quote:

---

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

---

First, I spelled your name with a capital, I’d appreciate it if you spelled mine with one as well. Dawg. Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Second, I see now! Wow! I can’t believe I didn’t see it until now! Ok. Right. There is NO difference between dead people and living people! Dang! I can’t believe I missed that! Essentially people, Greg and Miss E are saying that there is NO fundamental difference between a newly living developing organism with it’s own genetic code, and its own identity (it IS an individual, something Miss E called “significant”), and a human being (at what ever stage of development) that is dead and will sooner or later decompose. Gotcha. You’re right Greg, there IS something that has changed, the life-force or soul or nephesh has departed.

But here’s the other thing Greg. Miss E states that personhood begins at some point in time. But then she goes on to say that personhood is gradual! Now, first, I think the arguments that Stark provides against the brainwaves argument are sound, but I struggle to understand THIS definition of personhood. A person is a person, but gradually becomes a person. Huh? Let me explain.

quote:

---

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, it cannot be reasonably said to have reached personhood until it can be established that thought/feelings/consciousness/brain waves are presenta 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.).

---

First we have personhood that is gradual

quote:

---

“…it is a process that occurs over several weeks.”

---

And God knows when THAT process is complete. As I said:

quote:

---

… 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.

---

and

quote:

---

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.

---

And then Miss E said,

quote:

---

”…once a person is a person, that does not change until death.

---

So then, when does that happen? Brainwaves? Ok. You are complete as a person when brainwaves kick in. But then, she reverts back to a functional definition of personhood again! She said:

quote:

---

”…it cannot be reasonably said to have reached personhood until it can be established that thought/feelings/consciousness/brain waves are present…”

---

So, now, back we go. You are not a person until you function as one, while just a few words back you were a complete person when brainwaves start firing! Its as if she is saying that one is a person and one is also a potential person. Two things Greg.

1. You realize you can BE a person without functioning as a person right? Common sense distinguishes between being and function or nature and function or what you are and what you do—between being a person and functioning as a person. You can’t function as a person without first being a person. But you can be a person without functioning as a person.
2. If during this “process of personhood” the human being is not an actual person, what is it actually? An ape? To be a potential X, it has to be an actual Y. You see, the essence can’t be potential. It can only be actual. It’s the accidents and the actions of the thing that can be potential. For an example, an actual ape is potentially fat, or potentially swimming. But nothing is a potential ape. Thus, nothing is a potential person. You have (are) a human nature, essence, soul, from the beginning.


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

quote:

---

Second, I see now! Wow! I can’t believe I didn’t see it until now! Ok. Right. There is NO difference between dead people and living people! Dang! I can’t believe I missed that!

---

quote:

---

Not angry here. Just don't like to waste time.

---

quote:

---

Fifth, I along with yourself and others here, must give credit to Miss. E as well. For the stamina and endurance and the heartfelt passion and belief with which she contends. She has been admirable not only in this respect but has been an example to us all of how to debate without demeaning someone’s character. Thank you Miss E.

---

quote:

---

Also, I think we need to discuss something that Al has brought up. And that is "personhood in terms of relationality." I didn't mean to pass that off so quickly at the time, because I wanted to concentrate on other issues. But I think it might inform us as to the "image of God" concept in scripture, guide us in not pitting the fetus against the mother and challenge MY OWN thinking in terms of natural law and abortion. That is, is life sacred because of "something inherent in man?" Or does personhood and dignity of the human being result from God's creation of and relation to the individual, and thus it is not at all dependent on anything inherent in a particular being?

---

quote:

---

So you don't seem to have categories for dealing with a continium.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Also, before we go any further with discussion, Al, I think you may really want to "speak in plain English" as much as possible, cause I think others could get very lost in the concepts presented.

---

quote:

---

I, for one, am learning through this conversation, and I don’t want anyone to feel run off, particularly one like Empiress who offers a well-thought and articulate view that I don’t completely understand yet.

---

quote:

---

BBBCanada Posted - 12/02/2002 : 7:06:00 PM
------------------------------------------------------
Al,

This is just a quickie. Some very interesting (and good) stuff you’ve got there. I would be interesting in reading some of Zizioulas' stuff. As a matter of fact, some of the stuff I have been reading uses Zizioulas' work. I will try to get to what you have talked about on Wednesday (that’s my day off). I think the “personalist” Martin Buber with his “I-Thou” insights can really add to the discussion.

Also, before we go any further with discussion, Al, I think you may really want to "speak in plain English" as much as possible, cause I think others could get very lost in the concepts presented.

---

quote:

---

I know it’s hard not to get emotional about this subject, Brandon, but I really do think you would be more effective with your position if you cut out the ad hominem stuff. Let’s just get back to the substance. I, for one, am learning through this conversation, and I don’t want anyone to feel run off, particularly one like Empiress who offers a well-thought and articulate view that I don’t completely understand yet. This is not a personal competition. It’s a dialogue for the purpose of spiritual and intellectual growth. Right?
Okay, moving on. . .

---

quote:

---

We unfortunately can't convincingly explain the Creator-designed chronology necessary for human development as worthy human existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregBoyd

Empiress: an abortion that occurs through the use of birth control pills (birth control pills/oral contraceptives disallow fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus and thus cause spontaneous abortion without a woman knowing) is not the "same" as a second or third trimester abortion.

Doc: Ironically, the refusal to admit gradations in this area has caused an all-or-nothing mindset that keeps both sides from working TOGETHER to minimize abortions -- something almost everybody wants. For example, almost all pro-choice people are against "partial birth" abortions and even second and third trimester abortions. But they fear giving in to this because they think the pro-lifers will then take this to the bank and insist on outlawing the abortion pill.

---

quote:

---

Debate Transcript October 13, 2004
SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, a new question for you.
The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research.
What is your reaction to that?
KERRY: I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many.
I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.
I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. And that's why I support that.
Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.
The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to.
I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.
Now, with respect to religion, you know, as I said, I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me.
And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, "I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic. "
My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. "
And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.
That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.
That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.
But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to -- I think that's the test of public service.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?
BUSH: I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. I understand there's great differences on this issue of abortion, but I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions.
Take, for example, the ban on partial birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls of Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. It made a lot of sense. My opponent, in that he's out of the mainstream, voted against that law. What I'm saying is, is that as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions: continue to promote adoption laws -- it's a great alternative to abortion -- continue to fund and promote maternity group homes; I will continue to promote abstinence programs.
The last debate, my opponent said his wife was involved with those programs. That's great. I appreciate that very much. All of us ought to be involved with programs that provide a viable alternative to abortion.

---