« Brave New Pornography | Main | David B. Hart on Freedom »
January 20, 2005
Abortion, Brain Death, and Very Poor Thinking
Jivin Jehosaphat (a daily read for me) offered this post regarding a pastor in Minnesota and his views on abortion. The pastor, Greg Boyd, stated in an interview on the radio that he believed first trimester abortions should be legal. His justification for this, can be found here on his website.
I am always saddened when a pastor shows such poor thinking about this issue especially in a public forum. I thank Pastor Boyd for his responses to JivinJ's questions, but I must respond myself to a few points in his letter. Boyd's words are in blood red.
I have a simple idea for a compromise that I think a majority of Americans might agree to.
We will certainly never reach consensus on the metaphysical status of the unborn or on how one should balance the unborn’s rights against those of the mother (to say nothing of a host of other relevant, ambiguous considerations).
How does the good pastor know this? Is it his "kingdom view" that gives him a special insight to the future? The truth of the matter is that there was a time in which we never thought they would reach a consensus regarding the metaphysical status of blacks or women in our culture. We now realize discrimination based on skin color and sex is wrong. The same thing applies to level of development - I believe we will recognize that some day. His "compromise" does nothing to advance this goal.
But I think we could possibly reach a consensus on the latest date at which a pregnancy could be terminated.
Note the politically correct Planned Parenthood endorsed language of "pregnancy termination". Yes, we can come to a consensus of when pregnancy can be terminated - how about the birth of a human being. All pregnancies end at some point. The question is whether or not the pregnancy shall end with an attempt to save a defenseless human being, or to end the pregnancy by the intentional dismemberment and death of a defenseless human being. Politically correct language does not change this.
My proposal – my humble, personal, non-kingdom, political view on what would be best for America at this present stage in our history – is that we take the criteria for when a person is no longer a “legal person” (the criteria for death) and simply reverse it for the unborn.
Actually, this is not necessarily a bad idea is long as it is done correctly. for instance, the good pastor should review this article by Maureen Condic entitled Life: Defining the Beginning by the End. Dr. Condic is a neuroscientist, and she has written an excellent article that shows that the life of an individual human being begins at conception:
What does the nature of death tell us about the beginning of human life? From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct “parts” that must work together—specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells. Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.
Linking human status to the nature of developing embryos is neither subjective nor open to personal opinion. Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells.
Now, no one knows “God’s perspective” on when exactly a person dies, when the soul leaves the body, etc…
The seems to me to be an excellent reason not to allow abortion in the first trimester.
Yet we as a culture have agreed that when the electromagnetic activity in a brain falls beneath a certain threshold, they are to no longer be considered “legal persons.” Our criteria for death was not revealed by God. Indeed, it’s actually quite arbitrary. The people we pronounce dead continue to replicate cells and grow hair and finger nails, for example. And we could easily raise or lower the minimum threshold of brain activity necessary to remain a “legal person.” Yet, with rare exceptions, there’s no controversy in our culture surrounding when a person is no longer a “legal person.”
This is simply wrong, and the pastor is clearly ignorant about some basic truths regarding brain death. This by itself is not surprising, but the fact that he uses this justification for his public views is frankly tragic.
First, brain death criteria does not allow a certain amount of "electromagnetic activity in a brain" in order to determine death. Brain death is the complete, irreversible cessation of whole brain activity. Sometimes this is confirmed by EEG., in which electromagnetic activity is measured. However, often other tests are used that have nothing to do with the EEG. For instance, a brain angiogram may test for brain activity, and it is considered more sensitive then an EEG.
Second, the criteria for brain death is in no way arbitrary. Specific diagnostic criteria have been formulated in the medical literature to indicate when a human being ceases to integrate their bodily functions, and thus death is declared.
My humble, personal, non-kingdom, political proposal is that we might be able to move beyond the ugly impasse we’ve hit in our culture on the abortion issue
Note how he claims his view is a "humble" one. The implication is those whose state the scientific fact that a fetus is a human being must do so by arrogantly forcing their view on others.
– the impasse that is allowing babies to be aborted that both sides wish weren’t aborted – by stretching our consensus on the “legal loss of personhood” to cover the “legal beginning of personhood.”
Wrong again. the declaration of brain death is not the "a legal loss of personhood". It is the legal and medical definition of death itself. When a human being is brain dead, he is not a live human being that has lost his personhood. He is a dead human being. On the other hand, if the embryo or fetus is dead, there is no reason to abort them, is there?
When the unborn’s brainwaves are above the level that constitutes the loss of legal personhood, perhaps Americans could agree they should be considered legal persons. I am told by neurologists that this occurs between the 11th and 12th week of pregnancy.
Which neurologist was that? If you take perform an MRI on a 12 week old fetus, could you see the "personhood" part of the brain? Could you do surgery and remove one's personhood by removing that part of their brain?
Whew, I could spend all day refuting this guy, and I haven't even touched on the fact that his entire view is a false dichotomy. Should we support women who make the life-affirming decision to place their children for adoption - of course. Should we help those who decide to raise their children themselves - absolutely. Should we compassionately share the forgiveness of Jesus Christ with those that have been effected by abortion - yes. However, supporting the idea that the state should support abortion in the first trimester does nothing to advance these. "Kingdom thinking" via Boyd is very poor thinking indeed.
Update: JivinJ continues the dialogue with Pastor Boyd here. J continues to ask the right questions. Prediction: Pastor Boyd will still fail to answer why he abhors abortion in his response.
Posted by OMFSerge | January 20, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342034c553ef00d83456d49569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Abortion, Brain Death, and Very Poor Thinking:
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
An Open View of Abortion -- Although I often find myself disagreeing with his views, I’ve always admired theologian and pastor Gred Boyd. Even when his conclusions are unsound (i.e., open-view theism) he often attempts to derive them from Scriptural... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 2:46:54 PM
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
Liber Fever -- Reading the title of Nick Hornby’s latest book -- The Polysyllabic Spree: A Hilarious and True Account of One Man’s Struggle With the Monthly Tide of the Books He’s Bought and the Books He’s Been Meaning to... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 3:33:29 PM
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
Liber Fever -- Reading the title of Nick Hornby’s latest book -- The Polysyllabic Spree: A Hilarious and True Account of One Man’s Struggle With the Monthly Tide of the Books He’s Bought and the Books He’s Been Meaning to... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 3:36:04 PM
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
Sloan Siege Ends -- A couple of week’s ago I wrote about the long-term vision of Baylor University, the schools embattled president Robert Sloan, and how the school had the opportunity to become for evangelicalism what the University of Notre... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 3:54:04 PM
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
Dutch Treat -- To my pleasant surprise, I discovered that EO was mentioned in a national newspaper's article on religious blogs. I was even more surprised to find that the nation was The Netherlands and the paper was the Dutch... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 4:33:19 PM
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
Dutch Treat -- To my pleasant surprise, I discovered that EO was mentioned in a national newspaper's article on religious blogs. I was even more surprised to find that the nation was The Netherlands and the paper was the Dutch... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 4:59:08 PM
» Outtakes
01.05.21 from the evangelical outpost
Robot Theology -- Can a robot who doesn’t believe in a Creator be an “intellectually fulfilled droid?” ***** Spongy Strawmen and Clueless Critics -- While I'm admittedly suspicious of the motives behind the "We are Family" video, the attack on... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 22, 2005 2:33:28 AM
Comments
So, how do you deal with chimeras, where two separately fertilized eggs begin dividing (just like two fraternal twins), but then accidentally merge and end up developing into *one* person with *two* genotypes? This can even happen such that some of the person's cells are XX, and some are XY.
Learned about this on CSI, I did.
Clearly, personhood and a "soul" cannot occur at conception -- if it did, chimeric individuals would have two souls.
Game over for the strict antiabortionist view. Add on that something like 1/3 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort, naturally, and you've got a real problem with your dogmatic view.
Posted by: Thinker | Jan 20, 2005 7:06:14 PM
Welcome Thinker
I saw that CSI episode too. I met my wife when she worked as a nurse in the bone marrow transplant unit. The bone marrow that was transplanted (and eventually differentiated into additional cell types) into these patients had a different genetic code than the host patient. In essence - they were chimeras. The same can be said regarding solid organ transplantation - the organs have a different genetic code than the host. In any of these cases, does the presence of two separate genetic codes indicate that they are not human beings, or that they have two souls?
Also, millions of infant children die of "natural causes" each year. Does this indicate that infants are not valuable? Is it "game over" for dogmatic opponents of infanticide?
Serge
Posted by: Serge | Jan 20, 2005 7:37:06 PM
"Thinker" -
I noticed your use of 'dogmatic'. Is this what you mean (see below), or something else?
Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
...or, was your language just useful for rhetorical advantage? I ask because Serge isn't simply asserting his viewpoint; rather, he's willing to engage in rigorous dialogue utilizing argumentation and evidence. Whence the charge of dogma?
Kind regards,
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 21, 2005 12:32:49 AM
Did you let Pastor Boyd know about your response that you've written here? I would like to see his response to it.
Posted by: Macht | Jan 21, 2005 2:32:44 PM
I'm surprised that someone who takes Boyd to task for using the word "humble" (and claims that Boyd necessarily infers that any other perspective is "arrogant") jumps on Boyd for using a false dichotomy--and, more curiously, puts Boyd's text not just in "red," but in "blood red."
Posted by: Jim Anderson | Jan 21, 2005 3:28:43 PM
Macht,
JivinJ is having a conversation with Pastor Boyd regarding his views (link above) and his points are similar to mine. I'm watching that dialogue closely. I may E-mail Pastor Boyd to let him know that I have posted this about his views and allow him to respond if he would like to.
Jim,
Welcome. I believe Boyd's use of the term in this context implies that the "humble" view is the one that welcomes a "compromise" on the "politics" on this issue. I could be wrong.
What's wrong with blood red?
Serge
Posted by: Serge | Jan 21, 2005 4:24:36 PM
Serge,
Nothing wrong with "blood red;" it's an intriguing choice of phrase, though, when "red" or "dark red" would also suffice--especially when the rhetoric on both sides is so heated to begin with.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | Jan 21, 2005 6:11:23 PM
Apologies for calling you "dogmatic." But I still don't see how you can reconcile your view with the facts on either of the two Major Biological Facts that I brought up.
MAJOR BIOLOGICAL FACT #1: GENETIC CHIMERAS
How can you reconcile these two positions, both of which you agree to?
(1) Souls, and human life with full rights, begins and conception
(2) Sometimes two separately-fertilized zygotes merge and produce one person with an even mix of genotypes.
It's a huge, gaping hole in your position. You mention organ donation in rebuttal, but neither you nor I think that organs and bone marrow have souls or personhood, and neither of us thinks that they deserve legal protection as persons under the law.
But you *do* believe this about embryos.
Like I said, game over.
MAJOR BIOLOGICAL FACT #2: SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS
Many, many more pregnancies are aborted spontaneously each year than by medical drugs/procedures. If you were self-consistent about your belief that souls/personhood/human rights begin at conception, this massive yearly holocaust would drown out your other abortion-related concerns in terms of emotion, effort, funding, etc. With infants, we rightly take heroic measures to prevent death due to disease, "natural" genetic or developmental anomalies, etc. If you really believe that embryos are equivalent to infants, you would advocate the same heroic measures for embryos.
Posted by: Thinker | Jan 21, 2005 9:01:29 PM
[i](1) Souls, and human life with full rights, begins and conception[/i]
Although I do believe in the substance duelism view of human personhood, I have not used the argument that abortion is wrong because the embryo has a soul. I have stated that abortion is wrong because it involves the intentional killing of an innocent human being. The logic is as follows:
1. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
3. Therefore abortion is a moral wrong and should not tolerated by society.
A good article about the argument from recombination, twinning, and totipotentcy by Frank Beckwith can be found here: http://www.equip.org/free/DH245.pdf.
Regardless of whether or not one believes a human being has a soul at conception, the undeniable biologic truth is that it is a human being at conception. Recombination is an extremely rare and interesting phenomenon, but it doesn't change that biologic fact.
[i]With infants, we rightly take heroic measures to prevent death due to disease, "natural" genetic or developmental anomalies, etc. If you really believe that embryos are equivalent to infants, you would advocate the same heroic measures for embryos.[/i]
We also take measures to protect against harming embryos. Women who are considering becoming pregnant are encouraged to take folic acid in order to prevent spontaneous abortion. However, your argument seems to be that since so many embryos die naturally, we therefore should be able to kill them intentionally. That brings us back to my question: since so many infants die naturally, why shouldn't we be able to kill them intentionally?
By the way, the holocaust was not caused by "nature"; it was caused by the intentional evil actions of one class of human beings inflicting their will on another class of human beings. The analogy does not fly for natural deaths, but it does fit quite well for induced abortions.
Posted by: Serge | Jan 21, 2005 10:38:22 PM
Jim,
I thought I used rational arguments with scientific evidence to make my case, and not just rhetoric. Where did I go wrong?
The blood red reference seems to bother you. Why is that? Abortion is a bloody procedure, is it not? Now that by itself should not be too disturbing - I treated 9 third molar patients today, and had blood on my gloves for each one of them (3rd molar extractions are also bloody procedures). Yet I don't believe I did anything wrong.
Now here's a real dichtomy for you. Abortion does kill something. Whether or not it is right to kill something depends on what that thing is. If abortion does not intentionally kill an innocent human being, then it has no more moral impact than my wisdom teeth extractions. The blood should bother no one.
However, if abortion kills an innocent human being, I believe it is wrong. It is wrong to kill one human being merely because it is in the way and can't defend itself.
Where am I wrong?
Serge
Posted by: Serge | Jan 21, 2005 10:46:18 PM
Here is a good article that mentions some of the science of mosaics, chimeras and twinning.
Posted by: Macht | Jan 21, 2005 10:57:34 PM
Serge writes,
1. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
3. Therefore abortion is a moral wrong and should not tolerated by society.
Point #1 is fine.
The problem, of course, is with point 2. Zygotes are clearly not human persons. Therefore, abortion, at least at that stage, is not killing a human being.
Zygotes are not human persons, because two of them can fuse into something that later turns into one person. If zygotes are persons, then your logic implies that 1+1=1. This is absurd.
On chimeras alone, so far I have overwhelmingly won the argument:
* Neither of the links presented solves the problem -- Beckwith's article doesn't discuss chimeras at all (it focuses on twinning, and he ends up in a lot of knots just on that). The other link doesn't discuss chimeras in any substantial way.
* No one has explained how two "persons" can turn into one. You either have to explain this, or surrender point #2, above, and admit that zygotes are not yet persons.
At the very least, you have to concede that your position is insufficiently compelling to deserve implementation by the government (point 3).
Posted by: Thinker | Jan 22, 2005 9:16:35 PM
Thinker,
Under what basis did you introduce the term "human person"? What specifically is the difference between a human being and a human person? I believe the term human person is simply an ad hoc non-scientific term that is used to justify discrimination by one set of human being against another set of human beings.
However, I am curious about something. Lets say I accept your assertion that human beings are not human persons when they have the ability to recombine and form a chimera. That occurs within the first two weeks after fertilization, prior to implantation, almost always before the mother even knows she's pregnant. Every medical and surgical abortion takes place after implantation, or after the embryo has lost the ability to recombine. Since every abortion kills a human being that does not have the ability to recombine, how is it that your position supports elective abortion?
Serge
Posted by: Serge | Jan 22, 2005 11:59:42 PM
"Thinker" writes
Zygotes are not human persons, because two of them can fuse into something that later turns into one person. If zygotes are persons, then your logic implies that 1+1=1. This is absurd.
I find this line of reasoning completely unpersuasive. If this happened with 10-year-old children on occassion, would we believe that the children were not fully human persons?
Furthermore, I don't think there is any commitment on the part of the pro-life position as to what actually happens in these cases. Is one individual consumed (akin to unintentional cannibalism as an accident of nature)? Do both die and surrender their material components to a new, third human being? Or, even going the theological route, could two souls occupy the same body? Certainly there is a precedent in cases of demonic possession, or even in the case of conjoined twins.
In short, I think the argument from recombination only delays the same questions regarding what constitutes humanity. It doesn't seem to shed any new light on the subject.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 23, 2005 7:05:40 AM
I find this line of reasoning completely unpersuasive. If this happened with 10-year-old children on occassion, would we believe that the children were not fully human persons?
It doesn't happen. It's impossible. That's the point.
Furthermore, I don't think there is any commitment on the part of the pro-life position as to what actually happens in these cases.
You have to have a commitment, because you clearly are the ones asserting that a "human being" begins at conception.
Is one individual consumed (akin to unintentional cannibalism as an accident of nature)? Do both die and surrender their material components to a new, third human being? Or, even going the theological route, could two souls occupy the same body? Certainly there is a precedent in cases of demonic possession, or even in the case of conjoined twins.
This illustrates perfectly that all you have is a number of preposterous positions to chose from. Two souls, but only one mind? Demonic possession cited for support of your position??? One soul dies, even though nothing has actually died? Two souls die and a new one pops up (but I thought they were formed at conceptions)?
Clearly, the "human being" -- person, soul, whatever -- does not actually exist at the zygote stage. You have a ball of cells with various potentialities, including fusing with another ball of cells, with a different genetic code.
Posted by: Thinker | Jan 24, 2005 2:08:19 AM
Thinker,Under what basis did you introduce the term "human person"? What specifically is the difference between a human being and a human person? I believe the term human person is simply an ad hoc non-scientific term that is used to justify discrimination by one set of human being against another set of human beings.
The term "person" has been around a lot longer than the abortion debate, and the qualities of persons -- emotions, thinking, etc., -- have clearly played a role in the history of human rights philosophy which you are trying to extend to zygotes. So it is not ad hoc.
I think the term "human being" is too vague, and is therefore used by pro-life folks to attempt to win the argument by definitional fiat. "Human being" can apply to cases that everyone admits do not have an absolute right to life, such as the brain dead. "Life starts at conception" has similar problems -- tumors, etc. are biologically alive.
However, I am curious about something. Lets say I accept your assertion that human beings are not human persons when they have the ability to recombine and form a chimera.
...having completely failed to provide a coherant counterargument...
That occurs within the first two weeks after fertilization, prior to implantation, almost always before the mother even knows she's pregnant. Every medical and surgical abortion takes place after implantation, or after the embryo has lost the ability to recombine. Since every abortion kills a human being that does not have the ability to recombine, how is it that your position supports elective abortion?Serge
I didn't say it does. All the chimera argument proves is that the human person clearly doesn't begin at conception. After that is conceded, we have to look to other criteria, and that is another entire argument.
Based on what has been established so far, you have two options:
(1) Resort to positions that are wildly ad hoc and that contradict your original premise -- such as that the chimera's soul is established after the fusion, or
(2) Concede that at least "morning-after" medications shouldn't be illegal.
Look, folks, I'm not just trying to annoy you here, I am simply surprised at the huge amount of argumentative/emotional/political effort that the pro-life position is expending, and yet it can't deal coherantly with a single simple biological fact. I am convinced that most pro-life activists are completely unaware of chimeras. You would think the chimera issue would be dealt with in some prominent pro-life FAQ, but based on google I could find no such FAQ.
It is, like I originally said, a gaping hole in your position.
Posted by: thinker | Jan 24, 2005 2:31:01 AM
Revisiting the exchange between myself (Steve) and "Thinker":
I find this line of reasoning completely unpersuasive. If this happened with 10-year-old children on occassion, would we believe that the children were not fully human persons?It doesn't happen. It's impossible. That's the point.
What is it about 10-year-olds that forbids it from happening and at the same time is essential to personhood? That's the question the scenario is meant to raise and hone in on, and prima facie it seems unlikely that such an event would require us to surrender our understanding of children as persons. Humanity, or personhood, seems to lie elsewhere - but if you can answer the question above, I'd be grateful.
Furthermore, I don't think there is any commitment on the part of the pro-life position as to what actually happens in these cases.You have to have a commitment, because you clearly are the ones asserting that a "human being" begins at conception.
No, I don't think so. We argue that the unborn, from conception, has the innate capacities for personal activity, much like a newborn does, only at an earlier stage of development. That doesn't change in the cases you've cited. We may have some events that seem strange to us, because human beings are capable of asexual reproduction, etc. at early stages, but the basic argument is unaffected.
Is one individual consumed (akin to unintentional cannibalism as an accident of nature)? Do both die and surrender their material components to a new, third human being? Or, even going the theological route, could two souls occupy the same body? Certainly there is a precedent in cases of demonic possession, or even in the case of conjoined twins.This illustrates perfectly that all you have is a number of preposterous positions to chose from. Two souls, but only one mind? Demonic possession cited for support of your position??? One soul dies, even though nothing has actually died? Two souls die and a new one pops up (but I thought they were formed at conceptions)?
"[P]roposterous positions"? Not at all. Living sperm and ovum surrender their component parts and become a new organism, the embryo, and I haven't seen any case made that two embryos could not surrender their material constituents and result in a new, third entity. Conception may occur in various ways, as cloning demonstrates, so again, I'm not sure what the problem is. The splitting of a single flatworm into distinct organisms of the same kind also makes this point. An individual existed prior to the splitting; two individuals clearly exist after (and if they recombined, that wouldn't rule out their individuality or nature at an earlier point). Similarly, that one developing embryo could absorb another and remain itself, while the other lost its internal, organismal integrity (death), seems a live possibility as well.
You suggest that demonic possession should not be used as evidence, but you're also advancing questions about the soul and it's interaction with the body, which theology does bear upon. If demonic possession really occurs, or has occurred, or even could possibly occur, then what is the metaphysical problem with two souls (including the mind) occupying the same body? Again, conjoined twins seem to do just this sort of thing. I'm not saying that pro-lifers have to adopt this position, or even that it is the best position of the ones available, only that it is a possibility from the standpoint of metaphysics.
The point of listing various possibilities is that there are several options that don't rule out the personhood of the embryo, and while we may not know, at the end of the day, exactly what happens in these cases, that is not so important as the basic argument that the embryo is in the process of unfolding its active potential for personal activity. We can be confident of that at point A and at point C, regardless of what happens, exactly, at point B.
Finally, you wrote:
Clearly, the "human being" -- person, soul, whatever -- does not actually exist at the zygote stage. You have a ball of cells with various potentialities, including fusing with another ball of cells, with a different genetic code.
You're far from making your case, "Thinker", but I appreciate the dialogue.
Take care,
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 24, 2005 11:31:43 AM
[blockquote] I think the term "human being" is too vague, and is therefore used by pro-life folks to attempt to win the argument by definitional fiat. "Human being" can apply to cases that everyone admits do not have an absolute right to life, such as the brain dead. "Life starts at conception" has similar problems -- tumors, etc. are biologically alive.[/blockquote]
The term "human being" is not vague at all. Alive human being = a living individual organism of the species Homo Sapiens. Hydiatiform moles and teratomas are not organisms. A brain dead human being is a human being, but a dead one.
"Life begins at conception" is a bit confusing, so I'll clarify. The life of an individual human being begins at conception. This is confirmed by every authority of human embryology. Can you tell me why and how my medical textbooks were wrong on this?
Posted by: Serge | Jan 24, 2005 11:44:11 AM
BTW, I used Google and searched on just three terms related to our discussion - "recombination", "embryo", and "personhood" - and found the following documents bearing on the issue (in addition to those already cited above):
W. Jerome Bracken, IS THE EARLY EMBRYO A PERSON?
Stephen J. Heany, THE HUMAN RATIONAL SOUL IN THE EARLY EMBRYO
William E. May, The Sacredness Of Life: An Overview Of The Beginning
Brian Edgar, ETHICS, EXPERIMENTS AND EMBRYOS: A CHRISTIAN’S OBSERVATIONS ON THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL DEBATE
PHILIPPA TAYLOR, For what it is worth – the status of the human embryo
Patrick Lee & Robert P. George, Embryology, Philosophy, & Human Dignity
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 24, 2005 12:32:20 PM
Hey, I can't keep up with you guys intellectually :) but I thought I'd clue you in to a sermon I preached this Sunday in which I referenced Dr. Boyd's views. I'm a church planter in his city (St. Paul), and I'm part of his denomination (the Baptist General Conference), so I felt I should voice an objection to his public comments. It's up on my website if you're interested. You'd have to sit through the first half, which is just on the section of Matthew that we're in - but then I get to the stuff that's pertinent here. It's all about the Imago Dei. I'd be interested in feedback.
Posted by: pat k | Jan 27, 2005 4:00:05 PM
Thanks for stopping by, Pat. We'll check it out.
Take care,
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 27, 2005 4:14:39 PM
Great Pat - thanks so much. I'll check it out when I get the chance. BTW, Steve's the intellectual here. I'm just a guy with a strong right arm.
Serge
Posted by: Serge | Jan 27, 2005 4:28:03 PM
STOP IT, Serge.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Jan 27, 2005 4:39:59 PM
