Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (82814)	6/23/2000 7:10:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

<<...which life begins with conception? >> It does. There is just a question of when the soul is involved. The Catholic position is safe. <<...begins only when the fetus is capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb (6 or 7 months)?>> I have a feeling we might find out someday. I am pretty sure that the issue will be contaminated with a whole lot of other social issues related to the wanted "keepers" verses the others. <<My point was ...>> Granted, different people or groups will take issue from differing perspectives. I am only beginning to understand that some people are focused on the humanity of the thing and associated principles of life. Other people are more focused on political agendas that may or may not have any baring on the former. Some people actually waffle around and try to justify their political alignments with compassion for life. Gets pretty messy.

To: jbe who wrote (82814)	6/24/2000 6:36:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, let me add a couple things relevant to your post. In the US, 88% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks. That from agi-usa.org , which has many other interesting factoids on the subject. I'd guess that the first trimester proportion would be higher if the subject wasn't so stigmatized; it's not like it's an enjoyable thing to wait and do it later. On the topic of the official Catholic position, it's a fairly recent phenomena. I believe that wrt abortion, until the 19th century the official position was that life begins at quickening. There's a new book by Garry Wills out on the general topic of papal pronouncements that sounds quite interesting, it apparently covers the related and somewhat more recent "every sperm is sacred" area in some depth. From nytimes.com , a review of "Papal Sins: Structures of Deceit", by Garry WIlls In the last two parts of the book -- The Honesty Issue'' and ''The Splendor of Truth'' -- Wills writes about his heroes: Lord Acton, Cardinal Newman and St. Augustine. He offers them as exemplars to whom the church might turn in order to escape from the Orwellian ''structures of deceit'' currently built into papal practice. In 1864, Pius IX denounced those who dared assert that ''the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization.'' Lord Acton -- like Wills, both a distinguished historian and a scholar quite able to meet the Vatican's theologians on their own ground -- realized that Pius was making Catholicism look ridiculous. So Acton did everything he could to persuade the First Vatican Council not to give Pius what he most wanted -- ratification of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Acton lost that fight, but only after Pius had used every trick in the book to whip the conciliar fathers into line. Pius IX is, Wills says, ''a presence in the Vatican to this day.'' Present-day papal deceitfulness and arrogance are, for Wills, most vividly illustrated by Paul VI's taking the question of birth control out of the hands of the Second Vatican Council. Paul, he says, was terrified that the fathers would repudiate the anticontraception pronouncements of Pius XI, who in 1930 had announced what Monty Python called the ''every sperm is sacred'' view. (''The Divine Majesty,'' Pius XI wrote, ''regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime,'' that is, spilling one's seed upon the ground, or into a condom.) So Paul decided that it would be better to make life miserable for further generations of Catholics than to allow the Council to admit that a predecessor had goofed. Wills says that ''Humanae Vitae,'' Paul's 1968 encyclical reaffirming the ban on contraception, ''is not really about sex. It is about authority. Paul decided the issue on that ground alone.'' A historical aside that you're probably aware of: I read elsewhere that Lord Acton's famous "Power corrupts" quote comes from the context of the debate on papal infallibility. On a personal note, while attending Newman High School, we read Hans Kung on papal infallibility, but that was a somewhat mellower time for the mother church, when Vatican II and John XXIII were more than distant memories. Near as I can tell Old JPII has turned back the clock, dealt with Hans Kung appropriately, and stuffed the hierarchy with revanchists. Sort of a pity, but that's life. Cheers, Dan.