with some new list of mortal sins, and that no, the Vatican isn’t opposed to responsibly stem cell research and treatments, I think it’s high time for a retraction in your blog. Otherwise, it just seems like you’re posting propaganda, even after you know better.

    Now, on to other points you brought up:

    And with disastrous results, I would argue.
    I dunno. We’re still alive and kickin; we haven’t killed each other off yet. Without such “restraints” as religious moral teachings, I doubt we would be. We as humans tend to cater to the lowest common denominator.

    Which is an excellent example of allowing ANY moral orthodoxy *snip*.

    soooooooo you’re saying, we shouldn’t have laws against murder? Rape? Stealing? Purgering one another? Unscrupulous business practices? …. all these laws stem from moral orthodoxy Franklin. You can’t get around them. And BTW, the Catholic Church is one of the BIGGEST proponents for the poor, the under-privledged, those who are harrassed by their governments for their beliefs, those who can not speak for themselves such as the severely disabled or insane. There are literally, thousands upon thousands of Catholic charities, without which many people would die, or go hungry.

    When we have secular entities… *snip*

    Which succinctly proves my point that governments should not be the sole ones to decide moral issues. Thank you.

    I also believe this in other ways; for instance – the issue of marriage. Who can get married (in this country, at least) – has been traditionally determined by the various Churches; the State’s job was simply to issue the marriage license. That has changed; now the State has been trying to legislate who can be married. This is wrong. If the UU Church wants to marry gays, or poly people – I say let them. But I don’t think you should legislate mandates that the Catholic church or the other denominations who are opposed to those ideas, to do the same.

    And for heaven sakes, PLEASE do not compare Bush and his crew to the Catholic Church. There really is *NO* comparison. The Holy See is almost completely composed of people of high intelligence who in most cases, have finished a Master’s or Doctorates; Bush’s crew, we’re lucky if they finished Jr. College. As I have stated, the Catholic Church holds no such thoughts on stem cell research, nor do I. I agree with the Catholic Church in this; as long as the research is done responsibly, then it’s fine.

    (BTW – Technically, Bush isn’t/wasn’t ever considered an “evangelist.” He’s Methodist; that’s about as traditional as you get in the Protestant faith, next to Episcopalian. He held similar views, but he wasn’t an evangelist.)

    As to birth control and IVF, I don’t think there should be legislation against it. The Catholic Church has very compelling reasons why they should not be done, but those beliefs – as I stated – affect only Catholics. But if you are interested in their reasonings, you can find it here.

    Ultimately, I do not believe that religious morality is well-suited to grappling with these issues, and I’ll tell you why. *snip*

    that’s *completely* false.

    Sheesh Franklin, don’t you read the papers? Watch the news? The Catholic Church, in particular, has always taught that life is sacred and should be preserved, and has fought hard to preserve life. Ever heard of the “right to life” movement? It doesn’t just involve abortion issues, but right to live with dignity, right to a just wage, right to allow nature to take it’s course and to die with grace.

    Why? Because we are formed after God. He gave us life. It’s through life that we are able to find God. Struggles are a part of life, yes; but that is how we learn and grow.

    Just because there are a few whack jobs who have read the “Left Behind” series – and take it literally – doesn’t mean that belief is shared by the entirety of people who are religious.

  36. Re: alrighty then!

    I’m still not convinced you’ve “proven”what you claim to have proven, and you still have not answered my question. If this bishop says that anything that “modifies DNA” is immoral, and the gene therapy for HIV modifies the patient’s DNA irreversibly, then is it or is it not the case that that gene therapy is immoral under this theory?

    I dunno. We’re still alive and kickin; we haven’t killed each other off yet. Without such “restraints” as religious moral teachings, I doubt we would be. We as humans tend to cater to the lowest common denominator.

    Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Are you seriously going to tell me that you believe that the history of religion is one of restraint against immorality? What, then, would you call the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? It is arguable that more human beings have been put to death in the name of religion than for any other cause. Far from being the reason we’re still alive–it’s a bloody miracle religion hasn’t killed us all!

    The willingness to accept an idea on faith, with no proof and nothing to support it, is a necessary prerequisite to mass atrocity. The Crusades could not happen without it; the Holocaust could not happen without it. No society has ever committed mass murder out of an excess of reasonableness; only an excess of faith.

    Your argument about churches and marriage does not hold water. For example, in this country divorcees may become married, but no law requires the Catholic church to perform such weddings. The Religious Right often uses “but we shouldn’t force churches to do what they don’t want to do!” as an argument against gay marriage, but it’s a bullshit argument. Nobody, nobody is saying that they should. No church is compelled to marry any person that they don’t want to marry.

    Sheesh Franklin, don’t you read the papers? Watch the news? The Catholic Church, in particular, has always taught that life is sacred and should be preserved,…

    Which is why in 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture on suspected heretics. You do know the history of the Catholic church, right?

    They don’t do that any more–because they don’t have the political power to do that any more. History shows us that any religious structure is guilty of evil and atrocity in direct proportion to its political power, and is reasonable and tolerant in direct proportion to the degree of secular political power preventing its own political ascendency.

    I do not think it is reasonable to say that the Catholic church has always fought to preserve life. I think, rather, that the truth is the modern Catholic church sometimes fights to preserve life, as long as it doesn’t mean endorsing the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

    Bush may not be an Evangelical, but he sure did surround himself with them. John Ashcroft, a Cristian Dominionist; Leon Kass, a Fundamentalist Evangelical. I also find the argument about education unpersuasive; Klass holds both an MD and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, yet this does not in any way appear to impact his views on ethics, which are slanted strongly toward conservative religious morality.

    (Yes, I know that isn’t on the Catholic church; he isn’t Catholic. I merely use him as an example of what happens when one believes that religious morality is relevant to issues of biomedical technology. (I find the idea that lifesaving treatments should be discarded if there is any possibility that they might have applications for cloning pretty reprehensible; don’t you?)

    In all honesty, whenever I talk to someone who thinks that organized religions should be the arbiters of morality, I always have the same sense of baffled puzzlement that I have when I talk to supporters of Communism. We’ve tried this before, many times. It has always failed. Why would anyone believe that it would work now, when history has shown us on so many occasions that it has never worked before?

    We gave organized religion its chance. When we ask organized religion to be our deciders on morality, we get torture, murder, and burning at the stake. It’s time to gove someone else a shot. They could hardly do worse.

  37. Funny, that’s what once said to me when I bemoaned my history of boyfriends who all tend to leave the same way, by calling me a bitch. He said “you’re not a bitch, it’s really easy not to piss you off … don’t be an asshole!”

    Seems like a good rule of life in general to me!

  38. Re: alrighty then!

    This page lists current Catholic catechism; what is accepted (and taught) doctrine in the Cathoic Church. In there, you will find what is, and is not, considered a sin. What you will NOT find there, are the opinions of *one* Bishop. That would be akin to saying that one Senator’s opinion, goes for the whole of the US Government.

    *Assumes facts not in evidence.* – well, I’m here, you’re here, we’re still here! isn’t that evidence? Were there stupid Popes in the past? You betcha. Some Popes did horrible things, some Pope positions were *bought,* some Popes had wives, mistresses, and children. Popes are human. It is very rare, that they act infallibility, and that has to do with Church doctrine. Identifying Mary as the Mother of God, is one example of this.

    But Popes *aren’t* the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is comprised OF the laity of the church, the clergy and religious people of the church, the sacred traditions of the Church, and the Eternal Word of Christ. And yes, the Church is pro-life. How could it not be? Jesus was one very pro-life dude, and he’s our CEO.

    In all honesty, whenever I talk to someone who thinks that organized religions should be the arbiters of morality, I always have the same sense of baffled puzzlement that I have when I talk to supporters of Communism.
    Besides the fact I never said they should be the *sole* arbitrators of morality (I said they should be allowed to voice their opinion, and should be included in any ethical council) look at it this way:

    Would you have such an objection to say – the UAW having a say in worker’s rights in legislation? Of course not. They are there to promote what they feel is right for the people they represent. Religious organizations are not PACs, but they do have an obligation to promote what *they* feel is right, as well.

    It’s time to gove someone else a shot. They could hardly do worse.
    I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

  39. Re: alrighty then!

    *Assumes facts not in evidence.* – well, I’m here, you’re here, we’re still here! isn’t that evidence?

    The “facts not in evidence” are the facts that support the idea that without religion, we would not be here.

    I think, honestly, that without religion, we’d still be here, and might be more prosperous. Organized religions throughout history and without any exception I’m aware of in any part of the world generally tend to oppose new discoveries and new technological advances. They also, again without any exceptions I’m aware of, tend to incite their followers to violence and war; there have been more recorded religious than secular wars through history.

    Were there stupid Popes in the past? You betcha. Some Popes did horrible things, some Pope positions were *bought,* some Popes had wives, mistresses, and children. Popes are human.

    Just so. That’s my point. Popes are just human, with no claim to morality above that of bakers, redheads, plumbers, Mexicans, or any other group of people. To believe that a church group has some special claim to making moral evaluations over and above any other particular group seems difficult to support to me.

    Would you have such an objection to say – the UAW having a say in worker’s rights in legislation? Of course not. They are there to promote what they feel is right for the people they represent.

    For the people they represent, sure. If the UAW wants to negotiate contracts for UAW members, hey, that’s fine with me.

    But if the UAW were to try to negotiate contracts that would be binding on lawyers, or IT professionals, or nurses, or any other people not UAW members? No way.

    If the Catholic church wants to lay down guidelines or rules for Catholics, that’s cool. If they want to lay down guidelines on me? No way.

    From the outside, the UAW looks to me like a corrupt, racketeer-influenced organization whose actions these days, whatever their origins, largely serve to benefit the interests of certain New Jersey and Detroit crime families. Do they also offer benefits to members? Some people think they do, or presumably they wouldn’t still have any. Should they be allowed to determine laws that affect non-members, or speak to the economic interests of non-members? No. They do not represent me, and I do not want to give money to a UAW pension fund that ends up in the pockets of the Tocco family.

    From the outside, the Catholic church looks to me like a corrupt, morally bankrupt, reactionary organization whose actions these days, regardless of their origins, largely serve to benefit the political institution of the church itself. Do they also offer benefits to members? Some people think they do, or presumably they wouldn’t still have any. Should they be allowed to determine laws that affect non-members, or speak to the moral interests of non-members? No. They do not represent me, and I do not want to give money to an organization that sends people into Third World countries mired in desperate poverty and gripped by an AIDS epidemic to tell these folks that condoms are morally wrong.

    In fact, to be quite honest, I would say that going into impoverished, AIDS-stricken countries and telling them that condoms are morally wrong is, if anything, more offensive to me than giving money to the Tocco crime family. The Mafia kills fewer people every year than poverty and AIDS, and family planning is a damn good way to address both poverty and AIDS. The fact that the Pope is willing to hold this non-Biblical, arbitrary ideal of human sexuality over the real-world human misery and suffering that simple condom use can help prevent is a morally unconscionable outrage that makes me ill. Frankly, I think that alone automatically disqualifies him from a seat at the table of bioethics.

  40. You can state that for any followers, such as Obama followers (also sheep). In fact, most Americans are sheep, as they follow just about any trend which blows on the wind.

    It should have been written, “We the SHEEPLE.”

  41. Re: alrighty then!

    This would not be the first time Turtle continued to argue the point even after he’s been proven wrong.

    I went round and round with him back in the 90’s, and every time he’d be wrong, he’d change the topic.

  42. Wondering how many divorced scoutmasters encourage their scouts to explore their ability to be divorced, and encourage them to accept their inability to stay married to their first mate.

    …yet you would find many gay scoutmasters who would be willing to encourage confused teens to explore their perverse feelings.

    Hm…why should scoutmasters be straight? No brainer.

  43. But couldn’t the Mcain or even the Blagojovick followers be considered the same way?

    Or for that matter people who follow “Lost” (if anyone can actually “follow” Lost?)

    You can have faith and not be a follower. I follow no specific god or non-god, I follow ME. I know the difference between good and bad and right and wrong and if there is a question in my mind of where something falls, then I look for reasons for it to take a side.

    Often there is no absolute. Taking a life is bad, I am sure we can all agree on that. But is assisted suicide for someone in enormous pain with a terminal illness? What about in self defense? How about aborting a malformed fetus to save the mothers life if both would die otherwise? Where is the line?

    I do not understand why anyone would spend their entire life atoning for living just to get into an afterlife when they will be dead. Wouldn’t it be better to live a life, doing good simply because you can, irregardless of what might or might not happen when you are dead. What is more important, LIFE or DEATH?

    The catholic church says “everyone is BAD until we say so”. I much prefer the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” mentality.

  44. Because if they didn’t allow divorced people as scoutmasters…there would be no more scouts…period.

    A much greater percentage of the population in this country can hold the title “divorced” (myself included), than hold the title of Gay.

    I have the feeling that the church does not care as much about “divorced” as “gay” mostly because they have a delusion that divorced people are no longer having, sex.

  45. Do you have kids? Boys? do you assume that scoutmasters are leading kids to explore monogamy or heterosexuality?

    I have kids, 2 boys in fact, both scouts.

    They are more concerned with camping, sports, and games.

    Just because a leader is GAY does not mean that they WILL spread GAY to the boys around them any more than a STRAIGHT leader will try to influence a confused teen that straight is the way to go.

    I am on the inside, if the topic of sex ever came up in any of the 2 cub scout packs or 4 boy scout dens that I and my children have been part of, it was immediately referred to the PARENT of said child. scout leaders are, BY THE RULES, not allowed to discuss these things with the kids. they are required to talk to the parents.

  46. You raise some very good points, and indeed, I would go so far as to say that we are in agreement…on these points, at least. My point was simply that it is a tragedy that Americans seem to be incapable of critical thinking any more. It is a downright shame that most allow TV to think for them, and absorb way too much of the liberal media’s opinion as fact. “An open mind collects a lot of garbage”, and all that.

    Only one thing I would ask, and that is, how do you know your moral compass is calibrated correctly? Because you “know” the difference between right and wrong?

    Finally, I would bring up the age-old adage, “As it harms no other, do as you will”, which I believe is actually more stringent than the Golden Rule. No, I’m not a Wiccan.

  47. “spread” normality

    I do not have any boys, no. (I do have one daughter.) But if I did, I certainly would not want them to believe that homosexuality was in any way a viable choice. I guess I would ask you, how old are your boys? Are they old enough to wonder about their own orientation? If so, I submit that they are prime canidates to be influenced by someone they look up to…like a scoutmaster.

    “Just because a leader is GAY does not mean that they WILL spread GAY to the boys around them any more than a STRAIGHT leader will try to influence a confused teen that straight is the way to go.”

    But I WANT that Scoutmaster to be a good influence. I WANT him to let my son know that straight is normal, and IS the ONLY way to go. And BTW, I can’t figure out if you’re being naive or blind…whether deliberately or not. A young boy will look for a role model, and scoutmasters occasionally are seen as role models. If that scoutmaster is gay, then that young man will mistakenly see that as a good role model, whether the scoutmaster “spreads GAY” or not. If my son looks for a role model, I want that role model to be normal…and gay is decidedly NOT. I don’t care if that guy is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

    “I am on the inside, if the topic of sex ever came up in any of the 2 cub scout packs or 4 boy scout dens that I and my children have been part of, it was immediately referred to the PARENT of said child. scout leaders are, BY THE RULES, not allowed to discuss these things with the kids. they are required to talk to the parents.”

    Well, that’s certainly good news, but why should it have to be that way? I’m serious. There was a time when you could trust your scoutmaster to pass on GOOD information, which would have been right in line with what the parents would have told their kids. Nowadays, you have to make sure that your kids get the right information BECAUSE there are people out there who see perversions as “perfectly acceptable”, or “perfectly normal”. Good parents wouldn’t expose their kids to it.

    BTW, it’s good to know that there are safeguards in place to protect kids from those who have managed to make it to the “inside”…people who would pass on wrong information to the kids. But really, it’s a tragedy those safeguards have to be in place, and it’s one more sign of the decay of our society.

  48. I agree with your closing sentiment.

    BUT I view my very existence as harming something somewhere, be it the blade of grass that gets trampled or the fuel emissions I add to the air driving to school and work.

    My personal moral compass is based on a large number of ideals and factors. The 10 commandments (no killing, lying about someone else etc.), The golden rule (do unto others), and even the current commonly accepted standards and laws. (no drinking and driving, no car jacking, no stealing, not walking up to someone and punching them in the face etc.).

    Where My moral compass delineates is where many peoples compasses delineate. I am not perfect, I WILL state that right off and I do not think I am better than people who do not agree with me or believe as I do. I try to think about WHY something should or shouldn’t be wrong though. I do agree that the vast majority of the population refuse to think for themselves OR think ONLY of themselves anymore.

    Here is an example (or 2). I do not believe in abortion for me. I would never do it. I have made a conscious decision that after the age of 35(if I am single) or 36-37 (if with a new marriage) that I will NOT have any more children even though it has been my biggest desire for years. I work with disabled adults, I do not want to have a disabled child and since after a woman is 35,the risk of birth defects increases, I am choosing NOT to take that chance because even with a disabled child, I would never abort it for that cause. BUT I am Pro-CHOICE. I do not believe it is anybody elses job to tell me that I can’t have an abortion if I DID want one. This is where my moral compass can point in a slightly different direction than yours. Does it mean either of us is right or wrong? Not for me to decide if your wrong, I know my choice is right for me and does not hurt YOU in the process.

    I do not believe that being GAY is wrong, Why? Because if someone is gay it does no damage to me or anyone else that they are gay any more than my being straight would hurt a gay person. The same goes for people with dark skin, red hair or hazel eyes. These things do NO DAMAGE to me or anyone else, therefor I do not accept them as wrong. If it does no harm, why is it wrong.

    Limiting potentially life saving research in any way, shape or form, I feel, is wrong if it takes no life or harms no one to save a life.

    I believe the death penalty is wrong, I believe abortion is wrong, I believe a lot of things are wrong.

    Luckily for me, I live a pretty simple life and as of yet, have not had to make many of those hard moral decisions beyond calling the cops on an abusive (now ex) spouse. He will claim that I was wrong, that I “ruined his life” by having him arrested. But was I, if I did it to save my own and my children’s lives from whatever future abuse he might have inflicted?

    My current “is it wrong” dilemma is over a newly found friend/potential partner who is active duty military. Is what he does wrong? He is literally “trained to kill” just as every american soldier is. But are his causes a sufficient reason to do the job he does? For now I do not make it my judgment call. I just accept that it is not something I would ever or could ever do for a living and I am thankful that I do not have to.

    I am sorry if I lost the topic and went rambling…It has been a long day and I rarely get to have intellectual discussions any more that do not revolve around Middle school orchestra, boy scouts or the products we make where I work.

  49. Re: “spread” normality

    I do not worry about my boys, who are at the age to be questioning their sexuality, becoming gay. I will love them no matter what they choose because I do not think that being GAY, Bisexual, Polyamorous, Straight or Monogamous are wrong.

    If they find that they are gay, I will accept their boyfriends in my home, with open arms, as I would anyone else. If they decide they are polyamorous, I will accept their entire family in my home as I would anyone else. If they find they are straight and only want one women in their lives and decide to save their first kiss for their wedding day, I will not try to dissuade them in that decision. They are my children, I brought them into this world so that they could grow into whatever they wanted to be, it is my job to show them the world and let them find their way in it.

    I started having “the sex and sexuality” conversations with my children around the time they turned 10. I didn’t wait for the schools to project their “monogamy and abstinence” fear mongering. I have continued that conversation as time has progressed into their early teens. They are becoming confident young men who are not scared of their own bodies and feelings. I am doing MY job as their parent and not letting someone elses fear be the sole source of information they receive.

    I KNOW that my children look up to their scout masters, I am glad they do. Being that their father is a sex addicted, convicted domestic abuser who they watched beat me, I am GLAD they prefer a man who can show them how to handle a knife, cook over a fire and maintain their own personal appearance. Their own father sure as shit could care less. If they go to him for advice on girls, they will have already taken a step more than I did at their age. I was scared to question anything and it took me 30 years to learn what my kids already are learning.

    If you want to shelter the boys you don’t have from the world, that is your choice. I decided that my children were better off knowing as much about the world as possible, that is MY choice.

  50. Re: “spread” normality

    “normal” is a setting on a washing machine and not a designation of sexuality.

    WRONG information is what they teach in most public schools concerning “abstinence only” and the prevalence of STD’s.

    I am BI, POLY and proud TYVM.

    and I think you are WRONG.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.