In my opinion, both presidential candidates have their problems. But one has more problems than the other. Here is a column I wrote for Townhall.com: The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position.
In my opinion, both presidential candidates have their problems. But one has more problems than the other. Here is a column I wrote for Townhall.com: The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position.
Well, [in absentia] I battled monumental technical difficulties with my, but [alas] I am back and boy oh, boy is this a time to really consider the mettle of our leaders. Though I do not agree with the notion we need insulated career politicians designing our lives with their plans. I do [however] agree that we need to consider the character of the people put into office and even more… judicial appointments. I am for the average man being in office, but something needs to qualify them. What do they believe? what is their view on issues that can divide the nation? do they believe in the sanctity of human life and so fourth. Something in their life needs to have prepared them or leadership. To me lulling about in a mindless quandary in the senate or congress doesn’t necessarily qualify you for the office. But mind, character and wold view are more important to me than defending the taxpayers against reckless earmarks and other elitist entanglements – though these are imporant line item issues and talking points.Butagood point is raised here – Obama cannot be trusted.
If nothing else were to back up your post title, the varying responses on the Saddleback forum to the question of abortion should.
“Not living”, “alive”, and “dead” are fairly straight forward. Most 5-yr olds can make this distinction, yet making that call is above Obama’s “pay-grade”?
If a person can’t figure it out, the question must be asked how he has the capacity to be able to order soldiers to any duty where they can go from “alive” to “dead”. It should also be asked that since he can’t make that call, that he would excuse himself from any policy related to abortion.
As I understand his position, though certainly not to phrase it in the same way, as long as someone agonizes over a decision such as abortion, then that person’s decision should stand and life or death of the unborn is irrelevant. If that standard is held for life and death decisions, shouldn’t it at least be available for every other bad act? Maybe feeling good about plans to embezzle from an employer should be his ‘get out of jail free’ card.
““Not living”, “alive”, and “dead” are fairly straight forward.”
It’s not straight forward whether a cluster of cells smaller than a blueberry without heart beat or brain function qualifies as ‘living human being’. If it was then we wouldn’t have seen such debate on the issue for the past few decades.
Andrew Ryan said:
“It’s not straight forward whether a cluster of cells smaller than a blueberry without heart beat or brain function qualifies as ‘living human being’.”
I believe it is a straight forward issue.
In the early days of the abortion debate, Ronald Reagan used to say, “If you come across a paper bag in a gutter and it looks like something in it is alive and moving you don’t go up to it an kick it, do you?” He also said something along the lines of, “It’s funny how all people who are pro-choice have already been born.”
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” says our Declaration of Independence. You can’t have the pursuit of happiness without liberty, and you can’t have liberty without LIFE.
An unborn baby has its own DNA different from its mother and father. An unborn baby taken out of its environment would die. An unborn baby is not part of the mother’s body. The uterus would reject the unborn baby trying to implant itself in the lining of the uterus if it weren’t for the unborn baby releasing a chemical to trick the uterus into accepting it. From there on the placenta exchanges all oxygen, nutrients, and waste between the mother and unborn baby. Not even the blood between the mother and baby gets shared.
“He also said something along the lines of, “It’s funny how all people who are pro-choice have already been born.””
Nonsensical – you might as well say none of the people who are against it have died!
Remember that Ronnie was the president who made major policy decisions on the advice of his and Nancy’s personal astrologer. Note also that abortion rates tends to go up whenever a Republican gets into power. They say they’re against it, but their policies lead to abortion rates going up. If you want there to be fewer abortions, vote Democrat.
“If you come across a paper bag in a gutter and it looks like something in it is alive and moving you don’t go up to it an kick it, do you?”
Do I take it from this that you are a vegetarian?
“He also said something along the lines of, “It’s funny how all people who are pro-choice have already been born.””
Nonsensical – you might as well say none of the people who are against it have died!
See, this is a prime example of what I call a “sorry Evangelical argument.” It’s when an Evangelical Christian says something that’s obviously sarcastic in order to make a point….but instead of acknowledging that he/she is doing so, he/she pretends that it’s a real, honest-to-God point, and not a sarcastic remark.
I believe it is a straight forward issue.
Well, there we go, pack your bags, it’s over, people! The abortion debate has been settled — this man believes it’s that simple!
Oh, wait…wait, dammit, other people have opinions, too! Now we gotta consider all of ‘em! I guess it’s not over, after all….
It’s not straight forward whether a cluster of cells smaller than a blueberry without heart beat or brain function qualifies as ‘living human being’. If it was then we wouldn’t have seen such debate on the issue for the past few decades.
I have to agree with ya, here; there are good reasons for these paradigms that refuse to die. It’s because they are the natural course of human interaction. But then again, I say this because I believe in debating issues, not claiming absolute moral authority and then denouncing anyone who dares discussing it further.
“It’s not straight forward whether a cluster of cells smaller than a blueberry without heart beat or brain function qualifies as ‘living human being’. If it was then we wouldn’t have seen such debate on the issue for the past few decades.”
Is size an important issue in deciding whether something is a living human being?
Once the heart starts beating, should abortion be off limits?
How much brain function does one need to be considered a living human being? Is it a continuum, where the more brain function one has, the more human they are? Or is there a specified amount that makes a living human being?
Also, is the amount of debate over an issue evidence that the issue is not “straight forward”?
“How much brain function does one need to be considered a living human being?”
I’d say you at least need to have a brain in the first place. [no jokes please!].
I wouldn’t have made a joke, but if I did, I hope you would have taken it in the fun it would have been meant.
My wife is pregnant right now. She’s been looking through books, because she likes to be as informed as possible. There’s some interesting information in these books. For instance, the heart starts beating by week five (before some women even know they’re pregnant). The brain is already beginning to develop by week five. By week seven, the baby has a brain, though still very primitive. My wife isn’t even showing yet, and our child already has a brain and a heartbeat.
Also, what makes a brain the deciding factor, rather than something else? Is the brain the only factor, or should several things be taken into consideration to be considered a living human being?
I’m not as smart as some of the other people on here, so I need things spelled out for me. What is the criteria for being considered a living human being?
How much brain function does one need to be considered a living human being? Is it a continuum, where the more brain function one has, the more human they are? Or is there a specified amount that makes a living human being?
Oh, ooh, I got one! How do you know when a cell becomes “ensouled?” If a sperm and an egg don’t have a soul and aren’t human and can’t be murdered or anything, then how could they make something that has a soul and can be murdered? How do you know?
I always understood the “soul” to be completely intangible. But this is a very literal, physical process, of which the supernatural has no part. So where is the physical “soul” of this embryo? When does the soul magically appear within these two cells? Do the sperm and egg each contain half of a “soul” that come together and make an embryo that has a complete soul?
What is the criteria for being considered a living human being?
That’s too bad. As a zealous opponent of abortion, I’d assume you knew more about it than that.
“Is the brain the only factor, or should several things be taken into consideration to be considered a living human being? ”
First of all congrats on your forthcoming family. My girl is 8 week’s old. It will change your life in ways you cannot imagine.
If you kept alive my brain in a jar, and I could still think, then I’d say THAT was me in there. It’s the one part of my body you can’t replace and still say ‘That’s Andrew’.
“I’m not as smart as some of the other people on here”
Don’t worry. At least you don’t act like a blow hard boasting about how smart you think you are.
I’d say, pretty much, a zygote not having a brain and not having brain activity, precludes it from being a human being. It can’t think, feel pain, anything we associate with being a living human being.
Would you say that when a person dies they’re still a human being? I mean, they don’t suddently turn into a monkey, right? They’ve still got a brain, a heart, it still looks like them. But we still go ahead and bury them.
“That’s too bad. As a zealous opponent of abortion, I’d assume you knew more about it than that.”
How do you know how zealous I am about anything? I always assumed that “living human being” meant a human being that was living. Since, as soon as the sperm meets the egg, the cell created is living, and human (in that it has human DNA) I’ve always felt it was safest to come down on the side of caution. I’m just trying to talk through this issue a little bit. The purpose of discussion is, in fact, to find truth, isn’t it?
“Would you say that when a person dies they’re still a human being? I mean, they don’t suddently turn into a monkey, right? They’ve still got a brain, a heart, it still looks like them. But we still go ahead and bury them.”
I think I see your point here, but in this case, the person is, in fact, already dead. The debate seems to be when it is appropriate to end a life, not what it is appropriate to do to a life that has already ended.
Based on your comments, I think we can find some common ground, at least when it comes to “late term” abortions. Am I at least correct on this?
Late term abortion is pretty rare – it’s unusual to get to the stage where it’s either the mummy or the baby that’s going to survive. In those cases ONLY would I support it. As I said though, that’s a pretty rare scenario.
When’s the US cut-off for abortions? In the UK I think it’s 22-24 weeks. I’d support reducing it to 18 weeks.
Hi Tim,
Your comments on the soul struck me. If you don’t mind I would like to understand your view better.
You stated, “if a sperm and an egg don’t have a soul and aren’t human and can’t be murdered or anything, then how could they make something that has a soul and can be murdered?”
Well, if you believe that a I could be murdered, then clearly an egg and a sperm are capable of making something that can be murdered. Perhaps it is the soul that you have a problem with. So, I wonder what you think a soul is, and whether you think that you have one? I assume that you do not believe in an immaterial soul, but I think it better to ask, before I start off in the wrong direction here.
Best,
Jeff
When’s the US cut-off for abortions? In the UK I think it’s 22-24 weeks. I’d support reducing it to 18 weeks.
Yeah, even I start getting a little sick in the gut when we start talking about chopping up babies that are halfway formed.
Tim,
I get the same feeling. That sick feeling in our gut is our moral intuitions at work.
Regarding the 18 week cut-off, what confuses me is that it all seems so arbitrary. What relevant change occurs at 18 weeks that makes that it an appropriate cut-off for abortion? The fact is that it’s the same entity at 1 week as it is at 22 weeks. In fact, it’s the same entity at conception as it is at 22 weeks, or 2 years. This truth lies at the heart of the pro-life position. The unborn differ from newborns in four ways: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. None of these differences are relevant to ethical treatment or affect one’s status as a member of the human community. I can draw out the logic of this further if you want me to.
Roe v Wade, together with the companion case Doe v Bolton, make abortion legal in the U.S. through all nine months of pregnancy. This is due to the “health restriction.” The court ruled that the “health” (of the mother) should be taken in the broadest possible sense to include emotional health, psychological and emotional health, and the woman’s age. This broad interpretation has made abortion available on demand even up to the point of birth.
Jeff
“That sick feeling in our gut is our moral intuitions at work.”
Then what’s that sick feeling I get at the idea of a woman who’s just been raped being told that if she’s pregnant then she’s forced to carry the baby to term?
“Regarding the 18 week cut-off, what confuses me is that it all seems so arbitrary”
Name an age limit in law that CAN’T be attacked as being arbitrary. Why do you suddenly become legally allowed to have sex at 16 when you couldn’t a week before? You’ve got to draw the line somewhere. Once you agree that a newborn is a human being but a zygote obviously is not, then drawing the line becomes the ethical dilemna. I agree that calling a zygote a human being avoids this dilemna, but that doesn’t in itself make it correct.
By the way, why not continue this discussion in the other ongoing thread here: Life Begins at Conception