Wrote this up, lost it.  Had to do again.  As usual... Hate the quote thing cause I don't know how to use it.  It is sooo much more difficult than the old way.  Can someone help me with this?

Brandon:
It is not barking up the wrong tree to discuss the sanctity of life at all. What D has failed to take into account is that there is no one (but possibly a few extremists) in the pro-life movement says that we should extend life at all costs or that life is absolute. So that's a strawman. In PVS cases it is such that a person is no longer a person. Prior to that personhood obtains. THAT is the circumstance.

Dude, that's part of my POINT. It seemed to me that, in all these blogs and articles I've been reading, people make the main crux of this whole issue the sanctity of life. Because life is sacred, we cannot do things like abortion or euthanasia. But this is straight up being contradictory...because some of these SAME people will advocate for the death penalty, gun rights, and going to war. My point was IF someone wants to use the argument that abortion and euthanasia are wrong SIMPLY BECAUSE human life is sacred, then they could NOT morally agree with ANY ACTION that had lethal ramifications on human beings, including the death penalty or war. This is what I meant by saying that people are barking up the wrong tree if they are banking on the sanctity of life idea to prescribe moral value. NO ONE really holds that standard.

Hey Honey,

Umm, yeah…what major evangelical thinker speaks of a “consistent pro-life” ethic again? I think it's Sider or Campolo.  Anyhoo, we’ve talked about this before (on abortion) in which you said you were in “process” about THAT issue. Regardless, I LOVED what Alan posted on this. Very elegant, poignant and may I say, to the point.

Alan said this:

First, it is not inconsistent to be pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. All one needs to show that there is no inconsistency to show that there is a morally relevant distinction between the two cases. The relevant distinction between these cases is the guilt or innocence of the person whose life is taken.  Guilt is one morally relevant difference. Therefore, one can be consistently pro-life and in favor of the death penalty.

And then Alan said this:

Here's the first question:
IS THE PRO-LIFE POSITION ON ABORTION INCONSISTENT WITH SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?

Before we tackle this question head on, let's first make the following general points:
1. To say that one position is inconsistent with another is to say that they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. For example, "X is round" is inconsistent with "X is square".
2. Therefore, to show that two positions are consistent it is sufficient to show that is it possible for both two be true at the same time and in the same respect.
3. The positions in question can be stated as follows:

PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
DP: It is sometimes morally permissible to end a guilty human's life.

4. To show that PL and DP are inconsistent one needs to show that the truth of one logically entails the falsity of the other. Let's see if this can be done.

The proposed inference starts with PL and concludes with the falsity of DP (~DP):

PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
--------
~DP: It is sometimes permissible to end a guilty human's life.

But this argument is not logically valid as it stands. If we suppose that the innocence or guilt of the one whose life is to be ended is morally relevant (MR) to the issue of whether it is justifiable to end their life then the conclusion does not follow. To make the argument valid, therefore, we need an unstated premise (~MR):

PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
~MR: The innocence or guilt of the one to be killed is morally IRRELEVANT to the justifiability of ending their life.
--------
~DP: It is sometimes permissible to end a guilty human's life.

This argument is logically valid, but it only establishes the inconsistency of (PL and ~MR) with DP. To avoid the conclusion, all the defender of PL needs to do is reject ~MR and affirm MR, that the innocence or guilt of the one who is to be killed is morally RELEVANT to the justifiability of killing them. Nor is MR implausible. In fact you yourself, Empiress, conceded the truth of MR in your response to me. But whether you concede MR or not is beside the point. If the defender of PL can consistently affirm MR then PL and DP are consistent and the pro-life position on abortion is consistent with support for the death penalty. QED

Yours in Christ,
Alan

Sweet! Love ya Alan baby (though I disagreed with his other stuff on “becoming a person” and still do. What this is meant to say is that no one is being inconsistent but only a few extremist pro-lifers AND YOURSELF because it is YOU who is bringing the charge. Think about it. The argument goes both ways. Some people who complain about pro-lifers say this: If life is sacred in the womb, why is it not sacred on the battlefield or in death penalty situations? Or if life is sacred at the end of life, then why is it not on the battlefield or death penalty situations? From the pro-lifers it will THEN be asked, “If life is sacred on the battlefield or in death penalty situations then why is it not sacred at the end of life? So again, it is a straw man FOR YOU to bring this up. Remember WHO it is that is making the charge here. The decisive factor in this is guilt or innocence. Bottomline.

Brandon:
In terms of eschatology, has it ever occurred to anyone that if we are becoming then suffering is a major instrument in this?

Heh. I've seen Christian after Christian use this. And I'll grant it...to an extent. Surely, you've read Satan and the Problem of Evil by now, right? What critical thought does Doc lodge against John Hick's "soul-making theodicy" (which is pretty much what your argument is talking about)? Simply that there are certain NIGHTMARISH situations where the evil and suffering itself precludes a commensurate amount of soul-building for the hellish experience. There are just some situations of evil and suffering that MAY NOT be "soul-making" but mainly soul-DESTROYING. This is why Doc says we have to incorporate Hick's soul-making theodicy, but go beyond it. Go look at that section in the book.

Sweet! You grant it! That’s all I need to know. Over all, I agree with ya. Some evil is gratuitous. It does sqwat in terms of “being more like Christ.“ Suffering comes our way. We’re faced with it. It CAN “make us” or “break us.“ ALL evil has the POTENTIAL to destroy us. And I don’t want to hear things like, “You can say this because you are NOT in the situation.” Bull crap. I’ve read Solzhentsn.  I’ve read of Christian persecution in China, Cuba and third world countries and the early church. I’ve worked with the poor in Mexico. Heeeellll…I’ve had my own mental anguish and resulting disassociation from reality. If life is such, then I don’t see that that means we SHOULD extinguish the lives of some people. Really, I see this as being more or less a choice or series of choices in one direction or another.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that I individually cannot morally prescribe things for human society? Are you saying that WE meaning human beings cannot prescribe when a perons can choose their own out? What are you saying?

I am saying that when you work from a “quality of life” ethic rather than “sanctity life” ethic then there is no basis whether in the conscience of the nation either as individuals or as reflected in the laws of the land that would deny someone “their right” to end life whether at the beginning or at the end. If I’m having a bad hair day and you are on the verge of bankruptcy, no one would could deny us the right to end our lives.

Hey, we can argue over that all day. But I tell you what. Christians like those in the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (www.cbhd.org/) will still argue that human personhood is tied DIRECTLY to human BEING. They will only give ground after medical brain death. I'm tellin' ya.

No we wouldn’t. I would agree with you. We exist as embodied persons. We exist when our body begins. The beginning of a unique body is at conception. Personhood doesn’t begin when brain-waves begin. Brain-waves begin 6-8 weeks after conception. The point is not about this per se. The point is that we don’t deny life on the basis of the quality of someone’s life or what we may think that might be.

Sparknheart talked about the slippery slope. And this is the main clarion call of evangelicals right now. (That's why Joe replaced this particular article at this time on his website) As far as having no basis to deny their right...WE NEVER DO. Do you know how many people commit suicide every year? It's one of the top 5 killers of all people in the world! It's not like we are STOPPING it from happening as a phenomenon. We are talking about what can be done in situations where there is terminal illness, persistent vegatative state, or something like that.

Yes we do. We do this with assisted suicide. The basis is the sanctity of life and these days, I base that not so much on anything necessarily inherent in the person, but in God who is the giver of life (Grenz). Laws should be BASED on that.

about definitions. Fine. That is the kind of discussion we need to have. But I'd like to ask people this. Have you thought about what YOU would want done to YOU in Terri's situation? Think about it. Would YOU rather be starved and dehydrated to death...or put to permanent sleep via anesthetic and lethal injection? Or even before that, would YOU rather be in her state for over 15 years with VERY, VERY little hope for becoming what you once were, or would you rather have closure brought to things much sooner? I wonder do people put themselves in this place and see what they would want for themselves.

Who hasn’t in this technological age? But that is highly individualistic. Here is a situation in which Shiavo’s parents want to take care of her whatever the responsibility. There are funds set up for her so as to help with the costs. They will love her. Comb her hair. Hug her. Hold her. Bathe her, FEED her, etc, like they have been TRYING to do since this has happened over the last 15 years. But the old man didn’t and won’t have any of it. She won’t even be his responsibility AT ALL. But he is insistent upon having her die (it has been reported that he has made statements like, “Has the bitch died yet?). She will bring pride and joy to her family. Why? Because it isn’t only her life that we are concerned about here. It is the lives of others that she will deeply impact. The community that is surrounding this individual, this PERSON. This is about US! We short circuit the cultural mandate and all that goes along with that (CREATIVE LOVING efforts) in euthanasia.

You know, one wonders if the scriptures can provide any guidance about this? I mean how do the stories of Christ affect this situation? Those people back then did not have the technological advancement that we have today. So what do hospitals and nursing homes have to do with dusty villages of the first century? We don’t have euthanasia directly addressed in the scriptures.

Well, here’s what I believe we can get.

1. Healing and raising the dead were a priority in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus healing was God acting in Christ to inaugurate his Kingdom. It was a sign of the in-breaking of the Kingdom.

2. Jesus healed and raised the dead as an expression of his compassion. One senses that in some miracles that there was no strategic purpose but only to display divine compassion toward suffering humanity (Lk 7:13). Think of this in terms of what I said above about creative efforts and the community.

3. Jesus’ healing and raising the dead FORESHADOWED the consummation of God’s reign. Amen? I can’t wait for that day. It seems that sickness and death was not something that God INTENDED.

And so, it is fully in keeping with biblical truth to stave off sickness and death--Christians have been building hospitals and providing hospice for centuries. Sickness. Death. They are our enemies. And so our enemies must be fought with the best of our ability--our human intelligence and creativity. “Health care” is one response to our enemy. The role of the health care professional is to cure if at all possible, care ALWAYS, and never to harm or HASTEN death. The way we meet the legitimate needs of the suffering and dying is through enhanced pain management (also called palliative care) as well as hospice care to assure as far as possible that one has a good dying process (a part of the cultural mandate to use our freak‘n God given intelligence and creativity).  Greg wrote about that in "God at War."  Go look at that section in the book. 

At the same time we still die until that time. And so there is also a death that evidences a failure to acknowledge its inevitability. And so, with the best medical care it cannot utterly be forestalled. (Waaaaah). And so to keep a body alive indefinitely at all costs (sometimes called vitalism) goes to show the sad unwillingness to face the reality of the human condition. And so, we must acknowledge that EXTENDED LIFE is not our Lord. God who is not only the giver of THIS life but of the AFTER-LIFE is OUR Lord. And so, we vigorously fight death, but also come to a peaceable acceptance that death is inevitable BUT NOT A MOMENT BEFORE.

Though this does not settle ALL the moral and legal questions? It does set the “moral horizon” for our thinking about these things. Our posture should be toward life, not death. In this case, like I say above, Ms. Shiavo is not going to be a burden to anyone but her parents. Certainly not to the old man. Even if we ere should it not be toward life?