QUICK LINKS
McCain: Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned
The struggle for life continues in the national debate. The two most defining issues in our culture are gay-marriage and the struggle to preserve life from its inception.
The February 26 issue of TIME Magazine features a dramatic cover story highlighting the work of the nation's pregnancy resource centers and the effect they've had on helping women and reducing abortions throughout the country. Click here for story.
The article, "Grassroots Abortion War" focuses on what the centers are doing, as well as comments by abortion advocates who don't like what they do.
There are both examples of bias in the story and outright lies. The story erroneously says that childbirth is more risky than abortion.
Pregnancy resource centers, among other things, help women know what their options are, as opposed to the one-sided, profiteering presentation of Planned Parenthood and other so-called "choice" organizations.
The struggle for life is being played out in the politics of several states and is once again becoming an important point of concern as voters begin to look at the 20 or more who say they are running (or plan to run) for President.
Senator John McCain announced this past weekend that he thinks the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned. He said, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."
A half dozen or so of us will be meeting privately with Senator McCain later this week. That was one of the questions I had planned to ask.
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, re-introduced the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) last week.
The measure H.R.1063, has 105 co-sponsors and it makes it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, to evade parental consent law or parental notification law in the teen's home state.
While there are those in the trenches everyday contending for life, there are those also in the trenches determined to create and advance a culture of death under the guise of "choice."
New Hampshire has started its work to repeal a state law that requires telling parents when their teenage daughter is considering an abortion, while Kentucky approved a bill last week that strengthens the informed consent law for women considering an abortion and requires the abortion practitioners to inform the woman, in person, to the risks and alternatives to abortion.
Clearly there are those who seek to preserve life and those who seek to destroy life in the name of choice or rights.
___________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
47 Comments:
Gary states:
The two most defining issues in our culture are gay-marriage and the struggle to preserve life from its inception.
Human responds:
Actually the most defining issues in our culture are government fascism and related violence and human freedom (human/civil rights). These are inextricably linked as we see how the government (both Federal, State and local) will use "violence as a solution" to oppress human beings and pervert the freedom that God has given them.
Nothing new, of course - this has been going on since time immemorial, against Christians in the 1st, 2nd centuries of the Common Era, via Roman Catholics and so called Reformer religionist linked with the governments in Europe against the ana-Baptists in the middle of the last millenium, the Nazi regime against peaceful Jewish people and now via Right Wing Evangelicals in such outstanding cases as slavery, alcohol prohibition, violence towards homosexulity via government oppression, etc, etc. ad nausum (historically there are a thousand other examples obviously - South America is rife with examples - many a result of US Foreign policy - many unrelated - Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, again, etc., etc. etc.)
How Gary managed to pick his personal ethical issues and make them the defining issue of our culture and apply them on a culture wide basis shows a level of arrogance that is, at best, nauseating and certainly NOT a Judeo Christian value.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
The story erroneously says that childbirth is more risky than abortion.
Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.
The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 12 times as high as that associated with abortion.
Grimes DA, Estimation of prgnancy-related mortality risk by pregnancy outcome, United States, 1991 to 1999, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2006, 194(1):92–94.
There are both examples of bias in this blog entry and outright lies.
There Gary, fixed that statement for you.
Gary,
Oshtur brings up a good point.
Either he is correct or incorrect - this is a quantifiable matter. As a member of the interested public, as a disciple of Jesus Christ and as someone who is very concerned about abortion (which I personally abhor), I would like to know the truth of this matter.
Can you help by providing solid facts with references here??
Thanks,
Human
Bias and outright lies? You should consider suing, Gary, doesn't FFN have a patent on those tactics?
Debunk Randall's "one-sided" rhetoric at Blackwhite.
Thank you Gary for your clarity in addressing these most critical of issues. We are offered life and death, as Scripture says, how sad that so many choose the latter. If you saw any coverage of the national March for Life in January on the internet (once again the media refused to acknowledge it), then you will have hope. The crowd of hundreds of thousands, mostly young, male and female, grows every year. Life reproduces and is fruitful, "choice" aborts itself. Regarding risk of injury - a "successful" abortion has a 100% mortality rate. One moment a growing child, (who if left undisturbed would emerge from the womb in a matter of weeks), the next severed limbs and a silenced heartbeat. We can never rest until such child sacrifice is unthinkable in this land. Thank you for laboring in the trenches.
Gary,
I invite you to join me in writing a letter to the editor of Time, correcting the misinformation from the pro-choice side against CPCs, it may just be published in next month's magazine.
We are offered life and death, as Scripture says, how sad that so many choose the latter.
I agree but it is a choice - freedom and according to Christian tradition the right of the individual to choose was the very first right given to them by God.
I also commiserate about the lack of coverage at DC marches - the media does the same with the Equal Rights parades.
And, of course, if you consider a fetus to be a child you shouldn't ever have an abortion. Personally I don't consider a fetus a child until it has a functional brain just as I don't consider a body without a functional brain a person.
You have a right to choose your path, give others the right to choose theirs. Your chances of making the other's point of view 'unthinkable' is no more likely than mine being able to do the same to yours.
I responded to the following in Gary’s Jan 23, 2007 thread, “SB 5336: Urgent Action Needed” (see http://www.faithandfreedom.us/weblog/archives/2007_01_01_archive.html)
Human – I replied to your request on 1 Cor 5.
Oshtur – I also responded to you in the same thread.
Someone under the tag Anonymous articulated the concept of “many uses” and that "all concepts are shades of the real world". I responded to that also.
My apologies for the delay. Big project at work with a tight deadline kept me detained.
Oshtur,
How does the author of the article you cited (see your 2/20 11:33 am post) base his stats? For example, the CDC defines maternal mortality to include up to at least 3 months after pregnancy (although at various times the definition has gone up to a year; for an example see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001754.htm). Are the statistics the author uses to calculate deaths from abortion using the same length of time following an abortion?
2) The article says “0.3% of [abortion] patients experience a complication serious enough to require hospitalization. First-trimester abortions in particular are considered extremely safe.” (emphasis mine)
So the article is distinguishing from the risk of abortion over all from the risk at different stages, in this case the first-trimester. When comparing these risks is your cited authority comparing the same time periods?
For example, what is the risk of death or hospitalization for a woman who gives birth in the first-trimester compared to the risk death or hospitalization of a woman aborting in the first-trimester?
3) Maternal mortality rates usually are stated as the number of deaths (during the entire pregnancy up to the 3 months to 1 year following) per 100,000 live births. The maternal mortality for abortion is stated according to the gestational age of the pregnancy per 100,000 abortions.
How is the author calculating the mortality for each?
For pregnancy, does he include all maternal deaths including miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and abortions) while eliminating those causes from the denominator because they are not considered “live births”?
4) What is the time period from which your authority is pulling his data? For example, is he measuring the maternal mortality in abortion as compared to pregnancy using data from the same year(s) (e.g. 2000 – 2002)?
Thanks. – Larry Rambousek
re: Life and Death
a. I hate abortion.
b. Jehovah commanded Abraham to murder his son.
Issue: Would Jehovah have advocated Abraham to engage in a sin? Would God have commanded sin?
Larry, Mick, Gary? This is the first question. It is obvious where I am going but this needs to be clarified.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Larry,
Welcome back - you bring thoughtful response. I thought had responded to you but I will review and get back to you. We may have to pick it up on a future blog - it is a critical issue along with Jesus statement "My Kingdom is not of this world" and Paul's statement - "Our battle is NOT against flesh and blood but rulers, etc."
I suspect part of the problem is that the Evangelical Right is so fleshly that they never have to fight the real battles so they create artifical, fleshly battles as a substitute - just a guess, I may be off base.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Human
Pretty obvious to me God , the author of life should be in charge when it ends .
Thats my view . I know the desciples carried swords , and self defence or defending the life of another I do not consider a sin .
But even then , when you value life , I believe most people will even have a feeling of lost when a murderer is killed .
That is a part of all this that is impossible to measure , how do all these abortions effect our culture .
I choose life , and support helping those moms and kids who are with us now and need our support .. That is the best pro life message we can give .
Human,
I’m glad you hate abortion. Re: God cammanding Abraham to kill his son, you ask: “Would Jehovah have advocated Abraham to engage in a sin? Would God have commanded sin?
The answer to these questions are stated in the text of Gen 22. Verse 1: “God tested Abraham”. Abraham follows God’s direction and at the last moment, when Abraham was about to slay Isaac (v. 9-10), the Angel of the Lord stops him with the following reason:
“do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
We see several things in this passage.
1) God tested Abraham’s obedience. So the intention was confirming Abraham’s obedience rather than having Isaac be killed.
2) Abraham had two choices. One to ignore God’s command thereby showing his disobedience and Isaac would have lived. Or Abraham could have done everything God asked – which is what the Bible says occurred. What’s interesting is that God stopped Abraham. Either way, Isaac would still live.
3) This seems to be a type pointing to the sacrifice of Jesus. Notice the text. Verse 2 says “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love … and offer him there as a burnt offering” then again when God stops Abraham from killing Isaac, “I know you that you fear God, since you have not withheld you son, your only son, from Me.”
And don’t forget Abraham is to provide a burnt offering. Not a sin offering. Not a grain offering. The burnt offering was the most solemn of the sacrifices and symbolized worship in the fullest sense; adoration, devotion, dedication, supplication, atonement.
This seems to be a clear reference to the only begotten Son of God. Abraham so loved God that he would give his only son. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Hope this helps. – Larry Rambousek
Oshtur,
In addition to my questions to clarify the statsistics you cite, I had another question pertaining to your 2/20 9:47 pm post where you states: ”Personally I don't consider a fetus a child until it has a functional brain just as I don't consider a body without a functional brain a person.”
At what point do you consider the brain functional?
Since persons can have different functional brain capacities does that mean there are different levels of persons?
Thanks.
Larry Rambousek
How does the author of the article you cited (see your 2/20 11:33 am post) base his stats?… Are the statistics the author uses to calculate deaths from abortion using the same length of time following an abortion?
"Numerators for the mortality rates come directly from the CDC."
When comparing these risks is your cited authority comparing the same time periods?
No, is general stats are comparing all legal abortions rates with the other catagory rates which would mean that first trimester rates are even safer if the statement AND common sense are true.
How is the author calculating the mortality for each?
Just as you suggested. His values of estimated outcomes for the total number of 'ectopic pregnancies' and 'fetal death' are CDC estimates and past trend analysis (since they are not reported stats) and the denominator for miscarriages is from the difference between all 'non-live birth' and 'abortions'. But since the total number of ectopic pregnancies and fetal deaths outcomes is less than 1/40th of the number of live births they in fact have little effect on the reported incidence as long as the cases themselves are not factored into numerator which they are not.
Mortality
legal abortion 0.567/100,000 abortions (abortion non-live births)
miscarriages 1.19/100,000 miscarriages (non-abortion non-live births)
live birth 7.06/100,000 live births
ectopic pregnancy 31.9/100,000 ectopic pregnancies
fetal death 96.3/100,000 fetal deaths
He does point out that using different parameters and trends the legal abortion rate could raise to as much as 0.8/100,000 and several other possible changes but none change the basic observation that the risk of live birth mortality is always at least 7 times greater than abortions taken as a whole. All of his numerical data is CDC derived including past trends and estimates from the years 1991-1999.
Oh and I responded to your old note in that thread to keep it out of here.
In addition to my questions to clarify the statsistics you cite, I had another question pertaining to your 2/20 9:47 pm post where you states: ”Personally I don't consider a fetus a child until it has a functional brain just as I don't consider a body without a functional brain a person.”
At what point do you consider the brain functional?
When it has stopped massive genetically determined pathway construction and is developing unique environmentally-incited pathways which does not occur in the first trimester.
Since persons can have different functional brain capacities does that mean there are different levels of persons?
We don't gradate the definition of 'person' - they either are or they aren't. Where we probably differ is I think it is possible for a human body to NOT be a person - that the criteria for 'personhood' are more stringent than the criteria for mere biological life and that criteria is dependent on cognitive ability. If it hasn't yet appeared its not yet a person, and if the capacity is gone with no hope of returning it is no longer a person. That's why I have no problem with embryonic stem cell harvesting (done at the stage before the neural fold is even fully formed) and I'd have no ethical problem with Soylent Green - neither involve 'persons'.
Which is why I think the criteria of Roe v. Wade is actually a very good balance. The court serendipitously said abortion was only a right during the exact time period where cognition is biologically impossible. As I've said before I would be more than happy to lower the elective time limits for 'on demand' abortion according to technology. I know of a 22 week old fetus that made the transition to neonate yet here in washington state you can have an unquestioned abortion until week 24. The mother's rights don't necssarily end but do change once the fetus is potentially cognitive and viable. They should be considered and balanced with the mother's right to choose and the other factors of rape, incest, medical need etc when deciding the between continued gestation and abortion.
I would note that the zealots who say 'never' are in far greater number than any who say 'always' - the real answer is in the middle ground, as it usually is, but there's no money in that for the demagogues.
Larry,
Thanks for the effort. While I agree re: both the causal explanation and typology, neither of these answer the issue that I raised - would God have asked Abraham to sin??
The thinking goes something like this - God would NOT ask Abraham to sin yet He did ask him to murder his son. Therefore, it was NOT sin for Abraham to murder his son. Thus, I can only surmise, that God has given into the hands of the parents the life or death of their offspring as a typology of the life and death that God has held within Himself for his entire creation (He is the LORD and gives or takes life at His will as you and I well know).
This parental life/death concept has some coorboration in light of the death penalty being metted out to those offspring that dishonor their parents.
Thus the abortion issue becomes quite moot AS LONG AS the offspring's termination is the result of the offspring's parent.
BTW - I have been treating my father and mother VERY well since realizing this...;-)
In any event, I would appreciate a bit more thought to see if further review might shed additional light on the issue I have raised.
Thanks
In Christ
Human
human-vishanti = crackpot
Allen said it well:
Allen said...
Human,
First time on this site. You seriously don't believe all this stuff you write here do you? At first pass, I agree with others, that you are writing under several ID's. I anylize writing patterns for a living.
I believe I have seen you writing on other websites as well.
Are you a paid blogger? And if so, who would pay you? If you are not a paid blogger, why do you spend so much time on this site when you have such distain for what it stands for?
You need to get a life.
3:55 PM, February 19, 2007
The emissaries are back...
Welcome in the name of Jesus!
What is sin?
Sin is having a heart in disobedience to God’s commands. For Abraham to not obey Gods command to sacrifice his son would have been sin! What was the motive of Abraham’s heart in his action….to OBEY GOD.
Now, in what context had God given this command to Abraham?
Previous to Issac even being born, God had promised Abraham that his descendants would be, as numerous as the stars, AND would come from his son=Issac (Gen15:4-6). That was a promise from God! Does God lie or break promises......NO! So when Abraham went to obey Gods command to sacrifice his Son, do you think he had assurance that God would not allow him to carry it out...Yes. If Issac was to die, God could not keep his promise. The request was God asking Abraham to obey and trust him. I see no correlation in how this act of trust on Abraham’s part gives all parents the right to kill their children???? How many people who have an abortion, and I’m not talking about A LIFE THREATING SITUATION,would try to use a defense “God told me to sacrifice my child”???? In fact, the bible says the opposite that children are a gift from God. So does God give gifts of life and then tell you to end the life?? In fact, at what age does this twisted precept of “God has given into the hands of the parents the life or death of their offspring” every stop? At guess every parent can terminate there child’s life even after birth??? Where does it end? A dad can say to his 30 year old son, son you have lived long enough and I’m exercising my God given right to end your life!!!! Wow, that sounds like a fearful place to live day to day, and not like the God of love I read about? I also do not believe that God teaches us to obey and honor are parents for fear they could have or will terminate are lives??? Col 3:20 “Children, obey [your] parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.” We should honor and obey are parents because that's what pleases God and a person who loves God WILL WANT TO OBEY HIM. So what is the motive of your heart? Do you obey your parents for fear they will kill you, or because you want to please GOD? What about as you go through the day, do you really want to Love GOD and his commandments?
PS – God sees our hearts and knows the true motives. We can foul others, but we can’t foul God.
Only God has a right to give and take life. People need to stop trying to play God.
Anon,
I appreciate your thoughts - and, frankly, agree with your sentiments. However, none address my question - would God have asked Abraham to sin by murdering his son??
You mentioned,
So does God give gifts of life and then tell you to end the life??
Human answers,
In the case of Abraham, He did.
re: Parental Rights
That is my point - at any age. That is why the child who dishonors their parent (usually a teenager) was stoned to death. Does being stoned to death sound like "the God of love"? Lots of rock mounds around the local Junior High I expect...
Peace,
Human
So basically you are saying it is not a sin to kill a relative ?
Wow ...
Mick,
I am not saying anything. I am asking a question re: God's command to Abraham.
Sincerely,
Human
Human - your question has been answered a number of times already. Let me try too, although the following concept seems to elude you. God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was a TEST OF HIS OBEDIENCE; not a request to murder, as better posters than I have attempted to point out! Reread those postings, because you're missing the point. God and murder are incompatible.
And what was the reference to the Trinity? Do you believe in Jesus Christ only, and not the Triune God? For if that is so, you cannot in truth call yourself a Christian.
To respond to an earlier post, why do you mention the Palestinians and not the Israelis? I think I can guess, and that saddens me.
A personal inquiry you may certainly to ignore - are you in your 20's or 30's? Older? Just curious. Knowing would help explain your typically public school worldview, your drug, fascist, and "peaceful human beings", etc. references, which don't suggest a truly mature adult. Forgive me if i'm wrong about that. And yes, I'm awake!:)
Human,
I actually did answer your question “would God have asked Abraham to sin?” but perhaps I need to articulate further.
I think it would be helpful to define some of the terms you are using in your assumptions. What is the biblical view of sin? It is turning one’s face away from God; i.e. not surrendering one’s life to him and following his commands. What is the biblical concept of murder? The unlawful taking of a human life which is stamped with the image of God. It’s a legal concept. Yet, the source of law, that is, right and wrong is grounded in God. Therefore, if God commands Abraham to kill his son it is not murder (i.e. the unlawful taking of life) and thus not telling Abraham to sin.
Since sin is turning away from God’s commands the only way for Abraham to sin would have been to disobey God’s command. So even if God commanded Abraham to disobey Him and Abraham did so then Abraham did disobey God then Abraham would have obeyed God. There’s no way to even reword your question to have it show God commanding Abraham to sin – if you use the biblical understanding of sin.
Also, no where in the passage does it say that God commanded Abraham to “murder”, again to unlawfully take the Isaac’s life. As I mentioned in my 2/21 1:12 pm post, God told Abraham to take Isaac to “the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering”. That is to worship, adore, and be devoted to the Author of Life. When Abraham is about to slay Isaac, the Hebrew word used for slay (shachat) is to denote killing for a sacrifice or a ritual. It has nothing to do with the unlawful taking of life.
You conclude: ”I can only surmise, that God has given into the hands of the parents the life or death of their offspring as a typology of the life and death that God has held within Himself for his entire creation (He is the LORD and gives or takes life at His will as you and I well know).” and “ Thus the abortion issue becomes quite moot AS LONG AS the offspring's termination is the result of the offspring's parent.”
If this is a typology for abortion then why don’t people follow all the typology. Why don’t they bundle up there offspring and take them “to the land of Moriah” along with a donkey, and a bundle of sticks, wait for the third day, build an altar (on the mountains that God tells them to), arrange the wood, tie up their offspring and lay them on the altar on top of the wood … Not to mention, Issac wasn’t in the womb. All in an act of devotion and worship to God.
Those who hold this as abortion typology don’t do that because they aren’t interested in those steps because they aren’t doing it as an act of worship. They haven’t been commanded by God to do this. They want to do it to benefit themselves and they are looking for ways to justify it.
After years of not having a child, God gives Abraham the gift of a son and through an act of obedience Abraham says "I will give back to you God, even that which is most dear to me, in order to worship you, my Creator."
- Larry Rambousek
Oshtur,
You stated: ”We don't gradate the definition of 'person' - they either are or they aren't. Where we probably differ is I think it is possible for a human body to NOT be a person - that the criteria for 'personhood' are more stringent than the criteria for mere biological life and that criteria is dependent on cognitive ability.”
I agree with you about the point of differentiation. How do you know that “a human body is NOT a person”? Everyone has different levels of cognitive ability. An adult, generally speaking, has more cognitive ability than a newborn. So if cognitive ability = personhood and there are different levels of cognitive ability then it logically follows that there would be different levels of personhood.
Cognitive ability varies with the stage of development one is at (newborn, toddler, teen, adult, etc). You defined a functional brain as ” When it has stopped massive genetically determined pathway construction and is developing unique environmentally-incited pathways which does not occur in the first trimester.” Yet, that which resides in its mother’s womb in the first trimester has exactly the cognitive ability it is supposed to have at the first trimester stage of development. The newborn has exactly the cognitive ability it is supposed to have at the newborn stage of development. And so on.
- Larry Rambousek
Larry (and Mimi)
Thanks for the continued effort. The reality is that the below answer has some merit - maybe sufficient merit and I will think further on it. I note that you did not employ this reasoning in your earlier answers (though you may have intended to do so).
As one conclusion we may draw is that if God commands/allows a person to kill another person, then it is okay??
My question to you - if God told you to kill me - would you do it??? Even if I pleaded for you not to burn me at the stake? What about your spouse - would you rip her heart out if God asked you to do so? Your children? You get my point. Your point is that none of this would be murder so it is okay. I am wanting to confirm your consistency.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
I actually did answer your question “would God have asked Abraham to sin?” but perhaps I need to articulate further.
I think it would be helpful to define some of the terms you are using in your assumptions. What is the biblical view of sin? It is turning one’s face away from God; i.e. not surrendering one’s life to him and following his commands. What is the biblical concept of murder? The unlawful taking of a human life which is stamped with the image of God. It’s a legal concept. Yet, the source of law, that is, right and wrong is grounded in God. Therefore, if God commands Abraham to kill his son it is not murder (i.e. the unlawful taking of life) and thus not telling Abraham to sin.
Larry,
We can have further discussion on the Exodus passage - I believe 22:20 or so which indicates that the fetus has much less value than a human being. I believe Jewish commentators (whom I tend to trust) have supported this reading. Evangelical commentators (whom I have learned not to trust) seem to twist this text because it does not conform to their predetermined values.
Sincerely,
Human
Mimi,
To specifically answer your question, I am approx 50yo.
Your statement re: my "public school view" is inappropriate. My entire world view is soundly Biblically based (what other source is there?). Other than Larry's addressing a couple of items, neither you nor anyone on the board has really made an effort to discuss any of the number of significant issues I have raised.
With all due respect, as a new Christian, you have much to learn - I went through the same process myself. One of the greatest deceptions for someone like yourself is getting caught up in a right wing organization claiming to be a church and using the name and form of Jesus through which to engage its politics and world view. Since those they attack, i.e. "liberals" did not have Jesus, you naturally assume they are correct. The reality is they are just as much, or more so, in error. You do not have to be a jerk to totally follow Christ.
Sincerely,
In much agape,
Human
I agree with you about the point of differentiation. How do you know that “a human body is NOT a person”? Everyone has different levels of cognitive ability. An adult, generally speaking, has more cognitive ability than a newborn. So if cognitive ability = personhood and there are different levels of cognitive ability then it logically follows that there would be different levels of personhood.
No it doesn't logically follow. There are binary concepts and there are analog ones with many possibilities. A simple physical example: There are things that 'float' and things that 'sink'. That all things have different weights is irrelevant to placing them into the 2 catagories. Similarly if someone mets the minimum criteria or more of 'personhood' then they are a person, they fit in that catagory if they don't then they aren't a person.
Yet, that which resides in its mother’s womb in the first trimester has exactly the cognitive ability it is supposed to have at the first trimester stage of development.
Ah your 'supposed to have' point of views again. Of course it has exactly the amount of cognitive ability its 'supposed to have', zero ability. As such it is not yet a person, just as my cut off fingertip is not a person. If my finger could think or survive with generic support or the embryo for that matter it would be another issue but alas neither thing is true.
Oh and Mimi there are a number of Christian sects that don't believe in a triune godhead. That is a Paulian construct, not a Christ derived one.
Oshtur vishanti,
The trinty exist in Chp 1 of Genesis v26 so its not just a Pauline construct
"Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image..."
God refers to himself in plural not singular
Human,
I'm trying to understand you reference on this comment? Is there a Biblical verse that you are thinking about that refers to this practice?
re: Parental Rights
That is my point - at any age. That is why the child who dishonors their parent (usually a teenager) was stoned to death. Does being stoned to death sound like "the God of love"? Lots of rock mounds around the local Junior High I expect...
Human,
You state: "We can have further discussion on the Exodus passage - I believe 22:20 or so which indicates that the fetus has much less value than a human being. I believe Jewish commentators (whom I tend to trust) have supported this reading. Evangelical commentators (whom I have learned not to trust) seem to twist this text because it does not conform to their predetermined values."
Human, I would be more than happy to discuss the Exodus passage. However, I am not very interested in jumping from text to text until we come to a place of agreement on what the Gen 22 passage says. Either, I have exegeted (sp?) the passage correctly or I haven't. If I have then the passage is about Abraham's obedience to God and not any reference to abortion. If I haven't, then you need to point out where I've misinterpreted the text. And we can re-evaluate it.
But, I'm really not interested (nor do I have the time) to go to the effort of study and explaining the text to have someone say I'll think about it then move on to another proof text, take the time to study and explain it, then leaving it hanging to jump immediately to another proof.
- Larry Rambousek
Oshtur,
In regards to my statement: "I agree with you about the point of differentiation. How do you know that “a human body is NOT a person”? Everyone has different levels of cognitive ability. An adult, generally speaking, has more cognitive ability than a newborn. So if cognitive ability = personhood and there are different levels of cognitive ability then it logically follows that there would be different levels of personhood."
You claimed:"No it doesn't logically follow. There are binary concepts and there are analog ones with many possibilities. A simple physical example: There are things that 'float' and things that 'sink'. That all things have different weights is irrelevant to placing them into the 2 catagories. Similarly if someone mets the minimum criteria or more of 'personhood' then they are a person, they fit in that catagory if they don't then they aren't a person."
But this doesn't address this issue: How do you know that "a human body is NOT a person?" Stated in the positive, "How do you know that cognitive ability confers personhood?" With objects that "float" and "sink", you have objective criteria to determine which catergory an object resides in. Saying, " if someone mets the minimum criteria or more of 'personhood' then they are a person, they fit in that catagory if they don't then they aren't a person" is a subjective, philosophical, assumption on your part as is the criteria that you define..
Regarding my statement "Yet, that which resides in its mother’s womb in the first trimester has exactly the cognitive ability it is supposed to have at the first trimester stage of development."
You write: "Ah your 'supposed to have' point of views again. Of course it has exactly the amount of cognitive ability its 'supposed to have', zero ability. As such it is not yet a person, just as my cut off fingertip is not a person. If my finger could think or survive with generic support or the embryo for that matter it would be another issue but alas neither thing is true."
LR: Again, you are presupposing that personhood is related to cognitive ability. That is a philosophical assumption on your part. As for the cut off fingertip, it will never become a person. Scientists could take a cell from the fingertip but they would then need to extract the nucleus of the cell (which contains a full set of DNA) which is then implanted into a donor egg, which reprograms the DNA (this needs to happen because in a normal cell, the genes have been programmed for a special function, like a finger. Some genes are turned on to produce necessary proteins; others are turned off). The reprogramming sets all the DNA to be used for embryonic development.
Then, the scientist stimulates the egg with the new, reprogrammed DNA (simulates fertilization) which starts the embryo development. So, comparing your fingertip to the developing embryo is invalid.
- Larry Rambousek
ut this doesn't address this issue: How do you know that "a human body is NOT a person?
Because I don't have to prove negatives would be my first observation, my second would be that it has no qualities that most people require of 'personhood', i.e., independent viability and cognition. Again, if those 2 things aren't a requirement of personhood then a donated kidney is a 'person' and the same for, how ever briefly, is my cut off fingertip.
So I know it because it doesn't met the standards we require of other bits of human tissue. If you are going to give 'special rights' to a zygote over my finger tip you need to explain why that is so or you are going to have to explain why some non-sentient non-idependently viable tissue is a 'person' and some are not, especially in light of today's technology.
Then, the scientist stimulates the egg with the new, reprogrammed DNA (simulates fertilization) which starts the embryo development. So, comparing your fingertip to the developing embryo is invalid.
Not all - the blastocyte created in the lab will have to be manipulated and implanted in a proper host to develop too. A definition of personhood that denies technology is a pretty useless one right now and in the long term.
But note, you are 'defining' your own definition of personhood without actually stating it and it seems to be: if a bit of tissue containing human DNA which can in any possible situation develop into an independently viable organism without further technical intervention means the bit of tissue is a human being.
And that is the crux of the issue: we define what 'personhood' is. That a blastocyte could develop without further intervention is no more important to me than every ovum could with benefit of a single sperm. I don't see a 'non-tech dependent possibility of development' as the key or even the important criteria of 'personhood'. Our definition of personhood has to include even those beings that are created through technology, whether it be storing ovum and sperm, artificial implantation, cloning, and eventually even a viable cell generated from wholly inorganic materials.
If mere existence is your criteria then where does it end? Is the body with a donated kidney now two 'persons'? Does the kidney have its own rights, its own 'personhood'? Has the donor now become 'less' of a person? (your graduated personhood argument from the tail-end) Is a person considered still a person if all their organs are alive but in other bodies?
Hopefully you will say 'no' to all of these possibilities. Personhood is not mere meat, it is dependent on our mind. A body without a mind is not a person whether it is at the beginning of life or at its end. If we someday can transplant a brain then the 'personhood' would follow that, the seat of the mind. A body with a brain that can not yet store new information is not yet a person, a body with a mind that is forever gone is not a person anymore.
(and the viability criteria has been covered before: the host has a right to self determination and that includes not being an incubator against their will. That their choice may remove a non-viable fetus or embryo from the only environment they can survive in is secondary - we have a long history of personal body autonomy that extents even to situations where our refusal of usage will lead to the death of another. As such 'personhood' is not the defining criteria although it is a factor in balancing the rights of everyone involved.)
Oh and since I do know that discussions of this nature do tend to make the casual reader's eyes roll back in their head feel free to just email me via the blogger profile page. This email address is solely for this purpose so the spam that inevitably arrives from the malicious actions of 'good people' is not a problem - I just filter out the good stuff and preemptively toss the rest.
Anon 11:11
Thanks for an honest question. Yes - this is a command on one of the books of the Pentateuch - unfortunately I do not have it at my finger tips (but if you are genuinely interested I will look it up).
It is critical to know that there are a lot of interesting items - even in both the OT and the NT which take time to ferret out. How one deals with all that is an interesting matter - the key point that I will make is that none of that ultimatley matters - but what does matter is ones submission to Jesus Christ as the Lord of all things.
HOWEVER, I want to be very honest with the Bible since it is a signifcant resource and submit my understand fully to God.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Larry,
Good point - makes sense. I am happy to focus on that and complete it. Could you answer the issue that I raised (reproduced below) as a result of your exegisis (which, as I understand, boils down to if God tells you to kill someone, it is not murder and therefore I asked you some specific questions in this regard to confirm this exegesis in your (and my) mind))??
Thanks,
In Christ,
Human
My question to you - if God told you to kill me - would you do it??? Even if I pleaded for you not to burn me at the stake? What about your spouse - would you rip her heart out if God asked you to do so? Your children? You get my point. Your point is that none of this would be murder so it is okay. I am wanting to confirm your consistency.
The trinty exist in Chp 1 of Genesis v26 so its not just a Pauline construct
"Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image..."
God refers to himself in plural not singular
Which was explained without the need of the Trinity by Jewish scholars just fine.
Your comment did get me researching though - I always thought that the writings of John were the best indication of there being no Trinity concept in the true Christians since they were supposedly written by John, Jesus' disciple but turns out that's not true - modern scholarship realizes that they were written after John's death and there's even a line in Epistle of John 1 that makes it clear it was someone else writing for John.
Telling is the alteration of John 1 with the addition of a line affirming the Trinity in the 14th century AD. Someone was quite threatened by 'John' making it clear that the Father was not the Son (and vis versa) and decided to make it support the Trinity point of view so late in the game.
I stand by my assessment - the concept is very 'mystery religion' greco roman, not Jewish and is probably is just one of the many alterations that Paul made to the true Christianity as actually taught by Jesus Christ.
OV - For what it is worth, I don't believe Paul taught the trinity.
Please read ICor 8:6 for Paul's creed (note: clear cut distinction between God and Christ; no mention of the Holy Spirit) and ITim 2:5 (clear-cut distinctions), etc., etc. John the Revelator was clearly not a trinitarian as the first 5 chapters of that book attest to again and again as well as identify who the I AM is in Ex 3 (it is God, not Jesus).
yes I went and did some more researching and I guess it took hundreds of years for the Trinity concept to become Catholic doctrine.
Regardless if the first century Christians were without the Trinity it would seem that some calling themselves Christian today could do without too.
The salvation promised by religion founders is generally easier than the very human manipulators of men would like it so they erect artificial hurdles.
What else is new under the sun?
OV,
Well stated...
That is my whole point - that, in fact, was the whole point of Jesus of Nazareth, the glorified Son of God.
Thanks for the well thought out writings on abortion and John McCain's views on the subject. I took the time to link this entry on my own blog at theseventhtrumpet.blogspot.com.
Human,
You asked: “if God told you to kill me - would you do it??? Even if I pleaded for you not to burn me at the stake? What about your spouse - would you rip her heart out if God asked you to do so? Your children? You get my point. Your point is that none of this would be murder so it is okay. I am wanting to confirm your consistency.”
My exegesis of the Gen 22 passage made no mention of that God will give me a special command to kill. It was based simply on what the passage says as well as some of the underlying Hebrew words being translated. This passage is about Abraham, a patriarch, being obedient to God. So your question has no bearing on my exegesis. I see no principle in it (or anywhere else in Scripture)that says God will command me to kill someone.
So you, Human, my wife, and everyone else are safe.
However, if you believe that God will command one to kill another then the question also applies to you: “if God told you to kill me - would you do it??? Even if I pleaded for you not to burn me at the stake? What about your spouse - would you rip her heart out if God asked you to do so? Your children?”
- Larry
Oshtur,
You stated (2/24 10:02 am): The “crux of the issue: we define what 'personhood' is.”
If that is true then “we” can define ‘personhood’ as whatever “we” want. Of course, the Nazi’s defined personhood in such a way that the Jews no longer qualified. If “we” define ‘personhood’ then the Nazi’s were a “we” and who are the non-Nazi “we” to say they were wrong. Your view is nothing more than might makes right. So, Oshtur, were the Nazi’s wrong?
2) If “we” define what ‘personhood’ is” then we can also define ‘personhood’ from conception. And yet you take issue with that. It appears the “we” to which you refer is actually “you”. Then the question is, why do you get to define it?
3) Invariably, personhood arguments are used to deny the humanity of the vulnerable, defenseless, and innocent.
4) Ostur, on 2/21 at 2:38 pm, you responded to my question, "Since persons can have different functional brain capacities does that mean there are different levels of persons?" with the following, "We don't gradate the definition of 'person' - they either are or they aren't. Where we probably differ is I think it is possible for a human body to NOT be a person - that the criteria for 'personhood' are more stringent than the criteria for mere biological life and that criteria is dependent on cognitive ability. If it hasn't yet appeared its not yet a person, and if the capacity is gone with no hope of returning it is no longer a person."
Yet, Peter Singer says it is okay to kill a newborn because there is no person whose life has begun. He says, "When I think of myself as the person I am now, I realize that I did not come into existence until sometime after my birth." He advocates that a newborn can be killed sometime after birth.
So, Singer has different, arbitrary criteria for personhood then you do. What makes your criteria correct and a Princeton philosopher's incorrect.
5) And notice, how even your criteria for personhood has changed within this post.
On 2/20 at 9:47 pm, you used brain function as the criteria for personhood: "Personally I don't consider a fetus a child until it has a functional brain just as I don't consider a body without a functional brain a person."
When challenged, you added a second criterion, independent viability (2/24 at 10:02 am): "Because I don't have to prove negatives would be my first observation, my second would be that it has no qualities that most people require of 'personhood', i.e., independent viability and cognition."
And that is the way it goes with arbitrary criteria of functionalism. Those with the power deny the weak, defenseless, vulnerable, and most of the time the innocent, first their humanity, then their rights, and finally their life.
Functionalism is based on the philosophy that some life is unworthy of life.
- Larry
Post a Comment
<< Home