Abortion Part III

Another criteria that some like to propose we use to determine personhood is the level of development. Of all the proposed criteria this one seems to me to be the most likely delineation to use.

So which type of development do we use? Some possibilities up for consideration could be:

• cognitive development
• viability
• ability to experience pain or fear
• complete development of all organ systems, or a particular one
• how about brain waves? we use this to determine a person's legal status at the end of life

Unlike the size question, these items have the possibility of being valid qualitative criteria. This is why I believe the level-of-development appeal is the most promising for pro-abortion people. I've noticed that this is the most common criteria proposed for defining personhood.

How about cognitive development? Is this qualitative or quantitative? Can we say that self-awareness makes someone human? The obvious answer is no because self-awareness is possessed by many animals and it's also not possessed by people in comas. How about level of reasoning ability, or intelligence? For instance IQ? If this is to define humanity we must choose an IQ level that is higher than the smartest dolphin or dog. It's clear that there are many people who live lives protected by the laws of the land who have IQs that are a bit too low to fit this criteria. Also, again back to the coma situation there's certainly no IQ being expressed there...but then again we do tend to kill those stuck in comas too long don't we? It seems clear that cognitive development is on a single continuum and must be labeled quantitative; after all, a human is still fully a human whether they possess more or less intelligence.

What about viability? Many like to define humanity as beginning at the point of fetal viability. This is tough because what does it mean to be viable? An infant needs the mother for food. The baby would also die of exposure (in most climates) without the care of the mother to either protect the infant from the sun, or the cold. Most people don't consider normal motherly care as counting in viability. They like to say that if the fetus could come out today and survive with the mother's normal nurturing that it is then viable and human. The problem here is that we have many clear cases of humans born with birth defects that cause them to fail this qualification so we'd have to allow a blanket killing of the disabled. And more than that, we'd first have to say the disabled aren't human. What happens when I go to have surgery for my heart disease? If I'm having a bypass surgery, then for a period of time during that surgery I'm not viable. So I'm not human while under surgery and anyone should be able to pull the plug on me without being guilty of murder. This doesn't even mention the problem that viability is nearly impossible to pinpoint in a fetus. It changes from year to year with medical advances and always varies from baby to baby. I contend that viability is also quantitative not qualitative. Is one person more human than another as a result of being more viable, or survivable than another?

As for the ability to experience emotion or pain, that's a tough one. I know that to throw a golden retriever in to a ring with a pitbull will be cruel to the golden retriever. This dog will experience a lot of fear and pain. But when you throw two pitbulls together, they both experience glee. I know their brains are receiving pain signals yet they don't seem to find it unpleasant. Most pitbulls that I've seen fighting on TV documentaries or newscasts are wagging their tails. They really find glee in fighting, yet I contend that it's still cruel precisely because of the outcome, not how they view the experience. Likewise, as a martial artist I've gotten used to the idea of violence (somewhat) and don't think it's any big deal to be beat up and experience pain. However, does the law recognize it's OK to attack and beat a brave man with higher pain tolerance, but not right to do this to a timid, scared man? Well, I can agree that there seems somehow to be more guilt when the crime is perpetrated against a terrified child vs. a courageous adult, but can this be taken so far as to say that personhood can be defined by our ability to experience fear or pain? Certainly not physical pain, because again, that's shared by animals and not shared by people sleeping or under sedation. So we're only left, perhaps, with the ability to use fear. Too bad that a 3 week old infant isn't any more fearful than a 24 week fetus. If it matters, psychologists say that the only fear an infant possesses instinctively is the fear of falling. If it matters, we have video of half-term fetuses crying in the womb in response to sudden loud noises. This one fails the test too.

How about the complete development of organ systems, or just one such as the beating of a heart? Well, the problem here is that the heart begins beating way too early in fetal development to allow practically any abortions. However if we did use this, it might be the most rational of any criteria (along with perhaps brain activity). Again, if we define personhood by this standard then those with artificial hearts, or in the process of receiving a transplant, or a stopped-heart surgery are not human either. And what happens in the future when we figure out how to engineer artificial organs for various functions? If we place a functioning organ in the role of determiner of human life then we deny humanity to people receiving artificial organs. Besides, what qualitative difference is there between a liver and an arm? So do we have a problem to address in regard to amputees?

Brain waves? Well, here I can't say a lot. I don't know when brain waves begin in a fetus. Since brain waves are used as a harbinger of life in dying adults, should they be used as the harbinger of life in developing fetuses? I say no for a simple reason: the loss of brain activity in a dying person is used because it is assumed that almost no one ever recovers from that condition. A fetus, if left alone to continue developing will become a productive member of society. This is the key difference and actually an important point to make in all of this. A fetus, regardless of what traits it does or doesn't yet possess, WILL, if left alone, continue to develop. Yet, it's not this development that makes him qualitatively human.

Now for something lighter...

Let me ask you a question. If I said, "The sky is blue, water is wet and moose don't fit easily into coin slots," would you call for my dismissal?

Well, then, why did Air Force football coach Fisher DeBerry get pure hell when he explained a bad loss to TCU by saying, "[They] had a lot more Afro-American players than we did, and they ran faster than we did...It's very obvious to me [black players] run extremely well"?

Did DeBerry sneeze into the flag or put out a kitchen fire with a bunny? Besides butchering the phrase African-American, what exactly did the 67-year-old DeBerry say that was so wrong?

Hellllooo? In football, if you're looking for speed, 99.9% of the time you'll find it in a black athlete. All but one of the last 100 wide receivers taken in the first round of the NFL draft were black. Of the last 50 All-Pro cornerbacks, only one was white. Only 48 men have broken 10 seconds in the 100-meter dash, and they're all black. You think that's a coincidence?

I have no clue why this is true. I just know it is true. Running fast is not the only thing these athletes are good at. Not by a million miles. But it is one thing.

And yet knees started jerking instantly. DeBerry was called into the athletic director's office for a tongue hammering. He had to apologize. A sanctimonious Colorado state senator called for his immediate firing.

But get this: Almost no black people were upset! It was all PC whites freaking out for blacks. All my black friends were like, "Many blacks run fast? Duh!" Bill Johnson, a black columnist for Denver's Rocky Mountain News, couldn't understand the furor. "Was I missing something?" he wrote.

If I were DeBerry's boss, I'd have screamed at him, too. "You've been coaching here 22 years and you're just now realizing black guys run fast? No wonder we suck!!!!"

DeBerry didn't insult blacks. If he'd have said, "Blacks are fast, but they can't grow orchids," or "Blacks are fast, but they stink at the accordion," then we'd have something.

Look, the only way we're ever going to deal with real racism is to throw out all the dumb crap that isn't racism---the stuff that gives racists ammo to toss at us.

Take it back? The only thing DeBerry should take back is his apology.

Abortion Part II

Some people try to justify abortion without making the case that the fetus is not human, but rather by elevating the rights of the mother over that of the baby. I won't spend much time dealing with this approach because it's easily refuted. Just quickly: if the baby is a human deserving legal protection, then our legal system already arbitrates situations where there are competing legal rights. When this happens our legal system says that the higher value should prevail. For instance, I have the right to get somewhere quickly, but because driving at 100mph endangers human life, the greater value of life wins out and the law restrains my driving speed. The same applies, if the mother's right to various freedoms and conveniences and/or social standing is impinged upon by a pregnancy that is outweighed by the baby's right to life. That is, if the baby is a human. So enough on that point.

As to the question of whether the fetus is human I'd like to discuss a few of the criteria that people like to use to argue that a fetus is not a human. Well, some people make the distinction between 'human' (which they would say is genetic) and a 'person' (which they say is some higher state of being that bestows moral imperatives).
Either way, my argument here will work. My argument is that there is no sufficient qualifier that we can use to draw the line between human/nonhuman or person/nonperson that applies to a developing fetus.

Size:

Many would propose to use the size of the fetus as a determinant in granting the legal protection of personhood. Since growth is more analog than digital, where is the line drawn? Do we propose to pick a size, perhaps 1 lb? Perhaps 2 lbs? Since we have many cases of premature infants born in the 1 lb range, and they are granted personhood rights (meaning you can't go to the NICU and kill a 1lb baby sitting in an incubator), then we'd have to set the weight below the lowest weight ever survived by an infant.

Yet if we do that, what is it really that we are saying? Since growth is gradual and continual, aren't we really saying that there is a continuum of personhood? If we draw a line in the sand and say personhood begins at a certain size, then doesn't it also follow that there are degrees of personhood and that it's based on size?


If so, it would follow that I'm more of a person than my wife. If my rights were ever in conflict with hers then I'd win out. If I drive too fast and t-bone a car, I'd luck out and get off scott free if I weigh more. Ok, that was cheap argumentum ad absurdum, but it works.

Notice that my preceeding comment about where to draw the line used fetal viability in the argument. Later I'll cover that point all by itself, but it was natural to use it in the discussion of size. Most people don't try to hinge their arguments on size, but I still wanted to address it to try to close an avenue of escape.

Abortion Part 1

I think I'll do two or more posts on abortion. It's a simple matter to say that God forbids abortion and be done with it. But for those who don't believe in God, or the inspiration of the Bible by that God it's not as simple as this.

So my plan is to present rational arguments against abortion that do not appeal in any way to the Bible. This isn't to say that what the Bible says carries no authority. It's entirely valid to say that I know something is true because the Bible says so. Note that this is not to say that something is true because the Bible says so. Catch the difference there? Things are true or not true based on their correspondence to reality. Nothing is true just because the Bible says so (except for assertions about what the Bible says).

For a Christian, having settled in their minds the question of whether Scripture is inerrant, it's then valid to say they know something is true because the Bible says so. Note that the truth claim is true regardless of what Scripture says, it's just that the testimony of Scripture can be all the evidence someone needs to know it's true.

Enough about that. Let's get on to the topic.

27 States treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide. There are additional states that have some other form of penalty for attacks on women that harm an unborn child. For example, in 1987 in Minnesota, a teenage girl 6 1/2 months pregnant went with her boyfriend in to the woods to commit suicide together. After she shot herself in the head, he decided not to kill himself. He covered up her body and left. He was convicted of "inadvertently murdering the fetus during the commission of a felony". The fetal homicide law carried a stricter penalty than assisting in the suicide. This verdict was upheld on appeal.

A newspaper article about this event said this: "The law makes it murder to kill an embryo or fetus intentionally, except in cases of abortion." Think about that. We have laws that make it illegal to kill a fetus, calling it murder; and we have laws that condone the killing of the fetus, calling it abortion.

What is the basis for the difference? Well, the basis comes down to one thing: the will of the mother. But that's preposterous. The law actually says that if the mother so chooses, the law will view the fetus as a human worthy of protection, and if she so chooses, the law will view the fetus as non-human, unworthy of protection. Do you see how that is logically incoherent?!?

So we have this situation where the legal status of the unborn is not based on some intrinsic quality of that person, but rather on the arbitrary choice of various individuals. This truly is anarchy.

Consider the parallels to institutionalized racism. We've had a time in the past in our country when a person's legal standing wasn't based on any intrinsic traits of that person but rather on the arbitrary will of another. During the era of slavery, slaves were considered property. Their legal standing was arbitrarily tied to their owners.

Consider Nazi Germany where the legal standing of Jews was determined by those in power.

My contention is that this schizophrenia in the law is proof positive that on some level people know that killing fetuses is wrong. They simply care more for personal autonomy than justice for the weak.

A Short History Lesson

The year is 1621. 102 of you had sailed from Holland the year before. You arrived in New Plymouth after 66 days' sail. You arrived late in the year and set up a village as quickly as you can to survive the winter.

After arriving, but before leaving the ship, you created a charter for your new town. The Mayflower Compact said this: "undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith."

It was a bad winter. 47 of you died. What would happen next winter? Had God abandoned us? You spend a lot of time praying earnestly for God to save you. What are the odds that in March you would meet an indian not only speaking excellent English, but who is a follower of Christ? Squanto stayed for the next 18 months and taught them how to build warmer shelter, how and when to plant crops, and helped broker a treaty with the local indians that lasted 50 years. No pilgrim was ever harmed by an indian.

Squanto is the genesis of the Thanksgiving holiday. William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, proclaimed the first official day of Thanksgiving in October of 1621. It must be noted that they were thankful for the provision of Squanto, and that they were thankful to God.

I think it's entirely appropriate to consider Squanto a miracle from God prepared for the specific purpose of sustaining the Pilgrims, and thereby the origins of American civilization. William Bradford wrote about Squanto: " ... special instrument sent by God for their good beyond their expectations ..."

Let's trace the unlikely course of events that prepared Squanto for this purpose.

Squanto was a member of the Patuxet tribe who's village was near the site of New Plymouth. There he encountered his first white men (somewhere between 1605-1610). Squanto hung out with them and learned their language. They treated him well and gave him clothing to wear. When it was time for them to head back to England, they invited him along. He accepted their invitation.

Once back in England, he lived with the family of Charles Robbins. For a while he was part of an Indian exhibit on stage in London.

He eventually became homesick and arranged to head back to America. He got passage back to America by Captain John Smith. Squanto travelled with Smith for a while after reaching America, providing assistance as a translator. Finally he was given permission to go home.

On his way home he encountered another ship commanded by Captain Hunt, whom he was familiar with. Hunt tricked him aboard the ship and along with about 20 other indians sailed for Spain and sold them in to slavery.

Somehow Squanto ended up at a Catholic monastery. They freed him and taught him about Christianity. Squanto converted to Christianity. It was about 1616 when the friars booked him passage on a ship to England.

Squanto spent the next 3 years in England working as a servant in the home of John Slanie. Slanie located a ship and got Squanto passage back to America.

When Squanto finally arrived back where his village should be after about 10 years away, he found the village gone. He learned that the entire tribe had been lost to disease and that he was the only one left. He was then invited to live with a nearby tribe which is where he was when he met the Pilgrims.

A year later Squanto died of an illness.

I can be thankful for all that I have, but I bet I'll never feel the gratitude felt by Bradford and the Pilgrims on that first thanksgiving.

The Faith of our Founding Fathers

I just read an excellent transcript of a radio commentary by Greg Koukl. If you don't know Greg, he's one of the best examples of a clear-thinking, clear-speaking Christian.

One disconcerting trend I see in secular culture today is the attempt to redefine the religious convictions of the Founding Fathers. Greg takes a recent example of this and sets the record straight.



This not only has implications in a vague, historical sense. But I believe it should be a big part of the discussion over the struggle over separation of church and state. You see, it is true that activist judges have revised the interpretation of the establishment clause to disallow any religious (primarily Christian) influence in the affairs of our Government, or any governmental support for religious institutions (ie. public prayer in schools).

Knowing that our Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian in their beliefs, and seeing them apply their Christian values to the running of the Nation in the past really should put to rest the idea that the establishment clause is really a banishment clause.

For those of you that are hostile to Christianity, you will appreciate the evenhanded way that Greg deals with the subject.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097

Educational Malfeasance - Biology Texts

A few years ago there was one of the now commonplace brouhahas over the teaching of Biology in the public school system. This was in Texas, and despite (or maybe because of) all of the protestations of a creationist agenda, the Texas standards were simply changed to include a prohibition against factual errors in school textbooks (Texas Education Code, § 31.023).

Who could possibly be against correct facts being taught to our impressionable youngsters?

TEA Chief Deputy Commissioner Robert Scott pledged that all remaining biology textbook errors and alleged errors would have to be addressed by publishers before the textbooks were finally certified by his agency.

The Discovery Institute reviewed Biology texts that were in use in Texas and provided a list of factual errors to the TEA. These errors have gone largely unaddressed.

Let's cover some of these errors:

Bogus Embryology. Three textbooks (Holt, Prentice Hall, and LeBel) incorrectly state that vertebrate limbs develop in the same way
in all vertebrate embryos. Three textbooks (LeBel, Prentice Hall, and Thomson) also wrongly imply that vertebrate embryos are the most similar in their earliest stages of development and only become different later. The actual pattern of vertebrate development is (i) early dis-similarity followed by (ii) similarity midway through development, followed by (iii) later dis-similarity. This pattern is a anomaly from the standpoint of Darwin's theory, not a confirmation of that theory. Extensive documentation refuting these incorrect textbook claims about embryology has been submitted to the TEA, but the TEA has disregarded the documentation.

Peppered Moths. Two textbooks (LeBel and Thomson) continue to present outdated claims about microevolution in peppered moths. Other textbooks have either dropped or qualified their discussions of peppered moth research.
But the TEA has refused to make the two hold-out publishers bring their textbooks in line with current research.

Miller-Urey and the Origin of Life. Two textbooks (Bedford Freeman Worth and Thomson) continue to mislead students into thinking that the Miller-Urey origin of life experiment was based on current beliefs about the earth’s early atmosphere. In fact, the Earth's early atmosphere was probably quite different from the mixture of gases used in the experiment. Again, other textbooks now provide this information, but the TEA refuses to make the remaining publishers update their texts.

Flat earth myth. The LeBel text perpetuates the myth that Europeans prior to 1500 believed in a flat earth and wrongly claims that Columbus’s belief in a round earth “caused considerable controversy.” The TEA’s own consultant agrees with Discovery Institute on this point, but the TEA still won’t make LeBel make the correction!

Killing of Scientists myth. The LeBel text also falsely claims that “some scientists were executed for teaching that Earth and other planets orbited the sun.” Again, the TEA’s own consultant agrees with Discovery Institute on this point, but the TEA won’t make LeBel make the correction.

Dating the Cambrian Explosion. One text (Holt) continues to wildly misstate the standard dating of the Cambrian Explosion. Holt originally claimed that the Cambrian Explosion took "160 million years." Then it claimed that it took "30 to 160 million years." Now it is willing to state that "most estimates range from 10 to 100 million years." In reality, the best standard estimate is probably 5-10 million years. [note: the latest evidence is now pushing it down to < 1.5 million years]

The Texas standards for textbooks are the most rigorous in the nation. The textbooks adopted by Texas are largely adopted across the US. The issue of these errors is huge. How can kids come to a knowledge of the truth if the facts they reason from are false? Why would someone steadfastly cling to the teaching of false facts? The only reason I can come up with is that there is an evolutionist agenda at play here. Some day the house of cards will fall, and for centuries the theory of evolution will figure prominently as the latest/largest scientific failure probably in much the same vein as we now view the geocentric solar system view.

Educational Malfeasance

Yesterday I queried my 12 year old daughter about her day at school. Getting her to say anything about school is quite a victory, so it's a little unusual that I was able to get her to indicate that she enjoyed her Social Studies class.

It turns out the reason she enjoyed it so much is because they watched a movie. What movie did they watch, you ask? They watched "The Day After Tomorrow". The reason they watched this movie was to educate the kids about global warming. Well, you can already tell from the title that I find something wrong with this. So let me assert what's wrong and then follow up by supporting that assertion.

The reason this is wrong, is that it uses pseudo science and extreme alarmism to indoctrinate the kids in to a certain political viewpoint. By using a dramatic presentation (ie a Hollywood movie) the communication bypasses the typical filters of the intellect (as underdeveloped as that would be in a 12 year old) and shoots it right to the emotions. That medium makes it a very effective tool of indoctrination. In addition, the facts being presented are fallacious.

As a result, I needed to undo some of the damage done to my daughter's worldview. I had to explain to her that global warming doesn't happen that fast. That global warming won't be that cataclysmic. That global weather patterns have always oscillated over eons. That so far, the average temperature of the Earth has risen 1 degree this last century. That besides humans producing greenhouse gasses that there are other natural sources such as volcanoes and cows. See here for correct information.

Now the movie could be a valuable teaching tool to get students engaged in the topic and then correct information can be layed out there. But this isn't happening. The film seems to be used as the teaching. There are really two distinct problems here, as I see it. The first is that the children are being taught pseudo science, or in general, they are being taught false facts. When the facts you are given are false, how are you to come to correct conclusions? The second is that children are being indoctrinated and not taught. The difference is that they are being taught what to think not how to think.

Granted, global warming is real. I think the science is conclusive. We do know the main contributor at this point is carbon dioxide emissions from internal combustion. Steps should be taken, and in fact they are. The big questions are:

• what sense of urgency should there be?
• what are the ramifications/risks?
• what are the solutions?
• what must I do personally?

The answers to those questions, if you ask a 12 year old who's just seen the movie will be dramatically different than the answers you'd get after a sound instruction on the issue. What kind of education is that?

Perhaps you think that no big deal should be made over this. After all, kids will learn and temper their teaching with the gain of further knowledge and maturity. They won't grow up warped and reactionary. Well, how do you explain the rise in eco terrorism? I think it's a logical outcome of extremism in the information we are being fed. You see, if global warming is really going to end in the destruction of the human race, then isn't civil disobedience, property destruction, and even a few well-targeted assassinations worth it to save all of the world?

My only point here is that ideas have consequences, and the most deeply ingrained ideas or beliefs are those taught to you at the youngest age, and those accompanied by emotionalism. If these ideas are false, then we have a dangerous recipe.

Am I making much ado about nothing? (pun). Well, this problem of educational malfeasance is really systemmic at least in our school district. Just last week I was told how a friend of my daughter (9th grader) has spent hours over the last month watching the Maury Povich show in school. What did they see? "Paternity Tests Revealed...Cheaters Exposed"! Not only is there no educational value in this (wasting our tax $), but it actually does educate our kids. Rather than educating them in the way we'd hope, it educates them in depravity and furthers the impression (however accurate or inaccurate) that this depravity is a cultural norm.

Think that falsehood in school curriculum is rare? I don't. I'm not going to make any promises, but I might try to catalog a few more in subsequent posts.

Could Life Have Arisen Naturally?

The issue of the origin of life on Earth can be a very complicated matter. The reason, of course, is that the issue invariably requires the analysis of detailed scientific facts derived from the fields of chemistry and biology. This often makes the issue inaccessible to us common folk. I'm no scientist (at least not that kind) but I consider myself very well versed on this issue for a layman.

My informed opinion is that it's been suitably demonstrated by many scientists that there is no reason to think that life could have arisen naturally. But rather than try to demonstrate this via scientific means, which I've tried to do before, I would like to distill the case to the simplest form I can. If I succeed, then this will be a compelling argument against the possibility of a natural rise of life that will be comprehensable to all who read this.

Now if all I do is launch in to the typical argument for IC then I will have mired us in a confusing mess of biology and molecular machines. But I have a much simpler form of the IC argument to lay out here. The IC argument can be very well summed up by saying that it's a chicken and the egg problem. If you have multiple things that rely on each other for function, where all parts are mandatory for functioning, then they must all begin simultaneously.

Here's the simplest example I have found. At the lowest level of biological life, all organisms rely on proteins, DNA, and RNA. This is true for every living organism on Earth. Therefore, it must be true of the first life on Earth (if not, then that life would have no relationship to our life and whatever life is ancestral to us would have to have arisen for the first time anyway). You see, in all living things we have a perplexing interdependency such that proteins only assemble within cells under the guidance of DNA and RNA. RNA only assembles in the presence of protein and DNA. And DNA only assembles via the help of RNA and protein.

To add insult to injury, RNA molecules (and many DNA molecules) are only chemically stable when encapsulated within a biological membrane. Of course, biological membranes only form through DNA, RNA, protein, and RNA complexes.

Of course, the counter argument will be that there is a step-by-step progression from non-life to this form of life. However, it's pretty clear to anyone that isn't grasping at non-theistic straws that this type of interdependency cannot be arrived at naturally. If you think so, then construct me a real-life model of the 'thing' pictured above.