Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christianity Today Op Ed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I would advocate that the application of that principle leads us directly to a symmetric definition where human life from the standpoint of secular is defined as starting and stopping with a certain minimum level of higher level brain activity. This would be uncomfortable for those that insist on conception as the only acceptable answer, but this removes the possibility of legal second and third trimester abortions for reasons other than immediate threat to the mother's life and provides a consistent, objective, and respectful position on when human life is a person with all the rights thereof, and when it is not.
    The problem is there is no scientific understanding of what the soul is or how to measure it. Is it something dependent on brainwaves (which have been observed at 6 weeks) or is it linked to signs of life? Nobody can say for sure because the Bible wasn’t written to be a scientific textbook. I’d say, it is better to error on the side of caution.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      That's another big problem with attempts to dogmatically interpret scripture based on the information that would have been available to people at the time. I wonder, too, if punishing only with a fine for causing a miscarriage of an unformed child -- which is to say something that was not readily identifiabe as human -- was to allow for the possibility that the women wasn't actually pregnant, but if it was obviously a developing child then it was treated as murder.
      It’s only been in the past few decades that we have begin to understand how fetal development works. To put it in perspective, my mom was among the first generation of women that was able to observe her babies via a sonogram and that was a little over 30 years ago. Medical ultrasound technology, EEG’s, MRI’s, or extremely tiny camera’s are all technology developed within the lifetime of baby boomers and didn’t become common medical equipment until my generation started to be born. In reality, Roe Vs Wade was pre these technology breakthroughs and is based on older and outdated science. It’s a lot harder to maintain the ‘lump of cells’ line today since it’s pretty easy to observe that isn’t true at all.
      Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-22-2020, 10:15 AM.
      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        The problem I see with treating babies at different stages of development as their lives being more or less valuable, is that it could be carried on to after they are born. After all, a 5 year old is more developed than a newborn, and a 12 year old is more developed than a 5 y.o. - And then you have people with low IQ's or dementia. Are they less valuable than say, a genius? People aren't valuable because of their brain development, they are valuable because they are human beings. Or for us Christians, because they are made in the image of God and have souls.
        Exactly. Picking out any one point along the continuum of a human life and saying, "Before this time, it is not a human being; after this time, it is," is wholly arbitrary. Our lives do not happen in stages. It is a continuous, unbroken process from conception to death. It's a scientific fact.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
          The problem is there is no scientific understanding of what the soul is or how to measure it. Is it something dependent on brainwaves (which have been observed at 6 weeks) or is it linked to signs of life? Nobody can say for sure because the Bible wasn’t written to be a scientific textbook. I’d say, it is better to error on the side of caution.
          You are right - and as a christian that is a valid caution to fellow Christian's. But secular law can't incorporate a belief about a soul. And as long as the abortion debate is framed as a debate about supernatural beliefs then we are forever arcane impasse with the constitution which forbids the imposition of a specific religious belief on the entire population. However, we can understand from a secular position that a human being, by all definitions, is present when a certain minimum level of brain activity is present. And we can also recognize that even believing in a soul, sincere and real Christians have arrived at different conclusions about when a soul appears into a fetus. With that in mind, it seems to me there is ample reason to rally behind the legally and scientifically justifiable solution that defines a human being as present in a body when there is this basic level of higher brain function. Then the only people fighting to justify mid and late term abortions are doing so from an unscientific, emotional platform that says a women has the right to kill what is legally and scientifically another human being for convenience. And I dont think that is an argument that can win in the long run.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            You are right - and as a christian that is a valid caution to fellow Christian's. But secular law can't incorporate a belief about a soul. And as long as the abortion debate is framed as a debate about supernatural beliefs then we are forever arcane impasse with the constitution which forbids the imposition of a specific religious belief on the entire population. However, we can understand from a secular position that a human being, by all definitions, is present when a certain minimum level of brain activity is present. And we can also recognize that even believing in a soul, sincere and real Christians have arrived at different conclusions about when a soul appears into a fetus. With that in mind, it seems to me there is ample reason to rally behind the legally and scientifically justifiable solution that defines a human being as present in a body when there is this basic level of higher brain function. Then the only people fighting to justify mid and late term abortions are doing so from an unscientific, emotional platform that says a women has the right to kill what is legally and scientifically another human being for convenience. And I dont think that is an argument that can win in the long run.
            You brought up the soul, not me. I’m merely pointing out that ancient people were largely wrong about it and Roe vs Wade is based on outdated science. The worlds smallest surviving baby was born in 2018 weighing about as much as a hamster. The pro abortion position is becoming less and less defensible, all the time.
            Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-22-2020, 10:59 AM.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Exactly. Picking out any one point along the continuum of a human life and saying, "Before this time, it is not a human being; after this time, it is," is wholly arbitrary. Our lives do not happen in stages. It is a continuous, unbroken process from conception to death. It's a scientific fact.
              It really isn't that way MM. You are using an invalid measure - you are acting as if no useful division can be made without being able to define that division very precisely. But precision of that sort is not necessary. Prior to the creation of a nervous system and a brain, there is no awareness of any sort in the fetus. It is a developing Human being, but if it is destroyed, there is yet no detectable element that has a capacity to perceive or react in the fetus.

              On the other hand, if the doctor carves up a 6 months gestation fetus to abort it, that child most certainly does 'know' that it is being cut to pieces. And even thinking about that reality it is difficult to fathom how a doctor can proceed.

              And so there is a massive difference between say a bastocyst and a 6 months gestation fetus. And somewhere in-between the two, a conscious being is formed.

              And so while one can't draw a precise line that defines when that conscious presence of this child's being begins - one can draw solid lines in terms of when it is not. It most certainly is NOT present anytime before nerve cells begin to form, for example. And we can probably do better than that, and in fact, we already have. We have clear definitions that define when the person has passed. When the body is still alive, but they are gone. And we measure that in terms of brain activity. A similar test can be made on the front end. If certain basic brain activity has not yet appeared, the entity that will be the child is not yet there.

              Religiously, even there we don't know when the soul or personality arrives in a spiritual sense. We don't even have any sort of good idea what element would be called the soul that is not intricately linked to the brain and nervous system. We believe there is more there than that, but we don't really know. So in terms of making a law that is not based on a religious point of view, it seems the idea of brain activity is about the best we can ever hope to get, unless we can literally find a way to detect the immortal soul.

              Now - am I saying this to say abortion before said time is ok? No. There is intrinsic value in the forming child that makes any attempt to destroy it for convenience wrong. But I am saying that 'it is wrong to abort it' and 'is is murder to abort it' are two different things, and in terms of defining abortion as murder, you have to wait until some reasonable expectation there is a human person there to be murdered.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2020, 12:05 PM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                It really isn't that way MM. You are using an invalid measure - you are acting as if no useful division can be made without being able to define that division very precisely. But precision of that sort is not necessary. Prior to the creation of a nervous system and a brain, there is no awareness of any sort in the fetus. It is a developing Human being, but if it is destroyed, there is yet no detectable element that has a capacity to perceive or react in the fetus.

                On the other hand, if the doctor carves up a 6 months gestation fetus to abort it, that child most certainly does 'know' that it is being cut to pieces. And even thinking about that reality it is difficult to fathom how a doctor can proceed.

                And so there is a massive difference between say a bastocyst and a 6 months gestation fetus. And somewhere in-between the two, a conscious being is formed.

                And so while one can't draw a precise line that defines when that conscious presence of this child's being begins - one can draw solid lines in terms of when it is not. It most certainly is NOT present anytime before nerve cells begin to form, for example. And we can probably do better than that, and in fact, we already have. We have clear definitions that define when the person has passed. When the body is still alive, but they are gone. And we measure that in terms of brain activity. A similar test can be made on the front end. If certain basic brain activity has not yet appeared, the entity that will be the child is not yet there.

                Religiously, even there we don't know when the soul or personality arrives in a spiritual sense. We don't even have any sort of good idea what element would be called the soul that is not intricately linked to the brain and nervous system. We believe there is more there than that, but we don't really know. So in terms of making a law that is not based on a religious point of view, it seems the idea of brain activity is about the best we can ever hope to get, unless we can literally find a way to detect the immortal soul.

                Now - am I saying this to say abortion before said time is ok? No. There is intrinsic value in the forming child that makes any attempt to destroy it for convenience wrong. But I am saying that 'it is wrong to abort it' and 'is is murder to abort it' are two different things, and in terms of defining abortion as murder, you have to wait until some reasonable expectation there is a human person there to be murdered.
                Infants have no more self awareness than a cat or dog. Since the law basically treats dogs and cats as property (including owners being able to choose euthanizing the animal), why should a baby be any different?
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  It really isn't that way MM. You are using an invalid measure - you are acting as if no useful division can be made without being able to define that division very precisely. But precision of that sort is not necessary. Prior to the creation of a nervous system and a brain, there is no awareness of any sort in the fetus. It is a developing Human being, but if it is destroyed, there is yet no detectable element that has a capacity to perceive or react in the fetus.

                  On the other hand, if the doctor carves up a 6 months gestation fetus to abort it, that child most certainly does 'know' that it is being cut to pieces. And even thinking about that reality it is difficult to fathom how a doctor can proceed.

                  And so there is a massive difference between say a bastocyst and a 6 months gestation fetus. And somewhere in-between the two, a conscious being is formed.

                  And so while one can't draw a precise line that defines when that conscious presence of this child's being begins - one can draw solid lines in terms of when it is not. It most certainly is NOT present anytime before nerve cells begin to form, for example. And we can probably do better than that, and in fact, we already have. We have clear definitions that define when the person has passed. When the body is still alive, but they are gone. And we measure that in terms of brain activity. A similar test can be made on the front end. If certain basic brain activity has not yet appeared, the entity that will be the child is not yet there.

                  Religiously, even there we don't know when the soul or personality arrives in a spiritual sense. We don't even have any sort of good idea what element would be called the soul that is not intricately linked to the brain and nervous system. We believe there is more there than that, but we don't really know. So in terms of making a law that is not based on a religious point of view, it seems the idea of brain activity is about the best we can ever hope to get, unless we can literally find a way to detect the immortal soul.

                  Now - am I saying this to say abortion before said time is ok? No. There is intrinsic value in the forming child that makes any attempt to destroy it for convenience wrong. But I am saying that 'it is wrong to abort it' and 'is is murder to abort it' are two different things, and in terms of defining abortion as murder, you have to wait until some reasonable expectation there is a human person there to be murdered.
                  You can track the progress of development, sure, but to pretend that it's discrete divisions rather than a continuous, unbroken whole is pure dogma.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • So if you could put a baby to sleep so it would be unaware that you were going to kill it and it couldn't feel any pain, then infanticide would be OK? If not, why not?

                    What about anesthetizing a 7 month old fetus before aborting it?

                    Comment


                    • Brain development is merely one of several interrelated biological processes. Decapitation does not mean that the head is still a human person because it has a fully developed brain. Human persons are human persons at the moment of conception.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      - Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        So if you could put a baby to sleep so it would be unaware that you were going to kill it and it couldn't feel any pain, then infanticide would be OK? If not, why not?

                        What about anesthetizing a 7 month old fetus before aborting it?
                        This would be an ethical question but it's the wrong category of question.

                        The argument is not merely that embryos and fetuses, up to a certain date of gestation, do not suffer. It's that they lack the neurological capacity for suffering and, indeed, sensation processing. That relates to the question of what is a "person" and at what point do human organisms gain and lose the rights afforded to all persons?

                        We understand, for instance, that brain-dead patients do not have the rights afforded to persons -- at least not all of them. We understand that people who die do so slowly -- brain-death often precedes the death of other organs. We recognize, for the most part, that the life and health of a grown pregnant woman supersedes whatever rights are afforded to embryos and fetuses.

                        So the question isn't whether an organism suffers when talking about its rights. The question involves (but is not limited to) whether an organism has sufficient neurological capacity for suffering.

                        --Sam
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Brain development is merely one of several interrelated biological processes. Decapitation does not mean that the head is still a human person because it has a fully developed brain. Human persons are human persons at the moment of conception.
                          If you could decapitate a person and keep her head and brain alive (we're maybe 50-150 years out), which would be the "person" with rights? Her head or her separated body?

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            If you could decapitate a person and keep her head and brain alive (we're maybe 50-150 years out), which would be the "person" with rights? Her head or her separated body?

                            --Sam
                            Head in a jar, here we come. Although I’m partial to the headless body of Agnew, so maybe it’s both.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              This would be an ethical question but it's the wrong category of question.

                              The argument is not merely that embryos and fetuses, up to a certain date of gestation, do not suffer. It's that they lack the neurological capacity for suffering and, indeed, sensation processing. That relates to the question of what is a "person" and at what point do human organisms gain and lose the rights afforded to all persons?

                              We understand, for instance, that brain-dead patients do not have the rights afforded to persons -- at least not all of them. We understand that people who die do so slowly -- brain-death often precedes the death of other organs. We recognize, for the most part, that the life and health of a grown pregnant woman supersedes whatever rights are afforded to embryos and fetuses.

                              So the question isn't whether an organism suffers when talking about its rights. The question involves (but is not limited to) whether an organism has sufficient neurological capacity for suffering.

                              --Sam
                              Brain death at the end of life is quite a bit different than an embryo who hasn't yet developed a brain. It WILL develop a brain if you don't kill it first. A brain dead individual will not and cannot recover. If they could recover, then we would not "take away their rights" and would be unable to unplug them.

                              So that leaves "ability to suffer" - since when is that a criteria for killing someone? If you anesthetize them first, then it is OK?

                              And "person" is a legal term. It has no meaning in biology. Biologically a fetus is just as much a human organism as a 1 month old baby. It is perfectly normal for it to not have a brain yet. YET.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                If you could decapitate a person and keep her head and brain alive (we're maybe 50-150 years out), which would be the "person" with rights? Her head or her separated body?

                                --Sam
                                Neither. Both parts can be kept artificially alive without the other for a period of time. And one need not a "fully functioning brain" to be alive.

                                Source: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-you-asked/it-true-you-can-live-without-brain

                                Back in 1980, an article appeared in Science, one of the world’s top journals, describing the work of John Lorber, a professor of pediatrics at University of Sheffield in England who had conducted a number of studies on individuals who were afflicted with hydrocephalus and came up with some remarkable findings. Lorber had subjected his patients to CAT scans and found that while most of them were mentally impaired, some, even when their brain filled no more than 5% of the cranial cavity led normal lives. In one documented case, a colleague referred a young man to Lorber because of his unusually large head which apparently was not causing him any difficulty. A CAT scan revealed a skull lined with about a millimeter thick layer of brain tissue and filled with cerebrospinal fluid. Of course the brain stem which sits at the bottom of the brain and connects to the spine was normal. Since it controls vital functions such as breathing, swallowing, digestion, eye movement and heartbeat, there can be no life without it. But the rest of the brain is obviously capable of some remarkable feats, with one part able to compensate for deficiencies in another. In the case of the young man who Lorber investigated, the thin layer of brain cells was certainly up to the task of providing the necessary brain power. The student had a high IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X