Re: Dr. Dobson

From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 23:40:10 EDT

David,

Ah, but that's God's business, not ours. We're called to protect and
preserve life, especially human life (6th commandment). God gives and
takes life as he sovereignly pleases. That's not our role.

TG

On Aug 12, 2005, at 8:06 AM, David F Siemens wrote:

> Let me put it in its simplest form: God evidently doesn't care as
> much about the survival of zygotes as Dobson does.
> Dave
>
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:23:57 -0600 "Terry M. Gray"
> <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> writes:
> David,
>
> I don't really find this point relevant at all. It's commonly
> brought up in this debate but I fail to see how it matters. If most
> of the inhabitants of heaven, hell, or limbo, come from human
> beings who die in infancy (even early, early infancy), so what? The
> argument in the end turns on what you believe the Bible teaches
> here. How many fetuses end up in heaven or hell or whether the
> known universe can support them all is of little concern.
>
> TG
>
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:37 PM, David F Siemens wrote:
>
>> I find another matter also relevant. At least a third and perhaps
>> 70% of zygotes fail to implant. Assuming that all the offspring of
>> Christian parents become believers (right!), and that all zygotes
>> are ensouled, most of the redeemed will still be the offspring of
>> nonChristians. At least, on a little different claim, limbo will
>> have more inhabitants than either heaven or hell. This supports
>> Glenn's argument that ensoulment comes later than conception,
>> though it cannot present a schedule. I recall that originally
>> Catholic views held that ensoulment came at quickening. I'm not
>> sure when they changed to the present position.
>> Dave
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Glenn Morton
>> <glenn_morton@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Political argumentation at the time of Rowe v Wade makes me make
>> this claim. Many Jewish groups don't beleive that the fetus is
>> human. But then, many Christians who advocate abortion don't think
>> it constitutes the killing of a human. I am going to quote a
>> person who probably doesn't want to be dragged into this, but I
>> find his passage so relevant to the discussion of the soul.
>>
>> "But in any case, the Word of God was incarnate in the womb of
>> Mary from the first moment of conception. There was never an
>> instant when what was borne by the Annunciation on March 25th,
>> nine months before Christmas, is the celebration of the
>> Incarnation.)( A human fetus is capable of receiving the divine
>> nature." George Murphy, Trademark of God, (Wilton: Morehouse-
>> Barlow, 1986),p. 87
>>
>> And one should look at what the abortion rights people are saying.
>> Here is a case in point. Note how he defines the soul and then
>> think about WHEN this comes about. I doubt my year old grand-
>> daughter yet has a soul under his definition.
>>
>> "One theologian who writes on the subject—Paul Ramsey—thinks that
>> a human egg cell becomes a human individual with a moral claim to
>> survive if it has been fertilized. Yet this egg cell has none of
>> the qualities that we have in mind when we proclaim our superior
>> worth to the chimpanzees or dolphins. It cannot speak, reason or
>> judge between right and wrong. It cannot have personal relations,
>> without which a person is not functionally a person at all, until
>> months—and not, except minimally, until years—have passed. And
>> even then, it will not be a person in the normal sense unless some
>> who are already fully persons have taken pains to help it become a
>> human being in the full value sense, functioning as such. The
>> antiabortionist is commanding some person or persons to undertake
>> this effort. For without it, the fetus will never be human in the
>> relevant sense. It will be human only in origin, but otherwise a
>> subhuman animal.
>>
>> The fertilized egg is an individual egg, but not an individual
>> human being. For such a being is, in its body, a multicellular
>> organism, a metozoan—to use the scientific Greek—and the egg is a
>> single cell. The first thing the egg cell does is to begin
>> dividing into many cells. For some weeks the fetus is not a single
>> individual at all, but a colony of cells. During its first weeks
>> there seems to be no ground for regarding the fetus as comparable
>> to an individual animal. Only in possible or probable destiny is
>> it an individual. Otherwise it is an organized society of single-
>> celled individuals.
>>
>> A possible individual person is one thing; an actual person is
>> another. If this difference is not important, what is? There is in
>> the long run no room in the solar system, or even in the known
>> universe, for all human eggs—even all fertilized eggs, as things
>> now stand—to become human persons. Indeed, it is mathematically
>> demonstrable that the present rate of population growth must be
>> lowered somehow. It is not a moral imperative th at all
>> possibilities of human persons become actual persons.
>>
>> Of course, some may say that the fertilized egg already has a
>> human soul, but on what evidence? The evidence of soul in the
>> relevant sense is the capacity to reason, judge right and wrong,
>> and the like. http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/
>> hartshorne.html
>>
>> This further illustrates why it is wrong for humans to decide who
>> has a soul. Such a definition would allow the killing of an infant
>> prior to the time when they speak.
>>
>>
>> drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
>> It may seem obvious, but I just want to be sure I know
>> what you are talking about. But what makes you make this
>> claim:
>>
>> "Since this is to all, let me state what I think. I tend
>> to agree with George that it is very difficult to come up
>> with scientific evidence for the soul. But, it is very
>> clear that society has decided that fetus's/prebirth
>> babies don't have one in any case. Thus, either society
>> decided this based upon some evidence (lack of language,
>> sleeping most of the time etc), or they have decided it
>> irrationally. " ?
>>
>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
>>
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Fri Aug 12 23:41:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 23:41:46 EDT