Pontifical Academy for Life,Vatican: science which throws away ethics, we do not belief can morally be pursued

(Social Justice South Africa; c.f. CBCPNEWS 18/11/08)

Article By Marc Aupiais

In an article published in a Vatican Based Newspaper (L’Osservatore Romano): the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has released a statement. Archbishop Rino Fisichella, in his capacity as President of the Pontifical Academy For life: has stated that when science is pursued without ethics- it mostly is utilized in such a way that it is made into a platform from which to persecute others: by unjust authorities.

He has therefore affirmed the Catholic belief: that science must always remain within ethics, or cannot morally be pursued. He said this: having noted already, that the church understands humanity with a special knowledge- having been the safeguard of man's dignity for about two millenia.

He also noted that science does not cause opposition to Catholicism, and therefore scientists must not appose the faith, rather- they should remain reasonable when dealing with issues such as the Ancient Religion.

Abortion arguments and the ultimate illogic of our laws on abortion

(Social Justice South Africa)

Article by Marc Aupiais

With the 700 billion dollar bailout of the US banking sector expected to pass- one thing is certain- the concept of this itself is foreign to the American spirit- but they have been convinced that it is necessary- and so many will vote for it.

Now, let us look at abortion- many abortion advocates want abortion until birth- that is that path pro-abortion states often go, further than already forcing South African citizens to deny their religious obligations- by aiding abortionists.

So, what is the difference between the unborn and the born- to me it lies in a small document- it lies in citizenship- these peoples are not citizens of South Africa yet- and we often get away with actions against foreigners that we could never get away with against our own citizens.

Apparently, it was Mandela's government which legalized abortion, this is what Wikipedia and other sources tell us about this famous man so many South Africans have grown to Idolize- under him- abortion became widely legal.

Is the argument that Mandela was in support of abortion, or in the very minimum that his government at least was- an argument that justifies it. I say no to this.

Now- those in support have argued- yes but those women would get it anyway- in fact- they even kill the child once it's borne. I will not repeat the rest of the argument- due to the way it views many less well off South Africans- what I will do is combat it.

Because rape is done anyway- should we legalize a less violent form of it?
Should we allow people to bring others they don't like into hospitals for killing them?
after all- both of these issues can't be stopped entirely by legal systems- is it right however to do lesser systems of it- or restrain a victim to protect the oppressor- in a safer environment in which they can perform what they desire in their best interest.

Others say- let us permit abortion and contraception to reduce world population, but according to the 1951 UN declaration on Genocide, by which we prosecute war criminals- these people are advocating genocide (article 2 section d).

Others still say- these children are not intelligent yet- so, are we to make a scale of intelligence, like in some brilliantly thought out sci-fi fantasies- and kill all those below it?

Others say- the child is not alive- but how then and when then does life begin- surely- science can't create life- so how can it say when it begins- all it can say is- surely- the sperm was alive- but even as millions of sperm died on the way to the womb, we were not able to save these lives of what is not yet identified by most as human. The sperm certainly is not the same life-form as the mother.

It is now that the sperm and the egg combine- whether or not the sperm dies in this- well I don't know- but it certainly combines with the egg to form something neither entirely from the mother, nor entirely from the father. Again- at this point many people die, they also die in miscarriage- but again we cannot prevent this entirely.

Now, the church itself does not allow condoms- it thinks it wrong to automatically cause the sperm death, of course in the case of Natural Family Planning- they use the argument of Abraham- whose infertile 100 year old or so wife conceived a child.

So- we admit that the thing that emerges in conception- is independent of mother and father- it has unique genes, and can replicate it's own cells. Like we rely on our planet to survive- it too rely's on its environment- the womb.

Now, if we quash someone's dreams before they know what they are- we still quash them- if it is going to be human with all certainty unless we intervene- then it is our fault if it ceases to be- as it is- it is human- simply at an earlier stage.

Murder is the purposeful killing of another through action or purposeful inaction, where the other is not in this death being justly punished for a crime, or else is not an unjust aggressor, or supporter of unjust aggression.

Nothing a child who is not capable of aggression yet can do is unjust as yet.

Ultimately- I see no circumstance in which we validly allow abortion, in that the life taken is not guilty of anything. Of course, for some reason, despite many South Africans agreeing with me- our government, under Nelson Mandela- chose to further allow more than highly limited abortion in our country. Is this right?

All I know is that what is legal and what is moral is not always the same thing- even as the only real justification of any legal system is necessity and morality- otherwise it simply becomes a system of oppression of others- that gain may be made by certain groups who it benefits.

Ireland Archibishop- Watch who you impact -Press release was on markets and the need for social aspects to be viewed by Business, government

(Social Justice South Africa; c.f. Immaculate Heart of Mary’s Hermitage Report)

Article By Marc Aupiais

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin has asked for a business, government and market mentality which not only pursues profit, but focuses on the social impact of decisions. He states that the gambles taken by representatives of large firms, take as a surety- the average person who is affected by bad or good decisions.

If one person digs a whole in the boat, to quote our Jewish Brothers- it affects everyone in the boat.

This is specially applicable in South Africa, where business, and government- often does not focus on the impact they have on the longterm economy or their citizens. A notable impact is efforts at promoting contraception by "Love Life", statistics from America, broadcast by EWTN, and mirrored by observations of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, show that often contraceptive education, and promotion of contraceptive methods of fighting disease- have been shown to backfire- with disease levels increasing. Case in point South Africa- we have the largest rate of some diseases- despite apparent efforts by government. On facebook recently was an irritating advert- leading to a questionnaire- "World Contraception Day". I wonder if the results of that will be used, and if it will be mentioned that it was advertised in such a way that the religious from groups such as ours would not click on it except accidentally. I also wonder what effect this will have on facebook users- in a country where pre-marital sex is so common- and along with it the consequences.

The Pill, for instance reduces chances of pregnancy (Not that NFP isn't just about as, if not more effective)- it also drastically increases chances of every kind of Sexual Disease. It seems our biggest issue is a societal disease- we answer everything with devices and abortions- rather than attempting to actually trust people to do the better thing.

I await the day when we teach people how to more safely use cocaine- after all, "it's better than if they did it outside the law, and encountered more danger!"

Oddly, when we create such atmospheres about things- it seems we don't really cure the problem- more abortions for one thing occur now that it is legal- than before hand. Democratic Candidate Borak Obama in the US, voted to let survivors of Abortion die if they could make it- while in England- the many of the more legislative pro-abortionists want to allow abortion right until birth.

Oddly those who call themselves pro-choice- often neither respect the choice of the child- nor that of the doctors and nurses forced by "pro-choice" legislation- to go against their choice and conscience, and be excommunicated from the Catholic church, or seemingly to break South African, and other nation's Law!

Genocide, according to the United Nations is:

"Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by
General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948

entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

I wonder if efforts to radically reduce the populations of third world countries can fall under this?

It seems- rather than genocide we call efforts such as this "prudence", or other such things- the truth is- we desire more resources for ourselves- it does not always fit our interests to have larger population- nor do we often seem as a culture- to care if certain conditions are afflicted on others.

Now, we need to consider- is the answer to world population Article 2 section (D), or can we actually allow aid to the undeveloped world, and education about morals to developed and undeveloped world alike- things that seem to work quite well if we look into history. Instead- we choose to inflict on populations a sort of section d option- is it right? I don't know- but in the past it was labled as Genocide- have we had so universal a group of changes to our view on the subject, and can we ignore documentation which is still under enactment?

Perhaps the UN's general laws are interpretable- otherwise we need to stop these campaigns to end such disease, and stop wars, and problems over resources- by section d of the Genocide definition. Can we continue to solve the world's problems, by reducing what the world means?

Commentary- Creative Minority Report- Science needs to pass the you're not special test!

(Catholic Watchdog South Africa; c.f. Creative Minority Report)

Article By Marc Aupiais

Disclaimer:

The Following article is a commentary, which does not neccessarially reflect the view of this service.

Now everything I say here is based on what I read at Creative Minority report, and personal views, I am not a quantum physicist, so I don't really know!

Article

Another oddity in science, yes I love the word oddity, but it is a good word to describe things we don't think should be as they are- and I don't think this should be as it is.

It's called the "Copernican principle", or as Creative Minority Report notes- The "We're not special principle". It's a principle that often plays out in movies- when the good looking chap looks at the lady, or where a High School Musical scene emerges- not that we don't disagree with Disney's views on religion, and abortion, but the point is- when something says you're special- mankind says fairytale. Now, I by no means support creationism- the idea sounds more like Evangelical Fundamentalism's apologetics, PR department than science, but I do find it odd that we should have such a principle. Another principle is that the most likely, simple solution to a problem probably is the solution- but to me that sounds like guesswork. We believe, and I adhere to the idea that all we have came from the big bang. An Evangelical Fundamentalist I disagree with heavily states- "Nothing Exploded" as if it disproved this wondrous science, and I think- yes- is not the big bang the ultimate proof of God- that nothing should become everything- surely- Nothing must have been altered by Reality- surely- Reality must have made the universe out of nothing. I have actually converted someone to Christianity on the spot, by discussing my belief in the Big Bang- because this mystery has to lead to God.

Now back to the concept discussed by Matthew Archbold, over at Creative Minority Report-

There is a theory that the Earth is located in a low cosmic pressure zone, which apparently could explain all these anomolies about time seeming to alter, or things going faster than the speed of light- now I am the first person to decry creationism- but if this is the simplest solution, and could answer the question, and I am no expert at science- then why should we exclude it as possible based purely on the fact that it makes the earth slightly different. Of course we are different- how else could evolution have occured, we as a planet with life have to be different from ones which have none. Of course, Matthew may be wrong, and we may not have the entire picture- but if the Cinderella shoe fits, why not cautiously investigate if it really is so?

Of course- I do not endorse such a theory myself- but really- I am fascinated by this other "Copernican principle", if it really exists, please someone send me more on it- yes, we must be cautious when the cosmic good looking girl science waves at us, and check before waving back, but if this is true- then its sad not to wave simply to avoid embarrassment. In Fact, I'd even rather wave if she wasn't waving at me, after all- it doesn't need to be releasing anything- but investigating it may lead onto another theory, and waving at girls at least gets their attention!