1

It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure.

I'm curious why you put the final qualifier on the sentence? I would think simply stating, "It is morally wrong to torture infants," should have been concise enough to provide you with an AMT. Are you implying there are morally acceptable reasons for torturing infants if it isn't for pleasure? Are you instead putting the qualifier on because what constitutes torture may vary from person to person (for example, is intentionally cutting off part of a male infant's penis a torturous act or not) within some relatively reasonable range.

2

If a postmodern Christian believes in God then she can’t rule out that AMT’s could exist.

Is it possible, in your estimation, that a true Christian can believe that the moral "truths" laid out in the Bible are not necessarily a part of the set or a subset of this god's collection of AMT's?

3

Moderate: I'm curious why you put the final qualifier on the sentence? I would think simply stating, "It is morally wrong to torture infants," should have been concise enough to provide you with an AMT.

I add that qualifier for two reasons: (a) Because motive is an important part of ethics, and (b)to keep people from changing it into a hypothetical "What about if..." situation.

Is it possible, in your estimation, that a true Christian can believe that the moral "truths" laid out in the Bible are not necessarily a part of the set or a subset of this god's collection of AMT's?

I think Christians can have an honest disagreement about which moral claims are AMTs and which are simply cultural norms. But I don't think that a true Christian can claim that the Bible contains no AMTs.

4

But I don't think that a true Christian can claim that the Bible contains no AMTs.

I agree there. There are many morals that are so universally held ("thou shalt not steal" for example) that even most non-Christians would hold that the Bible contains some AMT's.

5

Joe,

I just started a series concerning the Issues Evangelicals are truly concerned with, with a discussion of this very topic.

I don't know if you'd find it interesting, but Here's a link: Subjective Morality: The Dangerous Lie

I found it interesting that you posted this so soon after I did mine :D Excellent coincidence.

Thanks for defining the various philosophical aspects for us. Do you, or have you, read Francis Schaeffer, out of curiosity? I read him as a young'un, but I just now got back into him.

I really enjoy your discussions - thank you.

6

RK: Do you, or have you, read Francis Schaeffer, out of curiosity? I read him as a young'un, but I just now got back into him.

When I first found Dr. Schaeffer's works as a teenager they had a huge impact on me. It was the first time that I realized that an evangelical not only could but must take art, philosophy, and culture seriously.

Moderate: I agree there. There are many morals that are so universally held ("thou shalt not steal" for example) that even most non-Christians would hold that the Bible contains some AMT's.

But what about the people who deny that there are any AMTs?

7

I think you're setting up a straw man here by defining "postmodern" or "emergent" Christians too broadly. I also think you're muddying the waters by transgressing your own categories of ontology, epistemology and ethics.

As to my first point, many Christians who are serious about relating postmodern epistemology to theology would decidedly not accept the premise that the are no universally applicable ethical norms. While it's true that many who call themselves "emergent" blindly accept the relativism inherent in much postmodern thought, for the most part, such people tend not to be the emergent conversations true theological thought leaders.

Take Nancey Murphy's book Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism, for example. Murphy shows how a foundationalist epistemology is inadequate, and how much language concerning "absolute" truth claims is based on foundationalist epistemology. She discusses the postmodern epistemological metaphor of truth as a "web" rather than a building with a foundation, and how relativism can be avoided in a web-based view of truth. Or look at Leslie Newbigin's Proper Confidence, and again, you'll see a very thoughtful effort to place Christian truth claims in a nonfoundationalist context without any hint of relativism.

I think when many Christians who take criticisms of foundationalism and language theory seriously hear "absolute" as a qualifier of "truth," it raises red flags because it sounds as though the speaker is saying "I am making a statement that completely, perfectly absolutely corresponds to reality" -- meaning the speaker is able to completely, perfectly, and absolutely apprehend everything God is and communicate that completely, perfectly, and absolutely in human language -- when human perception and language seem manifestly inadequate for such a task.

As to my second point, your statement "it is wrong to torture babies" is an ethical statement based on several presuppositional ontological beliefs concerning the nature of adult and infant human beings (e.g., all human beings, adult or infant, have intrinsic worth, separate wills, and inalienable rights that would make it unethical for an adult to torture an infant). The ethical statement is only "true" if our ontological presuppositions about adult and infant human beings are true. As I see it, it's impossible to prove those presuppositions are true. In that sense, then, the statement "it is wrong to torture babies" is not an absolute statement; it is contingent on some presuppositions that ultimately are based on faith.

Given this understanding of the ethical statement "it is wrong to torture babies," I think a post-foundationalist epistemological framework actually provides greater force to the ethical statement. Under a foundationalist epistemology, I cannot demonstrate by reason alone that my ontological presuppositions about human nature are true, and therefore I'm left with little else but subjective preferences or utilitarianism. Under a post-foundationalist epistemology, the final arbiter is not necessarily only that which is subject to rationalistic "proof." The natural sense all people exhibit against torturing infants supports the Christian faith claim that all people are made in the image of God and therefore possess intrinsic worth. The ethical claim is then grounded in revelation as well as reason.

Anyway, this is condensed and I hope it makes sense. I'm by no means a committed "emergent" person, but I do think some of the post-foundationalist theology that's being done is quite valuable and that arguments about "absolute moral truth" sometimes aren't much more than sloganeering.

8

Arrgh.

I hadn't hit all your archives yet.

Teaches me to do a site search before asking a dumb question :D

9

From what I'm starting to glean about pomo christianity, the denial of AMTs seems to be neither important nor necessary to the project. From what I've seen so far, the more important thing is the indeterminacy of capital-M Meaning, rather than the indeterminacy of ethical propositions. In other words, the key to me seems to hermeneutic skepticism rather than ethical skepticism. Aren't the two related? Eh. Sort of. It isn't hard for a pomo to take refuge in a kind of ethical intuitionism. In other words, it's fairly obvious that child-murder is wrong, so one doesn't need to lean heavily on the Bible in order to determine whether child-murder is wrong or not. As a matter of fact, I can imagine this line of thinkning going, you'd be some kind of freakish monster if you did have to check out the Bible to see if child-murder is forbidden.

10

Given this understanding of the ethical statement "it is wrong to torture babies," I think a post-foundationalist epistemological framework actually provides greater force to the ethical statement. Under a foundationalist epistemology, I cannot demonstrate by reason alone that my ontological presuppositions about human nature are true, and therefore I'm left with little else but subjective preferences or utilitarianism.

Yeah, what he said. Well put.

11

Having reread dopderbeck's post, it's very good that he points out 'web' or coherentist epistemologies. They're perfectly able to claim that AMTs, strictly speaking, aren't true while also providing an explanation for how the nature of the web captures or tracks standard, foundationalist normative thought. The upshot is that descriptive denial of absolute truth value doesn't entail ethical subjectivism or relativism. In other words, I can deny that 'murder is wrong' is objectively true, while also coherently believing first, that murder is wrong and second, that others ought to believe 'murder is wrong'.

12

Over at Dr. Mark Reynolds, the top left advertisement currently is for a book titled Skepticism is True. The only possible logical response to this is "are you sure?" which demolishes the argument of the book.

Anyway, there are people who would argue that it is not morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure. I guessing that Singer, of Harvard, would take that position. But even if he doesn't, one could take the position is that it isn't morally wrong, but that the effects of such actions would be against enlightened self-interest, for example, and therefore not prudent.

The problem with atheism is not that it isn't consistent. It can be. The problem, rather, is that atheists aren't consistent. They either wear shoes made by theists, or ignore that the shoes they wear makes them very uncomfortable.

13

dopderbeck wrote:

I'm left with little else but subjective preferences or utilitarianism.

This isn't an either/or condition. Utilitarianism is simply one of many subjective preferences. That's one of the interesting "blind spots" that I see when discussing morality with atheists. They try to rationalize their choices by "utilitarianism", or "enlighteded self-interest", or "survival of the fittest", or any number of other reasons -- but these are all nothing more than subjective preference.

And why is it that no atheist I've ever encountered has used love (of the agape kind) as a basis for morality? Is it that I don't get out enough?

14

Okay, I'll dive into the pool here and splash around a little before I drowned.

The natural sense all people exhibit against torturing infants supports the Christian faith claim that all people are made in the image of God and therefore possess intrinsic worth. The ethical claim is then grounded in revelation as well as reason.

In other words, it's fairly obvious that child-murder is wrong, so one doesn't need to lean heavily on the Bible in order to determine whether child-murder is wrong or not

Considering that there have been societies that sacrificed babies throughout history, I don't know that intuition or the view of "everyone" works. Maybe there are better explanations, but the point of an AMT is that it is an AMT regardless of natural sense or popular opinion.

15

jpe wrote:

In other words, I can deny that 'murder is wrong' is objectively true, while also coherently believing first, that murder is wrong and second, that others ought to believe 'murder is wrong'.

Ok, prove it. Why should I believe that 'murder is wrong'?

And, btw, are you for or against abortion rights? It is, after all, murder.

16

To echo what Chris Lutz wrote, children used to be sacrificed to the fertility god Moloch. Instead of believing that this was wrong, they thought that the sacrifice of children would cause their crops to be more plentiful. That is, they used the death of their children to benefit themselves.

And Moloch isn't dead today -- the proponents of stem cell research are worshipping at the same altar.

17

Joe, interesting post. I think your definitions have a weakness however, as they do not reflect any causal relationship between moral absolutes and God's existence. In other words, you leave open the possibility that AMT may exist without God. Maybe this is intentional and you were just trying to leave theology out of it.

When you write that God CAN know everything that can be known, it sounds like you are suggesting that God's knowledge is analogous to our own, being arrived at through logic and reason, with the only distinction being that he has infinite capacity for knowing.

Was this intentional or am I missing something? Leaving divine foreknowledge open doesn't seem to cover it. The causal relationship I mention is a vital part of Christian ontology.

18

And Moloch isn't dead today -- the proponents of stem cell research are worshipping at the same altar.

Yes a full grown baby and a clump of 100 cells is the same thing. Please, please keep talking. I love having examples of how extreme the religious right is so that I don't get dismissed by my moderate Republican friends as being paranoid that they actually say things like that.

19

I believe that absolute moral truths not only exist but can be known, but reading Joe's original post I sense the vague outlines of a primrose path and a straw man.

Deductive argument requires that the initial premise be accepted. "Some things are true while other things are false" might not be accepted by postmoderns, for the reasons Joe outlines. (Of course, it begs the question of how one could take seriously the statement, "there are no absolute truths, including this statement")

I don't know enough about foundationalism to really understand dopderbek's argument. In fact, I've never heard of it before. I suspect it has little to do with either concrete slabs or Isaac Asimov, though. Can someone explain it short declarative sentences and words of less than four syllabus? I'm a bear of very little brain.

20

Mr. Moderate wrote:

Yes a full grown baby and a clump of 100 cells is the same thing.

They are both a clump of cells, separated only by time. So how does delta t make anyone more or less human?

Please, please keep talking.

Answer the question and I'll be happy to.

I love having examples of how extreme the religious right is so that I don't get dismissed by my moderate Republican friends as being paranoid that they actually say things like that.

Make a rational case that a fetus isn't human, and is therefore not worthy of full protection under the law, and let's see who the extremist really is.

21

Mr. M, you are correct. The zygote and her father are not the same. They are different individuals, though the zygote has inherited half of her genetic data from her father.

The main difference, other than size and age, is that the father is more independent. The zygote may be more similar to her great-grandfather with Alzheimers and who has suffered a stroke, who cannot move, feed or wash himself.

Is only the father "human"?

All three are genetically human, however.

22

Corrie,

Thanks for the chuckle. "2001", the "Foundation" series, and "Winnie the Pooh" all in one post.

23

In fact, I've never heard of it before. I suspect it has little to do with either concrete slabs or Isaac Asimov, though. Can someone explain it short declarative sentences and words of less than four syllabus? I'm a bear of very little brain.

"Foundationalism" is a theory in epistemology that holds that beliefs are justified by reference to self-evident or self-justifying basic principles. See Wikipedia for a good definition. Modern epistemology, which is the child of the Enlightenment, holds that the only self-evident or self-justifying basic principle is human reason. Picture knowledge as a building, with human reason as its foundation.

24

Uuuhhh... what if there IS an instance whereby it would be morally right to torture babies for pleasure, but we can't know when that is, because our knowledge is imperfect? Ouch, my head hurts!

btw, AMT's rule.

25

The 2001 reference was accidental (I was referring to building foundations), though there's an interesting conversation about the ORIGINS of moral thought. (Cue the guys in ape suits and screeching choir.)

I think that the Garden story in Genesis is the Hebrew version of the scrap of species memory of that moment when primates became aware of the possibility of acting not in reflex or as a conditioned response, but from a sense of Right and Wrong. Other cultures may have similar tales.

In Genesis, Lucifer - the Angel of Light - convinces the first humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the Greco-Roman version, Prometheus - the light-bringer - gives (metaphorical?) fire to the mud-people the gods had created for their amusement. I haven't had time to explore the parallels beyond this simple observation, unfortunately.

26

Make a rational case that a fetus isn't human, and is therefore not worthy of full protection under the law, and let's see who the extremist really is.

A clump of 100 cells is not a fetus. At that stage it has absolutely no tissue, much less organs, much less a central nervous system. I see no reason to give a clump of 100 cells with none of these qualities the "full protection under the law" of a human being. It is no more human than the hundreds of skin cells I shed yesterday.

All three are genetically human, however.

My skin cells have all of my DNA. From that nucleas you can make a fully developed human being. Should we then extrapolate that the skin cell is now human? What about a clump of skin cells? If the clone has the exact same DNA as myself, including the exact same telomere degenaration, is it therefore another "me" just as any clump of cells with the proper number of chromosomes you are assuming is automatically another human?

27

dopderbeck wrote:

Picture knowledge as a building, with human reason as its foundation.

Reason cannot be a foundation, since it is a process. It is not the data on which the process works.

And it's self-evident to me that a "clump of 100 cells" (aka a fetus) is a human being. Reason then says that abortion is murder and therefore should be outlawed.

Does this mean that "foundationalism" is on shaky ground to begin with?

28

"So how does delta t make anyone more or less human?"

Talk to me in about 100 years, wrf3.

29

To echo what Chris Lutz wrote, children used to be sacrificed to the fertility god Moloch. Instead of believing that this was wrong, they thought that the sacrifice of children would cause their crops to be more plentiful. That is, they used the death of their children to benefit themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Canaanite culture or religion. However, the example of child sacrifice doesn't prove that most Canaanite people believed murdering or torturing children was always acceptable. Even the Canaanites and other peoples who practiced child sacrifice cared for some of their children at least some of the time, meaning that the spark of moral intuition wasn't completely extinguished. The concept of moral intuition doesn't discount the reality of the sin nature or the heinousness of sin's corrupting influence, however, which means some people will harden their hearts and commit awful acts such as child sacrifice.

And Moloch isn't dead today -- the proponents of stem cell research are worshipping at the same altar.

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of using aborted fetuses for stem cell research, and I'm ardently pro-life. However, the comparison to Canaanite child sacrifice here seems to me silly, inflammatory, and off-topic.

30

Mr. Moderate wrote:

[A fetus] is no more human than the hundreds of skin cells I shed yesterday.

9 months from now those skin cells will still be skin cells, but the so-called "clump of 100 cells" would be a baby. You are comparing apples and oranges and, in so doing, offering an indefensible argument.

So try again.

31

9 months from now those skin cells will still be skin cells, but the so-called "clump of 100 cells" would be a baby. You are comparing apples and oranges and, in so doing, offering an indefensible argument.

Actually you don't know if those cells die off for some reason or another, or split into multiple children or formed into one human being. If the one clump of cells at 3 days past conception is one human being and it split into twin cell clumps, do we then have one human being, two human beings or two half human beings the moment after separation? YOU are the one who stated that a clump of cells 100 days old is a human being. It is therefore YOUR responsibility to prove it, not mine. So YOU try again.

32

Reason cannot be a foundation, since it is a process. It is not the data on which the process works.

I'm not a foundationalist, so I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I was just describing what foundationalism is.

And it's self-evident to me that a "clump of 100 cells" (aka a fetus) is a human being. Reason then says that abortion is murder and therefore should be outlawed.

This demonstrates one of the flaws in foundationalism, since this proposition isn't "self-evident" to everyone, nor is it necessarily a logical syllogism that 1. human zygotic cells have all the DNA needed to form a human eing; 2. fully formed human beings have all the DNA needed to form a human being; 3. therefore human cells are ethically equivalent to fully formed human beings. (Again, don't get me wrong, I'm resolutely pro-life, but not because of arguments like this).

Does this mean that "foundationalism" is on shaky ground to begin with?

Yes. Foundationalism, in fact, is dead.

33

I asked:

"So how does delta t make anyone more or less human?"

Larry Lord replied:

Talk to me in about 100 years, wrf3.

Why? Is that how long you think it will take you to come up with an answer?

34

Oh and by the way wrf3...I don't believe the Bible is written by any dieties so you'll have to find extra-Biblical foundations. You wouldn't take me making moral arguments from Koranic verses, so don't expect me to take your position from Biblical ones.

35

Mr. M:

[ital]A clump of 100 cells is not a fetus.[/ital]

Correct. It is a zygote, IIRC. It is, however, genetically human. It can be nothing else.

[ital]
At that stage it has absolutely no tissue, much less organs, much less a central nervous system. [/ital]

1. Wrong; it IS tissue. Undifferentiated tissue, but tissue nonetheless.

2. Many people are lacking certain organs - tonsils, appendixes, spleens, kidneys. Some lack eyes, arms, and kegs. Are they any less human for that?

3. Your argument seems to imply that while a zygote should not be considered a "human being," a fetus might. You and Larry also seem to imply (by silence) that poor stroke-felled great-grandpa might be considered non-human by reason of disability.

Is that correct? If so, can you definitively point to the developmental and degenerative markers that differentiate between "human" and "non-human." IOW, what test must the unborn pass to be worthy of protection? What test must grandma pass retain her human rights? I'm sure there are doctors in Groningen that would be very interested in the answer.

36

Semantic games will get you nowhere wrf3. Been there, done that.

Your concern for the "rights" of frozen human embryos is misguided and hypocritical.

If you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies there are clear and proven ways of doing so: distribute contraceptives to anyone who wants them as well as information on how to use them, including education about the benefits of absitence.

Until conservative evangelicals get off their anti-sex horse and join the rest of us in Reality Land, all this gnashing of teeth over embryos is just a hypocritical waste of hot air. If human life was so per se sacred to conservative fundies, they wouldn't be lining up like sheep to support the death penalty and pointless wars on the other side of the world which kill and cripple scores of thousands of innocent human beings.

End of story.

37

There you go again, Larry, hijacking a rational discussion by preaching about how hypocritical Christians are in your view.

Back to the topic. Are there or are there not absolute moral thuths> How do you KNOW?

38

Many people are lacking certain organs - tonsils, appendixes, spleens, kidneys. Some lack eyes, arms, and kegs. Are they any less human for that?

It has NO organs. See the difference? I doubt it.

IOW, what test must the unborn pass to be worthy of protection? What test must grandma pass retain her human rights? I'm sure there are doctors in Groningen that would be very interested in the answer.

I believe the point where we need to consider ending abortion is the point where consciousness develops in the brain. Before then it is the same as dealing with any other brain dead creature. You keeping your brain dead grandma's body functioning is not an act of kindness for your grandmother, who's brain is the equivalent of tapioca, but more a way for you to avoid having to deal with the reality that she is for all intents and purposes gone from this world forever.

39

Mr. Moderate wrote:

Actually you don't know if those cells die off for some reason or another, ...

So what? We all die off for some reason or another. It's the deliberate taking of innocent life that some of us hold to be wrong.

or split into multiple children or formed into one human being.

Again, so what? If we don't interfere with the process, and natural death does not occur, at least one child will result.

What gives us the right to not extend the principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to something where the only difference is time?

If the one clump of cells at 3 days past conception is one human being and it split into twin cell clumps, do we then have one human being, two human beings or two half human beings the moment after separation?

Run t forward and you'll be able to answer it for yourself.

...

So YOU try again.

Back to you. I'm still waiting for a reasoned answer to "So how does delta t make anyone more or less human?"

40

Even the Canaanites and other peoples who practiced child sacrifice cared for some of their children at least some of the time, meaning that the spark of moral intuition wasn't completely extinguished.

However, you can't say that it was moral intuition that led to their not killing their other children. It could be the utility of having children to help on the farm.

Plus, based on Joe's statement, it would never be acceptable. Your statement says that the Canaanites felt it was acceptable in some circumstances. What's if their intuition is right and ours wrong?

41

Ok, Mr. M. For the sake of argument I'll grant your premise. (But only for the sake of argument.)

Is the Groningen Protocol morally right, or morally abhorrent? Defend your answer.

42

Yes. Foundationalism, in fact, is dead.

Indeed. There are still the occasional fun books trying to resuscitate some modified version, but the interest of these projects already hinges on the notion that foundationalism is more-or-less dead. If it weren't dead, it wouldn't need to be resuscitated, after all.

43

Corrie writes

"2. Many people are lacking certain organs - tonsils, appendixes, spleens, kidneys. Some lack eyes, arms, and kegs. Are they any less human for that?"

What about when some doctor determines that the person is "brain dead"? Then it's all right to kill that human being, is it not, Corrie?

Of course it is all right. Did Jesus tell us what "brain dead" means? Nope. Some arbitrary panel of doctors came up with that.

It's okay to kill brain dead people and it's okay to pull the plug and kill terminall ill people. Happens all the time. Every day the plug is pulled on people who would continue to live but for the pulling of the plug. Pulling the plug is killing. Killing another human being. Every day. Christians do it every day. Killing. Enjoy.

Note: single celled human embyros don't have brain tissue or any other kind of tissue. They require constant second-to-second aid from a third party to remain viable, just like human beings who are terminally ill in comas with hundreds of tubes in them. We kill such humans because there is no reason to keep them alive, unless you just like to watch a sack of water respirate and consume resources.

44

still waiting for a reasoned answer to "So how does delta t make anyone more or less human?"

The "Talk to me in 100 years" crack was to point out that we'll all probably be dead in 2104. That of course is a non-answer, since the blastocyst and grandma are both alive NOW.

45

Mr. Moderate wrote:

Oh and by the way wrf3...I don't believe the Bible is written by any dieties so you'll have to find extra-Biblical foundations. You wouldn't take me making moral arguments from Koranic verses, so don't expect me to take your position from Biblical ones.

You didn't have to tell me this. It's plainly obvious from the expressions of your worldview.

46

Is the Groningen Protocol morally right, or morally abhorrent? Defend your answer.

What exactly (not generally) is the Groningen Protocol? From news reports it sounds like the hospital making medical decisions overriding the parents. I don't agree with that. If the baby is brain dead then I think the argument is moot. If the baby is not brain dead then I'm uncomfortable giving the decision to a committee of doctors, regardless of the actual wording of the protocol. As far as I know the hospital cannot force any other medical treatment of children without parental consent, unless the parents are unfit. I don't see why it should in this case.

47

Thank you, Larry. That was repugnant, but very well said. (I'll pass on challenging your definition of removing heroic life-support as "killing" but note that it is NOT the same thing.)

Now let's take it a step further.

"They require constant second-to-second aid from a third party to remain viable"

Well, that's not strictly true in the case of grandma. She might be able to breathe on her own, if the brainstem is functioning. Maybe all she needs is a feeding tube and a catheter.

Is it all right to remove those? I'm going to assume that you'll say yes.

Now, then, WHY is it okay to do that? Well, you yourself said that grandma is just consuming resources. She's inconvenient.

Let's look at the other end of life's spectrum - the newborn baby. It too requires near-constant care. All it does is eat and poop. If you didn't really want a baby to begin with, or changed your mind after it was "too late" to have an abortion, what's morally wrong with just... removing the life support?

Hm?

48

You didn't have to tell me this. It's plainly obvious from the expressions of your worldview.

I take that as a complement wrf3. I hope you don't get a nose bleed from being so high up on your horse.

49

Larry Lord wrote:

If you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies there are clear and proven ways of doing so: distribute contraceptives to anyone who wants them as well as information on how to use them, including education about the benefits of absitence.

First, you are assuming that sex is no different from eating, that it is merely a physical act with no spiritual component whatsoever. I reject that notion.

Second, I have three children. You have no idea what I have, or have not, told them about sex. I suggest you stop with the childish stereotypes.

Until conservative evangelicals get off their anti-sex horse...

LOL! I've been married to the same woman for 24 years and our sex life is wonderful, thank you for asking.

and join the rest of us in Reality Land,...

Whose reality? The one in which it was impossible for Jesus to have risen from the dead?

all this gnashing of teeth over embryos is just a hypocritical waste of hot air. If human life was so per se sacred to conservative fundies, they wouldn't be lining up like sheep to support the death penalty...

It isn't because we are sheep. It's because of a little concept known as "justice".

and pointless wars on the other side of the world which kill and cripple scores of thousands of innocent human beings.

The war in Iraq isn't pointless. Far from it. But that's another discussion for another thread.

50

Can we please return to topic. I find the AMT discussion interesting. The stem cell debate will come up at another time.

51

Mr. M, I think that's a straw horse. No one in this thread has yet based an argument on a Bible verse.

The GP allows doctors to kill - as in inject with lethal drugs - terminally ill babies that a committee decides have a poor quality of life.

52

Mr Moderate:

Why did you take my simple statement of fact as one of superiority? It doesn't take any special skills to know whether or not someone has a worldview influenced by the Bible.

53

Well, that's not strictly true in the case of grandma. She might be able to breathe on her own, if the brainstem is functioning. Maybe all she needs is a feeding tube and a catheter.

Is it all right to remove those? I'm going to assume that you'll say yes.

Now, then, WHY is it okay to do that? Well, you yourself said that grandma is just consuming resources. She's inconvenient.

This is so depressing. What started out as an interesting discussion of what "absolute" means in relation to "truth" has degenerated into shouting about the extremes of the abortion and euthenasia debate.

Corrie, you're right, that is what Larry said, and that's a poor reason. Serious bioethicists, however, try to make distinctions based on what it means to be "human." Is the presence of artifically assisted respiration without meaningful brain activity really "human" existence, and, if not, is removing the artificial support the unjustified killing of a human being?

Whatever your view on that question, it seems to me, even as a pro-life, Evangelical Christian, that it's a legitimate question, on which people can hold nuanced views. Both your dogmatism and Larry's is unfortunate and distressing.

54

Oops, the paragraph in my prior post ending with the word "inconvenient" should have been italicized, I was quoting Corrie, not my words. Chris is right though, this is all off-topic.

55

dopdebeck, bear with me, though I suspect Larry has already realized that he's being set up. This IS relevant to the AMT topic, but I'll just jump to the point.

Either there is, or there is not, a moral difference between aborting a fetus, injecting lethal drugs into a terminally ill newborn, smothering a febrile stroke victim, and Susan Smith strapping her sons into her car and pushing it into a pond because they were interfering with her social life.

I maintain that those actions are ALL morally equivalent, and my leading of Larry is designed to demonstrate the impossibility of drawing a fine bright line between them.

56

Would you try that answer with your math teacher when she showed you your flaws in a geometry proof? If my response to you was in any way incorrect, please point it out. After all, that's what reason is for.

I explained to you my position. You don't like the fact that the potential state of a clump of cells has no bearing on its current legal state. In fact you admitted so much yourself. You don't care if none, one or multiple human beings result from that one clump. You want me to give this clump the status of one human being. What am I to do with the other two clumps that split off and formed their own human beings? The bottom line is that you are the one who is claiming this clump of cells is human (notice not humans). It is therefore your responsibility to show how that is so. The delta-t is important because there is a point before which the creature existed. Assuming we have a fully developed human being there is a point after which their body ceases to function. At that delta-t you therefore no longer have a human do you? You, from a theological point, may argue that they still have a soul, but you don't have a human. Your "delta-t" argument is therefore not only fallacious but self-contradictory.

57

Would you try that answer with your math teacher when she showed you your flaws in a geometry proof?

Unlike math there is no objective base solution upon which everyone can go reference to determine the "right" answer. It would be like arguing with me whether chocolate ice cream tastes good. In the end there is no objective truth on this question, regardless of how much you'd like to think there is.

As Joe Carter himself said, even assuming there are AMT's that is no statement as to whether your personal MT's are of the set of real AMT's. I guess you'll know when you pop off and talk to your maker--if you believe in that sort of thing.

58

I maintain that those actions are ALL morally equivalent, and my leading of Larry is designed to demonstrate the impossibility of drawing a fine bright line between them.

You don't like my brain functioning moral line?

59

Mr. Moderate,

You're arguing for a change in legal status based on development - delta-t - but the only markers you provide are conception and death.

I'll go with that. :-D

60

As Joe Carter himself said, even assuming there are AMT's that is no statement as to whether your personal MT's are of the set of real AMT's.

Yes, but if there is a God and there are AMTs, then it is reasonable to assume that God has provided a way to know the AMTs.

61

"(I'll pass on challenging your definition of removing heroic life-support as "killing" but note that it is NOT the same thing.)"

No, Corrie. Sorry. One step at a time.

THe issue is the per se sanctity of human life. We agree that killing in self-defense is perfectly okay (but we'll table for the moment a discussion of what constitutes "self-defense").

But I think you also agree that killing is an act which directly causes the imminent death of another human being.

Turning off life support is killing under this definition. If you don't believe that, go to your local hospital and pull the plug off of someone on life support. Do you think you'll be charged merely with trespass?

Fyi, someone up above said I was "dogmatic" to which I can only reply: "Huuhhhhh???"

If you mean that I'm dogmatic about not reciting some preacher's script, well, sure. But pretty much anything else is up for discussion. We are, after all, human beings with functioning brains that your deity allegedly gave to us. I prefer to stimulate mine.

"The GP allows doctors to kill - as in inject with lethal drugs - terminally ill babies that a committee decides have a poor quality of life."

Poor quality of life? Nice try. Terminally ill babies who are doomed to a life of unbearable suffering is more like it. This refers to a handful of babies born each year -- babies whose deformities are so grotesque and whose development is so unalterably off track that pumping them full of drugs and feeding tubes is considered inhumane.

62

You're arguing for a change in legal status based on development - delta-t - but the only markers you provide are conception and death.

No, because as I've stated both explicitly and implicitly, the point of being legally classified a human begins and ends with the high level brain activity of the person known as consciousness. The question is not whether a corpus could eventually have a certain brain function or once had a certain brain function but whether it currently has that brain function.

63

dopderbeck: I think you're setting up a straw man here by defining "postmodern" or "emergent" Christians too broadly.

I certainly don’t mean to imply that most “emergent” Christians reject the concept of moral truth. But I think it applies to a large enough segment of the movement that it wouldn’t be a strawman to frame it in these terms.

I also think you're muddying the waters by transgressing your own categories of ontology, epistemology and ethics.

Let me clarify that while I think the categories are often confused, they are not so distinct that they can “exist” on their own. For example, there is no epistemology without ontology. And conversely, without epistemology a being can’t “know” that they exist.

As to my second point, your statement "it is wrong to torture babies" is an ethical statement based on several presuppositional ontological beliefs concerning the nature of adult and infant human beings (e.g., all human beings, adult or infant, have intrinsic worth, separate wills, and inalienable rights that would make it unethical for an adult to torture an infant). The ethical statement is only "true" if our ontological presuppositions about adult and infant human beings are true.

Agreed. That is why I say that “ontology precedes epistemology.”

As I see it, it's impossible to prove those presuppositions are true. In that sense, then, the statement "it is wrong to torture babies" is not an absolute statement; it is contingent on some presuppositions that ultimately are based on faith.

Whether the presuppositions are true or false is completely independent of our ability to “prove” them one way or the other. My contention is that when the terms are properly understood, some truths are self-evident (i.e., the law of non-contradiction is self-evident once a person understands what the law entails).

Hoots: Joe, interesting post. I think your definitions have a weakness however, as they do not reflect any causal relationship between moral absolutes and God's existence. In other words, you leave open the possibility that AMT may exist without God. Maybe this is intentional and you were just trying to leave theology out of it.

I think it may be theoretically possible that AMTs could exist without God (i.e, Platonic forms). But that goes beyond the scope of the current argument which relies on an agreement that God exists.

When you write that God CAN know everything that can be known, it sounds like you are suggesting that God's knowledge is analogous to our own, being arrived at through logic and reason, with the only distinction being that he has infinite capacity for knowing.

While I personally don’t think God’s knowledge is analogous to our own, his knowledge would at a minimum be like ours. I just chose the simplest formulation in order to include those who might not agree that divine foreknowledge is also absolute and complete.

Corrie: Deductive argument requires that the initial premise be accepted. "Some things are true while other things are false" might not be accepted by postmoderns, for the reasons Joe outlines. (Of course, it begs the question of how one could take seriously the statement, "there are no absolute truths, including this statement")

Even postmoderns would have to accept the premise since rejecting it would mean that some things (such as that premise) are not true. But by making that claim they are accepting its truth.

64

Yes, but if there is a God and there are AMTs, then it is reasonable to assume that God has provided a way to know the AMTs.

And now we are back to "my god is better then your god" or the concept of a global seeding of diety knowledge across world religions. We are also back to assuming that even if the original message was imparted in one or more of the world religions that it hasn't been corrupted in either the transcription or translation process.

65

You don't like my brain functioning moral line?

Brain functioning defined precisely how? (Careful of that slope there, it's slippery.)

And what if I don't have the equipment to measure that brain function? Or I can't pay for the tests? (Does a brain wave exist if it isn't measured?)

Conception and death - those are bright lines.

I agree with you that a heart-lung machine attached to a person who is demonstrably, irreversibly, GONE is "hanging on and not being willing to let go."

That's not the point.

66

BTW, my "No, because as I've stated both explicitly and implicitly, the point of being legally classified..." should have read, "No, because as I've stated both explicitly and implicitly, I believe the point of being legally classified..."

67

And what if I don't have the equipment to measure that brain function?

Then err on the side of caution or get to a western world hospital.

68

Conception and death - those are bright lines.

Death is a very bright line. Conception isn't even close, I'm sorry. You're not going to get universal agreement on this one.

69

I've stated both explicitly and implicitly, the point of being legally classified a human begins and ends with the high level brain activity of the person known as consciousness. The question is not whether a corpus could eventually have a certain brain function or once had a certain brain function but whether it currently has that brain function.

So you can inject people in reversible comas? Folks who get to a certain point with their Alzheimers? Sleeping people? Folks knocked out in a car accident?

"Quick, nurse, the syringe - before he wakes up!"

70

"I maintain that those actions are ALL morally equivalent, and my leading of Larry is designed to demonstrate the impossibility of drawing a fine bright line between them."

Everyone loves fine bright lines. Unfortunately, the instances where a fine bright line can be fairly drawn are very rare. WHy is the drinking age 21? Why is the age of voting 18? Why do we let people drive at 16? What are the appropriate ages for people to marry? To have sex?

Etc., etc. The rights of newborn babies are minimal, to say the least. Of course, when the baby grows up into a gay adult, it will have less rights than the rest of us if the conservatives have their way. Just like it used to be when the baby was born black.

Nevertheless, conservative evangelicals want to pretend that human embryonic cells have some inalienable rights that we don't afford to adult cats, dogs, or horses, or even to so-called "brain dead" adult humans that we could keep respirating indefinitely (or at least until a miracle occurred or bacteria ate them up, whichever comes first).

No evangelical can rationalize their way out of this conundrum. But it is amusing to watch them try rather than just admit that their arguments are not based on what some random preacher came up and have nothing to do with their holy book.

71

Mr Moderate, in response to my question:

"Would you try that answer with your math teacher when she showed you your flaws in a geometry proof?"

wrote:

Unlike math there is no objective base solution upon which everyone can go reference to determine the "right" answer.

I can look at the reasoning process to determine whether or not the conclusion is consistent with the starting point. If the conclusion isn't consistent, then I can rightly say that it's wrong. If it is consistent, then we can argue about what's self-evident.

I appreciate your other response and I'll look at it in more detail in a little while.

It would be like arguing with me whether chocolate ice cream tastes good. In the end there is no objective truth on this question, regardless of how much you'd like to think there is.

Weren't you the one who wrote: that even most non-Christians would hold that the Bible contains some AMT's?

IOW, if there are AMT's, how are we to know that there is no objective truth on this question? Do you hold that there AMT's, but that we can't know what they are? Or do you hold that something is an AMT if and only if it is universally held? If so, when did numbers become a measure of truth?

72

Moderate: Death is a very bright line. Conception isn't even close, I'm sorry. You're not going to get universal agreement on this one.

Um, yeah, there is a universal agreement on that one. Conception is the fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon.

73

Oops, that should be "ARE BASED" ... ;)

74

And now we are back to "my god is better then your god" or the concept of a global seeding of diety knowledge across world religions

So, I will take it to mean from everything you have said that there are no moral truths? If that is the case then, Joe's statement about morality being up to each individual is correct.

75

I maintain that those actions are ALL morally equivalent, and my leading of Larry is designed to demonstrate the impossibility of drawing a fine bright line between them.

Ok. Does this suggest AMT is a valid concept or not? Not to be facetious, but what if you can draw a fuzzy, squiggly line between them?

For example, the healthy fetus and Susan's children have the potential to develop into beings with the capability for love, reason, creativity, etc. -- perhaps the things that make us "human" in the sense of being made in the imago Dei. The stroke victim in a persistent vegitative state no longer has that potentiality. The terminally ill newborn may already possess some of those characteristics, but for the most part they remain only potentialities, which may never develop if the terminal illness is short-term. Further, the normal fetus requires no extraordinary means to provide its nutrition, hydration and respiration, nor will it require such extraordinary means when it develops into a healthy newborn. In contrast, the PVS stroke victim and/or the terminally ill infant might require such extraordinary means, some of which might be expirimental, novel, or in short supply.

In short, it seems to me that many of these cases present complex ethical questions that cannot be answered with a simple, "absolute" rule -- unless the rule is "any tissue containing human DNA must be preserved by any means", a rule that seems both unworkable and ungrounded in any meaningful concept of human dignity.

Again, I'm not suggesting there's no such thing as real moral principles that are binding on everyone, and I agree that abortion and killing terminally ill infants is morally wrong. I just wonder if the appeal to "absolutes" sometimes is a substitute for more difficult analysis in many instances.

76

"Moderate: Death is a very bright line. Conception isn't even close, I'm sorry. You're not going to get universal agreement on this one."

Diametric opposition here.

I'll go with Joe on conception. I think death is the fuzzier event by far.

77

So you can inject people in reversible comas? Folks who get to a certain point with their Alzheimers? Sleeping people? Folks knocked out in a car accident?

I'm not talking about being conscious versus unconscious, I'm talking about the brain's innate ability for that function. If that area of the brain is permanently damaged (which at most would be the case only for your severe Alzheimers example) then the question of euthanasia is a valid one.

78

Mr. Moderate: If that area of the brain is permanently damaged ... then the question of euthanasia is a valid one.

Why is death to be preferred over such a life? And why should you (the plural you) be the ones to make that decision?

79

I beg to differ. Conception is a VERY distinct event. Millions of sperm fighting to get in, and the instant - the millisecond - ONE penetrates, a chemical change occurs that prevents any other from getting in.

"I believe the point of being legally classified.."

And now we're back to the point of the thread. And your belief is based on what?

80

OW, if there are AMT's, how are we to know that there is no objective truth on this question? Do you hold that there AMT's, but that we can't know what they are? Or do you hold that something is an AMT if and only if it is universally held? If so, when did numbers become a measure of truth?

I personally hold that there are no AMT's. Does that mean that it's possible for people to rationalize the morality of such things as the Holocaust? Yes. That means that we have to be on our toes for people who are willing to warp their belief systems (as has happened to every religion or non-religion to come down the pike) into malicious monsters to attack other people. Because it is easy to abuse religious systems into saying practically anything, we really aren't protecting ourselves by claiming there are AMT's. We are simply defering the source of authority on the position down the line. In fact having a religious base makes it even easier. It's much harder to convince people, "I believe slavery is moral" than it is to say "Slavery is moral because our religious book says it is in this verse, that verse, et cetera."

I'm not going to personally hold that there are AMT's just because it is convenient.

81

I think death is the fuzzier event by far.

Wow, I have to agree with you there Larry. In some cases it is hard to make a correct moral judgement.

Then err on the side of caution or get to a western world hospital.

That's a moderate statement if ever I hear one (sarcasm). I guess "Let them eat cake!" was too cliche.

Interesting though when you say err on the side of caution yet you aren't cautious about when life begins.

82

Why is death to be preferred over such a life? And why should you (the plural you) be the ones to make that decision?

In an ideal world the person should, as soon as they become an adult, enact a living will so that they themselves will be the person determining their fate at that juncture. The death of the "person" happened at the point of death of that part of the person's brain. You aren't keeping that person around, they are gone. All your doing is keeping their body functioning.

83

Nevertheless, conservative evangelicals want to pretend that human embryonic cells have some inalienable rights that we don't afford to adult cats, dogs, or horses, or even to so-called "brain dead" adult humans that we could keep respirating indefinitely (or at least until a miracle occurred or bacteria ate them up, whichever comes first).

No evangelical can rationalize their way out of this conundrum. But it is amusing to watch them try rather than just admit that their arguments are not based on what some random preacher came up and have nothing to do with their holy book.

This is mixing apples and oranges. It isn't that "embryonic stem cells" have rights. The argument is that a human fetus is a human being, and therefore should not be killed without justification. The harvesting of stem cells from aborted fetuses then normalizes, and might even encourage, the unjustified killing of human beings. Persons in a persistent vegitative state, in contrast, have lost any potentiality for the human characteristics that define us as "human" or being made in the image of God. Q.E.D.

Further, the removal of extraordinary means of life support isn't necessarily ethically the same as "killing." There isn't necessarily an ethical obligation to provide every patient with all possible means of sustaining life, however rare or costly such means might be, and whatever the resulting quality of life might be. Moreover, there is a sound ethical basis for concluding that a patient, or a patient's family if the patient is incompetent, can decline extraordinary means of life support without implicating the medical provider in "killing." The failure to take extraordinary action is not ethically equivalent to taking adverse action.

84

I beg to differ. Conception is a VERY distinct event. Millions of sperm fighting to get in, and the instant - the millisecond - ONE penetrates, a chemical change occurs that prevents any other from getting in.

Conception is a concrete event. Saying that a human exists at conception is the gray area.

And now we're back to the point of the thread. And your belief is based on what?

I base it totally on my own personal observations. Based on that should you accept it? No. I think to myself what happens when these events occur to my body. I ask myself what the point will be when "me" really no longer exists. The concept of myself springs solely from my consciousness (not the literally awake kind but the self-awareness kind). For myself I fail to see the point in my family or loved ones keeping my body alive once my consciousness has long since been destroyed by the failure of that part of my brain.

85

I'm not going to personally hold that there are AMT's just because it is convenient.

I love it when atheists make these statements. Yep, when the atheists are in charge and religion put in its place (abolished), the world will be a better place. Look at how the Soviet Union, China, Laos, etc. turned out.

Having no absolutes allows you to believe anything. It not necessarily the easy choice, especially when it means you have to go against popular opinion or authority.

86

Mr. Moderate: I'm not going to personally hold that there are AMT's just because it is convenient.

I wouldn't want you to. Convenience is a horrible rationalization.

87

Darn! Again I messed up with my italics. The paragraph ending in "holy book" in my preceding post should be italicized. Those are most definitely not my words.

88

Interesting though when you say err on the side of caution yet you aren't cautious about when life begins.

If you read my posts you'll see what point I'm talking about when discussing this. There is zero probability that there is a functioning brain at a clump of 100 cells. I'd say that's not even in the realm of worrying about erring quite yet.

89

Conception is a concrete event. Saying that a human exists at conception is the gray area.

Actually, medically fertilzation is when sperm meets egg to form a zygote. Conception is when the zyogote is implanted in the uterous. A significant number of instances of fertilzation do not result in conception.

90

wrf3: Why is death to be preferred over such a life? And why should you (the plural you) be the ones to make that decision?

Mr. Moderate: In an ideal world the person should, as soon as they become an adult, enact a living will so that they themselves will be the person determining their fate at that juncture. The death of the "person" happened at the point of death of that part of the person's brain. You aren't keeping that person around, they are gone. All your doing is keeping their body functioning.

If I were in a court of law, I would ask the judge to strike this answer as evasive. The fetus has not made a living will and, for the sake of the argument, neither has the alzheimer's or brain-dead individual. So go back and answer the question. Why is death to be preferred over such a life?

91

I love it when atheists make these statements. Yep, when the atheists are in charge and religion put in its place (abolished), the world will be a better place. Look at how the Soviet Union, China, Laos, etc. turned out.

Funny who was talking about abolishing anything, Chris? These sorts of arguments are generally used as "ah ha's" about why we need to believe in a particular diety (Christianity in this forum). I'm simply stating that I'm personally not going to believe in god simply because it appears to make things convenient.

92

Larry, can you just *try* staying on topic?

BTW, dopderbeck, my position is based on the premise that all humans have innate value regardless of mental state, mental capacity, race, gender, inclinations, whatever. It's the argument from utility that leads to that slipperly slope we fought WWII to climb back from the bottom of. (And make no mistake, it is no great leap from the notion that "some collections-of-human-tissue aren't really 'human beings'" to the concept of Untermenschen)

It wraps back around to whether AMTs do or do not exist. If they do not, then we can and will argue for days about whether grandma "deserves" to live any more than the products-of-conception in Susy's uterus.

Thanks for taking the ride with me, gentles - I gotta head out. Santanalia is day-after-tomorrow, and I have shopping to do.

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, a very Merry Christmas!

93

Mr. Moderate:

I'm taking my wife to dinner. I'll be back in a while.

94

Why is death to be preferred over such a life?

As I said, the death of the person already occured when their consciousness was permanently destroyed. The question becomes if you should then allow the body that served as that person's life long vehicle to continue functioning.

95

BTW, dopderbeck, my position is based on the premise that all humans have innate value regardless of mental state, mental capacity, race, gender, inclinations, whatever. It's the argument from utility that leads to that slipperly slope we fought WWII to climb back from the bottom of. (And make no mistake, it is no great leap from the notion that "some collections-of-human-tissue aren't really 'human beings'" to the concept of Untermenschen)

I wasn't making a utilitarian argument. I was providing an example of a normative position that doesn't go as far as saying any collection of human cells should be classified as "human." A "slippery slope" position is fine to take, and might help us to decide where to set a fence, but it doesn't answer the question whether any given ethical statement is "absolute."

Just IMHO, I think human cells that bear the potentiality to develop into beings with characteristics of the imago Dei deserve legal protection as "human"; and I think that at some point shortly after implantation ("conception") the fetus has enough developed potentiality to be considered "human." This, to me, is a defensible principle both in terms of general ethics and Christian theology, and is preferable to claiming that any collection of human cells deserves protection.

96

Joe, Very concisely and clearly stated.
Dopderbeck, interesting, I'd like to see where that road goes. I'll add it to my 'to read' list.

Mr. Moderate wrote, "...There are many morals that are so universally held ("thou shalt not steal" for example) that even most non-Christians would hold that the Bible contains some AMT's."

What about music piracy (e.g. napster)? I've heard several people argue that they are entitled.

What about radical socialist/communists? I've read them argue that its okay to steal to fund their greater 'cause'.

There are many examples if you think about it.

Mr. Moderate, as to the consciousness/ abortion argument,...
First, people arguing to justify abortion turn my stomach.
Second, being 'clinically dead' and growing in the womb are two radically different states of being human, not analogous in the least. The difference seems obvious to most, but if you require evidence, I suggest you check out some basic medical information from your public library.

Merry Christmas

97

What about music piracy (e.g. napster)? I've heard several people argue that they are entitled.

The majority of Americans claim they are Christian and the majority of Americans also state they use copied music (not just MP3's of course). Does that mean that even those who proclaim the Christian faith also fail to believe that "thou shalt not steal" isn't a moral truth much less an absolute one?

The difference seems obvious to most, but if you require evidence, I suggest you check out some basic medical information from your public library.

Perhaps you could help me find where in the clump of the 100 cells the consciousness center of the brain is. No? That's what I thought.

98

Mr. Moderate: I explained to you my position. You don't like the fact that the potential state of a clump of cells has no bearing on its current legal state.

That's correct. The viability test used by SCOTUS is patently wrong.

In fact you admitted so much yourself. You don't care if none, one or multiple human beings result from that one clump.

The natural process is for none, one, or more human beings to result from that clump. What I care about is whether or not we interfere with that process so that death is the result.

You want me to give this clump the status of one human being. What am I to do with the other two clumps that split off and formed their own human beings?

Easy. They still have the status of "human being" deserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The bottom line is that you are the one who is claiming this clump of cells is human (notice not humans). It is therefore your responsibility to show how that is so. The delta-t is important because there is a point before which the creature existed. Assuming we have a fully developed human being there is a point after which their body ceases to function. At that delta-t you therefore no longer have a human do you?

I would argue that you do. But we can deal with the other end later.

Your "delta-t" argument is therefore not only fallacious but self-contradictory.

Why? A human being starts at the time t=0 of conception and continues for some delta t at which point physical death occurs. Since human beings live forever, t sub death isn't a singularity, but it is the point at which mankind loses what little control there is over that body.

So I'm not sure how this shows I'm being inconsistent or self-refuting when I say that we don't have the right to take innocent life at any time, from t = conception to death.

99

Why? A human being starts at the time t=0 of conception and continues for some delta t at which point physical death occurs. Since human beings live forever, t sub death isn't a singularity, but it is the point at which mankind loses what little control there is over that body.

Your belief system states that a human being starts at t=0 of conception until some death in the future. You first have to prove that first point. The absolute earliest the argument that a human being exists (in a physical form anyway) would be t=0 of conception. That is not the same thing as saying that this is when the human being begins. The earliest I can get up on any given day is 00:00:00 hours (in my time zone). That doesn't mean that's when I woke up.

100

Mr. Moderate: Perhaps you could help me find where in the clump of the 100 cells the consciousness center of the brain is.

We agree that the "clump of cells" isn't conscious. But it will be if given time. What gives you (drat English!) the right to prevent consciousness from forming?

101

Joe said, concerning my original response about postmodern epistemology:

My contention is that when the terms are properly understood, some truths are self-evident (i.e., the law of non-contradiction is self-evident once a person understands what the law entails).

But even the law of non-contradiction requires theories of perception, language, and ontology: a speaker can perceive the meaning of two statements; that speaker can communicate the meaning of those two statements in a manner that can precisely be understood by the hearer; the hearer can perceive the meaning of the two statements; the hearer can determine whether the two statemetns contradict each other; and if the two statements do contradict each other, at least one of the statements must be false.

All of these presuppostions can be deconstructed. Perhaps, for example, human perception and language simply isn't capable of understanding and communicating the reality of a matter, so that any human statements about it appear contradictory. Concrete examples in Christian theology might be the Trinity (God is one; God is three) and divine sovereignty / human free will (God is sovereign and humans can make free moral choices). Concrete examples in natural science might come from physics (light is a wave; light is a particle) and quantum physics (matter exists in a definite place in time and space; the observation of matter affects its spatial existence).

From a postmodern epistemological and language-theory perspective, then, human truth statements are not "absolute" because they are contingent on the limits of human perception and language. This isn't to say there is no "Reality" or that our perceptions of and statements about Reality lack any meaning at all. It's just to recognize our human limitations. IMHO, this is a more appropriately humble way to understand how and what we can know as mere human beings, and its consistent with what scripture and the Christian tradition tell us about the transcendence of God.

102

Corrie, what is your favorite Christmas carol?

Mine is "O Holy Night."

103

We agree that the "clump of cells" isn't conscious. But it will be if given time. What gives you (drat English!) the right to prevent consciousness from forming?

The unconscious clump of cells with, with not even a single organ, has no rights. The rights of the woman therefore are the only thing in question. Since her rights are concrete they therefore trump the entire lack of rights of the non-conscious amorphous clump of cells.

104

From a postmodern epistemological and language-theory perspective, then, human truth statements are not "absolute" because they are contingent on the limits of human perception and language. This isn't to say there is no "Reality" or that our perceptions of and statements about Reality lack any meaning at all.

This is true. The vast majority of pomo simply puts aside the question of truth. In a sense, it plays off of the pragmatism of logical positivism (as in Wittgenstein's famous dictum that there are questions that we just have to pass over in silence; philosophy just isn't capable of answering a lot of these questions).

105

"It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure."

Apparently no, it's not. And I admit, I enjoyed it.

http://www.southflorida.com/news/sfl-scaredsanta,0,3205438.photogallery?index=1

106

Patrick, that is some of the funniest stuff I've seen this Christmas season. AWESOME.

The stuff parents will do ...

107

Mr. Moderate: you didn't answer the question --What gives you (drat English!) the right to prevent consciousness from forming?

You responded that it has no rights, which is an evasion of the question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I grant that it has no rights because it isn't "conscious". Yet in just a few short months it will have rights if its life isn't interfered with. What gives you the right to interfere with it gaining rights?

108

Mr. Moderate: Your belief system states that a human being starts at t=0 of conception until some death in the future. You first have to prove that first point.

You did it for me, since you continued with:

The absolute earliest the argument that a human being exists (in a physical form anyway) would be t=0 of conception.

QED.

That is not the same thing as saying that this is when the human being begins.

How do you get "human being exists" not equal to "human being begins"?

The earliest I can get up on any given day is 00:00:00 hours (in my time zone). That doesn't mean that's when I woke up.

Neither getting up, nor waking up, define humanity, since the same thing can be said about my dog. So I don't understand your point.