President Kennedy said he would govern for all Americans, not just the Catholics. I expect as a young man the Bishop supported President Kennedy. Romnesia is a terrible contagious disease.

I noted that the bishop said that it is a belief that human life begins at conception, I assume that means the instant the human egg and sperm come together. That is a belief or assumption that many biologists and philosophers question and have debated for decades.
Yes as the two gametes join in a new zygote, there is the potential for it to become a full human being capable of individual life. But at what point in time does that zygote, or embryo become an actual, living human person?? That is the big question. Does it occur instantly or only over several days or weeks?
Meanwhile DNA, genetics and biochemistry all must come together in proper sequence before there is a viable embryo. If there are serious problems in this process, it may result in a "miscarriage." Or as an Aristotelian philosopher would say, "The matter cannot support the form". The same is true at the end of life when the body can no longer sustain life and people die. Do miscarriages make God an abortionist??

I am convinced that people have a right to their own religious beliefs and assumptions, even regarding the point in time when a new zygote becomes a "person," a living independent human being. But I don't think they have a right to try and impose their beliefs on others by legal requirements.

I noted too that the bishop did not mention family planning, birth control, contraception. Perhaps it is because the debates over this question, even within the Catholic Church, is even more controversial.

Just in case my earlier comment was too academic or esoteric, allow me to restate it in everyday terms.

This morning for part of my breakfast I fried up a chicken egg. Now it is possible that if that egg had been fertilized and carefully guarded and protected over time, it may have hatched out into a baby chick. Sometime between the time the egg was laid and the chick hatched out, it might have become a "chicken." I don't know when that might have happened, or what time it might have taken to transform a fertilized egg into a chicken.
But I am convinced that I ate a chicken egg for breakfast. I didn't have Kentucky fried chicken.

That is why I am not convinced that at the instant we have a human egg and sperm coming in contact, we have a full human "person." Biologists can show that it takes hours or even days for that new "zygote" to anchor to the womb.
And so for me, if someone says that they believe that from the instant of contact we have a full human being, I question that assumption and belief. No doubt that there is the potential, the possibility from that new combination may someday result in the birth of another human may result if all goes well. But if things do not go correctly, the zygote may die. There may be a "miscarriage".
As a consequence, I do not accept the belief or assumption that if a woman takes a "morning after pill" (which does not kill the embryo, but simply prevents it from anchoring to the uterus) or terminates a possible pregnancy in a day or two after the initial union of sperm and egg, that it is the "abortion" or "killing" of a full human being, a "person".

If a woman is raped or the victim of any other sexual crime, it should be up to her, her husband if she is married, or her family and medical doctor to decide when she can decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. That is my opinion.

Others may believe differently, and not agree with my opinion, but they should not try, nor be able to impose their beliefs and assumptions upon me or those who do not agree with them.

I guess that is why there are varied clientele. There are those who like their beliefs and assumptions and don't want to have to bother about the detail or implications and just move on in life.
Then there are those who enjoy and relish the debate, tossing out premises and conclusions, questioning "facts" and data.
I guess some of us like "philosophy"... not some kind of starry- eyed speculation about angels dancing on the heads of pins, but asking the basic, ultimate questions about our lives as humans.

I happen to be an old male, and I suspect both of you are too (but I'm not sure of that). For us males, the members of a celibate hierarchy in the Catholic Church, male political candidates, the whole discussion about possible abortion, contraception or related issues is somewhat "academic."

But for a woman all the debates and questions about these topics becomes much more personal, intimate and must raise much greater emotional response, much greater questioning than males will ever experience. A woman has to decide whether or not she is going to spend nine months, giving of her life and body, to possibly bring a new human being into the world. Then spend another two decades seeing her offspring become an adult human while the male contributor to this new life, this new responsibility may abandon her. If the male responsible for the pregnancy has brought it about through rape, incest or some other criminal act, a woman must go through horrific emotional and personal turmoil that we males cannot comprehend.

This is what bothers me in many of these discussions and comments, especially those made by males. It reminds me that the Judeo-Christian theological tradition arose out of an area in the world where male-domination was and still is accepted as some kind of "message from God," while is nothing more than a particular cultural heritage.

That is why I hope that female commentators will contribute their voices and opinions to discussions. I know it may seem impossible, but perhaps some day the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, such as Bishop Burns and others listen to nuns and women and allow them to point out that perhaps what they insist upon and require, may not be based on the teachings of Jesus, but are simply carry overs of a male dominated, patriarchal cultural tradition.

I appreciate your comment, however the point it not whether Bishop Burns has a right to his opinion or not.
The real question is the opinion, belief or assumption that he supports. His followers, those who agree with his beliefs, may exercise and practice their beliefs. They have every right to do so. The question is whether we as members of a representative democracy, with a variety of beliefs or non-beliefs must live and abide by their beliefs under legal regulations or not.
It is not a matter of contributing to the welfare of others, which I know that I and many others do,but of the universal rights of humans, of women, of various religious traditions to choose and decide what happens in their lives.
I am a great believer in "pro-whole life." That is that "life" is much more than simply preserving an embryo, a fetus to the point of birth. For me, "life" means bringing into this world children who are freely wanted by their parents, who have an opportunity for good health care and education, who, if they suffer birth defects or other problems or inequality, have the care they need for a truly human life.
This is why to me, and perhaps many others, the idea of family planning and "birth control" or making sure that children are not just the result of impulse, lust or criminal acts is so important. Many people in the world seem to agree that one way to limit "abortions" is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

I was shocked that, in trying to steer a middle course that sided with neither candidate, Bishop Burns failed to articulate the clear distinction Catholic moral theology and the recent Papal Magisterium (especially John Paul II) make between positions that are intrinsically evil and those about which Catholics may disagree in good faith while exercising prudential judgement in their resolution.

Bishop Burns' column sets up a moral equivalence between Biden and Ryan which, from the perspective of Catholic moral teaching, is false: that is, Biden espouses unrestricted abortion and is widely acknowledged as the catalyst for Obama's "evolution" resulting in gay marriage becoming part of the Democrat party platform. Surely no Catholic Bishop believes that the slaughter of innocent life at levels reached since Roe vs. Wade and promotion of same-sex marriage are on the same level as "Ryan's issues," i.e., how to lower the unemployment rate, allot government welfare funds, or resolve matters of citizenship?

Moreover, Bishop Burns' appeal to the opinions - and they are only opinions, NOT magisterial teaching - of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace is both naive and dated. Naive, because it is widely known now, after the Bishops' Campaign for Human Development "got caught" issuing grants to groups and programs associated with ACORN and pro-choice positions, how notoriously Left-leaning these Committees are. Understandably so: many lay staffers at the DC-based USCCB have served as staffers to Capitol Hill Democrat politicians! Dated, because, having been reminded by Paul Ryan himself (how embarrassing!) about Pope John Paul II's twin principles of solidarity and subsidiarity which guided Ryan in preparing his budget, several of Bishop Burns' brother bishops have distanced themselves from the USCCB's Leftist critique of the budget, namely, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, Bishop Boyea of Lansing, and Ryan's own Bishop, Robert Morlino of Madison. Regarding the lack of moral equivalency between Biden and Ryan, significant clarifications have been offered by Archbishop Lori of Baltimore and in the pastoral letter of Green Bay's Bishop Ricken.

On the other hand, at least Bishop Burns has said something. Where I live, in "the lower 48," "seldom is heard a Magisterial word," our Cardinal-Archbishop is absolutely silent, and pro-choice "Catholic" politicians (like Joe Biden) choose the "culture of death" while publicly receiving the Bread of Life. In centuries past, new bishops were handed a copy of Pope Saint Gregory the Great's "Pastoral Rule" as a guide for their new ministry. In it Gregory says, "Woe to the shepherd who does not speak because he fears losing the favor of men. He is as the Prophet says, 'a mute dog that cannot bark.'" But when a Bishop DOES speak - he ought to get it right!

Throughout my career as a teacher, I used stories and examples to get across the ideas that I had in mind. So please allow me to tell a story.
Nearly fifty years ago, teaching at the university in Fairbanks, there was a woman in one of my anthropology classes where I talked about gender equality.
She was young, "nice looking", but taller, stronger, more muscular and athletic than me, and a great person. In those days all the teams fighting forest fires were composed of men. They were well- paid, and could make a lot of money in a summer. She decided that it was time to form a team of female fire-fighters, and pushed and advocated to have such a team, and she finally won her battle.
Her group of female fire-fighters proved to be as good, as effective as any all-male group, and they too earned a good salary.
What she and her group proved was that the whole concept that males are superior, that only males can perform certain jobs, that a "woman's place" is in the home as a "housewife" is and was nothing more than a cultural tradition carried on in our Western World cultural tradition and in other parts of the world as well.

Male dominance is not necessarily a part of the teaching of Jesus or even Siddartha (the Buddha) or other religious teachers. It is an assumption, a belief, a myth that is unsupported by facts.
Women, as those who bring new lives into the world, nurse and feed their offspring, are equal to males as fellow human beings.
So when it comes to the issue of them becoming potential parents, of producing, nursing and educating their children, they have a right to make their own decisions. They have to make decisions that will affect their entire lives. Like fire-fighters in the interior of Alaska, they are the equal of men and must be respected as such. They don't need a traditionally male-dominated group, Church or agency telling them how to live their lives.

Just a side note on Alaska. The Native Dene or people of the interior, and local Tlingit the Navajo and Apache, had a social system called "matrilineal" in which women then and even today made social decisions as equals to the men.
Have you ever thought about what history might have been like if Jesus had been born in a matrilineal society and not in the Mideast ? Perhaps the Pope and Catholic hierarchy today might be under the control of nuns and women, and men would "serve" them.
The real question theologically is how much of a religious belief system, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism is the teaching of the original teacher, and how much is simply cultural tradition?

I think the Bishop should study the historical actions of the church, and how it relates to the points he brought up...

Is bringing the 'battle of the sexes' relevant here? Politicians telling anyone what they can and can't do maybe but this is not an equality issue from where I'm standing. I could be missing something though.

wmolson

Life begins at conception. You are who you are at your moment of conception. Nothing has been added to you other then time, oxygen, nourishment, warmth and protection.

As for your right to life, the XIV Amendment to the Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What must one be to be a citizen of the United States? Ans. One must be a person who is born in the United States. Does birth bestow "personhood" on you. Ans. No. Cows and dogs are born in the United States and they are not citizens. One must be a person, first, who when born in the United States is automatically bestowed citizenship. Therefore, no state shall deprive you of life...without due process of law, nor deny you within the States jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since you are a person from conception forward, your mother has no legal right, nor does anyone else, to end your life without going to court, first, to seek permission to have you murdered; and the state must provide you legal representation to defend your right to life. That is what the Constitution says. If you have a problem with that, don't complain about the church standing up for your right to life, blame it on the Constitution. And as for knowing when life begins, I had a year of embryology in college that included lab work. My support for pro-life is based on my academic training and my study of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade was predicated on the majority opinion saying they "don't know when life begins." I know when life begins from creating it in the lab.

Mike

1st. question. No

2nd. The U.S. Congress and numerous Presidents have given hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to Planned Parenthood to hand out little physical devices to people to use to keep that moment from happening. You wouldn't be suggesting that the U.S. Congress, Presidents, and Planned Parenthood don't know when life begins, would you?

3rd. Obviously, the Founding Fathers recognized it was commonsensical that citizenship can only be bestowed on human beings born in the U.S. or naturalized. Birth does not make one a human being or a person. One must be that before being born in order to be one after. Nothing is added to that human being from conception onward except oxygen, nutrition, and protection, the same things that are needed for the rest of that person's life.

Still believe, it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." If you have not yet been born, you are not yet a citizen and under the protection of the US Constitution.

Reminds me of the Monte Python... "Every sperm is sacred..."

....the tourism dollars that could be had if all one had to do was be concieved in the US in order to be a citizen! It's the next "logical" step in stillbelieve's argument.

The annual wave of Japanese and Korean tourists to Fairbanks (in order to concieve under the Northern Lights - which supposedly bestows great intellect on the fetus) would certainly triple, and who knows what kind of "ovulation stopover packages" could be developed!