« Your Christmas Card Message | Main | Arrogance vs. Grace »

December 19, 2005

Comments

Good point about embryo rights. One thing i find puzzling is why Christians who leave their embryos in IVF programs are not considered child abusers. These kids are left frozen for years or even decades!

If you went over to somebodys house and saw their teenager in a state of suspended animation in a cube on the coffee table, I think one might be inclined to take pause.

But we dont seem to give a flip when they're only a few cells big.

Though some of the specifics might be cashed out differently, Tony, you and I agree on this issue. It's unfortunate that people don't see the inconsistencies in caring for the unborn in and out of IVF. Both are valuable and deserve our protection.

Tell it D. And this is of course the biggest obstacle the pro-lifers have to overcome: You can write down beautiful arguments and reason perfectly with your opponent, but in the earliest stages of development, most people (even most christians) simply just don't feel the same ethical kick with zygote crimes, that they do with toddler crimes.

Face it folks. Abortion is going to be legal for a long long long long long long long long time.

T.'s not-so-far-off remarks reminded me of the following:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4476/1372/1600/Warts-and-Carbuncles.0.jpg

I believe that the days of abortion on demand, at least as a federally-mandated Constitutional right, are numbered. I'm not trying to be cynical, but all it takes is one more constructionist Justice.

Tony writes, "...in the earliest stages of development, most people (even most christians) simply just don't feel the same ethical kick with zygote crimes, that they do with toddler crimes."

While this may be true, it's not a solid refutation of the status of the unborn being human- clearly it is. Rather, it is an appeal to emotion and psychological states of opinion towards another human. But why ought we adopt this standard of determining the ontological state of the unborn and it's value? During much of our nations history (unfortunately) white folks have been less emotionally attached towards those of darker skin. Does it then follow that those with dark skin were neither human or equally as valuable as the white man? Surely, it does not, and for good reason. Take for example my emotional state towards Tony. I'm not as attached to him as I am to my brother or grandparents, does it follow that Tony is not valuable or a human being? No, Tony is just as valuable and tracing his taxonomical history clearly says that he is a bonified human being.

Pro-lifers may need to align their views to be more consistent, but the sword cuts both ways. Pro-abortion advocates often deny the full humanity of the zygote, when in fact they were zygotes themselves. While the way we view and treat the unborn is vital to their protection and respect, there has to be focus on where the scientific evidence leads us to conclude: from the point of conception between the sperm and egg, human life has began.

“…rather, it is an appeal to emotion and psychological states of opinion towards another human.”

Of course. I am not claiming the moral law is based on default human intuition. I am simply claiming that default human intuition is your worst enemy in the abortion issue – because it just isn’t on your side. As William Lane Craig said:

"What about the existence of objective moral values? My argument is that you reflect on your own moral experience. This is the way in which ethicists do moral theory. In his essay in Philosophical Perspectives, the non-Christian ethicists Walter Armstrong says, 'the most common way to choose among moral theories is to test how well they cohere with our intuitions or considered judgments about what is morally right and wrong. About the nature or ideal of the person and about the purposes of morality.'"

So you see, since intuition does not render quick and consistent responses on the issue of young zygotes (even amongst trained pro-lifers), it does not surprise me that the populace is so divided about how to treat them. I find it suspect as, if the Christian God really existed, it seems that he would have provided for us a better moral compass in regards to the abortion issue – if you guys are really standing on God’s side of the fence.

“…there has to be focus on where the scientific evidence leads us to conclude: from the point of conception between the sperm and egg, human life has began”

Oh Daniel are we still on that. Science cannot tell you when carbon nitrogen oxygen and hydrogen have value. We can make labels and rules and draw species classification tables. But how do you know Carolus Linnaeus’ filing cabinets match God’s filing cabinets?

You need to listen to Steve more:

“Just because we ground our position theologically (meaning our final grounding for our position has a theological premise) it doesn't mean we're forced to always explain it in religious terms. Notice tonight, did I argue religiously? No. I argued philosophy, and I argued science. But, it is true, at some point if you're pushed far enough, you're going to have to ground your claim that humans have value simply because they're human. As Christians, I can ground that in the nature of God.”

Claiming that you know which material clusters have value, can only follow a divine communiqué from God himself. This is a bit problematic, since most of the world doesn’t think your God exists.


The comments to this entry are closed.