 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Is Voting for Life a Christian Ethic? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/21/2002 4:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
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.
Hey, no problem at all. I just wanted to clarify. I know you weren't intentionally misrepresenting anything. Thanks.
Miss E:quote:
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.
I like Starkman's point that your justification for killing (self-defense) is also a "moral stance." And, as I have tried to demonstrate, it is consistent with an argument that capital punishment deters murders from taking place, thereby serving as a community self-defense mechanism.
Gotta cut this short,
Brett
PS - Alan, great post, my man. Very strong.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/21/2002 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | For now, I’m can only put up this half of what I wanted to say. Also, this is gonna be more of a negative apologetic.
First, I just want to say agreement with Brett that politics do matter in this debate on abortion. When we lose what some theologians call “intangibles” we create an atmosphere or climate against all life. Today there is an increasing disregard for life not only in the beginning stages, but also in the area of the elderly, the handicapped, and even suicide. Personhood touches on virtually every debated issue in bio-medical ethics. It seems that when one picks up the newspaper, considerations of what constitutes a human person, is called into question.
Basically, personhood is assigned or (more accurately) NOT assigned in questions of a legal, social, and political nature. This is why, when Greg may ask, “Who should decide?” the fact of the matter, is that some view of personhood is being employed on all of these levels. Today the prevailing view is a “property-thing” or “physicalist” one over against a more “essentialist” or “essence” view.
Just to look at a few examples, let’s look at Roe vs Wade. The court arbitrarily divided up the nine months of pregnancy into trimesters with increasing protections for the unborn in the last trimester. In the 1st trimester, abortion on demand is legal. In the 2nd, the state can place restrictions on access to abortion to safe guard the health of the mother, i.e. availability of abortion to licensed medical facilities and physicians. In the culture at large, abortion, it was perceived, was legal only to the point of viability or at the end of the second trimester. What is not known, is that THE SAME DAY Roe was handed down, another abortion decision Doe vs Bolton was handed down which greatly expanded beyond what Roe provided. It expanded the notion of the health of the mother in such a way that abortion could be justified for practically any reason! Now, the precedent established by these two decisions and upheld in practically every challenge to it sent a message to society about the morality of abortion and the personhood of the unborn.
Virtually all-key arguments used to justify abortion make critical assumptions about the personhood of the unborn. The arguments are plausible only if the one advancing the argument assumes that the unborn are less than persons. They are also guilty of the fallacy of “begging the question.”
1) For i.e., a woman has a right to her body. Basically her body is her own. She has a right to do with it whatever she wants. The fetus is a part of the woman’s body, an assumption, because the fetus is a unique organic whole with it’s own genetic identity, nervous and circulatory systems. It confuses being dependent on the woman’s body with being a part of it. Above all, the woman’s right to choose assumes the fetus is not a person. That is, only if the fetus is not a person does a woman have a right to make a decision to that would result in the foetus’s death. Women cannot choose to kill an innocent person no matter how dependent that person’s are on them. Other arguments are:
2) An unwanted child should not be brought into the world i.e. one is financially strapped, a justification for abortion in these circumstances clearly assumes that the unborn are not persons.
3) Genetically handicapped.
4) Bringing unwanted children into the world based on a desire to avoid conditions that raise the incident of child abuse.
5) Denying abortion access to poor women is discriminatory. This is the clearest example of begging the question. One cannot be a victim of discrimination unless one is denied something to which one has a right too. Assuming that women have a right, then advancing the argument that they should not be denied it IS begging the question. It also advances the absurd notion that denial of access to medically killing a person is a form of discrimination.
Now the question is asked, “Who should decide?” But, the question is a rather moot point. Why? Because someone IS deciding. In my opinion, one cannot have it both ways. To suggest that pro-lifers should not decide, doesn’t do much other than silence them. In my opinion, the separation of a human being from personhood is characteristic of virtually all functional definitions of personhood. Such things as consciousness, reasoning, self motivated activity, capacity to communicate, the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness, are all functions that are minimally necessary for it to be said that a being, namely the fetus, is a person. At what point a person possesses these qualities it is not clear. What is clear, is that prior to and shortly after birth, foetuses don’t have these.
Now, before I get into some biblical data, I want to say that a “property-thing” (physicalist) view suggests that as properties of a person changes, the person them self changes. That is, there is no essential person that survives the process of change. Think about this in terms of the legal implications on society. What it does is suggest that a person who committed a crime, the person brought to trial for the crime and the person serving time for the crime are all different persons. The notions of moral responsibility and criminal justice are based on a view, which is a “substance dualist” view. That is, if seen from the “property-thing” view, it would be difficult to hold anyone responsible for immoral or criminal actions.
And this leads into Miss. E’s notion that foetuses, or whatever stage of development a human being is at, are somehow in the process of becoming persons. It would seem to me that this is derived from a physicalist or property-thing view. For in that view, there cannot be a continuity of personal identity. That is, the foetuses must be distinct from the humans that replace them in the same what that, say, butterfly eggs, larvae and pupae must be distinct from the butterflies that replace them. But this is not the way we view these things. Caterpillars and butterflies are the same insect in different stages of development. Though we make distinctions between foetuses and adults, it does not follow that they are two different types.
To speak of a person “becoming,” is in actuality an incoherent notion. For an example, picture a person entering a room, which is a gradual process. It begins when a foot enters the room, followed by another and then followed by other parts of the body entering the room. When the person is all the way in, he has entered the room. During the process of entering, the man must exist in total in order to be involved in the process. Likewise, with human beings, known as human persons, the man must exist as well. One cannot be in the “process” of becoming a human person since one must exist in order to enter ANY process. Thus, we cannot say that any being gradually becomes a person-or ceases to be a person for that matter.
Another problem with the gradualist view of a human person is that one can never be sure when the process is complete or when it begins to diminish or work in reverse. Development of one’s fundamental capacities continues well into teenage years and early adulthood that it is difficult to draw a line at which full personhood is achieved.
Lastly, declaring that a person “gradually becomes” is that a person ends up being a “degreed property. Whatever function(s) used to determine personhood, virtually all of them are expressed in degrees. One develops the key set of functions and later loses them. The implication, therefore, is that one’s rights “more or less” would be protected. A right to life would be “graded” instead of outright protected. This conflicts with the notion of human person’s having an essence that is independent of one’s functions that actually GROUNDS one’s functions. It makes it hard as to where to draw precise lines as to people’s rights on the “edges of life.” Also, it REALLY runs the danger of taking classes of people, elderly, handicapped, demented and mentally challenged, etc, as less than full person’s and opens the door to mistreatment.
Continuity of Person through Change in the Bible
Biblically speaking, I think the Bible indicates what this section suggests—the continuity of personhood through change.
Psalms 139 suggests that David is the same person is the same essential person from conception to mature adult. In vs 13-18 he reflects on the way God made him. In vs 16 he describes himself as an “unformed substance” which translated means, “embryo.” The same person who gives thanks and praise to God, is seen as the same person who is skilfully made in the womb (vs 13) and as the person who is know by God inside and out (vs 1-6). That is, there is a continuity of personal identity from the earliest point of development to mature adult. This is what is significant of Ps 139 to the nature of the embryo. It is not solely that God painstakingly and intricately created David in the womb, it is also that the same person created in the womb is also the same person who is writing the Psalm.
Other passages that suggest continuity of personal identity are Psalm 51:5. David confesses sins that are not only specific but also his innate inclination to sin. This is something we all share and David’s claim is that he possesses it at conception. This underscores the continuity of person’s from conception to adulthood.
Job 10:8-11 Is comparable to Ps 139. Job 3:3 using “synonymous parallelism” indicates continuity between conception and birth. Here we need to be careful about reading too much into it, but the format is used to make the same point in different language. Birth and conception may be regarded as fundamentally synonymous. This is also strengthened by the term “man-child” or “boy” in the second half of the verse which addresses Job’s conception. The Hebrew (geber) is also used in the other parts of the O.T. to refer to a man, husband and thus a person.
Gen. 25:19-34 God is speaking figuratively to indicate that the twins in Rebekah’s womb are representative heads of two nations. In otherwords, they are subjects of divine election while in the womb and realized as adults. God saw them in the womb as the adults they would become and in the roles they would play as adults. Again, personal identity from the womb until adulthood.
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 11/21/2002 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
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?
First, I concur with Stark on this, but allow me to add something. Kreeft speaks about this in, "The Unaborted Socrates." In agreement with him, it would seem to me that most aborting mothers in an abortionist society do not realize the full gravity of abortion. Kreeft says that they are filched of their instinct for justice, for life and for motherhood and for tradition. In a very real way, women ARE victims of both an abortionist society and philosophy. Kreeft says, that the real murderer of these innocent millions is society's false philosophy. The final victims are the fetus, the mother and the abortionist. For i.e. look at the mother. It may be that the greatest harm is not done to the body of the victim but to the soul of the perpetrator. I put this up before and here it is again: Is there such a thing as character? Yes. Is it valuable? Yes. Is it more valuable than the body? That is, what would you rather be crippled in, character or body? For i.e. would you rather be a sadistic torture of martyrs, or a martyred victim of a sadistic torturer? Dont' get it? To make this even more poignant, suppose your son (if you had one) was captured by a cruel enemy and asked to torture his fellow prisoners or else be the victim of torture. Which would you hope for him to choose? Wouldn't you rather want him to be the victim than to be the inflictor? Basically, doing evil is worse than suffering it. One may label this "pious idealism," but do you not hope that your son is a "pious idealist" and suffer evil rather than doing it?
Now Miss E. you spoke of a friend who you counselled through having an abortion. I believe you spoke of the tradgedy of not only the abortion itself but also of the emotional duress of your friend. And of how some people (may) have called her a murderer. Again, I am in agreement with Stark on different levels of murder. But I can't help wonder if the emotional stress was because of the genuine guilt feelings of killing her innocent child. Truly, she is the REAL victim.
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 11/21/2002 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan, thanks for your thoughtful post. Although I don't desire to rehash all the arguments on this issue again, I will offer a few comments. And thank you for the dialogue and contribution.
Alan said:quote:
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.
Alan, can you explain the distinction you are seeking to make between a murderer (one who knowingly takes a person's life) and an abortionist/woman who had an abortion (one who knowingly takes an unborn "person's" life)? The cases seem to be identical for those who believe that abortion at any stage is murder. In both cases, the "guilt of the person whose life is taken" can be established on such grounds. Guilt is the morally relevant difference, yes, but according to the all or nothing pro-life stance, the guilt of murder is always upon a woman who aborts and her doctor(s). Those who believe that capital punishment is a moral mandate for murderers would (theoretically) need to extend the death penalty to abortion doctors and women who abort.
Alan said:quote:
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.
I myself stated this idea clearly elsewhere as the reason why abortion at any stage is a "tragedy," not because of the qualitative state of an embryo or zygote, but because of the embryo's -potential.- However, the problem with using "potential" as an argument against all abortions is that the line of "potential" can be drawn backwards to a ridiculous point. Here is a quote where I explained this elsewhere in my discussion with David:
I said:quote:
The "all or nothing" pro-life stance claims that the egg and sperm alone are not "human life" or even "potential human life," and yet they say that at the exact moment that the sperm and egg meet (conception), we have suddenly moved from "nothing" to "everything." We went from "worthless matter" to "full personhood" in a millisecond. First, I find this rather implausible. But here's the other trouble I'm having...
1. What if we were to prevent, in the one millisecond before the sperm reached the egg, the sperm from puncturing the egg? Are we ethically "in the clear"? Have we refrained from murder? Have we managed to side step the issue of preventing a "potential life" from their "right to live"? It seems to me that we have not if we take the "all or nothing" perspective. It is morally legalistic to say that we can do anything we want before the sperm/egg meet, even within a millisecond of conception, but -immediately- afterwards we are committing 'murder.' And it is also illogical; there is no common sense in this kind of thinking.
2. However, if we agree that it is unethical to prevent the egg and sperm from meeting in that one millisecond prior to conception, then we open up a very unwieldy can of ethical worms and the questions of what is ethical in relation to preventing conception can be pushed farther and farther back until we enter the realm of protecting every sperm and egg and banning birth control. It enters the realm of ridiculousness very quickly.
3. We also know that "conception" occurs often without anyone knowing because it is quite common for the zygote to fail to make it safely to the uterine wall and attach itself. We also know that spontaneous abortions occur very often in the first hours and days following conception, often without a woman's knowledge. Has God so poorly designed us that he is granting full personhood to zygotes and embryos, but more often than not, they will never even make it to the fetus stage?
Here are some million dollar questions for you:
If full personhood starts at conception, is the two-celled division of an egg (a zygote that has not yet even differentiated) that spontaneously aborts in heaven?? Do you expect to find billions upon billions of fertilized eggs that never made it to the uterus in heaven?? Must they stand before the judgment seat of God and be covered by the blood of Jesus? If a human being is cloned, are they not a person because there was never a moment of conception? And if they are a person, at what point? These questions may sound absurd, but these questions serve to show that there can be no black and white line for defining personhood "at conception."
My conclusion: A sane and logical view is to throw out the "all or nothing concept" and try and do the best we can with what we know. It seems that we cannot go from "meaningless matter" to "full personhood" within a millisecond. It seems that the process of personhood, much like the process of becoming a fully developed and conscious human being, is a gradual one. At conception, the process starts, but it is only the beginning. A zygote is only slightly "more" valuable than the sperm and egg alone because it has more potential to become "human" than the sperm and egg did one millisecond prior. We cannot grant full personhood to a zygote though. Slowly the zygote, embryo, and then fetus develop, and as they do, they grow into personhood. This is why early abortions are preferable to late abortions even though any prevention of the development of human life is tragic in some sense.
Alan said:
quote:
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.
I'm not following your thinking on this at all. You asked: "Aren't all human beings persons?" My response is clearly "no" and my basis for that statement is the fact that we currently believe that once a person has died, they are no longer a "person" but are still "human." You claim that when a person dies they cease to be a human and are only "human remains." I cannot follow that jump in your thinking...how does a dead human cease to be human? You then used the analogy of a butcher cutting up a cow so that it becomes only "meat" and ceases to be a cow, but again, I disagree and do not follow. The reason I am a vegetarian is because I do not eat animals. I cannot say that when Bessie the cow is "chopped up" NOW she suddenly ceases to be an "animal" or a "cow." I suppose I could cease being a vegetarian if I could convince myself that meat is "just meat" and not "an animal" anymore once it is dead and chopped up. The fact that death has occurred does not take away the fundamental "humaness" of the deceased. What HAS taken place is that the "personhood" and/or the "spirit" of the human has departed the human body temporarily.
Additionally, we believe in the resurrection of the body +, and so the human body cannot be said to be merely "parts" or "remains," but continues to be a fundamental aspect of our humanity. There is an odd dualism in your thinking regarding the "human body" and the "person" on the one hand, and yet a conflation of the concepts of "human" and "person" on the other.
Alan said:
quote:
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.
And this is exactly the point where the issues of experience and function must come into play precisely because we will never be able to answer these questions in ways that satisfy the all or nothing pro-life folks, but we do know what does and what doesn't work in the real and fallen world we live in. We must take this into account.
The following comments are not directed at Alan or any one individual, I offer them for everyone...
We know that the all or nothing approach does not work; it has already been demonstrated in our world. Women will seek illegal abortions if they have to (and always have done) at risk of their own lives in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy from continuing due to social and economic pressures. I do not believe God is holding women who abort due to extreme social, economic, religious, and familial pressures as "murderers." My observation of the world forces me to take into account the real life circumstances of women, not the idealistic and theoretical desires of a few. In the juvenile hall and jail, things like the following occur frequently: little girls get taken advantage of by older boys and men and become pregnant and know that they will be rejected by society, family, and church if the pregnancy is discovered... young women must chose between banishment from their homes and family and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term....migrant women from Mexico become accidentally pregnant and have neither the medical services, nor the finances to raise a child....women married to abusive husbands whose accidental pregancy means they will be beat by their husbands and so would any future child....women addicted to drugs who cannot kick the habit become pregnant accidentally and cannot live with themselves....etc. The all or nothing pro-life folks may dream of a world in which there is an "answer" to all these problems, but in reality, there are usually no answers for these women and young girls...they are trapped in a society that rejects, judges, and does not help substantially. It should not be this way, but it is and we are forced to deal with reality.
So what happens when birth control fails in cases where a pregnancy is not feasible? The all or nothing pro-life group imagines an idealistic utopia in which all unwanted pregnancies are carried to term, all babies are given proper homes, and the women who carry to term are not left scarred for life. But the world is no such place and we must deal with what we have...with reality. Real solutions for real people with real problems. We're left having to do the best we can in an evil world...and sometimes we must make compromises. Just as divorce is always far from the ideal but the church has recognized that divorce is sometimes the lesser of two evils, so is early abortion.
The compromise suggested is that we outlaw abortions beyond the stage when medical science can determine actual brain activity, somewhere between the 6-10 week mark, thereby insuring that in cases of accidental pregnancy, women still have the ability to prevent a pregnancy from continuing, yet also assuring that fetuses who exhibit brainwaves and can think/feel are not killed.
Again folks, this is a compromise solution based on the reality of living life in a fallen world and using the best evidence we have to establish personhood medically among a majority. And again, the goal is to prevent abortions, not increase them. When an "all or nothing" standard ceases to work (such as the prohibition of alcohol or the outlawing of all divorce, etc.), we have to find other ways to handle these tough issues, ways that pastorally take into account real life situations and problems.
I tend to think those of us on opposite ends of the spectrum will never agree on this issue because our view of God and humanity is quite different...our underlying assumptions are deeply divergent.
And my experience in life tells me that it's always easy for me to demand theoretical ideals from others when I have never experienced the pain of walking in their shoes.
---------------------
Brandon, there's a lot in your post and I think it is well written. I realize a lot of your response is directed at Greg's previous posts (the political issues and questions as to who decides), so I'll only address that which may apply to my arguments.
Of the five arguments you offered that people use to justify abortions, 1, 3, and 5 are not one's I use at all, and two and four are only tangential issues which -alone- do not justify abortion. Additionally, we are in agreement that none of these arguments for abortion can justify an abortion once personhood is present (although our definition of personhood diverges).
As you already know, I don't think it is possible to argue either for or against a particular "moment" of personhood, we can never prove this one way or another to everyone's satisfaction, so my proposal to switch the criteria used at death to early development is the most common sense and practical approach that a majority of people can agree upon. Our fundamental disagreement about when personhood begins is the root of the issue, and an unresolvable one at that.
You said:quote:
I want to say that a “property-thing” (physicalist) view suggests that as properties of a person changes, the person them self changes. That is, there is no essential person that survives the process of change.
But I must clarify that I do not hold to a property-think view. I do believe that an essential person survives the process of change until death. The only point of disagreement between us is -when- what can be termed the "essential person" comes into being. For you it is in a single moment at conception, for me it is a process that occurs over several weeks. But while those first weeks can be said to be a gradual development into personhood, once a person is a person, that does not change until death. I believe conception is the moment that a human life begins to move towards personhood, but it cannot be reasonably said to have reached personhood until it can be established that thought/feelings/consciousness/brain waves are present in a similar way that a sperm alone cannot be said to be a human until other factors are present (namely conception with the egg and the necessary wash of chemicals/hormones, etc.).
Of interest here is to point out the fact that even if a sperm and egg meet and conception occurs, no further development of life will occur unless the proper hormones and chemicals are present. Again, this fact creates gray areas and illustrates the complexity of the issue...all these components are necessary for life, but what if any one of these is missing? Is this still human life, a person, or something else entirely?
In the case of cloning, no conception occurs whatsoever...are the earliest stages of a cloned individual's life still that of a person?
Brandon said:quote:
To speak of a person “becoming,” is in actuality an incoherent notion.
Incoherent? And yet we understand that life and death itself is a gradual process in most cases. Human development, spiritual development, and every other kind of development is a process. Black and white definitions just don't exist in reality from what I see. I do not believe there are "magical moments"...life and change occurs gradually as a process. The Biblical term for this is "transformation."
"And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another..." (2 Cor. 3:18). The process of becoming transfrmed into the image of Christ is a gradual for one for all of us. This spiritual principle has physical equivalents and the idea of "process" seems to be the way in which the world operates.
quote:
One cannot be in the “process” of becoming a human person since one must exist in order to enter ANY process. Thus, we cannot say that any being gradually becomes a person-or ceases to be a person for that matter.
Your analogy is flawed because if one must already exist in order to enter into ANY process, then we would be forced to say that a human person existed BEFORE conception, or else they too would be unable to enter into the process of existence.
Brandon said:quote:
Another problem with the gradualist view of a human person is that one can never be sure when the process is complete or when it begins to diminish or work in reverse. Development of one’s fundamental capacities continues well into teenage years and early adulthood that it is difficult to draw a line at which full personhood is achieved.
Again, the same problem faces us at death...that is why I asked you questions regarding your understanding of death, to demonstrate the complexity of the issue. It is never black and white but we have to make guesses and go with what we know and can be demonstrated. Additionally, no one here is arguing that the process of personhood is something that extends beyond the first few weeks of embryonic development. As I said earlier, I agree that once the essence of personhood is established, that essence remains and simply changes until death.
Brandon said:quote:
It makes it hard as to where to draw precise lines as to people’s rights on the “edges of life.”
Not to state the obvious, but there is no escaping the difficulty that exists in drawing "precise lines" for people on the "edges of life." The problem already exists and there is no easy way out for us. I believe that people who take the "all or nothing" perspective on abortion simply cannot tolerate the gray reality of the world we live in whereby there can be NO precise lines drawn, only prayerful best guesses and attempts to choose wisely using our best knowledge in any given situation.
The Scripture texts you used support the idea that once personhood is established very early in human development, the essential person and identity remains the same. I also agree that texts demonstrate that God's hand is clearly involved in the formation and development of all human life from the earliest stages...I would say that God's hand is clearly in the development of all animal life and all creation too. I think we can use such texts to argue against abortions and the taking of all life in general, but they do not aid us in pin pointing the exact moment of personhood any more than the Genesis account whereby God first forms the man before breathing God's spirit into him aids us in drawing "exact lines." The language and genre used in these texts is one of poetry, myth, and symbolism, not literal definitions of biological and spiritual processes here. I know we won't be able to agree on this because our entire approach to the Scriptures is so different. I find arguing over Biblical texts to be the least fruitful exercise imagineable when two people approach the texts in such different ways.
Thank you for your words and explanations, I do respect and appreciate them even though I disagree with them.
Peace,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/21/2002 4:11:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/21/2002 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | I liked the clarity with which Alan wrote.
.
Looking back to the first page of this thread, Tom threw the issue open from the one topic of abortion to the more general "Christians and Politics." Maybe that focus should be expanded.
We soon expanded from the one topic of abortion to a dual focus, melding in captical punishment. That dual-point landscape that has shaped discussion and arguement.
I'D LIKE TO EXPAND IT AGAIN.
I hear that Augustine talked about a "JUST WAR." Below, conveniently, is something I got in e-mail from CT/CH. It raises the topic of a "Just War." The only Orthodox persons' comments I've heard on the topic of war differed from Augustine. If "Just War" becomes a topic on this thread, I scan some of the "War and Peace" section in LIVING THE FAITH: The Praxis of Easern Orthodox Ethics (by Stanley Harrakas, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary in Brookline, Mass).
Al
Takers on "Just War?"
==========================================================
quote:
This Week in Christian History (ONE A FEW WEEKS AGO)
Also @ ChristianityToday.com
Just War, Just Nation?
Just War, Just Nation?
World War II preacher points America back to the nation's soul.
by Steven Gertz
With an attack on Iraq seeming imminent, Christian leaders are
asking the obvious question: "Is such a war morally
justified?" In a recent letter to George W. Bush, five
prominent evangelicals, including Charles Colson and Bill
Bright, gave their full approval to a war effort. To bolster
their argument, they pointed to America's experience in World
War II. "How different and how much safer would the history of
the twentieth century have been had the allies confronted
Hitler when he illegally reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936?"
On the other side of the fence, 70 American and British church
leaders, including Ron Sider and Tony Campolo, recently signed
a document declaring current plans to attack Iraq to be
"illegal, unwise, and immoral." In a separate article, Sider
wrote, "There are two options. We can use power unilaterally
to promote the shorter-term economic and political self-
interest of America. Or we can seek genuinely to implement the
moral principles we claim to embrace and take the lead in
creating a better world for all."
Sider sounds a chord that America's heard before. Samuel Moor
Shoemaker, rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in New York from
1925 to 1952, is remembered most for his social conscience. He
helped formulate the Twelve Steps for Alcoholics Anonymous and
transformed his church into a center for rehabilitation and
rescue programs for down-and-outers. In the late 1930s, he
also provided a home for what became the national headquarters
for Moral Re-Armament, an organization that believed war and
conflict could be averted if leaders accepted certain moral
values.
Shoemaker carried these concerns into his sermons before and
during America's involvement in World War II. On June 25,
1940, he gave a radio address on the topic, "National Moral
Defense." "In Europe, men are not just fighting against tanks
and airplanes," he began, "the war is a war of ideas.... You
can't explode a bad idea with a bomb, but only with a better
idea.... In addition to military defense, we need moral
defense."
What did Shoemaker mean by moral defense? His answer: "I mean
building up in our people morale, courage, unselfishness,
alertness, solidarity, which will make us all useful to
America in overcoming her enemies within and without."
It was America's enemies within that interested Shoemaker
most. After the country entered World War II, the cleric
addressed the nation's cause in several sermons, eventually
published in Christ and this Cause. In one of those
sermons, "God and the War," he lashed out at the nation's
immorality.
"This nation has had the greatest privileges ever given to any
nation in all time. America has been God's privileged child.
But America has become a spoiled child. We have been
ungrateful to the God under whom our liberties were given to
us. I believe it is high time for someone to say that this war
today is God's judgment upon a godless and selfish people."
Shoemaker did support the war effort; in his sermon, "What Are
We Fighting For?" he admitted that the war was a "grim
necessity," the means by which nations would once again have
the opportunity to choose democracy. But he abhorred any self-
righteous cause:
"No war can ever be a clear-cut way for a Christian to express
his hatred of evil. For war involves a basic confusion. All
the good in the world is not ranged against all the evil. In
the present war, some nations that have a great deal of evil
in them are yet seeking to stand for freedom ... against other
nations which have a great deal of good in them but yet are
presently dedicated to turning the world backwards into the
darkness of enslavement."
This note of irony -- cousin to Christian humility -- must
still be sounded today, even as we fight the dear and present
danger of international terrorism and rogue nations wielding
weapons of mass destruction. Let no one, Shoemaker would say,
confuse a just war with a just nation. The contradictions run
too deep for such complacency.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 11/21/2002 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | I need to clarify what is the potential for personhood (and what distinguishes homo sapiens from other species). If you believe that each of our species is formed in God's image, then at what point of development is that image given? Let me speak from the cellular level. In science, transgenic mice are made by cloning your gene of interest into a specific site on the genome. This is how Dolly, the first cloned animal was made. Nuclei from engineered or non-engineerd somatic, embryonic 'stem cells' are injected into receptive oocytes and implanted into uteri of foster mothers. The cells are always mouse, though. I never assume that when I remove host cells and replace them with engineered mouse cells that after artificial implantation, the developing embryo will become anything but a mouse. While it's theoretically true that you could inject an animal somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated human egg and create a human chimera, it (so far) only happens in the world of H.G. Wells (remember Dr. Moreau's island?). In a cell to cell comparison, I will always be able to tell you what is murine and what is human or bacteria or virus, etc. Therefore, to me, humans are fundamentally different on a cellular level (even from monkeys, though not by much). The point, though, is that, our germ-line cells will always give rise to humans and humans have been unique to God from the beginning. How can people decide that a human is only a person after brain wave activity, which, upon cessation, determines death. I would propose that the potential human life, which begins at conception! (I'm not talking about wasting sperm here), holds as much sanctity as the fully developed. At death, cells no longer hold the potential for life. No, I don't know precisely at which cell division or development stage the soul is given to the body, but I do know that each egg in a woman that is fertilized whether inside or outside the body will develop into a human and not chicken or mouse or yeast. They will always be human cells, they will not develop into anything that is not human or homo sapien. Will you take the chance that the human cells you destroy by abortion have not been bestowed personhood yet, even if merely a blastula or morula? I don't believe anyone has that right whether by pill or knife. I know I'm glad that my mother understood that I was human from the start and not just a ball of cells with the potential for life. I was a unique ball of cells with the potential for human life, which God seems to respect enough to bestow His image upon.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/21/2002 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh dear...my day off and I'm spending much too much time on the good 'ol CVM board!
Dr. Snug...I'm not clear who you're addressing your question to, but I think it's to me....
You asked: quote:
I need to clarify what is the potential for personhood (and what distinguishes homo sapiens from other species).
I believe only humans have the potential for personhood. Having the potential for personhood means to me that, unlike the miraculous conception that occurs among non-human animals, humans alone have the potential to become persons made in the image of God. Human life is present at conception, but not personhood, personhood is something that human embryos gradually develop into several weeks after conception. The most common sense approach I believe is to mark that time around the time that brain waves/consciousness/thought/feeling arise.
This is how I distinguished between human and person previously. Please note this is not an exhaustive list and simply reflects my own understanding when I use these terms:
quote:
Human: A trait that identifies and differentiates a being as human as opposed to any other kind of animal or creature. Humans are different from other creatures in their physical and mental make up. Humans have a greater capacity for intelligence, reason, emotion, compassion and creativity. A human is a human at conception and after death, once a human, always a human. "Human" is primarily a biological and physiological designation.
Person: A person possesses the quality of personhood. A person is a human that is conscious, has brain waves/brain activity, and has a soul/spirit. A human becomes a person several weeks after conception and ceases to be a person upon brain death/death. The seat of one's personhood is in the soul/mind.
Dr. Snug said:
quote:
If you believe that each of our species is formed in God's image, then at what point of development is that image given?
I have stated that I believe what distinguishes a "person" from any other creature is primarily that we have a soul/spirit. I do not believe it is any physical or mental trait. Our soul/spirit is also what causes us to be "made in the image of God." It is the soul that enables us to commune with God and it is within our spirit that God's Spirit abides within us. The text I use to understand the formation of a human into a person is Genesis 1, the only account we have in the Bible of human formation: God first forms the body of Adam and then breathes his ruach (spirit/breath) into him. I believe it is at that point that the "human Adam" became the "person Adam" with the imago dei imprinted upon him. It is also at that point in the story that Adam gains consciousness/thought for the first time. Therefore, we can conclude that the evidence of God's ruach/spirit occurs once the embryo has developed and around the time it begins to have consciousness/thought/brain waves, as in line with the Genesis 1 account
Dr. Snug said: quote:
Therefore, to me, humans are fundamentally different on a cellular level (even from monkeys, though not by much). The point, though, is that, our germ-line cells will always give rise to humans and humans
I definitely agree with that, yes. Again, I am not arguing that a zygote or embryo is not human, but that it has not reached personhood.
Dr. Snug said:quote:
Will you take the chance that the human cells you destroy by abortion have not been bestowed personhood yet, even if merely a blastula or morula?
I think we have to take that chance given the world we live in, yes. I don't think we ought to take that chance without the medical evidence and without a lot of prayerful caution of course.
Dr. Snug said:
quote:
I know I'm glad that my mother understood that I was human from the start and not just a ball of cells with the potential for life.
I think Dr. Boyd's response to this earlier in thread was helpful. He said:
Also, I have met one person who argued this IN FAVOR OF invetro-impregnation – "If my parents had regarded fertized zygotes as full persons and thus opted to NOT use invetro-impregnation, I would not be here." hmmmmmm
Hope this clarifies.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 11/21/2002 1:34 PM (GMT -6) | | E,
What you argue is all very linear and logical and I am thoroughly impressed with your arguments. I hope to do my best to consider all opinions. Your reference to Adams body being formed before his soul definitely supports your claim if it means what you think it means. And if the soul leaves the body at the cessation of brain waves, then maybe I'm already outta here. My point is the uniqueness of human life, though. Yes, we develop similar to all mammals and other mammals gain brain activity at a specific stages during their development also, but what is different is our potential. Despite gaining brain activity, non-humans will still not be unique to God. I think that perhaps God gave Adam His breath as a measure of distinction. God designed the human race as He thought was good and distinguished them by His breath. I'm not sure that you can conclude that human potential and personhood are separable based on the fact that God created the first fully developed man and gave him his soul at distinct times. This may not be a typical event. After all, it's not as though Adam was ever conceived so these are pretty special circumstances. It might be more relevant to look at scriptures that deal with God's prophecies about the unborn, which others do much better than me. Clearly, there are some examples of the unborn whom God considers to be capable of human actions.
We are talking about a very narrow window of development here, but it's important to the lives of millions. And who defined personhood as the ability of neurons to generate brain waves. If you want the details of chemical transmission, I can give them. Who cares if you have brain waves if you don't even have anything to think about yet? I can generate the same type of chemical activity in neuronal cells in a petri dish in my lab...add a little growth media here, a little hormone there, mix in some Na+, Mg++ and ATP...synaptic transmission, neuronal migration, I can do it all!
I digress...sorry.
Do you honestly believe that the first brain waves generated by a fetus are conscious? (Note your definition of personhood) We're talking about chemical and electrical transmission here, not the ability to reason, etc. This is why I don't think I can separate 'personhood' and humanness. God made humans persons. Humans are genotypically/phenotypically distinct from other mammals as a classification for mankind, but God sees humans as persons even before they're born. So how can one say that just because it takes time to develop brain waves, it's Ok to abort what God has designed to take time. Does God not care about me until my neurons fire for the first time? I hope He has everything planned out a little better than that. I look forward to your reply Empiress.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/21/2002 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | I STILL think that when you disect a frog...you get a DEAD frog!
I'm not a fan or assuming that all the parts make a whole. Lost from the discussion of "person" is the relationships. All that is really being discussed is "individuals" and whether those individuals ratchet up to the level of "person." But that's just a dead frog. When the relationship of a mother to her Ziogot is a Communion of microcosm and mediator, uniting them in God as His... then no number of individual components or individual aspects, or individual anything begins to measure the whole. The measure of the image is in the likeness! Trying to measure man without using our model is just so much chasing the wind.
(Don't take offense, please, at my bold-speaking. It just fun that way.)
Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/21/2002 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress:quote:
I think we have to take that chance given the world we live in, yes. I don't think we ought to take that chance without the medical evidence and without a lot of prayerful caution of course.
What doesn't make sense to me is that you are willing to accept that "given the world we live in" we might need to chance the abortion of an unborn person, but you are unwilling to grant that same regard for practicality when considering whether society should execute murderers. It's as if you are demanding the ideal in one instance, but not the other.
Also, I'd like to highlight a very strong point that DrSnug made. You admit that brainwaves are your best "common sense" guess at when life begins, but as DrSnug points out, brainwaves are found in animals as well. Heck, DrSnug can even generate the stuff in a Petri dish. It seems to me that our imago dei personhood must be derived from our very distinctness as human beings, not the electrical charges that cross our synapses. Your attempt to find a difference between being a person and being human seems all too strained to me.
Great dialogue on this, people. And thanks Miss E for being willing to defend your position amid so much opposition!
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 11/22/2002 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Fred,
I assume your comment is directed my way so I'll respond. You hit the nail on the head when you say that this isn't about parts of the whole person (cells). That was my point. You cannot place worth (personhood) on a particular level of cellular development just because a subset of those cells begin their role in synaptic transmission. The focus must remain on the purpose of those synaptic transmissions (thought) and why those transmissions differ from those of another mammal. A fetal kangaroo's first brain activity does not differ much from a human's during their analogous gestational stage. Does that mean that they are worthy of personhood? No. We receive our sin nature through our parents, not by DNA, but in the spiritual part of our nature. So too, I believe, do we receive our personhood. We are persons with a sin nature because God decided that he would create a people with the potential to love Him.
I believe you right on when you imply that this is not about biology. It may have seemed like it in my answer, but I'm just fighting fire with fire here. So far my only expertise is in biology, and I'm doing my best to catch up with philosophy and religion so be easy on me. And thanks for your post.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/22/2002 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear DrSnug, I'm sorry to see your black eye (above).
I directed the post to no one in particular. It is interesting for me to see how you took it and the connections that you saw fit to draw. It is gratifying to see that. But what I didn't come right out and say -- and I guess you did for me ("this is not about biology") is that our humanity (I'm droping the word 'person' at least just for this paragraph, as I don't think that necessarily represents any determinating criteria.) is not defined within the limits of ourselves.
Our humanity is not defined within the limits of ourselves; it extends to the human community. And our humanity is not defined within the limits of ourselves or merely the human community; but it extends to God.
So, the "frog" I spoke of includes that which is only totally realized in the redemption of Christ, but for which we were created. Totally realized in Christ's redemption is our relattionship to God and to each other. That is the "frog." And it is that "whole frog" that all must be measured up to.
...........
Yes, I will go easy on you. But if you don't mind, I'll not let one thing past. You mentioned the 'heresy'  that says -- counter to scripture -- that God created us with a sinful nature. That is impossible. In fact, God created us (in Gen.) and said "very good." And, contrary to what Augustine says, we do NOT inherit the guilt of sin from our parents, only the effects of sin, which is death. You said, "We receive our sin nature through our parents, not by DNA, but in the spiritual part of our nature." Our "nature" is what was created by God. We create our own sins. And we are not born spritually dead. But 'death' in us makes us prone to sin. And our sinning creates more death. Etc., etc., etc... But your point was that "So too ... we receive our personhood [in the spiritual part of our nature]." You are intitled to that view. I do think, though, that there have been several so far who have said that "human" is a unity of body, soul and spirit, and NOT just spirit. So, depending on what you meant, some may argue with you.
A final emphasis on the 'Genesis' objection. Where you wrote, "We are persons with a sin nature because God decided that he would create a people with the potential to love Him.", we did NOT have to sin for us to be able to love God. We merely had to have free will. And FREE WILL is freedom of will, not necessarily the desire to sin. It is potential to do either the God-direction (the-sis) willing or the antiGod-directed (anti-thetical) willing. But it does not require sin.
The proof is Jesus, who in his human will, though tempted, chose to align with the divine will (which the Trinity shares perichoretically, in coinherence). The proof is also seen in Mary's "Yes" to God.
Thanks for your kind response.
Fred
...one more time!...
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 11/22/2002 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Fred,
You'll have to pardon my hastily-written response last time. My wording was obviously misleading concerning my own beliefs. I totally concur with you on most everything. I agree with Dr. Boyd concerning our ability not to love God, for that is true love. No, that doesn't mean we have to choose evil as you appropriately referenced with our perfect Christ's incarnation. I'm not going to waste my time agreeing with you on everything so I'll ask you one question: Why should humanity be any different than personhood? Empiress thinks that a brain-dead body is still human, but no longer worthy of personhood. And I'm not really comprehending why you don't think that our sin nature is inherited. Adam and Eve sinned, it is passed on (and not genetically, although it's still a part of the whole), we therefore struggle during our Christian life against this lingering sin nature. Doesn't Paul address this? I know the Scripture '...and death passed upon all men so that all have sinned'. Are we not born dead in sin and in need of a Savior? I guess I don't understand why we're not born spiritually dead. Help me out, brother. By the way, I'm just joking around with the black eye face thingy. I love to be corrected, it makes me a better thinker. Peace out.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/22/2002 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Brett, Brandon, Empiress, et al.,
I'm still trying to catch up on this thread. Hope to comment on the recent posts soon.
Empiress,
I have a few additional comments on some things you said a while back.
Empiress: The "all or nothing" pro-life stance claims that the egg and sperm alone are not "human life" ... and yet they say that at the exact moment that the sperm and egg meet (conception), we have suddenly moved from "nothing" to "everything." We went from "worthless matter" to "full personhood" in a millisecond. ... I find this rather implausible. ... What if we were to prevent, in the one millisecond before the sperm reached the egg, the sperm from puncturing the egg? Are we ethically "in the clear"? Have we refrained from murder? ... It seems to me that we have not if we take the "all or nothing" perspective.
Alan: I don't see what's so implausible about the (near) instantaneous creation of a new human being (I say "being" here and not "person" because I don't concede to you that distinction)? Someone can go from living to dead in a millisecond, just as Jesus can (and will) raise the dead "in the twinkling of an eye". I'll grant that, from our perspective, we may not be able to pinpoint the EXACT moment when human life begins, but I don't see any problem there from a practical perspective. You seem to think otherwise, and suggest that the "all-or-nothing" view implies that preventing the sperm from reaching the egg at the last moment is murder. How so? If the sperm has not yet reached the egg then we do not yet have a human being, so how can that be murder? At the very least, the sperm and the egg have to have already joined, merged their genetic material, and fused their respective identities into a functionally new organism.
Empiress: We also know that "conception" occurs often without anyone knowing because it is quite common for the zygote to fail to make it safely to the uterine wall and attach itself. We also know that spontaneous abortions occur very often in the first hours and days following conception, often without a woman's knowledge. Has God so poorly designed us that he is granting full personhood to zygotes and embryos, but more often than not, they will never even make it to the fetus stage?
Alan: An interesting question, but are you or anyone really in a good position to judge what counts as "poor" design in this case? What if, for some reason that is not fully apparent to us, God has set things up this way--would you accuse God of poor design? I know there are all cases in which it seems to us that "If I were God, I'd never do things that way", but that is rarely, if ever, a sufficient reason by itself for thinking that God didn't do things that way.
Empiress: Here are some million dollar questions for you: If full personhood starts at conception, is the two-celled division of an egg (a zygote that has not yet even differentiated) that spontaneously aborts in heaven? Do you expect to find billions upon billions of fertilized eggs that never made it to the uterus in heaven? Must they stand before the judgment seat of God and be covered by the blood of Jesus?
Alan: Again, some very good questions. Here's my two-cent answer to your million dollar question: We don't know how God handles cases like this, but that's no reason for thinking it ain't so. On some matters the Bible is silent, but here's a possibility that may lessen the implausibility you see in the idea that full personhood is present at conception. What if God puts these souls through some kind of post-mortem probationary period to allow them to choose either for or against God? I don't see anything rationally or Biblically absurd in that idea.
Empiress: It seems that the process of personhood, much like the process of becoming a fully developed and conscious human being, is a gradual one. At conception, the process starts, but it is only the beginning. A zygote is only slightly "more" valuable than the sperm and egg alone because it has more potential to become "human" than the sperm and egg did one millisecond prior. We cannot grant full personhood to a zygote though. Slowly the zygote, embryo, and then fetus develop, and as they do, they grow into personhood. This is why early abortions are preferable to late abortions even though any prevention of the development of human life is tragic in some sense.
Alan: You're crossing the line here into adopting a functional and gradational definition of human personhood, whereby some human beings are more persons than others, and thus more valuable. This is the standard pro-choice way of looking at the matter, the only difference being that you would admit the presence of personhood much earlier than most pro-choicers. I would dispute your assertion that the zygote has "slightly more" value than the sperm and egg because it has more "potential" to become human. Rather, the zygote IS human, and it's not a "potential person", but a person with a lot of undeveloped but developing potential. An acorn may look very different from an oak tree, but they are fundamentally the same kind of thing. The acorn is just an immature oak tree. Similarly, the embryo is an immature human being, but it is fully human nonetheless. It is because the embryo IS human that it matures in the way that it does.
Enjoying the discussion,
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 11/22/2002 8:36:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/22/2002 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Dr. S: Why should humanity be any different than personhood?
Fred: Some things are not a matter of 'this' or 'that.' Those things are a matter of framework. Such as the false choice you see on TV comedy shows where some poor guy actually is duped into choosing between his girl and another woman, thinking that that was "the right answer." Poor guy. The only right answer was not even engage in a choice that shouldn't be made. (You may or may not follow me.) I'll settle for Alan's choice of "human being."
Part of that "frog" is the 'image' and 'likeness' matter. We are created in the 'image' of God. We are to grow into (as was Adam and Eve) the 'likeness.' And it is what we are to grow into that is what from which perspective should be drawn to consider the questions we are considering.
Dr. S: And I'm not really comprehending why you don't think that our sin nature is inherited. Adam and Eve sinned, it is passed on (and not genetically, although it's still a part of the whole), we therefore struggle during our Christian life against this lingering sin nature. Doesn't Paul address this? I know the Scripture '...and death passed upon all men so that all have sinned'. Are we not born dead in sin and in need of a Savior? I guess I don't understand why we're not born spiritually dead. Help me out, brother.
Fred: Augustine INTRODUCED the concept of Original Guilt into Christian theology. none of the Greek Fathers had any such concept. It leads, ultimately, to the concept the RCC has of the "Immaculate Conception" (which again the Greek Fathers did not have).
The "sin nature" isn't biblical (except in a very bad NIV translation of Roman, where the internet verson keeps having to insert "flesh" as a 'possible' preference for "nature."). I searthed the NASV with the word "nature" and those same Romans verses did not even come up. To find them () I needed to search with "flesh."
quote:
Roman 7:5 (NASB) For while we were in the flesh (NIV says "sinful nature"), the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
Romans 7:17 (NASB) So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
The flesh is fallen. But our created nature ("Nature" can't change with the fall -- its impossible.) God did not change his mind. And nothing exists in itself. (If the "Uhrwerk" idea of 18th cent. Deutsches philosophy were true, maybe that would be possible...) did not change.
Rather, from the above verses we see that: death is at work in our flesh, bearing fruit in our body as death; our flesh can searve the 'law' of sin.
Dr. S: I know the Scripture '...and death passed upon all men so that all have sinned'. Are we not born dead in sin and in need of a Savior?
Fred: Look at what you wrote above. "...death passed upon all men so that all have sinned" means just THAT. And YES, that does mean that we are born dead in our sin, and in need of a Savior. But it does NOT mean that we are born with inherited guilt -- a "sin nature." It means that our created nature is fallen. The 'effects' of sin is what we are born with.
Now, perhaps I am out on a limb with what I wrote above, saying that we are not born "spiritually dead." But I think that I do believe that. I think that newborns have all the concept of God that they need. They too are born with a fallen created nature. Sin shows up quickly and subtlely. But they also have a strong and integrated grasp of what worship-by-living is about, 24/7. Joy and communion is their life. That and three changings a night.
quote:
Romans 8:3 (NASB) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Fred
Edited by - fred on 11/22/2002 11:35:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/23/2002 7:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
Thank you for your responses. I appreciate your gracious tone and the tenacity which you display in defending your position. Nevertheless, your responses seem to me to largely miss the point of what I am trying to say, which leads me to think that perhaps I have not been sufficiently clear. I will therefore attempt to restate my argument in more explicitly terms. To keep this post from becoming too long on account of dealing with numerous different issues, I will instead make several posts, each limited to answering one specific question.
Here's the first question:
IS THE PRO-LIFE POSITION ON ABORTION INCONSISTENT WITH SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
Before we tackle this question head on, let's first make the following general points:
1. To say that one position is inconsistent with another is to say that they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. For example, "X is round" is inconsistent with "X is square".
2. Therefore, to show that two positions are consistent it is sufficient to show that is it possible for both two be true at the same time and in the same respect.
3. The positions in question can be stated as follows:
PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
DP: It is sometimes morally permissible to end a guilty human's life.
4. To show that PL and DP are inconsistent one needs to show that the truth of one logically entails the falsity of the other. Let's see if this can be done.
The proposed inference starts with PL and concludes with the falsity of DP (~DP):
PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
--------
~DP: It is sometimes permissible to end a guilty human's life.
But this argument is not logically valid as it stands. If we suppose that the innocence or guilt of the one whose life is to be ended is morally relevant (MR) to the issue of whether it is justifiable to end their life then the conclusion does not follow. To make the argument valid, therefore, we need an unstated premise (~MR):
PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
~MR: The innocence or guilt of the one to be killed is morally IRRELEVANT to the justifiability of ending their life.
--------
~DP: It is sometimes permissible to end a guilty human's life.
This argument is logically valid, but it only establishes the inconsistency of (PL and ~MR) with DP. To avoid the conclusion, all the defender of PL needs to do is reject ~MR and affirm MR, that the innocence or guilt of the one who is to be killed is morally RELEVANT to the justifiability of killing them. Nor is MR implausible. In fact you yourself, Empiress, conceded the truth of MR in your response to me. But whether you concede MR or not is beside the point. If the defender of PL can consistently affirm MR then PL and DP are consistent and the pro-life position on abortion is consistent with support for the death penalty. QED
Yours in Christ,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/23/2002 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | QUESTION #2: DOES SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IMPLY THAT WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS PERFORMED SHOULD BE EXECUTED?
First an argument for the affirmative (from Empiress):
quote:
Alan, can you explain the distinction you are seeking to make between a murderer (one who knowingly takes a person's life) and an abortionist/woman who had an abortion (one who knowingly takes an unborn "person's" life)? The cases seem to be identical for those who believe that abortion at any stage is murder. In both cases, the "guilt of the person whose life is taken" can be established on such grounds. Guilt is the morally relevant difference, yes, but according to the all or nothing pro-life stance, the guilt of murder is always upon a woman who aborts and her doctor(s). Those who believe that capital punishment is a moral mandate for murderers would (theoretically) need to extend the death penalty to abortion doctors and women who abort.
Reply:
Empiress, your argument assumes that advocates of the "all-or-nothing" pro-life stance are necessarily committed to the idea that abortion is "murder" and that those who also believe in capital punishment typically regard it as morally mandatory in the case of murder. Both of these can be reasonably denied.
First, in the strict legal sense of the term, I do not think that abortion typically qualifies as "murder", at least not first-degree murder. Abortions are typically not "cold-blooded" killings, but are generally prompted by considerable emotional duress and are often sought under the mistaken assumption that "it's just a blob of tissue". It is probably more accurate to classify abortion as "manslaughter" in most cases.
Second, defenders of capital punishment need not, and typically don't, claim that it is morally mandatory, even in the case of first-degree murder. Moreover, most would limit the use of capital punishment to the most egregious cases of first-degree murder, which abortion typically is not. Therefore, there is no strong reason to think that if abortion were outlawed and capital punishment remained legal, then we would have to excute tens of thousands of women.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/25/2002 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon said:quote:
it would seem to me that most aborting mothers in an abortionist society do not realize the full gravity of abortion. Kreeft says that they are filched of their instinct for justice, for life and for motherhood and for tradition. In a very real way, women ARE victims of both an abortionist society and philosophy. Kreeft says, that the real murderer of these innocent millions is society's false philosophy.
I imagine the same could be said of ALL murderers: they are simply VICTIMS of a violent society. For this reason I do not think this argument holds up for those who claim that abortion at any stage is "murder." At any rate, it still does not answer the question as to -how- women who get abortions ought to be dealt with if abortion is, in fact "murder."
---------------------------------------------------
DrSnug said:
quote:
My point is the uniqueness of human life, though. Yes, we develop similar to all mammals and other mammals gain brain activity at a specific stages during their development also, but what is different is our potential. Despite gaining brain activity, non-humans will still not be unique to God.
This is the point of our disagreement, I do not believe what differentiates us from other animals is our potential, I believe what truly differentiates us is spiritual. We share more than 99% of our genetic make up with our closest relatives, chimpanzees. So yes, we are more advanced than other animals, but I don't believe our biology is what makes human life unique and sacred.
DrSnug said:quote:
And who defined personhood as the ability of neurons to generate brain waves.
Well, the medical world currently uses the criteria of a lack of brain waves to determine "death" in humans, therefore it is extremely relevant to the discussion. When a human ceases to have brain waves they are declared "dead" and no longer have the quality of "personhood" even though they remain "human." Additionally, personhood, by my definition, also entails having a spirit/soul. It is presumed the spirit/soul leaves the human body at the time of death as well, e.g, when brain waves cease.
DrSnug said:quote:
Do you honestly believe that the first brain waves generated by a fetus are conscious?
No, I don't. I have stated previously that the required amount of brain waves for a person to be declared "living" versus "dead" ought to be the same requirement for early development.
--------------------------------------
Brett said: quote:
What doesn't make sense to me is that you are willing to accept that "given the world we live in" we might need to chance the abortion of an unborn person, but you are unwilling to grant that same regard for practicality when considering whether society should execute murderers. It's as if you are demanding the ideal in one instance, but not the other.
I don't follow your comment, could you explain what you mean? It seems to me that those who support capital punishment are the idealists...believing that somehow killing people will affect the murder rates in our nation, bring about "justice," and "righting a wrong." I don't think I'm being an idealist, I feel I'm being the ultimate realist when it comes to both capital punishment and abortion.
Brett said: quote:
It seems to me that our imago dei personhood must be derived from our very distinctness as human beings, not the electrical charges that cross our synapses.
And it seems to me that our imago dei personhood is derived from our distinctiveness as possessing a spirit/soul, not our biology.
Brett said:quote:
thanks Miss E for being willing to defend your position amid so much opposition!
Thank you Brett.
-------------------------------------
Alan said:quote:
You seem to think otherwise, and suggest that the "all-or-nothing" view implies that preventing the sperm from reaching the egg at the last moment is murder. How so? If the sperm has not yet reached the egg then we do not yet have a human being, so how can that be murder? At the very least, the sperm and the egg have to have already joined, merged their genetic material, and fused their respective identities into a functionally new organism.
Let me explain more fully. The all or nothing view claims that at the exact moment of conception when the sperm enters into an egg, it instantenously becomes "murder" to destroy it. Those who oppose the all or nothing view will say that a new zygote is clearly not a fully developed thinking, breathing, human being and therefore it cannot be "murder" to destroy it. That is when the all or nothing proponents revert to the claim that the zygote or young embryo has the potential to be or is in the process of becoming a fully developed thinking, breathing, human being, and therefore no distinction ought to be made between a zygote and any other human being. So, the issue of "potential" is at the crux of this argument. If "potential" is the central point in determining whether the ending of the development of a zygote/young embryo can be classified as "murder" however, then clearly the case can be made that a sperm and egg just miliseconds prior to joining one another in conception have the same "potential" to become a fully developed human as they do miliseconds after joining in conception. Therefore, denying the egg and sperm their inevitable "fate" can be said to be "murder" in the same way that denying the zygote its fate: in both cases, the potential for their natural development (as a human being) has been denied. As I said, using "potential" as the basis for determining morality in this issue can be pushed farther and farther backwards to the point of ridiculousness. My point and bottomline is that "potential" is a poor basis for such argumentation for this reason.
Alan said:quote:
An interesting question, but are you or anyone really in a good position to judge what counts as "poor" design in this case? What if, for some reason that is not fully apparent to us, God has set things up this way--would you accuse God of poor design? I know there are all cases in which it seems to us that "If I were God, I'd never do things that way", but that is rarely, if ever, a sufficient reason by itself for thinking that God didn't do things that way.
It is not sufficient reason "by itself" for arguing against the all or nothing position, but in conjunction with other the arguments made, it strengthens the case as plausible evidence against it.
Alan said:quote:
What if God puts these souls through some kind of post-mortem probationary period to allow them to choose either for or against God? I don't see anything rationally or Biblically absurd in that idea.
Certainly any kind of scenario could theoretically be dreamed up to explain the fate of zygotes in heaven, but the ability to come up with extra-Bilblical scenarios does not answer the underlying problems such theories raise theologically. My point in raising this issue was to simply highlight these problems in the all or nothing view. For example: As Christians we believe that all persons are in need of grace and salvation from their sin in Jesus Christ. By saying that all failed-to-implant zygotes, etc. are in need of redemption in the same way that you and I are is problematic since a zygote does not have the ability to sin let alone "think." Yet saying that they are NOT in need of redemption is equally problematic theologically: If all zygotes are automatically "saved" for instance (but not all babies, children, or adults) then it would be logical and compassionate to abort all zygotes in order to assure their salvation. Again, the point is to highlight the theological complexities and problems the all or nothing view automatically entails and involves, nothing more. The fact that we are forced to make up "new theological rules" for zygotes simply highlights this problem.
Alan said:quote:
I would dispute your assertion that the zygote has "slightly more" value than the sperm and egg because it has more "potential" to become human. Rather, the zygote IS human, and it's not a "potential person", but a person with a lot of undeveloped but developing potential. An acorn may look very different from an oak tree, but they are fundamentally the same kind of thing. The acorn is just an immature oak tree. Similarly, the embryo is an immature human being, but it is fully human nonetheless. It is because the embryo IS human that it matures in the way that it does.
And this, of course, is the crux of our disagreement, the truly "impassible" in this discussion. I agree that a zygote is "human" in that it is not some other species, but that does not necessitate that it has the quality of "personhood." And from that point, we can circle the wagons again and argue when "personhood" begins! This really doesn't get us anywhere! 
Alan's argument, quoted in full:quote:
Here's the first question:
IS THE PRO-LIFE POSITION ON ABORTION INCONSISTENT WITH SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
Before we tackle this question head on, let's first make the following general points:
1. To say that one position is inconsistent with another is to say that they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. For example, "X is round" is inconsistent with "X is square".
2. Therefore, to show that two positions are consistent it is sufficient to show that is it possible for both two be true at the same time and in the same respect.
3. The positions in question can be stated as follows:
PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
DP: It is sometimes morally permissible to end a guilty human's life.
4. To show that PL and DP are inconsistent one needs to show that the truth of one logically entails the falsity of the other. Let's see if this can be done.
The proposed inference starts with PL and concludes with the falsity of DP (~DP):
PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
--------
~DP: It is sometimes permissible to end a guilty human's life.
But this argument is not logically valid as it stands. If we suppose that the innocence or guilt of the one whose life is to be ended is morally relevant (MR) to the issue of whether it is justifiable to end their life then the conclusion does not follow. To make the argument valid, therefore, we need an unstated premise (~MR):
PL: It is morally wrong to take an innocent human life.
~MR: The innocence or guilt of the one to be killed is morally IRRELEVANT to the justifiability of ending their life.
--------
~DP: It is sometimes permissible to end a guilty human's life.
This argument is logically valid, but it only establishes the inconsistency of (PL and ~MR) with DP. To avoid the conclusion, all the defender of PL needs to do is reject ~MR and affirm MR, that the innocence or guilt of the one who is to be killed is morally RELEVANT to the justifiability of killing them. Nor is MR implausible. In fact you yourself, Empiress, conceded the truth of MR in your response to me. But whether you concede MR or not is beside the point. If the defender of PL can consistently affirm MR then PL and DP are consistent and the pro-life position on abortion is consistent with support for the death penalty. QED
Thank you for this clear outline and logical demonstration of your viewpoint. Two points need to be made, but first a clarification.
Point of clarification: I do not hold that MR is true, I believe that ALL killing, even killing done in self-defense, is immoral. I did concede that killing done in self-defense, while immoral, is not a punishable offense due to the circumstances of such a killing, and that is why I called it a "necessary evil." I also believe that all instances of killing that are NOT done in self-defense are not only immoral, but ALSO deserving of punishment. The taking of a person's life is always immoral, but the consequences of such actions will vary depending on the context and circumstances.
1.) I addressed the point of inconsistency in the pro-life/pro-death penalty issue I was speaking to earlier in this thread, but I will repeat it here because your argument does not address it.
Christian pro-lifers will say: "Abortion is immoral because human life is sacred."
Yet they will also say regarding the death penalty: "The execution of murderers is moral because they do not respect human life as sacred."
The inconsistency is clear because it does not follow that -all- human life is sacred or the lives of murderers would be considered as sacred and worth preserving as well. I then conceded that in order to be consistent they would need to say: "All human life is sacred and worth preserving except the lives of those who have been convicted of murder," or, more in keeping with your statement: "Abortion is immoral because innocent human life is sacred." IF the pro-life/pro death penalty folks are saying that -only- "innocent" human life is sacred and worth preserving, then they are being consistent, yes. My assumption here is that a Christian could not say that "all life is NOT sacred" when we hold that all person's are made in the image of God, eg it is inconsisent with our faith.
2.) In any argument, if one does not concede to the premise of one's statements, it is impossible to grant truth to the statements made, regardless of the logic used.
For example, I could say:
All girls are boys.
All boys like pizza.
-------------------
Therefore: All girls like pizza.
And my "logic" is technically correct. However, if one does not grant the premise of my statements then those statements can continue to be argued and claimed "false."
Because I do not concede that it is EVER moral to take a person's life, I cannot grant the premise used in the pro-life/pro-death penalty that makes states it is MORAL to take a "guilty person's life." Again, while the logic used can be said to be "correct" the statements remain "false."
It is also my contention that the pro-death penalty position is "inconsistent" with Christian faith as I explained in point 1 (and surely that too is debatable as demonstrated by all the arguments here on this thread alone!).
Alan said:quote:
QUESTION #2: DOES SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IMPLY THAT WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS PERFORMED SHOULD BE EXECUTED?
The immediate problem is that you mis-framed my question. I did not ask whether it was incconsistent to be both pro-death penalty and against the idea that women who have abortions ought to be executed. I asked about the consistency of those who:
1. Hold that abortion is "murder."
2. Hold that capital punishment is mandatory in the case of murder.
Both of these statements HAVE been made by people on this thread in some form. Your response denies both points 1 and 2, however, so my question does not apply.
However you did say:
quote:
It is probably more accurate to classify abortion as "manslaughter" in most cases.
So my question for you would be whether you believe that women who get abortions should recieve the SAME punishment as those convicted of manslaughter? The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment, and such a sentence is mandatory for those convicted of it twice.
I would also like to add that the current statistics of women who have had at least one abortion in the USA is now reaching nearly 50%. Nearly half of all the women you see each day have had an abortion...that means nearly half of all women are guilty of "manslaughter" by your standards.
Thanks for the discussion.
Peace,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/25/2002 10:24:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 11/26/2002 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
Your opinions on the word 'potential' are somewhat convincing, given your position, but you said this in response to Brett,
"And it seems to me that our imago dei personhood is derived from our distinctiveness as possessing a spirit/soul, not our biology. "
So why are you basing the possession of spirit/soul on a biological stage? It just doesn't make sense to me to prescribe worth to a specific stage of development. It simply takes time to set up the brain. I understand that you want to use the same terms applied to death, and, if so, then using the word potential wouldn't make sense (by the way, I already addressed the caveat of sperm and egg in an earlier post). There is obviously a scale of potential here that I have not yet worked out, but I instinctively (maybe through bias) consider a diploid zygote to possess worth as human vs. a haploid germ cell. The true caveats to my position would be to mention embryonic stem cells, which as of yet scientists have not been able to differentiate very well. These are "pleuripotent" or "totipotent" diploid cells capable of variable differentiation and are precursors to all of the cell populations of the organism. A strict interpretation of my view on potential would prohibit the misuse of these cells as well. I know that I don't have the proper vocabulary for my thoughts on this position yet, but I truly believe that there should be a dichotomous position on the determination of worth in life and death. This initially seems illogical, I know, but given the chronology of developmental 'potential', I do not believe that pre-brain wave babies deserve any less chance for life than those who've begun this process. If we continue to focus narrowly on the chemical determination of death, we will lose focus on the natural inheritance of worth as humans. My idea is that at the moment an egg is fertilized, their pronuclei fuse, and random genetic recombination occurs, that zygote possesses the organizational potential for human life unlike a sperm or egg by itself (otherwise, it might soon be illegal to ovulate!); however, a human body devoid of the autonomous chemical faculties necessary to maintain itself is no longer in possession of the potential for life. Now I know that there are holes in my argument, and as you find them, let me know. Empiress, your hole is that you say that our imago dei personhood makes us distinct because of our soul/spirit, but you simply don't know and can't know if God decides to give children this at conception, recombination, blastulation, morulation, totipotentcy, pleuripotency, primitive streak migration, crest cell migration, neuronal synapsing, first, second or third trimester...or whenever! You're a worthy debater, empiress. I applaude you!
"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 11/26/2002 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Brandon said:quote:
it would seem to me that most aborting mothers in an abortionist society do not realize the full gravity of abortion. Kreeft says that they are filched of their instinct for justice, for life and for motherhood and for tradition. In a very real way, women ARE victims of both an abortionist society and philosophy. Kreeft says, that the real murderer of these innocent millions is society's false philosophy.
I imagine the same could be said of ALL murderers: they are simply VICTIMS of a violent society. For this reason I do not think this argument holds up for those who claim that abortion at any stage is "murder." At any rate, it still does not answer the question as to -how- women who get abortions ought to be dealt with if abortion is, in fact "murder."
Yes, but my point is to say that no pro-lifers advocate a mass putting of women in jail. It would be the same as saying that we are not going to hold all Germans directly responsible for the extermination of Jews.
As far as Brett's point is concerned? Though this is somewhat off topic? I think the same holds true for those who advocate the mass distribution of condoms/contraceptives to stem the tide of pregnancy. These same people want to say, "We live in a less than ideal world, kids ARE going to do it, so lets stem the tide of pregnancy by distributing condoms." Yet, it is pretty much undisputed that the program is a failure in achieving it's goals and has actually worked in the opposite direction. But even THIS is beside the point. The real point is that those who advocate the mass distribution of condoms/contraceptions THEN jump on the idealistic bandwagon that they seem to shun in the FIRST PLACE! For they then believe that if everyone will "ideally" use them, then we wouldn't have pregnancies and therefore there would be no need for abortions, at least not to the extent that we have them.
In otherwords they arbitrarily use the "ideal" argument to their argumentative advantage without justifying why they do so. I mean, who is being idealistic here? I think Brett is saying the same thing here. On the one hand you want to say, "We don't live in an ideal world, so, practically speaking, it is tragic that women get pregnant under less than ideal situations, therefore, ideally, we should keep abortion as an option (chancing the death of an innocent person) as less than ideal as THAT is." So, THIS IS THE OVERALL IDEAL.
Yet, on the other capital punishment hand, we also live in a less than ideal world. But those who advocate for capital punishment because it satisfies a sense of justice and does right a wrong cannot be "idealistic." It seems that you are just stating/assuming that one can be idealistic in one but not the other without justifying why. It seems to me that you are begging the question here.
Also, is anyone else around here getting tired of the "less than ideal world" argument? I mean, can we not justify all kinds of behavior in that case? Also, is it not a part of the Christian mandate to "push back" the curse? The "less than ideal" argument seems to capitulate to the curse.
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 11/26/2002 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way Miss. E I will try and respond to your other postings to me concering, twinning, cloning and personhood.
DrSnug, I've got some interesting stuff on totipotent cells. I'll try and get it to ya in a few days.
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 11/26/2002 9:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Something I realized might be helpful to this conversation is to make explicit a few assumptions that perhaps others do not share.
People keep saying things like, "How can you take the risk of aborting a pre-brainwave embryo if you can't prove whether it is a person or not? It may be murder at worst and negligent at best" etc.
But here's what's going on in my mind...
"How can you take the risk of preventing a young girl/woman from aborting an early embryo if you can't prove it's a person when her emotional and/or physical well being may hang in the balance? How can you take the risk of telling women they have committed "murder" and possibly damaging their psychological well being permanently by such statements when you can't prove the personhood of a zygote/embryo?"
You see...when a young girl gets pregnant and wants an abortion because she knows she will be run out of family and home if her pregnancy is discovered, I'm not sure we can "take that chance" with her well being by preventing her. She needs her family, she needs a home...her losing her family and going homeless or in and out of the foster care system will ruin her. When an impoverished woman who is an illegal alien becomes accidentally pregnant and wants an abortion because another child would mean the starvation of herself, her children, and the infirm parents she supports back in Latin America, I don't feel we can "take that chance" by preventing her.
You see, in these cases, the people whose lives hang in the balance are, without a doubt, persons made in the image of God. To trade a 'KNOWN' (these persons' well being) for an 'UNKNOWN' (the personhood of a zygote or young embryo), seems extremely negligent at best if not downright abusive.
------------------------------------
DrSnug said:quote:
So why are you basing the possession of spirit/soul on a biological stage? It just doesn't make sense to me to prescribe worth to a specific stage of development.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't prescribe "worth" to a biological stage in that sense. I believe our worth comes from our spiritual nature of being made in God's image. Because I don't believe a "human" is a "person" at the time of death when the brain waves cease does not mean I am prescribing that kind of "worth" to our biology either, only that our biology is an indicator of the presence of our spirit/soul according to Christian theology. I am making a common sense reversal of that criteria because we have no other basis on which to determine -when- one's soul is present/absent.
----------------------
Brandon said: quote:
It seems that you are just stating/assuming that one can be idealistic in one but not the other without justifying why. It seems to me that you are begging the question here.
I'm sorry but I am just not following this. Can you point me specifically to where you think I am being idealistic or using a double standard? By saying that the death penalty is an -unecessary- evil as opposed to killing in self-defense as a -necessary- evil in the same way that abortion may be a -necessary- evil, I do not follow where my idealism or double standard is.
You said: quote:
Also, is anyone else around here getting tired of the "less than ideal world" argument? I mean, can we not justify all kinds of behavior in that case? Also, is it not a part of the Christian mandate to "push back" the curse? The "less than ideal" argument seems to capitulate to the curse.
Can you explain how discussing the reality of living in our fallen world sometimes calls for less than ideal solutions to terrible problems is "capitulating the curse"? I mean, is WAR ever an "IDEAL"??? And yet war is a justifiable as a "less than ideal" solution at times according to many Christians. I don't think that even the most ardent death penalty advocates believe that killing is an "ideal" solution to the problem of murder. Killing someone in self-defense is certainly "less than ideal," but if that's the only way to save another's life, sometimes people are forced into this immoral act. Lying to save a group of Jews from the Nazis is "less than ideal" because lying is always wrong, yet given our fallen reality, sometimes that's the only option available.
The plain truth is that sometimes ALL we have are "bad" and "worse" options and we have to act in less than ideal ways for the greater good of a person/nation etc. This concept is relevant to any discussion of ethics and moral decision making. I have no idea why you wish to censor it but I am trying to understand.
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 11/27/2002 02:48:54 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/28/2002 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Ugh!!! I hate computers!!! I just spent a couple of hours of my life (whoo-hoo a lot of time that was) typing up the rest of my post and when I went to save it to my mail box, it just saved what I had previously saved! And you know this ain’t gonna turn out the way that I really wanted it to. Anyway, we’ll try this over again. (Heaving big time)
Miss E.
As I have stated before, by analogy, say a hunter went hunting. He sees something rustling in the bushes. He aims his rifle. Should he shoot or not? Would it not be considered negligent on his part NOT KNOWING what he was shooting at? Would the hunter, be wise or foolish? Wouldn’t you say that it is foolish because he claims to know what he does not know? Say you fumigated a building with a highly toxic chemical to kill some insect pests and you were responsible for evacuating the building first. If you are not sure whether there were people left in the building and you nevertheless gave the order to fumigate the building would the act be wise or foolish? Would it not be foolish because you were acting as if you knew something you really did not know?
Now it IS the contention of most of the pro-choicers to say that they don’t know. Even here on some of these boards, some that are pro-life will say that we cannot know. From my reading of scientific as well as some of the philosophical arguments, I would contend that, based on THAT evidence we CAN be certain that a human being is a person from conception onward. And this is what the pro-life side says. They are rather dogmatic about it. Always have been. Nothing new there. But here is the gist. Even you Miss E. are quite as dogmatic about the personhood of the zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. Your claim is that we know that it (zygote, embryo, etc) ISN’T a person given your various arguments, i.e. no brain-waves=not a person, personhood is gradual. If you say that you are not claiming to know, but only taking a hypothetical guess, then you are in no better of a position than the analogous characters I used.
Secondly, I myself have never met anyone who called a woman a murderer for killing the fetus within her. Though you are correct. There are some that will stand at clinics and hold up signs and shout such euphemisms. Those on the pro-life side (in leadership ranks) have denounced such tactics. But what you are failing to do here is to draw a distinction between the objective and subjective senses of the argument.
The argument follows that if murder is the killing (forcibly putting a live organism to death) of an innocent human being, and the zygote IS a person, then abortion IS murder. That’s just the argument. Now, one can complain all they want that someone is being accused of murder, but it is the argument that they have to contend with, not the person making the case. So, in an objective sense, yes, if the fetus (at whatever stage) is a person, then abortion is murder and the abortionists and the mothers would be murderers.
However, in the subjective sense, the question of personal responsibility, guilt and blame is a far more complex question. Most mothers do not get abortions with the clear intent to commit murder (as has been noted by Stark, I believe). Thus, most of those within the pro-life movement do not advocate throwing women who have had abortions in jail, nor even the abortionist for that matter.
Third, you bring up the plight of those in unfortunate circumstances. They may be poor and have no freedom. They may be raped. But let me ask this question. Are any of these unwillingly pregnant women the victims of murder? Is not murder a worse victimization than rape (deprived of virginity) or lack of freedom? You see, I could just as easily ask if the fetus is deprived of life, then where is your compassion to the fetus? All you have done here is be selective with your ethic of compassion. It is compassion to one victim but not to the other.
You see, all your questions and statements presume a priori the moral status of the unborn. There is no neutrality here. Either the unborn (at whatever stage) are persons or they are not. It’s rather simple. This is why the “uncertainty argument” can only go so far. Let me put it this way. When we know what is, does our knowing make what is? For i.e. when we know that a fish is a fish and is NOT a human, is it our knowing that makes the fish a fish? If someone were not to know what a fish is, would that change the fish itself? Take slaves for an example. Are slaves human beings or not? Though some have advocated that slaves were a subhuman species, the ignorance of these people did not change the real nature of the slaves did it? So bringing this all around, even though some think the fetus is a person and some do not, IF it is a person, then the one who kills it is a murderer. It necessarily follows. That’s plain simple logic. Whether abortion is murder or not depends on whether the fetus is a human being (person) or not.
Now, Miss E, you are fond of drawing a distinction between a human being (human body) and a person. It is my contention and the contention of those opposed to your view that this is a false dichotomy. We contend that you can’t separate the two. Now this is beside the point, but this has implications for sexual ethics. You see, people want to say, “Let’s have sex” like their having a hamburger or a hotdog or sum’n. That is, it is something external to the body. “Out there.” But in reality, causal sex, is never causal. It effects the whole person. This is why I believe that when Paul speaks about us sinning sexually, we are sinning against the body. We’ll discuss that on the “Sex. What is it good for?” thread after this discussion. But let me just lay it out on the table as is.
Those who call abortion murder say that a person begins at conception, that the zygote is a person. In saying this, they say that there is a greater difference between a prezygote and zygote than between zygote and adult. Why? Because the first difference is a difference in kind, between person and non-person, while the second is only a difference in degree, between two stages of growth of the person. That is, upon conception, a radical line or break is drawn when a genetically new individual is formed. We contend that the human zygote is in essence a human person. We see this in the nature of things. A fish zygote is a fish. An ape zygote is an ape. A horse zygote is a horse. The potential of these zygotes is NOT to become another essence, but to unfold the essence that is already there. That is, the essence is already there and is guiding the unfolding and the zygote is simply the first stage of this unfolding. It has almost all of it’s growth or unfolding ahead of it, while the rest of us have some behind us and some ahead of us. And at the moment of death, we have all of it behind us and no more ahead, at least on this earth. So there’s got to be something actually there, in the human zygote that accounts for the fact that it’s got the potentiality that is not in the zygote of any other animal. That something is in its nature, its essence, from the very beginning. It is not added later from the outside as if God reaches up into heaven and grabs a soul and sticks it into its body. It unfolds from within. In order to grow a human brain, you have to be a human being. From the very first step. What is NOT logical is that something that’s NOT a human being can grow a human brain from with in it. And so, in order to grow a human body, one has be a human person. In this sense, I would say that we are “gradually developing” or “maturing.” I contend that the soul and body aren’t two things like a ghost and a machine, but rather, they are two dimensions of one thing, like the meaning of a poem and the words of a poem. They both develop gradually. And the only meaningful way to talk about the soul is to talk about the body. That is, the body is our clue to the soul and that the body keeps developing gradually, with no sharp break anywhere—except one: at conception. That’s where the body begins, so that’s where the soul begins too. This is why it is unnecessary to state what you said earlier:quote:
Your analogy (person entering the room) is flawed because if one must already exist in order to enter into ANY process, then we would be forced to say that a human person existed BEFORE conception, or else they too would be unable to enter into the process of existence.
My view doesn’t need to posit prior existence of the individual before conception as shown above. We can leave that for other questions of the soul being passed on from the parents or being created by God.
But allow me to make this even more poignant. Conception is like the beginning of the universe. At conception, there’s a radically new thing. Once there was no me, then, KABLAM!!!! A tiny me, frantically growing and multiplying from the very first moment, just like the universe after the Big Bang up job.  Now it is considered by scientists that the universe was once a one-thing universe and that now it is a trillion-thing universe. What this illustrates is the difference between “relative difference” and “absolute difference.” The difference between one and a trillion is relative. The difference between zero and one is absolute. Aaaand, once you did not exist. Then you exist. Now when did your existence occur? Viability? Birth? At your sweet sixteen party? We all know when it happened. It happened when your mother’s egg and your father’s sperm, each with its own identity and genetic code, stopped being themselves, died to their own identity and together made a new thing with it’s own genetic code, its own identity. If the body is our best clue to the soul, zygotes have souls, because they have genetically distinctive bodies from the beginning. The soul begins at conception because that is when WE begin to grow. We never have a body without a soul. But we can have a soul without a body, at least temporarily. That is, until we receive transformed bodies at some future time. Hence, the body is not antithetical to Christian anthropology or eschatology.
Now I put this up on the “Christian and Politics??? Thread and it bears repeating here. I will entitle it thus:
Biblical Anthropology: Person as a Psychosomatic Unity
Now I know Greg says,
quote:
No body knows with any certainty (despite their claims) the "metaphysical status" of the unborn. We simply don’t know when a fetus becomes "in the image of God," if there even is a "point" where this happens. All believers can agree that the unborn is a priceless creation of God with at least the potential to become a person made in God’s image, but we can’t agree, because we don’t know, when exactly this happens (again: if there is a distinct "when").
I’m like, “What!!??” It is like you want to say that the fetus is a priceless creation of God (with at least the potential to become a person made in God’s image???), but then you take out the very foundation of why we should believe this to be so! But this to me seems to be very, very, flawed.
I say this because, the church has for so long veiwed anthropology in terms of Platonistic categories. There really is no separating of the physical and the spiritual.
And Greg, this seems to me to be an underlying assumption in your position. Me thinks you and the church has/is thinking too much in these categories. Let me explain…
Yes, the centuries have produced a wide range of interpretations of the image (tselem) and the likeness (demuth) of God in man. These interpretations have generally focused on features of man's consciousness as the seat of the imago Dei: man's intellectual, moral, and spiritual capacities. Such a view is one-sided in light of the biblical data and reflects the influence of a Greek understanding of human nature. Here, the point to be stressed is that the biblical doctrine of the imago is primarily a relational one. Man, as imago Dei, possessing inalienable dignity and worth, is to be understood not primarily in terms of innate capacities or faculties -- whether intellectual, moral, or spiritual -- but in terms of his unique relationship to his transcendent Creator and covenant Lord. It is not intrinsic powers of speech, imagination, and rational thought that lend transcendent worth to human nature, but man's unique calling to live in loving fellowship with the triune God for all eternity.
I talked about this earlier. Even this (relationality) has implications not only for politics but for this most pressing of bio-ethical issues of our time, abortion or selective reduction.
Now, God's standards are a striking contrast to the contemporary criterion of "viability" as a measure of the worth of the unborn child. Contrary to the view that an "unviable" infant is less valuable than a "viable" one, the Bible depicts human weakness, dependency, and helplessness as what most fully manifest the love of God for the wretched of the earth. The Son of God came to minister to the weak and heal the sick. While some propose that severely handicapped infants be left to die from neglect, God's Messiah would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick (Isa.42:3; Matt. 12:20). In God's sight no human being is completely "viable" in the sense of having mastery over his own life or the independent capacity to overcome the dominion and guilt of sin; and yet it is in human weakness that the power of God is made perfect (2 Cor. 12:9). The God of Israel does not judge human worth on the basis of age, size, physical appearance, or "viability" (1 Sam. 16:7). By his sovereign grace, God can demonstrate his glory even in unwanted infants with birth defects such as blindness and deafness ( Exod. 4:11; John 9:3).
Now, if the Scriptures clearly imply the personhood of the unborn, then Christians have an obligation to seek the protection of the unborn (these, the most helpless) through educational, religious, and legislative action. This to me is what the most loving thing would be to do. Anything besides that (abortion {again, we would have to “weigh other moral considerations in deciding on whether to abort or not”} and selective reduction would at the least, border on individualism.
Now I am not going to deal with 1) those texts where personal pronouns and proper names are used to refer to the unborn; (2) texts that speak of a personal relationship between God and the unborn child; (3) provisions in the Mosaic law relating to the unborn, particularly Exodus 21:22-25; 4) those dealing with the incarnation of Christ. The reason for this, is because, for the most part, I assume that these are predicated on the answer to the Platonistic categories mentioned above. In doing this, what is in order, is an analysis of texts reflecting the psycho-physical unity of man created in the imago Dei. From a book I found.
Man as Animated Flesh
The relation of the physical and spiritual aspects of man's nature is very relevant to the status of the unborn before God. The older questions concerning the time of ensoulment and whether the child receives his soul from his parents (traducianism) or by the immediate creative activity of God (creationism) have their secular counterparts in the contemporary abortion debate. They now reappear as questions about the time at which the unborn child becomes a "person," whether at conception, implantation, formation of the cerebral cortex, "quickening," viability, or birth. All but the first of these suggestions, conception, separate to some degree personhood from biologically human existence. They suggest a dualistic understanding of man that has more kinship with Greek and certain modern European philosophies than with the biblical outlook. For Plato, the body was the prison house of the soul. Aristotle's theory of ensoulment postulated a developing sequence of nutritive, sensitive, and rational souls, the latter being infused at the fortieth day in the case of a male and at the eightieth day in the case of a female. Descartes' distinction of "thinking substances" and "extended substances" as applied to man has led to the impasse of a mind-body dualism that has plagued modern philosophy for centuries. Modern thought is still haunted by dualistic and mechanistic images of man.
All such dualisms are fundamentally foreign to the biblical outlook. As John A.T. Robinson has observed, in Old Testament theology, "Man does not have a body, he is a body. He is flesh-animated-by-soul, the whole conceived as a psycho-physical unity." Similarly, Edmond Jacob states that, in Old Testament anthropology, "Man is always seen in his totality, which is quickened by a unitary life. The unity of human nature is not expressed by the antithetical concepts of body and soul but by the complementary and inseparable concepts of body and life." The essence of human personality is not man's spiritual or intellectual capacities in distinction from his "lower" physical nature. The Greek tendency to deprecate the body and to disassociate it from man's personality conflicts with biblical thought. Man's flesh (basar) and his soul (nephesh) are not dichotomized entities thrown together in accidental association, but are complementary aspects of a unified psychomatic being. Man as a whole can be characterized as eitherbasar or nephesh. Both biblical terms express his total creaturely dependence on God in all the aspects of his existence.
The Old Testament's unitary conception of man is also a key to understanding man as the imago Dei. Recent Old Testament scholarship has shown a concern to correct previous tendencies to exclude man's body as a legitimate expression of the imago. As Gerhard von Rad comments, the image (tselem) and likeness (demuth) "refer to the whole man and do not relate solely to his spiritual and intellectual being."Though man's intellectual, moral, and spiritual capacities are of course crucial, the image of God extends beyond them, to his total existence as a psycho-physical unity. Such a view provides an adequate framework for understanding a text like Genesis 5:3, which describes the seminal transmission of the image from Adam to his son Seth. If the imago were restricted to man's conscious mental capacities, it would be difficult to understand how such a statement could be meaningful. In terms of the more holistic understanding of man found in the Bible, however, such a text points to the transcendent value and dignity conferred on man from the very first moments of his bodily existence.
The New Testament anthropology presupposes and builds on the Old Testament view of man as a psychosomatic unity. There is no dualism of body and spirit, not even in Paul's prominent contrast between "flesh" (sarx) and "spirit" (pneuma). That is made clear by such texts as Romans 8:6, where Paul speaks of the mind of the flesh; 1 Corinthians 3:3, where carnality is associated with jealousy and envy; and Galatians 5:19ff., where the "works of the flesh" include idolatry, sorcery, and envy. The body in Pauline thought is not merely the external casing of the real, inner man, but rather the man himself considered in a certain mode of his existence. Paul exhorts the Roman Christians, "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service" (Rom.12:1). In dealing with antinomian tendencies in Corinth that tended to dichotomize the life of the body and one's relationship to Christ, Paul reminded the church that the body was not for immorality, but for the Lord (1Cor. 6:13). The believer serves the Lord with his entire being. Instead of being of lesser worth than the spiritual self, the body is in fact a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and the believer is to glorify God in his body (1 Cor. 6:20). Thus the Old Testament revelation of man's dignity as the imago Dei is deepened and enriched by the New Testament portrayal of the believer's body.
The biblical conceptions of the goodness of human bodily life and man's essential unity should make us very suspicious of attempts to restrict human personhood -- and hence moral and legal protection -- to those among whom man's "higher," rational capacities are evident. Man is to be valued not merely as a "thinking substance," but as the bearer of the transcendent image of God -- an image that includes the bodily aspects of life. In biblical thought, man's "personal" life is not separated from his bodily life. He is animated flesh, and where there is animated human flesh, there man is. Consequently, this consideration of the biblical understanding of man as a psycho-physical unity, again leads us to question approaches that define personhood in purely mental or psychological terms.
As you can see, I think this pretty much cancels out Greg’s quote above. The real question is not some metaphysical unanswerable notion of human nature addressed in Platonic categories, that the Bible doesn’t even speak of in such terms. The real question would be, “When does life begin?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, Miss E. said:
quote:
Can you explain how discussing the reality of living in our fallen world sometimes calls for less than ideal solutions to terrible problems is "capitulating the curse"? I mean, is WAR ever an "IDEAL"??? And yet war is a justifiable as a "less than ideal" solution at times according to many Christians. I don't think that even the most ardent death penalty advocates believe that killing is an "ideal" solution to the problem of murder. Killing someone in self-defense is certainly "less than ideal," but if that's the only way to save another's life, sometimes people are forced into this immoral act. Lying to save a group of Jews from the Nazis is "less than ideal" because lying is always wrong, yet given our fallen reality, sometimes that's the only option available.
The plain truth is that sometimes ALL we have are "bad" and "worse" options and we have to act in less than ideal ways for the greater good of a person/nation etc. This concept is relevant to any discussion of ethics and moral decision making. I have no idea why you wish to censor it but I am trying to understand.
I understand that there are times when abortions, tragic as they are, are justified. That there are times when things are the lesser of two evils. And it is in this sense that I can deal with the idea of living in a fallen world. But to many of us, especially in the Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox religious communities, there is a difference between the “lesser of two evils in a less than ideal world” on this issue of abortion and abortion as deliberate murder. For if the fetus at whatever stage IS an innocent human being, then killing it can’t be justified for any reason. I mean I would not commit a murder for ANY reason. And so, I don’t think the “end justifies the means,” even a very good end, if the means is wicked. I’d hope you would agree. So what divides us is whether abortion is murder. I can understand how you would justify it if you think it’s NOT murder, and you must understand how I condemn it if I think it IS murder. But its like Bonhoeffer, who said, that social circumstances which can induce a woman to seek an abortion “cannot in any way alter the fact of murder.”
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/28/2002 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | brandon, yes we are psychosomatic unities. But we bury bodies! We even bury them while some of their (human) cells are replicating! The cadavers are HUMAN, but we assume they now have no inalienable rights. SOMETHING has changed. We don't know exactly what and when this something is -- viz. when does a person cease being in "the image of God." But we HAVE to decide.
So, we land on lack of brain waves above a certain threshold.
Ms. E is simply suggesting (wisely in my view) that we reverse this criteria to arrive at an agreement about when personhood beings.
doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/29/2002 3:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress wrote: Killing someone in self-defense is certainly "less than ideal," but if that's the only way to save another's life, sometimes people are forced into this immoral act.
Observation: I guess that defines it. "Killing someone...is...immoral act"
Someone: Those...say that a person begins at conception...
Rhetorical question: When does GOD begin the person? (They don't begin themselves; neither do they continue themselves autonomously.) If this is not out thinking-framework, then we have slipped off track.
An example to look to: Christ was fully human and fully divine AT CONCEPTION. It is theological heresy to say that his divinity was added.
Brandon: All such dualisms are fundamentally foreign to the biblical outlook. As John A.T. Robinson has observed, in Old Testament theology, "Man does not have a body, he is a body. He is flesh-animated-by-soul, the whole conceived as a psycho-physical unity."
Brandon: The biblical conceptions of the goodness of human bodily life and man's essential unity should make us very suspicious of attempts to restrict human personhood -- and hence moral and legal protection -- to those among whom man's "higher," rational capacities are evident.
:) I like those, Brandon.
Doc: brandon, yes we are psychosomatic unities. But we bury bodies! We even bury them while some of their (human) cells are replicating! The cadavers are HUMAN, but we assume they now have no inalienable rights. SOMETHING has changed. We don't know exactly what and when this something is -- viz. when does a person cease being in "the image of God." But we HAVE to decide.
Answering Doc: I hope THAT is not your composure at funerals!!! At Wakes and Viewings. The Body is still holy. Dividing cells or not. We bury them (bodies) in the hope of the Resurrection. their corruption is obvious, and part of our confession -- which all leads to hope in our participation in that "first fruits" that is ours already. (Christ) I can't say that the "cadavers...have no inalienable rights." They are loved. And some of them evidence the redemptive effect of a life lived with God.
Returning to edit: I posted in response to what Brandon has been saying with regard to Doc; not as a reaction to what is quoted from Doc.
Adding: It occurred to me later, that the example of Molly the sheep needs to be looked at with regards to this weeks news of some doctor claiming an upcoming January birth of a healthy cloned boy. It was mentioned also that Molly represented the success drawn from a pool of over 500 failures. I'm imagining that many of these "failures" were hideous. (I noticed the word hide in "hideous", for the first time.)
It seems that from the kind of line that Doc and Empiress draw on this page those hideous failures are not on the pre-nurology side but are on the "person" side of the line that they draw. They grow up to show what they are. But the act is done on the "pre-person" side of the line. (I'm not going to take this anywhere. The thought just occurred to me.)
"Time is the freedom to love." (from Ware's The Inner Kingdom)
Edited by - fred on 11/29/2002 09:56:31 AM | | 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 12:33 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 |
|
|