Pope Benedict on Saturday condemned genetic engineering and other scientific practices that allow people to select so-called designer babies by screening them for defects.
In a speech to the Pontifical Academy for Life, a Church body of experts, the Pope also attacked artificial insemination and the widespread use of medical tests that can detect diseases and inherited disorders in embryos.
He also spoke out against civil unions as an alternative to marriage, his latest criticism of a bill approved this month by the Italian government granting rights to unwed and gay couples.
In other words, no surprising leap beyond the Dark Ages, this weekend.
the control of the whip is a dreaded thing,
Better to rule by sence, and concern, and alitte Honey then to condeme all.
In other news the Pope says the Earth is flat …. Film at 11.
I’m sure the Pope raised many disabled kids in his days. It’s the same when he comments on marriage, condoms etc. It won’t affect him, so screw you.
Is the Church still anti-witch as well? Do we still use the float test to identify them, or is there something even more archaic to sort them out?
He may be on your side, if your mother had the opportunity to screen for defects, you just might not be here.
(Oh, you enlightened ones, always know which side of the argument to come down on)
The pope is promoting the dignity of humanity. More or less, he’s saying “we don’t kill people because they’re inconvenient.” Is this a terrible thing?
Once you make such behavior acceptable, it’s not going to stop. It will get pushed towards frivolous choices – “this one will have too many freckles, let’s try again.” And it will get pushed out later, to defective babies and children.
[#3, no, the pope hasn’t raised disabled children. He hasn’t killed any either].
[#4, yes, the church still opposes witchcraft].
#6 – How can you oppose witchcraft? Witchcraft isn’t real. Is the Pope also opposed to unicorns and elves?
The vatican has proven itself to be useless for years now. How many years? I don’t know. How many years has the vatican been around? That would be about the right number of years.
Religion has run its course and it now serves as nothing more than a roadblock to progressive change. They are just yanking the reigns on forward momentum.
Good for popey, if this kinda stuff was implemented we wouldnt have future stephen hawkings :p
#5 – If I were severely disabled from day one, then I would seriously wished I was never born.
#6 – The church prefer genocides of healthy intelligent people.
#6, it’s funny you should mention freckles as the sort of thing people might want to screen against. In less enlightened times, freckles have been considered one of the signs that someone is a witch, along with warts, moles, or birthmarks.
The question is, should we screen them out early or burn them later? 😉
#8
Hawking was diagnosed with ALS when he was 21. Of what I know, there’s no early test for ALS.
#7 Would you consider getting rid of a group of unborn “progressive change.” Then what did all the other tyrants of the world do wrong, could you call what they had done”progressive change”.
I’m all for having differences of opinion. Almost no one will agree with half the view I hold, but don’t call someone backwards because they hold a different view then your religion of “forward momentum”.
I say, if it looks like it’s praying… yank it.
So I don’t understand why people with a sexual disorder should get special legislation for entitlements and special recognition? Since when does having a sexual disorder justify civil unions?
#15, you’re absolutely right. Impotent men shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
No you are missing the point. Impotent men are not given entitlements and special recognition through legislation for the disorder. Impotence is medically defined as a sexual disorder and treated as such.
#15, What the eff are you calling a sexual disorder? Does that count sterile people who are still capable of intercourse or other sexual activities? What if they have Genital Herpes, should they be stopped from having a civil union? Or Chlamydia, or warts, or viral papillae? Or what about hemorrhoids?
Or are you one of those people that are so insecure in their own life that they don’t want to see anyone else have some happiness?
The Pope speaks with moral certainty. And I am certain he has none to speak with.
Sterile people have a procreation disorder. Sexually they would be fine. Genital Herpes is a Sexual Disease but they can still have sex. None of these people are granted special entitlements or recognition through political correct legislation.
Actually I am completely secure, apparently more than you. I don’t remove logic from my life simply to follow the political correct mindless herd. What I don’t want to see is illogical nonsense forced upon people by those with a politically correct agenda. Homosexuals are entitled to happiness like every other American citizen, they can even heterosexually marry.
Deal with the reality that Homosexuality is a sexual disorder and none of your illogical comments are going to change that.
Andrew, how is same-sex attraction a “sexual disorder” exactly? I’ve heard that homosexual couples manage to have orgasms. Any further requirements you want to place on the sex act between two people appear to be related entirely to reproduction, not sex per se.
And what were those special “entitlements” you mentioned? Are you referring to something beyond the simple legal right to marry the consenting adult to whom they’re most attracted?
#12 – #7 Would you consider getting rid of a group of unborn “progressive change.” Then what did all the other tyrants of the world do wrong, could you call what they had done”progressive change”.
I’m not proposing getting rid of anyone. I’m merely stating that the church’s usefulness to society has run its course, and its time to get with the 21st century and quit worshipping fictional characters.
In the list of things the Pope opposed in the snippet posted here, only one item hints at the abortion issue – and in that case it is refering to embyos…
So if you disagree with me, are you saying that artificial insemination is morally wrong? Doesn’t that create life?
I’m sure people who have sex with animals have orgasms, it does not make it sexually normal. Sex soley exists for reproduction. This does not mean that is only why we as humans do it but this is the natural reason for it. The fact that we have pleasure while performing it simply furthers the assurance we will procreate. Reproduction requires a man and a woman. Thus having sex with the same sex or animals for instance is sexually abnormal because there is no underlying reproduction intent, thus a disorder. This isn’t complicated.
Entitlements such as job related health care, pensions that come with being married to a spouse who gets these.
Marriage has nothing to do with people who have sexual disorders.
The fact is people pushing civil unions and gay marriage are generally illogical people who want to make themselves feel good or so they think. They are so scared of being called a bigot or some other label by the political correct Nazis they refuse to think for themselves.
It is such a scam that people with sexual disorders need to be “married” to be “happy”. What they need is a cure for the disorder because the fact is they are not happy and are generally not accepted as normal since sexually they are not normal. They think that adding this label will make them more “accepted”. When people wake up to the scam and accept homosexuals as sexually abnormal people just like any other people with a disorder we will be better off. Instead the left wing nut jobs want to try and ram this illogical nonsense down our throats. It is not happening. Look at the last election, Homosexual marriage was soundly defeated in all states it was brought up.
#13 Oh yeah… Trailer parks are just full of Beethovens…
“Entitlements such as job related health care, pensions that come with being married to a spouse who gets these.
Anyone who doesn’t want to make a baby should NOT get job related health care. It just makes sense.
Andrew, I had a hunch you’d have to pull out a phrase like “sexually normal” to make your point about what you called a sexual disorder. Thanks for not disappointing me.
I understand your biological reasoning that reproduction is the sole purpose sex came into being — I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, you need to explain how that fact allows a meaningful distinction between a heterosexual union that cannot result in reproduction due to sterility and a same-sex union where reproduction is equally impossible. If the same-sex union is wrong or “unnatural” because it cannot serve a biological function, how is the sterile heterosexual union not wrong for the very same reason?
“Anyone who doesn’t want to make a baby should NOT get job related health care. It just makes sense.”
No anyone who is not heterosexually married should not be entitled to their spouses job related benefits.
Very simple Gary. A heterosexual Marriage where procreation is not possible does not mean that if the sterility was cured they could not have children. That is a weak argument. A hererosexual marriage always has the possibility of natural reproduction it just might not be today.
Talk about weak arguments, Andrew! A sterile heterosexual union is somehow “right” because the possibility of a cure exists at some point in the future?
Andrew, why don’t you pray that the sterile will be healed (given eggs or sperm as appropriate), and I’ll concentrate on praying that the logic-impaired be healed. We both have our work cut out for us.
Andrew, I’m trying very hard to agree with you here.
Now I understand your last comment “anyone who is not heterosexually married should not be entitled to their spouses job related benefits” By that you mean …anyone who doesn’t have the ability to help make a baby because they can’t get aroused with the opposite sex should NOT benefit from their alternative partner’s job related health care.
Wow, that’s deep and takes a little time to sink in, but the sheer rational wisdom behind it just… well I’m feeling faint here.
Anyway…. how in heck did we get so far off topic?
I actually think the Pope is worried that science might be able to eradicate homosexuality.
Think about it… who else would join the priesthood?