What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Ignorance is Bliss (or The Arrogance of Ignorance)

There has been a recent flap in my area connecting the issues of embryonic stem-cell research and, surprisingly enough, home schooling. I became aware of what was going on a bit after the fact and am only now getting a chance to blog about it.

Here's the short version: The local newspaper, the Kalamazoo Gazette, asked three local high schoolers, including one home schooled young man, Justin Wing, to write opinion pieces on the topic of funding for ESCR. Justin and one of the two public schooled students were both against ESCR funding, though the public schooled student implied that it might be a good idea in a better economy. A local pastor, the Rev. Dennis Smith, then wrote a letter to the editor insinuating that Justin opposes ESCR only because he has been kept ignorant of relevant facts by some unspecified "religious curriculum" which, Smith presumes, he has been taught from. This, despite the fact that not a single one of Justin's arguments was religious in nature. Smith then insisted that home schooling must be more tightly regulated to prevent the emergence of young people who are thus indoctrinated by "religion" into opposing ESCR. There were strong and indignant responses from both state and national home schooling groups.

What neither of the responses stressed, however, was the most glaring and ironic point of all: Justin Wing argued from facts. The Rev. Smith, on the other hand, is himself a victim of misinformation--namely, unjustified promissory hype about ESCR.

(Full disclosure: I have known Justin Wing and his family for something on the order of a decade, probably longer. I haven't kept count.)

Before going on, I want to stress that I think it is indeed important to argue against ESCR on ethical grounds. Even if ESCR lived up to the extravagant promises that have been made on its behalf, cannibalizing very young human beings would be intrinsically wrong and utterly inexcusable. Nor is such an argument "religious" in the sense that the existence of God is a necessary premise of the argument, any more than the existence of God is a necessary premise of the argument that it is wrong to set up organ farms using human toddlers. The question is one of identifying a member of the human species and holding to the basic ethical premise that it is wrong deliberately and directly to kill an innocent member of the human species.

On the other hand, I don't consider it to be "selling the farm," as some people apparently do, to point out the baldfaced balderdash that supporters of ESCR talk about its promise and to point out the enormous and growing success of adult stem-cell treatments, plus the fact that adult treatments do not have the problems with tumor development that there are with ESCR (and IPSCs, for that matter). Analogy: If "scientists" were out there telling people that eating toddlers will enable you to fly and will make you immortal, and if in fact those who did so were likely to die a gruesome death instead, it would be perfectly legitimate to point out the relevant empirical facts ("It doesn't enable you to fly; it won't make you immortal. Instead, you are likely to die a gruesome death") in addition to pointing out that it's wrong to eat toddlers.

So I have no problem with Justin's argument based on the medical problems with ESCR (for those treated) and the much better success of adult treatments.

I have now checked the most salient points in Justin's letter and found only two small factual errors: The head of the exciting study in which adult stem-cells were successfully used to treat peripheral arterial disease is Dr. Franz, not Dr. Fritz, and the Israeli boy Justin mentions who developed tumors was treated with fetal stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells. (If anything, however, embryonic cells are even more likely than fetal cells to cause tumors.)

And, of course, anyone who follows Secondhand Smoke is kept abreast of the many other exciting developments in adult stem-cell treatments, including recently the treatment of blindness caused by chemical burns.

In contrast to Justin's sober and tightly organized discussion of the practical problems with ESCR and the real and growing promise of adult stem-cell treatments, Rev. Smith's letter is something of a joke. It combines wild accusations of child abuse against home schoolers with unintentionally humorous references to "substitut[ing] ideological indoctrination for actual education." Smith drags in religion irrelevantly and repeatedly, tosses in the words "pluripotency" and "differentiation" with the obvious expectation that his audience will swoon over the vast scientific knowledge that allows him to use them, entirely ignores the very real tumor problems that will bedevil any attempts to translate ESCR into actual treatments in human beings, and winds up with the typical sob-story flourish of the ESCR snake-oil salesman (or perhaps we should say snake-oil dupe)--the reference to a girl of his acquaintance with a rare disease who "might well be cured by a stem cell therapy growing out of unfettered research." Yes, well, Mr. Smith, get back to us in a few years and let us know how that's working out for you. After all, with Barack Obama in the White House, you're likely to get that "unfettered research" and can throw lots of taxpayer dollars down that black hole. I wish only the best for the young lady, but the best isn't going to come from ESCR, and you can quote me on that one.

As I was pondering the farrago of mouth-foaming totalitarianism and wish-fulfillment thinking that is Rev. Smith's letter, it occurred to me that it reminded me of something--namely, this strange op-ed piece (HT VFR) from a month back. The author, Jim Taylor, gets himself in a stew over all the supposed misinformation being bandied about on the Internet and fueling "divisiveness." Then he launches into a description of his solution for this problem, which he presents with a kind of written nervous laugh--a "Just joking" reference to his own supposedly "ironic tone" which is, in the context, more than a little implausible. Here's his "ironic" idea: The federal government should have a Department of Information to decide on the relevant facts for any matter of national importance and should have the power to fine people who disseminate anything contrary to the government-determined "facts." And who would we trust better to do this than the federal government? (Yes, I know. I'm sorry. I hope you weren't drinking coffee or anything when you read that last sentence.)

Taylor really needn't have bothered making his see-through claim of irony. It's not as though that totalitarian impulse is all that unfamiliar to people who have their eyes and ears open. By now lots of people have heard of ("disarm or cage") Daniel Dennett's claim that we must refuse to tolerate those (he mentions, inter alia, Baptists) who persist in teaching their children what Dennett considers to be scientific falsehoods. And in Rev. Smith's letter we just see the same unveiled totalitarianism; Smith didn't happen to be suave enough to claim that he was being ironic when he thundered that home schooling curricula should be ideologically monitored by the government, and besides, such a claim would have made his letter pointless, wouldn't it? (Hmmm.) There is a kind of baffled fury that comes over a certain type of liberal when he realizes that his crowd is losing its monopoly over the instruments of information dissemination and opinion-making, be it by way of talk radio, home schooling, or the Internet. What? People are doubting something that all of us Enlightened Folk consider to be beyond doubt? Worse, they have the wherewithal and the opportunity to make their false ideas widely available to others? How dare they? They must be stopped right now! We're the only ones who get to indoctrinate anyone, especially the young.

The faux claims of neutrality would be laughable if they did not have such potentially serious consequences. But the totalitarian arrogance of willful ignorance is in the final analysis nothing to laugh about. Now, as always, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Comments (70)

I know it isn't directly relevant but the factor of Dennis Smith being a "Reverend" somehow seems to increase the strangeness of the whole thing.

I thought of that. I did a little quick Googling but wasn't able to find his church. He's very hostile to the influence of religion on home schooling, and even though that wasn't actually relevant here (it would have served him right if it had turned out that the family in question were non-Christians!) his use of "religion" and its cognates as if they were nasty words made the whole thing most odd, coming from a pastor. Maybe he's a Unitarian. :-)

I thought about the possibility of him being something like a Unitarian, too. When I first heard of this story it hadn't quite gotten to the point where all of the top links in Google with his name were about this incident and I found this:

http://www.sturgisjournal.com/obituaries/x696774327/Patricia-J-Knisely

That would seem to indicate maybe he is a Lutheran? Or maybe I'm just a poor internet stalker (I'd be okay with that).

Looks like you're a better web stalker than I am. Confirmation:

http://www.manta.com/c/mmdb5st/messiah-lutheran-church

Wow, the Department of Information! Sign me up! Who are we at war with again?

I want to stress that I think it is indeed important to argue against ESCR on ethical grounds.

So true, Lydia. Sometimes it's easy to automatically go with the, "Hey ESCs haven't worked yet, in fact, sometimes they make things worse," road because it's so easy but even if they did happen to work we'd still have to argue on ethical grounds, which ultimately will be more convincing. I hope.

I just read the "Rev." Smith's letter.

There is a level of meanness in the letter that is sort of frightening. Here is a man of the cloth who apparently was called to minister to others including young children from a variety of different social, academic, and racial backgrounds. Such ministry would seem to require a certain sensitivity when discussing controversial matters with youngsters. This means that the minister should exhibit graciousness, charity, and a posture of mentorship. If you want to teach the child, then you do not try to break his spirit by implying that he is stupid, poorly brought up, or that his parents are not good people. I can't imagine the Rev. Smith telling a young African American who was brought up in the inner city by his single mother that if only his mother had been made honest by his father then he would not be speaking ebonics. We would see it for what it is: cruelty.

Although the Rev. Smith is wrong in his assessment of the quality of Justin's argument, as Lydia's has ably pointed out, his intention to be cruel comes across loud and clear.

Doesn't look that odd to me. Looks like 90% of the pro-life rebuttals I've seen.

This, despite the fact that not a single one of Justin's arguments was religious in nature.

Well, obviously just being against ESCR is being religious, so it doesn't matter what 'arguments' he might put forward, we know what his real motivations were—therefore the Rev. doesn't need to address his /actual/ points. He can just attack motives, because that's what you do with /those/ people.

Okay, sarcasm aside—unless I missed it, Justin's paper didn't even contain any inherent moral objections against ESCR, but just a concern for effectiveness vs. the alternative. He merely presented some details about the differences in treatments between adult and embryonic cells. Talk about the Rev. having an axe to grind.

Reading the Rev's response is quite maddening, not because of the content—because it's just too common, but his trying to claim a title as critiquing from the inside:

As a person of faith and a citizen of this democracy, I pray that Justin’s vote at least be informed by real research, not just religious ideology masquerading as science. For that, I hold the state accountable, not just Justin and his parents.

His faith sounds not how I would use the term, but perhaps how John Kerry used the term to dodge the question on abortion ~ "I wouldn't at article of faith for me (that abortion might be wrong?) and legislate it." It's a political mask, this use of 'faith.' It's also convenient, because the Rev now never, ever has to look at any arguments that he disagrees with. "What's that, you're against X? You even have arguments? Well, that's just religion pretending to be science! I win."

That man is a wolf in a pastor's clothing. I would fear for my children's souls more under his guidance even more than under the state.

Increasingly, we are seeing secularists posture as though their pet metaphysical and moral committments are some kind of reasonable "default" that everybody would naturally gravitate towards if only it weren't for the malign influence of religious "indoctrination." There is a very real movement to portray traditional morality as some kind of "pathology" that is okay to exercise coercion against. Witness, for example, the attempt to make moral objections against homosexuality appear as if they are *no different* from objections to interracial marriage. Even people with philosophical training who ought to know better, like to pretend that this line of reasoning is cogent out of some kind of weird "political solidarity" with "sexual minorities." They don't give a darn about intellectual honesty- they want to deny traditional moral beliefs a toehold in the space of reasons, and they will do so by any means necessary. I'll bet dollars to donuts that we are soon going to see people arguing that there is *no difference* between a homeschooler being taught traditional morality and an underage bride at a Mormon polygamy compounds. Then some arguments, with the pretense of hand-wringing, about how reasonable people have no choice but to coerce these backwards homeschoolers out of existence. For the sake of the children, of course.

RobertK, that's correct: It was entirely a practical argument against ESCR, not an ethical one. That was why I put a sort of preface in there indicating that I do think ethical arguments are important.

Rev. Smith has sent a message loud and clear: "I am a leftist ideologue, and I hate home schooling." Frank points out the meanness of the letter, and that is certainly there. It's also pretty clear that Rev. Smith doesn't care. His goal is to rouse people to fight home schooling, which he regards as a menace because it turns out articulate, intelligent young people who disagree with his ideology. Horrors. They must have been brainwashed, or they would agree with him instead!

What we are seeing here, I think, is that the left is going to howl about "indoctrination" whenever anyone thinks for himself. When one is not indoctrinated in their views, they will say he has been indoctrinated in some other perspective. They, of course, are perfectly neutral and should have the power to determine the facts and a monopoly on teaching them.

Yikes! typos galore! I trust my meaning was still relatively clear...

Poor man. It seems he doesn't know much history, either. Let's get of parochial schools and Harvard divinity school while we're at it...and those monks have to go...

The Chicken

RobertK, that's correct: It was entirely a practical argument against ESCR, not an ethical one. That was why I put a sort of preface in there indicating that I do think ethical arguments are important.

No clarification needed. Had I written the article, my case would have been ethical, not practical—because I wouldn't want the point to be taken that, were outcomes reversed, ESCR would be okay. However, the practical point in the essay was quite strong. And as a bi-product of the approach, we see who the real ideologue is here—the Rev—because of what he is responding to and what manner in which he does it.

This abuse of language is also maddening. "Indoctrination" has the same abuses that "intolerance" has going for it. For the leftist ideologue— if you disagree you're intolerant. Simple. Consequently if you disagree, it would only be because you have been indoctrinated into the belief system and need only be liberated into the world of /reason/ that the public system provides!

Ironically, the charge of indoctrination is really only one convicting the Rev, not the home-schooler. Accuse someone of doing what you're doing. Brilliant. Simply put, when faced with a counter view, and arguments to support them, his rebuttal is not argument, reason or fact, his solution is to ignore the other side and force assent by mandating what children must/must not be taught. Oh, and play on the emotions of readers by playing the sick-children card—because after-all, conservative children don't get sick.

The "Rev." Smith has bigger things to fear than homeschooled children who don't agree with him. God, for one.

More fodder for my contention that the present unpleasantness is not only a split between the religious and the secular, but also a split between "liberal" Christians and traditional ones.

Untenured, what you say reminds me that I really should post a lengthy quote from Darwin's Dangerous Idea. What I think we're seeing increasingly is that it's not just moral views that are being treated this way--it's factual dispute. I realize I'm inviting the Descent of the Liberals by saying this, but global warming is a good example, here. So is health care, including the development of rationing and groups of bureaucrats, etc., to make rationing decisions (aka "death panels"). Counterclaims on these issues, claims that contradict the liberal and supposedly "factual" view, are characterized by the totalitarian-minded liberal as, quite simply, lies. Hence, such a person considers himself justified in having these views suppressed. Dennett, of course, had in mind quite explicitly teaching children to reject the full Darwinian story. This must not be allowed, according to Dennett.

Lydia, a deeply internalized and ideologically driven assumption cannot be considered a "fact" unless there is some independent connection to reality. Likewise, the conservative predilection for insisting on special definitions that fire up the true believers while making rational discussion impossible.

I have no doubt that folks like you and Wesly are sincere in your beliefs. At some point, further up the food chain, however, other folks are lying. For example, your ideology (as do all ideologies) will compel you to see things that simply are not there. On the other hand, we have folks like Senators Grasley, Hatch, and Kyl and the folks at Heritage who know better but choose not to tell the truth.

Am I being harsh and unfair? Not at all, as things like mandates, caps, and paying doctors for consultation on advance directives were advocated by conservatives until liberals said, "ok", at which point they became evil.

BTW, if climate change skeptics get their way, Peter Singer wins.

That man is a wolf in a pastor's clothing.

Stated as if this is somehow surprising... Cannot we accept it as axiomatic that liberalism is, uniquely, a Christian heresy? Where else beside nominally Christian pulpits would one expect to find liberalism's most ardent defenders?

It takes a special breed of moron to believe that an institution composed primarily of education majors is somehow more qualified to teach most kids than the average person, pulled randomly, from the phone book.

IMHO, this is the way that liberals always argue, because their ideology denies the existence of objective truth. When there is no fact, but only opinion, you cannot argue, because a real argument is built on facts. If there is no difference between truth and a lie that everybody agrees with, then you convince people through emotions and coercion rather than argument.

I have no doubt that folks like you and Wesly are sincere in your beliefs.

Whereas you, Al, merely hold "facts", right?

OK, why don't you grace these here pages with the facts that tell us that ESCR does indeed produce actual, today-in-fact cures. And the facts that prove without hair-splitting weird definitions that adult stem cell treatments do NOT have cures to their names in actual fact.

Or, were you talking about some other mythical subject than the one under discussion here?

Lydia,

Thanks for posting this. A few years back in Missouri, there was a constitutional amendment to funnel taxpayer money to ESCR. Unfortunately it passed. All the usuals came out to back it, including Michael J. Fox and Co. The commericals with men and women in white coats and the sob stories with people in wheel chairs and such. I taught ethics at the time at a local univ. and it was quite suprising how easy it was to obliterate student's favorable opinions on the ethics of ESCR. Somehow people have it in their mind that doctors are exempted from original sin or what is the same thing, a Darwinian desire for power. (Don't let the white coat fool you. Mengele was a doctor too.) In any case, its been a number of years and all of the cures that were "just around the corner" somehow have never arrived-something Missouri votes should be reminded of. Not one cure to date as far as I know.

In any case, something of a sleeper was the film, Extreme Measures (Hugh Grant, Gene Hackman-1996) which was quite useful with changing minds. If you haven't seen it, take a look.

Tony, Al is talking about "death panels." Al believes that any reference to anything remotely like that is, at some level by someone, a lie. The rest of us who think that that phrase might describe something relevant and real (like, say, the N.I.C.E. in England or the Oregon bunch that decided to cover suicide but not chemotherapy for people on the state health plan) are sincere dupes of the liars somewhere causally upstream from ourselves.

Sadly, part of the problem is not connected to pro-life issues, but, rather, the woeful ignorance about basic science on the part of the general public. Recent numbers put science literacy at 28%.

People should know how to evaluate claims made by scientist, at least in a general sense. The evidence of the failure of ESCR is overwhelming and quite easy to find, especially in the Internet Era. This is either crass negligence on the part of the general public in properly informing themselves or a genuine inability to understand the issues.

As for the Reverand, if he were Catholic, I would say that his letter indicates a need to go to confession. Does the concept of rash judgment not mean anything to this "person of faith"?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279...

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Has Rev. Smith every met Justin? Has he ever seen his home school curriculum? Does he have any real evidence of indoctrination? His arguments are flat-out name calling, nothing more.

As for his comments about ESCR, if he had any real evidence to support his case, he would have cited a study, any study, showing the success of ESC. He cannot. I cannot tell what he really knows about ESCR from the content of his letter, but I can say that the statements in his letter are wholly misleading. It took me all of two second to google, "adult stem cell pluripotency," and "adult stem cell transdifferentiation," to find a number of sites referencing articles showing that umbilical cord cells are or can be made pluripotent and transdifferentiating. What was his point - that adult stem cells do not show these traits? There is no excuse for his making these sorts of comments when they can be falsified so easily. To not look for contradictory evidence is a sign of someone not doing science or reporting science accurately. Who is the ideologue? It is clear that Rev. Dennis Smith has either not looked at all of the evidence or has reported only the part that supports his contention.

What is his other contention - that home school introduces indoctrination. Ohh, ohh, I used to be a fairly easy to get along with person until I started teaching college and started seeing the results of a standard high school education. The Rev. knows NOTHING about higher education if he thinks that colleges are not begging for home schooled children. I once had a class with, I think, three home schooled people. They all got A's in my course. They were the students who had some of the best reasoning skills. The whole point is that if home schooling were so bad, most of the students would be flunking out of college or not even be able to get in. They are neither flunking out nor unable to get in. From his letter, it seems that he has no concept of the current state of higher education or high school education, for that matter. He also seems to be ignorant of the massive amounts of indoctrination going on in public schools. Has the Reverend never even heard of John Dewey?

Ohh, ohh, this letter makes me mad. Unfortunately, it is too old to respond to.

The Chicken

P. S. How does one word things in a com box so as to not rashly judge? I have never met Rev. Smith, so are my comments any better than his? Are they any less rash? I don't mean them to be and perhaps my comments are just knee-jerk. I hope I have fairly answered his points, although I have probably been too passionate.

MC, we around here like it when you are passionate about stuff like that. (OT: I'd never read the Catechism definition of detraction. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Gotta keep _that_ one in mind, myself.)

I suppose comparing every doctor and scientist who works in ESCR to Mengele is supposed to be the charitable view.

It looks like we've discovered another type of spam: names of people being posted randomly. Can someone look into this?

The Chicken

Chicken, our spam filter isn't catching it because it doesn't have any of the triggers. I'm having to go in and delete it by hand, and I'm just getting to it now. Sorry about that. But if we tightened up the spam filters, it might block y'all's normal comments.

You might need to add a verification like Blogger has. A Google search for free comment spam filters came up with Mollom, Defensio, reCaptcha and Akismet.

We use askimet. Captchas are virtually useless these days. We also have a few other methods in play. However, we're always going to get some stragglers to come through and so long as the authors/moderators are junking posts rather than deleting them, our spam filters should be training.

Todd

I hope they'll train fast on this new thing of just posting a name, because it's pretty intense today. Not sure I can keep up.

Perhaps using the OpenId system might help?

(er, OpenID. Open Id would be something else.)

I've added some additional measures to stave off the current rush of this type of spam. It may work, it may not but I've got my fingers crossed.

I've looked into a number of ID systems and there's always something that doesn't gel or brings with it something I don't want.

Also we have to temper our spam protection due to the nature of conversations we have here. Many of the topics hit on the same keywords that many spam protectors filter out. It's fun. Really... no, really, it is. :D

You should consider TypePad Anti-Spam as an alternative to Akismet. It should work with Movable Type 3. It works beautifully with 4 and 5.

Step2,

I don't believe I compared every doctor who works on ESCR to Mengele, but suppose I did. It would be uncharitable to do so if there were a plausible line of difference between them. what plausible line of difference do you wish to offer?

My point was that simply being a doctor doesn't make one ethical or morally superior. People often confuse technological progress with moral progress and assume that since doctors wish to do something and have the means that the act is moral and such actions are usually cloaked under a sympathetic image, such as to relieve suffering. For Amendment 2 in Missouri, this was especially true. I am not opposed to showing people the real consequences of their actions in the media, but this was slight of hand. There were no real cures and there isn't likely to be any real cure anytime soon and the idea that one was depriving said people of actual cures was dishonest. Moreover, said advertizing ignored real ethical problems with using human beings for experimentation simply because "they are going to die anyway."

It would be uncharitable to do so if there were a plausible line of difference between them. what plausible line of difference do you wish to offer?

So you are suggesting there is no plausible difference between an autonomous breathing, speaking, rational human person and an embryonic cluster of cells with a proto-nervous system that has no detectable functionality. Moreover, behaving as if there is a plausible difference makes the researcher attempting to actually find cures (even against long odds) into a sadistic butcher instead.

I don't completely object to your general point about not trusting "experts". Just ask Lydia how much deference I gave on a blog comprised of PhD's. Still, there is heated debate and then there is Godwin's law.

So you are suggesting there is no plausible difference between an autonomous breathing, speaking, rational human person and an embryonic cluster of cells with a proto-nervous system that has no detectable functionality.

Yes. Is boiling water different than liquid water? In one aspect, but it is a difference that makes no difference when one is asking the question, "will this dissolve and aspirin?" In other words, of course there are differences between an adult and an embryo, but the differences do not fall within the realm of ethical treatment. The embryo has as much right to teleology as any other human being. One could argue that a pre-pubescent is not the same as a person who can help make a baby, but could one argue that they are teleologically any different? The embryo is struggling to become an adult in exactly the same way that a pre-pubescent is. The stages are different, so the exact changes are different, but the struggle is the same.

If the embryo stops struggling by an act of God, then this is a slightly different case. One can use dead bodies for medical research and, in principle, the Church would have no problem with the parents willing their dead baby's body to science or their dead embryo, but not until they are dead.

The Chicken

Oh, I forgot to mention, the ethical treatment applies uniformly to the embryo and the adult precisely because they share the same HUMAN teleology. there may be differences in the development at any given time, but the teleology is the same.

The Chicken

If the teleology is the same, the right to protection must be the same.

The Chicken

Note to self: finish writing before pressing post.

Step2,

I don’t believe I suggested anything. I asked a question, which it seems you ignored in the main.

I am not clear on what you mean by “autonomous” so perhaps you could tease that out a bit. I am fairly certain though that large numbers of human beings will fail whatever conditions you proffer for it such as to render it inadequate to capture what it is to be human.

I am not clear on what breathing has to do with the matter since infants in the womb at no stage breath. Nor does having a primitive nervous system seem to help much or speaking, which is sure to offend to say the least to the mute community. What a thing can do doesn’t necessarily indicate what a thing is. If you think that functionality, whatever that may amount to delimits what a thing is, you’ll have to make that argument. It seems to me that it conflates the epistemic conditions by which we access what a thing is with its (meta)physical conditions for being so.

Further, I am not clear, if we take your rough and ready criteria as our template for what constitutes a human being, how we will exclude clear cases of infanticide, among other horrible acts since newborns and up to a year are not able to speak, for example. I seriously doubt that they could count as candidates for “autonomy” whatever that might cash out to. If you take those marks to be necessary and or sufficient conditions, can you tell me when an organism becomes a human being? Where is the transitional line with such criteria? One year when they breath and can speak?

If said researchers fall under the line of being “butchers” due to clear lines of thinking, then I don’t know why that would be problematic. You need to give me a reason to think that the reasons for thinking so aren’t good ones rather than toss out an assumed implausible result.

So just to be clear, I write this as one who rejects Natural Law theory and I do not base my arguments against ESCR on “teleology” as effects of the efficient causation of an absolutely simple reality. There is no “God in general” to give a natural law. Only the most holy Trinity is revealed in the logoi of nature and no other deity.

Step2 believes that human beings become persons only when they are capable of breathing. Or so I've inferred over years of arguing with him on multiple blogs. Not that he supports all the public policy proposals that one would think would flow naturally even from that position, as I've also discovered over the years. He's also pretty impervious, so it's probably not worth your time, Perry.

Functionality apparently means "being functional."

By that measure, a living embryo is the same as an adult-- the function of an embryo, after all, is to grow into the next stage of development.

Lydia,

With respect, I don't think I spoke of "persons." I did speak of human beings. Personhood is I think an even more difficult metaphysical nut to crack than say consciousness, let alone agency. I think it unlikely that much consensus in our culture will ever form on what constitutes a "person." As far as being an individual human organism, that seems far easier to attain consensus on.

I apreciate the heads up. I've done a good amount of sidewalk counseling as well as campus dialogs with say jfaweb.org . I don't expect always people to be moved by reason, which is why we have Holocaust useums. People need to see what abortion is, and then, most of them, will "get it." Instead of arguing, try a picture now and then and ask, "So this is what you think is optional?"

MC,
After starting off with a very odd analogy about water dissolving aspirin, you did manage to redeem yourself with the rest of your argument. Whatever the struggle is for the embryo, it doesn’t seem to be drastically different than the development process of every living animal. The struggle of a pre-pubescent may be comparable in some basic ways to other higher primates, but it also includes an incredible array of mental states and motivations unknown to other animals.

Perry,
Lydia is right about my position on when personhood begins, but she left out the reason why, which is that there is a convergence between viability and the level of brain development that produces human brainwave patterns. There is also a convenient biblical reason, which is that the older definition of spirit simply means breath. I’m glad you’ve rejected Natural Law, although I’m not sure what you have replaced it with.

Lydia,
I sense a compliment somewhere in your comment; I just know it’s there, hiding under a few details.

Foxfier,
Functionality was in reference to the proto-nervous system.

Whatever the struggle is for the embryo, it doesn’t seem to be drastically different than the development process of every living animal. The struggle of a pre-pubescent may be comparable in some basic ways to other higher primates, but it also includes an incredible array of mental states and motivations unknown to other animals.

What? Those "incredible array of metal and emotional states" would not exist if the human embryo did not exist and in exactly in the way that it exists. Is an ape embryo capable of developing into a man? No traditionally trained biologist thinks so. A human embryo is a human embryo. It is not the same as another animal's embryo. Other embryos are like human embryo's as tin cans and ham radio are both types of communication. A tin can can never become a ham radio operator, although, at some level, wave motion is involved in both.
uah
Do you know anything about morphogenesis? You might want to read D'arcy Thompson's classic. On Growth and Form, one of the best books ever written on the subject or Rene Thom's work, Structural Stability and Morphogenesis.

Also. with regards to spirit = breath, the words are not the same. The breath of life given by the Lord to Adam uses the word, neshamah, where as the breath which is the Spirit of God uses the word ruwah. The breath of the man is distinct from the breath that gives it. Our breath does not indicate that we have the Holy Spirit, otherwise, every animal that has breath would have the Holy Spirit. Our breath indicates that an action of one breath (the Holy Spirit) has acted on inert matter to bring about life (our breath). In fact, when Mary came close to her cousin, Elizabeth, the two babies (who were not yet breathing) interacted and according to the Church, Jesus gave the gift of Sanctifying Grace to St. John in that instant.

The Chicken

Should read:

A tin can can never become a ham radio...

and ignore the word, "uah". I have no idea how that got into the post.

The Chicken

Step2-
then you're using it wrong. Say "they do not have a functioning nervous system of sufficient complexity for my taste" instead of going all Humpty Dumpty on it.

Step2,

Again, I don’t think I argued for personhood. That would be a distinct and far more robust metaphysical claim and position. I believe I argued for the conditions for it to be a human being, which seem more modest and easier to establish.

I suppose I am unclear on how viability can conjointly confer personhood or even it being a human substance. It is what it is and that may tell us about its viability because of what it is and not the other way around.

Of course, I don’t take consciousness to be what constitutes being a human substance let alone a person. In the realm of Christian theology, Jesus has a human consciousness, but Jesus is not, per Chalceconian Christology, a human person. Jesus is therefore a person at every stage of natural human development, even without consciousness. Hence we are too. In short, Locke was wrong. Consciousness is a natural power that the person uses. Its lack doesn’t imply that absence of the person.

As for brain activity, studies in some unique cases of extreme hydrocephalics show that they have far less brain matter than was ever thought possible for a human to be not only functional, but higher intelligence. When the cat scan machine was first used, they tried it out on grad students, only to discover that some of them had literally, hardly any brains at all. This was documented in the journal, Science about two decades ago or so. This presented rather serious problems for reductionists and others of that ilk.

When you write that the older biblical definition of spirit means breath, this is something of an over simplification. It is a bit like saying that butterfly really has something to do with the flies around churned cream. Nephesh does mean breath, but the usage determines the semantic content and the usage is quite enriched, far more than just “moving air.” It has significant metaphysical import. If we took it in its most primitive usage, it would be inapplicable for the uses you wish to put it since there is no “air” that makes us living substances or individuals.

As for what I’ve replaced Natural Law Theory with, I am Orthodox and take it to be incompatible with it. Rather I take the Trinity to be revealed through the divine energies, predestinations or logoi (plural for logos) of each thing God created. Consequently, there is no natural revelation of God that is non-Trinitarian. Hence I reject natural theology as well as natural law theory for this and other reasons.

an embryonic cluster of cells with a proto-nervous system that has no detectable functionality

Wow. Sounds chaotic, as though these cells bumped into each other somewhere in the woman's body and couldn't get unstuck.

Moreover, behaving as if there is a plausible difference makes the researcher attempting to actually find cures (even against long odds) into a sadistic butcher instead.

That doesn't make sense, unless you meant "as if there is no plausible difference." But yes, he is a butcher. Probably not a sadist, but maybe a functionalist.

The Rev. Dennis Smith, much enamored of his views and likely himself on the basis of presumption and ignorance.

Lota' that going 'round.

MC,
Of course there will be differences, but I maintain that the similarities at the embryonic stage are far greater. The situation is precisely reversed for the development of a pre-pubescent into an adult.

Also,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19900103en.html

Perry,
I believe I argued for the conditions for it to be a human being, which seem more modest and easier to establish.

Okay, but if you want to say that Mengele and ESCR doctors are working from the same evidence, with the same premises, and with the same motivations, (i.e. with no plausible line of difference) that doesn't appear to be the modest conclusion from what you establish.

Since my criterion is based on human brainwave patterns, I don't run into the same obstacles as other reductionists. I run into different obstacles.

An argument both you and MC are making seems to me to be flawed, which is that because a characteristic applies to Jesus, it necessarily follows that it applies to every human being. Since Jesus is part of the Trinity, I'm uncertain as to why he is not a unique exception.

The argument isn't just for Jesus. It also applies to St. John the Baptist. He was in the womb, too.

The Chicken

Also, the developmental difference between embryos and pre-pubescents is a difference in degree, not kind.

The Chicken

Step2,

Since Mengele and ESCR think either, that their subjects are not fully human or that it is permissible to own another human being, that seems to be sufficient to put them in the same overall camp. I grant that their motivations are probably not the same, but their outcomes are. It makes little difference if you murder millions of human beings but have good intentions does it not? This is just to say that I am not a deontologist (I am not an axiologist either.)

The modest conclusion was in reference to showing that the unborn entity was a human being rather than personhood. That still seems more modest and a point of possible consensus.
If I saw a good reason to privilege brainwaves from you for personhood I might agree, but I saw no such argument and I’ve done enough reading in phil mind and cognitive science to seriously doubt that you could make such an argument work.

With Christology, I don’t think you’ve actually grasped the argument I made and I suppose it was in part my fault, leaving it mainly implicit as I did. The argument is that Christ recapitulates all the natural stages of human existence and development. If we were not persons at that early stage, the hypostatic union would not have occurred there, but later on, say when the “appropriate” arrangement of brain waves occurred. This would result in a kind of adoptionism rather than a Chalcedonian Christology. Jesus becomes deity or takes on a divine person in the womb rather than is said subject. Moreover, it needs to be kept in mind for said argument that it assumes that Christ is consubstantial with all men such that his resurrection is the basis for all the rest, the just and the wicked. Consequently, the argument is predicated on core Christian commitments that form the basis for other Christian teachings rather than accidental facts about Jesus. Hence I can’t see how your remarks touch my position and in fact I see rather that they presuppose a heterodox Christology, namely either Nestorianism or Adoptionism. BTW, Jesus is not “part” of the Trinity since the Trinity has no parts.

Perry,
It is fine if you want to dismiss personhood as a relevant point of difference, but then it becomes meaningless to dispute the point. If you think it is relevant, you should continue to dispute it.

On Christology, I would reexamine the Gospel of John. This gospel, which makes a big deal of the Logos as well as other main elements of Christology, doesn't begin with the virgin birth but with the story of the baptism. In verses John 6:41-44, Jesus was questioned by his contemporaries about his parents, and his response was only that he was sent from God. Not a single word was mentioned of a miracle birth. So if Jesus wasn't willing to make this claim when presented the ideal opportunity, it is somewhat hard to believe that others decades and centuries later would.

Okay, um, that's a remarkably ridiculous argument, Step2 (wretched argument from silence), and we've gotten way OT anyway if we're discussing whether Jesus was born of a virgin.

Step2,

I dismiss personhood since I don’t think there is any hope of serious philosophical consensus any time soon that could be translated into the legal sphere. And I doubt you have a coherent concept of personhood on top of that. What it is to be a human being seems far easier to establish and far narrower.

I am quite familiar with the Gospel of John and maintaining that Christ is a divine person doesn’t preclude him being a baby and sucking at the breast. If it did, there would be no need for a virgin birth and even if there were one it would be soteriologically irrelevant. Per Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, Christ is always a divine person with two wills and two minds and two natures who exists in each and all of them. Nothing in John 6 counts against that picture. With respect to Jesus parents, it seems quite clear he is speaking in reference to his divine person and that doesn’t entail the kind of heretical adoptionism that you seem to be proffering.

It doesn’t follow from the fact that Jesus doesn’t mention the virgin birth in that place that he didn’t believe it was true, especially in light of the fact that he inspires the gospel writers to teach it on top of seemingly and uncontroversially to take Mary as his mother. In any case, Jesus not mentioning a thing doesn’t imply that he wasn’t willing to, just that he didn’t do so. Besides, in John 6 the point of contention is who is the source of life, Moses or Jesus. Noting that Jesus was virginally conceived wouldn’t of itself speak to that point in a sufficient way, which would explain why Jesus speaks directly to the question of his divine person as superior to Moses qua source of life. Hence it fails to be the “ideal” opportunity that you seem to think it is.

The virgin birth isn’t added centuries later and isn’t any later attested than the resurrection or any other major Christian teaching about Christ nor any gospel manuscript for that matter.

In sum, I can only concede that your position on ESCR is consistent with the heretical Christology your now proffer. I think it clearly shows that one has to deny core Christian commitments to consistently adhere to ESCR and other forms of infanticide. This is just another way of clearly pointing out that one cannot consistently be a Christian and adhere to ESCR.

I just read the three letters and would grade them B-, B+, and D in that order. The writer of the third editorial goes to a public school and is clearly the worst of the three so i don't get why the Pastor was so exercised about the first one. Likely he was having a knee jerk reaction to Justin's mention of the FRC, which was poor form but hardly a shooting offense as he also used SA and other sources. Since both the home schooler and the public schooler would stop ESCR, it hardly seems to follow that the present level of oversight of the public schools, applied to home schoolers, would be helpful.

"Whereas you, Al, merely hold "facts", right?"

No Tony, I have facts (no quotes) and opinions and I am able to differentiate between the two. Lydia is correct about my reference being to death panels which is generally acknowledged to have had no basis in any provision of the health care bill just passed or in any earlier version.

Our pastor appears to be one of those folks on the left who is overly optimistic about that which government can accomplish. As is often the case those folks are complimented on the right by those who are unduly pessimistic and suspicious about government. Both are often fodder for others' agendas.

(Note the use of both the Oregon case and the advance directive counseling in the proposed national health care bill. In the former we get a "death panel" through the denial of benefits, in the latter by the addition of a benefit. Just can't escape them death panels, I guess.)

Of course, what we actually have in these cases is an ideologically driven failure of analysis. The pastor has to ignore the inconvenient third essay by a public school student and "death panel" believers have to ignore the realities involved in the provision of a scarce resource.

For example, in the Oregon case, funding is done by the legislature on an annual basis. Diagnostic categories are listed on a line item basis (1 to about 680, pregnancy is #1 and "GASTROINTESTINAL CONDITIONS WITH NO OR MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS OR NO
TREATMENT NECESSARY" is #679) and the legislature picks a cut off point based on budget considerations.

http://www.oregon.gov/OHPPR/HSC/PrioritizationHistory.shtml

Since this is what private insurance and uninsured individuals do on some basis or another (caps, rescissions, denial, or insufficient funds in the case of the uninsured), folks asserting a "death panel" need to actually make a coherent case, not just throw random, unconnected facts against the wall.

Can we please, please not discuss the expected down the road results from the health care bill (if not severely modified in the coming years). I for one never based my opposition to it on death panels, so I don't really care whether they are implicit in it or not.

Step2, your position seems to reduce the human being to something that depends on the development of medical science at any given point. Some deformed embryos will not develop a normal brain, and therefore will not be capable of the kind of brain waves that you take to indicate the norm for human beings. Nevertheless, science may, in future years, possess the capacity to correct such deformities. You would appear to then be in a position of saying that a body that, in 2010 would represent a being that may be snuffed out on the basis of lack of capability of producing the appropriate brain waves, in 2110 becomes a body that is simply waiting for the appropriate corrective medical treatment and therefore must not be snuffed out. Or (to make the case more complete) take the normal adult human who has an accident and is injured in the brain and therefore loses the ability to produce your special brain waves, but (in 2110) just has to wait 3 weeks while the doctors grow more brain tissue from his own adult stem cells? Surely you don't argue that he was a person, ceases to be a person upon injury, and then becomes a person again with successful treatment!?!

Or is it that you simply don't CARE whether he is human or not, and merely ask how useful he is to himself at the current moment? Any argument about functionality for human beings is going to be so driven by things that change back and forth by the moment as to be silly: what if you are on drugs, or are knocked unconscious, or injured, or whatever. What if someone ELSE's determination of the necessary level of brain waves includes the top 30% of people, and excludes you? Since you aren't in their group, they don't need to listen to your complaints.

Perry,
It doesn’t follow from the fact that Jesus doesn’t mention the virgin birth in that place that he didn’t believe it was true, especially in light of the fact that he inspires the gospel writers to teach it on top of seemingly and uncontroversially to take Mary as his mother.

It would be good to know what they were inspired (in+spirare) by in narrating this. Let's skip that one instance, is there any verse clearly stating the virgin birth made by Jesus, or James the Just his relative, or even Paul who would have certainly written about it if he believed it was true? There was also a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 that was mistranslated in the Septuagint, substituting the word virgin when the Hebrew simply means young woman. Matthew explicitly cites this misinterpreted prophecy as being fulfilled by the birth of Jesus at the beginning of his gospel.

Lydia,
Perry has based his entire argument on Chalcedonian Christology. If we are off-topic, it is because he has excluded every other area of argument.

Tony,
Some deformed embryos will not develop a normal brain, and therefore will not be capable of the kind of brain waves that you take to indicate the norm for human beings.

Nearly all of those embryos become miscarriages. Those few that don't miscarry are destined to an extremely short life. So if we do gain the technology to save them, it will be saving them from what you currently describe as a natural death.

Surely you don't argue that he was a person, ceases to be a person upon injury, and then becomes a person again with successful treatment!?!

I consider this similar to a situation requiring a living will. All their personal rights and decisions are delegated to a legally authorized person or group, it is no longer intrinsic to their body.


Step2,

Given Christian theology, they were inspired by the Trinity. If you wish to argue outside of Christian commitments, we can do that as well, but I was arguing with respect to what is entailed by a Christian position.

What is “clearly” stated is often a function of one’s presuppositions. I doubt we share those. In any case, James’ epistle is short and there isn’t any mention of a whole slew of NT doctrines so I can’t see how not mentioning the VB there implies that James didn’t believe it or it was a latter addition.

While Paul doesn’t focus much on the birth of Christ this by itself is due to Paul’s overarching concerns, usually relative to the specific churches he is writing to. He talks about Judiazing with the Galatians and specific problems with Corinth. So a lack of mentioning it for Paul doesn’t mean much. Given that Luke was Paul’s companion and Luke does teach it seems grounds enough for thinking that Paul knew of the doctrine. More to the point, the person best in a position to know about it would be Mary. If Jesus doesn’t mention it that doesn’t imply it was later added by others, but only implies what Jesus took to be worthwhile to discuss at a given point. Besides, John’s Gospel indicates that there are a number of things about Christ that were not written down in the gospel.
To put the shoe on the other foot, does Paul mention anyone who in his churches denied the VB? Not that I know of and so it seems Paul had no reason to write about it either.

The LXX of Is 7:14 isn’t necessarily a mistranslation. What was an unmarried young woman if not a virgin under biblical law? Something not nice. So the LXX translation is not a gross substitution, but in line with Jewish thought about what unmarried women were, virgins. Moreover, the texts that the LXX relied on were not isomorphic with the much later Masoretic tradition. Consequently, to argue from the Masoretic tradition that the LXX is distorting on this point seems weak.

I didn’t base my entire argument on Chalcedonian Christology. I distinctly wrote that as far as Christians are concerned, Chalcedonian Christology entails a rejection of ESCR and other forms of infanticide. If you wish to identify yourself as a non Christian as you seem to be doing by your rejection of core Christian commitments, we can move to non-Christian or “neutral” reasons for thinking that the entity is a human being, which is what I already pointed out, and that what you have proffered for personhood is inadequate and quite irrelevant.

Hence it seems you have misrepresented my actual position. I restricted myself to the confines of Christian theology for those who have Christian commitments. For those who don’t, I argued for establishing the entities as human beings rather than persons and that said ground was sufficient to prohibit experimenting on them and killing them. But I haven’t seen you actually engage that line of argument. I have only seen you argue implicitly for the falsity of Christian teaching.

Perry,
If you are going to accuse me of misrepresentation, it might be helpful to stop projecting words like "unmarried" unto the text that you are quoting. I also did not make the claim that the story was unknown to Paul, I am saying that for his outreach ministry to the Gentiles the virgin birth would be a huge benefit, so his failure to mention it gives us an insight into his view of its accuracy.

Once again, if personhood is irrelevant, you should stop disputing that point. For some unknown reason you do continue to dispute it, based on theological grounds, so I can only conclude that it is relevant to you. Human being-ness is not sufficient grounds, since nobody wishes to prohibit killing or experimenting on human cancer cells. Cancers are clearly not persons, but that doesn't change their unique human makeup.

so his failure to mention it gives us an insight into his view of its accuracy.

No, it gives an insight into its importance relative to, say, the Resurrection, without which none of the other stuff will be accepted.

Human being-ness is not sufficient grounds, since nobody wishes to prohibit killing or experimenting on human cancer cells. Cancers are clearly not persons, but that doesn't change their unique human makeup.

It's hard to believe you're even saying this.

No, it gives an insight into its importance relative to, say, the Resurrection, without which none of the other stuff will be accepted.

I'm not willing to place a requirement on what beliefs people will or will not accept. The history of mankind makes a very strong case against it.

It's hard to believe you're even saying this.

You are right, I should backtrack a little bit. Human being-ness with no consideration of teleology is plainly insufficient, since nobody wishes to prohibit killing or experimenting on human cancer cells. To consider teleology itself to be a sufficient criterion I don't consider to be compelling, but it isn't entirely implausible either.

I consider this similar to a situation requiring a living will. All their personal rights and decisions are delegated to a legally authorized person or group, it is no longer intrinsic to their body.

That's oxymoronic. If the sick person retains humanity, they retain the rights of a human being, then their body has to be respected as human. They don't delegate their basic human rights at all, just the decisions. The fact that someone else will exercise the office of making decisions is totally separate and a complete non-issue, since that someone else will be making those decisions on behalf of a human being, not on behalf of some other sort of being, like a dog or cow. When you make a decision to kill the cow, you do it for reasons that pertain to your own good and how the cow fits your own good. When you make a decision on behalf of someone who has made a medical directive, you decide strictly on the basis of their good, not your own personal preferences. (At least, that's what they thought they were doing when they signed the directive.) Remind me never to make someone with your views a fiduciary for any enterprise or decision making authority.

Human being-ness with no consideration of teleology is plainly insufficient, since nobody wishes to prohibit killing or experimenting on human cancer cells. To consider teleology itself to be a sufficient criterion I don't consider to be compelling, but it isn't entirely implausible either.

That still makes no sense at all. Nobody thinks that cancer cells are a human being. To be clearer, nobody thinks that a vial of good, healthy, perfectly normal blood cells are a human being, either. Nobody thinks it is evil to experiment on, and kill in the course of experiment, a group healthy blood cells, or a clump of cancer cells, or a small slice of liver tissue. As long as the removal of these from a HUMAN BEING leaves the human being intact as a going concern. It is the experimentation on a clump when getting the clump of cells - or even one cell - damages the human being so much as to result in its death that we have an issue.

Step2,

If you demonstrated that I projected “unmarried” into the text I would agree with you. I simply contextualized the usage of the term. Strangely, context seems relevant to establish semantic content of a given term. Not all cultures understand the semantic content of “young woman” the same. This is why you cannot assume that it means some general possibly non-virginal woman. Such would be a case of eisegesis and "progjection."

I agree that the VB would be useful for his outreach to the Gentiles, but why think that said outreach was isomorphic and limited to what he wrote? I see no good reason to think so. Surely Paul’s teaching to them wasn’t limited to what he wrote. For example, Paul no where gives permission or command (or mentions an example) for women to partake of the eucharist and yet they did. Your argument assumes that Paul’s endorsement of it and its usefulness to his mission entails that he mention it. I don’t see why I should think such a thing.

Personhood is relevant within the confines of Christian theology and I think for Christians it is a point that can be established. For non-Christians in the context of law in a pluralistic society, I don’t think it can. So it is relevant in the first context but not in the second. And that was just my point in the second context about your claims relative to personhood and a kind of brain wave functionalism-it isn’t adequate to define personhood. Even your own grounds are insufficient to demonstrate the concept in question or map onto the moral lines that you seem to subscribe to already.

I specifically wrote of human beings. Cancer cells are not human beings. Again, you confuse biological status as an organism with personhood. (One can be a person without being a human organism-Angels, Aliens, God, etc.) Cancer cells are candidates for neither. That is, I didn’t argue having human DNA as a sufficient condition for being a human being or human organism. My toenail clippings have human DNA, but they are not a human being. My children though both have human DNA and are human beings.

And please notice, I didn’t utter a peep about teleology.

Tony,
First, I was responding to a specific question. You asked if they can temporarily lose their personhood, and I said that it is transferred to a representative while they are injured. I did not say their personhood ceases to exist altogether.

When you make a decision on behalf of someone who has made a medical directive, you decide strictly on the basis of their good, not your own personal preferences.

That is a little misleading, you make decisions strictly on the basis of what they requested when their persona was intrinsic to their body, not your own preferences. If something comes up outside the scope of the directives, you make decisions based your knowledge of their wishes, not what you desire.

Remind me never to make someone with your views a fiduciary for any enterprise or decision making authority.

Likewise, I would never trust any religious conservative to get within a mile of my living will. I know they would alter it to "fit my best interest" such that it would be the complete opposite of what I instructed.

Nobody thinks that cancer cells are a human being.

I'm just keeping pace with the standard terminology in these debates. Cancers of course are living cells with a genetic program that is (hyper)active, they also have a developmental trajectory, and an internal organization that just needs the right conditions to continue their growth. If you want to say that the developmental trajectory of a tumor is vastly different, I couldn't agree more, but be aware that you are asserting teleology when doing so.

Perry,
Your projection is demonstrated by reading the text. If you wish to contextualize the term, you will need to show that while there is a specific Hebrew word for virgin and a specific Hebrew word for young woman, this single verse admits to a basic confusion of meaning.

Your argument assumes that Paul’s endorsement of it and its usefulness to his mission entails that he mention it. I don’t see why I should think such a thing.

Endorsements must involve some sort of display. They are public and not private, the sanction is official instead of unofficial, and it is inscribed instead of obscured.

You asked if they can temporarily lose their personhood, and I said that it is transferred to a representative while they are injured. I did not say their personhood ceases to exist altogether.

Earlier, what you said was
All their personal rights and decisions are delegated to a legally authorized person or group, it is no longer intrinsic to their body.

If you mean by "delegated" what you here call "transferred", I suppose so. But normally the terms are not treated as equivalent. Delegation implies something more: that the powers you take on remain in you and under your authority only by reference to another standard, not yourself. And what's this "while they are injured" business? Is the situation in 2010 that their personhood is eradicated by their loss of your special brain waves, but in 2110 their personhood is transferred by the injury? Until the injury is repaired? What if the injury is NEVER repaired, and their body dies - does the transfer recipient go on holding the rights of two persons indefinitely? Why would he stop doing so just because the other's body ceased to be alive, if the other person's body is not the root basis for the independence of that personhood altogether?

But worse still, you persist in conjoining "rights" and "decisions" as if bore the same relation to the person injured. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a parent, I make all sorts of decisions for my children. But their human rights remain in and reside with them, not in me. I don't, by reason of my parental authority to decide, have the authority to ignore their basic human rights.

I would insist that it is absolutely nonsensical, under English usage, to say that someone's personhood is transferred to another. The meaning of the term, insofar as we can at least by negation narrow down what it doesn't mean, DOESN'T mean something that can be transferred to another.

Tony,
Delegation implies something more: that the powers you take on remain in you and under your authority only by reference to another standard, not yourself.

Perhaps a standard like the authorization of a medical directive.

And what's this "while they are injured" business?

If it is presently curable it is an injury. You don't get to rewrite history and discover antibiotics in the Stone Age. Anyways, millions of humans die each year in undeveloped countries from curable conditions, so I'm not going to become agitated about incurable conditions.

Why would he stop doing so just because the other's body ceased to be alive, if the other person's body is not the root basis for the independence of that personhood altogether?

I'm not sure what this question is asking. Are you saying that a transfer of rights must extend beyond my body's death to be valid?

But their human rights remain in and reside with them, not in me.

Unless you have evidence they don't have human brainwave patterns, you've totally misread my position if you think I would claim otherwise.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.