 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rather, I quoted them in response to your notion that Darwinism was responsible for suddenly lessening the perceived value of the human embryo (notice the heading of that particular list I sent you) - especially from the Christian perspective. This notion of yours simply isn't true when it comes to the issue of abortion for many thoughtful Christians - such as myself and many early church fathers who carefully considered this issue. The understanding of when human-type life begins is not and has not been a clear cut issue for many thoughtful sincere and honest men and women, even for prominent clergy, throughout history well before Darwin came on the scene. Your notion that the reduced value of the early embryo was only the result of Darwinism for Christian leaders and thinkers simply isn't true. This notion has been around a long time - - even within the Christian Church from its foundations. Also, as I see it anyway, any attempt to draw a parallel between the murder of Abel and the termination of an early embryo is an emotional appeal that simply is not based in clear cut reasoning either from a Divinely inspired source or from "common sense" arguments. If the arguments were actually easy, or "common sense" as you put it, why don't I get it? Why didn't many other honest Christian men and women get it throughout history? - before Darwin? I can assure you it isn't because I'm personally looking for an excuse to be sexually promiscuous or that I've been influenced by Darwinism! - God forbid ; ) Despite your apparent assertions to the contrary, these are not the only reason why one might consider the option for early termination of a pregnancy to be useful; not at all equivalent to murder in any sense of the word. Just one more thing, which I've covered before, but I'll do so again (you wrote):
Unique DNA is not what makes the embryo unique from the mother. It is function that is important here. In this regard, the functional abilities of the embryo are far beneath that of the mother in moral worth. The functional abilities of the early embryo are indeed more akin to those of a part of the mother, as an appendage (like the appendix) than they are similar to the mother as a functioning human being. Rashi's view makes a whole lot of sense to me. Sean |
| Quote: |
| You misinterpret my intent in quoting the position of certain prominent church leaders regarding the topic of abortion. I do not quote these men in authoritative support of my views. They are nothing more than thoughtful, considered, well-reasoned, personal opinions; as are yours and mine. |
| Quote: |
| Rather, I quoted them in response to your notion that Darwinism was responsible for suddenly lessening the perceived value of the human embryo (notice the heading of that particular list I sent you) - especially from the Christian perspective. This notion of yours simply isn't true when it comes to the issue of abortion for many thoughtful Christians - such as myself and many early church fathers who carefully considered this issue. The understanding of when human-type life begins is not and has not been a clear cut issue for many thoughtful sincere and honest men and women, even for prominent clergy, throughout history well before Darwin came on the scene. Your notion that the reduced value of the early embryo was only the result of Darwinism for Christian leaders and thinkers simply isn't true. This notion has been around a long time - - even within the Christian Church from its foundations. |
This seems to be also behind the pro-abortion argument that the established, fully developed human being is worth more than the weak, not-yet fully developed, and defenseless human being. This type of thinking represents Darwin's "survival of the fittest" philosophy applied to the unborn, which you defend and I condemn.
| Quote: |
| I can assure you it isn't because I'm personally looking for an excuse to be sexually promiscuous or that I've been influenced by Darwinism! - God forbid ; ) Despite your apparent assertions to the contrary, |
The sexual revolution of the sixties was intended to free women from oppression and discrimination, but it resulted in the proliferation of adultery, fornication, pornography, and child abuse. Neal Wilsons's statement defending the practice of abortion in 1970 was meant to save our Castle Memorial Hospital from bankruptcy, but it resulted in our participation in the provision of non-therapeutic--elective--abortion in at least two of our hospitals, and it contributed to the legalization of abortion in the U.S., which resulted in doubling the number of abortions.
Justifying the abortion in the "first few weeks of pregnancy" seems like a small, morally neutral action, but it opened the Pandora box which nobody seems to be able to close. I do not have the abortion statistics for the 1950's, nor the 1900's, but the statistics for 1973 are readily available. They show that following the legalization of abortion in the U.S. the number of abortions doubled almost overnight. I am aware that your intention is laudable. I do acknowledge the benefits derived from the killing of the enencephallic, because their body organs may benefit other human beings, but you need to consider not only the beneficial results of your action, but also the long-term negative effects of what you say and do.
The Bible prohibits the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of the anencephalic is shed for a good purpose, but the unintended result is to cheapen the value of human life. Justifying the abortion of embryos seems to be morally neutral, but it weakens the moral prohibition forbidding adultery, fornication, and murder.
| Quote: |
| ... the functional abilities of the embryo are far beneath that of the mother in moral worth. |
Both Jesus and the O.T. prophets emphasized the need to protect the weak and defenseless. The tendency of your theory, and that of evolutionists is moving in the opposite direction; and the one behind the suvival of the fittest notion is the one the Bible identifies as the one who was a "murderer from the beginning."
A small moral deviation may seem to be insignificant, but the end result is not insignificant. A small deviation in the direction of a Mars probe will undoubtedly lead to unintended results. It is better to stick to the clear statements of God's Commandments which prohibit adultery, fornication, and the shedding of innocent blood.
| Quote: |
| The functional abilities of the early embryo are indeed more akin to those of a part of the mother, as an appendage (like the appendix) than they are similar to the mother as a functioning human being. |
Nic
*********
To verify the abortion statistics I made reference to above, click on the Internet link listed below. Notice that these statistics are sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the major U.S. abortion provider.
Alan Guttmacher Institute Abortion Statistics
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html
*********
To get a visual comparison between the war casualties verus those of abortion, check the following Internet source:
U.S. Abortion Deaths Compared to U.S. War Deaths
http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm
This Should be of Great Help
to You!
by Sean Pitman
Hey Nic,You wrote:
| Quote: |
| I believe that the genetic code of the embryo is the brain of the developing baby in the first weeks of life in the womb. It guides the development and growth of those "collection of cells." Whenever there is guidance, there is design; and whenever there is design, there is intelligence; and whenever there is intelligence, there is brain. My computer has a brain, and my car now has a brain. It acts in response to the environment. The same is true about the embryo. If it didn't have a brain, it would be dead, and it would fail to grow and develop as designed. The embryo does have "pre-formed memories" which were inherited from the parents. Without such "pre-formed memories" or genetic information there would be no life, no growth, no development. You could argue that a just born baby has no riches and not even clothes to cover its body, yet baby Danielynne was born with an inheritance worth 475 million dollars. The embryo does possess a mind of its own, and this is why it develops the way it does, each one in a unique way. |
| Quote: | ||
Double standard? Since when asking you to play by your own rules is equivalent to a double standard? I simply asked you to do what you had asked me to do? How can this be interpreted to be a double standard? Would you in a sports competition use a different standard for your favorite team? |
| Quote: |
| You are telling me that the embryo does not possess the ability to think or remember in the first month of life in the womb. This is no much help for me, because it leaves the door open for someone to set any limit imaginable: Three months, seven months, nine months, or even sometime after birth. In other words, you are telling me that my God-given--self assigned if you prefer--mission is impossible. I might as well use my spare time to make money, instead of fighting imaginary windmills. |
Beginning of the 5th week: The forebrain develops into two distinct sections, called the telencephalon and the diencephalon. The telecephalon is the primitive cerebrum, the 'thinking' part of the brain. The cerebrum is responsible for sensory perception, memory, learning, and conscious thought. The diecephalon develops into the thalumus and the hypothalumus, the 'feeling' part of the brain. The thalamus serves as a relay station between the senses and the brain. The hypothalamus produces basic drives and emotions such as hunger, thirst, pleasure, and fear. The midbrain continues to develop into brain structures also necessary for processing sensory information, while the hindbrain grows towards becoming the cerebellum, medula, and pons. These parts of the brain are responsible for unconscious physical processes like blood circulation or breathing, as well as reflexes [all that is left for anencephalics; none of the thinking or feeling functions remain by birth].
Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons. But this is not enough to establish brain cortical activity. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation.
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalographic patterns.
Now, If you want to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the fetus by the beginning of the second trimester (12 weeks or so), instead of 20 weeks when real cortical activity can be detected, I'd go along with you - just to be safe. However, before this point, there is no grey area that I can see. There simply is no cortical brain function - no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That, in my book, is key to this whole debate.
Sean
Reference: K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, Pain and its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 317, No 21, Nov. 19, 1987, pp. 1321-1329 ( http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/ )
The Key to the Whole Debate!
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,
Thanks for your prompt reply! You stated:
| Quote: |
| Oh come on now Nic . . . this is really reaching by any standard. |
| Quote: |
| By this definition of yours, all the cells in my body have a brain or mind worthy of protection lest they be "murdered"! |
| Quote: |
| The genetic code behind the embryo does not have the function of a brain or mind in any sense of the word - certainly nothing in comparison to a human-type mind. It cannot think, feel, suffer, or do anything that a human brain can do. |
| Quote: |
| It can only do one thing: tell the cells of the embryo how to make a brain and body; and that without any feeling or thought whatsoever. It is a thoughtless machine; not a mind. Sure, there is a mind behind the brilliant construction of the machine, but the machine itself is not a thinking feeling mind at this point in its development. |
| Quote: |
| These are not my rules Nic. I never said that changing my mind would require Divine revelation and nothing else. |
| Quote: |
| Arguments like the one you've presented above come across as really reaching and rather desperate - emotionally driven. |
| Quote: |
| Now, If you want to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the fetus by the beginning of the second trimester (12 weeks or so), instead of 20 weeks when real cortical activity can be detected, I'd go along with you - just to be safe. |
| Quote: |
| However, before this point, there is no grey area that I can see. There simply is no cortical brain function - no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That, in my book, is key to this whole debate. |
Evidently that seems to be the "key to this whole debate" for you, but not for me, and not for the majority of Christian church fathers; neither for the early SDA church pioneers. The adoption of your point of view gave us the legalization of abortion, it solidified the sexual revolution of the sixties, it promoted the rejection of the Sixth and the Seventh Commmandment, and resulted in the death of 45 million innocent unborn babies. The Bible states that "by their fruits you shall know them." How true. The blood of all these innocent babies is claiming for justice, and justice will be granted by heaven.
Nic
Back to the Editorial Index? Click Here ==>
Termination of a Non-human Life Should
not be Labeled as Murder
by Sean Pitman
Hey Nic,
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| Both Jesus and the O.T. prophets emphasized the need to protect the weak and defenseless. The tendency of your theory, and that of evolutionists is moving in the opposite direction; and the one behind the survival of the fittest notion is the one the Bible identifies as the one who was a "murderer from the beginning." A small moral deviation may seem to be insignificant, but the end result is not insignificant. A small deviation in the direction of a Mars probe will undoubtedly lead to unintended results. It is better to stick to the clear statements of God's Commandments which prohibit adultery, fornication, and the shedding of innocent blood. |
And, I agree that Darwinian-style evolutionism tends to seriously undermine the value of human life in general an even in type - such as the erroneous notion that the value of different races of humans is not the same. However, the notion that the embryo in the first few weeks of life does not qualify as a "human being" is not based on evolutionary thinking for many thoughtful sincere people - like me. The fact that Darwinism might be used as a reason behind a similar position for some does not mean that this position is invalid or that the other evils associated with Darwinism would necessarily arise from beliefs like mine.
You suggest that my position is at least a small moral deviation from that it should be. I don't see that at being true at all. Rather, I think that your position would cause the greater harm if promoted by the Church. It would lead to a loss of valuable scientific research, a reduction of organs to save real human lives, and tissues to cure horrible diseases for real humans with real brains that can think and feel - - among other evils. To note a prior example, it would be a moral wrong for me to prevent the organs of an anencephalic infant, even if it were my own or if I happened to have been an anencephalic, from being used to save the life of another child who actually has a functioning cortical brain. An anencephalic has no cortical brain function, no appreciation of any sensations, no thoughts, no pain, no pleasure, no nothing but reflex activities which will also end within weeks of birth. If my brain was ever so damaged, I would want my own organs to be donated without any hesitation once the degree of brain damage became known to my wife or next of kin - even if my other bodily functions and reflexes were still intact. Why? Because I would be dead at that point, a non-human - even if my body were still alive.
It all comes down to what one thinks it takes to be a "human being". I have yet to see a consistent reasonable definition coming from those who hold your view. DNA, by itself, unique or identical, cannot be the definition of a human. Also, the potential to be human is not an adequate definition of being human. It seems then, to me at least, most reasonable and consistent to define what it takes to be human by what it is that makes human unique from other living things. That, for me, is the uniqueness of the human mind - the higher cortical brain function of the human mind. Therefore, until or unless such a brain has been formed, the definition of "being human" has not been met. Being human is a functional definition. It is not enough to have a body that looks like a human body if that body doesn't have a human-type brain. Take the brain out of a body, even if the body remains "alive", and what do you have left? Is the human body without a brain really human? I don't think so.
It is not enough to quote dozens or even hundreds or thousands of church fathers or mothers who take your position. I could quote just as many who take my position - before or after Darwin. It is not evidence beyond an appeal to authority that is no higher than human opinion. Such appeals contain no explanatory power.
So what do you actually have to back up your position? You have no backing by any clear source of Divine guidance when it comes to the first few weeks of embryonic development. In fact, according to a few passages, especially those found in Numbers 5, the life of the mother seems to be given more value by God than the life of the fetus. Well-respected human authorities are also split on this issue. Your latest arguments seem to be slippery slope arguments which don't actually demonstrate a moral misstep, but only suggest that my position would eventually lead to a moral decline.
Slippery slope arguments are simply not convincing because they can be taken too far in any direction depending upon one's bias. As I see it, there is no such thing as a small moral wrong. All moral wrongs are huge. If my position is a "small moral misstep", it is really huge. We should therefore try to find that position that is most clearly in the right regardless of how others might potentially misuse the powers of additional truth or knowledge. Again, the development of nuclear power, by itself, is morally neutral. This technology might be used for morally good or evil purposes. The same is true of the notion that the embryo in the first few weeks does not qualify as being human. If this notion is in fact a true representation of reality, it might still be used by many for evil or - - for good.
The potential to misuse a truth does not make the truth itself evil or more likely to lead to evil. Evil people will find any excuse to be evil; they can use any good thing and turn it into a tool for evil. Yet, the tool is not evil in and of itself and should not be called evil just because one wishes to avoid potential misuses. The termination of non-human life should not be called murder just because one thinks that such activity will likely lead to murder.
Sean
Donating Someone Else's Vital
Organs is Immoral!
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| I strongly feel my responsibility to protect the weak, defenseless and innocent when it comes to human life and even the lives of sentient animals. However, not all life is created equal with equal need of protection. An appendix is alive, but its type of life is not worthy of my protection - even though it is weak and defenseless (especially when it is not functioning properly). Being weak and defenseless is not the only criterion upon which to base relative value. |
| Quote: |
| You suggest that my position is at least a small moral deviation from that it should be. I don't see that at being true at all. Rather, I think that your position would cause the greater harm if promoted by the Church. |
| Quote: |
| It would lead to a loss of valuable scientific research, a reduction of organs to save real human lives, and tissues to cure horrible diseases for real humans with real brains that can think and feel - - among other evils. |
| Quote: |
| An anencephalic has no cortical brain function, no appreciation of any sensations, no thoughts, no pain, no pleasure, no nothing but reflex activities which will also end within weeks of birth. If my brain was ever so damaged, I would want my own organs to be donated without any hesitation once the degree of brain damage became known to my wife or next of kin - even if my other bodily functions and reflexes were still intact. |
| Quote: |
| Why? Because I would be dead at that point, a non-human - even if my body were still alive. |
| Quote: |
| It all comes down to what one thinks it takes to be a "human being". I have yet to see a consistent reasonable definition coming from those who hold your view. DNA, by itself, unique or identical, cannot be the definition of a human. Also, the potential to be human is not an adequate definition of being human. |
| Quote: |
| Take the brain out of a body, even if the body remains "alive", and what do you have left? |
| Quote: |
| You have no backing by any clear source of Divine guidance when it comes to the first few weeks of embryonic development. |
| Quote: |
| In fact, according to a few passages, especially those found in Numbers 5, the life of the mother seems to be given more value by God than the life of the fetus. |
| Quote: |
| Your latest arguments seem to be slippery slope arguments which don't actually demonstrate a moral misstep, but only suggest that my position would eventually lead to a moral decline. |
| Quote: |
| The termination of non-human life should not be called murder just because one thinks that such activity will likely lead to murder. |
Nic
The Pope's Slippery Slope Argument
by Sean Pitman
It seems to me that by your argument, the making and selling condoms is "bad" because it allows adultery and fornication without the added worry of pregnancy. Certainly condoms did contribute to the sexual revolution - as did the "Pill".
Yet, this argument simply doesn't hold water because having access to condoms does not cause anyone to commit adultery or fornication. Condoms can also be used in a marriage situation to prevent unwanted conceptions - allowing the married couple to enjoy each other without the added concern of pregnancy.
Of course, the Catholic Church would characterize this sort of activity as a moral wrong as well since, according to them, sex should be engaged in only for the purposes of getting pregnant; that sex is otherwise inherently evil for the purposes of mere enjoyment - even in the marriage setting. I think you'd agree with me that the Catholic Church has taken the slippery slope argument too far here. I mean really if sex is presented as a good thing (as apposed to part of the original sin - i.e., eating the "apple") that can be enjoyed without actually trying to get pregnant, even in the setting of marriage, imagine what evils would result! ; )
In short then, the potential for misuse or to aid in elicit activities does not make something bad. Condoms are not inherently bad. It is what is done with condoms that might be bad - or good and helpful. The same can be said of guns, or nuclear technology, or pizza.
Sean
There's no shedding of Human Blood
Before Pregnancy!
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,You wrote:
| Quote: |
| It seems to me that by your argument, the making and selling condoms is "bad" because it allows adultery and fornication without the added worry of pregnancy. |
Nic
No Brain? No Person--Even if the Body
is Still Alive!
by Sean Pitman
Hey Nic,
You wrote:
| Quote: | ||
|
Therefore, your definition of a "brain" is not unique to the embryo during the first few weeks of development. It is not functionally unique in any sort of fundamental way. The only difference, at this point, between a collection of cells in my appendix and an early embryo is in the potential of the embryo vs. an appendix cell in the particular environment of a woman's appropriately developed uterus.
Again, what is your definition of a human being? Is a human body with all organs functioning except for the brain a human being?
So far all of the definitions you've offered can be met by cells from the mother's appendix. You argue that the appendix cells cannot grow into a baby. That's not true. They can; given the proper environment. Without the proper environment an embryo cannot grow into a baby either. So, is it the appropriate mix of environment and cellular potential that makes something human?
If that's true, then if I took a single spermatozoon and a single ovum, put them into close proximity in the proper environment, odds are very good that they will join up and produce a viable embryo. Therefore, does the highly likely potential of the cells in this particular situation to produce a very specific embryo with unique DNA qualify as a human being that deserves protection from "murder"? If not, why not?
Think about it. You can cut off the leg or arm or appendix or ear etc. . . of a man or woman and he/she would still be a human being without any loss of moral value; his/her humanity is not reduced at all. However, remove or destroy the brain's cortex and what happens to the humanity or personhood? - to the soul? It suddenly disappears. All that is left is the shell of the body. The person is gone. No brain, no person - even if the body remains alive.
Sean
Your Argument is Faulty Again!
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| Think about it. You can cut off the leg or arm or appendix or ear etc. . . of a man or woman and he/she would still be a human being without any loss of moral value; his/her humanity is not reduced at all. However, remove or destroy the brain's cortex and what happens to the humanity or personhood? - to the soul? It suddenly disappears. All that is left is the shell of the body. The person is gone. No brain, no person - even if the body remains alive |
You define an anencephalic as dead in order to be able to remove its vital organs for transplantation. Nevertheless, you make sure said anencephallic baby is kept alive until those organs are removed. Do you see the contradiction here: How can said baby be dead for the purposes of organ removal, and at the same time alive for the same objective. The baby is either dead or alive. It can't be both dead and alive at the same time. This reveals the falsity of your artificial definition.
Nic
Archaeological Find Near the City of Jericho Dealing with Abortion
by Nic Samojluk
Sean,
This thread dealing with abortion started with a parable. I will try to end it with another parable that will come as close as is humanly possible to an actual direct revelation from above, which is what you have been asking for.
*********
Unique Archaeological Find Near the City of Jericho
Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Daily Post has announced the discovery of a fragment written in Greek dealing with the Sermon on the Mount. It is a letter written by a man named Luke to Theophilus in which he makes reference to a conversation between Jesus and two of his disciples two days after the Sermon on the Mount described by Matthew. Experts are examining the document in order to establish its date and authenticity. On its surface, it seems to be genuine, but no final determination will be made until the experts in antiquity have done their work. Here is a translation of the Greek text by Professor Abraham Yadim of the Jerusalem University:
"Having searched diligently and accurately the details surrounding the life and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth, most excellent Theophilus, I have discovered a record of a conversation between this Rabbi and two of his followers that took place two days after his long discourse on the mount recorded by Matthew. I thought it proper to make this additional information to you, since you are always interested in knowledge and learning. I have reconstructed this conversation to the best of my ability based on my diligent search about the accuracy of what took place in said encounter.
John: Rabbi, the other day you said a few things that have disturbed us quite a bit. You described adultery and murder in ways that we have never heard from our teachers of the law before, but you did not say anything about when a woman who is with child decides she is not ready to be a mother and takes a potion which causes a miscarriage. Would you consider this to be an act of murder, or not?
Jesus: What do you think?
John: I think that the Lord is the giver of life, and that the moment a woman is with child, said life should be protected, but Peter thinks otherwise. He argues that a woman with child should not be forced to become a mother against her own will.
Jesus: Do you remember what I said about adultery?
Peter: I do, Rabbi, I do. You said that when a man looks at a woman with desire, he has already committed adultery in his heart.
Jesus: Do you also remember what I said about murder?
John: You said that when a man hates his brother, he is already guilty of murder in God's eyes.
Jesus: Do you accept what I stated about the deep meaning of adultery and murder?
Peter: We are trying to, because you have words of life for us, but these sayings of yours are hard to understand. If this is the way God looks at us, then who can claim to have clean hands and a pure heart?
Jesus: True! Nevertheless, for God nothing is impossible.
John: What about miscarriage, Lord? Is it murder or not?
Jesus: I'll tell you the truth. Any woman who hates the child within her womb is already guilty of murder! She has already killed her child in her heart. For truly, I say to you. Out of the heart proceeds all kinds of evil: murders, adulteries, thefts, and the like. If you keep your heart pure, your deeds will be also pure and acceptable to God.
Peter: This is a hard saying, Lord! Who can bear it?
Jesus: All things are possible if you have faith like a little child."
*********
Nic
Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.