As someone who is highly critical of the
Catholic Church, I tend to disagree with their modern interpretation of
principles that are no longer valid. The Fifth Commandment which instructs us
not to kill has changed slightly to play a role in current issues and
scientific endeavors. For instance, the debate about abortion has largely been
dominated by Christian, Pro-life advocates. Personally, I believe that a bunch
of celibate old men have no authority in the reproductive activities of women
and therefore should stay out of the matter entirely. Scientifically, life does
begin at conception but I don’t think that that has any weight or merit when
discussing abortion. The seed of an oak tree is just that; a seed. It has the
potential to become a 50ft high tree but it isn’t. You can’t treat the seed
like a tree because it isn’t yet. I apply these same conditions to a developing
fetus; it is the potential to be a person but is not yet. Call me callous but I
don’t care whatsoever if you abort a child. Scientifically it may be killing
the fetus but to me, you are killing nothing but potential. It is not a person
yet. It’s not like we need more people on this planet anyway because we are
already way over capacity. Think for a moment that you will die eventually and
never, ever, ever, have a thought or experience again. The choices you make in
this world have no significance because you do not matter. You’re unborn child
does not matter. You are but a grain of sand in a beach of time. Now, is
abortion that big of an issue? It will not have any bearing on the endless
stretch of existence. It is a face that never saw the light of day and never
had a cognitive memory. It is but a mother’s choice and nothing else. To
restrict that option is to reject the rights to one’s own body. |
| Stem Cells |
Another topic of concern to me is embryonic
stem cell research. This is another case where the Church sticks its nose in
where it doesn’t belong. Why should the Catholic Church, an organization hell
bent for hundreds of years on suppressing scientific advancement, be an
authority in such matters? Yes, this is the same organization that believed
despite proof that the earth was flat and that we were the center of the
universe. These are the same people who still, in modern times, believe that a
man could multiply fish and bread with his hands and return from the dead as a
zombie. These are the same people who believe that god impregnated a virgin to
produce a son who was himself so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to
save the world from himself. Yeah, that makes sense. Again, I have no regard
for an unborn child and even less for one in the embryonic state. Why suppress
advancements that could one day cure diseases, save lives, and greatly extend the
human lifespan. Resisting advancement is what the church does best because the
further we advance in science; the more people realize how insane religious ideology
is. If you are impressed with what the last 50 years has brought us, I can guarantee
that the next 50 years will be far more exciting but not if we contain
ourselves like this. It is a detrimental state of mind that will undoubtedly
have negative effects on the future of the human race if we do not open up to
new advances. It is just plain idiotic not to want to explore such a new and
promising endeavor.
Lastly, I defend my view on in vitro fertilization.
This is another area where the church has no business being. In vitro fertilization
is actually a pretty amazing process. A woman with reproductive problems can
have a better chance at having a child; two parents not fit for bearing a child
can get a surrogate mother to give birth to their genetic child, among other situations.
That’s impressive. The church’s concern is with the number of embryos disposed
of or tested on. They also are against the fact the parents can choose an
embryo that has been genetically tested and void of major weaknesses. I stress
that this is a good thing because testing treatments and procedures is how we
make things safer and more reliable. Of course if parents can choose to have a
more desirable embryo, they would. It doesn’t really make sense to keep an
embryo that has complications. It may be seen by the church as a violation of
the fifth commandment I don’t see that as any real threat or evil action. The
percentage rates for a live birth aren’t the greatest and peak just below 50%
in women under the age of 35 but the point is that it is a chance for a child
that some women don’t have. It is the opportunity to make a loving family so
why stop that from happening? So that you can get up on your high horse and
scoff at people who actually realize that the combing of sperm and egg is just
a natural process? It’s just a conglomeration of cells, nothing more. From the standpoint on life that I take, I
really don’t see this as a moral issue. 