 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Is Voting for Life a Christian Ethic? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 11/3/2002 8:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | Ciecie quote:
It all leads to someone who is in the image of God?
Isn't that awesome to think about? Even at the BEGINNING of a life formulating in the womb this "thing" is made in the image of God! He creates us in our mother's womb and we are created in HIS image.
Doc quote:
If conception constitutes full personhood, and ending it equivalent to murder, why do most pro-lifers think people who bomb abortion clinics are doing a wrong thing? etc…
I think this is answered quite nicely in the below quote.
diamondd quote:
The essential question of the essay is:
"Do we have the same reason for objecting to killing fetuses that we have for objecting to killing adult people? Killing a normal adult, he suggests, is wrong because it deprives him or her of a future life. But in killing a fetus, we are also depriving it of a future life. Thus it seems inconsistent to object to one but not the other."
Brett quote:
Too many pro-life organizations have approached the abortion issue with a strategy that intends to establish the legal "personhood" of the fetus, thereby providing the fetus with the same constitutional protections that any other living person would receive. The problem with this strategy, as the author ably explains, is that even the most adamantly pro-life Supreme Court justices in the years since Roe v. Wade have never argued against legalized abortion in this way.
Whether we call "it" a person or not it IS a LIVING creation! Again, I agree with diamondd in the statement above -- we are depriving this living INNOCENT "thing" the right of a future (and we all know that the future of this "thing" would be a PERSON NOT a dog, a cat, a fungus...)so we are depriving this innocent PERSON of a future.
Peace,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/4/2002 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | trosie:quote:
Whether we call "it" a person or not it IS a LIVING creation! Again, I agree with diamondd in the statement above -- we are depriving this living INNOCENT "thing" the right of a future (and we all know that the future of this "thing" would be a PERSON NOT a dog, a cat, a fungus...)so we are depriving this innocent PERSON of a future.
Please note that my post above was not dodging the "personhood" issue. I was merely pointing out that the debate should not be resolved by a handful of Supreme Court justices under the guise of Constitutional authority. Rather, the question of "personhood" should be worked out in the legislature, where people actually have a representative voice in the matter. This, in my opinion, is the proper and effective legal position to take against Roe v. Wade.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/4/2002 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress said: quote:
I am really weary of pro-lifers being pro-death penalty; it is entirely hypocritical and logically inconsistent.
Preliminary question for Miss E: Do you consider yourself to be a pacifist?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 11/4/2002 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | ~E,
I read your response to my comments. I haven't taken the time to read what everyone else has posted since. I'll do that immediately after I write this and then I'll probably find out I have said something really stupid.
First, I found the comments you and Doc posted about when life, or personhood, begins very interesting. I am not disagreeing with you on that one. (I'm not sure if I agree either, but you've given me something to chew on and that I'll do.) Just so you understand, I am not arguing against everything you wrote; it's only the descriptions "logically inconsistent" and "hypocritical" with respect to those who hold to both "right to life" and capital punishment.
You wrote:
quote:
I am not interested in the events surrounding the "cases," I am interested in another issue entirely in regards to the death penalty. My concern is over the fact that our secular State currently has the power to choose who will live and who will not.
I don't have a fully developed answer for this one, so maybe I can start with something and then fill out the details as we go (or dump the whole thing and agree with you, or…). In Romans 13, Paul is exhorting believers to submit to governmental authorities. As part of his argument, he introduces fear of human authorities as a legitimate incentive for doing what is right. Paul says, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (13:3-5). Paul doesn't really say whether or not the government's sword is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's something we must take into account when we decide to behave a certain way. I can't imagine the sword would be used for administering spankings. Even in Genesis, although "capital punishment" is decreed during, as you put it, a "Jewish culture under a Theocratic form of government several millenia ago," my point was that the punishment was to be administered by people to other people. Conceivably, this kind of killing is something just in God's eyes. Capital punishment in my view preserves the dignity of life by demanding the highest punishment for the unjust taking of it.
This starts to address something else you said:
quote:
I find it illogical that pro-lifers claim that all life is sacred and that we do not have the right to choose who lives or dies (before birth), yet they turn around and claim that the secular State has the right to take adult human life because of the actions committed by that person. I have yet to hear consistent logic on this one.
You are saying these views, when held together, are logically inconsistent as though I were saying something is good on the one hand, and on the other it is bad while talking about the same thing. I think you answered this the way I would when you later wrote:
quote:
I would not say [capital punishment] is the "same" as murder of an innocent though, no. I think there is room for such distinctions.
My point exactly. They are not the same thing. That is why I don't see how it is logically inconsistent to say one should be condemned, the other approved. One is murder of the innocent; the other killing of the guilty.
I'll stop my tirade here and go see what everyone else had to say.
El Payaso 
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins
Edited by - payaso on 11/04/2002 1:02:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | I can't really post much now. I'm sicker than a dog. Taking antibiotics. Please pray for my health. Hopefully will be able to post more at length in a few days or so....
Anyhoo, just want to say this. Brett, agree with you that the U.S. government has until Roe left it up to the states, until the supreme court made a sweeping declaration on all states with regard to human life. Actually, there was a law that came before Roe that basically made abortion on demand accessible. Will have to look that one up. Roe, was kinda the "topper offer," the icing on the cake if you will to solidify what was already set in progress.
Lastly, for those of you who would seek to prevent abortions if we admitt gradations, Terry was right on the button on this. This is not what the pro-choicers seek to do. They certainly do not seek to prevent abortions, but would rather seek to keep abortion as a viable option, as a right to be had.
Ok now, my typing is becoming sporadic...feeling kinda diz...
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/4/2002 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | This portion of my response is for both Terry and Payaso because you covered some similar ground in your replies.
Terry said:
quote:
In the death penalty, the state is killing. If I lock you up in my basement, that is kidnapping. If the state does it, it's jail. Are you anti-jail? If I take your money even if I spend it on you, it's theft, but the state calls it taxes. States take actions that people can't and, according to Paul, have a God given mandate to do so. You don't have to go back to theocracies 2k years ago.
The fallacy with your statement is that while it is true that the State CAN morally do things that would be immoral for individuals to do, eg imprisoning people, it does NOT hold that EVERYTHING the State does is MORAL. The Nazi's were a State, and yet they committed incredible evil. By your logic and the application of Paul's teacing in Romans 13, everything a State does is sanctioned by God. How does a Nazi State fit into this picture? The Churches in Nazi Germany pointed to Romans 13 as justification for their non-involvement in the holocaust. Therefore: Actions must be gaged to be moral or immoral regardless of who commits them, whether individuals or the State.
Another flaw with using the State as justification for the death penalty in its "God given role" by pro-lifers is the fact that the State DOES sanction abortion and even pays for and administers abortion through government funded clinics, and yet pro-lifers claim that to be an immoral act of the State that must be stopped. You can't have it both ways folks!!
Our fundamental question is:
Is it moral for ANYONE to kill ANYONE, regardless of whether it is the State or an individual doing it?
If no, then the death penalty and all killing is immoral.
But if we can concieve of times when it is moral to kill someone, then we must establish the criteria by which that is the case.
The morality of the death penalty hinges on two factors:
1. The soundness of the criteria
2. The ability to execute the criteria fairly as stated
Currently the criteria is established by lawmakers and executed in the courts. However, we know that the criteria itself is strongly questionable and our nation is divided on the issue. Yet even if we had a rock-solid moral criteria that all agreed upon, we know that many factors influence the execution of the criteria in the courts (race, income, the ability of the prosecution versus the defense, whether the case is high-profile, public sentiment, etc.). So even the most perfectly ethical criteria for the death penalty is not enough to justify it.
Terry said:
quote:
It's also because human life is sacred that we take away the life of those who kill, not despite sacredness.
I realize that people want to bring about justice through the death penalty. People feel that that murder of an innocent victuim can only be made "right" by killing the murderer in turn. The problem is, there is no justice in such a killing, no true restitution can be made through the death penalty because the innocent victim's life can never be given back. This is the tragedy of murder: it cannot be made right. Killing the murderer does not actulally do justice or restitution for the victim or their family...they continue to suffer. However, when a murderer is killed now the INNOCENT family members and loved ones (parents, children, etc.) of the perpetrator must suffer another death. In fact, because the death penalty does not bring about justice, it can only be a means of revenge. Revenge is not the same as justice and MORE INNOCENT people must suffer when it is imposed. The "two wrongs don't make a right" phrase comes to mind.
Payaso said:
quote:
They are not the same thing. That is why I don't see how it is logically inconsistent to say one should be condemned, the other approved. One is murder of the innocent; the other killing of the guilty.
No one is innocent and we're all guilty, but anyway....
Payaso, here is the trouble I have with the logic that pro-life/pro-death penalty people are using. They say:
"All life is sacred"
therefore abortion is wrong.
In reality, what they mean is:
"All life is sacred, except those who are convicted of murder." (notice I didn't say "commit" because we can never know for certain)
They don't really believe all life is sacred or they would value the life of a convicted murderer too. They actually only value the lives of those THEY deem worthy of value, eg. those who have not been convicted of murder. I find this hypocritical and illogical. So far no has addressed the heart of thist issue!
One more thing in terms of the Bible and the death penalty. I think it is quite clear that the way behavior is dealt with in the Old Testament ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth") was overturned by Jesus in the New Covenant who directly contradicts this OT teaching. Jesus tells us instead: "Do not resist evil" and "turn the other cheek": I do not know how much more clear he can be. When a woman was caught in adultery he said, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone" directly in contradiction to explicit OT law to stone adulters. It seems death penalty proponents are saying, in essence, "Yes, I will cast the first stone, thank you. Kill 'em!" If people want to return to the Old Testament forms of law and punishment to deal with murderers, they're going to have to apply the rest of the OT's forms of punishment of many other crimes and they will have to contradict Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. You cannot pick and choose your crimes. Either the whole system has been overturned or it hasn't. Either Jesus ushered in a new form of a "law of grace" or the Old Testament laws still stand.
Terry said:
quote:
Before brainwaves she has the choice to remove the fetus just like she would a mole or ingrown toenail. Afterwards, it's murder. Isn't that logically consistent?
That's not what is being said at all. Having counseled women who have had abortions, I can say that it is one of the most horrific, painful, and scary choices any woman ever makes. No woman I have ever encountered in hundreds of cases takes that decision lightly. The abortion itself is an invasive surgery that threatens the life of the mother...no one is comparing this to the removal of a mole; comparing it to such a thing demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance about the pain and struggle that people endure over such a decision and act.
Additionally, what has been stated repeatedly is that abortion at any stage is a tragic occurance. Just because all abortions are not equal does not make one type of abortion totally neutral and the other murder. Both early and late term abortions are destructive and to be prevented as much as possible. The distinction is that in an early abortion the development of zygote or embryo (8-10 weeks), which is without human consciousness and would not qualify as being "alive" under medical terminology (because brain waves are not present), is tragically interrupted and ended. At a later stage of abortion, the killing of a fully developed, conscious, medically "alive" human fetus/baby occurs. Both are tragic, we hope neither occurs, however, an early abortion is preferable to a late abortion for many reasons.
---------------------------
Brett asked:
quote:
Preliminary question for Miss E: Do you consider yourself to be a pacifist?]
Nearly. I would like to be one completely, but I find that in some extreme cases, like in order to save the life of another person or in self-defense, I could not live up to it. I believe, however, that pacifism is the Biblical, theoretical, and human ideal that doesn't work well in our fallen reality. I strongly support pacifism.
---------------------------------
diamondd said: quote:
It is making the decision to deprive that person of future life experiences that is wrong.
Whoa...I have serious problems with this statement ethically. If we begin to say that what makes murder wrong is the deprivation of a person's future life experiences, then we are in some very dangerous territory ethically. Using this ethic, we could justify euthanasia for the terminally ill or aged, as well as for those whose "future experiences" are deemed not worth living because they are mentally or physically handicapped, suffering, etc. "Future experiences" is a very dangerous thing to base the value of human life upon. We MUST value human life for human life, not for anything related to one's future.
Also, despite your comment, it still seems clear one could make a case based on this statement that birth control in any form ought to be illegal because one would be continually depriving a potential life (sperm and egg) of future life experiences.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/4/2002 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress:quote:
Brett asked:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary question for Miss E: Do you consider yourself to be a pacifist?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly. I would like to be one completely, but I find that in some extreme cases, like in order to save the life of another person or in self-defense, I could not live up to it. I believe, however, that pacifism is the Biblical, theoretical, and human ideal that doesn't work well in our fallen reality. I strongly support pacifism.
This is the answer that I expected. What I want to point out is that one can believe everything you wrote above (as I do), and at the same time support capital punishment. I share Tom's practical concerns about the application of the death penalty, but I do not consider it to be necessarily immoral in principle.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 11/4/2002 10:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey thanks for the feedback Empiress. I would like to know what others think about this idea of the wrongness of murder as well. Not many have yet responded to a position I think maybe offers a different look at the issue and I’d like to hear some thoughts, cause I am still working through it. I hope I articulated it well enough, if not I will try to be more thorough with any specific question or objection. I hope this makes sense, it’s like 3 in the morning.
Alright, Empiress you said:
quote:
Whoa...I have serious problems with this statement ethically. If we begin to say that what makes murder wrong is the deprivation of a person's future life experiences, then we are in some very dangerous territory ethically. Using this ethic, we could justify euthanasia for the terminally ill or aged, as well as for those whose "future experiences" are deemed not worth living because they are mentally or physically handicapped, suffering, etc. "Future experiences" is a very dangerous thing to base the value of human life upon. We MUST value human life for human life, not for anything related to one's future.
Also, despite your comment, it still seems clear one could make a case based on this statement that birth control in any form ought to be illegal because one would be continually depriving a potential life (sperm and egg) of future life experiences.
.
I think you might have misunderstood my position, maybe because it wasn't entirely thorough. Future life maybe a better term than future experience, but the way I mean experience is not qualitative, it is rather the act of living in it’s most basic sense. I hope nothing I said sounded like I made a qualitative statement about the experiences in life, just rather the general experience of living a life, good or bad, which I believed is wrapped up in the idea of the dignity of human life. Valuing the future of a human life (or potential human life, i.e. fetus) is valuing human life. It is respecting the on going right to live. To interrupt this life because we put qualitative statements on living (i.e. fetus not having a right to uninterrupted human life) is exactly what I think is immoral. I have never been one to say that life is all about happiness. I believe it is about virtuous and truthful living. I believe one of the those virtues is living and the ability to live (in what ever manner that is, whether sick, blind, handicapped, suffering, or a developing biologically human fetus, etc.) The very basis of the argument says that it is wrong to kill because you are depriving that person or biologically human organism the life they would have lived if left unharmed, whether good or bad. The reason why denying future life is wrong is because the idea of living is virtuous and is to be immensely valued and therefore denying that future life seems immoral, if you are to be logically consistent. Of course there are other factors that can be debated such as war, capitol punishment, and as you brought up: euthanasia. I think each must be argued in their own respect with regard to the virtue of being able to live. If you would like to debate euthanasia we can. But this slipper slope argument appears unfounded in light of the fact that the dignity of life in my view is not that we live well, but that we are given the gift of life to live at all.
Secondly, I wanted to ask you what you thought makes murder wrong? What are your reasons? Is it because God said it is, or is their objective rationale as well that makes it wrong? Is it wrong because it disregards the value of human life? Yes, but in what manner does it do so? What is it that it disregards in the value of human life? Is what it disregards the very act of living and to live and to continue living? Does it not cut short human life, by cutting short what presumably would have been future acts of living? Therefore, not valuing human life and making murder wrong?
You mentioned the idea of birth control and in this area I should have been more specific. The development of human life begins, I believe and many would agree, is when the sperm and egg connect and therefore make it a REAL potential human life, because they are now fully biologically human. A lone sperm or an egg is not. So I wouldn’t say that denying the connection of the sperm and eggs is immoral, because it is not biologically human yet, and has not become a real potential for human life. However once the egg and sperm have connected and the human developmental process has begun with a fully human genetic code, I think this is where the moral issues starts. It avoids a lot of the muddiness in medical definitions of humanity. So each birth control method must evaluated with this in mind. So again, I believe this slippery slope is unfounded.
Lastly, I just wanted to mention, because many have talked about the medical community’s definition of life (brain activity), it seems we may be depending too much on medical opinions and definitions for life. You say valuing future human life or experience puts us in very dangerous positions ethically, then what about denying the potential personhood of a fetus? Why is brain activity the standard for life? There are many organisms that don’t have brains that are considered to be living. Also I believe the definition of life and personhood are two separate entities. Do we live and die by their definitions (which do change)? Is medical science now infallible? Is their definition of what is life (brain activity) and when it is valuable, that infallible? This is taking a big risk, especially when the stakes are living biologically human organism. Because they classify when something is alive, does not necessarily make it a closed it shut case on the life or personhood. Suppose medical science was mistaken in their definition, or you aborted when you thought the brain waves were inactive when they really were active? Isn’t this dangerous? In this medical view the issue has some pretty muddy sides to it you must admit, which make it dangerous. I am not saying we disregard medical science, however, still this does not counter that presumably, if all goes well, a baby/fetus with the biological genetic make up of a human WILL mature into a human being, if it is not already. This is an issue that must be reconciled. Especially, if murder is denying future living.
Well enough for now, I hope it made sense, it was really long and it is really late.
Blessings,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/5/2002 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Brett said:
quote:
This is the answer that I expected. What I want to point out is that one can believe everything you wrote above (as I do), and at the same time support capital punishment. I share Tom's practical concerns about the application of the death penalty, but I do not consider it to be necessarily immoral in principle.
Okay, I'm confused. How can you agree with what I said about pacifism being the ideal, and yet be pro-death penalty? In the case of a crisis in self-defense, killing the perpetrator may be the only option left to you to save yourself or another. But in the case of a convicted murderer, we have many options to us. At the very least we can keep them imprisoned for life to ensure they never kill again. Why would we choose to kill them if we didn't have to? It is no longer necessary, so why choose a less than ideal action when it is unnecessary?
------------------
David said:
quote:
Future life may be a better term than future experience, but the way I mean experience is not qualitative, it is rather the act of living in it’s most basic sense.
Thank you David for your response. I realize you want to remove the qualitative connotation to the idea that life is valuable because it is "living life" that is most important. However, I don't think it is possible because there is an inherent qualitative element to that very concept, distinct from the valuing of life for life itself. Why do we value "living life" or "experiencing life"? We value it because "living life" presupposes certain experiences: experiences to love, learn, grow, etc. We mourn for the loss of the ability "to live" because we mourn the loss of important experiences the person has been denied. But we do not value "living" if living means that we be tortured day and night until death. We do not value "living" if living means being in a vegetative state till death. We do not value "living" if it means a person lives to cause others pain and misery. HOWEVER, we can still value "life" or "personhood" despite what "living" might entail. Do you see the distinction I am making? I find it dangerous to base the value of a person based on "living life" instead of based on their personhood. More on this...
David said:
quote:
The reason why denying future life is wrong is because the idea of living is virtuous and is to be immensely valued and therefore denying that future life seems immoral, if you are to be logically consistent.
Okay, I disagree. I don't actually believe that "living" is necessarily virtuous. I have seen too many unwanted kids who are born into a living hell of physical abuse and neglect. I have seen too many youths kill themselves because the abiding suffering of life was more than they could bear. I have also seen too many rapists, murderers, and child molesters who live only to hurt others....I do not value their "life experiences." In that sense, it is not "living life" or "experiencing life" that makes their life valuable and worth living; it is simply the fact that they are human beings created in the image of God that gives their life value. There is a fine but important distinction here. I will totally resist saying that life is valuable for any other reason other than that persons are sacred because they are made in God's image.
I also think this mentality, the idea that "living life" or "life experiences" is most important is what allows the death penalty to continue in our nation. If we valued people for their personhood instead of the life they "live," we would not execute people. You can see why I say it is a slippery slope! It has already happened! We already kill people who do not "live" in a way we deem worthy!
David asked:quote:
Secondly, I wanted to ask you what you thought makes murder wrong? What are your reasons? Is it because God said it is, or is their objective rationale as well that makes it wrong? Is it wrong because it disregards the value of human life? Yes, but in what manner does it do so? What is it that it disregards in the value of human life? Is what it disregards the very act of living and to live and to continue living? Does it not cut short human life, by cutting short what presumably would have been future acts of living? Therefore, not valuing human life and making murder wrong?
I believe murder is wrong simply because it destroys something sacred: a person. A person is sacred because a person is made in the image of God. I believe we do not have the right to destroy that which is sacred.
David said:
quote:
So I wouldn’t say that denying the connection of the sperm and eggs is immoral, because it is not biologically human yet, and has not become a real potential for human life. However once the egg and sperm have connected and the human developmental process has begun with a fully human genetic code, I think this is where the moral issues starts. It avoids a lot of the muddiness in medical definitions of humanity.
Okay, I would like to unpack this a bit more. Here's my problem with this concept. The "all or nothing" pro-life stance claims that the egg and sperm alone are not "human life" or even "potential human life," and yet they say that at the exact moment that the sperm and egg meet (conception), we have suddenly moved from "nothing" to "everything." We went from "worthless matter" to "full personhood" in a millisecond. First, I find this rather implausible. But here's the other trouble I'm having...
1. What if we were to prevent, in the one millisecond before the sperm reached the egg, the sperm from puncturing the egg? Are we ethically "in the clear"? Have we refrained from murder? Have we managed to side step the issue of preventing a "potential life" from their "right to live"? It seems to me that we have not if we take the "all or nothing" perspective. It is morally legalistic to say that we can do anything we want before the sperm/egg meet, even within a millisecond of conception, but -immediately- afterwards we are committing 'murder.' And it is also illogical; there is no common sense in this kind of thinking.
2. However, if we agree that it is unethical to prevent the egg and sperm from meeting in that one millisecond prior to conception, then we open up a very unwieldy can of ethical worms and the questions of what is ethical in relation to preventing conception can be pushed farther and farther back until we enter the realm of protecting every sperm and egg and banning birth control. It enters the realm of ridiculousness very quickly.
3. We also know that "conception" occurs often without anyone knowing because it is quite common for the zygote to fail to make it safely to the uterine wall and attach itself. We also know that spontaneous abortions occur very often in the first hours and days following conception, often without a woman's knowledge. Has God so poorly designed us that he is granting full personhood to zygotes and embryos, but more often than not, they will never even make it to the fetus stage?
Here are some million dollar questions for you:
If full personhood starts at conception, is the two-celled division of an egg (a zygote that has not yet even differentiated) that spontaneously aborts in heaven?? Do you expect to find billions upon billions of fertilized eggs that never made it to the uterus in heaven?? Must they stand before the judgment seat of God and be covered by the blood of Jesus? If a human being is cloned, are they not a person because there was never a moment of conception? And if they are a person, at what point? These questions may sound absurd, but these questions serve to show that there can be no black and white line for defining personhood "at conception."
My conclusion: A sane and logical view is to throw out the "all or nothing concept" and try and do the best we can with what we know. It seems that we cannot go from "meaningless matter" to "full personhood" within a millisecond. It seems that the process of personhood, much like the process of becoming a fully developed and conscious human being, is a gradual one. At conception, the process starts, but it is only the beginning. A zygote is only slightly "more" valuable than the sperm and egg alone because it has more potential to become "human" than the sperm and egg did one millisecond prior. We cannot grant full personhood to a zygote though. Slowly the zygote, embryo, and then fetus develop, and as they do, they grow into personhood. This is why early abortions are preferable to late abortions even though any prevention of the development of human life is tragic in some sense.
David said:
quote:
Lastly, I just wanted to mention, because many have talked about the medical community’s definition of life (brain activity), it seems we may be depending too much on medical opinions and definitions for life. You say valuing future human life or experience puts us in very dangerous positions ethically, then what about denying the potential personhood of a fetus? Why is brain activity the standard for life?
Because I value personhood and not the "living of life" to be the central issue, and I do not believe that a zygote or a young embryo that has less brain function than a medically dead person or an insect can be said to be a person yet, I do not have a problem with looking for the most rational or probable solution to personhood. Brain waves begin and develop slowly....so does personhood. We certainly want to avoid destroying a being that has reached full personhood at all costs. We should also discourage destroying a "potential" person (zygote, embryo) unless there are exceedingly good reasons to do so. The brain waves test seems the most reasonable solution because it used every day to determine death and everyone can agree on it. What we are looking for is a middle-ground that will help prevent abortions in our nation. The object in such thinking is to prevent abortions, not increase them! In order to do that, we will have to concede to some kind of compromise...the way to do that is to begin by saying "not all abortions are equal" and looking for common sense solutions like testing for brain waves.
David said:
quote:
There are many organisms that don’t have brains that are considered to be living.
That's right. But we also don't call it "murder" when those non-person organisms are destroyed.
David said:
quote:
Suppose medical science was mistaken in their definition, or you aborted when you thought the brain waves were inactive when they really were active? Isn’t this dangerous?
I do not believe medical science is some kind of infallible sacred cow. However, it is very helpful to look to medical science in coming to rational decisions about tough issues such as this. We are looking for common sense solutions, not reactionary speculations. And it is ALWAYS dangerous to risk abortion, it should be discouraged at all costs but if it is done, I pray it is done as early as possible.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/5/2002 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | K' Just wanted to say that I disagree with basically 99.99999999999% of everything that Miss E wrote. Which means when I get to feeling better, I will have to do some major typing going where no man has gone before.
quote:
Before brainwaves she has the choice to remove the fetus just like she would a mole or ingrown toenail. Afterwards, it's murder. Isn't that logically consistent?
quote:
That's not what is being said at all. Having counseled women who have had abortions, I can say that it is one of the most horrific, painful, and scary choices any woman ever makes. No woman I have ever encountered in hundreds of cases takes that decision lightly. The abortion itself is an invasive surgery that threatens the life of the mother...no one is comparing this to the removal of a mole; comparing it to such a thing demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance about the pain and struggle that people endure over such a decision and act.
Additionally, what has been stated repeatedly is that abortion at any stage is a tragic occurance. Just because all abortions are not equal does not make one type of abortion totally neutral and the other murder. Both early and late term abortions are destructive and to be prevented as much as possible. The distinction is that in an early abortion the development of zygote or embryo (8-10 weeks), which is without human consciousness and would not qualify as being "alive" under medical terminology (because brain waves are not present), is tragically interrupted and ended. At a later stage of abortion, the killing of a fully developed, conscious, medically "alive" human fetus/baby occurs. Both are tragic, we hope neither occurs, however, an early abortion is preferable to a late abortion for many reasons.
Believe me, Terry is right on this. That is precisely how pro-choicers on the whole veiw the unborn. Anyhow, just want to say that for said highlighted points above (COUNT 'EM) that that would be a good enough reason not to get an abortion. And believe me, there are many women filched of their womenhood who have stories to tell.
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 11/5/2002 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Over time I've come to support what Doc and Empiress charachterize as "middle ground".
I can never, as a Christian, agree with those who support the Woman's Right to Kill. Most people I talk to who call themselves "pro-choice" are really, fundamentally, pro-abortion. And therefore support the Woman's Right to Kill. I could go further on this, but I'd drift into politics, not religion. And, yes, there are some cases which could warrant abortions, but in those cases choosing isn't really at the heart of the matter, a threat to life is.
And I've come to disagree with the death penalty. It lets off the offenders too easily. Life at hard labor is much more fitting and completely eliminates any moral or religious arguments.
In His peace,
Scott
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
Edited by - kerygma on 11/05/2002 7:20:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 11/5/2002 9:39 PM (GMT -6) | | For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 11/07/2002 08:14:54 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/6/2002 4:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Miss E. I just want to clarify something in my thinking on what you have stated, you said, quote:
The distinction is that in an early abortion the development of zygote or embryo (8-10 weeks), which is without human consciousness and would not qualify as being "alive" under medical terminology (because brain waves are not present), is tragically interrupted and ended.
and then you stated quote:
The abortion itself is an invasive surgery that threatens the life of the mother...no one is comparing this to the removal of a mole; comparing it to such a thing demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance about the pain and struggle that people endure over such a decision and act.
Now then, basically, you do not hold to the "personhood" of a zygote right after conception, correct? You state that personhood, based on medical terminology starts when brain-waves kick in, which is about 6-8 weeks later, correct? If that is your stance, which I believe it is, then what would be wrong with comparing a zygote right after conception BUT prior to 6-8 weeks gestation with an ingrown toenail or mole or what have you? Again, as Terry said, Greg stated this and you didn't flip out on him for it, yet you do when Terry mentioned this. What is the status of the a newly conceieved pre-brain-waved zygote in your thinking? Just asking to get clarification and then to make a response.
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful
Edited by - BBBCanada on 11/06/2002 09:28:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/6/2002 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress:quote:
Brett said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the answer that I expected. What I want to point out is that one can believe everything you wrote above (as I do), and at the same time support capital punishment. I share Tom's practical concerns about the application of the death penalty, but I do not consider it to be necessarily immoral in principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I'm confused. How can you agree with what I said about pacifism being the ideal, and yet be pro-death penalty? In the case of a crisis in self-defense, killing the perpetrator may be the only option left to you to save yourself or another. But in the case of a convicted murderer, we have many options to us. At the very least we can keep them imprisoned for life to ensure they never kill again. Why would we choose to kill them if we didn't have to? It is no longer necessary, so why choose a less than ideal action when it is unnecessary?
Your implication here is that if one believes that peace and non-violence is ideal, one cannot be for the death penalty. This is simply untrue, and I doubt that you would claim that those who favor the use of capital punishment do not ultimately have the same overarching goal of the greatest possible peace that you do.
It is vital to this discussion that we again make the distinction between the two categories of criticisms about capital punishment. One type of criticism is substantive, the other is procedural. The former is a moral argument, the latter is practical. With many here, I share deep practical concerns about the death penalty’s application. My difference with you, Miss E, is your contention that it is somehow morally inconsistent to believe that the state can execute murderers while at the same time believing that mothers should not abort their unborn children.
Have to cut this short for now, but I’ll try to elaborate later. Terry makes some good points above.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/6/2002 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all...
Apologies to all who I managed to offend, particularly Terry who seems quite upset; it was unintentional. I really ought not debate this subject (death, murder, killing!!) because it is highly controversial and emotional for people, including myself.
I will try to get to people's questions when I have time tonight, but honestly, it all seems a bit overwhelming and I've laid out my views quite thoroughly at this point; people can take it for what it's worth.
I will admit that I do find it difficult to debate the issue of abortion with males simply because I don't feel they can appreciate the pain and difficulty this issue is for women; you may think me biased for that, and I will admit to the label if this qualifies me as such.
Brandon asked:
quote:
Now then, basically, you do not hold to the "personhood" of a zygote right after conception, correct? You state that personhood, based on medical terminology starts when brain-waves kick in, which is about 6-8 weeks later, correct?
Almost. I said that the development of personhood is gradual, much like the development one goes through in becoming a fully conscious, thinking human being. I think the most rational, common sense point to mark personhood is in the 6-10 week mark when brain waves begin, not as a black and white guide but as a common sense approach.
quote:
If that is your stance, which I believe it is, then what would be wrong with comparing a zygote right after conception BUT prior to 6-8 weeks gestation with an ingrown toenail or mole or what have you? Again, as Terry said, Greg stated this and you didn't flip out on him for it, yet you do when Terry mentioned this.
I don't recall Greg saying this, but I must have missed it because I would be offended by any comparison of getting an abortion as being akin to removing a mole. I said above that this comparison totally ignores what women actually go through in abortions in terms of their emotional/mental anguish and the physical dangers and ramifications involved. I have never seen a woman who has had an abortion treat it as a small decision akin to removing a mole and I can imagine the horror they would feel if someone had accused them of such a thing.
quote:
What is the status of the a newly conceieved pre-brain-waved zygote in your thinking?
The status is not clear, but I would say that it is "significant" because of its potentiality. It is definitely not as significant as a fully developed person, but it is more significant than any random grouping of cells. It is more significant than the sperm and egg by themselves because it has much more potential, but not due to anything qualitative about its current state.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/6/2002 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | ~E-
I've only been able to race through this thread. I'm sure I missed a lot of the details. I wanted to say that I appreciate your views on abortion. I think you're very sensitive (in a good way), and you love and value life and recognize that God is the author of life. I think we have to recognize in some sense the "potentiality" of human personhood. That's hard to do. You've got me thinking on it.
Thanks.
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 11/6/2002 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | |
Greg: Several have said things like, "We wouldn't be here if we were removed like an ingrown toenail [as a fetus]. The trouble with this logic is that it applies as much to contraceptives as to abortion. Also, I have met one person who argued this IN FAVOR OF invetro-impregnation – "If my parents had regarded fertized zygotes as full persons and thus opted to NOT use invetro-impregnation, I would not be here." hmmmmmm
Shell: I thought I would post Greg's actual comment on the issue. It seems to me that it hasn't been accurately represented throughout the last few posts.
Shell
Edited by - shell on 11/06/2002 4:39:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 11/6/2002 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | ~E
I just want to say that I appreciate your inner struggles and personal experiences that shed light on the extreme complexity involved here. I too can relate to the complexity, pain, torturous deicion making processes all surrounding this issue after working with victims of rape and incest.
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
Blessings,
Shell
Edited by - shell on 11/06/2002 4:52:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 11/6/2002 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
For my sake, I don't need a response to the abortion arguments. I agree it can get overwhelming and time consuming...as if spending time with our families weren't more important. And our words almost certainly wont influence anyone's views. I think it might lend itself better to 'letting all be peaceful and harmonious" if we end the debate. I can even delete my post.
As I tried to make clear, your position on abortion or capital punishment is probably fairly close to mine. For that and many reasons, I wouldn't insinuate that your views indicate moral corruption or lack of intelligence. It was that insinuation on your part that brought out my strong reaction. I was also defending those who had posted and been painted with that brush.
You and Boyd both suggested that the hypocrites and knee-jerk arguers are on the pro-life side. I merely wanted to illuminate the hypocrisy in the views you and he were espousing. As I said in my first post, I don't think logical consistency is that valuable, but, as they say on the schoolyard, "you started it."
As a matter of principle, I'm against any ad hominem or claim that short circuits discussion by appeal to special knowledge ("only women can discuss abortion"). It's more than an unfair debate tactic; I believe it demonstrates an un-Christian discursive stance.
Besides, imagine all the discussions that women could have been excluded from historically on the grounds of lack of personal experience: politics, warfare, science...
But I'm not angry.
Shell,
I'm not about misrepresenting people. My point was simply that Boyd also had talked loosely about fetuses and moles (and invetro zygotes as a numbers game, as well as bombing clinic workers) in the course of making his point.
When some people are immune from aspersions while others can't say a word without being labeled insensitive, it lends itself to bad argument.
Terry
"Be God's"
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 11/06/2002 9:21:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/6/2002 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | At it again...thank you for the encouragement Brett, Shell, and Tom.
--------------
A LONG response to Terry's long post:
quote:
If you're completely consistent, you have to deny all warfare, all capital punishment, and ALL killing in self-defense as well as accidental homicides as equally morally evil.
That is simply a false statement Terry. There are examples that I have provided that demonstrate the possibility that moral killing occurs. I'm not clear why you chose to ignore the rather long logical explanation I provided regarding determining the morality of killing because it is directly relevant to your comments here. Nevertheless, one can be logically consistent and admit there are cases in which killing is justifiable and moral. Some examples of those include cases of self-defense and in order to save the life of another...the logical statement of such thought is this:
"It is immoral to kill a human person unless such killing is necessary to preserve the life of another human person."
quote:
That is, by the logic you're offering here, the circumstances of the ending of a life are immaterial: all taking of a life beyond normal biological circumstances is equally morally wrong.
I am not aware of having said or inferred this anywhere. Please point me to the place you think I said or inferred this logically.
quote:
I’m pretty sure this isn’t your stance because you argue at various times that the circumstances of a death do matter (but, oddly, only when the circumstance show the unfairness of the application of the death penalty?) I’d appreciate clarification on this issue since it was you who first argued that abortion and the death penalty are both bright-line issues revolving around the sanctity of life.
All persons are sacred and we ought never to take the life of another person unless it is necessary to save the life of another sacred person (as in a crisis of self/other defense). Even then, I believe it is less than the Gospel ideal.
Capital punishment does NOT save the life of another sacred person, it unecessarily takes an additional sacred life solely as punishment and revenge. When someone has been convicted of murder, we can incarcerate them in order to prevent them from killing.
quote:
However, what you described isn't what I argued (do you honestly think I or anyone here would argue that anything any state does is correct? I have a hard time taking you seriously when you argue this way). I did say that the state doing something differs from a person doing something (if a person declares war on another person, it's called murder).
I'm sorry if you think I misunderstood your comment; I was simply responding to the comment as it appeared in context. At the time you used the idea that the State can do that which an individual cannot -alone- as justification for the death penalty, and that does not hold water logically. You are always free to explain and broaden your argument further however.
quote:
I don’t mind responding to reason, but bald statements about the clear hypocrisy and stupidity (“illogic”) of prolifers who happen to be pro-death penalty ought to be put away.
Saying a statement is illogical/fallacious/inconsistent does not equate to calling someone stupid. I never called you stupid and I'm very sorry you took anything I wrote to mean such a thing.
As to the issue of hypocrisy: I have stated clearly why I believe it is hypocritical to take the "all or nothing" stance on abortion and yet be pro-death penalty. I cannot claim to think otherwise and if my opinion upsets people, that is unfortunate but unresolvable. I have not said any person is hypocritical, I have only stated why such -opionions- are hypocritical from my perspective.
quote:
I did argue that the state has rights to do such things (tax, imprison, etc.) according to logic and Paul. In fact, according to Paul, it's part of the state's explicit duty to punish crime and keep order.
And that's a fine point to make, but that alone as justification for the death penalty is not enough.
quote:
Of course, another major difference between capital punishment and abortion is the cause of the death. In the one, it is the state's God-ordained duty to offer a just penalty for the act of murder (or treason) in the other, the fetus/baby cannot logically be guilty or deserving of death
I have conceded that there are differences between capital punishment and murder, however, that too is not enough to justify it or make it moral. Additionally, no one is arguing that a fetus or baby is "guilty or deserving of death."
quote:
(your “cute” statement that ‘none of us is innocent’ notwithstanding, I hope you’re not arguing my 3 month old son is just as deserving of punishment as a serial rapist).
I find your statement above extremely inflammatory; please refrain from making such offensive comments in the future.
My flippant comment was in reference to the fact that people have been applying the word "guilty" to murderers alone in this discsusion and I find that problematic because theologically we know that we all are "guilty" before the throne of God. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
quote:
Simply by the criteria of “motive for ending life”, it is very hard to equate abortion and capital punishment.
I'm sorry but I do not follow this last statement, please expand because I do not see how it applies to my point.
quote:
Then, frankly, it seems you haven’t tried (I found about 6 arguments on the web addressing this in 10 minutes).
I didn't say no one has tried to demonstrate their reasons, I said no one has succesfully demonstrated to me the logical consistency of this position.
quote:
In fact, your caricatures of pro-life positions are clear misrepresentations of all but the most knee-jerk pro-life arguers. As someone who has ‘carefully studied the issue’ I’d expect a more fair restatement from you.
I was involved deeply in the "all or nothing" pro-life movement for several years...I worked in a CPC and was on the national news twice for being involved in public demonstrations against abortion. I am arguing against some of what I heard while in that movement. Perhaps you think what I am arguing against are merely extremes...then please demonstrate a more balanced and consistent perspective and we can discuss that.
quote:
For you, life is an absolute value that must be maintained at all costs. Fine. For others, life is an extremely high value that must be maintained sometimes through the taking of life. If you find this hard to fathom (and “clearly” illogical) you cannot understand valuing freedom so much that we take it away by jail sentences or valuing private property so much that we punish monetary crimes by confiscating citizen’s money.
This is a clear example of a misunderstanding of my position. Hopefully the comments I made above regarding moral killing address your concerns sufficiently.
quote:
I don’t find your logic abhorrent or silly, merely disagreeable and wrong.
I never said anything more regarding your own logic.
quote:
If life is such an absolute value for you, then you must needs be anti-abortion in all cases, simply because any given abortion might (by God’s standard, if nothing else) be the taking of a life, right? To be consistent, you couldn’t tolerate that risk and maintain your absolutist value on life.
I am not and never claimed to be an absolutist. I hold pacifism as the ideal but explained to Brett that I do not think it works in reality given our fallen world.
quote:
If you mean by “we know that the criteria itself is strongly questionable” that innocent people sometimes are sentenced to death, that is true. Is that what you meant? If you refer to the moral criteria we use to justify death penalties, I’ll concede that it’s debatable, but not “strongly questionable.” However, the moral criteria for outlawing most if not all elective abortions is much less questionable, logically or morally than the death penalty.
I meant the latter. Please explain -why- the moral criteria for outlawing abortions is -less- questionable than the death penalty. In the case of the death penalty -everyone- agrees we're killing a fully conscious human person unlike the abortion issue in which we can't even decide on the issue of personhood.
quote:
The fact that the nation is divided is also irrelevant to ethical arguments, but can certainly be said of abortion, as well. It could just as easily be a pro-life argument (since we can’t decide when it’s a person, we shouldn’t allow any abortions because we’re risking millions of murders of the innocent)
The whole point of seeking a middle ground on the abortion issue as I have outlined is to come to a consensus in our society on the issue!! Please explain why the nation being divided on an issue is "irrelevant to ethical arguments," because it seems like an important issue to consider ethically to me.
quote:
Couldn’t we outlaw abortion simply because proportionately more poor black than rich white babies are aborted (so scary is this fact that some black activists have argued that abortion was ratified as a eugenics method, which, coincidentally was exactly what some early feminists intended)? What precisely is the problem when a good and true principle is poorly applied?
I am arguing that I do not believe a good and true principle is present in the application of the death penalty: none of the arguments used here are relevant, nor do they apply to abortion.
quote:
Empiress, by your logic, why couldn’t I simply argue that we’re not giving the death penalty to enough whites, Latinos, and native americans?
Ummm, how 'bout because my argument has nothing to do with this issue? My argument is that the -unecessary- killing of persons is always immoral, that is all.
quote:
Mostly good stuff on the wrong reasons to support capital punishment—it doesn’t restore anything to the victim’s family, etc. However, it does restore something to society. As Aquinas argued, “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good."
What does the killing of a convicted murderer restore to society that keeping him in prison doesn't??
quote:
Also, I find the idea of lessening the punishment for a crime because of the mental anguish the punishment will cause to the “the INNOCENT family members and loved ones (parents, children, etc.) of the perpetrator” amazingly unimportant. I find myself glad that judges don’t share your ethical system because of all the criminals who would be walking around to make their families happy.
You find it unimportant that killing a convict creates more suffering for the innocent? Okay. I don't. I would like to prevent further unecessary suffering of the innocent.
quote:
I believe some crimes are such an affront to the community (sniper killings come to mind) that we deem the only adequate response to be the death of the offender. It is proportionate punishment for the crime. Geez, if I can receive life in prison for embezzlement, then a life sentence for serial killings is meaningless and tells society that we care as much about a 401k as we do a bullet in the head of an innocent schoolboy.
And that would be the position of those who favor the death penalty, yes. I do think murderers deserve worse and increased punishment than those who commit lesser crimes, but as I have said, I don't believe killing the murderer brings about justice or is justifiable merely because it shows how much we despise murder. This is the crux of our disagreement.
quote:
Moreover, I don’t bow to your moral superiority on the issue because of your personal experience.
Wow, that is a really back-handed way of accusing me of setting myself up as morally superior to you simply because I have counseled women. Describing my own experiences with women has no moral relevance whatsoever, I find it odd you think it does.
My experiences do make me sensitive to comments I find offensive that are not at all in keeping with the reality I have experienced however.
I personally find that actual testimony and experience is quite helpful in determining solutions to difficult problems. If we were arguing something that affected Latino males, I would like to hear a Latino male's perspective on the issue; it seems like common sense.
quote:
Still, what I’m waiting for you to say (logical consistency being so important) is that you would support the full weight of all murder laws being applied to abortions after whatever magic moment you believe a fetus enters personhood. If life is ‘sacred’ and not even murderers can be killed, then any woman who aborts a person-enabled fetus is guilty of murder, same as if they shot the baby 10 minutes after birth, right?
I have stated explicitly that there is no "magical moment" in determining personhood. I do think the abortions of babies past a certain stage of development should be a crime and should be viewed the same way as we view infanticide. Don't you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Response for Brandon:
Brett said:quote:
Your implication here is that if one believes that peace and non-violence is ideal, one cannot be for the death penalty. This is simply untrue,
Well, people do hold these two ideas simultaneously, yes, but I have still not been shown how they do so with intellectual consistency. Can you show me how that works in your own thinking?
quote:
and I doubt that you would claim that those who favor the use of capital punishment do not ultimately have the same overarching goal of the greatest possible peace that you do.
I'm not sure that those who favor capital punishment have the same goal as I do actually. My goal is to preserve as many human lives as possible and to maintain peace as non-violently as possible. It seems to me that those who favor capital punishment desire something different than I do because they prefer killing as a means to peace; that's not something I fully understand or can relate to.
quote:
It is vital to this discussion that we again make the distinction between the two categories of criticisms about capital punishment. One type of criticism is substantive, the other is procedural. The former is a moral argument, the latter is practical.
Yes, I stated this earlier but it has so far been ignored...I'd appreciate it if you kept it separate in your responses though, thanks for mentioning it!
quote:
My difference with you, Miss E, is your contention that it is somehow morally inconsistent to believe that the state can execute murderers while at the same time believing that mothers should not abort their unborn children.
Okay, I look forward to your explanation about how you see these two as consistent.
In Peace,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/06/2002 10:09:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 11/6/2002 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry:... And our words almost certainly wont influence anyone's views. I think it might lend itself better to 'letting all be peaceful and harmonious" if we end the debate. I can even delete my post.
Shell: While it may be true more often than not that we don't change other's view through these discussions, I feel that my views definitely have been influenced and I really do appreciate hearing differing viewpoints to understand where others are coming from. It has taken me out of my comfortable world of black and white, and clearly shows what I think you stated earlier; that really dedicated, loving Christians can come down on different sides of an issue. This discussion board has helped me come to understand that many times.
Terry: Shell, I'm not about misrepresenting people. My point was simply that Boyd also had talked loosely about fetuses and moles (and invetro zygotes as a numbers game, as well as bombing clinic workers) in the course of making his point.
When some people are immune from aspersions while others can't say a word without being labeled insensitive, it lends itself to bad argument.
Shell: Terry I didn't mean to imply that you are "about" misrepresenting people. Sorry. I guess we are just interpreting Greg's comments very differently. I thought it would be helpful to insert his qoute to show what his actual words were.
Blessings,
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/6/2002 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Tough subject, ain't it? 
Thanks Shell for clarifying the quote about the fetus being like an ingrown toenail. I was QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE in order to REFUTE ITS LOGIC. With miss E, I regard the fetus at every stage as having immense, God-given, value. But with Miss E (whose views on this issue, I have to say, are almost verbatim my own) I thing there is development on the way to imago dei personhood.
The discussion is vital. But I want to briefly bring us back to (what I regard as ) the most fundamental issue underlying all this...
Given how difficult this issue is among Christians, philosophers, moral theoretician's, doctors, Bible scholars, etc... WHO, ultimately, should DECIDE the "right" view FOR THE PREGNANT WOMAN? I personally have wrestled with this issue, from many sides of the polemics, over 25 years... and ITS TOUGH. Whatever I conclude, therefore, I have to factor in my assessment OF HOW THIS CONCLUSION PLAYS OUT POLITICALLY the sheer fact that there is room for good, godly, intelligent, moral people to disagree.
This is just to say that it is important to distinguish ones personal views (at the moment) with one's political views. I DO think it is possible to be pro-life in personal convinction, and pro-choice (to whatever degree) in politics.
Having said this, I would also bring us back to a point I think we as disciples of Jesus can ALL agree. Whatever stage the fetus is at -- and all issues of personhood criteria etc. aside -- we are dealing with a miracle, an organism that is at least a potential human person with a soul. And that means, I think we would agree, that all otehr things being equal, it is better to let it develop than not. As diamond said (nice insight by the way), it has A FUTURE. It's not clear to some how to ethical WEIGH this against other considerations... but all other things being equal, this future, and the miracle of life that brought it about, is something that is intrinsically valuable, to say the least. If we can help foster a soceity in which this life can develop fully, we should do so. And we CAN.
Voting pro-life to outlaw abortion is certainly one way to curb abortions. I must say that it's also the easiest way to feel good about yourself and feel like you're "pro-life." I'm certainly not condeming this, but frankly, I don't think it is the most profound or loving way to help the situation. To force a person to do something they don't want to do is the way of the world, not the way of the Kingdom.
I would humbly submit that the way of the Kingdom -- and the deep meaning of pro-life -- is to come to the side of woman with unwanted pregnancies and WALK WITH THEM. In love, perhaps offer to adopt their child, or help find a different home for the child. Offer to pay for uninsured medical expenses. Offer to help them deal with the abusive ex-boy-friend father of the child who they fear will always be threatening if they go full term (this is a common reason for abortion). Ofter to pay for the counseling they might need dealing with this (what is to them) hardship. Ofter to be by them as they (sometimes with terror and great shame) tell their family. etc...
My worry is that some (NOT saying all, or anyone here) are so strongly invested in the political vote issue because IT ALLOWS THEM TO FEEL LIKE THEIR "PRO-LIFE" EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING DIFFICULT TO HELP WOMEN Live "PRO-LIFE. " Its sort of like a person saying they (for example) believe in missions because they say "amen" when a preacher mentions it -- but they never give a dime to the cause.
Think about it: Who is more "pro-life?" A person who votes pro-life -- and that is about it. Or a person who perhaps think that ultimately a woman should have the right to choose and votes this way, but who helps a woman decide to go full term by emtionally entering into their life, sacrificing their money and time, to see it happen?
Things are not always as they appear -- especially when politics governs a discussion.
Thanks for the continued attempt to be gracious to one another amidst a heated issue on this thread. Its not always easy. And we're not always successful. But lets keep this up as the ideal.
In him,
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 11/6/2002 8:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 11/07/2002 08:10:23 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/6/2002 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry you have accused me in your most recent post of:
-Having a "mean spirit"
-Being "uncharitable"
-Having "ascribed morally banal motives" to you
-Of having "biased opinions without any developed thought that I ought to be embarrassed by"
-Having an attitude of "superiority"
-Acting as a "moral arbiter"
-Having an unfounded sense of "moral rectitude"
-Having agressively tried to "silence and discredit your voice"
-And believing that "my voice alone has value"
You said:
quote:
Which merely shows that when others make uncharitable assumptions and ascribe morally banal motives to her, it rankles. When she does it to others, it is excusable because of her personal commitments.
I really regret you feel I have attacked your moral character at any point in this discussion. Explaining that a statement is a fallacy is not a personal attack, I regret you see it as such. Saying that something you said demonstrates ignorance (a lack of knowledge) about an experience you have never had (eg an abortion) does not qualify as an attack on your moral character or even your intelligence and I did not intend it as such. You seem very angry and hurt and I'm sorry you are.
But Terry, I find your behavior and your comments throughout the last post deeply hurtful and you have made a number of serious accusations against my moral character, my motives, and my very character as human being. Clearly your opinion of me is so heinous and ugly that it would be impossible to have any kind of intellectual discussion with you in any way. I will not engage in further discussion with you on this issue nor in the future on this board.
Regretfully with deep sadness,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/07/2002 03:26:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 11/6/2002 10:30 PM (GMT -6) | | ~E,
Thanks again for your thorough responses. I enjoy the dialogue. I appreciate it for the fact that it allows me to work through some thoughts and ideas I've had on the issue. I don't want to make this anymore drawn out then it has to be cause it seems you've got a lot of other post to deal with, and also I believe we have many of the same control beliefs, just different conclusions. But since your last post asked a few things of me in response, I will try to make a few brief points.
~E said:
quote:
I believe murder is wrong simply because it destroys something sacred: a person. A person is sacred because a person is made in the image of God. I believe we do not have the right to destroy that which is sacred.
.
I think we both agree on the same conclusion that life is sacred. However, the real question is what are your premises for this conclusion? It seems to rely on a sort of divine command theory (i.e. premise: the Bible says we are created in God’s image and therefore, conclusion: life is sacred). While I don’t necessarily disagree, I do believe that this ethic seems a little exclusive to Christians who believe in the Bible. Not everyone believes life is sacred (although most do), and if we wish for people to treat others as sacred then we need objective rationality, so this is why I tried to offer some “secular” arguments for the sanctity of life. All truth is God’s truth so ethics should also make sense apart from the Bible (in which I think you would agree).
Now it still seems that the discussion is wrapped up in the personhood issue, which I don’t believe it needs to be. Although, I don’t necessarily make the distinction between human life and human personhood for many reasons. But for the most part, the argument usually gets stuck on this issue of personhood and not what makes ending a life wrong, which I try to deal with. At the same time, I’d like to give a few reasons for why I believe that human life (fetuses to adults) and personhood are the same.
You spoke of being created in the image of God (to what extent you meant, I am not sure), and I agree, but I don’t think this means we look like him at any point in development. It is rather in spirit and other non-physical characteristics in which we are in his image. So if we are sacred because we are created in His image, at what point are we in his image? I believe that life is developmental, and the activity, growth, and living of life are what differentiate us from other inanimate objects. Living and developing in a human biological state is what makes us human persons. I believe human living and human personhood are inseparable. I also believe that life begins at conceptions(which means origin or beginning) because that is when we begin to develop(with our human genetic codes) and we continue to develop into adulthood and until death (all of which I don’t think you’d disagree with). So to put a period in this development when one is considered a person seems unfounded because if the definition of personhood is full development, some could argue this doesn’t happen until after puberty. Therefore, if God is the creator of life, at the point in which life begins (conception – because sperm doesn’t grow on its own into human form, but when connected to the egg is does, rather obvious I think) wouldn’t he impart his image into that creation? If not, who are we to say when he does in the developmental process? What reasons do we have to believe he withholds his image until a certain point or period of development after the initial conception? This lead me to the last part of my response…
~E said:
quote:
The "all or nothing" pro-life stance claims that the egg and sperm alone are not "human life" or even "potential human life," and yet they say that at the exact moment that the sperm and egg meet (conception), we have suddenly moved from "nothing" to "everything." We went from "worthless matter" to "full personhood" in a millisecond. First, I find this rather implausible.
As I said before the “potential” argument only applies to those already with developing human life. I don’t necessarily have a problem with all or nothing statements because we make them all the time with any truth statement. I also don’t have a problem believing that babies miscarried even early in pregnancy are in heaven. Just because there is a large number that are, doesn’t make it implausible. After all it is human life created by God. The more the merrier . I do have a problem, however, with the apparent gradation of personhood in your view. If we only receive personhood as we develop more “fully,” then this can also lead to gradation and qualitative statements about the personhood of others that are “less fully developed” or have “less brain activity”. This is in very dangerous ethical territory when such individuals as those mentally and physically handicapped, those in comas, those with less IQs, those with psychological mental problems, those elderly or sick who exist in a state of apparent “non-existence” (the euthanasia dilemma), etc., are allowed to be viewed as less human or have less personhood because they aren’t at the point of full human development or capability. This is why I can not separate human life and human personhood. So yes, I would rather draw a clear all or nothing line on the issue than have the gradation of personhood. I believe human life is human personhood and to value the right to life and to keep on living is valuing life as being a sacred gift from God.
Well I tried to keep it brief. This is a big and difficult issue with many things at work. Again I wanted to say I appreciate the dialogue and your value for the sacred beings that God has created us as. The only issue is that we have different conclusions about what this means. But this thread has been worth the struggles, because of the understanding of each others views that I think we are gaining. Thanks.
In love,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
| 196 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:23 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|