Wednesday, August 01, 2007

When the Bible Becomes a Science Book

Let me get this straight.

The Bible can't be used as a science book, unless it's casting doubt on when a fetus becomes a human?


Benjamin P. Glaser said...

You expect them to be consistent in their views of Scripture? For another great example see Jack Haberer and his views on retirement.

Aric Clark said...

I don't think the person in question was being inconsistent. Perhaps there is an earlier argument being referred to that I am unaware of, in which case it is merely my ignorance, but following the links here, it seems that he was attempting to address the arguments of his opponents - a basic tactic in any debate. He wasn't saying, for example, that the Bible shouldn't be used as a "science book" and then going on to use it that way. He was saying - the Bible shouldn't be used as a science book and even if you do use it that way your arguments are fallacious.

However, more interesting than the question of debate protocol, is the question the debate itself was addressing - the value of a fetus life according to scripture. To me it seems like it is far from a cut and dried matter. There were convincing arguments on either side.

Chris said...

Let me tell you up front that I detest elective abortion and find it a blight upon the church that we haven't been univocal on the issue. For my senior ethics paper, I tackled abortion. I also debated the entire campus on the issue. It is an undisputed fact that 90%+ of abortions in America are sought because there is a desire not to have ones life disrupted through the time or financial investment required by carrying a child to term (Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.).

That being said, can you produce one valid argument for why the fetus should not be accorded the same right to life that a born human is given?

Chris said...

I misspoke. 98% of abortions are elective. "Medically necessary" and "rape/incest" abortions constitute only 2% of the 3,700 abortions performed each and every day.

(Kind of makes the 3,000 soldiers "Bush killed" in the last few years pale in comparison, eh?)

Benjamin P. Glaser said...

C'mon Chris we know Bush is worse than Satan. Do not try and apologize for Herr Bush's War.

Hopefully you notice the Sarcasm.

Chris said...

That's being awfully generous to the Bush, making him only as bad as Satan. We all know he stoops to Robertson-Falwell-Dobson levels of evil.

Doug Hagler said...

Ok, I think its false to claim that "elective abortion" is the same as "abortion to avoid financial inconvenience". That's a massive over-generalization that does no justice to women caught making this difficult decision.

I don't know how much research you did for the debate and your paper, but there have been *many* arguments put forward as to why a fetus should be accorded less legal/rights status than a born human being. Are they "good" arguments? Well, that's for a given person to decide. But I think that simply dismissing them out of hand is a poor way to make a strong argument.

I think that the core of a strong ethical argument that - might actually get listened to - is that it is one which takes the opposing view respectfully and seriously and deals with it in a rigorous fashion. While I think the argument you put forward in a later post has some merit, its definitely lacking in this regard, and therefore I doubt it will have any influence on those who disagree with your position.

Chris said...


Thanks for hanging in their with me.

My figures are from the abortion industry themselves (via the Guttmacher Institute). If abortion is a "medical procedure" instead of "willful infanticide", then any time it is not medically necessary is "elective." I'm not saying the women are happy about choosing it. But that they saw it as a viable ethical decision is precisely in view throughout my effort at showing abortion is the murder of a human being.

Are the issues complex? Yes. So is homelessness. But it doesn't help if we don't recognize the basic dignity of the human beings under discussion. In the case of a pregnant woman considering abortion, there is one human being who - though she may have relatively little power elsewhere - has tremendous power over the life of one or more humans in the womb.

That is the root of the problem. If the fetus isn't human, the issue becomes simpler. If the fetus is human, nothing short of medical necessity could justify ending its life.