I want to write this up before I respond to Meph Man’s argument with what I think a mediating position should be. We won’t get to that in this post. Regardless, just a couple of preliminaries.

I really am closer to you Meph Man, in how we live life out these situations. I really do take into consideration “all the relevant factors” with the issues of abortion and euthanasia. Having said that, I think the concerned parties (those in the situation) SHOULD take into consideration all the “relevant factors” as well. So we really aren’t that different. Also, I would say that all of us have blind spots in our thinking and so that is why we say some of the things we do like when I said that Meph Man agreed with Tommaaaay. We do this in debates. We do this with friends. We do this with loved ones. The issue soon becomes that when we see the blind-spot (usually because of some new info or data that has been brought in or it was there and now comes to the surface, possibly involving a combination of the two. That is, we had part of the info but not all of it and the new info simply “finishes off the equation” if you will for what we’ve been thinking), are we open to changing our minds? Usually, we go through the cognitive dissonant stage (another word could be “shock.“ which can be quite unsettling) through to acceptance through to living our lives under the new paradigm. It’s quite fascinating all of it. Yeah. Fascinating.

Having said that, I can’t argue with Meph Man on this. As long as one wants to hold to the “sanctity of life” ethic and simultaneously maintain the death penalty or war in ANY situation one needs to abandoned it because it doesn’t gel. And that is about MOST PRO-LIFERS. Except for the consistent ones. By the way, doesn’t Jesus say something about “laying down your life?” If life is soooo absolute, then one cannot even do this! But life isn’t absolute and so Jesus is correct--as always.

Now for the longest time I have followed pro-lifers on the “sanctity of life,” especially Peter Kreeft. Now don’t get me wrong. I still think he makes a tight case AGAINST the EXTREME LIBERAL position as far as that goes and that is usually on the question of personhood. That is, at conception we not only have a HUMAN being but a PERSON. When it comes to the end of life, when the human being is in certain states and the PERSON is no longer there, it can be morally justifiable to “pull the plug.” But on the “sanctity of life” premise alone, there is the issue of inconsistency that Meph Man and Tommaaaay have brought up. And this goes against the “conservative position.” The premise says that life ought to be maintained at ALL costs because of the sanctity of the human person. I thought that I was taking the “moderate position” because of the innocent and guilt issue. I maintained that one could hold to the “sanctity of life” while at the same time maintaining that there were situations in which it was morally justifiable to take a life. But as Meph Man and Tommaaaay would have it, I was being inconsistent because if we were to consider the premise of the PURE FACTICITY of the sanctity of life (think of it as a mathematical equation and forget about all the circumstances surrounding it), one will be inconsistent if they attempt to say that it is morally justifiable to take life under certain circumstances and not under others. That is where the guilt and innocence issue comes in. The reason why it is OK to take life in one situation i.e. death penalty or war and not in another i.e. abortion, is because in those situations there is innocence and guilt. In the situation of the unborn there is innocence. In the situation of Terri Shiavo there is innocence. But one cannot maintain this. If all life is sacred? Guilt or innocence hasn’t anything to do with it (though this is not to say that guilt and innocence doesn’t have ANY PART concerning the sanctity of life, I will have to clarify that as we go along in further discussions).

Now, here’s the thing. My thinking on this was ALREADY moving in Meph Man’s direction for some time now. How? Well, it all started with reading Grenz. Do you remember what I said about him? I said this:

You see, I said “these days” because I was still in process about this issue. Why was I still in process? Because do you remember what I said about blind spots up above? Well, I had one of those. My blind spot was due more to the second than to the first. I was moving in Meph Man’s direction but I didn’t have all the relevant data before me. See, the biggest issue was this: What did Grenz mean by saying that we don’t base the sanctity of life in the person? Well, the inconsistency argument pushed me over the edge and pretty much all else has fallen into place. Now I could finally see why I held tenaciously to it but was uncomfortable with it ever since reading Grenz. And this is why it wasn’t so much of a shock to me when Meph Man said it. It was more of a light bulb that went on in my head. I was already moving his way. How does this figure?

Well, the dilemma happens when one holds soooo tenaciously to “the human person must be saved at all costs.” This places or locates high moral value in the person and that is what I think Grenz was getting at. “Ooooo…human person! Sacred. Holy. Can’t touch this. Ooooo.” Do you see where the emphasis is at? The inconsistency argument fleshes out the importance of the human person. As it is, bringing up that one is pro-life (life should and must be maintained at all costs) and holding to death penalty or allowances for war the inconsistent argument DEMOLISHES the sanctity of life ethic. So slap me naked and hide my clothes!

Having said all this, I am still concerned over statements like this: For myself, I link the sanctity of life inextricably with the QUALITY of life. My ability to subjectively experience AND objectively contribute meaning, love, and beauty to the world. If I ain't got that...and I'm being little more than a financial and emotional burden on my peoples, I'd rather be dead.

There is a certain truth to this (and we‘ll get into this), but:

1. If you are wanting to communicate your position, I think it only serves to strengthen pro-lifers against your position by using this sort of language.

2. This would cover the gamut of problems or dilemmas that would truly be immoral.

3. In my opinion, when Tom is saying: “So what we need is some OTHER reason, a reason OTHER than "life is sacred" to explain WHY the sacredness of Terri's life forbids us to pull the plug on her while the sacredness of the life of those who become, say, "collateral damage," in a war doesn't forbid us from pulling the plug on them?” He is looking for a third way. I don’t think I would hold to linking the “sanctity of life inextricably with the QUALITY of life” for said reason #2. So, this will need to be fleshed out. Actually some scholars have done this and it is their stuff that I want to turn to. So, do I agree with this statement?

Yes. That’s why I am closer to you than you might think. But I think there is more to the equation than simply “quality.” There is a deeper basis then what you are saying here, but it is also tied to quality. Again, this will need to be fleshed out.

So. So far we have:

1. I agree with the inconsistency argument contra sanctity of life.

2. The implications that flow from that, I believe, do not necessarily entail a vague understanding of linking the sanctity of life to the quality of life (hence Tom’s questions to Meph Man as to “when he thinks it would be OK to pull the plug,“ though there is truth to this. This is what we have to discuss and I don’t see it being discussed short of bringing up the dilemma of abortion and personhood at the other end of the life spectrum.

Having said that, let me respond to your other stuff in which I said you were not totally on board with me.

Yes. Well, I’m not saying what you are saying I’m saying. Got that? I’m not saying people are being selfish. What I am saying is that suffering no matter what level can “make us” or “break us.” But it isn’t only the individual that I’m concerned with here that is either being made or broke. I’m talking about the community surrounding them. Suffering, is an opportunity to become more like Christ AS A COMMUNITY. I am not making any statements about the “selfishness” of suffering per se.

On the issue of living wills. NOW I don’t have nearly the problem with them as I would have had before, based on what you said. However, this is not to say that there are no problems with living wills. When you take into consideration the highly contextual nature of health-care decision making, the unique conditions created by health emergencies, the necessary and inevitable role of families and loved ones, and the professional and moral obligations of doctors, nurses and other health professionals living wills are profoundly flawed. They can also make the decisions more difficult when a crisis comes. Lastly, people change. What they wanted or what they counted as “life worth living” when they were 30, may have changed by the time they are 60. So that is all I’m saying when I say they are not fool-proof.

All for the moment. Give me some feedback on this and they we’ll hit on the “third way” which is tied closely to your “quality of life” ethic. Thanks bro.

P.S. Now y’all see why I sit at Meph Man’s feet. Genius. It’s so funny, when I was talking with Clark Pinnock a number of months ago, I was talking about “moral absolutes” and he told me that “…nobody lives like that. We all live closer to the center.” With this issue, I finally see what he meant by that. Wow.