Tully here,
Just a thought to spark some controversy:
If you believe in the definition of a living-thing as a "self-replicating system" which I believe to be a fairly fundamental notion in biology, then doesn't it pretty well follow that a human being is not a living-thing until it cuts off all ties to the umbilical cord?
Or, if you buy Aristotle's definition of human as "a living thing with logos (words/reasoning)" or "political animal" then doesn't it also follow that, if it ain't communicating, it ain't human?
Or, if we take a metaphorical cue from the Gospel of John I, that "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; 2 this one was in the beginning with God; 3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men," then, being that the life, the light of men, comes after the word (the beginning), shouldn't we say that the word is the precondition of life, and insofar as a thing lacks a physical means of communicating itself (language) it is non-living?
What does all this mean for the fetus and it's/his/her "right to life"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
On the second question, I should add that there's reason to wonder whether a fetus is able to communicate by kicking or some other such activity. I'm not restricting language to oral or written communication. But if we're going to use a graduated scale of linguisticity, then that introduces a whole new complication in which some humans are less linguistic and thus less living than others.
you are confusing "Word" wth "word".
ok, from a moral perspective, we beleive as a society that people are worth more than dogs, or other animals.
its not about when life begins, because we already know. its when does that life become distinctly different in value (ie, human).
in Christianity, we believe its the presence of a human soul that sets humanity apart.
if you dont beleive in the presence of a soul, or a god who put it there, then i dont know where you go from there cept to say dogs and cattle and humans are morally no different in value.
seems to me, everybody has a divisional point of reference. for many its arbitrary, and changes with their convenienvce.
If we're going solo escriptura, there's a LOT of flexibility in the conception of the soul to be read into the bible. Especially the New Testament. The thing is, your concept of the soul is not from the Bible, but from centuries of Medieval (where soul becomes transcendent) and German Protestant (where we get the idea that it's ONE soul).
We could just as well talk about psyche as that into which pneuma (breath/spirit) is breathed. But pneuma is the stuff of logos...the beginning...when we speak words or Words, we breath. And the breathing thing the psyche. But feti don't breath, do they?
As for the distinction between Word and word, there is no capitalization in Greek...even if there were, I would wholeheartedly object to this effort to give metaphysical importance to the capitalization of Words.
But if we're going to use a graduated scale of linguisticity, then that introduces a whole new complication in which some humans are less linguistic and thus less living than others.
So...retroactive abortion is in order?
Sorry, Tully, but your attempt to provoke a reaction is gutted by your silly opening posits. Either you're that shallow (which I doubt) or you're just trying to start a fire for the sake of amusement. I'm not playing.
If you don't buy those definitions of what it is to be human/living, it follows that this argument doesn't apply to you. It's not an argument that can work universally. But I wouldn't be so quick to call them "shallow" opening posits.
As for retroactive abortion, I believe they call it "capital punishment"--what we do to hopelessly inarticulate beings. I think it's too hard to judge whom is hopelessly inarticulate, if there are such people, so I would advise against it, but to provide you with depth less I be accused of shallowness, I thought I should include said contingency! (;
By the way, if you have a better definition of life, such as Gino's, then what would it be?
As for starting controversy for its own sake, there's a good chance I'm playing around here, and obviously no one is obligated to play with me. Ask the Shaker Heights Boggle Club, who recently blackballed me for introducing an inappropriately incendiary atmosphere to their organization...by the way, their accusations are groundless.
Not "who recently blackballed" but "which recently blackballed"--my apologies.
well, its better than blue balls.
lats time i check, we are indeed working with the english language here, and it uses capitalization to provide context.
if you want to interpret from greek to english, context is necesary or the interpretation is without actual value, can i get 'yes'?
and no, i do not work with sola scriptura. that a protestant thing, and its basically meaningless and pointless as a workable theological discipline.
and since spring 08, my linguisticity has taken a major dump. am i less human as a result of? maybe not, but sometimes i feel so.
I wouldn't say linguisticity is about being able to move your voice in a certain way...it's about the ability to use language to communicate, broadly defined. That may include communicating with yourself. I think your feeling of inhumanity, though not warranted, is very interesting, and if you would write something about it, I would be very thankful. We are embodied political animals...we are embodied with logos. I have my doubts that we can ever really abstract the logoi from the physical implements used to create them.
Not only are the physical implements necessary, but in a world in which all we have is language, and thus all we have are metaphors, "pneuma" can never really lose its metaphorical duality, as metaphor leads to metaphor leads to metaphor.
Languages are not initiated out of whole cloth, but are always drawing from preceding and contemporary languages. So too, the Greek grammatical structure is always with us.
You're right though...so too is the German Protestant and many other grammatical structures and linguistic usages. It is of course simplistic of me to be making Greek the center of a universe that has piled atop it so many other languages and cultures. On the other hand, if we simply wallow in the prevalent out of fear of this infinite muddle of linguistic anthropology the depths of which could never be plumbed, we are neither serving our Christianity nor ourselves. Humans, to me, are the sorts of beings for whom the prevalent is never enough...art is always anachronistic in the sense that it superfluously introduces into our epoch elements of a time and place now seemingly irrelevant. Science is much the same, but we are so much the more sold on its relevance in that it is useful...it is retained immediately by the prevalent so that we forget how out-of-the-now its ideas really are. Beavers are in the now when they create a damn, however technologically advanced their behavior seems, because they are using technology and not science. That's a crucial distinction. The same applies to our use of language, which is scientific and not merely technological or mechanical (the mechanical use of lips, tongue, breath with which you had so much trouble). But the sense of spirit is never lost in these mechanical processes any more than is the sense of breath when we talk about spirit. The anachronistic "pneuma" brings to our minds the nature of this insistence within our scope of thought...that you DO consider your humanity as contingent upon your ability to actually speak with tongue, lips teeth and breath.
Mind you also, I find late-term abortion and even abortion at the earliest stages absolutely repugnant. The point of making this argument is to challenge that feeling of repugnance, being that it is, after all, just a feeling with no particular reasoning behind it beyond the inkling that life is indeed in an unborn fetus.
Dammit that was too long... Me dispiace, paisan'
ok, now here's another chew on.
if you challenge feelings of repugnance, successfully to point of no longer being repugnanated by anything cept the repugnance of others, what have you gained spiritually?
instead, i would suggest that you've lost all spirituality.
(or, a sense of a moral code)
and wouldnt a lack of some level of spirituality be evidence, if not proof, of an absence of humanity?
Not subscribing, not going to come back to comment,not reading past the setup-- just wanted to point out that biological systems aren't required to be self-supporting to be a separate creature-- for example, there are breeds of fish where the male becomes one with the female quite literally. (no, not black widow style....)
I really don't have the mental energy, just wanted to help with the bio-basis. ^.^
To the last question--yes--a cautious yes, because I don't know that this kind of aesthetic sense that allows us to deny and negate aesthetically (repugnance) is spirituality, but I do see a lot of overlap between the two. Our reception of art, of other people in the form of romantic love, of music especially, are all spiritual experiences because we exercise this aesthetic sense which contains our repugnance as well as the opposite of repugnance. My hesitation: I think it is more the affirmative (appreciation) that is spiritual than the negative (repugnance). You're right, however, that if we lose the ability to discern between beautiful/ugly, good/bad, logical/illogical, etc. then we've lost spirituality in the process.
That said, I don't think I'm doing away with this aesthetic sense in the least. I think I'm enriching it by challenging the prevalent tastes therein. To take such a critical attitude with the attitude of negating-for-negation's-sake would be the foolish, and there are many people who do just that.
The problem is, love is limited. It is not the infinite force I once thought it was, and it dies from time to time. So I understand that it seems unlikely we can find in ourselves fuel enough to keep this dance of aesthetic-appreciation forever. I went to the museum the other day, and I must say in stark contradiction to those Philistines who think art is just a leisurely diversion: appreciating art, let alone creating it, is hard work requiring all of our energy if we are to do it right. Love for a person is no different. So the problem is not so much whether it is productive and vital to knock down our old values throughout our lives...it is merely a question of whether we can muster the strength, because after all we are ONLY human!
Tully's first three questions in the post:
1. An embryo is a self-replicating system, right? Cells divide and the embryo grows into a fetus/baby.
2. If one were to follow that, perhaps. But their ethics would be called into question over the issue of people in comas/vegetative states. As you seem to acknowledge in the comments.
3. This is the same as Aristotle, only from the Bible, so my response is, first, the same, but further - holy moly, are *you* opening a can of worms with this Bible interpretation thing!
Gino - You know, I actually think animals have souls. If humans have souls, and humans are animals, then all animals, etc. Just because we kill them, it doesn't mean that it's wrong if they have souls. Or it's about intent. Killing out of cruelty is wrong, no matter what you are. But killing for sustenance is about survival.
It is worth mentioning to note that one need not *consume Pringles* for survival. ;)
Tully - A fetus breathes, in a manner. They absorb oxygen through the bloodstream, coming from the mother, via arteries in the umbilical cord.
Gino - If a person is to challenge repugnance, so that they no longer feel it, then they themselves are in the only position available for judging whether they have lost anything spiritually.
And I know you are just playing with this theme, so this isn't an accusation at all, but you must agree that applying a lack of spirituality in others, and thus, a lack of humanity, gets into dangerous territory, yes? I mean, because it's religious intolerance, and discrimination the likes of racism, sexism, ageism or ableism - basically any ism where the dominant group view the minority as "less human."
Tully - Would you accept the possibility that a sense of spirituality is an entirely subjective determination? Some people who I know who are atheists don't feel anything they refer to as spiritually, yet they seem equally able to appreciate, and be moved by art, for example.
Anyway, I'm afraid I can't add much more philosophically because - and this doesn't detract from your interest the topic - much of it is beside the point for me. Women in particular aren't gifted with the liberty to sit back and debate linguistics. All women must delve deep into their hearts/brains/souls to decide how they feel about abortion, and they have to do this from a very young age.
I first learned about abortion when I was 9 or 10 (at CHURCH school, which pissed my mother right off), and even though I wouldn't become sexually active for another decade, I knew I was a girl, and that the issue of pregnancy would be relevant to my body in the future. Granted, I naturally believed what people told me to believe back then, but my point is that this topic is more *real* for women in a way that men are lucky to lack the perspective to comprehend.
I don't mean that as a de-rail either, so let me bring this back around: the point isn't whether a fetus is less of a human. The point is whether we consider women to be less human.
Thank you mynameisamanda. That's an important point of which to be reminded. First of all, however it is that other men do linguistic theory, I'm of the disposition and I'm actually arguing here that language must be continually understood as embodied: we can't think "here's language and here's the mechanism." That sort of thing would be, indeed, "sitting back" and you should be suspicious of that kind of objective science of language. Linguistics didn't linger for long with that sort of mind-body chasm. I happen to think that feminism at its best (of which I've read little-I'll give the example of Bordo) is a linguistic endeavor, because hearts and minds do not have an intrinsic signification...the point is that only language signifies. And whatever you think is your heart/brain/soul is indeed a set of opinions, but of linguistic opinions.
In short, you're kind of begging the question against me, John and Aristotle. I don't consider it a blow to your argument to tell you this...you didn't pretend to disprove me.
I think my physicalistic interpretation of the Gospel of John, at least, indicates that woman is far more a source of spirit than man. To go off book, the man throws a seed into the wind (pneuma) and woman, in her panting and heaving, having brought to fertile soil the seed, gives it its life-force. It is only through breath/spirit and water (think amniotic fluids) that we may live into the aion (everlasting). The man does not appear in this series of metaphors.
The question of abortion is not about a woman cutting off her foot or hand.
The proper way to frame the abortion debate is in a legal/statue manner:
When should the government start protecting human life?
a) 18 minutes
b) 18 hours
c) 18 days
d) 18 weeks
e) 18 months
f) 18 years
My take is a little adaptation of the way Reagan framed the issue; do you, when your time on this earth is over, want to stand before God and have Him tell you that yes, it was a violation of Exodus 20:13? (Thou shalt not kill/murder)
That is, if there is uncertainty, we ordinarily ought to err on the side of caution.
Hey there! This post couldn't be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!
Here is my website ... actresses in the help
you're truly a excellent webmaster. The website loading velocity is incredible. It sort of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick. In addition, The contents are masterpiece. you've done
a magnificent process on this subject!
Feel free to surf to my webpage thisisitmovie.co
I have read so many articles or reviews regarding the blogger lovers but this article is actually a good
post, keep it up.
Look into my page: windows live hotmail login page e-mail account
Also see my website - revisar correo hotmail bandeja de entrada
Why people still make use of to read news papers when in this technological world the whole thing is available
on net?
Also visit my homepage http://wiki.les-verts.infini.fr
Also see my page: activesync exchange 2010
Post a Comment