From a personal stand point I noticed a big difference between entertaining the belief and the point where it was actually believed and felt , or embraced and acted upon. There’s a process that turns a belief in our mind into a part of who we are and how we act.
How would we define that difference? Jesus seemed to say that a what we truly believed was reflected in our actions. As if the thought, and finding it acceptable doesn’t really constitute a real belief. It’s only when it actually changes our behavior that it becomes a what we truly believe.
Does that seem reasonable? If so then what do we call those intellectual beliefs that merely jangle around in there without translating into action?
Even with this, there is a point where the BIOS functions, waits for the basic CPU and OS to be build and starts running DOS 1.0, Now I would argue that even the BIOS is a operating system of sorts, but even if we wait till DOS boots , there is no way you can define that moment as birth.
I think Jesus may be being a bit too harsh, there. Certainly to a large extent what we believe shapes our actions. But there are plenty of things that I believe but that I don’t believe I would be able to put into action. I don’t believe that humans have any kind of objective rights, and I believe that in some situations killing someone is necessary and even good; but I don’t know that I would be able to point a gun at them and pull the trigger myself. Do I not believe in it?
I think there’s two points to consider. The more obvious I guess is the level of doubt; I don’t believe in any gods, and I don’t pray to them. But I wouldn’t go out of my way to insult any gods, just in case i’m wrong. Under Jesus’ idea (or your interpretation of Jesus), my action in that case is the same as the action of a believer; we don’t insult gods. Yet we have very different beliefs. So the first big factor really is, to what extent am I prepared to say “Yes, my belief is 100% accurate”. For Jesus and in religion in general, belief as unquestioning (to an extent), from-the-heart faith is an important aspect, so I can see why that definition would be used in that context.
The second I would call the local factor. It’s easier to empathise with friends and family than someone across the globe i’ve never met. In a similar way, it’s easier to come up with a moral code and general philosophical idea of the universe that people should try and conform to than to actually act that way in our own lives. I think basically this other factor is a result of our biological nature, the prejudices, emotions, and attachments that are a result of the wiring of our brains. And while I may think that we should, in general, try not to let our emotions and base nature control us, I don’t think that a world in which we relied solely on the intellectual side of our minds would be a very pleasant world to live in. That assessment I admit though is itself a result of my emotional side.
Yes, but in defense of the “Potentially Human” stane for early embryos, which is what your analogy is referencing, one cannot run any programs on the BIOS alone, important as it is to the operation of the computer. I’d point out that while the computer is “running” in a sense at that point, it is not a Windows-functional computer yet; all that’s running are BIO-logical programs. (AndI feel no guilt for the wordplay, as the guys who first designed the Basic In-Out System used that acronym to recall greek bios, “Life.”)
In short, much as Der Trihs and others have bee arguing – the early fetus is human by genetic nature, alive to be sure, but has not yet developed the human characteristics that distinguish it from a pig or dog fetus or an embryo in a lizard or chicken egg. It has the potential to develop into a human being, is en route there, but has not yet done competed that process.
(And this is not even being nitpicky. For example, there is nothing that officially defines conception or implantation as the moment a new human life comes into being – except the opinion that it’s the logical point held by a number of pro-life advocates.
I don’t recall the context, but I remember that for a very good reason not related to abortion it became important for the church in early modern times to define the point at which the soul became a part of the growing organism – and for whatever reason they identified “quickening” as appropriate.
I always thought that was a waste of time, myself. I’m personally indifferent to questions of the fetus being alive, human, a person, sentient, etc. The woman wants it out; out it goes.
It’s an interesting subject. Our beliefs are tested through interaction. I’ve wondered at times “what I really believe” when actions and circumstance seem to suggest I may not embrace all the high ideals I talk about.
Look at how Jesus own apostles fled when confronted with an immanent threat. Recovering from their moment of weakness they went on to face persecution. I think it is hard to gauge our beliefs until the moment comes and we have to choose which path to follow. In that moment we might discover we believe in self preservation, avoidance of conflict, or even personal profit, more than our ideals. That revelation about ourselves may effect what we choose next time.
I see. I think thats what I’m wondering about. Should we differentiate between an intellectual or moral concept that we might label our belief and the true belief that our actions reveal. I don’t know, but it interests me. I don’t think your example really applies. not insulting the Gods seems to be a lack of action rather than an action. Of course even a lack of action reveals something when a definite action is
called for, but I don’t think thats the case in your example.
It’s not a matter of the belief being 100% accurate but rather the degree of our own conviction. A lack of belief in gods , or a particular doctrine is one thing but we all reveal something in our day to day interaction about what we believe.
There’s are lots of differences between people to learn about and personal bias’s to overcome. IMHO that’s an important part of the “What do I really believe” question. Jesus tried to teach that racial, cultural, economic, and gender barriers shouldn’t matter but we have to actively try to “feel” those beliefs rather than just talk about them. It’s the feeling of those beliefs that results in a change in behavior that is aided and supported by the intellect.
The quickening IIRC is the first movement of the fetus that is felt by the mother, and is assumed by some as the point that the soul enters.
As for BIOS, I said that I personally would consider that to be the start, but would go so far in this analogy to say the ability to run DOS 1.0 would be the point. With running DOS 1.0 as the start of the life of this computer, there is NO WAY that point could be defined as birth - that ability has to start either before birth or after, the chance of it happening exactly at birth is zero. So we have just defined a point, unrelated to birth, that defines a functioning human.
If this (ability to boot DOS 1.0) point happens before birth then abortion is legalized murder, or state sponsored execution if a abortion is preformed after, if DOS 1.0 runs after birth then killing your born child is not murder for a time.
But I would contend that there is a continuum that requires that one or more break points be defined. Consider the following:
It’s today, Feb. 19, in Edmonton, Alberta (city chosen because it’s large and north). Here. a 14-year-old girl is menstruating, and it happens that she has just expelled this month’s fertile ovum (unfertilized, of course). Across town, her boyfriend is thinking about her sexiness and masturbating. Obviously, nobody sees what they are doing, either seen together or separately, as the taking of a human life.
On the other hand, here’s an 18-year-old single mom, who had a baby at 15 and is now trying to raise it alone. She’s fed up with the kid, and orders it out – into the -20 cold. At age 2 1/2. That too is a case of “The woman wants it out; out it goes.” She’s responsible for that kid, even though he’s no longer a tenant of her uterus. And I think it’s unanimous that absolutely nobody on this board would condone that woman’s actions – that’s murder of a small child by extreme negligence, with specifics of the kind of homicide charged left up to a lawyer but obviously a criminal offense.
Yeah, I have two absurd extremes defined there. My point is that there’s somewhere between them when separate-life-ness, sentience, humanness, etc. occur – and those points may not be the same for all terms applying. The sardonic humor of my joke early in this thread to one side, it’s a matter of constitutional fact that the legal point at which the child of U.S. parents itself becomes a U.S. citizen is at birth. A law which passed constitutional muster and prevented abortions could not depend on the rights of the fetus as a citizen; it would have to revert to natural rights it has as a human being (and get agreement on when it becomes a human being, which about 30 posts above have dissected quite thoroughly), as a living entity (oh? and its rights differ from a tapeworm’s how?), etc.
I know that I feel refusing someone the “morning-after” pills is an egregious infringement of their personal space. A late-term abortion (and yeah, they’re extremely rare) that does not give the child opportunity to live on its own (in the biological sense) is for me murder – I’m talking 7th and 8th month here, when the child presumably has the possibility of becoming a preemie. There’s a point in between and I need to find it.
But, hypothetical as it is, the Bujoldian “uterine replicator” – the high tech device that substitutes for a womb – allowed me to make a conceptual leap that is, I think, important. There’s a distinction here between the right to life of the unborn posited by the pro-life groups, and the right to bodily autonomy of the woman posited by ther pro-choice groups. If, theoretically, you could remove the embryo from the woman who does not want to carry the child to term and plunk it in one of those gadgets, both rights are respected. And for me, that’s key.
The woman who has allowed herself to become pregnant* has, in the absence of such a device, a moral obligation toward the child that is the potential result of her pregnancy. But for me that does not translate into a legal mandate. It’s my opinion, being a Christian, that Der Trihs has the moral obligation towards God to stop spewing his hateful BS and begin doing exactly what Jesus commanded in terms of love of God and fellow man, non-judgmentalism, compassionate healing instead of returning hatred, etc. But if any Christian Reconstructionist anywhere proposes a law making it a legal requirement on him, I’ll be standing beside him fighting that law. And it’s that distinction between moral and legal force that is key to the abortion debate in my view.
What do I mean by “allowed herself”? Does it include accidents, impaired judgment, etc.? Damned if I know. It’s an intentional glittering generality, aimed at distinguishing between rape, date rape, and incest victims and someone willfully deciding clear-headedly to have sex without contraceptives and with no regard to the calendar, with a huge amount of gray area in between that I have not explored.
The demarcation point of birth = citizenship is a legal construct and sort of meaningless here. I don’t think anyone would condone taking a human who is not a US citizen and cut him to pieces, nor inserting a tube in his brain and sucking it out to collapse the skull.
So I think it’s safe to conclude US Citizenship is not a requirement of a human
The human process of developing into whatever state of being they currently possess never ends. Does a newborn have the characteristics to distinguish it from a pig? What are those characteristics? The fact the fetus is “in process” is not, by itself, an indication that it isn’t a human being. We are all “in process.”
Still don’t understand this distinction. I agree with your Der Trihs point. I can believe (or not) that he’s behaving poorly, but I shouldn’t have the legal right to constrain him from expressing his opinion. He need only not violate certain rights of others. The same is so with a pregnancy. How can you hold a moral obligation to another human being exists–I think that’s what you’re saying, or why is there an obligation?–without a compulsion to protect such a basic right?
It reminds me of the “Catholic liberal politician” stance (think Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi)–“I fully believe in the church’s teachings on this but think this should be a personal decision.” You can’t, ISTM, believe the church’s teaching and come to that secondary assertion, unless you believe that a human being deserving of the right to live shouldn’t have that right protected. I realize you’re not Catholic, nor is this a perfect analogy, but in both cases it seems a non sequitur. Can you elaborate?
For several months after birth, a child is not any more capable of rational thought or self-awareness than a full-grown dog, cow, sheep, or other animal. If you want a “rational” system to define the point at which it ceases being moral to kill a fetus or baby, it would indeed probably be after birth. All animals of equal capability are legally the property of their owner, to be slaughtered as needed.
Rationality, though, has very little to do with the topic. You’re never going to get the point of “humanity” defined as being at any point after the actual birth (nor do I see any reason to make it so.) But so long as that is true, there will never be a rational argument to decide on what state constitutes the absolute morally sound end date for being able to have an abortion.
Self manufacturing? I provided hosting for my daughter’s creation. I provided good decent raw materials. My body provided energy. Being willingly pregnant, I gave those things to her willingly - but, as a pregnant woman, I was very aware that it was me enabling her creation.
No, I don’t think my daughter created herself (after her inital conception) without any help or inputs from me.
(When I introduced my daughter as a newborn, it was with “here, look what I spent nine months making.”)
I made a mistake by using an absolute term, so scratch “no effort spared.” Replace it with “heroic effort,” or even “large effort.” My question is this: If an adult hiker and a two day old fetus are equal in terms of being fully human, why is it that no effort is made to determine the whereabouts of the fetus corpse, while, in almost every case, some effort, be it small to extreme, is made to retrieve the hiker corpse? I will be satisfied with your reasoning on this, rather than an explanation of why society as a whole behaves this way.
