- Cape man stabbed in head, arm after strip-club incident; skull fractured, police say (6/25/17)3
- Two men accused of selling meth to undercover cop (6/22/17)
- Custom cuts: Local hairstylist provides free haircuts to special-needs children (6/26/17)3
- Police: Man grabbed wheel, tried to kill driver and himself in Jackson crash (6/23/17)
- Marble Hill man accused of beating, kidnapping woman (6/27/17)
- Annual SEMO District Fair event lineup announced (6/23/17)1
- Oran town board fired officer before hiring him as police chief; city officials say they can't remember reason for firing (6/25/17)2
- Playing with fire (6/25/17)
- Two charged in theft of jewelry from Cape storage facility (6/23/17)1
- Business notebook: Man's cheesecake whim becomes a full-time vocation (6/26/17)
Pope John would condemn research
To the editor:
Former U.S. senator Thomas F. Eagleton says in his Feb. 26 op-ed column that he is a Pope John XXIII Roman Catholic, the inference being that Pope John would have supported fetal stem-cell research. In 1961 Pope John wrote, "The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act. ... It is not permissible to use means ... that can be licit for the transmission of plant or animal life. Human life is sacred: from its very inception, the creative action of God is directly operative." Were he alive, Pope John would be outspoken in his condemnation of embryonic manipulation.
Eagleton also implies that St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) would have no objections to embryonic stem-cell research because he did not believe that the early fetus was "ensouled" for three or four months. However, the medieval mind had no concept of the process of fertilization and fetal development. It is logical to assume that if Aquinas had 21st century knowledge of embryology, his concept of when a fetus becomes a person would change. But even if "ensoulment" occurs sometime after conception, abortion (and manipulation of the embryo) is immoral. At conception the natural process of reproduction has been initiated. To interrupt it would be contrary to the natural law.
Is Eagleton trying to assuage his guilt for supporting a procedure which his church, in no uncertain terms, condemns as immoral?
Dr. MICHAEL WULFERS, Cape Girardeau