Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Children in the Womb are Not Persons
of faith. It is addressed to "all who seek the truth". It presents the truth by drawing upon the "light both of reason and faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his vocation".
The document does not discourage progress in biomedicine. In fact it encourages it within an ethical framework, one which accepts that science must always be placed at the service of the human person, the family and the common good. Any use of the so called "new technologies" must also respect that the human body is never an "it" - but an "I" - some-one who must never be treated as an object, "The body of a human being, from the very first stages of its existence, can never be reduced merely to a group of cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well defined program with its proper finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby."
The insistence upon this framework for evaluating biomedicine finds support in the history of other true advances in Medical Science. The ethical criterion is revealed in the Natural Law; the fundamental right to life and the dignity of human persons. This right is knowable by and binding upon all men and women and is not simply a "religious" construct. Footnote 7 within the document cites Pope Benedict XVI's presentation to the United Nations in April of 2008 which summarizes this point well:
"Human rights.in particular the right to life of every human being,are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights"
It is in light of this fundamental moral criterion that the instruction discusses human sexuality and marital love, procreation and infertility treatments and the "manipulation of the embryo or the human Genetic Patrimony". The section concerning gene therapy and the therapeutic use of stem cells, distinguishing both the types of cells and the techniques used to obtain them, is one of the best explanations of the complex technologies which I have read.
The Church encourages the use of adult stem cells and stem cells which can be derived from non-lethal uses such as fetal cord blood. These technologies do not take human embryonic lives and have also been the subject of amazing scientific progress. I am deeply grateful for the Catholic Church, Defender and Champion of Life. No matter how many efforts there are to dismiss Catholic teaching in this fundamental area of ethics, the opponents of the truth which she defends will not prevail because her teaching is true, it is never right to take innocent human life.
To conclude with some words from the Instruction: "Just as a century ago it was the working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental rights, and the Church courageously came to their defense by proclaiming the sacrosanct rights of the worker as person, so now, when another category of persons is being oppressed in the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice. Hers is always the evangelical cry in defense of the world's poor, those who are threatened and despised and whose human rights are violated".
"In virtue of the Church's doctrinal and pastoral mission, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has felt obliged to reiterate both the dignity and the fundamental and inalienable rights of every human being, including those in the initial stages of their existence, and to state explicitly the need for protection and respect which this dignity requires of everyone."
"The fulfillment of this duty implies courageous opposition to all those practices which result in grave and unjust discrimination against unborn human beings, who have the dignity of a person, created like others in the image of God. Behind every "no" in the difficult task of discerning between good and evil, there shines a great "yes" to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable value of every single and unique human being called into existence."
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz says that children in the womb are not persons. The question must be raised, who are the extremists?
- - -
Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.
Keywords: personhood, Pro-Life, Right to life, anti-abortion, Mississippi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Democratic Party, Roe v Wade, Harry Blackmun, Deacon Keith Fournier
NEWSLETTERS »
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 75 Comments
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- Violent Tsarnev friend killed by FBI after blaming Tamerlan for unsolved murders
- Eric Garcetti becomes Los Angeles' first Jewish mayor
- 12,000 homes damaged or destroyed in Moore, daunting road to recovery underway
- US Supreme Court Accepts Religion Case: Will Legislative Prayer Survive Religious Censorship?
- In the Wake of the Moore Tornado: What Can we Learn from the Disaster?
- Priests for Life: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Most Significant Legislative Step Forward
- Homeless man whose face was eaten away in cannibal attack recovering
- Court sides with Obama, Osama death photos can remain secret - for your own good
- Largest Burmese Python caught in Miami-Dade County
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Pope Francis Shakes up the Ambassadors Meeting and Addresses Economic Issues Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 5:1-8
Do not put your confidence in your money or say, 'With this I ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 1:1-2, 3-4, 6
How blessed is anyone who rejects the advice of the wicked and ... Read More
Gospel, Mark 9:41-50
'If anyone gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. John Baptist Rossi
May 23: This holy priest was born in 1698 at the village of Voltaggio in ... Read More
Latest Videos
Pope Francis speaks of Christian originality View Video
President of El Salvador gives Pope a relic of Msgr. Romero View Video
Pope meets with Italian bishops to lead a Profession of Faith, before the tomb of St. Peter View Video
Kevin Durant Meets With Volunteers and Families Affected by Tornadoes View Video
American appointed to head Order of Friars Minor View Video
Marketplace
Wisdom from the Pulpit
A compilation of short homilies given by Fr. McKenna, chaplain of ... Read More
Gift of the Sprirt Crucifix
Striking walnut crucifix with Jesus reaching down from the cross with ... Read More
Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz have any living children?
At the risk of re-starting an argument that may have died down, I would like to add a few words in defence of JuneauAlaska. Juneau referred to "the moment of conception" and was criticised for doing so. This is another instance of, I believe, people arguing but saying the same thing. A simple explanation of terms can settle matters. In everyday language we talk about the "moment of conception" as if it happens instantaneously. From an historical and lay viewpoint this would be correct. However because of advances in understanding about how two games (egg and sperm) fuse to produce an embryo, in scientific terms this is no longer an instantaneous event but a process which can be traced and followed in time, passing through distinct stages. This process is not long (I don't know how long - it could be less than a second or longer than a day) so to all intents and purposes it is a "moment", though if being described in specific terms it is not an instantaneous happening. Pro-choicers will use this argument to distract attention from the point and it is important to understand the language THEY use so that it can be used AGAINST them.
Because both sides of this argument / discussion are correct from the viewpoint of their own definitions, there can be no agreement even though they are, in fact, arguing towards the same point. This kind of division is most harmful - "A house divided against itself is doomed to fall".
In terms of making a pro-life case, I agree entirely with Juneau in that a factual, scientific argument devoid of any emotional language is the best to use, as the pro-choice people cannot counter the argument. Once their "scientific" language and terminology is used against them, THEY will resort to emotional arguments about rape victims and single, underage girls etc. Then WE can insist that they stick to the facts and, as THEY always insist, not resort to emotional arguments. At this point their own strategy is used against them and they frequently collapse against someone who knows more than they do.
"Belief" based arguments are valid ONLY when discussing with people who share your beliefs, and beware: making the case as a "Christian" and "Catholic" faith argument may only serve to distance Jewish and Islamic believers who should be our natural allies in these campaigns, so be very careful when claiming "Divine support".
I hope this helps.
Juneau: One thing is certain. We can never "...elude the grasp of Almighty God". 2 Mc, 6:26
As to your remarks of accusation and taking offense...Where are you coming from??? I had NO INTENT of accusations; nor challenging you. Evidently, if it were two or three hundred years ago, you would probably challenge me to a duel. Poppycock! is all I have to say about what you have to say on the "emotional aspect of this subject". Bravo! I say to you on your explanation of emotion. Yet, Listen to yourself... Be wary of who you point the finger! On a later post, mentioning "...red herring"; your accusations and attacks on me, (which have no merit, because I can and will back them up), and the use of the word fallacy; now I know where I met you, in Critical Thinking. One can become almost as devious as people think lawyers are, picking words and sentences apart. But one gets on a very slippery slope, when they try to prove or disprove God, don't they... It cannot be proven. (Supporting Facts Against Accusations: I was not a traditional college student. I entered college at age 36. I therefore was old enough to use more common sense and Reason. I personally, saw and heard, Some science professors, teach their bias, like picking certain passages from the Bible to suit themselves. Belittle and make fun of those students who did not agree w/their teaching; Their own personal perception, as in pushing a theory rather than a fact. Please note that I said Some, not All. (Parents who send their children to college today, Know that this will happen. I have three children who suffered through the same thing. Going to UCLA, SDSU, OSU, CSU, and GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. I will add that they all had Catholic School Ed. All three have times of doubt. As do all of us. The point i would like to make, is that in today's world, it is harder). Therefore, I present myself in numerous science classes as evidence, plus, my three kids. I do think that our courts would take such evidence). Please Juneau, do not make accusations of anyone anymore. This is not what this site is about. It is about sharing and learning. It is about stretching the muscles of the mind. It helps broaden one's horizon, lovingly and prayerfully. I agree w/Pete on his brilliant post on science! Especially I liked, "Faith is not opposed to science". I tell my adult kids, "the more science discovers the more one learns how Infinite God Is". I also liked: "When did God become man?" Answer: At the "moment of conception". Period. Juneau, Some of us would rather be disgraced by others, than to lose the courage to reject what is not in accordance w/Holy Mother Church and Christ's teaching. I do not think that such persons can be found guilty of attacking or accusing. Of course, I am not perfect, and I have been wrong before. I personally, will not address any of what I consider to be false accusations or attacks. My time is too precious to be caught in a web of words w/Critical Thinking used as its premise. Blessings always..
You know if abortion is great what is the point of having children in this world to begin with? After all it is a natural process of this planet so why do we persist in destroying ourselves? It begins with us and will end with us. Were slowly exterminating ourselves and we dont even know it or realize it in most cases.
Tyrone and Beth: Well said!!! Actually, "well said" to all the pro-life folk here, Catholic or not.
Juneau - What I was attempting to ask is, "What is the fallacy?" Sorry, I am a stay-at-home mom, not a scientist. I do have a fairly strong background in biology, having had an interest in it as a student, so I am not completely ignorant. But I have read your posts and still don't understand the fallacy of using the term "moment of conception", because - as I tried to explain in my previous post - the term - in common usage - is referring to that time at which the process of fertilization has achieved its natural end, that is, when a new human organism has been created with a unique and complete complement of human DNA. You tend to be circuitous in your comments and are obviously an intelligent person - and of course, you're right, this is an emotional issue. But just as name-calling might be indicative of a weak argument, so is (in my opinion) the tendency to take offense and then focus on the perceived insult rather than actually clarifying what it is you're trying to say. So, can you please (and I mean this to be conveyed with genuine curiosity), clarify your objection to the use of the term "moment of conception" in this article (and, apparently, elsewhere)? And if there is (as you concede) a moment of conception, when does it occur and how should it be defined for the purposes of establishing from a legal standpoint the beginning of human life?
Pete, great point. I was trying to be subtle with Juneau but you articulated a better response. This guy is just another anti-Catholic bomb thrower that posts on different articles and leaves semi-intelligent points of view just to stir the pot. I doubt that he paid any attention to our posts.
I'm not sure I have the desire to clarify the words I typed. I think they have remained relatively unassaulted. What has been assaulted, however, is what individuals claim I say or even more peculiar, what they wish to engage. This happens a lot and I chalk it up to the emotional aspect of this subect. But emotion, no matter how strong it may be, is superfluous here. It is not helpful. Emotional appeals do not bolster claims, provide evidence, or sway careful thinkers. Emotion, no matter how strong or shrill, does not make a claim factual in and of itself. Claims are factual because of evidence. That's it. And the claim here is that there is a "moment of conception fallacy". It is often used politically, not scientifically. It is mentioned in this article. Notice, I did not, nor have I ever stated there is no such thing as a moment of conception. That is an entirely different matter. What I did state is that there is a fallacy about conception and my thoughts on that remain unchanged. I have a method when engaging forums such as these, and that is to always focus on the claim, not the individual. I can usually do it and when I fail, I will apologize and amend my ways. If people take offense at my vigorous inquiry about claims, that's a red herring. Anyone can take offense to anything but in a discussion such as this, it becomes a distraction. When, however, an attack is made on the person, not the claim, as was done, that is something quite different. It is an attempt to discredit the source of power for the claim rather than the claim itself. It's called name calling and I don't like it and it usually, though not always, indicates an argument empty of critical thinking.
The motto of my alma mater is "Ex Scientia Tridens." It means "From Knowledge, Sea Power." Too many people confuse what is known as the "scientific method" with "science" itself. The word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia" to mean knowledge, or knowledge of something or a particular discipline. Biology 101 or "Bio 699+" as it has been used herein refers to the "study of" the phenomena of life and living organisms. There are hundreds of "ology/logies." But we can be reasonably assured that they each endeavor towards the "study of" or "knowledge of" some particular thing. Faith is not opposed to science. In fact, theology, the study of or knowledge of things pertaining to God, has in times immemorial been referred to as the "Queen of the Sciences." Now, one of the previous commenters in this "discussion" has presented a "scientific" author to support his own personal questioning of the concept of the "moment of conception." And then scurries out of this room (the "boards") with the assertion that the concept is merely "political." You know who and what you are, sir. You assert that you are "personally offended" by certain remarks. To the contrary, every genuine Catholic in this forum is offended by YOUR REMARKS. The "moment of conception" is not political. It is at the very root of what defines the Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.' Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings 'the mystery of our religion': 'He was manifested in the flesh" (CCC 463). When did God become "man?" Answer: at the "moment of conception." Every day I pray the scriptural rosary for the souls in purgatory. The guide I've used for years ends the First Joyful Mystery with the reflection "The angel departed from her. And the Eternal Word of God became the holy child in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary" --- in reference to Luke 1:38 and John 1:14. The argument is not one of "politics;" but a deliberate attack on the the Catholic Faith. It is an attack on the belief that God became "man" at the "moment of conception." Jesus Christ EXISTS as "True God and True Man." He IS, the "I AM.". He has two natures; He is God and He is man. He has no other natures. While in the womb of His mother Mary He did not exist for nine months as a "something else," as some kind of mere glob of inert cells bereft of humanity, of personhood. In the womb "He was manifested in the flesh," True Man from the "moment of conception." And since he shares "in our humanity" all other human beings share in that "personhood" that Jesus Christ Himself had from the very "moment of conception." Scientia. Science. Period.
I was listening to an interview this morning being done for the lawyer who represents the group who tried to pass this law in MS. He made a comment that the bishops have not really supported the law because they felt it did not have a chance of passage in the Supreme Court. The Bishops have basically remained neutral on this. I didn't get a chance to listen to all of the interview, but I was pretty shocked by this statement. Does this mean that the Bishops really aren't that vested in the legal fight for life? Are they waiting for some magical recipe in the supreme court before really wage the fight? I think a Catholic, perhaps not well versed in their faith, could take those statements to mean that abortion really isn't an issue when I vote. And quite honestly, why should it if the leaders in our church aren't fighting it with everything they got?