We all assume political candidates for high office to be educated people, at least on the most simple subjects, but contrary to common sense, sometimes even very educated people can be incredibly unfamiliar with the most rudimentary things.
Take a current presidential candidate’s claim that whether or not human life begins at conception is an unknowable matter of theological belief. Well, that’s kind of a crazy thing to say. I find it very disturbing. It’s kind of like saying that the fact that things fall down is an unknowable matter of theological belief. I mean, there are really only three categories for the product of conception: alive, dead, and some kind of inanimate matter. Everything doesn’t fit neatly into the alive or dead category. Rocks, ballpoint pens, coffee mugs; neither alive nor dead really just sitting around kinds of things. Then there are things that are dead, which we always recognize by the fact that they used to be alive but are now not nearly as interested in things as they used to be.
Defining ‘life’ can get complicated when we get into the biological nuances, but really, in the big picture, calling normal everyday things like people, plants and microbes “alive” is pretty easy. Things that eat, act, move, react, and metabolize are alive and everything else, not so much.
When there is a conception, there is one human sperm cell, which by anyone’s common sense judgment is a living thing, and one human egg, which by anyone’s common sense judgment is a living thing, and no conception has ever been successful using dead ones.
And when they come together then, is the product of conception alive? Or dead? Or something else? It seems strange to call it anything but alive. It is moving and growing and changing and doing all kinds of things that we as reasonable people only ascribe to living things, and if it continues the process of growing and moving and changing eventually is born as an infant human child. Which seems to suppose that it was a living human thing earlier on, because nothing else is ever born a living human child except for living human children.
And this gets to the heart of the matter because whatever way we choose to categorize it politically, it is human and alive, and cannot be anything else. Canine embryos are living canine entities. The product of bovine conception is always thought to be alive and always, cow, from the moment of conception and at every moment after that. Cows only conceive cows, canines canines, and humans humans. No wishful thinking or advanced degrees are necessary to figure this kind of thing out.
Only when these simple truths are attributed to human beings does anyone consider their denial to be a reasonable act.
So the product of the conception of human beings is quite obviously 1) alive, and 2) Human, because there are no other options. Anyone that says anything else is either horribly under educated on these things, or in some kind of strange denial of the obvious, or replacing common sense with politics because it suits their purpose to shy from the truth.
Still though, seems out of place for someone that wants to lead the free world to not be able to get a grip on things so simple.
Christopher Neiswonger
Very well said, and much appreciated.
Comment by Mike — August 25, 2008 @ 10:01 pm |
Thanks Mike. I just think that people that are so far behind the times as to doubt whether the unborn are actually living things are not suited to public life. There was a time when one might be justified in thinking the sciences had not caught up with the claim as yet, but these days? Bizarre. Quite bizarre.
Christopher
Comment by Neiswonger — August 25, 2008 @ 10:34 pm |
By far one of the best explanations of human life I have ever seen. Thank your for this!
Comment by murphy24p — August 25, 2008 @ 11:45 pm |
[...] Top Clicks christiantheology.wordpre…cornerstonebible.org/rs_s…- [...]
Pingback by Human life begins at Election « Apologetics.com Neiswonger — August 25, 2008 @ 11:55 pm |
In response to ……………..,
No, I don’t think that this is a misrepresentation of the statements of the political candidate, because what was said was…
“WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is, is above my pay grade.”
To be clear, there is no, and will never be, a scientific answer to the question. Human rights are not a scientifically measurable thing.
The question was not, “when does a baby become alive or become human” but his answer, and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, implies that if he could know scientifically when the child became human or alive it would be due certain human rights.
If he were not saying that, we could only assume that he was saying that we could never know when anyone has human rights, because it is above his abilities to hash out this kind of thing intellectually (the infamous “paygrade” comment), or because it is beyond the realm of the sciences, which I don’t think he was trying to say. If he had been trying to say that he would have entirely discredited himself. No one has taken him as saying that and he has not objected to being taken is a better light, so that should be enough.
So as he was very specific in saying that he could not say with specificity either from a “scientific” or from a “theological” perspective at what point a baby gets human rights, questioning his understanding of the scientific data seems like fair game.
Where you might have thought I was being aggressive I was trying to be charitable and give him a fair shake even when he has heard this kind of question thousands of times before.
Now really, I just brushed over the top of the scientific data on the subject. I wouldn’t call this little blog a scientific text. But the issues brought to bear seem pertinent and the arguments seem valid.
More than this, since the Senator was one of the few that voted against the “born alive infants act” and has said that he will implement legislation negating all existing abortion restrictions if elected, I think that his understanding of when life begins, whether or not he thinks it is human, and whether or not he thinks that these living human beings have human rights, is glaringly apparent.
He does not even think they have human rights after birth. It is the only reasonable way to interpret his voting record.
Thus even if he thinks that no one can know the answer to the question, he is acting as if he does know. If he is wrong, it will cost others their lives.
If he was telling the truth and really does not know, why would he roll the dice with the lives of millions of possible people?
Wouldn’t a reasonable person that didn’t know if something was alive, or human, or had human rights, err on the side of protecting the innocent?
That is the only possible course when we disagree about such a thing. We do not simply procede blindly with the killing because we have a hard time fishing out the categorization.
(As always, any email can be answered confidentially at the senders request. cneiswon@gmail.com.)
Comment by Neiswonger — August 26, 2008 @ 9:16 pm |
As I didn’t personally watch the interview, I wish you would have included the quote and not just, what I am assuming to be a paraphrase. In fact, I totally agree with you that the life of the human body or physical apparatus does indeed begin at conception, but allow me to play devil’s advocate since no one has yet commented (kudos and compliments aside) on your blog, either here or at its post on your myspace blog. After all, the truth should be able to hold up to the challenge.
There is the very real probability that Obama, if he misspoke (which I don’t necessarily agree he did), may not himself believe EXACTLY what he said. He may have just been trying to dodge a political bullet by giving an answer that would be accepted by both the seculars and the conservative yet not so fundamentalist crowd, thereby hoping to appeal to the majority of people. If this is the case I would have to disagree with your assertion that as an educated person he may “be incredibly unfamiliar with the most rudimentary things”. This strategy, although deceitful, would indicate that he is indeed familiar with such a rudimentary subject and it would prove a very high level of intelligence and the ability to think on they fly, particularly since the interview was live and unrehearsed. I feel it necessary to point out that intelligence and quick thinking, as well as a certain ability to deceive or conceal intent, are necessary for international relations and especially for the execution of the presidential position of commander-in-chief. I do think that a good leader should not be self serving but must have a moral consideration for doing this, such as the greater good of those they represent. On this subject I encourage you to skim over “The Art of War” and “Family Traditions on the Art of War”. These not only expound on the basics of military and martial science but more importantly delve into moral implications of waging or being drawn into war. What is ironic is foreign policy as a whole is the subject that Obama is most often criticized for having a weakness in.
I know we don’t like people who misrepresent themselves but I think we can agree that most, if not all, presidential candidates are probably guilty of the same. I am an optimist and I would like to believe that Obama is the “real deal” but the evidence just isn’t there. I personally don’t buy into either candidates charade, but I particularly don’t like Obama’s tactics because I feel that there is a considerable amount of “over marketing” going on in his campaign. It has the same flavor as Disney’s marketing of its child stars. I become suspicious of anyone who categorically agrees with what is perceived to be mass opinion. I don’t like those who “bargain with the devil” by utilizing deceit to manipulate either myself or the public and I think most people, even if they may not have the discerning eye to see through these politic shams, are like me in that they don’t appreciate being the victims of such a con. But this has become a norm of the political process. Sadly, this reduces our decisions as the electorate to a choice for the lesser of two evils.
I also don’t agree that “defining ‘life’ can get complicated when we get into the biological nuances”…physical life, that is. Biologically speaking, it is simply undeniable that from the moment of conception the physical apparatus is composed of cells that are living organisms and that these cells structure themselves on a human DNA blueprint. I think you may be simplifying the argument a bit too much or rather that the argument has been oversimplified already and this may be due to the ambiguity of the language which is already in use in debates on this matter. In discussions of morality and philosophy it is necessary to develop an EXACT and universal syntax, otherwise it becomes hard to decipher whether one truly disagrees with one’s fellow or simply an error in communication has occurred. Considering that this type of morally loaded subject has a history of creating conflict, sometimes even physical (wars which in all probability will have there own loss of human life), it would be worthwhile to at least find a common ground on the terminology being used.
The overall organism is most definitely human and that nobody can deny. I think the real argument is not whether the baby is “human” but more importantly whether it is the physical body that we, as a society, value and protect as human or the soul and furthermore when in formation of the physical body does it receive the soul from the spirit world. Does this occur at the moment of conception or at a later time, and if at a later time when? The problem here is that whether or not the life of the human SOUL “begins at conception IS an unknowable matter of theological belief”. Even though America was founded on Christian principles it is not a Christian state. This whole issue would not exist if we lived in a country which had a state religion because the law of the land and the religion of the land would be in agreement. But because we live in a state which allows freedom of religious belief this becomes a very complex and divisive issue (ironically, atheists seem to root for the right to choice but in this schema since they do not believe in a soul they should be the only ones who absolutely believe it to be morally reprehensible to abort the unborn). Unfortunately, until there is a definitive scientific answer available (because only science will provide an answer acceptable to both the religious and the secular world), I’m afraid that the law will not consider extinguishing that organism as an act of murder. This would also clarify whether or not people in a vegetable state of coma should be kept alive indefinitely or not.
So in summary, deception is the nature of the political game so we don’t really know how the candidates truly stand on any issue, all we know is they are proven liars. Is this our fault as the electorate for not demanding more honesty from the candidates or is it the fault of the candidates themselves that this has become the status quo (don’t hate the player hate the game)? Also, although domestically it may be more agreeable for a candidate to have a policy of honesty it may be desirable for our future President as Commander-in-Chief to be skilled in the art of obfuscation. Secondly, it is not that people disagree that an unborn baby is a human and whether you are red or blue, religious or secular, no one wants the murder of a baby. I can see how it would be offensive to a secular super liberal that this is being implied by the “religious right” (I really hate that term because I probably fit in it but it fits so snugly). What people can’t seem to agree on is whether an unborn baby has a soul and whether it is the body or the soul which should be protected by the law. I think it is reasonable to assert that the question of whether or not the life of the human soul begins at conception is indeed an unknowable matter of theological belief. I don’t know if this is what Obama meant but if it is I agree. Furthermore, because we live in a state which does not embrace any particular religion this is a divisive issue which must be resolved in a way which is acceptable for both the religious portion of the electorate as well as the secular portion.
P.S. Although, personally I do not believe we are our body but that it is just a really nifty apparatus or “canister” in which our soul is seated I do believe that to “unseat” someone else’s consciousness from the throne of the body thereby rending them from the physical world before their time is not the place of any man and that it is a great evil perpetrated against the divine. I also belief the life of the soul in the physical body starts at the moment of conception and I promote adoption not abortion but I don’t judge those who have had abortions because it is not my place. I just think it pays to approach any subject from both directions. I have found through experience that the path of discernment leads to understanding, unification and ultimately peace which are the reality I embrace but that the path of judgment is wrought with division, ill-will and ultimately violence towards our fellow man. I also think it is interesting that Judaism, which is the source of the greater portion of the Christian Scripture, as well as most every other world religion whether ancient and modern, including Christianity promoted the concept of transmigratory existence. The concept that the soul of man only goes around once has only come into vogue relatively recently even in the Christian religion. I think partly this is due to the fact that the Hebrews have the Talmud, or book of the law, as well as the Torah to put the scripture into context but Christianity is deprived of this text (as well as a number of other pertinent documents from the early formation of the Church due to their destruction as well as the their concealment by the Vatican). Not that this belief would lessen the evil of murder but just that it would change its implications.
Comment by Ian Pettit — August 27, 2008 @ 1:10 pm |
Well said. And again, I actually agree with you on this subject although I may not share your reasoning. Also, I do not like the Senator, not so much because he doesn’t represent my world views which are highly personal and very important to me because of my direct relationship with the divine, but because I have an intuitive sense that he is a snake in the tall grass and should not be trusted. The reason why I couldn’t care less about what either candidate says is that both are proven liars and there is a good chance that whatever either says is not a representation of their own morality but instead is a stratagem for appealing to the greatest number of voters without offending their base for the purpose of winning this sham of an election. What I was trying to point out was that although the Senator may have copped out on answering this morally loaded question by being flippant or by making an ignorant statement, by no means does this indicate that he is unintelligent, ignorant or “incredibly unfamiliar with the most rudimentary things”. This simply indicates that he is enacting a common political strategy and that this proves that he has a certain level of intelligence.
Moreover, I don’t think that anyone, regardless of political or religious belief, can deny that a baby in the womb is a human baby as biological science is very clear on this and that if the Senator said anything indicating otherwise it is probably part of his campaign’s strategy to sidestep this issue. Senator aside, what seems to be the real issue in our culture, whether anyone has articulated it successfully or not, is when exactly a baby becomes not just a ball of human cell growth but a human with a soul? Keep in mind that I agree with you that the human soul enters the body at conception and therefore to destroy the body is an inexcusable act of cruelty to the soul and an offence against the divine intent, which is what I place value in. I also agree that it is wiser to err on the side of life, whether it is simply physical life or the deeper life of the soul. But I also know that for me this is a highly personal belief which has been made real to me by my own interactions with the divine who has allowed me a measure of discernment I couldn’t possibly have on my own. I don’t need or rely on science for information about the soul. These interactions may mean the world to me but there is really no way for me to make them real for anyone else no matter how well I express them and so I agree that “whether or not human life begins at conception is an unknowable matter of theological belief”. Not so much in that I don’t know personally but in that universally this statement is true and that this is most likely the way in which the Senator meant it.
What I was saying was not intended to be aggressive or even a criticism of your blog or you personally and as I do not believe you to be overly aggressive or rabid about your beliefs. You seem to express yourself very maturely and I don’t see any indication that you are a judgmental person. In fact, the only reason why I bother to comment is that I appreciate your spirit and intelligence and I think the subjects you think about are worth while. I comment in the spirit of furthering both of us spiritually and intellectually and I wish more people would do the same. The rest of what I was saying was meant to be more of a cautionary note for those who are reading the comments. Man’s greatest flaw is that we fall into judgementalism and so I am beseeching all people whether they are believers of any religion, as well as secular folk such as atheists and agnostics, to integrate a sense of compassion in everything they do and say in an effort to avoid this. I believe that judgementalism is either a mild form of hate or a way of thinking which leads to hate and that hate is the most dangerous sin to engage in. This is covered by Jesus in his “Sermon on the Mount”. A simple explanation of what I believe the relevant portion of this sermon to mean is that to hate your neighbor is just as evil as murder itself. The reasoning being that there are only two paths: the path of love and understanding (not necessarily acceptance), which leads to compassion and togetherness, and ultimately the preservation and value of all life and the path of taking offense, allowing anger into the heart, which leads to hate and division, and ultimately murder and death. What I think Jesus was saying is that to hate your neighbor puts you on a path that only leads in one direction so if you don’t morally agree with the ultimate outcome of the path then why tread on it in the first place. Also, that you cannot possibly walk on both paths at the same time and that this is an exercise in futility that, although may not necessarily end in murder depending on how far you walk along on it, will definitely hold you back in your spiritual growth and frustrate any positive things you are trying to manifest in your life. I also don’t think it is enough to say “I don’t hate the person but I hate what they do”. I think the spirit of hate is wrong no matter what it is leveled at because it is really the spirit of murder. What I do believe is that you have a right not to accept what a person is doing so long as you have not allowed hate to come into your heart. This philosophy is also supported by Jesus’ actions throughout his life. Jesus spent the great majority of his time with those whose lifestyles went against his world views but he did not take any offense or allow hate in his heart. He showed tremendous grace and class which I think was motivated by a strong sense of compassion. In Deuteronomy 19 the refuge law clearly defines the difference between manslaughter and murder as being hate harbored against the victim preceding the extinguishing of their life. I don’t believe that we as a Christians get to pick and choose between scriptures we want to embrace. If this is the case we aren’t really Christians but are instead Selfists. If both of these scriptures are true then in God’s law abortion is manslaughter and the hate of abortion, whether it is leveled at a person or a group of people, is akin to murder. Which is the greater sin? I think in this instance, as before, it may be wiser to err on the side of the life preserving path. So I beseech everyone who may be reading this, you may not accept abortion as right and that is okay and is not the same as intolerance but also do not allow hate into your hearts. I hope I expressed myself better than before.
Respectfully yours,
Ian
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Comment by Ian Pettit — August 27, 2008 @ 2:15 am
Comment by Ian Pettit — August 27, 2008 @ 1:11 pm |
Ian,
Thank you for the time you spent on your thoughtful response. You have some very interesting ideas in there. First though, I would think that the assumption that everything either candidate says is a politically motivated lie and that we should function as an electorate on this basis seems unworkable as a matter of practice. The reason that we elect people is because we want our own will worked out by their actions in office. We predict what they will do in office by their previous life and character, their ideology, and stated plan for future implementation of that way of thinking. If this were not the case, all elections would become meaningless and the system would break down immediately. Anarchy would be the only possible governmental form, or non governmental form as the case may be.
So do the candidates lie and manipulate the truth into a form they think more palatable? Say things in a way more rhetorical than expressive? Of course, but in basic ideology I think both hold in general to the things they say they hold to. Usually people don’t just want power, they want the power to do certain kinds of things, and those kinds of things tend to be predictable. Think of Reagan: Did he not pretty much live out the Presidency as he said he would if elected? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? I don’t really doubt that Obama or McCain would do the same.
As to religious freedom, the application of religious thought to matters of human life is distinguishable from their justification in the secular working of the state. Whether someone thinks that the unborn is a human life because of their theology, or the sciences, or an odd feeling they get while ballroom dancing is irrelevant with a proper understanding of of the Bill of Rights. Congress is very specifically NOT allowed to say anything as to the causes or reasons why a person thinks what they do in matters of religion. And religion as expressed in speech or assembly, the implication being civics, flows from that. We might be mistaking the clauses here as a freedom from religion rather than a freedom of religion? If people don’t want abortion to be legal, so be it. All they need is 51% of the vote for long enough to change the politicians to those that will do their will on the subject. Everything else is commentary. If they don’t want abortion to be legal for religious reasons, that is their right, constitutionally speaking.
If some court says that they cannot apply their specific understanding of God, themselves and the world to the way they vote because their thinking is “religious” then the court would be really saying that only atheists can vote, which does not seem to be the intention of Article one of the Bill of Rights. If it were Madison would have written something like, “Congress shall make every effort to restrict the expression of religion and religious sentiment in the sphere of civic life so that no law might be implemented on the basis of religious ideas.” But he, being a thoughtful Presbyterian coming out of Princeton, it probably never entered his mind. He was writing something else and meant what he wrote.
As to atheists, they really shouldn’t vote until they come up with a reason. As yet they are irrelevant to the process with the exception of being something that we must put up with as an irritant to more thoughtful civics. With the founders of nation, anyone that does not see religion as a useful and necessary support for public life, is not well suited to it.
As to biology, there are things that are difficult to define as “Life” that are equally difficult to not define as life, like some viruses. Human life, we need to define as beginning at conception, specifically because the process of fertilization and mitosis is somewhat ambiguous with our current scientific understanding of these things. There is not really a “moment” of conception; it is a process that occurs through time. When exactly a new life is present may not be answerable in any obvious or politically useful way. Which is why I think that thoughtful people lean on the assumption of life so as not to unintentionally kill the innocent. It just seems to make sense.
As to all of the possible discussion of the soul and the body, they all seem irrelevant to me. We know there is a body, we know it is alive, we know it is human. That should be sufficient, and the more ethereal arguments can be had on their own time.
All the best,
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — August 27, 2008 @ 2:08 pm |
http://tasialanae.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/abort73com/
Comment by Neiswonger — August 27, 2008 @ 11:09 pm |
It may say something about me, but I really do assume that both candidates are liars. I think this is equally as supportable by their track records as their supposed political agendas. I also believe we are in a system that is politically unworkable and that all elections are meaningless, at least on a national level, but I don’t necessarily agree that the system would break down into anarchy. I espouse to the school of belief which feels that it is black bankers who truly pull the strings from behind a dark curtain and we as the electorate are given a freedom to move politically within the bounds of their agenda. If this is the case then these unimaginably wealthy families cannot afford to have the system completely degrade because they have spent a great deal of time and money and effort to put on this “Punch and Judy” puppet show we have all become familiar with and a disruption of the status quo would be detrimental to its profitability. This may sound like tremendous paranoia.
I agree that to biologically define when tissue forming into a certain type of being actually becomes that being is the wrong route to take especially when dealing with the issue of human life. I don’t think any reasonable person who is not trying to further a political agenda would become engrossed in such an exercise of futility.
I wish you had taken my old post off and left the new one because I felt like I expressed myself much better the second time around. Also, the Sermon on the Mount is a Christian model for right living which is particularly important in our dealings with the secular world. This important part of Christian theology has no value unless it is applied and what better chance to we have to do this than with a potentially volatile issue such as abortion.
I hope you don’t find these interactions a nuisance. I really enjoy the stimulation. If so, please shoot me a line at my myspace account and I’ll resign myself to reading your wonderful blogs without commenting. I can also send comments to you directly if you like the interaction but wish it to be independent of the thread.
Truck On
Ian (www.myspace.com/gentleman_jon)
Comment by Ian Pettit — August 28, 2008 @ 10:35 pm |
Christopher’s point of contention, that a human embryo is alive is cogent, direct, and simple (as well as entertaining). There is really no reasonable argument against it. I would still say, though I know abortion to be an appalling act of murder, it is not complete. The cow still does not have protection of its right-to-life under our laws, though it is alive.
Keep up the good work and let your light shine. You are most persuasive.
Comment by Michael Gross — September 16, 2008 @ 11:00 pm |