People, I suspect, on both sides of the abortion issue, would like to deal with the most extreme people on the other side. Sure, the pro-abortionist hard core is out there. They think the fetus should receive no moral consideration until it's born, and be viewed as a blob of tissue. These people are out in the marches making outrageous statements. Then you have the people who want laws that will force a 10-year-old rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term. But it's time for people to stop treating abortion moderates as if they don't exist, and recognize that people who are pro-choice are not necessarily pro-abortion. People who don't want Draconian abortion laws can and do recognize that there is a deep question of conscience that women have to make who are considering abortion. How would you like it if liberals were to consistently assume that if you are a conservative, you were really just fine with storming the Capitol and overturning election results without proof? (Actually, a lot of liberals make that mistake). Some conservatives really believe in that, but plenty don't. It's the same with abortion. Some pro-choicers really women to consider abortion with no qualms whatsoever, and are afraid of "stigmatizing" anyone who gets an abortion. They're very loud. But they don't speak for everyone who is concerned about access restrictions to abortion. Now, these more moderate pro-choicers could be WRONG, and you can argue that they are, but they actually do exist. Biden, whatever his faults may be, is one of them. Planned Parenthood has not been too crazy about Biden through most of his career.
Now here's the problem. The Supreme Court didn't decide that fetuses were persons from conception, and they never challenged Roe's contention that the fetus's right to life is not guaranteed in the Constitution. They just argue that the woman's right to an abortion isn't rooted in the Constitution either, leaving it up to democratic choice whether to ban abortion or not. I have my doubts as to whether deciding this on a state basis is Constitutional either, it seems to fly in the face of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which indicates to me that fetuses and pregnant women need to have the same rights across the country. (A house divided against itself cannot stand). Be that as it may, because of the nature of partisan politics, state legislatures have enacted abortion laws that majorities in their states do not want. In Republican states majorities in the Republican party want strict abortion laws, but if the state if 55 percent Republican and 80 percent of Republicans want strict abortion laws, then Republicans elect only strictly pro-life candidates in the primaries and constitute a majority in the legislatures, but actually only 44 percent of the people want strict abortion laws, if Democrats are all pro-choice. But if Republicans go for abortion laws that are stricter than what the people want, they are going to hurt themselves in future elections. If the process of determining abortion laws is truly democratic, you might get some restriction over and above what Roe permitted, but not the kind of strict abortion bans that pro-lifers want. And the actual practice of bringing abortion restrictions into the real world is likely to produce collateral damage that will make people think twice. For example, the drug methotrexate is a drug used for lupus. But because it can be used to produce and abortion, pro-lifers are inclined to ban it, keeping lupus patients from drugs they need. IUDs are sometimes used for medical purposes that have nothing to do with family planning. Do we ban those because they are thought to be abortifacient? It is yet to be seen whether reversing Roe will really activate the democratic process and produce the laws that people want, which is what the jurisprudence in Dobbs implies, or whether our democratic process is so broken by partisan politics that we won't be able to come to any kind of sensible solution.
68 comments:
There's no reason to believe anything Biden says or anything the Pro-Abortion movement says.
It's been my experience that "moderate" pro-choicers choose not to want to have a detailed discussion of their position and have been able to hide behind Roe to get what they want without making a convincing case. Now let them make it.
Biology tells us that a new living unique and vulnerable human being comes into existence when the sperm and egg unite in conception. A just society arranges it's laws to protect it's members not only from nature but from each other. At conception it is undeniable that we have a new member of the human race and so a member of our local human society which a just society would legally protect. The new member, our new neighbor. It's true that our new neighbor needs help to survive but that's what society is for, isn't it?
There are some who say the newly conceived is not a human being, but if they hold that, then they are simply science deniers. I chalk it up to invincible ignorance.
When I hear people talk about "personhood" and start asking what they mean by that things get really vague really fast. For instance a baby nor person in a comma cannot demonstrate what "personhood" proponents describe as the dividing line between killing someone and letting them live, but somehow most won't go so far as to admitting they want to kill babies. That young woman shouting at the pro-life rally was actually being more authentic than the "moderates" who don't advocate murdering babies after birth.
If you concede that a fully new human being comes into existence at conception, but that this human being is not yet a "person", then what type of thing is this non-person fully human being. Is it a different type of thing at every distinct moment in time as it grows and develops until the moment arrives (no one can tell me when) when it is now a "person"? But then it will be a different type of thing at the next moment and the moment after that until it dies. Or is it actually 2 different types of things. A human being thing and a person thing. So one essential thing is actually now 2 essential things? This sounds like an ad hoc way of justifying killing human beings to me. What am I missing.
But even that poor reasoning is not an excuse for Christians:
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it happen to me according to your word.” Then the angel left her. In those days Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judah where she entered the home of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Immediately after Jesus was conceived, Mary visited Elizabeth and Elizabeth recognized the Second Person of the Trinity was present. Jesus is true God and true man (most protestants claim to believe the Nicean Council right?) and so was personally present in His humanity at that meeting as much as he was throughout His ministry. Christians who use the "personhood" argument for allowing killing because "it's immoral but you're not really killing a person" are not only wrong about Christ's personhood at that stage, but are implicitly arguing that it would have not been such a big sin to kill Christ that a law needed to have been passed.
Now you may want to argue that "we can't expect atheists to accept this line of reasoning" but it's Christians that I'm pointing this out to not atheists. Atheist reasoning is damaged in the first place, so I don't know why Christians should defer to them in anything.
HERE is the whole abortion debate in a nutshell.
Another half-baked contribution.
>What am I missing.
I would argue that at that stage, "person" or not, the fetus is still a part of the woman's body and therefore the party of small government (LOL) should butt out of people's private medical lives. There is also the question of if it is a person, why can't it be used to drive in carpool lanes? Why doesn't it have a social security number? Why can't you claim it as a dependent on your taxes?
Beyond that, this ruling is already causing all kinds of ill effects, such as people not being able to get medication they need for lupus because it's considered an "abortifacient." No need to mention that laws against abortion will stop abortions from happening exactly was much as the War on Drugs stopped people from using drugs.
And then there is the murmuring from the right about how to stop women from crossing state lines for abortions. So guard stations doing pregnancy tests, then? And the concomitant walls that will have to be built along state lines to stop women from crossing the borders without getting tested? Or, more likely, they'll use the Texas model of recruiting neighbors to snitch on women who try to cross state lines.
Along with Ted Cruz's proposed prison walls and guard houses that need to be built around every school to stop school shootings (and presumably, around malls, churches, grocery stores, and parade routes as well), this is certainly an America I can get on board with! Can't wait!
I would argue that at that stage, "person" or not, the fetus is still a part of the woman's body and therefore the party of small government (LOL) should butt out of people's private medical lives.
So leftists are OK with murder (what a surprise). Small government types aren't.
The rest sounds like a crazy rant (also what a surprise). "People won't be able to use scissors, because they can be used for abortions....WAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"
You guys really need to lay off the weed
For Martin, I'm going with the (affectionately known as) Crazy Star comment: Thumbs up! :-)! l
Like Button! You go girl!
>So leftists are OK with murder (what a surprise).
Of course we're not ok with murder. We just typically don't think it's clear and abgreed-upon what the moral status of a fetus is. Since many religions think early abortion is ok (e.g. Judaism and Islam), and even non-Catholic Christians thought so before 1979, it doesn't seem settled to me. I would suggest that human persons, and therefore moral worth, do not suddenly just switch on, but fade into existence as a gradient.
Is it morally wrong for me to steal the brick fire ring in your backyard? Of course! But what if I just took one very small pebble from the side? Maybe not. What if I stole two pebbles? Eh.... Three? Etc.
In short, I don't see how abortion is not a Sorites puzzle.
>The rest sounds like a crazy rant (also what a surprise).
Color me shocked that the right's anger at "communism" isn't activated at all when the authoritarianism is coming from their own side.
Martin,
Of course we're not ok with murder.
You referenced the "personhood" argument for allowing abortion. That argument holds that although it is wrong to kill a "person", since a fetus is not a "person" then it is not murder to kill a fetus although it would be to kill a "person"
You said:
I would argue that at that stage, "person" or not,...butt out of people's private medical lives.
If a woman kills a "person" she has committed murder according to the "personhood" argument, so in this context you are claiming to be OK with murder.
All Christian churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) have historically condemned not only abortion but contraception. It wasn't until the Lambeth Conference of 1930, where the first Protestant church allowed contraception and then only for husband and wife under limited circumstances. No church allowed abortion till the 60's. That's 2000 years of contraception and abortion having been settled. The same goes goes for the Jews. Orthodox Jews (which was all there was until 1850) have always condemned abortion. So you're wrong history.
In short, I don't see how abortion is not a Sorites puzzle.
Are you a little more human today than you were yesterday but not as much as you will be tomorrow? Is it OK for me to kill you today then since you will be more human tomorrow? Honestly I don't think you've lived up to your potential to this point. Maybe it would be for the greater good that you not exist.
Color me shocked that the right's anger at "communism" isn't activated at all when the authoritarianism is coming from their own side.
Authoritarianism is coming from the projections of your own deranged mind, but as I said I'm not shocked. Do wish you would stop the drugs and start eating a healthy diet though.
bmiller,
Biology tells us that a new living unique and vulnerable human being comes into existence when the sperm and egg unite in conception.
As long as you ignore the existence of identical twins/triplets/etc., zygotes that multiply due to missing chromosomes, and all of the other ways that such a creation might not be living, unique, etc. Biology does not support you, nor should you care, since your reasoning is not biological.
Immediately after Jesus was conceived,
that's not what the phrase "In those days ..." means. At any rate, Jesus was not the union of sperm and egg, so his gestation is completely unique.
So leftists are OK with murder (what a surprise)
If I were trying to do to your body what pregnancy did to my wife's body, you'd be entitled to any necessary level of self-defense to prevent it. Self-defense is not murder.
"People won't be able to use scissors, because they can be used for abortions....WAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"
People are already, today, being denied medications that are potential abortifacients.
>All Christian churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) have historically condemned not only abortion but contraception
Catholics and Orthodox? Sure. Not so clear cut with Protestants. Recent articles have shown how Evangelicals, for example, didn't really care about abortion and even affirmed Roe v Wade, until a man named Paul Weyrich realized that segregation was no longer working to fire up Evangelical voters and set about trying to find some new way to inflame passions.
>The same goes goes for the Jews. Orthodox Jews (which was all there was until 1850) have always condemned abortion. So you're wrong history.
Not according to what I read. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion
There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus. Likely due to, as I said, this being somewhat of a Sorites puzzle.
>Are you a little more human today than you were yesterday but not as much as you will be tomorrow?
Of course there is a time where the "heap" clearly exists and can't become more of a heap (bigger, maybe, but not more of a heap). But a single grain of sand, a lot of people would say, is not a heap. It takes, maybe, a handful of sand grains before most people would start to agree that it's now a heap, and therefore of significant moral value (for example, maybe it has that many grains of sand around 15 or 20 weeks of gestation; before that, it's not a heap).
>Authoritarianism is coming from the projections of your own deranged mind
Ah. Gotcha. So the right is NOT talking about restricting women travelling across states lines, then. Stuff like this: https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20220630/abortion-opponents-dont-want-patients-crossing-state-lines
...is not really there, then? It's just a hallucination from the Golden Teachers I ate this evening?
Martin,
Catholics and Orthodox? Sure. Not so clear cut with Protestants.
If you expect a response from me you're going to have to demonstrate you can read and understand what I wrote. All American Protestant denominations before the 1960's condemned abortion. You similarly ignored what I wrote wrt Jewish historical condemnation of abortion. You're actually using Wikipedia is your source in a controversy? Lame.
Of course there is a time where the "heap" clearly exists and can't become more of a heap (bigger, maybe, but not more of a heap).
You are saying that some external agent keeps sprinkling "person particles" on human beings in the womb until enough of these "person particles" amount to a person. If so, then I should be able to remove them one at a time until there is no longer a "person heap", right? What do these person particles look like? Who sprinkles them onto the unborn?
Like I said. Get off the drugs.
Luke 1:35
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
Luke 1:56
Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.
For the math impaired. Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant at the Annunciation. Mary was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. Mary stayed 3 months until the birth of John the Baptist according to most scholars. So Mary must have gone to visit Elizabeth immediately after the Annunciation and must have also immediately conceived in order to meet this timeline. Jesus, in person, was present in his humanity at His conception.
Drugs and Homelessness
bmiller,
If you expect a response from me you're going to have to demonstrate you can read and understand what I wrote. All American Protestant denominations before the 1960's condemned abortion.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3063&context=edissertations
Page 76 (88th page in PDF enumeration) has Table 5. Of the 8 denominations listed, 5 were silent. The three that were not silent condemned abortion, but that's less than 50%.
bmiller,
Since Jesus was not the union of sperm and egg, this is a bad example for ordinary humans.
One Brow,
I'm not trying to persuade atheists or people who follow various Christological heresies. My argument is aimed at the Catholic and Protestants here who believe that Christ was truly and fully human and truly and fully God. It's not for people who don't believe in the humanity of Christ.
So. Did you ask God if He didn't use sperm to fertilize Mary's egg? He didn't tell me how it was done.
Not that the mechanics of Christ's conception would affect His humanity in any way.
>You're actually using Wikipedia is your source in a controversy? Lame.
It's fine as a source of sources, at least as a starting point. Just follow any of the links. Example: An Halachic Overview of Abortion
>You are saying that some external agent keeps sprinkling "person particles"
I...don't know what to say to this. I was pointing out that abortion has a Sorites component and...you're taking me literally about particles...???
Please try taking drugs. Especially psilocybin mushrooms. They may help.
Martin,
It's fine as a source of sources, at least as a starting point.
But you actually have to read it and compare to what I wrote. There were no Reformed or Conservative Jewish movements before 1850, only Orthodox and they always were and still are against abortion. The Wiki article agrees with me about Orthodox, but leaves out the relative novelty of the 2 other Jewish movements.
you're taking me literally about particles...???
Because that's what makes a Sorites paradox a Sorites paradox.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
2. Different Formulations of the Paradox
At least three conditions must be met for an argument to be an instance of the sorites paradox. (1) It must be possible to construct a sorites series for the predicate in question, viz., a finitely-membered ordering of values on a dimension decisive of the predicate’s application. A sorites series for ‘tall’ is an ordering on the dimension of height (an ordering of heights), for ‘old’ an ordering on the dimension of age (an ordering of ages), and so forth. (2) Neighboring values in the series must be only incrementally different, i.e., either indiscriminable or just slightly different. An incremental difference is supposed to guarantee that if a vague predicate applies to one of a pair of neighbors, it applies equally to the other. (Following Wright [e.g., 1975], the property of applying across incremental differences on a decisive dimension is often called the tolerance of a vague term.) (3) The predicate must be true of the first value in the series and false of the last.
If you're claiming people are heaps or not of something from the moment of conception, then what are they heaps or not heaps of that are incrementally countable? I admit I was guessing with "person particles" but I'm happy to be corrected.
BTW. Drugs are bad.
Giving the most convincing arguments to Miller here.
PSA for Martin
bmiller,
I'm not trying to persuade atheists or people who follow various Christological heresies. My argument is aimed at the Catholic and Protestants here who believe that Christ was truly and fully human and truly and fully God. It's not for people who don't believe in the humanity of Christ.
Were you drinking or something? Of course I accept the full humanity of Christ. It's his deity I don't believe in, and I was responding to you based on your presumed acceptance of the nature of his Deity being present in utero.
So. Did you ask God if He didn't use sperm to fertilize Mary's egg? He didn't tell me how it was done.
Even if God "used" sperm, it was altered to the point where it carried no taint of original sin. Jesus is still a completely unique instance of pregnancy, and can't be used to represent the status of other pregnancies.
Limited Perspective,
Giving the most convincing arguments to Miller here.
A Soviet judge giving high marks to a Soviet ice skater.
One Brow,
Did God tell you that sperm carries the "taint of original sin" too? Keep away from the shrooms.
I think it's hilarious that a nasty little atheist wants to lecture theists on theology.
And BTW.
and I was responding to you based on your presumed acceptance of the nature of his Deity being present in utero.
I think that line is a lie.
"A Soviet judge giving high marks to a Soviet ice skater."
Now that's a great line! Thanks.
The Soviets had great ice skaters. Funny coincidence, sometimes Mrs Perspective and I watch YouTube videos together. She goes first on her channel, then I choose one from my channel. It's an interesting way to unwind from the day and reminds me how very different we are. She loves couples figure skating. It's really cool to see the distinction between the man and the woman. It's not the 110 lb female ice skater who throws the man into the air. I suppose that will change one day and we will lose another beautiful thing to modernity
Luke 1:39-45
39 During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, 40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, 42 cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord[n] should come to me? 44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed are you who believed[o] that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Christ is one person with 2 natures. He took on human nature at His conception as indicated by the Holy Spirit prompting Elizabeth to call Mary "mother of my Lord" almost immediately after the Annunciation*. This is literally God telling us that the Second Person of the Trinity was present in both natures at conception, not just a divine nature.
The problem for a Christian holding to the "personhood" argument for abortion is that he must not only deny the Hypostatic Union he must ignore Luke 1 that tells us Christ, in person, was immediately present in His humanity as the offspring of Mary at conception. He must then logically admit that since he doesn't think it's such a big sin to kill any human being in utero that a law needs to be passed, it must not be such a big sin to kill the Savior of the world in utero either (see Matthew 25:41+).
Arguments trying to legalize abortions for everyone except Jesus end up, at bottom, as a denial of the Incarnation. It's also incredibly silly. Wonder how that law would be worded. Maybe before each abortion a priest or minister would have to certify that this child was not the Second Coming. It's so absurd.
bmiller,
Did God tell you that sperm carries the "taint of original sin" too?
Catholic theology taught me that we are not merely born into original sin, but conceived with original sin. Why would there otherwise be a need for an Immaculate Conception (another singular case)? "Carries the taint" is more lyrical than descriptive, but I think you understand the meaning.
I think it's hilarious that a nasty little atheist wants to lecture theists on theology.
I was raised Catholic, and am still culturally Catholic. Why do you think I hang out in places like this one and Dr. Feser's?
and I was responding to you based on your presumed acceptance of the nature of his Deity being present in utero.
I think that line is a lie.
I may have been mistaken about your belief, but my impression is that you believe that Jesus had a fully Divine nature in utero, as well as fully human. That would also comport with what I was taught as a youth, and you next comment. Perhaps I was not clear enough by not specifying "in addition to fully human" earlier, and that led to your confusion.
In any case, as I understand your beliefs, Mary's pregnancy is completely singular in that Jesus possesses a Divine nature and well as a human nature, and so it's not a proper model for the personhood of fetii with only human nature.
One Brow,
Since you asked, I think you hang out at Christian sites to mock and ridicule Christians. Benign atheists have better things to do.
On more time:
My argument is against those Christians who postulate that although there is a human being present immediately after conception a "person" is not present making the human less "valuable" and so there should be no law against abortion until a "person" is present.
The first part of my argument:
Christ is one person with 2 natures.
Christ's human nature is the same as all other humans.
God tells us that Christ, the human person, was present immediately after the Annunciation.
Therefore God tells us that immediately after conception a human person is present.
If a human person is present immediately after conception then the human is "valuable" and it should be illegal to kill him.
I'll attend to some objections in a bit.
The second part of my argument:
If Christ wasn't a person immediately after conception then He was less "valuable" and so it should have been legal to have killed Him according to some Christians.
It's absurd that Christians would argue for the legalization of killing Christ and that he was not "valuable" enough to keep alive..
The "personhood" argument is un-Christian.
Arguments regarding the things that make Christ unique are irrelevant to the "personhood" argument unless one wants to argue that Christ was humanly making rational decisions and exercising free will as an embryo and that of course would de-human-ize Him. His divine nature doesn't make him not a human like us and we are both persons. Babies after baptism are then without Original Sin, just like Christ was at His conception so that is a red herring too.
The "personhood" argument is based on a human being reaching some point in development where he can exercise some minimum set of adult mental/physical capacities. Until that point, he is not a "person" and so is not relatively valuable and can be legally killed.
It's obvious that after the moment of conception Christ could not exercise those capacities, yet He was already present, one person with 2 natures. So the term "person" is being used in 2 different senses here, but that's not the real question. The real question what "is the "value" of a human being immediately after the moment of conception enough to allow the human to be killed or not?" Theologically, as I argue, the new human is already a person and valuable even if he is not a physically/mentally capable "person" in the second sense.
bmiller,
Since you asked, I think you hang out at Christian sites to mock and ridicule Christians. Benign atheists have better things to do.
Not just Christian, Catholic. Mockery and ridicule is more of a bonus than a reason. I get a lot of insight from these sites as well.
My argument is against those Christians who postulate that although there is a human being present immediately after conception a "person" is not present making the human less "valuable" and so there should be no law against abortion until a "person" is present.
The first part of my argument:
Christ is one person with 2 natures.
Christ's human nature is the same as all other humans.
God tells us that Christ, the human person, was present immediately after the Annunciation.
Therefore God tells us that immediately after conception a human person is present.
As I learned Catholic dogma, there is no Christ, the human person. There is Christ, the human and divine person. His natures are not separable. This is what makes him a singular instance, one that can not necessarily be applied to non-divine humans.
If Christ wasn't a person immediately after conception then He was less "valuable" and so it should have been legal to have killed Him according to some Christians.
He would still have been fully Divine, regardless.
The "personhood" argument is based on a human being reaching some point in development where he can exercise some minimum set of adult mental/physical capacities.
I have not seen "adult" used in the personhood argument before. Typically, it is some minimum set of infant functions, such as neural activity or the existence of a brain.
It's obvious that after the moment of conception Christ could not exercise those capacities,
I don't think you have any basis for saying what the limits of a single cell with a dual nature are, much less an embryo. IIRC, Luke makes it clear Jesus was advanced for his age as a child, why not as an embryo?
Theologically, as I argue, the new human is already a person and valuable even if he is not a physically/mentally capable "person" in the second sense.
I understand that, but your use of the embryonic Jesus does not support this position.
There is Christ, the human and divine person.
OK, I'll reword my conclusion.
Therefore God tells us that immediately after conception a person with a human nature is present.
If true humans are not persons at conception then Christ could not be a true human at conception either, contradicting the Incarnation:
In Christian theology, the incarnation is the belief that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Koine Greek for "word"), "was made flesh"[1] by being conceived in the womb of a woman, the Virgin Mary, also known as the Theotokos (Greek for "God-bearer"). The doctrine of the incarnation, then, entails that Jesus is fully God and fully human.
As I mentioned, arguing against the personhood of a newly concieved human being would make Christ something different from human. There have been many different versions of that heresy.
I don't think you have any basis for saying what the limits of a single cell with a dual nature are, much less an embryo. IIRC, Luke makes it clear Jesus was advanced for his age as a child, why not as an embryo?
A human cell does not have a dual nature. But if you want to argue that Christ was humanly doing calculus as an embryo without a developed brain then I'll wait to see who joins you.
In any event, Christians who think it should be legal to kill an offspring because they don't have a developed brain are in effect saying it should have been legal to kill Christ.
bmiller,
Therefore God tells us that immediately after conception a person with a human nature is present.
Therefore God tells us that immediately after the conception or Jesus, a person with a dual human/Divine nature was present.
If true humans are not persons at conception then Christ could not be a true human at conception either,
Being fulling Divine means Jesus can be things that tissue of solely human descent can not be. Being fully human does not limit the nature of Jesus.
As I mentioned, arguing against the personhood of a newly concieved human being would make Christ something different from human.
Something different from solely human, which He was.
There have been many different versions of that heresy.
I think I'm reading one right now.
A human cell does not have a dual nature.
One of them did.
But if you want to argue that Christ was humanly doing calculus as an embryo without a developed brain then I'll wait to see who joins you.
There will be many who join you in saying that Jesus had all the limitations of other humans, but I don't think you'll like their company.
In any event, Christians who think it should be legal to kill an offspring because they don't have a developed brain are in effect saying it should have been legal to kill Christ.
Mary agreed to be a mother. Consent matters.
Therefore God tells us that immediately after the conception or Jesus, a person with a dual human/Divine nature was present.
No. It took God till the Council of Chalcedon to give us that formulation. Luke only tells us that the Lord is present as Mary's child and we know the Lord is a person.
Being fully human does not limit the nature of Jesus.
I thought you just said that Jesus had 2 natures. Now you're claiming he only has one. Sounds like the Docetist heresy.
2. A human cell does not have a dual nature.
One of them did.
You're welcome to your own homegrown theology, but Christian theology holds that Christ had 2 natures, one of them being human. Having cells and a body are part of human nature. So Christ, the person had cells and a body. His cell(s)/body do not in turn have dual natures.
There will be many who join you in saying that Jesus had all the limitations of other humans, but I don't think you'll like their company.
I having a discussion with one of them now. Guess it's my penance for all the wrong I've done. Better to suffer the nasty entities in this world than in the next.
Since we are discussing Christian theology regarding personhood we should review what that means in context. For instance, the term human being means an existent thing with a human nature. Human nature is primarily distinguished from animals by the essential feature of a rational and eternal soul. The accepted definition from Boethius of a person is "an individual substance of a rational nature". Therefore if a human being is present that human being is also a person. It is a contradiction in terms to claim that a human being exists at the moment of conception but no person is present.
I understand that you have no problem with Christ being killed in utero. My argument is to Christians.
I think I was wrong about Docetism being the particular heresy.
After re-reading it seems the heresy is Monophysitism. What is being proposed is a single nature rather than 2 natures: "a dual human/Divine nature", "the nature of Jesus", "a single cell with a dual nature ". So instead of a person with 2 natures, the proposal is a person with 1 nature, that nature being some sort of a hybrid.
https://www.christianity.com/blogs/j-warner-wallace/historic-heresies-related-to-the-nature-of-jesus.html
Eutychianism [Monophysitism] (5th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus’ humanity was absorbed by His divinity. The heresy is Monophysite in nature, derived from the Greek words “mono” (“one”) and “physis” (“nature”). In essence, the heresy claimed Jesus had only one nature (something new and different than the Divine or human nature that God and humans have, respectively). Instead, this heresy taught a third unique nature was possessed by Jesus; a blend or mixture of the human and the Divine.
Docetism also taught that Christ only had one nature (the divine) but gave the illusion that he had a human nature. Hard to tell what people are thinking.
bmiller,
Being fully human does not limit the nature of Jesus.
I thought you just said that Jesus had 2 natures. Now you're claiming he only has one.
True. These sorts of things pop up all the time with Trinitarianism. Jesus is a singular being with his own nature, yet has two natures, full human and fully divine. Is there part of that you disagree with?
You're welcome to your own homegrown theology, but Christian theology holds that Christ had 2 natures, one of them being human.
You just echoed my "homegrown" theology, saying exactly what I said about Jesus. Have you been feeling OK?
His cell(s)/body do not in turn have dual natures.
When Jesus' entire body was a single cell (i.e., at conception), the cell had a divine nature. How could it be otherwise?
There will be many who join you in saying that Jesus had all the limitations of other humans, but I don't think you'll like their company.
I having a discussion with one of them now.
Exactly my point.
It is a contradiction in terms to claim that a human being exists at the moment of conception but no person is present.
I agree, but those who define souls differently from you may disagree.
I understand that you have no problem with Christ being killed in utero.
Since Mary consented, I would have a very large problem with anyone else choosing to kill a child in her womb.
My argument is to Christians.
Sure. I'm just pointing out it's flaws, which are apparent to me even though I agree personhood begins at conception.
One Brow,
I'm certain that you don't and won't understand Christian dogma, so don't worry that I'm trying to change your mind. I'm responding so those who are interested can look it up for themselves. Lots of uninformed Christians out there.
True. These sorts of things pop up all the time with Trinitarianism. Jesus is a singular being with his own nature, yet has two natures, full human and fully divine. Is there part of that you disagree with?
Christ is a person with 2 natures. Post incarnation He did not have a singular nature. It makes no sense to say he had a singular nature, yet 2 natures since that is a direct contradiction. As I mentioned, it seems that this idea is a poor cousin to Monophysitism since Monophysitism was more sophisticated.
When Jesus' entire body was a single cell (i.e., at conception), the cell had a divine nature. How could it be otherwise?
Because the divine nature is immaterial and a cell has material reality. It would be a contradiction to say the divine nature is both immaterial and not immaterial at the same time in the same sense. The body of Christ is part of his human nature not His divine nature.
I agree, but those who define souls differently from you may disagree.
They wouldn't be just disagreeing with me, they would be disagreeing with Christian theology which is my point. They can choose to either accept Christian theology or not. I just wish those that reject Christian theology would stop calling themselves Christian, but I guess that never stopped Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites etc from calling themselves Christian.
It's fascinating to me to read about the early Christological controversies and their resolutions. The Nicene Creed for instance is almost universally accepted across all groups who call themselves Christian* but a lot of clergy, never mind the laity, don't know what it really means.
*The Orthodox groups recognize the version of the Nicene Creed from the end of the first 7 ecumenical councils. They complain about the additional Filioque clause the Latin Church added due to a local western heresy although the disagreement is more political than theological.
Boethius explains the difference between "nature" and "person": Nature is the specific property of any substance, and Person the individual substance of a rational nature.
http://www.logoslibrary.org/boethius/eutyches/4.html
Why Monophysitism is contrary to the faith: One thing is now clear; the opinion of Eutyches has been confuted on the ground that, although there are three ways by which the one nature can subsist of the two, viz. either the translation of divinity into humanity or of humanity into divinity or the compounding of both together, the foregoing train of reasoning proves that no one of the three ways is a possibility.
http://www.logoslibrary.org/boethius/eutyches/6.html
One person with 2 natures can be explained in contrast to Monophysitism:
It remains for us to show how in accordance with the affirmation of Catholic belief Christ consists at once in and of both natures.
The statement that a thing consists of two natures bears two meanings; one, when we say that anything is a union of two natures, as e.g. honey and water, where the union is such that in the combination however the elements be confounded, whether by one nature changing into the other, or by both mingling with each other, the two entirely disappear. This is the way in which according to Eutyches Christ consists of two natures.
The other way in which a thing can consist of two natures is when it is so combined of two that the elements of which it is said to be combined continue without changing into each other, as when we say that a crown is composed of gold and gems. Here neither is the gold converted into gems nor is the gem turned into gold, but both continue without surrendering their proper form.
http://www.logoslibrary.org/boethius/eutyches/7.html
"Boethius explains..."
Here's another guy I should not have been reading when I should be been focused on other things. I've always been captivated, and haunted by Fortuna.
Limited,
Your extra-curricular college reading makes mine look like I was reading comic books. In fact that's not too far off.
A true brother in the faith.
bmiller,
I'm certain that you don't and won't understand Christian dogma, ...
Considering you can't even repeat back what I'm saying without mangling it, I find it difficult to hold your opinion in high regard here. At any rate, I'm just as certain you are mistaken about dogma in this instance, and don't or won't learn from a source you consider suspect regardless of the soundness of the reasoning.
Christ is a person with 2 natures. Post incarnation He did not have a singular nature. It makes no sense to say he had a singular nature, yet 2 natures since that is a direct contradiction.
Perhaps you have confused "singular", meaning unique/unduplicated/without counterpart, with "single"? In any case, I said "a singular being with his own nature", not "a singular nature". If that is changed to "a singular being with his own natures", does that mean you agree?
As I mentioned, it seems that this idea is a poor cousin to Monophysitism since Monophysitism was more sophisticated.
Monophysitism is the notion that Jesus had one nature, typically a blend of divine and human, as opposed to two natures. I haven't put forth any such thing.
Because the divine nature is immaterial and a cell has material reality.
At the Incarnation, as a single cell, Jesus had a divine nature, and in particular access to the Divine Will and Mind. To say otherwise is (in your preferred language) monothelitism.
It would be a contradiction to say the divine nature is both immaterial and not immaterial at the same time in the same sense. The body of Christ is part of his human nature not His divine nature.
At no time in Jesus' existence is he only human, not even when his human body consisted of a single cell.
Jesus is a singular being with his own nature, yet has two natures,
The bold part of this statement says Jesus is a being with his own nature (singular) yet has 2 natures (plural). The heresy of Monophysitism used similar formulations. If the the singular form of the word nature is dropped and the plural form is used in a new statement that should correctly capture this part of Christian theology.
When Jesus' entire body was a single cell (i.e., at conception), the cell had a divine nature. How could it be otherwise?
This statement says that a cell had a divine nature. It seems to conflate Jesus the person, with Jesus' body, with Jesus' human nature with Jesus' divine nature. It was too convoluted to completely untangle, so I chose to point out that the divine nature cannot have a body.
At the Incarnation, as a single cell, Jesus had a divine nature,
This statement also seems to conflate Jesus the person, with Jesus' body, with Jesus' divine nature. "as a single cell" Jesus had or did such tells us that Jesus was a single cell/body (as opposed to a person), not that he has a body (which it is possible for a person to have).
A human nature has a body as part and a divine nature does not. Christ, the person, has both a divine nature and a human nature, so one can say that Christ, the person, has a body, but only as part of his human nature and not as part of his divine nature. The above statement implies that Jesus' human part ("as a single cell") has a divine nature which it does not.
I'm glad to see that no one is arguing that Christ has 2 wills or that Christ was ever only human.
bmiller,
If the the singular form of the word nature is dropped and the plural form is used in a new statement that should correctly capture this part of Christian theology.
I'm glad we agree on the revised statment.
This statement says that a cell had a divine nature. It seems to conflate Jesus the person, with Jesus' body, with Jesus' human nature with Jesus' divine nature. It was too convoluted to completely untangle, so I chose to point out that the divine nature cannot have a body.
1) Paul refers to the spiritual body we possess at resurrection. Spritual bodies can't have divine natures, or did you mean to limit this to physical bodies?
2) In the RCC tradition, you can't separate Jesus' natures, saying his divine nature is not located in A and his physical nature is not located in B.
I'm glad to see that no one is arguing that Christ has 2 wills or that Christ was ever only human.
??? I'm not sure if you meant to confirm the official RCC teaching here (that Jesus has a divine will and a human will) or were disagreeing without realizing it.
Correction. S/B 'no one is arguing that Christ does not have 2 wills..."
I don't understand what is being asserted or asked regarding 1) and 2).
bmiller,
In 1), I was trying to clarify if you meant 'divine nature cannot have a physical body', as opposed to non-physical bodies.
2) Again, I'm pointing out that in RCC tradition, all of Jesus' being has both natures. He doesn't have separate natures in separate areas.
bmiller,
Circling back to the original point of discussion, I believe we agree that Jesus has access to Divine will at all all points of his existence, from conception. This would make him a person at all points of his existence even for people that would say other humans don't have access to a will as an embryo. Jesus is unique in this regard, and that means your passage in Luke is regarding a unique being, not the human condition.
I am a unique person and so is everyone else. What we share is a common nature. The same nature that Christ shares with us.
The reason that this is important is that if Christ is not like us, then His death and resurrection did nothing for the human race and we are without salvation.
Regarding 1).
The Divine nature is immaterial so by definition is cannot have essential material components. I don't know what a "non-physical body" is since the normal definition of a body is something that is extended in space (ie. material).
Regarding 2).
Why use the term RCC. Everyone professing the Nicene Creed believes the same.
I don't know what you mean by "separate areas"
As long as I am listing phrases I don't know the meaning of, here's another:
don't have access to a will
bmiller,
I am a unique person and so is everyone else. What we share is a common nature. The same nature that Christ shares with us.
This part is not disputed, and does not address what I said.
I don't know what a "non-physical body" is since the normal definition of a body is something that is extended in space (ie. material).
Perhaps you have an interpretation of Paul's reference to a spiritual body that I am unfamiliar with.
Why use the term RCC. Everyone professing the Nicene Creed believes the same.
I haven't made a study of various Protestant traditions.
I don't know what you mean by "separate areas"
As I learned it, Jesus is not human in one part of his being and divine in a different part.
As long as I am listing phrases I don't know the meaning of, here's another:
don't have access to a will
Able to make use of will.
I'm afraid your terse answers aren't helping me understand.
This part is not disputed, and does not address what I said.
Then you'll have to explain to me in more detail what you mean. Christ has an eternal divine will but did not have a human will until the Incarnation at which point he took on human nature. Human nature consisting of a body and soul. The soul containing the will. Christ "made use of" His human will the same as all humans do at any particular stage of development. Are you asserting that Christ exercised his human will in an inhuman manner? How would that work?
Perhaps you have an interpretation of Paul's reference to a spiritual body that I am unfamiliar with.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Where does Paul talk about Christ having a spiritual body at conception?
As I learned it, Jesus is not human in one part of his being and divine in a different part.
Again, what do you mean by part or area. Do you mean physical locations in space or something different. Like he has a God arm and a human leg? Or that since God is omnipresent, that Jesus' body was everywhere at once? Or that since Jesus was at one physical location on earth that God was no longer omnipresent?
bmiller,
In discussions with you, I've found terse answers to be more productive than answering at length. I will try to be a little more complete.
Christ has an eternal divine will but did not have a human will until the Incarnation at which point he took on human nature.
At which point, Christ had access to the divine will, but the human will only existed in potential, making Christ a unique human in this regard.
Where does Paul talk about Christ having a spiritual body at conception?
This is from a tangent to the main conversation. No, not at conception. However, he does discuss spiritual bodies. In your understanding, does having Divine Nature exclude having a spirit body as a feature of that Nature?
Do you mean physical locations in space or something different.
I do not mean different physical locations in space. I mean that because of the hypostatic union, Jesus at all times since the Incarnation has both natures throughout. This goes back to:
This statement says that a cell had a divine nature.
At the Incarnation, the entirety of Jesus' physical presence is a single cell (do you disagree?). At that time, that cell is both God and man, fully human and fully divine (do you disagree?). This means your example from Luke is not similar to other human embryos/fetuses.
At which point, Christ had access to the divine will, but the human will only existed in potential, making Christ a unique human in this regard.
Where do you find historical Christian councils telling us He only had a "potential" human will. And what is a "potential" human will? I've never heard of a "potential" will.
Let me break this down if you don't mind:
At the Incarnation, the entirety of Jesus' physical presence is a single cell (do you disagree?).
I agree in the sense that Jesus' human physical presence (that which has extension is space) was present. It is the nature of God to be omnipresent so it would also be true to say that Jesus was at the same time everywhere.
At that time, that cell is both God and man, fully human and fully divine (do you disagree?).
I disagree. A cell is not a person and a nature is not a person. Jesus is a person, not a cell and not a nature or even 2 natures. I don't think you see this distinction.
Regardless. I think your point is that because Jesus is true God, that He is unlike other humans in a fundamental way.
Certainly having a second nature that is God is infinitely different than any possible difference among various human persons. Being infinitely different would mean we have no hope of being anything like Him or Him anything like us because that is what infinitely different means.
The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that Christ's divinity infinitely overwhelms His humanity and so His humanity is insignificant. He is so unlike us (because He is divine) that there is no way we can relate to Him and so His growing in wisdom, His joy suffering and death are also infinitely unlike ours.
This undoes entirely Christian Soteriology and so we are not saved. Thank you for highlighting this. To believe this would put one outside of the Nicene faith.
bmiller,
I disagree. A cell is not a person and a nature is not a person.
How many cells does it take for the zygote to become a person?
This undoes entirely Christian Soteriology and so we are not saved.
You tacked on several suppositions, none of which you bother to ask me about, to reach this supposed conclusion of my reasoning. It came across as petulant.
"How many cells does it take for the zygote to become a person?"
Wow. We have finally come full circle round to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
How many cells does it take for the zygote to become a person?
My point all along is that this question implies a category mistake. A human body by itself is called a corpse whether it is one cell or a million so cannot be a person. There are important philosophical and theological reasons that make these distinctions important in a discussion of this nature. If you are using definitions different from those of the Nicean faith while discussing the what the Nicean faith you can expect confusion.
You tacked on several suppositions, none of which you bother to ask me about
Great. I'll wait for correction.
Starhopper said...
Wow. We have finally come full circle round to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Doubly egregious when so much political activism rests on the idea that zygotes are persons.
bmiller said...
My point all along is that this question implies a category mistake. A human body by itself is called a corpse whether it is one cell or a million so cannot be a person.
I presume your referring to something like the possession of Mind and Will, at least in potential. At no point did I ever refer to zygotic Jesus as a cell without Mind nor Will (or whatever else you mean). That has been entirely your addition to this discussion. I'm pretty sure we agree that at one point Jesus was a zygote, and was not a corpse during this period. Zygotic Jesus would have fully human and fully Divine in RCC dogma. Do you disagree?
If you are using definitions different from those of the Nicean faith while discussing the what the Nicean faith you can expect confusion.
I think can think of other sources of confusion.
Great. I'll wait for correction.
For a start, "infinitely different" is ill-defined, and since no human can truly be like some other human, us not being able to be like Jesus does not remove him from the human condition.
"Overwhelms" is poorly defined, and has no real meaning in your sentence. "Insignificant" goes back to your usual error of separating the hypostatic union. Humans can relate to all sorts of non-human beings they are not like, to one degree or another. His suffering and death doesn't need to be exactly like some hypothetical suffering and death I might have undergone. In fact, for Jesus' death to be substitutionary, there needs to be at least one very large difference between us.
I've seen it claimed that a cell/body has 2 natures, that Jesus was a single cell and now that a cell possesses a mind and a will. None of these are theologically correct according to the Nicene faith.
If we are speaking of human nature in general (the essence) We can say that it is composed of a human body and a human soul. The human soul differs from other souls like the vegetative and sensitive (animal) souls in that it has a spiritual aspect (intellect and will) in addition to the aspects of the other types of souls. It is sometimes referred to as a rational soul. It follows then that we can say that human nature is a rational nature due to it having a rational soul.
But in humans this essence does not exist as a real substance until it becomes an instance of this type of essence. When an instance of this type of nature, human nature, comes into existence we have a substance that we call a human being.
We can see then that a human being, as a consequence of existing as a human being, must have a body and a rational soul. We've seen that the accepted theological definition of a person is "an individual substance of a rational nature" and so it follows that a human being is a person since he is "an individual substance of a rational nature". Actual angels are also persons (even though they are without a body) and so is God, naturally.
It also follows that there cannot be an instance of a human being without a person also being present. One is free to hold a different opinion, but that opinion would be outside of the Nicene faith.
The philosophical "personhood" argument simply ignores the theological defintions of human nature and personhood, and replaces those terms with non-Christian terminology and different meanings.
It seems like a casting of wordspells that end up with the victims dazed into agreeing that it makes sense to stand aside, allowing Christ to be killed.
When Christ took on human nature as a person, he did so in the place of what would otherwise have been a human person with a single human nature. If not, He united with something without a human nature.
I've seen arguments that His divine nature soooo disrupted His humanity that it seems that he took on not full human nature, but partial or "potential" human nature. The "Potentialcarnation" I suppose. Which Apostle or Early Church Father, or even declared heretic ever had that notion? Ever?
Why do I bring up the Nicene Faith? The Nicene Creed is the foundation of C.S. Lewis's definition of Mere Christianity. Something that all Christians can agree on. Isn't it fitting to bring that up on a site based on how C.S. Lewis saw things?
bmiller,
I've seen it claimed that a cell/body has 2 natures, that Jesus was a single cell and now that a cell possesses a mind and a will. None of these are theologically correct according to the Nicene faith. ... I've seen arguments that His divine nature soooo disrupted His humanity that it seems that he took on not full human nature, but partial or "potential" human nature.
Cool, but how about sticking to the points I brought up. Only one of those was me. Please point out how the Nicene creed means Jesus was never a zygote (more accurately, the hypostatic union of a zygote with the Divine nature).
I agree that every human has a rational nature, and is a person.
There's no point to spouting stuff you have spouted before and I agreed with with. If you don't have a cogent answer, that's fine.
One Brow
If you agreed with all that I wrote (aside from your comment below) then there's nothing more for me to say on those counts.
Please point out how the Nicene creed means Jesus was never a zygote (more accurately, the hypostatic union of a zygote with the Divine nature).
I don't know what you are implying I stated. I never said any of that and the phrasing of that statement does not technically make sense.
Jesus is a person. When Jesus, the person, took on human nature at the Incarnation he assumed a real human body and soul (an instance of human nature). The name of the development state of His human body at that point in time is what we now call a zygote (or whatever the appropriate biological term is). At that point Jesus the person had both a fully human nature and a fully divine nature. The union of those natures is at the level of the person, not of the individual natures or body or soul etc. That union at the level of the person is what is known as the Hypostatic Union. At that point He was humanly like us in everything but original sin, divinely God as He always was.
This is the Nicene faith. If you agree then there isn't much more to say is there?
Here is my disagreement with your statement as it stands:
The statement "Jesus was never a zygote" is technically true because Jesus is a person and a body (or zygote) is part of a person, not the person. It's somewhat like saying 'Jesus was never a foot.'
Likewise Jesus is a person and not technically "the hypostatic union of a zygote with the Divine nature".
Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation.
The Hypostatic Union is the metaphysical description of how the person of Christ exists and how the metaphysical aspects of His personhood come together. Analogously it seems like saying I am human nature rather than saying that I am an instance of human nature, ie a person.
If we meant the same thing in the end, then we are in agreement on all counts.
bmiller,
Thanks for the discussion.
Post a Comment