Very interesting and extremely well-written article on perspective and self-awareness in times of crisis...
Noonan is awesome
Look at the Time
I'm in SLO for the weekend, catch you all next week.
-T
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Logical inconsistencies
Below are 11 true statements...
1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
Many people incorrectly believe that the arguments against abortion are based solely on the Bible and religion.
Clearly not the case. None of these statements says anything about religion or the Bible.
Yet, if you add these up, there is a striking logical inconsistency.
The issue of abortion comes down to the issue of personhood - that is, what is it about us that makes us a 'person' and confers the rights and liberties afforded to all 'people'?
Afterall, if a fetus isn't a person, then there is no issue.
The ways we define (derived from some of the statements above) "person" will result in a logical contradiction if you allow abortion. If you say personhood is conferred at birth, then fetal homicide/manslaughter laws don't make sense.
If you say you are only a person when you can live on your own then you take away the personhood of those on life support.
If you say that you are person when you have the ability to reason, then you take personhood away from the severely mentally handicapped as well as infants.
On top of that, abortion also violates principles of justice (see numbers 9-11)
Now let me say this. I am not opposed to all abortion. I think in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in serious danger, it should be allowed. These, however, are very rare occurrences and make up a tiny fraction of the number of abortions performed in the US - they also do not contradict personhood issues because they are extreme cases that allow for exceptions.
What I do think is important (especially from the standpoint of knowing what we believe and why we believe it) is that we have a coherent and logical understanding of personhood - as this definition applies to very many issues and topics in our society.
-T
1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
Many people incorrectly believe that the arguments against abortion are based solely on the Bible and religion.
Clearly not the case. None of these statements says anything about religion or the Bible.
Yet, if you add these up, there is a striking logical inconsistency.
The issue of abortion comes down to the issue of personhood - that is, what is it about us that makes us a 'person' and confers the rights and liberties afforded to all 'people'?
Afterall, if a fetus isn't a person, then there is no issue.
The ways we define (derived from some of the statements above) "person" will result in a logical contradiction if you allow abortion. If you say personhood is conferred at birth, then fetal homicide/manslaughter laws don't make sense.
If you say you are only a person when you can live on your own then you take away the personhood of those on life support.
If you say that you are person when you have the ability to reason, then you take personhood away from the severely mentally handicapped as well as infants.
On top of that, abortion also violates principles of justice (see numbers 9-11)
Now let me say this. I am not opposed to all abortion. I think in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in serious danger, it should be allowed. These, however, are very rare occurrences and make up a tiny fraction of the number of abortions performed in the US - they also do not contradict personhood issues because they are extreme cases that allow for exceptions.
What I do think is important (especially from the standpoint of knowing what we believe and why we believe it) is that we have a coherent and logical understanding of personhood - as this definition applies to very many issues and topics in our society.
-T
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
So it begins
I've been meaning to start one of these for a long time. Not sure why I haven't gotten around to it...
Anyhow, I'm starting my blog.
I'll warn you now - It's going to be all over the place.
Before I begin and enter the blogosphere, I feel as though I should have a 'mission statement' for my blog.
I want this to be blog that explores the important issues in our lives and does so in a good faith effort to seek the truth.
I'll start by telling you that you will probably disagree with me at some point. Great. You may also take offense at something I say or perhaps at the way I say it. Also great. That means you're at least doing some thinking about things that matter to you.
Too many people go through life without knowing what they believe or why they believe it. It's absolutely tragic.
If I can spur debate which leads to honest introspection, then I will have achieved my goal.
Here we go...
Anyhow, I'm starting my blog.
I'll warn you now - It's going to be all over the place.
Before I begin and enter the blogosphere, I feel as though I should have a 'mission statement' for my blog.
I want this to be blog that explores the important issues in our lives and does so in a good faith effort to seek the truth.
I'll start by telling you that you will probably disagree with me at some point. Great. You may also take offense at something I say or perhaps at the way I say it. Also great. That means you're at least doing some thinking about things that matter to you.
Too many people go through life without knowing what they believe or why they believe it. It's absolutely tragic.
If I can spur debate which leads to honest introspection, then I will have achieved my goal.
Here we go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
