Jivin J’s Life Links 11-2-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- At the Washington Examiner, Tim Carney lists some races to watch if you care about abortion.
- 3 MIT students reply to an editorial on abortion in their school’s newspaper with an exceptional letter:
The question is not, “whether we choose to assign [the embryo] human rights,” but rather whether we choose to respect the rights inherent in every human being.
- As freely acting agents, we may choose to infringe upon the rights of a person (with or without good cause), but we cannot choose to rescind a human right because we did not grant that right in the first place. Simply by virtue of being human, all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It is the duty of the state to protect those rights….
To deny the fundamental nature of the right to life is to deny the basis of all human rights. If… we were to accept the assignment of arbitrary precedence to human rights, we then must permit the justification of any infringement upon the rights of another. In a society where anyone can elevate their right to liberty or property or religion above another’s right to live, the weak are helpless before those who are able to assert their rights more strongly.
- The National Catholic Register has a report on Fr. Charles Curran’s (pictured left) abortion talk at SMU and how he thinks the bishops are wrong to try to change abortion laws:
… Curran states… the bishops’ thesis is wrong for 4 reasons:
- The speculative doubt about when human life begins;
- the fact that possibility and feasibility are necessary aspects involved in discussions about abortion law;
- the understanding and role of civil law;
- and the weakness of the intrinsic evil argument.
Catholic tradition, from Thomas Aquinas to today, “recognizes speculative doubt about when the soul is infused or when the human person comes into existence,” said Curran. Aquinas is often cited as someone who, while opposing abortion, “held for delayed animation.” Critics often argue that Aquinas’ thinking on the matter suffered from the faulty biology of the day.
“But an opposing view sees Aquinas’ position of delayed animation as based on his philosophical understanding of hylomorphism, which sees matter and form as the constitutive causes of a being. The matter has to be suitable and capable of receiving the form.” Curran argues that “from the beginning, the matter of what we now call the fetus is not apt or suitable for receiving the human soul. Some growth and development are necessary before the human soul can be infused.”
It seems that someone could use Curran’s “speculative doubt” argument to argue the bishops are wrong to think it should be illegal to kill infants.
[Curran photo via rochestercitynewspaper.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
MIT and Harvard both have active pro-life groups, which must be difficult in such a liberal bastion as Cambridge.
“Catholic tradition, from Thomas Aquinas to today, “recognizes speculative doubt about when the soul is infused or when the human person comes into existence,” said Curran. Aquinas is often cited as someone who, while opposing abortion, “held for delayed animation.” Critics often argue that Aquinas’ thinking on the matter suffered from the faulty biology of the day.”
Okay, Curran is evil. The only other possibility is that he is dumb, which is not the case. The man is extremely well-educated. He must know that though Aquinas believed this based on BAD biology, but that Aquinas NEVER used that fact as an excuse to say you could kill the fetus which has not quickened. Also, in Aquinas’s writings you can find him saying how things may change depending on the current scientific understanding, so that if he were alive today, he would accept, you know, actual science instead of the faulty assumptions (though the best at the time) that he was working with back in the day.
It is really one thing when a typical pro-choicer argues as above. That’s fine. I consider that ignorance and simply blindness to wanting to defend the pro-choice position. But my goodness, a PhD theologian who has been doing this WELL before since I was born… shameful.
Re: Curran: (*sigh*) All souls’ day is as good a day as any, to pray for that poor, old heretic. God have mercy on him, on judgment day…
BIG BRAVO to those MIT students! Excellent reasoning! I love seeing college students standing up for life so eloquently!
Especially as a “Catholic” “theologian” (both monikers are questionable here), Curran should know that it is absolutely known by the Catholic Church that a soul is inspired (breathed into) a human being at conception. Were it not so, Mary would not be known as the “Immaculate Conception”, for how could a person be conceived without (or with) sin if there were no soul present at conception?
“from the beginning, the matter of what we now call the fetus is not apt or suitable for receiving the human soul. Some growth and development are necessary before the human soul can be infused.”
We should pray for his soul. The pride inherent in this statement is staggering. God does not need our input on the stage at which His creations are “suitable” for receiving a soul.
Bravo to the MIT students – they have used more logic and decorum than the professor.
Just as when a hunter with his rifle stops himself from firing into the quivering bush – all of us have to act with caution when dealing with Life issues, and presume that there is a human life there worth not killing or maiming.
Unfortunately, if I were hunting with Professor Curran, I’d be afraid he’s shoot me by mistake.
Back to basics – treat others as we want others to treat us. The Golden Rule is a good one, and with reason.
Good golly – I just realized that Curran is FATHER Curran. Lord have mercy.
He will have a lot to answer for when he sees God face to face. I’m just wondering what kind of advice he would have given Mary – after all, she was poor, her husband had few job prospects, they had no insurance and indeed no roof over their head.
Lord have mercy.
http://www.ncregister.com/ < that’s the national catholic register.
The curran article is really in the national catholic reporter…. a pretty leftist place.
Always hate to see “philosophers” replacing what is observable in science with speculative garbage, then basing their decisions on it.
“Bioethics” contains no real biology.
Yes, I agree. One “Brava!” and two “Bravos!” to those MIT students.