When does life begin/end?
The question of when does life begin and end is very important for both the abortion debate, and the end of life issues brought up with people for whom others have to decide when the person is alive versus when the body is just on auto-pilot.
So when things like this come up, they really make me do some thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/29/israel.deadmansperm.ap/index.html
“I am ten years old . . . my father died fourteen years ago . . . he never met my mother . . . he was a virgin when he died.” [blink]
I wonder if Victor Frankenstein would have been in favor of abortion or euthanasia?
Many people just avoid the weird questions that come up as we find out just how much control God did give us over life, by labeling all “mucking about” as “evil,” however, this seems like sticking one’s head in the sand. Things like frozen embryos and human cloning should cause us to ask deep questions about who and what we are.
We claim to have a spiritual birthright that sets us apart from the animals, but if man can reproduce himself in a test tube, then just when is it that the “eternal spirit” comes to inahabit the being? Do we produce this also, by some chemical process or does God “step in” and plant something at some given moment in time and space? If so, when does this happen, and by what means is this “spiritual component” “attached?” If we take someone and freeze them for 40 million years, is their spirit frozen too? What happens to all of the frozen embryos when Christ returns to earth?
Before you answer, reference your answers with some scripture.
God does not reveal everything to us, and sometimes I think we get indignant about things based on our sensibilities, and not on God’s word. Opinions are fine, but just be careful not to lash out at people or label them “evil” just because you don’t think their socks coordinate properly with their scientific research. Ethics is an important topic, but “unethical” and “evil” are not the same thing. One is mostly pragmatic, while the other is most dogmatic. Make sure your dogma is based on clear scriptural teaching, and leave the rest to just the facts.
Posted 1/29/2007 10:58 PM
6 Comments:
Things like frozen embryos and human cloning should cause us to ask deep questions about who and what we are.
True.
I think the biggest offense of the “non-pro-life” voice these days is that issues of morality are avoided altogether. Those who raise doubts about stem-cell research in embryos are labeled “anti-science.” When congress opposes partial-birth abortion, they get chided to leave such decisions to doctors–as if the only issues involved are scientific-mechanical ones, and that law and morality have nothing to do with it.
In other words, the deep questions about who and what we are are not really welcome in the public arena. What does it mean to be human? Who wants to discuss such things. Let the scientists take care of it.
And for persuading the public? Let’s stick to marketing tactics encapsulated in nine-second sound bites.
And when does life begin?
We shouldn’t make that an easy question, but I have yet to hear a reasonable answer proposed except conception. (Please enlighten me if you’ve heard a better idea.)
As far as Scripture - well, the Bible treats unborn children as persons, so we can’t make birth the demarcation. Beyond that, I don’t think the Bible spells out an answer for us.
But just reasoning about it from that point–between conception and birth, when is there a day that the embryo becomes essentially different than the day before? Is there a particular point in time when the baby starts to be able to feel pain? To have emotions? To experience an awareness of mother and father (relationships)? All these things may be profound aspects of person-hood, but when is the moment that the line is crossed?
But the difference between sperm plus egg and the embryo is one of essence, not degree–even while the embryo remains one cell only. In terms of information the physical person is all there. Where is the spirit? I don’t know. But the body is basically what it’s going to be minus time to be realized according to the DNA that’s already there.
I know I’m in over my head in terms of the science. But I just have not heard a scientist address this matter with a different answer–without disregarding human-ness altogether.
If you want a good answer for this (I mean really good), read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. It doesn’t address details about bio-ethics, but it sure wipes out a lot of dead-end fallacies that cloud the debate. It will also make your brain a bit sore.
Posted 1/30/2007 7:19 PM by jonathan_camenisch
I’ll try to respond 
As for public discussion of morality. I totally disagree. I hear ethics discussed in Washington all the time. Most people who hate Bush hate him on moral grounds. Even the desire to raise minimum wage is a moral issue, as are the issues with immigration. How about the war in Iraq?
I think the real problem is that the Christians have taken such a hard line approach that there is no room for discussion. We are so obstinate that we cannot even be talked to. It is the emotions we have to take out, not the moral issues. I have not talked to a liberal pro-choice person yet that was not willing to honestly discuss the moral implications of abortion. Remember, some of these liberals chain themselves to trees to save the earth, so they are not unwilling to discuss moral causes. (It is hard to chain yourself to someone else’s unborn child.) Anyway, I can go on, but I disagree with you there. I think that moral issues are brought up in Washington all the time. There are ethical and moral concerns with all things that deal with unborn children, but we have to be willing to discuss it, rather than just stand on our “anything that is fertilized is sacred” box and yell.
In short, remember that there are two sides, and both have moral and ethical underpinnings.
>>And for persuading the public? Let’s stick to marketing tactics encapsulated in nine-second sound bites.
Both sides are certainly guilty of that.
>>And when does life begin?
>>We shouldn’t make that an easy question, but I have yet to hear a reasonable answer proposed except conception. (Please enlighten me if you’ve heard a better idea.)
Why is “conception” reasonable? That is more what I am getting at. I am not sure it is reasonable. If it is, then there should be, well, a reason.
>>As far as Scripture - well, the Bible treats unborn children as persons, so we can’t make birth the demarcation. Beyond that, I don’t think the Bible spells out an answer for us.
Exactly, and so we should be careful when we say we are standing on the Bible, when maybe we are really out on the flyleaf.
>>But just reasoning about it from that point–between conception and birth, when is there a day that the embryo becomes essentially different than the day before? Is there a particular point in time when the baby starts to be able to feel pain? To have emotions? To experience an awareness of mother and father (relationships)? All these things may be profound aspects of person-hood, but when is the moment that the line is crossed?
Well, mice feel pain, but I set mouse traps. Dogs seem to have emotions, but we put them down when we don’t want them. Dogs are aware of relationships too, as are geese, but we shoot them.
You see, you can’t just use arbitrary standards like that. It used to be easy to say that certain things “made us human,” but when science can both show us these things in animals, as well as show us the chemical seat of these things in ourselves, they become more mechanical processes than “spirit.” We don’t really know what the spirit is. So much of what used to be attributed to the spirit is now controlled by Prozac.
>>But the difference between sperm plus egg and the embryo is one of essence, not degree–even while the embryo remains one cell only. In terms of information the physical person is all there. Where is the spirit? I don’t know. But the body is basically what it’s going to be minus time to be realized according to the DNA that’s already there.
Just wait until we can download the DNA onto your IPod and inject it into any other random cell and produce another person. Then what will we say?
The problem is that as science explains more and more, we find ourselves having to push further and further into the unknown with our reasons. As I posted before, it a possibility to just take a hard line and avoid the debate, but I think that is sticking our heads in the sand.
Religion has always used the unknown to point to God, but as more and more is known, we might need to give up on that bad habit.
>>If you want a good answer for this (I mean really good), read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. It doesn’t address details about bio-ethics, but it sure wipes out a lot of dead-end fallacies that cloud the debate. It will also make your brain a bit sore.
I will have to look into that. I have great respect for C.S. Lewis.
Posted 2/2/2007 12:56 PM by ThinkingOnTheEdge
Okay, ya pulled me into it… I am perhaps playing devil’s advocate, but only, I believe, in fairness.
>>I think the real problem is that the Christians have taken such a hard line approach that there is no room for discussion. We are so obstinate that we cannot even be talked to. It is the emotions we have to take out, not the moral issues. I have not talked to a liberal pro-choice person yet that was not willing to honestly discuss the moral implications of abortion. Remember, some of these liberals chain themselves to trees to save the earth, so they are not unwilling to discuss moral causes. (It is hard to chain yourself to someone else’s unborn child.) Anyway, I can go on, but I disagree with you there. I think that moral issues are brought up in Washington all the time. There are ethical and moral concerns with all things that deal with unborn children, but we have to be willing to discuss it, rather than just stand on our “anything that is fertilized is sacred” box and yell.
I actually think much of the problem with the “Christian right” attitude on issues such as this is that they SEPARATE the emotional traumas our society is creating (and which, IMO it IS the church’s place to minister to) from the ethical questions they are so ready to go fight for. Why is it that hundreds will line the streets for a “Life Rally” but the pregnancy resource center (which MUST exist for the prolife message not to legitimately be accused of being outright brutal) is underfunded and run down. If the legal side of the issue were “fixed”, would the church be in any state (spiritually, ethically, emotionally, financially, etc.) to address the issue of a million unwanted children and their desparate mothers each year? If not, shouldn’t be fix that first, and speak with moral credibility?
>>>>And when does life begin?
>>>>We shouldn’t make that an easy question, but I have yet to hear a reasonable answer proposed except conception. (Please enlighten me if you’ve heard a better idea.)
Which raises a fascinating aspect of the Calvinism debate, since Christ referred to “new birth”, but not, as I recall, a new conception…
>>Why is “conception” reasonable? That is more what I am getting at. I am not sure it is reasonable. If it is, then there should be, well, a reason.
Reason seems to me a questionable starting point for ethics, but I’ll hear you out…
>>>>As far as Scripture - well, the Bible treats unborn children as persons, so we can’t make birth the demarcation. Beyond that, I don’t think the Bible spells out an answer for us.
I’d suggest this be revisited from a moe devil’s advocate point of view. I’m not saying it doesn’t, just that some of the examples I’ve heard were pretty contrived…
>>Exactly, and so we should be careful when we say we are standing on the Bible, when maybe we are really out on the flyleaf.
YUP!!!
>>>>But just reasoning about it from that point–between conception and birth, when is there a day that the embryo becomes essentially different than the day before? Is there a particular point in time when the baby starts to be able to feel pain? To have emotions? To experience an awareness of mother and father (relationships)? All these things may be profound aspects of person-hood, but when is the moment that the line is crossed?
>>Well, mice feel pain, but I set mouse traps. Dogs seem to have emotions, but we put them down when we don’t want them. Dogs are aware of relationships too, as are geese, but we shoot them.
Short of a person having memories of their time in the womb (which really weirds me out right now…), I’m not sure we (as human beings) only becoming aware of those faculties can really PROVE what an unborn child experiences. Breathing fluid to us is thought painful, yet they live on it for 9 months… Just what does a video of an unborn’s facial expression really prove? ? ? (Other than what we take it to mean?)
>>You see, you can’t just use arbitrary standards like that. It used to be easy to say that certain things “made us human,” but when science can both show us these things in animals, as well as show us the chemical seat of these things in ourselves, they become more mechanical processes than “spirit.” We don’t really know what the spirit is. So much of what used to be attributed to the spirit is now controlled by Prozac.
Or, is it possible that Prozac effectively blocks the spirit from its control on the body (just as arsenic can, only the effect lasts longer, and is more permanent)?
Posted 2/6/2007 3:18 PM by Krash2Fly
LOL. I love the arsenic to Prozac analogy. I will have to give that more thought. I think that is the best thing to come out of this thread thus far!
Seriously, that is really deep. It might deserve its own post.
Posted 2/7/2007 12:27 AM by ThinkingOnTheEdge
So really, those sisters in “Arsenic & Old Lace” were just using a drug to treat depression/loneliness. And their cure was complete!
Posted 2/7/2007 11:55 PM by ThoughtForFood
