New at Reason

|12.22.04 @ 1:20PM|#

I swear to God every time I read an article about the moral issues surrounding research with embryonic stem cells I bust up laughing, I just can't help thinking about that old Monty Python Catholic-baiting song about how "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..."

http://www.taboo-breaker.org/religion/sperm.htm

|12.22.04 @ 1:24PM|#

technically, all these embryos inhabit Limbo, having been touched by original sin but not baptism.

|12.22.04 @ 1:42PM|#

Ron, I'm impressed at how many non sequiturs you fit into that column.

1. So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated?

No more than the millions of Africans dying of AIDS, malaria, diarrhea, and starvation every year amount to a holocaust. Regrettable, certainly; preventable, perhaps; but not remotely on the same moral scale as the intentional killing of said Africans.

2. because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

Ah, moral relativism at its finest. The personhood of an entity does not depend on others' willingness to rescue he/she/it from a burning building. Your thought experiment would "prove" the non-personhood of blacks, women, Jews, gays, Catholics, and so on, given the right time and place. Do not think that our own time and place is without its prejudices.

3. that would still mean that perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.

To a large extent, the same could be said of the severely retarded, and those who died as newborns. Should they be stripped of their right to life as well, since we don't regard them as "heaven material"?

Of course, not all Christians believe that the souls of all unborn (or born and unbaptized) children go directly to heaven. In particular, though JP2 seems to personally believe that all embryos go to heaven, the Catholic Church has never officially come down on either side of the issue. Of course, that doesn't mean they automatically go to hell, either; it just means that the criteria are different from those applied to adults.

|12.22.04 @ 1:48PM|#

Also, regarding the thought experiment, another consideration is that the three year old has a much higher chance of surviving than the embryos (especially in a Petri dish -- I'm not sure that's even possible). It's like choosing between saving an uninjured person who's trapped under a heavy object or ten people with massive head wounds.

|12.22.04 @ 1:50PM|#

So, my greater sympathy for a walking breathing person than for an embryo is not so much a natural human inclination as it is a form of anti-zygote bigotry.

You heard it here first, folks.

|12.22.04 @ 1:52PM|#

c,

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

|12.22.04 @ 1:58PM|#

To elaborate on my last post, I admit that I don't feel as much sympathy for all the nameless, faceless African children currently shitting themselves to death, as I do for my niece when she has the flu. That is a human inclination -- we feel more strongly for those in our family, and those we know, than strangers. And yes, it is a prejudice, though a common one.

But when I think about it, I can't deny that those doomed children are persons as much as my niece is. It's the difference between an emotional reaction and a reasoned belief. Only the latter has a place in law.

|12.22.04 @ 2:00PM|#

lol.... so it's both a natural human inclination and a form of bigotry! It does make a certain amount of sense....

So, I guess the only thing left to resolve is the epithet. Am I an anti-zygotist, or a zygotaphobe?

|12.22.04 @ 2:02PM|#

"...it just means that the criteria are different from those applied to adults."

Where does this criteria come from? Who made it up?

And if we just stop at developing brains, then even the severely mentally retarded and newborns are not included in that statement.

|12.22.04 @ 2:04PM|#

I am completely missing crimethink's point, if there is one.

|12.22.04 @ 2:04PM|#

c, I thought that the RC Church maintained that Original Sin didn't come into play until birth?

|12.22.04 @ 2:09PM|#

Shem, I apologize if I gave the impression that I knew what the hell I was talking about. I'm quite certain that I spent most of CCD staring at a girl named Kelly.

|12.22.04 @ 2:13PM|#

Lowdog,

Well, in Catholic theology, of course, God makes up the criteria. To borrow a phrase from bad spy movies, what we know is on a need to know basis, and what we need to know are the criteria for our own entrance into heaven, not that of embryos.

To your second point, I think Ron is suggesting that these residents of heaven don't have any of the qualities we usually associate with the soul, hence his mention of dreams, desires, thoughts, etc. Also, there are those who are born without a cerebrum -- they possess only the rat-brain of the cerebellum and the life-support-system of the brain stem -- and needless to say they will never have thoughts, hopes, or dreams. Again, are they not persons?

|12.22.04 @ 2:17PM|#

Shem,

No, the church maintains that original sin is in play from the moment of conception, hence the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception (ie, her being conceived without original sin). Otherwise, you'd have a sinless person in the womb who somehow becomes sinful by being born.

Of course, I don't want to get too much into the theological side of things; it's not really important to the question of abortion and embryo destruction. At its heart, it's not a religious issue, it's a human rights issue.

|12.22.04 @ 2:21PM|#

Am I an anti-zygotist, or a zygotaphobe?

I suspect you're neither. Just like everyone else, you have a hard time with the idea that a single cell is as much a person as you are. It doesn't seem to make sense, but if you reflect on the issue enough, it's the only conclusion.

That is, unless you hate or fear zygotes. Then you can choose your epithet. ;)

|12.22.04 @ 2:23PM|#

Otherwise, you'd have a sinless person in the womb who somehow becomes sinful by being born.

Crimethink is right -- that wouldn't make any frickin sense at all.

|12.22.04 @ 2:30PM|#

Ron, I can't believe you missed the discussion of teratomas as a possible source for stem cells. I think anyone paying attention to the council on bioethics in the last few weeks would have to agree that some of the conservatives on it are trying hard to come up with end-runs around evangelical/Catholic objections to the technology. You can read about it here.

I think we'll see that some people are opposed just for the sake of being difficult, because they think there is virtue in growing old and dying. But it seems like so-called moral objections might be short-circuited by some of the initially least-likely seeming people.

As for the question of spontaneous abortion and/or non-implantation of fertilized embryos and the question of ensoulment--if we must use such language (which is not justified neurologically; cf. John Searle)--let us follow the Mormons: they maintain that a fetus receives a soul at birth.

|12.22.04 @ 2:37PM|#

"Just like everyone else, you have a hard time with the idea that a single cell is as much a person as you are. It doesn't seem to make sense, but if you reflect on the issue enough, it's the only conclusion."

I'm afraid crimethink is full of it, as this statement does not, theologically speaking, address the uncounted billions of naturally occuring abortions that have occurred since human life appeared on earth.

|12.22.04 @ 2:44PM|#

Crimethink,

Those people who are born with only a cerebellum and a brain stem cannot think, feel, hope, dream, or even make decisions. Logically, that means they can't go to church and accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Since the RCC says these people are conceived in original sin, how can they get to heaven? Even if they were baptized wouldn't it be worthless ceremony? Baptism basically consists of anointing a child with holy water and having the parents and godparents promise the child will be raised a good Catholic. Since it will be impossible for the child to ever have a conscious thought, let alone a belief, let alone all the beliefs that Catholics and other Christians must accept in Sunday School, doesn't that make the promise worthless and basically invalidate the Baptism? Does that mean that God created all those cerebrumless people just so they could go to Hell?

I am reminded of the plight of that deaf, dumb, and blind kid from the Who's rock opera, Tommy.
"And Tommy doesn't know what day it is, Doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is, So how can he be saved from the eternal grave?"

Chew on that for a while.

|12.22.04 @ 2:49PM|#

Crime,

You say that conception is the trigger for original sin. Is that why Christians hate sex so much?

WSDave

|12.22.04 @ 2:49PM|#

Crimethink

Aquinas would warn you not to confuse the actual (full-fledged human being) with the potential (fertilized egg).

By your logic, mestruation and nocturnal ejaculation could be horrible crimes, since the egg and sperm "wasted" in such events could have united, and if they had united, they could have developed into a fully functional human being.

Consider, on another note, that some people are reproductively incompatible--although they might be able to breed succesfully with some people, with others, they cannot. This is because the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are morphologically different enough that they cannot match up correctly during mitosis of the fertilized egg, and a spontaneous abortion takes place. Either such a fertilized egg is not a potential human being, which would mean generally that "human being" is not ontologically reducible to "fertilized egg," or two people who create such an embryo by mating are committing murder. Which is it?

|12.22.04 @ 2:55PM|#

Crimethink, for what it's worth I don't think you're full of it. Your comment that Ron's thought experiment reveals more about the guy running into the burning building than it does about the people/things he decides to save was 100% correct, and well stated. But I'd have to answer that this is where we get all our ideas of what's right.

The fact remains that the inclination to save the person rather than the 10 embryos is widespread. I'd venture to say, even, universal. If you've got a better fundament upon which to build law and morality than universal human sentiment, I'd like to meet her.

|12.22.04 @ 2:56PM|#

Everyone,

I'm not trying to get into a theological discussion. As I said, the issue at hand is not a theological one.

True, I took exception at Ron's attempt to use distorted theology to "prove" that embryos cannot be persons. But that's the extent to which I'll defend Catholicism here.

|12.22.04 @ 3:00PM|#

Mike Lenox,

Yes, embryos die. Does that mean they can't be persons?

Think about it. That's a pretty restrictive definition of personhood.

Mark Denovich|12.22.04 @ 3:02PM|#

It doesn't seem to make sense, but if you reflect on the issue enough, it's the only conclusion.

I don't think that is the only conclusion at all.

I think it all depends on how you define personhood.

I would argue that something that exhibits the qualities of what is commonly recognized as a person, would then be a person. (a Turing-test for humans?) Of course this just pushes the problem back to defining the minimum set of qualties an object requires to be a person.

My opinion is that a fetus (and most certainly an embryo) do not possess the qualities of personhood, so are therefore not afforded the rights a person could expect.

|12.22.04 @ 3:09PM|#

If a child is life, and therefore an embryo is life, and therefore sperm and egg are life. But we reject that natural unnattached embryos are being murdered, because there is no active coersion on behalf of people. Then sperm and eggs lost in menstration and nocturnal ejaculation are not murder. But, preventing sex that otherwise could lead to a child would be tenamount to murder. Therefore, I propose to you that the catholics and their campaign of abstinence is the most widespread act of mass genocide ever attempted.

|12.22.04 @ 3:11PM|#

TJ,

I think you're taking Monty Python too seriously there. ;) There's a huge difference between losing cells that may possibly have combined to form a human being, and destroying the life of an already existing one.

And, Aquinas lived in the 12th century, when it was believed that semen was a homunculus, a pre-person, that lodged itself in the womb and fed off the mother's blood. This misunderstanding of the process of conception led to his wrong conclusions regarding life in the womb. (He also famously opposed the idea of the Immaculate Conception, calling it heresy.)

Indeed, it was when the actual sperm-meets-ovum process was understood better, in the 19th century, that the church adopted the dogma that so troubled Aquinas. So, according to the church, he was wrong about at least one thing. ;)

|12.22.04 @ 3:17PM|#

Trollio Ad Absurdum,

The life of a child or an embryo is of a different sort than that of a sperm cell. The first is that of an entire human being, the latter of one cell separated from the human being it originated from.

That's like saying the life of the trillions of cells I've washed down the shower drain are equivalent to the life of a three-year-old who has the same number of cells. None of my lost cells comprised a unique individual.

|12.22.04 @ 3:22PM|#

Furthermore, I still do not understand how libertarians can believe that opposing federal funding for ESC research = killing said research.

|12.22.04 @ 3:22PM|#

One good thing that could (but probably won't) come out of the disclosure of the volume of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos - the Church might reverse its stance on the use of condoms and other family planning methods. After all, the loss of all those conceived embryos is arguably a greater moral offense than preventing conception in the first place, no?

|12.22.04 @ 3:26PM|#

Also, the cdx2 gene method Bailey describes would still cause moral problems, if a normal embryo has the gene removed after conception. This would be actively preventing the embryo from implanting, and thus causing its death.

|12.22.04 @ 3:26PM|#

crimethink, the sperm cell is as different from the man that it came from as the embryo itself is. each sperm cell is genetically unique (or rather identity is unlikely by chance) and all are different than the source person. genetics will not get you to the difference between a man, a sperm and a zygote.

|12.22.04 @ 3:27PM|#

Except that birth contro doesn't exclusivly eliminate embryos that would nevertheless not be born. Otherwise birth control wouldn't be usefull.

|12.22.04 @ 3:29PM|#

thus, there is no good biological criteria by which you could say that a new individual is created at conception. "life" has been continuous on Earth for over 4 billion years. and a zygote is still capable of becomming any number of whole individuals thru twinning.

|12.22.04 @ 3:30PM|#

so in the end, it has to come down to -- what does god say -- and on that note he has been decidedly mixed in his revelations

|12.22.04 @ 3:31PM|#

I am very interested in what crimethink has to say about the main point of this article:

Does guaranteeing the non-viability of stem-cell providing embryos "get around" the moral problem of creating such embryos for the sole purpose of stem-cell research?

Mark Denovich|12.22.04 @ 3:32PM|#

Furthermore, I still do not understand how libertarians can believe that opposing federal funding for ESC research = killing said research.

It's because anything bought with some gov't money is "infected" and can't be used for ESC... I believe this can be extended to cover anything used for research (like the lights, building, general purpose office supplies.) Taken to extremes (which is certainly something the gov't enjoys doing) this means that to do stem cell research you need a completely separate lab, bought with private money, on private land, staffed with privately funded workers. This makes the funding ban essentially a research ban at any quasi-public instituion.

(Note this is just my understanding of the situation. IAmNotALawyer)

|12.22.04 @ 3:34PM|#

Chas,

Well, the only way to prevent all those natural embryonic deaths would be universal abstinence, sterilization, or constant use of perfect birth control. This of course would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater and lead to the extinction of the human species.

I think the problem lies with the assumption that better to never live than to live and then die. I wouldn't agree with that. And I think the Christian understanding of things is that, yes, there is a lot of awful stuff that God allows to happen in the world, but that doesn't give us license to make those awful things happen.

|12.22.04 @ 3:35PM|#

crimethink,
What about an embryo at the stage befor it can divide into two distinct embryos? Is it considered a unique individual, even though it has the potential to be two?

|12.22.04 @ 3:37PM|#

Rikhurzen,

How many chromosomes does a sperm cell have?
How many chromosomes do a man and a zygote have?

There's your genetic difference.

|12.22.04 @ 3:40PM|#

How many chromosomes do my fingernail trimmings have?

|12.22.04 @ 3:43PM|#

How many chromosomes do two sperm cells have?

|12.22.04 @ 3:44PM|#

Treating severely retarded humans or those with horrible birth defects that prevent normal development of a mind is a humane drawing of the circle of humanity a bit wider, perhaps, than perfect knowledge of human development would require. But we don't have perfect knowledge, do we?* We do the best with what we have, so I'm all for it. The revulsion against elective abortion by the traditionally religious and others who are convinced that "personhood at conception" is another valid expansion of our definition of "human" is understandable, but it is debateable. The data on spontaneous abortion mirrors the profligate strategy Nature employs in many species - look at the way fish spawn, for Cthulu's sake - that "wastes" far more genetic material than would be required to produce one or two adult offspring. The fertilized eggs that only survive for moments far outnumber any that develop, and few of those survive to spawn themselves. I think if I were Jehovah, and I had decided on this cockamamie reproductive system, I might wait until the kid-in-production had half a chance of being born before I winged a soul his way. But I am not the Hairy Thunderer, just as no one is, so it isn't my lookout.

Kevin

*JPII and the other popes don't have it either, even when speaking ex cathedra.

|12.22.04 @ 3:48PM|#

you I and I expect all people writing here have 46 chromosomes, but of our genetic components are unique -- are you suggesting that dipolidy is the criteria for personhood?

p.s. two sperm cells have 46 chromosomes between them

|12.22.04 @ 3:51PM|#

Gregorus,

The problem definitely would not be solved if a normal embryo is altered so that it cannot implant or develop properly. This would still be causing the death of a human person, even though the entity may not be genetically human when death occurs. The article is a bit unclear on whether or not that's the case.

If the embryo is conceived in such a way that it's impossible for it to develop into a human being, that's a tougher question. I don't have an answer right now.

Mo,

Another tough question. If twinning were impossible, the question would of course be irrelevant. So it seems silly that because an embryo can develop into multiple genetically identical persons, it is less of a person than if it could only develop into one.

|12.22.04 @ 3:51PM|#

None of my lost cells comprises a unique individual.

Not to be tendentious, but how do you know this to be true? You're so certain that "the only conclusion" is that a single embryonic cell equals a baby equals a man -- how do you know what you claim about your "lost cells" is true?

|12.22.04 @ 3:56PM|#

Only cells have chromosomes, you morons.

Kevrob you make a great point about when it would make sense to imbibe a creature with a soul, if such a thing exists.

However, spontaneous abortions in humans occur mostly due to developmental problems in the embryo. Fish spawning produces large numbers of embryos because the survival of these embryos is very low. It may indeed be necessary for two fish to produce 100,000 embryos in order for two of those embryos to survive to adulthood. This reproductive strategy is not analogous to spontaneous abortions in mammals.

|12.22.04 @ 4:02PM|#

joe, Rikhurzen, Gregorus,

Yes, and two 15-chromosomed cells and four 4-chromosomed cells, taken together, also have 46 chromosomes. That's not my point.

Rikhurzen said there was no genetic difference between a man, a sperm, and a zygote, and thus a zygote is only as much a person as a sperm. I merely noted that there is a difference, so the conclusion does not follow.

|12.22.04 @ 4:06PM|#

Respectfully, this thread of comments may be the most ponderous ever to grace this website.

So many embryonic people die for the simple reason that God is the greatest mass murderer ever.

How hard was that?

|12.22.04 @ 4:08PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh: I'd like to see you dance in the average toilet bowl, bitch.

Tim Cavanaugh|12.22.04 @ 4:27PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh: I'd like to see you dance in the average toilet bowl, bitch.

crimethink's IP = [CENSORED]
Unborn Angel's IP = [CENSORED, BUT SAME AS CRIMETHINK'S]

We report. You deride.

|12.22.04 @ 4:30PM|#

Re: the saving a three-year-old child from a burning building instead of ten embryos; we value other living beings insofar as we can feel empathy for them. Since I cannot put myself in the place of a "being" that cannot think, feel or be aware of its own existence, I do not value it. Same goes for a person in a terminal coma or someone born without a forebrain. The more the individual has in common with me, the greater the empathy I feel and the more highly I value it.

Same goes for animals. I feel less empathy for worms than for dogs, and less for dogs than for apes.

The example crimethink cites of jews, blacks, catholics, protestants, etc. as being morally equivalent to embryos is inappropriate. Those groups all have many traits that we identify as human and not to feel empathy for them is to wilfully blind yourself to their humanity.

|12.22.04 @ 4:32PM|#

Why Tim, you big Panopticonian, you!

|12.22.04 @ 4:34PM|#

Tim, that was most unprofessional.

|12.22.04 @ 4:35PM|#

Especially since Unborn Angel is my French roommate who lives with his Jewish wife downstairs.

|12.22.04 @ 4:37PM|#

Time for the simple web proxies, crimethink/Unborn Angel:

http://www.anonymizer.com/index.cgi

http://anonymouse.is4u.de/

http://www.guardster.com/ (skip bogus ad)

http://www.anonymization.net/

http://browser.grik.net/

http://www.the-cloak.com/login.html

|12.22.04 @ 4:39PM|#

Henry,

Thanks for the thought. But it shouldn't be necessary.

|12.22.04 @ 4:47PM|#

It's just the anarchist in me. I don't even want to read any more of your thoughts on this topic, under any name (but I don't mean that in a bad way--necessarily). I'm just naturally opposed to The Man.

|12.22.04 @ 4:50PM|#

Good for you, Henry. Of course, I'm always crimethink, except when making jokes, as I was clearly doing as Unborn Angel. Plenty of people do it 'round here, but apparently I pissed off the wrong person. Them's the breaks, I guess.

jonathan greenlee|12.22.04 @ 4:52PM|#

crimethink's IP = [CENSORED]
Unborn Angel's IP = [CENSORED, BUT SAME AS CRIMETHINK'S]

Wow, they must use the same ISP

|12.22.04 @ 4:54PM|#

OK, I'll get this thread back on topic:

I would rather see a thousand embryos flushed down the toilet than have my cat croak.

Does this make me a bad person?

|12.22.04 @ 4:56PM|#

jonathan,

Why yes, we must. Unborn has only posted once though. ;)

|12.22.04 @ 4:59PM|#

But, preventing sex that otherwise could lead to a child would be tenamount to murder. Therefore, I propose to you that the catholics and their campaign of abstinence is the most widespread act of mass genocide ever attempted.

Wrong, but you've certainly stated the case for the Catholic Church's position on contraception during sex.

|12.22.04 @ 5:02PM|#

--A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue? --

Oh, that is precious, Mr. Bailey. Bush must hate you for asking such unpatriotic questions.

|12.22.04 @ 5:36PM|#

Especially since Unborn Angel is my French roommate who lives with his Jewish wife downstairs.

That is hilarious!

I don't have much of an opinion on the moral status of cells and fingernail clippings. However, as I prepare for my research position in neural imaging with diffuse light (tentatively slated to begin May 1, 2005) I am contemplating doing some work with stem cells. In this case it would be adult stem cells, in response to some new work showing that the adult iris may yield usable stem cells that might be usable for treating retinal diseases.

Advantages of these adult stem cells:

1) Exact DNA match to the patient, eliminating many of the issues of tissue rejection.
2) I won't be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Of course, if I do this it would be initially done in rats.

|12.22.04 @ 5:45PM|#

Seriously though, what kind of weakling can't carry a three-year-old and a Petri dish at the same time?

|12.22.04 @ 5:48PM|#

"Seriously though, what kind of weakling can't carry a three-year-old and a Petri dish at the same time?"

One who's left arm and right hand were aborted.

|12.22.04 @ 5:50PM|#

thoreau,

No, what's hilarious is that during the whole JB = GG episode, Tim never once revealed that they shared an IP address. But, as I said, be careful that your sense of humor doesn't offend.

|12.22.04 @ 6:17PM|#

Shocker for you guys:

From the point of view of survival of the species, noone even counts as a species member until they reproduce. So far from being a human when you're conceived, the genetic record does not even consider you an existent until you contribute to the birth of someone else.

|12.22.04 @ 6:31PM|#

Tim, could you please settle the debate over JB and GG once and for all?

Please?

|12.22.04 @ 6:45PM|#

2 cents: Crimethink has been a lone battler on this thread for most of today. I'd like to voice my support and agreement. (Even though almost no one will read this thread at this point.)

Aside from the "Unborn Angel" joke/ venting, I think Crimethink has been knowledgeable and logical (and mostly civil) about this issue.

All I can add is to point out:

- There is a crucial difference between "allowing" a human being to die from natural causes, and positively acting to end that human being's life. In the latter case, you are initiating force. That is frowned upon hereabouts, some of you may have heard.

- Newsflash: Every human being dies.Or, to put it in religious/anti-religious terms: Every human being that God creates, He kills. The fact that most human beings die before age 100 does not mean you can actively end the life of people who manage to survive past 100 because you want to use their bodies for medical purposes. The fact that (until recently, over most of the world) most babies die before their third birthday doesn't mean you can actively end the life of two-year-olds for medical purposes. If you really think God is a mass-murderer, then why lower yourself to His level?

- Do we have an obligation to "rescue" the naturally aborted embryos? I don't think so. Even the Catholic Church (which is reputed to be really, really fanatical about this "right to life" thing) says people are not morally obligated to use "extraordinary means" to prevent natural death. I suspect constant sifting every woman's effluent, searching it for fertilized embryos, and reimplanting them in her uterine wall, would fall under "extraordinary means." Even religious fanatics realize there are limits to your "obligation" to prevent someone from dying, right? So pretending to be even more fanatic about it than they are, and holding that against them, is really a form of straw-man argument.

|12.22.04 @ 6:50PM|#

Brilliant put, Stevo Darkly! Bravo!

|12.22.04 @ 6:55PM|#

Mr. Bailey thinks he has a slam-dunk argument when he points out that 60-80 percent of all embryos are flushed out in the mother's first post-conception menses, implying that if nature kills off such a great proportion of embryos, then we shouldn't have any moral qualms about killing them either. Well, last time I checked, 100% of human organisms who are born end up dying naturally (that is, if they aren't killed first). Since nature (or nature's God) kills off so many born people, I guess that means that the born don't have a right to life, either.

|12.22.04 @ 7:00PM|#

As is often the case, someone else managed to make the same point I was shooting for, but with 1/4 as many words.

Maybe someone should check to see whether Seamus and I have the same IP.

(And above, someone else -- obviously not me -- confused "IP" with "ISP." Although that other person is obviously not me, I shall take the liberty of apologizing for his or her error.)

|12.22.04 @ 7:01PM|#

Whoops. While I was composing my post, Stevo Darkly made my point for me.

|12.22.04 @ 7:11PM|#

For the record, my Unborn Angel joke/vent was in response to what I considered a particularly tasteless intro by Mr. Cavanaugh. I was unaware that miscarriages were a humorous topic.

Bitch.

Tim Cavanaugh|12.22.04 @ 7:12PM|#

Tim, could you please settle the debate over JB and GG once and for all?

JB, GG, and JB are as real as Lo Pan.

David Lo Pan|12.22.04 @ 7:20PM|#

Indeed!

|12.22.04 @ 7:34PM|#

Too bad. There were some other interesting H&R topics, but abortion allways takes top billing on things to discuss. Just out of curiosity, what is the pro-life argument against Peikoff's property/landlord argument that no one, fetus or not, has a right to live inside another person, rather they are there by the good graces of the host/landlord.

|12.22.04 @ 7:36PM|#

JB, GG, and JB are as real as Lo Pan.

OK, I'm dense. I googled "Lo Pan" and came up with something about feng shui and China. Does that mean that those 3 guys are all posting from the same IP address?

And thanks for checking!

|12.22.04 @ 7:48PM|#

Is Tim suggesting all three are made up?

As for Crimethink... when has good taste been a prerequisite for H&R? I love this place, because it's a snakepit of unbelievers. (Just like me.)

|12.22.04 @ 8:14PM|#

thoreau,

If Tim Cavanaugh is talking about what I think he is talking about, he's referring to Big Trouble in Little China, one of the better Kurt Russel movies in the last twenty years. Think about a Chop-Suey Kung Fu movie with much better production values--where you get to see two guys having a sword fight in the air while jumping thirty feet high and fifty feet across a room.

David Lo Pan is the bad guy.

|12.22.04 @ 8:38PM|#

I'm an atheist, and i support the right of abortion, but even i can see the flaws in this argument. First: so 80, 90 per cent of conceptions end in natural death. I suspect at least that large a proportion of all deaths is natural. Is it not murder just because most people die naturally? If a fetus is a person, and i don't think it is, then the number that die naturally or unnaturally is irrelevant. Second: You have a poor grasp of Christian theology. All humans, according to Christians, are born in original sin. They only have a chance of salvation if they are babtized or converted. The souls of fetuses, if they are human, would not be in heaven but in hell. More specifically in limbo, a region developed specifically for the unbabtized dead.

|12.22.04 @ 8:52PM|#

"...a region developed specifically for the unbabtized dead."

Just another example of the cruel bias suffered by the living-impaired. Dead people need to get together and assert their rights!

|12.22.04 @ 9:11PM|#

crimethink: Rikhurzen said there was no genetic difference between a man, a sperm, and a zygote, and thus a zygote is only as much a person as a sperm. I merely noted that there is a difference, so the conclusion does not follow.

no, you've got me backwards. i am saying that each is genetically unique. so why is an embryo a new life but a sperm is not. or put another way: a sperm is not a new life, so why should an embryo be one?

|12.22.04 @ 9:23PM|#

Rikhurzen,

I'm assuming here that only human life has rights. If you disagree with that, then we're just arguing past each other.

While a sperm is a living cell, different from the cells of the body it came from, is not a new human organism; it does not have the proper makeup (number of chromosomes being the most glaring difference from a non-reproductive human cell).

|12.22.04 @ 9:31PM|#

kmw,

Don't get me wrong, Tim can write whatever intro he wants as far as I'm concerned. Question is, should he use his privileges as web editor to publish my IP address, in retaliation for calling him on it?

BTW, this forum is one of the most respectful I've been involved with. Hardly a snakepit of unbelievers, even (maybe especially) compared with some of the Christian forums I've visited. Keep it up, y'all.

|12.22.04 @ 9:34PM|#

goddess notes in her eleventh-dimensional blog whenever a sparrow falls, whenever a zygote croaks, whenever a tadpole fails to mature to tailless croakdom.

(Think there's a lot of useless trivia here on H&R?)

Oh, the humanity! Wait...

|12.22.04 @ 9:41PM|#

Captain Awesome,

That's a strained analogy, since unlike a tenant, the fetus did not enter the "property", but rather began its existence there; also, the fetus cannot survive outside the property, so eviction = death.

There aren't really any good non-contrived analogies for the property rights question. One of the better ones I've come across is a pilot who ejects from his doomed plane over the middle of the ocean, and lands in someone's boat. Would it be murder if the boat's owner throws him overboard? He's not there by choice (his or the owner's) but he cannot survive if "evicted." I'm not sure about jurisdictional issues, but I'm pretty sure that in the eyes of US law it would be considered murder.

|12.22.04 @ 10:08PM|#

crimethink, again that's a good try, but I find it hard to believe that haploidy vs diploidy makes the difference in whether the sperm or zygote is a new individual. a haploid genome still contains all the genes of a human, just a single copy of each -- so a haploid human genome is still a human genome. thus, genetic identity preceeds conception.

life-vs-non-life preceeded us all by four billion years.

likewise, individuality is not determined until after the twinning period.

so there are lots of reasons to doubt conception as a good point to assign personhood/indivduality. that leaves the person who does believe that conception is the beginning with the need to provide a good reason. potential personhood is one common justification; and that potential is eliminated by some of the suggestions in this article.

|12.22.04 @ 10:18PM|#

Rikhurzen,

Haploidy vs diploidy is not the only criterion for personhood, but it seems a necessary one. The effect of this difference between a sperm and a single-cell-zygote is that the zygote is able to reproduce itself, whereas the sperm is not. Not only will the sperm not develop into a human being on its own; it can't develop into anything else.

|12.22.04 @ 10:27PM|#

crimethink,
I agree with you on the IP address thing, there are plenty of snide comments made anonymously. No need to point it out (I do admit I got a little chuckle out of it).

My point regarding twinning, was that if God is putting souls in an embryo, then there wouldn't be one in it yet if it can become two people. Do twins share a sould, does God fill the empty one? Of course, this is based on my graduate work in electron soulography and my understanding of the nature of souls.

I will admit, I "have a hard time with the idea that a single cell is as much a person as" I am. I can see, philosophically where you are coming from, but I think the key is differentiation and development of a nervous system. Raw cookie dough and a cookie are very similar, but different things. It takes a lot more energy to turn an emrbyo into a baby than it does to make a batch of cookies.

|12.22.04 @ 10:31PM|#

crimethink, replace sperm with egg and my arguments still holds but your last statement is no longer correct. ... but here, you seem to have arrived at potential personhood, which should be circumvented by eliminating that potential

|12.22.04 @ 10:39PM|#

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

|12.22.04 @ 10:43PM|#

If we could go back to the landlord question--which eventually convinced me on abortion--how about this analogy? There's a guy in my house. Let's even say I invited him in, said he could come stay for a while. He moves in, sleeps on the couch, scrounges food from the fridge, etc. About two months later I get really fed up over the two pounds of filet mignon he swiped and the mess he's left in the bathroom, so I ask him to leave. He says no. I order him off my property. He says no. I call the cops, they tell him to get out, and he says no. They escort him out, and he resists. The only way to get him off my property is to shoot him.

I want to say I can do it...particularly if he's also threatening my health in some way (maybe we only have one bathroom and he has some sort of nasty disease? I don't know). Even though I invited him in, I can still tell him to get out. And ultimately, if he resists, I can use whatever force necessary to get him out (if I have a burglar in my house, who's threatening me and taking my stuff, I can shoot him, can't I? Does that change if I invite him in, then figure out that he's a burglar?).

The only real argument I see against this (other than showing why the analogy is inapposite) is that if I've promised him he can stay for two months and eat my food and sleep on my sofa, there's an implicit contract that I can't violate. I guess this just comes down to gut feeling, but I don't think I ever signed a contract with the embryo, implicit or explicit...especially if I didn't want a kid in the first place (maybe the rules are different if you were trying to conceive?). The other objection, which I think I buy, is that if you can safely evict the guy without killing him, you should. So perhaps if the fetus is developed enough that it can be delivered now with very little/no risk to the mother, then abortion is wrong and should be replaced by early delivery.

|12.22.04 @ 11:03PM|#

Rikhurzen,

Ova are able to reproduce themselves? It's been a long time since biology, but I think ova form as a result of meiosis, the splitting in half of a 46-chromosome cell. Furthermore, IIRC, all the ova a baby girl will ever have are already in her ovaries at birth.

And no, I'm not falling back on "potential humanity" -- I'm saying that the number of chromosomes in a cell with human genes is not a trivial question, in regard to personhood. A 23-chromosome half-cell with human genes cannot develop into anything else--human, blastocyst, two-cell organism, or anything. Whereas, a 46-chromosome human cell can develop and reproduce, abnormally or otherwise.

|12.22.04 @ 11:05PM|#

Clarification:

By itself, a 23-chromosome half-cell with human genes cannot develop into anything else...

|12.22.04 @ 11:06PM|#

I am pretty sure that an ovum can be induced to replicate it's chromosomes and develop without fertilization, and that that is the mechanism of reproduction in some animals.

|12.22.04 @ 11:09PM|#

the egg+sperm vs embryo distinction is a vital one to make because as far as I know they have essentially the same composition (at the most basic level) in different arrangments, yet one is considered a person and one is considered a mere collection of non-persons

|12.22.04 @ 11:11PM|#

... so if you can identify what makes the difference (for people that see a difference) and you can eliminate that difference, then you can by-pass the moral problem

|12.22.04 @ 11:14PM|#

Mo,

I think the problem with that is that you're implicitly treating the soul as a physical entity, which must be at a certain place and take up a certain amount of space. Of course it's not (assuming it exists at all). I may be digging myself another hole here, but possibly, two souls for two individuals could exist even if the individuals are sharing the same cells and the same space temporarily.

If that sounds convoluted, keep in mind, it's gettin' late where I am... and I've wasted much of this day arguing about chromosome counts, tenants and stowaways, and IP addresses. But, then again, it sure beats shopping! ;)

|12.22.04 @ 11:20PM|#

This isn't exactly a good thing, but:

No arguments about souls and twinning will actually prove anything. It is logically possible that God is omniscient and adds the right number of souls to each zygote at conception, or that god splits the souls when the cells twin, etc.

|12.22.04 @ 11:25PM|#

I don't know the deal with cdx2, but you might be able to use siRNA or something else to inactive the gene in the egg before conception; you would be creating an embryo that is incapable of growing into a human in a womb.

|12.22.04 @ 11:29PM|#

Rikhurzen,

By egg + sperm, do you mean the egg and sperm while separate or after the sperm has been absorbed into the ovum? If the former, the difference is that egg+sperm is not a single entity but two, separated by space. If the latter, again IANAB, but for all intents and purposes, that is already a zygote, is it not?

As for ova becoming full cells, the key phrase is "can be induced". They don't do that on their own, at least not in humans, whereas a single-cell-zygote does reproduce itself on its own.

BTW, in which animal species is reverse-meiosis the means of reproduction? Wouldn't they all be genetically identical? I mean, I know that some worms are hermaphroditic, so that they can reproduce by themselves, but they still use the same basic idea of two separate half-cells forming a full cell.

|12.22.04 @ 11:37PM|#

the example that comes to mind is some kind of lizard -- i forgot the name; they are essentially asexual reproducers. i guess they go thru meiosis but then replicate their chromosomes and get on with development. from their description they probably evolved from a sexual species.

i'm actually thinking of a sperm stuck to but not internalized into an egg. but if you like, you can consider the various stages of the fusion event and ask when does it go from being non-person to being a person. -- i'm not actually asking you to do that.

my point is that biological reasons for singling out conception as the beginning of something morally significant are pretty thin, and seem not to be privileged expect by the dogma of some religions

|12.22.04 @ 11:37PM|#

Also Mo,

I think Tim's arbitrary action was yet more evidence of the persecution of Christians that is sweeping this land -- no matter what Julian Sanchez says. I however am proud to suffer for the faith, and the right of the faithful everywhere to call web editors "bitch".

|12.22.04 @ 11:48PM|#

Rikhurzen,

If I understand correctly, you're saying that because fertilization is not instantaneous, but takes, say, a few seconds from the sperm contacting the ovum to its absorption, it is not a justifiable point to draw the line of personhood at.

But birth is certainly not an instantaneous process, nor is it an especially significant one in the development of the organism. And nervous system development progresses gradually over weeks and months, so you'd have to throw that out too.

Seriously, it's not like a sperm+egg entity could be aborted anyway, since it only lasts for a few seconds. So its moral status is not important, if only because there's nothing we can do to it during its short existence.

|12.22.04 @ 11:55PM|#

If I understand correctly, you're saying that because fertilization is not instantaneous, but takes, say, a few seconds from the sperm contacting the ovum to its absorption, it is not a justifiable point to draw the line of personhood at.

No. I'm saying that the supposedly morally important event happens during that process. If the event is the creation of the potential to make a full human, then that's cool, but could be circumvented as described in the article. Otherwise, we're looking for an explanation of what that event is.

The separate problem with conception is that all that really happens is that two genomes come together. But the creation of a unique genome must not be sufficient for a new life, because that happens during recombination in meiosis -- each sperm/egg is unqiue genetically. Also, it cannot be the formation of a single individual b/c of the problem of twinning. So conception seems like a less than perfect time to point to and say that a new person started there.

|12.22.04 @ 11:58PM|#

Fish spawning produces large numbers of embryos because the survival of these embryos is very low. - trainwreck

My description of how spontaneous abortion resembled the reproductive strategy of organisms such as fish was, by its nature, an exaggeration. Combined with infant mortality rates in today's third world, however, or in history almost anywhere, the difference between human and fish reproduction becomes one of scale, not of kind. We upright monkey-men still produce far more fertilized eggs than ever get to be reproduction-age humans.

...when it would make sense to imbibe a creature with a soul, if such a thing exists...

Imbibe? Surely you meant implant. :)

"Imbiber of Souls" would make a great name for a horror movie, or perhaps a cognomen for Elric's black blade, Stormbringer.

BTW, "limbo" was never official Catholic doctrine. All you could ever want to know @

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

I understand that limbo has been left out of the RCC's new catechism. Doncha just hate retcons?

Kevin

|12.22.04 @ 11:58PM|#

it's certinaly past my bed time ... good article, good discussion

|12.23.04 @ 7:42AM|#

Well, one wonders why you didn't have the nuts to call Tim a bitch as crimethink then; grow a pair dude.

Ah, thank you, GG. That was so wonderfully, so refreshingly hypocritical.

|12.23.04 @ 8:21AM|#

an innocent bystander,

Its not even remotely hypocritical. I'm of accused of having multiple identities here, but I am not accused of hiding behind them to lay some nasty remark against someone.

|12.23.04 @ 10:37AM|#

Gary Gunnels, inspiration for aliases everywhere,

I do have half a brain. I know that Tim is web editor, and he can see IP addresses and thus tell if someone posts under a different name. You also may have noticed that people often use the "name" field as part of their joke. Grow a sense of humor, dude.

|12.23.04 @ 11:04AM|#

When did anyone state that this is the case? Talk about non-sequitors.

That was implied in the article by Ron Bailey. Since actually banning ESC research is not even an item on the political menu, his reference to "halting this research" in response to the "moral bullying of a minority" is directed at Bush's ban on federal funding. Again I ask, if the research is really that promising, how come no one wants to invest in it?

Instead of ducking the issue, why don't you just explain your reasoning on the subject. Just saying that it is self-evident is hardly convicing.

I didn't say it was self-evident, in fact I said the opposite. I have been explaining my reasoning on the subject, numerous times in this thread: after conception, there's no point in development where one can reasonably say that a non-person becomes a person. Thus, if persons exist at all, they must exist as such from conception.

This answer of course assumes that the fetus is a human being and has all the rights, etc., of a human being. You are assuming that which is not proven and again ducking the question.

No, Gary, once again you haven't read the thread of discussion. Currently, two aspects of my position are under attack: (a) the embryo is a person; and (b) if it is a person, it must be allowed to remain in the womb and develop.

Jadagul attacked (b), not (a), and my analogy is intended as a defense of (b), not a proof of (a). So it's not ducking the question.

drf|12.23.04 @ 11:06AM|#

GG: your auburn (or wherever) pals accuse you have having tons of nicks, too. (grin)

but jeezus krist people - just get some fucking lysol and clean the damn toilet bowl. voila. make the problem go away.

ba-dum-pah.

:)
drf

|12.23.04 @ 11:24AM|#

Anyway, I didn't find it tasteless; of course I am a godless atheist headed straight to hell according to your religion (I think I can safely assume that you are a Christian).

Gary, I don't pretend to know what anyone else's post-mortem destination will be, especially people I only know by their postings on a discussion board. Even Hitler could be in heaven for all I know, though I would place long odds against it. All I can do is endeavor to make my destination, and that of people I meet, the right one.

Can I consider such dark views of heathens "persecution" now? If so, then heathens are by far one of the most persecuted groups of people on the planet. I'm a victim!!! I'm oppressed!!! :)

Even if I did believe that, views do not constitute persecution; actions do. If I revealed private information about you, that my position gives me access to, because you are a "heathen", yes, that would be a small, mild act of persecution.

If Tim wanted to show that "Unborn Angel" was in fact me, all he had to do was post that we had the same IP address. He didn't have to post what the address was. That is the bone I have to pick with him.

|12.23.04 @ 11:47AM|#

drf,

Do your worst! Lysol is only 9.6% effective against blessed spiritual entities!

drf|12.23.04 @ 11:55AM|#

UA;

fair enough. i'll say "neeh" to the rest...

|12.23.04 @ 12:24PM|#

crimethink-

I agree. Saying that the IP addresses are the same is one thing (indeed, that's all I asked in my query). Posting them, and letting potential hackers know where you are, is another thing.

|12.23.04 @ 12:36PM|#

"if I have a burglar in my house, who's threatening me and taking my stuff, I can shoot him, can't I?"

Not necessarily. You can only shoot him if doing so is necessary to defend yourself against death or serious injury. You'd probably get away with it if you convince the police or the jury that the fact that he was burglarizing your home (i.e., had broken and entered with the intent to commit a felony therein) reasonably led you to reasonably believe he was prepared to kill you or do you serious injury, and that when you yelled at him to freeze and he kept coming at you, you thought it was fair to conclude that me meant to do you harm. OTOH, if you shot him because he was just camped out on your sofa, eating your food and refusing to leave, no matter how much of an asshole he was, you'd be facing some serious hard time, if not the death chamber. And since the whole point of this argument was to justify the killing of fetuses in utero, I'd like to point out that very few fetuses are such assholes.

|12.23.04 @ 1:26PM|#

crimethink,

I do have half a brain. I know that Tim is web editor, and he can see IP addresses and thus tell if someone posts under a different name.

After the fact excuses for your behavior simply won't cut it. You were clearly angry at Tim for the very witty title to this thread, so its not partlicularly believeable to think that you were just "joking." Indeed, I think you just acted without thinking about what you were doing. Nice try nutless wonder.

That was implied in the article by Ron Bailey.

Spin, spin, spin the bullshit. Bailey's article never mentioned anything about government funding and Bailey (to my knowledge) has never favored state funding either. As to the efforts to ban embryonic stem cell research, they already exist in the U.S.: you forget that there is an outright ban on cloning of embryos even if it is merely for stem-cell research. You lose.

I have been explaining my reasoning on the subject...

No, you haven't. You've merely repeated over and over again it must be at conception. You've provided no actual argument in favor of your claim.

No, Gary, once again you haven't read the thread of discussion. Currently, two aspects of my position are under attack: (a) the embryo is a person; and (b) if it is a person, it must be allowed to remain in the womb and develop.

No, those are you claims; you've yet to explain why I should take them seriously.

Gary, I don't pretend to know what anyone else's post-mortem destination will be...

Cop out. Your religion's official text is pretty clear with regard to the "destination" of heathens and others (as well as "lukewarm" Christians for that matter).

If I revealed private information about you...

Anyone who thinks that their IP address is "private" is rather foolish. You put that shit out in the world and it is no longer private unless you're using the appropriate software needed to mask it.

thoreau,

Its easy to find out someone's IP address; Tim revealed nothing that I couldn't figure out on my own.

|12.23.04 @ 1:30PM|#

Gary-

How would you go about finding out the IP address of a poster on this forum?

|12.23.04 @ 2:03PM|#

thoreau,

Wouldn't you like to know. :)

|12.23.04 @ 2:16PM|#

Well, Gary, if you told me how to find out the IP addresses of H&R posters, I could clear up a long-standing question on this forum. If you're right, I'd owe you an awfully big apology ;)

How about this: What's my IP address?

(Tim, don't answer. I want to see if Gary can do this by himself.)

|12.23.04 @ 2:50PM|#

thoreau,

Would you like to know if I am JB? :)

|12.23.04 @ 3:07PM|#

Yes, but you'll probably cop out and admit to being Jason Bourne, while leaving the Jean Bart question unanswered ;)

|12.23.04 @ 3:24PM|#

Gary,

Pleasure talking to you as always. I'll leave it to the intelligent readers of H&R to weigh the strength of our arguments...

|12.23.04 @ 3:38PM|#

No, you haven't. You've merely repeated over and over again it must be at conception. You've provided no actual argument in favor of your claim.

Actually, my argument immediately followed the very sentence you quoted. Or rather the sentence fragment that you chopped off because the other half of the sentence undermined what you were saying, as is your custom.

You know, sometimes I think that showing yourself superior to everyone else is more important to you than finding the truth.

|12.23.04 @ 3:59PM|#

crimethink,

...after conception, there's no point in development where one can reasonably say that a non-person becomes a person. Thus, if persons exist at all, they must exist as such from conception.

That's not an explanation, its a claim. You claim that conception = personhood and that the reason this is because there is no good point beyond this to differentiate between personhood and non-personhood; but that's not an explanation for why there are no good points beyond conception, its just a claim, its not an explanation. You don't tell me why that is case and you give me no good reason to believe you.

thoreau,

He he he. :) Well, I never denied being Jason Bourne; that was just something to annoy all the Jean Bart fans out there. As to the Jean Bart issue, well...

|12.23.04 @ 4:09PM|#

Gary-

I gotta say, I love it that when Tim Cavanaugh was pressed to give an answer, he gave one that was rather vague: "JB, GG, and JB are as real as Lo Pan."

Then again, maybe I just don't get the reference.

I guess it's fitting that an answer from one who should know was rather vague. Maybe that's how this is destined to be.

drf|12.23.04 @ 5:40PM|#

isn't lo pan from "big trouble in little china"?

Tim Cavanaugh|12.23.04 @ 7:30PM|#

If Tim wanted to show that "Unborn Angel" was in fact me, all he had to do was post that we had the same IP address. He didn't have to post what the address was. That is the bone I have to pick with him.

Okley dokley. Your IP address has been removed from public view. Now quit whining, you big baby.

Tim Cavanaugh|12.23.04 @ 7:33PM|#

Thoreau, any information I could provide about the JB-GG-JB question would only deepen the mystery.

|12.23.04 @ 8:46PM|#

Fascinating!

|12.23.04 @ 11:17PM|#

Stop it--you're all making the Baby Jesus cry, and it's almost his birthday!

|12.24.04 @ 9:23AM|#

Tim,

The damage has already been done, as my enemies have no doubt already copied down the IP address and will soon attempt their final assault. Every great man has enemies -- and so do I. ;)

Henry,

Baby Jesus was actually a person since the Annunciation (March 25). I wonder why the Church doesn't try to make as big a deal out of that holiday as Christmas, though the fact that it usually winds up smack dab in the middle of Lent might explain it.

Tim Cavanaugh|12.24.04 @ 12:13PM|#

Crimethink, you need to get behind the movement to make the Anunciation a HDOO.

|12.24.04 @ 5:43PM|#

Waitaminute. The Feast of The Immaculate Conception is already a HDOO. (Dec. 8th) That would seem to make crimethink's point, though it is "Mary" taking up residence in her Mom, Anne.

The way we were taught it, Baby Jesus aka The Word, was one of 3 Persons from the Beginning.

Kevin

(an atheist, but a hell of a Catechism student)

|12.24.04 @ 7:43PM|#

Tim,

Well, considering that HDOOs (except Christmas of course) typically draw about 40% or less of the Mass attendance of Sundays, I don't know if that's the answer. If anything, I think we should reduce their number.

kevrob,

I can't argue with that... Though Jesus only became a human person at the Annunciation. Of course, there wouldn't be a date that he became a divine person.

|12.25.04 @ 8:38AM|#

crimethink,

Jesus was never anything more than a human being, irrespective of whatever fables, tall-tales and myths you might have read or heard about him.

kevrob,

I grew up a Protestant and am an atheist myself; but the notion that your primary source of religious instruction and knowledge comes not from the Bible but from courses and what a "learned" church hierarchy tells you has always been just bizarre to me.

|12.26.04 @ 3:35PM|#

ct, you're assertion that the bar-Yussef kid, if he ever really existed, became a human at the Annunciation/Conception is a bit circular, based on the theologically novel selection of that point as the time the flesh gets a soul. I think it was Aquinas who thought babies didn't get souls until they were two years old, as before that he didn't see them as having actual personalities. In an age with rampant infant death, that made a certain sense.

GG, elementary school-age kids learn their religion at at least one remove from scripture, no matter what their sect or denomination. Catholics depend on tradition and the teaching authority of their church in a way that many Protestants don't, but I doubt if many Sunday School classes encourage DIY exegesis. Even adult Protestants have their Bible-reading mediated by study groups, sermons, commentaries, etc. Most important, unless one can read the original Hebrew and Greek, one's reading will always be filtered through the sensibilities of the "learned" translators. Some sects insist that, not only were the originals divinely inspired, but that some particular translation(s) was so blessed, and attempts to render the Bible in 21st century English, rather than, say, the poetry of the KJV, is somehow a heretical plot.

I have always found that one of the finest roads to atheism is a Jesuit education. :)

Kevin

Reason.com

New at Reason

Mark Denovich|12.22.04 @ 3:02PM|#

Mark Denovich|12.22.04 @ 3:32PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh|12.22.04 @ 4:27PM|#

jonathan greenlee|12.22.04 @ 4:52PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh|12.22.04 @ 7:12PM|#

David Lo Pan|12.22.04 @ 7:20PM|#

drf|12.23.04 @ 11:06AM|#

drf|12.23.04 @ 11:55AM|#

drf|12.23.04 @ 5:40PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh|12.23.04 @ 7:30PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh|12.23.04 @ 7:33PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh|12.24.04 @ 12:13PM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions: