Wednesday, November 28, 2007

What would Jesus do?

Mike Huckabee was asked during the YouTube debate what he thought Jesus would do with regard to the death penalty. His answer seemed to play well to viewers, but it highlighted an area that I believe deserves more thoughtful debate. He started with a lengthy answer about the difficult decision he had to make to execute convicted criminals. He ultimately thought there were some crimes that require the kind of deterrence that only the death penalty provides. When Anderson pushed him the answer the actual question, "What would Jesus do?" His response was, "Jesus was to smart to run for public office." The response played well with viewers but I admit I was left disappointed. I would have liked a little more meat to his answer. He did explain well how someone can be pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. Clearly there is a difference, as Huckabee explained, between the killing of children that have received no due process and the executing of people who have been deemed guilty by their peers of horrific crimes. That doesn't settle the question, however.
What would Jesus do? As the only candidate with a theology degree, I would be interested to hear Huckabee's answer. I am speculating here, but I think if pressed Huckabee would acknowledge that Jesus would not have sanctioned the execution of the death penalty even on those who deserve it. Jesus faced the issue directly when he pardoned the woman caught in adultery. This is not as straight forward a prescription as it may seem on the surface. I leave the theological interpretive difficulties aside for the moment. I think it is fair to say, however, that the burden of proof lies with those who think Jesus would personally order capital punishment for any crimes.
Even if we conclude that Jesus would not administer the death penalty, that does not necessarily answer the question of whether or not we should. There are many characteristics of Jesus' ministry that are particular to him. We are not all called to walk around the Middle East in sandals calling tax collectors and fisherman to follow us. "What would Jesus do?" is an important question to ask. It gives a starting point for discussion of what we should do, even though what Jesus would do and what we should do will not always be the same. It is a discussion that needs to take place.
What would Jesus do?

Sunday, November 18, 2007

I Want to be a Person When I Grow Up!

There were a couple comments on my last post that mentioned the distinction some make between a person and a human. Those that make this distinction would not disagree with a fetus being human, but would argue that the fetus is not yet a person. Few pro-choice writers argue against the genetic classification of fetuses as human. The distinction is generally described as person v. human, or morally human v. genetically human. The distinction between persons and nonpersons is based on various criteria. Mary Ann Warren, a prominent pro-choice author, has five general criteria by which personhood can be judged; consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness. Though others may tweak, add to, or eliminate some criteria, Warren's basic concept is fairly representative. Warren sees a continuum, with a total nonperson (a rock perhaps) on one end and on the other end an undeniably full person (Warren would likely include herself at that end). Warren states that it is not necessary to have all five to qualify as a person; simply the first two would probably be enough. If an entity had none, however, that one should not be considered a person. So while she has a continuum there is some point at which an entity becomes entitled to the rights of a person. She acknowledged the difficulty in parsing each case and finding the magic point on the continuum, so I will not spend any time discussing the problems associated with that.
There are quite a number of problems with this general argument. I welcome your thoughts as to what you find to be the most logically problematic, or what you find the most intuitively persuasive about it. I will discuss briefly what I find to be the most significant flaw in her reasoning, but first I want to give her credit for recognizing an important reality that many pro-choice thinkers do not. The birth canal is not a magical bestower of rights. If a nine month old fetus is undeserving of the basic right to not be killed, there is no reason that they deserve such a right thirty minutes later when they are born. Warren does not see a significant change and neither do I.
We differ in that Warren sees the personhood of a developed fetus as being on par with a guppy. Based on her criteria, she may be slightly off, but not too far. Guppies can feel pain, and are aware of their surroundings, and can do some basic reasoning. It points to the fundamental difference between Warren and me. I believe that humans are a special creation and there value is derived outside of their ability to perform various feats. Warren evidently believes that our value as a person is derived from our abilities. At this point Warren and I do not have anything else to discuss. We simply start from drastically different world views. If I ran into someone who shared her view I would not continue to discuss the issue of abortion. We first would need to achieve an agreement at a more foundational level. Those that choose to use this personhood reasoning simply need to realize what they must agree to if they are interested in being logically consistent. Reducing our right to live to our ability to meet certain criteria may have significant unintended consequences. Those with disabilities would rank below some animals that we visit at the zoo. We may lose our right to live later in our lives as our mental capacities fail. (Some mornings when I first wake up I am pretty sure I would rank at least below apes) If computers continue advancing at their projected pace, we will all rank below computers in terms of a right to live within the next twenty years. Some may be agree with all these necessary conclusions. I suspect most would have to exit this argument before it reaches its full and complete stop.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Since when did premises follow the conclusion...

I am not sure where or when it began, but presidential candidates continued the tradition of illogical meandering around the topic of abortion. All the candidates were given the opportunity to say whether or not they would require Supreme Court Justices to be in favor of keeping abortion legal. Not surprisingly each candidate answered in turn to the affirmative. What continues to astonish me is the way in which the candidates discuss the issue.
First I found it interesting that none of the candidates wanted to say the word abortion. I would have to watch again, but I do not believe anyone actually said the word. The fact that none of the candidates wanted to say the word abortion was somewhat encouraging. Discussing the disposal of the weakest among us still seems to cause some uneasiness. The next bit of interest to me is the way the candidates did choose to talk about it. The common line was that they would require any Justice to uphold the "right to privacy" that they each found to be clearly articulated in the Constitution. They took turns adding to the basic argument that the right to privacy clearly should extend to this most private act that a woman can commit. The problem with this argument is that the answer to the question at issue is presupposed. The crux of the argument rests on whether or not unborn infants should be considered human. If they are not human then we do not need any of this "right to privacy" talk. Where did they get the idea that pro-lifers disagree on the grounds of privacy rights? Pro-lifers are on board with the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want with their own body when it does not harm anyone else.
If we decide that the unborn should be counted as human like those of us who had the privilege of being born, then we have a much different discussion. Clearly the "right to privacy" holds no weight here. Imagine if I made the argument that I should be able to have slaves and the government should stay out of it because what I do in the privacy of my own property is my business. I suspect responses to that argument would have something to do with the fact that the slaves are human and thus have rights. I trust we can all follow this argument the rest of the way.
So now we should be in agreement that the real issue is whether or not the unborn are human or not. This brings me to my final point on the issue. One of the most common lines I hear from politicians is that we should work to do all we can to reduce the number of abortions but still allow them to be legal. Why on earth should we work to reduce them if abortions are not wrong? If the unborn are living humans there should be no concern for reducing the number of abortions. If we are in agreement, however, that these young lives are human how can anyone settle for attempts at reduction. I apologize for using the same analogy, but it fits well here. This argument is remarkably similar to the arguments that kept blacks as slaves for years. We were too busy looking at the pragmatic difficulties that its elimination would cause rather than seeking justice.
There are those that do not believe the unborn are human and do not see anything wrong with abortion. I believe they are wrong and pray the Holy Spirit reveals that to them. What I find absolutely appalling, however, are those that think that abortion is wrong because it ends a life, but do not think that it should be illegal. The likes of Mitt Romney come to mind. He says he has changed his mind on the issue now, which is good, but the fact that he at any time believed that abortion was killing human life and did not think it worth working to make illegal is unconscionable. He is not alone in holding that position, it seems to be the default position of the left. The fact that he is sitting along with Giuliani at the top of the Republican heap makes it worth noting.
We need to get back to logical discussions about issues like abortion. We need not arrive at the same conclusion, but maybe we can at least begin with premises, form a sound argument, and then let that lead to our conclusions. I have no delusions that simple logic is all that will be required to come to a consensus. A return to logic will, however, help to highlight was is really at stake. It is not our privacy, it is not our freedom of choice, what is really at stake what kind of people we will be. How will we care for our orphans? I leave the last word to man that knew very well what was at stake.

"A nation that kills its own children has no future."
-Pope John Paul II