Posted on 08/29/2014 7:33:31 AM PDT by wagglebee
Prof. David Schultz writes:
“When it comes to the issue of abortion, this is not a scientific issue but instead a matter first of theology and then ethics. There is no scientific answer to when life begins. This is a matter of religious faith and I may not choose to agree with the theology that another holds.”
Is there no scientific answer to when life begins? That depends, of course, on what one means by “life.” I and most people (in this context) generally mean biological life, specifically the life of a human organism. That is indeed a scientific question, and the answer is well-established and scientifically uncontested. Presumably Schultz is using “life” to mean a particular moral status (e.g., being a “person,” having a right not to be killed), so “when life begins” is when the human organism acquires (if she does not have it by nature) that moral status, not when the human organism actually comes to be.
Is the moral status of unborn human beings “a matter of religious faith”? Not really — no more so than the moral status of law professor human beings. The question is whether unborn humans, like toddlers, adolescents, grandparents and law professors, deserve full moral respect and ought not be killed for the convenience or benefit of others. Ultimately this question rests on the nature of human value and dignity. It is a moral and philosophical question. (As with any issue — poverty, capital punishment, the environment — many people have religious motivation or grounding for their ethical principles, but that does nothing to disqualify those principles from public consideration.)
Schultz adds:
“To say life begins at conception is a meaningless and empty statement. Just because something is alive and human does not give it moral rights. My kidney is alive and human, does it have moral rights?”
It’s true that merely being alive and human — like a kidney, or the skin cells on the back of my hand — does not say much. But Schultz misses one more biological fact about the unborn (i.e., the human embryo or fetus), a fact that makes the unborn radically different from a human kidney or skin cells: the unborn is a whole (though immature) organism, not a mere part of another. The unborn, from the beginning of his or her existence at conception, is a member of the species Homo sapiens, the same kind of entity as you and me, only at a very early stage of development.
We know this from the science of human embryology. The moral question, as Schultz notes, is separate, and it is what the debate is really about: How should we treat human beings at their earliest developmental stages? Do all human beings, at all stages and in all conditions, have a fundamental right to life, or only some?
LifeNews.com Note: Paul Stark is a member of the staff of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a statewide pro-life group.
A fact that the pro-death movement will never acknowledge.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Life: 1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. 2. living things and their activity. 3.
the existence of an individual human being or animal.
All three apply to a preborn child.
I don’t know who David Schultz is, but he seems to be being purposely obtuse.
Or perhaps he is that blind, ignorant or stupid.
Actually, my experience for the last few years is that fewer and fewer of the pro-aborts try to defend this prof's scientifically indefensible position.
That the embryo/fetus is a human life is quite simply a scientific fact.
What I see more frequently today is grudging recognition of that fact, accompanies by one of two rationales for nevertheless allowing abortion.
1. The embryo/fetus is not "a person" under the terms of the US Constitution, and so is not worthy of the protection of its civil rights. The original Roe decision is actually quite good at supporting this position. It is highly unlikely the original Founders or those who ratified 14A had any notion they were talking about preborn children.
2. Yes, the preborn child is a human life, but it is a parasitical invader life, and is not as important as the life of the "mother," so her preferences/convenience should take complete precedence.
I'm not saying I agree with these positions, simply that these are the ones I've been seeing more often recently.
A search for “Professor David Schultz” reveals a professor of political science at one university, and a law professor at another. Neither has any more to say about the biology of human beings than any other generally informed person. (In fact, if either Professor Schultz offers an opinion contrary to that of biological science, he reveals himself as an ignorant ideologue.)
Neither man has any more to contribute to the ethical debate regarding human life than does any other informed person.
I think the line: “ALL men are created equal..” kinda says it all.
I’m not sure about the take - away of this for Christians, but for Jews, the commandment against “spilling seed” attests to a profound respect for even the potential for life. (I’m not saying this is the unified orthodox stance on abortion - it varies from the devout Christian one, but ‘life’ ain’t so simple, yet is profoundly important.)
Just to weigh in, not to argue with you of course:
1. One should ask a person who supports argument 1, “Did the authors of the 14th Amendment envision anchor babies?” When of course they answer “no” their argument is destroyed. Or ask, “Did the founders envision the Internet vis a vis the first Amendment?” When they answer no their argument is destroyed (because by such perverse limiting logic, the first Amendment protection can’t apply to the Internet, since the Internet wasn’t envisioned by the founders.)
Finally it’s sickeningly ironic such an argument would be used in the first place in defense of Nationalized Abortion. As the entire argument for forcing states to permit it rest not on anything specific in the Constitution but on the “penumbra” thereof, which is, by definition, “not envisioned by the founders”. Hypocrisy heal thyself!
2. This is a common misapplication of the “invader” argument which can take many forms. Basically it says an invader of personal space has no right to said space uninvited.
Certainly true enough but it ignores one key fact: the baby inside the womb didn’t “choose” to “invade” the woman. It’s a subtle but significant difference that differentiates it from a mere parasite.
A better analogy (and one that destroys #2) is to compare the baby in the womb to, ironically, another baby but one outside the womb, left on one’s doorstep by a poor mother. (Note this can be done since the one making the argument in #2 has already conceded the “thing” in the womb is a human person)
Does that baby have the moral right to be cared for, even by a stranger? That is, does the stranger have a moral duty to care for a baby that’s not even his own?
Every truly moral person with even a sliver of a conscience must say, “Yes, that oerson should at least care for the baby until and unless it can be found a more permanent home or until it grows up to care for itself.” This then destroys #2.
Human beings and kidneys are entities which have different identities and natures.The God-given right to life applies to human being entities and not kidney entities.
The fact that human beings exist in different forms depending on the stage of life does not invalidate the above principle.Life is a feedback loop where the cycle of material cause leads to efficient cause, which leads to formal cause, which then loops back to a new material cause.The initial material cause is the fertilized egg, which means the right to life applies to it, and the whole process after it.
1. The Founders were perfectly well aware of the process of pregnancy and birth, though their understanding of it was a lot less complete than ours. They were also perfectly familiar with the concept of abortion. Which was legal throughout the US till the later third of the 19th century, in the first three or four months. Abortions after that time were seldom attempted, as medical knowledge was inadequate.
I agree that this attitude towards abortion was largely because it was believed, inaccurately, that the child wasn’t really alive until that point. But that doesn’t mean protection of the unborn is retroactively inserted back into the Constitution.
Since the Constitution says nothing about abortion one way or the other, the 10th Amendment applies and the whole issue should have been left entirely up to the states. Where I would personally support considerably more restrictions than at present.
BTW, I’m not sure why you think anchor babies are relevant. From the Founding, the US has been jus solis, so children born here have always been assumed to be citizens. Until the late 19th century there were almost no real restrictions on immigration, so the concept of anchor baby had no meaning.
2. Better arguments here. But it does seem remarkably unfair to put such a great burden on the female relative to the male. If we’re going to outlaw abortion, I suggest much stronger paternity laws. You knock somebody up, we track you down and you pay for the next 18 years.
Don’t want to pay a significant chunk of your future income for a couple of decades? Keep it in your pants.
Of course, there is a scientific answer. The scientific answer is conception.
Perhaps the point he meant to make is that there is no political or legal answer. On that note, the legal answer can simply be the opposite of the legal definition of death. There is one fact that no can avoid; everyone is either living or dead.
Does that apply to the moment of creation, or for the person’s entire life? Many people think there is a difference, that people begin changing immediately after their creation.
You make good points but the only reason I mentioned “anchor babies” is because that’s what proponents of such a concept get out of the 14th Amendment. I’m not saying it’s correct, just responding to the argument in question.
Because surely, an advocate of abortion would support the concept of an anchor baby. (Ironically). So it’s turning their own logic against them WRT the 14th Amendment.
Children have the right to remain silent..../S
Looks like Radar O’Reilly
Radar was cute - her, not so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.