 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Is Voting for Life a Christian Ethic? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/14/2002 5:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | First off, I want to say that Stark, you did a great post. I may need clarification on some minor points, but I’m not to worried about that. Let me say that when you ask Miss E questions like the
quote:
Who says? You, science, the guy next door?
That this is why I said that Greg portends to know when life begins, though he says he knows JACK! Here he has said that he has studied the issue from every side, for 25 years, then says he doesn’t know JACK and then dogmatically asserts that if life ends with no brain-wave activity, then it MUST start with brain-wave activity. Yet he says to Honorman:
quote:
Sounds like you’re suggesting (to put it mildly) that everyone who doesn’t agree with your "simple" (non-complex) perspective is motivated by a desire to avoid truth. The world is nicely divided up between those who want truth (viz. Honorman’s view) and those who do not (viz. All who disagree with honorman’s view).
Sheesh… Ok. Next.
Miss Eeeee…
First, I want to thank you for not “tearing into it with such vehement disagreement???” You’re sooo kind…
Ok. I agree with Brett on the deterrent issue. It will deter some crime but the evidence is not conclusive either way. Also, one of my objections to capital punishment on the basis of deterrence, is that it is utilitarian. Things such as reformation, sentimental appeals to the value of human life and miscarriages of justice are all utilitarian in nature. My position would seek to sidestep all of those by dealing with justice as it’s primary purpose.
quote:
1. Even if we grant that Jesus' words do not have any bearing on our government and have only personal ramifications, as Christians Jesus' words still have bearing on us personally and that WILL and SHOULD affect how we vote and function politically as individuals. If we are "personally" to be merciful to those who wrong us, we would vote AGAINST the death penalty, not for it.
2. If you are saying that Jesus's words have no bearing on civil
legislature, then your comment must cut both ways...for those both pro and against the death penalty and every other political issue including abortion. If we cannot use Jesus' words as a basis or commentary on how we believe our State should function, then we are left without a case for using Jesus' teachings for ANY political issue we might wish to speak to as Christians. I find this extremely problematic!
Totally agree with you here, however you are begging the question.
quote:
As a Christian, it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus was giving an "opinion" or "advice" because his words are just as authoritative. If Jesus were ONLY giving legal advice, I'd still accept it and take it seriously and apply it accordingly. I don't understand why this MATTERS.
And here you are REALLY begging the question. Miss E, no one is questioning the authoritative nature of Christ words at all whether as a legal judgement or as an opinion. But you are assuming your interpretation is the correct one even if it is “just advice.” And this is the crux of the matter. As you well know, one of the first rules of hermeneutics is to do exegesis (getting at what was said) and then we need to figure out how we will apply this to our lives. It is my contention that Jesus was not over throwing the Gen 9:6 mandate at all. If anything, he sets aside the death penalty for adultery, but not necessarily for murder. Your interpretation isn’t that clear at all.
You then you say later on: quote:
First, it seems quite dubious to compartmentalize Jesus' teaching on this particular execution to apply ONLY to adultery when he was challenging the worthiness of anyone to peform an execution. Second, Jesus' teaching in Matt. 5 where he rebutts the concept of "an eye for an eye/a life for a life" (see Deut. 19:21) is a clear cancelation of any and all attempts to seek that type of "tit for tat" justice.
I’ll leave the first part alone because, I think if we take into consideration all of the applicable texts, your position comes up waning. However, on the second point, it is not apparent at all that Jesus wouldn’t have been showing precision or a “tit for tat” understanding of justice, especially on such an important question. Jesus makes it clear in Matt 5:38-39 that the lex talionis does not apply to one’s personal code, but this does not necessarily abolish (that is, at some point it was/still is in effect) it as a valid principle of justice in civil matters as the case seems to be when He discusses the judgement for murder. If you look closer at the Matt 5 passage, you will notice that Jesus omits any mention of the death penalty for adultery which may be harmonized with his action of the women taken in adultery in John 8. Yet prior to this we have Jesus in Matt 5:21-22 giving approval on the practice that was implied by the word “court.” Looking at the passage:
21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty {enough to go} into the fiery hell.
Jesus begins His exposition by first quoting the law of Exodus 20:13 and then includes the scribal gloss “Whoever commits.” This addition implies that the sum total of the law rested in the outward act only, the impact of the reference to coming judgment. Jesus wants to strip away the tendency to mere external obedience and carry the law to apply to attitudes of the heart, which is what he does in vs 22. In doing this, again, Jesus places approval on the practice implied by the word “court” or “judgment.” Now there can be two possible meanings here.
1. Judgment prescribed in Ex 21:12-15 which was the death penalty.
2. Local council of elders in the city.
When Jesus moved on to the idea of hate toward one’s brother, which He made as serious as murder, He used the term, “council” (Gr. Sanhedrin) probably as a synonym for what was implied when He used “judgment.” In other words, anger is as serious as murder, and punishment will be carried out by the Council , which is the Supreme Court of the land. Since the Sanhedrin were vested with the responsibility of recommending the death penalty, the force of Jesus’ remark is an approval of such a practice. Since Jesus was unhesitatingly changing or revising much of what their tradition prescribed, it is gratuitous to object that a mere reference to a practice is not an approval. Besides, what Jesus said about the dangers of hell fire loses much force if what He said referred to something of which He disapproved of. That is, if murder gets you the death penalty, even hatred and contempt get you worse-eternal punishment-because they are the root of it all.
On your reference to Jesus’ crucifixion, I see what is a spiritual reality inferred upon civil matters. Lot’s of inference going on there. You don’t, at all though, deal with any related texts! In Jesus’ crucifixion, He encountered the power of government. His attitude may be decisive on this issue if it appears anywhere. Though Christ submitted to that government, would it not seem natural for Him to have condemned what they were doing had they acted from the assumption of power that really was not theirs? There appears in John 19:11 a possible recognition of the divine right of government to pass the death penalty. Looking at the passage:
10 So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has {the} greater sin."
Jesus confirms Pilate’s claim to have “power” (authority) over Him. The word translated “authority” (Gr. exousia) better expresses an idea of mandated authority by an accredited ruler as it does in Rom 13. It is consistent to recognise here an authority, or power, granted by the directive will of God, the authority vested in all government to execute the death penalty. Pilate’s claim was to his specific authority to pass the death penalty, not to some vague power over Jesus Himself. The additional sentence, “for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin” tends to confirm this interpretation. The high priest was acting was acting under God’s “permission,” why would he be under greater condemnation than Pilate. The point must be, it seems to me, that Pilate at least stood partly on firm ground: the mandate of God. Therefore, it is highly possible that John 19:11 shows Jesus’ recognition of the mandate that Pilate possessed as the representative of an earthly government. Pilate’s reference to the right of capital punishment serves to strenghten the idea that Jesus’ remark, though possibly referring to a broader authority vested in the state, pertained specifically to the mandate of the death penalty. At any rate, Jesus didn’t challenge that right, though this would have been the most appropriate place to have done so. Additionally it is significant that this passage is referring to Gentile power. No one claimed the Mosaic mandate, which had been gone for some time, is involved here. There is no hint made by Christ that His death would repeal the mandate in any manner. His sacrifice was to redeem individual men through faith, not necessarily the state as well.
Lastly, Greg, I’ll respond to your question tmw.
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful
Edited by - BBBCanada on 11/14/2002 10:27:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/15/2002 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Empiress,
With any luck, I'll finish this in one sitting so I don't have to re-reading what I've already wrote over and again. Hate getting interrupted, you know!
Miss E. "Even non-human animals have the ability to reason due to the complexity of their physiological make up, eg their brains. Many breeds of dogs have the same functioning IQ and reasoning abilities as a four year old child, yet that doesn't cause me to believe that dogs have souls. Neurology is an interesting field...it is amazing what mental processes can occur within the brain on a purely physiological level in any creature.
Starkman: Merely because electrons can flow does not mean that they can reason! The assumption that a psychological level is merely electron flow is mistaken. There must be something else behind the scenes. And that's probably why animals, like the dogs you mentioned, can reason . . . they just might have souls (or spirits, or both.) People do, why can't they! Just because they have a soul doesn't mean it has to go to heaven! (Well, if you watched "All Dogs Go to Heaven", I suppose even I'd say they do!!!)
Miss E. You are taking something essential for granted here Stark: "Death" is a definition we have given to those who cease to have brain waves: "death" is something WE as humans have defined. In fact, a dead body with no brain waves may still have a heart beat and functioning organs function, etc. Are they "alive" or "dead"? According to medical science they are dead when their brain waves cease. That is all. And all dead human body's continue to have their hair and nails grow, etc.
Starkman: I was working within YOUR definition, not mine. I myself am very much inclined to agree with the idea that deciding when one is dead can be tricky. All the more reason for us to stay out of the arena of trying to decide when life starts, since it's often up for grabs as to when it ends!.
Miss E. So...
Because we cease to consider a human as having the quality of personhood WHEN BRAINWAVES CEASE, it is not unreasonable to consider a human as having the quality of personhood WHEN BRAINWAVES BEGIN.
Starkman: It is unreasonable if the outcome is still in the twilight zone: we still have no more proof, only guess work. Second, it is assumption and not reason that at death--death in those first few minutes where we "think" the person is gone--the spirit/soul leaves the body. We don't even know exactly when true death sets in. Nothing says that just because a heart stops beating and the brain has no current that the soul and spirit have left. All we know is that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. When exactly it is that we're no longer present in the body isn't immediately discernable; too many people come back from "the dead" and never knew differently. I can't conclude that in every case God sent them back. It's just possible that they never left.
Miss E. Here's the crux of the issue: We believe that WHEN these "electrical currents" we call brainwaves STOP, that the soul LEAVES the body. Therefore when these "electrical currents" we call brainwaves BEGIN, it is reasonable to assume the soul has ENTERED the body. No one can prove this because we can't even prove that SOULS EXIST! However, this is a logical assumption based on how we define and understand death and can apply that criteria to early life.
Starkman: I understand what you mean about not being able to prove the soul exists, and that's even more reason to be cautious: if we can't prove the soul exists in the scientific sense of the word (or any other way, for that matter), why in the world are we making decisions then about when it enters the body? Neither you, I or anyone else is qualified to decide when something we can't even prove exists enters the body (We can't even prove when it leaves the body). I repeat: God has never given us this arena in which to operate. We were not created with that kind of knowledge with which to function, and we are outside of our rights to do so when we do conclude AND ACT upon such conclusions of which we have not been given the right to do so. THIS is the crux, not when brainwaves start.
Further, what defines "begin" for brainwaves? A first trickle then nothing for a moment, then perhaps another trickle, then some more? When exactly is it that the soul and spirit come from God and enter the body? (It doesn't say in Genesis that God sent the spirit into Adam when the brainwaves started. There is absolutely nothing in the text to conclude that brain, the heart, lungs and the rest of Adam's system were working before God breathed into him the breath of . . . life! it is quite conceivable that it WASN'T until Adam had the Ruash--the breath of life--given him that anything would function. The pendulum swings both ways on this, so the text still does not define life as when brainwaves start, and it does not give us the right to kill a human being when we can't even conclude personhood, humanbeingness, when life starts, etc. I understand where you're going with this, but I just think it's incorrect.
Miss E quoting me and responding:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, a human can't be defined as merely just physiological or just mental. It must be defined as BOTH physiological and mental.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right. And we can define non-human animals as having mental capacities too, but I don't believe that means they have a soul.
Starkman: You may not believe that animals have a soul, but if we will seperate the idea of an animal's soul being something that doesn't necessarily have to live after death, then that which gives animals person-ality, as we call it, is very easily seen as a soul or spirit. Ecclesiastes has that famous passage, "Who knows the spirit . . . of the animal, which goes down to the earth." Something beyond just a body is meant here, both for animals as well as humans. Evolution could produce a body, but evolution cannot produce personality, the ability to reason, the knowledge of right and wrong, the knowledge of it "ought" to be this or that way, or it "ought" not to be this or that way. These are not psychological reactions merely from brain stimuli; they are psychological reactions from something deeper, distinguished from the brain but working in accordance with it.
In your prior post, you said, "A human is a human at conception and after death." Here the definition of human is given when only one cell may exist. And yet, you aren't willing to give that same definition to personhood because there's no brainwaves. Nobody looking at a cell would say, "Oh yes, that's a human. And this cell over here is a dog." Yes, the cells themselves are the foundation for that which constitutes a human or a dog, but the human race has been arguing still over when the cells constitute humaness. Consider Doc's quote from a past post in this thread (he wasn't proving my point, but the analogy works here):
"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 Doc . . .DOC . . . , I'm not saying you're comparing a fetus to a pile of sand . . . even if you are! JUST KIDDING! Just kidding!) (Doc's prior post)
When is it that a leaf is considered red? When it has one molecule of that which we call red on it? When there's a majority of red on it? (This is probably one of the niftyest things God has built into creation, if you ask me; this inability to really seperate things into REAL categories.) And so it is with a human cell becoming a human; at conception? Two weeks later, a month later? (I personally believe with you, Empiress, that it is at conception. But . . . I see no reason to not frame personhood within the same logic. If one is a human at only the point of a one-celled being, then one can be equally a person at this stage. There's just nothing to say that both humanbeingness and personhood can't be in existance at conception.
Miss E quotes me and responds:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E said:Person: A person possesses the quality of personhood. A person is a human that is conscious
Stark said: Then unconscience old folks, middle-aged folks, and young folks, as well as that fetus, which is only minutes from being born and fully functional but unconscience, isn't a person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoah...major need for clarification here and you are taking my words out of context. First, I am using "conscious" in its philosophical sense which entails that a person has the capacity for consciousness. To be conscious means: "Possessing the faculty of knowing one's own thoughts or mental operations." I am certainly not saying that when I faint and go "unconscious" that I cease to be a person. Second, I stated in my definition that both brain waves and consciousness are a part of what comprises personhood. Even an "unconscious" person, including those in comas, have brain waves and are not mistaken for "dead" by current medical science.
Starkman: Nope! Can't accept that, Miss E! Either the person HAS conscienceness or the CAPACITY, one or the other. If a fetus possess the faculty, the fetus therefore know its own thoughts or mental operations. And if the fetus does not have the faculties, but only the capacity, when does the fetus posses these faculties in view of its capacity? People in comas are unconscience, and just by looking at them it cannot be discerned if they even possess the faculties or capacity for conscienceness--philosophcally or physiologically. And it is no different with a 2-week old fetus.
See, we're way out of our league here. We don't know diddly about any of this. The most we can do today is discern when there are and are not brain waves; when the person's been "gone" long enough that we can (with a reasonable amount of certainty) state the person is dead. But even then, we are often fooled. We don't know much about any of this stuff. And that's my greatest fear in it all. We have become judges in regard to something we can't even determine if it exists. Rather, we should stay the hek away from it (abortion) UNLESS, as I noted in a prior post, we are PRESERVING life (the life of the mother, for instance) and ONLY under these circumstances. And even here we are in deeper water than we were ever supposed to be.
Miss E quotes me and responds:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E said: A human becomes a person several weeks after conception
Stark said: You have this information from God Himself, the doctor next door, the scientist because he can monitor brain waves (but can't see the soul or the spirit)? I really think that we error equating qualifications for "human" or "person" within both parameters of life and death; death we know, life we don't.
My belief that the point at which an embryo can be said to have the quality of personhood is when brain waves are present is due to the following:
The Bible. The only account we have of the details surrounding God crafting a human person is in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 God fully forms Adam into a full human before breathing God's spirit into him. This indicates to me that God first forms a human before they are given or have the capacity to be given God's spirit (and their own spirit/soul).
Starkman: I commented on this passage above, but let's also remember that this is the FIRST human of his kind; there was no womb of which would have changed things dramatically. Still, the passage doesn't answer the issue about when God decided to give the spirit of life; before or after body functions. (I mean, the phenominal...phenoman...finonimal--oh, that stupid word I can't spell--deep theological question still exists: did Adam have a belly button? Eee gads!) The Bible does not say that Adam had brainwaves before God gave him the spirit of life.
Miss E. Science and Medicine. Science and medicine are helpful instruments in aiding our beliefs, and in this case, in determining what constitutes definitions of life and death. By applying the criteria we have all come to agree on scientifically as to what constitutes "death," we are able apply similar criteria to early development.
Starkman: What does science say when the person is, in fact, dead, and then the person comes back to life? We only know scientifically that if they STAY that way, they're dead. It's not that solid in stone upon the immediate cessation of vital functions. It just isn't! More uncertainty creeps in.
Miss E. 3. Reason. We can use our reason and rational thought processes to apply knowledge we have about a known (death) and apply it an unknown (early development).
Starkman: A "known death", I agree. Beyond this, however, is assumption until proven right:
"Doctor, the patient just died." the nurse says.
"Dead at 12:34pm, November 10, 2002," the doctor says. WAIT, he's . . .alive! Well, what do you know! Ain't that enough to give you the heebe-jeepies." Even the doctor's amazed.
"Whoa! Time out: dead again."
"Nurse, are there brainwaves?
"Nope! We're talking toast, doc. He's outta here for sure."
He's dead again at 12:47? Oy vai!"
"Um, doc?"
"Dead! DEAD, and he's staying dead, darn it."
"Oooookay," the nurse says, rather taken back, "But I thought I'd let you know that I think he heard . . . "
"DEAD!"
"Yes, doctor. Sir," she says to the living dead, "Um, you'll need to cooperate with the doctor's diag . . . um, sure, you can go to the bathroom."
It's times like these when the phrase "get a clue" was invented!
I'm not saying we can't know when a person's truly dead, but it's the process of time, not signs that have been the real determiner. CPR would be usless if it were that cut in stone. (And listen, I just got done working on a bunch of dummies--and I do mean dummies, real dummies--for CPR class . . . to be a truck driver? A fraction of the vehicles on the roads are trucks, and WE are the ones who have to know this stuff. But hey, can I do a Hiemlick or can do a Hiemlick! Darned near broke the dummy, I did!)
Miss E. Instinct. Instictively people feel greater concern over the loss of a newborn infant than a zygote. If one was forced to chose "which" to save, the zygote or the infant, people would choose the infant. The fact that our society would never allow a 1 month old baby to be killed but do allow first trimester abortions is very telling regarding our collective instincts on this issue. The fact that late term abortions are illegal in most states is also very telling...we instinctively feel that a fully developed fetus is qualitatively different than a zygote. A pregnant woman also feels, instinctively, greater reservation at getting a late term abortion over an early one. The overwhelming majority of abortions in our nation occur within the first trimester.
Starkman: Feeling greater concern over a loss of a newborn than a fetus merely means that . . . a person feels greater concern over the loss of a newborn than a fetus. The feelings are based on what we understand about life, not when it begins. If did know EXACTLY when life begins, one would think our instincts would be much more precise. Yet, there is instinct involved, but it is not in regard to the measurement of our feelings based on when life does and does not begin, but quite the opposite: within a measurement of how much we do and do not know when life begins. That we do not feel that a 2 month fetus is as instinctively more "life" than a 3 month fetus is a commentary on just how much we really are out of our league in this area and to be very, very careful with what decisions we make regarding God's creation of human life.
Miss E. Prayer. Truth be told, one of the influences in my thinking is due to a friend's intense experience of prayer on this issue. She had gotten a 4-week abortion and later learned from pro-life groups that she had committed "murder." She was so distraught about having committed murder that she went into a deep depression and simply stopped functioning. She began beseeching God, asking God to reveal to her what she had done. At one point she felt God spoke very clearly to her heart and reassured her that she had not committed murder in God's eyes and that she had been the victim of the accuser, Satan. She shared her story with me and we prayed together about it...we both felt peace about what had occurred, but neither of us lost the desire to prevent abortions as much as possible.
Starkma: How do I respond to this without stepping on toes and having it look as if I was being rude? I'll only say, we are still left in the area of uncertainty, and we still need to be careful.
Miss E Pragmatism. Put simply, sometimes abortion is the lesser of two evils while living in this fallen world and the "all or nothing" approach simply doesn't work. Women who feel forced into terminating their pregnancies for a variety of reasons will seek illegal abortions (as they have always done in the past) and be exposed to illegal and unmonitored methods of abortion that put their lives at risk if we criminalize all abortions. If pro-life and pro-choice groups could decide on a reasonable time frame for abortions, working together we could reduce the numbers of abortions, and certainly the number of late term abortions.
Starkman: I agree: abortion is the lesser of two evils, but which two? The fact that a man and woman don't want to a child because it will cramp their styles? Or because the mother will die if she continues with the pregancy? I'm not for an all-or-nothing; I'm for responsible decisions in view of the fact that we aren't even supposed to have gone here (the ability to abort) in the first place.
And please note: you said that if pro-life and pro-choice groups could decide on a reasonable time frame for abortions . . . there it is: making a decision about when life starts, when a person is a person, when a human is a human. There will NEVER be agreement on this, because true pro-life (within the abortion issue) sees the one-celled being as both human and person. That's the end of the discussion for them. The other side of this line has themselves never made a definite proof time for life, humanbeingness and pershoonhood. How then will there ever be agreement between the two? It won't happen. We are ALL out of our league.
Miss E. My bottom line on abortion: I want to prevent as many abortions as possible. I believe every abortion is a tragedy on some level, but not all abortions are "equal."
Starkman: What is the tragedy of killing a fetus that isn't a person? There's no tragedy in that whatsoever. It's just a body without brainwaves (if they are not working yet) and without full growth. No tragedy . . . unless we know "instinctively" that we ought not to be doing the abortion because something tells us we're wrong, period, UNLESS we are trying desperately, in our feeble weaknesses and limitations, to SAVE life.
Miss E. It is extremely preferable to end a pregnancy as early on as possible than to abort at the fetal stage when the fetus has a CNS, brain waves, and can experience both pain and fear, and the complications to the woman are much greater.
Starkman: It isn't preferable if it is a tragedy all the way around, unless we're saving a life.
It isn't preferable to do it at any stage merely because the complications to the woman are less if done early on. It shouldn't be done at all, unless we're saving a life.
These are my thoughts. I don't have much more I can say on the subject except that they these thoughts are not directed at Miss E directly; they are in regard only to her views and not to her or anyone else as folks who have a right to believe what they believe.
For the "I didn't get this all done in one post,"
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 11/15/2002 8:23:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/15/2002 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a couple quick things.
1. To say that one has to have function(s), brain wave activity, consciousness, etc, is in all actuality stealing from the essentialist view. That is, one has to be a person in order to function AS a person.
2. Again, as Stark points out:quote:
And please note: you said that if pro-life and pro-choice groups could decide on a reasonable time frame for abortions . . . there it is: making a decision about when life starts, when a person is a person, when a human is a human. There will NEVER be agreement on this, because true pro-life (within the abortion issue) sees the one-celled being as both human and person. That's the end of the discussion for them. The other side of this line has themselves never made a definite proof time for life, humanbeingness and pershoonhood. How then will there ever be agreement between the two? It won't happen. We are ALL out of our league.
If you don't know, then why take the chance to kill an innocent human person? This is what I asked in the beginning. It seems for Greg, that it is a question of what is "useful." But "useful" for whom? Isn't this basically the same reasoning that the Nazi's used in exterminating the Jews? Not accusing, just questioning.
Stark, check your e-mail, sent ya one. This is not about anyone or anything related to this discussion whatsoever. Just something personal. 
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/15/2002 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | "Atomistic" is a cool word.
How much of the above conversation is just that?
How we HATE perspectives that don't allow us to approach things, from whatever perspective, "atomistically."
(I've got to do some websearches to see what kind of discussions using "atomistically" there are, and how it is used.)
What I'm really wondering -- offensive or not -- is whether we are most comfortable leaving God out of these topics; and replace him with ethics and science.
(I've got some reading to do.)
- Al
(Willing to get in the way...) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/15/2002 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/15/2002 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Bum diddly dum diddly hum diddly due. Exasperated, exaperated I am. 
I dunno what to say. I know we're not getting anywhere with this discussion. Not sure what the point is really, except I don't want to offend anyone by ignoring their responses.
I do want to say that I believe ALL we have are our "best guesses." I can't prove God exists or that Jesus was Divine or that people have souls or anything else I take on faith. However much I wish God would appear to me personally and clear all the gray areas of life up, God just hasn't done that so all I'm left with is prayer, reason, and a real desire to understand how this whole life thing works given our reality. Being in a position where I counsel people and minister to them daily and am in a position of authority means I need to have some kind of "answer" for these kinds of tough questions. This is the best I've got. I ask God daily for mercy because I never want to mislead anyone, all I can do is trust that God will help me with that and the rest will have to be reckoned on judgment day or somethin.
Anywho. I don't know everything, I don't pretend to. I try and make a good case for what makes sense to me, but I always know I could be wrong. I don't believe I can function pastorally with women who face crisis pregnancies if I give them a black white answer to the abortion issue. Telling them they are murderers when they terminate pregnancies to avoid abuse just isn't feasible for me. I don't feel that's what God is asking me to do, but I could be in gross error. I don't feel I can function pastorally with prisoners or have integrity with my understanding of who and what Jesus is if I vote to kill those I minister to either. Again, I could be totally blind or naive and I'm saying that in all honesty.
The bottomline is that we're all accountable before God for what we believe and what we say. When all is said and done, I'm essentially betting my very life on the fact that God will honor my earnest desire to do the right thing, even when I fail, because I fail most of the time.
The problem we're having in discussing these issues the way we are is that clearly our underlying assumptions about what life is about and who Jesus is are fundamentally different. I find it rather scary to admit that any number of serious Christians can have such opposing concepts of what Jesus is about because, honestly, I don't know how or why God allows such divergent opinions among God's people! It's always confused me.
How can those who read the same words I do from Jesus glean (as Brett as posted an article about) that we ought to kill homosexuals and disobedient children? I feel I have nothing in common with these people, yet we are supposedly following the same Lord. HUH??? It's flabbergasting. Do you guys feel that way too?
Our disagreements on this thread are obviously more minor, but my mind boggles nonetheless. How can we all read Jesus so differently? Quite frankly, I think it sucks! I wish more of us Christians could agree with one another. For that matter, I wish more of us humans could agree.
Why is the world so confusing? I know why people become relativists...it seems everyone has such a different perspective and there's no way to "settle the score" in some fool proof way on Absolute Truth. I'm used to the fact that I can't prove what I believe, but I'm still not used to the fact that there is so little disagreement among us humans. The fact that I feel alienated from 99.99% of the world is something I have to deal with, but it sure gets lonely.
My "bio" on my Live Journal currently says: "I'm broken but will never stop trying to fix myself. Maybe one day I'll be whole by some grace. ...... I've given up trying to be understood; now all I can do is try to understand."
I'm trying to understand. Really. But I just can't sometimes. Forgive me.
Peace all,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/16/2002 01:14:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/16/2002 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | We love you, Empiress.
And thanks for writing that -- perhaps for all of us.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/16/2002 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Like I said so poorly above, I think that we can easily be offended by views that have a different SCOPE than the scope in which we habitually think. Cultural barriers do that to us. And we crash into the same thing--sometimes--when we move from one job to another.
What follows takes a much broader perspective than the brick-by-brick approach that so often is applied to the matter of "when does constitutinoaly protected human life begin." (So, present company excepted!) But look at how different this thinking is. As different, it calls for careful observation, and consideration.
quote:
from: www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/All-American-Council/10-Miami-1992/Synodal-Affirmations.html
10th All-American Council
Orthodox Church in America
Tenth All-American Council, July, 1992
The Procreation of Children
The procreation of children in marriage is the "heritage" and "reward" of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into "one flesh" (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.).
The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the "sacrament of love" (Orthodox Marriage Service; St. John Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 20).
Married couples are encouraged to abstain from sexual union at times for the sake of devotion to prayer (as, for example, on the eves of the eucharist, and during lenten seasons). They are to do so, however, only "for a season by agreement" since their bodies are not their own but belong to each other; and they are to "come together again lest Satan tempt" them (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:2-7).
God himself "knits together" the child conceived in the mother’s womb, beholding its "unformed substance" as it is being intricately wrought before his all-knowing eyes (Psalm 139:13-18). The Lord Jesus himself was first acknowledged on earth by John the Baptist when both the Lord and His Forerunner were still embryos within their mothers’ wombs (Luke 1:39-45).
Orthodox Christians have always viewed the willful abortion of unborn children as a heinous act of evil. The Church’s canonical tradition identifies any action intended to destroy a fetus as the crime of murder (Ancyra, Canon 21; Trullo, Canon 91; St. Basil, Canon 2).
Convinced of these God-revealed truths, we offer the following affirmations and admonitions for the guidance of the faithful:
- The procreation of children is to take place in the context of marital union where the father and mother accept the care of the children whom they conceive.
- Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already conceived.
- Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden.
Abortion
- Abortion is an act of murder for which those involved, voluntarily and involuntarily, will answer to God.
- Those finding themselves confronted with tragic circumstances where the lives of mothers and their unborn children are threatened, and where painful decisions of life and death have to be made -- such as those involving rape, incest, and sickness -- are to be counselled to take responsible action before God, who is both merciful and just, to whom they will give account for their actions.
- Women and men, including family members and friends of pregnant women considering abortions, are to be encouraged to resist this evil act, and be assisted in bearing and raising their children in healthy physical and spiritual conditions.
- Women who have had recourse to abortion, men who have fathered aborted children, and others involved in cases of abortion, are to be provided with pastoral care which includes recognition of the gravity of the act and assurance of the mercy of God upon those who repent of their sins.
- Orthodox Christians are to contribute to legislative processes according to their knowledge, competence, ability and influence so that laws may be enacted and enforced which protect and defend the lives of unborn children while being sensitive to the complexities and tragedies of life in contemporary society.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/16/2002 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | The above statement ends with this paragraph:
(pertaining to 'Sickness, Suffering, and Death')
Human beings are to be reminded by every means that they are not isolated individuals but are members one of another who will give account to God and to their fellow creatures for their every thought, word and deed; and that their eternal destiny depends on what they have done with their lives on earth. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/16/2002 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
How can those who read the same words I do from Jesus glean (as Brett as posted an article about) that we ought to kill homosexuals and disobedient children?
and
The bottomline is that we're all accountable before God for what we believe and what we say. When all is said and done, I'm essentially betting my very life on the fact that God will honor my earnest desire to do the right thing, even when I fail, because I fail most of the time.
Well, I hope Greg and yourself can extend this same generosity towards the Gary DeMars and the Fred Phelps and even possibly Taliban leaders of the world. If you want God to show you mercy and "honor your earnest desire to do the right thing," then you should extend it towards those with whom you disagree. I’m not saying whether you have or have not, but I find responses like this: quote:
Clearly, Taliban thinking isn't just an Islamic phenomenon.
to be myopic.
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/16/2002 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | By the way, Miss E, I still have my thinga-mi-jigger coming to ya. I think you will find some interesting stuff there. I would really like to know what you think.
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 11/16/2002 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If you want God to show you mercy and "honor your earnest desire to do the right thing," then you should extend it towards those with whom you disagree.
Isn't that the whole point?
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/16/2002 11:51:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/19/2002 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | For those of you who may not have seen this Time cover story from last week. . .
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021111/story.html
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 11/19/2002 2:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Brett,
That's one of the most comprehensive developmental biology summaries I've ever read outside of scientific literature. If you don't understand how complex fetal development is, just imagine that the research she described about heart development is done here and is NIH-funded about 3 million a year just for one lab. God's world is truly amazing.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/19/2002 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
For those of you who may not have seen this Time cover story from last week. . .
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021111/story.html
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori."
Yes, I have been thinking of picking up that copy. Also, just want to let Miss. E know that I will be putting up part of the post that I have been working on, tmw. Thanks again Brett for the reminder.
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 11/20/2002 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Brett for the link on human development, I hope information like this will educate the public and aid in the prevention of abortions in our nation.
-----------------
I have a question for anyone who supports the death penalty for murderers and believes that abortion at any stage is the taking of a person's life.
It seems logically consistent to me that you would desire and lobby for the death penalty for women who get abortions, abortion doctors, and the staff who assist in providing abortions because they are all performing murder by your standards. Do you? Why or why not? If you make a distinction between the "murder" of zygotes and embryos and the murder of children/adults, for what reason and on what basis?
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/20/2002 11:04:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/20/2002 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't recall having been in on the discussion of capital punishment, but I'll give you my thoughts about it. What's quoted below is taken from Stand to Reason--str.org (no www before it.) Greg Koukl, who runs STR, sums things up much better than I.
____________________________________________________________________
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl.
Assuming you're not a strict pacifist in which there would be no contradiction because no violence could be recommended in any situation, how does it make sense to assert that abortion is the wanton snuffing out of a helpless child's life and then condemn those who would protect these children by killing their would-be executioners? In the Nazi holocaust you would have morally accepted the assassination of Nazi executioners and this seems to be a parallel situation by your reckoning, pro-lifer. But you condemn the killing of abortionists and not the killing of Nazis. This is a contradiction, therefore your view is false.
That's the argument as I understand it. Now, my first observation is that if this objection is valid--and I'm going to argue in a moment that it isn't--but if it is valid, then all one has established is that the pro-lifer is inconsistent which proves nothing about the rightness of abortion or the wrongness of shooting doctors who perform abortions. But the argument is really asserting more than just that pro-lifers are inconsistent. The inconsistency here is taken as a prima facie indication, like an obvious indication, that we don't really believe what we say about the unborn child, that it is fully human and that it deserves the same protection of the law that all human beings deserve. When we say that and then in the next breath condemn the killer of abortion doctors, it invites the fair rejoinder that we're saying two things that are contradictory. They can't both be true at the same time. One has got to go and I suspect that you really believe the latter, not the former. In other words, the reason you're convinced it's wrong to kill the abortionist is that you know deep down inside that abortion isn't really murder, therefore you should abandon your inappropriate and ultimately dangerous rhetoric about holocausts.
This question needs to be answered clearly and directly and here is the answer. It simply does not follow that if one believes that abortion is murder then he would advocate killing individual abortionists. What follows is this: He would work to end the wholesale killing as expediently as possible. It doesn't follow he would kill abortionists. It follows that he would do whatever he can to stop the killing as quickly as possible. Now, that may or may not entail the shooting of individual abortionists. The answer to that question would depend on other considerations.
How can that be? Well, anyone familiar with military tactics knows how such a thing can be the case. Life is lost on its largest scale during warfare and the objective in war is to accomplish the goals of the war as expediently as possible to end the large scale loss of life, right? Now, if the military objective is to end the war by--watch this--taking out the machinery of destruction, as a saboteur would do, and killing any individual soldier would put the larger plan in jeopardy, then the individual killer is bypassed rather than run the risk of sabotaging the entire mission.
Imagine for just a minute commandos in the Second World War impersonating Nazi officers, dropped behind Nazi lines to infiltrate concentration camps. Their mission? Destroy the gas chambers. Now mingling incognito with the rest of the camp cadre, they have many opportunities to kill other soldiers, even officers. Even the Commandant. But do you kill the individual executioner or do you go after the gas chamber? In this case, it seems that killing the individual would be wrong even though he was truly murderous, because it would keep the commandos from fulfilling their larger mission. And their failure would mean more lives lost in the long run. The short term gain would be no victory because the machinery of destruction would still be in place. Do you see that?
What this illustration shows is that there is no necessary contradiction in the view that abortion is a holocaust, yet the killing of individual abortionists is properly condemned. In fact, it is precisely because we hold to the innocent humanity of the unborn that we insist on an approach to this solution that is directed at the machinery of the killing--the laws, the economics and the deep human need that makes the alternative appealing. That's our focus.
_________________________________________________________________
Personally, I agree with Kohkl's view here. I'd add, too, that if abortion were outlawed and punishment for having an unauthorized abortion--one where the intention is not to save life, but rather destroy life--were capital punishment, I'd support the law. (No, not every law is to be upheld, but one that upholds and respects life at all stages, I support.) Such is not the case now, and therefore I certainly do not believe in going out and killing abortionists, those how are having abortions, or those affiliated with abortions.
Here is more of the article:
___________________________________________________________________
In one sense, the question that is raised approaches the problem in reverse. The real issue is this: What is the ontological nature of the unborn child (forgive the fancy word)? This is the most important question in the entire debate and, until it's answered, no moral recommendation whatsoever can be made, either about the morality of abortion or the moral consequences of any protest against it. In other words, you must answer the question: What is the unborn child? Before you can answer any other questions you must deal with that one. You can't even answer the question, how should we treat the fetus? You can't answer the questions whether abortion is murder or what we ought to do to abortionists who murder other human beings if, in fact, that's what they're doing, unless you answer this first question. What is the unborn child?
Now, listen, folks, if it is possible to determine that an unborn child is fully human and as fully a person in it essential nature as you and I, then it deserves the same legal protections and legal sanctions against its abuse as you and I do. Now that's logical. That is not a non sequitur . Human beings ought to be protected equally. In fact, it's in the Constitution; it's called the Fourteenth Amendment. So, our question is, is the essential nature of an unborn child the same as the essential nature that you and I both share? That's the question and the hard truth is, if it is then it ought to be treated equally with us. That's the hard truth and that's why the hard thinking ought to be addressed to this question.
___________________________________________________________________
Well, class is almost over, and I've got to go.
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 11/20/2002 2:21:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/20/2002 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Starkman: Well, class is almost over, and I've got to go.
Hey, Starky. I'm a professional teacher. And us teachers stick together. If you weren't paying attention in class, then you have to 'stay after,' or 'run laps,' or something.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/20/2002 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Al,
Okay, running laps is ABSOLUTELY out!
Stay after class? Well, I've been doing that (though I've slacked off this last week or so) since school started 3 months ago; practicing driving, I have been.
So . . . this leaves "or something", and I choose this: get back on the computer and go to www.gregboyd.org!
Deal?
The Starkman!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/20/2002 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
I appreciate the quote and your feedback to my question, however Mr. Koukl's essay does not address the question I am asking. Koukl assumes in his essay that the only reason to kill a Nazi (or any murderer) is to "save lives," but he does not address the implementation of capital punishment the way we have discussed it on this board. Many have advocated that murderers ought to be executed for basic moral reasons, the primary one being that they do not respect "life," (and not only to save the life of others which could be accomplished through other means). You see, even I have conceded the justification of killing in self-defense as a lesser of two evils. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the moral stance that many have taken who say that the death penalty ought to be implemented because we have a moral mandate to do so (the Bible) and because it is the only "just" response to murder. Koukl side steps all these issues in his essay.
However you say:
quote:
I'd add, too, that if abortion were outlawed and punishment for having an unauthorized abortion--one where the intention is not to save life, but rather destroy life--were capital punishment, I'd support the law.
which seems to indicate that you would support a law that demanded the execution of women who have had abortions and doctors who perform them. Have I understood you correctly?
If so, I'd like to know if you would also support a law that demanded the execution of women as murderers who take birth control pills/oral contraceptives with the knowledge that birth control pills cause spontaneous abortions of zygotes and embryos.
It seems that all those who support capital punishment for moral reasons would have to agree in light of this:
quote:
Now, listen, folks, if it is possible to determine that an unborn child is fully human and as fully a person in it essential nature as you and I, then it deserves the same legal protections and legal sanctions against its abuse as you and I do. Now that's logical. That is not a non sequitur . Human beings ought to be protected equally. In fact, it's in the Constitution; it's called the Fourteenth Amendment. So, our question is, is the essential nature of an unborn child the same as the essential nature that you and I both share? That's the question and the hard truth is, if it is then it ought to be treated equally with us. That's the hard truth and that's why the hard thinking ought to be addressed to this question.
So I'd like to hear more about this from those who have advocated capital punishment for murderers on moral grounds.
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/20/2002 7:56:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/20/2002 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, Empiress,
First, I don't think that Koukl side-stepped any issues. Rather, it was I who may have quoted him trying to fit his quote into our conversation. That'd be my fault. Koukl has tons of other articles on the subjects we're discussing here, but I probably didn't find the better of the many!
Okay then, moving on . . .
You said: You see, even I have conceded the justification of killing in self-defense as a lesser of two evils. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the moral stance that many have taken who say that the death penalty ought to be implemented because we have a moral mandate to do so (the Bible) and because it is the only "just" response to murder.
Well, first, you yourself have just given a moral stance on an issue of killing for purposes of self defense (and I support it!). But by whose authority are we to mandate this? Yours? Mine? Gods? The courts? It isn't God's, per se, though we could find "Bible" to support the cause. It isn't the courts, at least not ALL courts in existance around the world. It isn't my authority, and it isn't your authority . . . or is it?! I think, Empiress, it is our instinct to kill if necessary. Not an instinct that's God-given within a non-fallen, perfect world, but a survival instinct which we know to be real. It is a "just" response. Otherwise, killing in self defense were not the lesser of two evils (again, this is a judgment of moral stance), then it would not be justified period. Yet, American law, for instance, recognizes this as just. Why? Because God said it is? Perhaps, but also because there's something in us that tells us it ought to be this way. Our "ought" isn't perfect, hence the need for mitigation.
Further, when an advocate of capital punishment enforces a murder's death, it isn't necessarily because the Bible advocates it in the opinion of many. I don't utilize the Bible myself for justifying capital punishment, other than the Bible doesn't forbid it. God killed people in the New Testament for lying (Ananias and Saphira), for taking communion in an unworthily manner (I Corinthians 11), and for a disobedience, hatred, sins of various kinds and ultimately for being enemies of God (the book of Revelation--filled with casualties).
In Romans 13, Paul clearly taught that the sword of the government was to keep law and order, a concept condoned by God--not that EVERY government is approved by God; the context clearly delineates between that idea and the matter of "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise FROM THE SAME." (Romans 13:3) As noted, Revelation also is filled with casualties, and some are the direct result of the two witnesses (people/groups) of some sort (Revelation 11:5).
It isn't that the New Testament is saying, "Kill the bad guys", it's simply not forbidding capital punishment. There's something that tells us, "if you are evil to a certain extent, you must die." Hard it is trying to gauge when that evil warrants death, but that it does at some point is certainty, as I see it. This is a moral stance no less than your idea of killing in self defense. Here again, Empiress, we are all at that place where we never were to be. It was NEVER God's intention that we should ever be exposed to this kind of hell much less even talk about it. That we are here (in this fallen world) calls, then, not for just "Well, the Bible says right here!", but rather for that sensitive mitigation of it ought to be this or that way. Tough stuff, for sure.
Moving on . . .
You said: which seems to indicate that you would support a law that demanded the execution of women who have had abortions and doctors who perform them. Have I understood you correctly? If so, I'd like to know if you would also support a law that demanded the execution of women as murderers who take birth control pills/oral contraceptives with the knowledge that birth control pills cause spontaneous abortions of zygotes and embryos.
To answer the first of the two questions:
First, I spoke to rashly and too soon without having thought more completely about what I was saying. Let me see if I can do better here.
As Koukl noted, it isn't about killing folks who've either had, or assisted in, an abortion. That doesn't solve anything without first solving the dilema of the nature of the unborn. I contend the unborn is a person, is a human, and deserves all the respect for life as I expect for myself and all others on the planet. Now, with that said, if a law were to go into effect tonight stating that it is murder to kill the unborn (remember: without the sole purpose of saving life), the clause would not forfeit grandfathering into safety those who have already participated one way or another in abortions.
I myself, Empiress, am buttressed by the emotional gauge you mentioned in a previous post that calls me to feel that the unborn isn't the same as the born. And it is at this place where I have to make the decision. It is two-fold: do I accept that nature of the unborn as a full life-personage? If I do accept the nature as full personage, am I willing to move my feelings aside in view of this unborn person's rights--the right to live in as much protection as I am afforded? And I have to say that yes, I hold to the sanctity of not only the life of the unborn but of the sanctitiy of the protection of life, born or unborn.
As for the second question
As far as the pill goes, I forget the details of exactly how it works (hey, I'm 41, haven't had to use the pill in a long time . . . I mean, not I, but my wife--I assume that WAS self explanitory!--because my wife closed down the show after her last child: tubolectim . . . tubularectonoronony (no, that sounds too much like Deuteronomy) . . .um, what the hek's the name of that procedure you women go through when they tie your tubes? . . . .THAT'S IT: tube-tied foreveronimy. Whew! Seriously now . . .
I am bothered by the idea of labeling "murderer" to a woman (her doctor, and others assisting in an abortion), who is trying to avoid having children BUT ISN'T trying to abort children. In other words, "murder" is ascribed to one's intent, not just the act. It is why we have degrees of murder. It is why we usually (and hopefully) do not prosecute someone who has killed in self defense; it isn't murder, murder with mal intent. I wouldn't want to see a law in effect that simply says, "If you abort the unborn in any manner whatsoever, and you do it under any circumstances, you die." First, as I've said, to abort a child in order to save a life, as is killing in the name of self defense, is something I believe has to be allowed. Second, if there were to be a law apportioning capital punishment for aborting the unborn, I would want to see language included which makes as much necessary room for lesser offenses: second, third degree, etc.. We currently do not circumscribe all murder worthy solely of capital punishment , we shouldn't with abortion. Finally . . . I would stick to said law's definition of a contraception which kills the conception as being the taking of the life of another. Murder? Here again, what I've just said at the start of this paragraph has to be taken into consideration. All who are involved in it would be accomplices and accountable, as is the case in killing and murder other than abortion.
I'm usually not one to post links or long quoted posts (we all leave that to our man AL!), but I would like to reference all reading this to another of Greg Koukl's radio transcript turned artical. Please read it and just follow his thinking. I think it is well thought out. (Koukl holds the position, which some reading do not, that the unborn is both a human and a person, so keep that in mind as you read.)
"Pulling the Trigger"
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/pullingt.htm
Thanks Empiress for the challenging questions. And I can't honestly say that I am not bothered by my own emotions in regard to my own thinking. It is first, however, a conviction to which I'm trying to hold, and the emotions to which I'm trying to control. Thanks again,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/20/2002 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I have a question for Starkman, Brandon, Brett and for anyone who supports the death penalty for murderers and believes that abortion at any stage is the taking of a person's life.
It seems logically consistent to me that you would desire and lobby for the death penalty for women who get abortions, abortion doctors, and the staff who assist in providing abortions because they are all performing murder by your standards. Do you? Why or why not? If you make a distinction between the "murder" of zygotes and embryos and the murder of children/adults, for what reason and on what basis?
First, I should point out that I don’t recall being involved in the discussion on abortion other than to argue that decisions about it should not be made by a handful of people on the Supreme Court. Other than that, I think I have confined my interaction to an exchange about capital punishment, so I am a little uncomfortable about being peremptorily labeled as one “who supports the death penalty for murderers and believes that abortion at any stage is the taking of a person’s life.” Also, while I have defended capital punishment on moral grounds, I have repeatedly stated that I have serious practical concerns about it, and due to those concerns, I am still in process about whether it should be supported politically or not.
I do not understand why “logical consistency” requires that one who supports the death penalty for convicted killers must also demand the death penalty for women who have abortions. I have described the question of when a fetus acquires the “image of God” as a murky and difficult one. I don’t think we really know for sure.
This is measurably different from a decision by the State that a known killer of a person with indisputable imago dei status should be executed for the welfare of society.
Thanks,
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/20/2002 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman said:
quote:
Tough stuff, for sure.
*nods in agreement vigorously*
Stark said:quote:
I myself, Empiress, am buttressed by the emotional gauge you mentioned in a previous post that calls me to feel that the unborn isn't the same as the born.
Okay, just to be clear, I have never made a distinction between the born and unborn, I made a distinction between zygotes and embryos without brain waves and fetuses with brain waves. I believe it is only for a very short span of time that we can medically and ethically consider the unborn as of yet without personhood.
Stark said:
quote:
If I do accept the nature as full personage, am I willing to move my feelings aside in view of this unborn person's rights--the right to live in as much protection as I am afforded? And I have to say that yes, I hold to the sanctity of not only the life of the unborn but of the sanctitiy of the protection of life, born or unborn.
Okay, so how would does this play out in a practical way? That's what I'm getting at. If we execute murderers on moral grounds, would you agree the same ought to be done for abortionists/women who get abortions?
Stark said:quote:
As far as the pill goes, I forget the details of exactly how it works
Here's a helpful site:http://www.epm.org/bcpill1.html
The pill works in two ways...first it aids in the prevention of conception by inhibiting ovulation but secondly, when conception does occur (which is not entirely infrequent with the pill and many other birth control devices), it creates a hostile environment in the uterus and causes the spontaneous abortion of a zygote. This is why the pill is called an "abortifacient."
Stark said:quote:
I am bothered by the idea of labeling "murderer" to a woman (her doctor, and others assisting in an abortion), who is trying to avoid having children BUT ISN'T trying to abort children....First, as I've said, to abort a child in order to save a life, as is killing in the name of self defense, is something I believe has to be allowed.
This is why I stated my question carefully describing a woman who took the pill with the -knowledge- that the pill acted as an abortifacient in the case of fertilization. She is trying to avoid getting pregnant, yes, but she is also knowingly "killing" a zygote should conception occur. Additionally, many women who get pregnant did so accidentally...they were trying to prevent pregnancy but it didn't work. It seems evident that a woman who takes the morning after pill or gets an early abortion has taken the same action as a woman who knowingly uses birth control pills as an abortifacient.
Stark said:
quote:
Second, if there were to be a law apportioning capital punishment for aborting the unborn, I would want to see language included which makes as much necessary room for lesser offenses: second, third degree, etc..
Let me be clearer then: In the case of a woman who did not need an abortion for health reasons but knowingly took birth control pills as an abortifacient, has she committed murder? If she has, do you believe she -deserves- the death penalty?
Stark said:
quote:
Thanks Empiress for the challenging questions. And I can't honestly say that I am not bothered by my own emotions in regard to my own thinking. It is first, however, a conviction to which I'm trying to hold, and the emotions to which I'm trying to control.
Thank you, I appreciate your honesty and thoughful answers. I will check out the link you provided.
--------------------------------------
Brett said:
quote:
Other than that, I think I have confined my interaction to an exchange about capital punishment, so I am a little uncomfortable about being peremptorily labeled as one “who supports the death penalty for murderers and believes that abortion at any stage is the taking of a person’s life.”
Thank you for pointing that out; I removed names from the previous post so as to avoid any misunderstanding. I used your name along with Stark's and Brandon's simply because I wanted to get feedback from you guys who have been active on this thread, I did not mean to mis-characterize your position...sorry.
Brett said:quote:
I do not understand why “logical consistency” requires that one who supports the death penalty for convicted killers must also demand the death penalty for women who have abortions.
That is only the case if one insists that non-medically necessary abortions at all stages is "murder" and also supports the death penalty for murderers on moral grounds.
Brett said:
quote:
I have described the question of when a fetus acquires the “image of God” as a murky and difficult one. I don’t think we really know for sure.
This is measurably different from a decision by the State that a known killer of a person with indisputable imago dei status should be executed for the welfare of society.
I agree with your last statements here, yes.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/20/2002 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | I may be jumping into this thread a bit late in the game, but here's my two cents:
First, it is not inconsistent to be pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. All one needs to show that there is no inconsistency to show that there is a morally relevant distinction between the two cases. The relevant distinction between these cases is the guilt or innocence of the person whose life is taken. Guilt is one morally relevant difference. Therefore, one can be consistently pro-life and in favor of the death penalty.
Second, I agree with you, Empiress, that use of the birth control pill is a serious issue if we grant that human life begins at conception, because many forms of "contraception" actually prevent not the formation of the embryo but its implantation in the uterus, thereby resulting in the death of an already formed embryo. I believe that Christians and pro-lifers are generally quite ignorant on this matter.
Third, Empiress, you and Greg have argued that human life (or rather, personhood) does not begin at conception but only after brain waves. The reason you give for this view is that we define death as the cessation of brain activity, so we ought to define the emergence of human life (=personhood) at the start of brain activity. This is an interesting argument, and is probably the most plausible point after conception to find a morally relevant cutoff point that would permit abortions prior to brainwave activity, but not after (except for severe medical reasons). Nevertheless, I think the argument is flawed because its central analogy (death = cessation of brainwaves; therefore, life = presence of brainwaves) overlooks a crucial difference. The fetus developing in the womb will naturally develop the capacity for brainwaves, speech, poetry, etc. The corpse has no developmental potential and is simply at a "dead" end. Death is typically a natural process. With the exception of spontaneous abortions, abortion is NEVER a natural process, but the termination of a natural process designed by God.
Fourth, the plausibility of the brain-wave argument requires there to be a morally relevant distinction between human beings and human persons. Human life begins at conception (after all the embryo is both alive and human). If the start of brainwave activity is to be morally relevant, therefore, it must be because something over and above human life comes into being at that time (i.e., personhood). But this distinction between human beings and human persons is dubious. Aren't all human beings persons? Isn't personhood part of what it means to be human, to be made in the image of God? Addressing these issues, Empiress, you said "A dead human body is still 'human' even though he/she is no longer a 'person.'" This is confused. When a human dies, the body that remains is only "human" in the sense that it is the remains of a human being. The body is not a human being, it is a corpse. If a butcher kills Bessie the cow, the carcass that remains is no longer Bessie or even a cow, but rather "meat" or "cow parts". This is not a good way to argue for the nonequivalence of human beings and human persons.
Fourth, Brandon, you pointed out in one of his posts that the burden of proof seem to be on the side of those who propose to take human life. I concur. Suppose we can work out the distinction between human beings and human persons. Still, if we aren't sure whether a fetus at a particular stage of development qualifies as a person, that's a good reason NOT to abort. Greg Koukl puts it well in his pamplet "Precious Unborn Human Persons"--before you answer the question "Can I kill this?" you need to answer the question "What is it?" To end human life without being able to answer that question amounts to manslaughter if we are wrong on the personhood issue, and gross negligence if we are right.
Well, there's lots more I'd like to add, but I have to run. God bless, y'all.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/20/2002 7:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan, good stuff. Love your third and fourth arguments. Miss E. I promise, tmw, I will have my long awaited, but not necessarily spectacular post up. But I do want to throw up this column I found in CT Mag today. By Dallas Willard. Funny how they would have this issue in the mag whilst we are discussing here at CVM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Matter and the Soul
It is said that the soul is the seat of emotions, intellect, and will, but the brain is involved in each of these functions. What is the difference between the brain and the soul?
David O'Connor, Yonkers, New York | posted 11/15/2002
First it will be helpful to look at where both soul and brain stand in relation to personhood. It is a mistake to confuse the soul and the person; nor is the soul merely that which is "personal" in us. But the soul is such a fundamental dimension of the person that in Scripture, poetry, and in common life, soul often means the person. Soul in the Bible sometimes—perhaps most of the time—refers to the whole person, precisely because it represents a deep dimension of the person.
The relation of the brain to personhood, too, is frequently misstated. Because scientists tend to take the brain as central to life, people often construe it as identical with life. This is because the scientific community generally assumes, in practice if not in theory, that only that which is physical is knowable. Scientists often believe they can treat the personal side of life only if it is physical.
Clearly there is in human beings a profoundly important connection between the states and events of the brain and those of personal existence. But the person is not identical with the brain (or the DNA or the body as a whole). Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of truths about the person that are not truths about the body. And there are many kinds of truths about persons that are not the kinds of truths that apply to the body or any part thereof. Inspect the brain in any way you will; you will not find these truths or even know that they exist from what you do find there. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) pointed this out long ago, and no satisfactory way around it has ever been found.
On the other hand, people's bodies are essential to their identity and life. Through them we have an inner world and become the person we become—forever. The body is not just a container. That is why, in Christian thought, there is to be a resurrection.
While the brain has its role in emotions, intellect, and will, and while people's bodies are essential, we must always remember that the person is the ultimate unit of analysis: you, me. Thought, feeling, action (involving the body, as well as relations to others) are ultimately dimensions of the person. And it is the soul that combines all the dimensions of the person to form one life. It is like a computer system that runs an entire commercial operation.
When it is broken, you have to attend to it—and in fact, only God can repair it. "He restoreth my soul" (Psalm 23:3). Law and disciplines can also help heal the soul, but grace—God doing in my life what I cannot do for myself—is the first and last word. And yet law and disciplines are inseparable from grace as they do their part.
So it is the person that ultimately is "the seat of the emotions, the intellect, and the will"—not the brain, as scientists would say, nor the soul, ultimately. The person is the seat of the soul if we mean by seat that in which the soul is located. The soul is, arguably, the deepest dimension of the person or, as we often say today, of the "self." But it is not the person.
To sum up: The soul is one nonphysical dimension of the person. A human person is a nonphysical (spiritual) entity that has an essential involvement with a particular physical body. The brain, then—a piece of meat that is of more than usual interest—is one part of the embodied dimension of the human person. It too is integrated by the soul into one life, along with all of the dimensions of the person (at least when all is well).
These matters are especially important as Christians often treat the soul as the recipient of salvation, and leave out the other dimensions of human life—especially the bodily and the social, but also thought and feeling.
The soul is not some separable part of us that eventually gets to go to heaven while everything else about us is left out. Redemption in Christ is a retrieving of the entire person from alienation from God and opposition to God.
Dallas Willard is professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California. His latest book is Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ (NavPress).
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | 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 1:34 PM (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 |
|
|