The Son shines

I serve bi-vocationally as a pastor and school counselor.  Today was a special day for me at school.  Every other week I make character presentations to elementary school kids.  Today the students and I had the privilege of listening to Ward Foley.  Foley was born with club hands and feet.  He had no bicep muscles at birth either.  The actual name of his disease is arthrogryposis.

Foley told of the struggle he had growing up, getting picked on, and also how he had to adjust to his handicap.  One of the  impacting parts of his story relates to what his mother told him.  Early on, he had to attend school for handicap children.  Ward came home from school and asked his mother why all the kids are weird. He wondered why he had to go to that school.  His mother told him that he was there to help them.  His mother and father reinforced within him to always look to the positive blessings of life.

I started thinking of the impact Ward Foley had on the students. The teacher and I were both riveted to his message.  I also started thinking of how true his mother and father's life lessons were and how they shaped the kind of person he turned out to be.  God was able to use someone who could have been discarded before birth knowing the struggles he would have had.  Life had meaning in Ward Foley's world.  For the atheist, life has no ultimate meaning.  All the troubles of life on an atheist worldview, are just that, troubles.  On a Christian worldview there is hope.  While this is not an argument for theism, it makes a big difference on how one perceives life.  Today, I was the student, and learned how special life is when the Son is able to shine brightly.

• For more on Ward Foley click here.

The meaning of personhood

Note:  This article was copied from Greg Koukl's site "Stand to Reason."  It deals with the question of personhood and abortion. When Is a Human Being Human?

Gregory Koukl

A simple response to give, next time someone tells you an unborn baby is a "human being but not a person."

A baby is fully human from conception. There's no question about it. Even to say that it's fully human is missing something. Jot this down. The law of identity: a thing is itself and not something else. What that means is that whatever a thing is it remains what it is for as long as it exists. Things don't change from one essential thing into another essential thing.

People say, what if you became a cat? It's impossible for you to become a cat because a cat is a different essential substance. If you became a cat, one could ask the question, what is it about the cat that is the same as what you were? There is nothing about a cat that is remotely human, and there is nothing about a human that is remotely cat. Even the soul of a cat is a different kind of soul than a human soul so you could never become a cat. You would be destroyed and some cat created in your place or maybe molded from your physical molecules, but that wouldn't make you the cat.

Things don't change their essential nature. What they change is their properties. They get bigger, smaller, different color hair, they change their textures, they grow appendages. But what they are doesn't change. You were five or six pounds at one point in your life, now you're much larger. Just because you're bigger doesn't mean you're more of a human. There's more of your physical body, but you are not more of yourself. You are still the same self that you were -- human. You are fully human when you're conceived; you're fully human when you're born; you're fully human when you're twenty times the size you were when you were born. Your properties changed; your essential character didn't. The nature of your humanness doesn't change.

Now, when a being is brought into being, that being stays itself forever until it's destroyed. It doesn't become more human because humanness is not a quantitative kind of thing. If that were the case we'd have to say that people who don't have certain characteristics or have less of those characteristics than others are less human. If humanness was self-consciousness, for example, then those who are more highly in tune with themselves are more human, and those who are less in touch with themselves are less human. If it was intelligence, then those who are more intelligent are more human and worthy of more rights, and those who are less intelligent are less human and not worthy of the same kind of respect.

What we're talking about are the changes in attributes or, technically speaking, properties. We're not talking about changes of the nature. So when the new human being comes into existence at conception (by the way that is an unarguable scientific reality, it is not open to debate anymore) that being remains itself until it's extinguished from existence. The being that comes into existence from the joining of two human beings is also a human being. It's the Law of Biogenesis that everything recreates according to its own kind. It is not possible for two human beings to produce an offspring that is not of the same kind, that is non-human. The humanness is a fact from the point of conception. It is fully human. There is no gradation in that regard. There are merely gradations of development.

That point is conceded by the more sophisticated philosophers arguing for choice on the abortion issue. You will find a lot of people who aren't sophisticated who use this and quite a lot of other bad arguments. What they have tried to do is make a distinction between humanness and personhood but you run into the same problem.

How do I know that the unborn is a person from conception? Because it's a human from conception. Human beings are personal type beings. Personhood is a quality that inheres the very nature of a human. It is not a property that is developed later on. A human is a personal kind of being. There are other personal beings, by the way. Angels, for example. Or God, theoretically, if He creates and has personal attributes. The attributes don't make Him personal, they just allow us to identify Him as the personal being that He is. So there may be other beings that are personal, but there are no human beings that aren't personal because all human beings are personal beings. So personhood is the larger category, humanness is the smaller category. I know personhood starts at conception because it is a characteristic that inheres the nature.

Now, someone might not be willing to accept all that philosophy and you may not be able to articulate it well. That's okay. Here's a simple way out. When somebody says it's a human being but not a person, you ask them what's the difference? It's a fair question because they're apparently offering you a rationale why it's okay to take the life of another innocent human being who can't defend itself but is in the way. So you say, if you're argument based on personhood is so weighty that it can justify taking the life of an innocent human being, then it seems reasonable that you have a very clear fix on what a person is if it's not the same as being human.

Now, 99 times out of a hundred you won't get an answer because they've never thought it though. This is a rhetorical throwaway. It's a way of ending the discussion. It's a way of putting their point of view in your face and shutting you up. So you just toss it right back to them. What's the difference? Sometimes you will get someone who tries to set up some criteria for personhood. There are two additional responses to a list of attributes for personhood. Ask, where did you get the list? If the list is merely arbitrary then why don't you make up a list too? A person is someone who has white skin. If they argue with you, then you can ask them how they justify their list but disallow your list.

The second problem with all of those lists is they always disqualify people who are clearly and undeniably human persons. They say self-awareness is a criteria. Then what about people who are in comas? Are they not persons? Some extreme people will say that, by the way. If they aren't persons then they have no rights and we can justify doing all sorts of things to them. Some will say self-awareness is a criteria. A child a couple months old can't distinguish between himself and his surroundings so they would not be persons. Some people like James Rachels will say that they aren't a person and we can kill infants. You'll also have a problem with the personhood list in that you'll have humans who are clearly persons who are disqualified by the list, but you'll have other beings which qualify, like chimpanzees and gorillas. Those are the problems with the lists.

Guns, babies, and life

With the recent tragedy in Arizona there has been much discussion around guns and gun control.  The other day while watching the news, I noticed a congresswoman saying that gun control should be seriously looked at because guns can take innocent lives.  Everyone realizes exactly what she means, but it made me question what I think is the most important part of her statement - lives.  What is considered to be valued life?  I think, no one would deny that life is precious and needs to protected, but who is a person or at what point does one become a person?

According to ethicist/philosopher Peter Singer a baby does not become a person until some 30 days after birth.  For this reason on Singer's view, the destruction of life prior to this point is not morally wrong.  Singer states, "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” [1]  There are others that share similar beliefs to Singer, such as Michael Tooley.  Tooley agrees with Singer that personhood cannot be established unless that life form is conscious of its own awareness.  Because of this definition of personhood, they "possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.” [2]  Again, on this view the taking of life is justified up until that creature becomes aware of itself.  Philosopher Jeffrey Reiman echos this belief in personhood by saying, "there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children." [3]  Clearly, each philosopher believes that in order for a moral crime to take place, personhood must first be reached.  The two questions that need to be addressed are, what is a person, and is the question of life irrelevant when compared to personhood?

Inconsistencies surface when examining the definition of personhood of the three  aforementioned philosophers.  First, adulthood is considered a person, because one has a sense of self-awareness.  What about individuals in a comatose state or having amnesia, are we justified in killing them because they no longer are self-aware?  Some would argue that they had self-awareness and therefore should be spared.  But, isn't there argument saying that life does not matter unless someone is self aware?  Don't all human beings have the potential of self-awareness at conception?  Singer and the others are disingenuous when they claim that life is unimportant because a creature lacks self-awareness, because the potential for self-awareness happens at conception.  Conception is the origin of life development and personhood.  Second, Singer's view is self refuting because of his belief in animal rights.  At what point do animals become self-aware on Singer's view?  Why should animals have rights in the first place?  If Singer is a proponent of animal rights, where do these rights derive from?  Singer's views are inconsistent and indefensible when addressing the question of life.

The congresswoman who expressed concern over gun control protecting life needs to address the life question first, as opposed to focusing on guns.  When does life start and why is it important?  Our founding fathers stated that all Americans have the right to life, but what exactly does this mean?  If life starts at conception, then abortion is the killing of innocent life.  Roe Vs. Wade gave the right for women to choose abortion, but it did not address the question of when life starts.  Gun control doesn't matter until the question of life is addressed first.  Are we interested in life or choice?  Until, our culture addresses the question of when life occurs, we will continue to destroy the potential personhood of the aborted fetuses.

[1]  Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics, p. 122-123
[2]  Tooley, Michael, Abortion and Infanticide in Rights and Wrongs of Abortion, p. 57
[3]  Reiman, Jeffrey, Critical Moral Liberalism, p. 121

• A good article about Peter Singer's ethical stance.

The abortion question

One of the most divisive topics today is abortion. According to one survey a little over half of the U.S. population supports abortion. About 80% of all women who have an abortion are unmarried, with teens making up around 17% of all abortions. When looking at the statistics, given that abortions are legal, the question that has to be asked is when does life start? If abortions (at any time after conception) are non-life, then it doesn't matter what we do.

According to many scientists, life starts at conception. Medical doctor, Dr. Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic states, "By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." [1] Also, Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard University says, :"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception" [2] If life does start at conception, then the game is over, for abortion would represent the taking of life. The real question of abortion is ethical.

The national debate is split in what question to ask. On the liberal side of the debate the question is usually phrased around a woman's right to chose - the pro choice camp. On the conservative side the question is phrased by way of life - the pro life camp. A slight advantage falls in line with the pro choice camp as mentioned above, but is this how we are to decide a possible ethical issue with the implications of life and death? How can someone ardently support the question of a women's choice? In order to do so, one has to believe that life does not start at conception. It seems that the question of life trumps all consideration of choice, if life does begin at conception. At the very least, the potential for human life is destroyed during abortion, which raises another ethical question: Is it OK to kill potential human life? The abortion debate only makes sense if the question of when life starts is addressed first.

[1] from God and Science

[2] Ibid

[3] Useful site giving statistics of abortion

Life and Oil

The tragedy of the oil spill continues to dominate the news. Not only are jobs and lifestyles being devastated, but future beach ecosystems could be damaged for years. According to one article on line, "The loss of habitat leaves questions about next year's bird and fish population."[1] Who knows how bad the damage will be to future life.

While everyone is saddened by the spill and the possible future impact on the ecosystem, little is said about the potential human life that is being destroyed each day. No matter where one falls on the abortion debate, everyone can easily recognize that the potential for human life is destroyed, no matter when the abortion takes place after conception. In fact, many scientist recognize life as starting at conception. Dr. Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic says,"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Again, Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School states, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." [2]

If an outcry for potential life is threatened along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, then where is the justification for the destruction of potential human life? The question of abortion has to center on life and not the choice of a mother who is being inconvenienced.

[1] Article speaking of the damage to the ecosystem of Louisiana
[2] Scientist's view of when life starts

Health Care or Life Care?

The health care debate has reached a new level with abortion coming to the forefront. The two sides involved in the debate refer to themselves as pro-choice (supporting abortion) and pro-life (against abortion). It is interesting that the pro-life stance is often referred to as anti-choice or anti-abortion. The pro-choice group often brings up the point that abortion is legal, as if this is the magic word that makes everything moraly right. It needs to be pointed out that slavery was once considered legal as well.

The real issue that is never discussed by the media is that of life. For if life starts at conception, then the debate is over. In reality the pro-choice group must view a fetus as non-life up until a certain point, depending on who you talk to. This point is clear in a recent comment by House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who said in a interview:"I don't think that he himself would be one to say 'I'm taking down health care reform because of [abortion].'" Pelosi is saying one of two things: either she is calling Congressman Stupak out, who is a known conservative Catholic, trying to embarrass him, or she is saying that health care is more important than a stance on abortion.

It should be clear to all that health care would have already passed had not Congressman Stupak (and others) seen a problem with the funding of abortion. Here is the issue at heart, Stupak and many others view life as starting at conception, and the aborting of any fetus after that point is the taking of an innocent life. This is why the bill is hung up at present. Why is everyone trying to avoid the life question? Why are many writing off Stupak and others while failing to address the question at hand? Could it be that a fair and open debate on when life starts would raise questions against the pro-choice position? Is the pro-choice group being morally arrogant assuming that a fetus is not deserving of life?

The answers to the questions are clear. Anyone willing to look at the issue objectively will see that this is not about pro-choice, but about the question of when life starts. The pro-choice group has never been willing to address the life issue, so what we have now is not a health care debate, but one of life care.

* Check out the powerpoint on abortion dealing with the ethical/moral, scientific, and philosphical issues. The powerpoint is found at the top right corner.