quote:

---

I also have one other question...Why does Doc's post say edited by Trosie at the bottom?????

---

Shell-

If you reply to a post the entire text of that post comes up in your reply window, even any "Edited by -" notes. If you don't edit them out they'll be included in your reply.

See below? I left the "Edited by -" portion from your post at the bottom of my reply.




Edited by - shell on 11/08/2002 10:26:03 AM

quote:

---

quote:

---

I also have one other question...Why does Doc's post say edited by Trosie at the bottom?????

---

Shell-

If you reply to a post the entire text of that post comes up in your reply window, even any "Edited by -" notes. If you don't edit them out they'll be included in your reply.

See below? I left the "Edited by -" portion from your post at the bottom of my reply.




Edited by - shell on 11/08/2002 10:26:03 AM

---

quote:

---

SHELL: Trosie, throughout this thread Terry has drawn the parallel(his belief) that calling someones statement illogical or hypocritical is actually referring to that person as an illogical person or a hypocrite(I personally don't agree with this).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So he was drawing that parallel ...someone(?) referring to a STATEMENT you made as being illogical or whatever = them calling you dumb/hypocritical/illogical.

---

I read through the whole thread and found nowhere that Trosie's name was even brought up or her comments discussed in such a (any) manner. I wasn't even aware she had posted to this thread until I went back to read it again.

---

quote:

---

Most who have investigated the matter thoroughly agree that the issues are exceedingly complex – which explains why many intelligent and godly people disagree. For example, what is the proper distinction between "personhood" and "organic life"? When does "personhood" begin? When does the unborn receive a soul (the church has had various views on this)? Who should decide these matters, the individual or the public? (THIS is really the crucial one, from a political perspective). What if anything does scripture say that might impact this perspective for people who hold Scripture as an authority? Whatever one’s view on this, should a person impose their convictions on someone who doesn’t share the authority they used to arrive at them? Is invetro- impregnation killing 10 children or giving a child the chance to live? 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…

---

quote:

---

The argument that ethicists and theologians and doctors "don't know" when human personhood begins, seems to me, to be a good enough reason not to have abortion, at least not on the scale that it is practiced today!

---

This is what a 45-year old said at a Bible study of mainly 60-somethings (or more). That there are some who plan their own euthenasia. But when my 90-ish grandmother was in her last two years, it became very evident to me that her life was not just her own. We shared each other's lives. Just like in the first year, when we change someone's diapers, feed, birp, hold... so too in the last. And THAT is what a "person" is -- its not an individual

Who cares when a fictive or real "individual" begins. (What in the public debate is refered to as 'person.') It is a sin when it happens! But we are created and born "persons"; not individuals.

The discussion should start over and begin again, and ask: When do we begin as humans in the human community. That's not the political community. Its not the economic community. Its not even the social community. Its the human community. When do we become "persons."

And nobody go back to refering to person as if it meant individual. (Which I do NOT think the post above does. )

quote:

---

Now to ideas.

3) BBB: But it seems to me Greg, that you portend to know (when personhood beings) or is this just your "disagreement?" And along with Miss E, you would say that it would be when brain waves are active. After all, at the other end of the life spectrum, after brain waves have ceased, medically, you would say that the "person" is no longer there.

Doc: Dude, I don’t portend to know JACK about this. I’m just intrigued by what others portend to know. (Being very confident… so confident they know more than the pregnant mother who may disagree). There’s some principles of life and choice and such we can appeal to… but when the secret moment is that the developing organism becomes imago dei… personhood… has a soul… has an eternal destiny… DANG, no one’s told me. (well ,some HaVE.. but never with reasons that help me believe them).

---

But you just finished telling us you have studied this issue for 25 years! I know that you know this much...and that is, that there is a lot of disagreement over this subject. But this seems to me, to skew your take that we can have ANY certainty regarding the essential nature of WHEN personhood begins. Yes, I understand that much of your position is derived from the facts and the interpretation thereof, but sometimes I can't help wonder if beyond that, there is an unhealthy dose of skepticism. And then, the various positions, political or otherwise, result. Like why should you pit those who have studied the metaphysical questions concerning personhood against a pregnant mother? Shoot, many mothers go through a wide range of emotions and when it comes to extinguishing the life within her, well all of a sudden SHE knows better? Her being the incubator doesn't necessarily make it so. Either way, the skepticism is an answer and has ramifications both personally and socially.

quote:

---

But we have to make decisions, both at the mysterious beginning of life and at the end. We seem to have settled things at the end. Why not reverse the criteria and apply it to the beginning?

Me and Empiress are geniuses you know.

---

Because both of you are saying that personhood is dervived from function and not the other way around. You've got the metaphysical cart before the horse. Even before you have brain waves you need to have substance and I am talking at the beginning of the life spectrum. I'll deal with this more at lenght later.

quote:

---

BBB: Here she is confusing personhood and human physical development. Personhood is not gradual. Personhood is there, though it "unravels" if you will.

Doc: You realize you’re being a wee bit circular here, don’t you? You think Empiress confuses essence and function, which is why she thinks personhood develops. You hold that personhood is an essence and not a function and thus doesn’t develop. But you’ve built your definition of personhood into the categories you’re accusing her of confusing. She’s not confusing categories… she’s just disagreeing with you.

Why think "essence" is a substratum sort of thing that is there at once but then "unwraps". Why think this?

---

Well, I thought when I wrote that, I was not being as clear as I wanted to be. I didn't elaborate on it because, I really didn't INTEND to elaborate on it. How is it that you see me confusing categories though? Also, the reason why I think that "essence" is there is one, because I think we have Biblical reasons to think such. Second, I don't seem to see it any other way in nature.

quote:

---

Consider a person building a sand pile one grain at a time. When does the "pile" become a "pile"? (If anyone says I’m comparing a fetus to a pile of sand… I’ll GET TICKED). What is the "essence" of "a pile"? And if a person began to take grains of sand away from "the pile", one at a time, when would it cease to be a pile?


When a leaf turns from green to red to brown in the fall… what is the smallest increment of change? (viz. to go from green to red, it first has to go from green to half red. To go from green to half red, it has to go from green to quarter red, etc… When does it loose the essence of "greenness" and acquire the essence of "redness"?

And when it falls on the ground and begins to merge with the ground, at what point does it loose its ‘essence" of leaf and acquire the "essence" of ground?

And, most fundamentally, IS there an "ontological" answer to these questions? Whatever answer we give, are we not just deciding on labels? (red means this... green means this... leaf means this... personhood means this...) Isn’t the question… what is most useful for our lives to think on these matters?

---

Wow! There's a lot there. Hopefully, my post while not directly answering these questions will still respond to them. On your last question? Thinking on personhood, essence, differientation between that and functionalism is VERY useful to the field of bioethics and helps guide us in making decisions regarding everyday realities, abortion, PVS, euthanasia, etc, that affect our lives.

quote:

---

I, for one, can’t see how to get past the criteria of "what is useful." I don’t have access to the "correct ontology" that lies "out there." But I, with the rest of us, have to LIVE. So decisions have to be made. We have to arrive at a way to live together.

---

Greg, even if you don't have the correct ontology you still have medical criteria which may be enough to help you "live."

quote:

---

So, the all important question for me is, what is the balance of the public intuitions on this vis-à-vis the mothers intuitions on this?

My criteria of heart beat and brain waves is an attempt to co-opt our agreement about death (which is quite arbitrary) to help us out on life.

THEOLOGICALLY, I have a perspective that ADDS to this. I thus regard all life as God-created. This doesn’t settle every ethical issue around the unborn, but it certainly weights them strongly pro-life.

But socially and politically, I can’t leverage all my hopes for agreement on people accepting my theology. Hence I suggest my criteria. But it IS purely functional.

---

Sure Greg, you are not going to get everyone siding with you. However, actions are not without ideas that went before them. And even today in the area of bioethics some worldview or another is being represented.

quote:

---

Fortunately for me, I’m much more called to thinking and acting theologically than I am to help out society politically… which is why I’ m much more invested in asking what can Christians DO to help women with unwanted pregnancies than I am in how exactly Christians should vote.

And it bugs the liven cagibbers out of me that the issue gets reduced to voting… it’s almost a distraction from the real CHRISTIAN issues. Some people get so hot and bothered if your not agreesively pro-life in politics, yet do nothing themselves to DO anything to remedy the situation. This, I believe ,is a great example of Christians trusting politics more than God working through the distinctly different means of the Church.

In my humble opinion...

Sacrificial love, not angry voting, witnesses for Christ.

Thats why I hardly EVER discuss the politics of abortion. (this is the most I've done in 12 years).

---

Well, thanks for your personal bias again Greg. But some things just are political in nature. They stem from political/socio/legal underpinnings in the system and I fear that while helping pregnant women on a personal scale addresses some issues, it may not necessarily get at the heart of other ones. Later..."cagibbers???"...



Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful

quote:

---

Al: Right on Brandon. Hey Doc, Brandon's take on this looks to be a good parallel to the Orthodoxy view of the trinity, with its emphasis on the Hypostases. Personal; rather than essence and outgrowing relationalities. Yours seems to be built on a Thomistic foundation. Yet you also seem to fight against that same foundation. Ironic -- no? Does "process" also build on the same Thomistic framework that it fights against?

---

quote:

---

Let me also encourage everyone to continue making conscious efforts to value others, to affirm them as persons, and to speak always motivated by love. This is a very difficult and emotional subject. Passionate debate is encouraged, but it's best employed when in the service of Christlike love.

---

I know that Doc has said my apology was not necessary ... but once again I would like to siderail this thread by expressing my apology to Terry Baxter and to thank him for defending trosie in that post. I am sorry to the rest of you for my reaction. I get sensitive to the words used at times... I know that my apology may not be necessary but I felt a tug by God to post this thus I am being obedient. I received the following verse in church this morning and would like to share:

1John 4:12 "No one has ever seen God; but if we LOVE one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

Doc

quote:

---

LIFE IS TO FREAK’N SHORT

---

AMEN! I agree. With the very real possibility of us facing a war I think that the important thing is to stay focused on Jesus Christ.


In God's love,
trosie








Edited by - trosie on 11/10/2002 9:39:30 PM

quote:

---

Let me first say in agreement with Meph Man, that there are times when there is a place for abortion or a need for abortion. But if I recall correctly, in a former post, Meph stated that there are times when abortion is justifiable. I agree. I agree with that over against abortion being used for the "sake of convenience" (though this phrase itself needs some qualification), or "abortion on demand." After all, the decision to abort, in the minds of most women, is a very difficult one. It's not like getting a manicure.

---

quote:

---

So I am confused...are you saying we ought not take the risk of allowing abortions for any reason because we "don't know" when personhood begins? If not, then what are you proposing?

---

I am saying that if we hold to Greg's position of "not knowing" (when personhood begins) then we should not practice abortion in the way that it is practiced today...as abortion on demand or for the "sake of convenience." But I allow that there are times when abortion may be justifiable, usually when it is the lesser of two evils, and in my opinion that is usually the life of the mother is in danger. Other than that? I myself am very restrictive about it.

Miss E said:

quote:

---

I need some clarification. Would you say that the only requirement for personhood is that one be a human? If so, I have to disagree because we can have humans without having persons, eg in the case of death. Or would you say that a dead human body remains a person? I'm honestly confused.

---

There is a point at which the soul departs from the body so that we can say that John/Jane Doe is no longer there. But I will need to elaborate on this.

Miss E said:

quote:

---

I would take your example and say that we can replace "tree" with "human" and yet we still haven't gotten to the issue of -personhood-. We can say: "The human is in the seed (zygote), the essence of "humaness" is in the zygote. I can look at a human in zygote form and I can look at in fully developed form, but either way, what I see is a human."

---

Well, I would replace "human" with "person." So that, when I see a zygote, the soul is already there, guiding and forming the human body in law like fashion to full development. Remember, I don't think soul and the body can be so easily compartmentalized. This is probably the hardest point to get across.

Miss E said:

quote:

---

I do not believe I'm saying personhood is dervied from function, although it may appear that way if personhood develops in the way I have described. Rather, I am proposing that personhood is not instantaneous/all-or-nothing upon conception but takes place gradually. The essence of "human" may take place at conception, but not necessarily the essence of personhood.

---

Of course the "essence of human" takes place at conception, after all, it is not a horse nature, right? But in my opinion so does the soul and personhood, for without it one would not be human. And to me, this is part of the problem, because you seem to want to always "compartmentalize" the two as if they are separable. It appears to me that the only time they are separable is upon death, and here we need to be careful what our definition of what death is.

Miss E said:

quote:

---

I don't think Doc is accusing you of confusing categories actually. The point is that you said I was confusing categories, confusing personhood with human physical development. But according to my understanding/definition of the requirements for personhood, I am not confusing categories. What Doc is saying is that only if we accept your definition of the requirements for personhood could it be stated that I am confusing categories, otherwise you and I are just disagreeing about what the requirements for personhood are. Does that clarify?

---

Hmmmm....I think I am just gonna let this one go...for now.

Miss E said:

quote:

---

I would like to hear more about your thoughts on what personhood entails...do you believe it is essentially a spiritual trait or not?

---

What do you mean by "spiritual trait?" Again, I can't easily separate the soul from bodily existence, so that may be difficult or perhaps impossible to respond to. I do believe that when we die and are resurrected? That somehow our bodily existence will be transformed. I think we will still be recognized as who we are, after all, Jesus was recognized after his ressurection.

Miss E asks:

quote:

---

What do you make of Genesis 1 in which God first forms Adam's body before breathing God's Spirit (ruach) into him? Do you believe Adam had the essence of "personhood" prior to God's Spirit being breathed into him? Did his body, composed of cells and tissue, etc. already contain the essence of personhood or was there another moment at which "personhood" became a quality Adam possessed?

---

You're really testing me aren't you? Mind if I come back on this one?

Miss E said:

quote:

---

I believe what is the "essence" of personhood is God's Spirit being given to us in theological terms....and I believe it occurs as a gradual "breathing" of God's Spirit into our beings during our development.

---

Well, even though I disagree with this, you are still left with the question at what point you believe this occurs or begins. Until now, you have stated that it begins when brain-waves occur, which is a medical definition, not even of when human life begins but a part of the process of human development. Would you now say that the "breathing" occurs at conception?

Miss E said:

quote:

---

Since we believe theologically that the spirit leaves the body upon death...why not a similar process at the beginning of life?

---

I think that is what I am saying. At the moment of conception, our souls, the "I," the "self" is moving and guiding along in lawlike fashion human existence.

Hopefully, I can get to some of this (typed up) real soon. Thanks for your patience. Good stuff though Miss E. She's hot people! What can I say?







Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful

quote:

---

For example: If, in the case of this discussion, I were to vote only on the basis of my pro-life stance, there might still be myriad other issues that I feel are not necessarily Biblical in nature (Not that the state necessarily be Biblical, though perhaps that would be nice) to the extent that I would prefer to vote against them. If I effectively participate in the election of an official who is pro-life and pro-death penalty, I am accepting a position that I do not agree with—that is the death penalty. But if, as a believer in Christ—redeemed of Him, I elect not to participate in the political process of electing governors and such, I am free in conscience to live as Christ’s ambassador—seeking opportunity to minister to the young unwed mother to be or the woman having already prematurely expired her pregnancy etc.—rather than be a party line mouth piece for party line issues.

---

quote:

---

My point is that when bodily existence occurs, it is being guided in law like fashion by the soul right from the get go.

---