We can argue about whether The Vatican newspaper was right or wrong when, according to CNS, it said that President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church’s worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.
I assume they’re referring to Obama not signing the Freedom of Choice Act. But other than that I can’t think how much more anti-life Obama could’ve been in his first 100 days short of slaughtering a toddler in a televised news conference.
There’s much to argue too where it says that the new president has operated “with more caution than predicted in economics and international relations.” To me, tripling the deficit doesn’t seem like he’s acting with caution. It seems like a cautionary tale that’s going to end in big trouble.
But here’s where the article became very disturbing to me. It said that the new draft guidelines for stem-cell research, for example, did not constitute the major change in policy that was foreseen a few months ago.
And then here’s a quote I found incredibly disturbing coming from the Vatican Newspaper: “
(The guidelines) do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos.”
I’m sorry but did the Vatican newspaper really refer to “excess embryos?”
Look, I know what they’re saying but that’s a term that the left pushes to marginalize those defending life. As if the only reason for that embryo’s life was the use intended by scientists in the lab. I don’t accept their terminology of “excess embryo” because I don’t accept their premise that any life is a means to some other end.
This could be a mistranslation by CNS or just lazy language usage but doesn’t this strike anyone else as problematic?
April 30, 2009 at 2:56 am
By the word “excess” the writer is simply making a delineation between embryos which are created for the purpose of research and embryos that would have been killed whether they were used for research or not. The paper is attempting to convey the (very small) comfort that such embrys were not created simply to be murdered, but rather are “excess” from IVF treatment where they presumably could have survived.
What needs to be stressed is the profound immorality of IVF as well, so that you don’t make the error of accepting the modern anti-life argument that such research is justifiable in light of the inevitable fate of such embryos. The distinction which the writer is attempting to make is very much worth making though.
~cmpt
April 30, 2009 at 3:15 am
Killing is killing in my book. You can talk about distinctions and what they were created for until you’re blue in the face but we’re all born to die. Killing is still a sin.
Nobody is excess.
April 30, 2009 at 3:31 am
CMPT,
I understand what you’re saying but the term “excess embryos” is used by the left in a dismissive way. We shouldn’t be adopting their terminology.
The nomenclature war decides the victor in many cases.
And I have to agree with Arthur who says it’s no comfort (small or otherwise) that these embryo were not created simply to be murdered.
April 30, 2009 at 3:34 am
Yes. It is problematic. I pray they find the mole.
April 30, 2009 at 5:11 am
Reminds me of ‘unintentional pregnancy,’ which might be true but obfuscates the fact that the object (er, subject) in question is a male or female human.
Joe K
April 30, 2009 at 7:10 am
I have to admit I find the Vatican Newspaper Op-Ed weird
I think everything has gone as thought as to our worse fears
Tru Obama is not giving out free Coupons for abortions yet but it has been pretty bad
What else were we suppose to view as worse
April 30, 2009 at 11:39 am
The word excess does carry connotations that support the notion that certain lives are expendable i.e. don’t count or are extra. This sneaks in a distracted concession that certain stages in the embryonic development do not have rights because they’re just a bunch of undifferentiated cells. Thank God certain folks are not asleep at the wheel and are able to call this out. This calls for a need for clarification of terms and their implications.
April 30, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Clearly some people need to put their feet in the shoes of those who are “excess.”
May 1, 2009 at 1:30 am
This was in L’Osservatore Romano!? I expect better of the Vatican newspaper.
Where do we complain? Letter to the Editor?
Praying, too…
May 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Firstly, CNS, is not a professional, nor accurate news service: locally, their publisher, the “Southern Cross”: promotes condoms, and abortion, and internationally, they like to twist the news against the church, and seem like they have “Vatican” Friends. I recall the Vatican threatening war against Obama some time ago, maybe they thought the “Swiss Guard” weren’t up to it;)!
P.s. L’Observatore Romano, is NOT the OFFICIAL paper of the Vatican.