The moderator of Saturday night's presidential forum on faith -- Pastor Rick Warren -- says Barack Obama failed to adequately address the question of when life begins.In all fairness, I have to admit that Obama's answer--when analyzed closely and viewed from a Liberal worldview--was not as glib as it sounds. He was basically asserting that he is not a scientist or a theologian (though I'm not sure the self-deprecating angle is credible, e.g., scientists or theologians are at a higher "pay grade" than legal dynamoes, U.S. Senators and community organizers? Come on.)
Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Warren that it was 'above [his] pay grade' to determine at what point a baby should be given human rights.
Following the forum, Pastor Warren criticized Obama's decision to dodge the question. In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Warren said 'to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.'
Warren went on to suggest Obama's non-answer will not sit well with many Christians. As Warren puts it: 'If an evangelical really believes that the Bible is literal -- in other word[s], in Psalm 139 God says 'I formed you in your mother's womb and before you were born I planned every day of your life' -- if they believe that's literally true, then they can't just walk away from that. They can add other issues, but they can't walk away from the belief that at conception God planned that child, and to abort it would be to short circuit the purpose.'
Nonetheless, Obama was dodging the question because the question of "when an individual human life begins" is pretty basic Christian theology and pretty basic biology.
16 comments:
Nonetheless, Obama was dodging the question because the question of "when an individual human life begins" is pretty basic Christian theology and pretty basic biology.
Not necessarily. While I view life as beginning when fetal brain development starts, there are many different definitions to when life, viewed as deserving legal protections, begins.
During the first half of our nation's founding, and for many centuries prior in other countries, life was viewed as beginning when the "quickening" stage set in, or when the fetus begins to move inside the womb.
Did Obama dodge the question? Maybe, or perhaps he just doesn't have a clear position on when life begins. If you base it on some obscure bible passage, or a narrow definition of cellular growth, then it gets easier; but when you take it as a more existential question about what defines life, then it gets a lot trickier.
Under the Christian definition, it would seem that even those who are brain-dead are still alive, as there is cellular activity occurring...which could make medical treatment very tricky if the fundamentalists took over.
Didn't you hear? We already did take over.
Naaaah, Sean; I'm not sure it is apples to apples to raise the red flag for expanding the definition of life-worthy-of- protecting . . . and I have to point how ironic it is to me that Liberals are so intent on constricting that category. Accordingly, I don't see how disputes about brainwave activity (though you've conceded that it is "brain development"--a significantly earlier point in fetal development) would complicate medical treatment, but I'm open to your argument.
As far as a "quickening" standard, I see your argument, but I have trouble seeing the relevance of that antiquated, scientifically ignorant standard.
Like I said, it is pretty basic Christian theology and pretty basic biology as to when "life begins" . . . the legal/philosophical question--Obama's purported field of expertise, is where his answer belonged. I like you Sean, and I know Obama's your choice for president, but I think being president is above his pay grade.
This is so ridiculous. The very question of when life begins (in reference to a embryo, fetus, etc) is a wholely inappropriate question. I use the word inappropriate in the same sense that it would be inappropriate to ask what light tastes like. You can ask it, but it is wholey irrelevant.
Life started about a billion years ago and it has been one continuous process ever since. We all exist in one unbroken chain of ancestors and sexual fluids from the very first life form.
The fetus should have no rights at all until it is ejected from the birth canal and is supporting it's own life on it's own. Until that point it is nothing more than a parasite (by definition).
Tell me about ridiculous, Richard . . .
By the way, you lost me at "wholely."
Umm.. I just did tell you about ridiculous.
Ok, you got me I spelled wholly wrong. Geeze, you sure put up an intelligent argument.... =\
Richard, please clarify your definition of life for me as you seem to use two completely different definitions in your argument.
First you say life that deserves rights essentially begins at the moment a fetus "is ejected from the birth canal", then you say that life isn't really life until "it is supporting life on its own" (neither of these are scientific definitions, but merely political ones).
The scientific definition of life is "that which has the inherent ability to grow, metabolize, reproduce, and react to changes in its environment". By that definition a preimplantation blastocyst is life. No where in any scientific definition of life is there a requirement for self-contained ability to create or forage for energy (food), shelter, or to protect itself against the external environment.
If being ejected from the birth canal is your definition then what do you do about Cesarean sectioned babies? However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, how about an 18 week preterm fetus that has no functional lungs activity that's been born vaginally? That's alive? - but a 38 week fetus still inside it's mother's uterus isn't?
If self-supporting life is necessary for your definition (without depending on another for care, shelter, or feeding), then at what age does life begin - say 8 years of age? Also, what do you do with those who cannot support life on their own (say stroke vicims, trauma patients, Alzheimers, etc...).
You say this is ridiculous, but it is a very important discussion because this will define what we as a society believe about "non-productive" citizens - the preborn, the disabled, and the elderly. Sanctity of life is the most basic value on which we MUST agree. What defines life is not ridiculous - it is an essential discussion.
You utterly and completely misunderstand my point. I was not defining life. I have not attempted to define life.
Life began about a billion years ago (give or take a couple hundred million) and has been replicating itself ever since. There is no point where life begins unless you go back to the very first organism that you would define as living.
I was simply defining when the fetus deserves and sort of legal rights or protection as an entity that is not part of or a parasite in relation to its mother.
I did misunderstand your point, and I agree determining when a person has legal and individual rights.
So would you say the argument isn't "When does life begin?", but "When is life worthy of individual consideration?".
If that is the point, then the argument doesn't stop with a fetus, and it can't be determined by physical location. I am so passionate about this issue because our decisions WILL carry over and affect how we think about kids with Down's, Autism, Polio, and include Adults with retardation, MS, chronic illness, Alzheimer's, etc... because as you seem to concur, it's not an issue of "is this life?", but "is this life worthy of the expenditure of resources and legal protections?"
I did misunderstand your point, and I agree determining when a person has legal and individual rights is important.
Thank you for your concise intelligent response.
I think your point is really addressing two seperate issues. The first being at what point does a human life deserve idividual legal recognition. The second being what level of legal recognition does an individual that is dependant on others deserve.
As far as deciding what point that an human organism deserves seperate legal protection, I tend to think that it is from the time that the organism seperates from it's host. This would include birth, removal through surgery, astral projection, whatever.
This, however, leads to the uncomfortable truth (for some people) that there should be no legal recognition or protection up until the MOMENT of birth / removal / seperation.
I really am not prepared to address the second issue that you posed, but I will say that all the examples that you have givin have most definately passed the "seperated from host" test, therefore would deserve legal protection in my eyes.
A lot of this boils down to the fundamentalist's obsession with the "sanctity of life". Which I find funny, because the same people that most often get all worked up about the topic are also the ones that are most eager to send young men and women to die in war and execute those who have commited criminal acts. In this respect they are obviously hippocrates. In theory it is a nice story, but in the real world (measured in acts and deeds) human life is not sacred.
But I digress... as that is an entirely different (but sure to be covered at a later time =]) topic.
Hippocrates? Thanks!
But Richard, surely you can appreciate the distinction between innocent human life and that of a murderer or a mortal enemy?
You need to think more seriously about the question posed by Omar . . . it goes to the very heart--like a dagger, of your reasoning on this issue.
"But Richard, surely you can appreciate the distinction between innocent human life and that of a murderer or a mortal enemy?"
No, there is no distinction. Not in terms of the "sanctity of life". Society puts a price on life. Either a cause or a crime is worth more than a life. Now that you have placed that intangable value on a human life in some instances, it just begs the question all around.
So either you:
(A)believe that life is sacred and you are against war, you are against the death penalty, you are against using force to accomplish any ends.
(B)believe life is not sacred, simply valuable, but not more valuable than personal liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I).
(C)you are a hypocrite.
Pick one.
I have thought about both of the points that he made. I addressed the first one and recognize the second one as an independant (but related) question that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the heart of this current debate.
Well, what does "sacred" mean, Richard? I'm guessing you're now the authority on what "sanctity of life" means?
Call me Hippocrates, but there is surely a difference between an innocent person and a guilty one or a threatening one. I guess you think it is wrong to put anyone behind bars (unless they submit to it voluntarily), or do you not believe that Liberty is important?
Sure Omar's "second" point (they're actually points that build upon one another, though you'd like to pretend they're distinct) has something to do with this discussion. The question "when does life begin" presumes that a person cares about "life." For you we'll use the term "personhood." When does a person deserve "personhood" protections? Why does a fetus not deserve protections, even while involuntarily dependent on the mother?
Well, what does "sacred" mean, Richard?
Sacred –adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.
I tend to favor the "secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights." definition.
The meaning of "sanctity of life" is, well... meaningless. It is just a term created by conservatives to use as a tool to advance an anti-choice agenda. The idea behind it however is that life is "sacred" and it must not be violated.
Call me Hippocrates, but there is surely a difference between an innocent person and a guilty one or a threatening one.
I knew Hippocrates, and you sir are no Hippocrates.
Absolutely, there is a difference. One has (potentially) commited an act that is considered a crime in our society and one has not. That has nothing to do with the value of their lives. Either life is always sacred or life is not sacred. Please go up and choose between either A, B, or C in my post before this one.
"I guess you think it is wrong to put anyone behind bars (unless they submit to it voluntarily), or do you not believe that Liberty is important?"
No, that is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. One of the principals of liberty (in action) is that you must coduct yourself in a manner that does not infringe upon anyone else's liberty. If you do so and are found to have committed a crim by the lawful judgement of your peers, then you deserve to be punished.
"Sure Omar's "second" point (they're actually points that build upon one another, though you'd like to pretend they're distinct) has something to do with this discussion.
That is obviously your opinion (although an incorrect one). I do however find it interesting that you cannot seem to make a distinction between:
(A) The question of when you can initially make a distinction (legally) between one life and another
and
(B) The question of what legal protection people (who are obviously a seperate life) whom are dependant upon other deserve.
It is blindingly obvious that these are two distinct (but related) issues.
"The question "when does life begin" presumes that a person cares about "life." For you we'll use the term "personhood." When does a person deserve "personhood" protections?"
No, the question does not presume that a person has any sort of attitude towards "life". If I were to ask you where Tennesse ends and Kentucky begins would that presume that I cared about Kentucky. No. We are simply seeking a definition.
I have already said when I believe a person deserves to be recognized as a seperate legal entity, so you can reread my previous posts if you like.
"Why does a fetus not deserve protections, even while involuntarily dependent on the mother?"
Because they shouldn't be considered a seperate legal entity (see above).
Hey, you're the one who called me a hippocrates--thanks again.
But "sacred" is relative, Richard. So, in order to protect the sanctity (which, interestingly--look this up in your dictionary, was not invented by Pro-lifers) of life, you might have to use force--even deadly force, to honor that sacredness.
one of the principals of liberty is that you must coduct yourself in a manner that does not infringe upon anyone else's liberty. If you do so and are found to have committed a crim by the lawful judgement of your peers, then you deserve to be punished.
Who says they deserve to be punished? Either Liberty is sacred or it isn't. Murderers kind of infringe on other people's liberty, not to mention life.
Yeah, I need to be more clear about Omar's questions. Your answer to the first question runs into problems because it is insufficient beyond that narrow issue . . . sure you "aren't prepared" to answer his second question, because your parameters for when protection-worthy life begins are inadequate for explaining why dependent "parasites" should be protected at other stages of life.
Lastly, who says a fetus shouldn't have legal protections?
A fetus is human, living and innocent. It also had no choice in coming into being and in being dependent (for a time). Whatcha got against the unborn, Richard?
Post a Comment