Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Should abortions be legal?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Should abortions be legal? | Login/Join |
I agree. Although I noted that the church's arguments were mostly deontological, I did not also mention that I saw that as a defect, an overemphasis. In our analysis of a moral object, we typically evaluate the act (deontological), intention (aretaic or virtue analysis) and circumstances (including the consequences, teleological), together. | ||||
|
JB, the consequences are more than post-abortion syndrome. See http://www.abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp - - - Shasha, the story you linked to of the woman who hung herself is a sad one. My wife has worked with many women who felt suicidal because of guilt experienced from abortion. Some of them were relatively unchurched, so it's difficult to say that religion "caused" their guilt. Part of our human nature is attuned to morality without the conditioning of religion. Here's the link to Rachel's Vineyard, which is an outreach to women who've had abortions. They do good work and would be a good referral source for women you might counsel with. - http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/ | ||||
|
It is probably better to go to websites that are neither affiliated with pro-life nor pro-choice advocates to assign percentages to complications, which any medical procedure has? While this site does acknowledge (rather weakly) that there is no definitive link between abortion and breast cancer, for example, the National Cancer Institute comes across more credible and authoritative. I am guessing that e-medicine is likely a neutral site; see http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic4.htm Out of curiosity, I also checked http://www.prochoice.org/about...ety_of_abortion.html . I didn't compare the list of complications and associated incidence percentages across these three sites. Maybe someone would like to do this, however. Such complications should certainly be taken into consideration. However, I am guessing the incident levels aren't high enough to get on anyone's legislative radar in order to require a legal remedy? From National Institute of Health :
| ||||
|
An afterthought on the ontological issues: When it comes to questions regarding emergent realities and how continuity and discontinuity play into these analyses, the very same categories and terms and philosophical insights are brought to bear on the question regarding at what juncture in world history a human being emerged. The paleontologists and anthropologists and theologians wrestle, in that case, with precisely the same questions: What comprises human life? What comprises human personhood? And they raise these questions and search out these definitions in their anthropological speculations, which are otherwise distinct from our considerations. But that aspect of their project devoted to formulating correct definitions is, in many respects, not merely analogous, but, identical to our our own discussion. What is it that some of our phylogenetic cousins lacked, whether in genotypic endowment or phenotypic expression, that would keep them from being called Homo sapiens? An incredibly interesting set of questions, n'est pas? Even in process metaphysics, which emphasizes our radical continuity with all of reality, we recognize otherwise "bounded realities" and we thus ask how and why we define such boundaries from a semiotic perspective, which asks what meaning they have, and a pragmatic perspective, which asks what practical difference they will make. As we consder the moral status of the embryo, especially when considering such distinctions as incipient, sentient and sapient vis a vis its attributes, one might wonder whether, by logical extrapolation, more appreciation is warranted for all sentient beings, more consideration should be given to higher primates. The Eastern traditions, with their emphasis on reality's continuities and nondualist paradigm, might be more sensitized to this non-anthropocentric perspective. The different dualisms of Western Enlightenment thinking, in my view, tend to underemphasize our essential embodiedness and to devalue it with an overemphasis on abstracted functionalities, and this strikes at the heart of a more integral approach to reality, in general, and human realities, in particular. Ours is an integral approach informed by our being an incarnational people, to be sure, but also, from a natural law perspective, an integral approach informed by our inextricable relationship to all of reality via our cosmogenic origins. We are stardust. We are golden. And we've got to make our way back to the garden. | ||||
|
JB, the issue of post-abortion syndrome is the most common consequence to women, from what I've read. The problem with establishing its statistical incidence is that the onset can be years after the abortion. The intensity can also vary. So I don't know how common the problem is, only that I've spoken with women who still suffer from guilt and depression decades afterwards, especially during certain times of the year -- like when the abortion took place, or when the baby would have been born. I don't know what would constitute a significant problem to legislators. We put up with 20,000 drunk-driving deaths each year, and although we've increased the penalties for drunk driving, alcohol is a legal drug. IOW, not all social problems receive proportionate treatment. Abortion, like alcohol use, is probably one that many believe we just have to put up with, given our weakness in the area of sexuality. --- As for the question you raise of the emergence of the human -- I see where you're going with it. Surely a variety of criteria are employed. The most obvious one -- spiritual consciousness -- doesn't show up in fossilar or archaeological digs, although one can infer its presence in certain forms of art or writing (where a consciousness of self seems present). This particular criterion would be a poor one for establishing the presence of human personhood for young ones, as its emergence doesn't begin to show clearly until 2 yrs. of age, at the earliest. Ontogeny might recapitulate phylogeny in our anatomical development, but I don't think we want to take that into the philosophical realm. --- Quite so on the issue of respect for all of creation. If we approach things with this attitude, we're much less likely to fall into the kind of willful actions that bring about unwanted pregnancies in the first place. | ||||
|
I wasn't entertaining any particular implications or going anywhere. I was simply noting that the task of defining Homo sapiens is the same for anyone, whether biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist, theologian or whomever. This is a descriptive project that I was talking about. It shares an identity across these disciplines. This doesn't resolve all of the other issues vis a vis emergence and continuities and discontinuities, which is an interpretive project, which relates from one discipline to the next analogically, some analogs stronger vs weaker than others, such as the one you addressed. Google this syntax: +personhood +"ontological discontinuity" And look at the number 1 hit: Re: Christ OS - anyone for expanding the metaphor?i like Woody's PxOS ontological discontinuity, where he has Windows 2000 running ... Newton-John's personhood in Phyllis Diller's body? jeepers, get a PC! ... shalomplace.com/christos/messages/28.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages POLANYI�S FINALISM by John F. Haught and D. M. Yeagerviction that centered personhood in living beings is real, though ...... metaphysics, which posits an ontological discontinuity between matter ... www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/0591-2385.00111 - Similar pages POPE JOHN PAUL II�S TEACHING ON HUMAN DIGNITY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ...on to name �ontological discontinuity� and evolutionary theory�s claims of .... (Of course there are those who think that what they call �personhood� ... www.springerlink.com/index/q230k60572643762.pdf - Similar pages PCBE: Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry -- Full ...... is in ontological discontinuity with the material from which it emerged. ...... Personhood is not the only warrant for respect; we consider it a failure ... www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/appendix.html - 168k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] The Biological Dimension of Human PersonhoodFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Even though Grisez admits that establishing personhood is a ques- ...... I conclude that both the genetic-ontological discontinuity argument and the ... www.ivpress.com/title/exc/2667-2.pdf - Similar pages | ||||
|
I'm don't get what you are saying here or why. The philosophical realm consists of normative sciences, which ask distinctly different questions of reality than the descriptive sciences. Or, put in Heliminiak's terms, the positivistic vs philosophic vs theistic vs theotic realms of concern. The philosophic or normative, then, necessarily makes use of the descriptive or positivistic. | ||||
|
Maybe you were dealing with a putative analogy and not a definition per se? Even then, our analogical imagination is, legitimately, very active in the philosophical realm, especially in metaphysics. Still, analogies can be variously weak or strong, direct or indirect, so caveat emptor, indeed. By definition, they imply more dissimilarites between objects than similarities, even as they give us invaluable and actionable information, such as about, well, let's say, ummm God.  | ||||
|
quick note: the emergentist perspective is just a heuristic device and not a robustly explanatory theory that gifts us with empirical demonstrability but, even if it was a theory per se, what is typically says, in plain terms, is that something more comes from nothing but and this involves the introduction of true novelty, something not predictable so, there ends up being not a lot of room, in my view, to equate stages of fetal development with emergent states (such that relational properties are in ontological discontinuity vis a vis the material of their origin), because the properties of the fetus already inhere across its life span or, put more simply, they are not biologically novel; they are, rather, biologically predictable compare this to sodium and chloride with their unique properties which do not speak to the issue, in any, way, shape or form, of saltness, which is ontologically discontinuous vis a vis its properties from those of Na+ and Cl- ergo, fetal developmental stages do not meet the criteria that define emergent states, but, more importantly, the emergence paradigm is just a heuristic device and not a robust positivistic theory there is ontological discontinuity between Homo sapiens and Homo whatever and that speaks directly to the essence of humanity What positively enthralled me was this discussion: EVOLUTION, EMERGENCE AND TRASCENDENCE OF MAN The specific personhood article that I thought was done well was this one. | ||||
|
ChristOS! LOL! That's hilarious!I was in a hurry with my last post, but what I was meaning to say was something like this: that in taking the perspective of emergent levels, one recognizes certain qualitatively new thresholds. E.g. - chemical > biological; ape > human. Those two stand out, but there are others one could posit in between. In each case, we are dealing with a different kind of matter before and after -- matter that is fundamentally oriented toward the kind of life it manifests. I'm probably not tracking with some of what you shared, only I've had dialogues with process people who obfuscated the point above by affirming that the whole universe is fundamentally oriented toward emergence -- that we live in a kind of universe that, given the right conditions, will bring forth increasing complex beings and eventually spiritual consciousness. I can live with that explanation so long as we don't get silly and say things like the universe has some kind of soul, or that it's no greater sin to destroy a fetus than it is any other kind of creature, who are all part of this universe. My response is that emergent levels are new kinds of creatures, deserving of recognition and respect for the unique qualities they manifest. This includes their biological matter, which is integral to the new emergence. It's the same kinds of atoms and molecules we find in "lower levels," but ordered, now, to express a new kind of consciousness. Indeed, there's something about this approach (as opposed to a resultant paradigm) which suggests that it is the emerging consciousness that brings forth the new organization of matter rather than vice versa. Profound implications, here, for any who wish to ponder the relationship between human consciousness and the developing human being, for what is suggested is that embryonic/fetal development could very well be informed as much (or more) by the consciousness it is oriented to express as by chemical/biological processes. As the old philosophers used to say, the body exists for the soul, and the soul for the body. One can make this point using different language and without invoking religious teachings. Sorry if I took this on a tangent from where you were going, but that's the line of thinking that was stirred in my grey matter.  | ||||
|
Charles Krauthammer (my favorite neocon next to Bill Kristol  ) frames up his apologetic in prudential terms, not metaphysical. Just to demonstrate how these arguments run, below are some excerpts from his submission to The President's Council on Bioethics. Dr. Krauthammer is a very serious and deeply caring person. Charles Krauthammer, M.D. Council Member I'm not posting this in violation of the spirit of continuing a conversation that Phil is needing some rest on, because I've said all I have to say, too. Rather, I want to post this good material for future reference.
| ||||
|
- Addenda: As the old philosophers used to say, the body exists for the soul, and the soul for the body. One could also say that our body is for our consciousness and our consciousness to animate its body. This is why I resist the common New Age slogan that "we're spiritual beings having a human experience," as if our spirituality and humanity (including the body) are separable. I understand that it emphasizes the reality of spiritual consciousness, but it also tends to suggest that our bodies are "accidental" to this consciousness. | ||||
|
JB, we cross-posted. See mine above the Krauthammer piece you just posted. | ||||
|
I recall when you first made this point, years ago. And I was very pleased that you had. It equipped me to better critique a lot of stuff. | ||||
|
Formal and final causation are making a comeback in recent years, especially in semiotic science, where such is more of a minimalist telos than you describe. But this minimalist telos (such as baldwinian evolution, for example) opens our imaginations via analogy to exciting metaphysical possibilities such as you suggest, to formal causations such as Arraj has explored (via Bohm, Sheldrake et al), to the Polanyian tacit dimensionality that Haught has explored, to even some of the more far out Ayn Rand notions, where consciousness itself is a primitive along side space, time, mass and energy. This is all too speculative for current bioethical deliberations but it should give pause to our coreligionists and other traditions that are open and in sympathy with this type of dialogue. | ||||
|
Right, JB. This more holistic perspective is displacing the view of consciousness as a resultant epiphenomenon. This reflection has had me thinking more deeply about the human body as a new kind of matter. Obviously, we're mammals with the same biological processes that mammals have. But human spiritual consciousness raises the body to a new level of life, where the body itself becomes the means by which our spiritual consciousness is activated (nods to Aristotle) and is, in turn, profoundly affected by the way consciousness is exercised. There's that ancient intuition that the bodies of the first humans shared in the immortality of the human spirit -- maybe not so far-fetched an idea, after all. Then there is the risen body of Christ, which is a whole new kind of matter and a new emergent breakthrough. All very interesting, with lots of implications for how we view the developing embryo. ----- Good piece by Krauthammer. I really like his writings. | ||||
|
addenda: when i spoke of a minimalist telos per Baldwinian evolution, and of formal causation in semiotic science, to be clear, i was speaking of a type of downward causation, a nonenergetic causation, if you will, that did not otherwise violate what we know as physical causal closure such a tacit dimensionality is thus unobtrusive, subtle but still manifestly and utterly efficacious it seems to me that this opens the door to other formative influences in a literal, identical manner, as well as invites analogical thought, too, re: metaphysical possibilities/plausibilities/probabilities this certainly informs our view of the entire human life span from embryogenesis thru the reproductive cycle it may one day inform others' views, too, but much work remains before it can be urged in a universally compelling manner upon the body politic writ large; that work is to move from logical possibility and metaphysical plausibility to theoretical probability, a movement that will take our conceptualizations down the path from the dogmatic to the heuristic to the more robustly theoretic, which then has positivistic impetus, as a negotiated-universal, to be appropriated for our philosophic deliberations we do some of that work here, albeit inartfully at times tightening up our arguments, sharpening our wits, inviting authentic and depthful dialogue, always self-critical, not without rigor, hopefully without rancorin the interim, Krauthammer's strategy would provide for a good stop-gap (stop-loss), even though he doesn't buy into our metaphysics whatsoever; the Spirit is evident in his wisdom, even in his rather inchoate metaethic | ||||
|
From Johnboy: we do some of that work here, albeit inartfully at times [Smile] tightening up our arguments, sharpening our wits, inviting authentic and depthful dialogue, always self-critical, not without rigor, hopefully without rancor Indeed! And thank you for your contributions unto those ends. - - - I'd like to return briefly to HP's point about Christian burial services and the implications for personhood, but will not focus on the funereal aspects, which I've already covered. What I'd like to note is the regard the early Christians came to hold for the Personhood of Jesus. Many scholars point out that it probably wasn't until after the resurrection that the notion of him possessing a divine nature began to be taken seriously. Resurrection signaled what we might call a qualitatively different kind of emergent breakthrough -- deified human consciousness, including, here, a new kind of matter, which we call a resurrected body. The question for the early Church (and indeed the first 4 C. of Christianity) was whether Jesus had "realized" an innate divinity we all possess (the view of the Gnostics), or was he a new "type" of human being? The Apostolic Tradition, as we know, decided on the latter -- that Jesus possessed divinity in a manner different from the rest of us . . . that he is the "begotten" Son of God, true God and true Man, etc. The full manifestation of this reality became evident with Jesus' resurrection and ascension, but what about before his death? Well, there were signs of it -- certain miracles like raising the dead, knowing the future, etc. The question of when to regard the divine Person of Jesus as present, then, is similar to the question of when to recognize human personhood. The response of the early Church (as evidenced in the Gospel stories of Jesus' conception and birth) was that Jesus' divine Personhood -- although fully manifest with the resurrection -- was nonetheless present throughout the whole of his life. - his conception comes through the intervention of an angel and the power of the Holy Spirit; - the angel tells Mary he is to be named Jesus, and that he is the Son of God - his mission to establish the reign of God is announced. So there we have it. The one conceived had a name and a future mission, even in the womb of Mary, and this name and mission imply recognition of his divine nature. If that was how the Church regarded Christ's divine Personhood, which did not fully emerge until after his death, then by what standard would any Christian deny human personhood to an embryo or fetus? We'd have to somehow disregard the Christic paradigm, which cannot be used in philosophical discussions, but certainly comes into play when religious considerations are granted. | ||||
|
Glad to hear you've enjoyed these reflection, HP. I don't know what inconsistencies in word and practice you're referring to, in that Christianity has always considered abortion to be a serious wrong. The few pro-choice demoninations we have today represent a drastic departure from tradition. ---- Here are a couple of scriptures that indicate the presence of personhood from conception on (again, I know this example won't work in public debate) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. - Jer. 1: 5 (on the destiny of the prophet) For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother�s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be. - Ps. 139: 13-16 --- In public debates I've used the principle that a human being is a human genome with an individual human destiny. This statement holds true for adults, children, and embryos. Nothing else in nature can make this claim -- not even a sperm, egg, or skin cell. I find resonance with this understanding in the biblical verses above. | ||||
|
"I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war against the child--a direct killing of the innocent child--murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we pursuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts." ---Blessed Teresa of Calcutta | ||||
|
I'm going to stick my neck out here... someone tell me, is it a scientific fact that the embryo is indeed a child with a Spirit... I think the breath is the Spirit... that is what God said isn't it? He breathed into them the Holy Spirit.And so when the child is born , then he receives the breath of Life??? That passage in the bible posted above, isn't enough to convince me. Katy | ||||
|
Katy, science can't really speak on philosophical or theological issues like when "personhood" is established or when one receives spirit. Science can affirm the existence of biological individuality and all that entails, including eventual psychological, intellectual, etc. development. One thing we can say for sure as people of faith is that nothing exists except that God gifts it with existence. That would obviously include an embryo. | ||||
|
But there is a scientific aspect to it too... Is it an unanswerable question? I know science can affirm the existene of biological individuality, but that is not the same. Animals have biological individuality too. Yes, nothing exists except that God "gifts" it, but it is Spirit... human life that I am concerned about. Not sure if my question is clearly expressed.. best I know how to explain it. Thanks, Katy | ||||
|
My take on your question is that "science" is really a matter of "scientific method," and we use the term "science" only to mean the body of knowledge that results from the application of that method. So in order for "science" to affirm Spirit, you would have to define your terms and then come up with a way of verifying your hypothesis experimentally (or refuting its opposite). The Church tends to make normative rather than positive statements on this subject. For example, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception" (CCC 2270). This is not the sort of proposition that can be subjected to experimental verification or refutation. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Should abortions be legal? | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |