World Net Daily Randal Whitney September 6, 2006
11 clinics closed in 3 months as pro-lifers monitor and report
Another Florida abortionist has stopped performing abortions at one clinic rather than comply with rules and regulations, and pro-life activists say it’s the 11th closure of a U.S. abortion business in just three months.
The newest case involves abortionist Randall Whitney, whose Family Planning Center in Daytona Beach, Fla., no longer will provide abortions, according to officials at Operation Rescue.
Although three of those 11 clinics did reopen, Operation Rescue spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger told WorldNetDaily the climate is changing.
. . . more
“Another Florida abortionist has stopped performing abortions at one clinic rather than comply with rules and regulations . . .”
I always thought that conservatives were against government regulations — except, it appears, when it drives unwanted companies out of business.
“Although three of those 11 clinics did reopen, Operation Rescue spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger told WorldNetDaily the climate is changing.”
Maybe Orthodoxy Today can host the Christian Terrorist series of articles, with each article quoting someone who has been convicted of a violent felony or conspiracy to commit one. In the late 80s Sullenger was convicted of conspiracy to bomb an abortion clinic and spent two years in prison. Her part in the plot was to obtain gunpowder, gasoline, and detonators. Apparently one of people in her church ratted out the conspirators before they could do anything.
Well, I don’t know much about Sullenger, but the fact that abortion clinics, unlike all other medical clinics, largely evade regulation is widely known (it’s an ugly but lucrative business that nobody outside of the industry wants to touch). Seems to me that forcing compliance (they are “clinics” aren’t they?) is reasonable. That is takes pro-life activists to force the point shouldn’t make any difference. Abolitionists first brought the mistreatment of slaves to light after all, not the authorities charged with defending the law.
Found some info on Sullenger. Sounds like she got carried away like John Brown did before the Civil War. The government was right to suppress Brown’s insurrection just as it was right to jail Sullenger (who has renounced violence she says). Still, this in no way justifies the terror inflicted on the unborn, just as Brown’s rebellion did not justify slavery.
Jim, you are the only poster on this blog that I can recall who has ever agured that it is morally consistent for Christians to bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion providers.
Michael writes: “Jim, you are the only poster on this blog that I can recall who has ever agured that it is morally consistent for Christians to bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion providers.”
One of the tests of a person’s belief is whether the person acts in accordance wtih the belief. The fact that Christians don’t do that is evidence to me that they don’t really believe that the fetus is a person, and that a lot of the rhetoric over abortion is just a good way to score political points.
For example, Christopher recently alluded to the Democrats support of the abortion “holocaust.” Ok, nice dig at the Dems. But if Christopher really, truly believes that millions of literal persons are being murdered every year, then how could he NOT try to stop it using every means available, including violence? I mean, if I knew that 50 innocent people a day were being lined up in front of city hall and shot, I would do everything in my power to end that, including taking up arms against the city government. I wouldn’t just say “oh, I’ll wait around until the next election and try to vote out the ones responsible for this,” or “I’ll work to make sure that public funds aren’t spent on the executions.” It would be unthinkable just to do that.
But this is exactly what Christians do with abortion, except it’s not 50 people a day, but thousands, so they say. A few of them go out and protest, or they try in other ways to make abortion more difficult. But by and large I would say that the typical Christian does not truly believe that abortion is the murder of a person, because it doesn’t act like it. But they get to use the “murder” and “holocaust” rhetoric against the Democrats. It’s a good trick if you can pull it off.
Here’s another thing. Something like half of all pregnancies end with spontaneous abortions, often before the woman knows she is pregnant. If fertilized eggs are persons in the full sense of the term, what this means is that the greatest killer of persons is not cancer, not heart disease, not stroke, not accidents, but spontaneous abortion. Spontaneous abortion would also be responsible by far for the greatest number of years of life lost. In other words, if fertilized eggs are persons, the greatest health crisis in the country is the problem of spontaneous abortion. But where is the outcry? Where is the call for more funding? Where are the fundraisers? But there is nothing, and Christians seemingly have little or no concern over this issue. My conclusion is that they don’t because they really don’t believe that a fertilized egg is a person.
Of course, the Christian right is all over the “morning-after” pill. But they couldn’t care less about the milions of pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion.
That said, the Christian right does have moral concerns about abortion, and one can certainly make a moral argument against abortion without the “murder and holocaust” rhetoric. But the murder and holocaust stuff is what gives the movement the “juice.” Without that, abortion opponents are left with appeals to “reverence for life,” and they end up sounding more like Albert Schweitzer than like the prophet Jeremiah.
Note 4. Jim, everyone dies. Yes, everyone. Does this mean we rescind “thou shalt not kill”?
Jim, your arguments leave Christians in a no-win situation. To paraphrase your points: 1. Christians shouldn’t support wars because war is morally inconsistent with Christianity, and 2. If we really believed abortion were murder, we’d use physical force to stop the evil. You are conflating two quite different actions and not considering a central fact: the state.
It really is a Christian position that it is the state that has the authority to use deadly force or approve its use, not the individual. All Christian martyrs attest to that authority by refusing to resist it even in the case of their own un-warranted deaths. Abortion is legally sanctioned murder. Warfare is the legally sanctioned use of deadly force against a declared enemy. If it is clear that the policies of the state are significantly at odds with what Christ would have us do, we can and should work to change our government. However, to individually arrogate to ourselves the authority to specifically target individuals for death makes us no better than those we oppose, in fact worse. At least the abortionists are acting in concert with their beliefs while we would be acting in opposition to ours.
Note 4, Spontaneous abortions? Please explain this offensive nonsense, Jim H.
Jim, what in the world do you mean by this? Spontaneous abortions are usually called miscarriages. Christians take miscarriages seriously.
I suppose you are trotting out that tired old argument about no funerals for miscarried babies?
The truth of the matter is that the nature of a miscarriage makes retreival of whatever human remains are present very difficult. If you want to get graphic it usually occurs as painful contractions and a huge rush of blood, placenta and fetal tissue. There generally isn’t anything distinct to bury. That is why there is no funeral, Jim. You have a very flip attitude about real human suffering, here.
If human remains could be preserved or captured a Christian would take steps to handle them reverently. Christians greive the loss of an unborn child through miscarriage and the performance of a formal funeral is generally not necessary.
None of these facts amount of a cogent argument in favor or against anything. It is thoughtless nonsense and offensive nonsense and I am calling you on it.
Missourian, in fact some parents of a miscarried baby do have funerals, just no burial. When the miscarriage occures so early that one is not even sure a pregnancy existed, that is quite another thing. Jim is also intentionally trying to confuse what happens in a fallen natual world with the consequences of human intent.
Missourian answers Jim H.’s question about “where’s the funding”
Going back to Jim’s offensive post on spontaneous abortions, we read Jim saying:
Here is the funding, Jim. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/miscarriage.cfm
This is a page maintained by the National Institutes of Health. Miscarriages are a vital concern of the health care profession, the fact that you are not aware of this concern does not validate your poor excuse for an argument.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, everyone dies. Yes, everyone. Does this mean we rescind “thou shalt not kill”?”
Of course not, but I think you’re making an assumption that a fertilized egg is a person, in the full sense of the word. My contention is that it is not.
Michael writes: “It really is a Christian position that it is the state that has the authority to use deadly force or approve its use, not the individual. All Christian martyrs attest to that authority by refusing to resist it even in the case of their own un-warranted deaths.”
But we are talking about a situation in which, it is believed, the state sanctions the murder of around 4,000 persons per day. By my calculation, this is murder at a somewhat higher rate than the Nazi holocaust. At that point surely the individual would be more than justified in using violence to bring that to an end, even if the violence were at a low level — damage to abortion facilities, cutting phones and power to them, physically preventing staff to enter, and so on.
Missourian writes: “Jim, what in the world do you mean by this? Spontaneous abortions are usually called miscarriages.”
In most cases of spontaneous abortion — a medical term, by the way, the woman typically does not know that she is pregnant:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
[Note that the above quote is from a government agency.]
It’s not a miscarriage because the woman doesn’t know she is pregnant. This could be something as simple as a fertilized egg that doesn’t implant, or implants but does not thrive.
Missourian: “None of these facts amount of a cogent argument in favor or against anything. It is thoughtless nonsense and offensive nonsense and I am calling you on it.”
It’s not nonsense. It’s how things work. As I have said before, nature treats fertilized eggs as supplies, not assets. But certain people here claim that they are persons, in the full sense of the term. If they are persons, and half of all of them die spontaneously, then we would expect that anything that killed half of all people in utero would be of great concern to the religious right. But we hear nothing. Thus the claim of personhood is not backed up by the appropriate action or concern.
Michael writes: “When the miscarriage occures so early that one is not even sure a pregnancy existed, that is quite another thing.”
Yes, it is another thing. It is what happens about half the time.
Missourian: “Here is the funding, Jim.”
Sure, there’s funding, but not in proportion to the problem, if we assume that these fertilized eggs are persons.
This is what I’m saying — the idea that fertilized eggs are persons is rarely backed up by actions comensurrate with the idea. Frankly, I think it is a ridiculous idea. That’s not to say that there aren’t other arguments against abortion, but to me the personhood argument is the weakest and makes the least sense.
Typically, the personhood of fertilized eggs is simply asserted, not argued for, as if it were a metaphysical axiom apparent to anyone. This makes for handy and impressive-sounding political arguments — Democrats support murder — Democrats suppot the abortion holocaust — but these are arguments based on a false assumption.
Note 10. Jim writes:
Well, fine, but then where is the moral logic behind your complaint that pro-lifers don’t do enough to save the life of naturally expelled fertilized embryos? Either the embryo is human or it is not. If not, as you claim, then the naturally expelled embryos should be of no concern to you.
About the Democrats, perhaps we should focus it a bit and say the Democratic leadership supports the abortion holocaust, given that some rank and file Democrats are pro-life. Further, if the leadership can’t bring themselves to stop the dismemberment of unborn children in the womb just one minute before birth, I would not expect them to recognize the moral sanctity of an embryo either. The intellect gets coarsened when a person justifies barbarity, especially when the barbarism is defended as a greater good.
Jim, women trying to get pregnant very much notice the condition of a fertilized egg during its very earliest days of existence
A woman who is actively trying to get pregnant generally becomes depressed on a monthly basis when her menses arrives and demonstrates that she has not been able to conceive or that a fertilized ovum has not been able to successfully attach to the wall of the uterus. In this case, there isn’t any real physical indicator of the existence of a pregnacy or the absence of a pregnancy except the arrival of the menses. This is something which is generally very private and rarely talked about. Waiting and watching month to month is something that many women have done, they just don’t announce it to the world. The tiny fertilized egg is very real and very precious to them.
I think you have to emotionally and psychologically lose touch with the living vine of the human family in order to even think of arguments like Jim’s arguments about the alleged insensitivity of Christians to miscarriages.
Fr. Hans writes: “Well, fine, but then where is the moral logic behind your complaint that pro-lifers don’t do enough to save the life of naturally expelled fertilized embryos? Either the embryo is human or it is not. If not, as you claim, then the naturally expelled embryos should be of no concern to you.”
What I’m saying is that given the assumption of many in the pro-life camp that the fertilized egg is a person, yes, their actions and attitudes don’t match their metaphysics. The 50 percent of fertilized eggs that don’t make it are not a concern to me, but one would think that they would be an overwhelming concern to the religious right.
Fertilization of an egg cell is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. There is a distinction between a fertilized egg and a person. A fertilized egg has to implant. Even after implanting a large percentage of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort. Even after implanting some eggs in rare cases develop into what is called a hydatiform mole. Is a hydatiform mole a person? Fertilized eggs and split and develop into two individuals, meaning that one person became two persons? Two fertilized eggs can combine at the blastocyst stage, creating a chimera, one individual. So there were two persons that then became one person? If so, what happened to the other person? The idea that fertilized eggs are person is very problematic.
Fr. Hans: “About the Democrats, perhaps we should focus it a bit and say the Democratic leadership supports the abortion holocaust, given that some rank and file Democrats are pro-life.”
Again, assuming the personhood of a fertilized egg. If one does not make that assumption, the whole “holocaust” argument is gone. As I said before, the religious right simply asserts the person of fertilized eggs; the position is rarely argued for. Which is a good thing, because it’s a pretty strange position.
Fr. Hans: “Further, if the leadership can’t bring themselves to stop the dismemberment of unborn children in the womb just one minute before birth . . .”
I am unaware of any state that would allow that, or any Democrat who would support that.
Missourian writes: “A woman who is actively trying to get pregnant generally becomes depressed on a monthly basis when her menses arrives and demonstrates that she has not been able to conceive or that a fertilized ovum has not been able to successfully attach to the wall of the uterus.”
But the point is that in a huge number of cases the woman does not even know that an egg has been fertilized. She knows when it doesn’t happen, but often not when it happens.
Missourian: “I think you have to emotionally and psychologically lose touch with the living vine of the human family . . . .
I have been one of the biological progenitors of three ectopic pregancies and two miscarriages, so I think I am very in touch with the living vine. I can’t say that the living vine has been very in touch with me. I think what were lost were potential, not actual persons. What I am advocating is the radical position that there is a difference betweeen an acorn and an oak tree.
Jim, is a toddler a person?
.
Jim’s comment only make sense if he defines “person.” In the field of moral philosophy, I would suggest that “person” means a human entity that is worthy of respect and preservation for its own sake, not as a means to some other end. Biologists have no difficulty in indentifying human DNA, even small shreds of tissue carry the DNA code with its detailed identifers. Given a sample of sufficient size, a biologist can always and with certainly identify human remains and distinguish them from animal remains or non-living matter. So the question really turns back on itself. If someone concludes that an entity is a “person” then there exists a moral and/or legal duty to take steps to preserve and respect that entity for its own sake. If someone concludes that an entity is not a “person” then it may be reduced to inaminate matter and disposed of as is convenient for the stronger, bigger entity.
Here my Holmanistic analysis of toddlers [ a sometimes messy, noisy and annoying class of bi-peds 😉 ]
Is a toddler a person?
The birth of a human infant is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to personhood.. The human infant is unable to communicate clearly and in incapable of moral reasoning. The human infant is a parasite which cannot perform useful work or feed, clothe or bath itself. There is a distinction between an infant and a person. A human infant has to grow and thrive before it can attain personhood. Even after the birth of a human infant an signifiacnt number of human infants die from natural causes before they are capable of communicating clearly and engaging in moral reasoning. Some toddlers do not even have unique DNA patterns, these are called “twins” by the common folk. Therefore this class of infants cannot even claim to be unique and irresplaceable. the idea that a infant or toddler is a person is very problematic.
Is an annoying, sick, dependent, 86 year old man a person?
Is an annoying, sick, dependent, economically non-productive paraplegic a person?
Christianity says human life is sacred and we are morally bound to accept the burdens that entails, and we consequently get to enjoy the blessings that that brings.
Missourian writes: “In the field of moral philosophy, I would suggest that “person” means a human entity that is worthy of respect and preservation for its own sake, not as a means to some other end.”
That’s the issue in question — at which point in development do we have a special moral obligation?
I am reminded of the “fertility clinic” example. You are a firefighter, called to a fire at a fertility clinic. When you arrive the whole building is engulfed in flames. You rush into the lab area. There on the floor is a lab tech, unconscious. Next to the lab tech is a small freezer with 100 frozen embryos. You can rescue either the lab tech or the frozen embryos, but not both Who gets rescued?
Of all the times I have asked that question, no one ever says that he or she would rescue the embryos, even though, for some religious people, inside the freezer are 100 persons, and the lab tech is only one person. People know instinctively that there is a difference between an actual person and an “egg person” or “embryo person.”
Missourian writes: “If someone concludes that an entity is a “person” then there exists a moral and/or legal duty to take steps to preserve and respect that entity for its own sake. If someone concludes that an entity is not a “person” then it may be reduced to inaminate matter and disposed of as is convenient for the stronger, bigger entity.”
No, not at all. Ethical obligations are present even in the case of non-persons. For example, we treat the bodies of dead persons with respect, even though there is no longer a person present. We have laws against animal cruelty. We protect endangered species. Some people are vegetarians for moral reasons. We even treat non-living things with respect — works of art are preserved (except by the Taliban), Indian burial grounds are respected, historical building are preserved, and so on. There are a large number of ethical obligations that come into play even when we’re not talking about persons.
Missourian: ” . . . the idea that a infant or toddler is a person is very problematic.”
If it is problematic, then why is there universal agreement that infants are persons, as are the elderly and disabled?
Sure, you can make up an argument that they are not, but so what? I’m talking aobut how ordinary people see the issue, not about technical definitions. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas had a view of personhood that involved various versions of delayed animation, a position that the Vatican has also held at different times.
I have only heard one “argument” for the personhood of a fertilized egg. That argument, if you can call it that, is just that if we don’t assign personhood at the very first moment of conception, then it is unclear when to assign it later. So it’s just a slippery slope argument, and not a very good one at that.
Jim, how ordinary people see the issue?
Jim, I could catalogue all sorts of misconceptions, myths and logical inconsistencies that a commonly believed by large numbers of people. Choose the field: science? history? psychology? Demonstrating that the ideas held by large numbers of people lack intellectual consistency is really no big deal.
You may legitimately address moral arguments advanced by serious proponents of the position. There exist serious and thoughtful writers who deal in the theology and moral philisophy surrounding these questions. Pointing out that a fair share of the population holds inconsistent beliefs DOES NOT disprove the validity of the position. You have to address serious proponents of the position, not someone whom you run into at your local laundromat while waiting for your sheets to dry.
Jim, let me be clear, if Christians are to take up arms to stop abortion as you suggest we should, it would be a revolution against the United States government Constutionally defined as treason. It could very well involve the killing or maiming of police officers and others with no direct connection to the abortions. You have frequently used the “collateral damage” in Iraq as a reason not to contiune the war. Your position is no more morally consistent than you claim ours is.
While you may think our belief compels us to physically stop and/or kill abortion providers, it is a hard bridge to cross for anyone individually, let alone as a Church. The consequence of such action could very well mean the destruction of much of what we think of as the Church in this country. Certainly, it would mean the death or imprisonment of anyone attempting it. There are times when such action is justified, but not many will be willing to accept that kind of sacrifice. That is not a lack of belief, nor does it indicate that our position is incorrect, it merely indicates the possibility of a shortage of moral courage and faith. Even Bonhofer took a long time before he decided that he should attempt to kill Hitler and he was not joined by many. The legal pressure put on people who even attempt non-violent blockades is such that even that choice is difficult. Every moral act requires a choice and a willingness to accept the consequences. Since the consequence of taking a moral stand are almost always negative, most of us go along to get along. That is a human failing we all face. It is easy to criticize the lack of moral courage in someone with whom you disagree.
Note 15, Jim Holman, engaged response, Part I
We have an agreement that the issue is “at what point in development do we have a special moral obligation?” So far, so good.
Again, the fact that you may obtain a logically inconsistent answer from a “man on the street” example proves nothing. The question is whether a logically and morally sound argument can be for accepting a special moral obllgation to preserve human life in the form of a fertilized egg?” Men and women on the street may simultaneously hold any number of contradictory ideas, it doesn’t prove anything about the validity of a seriously crafted moral or philosophical argument.
Hence, what large numbers of people do, or what large numbers of people think, does not support the validity or invalidity of a logical or philosophical argument in favor of according fertilized eggs the status of a person.
As to the fertility clinic example, you have to remember that the very existence of frozen embryos in a lab means that the society in question has already started down the road of devalued fertilized eggs and treating human life an something akin to an inaminate object or property. Secondly, the reason that “most people” would save the developed human is that they perceive that the developed human would experience pain and agony if abandoned to die in the fire and the embryos probably would not.
Change the example to a situation in which a person had to choose between 100 infants (capable of experience pain) and a single adult (also capable of experience pain). This would be a decision no one would want to have to make but most would probably choose in favor of the 100 infants.
Jim, there is not universal aggreement that toddlers and the elderly and the disabled are persons. In fact there are significant numbers of people who hold quite the opposite and wish to legally define children up to the age of 2 (so far no further), disabled and elderly as non-persons subject to being killed at any time without moral or legal sanction. The Netherlands has already done so.
Abortion is allowed to continue because the baby in the womb is legally defined as a non-person. Do you really want to live in a society in which a human being can be legally eradicated by being declared a non-person? I don’t
Jim, here is another quandry question, the answer to which reflects the moral stance of a culture: There are three members of your family at risk of drowing in the ocean, your mother, your wife, and your only child. You can save only one, which one do you save. When asked by researchers of people in different cultures, far different answers were received. Westerners tended to answer their wife or child. Asians by a large amount choose to save their mother as they could always remarry and have other children, but they could never have another mother.
Most people tend to make moral choices that are a relfection of the hierarchy of values of the culture in which they were raised. As Missourian points out, our culture has already devalued both embyro’s and children in the womb to the point that they have little moral status. The very existence of a fertility clinic bears witness to that devaluation.
Note 15, Engaged response, Part II, Logical fallacies and traps
Legal Duties Do Not Equal Ethical Duties:
Legal and ethical duties frequently overlap but they are not identical and the words “ethical” and “legal” are not synonymous. There may be many acts which are legal but which are not ethical. They may even be some acts, in some extraordinary circumstrances, which are illegal but which are ethical.
Try to keep your terms and concepts straight.
Holman’s counter-examples:
Special treatment of dead bodies is derived from two sources: religion of the family and public health laws. Legally a dead body is an inanimate object, not a person. The next of kin have the legal right to dispose of the body. Public legislation is secular and is enacted for the purpose of protecting public health. Improper disposal of a body could create a public health hazard. Religion is a private matter, generally believed on the existence of a Deity Who issues ethical and moral guidelines for the conduct of humans. Jesus said “leave the dead to bury the dead” when a follower hesitated to join Jesus because he had to return to his home to bury a relative.
Animal cruelty:
Again the legal status of an animal is that of property. It is not a person, it cannot sue or be sued. An owner of an animal has an absolute right to end the life of that animal. Society recognizes that animals have the ability to experience pain and are sensate beings, however, society does not make the humane killing of an animal illegal. Any animal owner may kill any animal he owns at any time. The owner my eat the animal and use it skin or bones for any reason. The only legal restriction is that the killing may not be done in an inhumane way. Pets are left at Human Societies every day with the full knowledge that they will probably be killed, humanely, rather than adopted. Only a very small percentage of Human Society “guests” get adopted.
Endangered Species:
Endangered species are not accorded the status of Person in the law. They remain legally classified as property, and may be treated like inanimate objects by owners if they have owners. Legislation which protects “endangered species” is most decidedly NOT predicated on the idea that “endangered species” have rights and are a legal person, QUITE the contrary. The legislation continues the idea that humans may use animals for the purposes that they see fit. The particular purpose in the endangered species legislation is biological diversity and aesthetic pleasure. This does not change the legal and moral status of animals. In Wisconsin, the deer hunting laws are EXPRESSLY intended to cull the state deer herd and to reduce the number of deer as they can be real nuisances. Sometimes humans want MORE of a particular species, sometimes humans want LESS of a particular species. The determining feature is the value of the animal to the human, NOT, the standing of the animal as a person. Most of the legislation regarding animals in Western states concerns itself with controlling the growth of unwanted or nuisance animals. This is the flip side to endangered species legislation. Some we want, some we don’t, but, we are the ones that make the decision according to what we value.
Treating Non-Living things with Respect: Works of Art
We may well treat inanimate objects with respect, but, that is because they have value to us. It is not because we have accorded them the status of “persons.” If I legally purchase a Van Gogh, as the owner of that painting I have the legal right to destroy it. It would probably be considered wasteful by many, but, I could still do it.
Treating Non-Persons (things) with respect: Indian Burial Grounds, Historical Buildings; Constitutional restraints against “taking”
The legislation which protects these inaminate objects is limited by the Constitutional constraint against taking property without compensation. It has been ruled that in some cases, the restrictive regulations imposed on property owners with respect to indian burial grounds of historical buildlings can be so burdensome as to constitute a “taking of property” which the Courts have a right to simply forbid OR to require compensation to the property owner. Under no circumstances are the Indian burial grounds or historical buidling considered to be person which are worthy of preservation under all circumstances. Most historical preservation legislation combines tax breaks with restrictions, so as to be fair to the owners of the buildings who live with the restrictions. Why because the indian burial grounds and the historical buildings are property. They may be legally destroyed by the lawful owners of that property subject to only a few regulatory constraints. To deny the owners of the property the right to dispose of the property is an unconstitutional “taking” of property.
Note 15, Jim, engaged response Part III
Note 15, part III, fertilized egg nothing more than a slippery slope argument
I
It is as plain as the clearly understood biology of DNA. A fertilized egg possesses all that is necessary to create a unique human being. Prior to the joining of the genetic material from the sperm and the egg, this is not true. After the joining of the genetic material from the sperm and the egg, this is true. The DNA contains a code which contains the directions to create a unique human being. There is no other human being that contains that code. The DNA code will hold constant throughout the life of the human entity. It is hard-coded into every cell in the being. The fertilized egg grows, becomes more complex, but, its DNA does not change. The plan embodied in the DNA simply gets put into play.
It is correct that the fertilized will require nutrients to continue growing. I require nutrients to remain alive. It is correct that the fertilized egg may subdivide into twins, creating two person. It is true that the fertilized egg may fail to survive through the full gestation period and make it to daylight. I may fall prey to an inherited disease and not reach my expected number of years of life. But I am still human and unique and hopefully valued by society
#19 Michael wrote:
To support Michael’s statement here’s a link to an article on Peter Singer’s views on non-persons.
Jim writes:
And here we have the new gnosticism, the divorce of the material dimension of existence from anthropology. Human value becomes fluid, a question about “which point in development do we have a special moral obligation” to other persons that ignores the biological reality that human development, if left unmolested, begins at conception.
And the question of where value ought to be confered cannot, if shorn from material reality, ever be answered. It is destined to remain arbitrary because no other reference except the biological exists — except in the mind of the gnostic of course. Jim might believe we should confer value (by which he means protection) after nine months. Peter Singer, on the other hand, thinks two years is when value (also protection) ought to be conferred. Who is right?
Ever talk to a paramedic or EMS person? They are faced with these kinds of questions whenever they come across any accident scene with multiple injuries. Sometimes the paramedic has to let the person most likely to die wait while he works on someone he can save. It’s one of the most stressful aspects of their jobs.
So yes, of course you would rescue the lab technician. Besides, the embryos cannot be rescued as such. You would want to ensure they remain frozen.
But here too, you are a bit too cavalier in your attitude. Read this month’s “Nation” where parents who have frozen some embryos can’t bring themselves to destroy them, even when they are ideologically pro-abortion (as long as it is someone else’s child apparently). Something resonates inside them that this is a child, that they too, started out that way. (So did you Jim.)
One other point. You say you know of no state that allows partial birth abortion in response to my point that the Democratic leadership can’t be expected to understand the inherent value of the embryo when they sanction the dismembering of unborn children. Check out this link to clear up some misconceptions: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — Misconceptions and Realities. Note too how Democrats tried to block President Bush’ eventual signing of the ban back in 2003: U.S. House Gives Final Approval to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, But Some Democratic Senators Delay Final Senate Vote.
In order to understand the evil behind the barbarism:
May God have mercy on us.
Fr. Hans, not only are human beings separated from the physical reality by Jim’s argument, we are separated from all conection to other human beings. It is the ultimate atomization, the ultimate destruction of personhood altogether. Why not make cyborgs and let “intelligent machines” just take over. After all, if we do that, I’m sure there will be no more global warming, war, or any other ill. The world would be better off if we all took a short step of a tall bridge. Nihilism–the worship of non-existence.
Ok, lots of responses. I have read all the responses, but I’ll have to pick and choose what to comment on.
Missourian writes: “Demonstrating that the ideas held by large numbers of people lack intellectual consistency is really no big deal.”
The problem is that outside of symbolic logic there are no analytically correct definitions of most of the important philosophical concepts. Personhood, the good, the moral, the beautiful, the just, etc. — all have been debated for hundreds or thousands of years. So I can guarantee you that we’re not going to come up with the ultimate definition of personhood; if we could, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Rather than looking for precise definitions, I find it more helpful to look at concrete situations and deal with a commonsense view of personhood. In looking at fertilized eggs as possible persons, there are several obvious questions that arise with respect to the number of persons. If a fertilized egg is a person, and then splits into twins, where did the other person come from? If two fertilized eggs combine, leaving one person, where did the other person go? This kind of activity has no basis in our ordinary concept of “person.”
In addition, a fertilized egg has undifferentiated cells — no distinct organs, no sensory mechanisms, no brain, no nervous system — none of the physical structures that we would associate with persons. There is no language, no communication, no rationality — none of the communicative or conceptual traits that we would expect.
In addition, persons tend to endure through time — not always, but usually. When a baby dies it is because something is wrong with the baby. But in the normal course of events, around half of fertilized eggs don’t implant, or cease to function shortly after implant — and we consider this to be the natural course of events.
Note that I’m not saying that these things define a person, or that they all have to be present. I’m saying that when NONE of these are present, it is difficult to know in what sense a fertilized egg is a person.
Missourian: “Change the example to a situation in which a person had to choose between 100 infants (capable of experience pain) and a single adult (also capable of experience pain). This would be a decision no one would want to have to make but most would probably choose in favor of the 100 infants.”
Yes, and that’s exactly my point. We woudn’t save 100 frozen embryos, but we would save 100 infants. We instinctively know the difference, and without any fancy philosophical definitions to tell us the difference.
Michael writes: “While you may think our belief compels us to physically stop and/or kill abortion providers, it is a hard bridge to cross for anyone individually, let alone as a Church.”
I would distinguish between several levels of belief. There is the level of public rhetoric used to accomplish political goals. There is the level of how people really think and feel about this. And there is the level of how they think about things after reflection. It is my view that most people really don’t believe that fertilized eggs are literally persons, and that this is why they are not bombing clinics, etc. It’s not that their beliefs are inconsistent with their actions, but that their personal beliefs are inconsistent with their rhetoric, and their actions reflect personal belief rather than rhetoric. It’s like the guy who starts by saying “Bush is a murderer,” thinks about it, and then says “well, he’s not really a murderer, but a bad president whose decisions have gotten people killed.” That’s not a trivial distinction.
Michael writes: “The very existence of a fertility clinic bears witness to that devaluation.”
Well, most people are treating fertilized eggs as potential, not actual persons. Let’s talk about infertility. It is a huge problem, typically not in any way the fault of the couple in question. Infertility procedures such as IVF do in fact produce persons; that is the whole purpose. Infertile couples go to great expense and great suffering just for the chance of having a baby. It seems to me that saying that IVF is wrong would be tantamount to saying to a person born through IVF that it would have been better had he or she not been born. That seems like a strange position to me.
JBL writes: “To support Michael’s statement here’s a link to an article on Peter Singer’s views on non-persons.”
Well, everyone brings up Peter Singer. But his views are very far from mainstream. My college ethics professor — an atheist — dismissed Singer’s views as of little value. Singer just proves the point that you can always find someone who will support a particular point of view — especially in universities.
Fr. Hans writes: “Read this month’s “Nation” where parents who have frozen some embryos can’t bring themselves to destroy them, even when they are ideologically pro-abortion (as long as it is someone else’s child apparently). Something resonates inside them that this is a child, that they too, started out that way. (So did you Jim.)”
But please note that the concept of “personhood” is not present here. I have never said that there aren’t arguments against abortion or destruction of embryos — only that “personhood” isn’t the way to make that argument.
“Personhood” is an abstract philosophical concept. So far no one has developed a widely-accepted analytical definition of personhood. If you want to try, more power to you. I seriously doubt that you will succeed. The best minds in philosophy have not.
So the issue is whether there is an argument that does not depend on that concept. Surely there is. For example, I would talk not about personhood per se, but about the process by which persons are created. I would talk about the mystery of development and existence. I would talk about Albert Schweitzer’s concept of “reverence for life.”
In other words, there are many way of appealing to the moral sensibility of people without the concept of personhood. But that means that you’re going to have to give up talking about “murdering” fertilized eggs. It means that you’re going to have to look at the “morning after” pill differently. It means that you’re going to have to look at abortion in the case of rape or incest differently.
I am intimately familiar with infertility clinics. I know about the suffering that the woman goes through. I know about the physical and psychological risks to which the woman willingly submits herself, just for the chance — the chance — of producing an actual person. I know about the self-sacrifice. I know about the cost. I know about painful intramuscular hormone injections. I know about the physical and mental side effects, some of which last for months. I know about the miscarriages. I know about the depression and disappointment. If you want to tell my wife that what she went through was immoral, great, and she’ll tell you in very blunt terms where you can stick that. If you want to tell the offspring of IVF that it was better had they not been born, great, and they’ll tell you where you can stick that too.
In other words, there are arguments, but personhood is not one of them. Not if you want to be taken seriously.
Jim wrote:
Wow pretty dismissive there Jim. Yes his ideas are far from mainstream, so were a number of other philosophers during their lifetime. The problem with it though is that they’re becoming readily accepted by society (your own positions of non-persons as a case in point). I also question your ethics professors understanding of Singer’s impact when Singer’s work on Animal Rights is the foundation of the movement. I guess groups like PETA have had no impact on society since they’re not in the “mainstream.”
JBL writes: “Wow pretty dismissive there Jim. Yes his ideas are far from mainstream, so were a number of other philosophers during their lifetime. The problem with it though is that they’re becoming readily accepted by society (your own positions of non-persons as a case in point).”
My position that fertilized eggs are not persons does not come from Singer. It comes from the simple fact that fertilized eggs have almost none of the characteristics that we associate with persons. I mean, they have DNA, but then so does every cell in a human body. Beyond that, nothing other than the potential to become a person. But to me there is a difference between the actual and the potential.
As for Singer, I don’t know what to say about him. His views on persons are not mainstream. The philosophers of whom I’m aware don’t take him seriously on that point. But he’s probably not wrong on everything. He may have other views that are legitimate. For example, if Singer has studied logic, then he probably believes that the set of all sets of positive integers is not recursively enumerable, and he would be right about that. Singer is wrong on many important issues, probably right on others. But what do we do with that? He is not typical, and his views are not accepted by most mainstream philosophers.
I have said many times that I don’t agree with him on the issue in question, but people keep bringing him up. What am I supposed to do? Shoot the son of a b*tch? Run him over with my car? Burn his house? You always have people like Singer. A hundred years ago we had Christians who wanted to sterilize the “feebleminded” by force. Does that tell us something about the nature of Christianity, or does it tell us that sometimes individual Christians can go very wrong? Likewise with Singer. Sometimes philosophers go wrong.
But back to fertilized eggs and personhood. People here have noted that fertilized eggs have the potential to be persons. They have talked about the continuity between the various stages of development. They have talked about the spiritual significance of human life. They have talked about their uniqueness. And so on. Why not just leave it at that? Why bring in the concept of personhood, a concept vastly harder to defend?
The concept of personhood carries with it a number of very specific traits. But fertilized eggs don’t think. The don’t feel. They don’t perceive. They don’t communicate. They have no specific organs. They have none of the physical structures that we associate with persons. And most of them don’t last very long.
If you want to say that fertilized eggs are persons, you might as well say that they are also concert pianists — not just potential concert pianists, but actual concert pianists. Of course, they don’t play piano. They don’t know any music. They can’t carry a tune. They don’t have any physical ability to play piano. They’ve never studied the instrument. Nonetheless, none of that matters — they are concert pianists! Why? Because my religion says they are, I insist that they are, and I think that insisting on their musical ability makes them more valuable and easier to protect. It makes as much sense as insisting that they are persons.
Note 25. Yes. The philosophy behind contemporary gnosticism is nihilism (but the power behind it is demonic) — an irrational love of non-being that is simultaneously a place of cold isolation in both the soul and the universe. I say isolation because non-existence is an impossibility. Nihilism is in realitity the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Man cannot believe himself into non-being. Those who cling to this love of death enter into strong delusion and can foster great evil in the world.
Look at the animation of the partial birth abortion above. The womb — a place of protection, shelter, nourishment, and warmth in the most tenuous stage of a person’s existence — becomes the chamber of death. The cries of these unborn reach both to the heavens and the pits of hell; in heaven where the child is received as a martyr and in hell where the silent scream is met with scoffing against those who believe they serve the greater good but in fact kill their own souls as they kill the innocent.
Yes, it is the ultimate atomization. If we cannot take care of our own children, we cannot take care of each other. Let me restate that with more clarity. If the killing of our children is hailed as progress, then we are on the road to hell — and hell is isolation. Wasn’t it Sartre who said “hell is the other person”?
No Jim my argument about you non-persons statements goes back toward your views concerning Terri Schiavo.
And Jim if you’re going to crib the information about fertilized eggs and pianists you should at least reference the source. Your continual failure not to attribute sources could get the good father’s website into copyright issues.
pianist, fertilized reference
Opposition to IVF does not mean that I would say to someone born from IVF that it would be better if they had never been born anymore than I would say to a child born as the result of rape or incest that would have been better if they had never been born.
Just because the process of fertilization was immoral and unethical does not devalue the person created from the process. My opposition to IVF is because it elevates the desire of the parents above all else, it is not the child they want, they want to have a child. They have obviously rejected adoption in large part because an adopted child wouldn’t be there child. The child becomes a product, a commodity. Much of desire to have children by IVF is narcisstic and the attitude behind the technology is like those who built the tower of Babel. Narcisists feel real pain when their self-absorbed desires are thwarted, but that does not make their desires noble or the fullfillment of them ethical or moral.
Note 28. Three points:
It also tells us that a wrong idea can have seductive power. When those who should know better don’t, you look at the idea to see why these people have gone wrong. Then you fight against that idea.
You answered the question implicitly above. Because others like eugenicists, euthanasia advocates, abortionists, infanticide advocates (like Singer), are busy trying to define it for you. To succeed, one has to buy into their gnosticism. Couple their amoral apolgetic to the engine of an amoralized capitalism, and they become the justifiers of a new market first of embryos, and later fetal parts. Dehumanization becomes industrialized, just like eugenics a century ago and the abortion industry today.
Wake up Jim. This argument could be made just as easily of a toddler or tween. People develop, talents emerge, discipline has to be learned –presuming of course they are first allowed to live. What’s the logic here? Should we sanction the death of not only embryos, but pre-born babies, or as Singer says, children up to two years old because they don’t exhibit adult development?
And what about the notion of potential? Human potential is the affirmation of human identity, not its negation. Put another way, potential cannot exist outside of its object. That an object has human potential actually affirms its identity as human. It does not, as you seem to imply, deny it.
And don’t be fooled about the religious dimension of their position. You studied philosophy. You know their presuppositions about human value draw from sources no microscrope can penetrate. Their gnosticism is ultimately a religious value. No one escape the religious dimension of life. They may deny it, but denial is not escape. Even the pagans understood this.
JBL writes: “No Jim my argument about you non-persons statements goes back toward your views concerning Terri Schiavo. ”
I don’t want to rehash all the old arguments, but I believe that Terri Schiavo, the person, was gone long before the feeding tube was discontinued.
JBL: “And Jim if you’re going to crib the information about fertilized eggs and pianists you should at least reference the source.”
. . . a source that I’ve never seen before. The author is making a different point related to cloning. I agree that both the article and my piece both use the word “pianist.” I don’t know. Maybe I used the word “pianist” because I studied piano for five years.
JBL: “Your continual failure not to attribute sources could get the good father’s website into copyright issues.”
Continual? Like when? I post web links all the time.
Michael writes: “My opposition to IVF is because it elevates the desire of the parents above all else, it is not the child they want, they want to have a child. They have obviously rejected adoption in large part because an adopted child wouldn’t be there child. The child becomes a product, a commodity. Much of desire to have children by IVF is narcisstic and the attitude behind the technology is like those who built the tower of Babel.”
Nobody has a “desire” to conceive through IVF. IVF comes at the end of a long road, usually several years, after all else has failed. Adoption is always an option, but people have a natural instinct to have their own children, if possible. It’s not an instinct to have “a” child, but to have “their” child — a child that is the unique combination of who they are. It is also a desire to continue the family blood line — a concept that is larger than just two individuals. (Look at the importance of that in the Old Testament. Why not just have Ishmael and call it good?) If wanting to have a child who is in some sense your image is narcissistic then I guess God creating man in His image is just as narcissistic. But it is not narcissism, it’s God-given instinct. It’s about the whole structure of the female body, and the monthly reminder provided by that body.
Michael: “Narcisists feel real pain when their self-absorbed desires are thwarted, but that does not make their desires noble or the fullfillment of them ethical or moral.”
IVF patients have already had their desires thwarted, usually for years. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. IVF patients experience a whole other realm of physical suffering, a new order of magnitude. Talk to an infertile woman suffering from the ravages of endometriosis, whose chronic pain is barely controlled with large doses of narcotics, who then has to discontinue that in order to get pregnant — and then tell her that she’s a narcissist. Let me know what she says. And that’s only one of the many physical implications.
Fr. Hans: “When those who should know better don’t, you look at the idea to see why these people have gone wrong. Then you fight against that idea.”
But then fight using the best and strongest arguments. Asserting the personhood of fertilized eggs is a strong claim, but it rests on a weak argument. It is an argument so weak that it tends to discredit the whole position.
Jim writes:
How is asserting that biological reality is essential to any definition of what constitutes a human being weaker than the assertion that biological reality has no bearing on the definition at all?
Or are you really arguing that the embryo is not worthy of protection? If so, then let’s at least use the language correctly.
Fr. Hans writes: “How is asserting that biological reality is essential to any definition of what constitutes a human being weaker than the assertion that biological reality has no bearing on the definition at all?”
Question: is an acorn an oak tree? If not, why not? It carries with it all the DNA necessary to be a unique oak tree. It only needs to be implanted in the ground and watered in order to turn into a tree. True, many acorns don’t develop into trees. True, an acorn doesn’t have roots, leaves, or a trunk. But in your view those are irrelevant to its “treehood.” The important thing would be its biological reality, which I suppose is shorthand for saying that it has the active potential to be an oak tree.
Personhood entails a particular set of commonly-accepted characteristics. If you extend that concept to something that has virtually none of those characteristics, the concept becomes meaningless. The acorn IS an oak tree, and right now.
Fr. Hans: “Or are you really arguing that the embryo is not worthy of protection? If so, then let’s at least use the language correctly.”
First of all, I’m talking about fertilized eggs, not embryos. So let’s stay on that topic for a minute. I’m not sure what protection fertilized eggs should have, since I haven’t thought about the topic. That said, whatever protection they deserve would derive from their status as fertilized egg cells, not persons.
Jim has written:
When you read those quotes it’s hard to take it seriously that Jim is fully aware of the topic he writes on. When a bit of research will show that his positions are right in line with much of what Peter Singer (and similar ethicists have written). Such as the editorial below by Smith that points out the sources to Jim’s beliefs.
NRO
Note 35.
Of course an acorn is not a developed oak tree (that’s why we call it an “acorn” — language actually means something here). But plant it and I can assure you it wont turn into a kitten, a rock, or even a dvd player. Biological specificity works that way. It’s the same with human embryos. If left unmolested, the embryo grows into an fully formed human adult.
Again, so you say. Others say differently (read note 36 above). What you share in common with those others is that the definition of what constitutes a human being is shorn from any biological specificity. Thus, there is no philosophical distance between your view and, say, Peter Singer’s.
#37 Father, Jim ultimately advocates a form of utilitarianism to bio-medical ethics. Which is the same principle that underlies Singer and other current bio-medical ethicists. The core principle in this line of thought is hedonistic; that the pleasurable choice is the best choice.
Jim believes that he isn’t drawing upon Singer’s ideas, but the truth is he draws his ideas from the same well.
When I read Jim’s constant argument that disabled people and fertilized eggs are non-persons, I’m reminded of Hannah Arendt’s comments about “the banality of evil”. That it is the ordinary who accept the premise of the state (in this case abortion, euthanasia are legal) thus seeing their actions as normal and ordinary.
All of those who argue any type of non-person confirm the statement of St. Athanasius that when we deny God, we are capable of anything. All morality and ethics which is not founded upon some recognition of a divine reality is an artificial construct built only to serve its creator’s denial. Nothing is affirmed, nothing is strengthened, if fact just the opposite. Look at the quotes in #36 the only criteria give are rationality and desire. Here we see the dualism of Western culture at about the lowest level I can imagine being used as a justification for narcissistic murder. It is an attempt to deny death by controlling it.
Jim has made it clear that for him the impulse for communion with the divine is merely an artificial creation expressed in myths, poetry, and dead symbols with emotional significance onl–sort of a rarefied desired designed and used by men to compliment their rationality.
Our personhood comes from God. We exist as persons because we are created in His image. Our personhood is far deeper than desire, rationality or biology can explain. It is the essential mystery of being a human being in communion with our loving creator. It is the Light that enlightens every one who comes into the world (John 1:9). Our personhood is an ontological reality, not a philosophical concept to be manipulated to justify all types of insanity.
Those deny the essential reality of being human also attempt to do all they can to deconstruct, minimalize, and destroy any and all who challenge them. It is a matter of belief and their belief feeds the twin passions of pride and power. In such a place, they are unable to accept or even acknowledge the divine love which is at the heart of their very being. They live in hell here on earth and will likely do so when they die. Unfortunately, they are attempting to spread the state to everyone else.
Those who follow Christ are invited to live in His Kingdom wherever we are. To do so is our salvation. I ask you which is better: endless arguments over who has the right to live and its corollary: who makes the decision and who executes the choosen one; or the acknowledgement that none of us has a right to live, we live only by the grace of God, but in communion with Him we live eternally. We are who we are because of His love for us. When we return that love, we begin to recognize the nature of our own being. Of course, we are still only acting as it says in the Divine Liturgy: Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee.
Ethics and morality removed from worship is false at its heart and will eventually become depraved and indifferent to humanity as Jim and his buddies so clearly show.
As Christians we must reject and counter every argument that seeks to define human being as rooted only in the material. We must always affirm the ontological reality that we are living symbols of the cosmic reality of the Divine made flesh. Because of God’s grace, we live in Him and He indwells in us. We are in a material world, made by Him. Our function is to fructify that world and by His grace acting through us, raise it to Him.
RE post #38 –
So, JBL – if using embyros for medical research will save many more hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives, why not do it?
#40
Glen which of your children would you be willing to give up for this “noble” cause?
Or when the Nazis experimented on people for the “noble” cause of medicine was it justified because it helped millions?
The ends don’t necessarily justify the means.
And I find it somewhat confusing that a person who confesses a strong Orthodox faith would entertain an idea that the fetus is non-person that could be experimented upon?
Especially when the church fathers have written about the protection of the fetus.
Notes 40 and 41. Glen, I don’t understand your point either.
JBL wrote:
Actually JBL and Father Hans, I am 100% opposed to any and all forms of fetal experimentation, euthanasia, or basically anything that tampers with the sanctity of life. I’m also of the opinion that artificial means of procreation are immoral, which is somewhat more extreme than mainline Orthodox thought, but I think is a justified case nonetheless.
Actually, my comment was bait. I wanted to draw JBL into using exactly the same wording that I used when opposing the deliberate bombing of civilians.
The ends justify the means when bombing civilians. Then utilitarianism is okay, because it is for the greater good.
When experimenting on children, however, only a moral absolutist stance is acceptable. No matter the potential benefit to mankind, no utilitarianism is entertained.
I see this two positions as incontrovertibly opposed to one another. In the one area, we’re willing to make moral compromises for the ‘greater good.’ In another, we are moral absolutists.
Isn’t this a problem?
Glen there is a presumption underlying your statement that bombing civilians (or non-combatants) was intentional in every case. In particular it’s hard to justify that idea when in many cases in Lebanon that civilians who were bombed had been paid to house military equipment for Hezbollah. At that point they are no longer innocent non-combatants but active participants in war.
This case I mention is not comparable to the intentional destruction and experimentation on people that are not fully developed.
I have never stated the slightest objection to the unintentional and regrettable loss of civilian life that results from the ongoing conduct of military operations.
However, the primary argument for strategic bombing directed specifically at civilians boils down to a utilitarian argument that the ends of stopping the war as quickly as possible outweigh the evil of the means. This is the argument behind the atomic bombs, the firebombing of Tokyo, and even Sherman’s March to the Sea.
The disconnects show up when:
1) leftists who go nuts over the bombing of Tokyo or Hanoi, go out and defend the destruction of innocent human life because the child is defective, or because the mother has other priorities, or for the ‘greater good’ because experimenting on the embryo or fetus can cure Michael J. Fox.
2) conservatives go out of their way to defend every U.S. wartime decision to bomb civilians intentionally to ‘shorten the war,’ ‘save more lives in the long run,’ ‘punish the enemy,’ etc., but then turn on a dime and defend the right of every human to life regardless of any other considerations.
Either you shouldn’t deliberately take innocent human life or you should take innocent human life if the circumstances warrant it. That is a clear decision, the current moral mess has everyone making no sense.
In case you didn’t notice, I’m on the no deliberate taking of innocent human life side.
Glen,
Is a civilian who supports their government by working directly for it or in support of military capacity a non-combatant?
JBL –
You’re reaching here. Clinton didn’t bomb the power grid in Serbia in Winter because he was trying to halt artillery shell production. The U.S. didn’t firebomb Tokyo to stop the production of Zeros. The Brits didn’t hit Dresden because the people there were involved in munitions production.
There is no problem hitting factories that produce munitions. They are legit targets, and always have been. If you are targeting a factory and you hit homes nearby, then such is war. These things happen.
What I am talking about is the direct, deliberate attack on civilians to ‘break the will’ of the enemy. Since such a goal is contrary to Christian morality, the appeal to support it is almost always couched in utilitarian terms that are very similar to the terms Singer uses to describe why ‘defective’ children (for example) should be killed. It will maximize the general welfare, you see.
But, that’s garbage. So was the Jihadist excuse that since the U.S. supports Israel and the WTC was a major component of the support structure of the United States’ economy, they were justified in hitting it to try and ‘break our will’ and force us out of the Middle East.
That’s garbage too. They had no right to do that, regardless of their justifications.
The deliberate destruction of innocent life is immoral. We shouldn’t condone it. That shouldn’t render us powerless, of course, because it is perfectly possible to fight a war in which you don’t deliberately attack civilians. There never is a shortage of actual military targets.
When did Cheryl Sullenger spend time in federal prison and for what reason?
Do a google search. Most of the citations are on pro-abortion sites so you have to wade through invective to get to the facts but a handful mention it. I’d like to find a more balanced site but since it happened in 1988 (I think) it’s probably buried way down.
Jon Fistarus asks: “When did Cheryl Sullenger spend time in federal prison and for what reason?”
Going on memory here, but in 1987 or 1988 she was convicted of conspiracy to bomb an abortion clinic. She provided an explosive, detonator, and gasoline — and maybe a gun? Memory fails here. She and her co-conspirators were ratted out by one of the members of her church, as I recall. She spent two years in federal prison, which today would be a monumentally light sentence. John Walker Lindh walked around Afghanistan with a grenade and an AK47, never fired at anyone, and got 20 years. So times have changed.
Do a web search on her, like “cheryl sullenger prison,” and you’ll get some information. Given that a lot of information on the web drops off over time, there are fewer details available now than there used to be, so the actual details are hard to come by. I believe the bombing conspiracy occurred in San Diego. Her conviction was around 20 years ago, so you should be as comfortable with her as you would be with any terrorist whose conviction was 20 years ago. She has “renounced violence,” whatever that means. I suppose it’s something that she had to do as a condition of parole. Personally, if I ever ended up within 500 feet of her I’d carry a Glock and wear body armor. Your mileage may vary.
She and I were members of the same fundamentalist organization many years ago, so I’m interested in her “career.”