This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Of course they were quick to respond

Of course they were quick to respond - Comments

jackal's Avatar Comment 1 by jackal

Hee hee hee. My primary reaction to hearing this prize announced: Ha! that will piss off the Vatican! I applaud the Nobel Prize committee for sticking it to the pope. :p

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:32:58 UTC | #529014

AlphaAndΩmegaman's Avatar Comment 2 by AlphaAndΩmegaman

The Church is always "deeply concerned" but they are never concerned about things that actually matter, like human lives. The church's callous disregard for human life is deeply concerning to the rest of us.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:35:44 UTC | #529015

Zelig's Avatar Comment 3 by Zelig

I saw a brief reference to this earlier on the BBC and immediately thought it would show the Catholic Church in a ludicrous light to millions of otherwise not particularly reflective people. Absolutely Wonderful! The more the Church opens its mouth the more transparently irrelevant and misanthropic it shows itself to be.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:20:31 UTC | #529023

Roedy's Avatar Comment 4 by Roedy

The Catholic church on reproduction is inconsistent.

They usually encourage rampant breeding, condemning condoms, abortion and birth control.

Then they turn around and encourage infertility by condemning IVF.

Given the state of global overpopulation, perhaps we should not push hard against their stand on IVF, no matter how irrational their reasons for the stance are.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:28:42 UTC | #529025

Quine's Avatar Comment 5 by Quine

Yes, it is their policy, so this was sure to happen. You can read about the stem cell issue in depth in a recent article at:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/09/human-embryos-in-the-age-of-obama

where you will find:

Indeed, each embryo’s constituent parts are integrated so as to advance the species-specific development of the whole being. Neither the facts of “twinning” (a rare process of regulation and restitution in which disaggregated blastomeres sometimes resolve themselves into a new organism) nor “natural embryo loss” (the seemingly high rate of embryonic deaths in utero before or shortly after implantation) calls into question the living embryo’s status as an individuated whole member of the human species. Biologically, it is beyond dispute that he or she is a living organism from the very beginning—is, from the moment of conception, a human being.

Even if the above were all true, this fails to recognize that a dish of cells is not an organism that is going to develop into a human being without first being implanted in utero. Of course, they want to ride the arguments they use for the anti-abortion debate, but in this case, if not implanted, there is no development cycle to abort.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:57:27 UTC | #529034

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 6 by Agrajag

Wait to see their reaction tot he first Nobel Prize for embryonic stem cell work!

(I sadly note that it may not go to a U.S. scientist the way things look.)

Steve

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:47:32 UTC | #529042

Moosebite's Avatar Comment 7 by Moosebite

Among his peculiar complaints is the objection that it "didn't treat the underlying problem of infertility but rather skirted it"

Damn that science, why can't it stop getting in the way of religion coming up with real solutions to the underlying problems?

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:04:41 UTC | #529055

beanson's Avatar Comment 8 by beanson

in slight mitigation this nutcase did say he was speaking in a personal capacity

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:16:37 UTC | #529057

Quine's Avatar Comment 9 by Quine

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:10:46 UTC | #529063

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 10 by Stevehill

Wingnuts. They object to giving the Nobel Prize to a guy who helps people create life? And Pro Vita translates as "for life"?

Ah, sod them. Let's give the next one to an abortionist to even things up. Then they'll be happy.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:27:40 UTC | #529066

Heartbox's Avatar Comment 11 by Heartbox

I object to sandwiches, as they just 'skirt' around the issue, rather than solving the underlying problem of hunger.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:29:30 UTC | #529067

eivind's Avatar Comment 12 by eivind

The "underlying" problem is, I suspect, the fact that ever more women take ever longer education, and have careers. This means that the age at which people decide to have kids, is increasing. The average age for first deliberate child (i.e. disconting random teenage pregnancies who nobody considers good), is well over 30 in many countries.

Thing is, a lot more couples are infertile at 35, compared to a decade earlier. That's just basic biology.

In short: the "underlying" problem is that women get an education, and have the gall to USE it, rather than becoming a housewife and breeding-machine at age 20.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:01:23 UTC | #529075

mmurray's Avatar Comment 13 by mmurray

Where are the frozen embryo's souls ? I tried to research this on the internet and I got some very weird answers. Even more weird than usual when you look for something about Catholic's and reproduction. Does anyone know the official answer for frozen souls ?

Michael

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:11:24 UTC | #529078

Seddge's Avatar Comment 14 by Seddge

To: Quine

You offered a quality balanced view, now that is refreshing. There are good arguments for and against IVF. My personal preference would be that any couple wanting to love and nurture a child, and seeking an IVF, should instead rescue a ready made child from a catholic orphanage.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:40:14 UTC | #529085

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 15 by Stevehill

My personal preference would be that any couple wanting to love and nurture a child, and seeking an IVF, should instead rescue a ready made child from a catholic orphanage.

That would include gay couples then?

And do you really think there is no difference between an adopted child and one made from the parents' own genetic material? I'm not saying (most) adopted kids are not loved - but they are also in nearly all cases the next best option.

IVF is simply giving the parents' own biology an assist.

Women are born with 7,000,000 ova. Who cares if one or two get flushed down the toilet?

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:58:51 UTC | #529086

mmurray's Avatar Comment 16 by mmurray

Comment 14 by Seddge :

My personal preference would be that any couple wanting to love and nurture a child, and seeking an IVF, should instead rescue a ready made child from a catholic orphanage.

Often people's preference is to have a child which is the result of mingling their genes or at least one of the partners genes. IVF can do that. People also like to have a baby that grows up with them. I imagine there are some mothers that also would like to actually go through pregnancy but I am the wrong gender to comment authoritavely on that. My understanding is that babies are hard to come by in local orphanages at least.

Why would you prefer them to adopt than use a simple techology like IVF to overcome their infertility problem ?

Just out of interest would a catholic orphanage let you adopt if you quite explicitely say you are raising the child in an atheist family?

Michael

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:01:58 UTC | #529087

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 17 by hungarianelephant

Comment 12 by eivind :

The "underlying" problem is, I suspect, the fact that ever more women take ever longer education, and have careers. This means that the age at which people decide to have kids, is increasing. The average age for first deliberate child (i.e. disconting random teenage pregnancies who nobody considers good), is well over 30 in many countries.

Yes, absolutely dead on.

Of course, it's so ingrained in our culture that it's difficult to get people to regard that as a problem at all. A teenage pregnancy is regarded as a social disaster, which doesn't make a lot of biological sense. And it's not as if teenagers have chosen a social structure which punishes them for reproducing young.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:13:05 UTC | #529092

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 18 by Stafford Gordon

Perhaps if they spent less time on their knees with their eyes shut talking to themselves they might be a little less afraid of reality; or at least aware of it.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:42:27 UTC | #529100

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 19 by Alan4discussion

Members of this thread may like to have a look at my comments on the ID threads discussion with the RCC's shifting meanings and definitions in their "acceptance" of evolution.

Catholic Church's new CREATIONIST / ID theory of evolution

- along with confused denials

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:06:13 UTC | #529111

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 20 by thebaldgit

It was great news that Bob Edwards was finally given a nobel prize for IVF albeit 30 years after the event. It was probably my natural cynicism that left me wondering why it took so long, I hope it was nothing to do with a fear of offending catholics surely all the more reason to do so.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:11:00 UTC | #529113

Reginald's Avatar Comment 21 by Reginald

"Does anyone know the official answer for frozen souls ?"

It is recommended that they be thoroughly defrosted before cooking.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:30:20 UTC | #529117

Philster61's Avatar Comment 22 by Philster61

Next time some Cardinal needs medical treatment. We should protest because that goes against the healing power of prayer. Doctors should refuse to treat them because it interferes with the natural course of Gods will.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:35:48 UTC | #529120

Atropa's Avatar Comment 23 by Atropa

It is still possible to be very anti-catholic, as I am, and a retired doctor and still feel that IVF demeans human sexual reproduction.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:46:02 UTC | #529122

VenomFGX's Avatar Comment 24 by VenomFGX

Mr Myers, I see little point in the emotional argument given here. "They prefer the natural method of intercourse, which produces excess embryos which are then flushed down the toilet to rot in the sewers." I think most people prefer intercourse, not only to be mere breeders to to actually make love. I have not facts and figures except casual observation and speaking with many people that most children are in fact not planned but the result of sampling their favourite ambrosia, and the normal human emotional contact afterwards. There is also a natural feeling about human children born or unborn, which is emotional as well, that it somehow seems wrong to use humans dead or alive as research tools. It is the same emotion evoked as saying that we should not indulge in cannabilism. I think you are also aware that soon as a new technology is produced there is a market produced which is contrary to the idea. The marketing of a few cells from an ovary is perhaps no worse than someone selling a kidney for a few bucks. If woman wish to honour the profession you speak of then I think that is their business. yours VenomFangX

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:49:04 UTC | #529126

mmurray's Avatar Comment 25 by mmurray

Comment 24 by VenomFGX :

Mr Myers, I see little point in the emotional argument given here.

The point of PZ's argument is that no matter how you have make your children there will be excess embryos. That is unavoidable. Not liking what is done with the excess embryos from IVF is not an argument against IVF it is an argument against what is done with the excess embryos.

have not facts and figures except casual observation and speaking with many people that most children are in fact not planned but the result of sampling their favourite ambrosia, and the normal human emotional contact afterwards.

Well not with ours. Planned and worked hard for. You can forget about all the lovey dovey emotional stuff when tonight is the right night and definitely stay off the booze or you will be in real trouble.

Comment 23 by Atropa :

It is still possible to be very anti-catholic, as I am, and a retired doctor and still feel that IVF demeans human sexual reproduction.

So what would you do for people for whom this is the only way to reproduce ?

Michael

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:03:22 UTC | #529132

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 26 by AtheistEgbert

Oh the infamous VenomFangX is here.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/VenomFangX

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:04:37 UTC | #529135

Outrider's Avatar Comment 27 by Outrider

it somehow seems wrong to use humans dead or alive as research tools

It does, very wrong.

Good thing that absolutely no-one anywhere is suggesting such a thing. Early stage embryos, on the other hand... blastocytes, I seem to recall from elsewhere is the technical expression... no more human than a bacterial colony on an agar plate.

O.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:15:29 UTC | #529140

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 28 by SomersetJohn

Comment 5 by Quine :

Biologically, it is beyond dispute that he or she is a living organism from the very beginning — is, from the moment of conception, a human being.

If it is beyond dispute why do so many sensible, educated, rational people dispute it?

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:15:41 UTC | #529142

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 29 by SomersetJohn

Comment 21 by Reginald :

"Does anyone know the official answer for frozen souls ?"

It is recommended that they be thoroughly defrosted before cooking.

That would be Dover Souls, would it?

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:20:52 UTC | #529144

VenomFGX's Avatar Comment 30 by VenomFGX

Oh the infamous VenomFangX is here.

Sorry AtheistEgbert I am a different one. I am an atheist, not the guy on YOUTUBE with some creational, intelligent design issues which really irritated people.

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:21:37 UTC | #529145