[madprof98]

Yeah...but the guys who wrote that Catechism thing have no real training in bioethics, and no source documents from which to draw on, i.e. there's nothing in the Bible about IVF or embryos.

Anyone who talks about "that Catechism thing" would be most unlikely to accept God's word if it flashed forth in a bolt of lightning . . . but would be very likely (sad to say) to take the word of the latest "bioethicist" the NYTimes conjured up to rationalize some grim new fad in the death-culture. It's not hard to see how Peter Singer became the best known (and probably most renowned) bioethicist in America. The self-described conservatives are quite willing to jettison centuries of tradition and sign on to Brave New World whenever some shyster comes along preaching to them, "And Christopher Reeve shall walk again!"

[usafsk]

I could lecture you on the use of the term "shylock", but I doubt you'd take it well. Singer is hardly the leading bioethicist in the US, simply one that left-wing media flock to. His influence is rather small.

[jas3]

Anyone who talks about "that Catechism thing" would be most unlikely to accept God's word if it flashed forth in a bolt of lightning . . . but would be very likely (sad to say) to take the word of the latest "bioethicist" the NYTimes conjured up to rationalize some grim new fad in the death-culture. It's not hard to see how Peter Singer became the best known (and probably most renowned) bioethicist in America. The self-described conservatives are quite willing to jettison centuries of tradition and sign on to Brave New World whenever some shyster comes along preaching to them, "And Christopher Reeve shall walk again!"

I have very little time in my life for fiction, inclusive of the New York Times. I stumble across the odd article here and again on Free Republic. And I do consider the business section to be not entirely useless, but would never actually purchase the paper or bother to read it online.

I am entirely unaquianted with Peter Singer's work other than what I have read in this thread. He appears to condone infanticide, which certainly puts him out on the lunatic fringe.

I was hoping to arrive at some moral clarity on this issue without involving the Catholic church. While Rome may speak for a substantial minority of the population, it is only a minority. And reference to "that Catechism thing" is not convincing to non-Catholics regardless of whether they would describe themselves as accepting God's word. I'm sure there are many Protestants, Jews, and Muslims who believe they also accept God's word who would differ from you. I was hoping to find common moral ground without reference to one specific flavor of religion.

All religions seem to have forbidden murder. Only some forbid abortion. Very few forbid birth control. But of all religions, I think the Catholic religion, which has disgraced itself throughout the centuries with respect to science and "truth", the least likely to offer a rational answer to bioethical questions.

jas3