Pages

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Aborting Downs Syndrome babies is a moral obligation?

Introduction: I was recently forwarded this news article from a contributor to the Triablogue. In this article, UNC Chapel-Hill biology professor Albert Harris argues,

"In my opinion, the moral thing for older mothers to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome #21, and abort the fetus if it does. The brain is the last organ to become functional."

And why does he say this is the moral thing to do?

"I know somebody who had a child like this, and it ruined their life,"

My translation of what Dr. Harris is saying in light of both comments above is as follows:

"If a physically or mentally defective pre-born child [i.e., a Down Syndrome child] can potentially 'ruin' your life, then you should not only have the moral right to kill it but you are morally obligated to kill it in order to avoid 'ruining' yourself and your immediate family."

So, we should have the right to murder certain types of pre-born babies because they can potentially "ruin" us? In other words, if a pre-born child has the potential to economically and emotionally inconvenience our family, that therefore gives us justification to not only have the right to murder it but makes us morally obligated to do so? Ignoring for the moment that Dr. Harris' conclusion doesn't follow from his premises,
let's take the opportunity to reduce his position to absurdity.

A Scenario: My 83 year old grandmother just sustained a Colles fracture after getting into a nasty car wreck that was her fault two weeks ago. She was in the hospital for treatment for the fracture and observation for possible complications associated with cardiac tamponade about a week and had episodes of delirium due to the strong pain medications she was on. As a result of the delirium, she was extremely difficult to interact with, at times was very nasty to my family and at least once that I know of, security was called because she was physically fighting with the nurses. She was out of control. Not to mention that her health is declining overall and the medical bills are becoming very costly and the time needed to care for her is becoming increasingly taxing to my family. In sum, this has been very emotionally and economically inconvenient to my family and while this is taxing our own wallets because my grandmother does not have the money to pay her part, it is also taxing the economic resources provided by the federal government's Medicare system.

Thus, my grandmother has emotionally and economically burdened our family, and could potentially "ruin" our family (or already has according to some) and along with millions of other dear American grandmothers, is taxing the federal healthcare system.

Questions: (1) So, if I am morally obligated to murder my pre-born baby because it can potentially "ruin" me, why stop with pre-born babies? (2) Who gets to decide when they, their family, and even the federal healthcare system have been "ruined" and who gets to objectify for the rest of society what it means to be "ruined"? (3) If an individual or family decides that they have been "ruined", then why is it acceptable to be able to murder a pre-born child to avoid being "ruined" but I can't murder my grandmother for the same reason? (4) What's more, if having a functional brain is the implied criteria for personhood [per Dr. Harris], upon what objective basis is it officially declared "functional"?

Conclusion: If we not only have a moral right but a moral obligation to murder pre-born Down Syndrome babies then it would follow that we have a moral obligation to murder anyone who can potentially "ruin" us via emotional and economic hardship; and that could be just about anybody from our banker and financial planner to our little ole' grandma. Worse yet, the definition of "ruin" at this point is left to the subjective whim of the person being "ruined". And so, if the pre-born physically and mentally defective child will surely bring grief and "ruin" (however that is defined), then why can't I kill grandma too? After all, the only real differences between the pre-born Down Syndrome child and grandma are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. Just as Christians (and most other sane people) would consider it immoral and evil to murder granny because she has a shrinking cerebral cortex and associated intermittent dementia concomitant with her Alzheimer's diagnosis that is severely taxing the family both emotionally and financially, so we would also be unjustified in murdering our pre-born Down Syndrome child because she may "ruin" us financially and emotionally. We don't murder innocent people because they are physically and mentally inconvenient to us; unless of course, you prefer to deny them the usual, legally mandated rights and protections associated with "personhood" that are granted to every other living human being in the U.S. post January 1973 simply in the name of "choice". This isn't the first time the U.S. did this; for the first finely documented instance of this happened to our black neighbors in 1857. How ironic.

In brief sum, the Christian's objective basis for not murdering demented grannies and pre-born babies is ultimately based upon the clear, foundational declarations of Scripture, not upon the inconsistent and autonomous reasoning of sinful, unregenerate men. Take special notice of the first-person pronouns being used by the Holy Spirit through the pen of King David regarding his own human personhood before he was born,

NAU Psalm 139:13-16 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; 16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

56 comments:

  1. I am a nurse and I absolutely agree with what you said here. No one has the right to murder anyone. I work with the elderly on a neurology floor and so I know what it's like to to be slapped, kicked, spit at, etc by those who are confused. It really is a sad disease and I pray that God takes my mother home to be with Him before she gets dementia. However, I did have a catholic priest who works at my hospital tell us that it was a sin to not give someone a feeding tube or place them on life-supporting machines. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I disagree. God didn't create us with feeding tubes nor did He command that we use machines that mankind has invented. If a person wants those things, then they should get them. However, I will always refuse them. I might be a little too much indoctrinated with the medical world, but quality of life is important in my view. If I cannot eat with my own mouth, then don't feed me any other way. If I can't breath on my own after a few months of being intubated, then pull the plug. I don't believe that is killing anyone unless they and their families want that type of help. Anyway, you're post is a good breakdown of how completely wrong that man is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Luvvom said:
    ---
    If I cannot eat with my own mouth, then don't feed me any other way.
    ---

    I'm not sure I'd be that emphatic about it if I were you. Suppose you were in a car accident and you shattered your jaw and it had to be wired shut for six weeks, but there was nothing wrong with your brain. You can't eat with your own mouth, and you've said not to feed you any other way... Not so fun a way to go.

    Then there are doctor-induced comas where the patient is expected to recover consciousness later. So to make it a hard and fast rule I think isn't very wise. (I also realize that you're not advocating this for everyone, but just gave a comment about yourself.)

    I do understand your sentiment, of course. And I don't believe there's a moral requirement to go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive. Of course the debate is on whether providing food is "extraordinary lengths." There are clearly times when it is morally imperative to feed someone via alternative methods than just the mouth. I'm not so sure there are times when it is moral to refrain from doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The only reason you desire more people to have downs is because they're the only ones left in contemporary society that you'd have a chance of converting. Sometimes I think y'all have downs. Has it ever occurred to you that god forbears pasting a soul onto a baby that he foresees will be aborted and that the soul in question would prefer to hold out for a better body?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hope your mother will do the moral thing and have a post-birth abortion performed on you, Thnuhthnuh. The last thing this planet needs is another unwanted tissue mass such as yourself. After all, God obviously didn't "paste" a soul onto you since it would be a travesty for any soul to be born with your faulty brain.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "...based on clear, foundational declaration of Scripture,..."

    Could you please spare us your sanctimonious drivel?

    It also says "thou shalt not kill".

    Who listens to that? Do you?

    After you jump down from your abortion soap box and someone asks you about a 20 year old boy killed in a nefarious conflict where the benefit is that a few Americans have their pockets greased, do you have a tendency to look down at your shoes?

    If so, you need to give a little deeper thought as to who is being killed and why. And, then ask yourself if you aren't being hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rick said:
    ---
    It also says "thou shalt not kill".
    ---

    Only in the KJV. The correct translation is "You shall not murder." And murder is not the same thing as killing.

    But suppose it was. Suppose that Christians are hypocrites. How does my being a hypocrite and failing to uphold a standard across the board mean that you ought not uphold the standard at all? I mean, suppose that I skim money from the offering plate as it goes by. Does that mean you can rob a bank and have it become a moral action?

    You blathered:
    ---
    After you jump down from your abortion soap box and someone asks you about a 20 year old boy killed in a nefarious conflict where the benefit is that a few Americans have their pockets greased, do you have a tendency to look down at your shoes?
    ---

    A) War isn't murder. B) I'm sure the Iraqis who have been liberated from a tyrant received no "benefit." C) Who's pockets have been greased by this war anyway? Oh wait...Moveon.Org has made a ton of cash. D) See my points above regarding hypocrisy. Even if you were correct here, your conclusions are invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Pike, if you are looking for blather and incoherance, re-read your last contribution.

    You may wish to utilize weak and irrelevant statments to support yourself in your attempt to blunt perfectly rational comments aimed at the hypocrisy of those who chant about the evils of abortion while at the same time remaining silent when it comes to those being killed in an insupportable and unjustifiable conflict but it only makes your comments appear all the more fallacious and your arguments invalid.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too (actually, it looks as though you've had enough cake). You can't talk about killing and narrow it down to just a fetus. Fair enough?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rick,

    I wouldn't so much as say that you're a liar as that you invent people who don't exist and then interact against them as if they did exist. You've not offered anything against my position at all so far.

    Again, the issue is not killing but murder. Murder is the unjustified taking of human life, and by "unjustified" we mean moral justification. That is, it is the taking of innocent human life without proper justification.

    This shouldn't be too contraversial of an idea.

    Now I hold that this position is true regardless of where the human being is located (including inside a womb), how old the human being is, what level of development the human being is at, etc. If an organism is a human being, then one must have proper justification in order to kill that human being or one has committed murder.

    In virtually all abortion cases, the "justification" is the conveinience of the mother. Yet we do not allow a mother to kill a homeless man who inconvieniently sleeps on her sidewalk. Nor do we allow a mother to kill an adult son who records over her favorite Wheel of Fortune episode.

    Nor do we allow the killing of human beings simply because someone else doesn't want them alive (that's true of every murder, after all).

    Now you've tried to say that warfar is the unjustified taking of human life, specifically as it relates to Iraq. I've argued before that Iraq is a justified conflict, and as such it is not murder to kill people during the course of the war. This doesn't mean murders cannot occur at the same time--in fact, a sniper was just convicted of murdering an unarmed civilian. That was murder because it was not warfare when the civilian was murdered. The sniper had no moral justification for taking that life.

    Now, Rick, if you'd like to pull your head out of the sand and actually deal with the philosophical issues that we've already dealt with multiple times in the past feel free. But you can no longer excuse yourself by pretending to be ignorant of the those who disagree with you.

    And I point out once more that even if everything I wrote above is actually wrong and I am a hypocrite, you still would not be justified in committing abortion because of that.

    Again, deal with the arguments presented already.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW, I also have to point out that it's not hypocritical for me to say that Iraq is justified but abortion is not since my standard remains the same: the unjustified taking of human life is murder. If I do believe Iraq is justified, that satisfies my moral requirement. At no point do I commit hypocrisy, even if my reasoning ends up being wrong. I'm actually following my standard consistently in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One other thing that must be pointed out is error of the claim that we are sending our own troops over to die. That is not the reason that our troops are being sent. We do not send any of our soldiers over to die; we send them over to defeat the enemy.

    Abortion on demand is the purposeful killing of human life, and that is its only stated goal. When we send our troops over to defeat the enemy, we do not intend for them to die (nor do we intend for them to necessarily kill anyone else--sometimes the threat of force is enough to cause the other side to capitulate), but we know that deaths may happen.

    There is a huge difference between having the stated goal be death and the other having the potential of death. This is also why I don't have a problem with abortion to save the life of the mother. In those cases, the reason for the action isn't to kill the unborn; the death of the unborn is an unfortunate secondary effect of saving the life of the mother.

    In all cases, we should seek to minimize the deaths of innocent human beings. Sometimes, we save innocent life by killing other innocent life, at which point the ethics get more difficult to cash out. But this is not the case in abortion on demand. As such, the comparison of abortion with Iraq is disanalogous across the board.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I bet Peter Singer would agree that such abortions should be obligatory.
    The foundations of ethics are arbitrary. Ranting at each other over arbitrary things is like arguing over what your favorite color is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. thnuhthnuh writes:

    "The only reason you desire more people to have downs is because they're the only ones left in contemporary society that you'd have a chance of converting."

    Christianity is experiencing significant to explosive growth in many areas of the world. Some of these areas include cities that are sterotypically secular (e.g. London, New York City, etc.) or known for intolerance toward religious beliefs (e.g. China).

    "The foundations of ethics are arbitrary. Ranting at each other over arbitrary things is like arguing over what your favorite color is."

    If the foundations of ethics are "arbitrary," do you apply your standard to social justice issues as well--for instance, do you think it's "ethically arbitrary" to be a slave owner?

    And what excludes us from applying this approach to knowledge as a whole? Epistemological consistency would have us say that knowledge is arbitrary as well. (And, of course, if knowledge is arbitrary, statements about ethical arguments are rendered moot.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thuhuhuhuuhhuhhuuhhhhuhhh said:
    ---
    The foundations of ethics are arbitrary. Ranting at each other over arbitrary things is like arguing over what your favorite color is.
    ---

    Fine, the next time us "den of thieves" heads over to your house for some free TVs I won't take your protestations about your rights as anything other than your opinion of your favorite color.

    Bet the world you live in ain't the world you claim you live in....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter, may I chime in here. You are talking about moral. I am just wondering what’s your moral about stealing images. I recognized this shot from a German Photographer who I came across in our community. Did she give you her explicit permission to use her image? Do you know that all of her photographs are copyrighted and protected by Federal law? I thought I should tell you this, because it always upsets me when people steal my images. It’s just not okay!
    Other than that very interesting article. I have a son with down's syndrome myself, and he has taught me a lot in the last 19 years. I am blessed to have him in my life!
    -Bob

    ReplyDelete
  15. On the morality of laws covering intellectual property rights, here's a place to start:

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1991OtherShoe.htm

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2005Copyrights.htm

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2005Digital.htm

    ReplyDelete
  16. I won't take your protestations about your rights as anything other than your opinion of your favorite color.

    Bet the world you live in ain't the world you claim you live in....


    I'm not saying I'm happy about this fact of arbitrariness, but I'm not going to lose my nerve like you and believe that ethical principles 'exist' the same way that, say, numbers exist. If you try to rob me, of course I'll try to stop you (but I wouldn't reproach you), but this impulse to stop you is only a subjective emotion in my head. It does not correspond to anything outside of that. If I ever behave 'ethically', I'm merely following the path of least psychological resistance. Don't try any of your Francis Schaeffer tricks with me. I'm not afraid to stare the ethical vacuum in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I should also point out for Bob that I didn't post the picture.

    Anyway, Snod said:
    ---
    If I ever behave 'ethically', I'm merely following the path of least psychological resistance.
    ---

    Thank God you're not in any position of authority.

    By the way, you're flat out wrong when you say:
    ---
    I'm not afraid to stare the ethical vacuum in the face.
    ---

    You haven't grasped the ethical vacuum at all, because the result is pure nihilism. The only consistent nihilist is the one who just killed himself.

    You do realize that if your presupposition is true and there are no morals, the fact that you act in a subjective manner that contradicts your claimed objective reality is the very definition of cognative dissonance, don't you? I mean, what do you think of the person who says, "I know that there is no goose laying golden eggs for me, but I'm going to live as if there is one." The best you can label such a person is "irresponsible" if not flat-out insane.

    Indeed, if you truly believed that morality was arbitrary and meaningless you would not live as if it were meaningful. The fact that you do not live this way is because you cannot live this way. It is impossible for you to do so anymore than it is possible for you to live without breathing. You can say, "I only breathe because I subjectively wish to do so" but that doesn't make it the reason you're breathing.

    In the same way, you recognize true injustice when you see it. You react in specific ways when your rights are violated precisely because you know those rights are real. They are not just something you subjectively choose--they are something that is objectively real.

    But since you cannot admit this without admitting that which you do not wish to be real (God), you live in a world you know is false, asserting that reality will conform to your wishes instead of conforming your subjectivity to reality. Tell me why I should not call you crazy for doing that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I mean, what do you think of the person who says, "I know that there is no goose laying golden eggs for me, but I'm going to live as if there is one."

    The biomechanism for ethics (and faith) might work like an ocd. Surely detective Monk knows at some level he's behaving absurdly, but the compulsion is too strong (as normal people would feel an overpowering compulsion not to kill someone, even if they would benefit and knew they could get away with it).

    Someday, they'll probably invent drugs to turn our ethical instincts on and off like a light switch since there are drugs that can treat ocd. They'll be able to turn faith on and off like a light switch, and if you are not too cowardly, you will be able to temporarily experience how the atheist feels. This should prove to you it's not a 'gift of God'. Then I would experience 'faith' but I'd know intellectually it's false, since it can be turned off.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "but we know that deaths may happen."

    And the Marines who volunteer know that their lives may be forfeited, as do their wives, and family, though the families don't always agree with their kindred who goes to war.

    I have a good friend who went to Iraq, and will be going to Afghanistan soon. He wants to protect his nation. There are many like him.

    This story from this supposedly intelligent professor is really incredible. But as wicked as abortion is, many see it as good.

    I wonder, has this professor seen an abortion?
    It's undeniably evil, if you believe humans were created in the image of God.
    If you believe we are simply evolved apes, then surely killing babies in the womb is fine, but why not also kill them when they are born deformed.
    Simply use a hammer.

    Abortion is such an evil thing against this nation. may the lord have mercy on us.

    Thanks for the excellent post. Made me angry. I hope I can be angry, but not sin.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good point but i still wouldn't do tube feeding. I would do TPN instead. I think the only time tube feeding becomes moral is if the patient wanted it and no one gave it to them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Snod said:
    ---
    The biomechanism for ethics (and faith) might work like an ocd.
    ---

    And you might be a unicorn in drag.

    Again, nothing you've said addresses my point, which is that if you actually believe what you claim then you are, by any reasonable definition of the word, insane.

    Snod said:
    ---
    Surely detective Monk knows at some level he's behaving absurdly
    ---

    Surely you know at some level that detective Monk is a fictional character.

    Snod said:
    ---
    Someday, they'll probably invent drugs to turn our ethical instincts on and off like a light switch since there are drugs that can treat ocd.
    ---

    These already exist: alcohol, cocaine, etc. There's a reason it's called being under the influence.

    Snod said:
    ---
    They'll be able to turn faith on and off like a light switch, and if you are not too cowardly, you will be able to temporarily experience how the atheist feels.
    ---

    Apparently you have no concept of conversions. Or do you just think everyone is born a Christian and then become an atheist later on?

    Of course that begs the question of why I would be in a better position to judge the truth if I knew how an atheist "felt." I don't know how a sociopath feels, nor do I know how a rapist feels. Does that mean I should go on a kill and rape rampage before I can figure out that those actions are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Donsands said:
    ---
    Abortion is such an evil thing against this nation.
    ---

    (First off, I should note that I agree with everything you wrote in your post.) :-)

    One thing my parents (who are missionaries in Ukraine) reminded me of is that abortion is not simply a United States problem. It's a worldwide problem. We sometimes tend to forget that and think only in terms of the 40 million aborted babies from America, but with China enforcing it's "one child only" policy, with India aborting most females, and with Ukraine harvesting fetal organs (the doctors would actually tell mothers that their child was stillborn, but in reality they had killed the newborn to harvest organs), abortion is a global sin. It's not only in America.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although I strongly disagree with Rick and thnuhthnuh, I am glad that they posted their comments. It validates and confirms that many people think like they do.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hmmm. I wonder what Dr. Harris would have to say in response to the countless people who testify that having a Down's Syndrome child has enriched their lives immeasurably.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "One thing my parents (who are missionaries in Ukraine)"

    Lord bless them. Some friends of mine just returned from a short term mission trip there.
    In Fact, the one couple adopted a Ukraine boy, Sasha. He's something special.

    You're right about abortion, it's world wide, even in Israel, which is such an ungodly nation as well.

    May the Lord have mercy on all these nations, for His wrath is building up for sure.

    May we, the Church rise up and get fired up to take the Gospel to the world like never before. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Truth Unites ... And Divides, just a friendly word of warning about this blog.

    You might be conservative as far as Piskies go, but if you're not a fire breathing low church anti-sacramental presuppositional Berkleyan hyper Calvinist, they'll cruelly mistreat and abuse you, same as they have me.

    Matthew, where do you get your stats about explosive growth in London? Last I heard, church attendance in England was down to < five percent, and there are now more Catholics in England than Anglicans.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ree, there's the other side of the equation - is it best for the child?

    To bring this home, let's say you had some disease & you knew within a few years time you would have a truncated, borderline consciousness, unable to think a coherent thought, unable to track and calculate, and feel all the things you are able to now. Would you really want to go on living like that? If not why force someone else to?

    What enrichment do these people get they couldn't get from a cat. I love cats. They seem to be conscious in the same way people are.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. thnuhthnuh writes:

    "but if you're not a fire breathing low church anti-sacramental presuppositional Berkleyan hyper Calvinist, they'll cruelly mistreat and abuse you, same as they have me."

    I'm none of these things and treatment has been fine over here. Have you ever considered that over-the-top statements like these might be causing the "cruel mistreatment" and "abuse"?

    "Matthew, where do you get your stats about explosive growth in London? Last I heard, church attendance in England was down to < five percent, and there are now more Catholics in England than Anglicans."

    As way of recall, I mentioned significant and/or explosive growth in relation to many places, not in reference to London only. I'm not sure you've correctly understood my assertion.

    You are correct--church attendance in England is down. However, The Economist (I believe) did a special on how it is growing in London. I'll check the source tonight and post something more specific if required.

    The main point still stands; the church hardly needs Down Syndrome babies to increase membership.

    "Ree, there's the other side of the equation - is it best for the child?"

    I can't speak for Ree, but since ethics are arbitrary, who cares? Isn't this, as you said, "like arguing over what your favorite color is"?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Of course, Thuhuhhhhuhhuhuhuhuhuhuuhhuuhuhuh misses the fact that it is philosophically reasonable to assert that existence is better than non-existence. And if that's the case, then it's better to live even with the worst "quality" of life than it is to have never existed at all.

    Of course, he can't make this claim since he has to resort to nihilism. In the end, no existence is better than non-existence under nihilism. After all, what's the point of anything? You come from nothing, you'll go to nothing, and in between you remain nothing (even if you subjectively "feel" you are something). No one will remember you after you're gone. You even stop thinking about your closest friends within months of their passing (sure, you think of them occasionally, but then suddenly you realize a decade's gone by and you haven't thought about it at all--and even if you did, it's not like they're alive to care that you think about them).

    With nihilism, no matter how hard you try to make meaning exist it's a fictional meaning.

    It's hard to see why, if you actually accept this view, that nihilism is better than theism. If nihilism is true, your purpose is just as much a fiction as inventing a God would be.

    Again, I point out that the only consistent nihilist is the one who just killed himself.

    ReplyDelete
  31. PeterPike,

    Of course, Thuhuhhhhuhhuhuhuhuhuhuuhhuuhuhuh misses the fact that it is philosophically reasonable to assert that existence is better than non-existence.

    Did you mean it's philosophically UNreasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rhology,

    Nope. In all philosophical worldviews (other than the consistent--and dead--nihilist), existence is seen as better than non-existence. In other words, it is better to have existed even if your existence is life long pain than it is for you to have never existed at all.

    I would argue that even depressed people who say, "It's better if I was never born" still intrinsically know that this is not the case, since they do not all kill themselves at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cephas Turnpike: Again, I point out that the only consistent nihilist is the one who just killed himself.

    Not sure why you keep saying this. The decision to live is no more absurd than the decision not to live. If my impulse is to fear and shun death, following that impulse is no more absurd than not following it.

    Btw, I fear annihilation more than hell. The bible and you have let me down by not being convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ---
    The decision to live is no more absurd than the decision not to live. If my impulse is to fear and shun death, following that impulse is no more absurd than not following it.
    ---

    Following an absurd impulse is itself absurd, and there is no reason to fear or shun death in nihilism. That you fear and shun death is because you ultimately reject your nihilism. It's not your final worldview, even if you pretend it is. You say that you fear death, but there is no fear of death in nihilism. You fear death only because you import the fear from other worldviews.

    Further, you state:
    ---
    Btw, I fear annihilation more than hell.
    ---

    Again, this can only be because ultimately you are not a nihilist. For the nihilist there is only annihilation. And the consistent nihilist realizes that the annihilation extends not just through death but through life as well.

    In nihilism, your life as you live it is itself completely meaningless. The only meaning you can have is, as you've said, your subjective opinion. But that opinion is a meaningless opinion. It doesn't matter at all. As such, whether you live or die your life is purposeless and devoid of value. Death and living are the same thing: pointless and purposeless.

    Therefore, your fear of death is irrational. Your fear of annihilation is irrational. Again, you do not hold to the views you claim to hold to.

    And that's a good thing, because we don't want you to be a consistent nihilist.

    ReplyDelete
  35. thnuhthnuh writes:

    "but if you're not a fire breathing low church anti-sacramental presuppositional Berkleyan hyper Calvinist, they'll cruelly mistreat and abuse you, same as they have me."

    I might get mistreated and abused here on this blog, but then again I might not. Thanks for the warning, but I'll take my chances.

    Am I...

    Fire-breathing? Occasionally, I can be sharp.

    Low Church? I think my church is at sea level. (Seriously, no Ap.Suc. for me.)

    Anti-Sacramental? I don't really like to debate the ordinance/sacrament thing. I know the EO/RC position on the "sacraments" and they get pretty worked up if anyone says it's adiaphora.

    Presuppositional? Actually, that's my favorite form of apologetics.

    Berkeleyan? I don't know what you mean. I'm not too fond of liberal Berkeley California, if that's what you're referring to.

    Hyper Calvinist? I lean Reform, but I don't think I'm hyper about it. I'm monergistic. Does that help?

    But back to my original point. Even though I disagree with you, I prefer that you be granted reasonable freedom to post your thoughts.

    And I honestly think it's a tribute to this blog that they don't moderate comments, nor do they ham-fistedly edit and delete comments.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Truth unites... says...
    "...at least it validates that alot of people think like they do..."

    Thanks. The key normative here is "think".

    If one may think on their own you may find that focusing on a fetus does not outweight or take pre-eminence over the focus on other forms of violence, cruelty or murder or lives of adults.

    And, yet by zeroing in soley upon abortion as your "raison d'etre" while covering your eyes as more egregious acts are unfolding one singles themselves out as being foolish and hypocritical. If you are going to talk about the "sanctity of human life" and not carry it across the board then you end up being like the irreverant Mr. Pike. Not worth listening to.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rick said:
    ---
    If one may think on their own you may find that focusing on a fetus does not outweight or take pre-eminence over the focus on other forms of violence, cruelty or murder or lives of adults.
    ---

    If you were literate, you'd see that the life of a fetus does not "outweight or take pre-eminence" over anyone else's lives and I've explicitly stated as much. Of course you aren't interested in thinking. You don't care about the pro-life position. You only want to emote.

    Rick said:
    ---
    If you are going to talk about the "sanctity of human life" and not carry it across the board then you end up being like the irreverant Mr. Pike. Not worth listening to.
    ---

    One of us has actually provided an ethical standard (murder is the unjustified taking of innocent human life) and has demonstrated how he is consistently applying this standard; the other has has replied with the logically brilliant "that's-not-worth-listening-to" defense.

    If only I could think as rationally as you...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Berkeleyan? I don't know what you mean. I'm not too fond of liberal Berkeley California, if that's what you're referring to.
    No, that's not what I'm referring to. read pgs 17,18 of http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ThisJoyfulEastertide.pdf
    . I meant this wacky, speculative, navel gazing nonsense of 'to be is to be perceived'. Note Hays equivocates between 'truth' as a state of affairs and 'truth' as how we perceive the state of affairs.

    The only reason they think God is plausible is because they've elevated this speculation to the level of an axiom. It's a blind spot as egregious as the faulty Michael Martin's probability arguments that are refuted a few chapters later.

    ReplyDelete
  39. And I honestly think it's a tribute to this blog that they don't moderate comments, nor do they ham-fistedly edit and delete comments.
    They DO delete profanity. IOW, Father Jake would get deleted & Steve is just as sarcastic as Sarah.
    IOW Steve Hays should change his name to Steve "Heys".

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rick: If one may think on their own you may find that focusing on a fetus does not outweight or take pre-eminence over the focus on other forms of violence, cruelty or murder or lives of adults.

    1. Well, we're not talking about a fetus vs. lives of adults here, Rick. Abortion has claimed the lives of forty-five-plus million unborn children.

    2. While an individual unborn baby's life may not be more valuable than a given adult's life, it is at least as valuable. You seem to deny this without justification.

    3. Granting that the unborn are human persons, and that we should generally work against the thing that unjustifiably takes the highest amount of innocent lives, abortion, as an issue, is preeminent. And there is no close second. This isn't to say we should ignore other problems, but we should indeed worry more about head trauma than broken limbs.

    And, yet by zeroing in soley upon abortion as your "raison d'etre" while covering your eyes as more egregious acts are unfolding one singles themselves out as being foolish and hypocritical.

    1. What acts are more egregious than the unjustified dismembering of 4,000 unborn babies a day?

    2. Exactly how many ethical pom-poms does one have to man at a given time to not be considered foolish and hypocritical? I mean, you brought up the war in Iraq; whether you're points are valid or not, why are you not foolish and hypocritical for focusing on that issue, while totally ignoring, say, the child soldiers of Uganda?

    3. Would a humanitarian be foolish and hypocritical for "zeroing in" on the poor of India at the cost of her attention to the poor of Sudan?

    If you are going to talk about the "sanctity of human life" and not carry it across the board then you end up being like the irreverant Mr. Pike. Not worth listening to.

    1. Would this go for you as well? You're talking about the sanctity of life and apparently not carrying it "across the board."

    2. If Pike is right on abortion, but wrong on Iraq, he would obviously still be worth listening to on abortion. Your all or nothing approach is nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
  41. We have 4 children and never had an amniocentesis to test for Downs or anything else. Why? Because we wouldn't end the life of our child for any reason and that's final!

    ReplyDelete
  42. They DO delete profanity. IOW, Father Jake would get deleted & Steve is just as sarcastic as Sarah.

    IOW Steve Hays should change his name to Steve "Heys".


    That's pretty funny thnuhthnuh! I don't remember you on the Anglican blogs. Do you post under another name?

    BTW, Sarah Hey does write some good pieces. However, I have caught her being a defiantly unrepentant and mean-spirited hypocrite. Others have too, and she now goes by the Queen of Hearts or the Queen of Mean or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Do you post under another name?

    Nope, I mainly lurk. I really have no right to comment. I think conservative Christians are plain wrong, and I think liberal Christians are self deceiving atheists who are angry at conservatives won't "play along" and allow them to keep their illusions.

    It's just that the Anglican dust up is fascinating, so I've been tracking Anglican blogs for some time now. I'm just curious how it all ends up. The suspense is killing me - this is better than "24"! GAFCON. Lambeth. TEC. GS. San Joaqin. Rowan the cowardly liberal muslim. Orombi. Duncan. Schori. Kaeton. Clown communion. Muslim, Wiccan priests.

    You gotta admit, it's all very dramatic and surreal.

    ReplyDelete
  44. First I would just like to say I completely agree with what you have written Peter Pike, I will be linking people to this post.

    thnuhthnuh said:

    ---

    Matthew, where do you get your stats about explosive growth in London? Last I heard, church attendance in England was down to < five percent, and there are now more Catholics in England than Anglicans.

    ---

    I dont want to be picky but I think you will find the numbers a slightly higher than that, around 15 percent to be exact. Figures taken from this UN report dated 7th February 2008, see paragraphs 24, 25 for details -

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-10-Add3.doc

    Here is an extract:

    "24. The latest official national census of 2001 indicates the following data on religious affiliation for Great Britain: 71.8 per cent Christian, 2.8 per cent Muslim, 1 per cent Hindu, 0.6 per cent Sikh, 0.5 per cent Jewish and 0.3 per cent Buddhist, whereas 15.1 per cent of the population had no religion and 7.8 per cent of people chose not to state their religion. In Northern Ireland, 85.8 per cent of people answered the 2001 census question that they belonged to or were brought up in a Christian religion (40.3 per cent Catholic Church, 20.7 per cent Presbyterian Church in Ireland, 15.3 per cent Church of Ireland, 3.5 per cent Methodist Church in Ireland and 6 per cent other Christian denominations) whereas 13.9 per cent had no religion or did not state any affiliation and 0.3 per cent belonged to other religions or philosophies."

    The actual document is not that interesting, I just thought you may like to see some figures :).

    Looking forward to reading some more posts on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I figure i may as well just post the other paragraph as the first one doesnt acutally contain the specific info, and it saves you downloading the document:

    ---

    25. However, other surveys and opinion polls, which measure “belief” or “practice”, rather than “religious affiliation”, produce significantly lower figures for the Christian denominations. In 2007, approximately two-thirds of the British either did not claim membership of a religion or said that they never attended a religious service, compared with 26 per cent in 1964. Amongst those who do actually claim to belong to a religion, the proportion who attends a Christian service regularly has been falling. Another 2007 research report on churchgoing in the United Kingdom indicated that 15.5 per cent attend a service at least once a month whereas 28 per cent were former churchgoers unlikely to return and 32 per cent have never been to church and are unlikely to do so. In comparison to Great Britain, there are significantly more regular churchgoers than average in Northern Ireland, i.e. 45 per cent attending a religious service at least once a month. Surveys have also revealed that religious belief is strongly related to age and generations, with young people far less religious than their elders. Furthermore, the total number of people affiliated to non-Christian religions has increased in recent years and for most of them their religion seems to be a more important factor than it is for Christians.

    ---

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree with you 100%. Who are we to play God and determine who and who is not worthy of life? Isn't that exactly what Hitler did? We, as a nation, need to wake up to the extremely precarious road we are headed down in the way we view and value life.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Unbelievable. And dogpiled on by crazy people.

    http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2008/05/right-to-choose.html

    This is not Humphree, this is Amy Sterling Casil (I do not post anonymously via the internet).

    ReplyDelete
  48. I have never heard of something more ridicolous!!! I have a niece with down syndrome. I am so thankful to have her in my life. She has taught me so much, yes they have abnormalties, but so do alot of people...if you know a child is going to be born autism, is it morally correct for them to get an abortion what about diabets? These things arent the childs fault and if you dont want the baby there are so many people willing to take them, Who arent afraid of a little challenge. Lifes a challenge and if it throughs you one of these gifts then except it, dont take the easy way out. These children are amazing! You guys sound so nieve talking like that. you have no place in saying what people are morally inclined to do and I def. think you should keep your opions to yourselfs!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. I don't like the fact that some people leave the direction and decision-making of their lives entirely to God. God gave us brains to make our decisions and lead our lives intelligently. There are contraceptives you can use so that you don't end up with a dozen kids. There is a technology you can benefit from so that you don't give birth to a mentally disabled person. You did not have too many kids or kids with disabilities because God wanted so, you had them because you did not act like a responsible person and took the necessary actions when you had the chance. Of course some problems with the child might come to light after the birth or later on in his/her life. Parents will have to accept it and support the child all through his/her life, since it was their decision to have a child and all the risks come with it. But knowingly giving birth to a mentally disabled child with no posibility of progress in scientific treatment is just not fair for the CHILD. I don't want to offend the religous people who are reading this and I understand this is a sensitive issue and hard decision for any parent. Hope the best for everyone...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Wishes,

    You said,

    "But knowingly giving birth to a mentally disabled child with no posibility of progress in scientific treatment is just not fair for the CHILD."

    So its *more fair* to the child to murder it since you know its going to be mentally disabled?

    You said, ". . . I understand this is a sensitive issue and hard decision for any parent."

    Why is this a hard decision if it is morally okay to abort Down Syndrome babies?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Honestly, I agree with Dr Harris. Now before i a get some bad responses let me explain. I have been told the downs babies are the most lovable kids you can get. They are very affectionate and share a high family bond.
    Now the example of the the Gran is not quite accurate. This is because it will only really be for the short term (I know that sounds cruel but its the truth). Whereas the downs baby is really life long. Financially, physically and mentally. Parents should consider the fact of lifetime struggles of their child all the way through to the end.
    In an ideal world I would see no problem, however in a society so obsessed with appearances I see no harsher torture.
    The whole thing is very debatable. We dont have the right to murder but thankfully we have the right to choice. Everyone is entitled to their opionion. For Dr Harris his reasoning may not have been so justified, but nevertheless opinonated. Deal with it!!!! Those of you who disagree, when the opportunity arises may God give you the strength to follow your convictions, which I dont doubt will be a wonderful and extraordinary child.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I dont think that choice should be any parents. I dont beleive in abortion-If you cant handle kids no matter what their dissabilities then you dont need them. If you dont want them then put them up for adoption. Im someone who works with kids of all sorts and I see some of the worst down syndrome and some of the best. they have the capabilities to understand just as well as normal children although they need extra work If anything a child with adhd is a touch kid to handle, not down syndrome. Besides you as the parent make the difference. I understand not everyone agrees with this, but to bad-As this is my proffesion-

    ReplyDelete
  53. i think this is sick!
    some on the comments that i have read actually made me cry!. how can you abort a child just because its got downs. the children are still gawjuss just like every other child on this earth. they should not be a burden on the family but a joy its a child for gods sake think of all the couples that cant have babies they would happily have these children .. i am 16 and would never even dream of aborting a child that has downs even at my age.
    so grow up!

    ReplyDelete
  54. i think you should never abort a baby with Down Syndrome. They are human too just because they have a disability. The reason I say this is because my sister who I love and would do anything for has Down Syndrome. I love her just as much as if she didn't have Down Syndrome. In no way did she "ruin" my parent's lives. That is pure false advertising. She is human and deserves to be treated as a human. They definitely have no right to murder a pure, helpless child.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I was born with an exomphalos and it could have been discovered early with todays technology, this a 3 in 10,000 case that is extremely life threatening and costly to the family, if this was discovered early in the pregnancy do I believe that I should have been "terminated" to save economic or emotional hardship? I believe everyone conceived has a right to live, whether a life in a wheelchair or on support, how would you feel if someone decided your life or death now based on your likelihood of causing others economic hardship? Tom age 19

    ReplyDelete