Todo Tiene Su Como-Se-Llama

First of all, the "leftover" embryos don't necessarily have to be destroyed. They can still be "adopted," though admittedly there probably isn't that great a demand for such a use. Nevertheless, this is essentially the source of the controversy; the only thing standing between the embryos and birth as human infants is a few months in a womb. The embryos are several steps closer to being "alive" (in this context, I believe the term "life" refers specifically to human organisms) than are sperm cells. Indeed, many would argue that the embryos are already human beings, albeit in an early stage of development.

Second, the veto does not "essentially halt any hopes of embryonic stem cell research in the United States for the near future"; it just means that federal funding for such research will not increase in the near future. In other words, the research will go on much as it has for years (and as lots of research does), funded largely by non-federal-government sources. The frozen embryos can still be used for research, so it's not "impossible for them to be used for any constructive purpose whatsoever." The federal government just won't pay for it.

Finally, I think "the way you see pro-life" is fundamentally different from the way most people see it. As you've noticed, the term "pro-life" has a rather narrow definition. In common use, it relates only to what we might call "pre-birth situations"; as such, it comes up in discussions about abortion, embryonic stem-cells, and very little else (at least, I've never heard it used in any other way before). Thus, one aspect of your problem is entirely semantic. Your argument about the paradoxical union "pro-life" and "pro-war" beliefs is certainly a good one, and I agree that it smacks of hipocrisy (though I suspect there might be some ethical complexities that remove such smacking; but that's another matter). But "pro-life" and "pro-war/execution" beliefs are semantically compatible, regardless of their ethical consistency (or lack thereof), because they refer to separate situations. In that senes, it's the old apples-and-oranges problem.

To return to the original topic, I could talk about the pratical advantages of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells, but that would likewise be comparing apples (science) to oranges (ethics). So I'll stop and let you critique my comments.

Martinez:
They can still be "adopted," though admittedly there probably isn't that great a demand for such a use.

To say there "isn't that great a demand" would be a vast understatement. According to numbers I've seen, only a couple hundred of embryos out of the more than 400,000 cooked up have been adopted. The rest are quite literally in a freezer somewhere waiting to get wasted.

If I may venture slightly off-topic, I find the idea of healthy couples spending thousands and thousands of dollars on in-vitro fertilization profoundly disturbing considering the number of already born children who don't have stable families. In my opinion, this is an act of pure selfishness. Christians "adopting" leftover embryos is just as bad if not worse. Why choose to "save" a frozen clump of cells when actual children need help?

Wheeler:
I always thought it was really cute the way they had to call themselves "pro-choice" in opposition of "pro-life" cuz they couldn't very well call themselves "anti-life" or "pro-death."

Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't serious. Please tell me you realize the name comes from the view that actual life doesn't start until birth and the belief that it is a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body. Please.

Well Randy, some Christians believe that "clump of cells" is in fact already a child, even more vulnerable than one already born.
Wheeler, putting aside any questions of Bush's mental state or such, I will say that I personally am pretty similar in my views on "life" (abortion, death sentence, war). Now, the conflict in Iraq is honestly a tricky one for me. I'm honestly still trying to sort myself out on that one. But in general concept, I believe in the death penalty, and war in certain situations, and I don't feel very hypocritical. I don't feel the Holy Spirit convicting me. Or is it just a lack of intelligence on my part? I can't expound much at the moment, because I have to run my brother to youth, but the key thing for me involved in the difference in these issues is the age and consciousness of action of those involved. I'll try to expound soon, but I have to go at the moment.

Ok, back from that errand. First, to speak on the death penalty. I fully believe that the Bible shows that governments have the power to execute criminals who have committed murder (and, depending on opinions/readings, possibly rape). It is spoken on in both the Old and New Testament. Paul addresses the issue (not sure of reference at the moment, can attempt to locate if you wish). Now, do I think it should be a flippant thing to assign it? No. But I think it is justified under certain circumstances. We have to have certainty that the person committed the murder. I don't think the truly insane (not fakers, not the slightly off seriel killers, but the ones with absolutely no grasp on reality) should be subject. If it occured....well, not accidentally, but not fully intentionally in the progress of a crime, it should be jail (cleaning up the prison system is a whole other matter). I think it should be a quick, painless method. Now, my baser human nature, the part that's bloodthirsty and merciless, wants to draw it out. But no. As I understand it, lethal injection fits that pretty well. I believe in this as a Christian not only because "the Bible says so". I believe there are consequences for actions on this earth, and they do fit the action. I believe that someone who takes a life criminally should be held responsible to that. I believe that death penalties safegaurd the public. The ensure (am I right using that spelling there?) that the criminal will not break out or get out on some bogus loophole. It also shows that there is a serious penalty for this crime, deterring others from committing it. That said, I think serious deliberation, and a solid body of evidence, should be present for this punishment to occur. But if they are, I fully believe that it is right and just.

On war, I think I need clarification from you a bit. Are you calling people up on going into Iraq? On being eager for war? Or for going to war at all, or being willing thereof? I'm thinking/leaning that you meant one of the first two, but before I clog your comments up more, I want to get clarification there.

Martinez:
I found this link helpful: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1214969,00.html

First, what I meant when I said that a load of sperm had more potential for life was not that these embryos could not be developed into human beings, but that they WILL not be. I realize I wasn't particularly clear about that.

Second, as I understand it, the frozen embryos are at present untouchable, by anyone in the United States, regardless of the source of their funding. The only embryonic stem cells that can be used for research were already in existence when Bush came into office and are now over 5 years old and are starting to become useless. Yes, the research on stem cells continues along various venues, the president has simply blocked one of the more promising ones within the United States. Meanwhile, other nations with fewer extraneous, superficial scruples are pulling ahead in the field. However, stem cell research is not something I feel as strongly about as other things, chiefly because my knowledge of it is extremely superficial. It simply got me thinking along other tracks . . . I stand by my assessment of Bush's decision and his motivations, but I realize the consequences and implications of it may not be as severe as I implied . . . just as they certainly are not as righteous and salvific as he implied.

Finally, I know I see pro-life differently from most . . . and that's my problem. I certainly don't think it's conscious hypocrisy to be pro-life and pro-war, but I think it shows a certain lack of moral consistency. Yes, it's just a language thing that one can be pro-life and only care about the sanctity of a very small percentage of lives in the world. No, it shouldn't be that way.

Randy:
I'm only halfway serious. What I mainly meant was, I've always been amused by the political tour-de-force of naming anti-abortion "pro-life" thus implying that the opposition is . . . well . . . just the opposite. It's just always struck me as pretty funny.

Sharpton:
Some Christians believe that God hates "fags." Some Christians believe Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are good writers. Some Christians believe that Jesus drank grape juice, not wine, because drinking alcohol is bad. I am not necessarily prepared to contest your statement that these embryos are in some sense human, but I'm afraid you aren't allowed to cite the opinions of "some Christians" as evidence in support of that claim.

Be back with more shortly.

Ok, fair enough on the "some Christians" thing. That probably wasn't the best way to word that. I'd just come home from a full day of work walking in circles around a table, so I might be a bit dizzy ;). I'll try to concrete that one a little more, if that helps me there.

I fully believe that the Bible shows that governments have the power to execute criminals who have committed murder (and, depending on opinions/readings, possibly rape).

Sure, find me that passage . . . Old Testament law, incidentally, just isn't gonna cut it for me in this argument. But see what you can nose up in the NT. In any case, in terms of the death penalty, I'm talking individual morality. I think that favoring the death penalty violates basic Christian morality . . . and I know that approaching the prospect with the sort of vengeful glee/rage that I have seen some (yourself included) exhibit is flat wrong. I think you seem to be saying that you know it, too.

I believe there are consequences for actions on this earth, and they do fit the action.

How is that biblical? Even on a purely logical level, if someone kills another human being and this action is judged to be so horrifically awful, how does it make sense to commit the same action? Saying that the death penalty prevents criminals from getting out on "bogus loopholes" is just silly. If they can get out of jail on a loophole, they can sure get out of the death penalty. And as for breaking out and getting away . . . somebody do some research. Does that actually happen anymore? And I don't think the deterrent argument holds any water either. I mean, capital punishment has been around since, literally, forever. People are still comitting the same crimes.

Are you calling people up on going into Iraq? On being eager for war?

Yes.

Or for going to war at all, or being willing thereof?

No.

You were correct in your guess. First, if I may return to the original post for just a moment: If the president states that we should not use tax dollars to take human life at the same time that he is conducting a pre-emptive war, is he not fundamentally wrong somewhere? And is not anyone who agrees with his statement (even just within the context that it was made) and with his war also wrong? By the president's logic, I don't see how you can avoid being either opposed to both, or in favor of both . . . but almost no one is. Does that make his logic stupid or . . . what?

Second, I understand the necessity of war on a national level at some times. However, I am always opposed to pre-emptive war. Always. Also, (and here's the part where people will really disagree and yell at me) I don't see any biblical (NT) justification for Christians going to war for any reason (except, I suppose, as chaplains or medical personnel, etc.). In fact, I see just the opposite.

Being as there has been a virtual flurry of conversation along a couple of different lines, I'm going to attempt to address this topically rather than individually. I think that made sense.

On the topic of Flagrant Errors Which I Can Easily Address in Short, Stubby Sentences:

Quoth Wheeler: as I understand it, the frozen embryos are at present untouchable, by anyone in the United States, regardless of the source of their funding.

This is incorrect. Bush's Executive Order prevented federal funding to research on embryonic stem cells except on those soon-to-be-defunct lines already... yada yada yada. Bush cannot ban private research and state funding without actual legislation, this was simply an Executive Order.

Quoth Wheeler: I always thought it was really cute the way they had to call themselves "pro-choice" in opposition of "pro-life" cuz they couldn't very well call themselves "anti-life" or "pro-death."

Quoth Randy: Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't serious. Please tell me you realize the name comes from the view that actual life doesn't start until birth and the belief that it is a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body. Please.

Stop it, both of you. Jared took the Conservative Cheap Shot(TM) that has been used in this debate since time immemorial. We know it, he knows it, everyone knows it. *smacks Jared on the wrist and moves on*

On the topic of the Sanctity of Life:

I think this is one of those places where many Christians are starting to look stupid for making moral compromises in order to have a religious voting bloc.

Most conservatives are willng to point out that a la Tony Snow, killing people is wrong and will then loudly assert that babies are people... even unborn babies. That said, many conservatives tend to gloss over that killing innocent Iraqis, Lebanese, Afghanis is just as wrong as killing babies. Now, just war arguments aside for a moment, innocent civilians accidentally die in wars, period. Innocent babies also accidentally die in the business of attempting to make babies. The question becomes: is everything possible being done to avoid unnecessary civilian death the same way everything is done to avoid accidental baby death? Like, say, not racing into waging pre-emptive war against countries. Because personally, I don't think so.

And by lumping in with other conservatives instead of making loud noises about the sanctity of life, Christians are cheapening their positions and introducing unnecessary self-contradictions. I find it sadly ironic that more and more Christians are piling on Bush for being "soft" and attempting to use diplomacy in the Middle East rather than going in and bombing things. Aren't Christians supposed to be a people of peace?

Lastly, Republicans are politicians, not religious figures. Oh... note to the matriarchs of the faith: Bush cusses... one of you should go help Barbara wash his mouth out with soap.

Oh.... and while I'm at it, On the topic of Things That are Making Me Crazy:

As I see it, this discussion fundamentally revolves around when live begins. If you (like President Bush) assert that life begins at conception, then I don't see how Embryonic Stem Cell Research is any more morally reprehensible than the current disposal of excess frozen embryos. By Bush's stance, they're already killing babies on this one.

I'm not as interested in stem cell research as the general bent of this discussion would suggest. As to any erroneous statements I have made, I blame my sources (I did go find more than one) and an imperfect understanding of the situation . . . in part because I can't find anywhere that will helpfully outline the whole thing. That said, by reasons already stated as well as the inherent contradiction in his position, regardless of what the consequences of his decision may or may not be . . . Bush is a major idiot on this issue. At least his foolishness isn't having as great an effect as I thought it was.

Moving on . . . You nailed my point in terms of the Sanctity of Life. Thank you. If the discussion continues (which would be great) I'd like it to continue with reference to that topic as much as possible.

Just a few random comments:

Wheeler, the point you make about the moral inconsistancies of the religious right about issues of life is a good one. I've really been trying to find an etext of that article for the Chronicle I read that inspired part of my last post. In it, he makes the very same point that you do, and I think that it is a good one. However, despite the fact that I am not comfortable with capital punishment and would never push for it myself, I can see the use for it from a judicial and law-enforcement standpoint. And, after all, the government is not and should not be Christian (haven't we all made this point on issues regarding gay marriage and the like?). Finally, be careful with your attitude toward the OT; please don't sound so flippant when you disregard Scripture.

I'm not sure where I stand on these issues, mostly because I'm underinformed. I am leery of embryonic stem cell research, but that is more because I do not know the particulars about it. I think you do raise a valid point about war and pro-life issues, though again the political side of me definitely sees the advantages to a pre-emptives strike; however, it MUST be proved better than the Iraq war has ever been.

So, anyway, enough random ramblings from me. As I go, I shall breath deeply the sweet fumes of controversy and debate...

Moral inconsistencies???

I am one of those who believes that life begins at the moment of conception: the UNION of sperm and egg. Hence I believe that throwing away embryos is wrong, period. and I don't agree with embryonic stem cell research because I think there is still promise in umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells. If we try to say that we're letting that which is thrown away go to waste, then we might as well use the stem cells, we open the door to future possibilities of using stem cells form aborted babies and the intentional act of destroying embryos for research (which is how they get stem cells). Intentional causation of death to innocent life is wrong.

I don't feel morally inconsistent for supporting capital punishment while opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion. and while I don't like war and I don't like it that civilians are accidentally killed....it's a fact of life. I'm not aware of how much they can do to avoid the accidental life of civilians in Iraq--but they are fighting those who are setting bombs in public places, so they are trying to protect civilians too. and, if we start comparing how much is done to prevent accidental death of babies, what about accidental death of people by cars and drunk drivers? There's some inconsitency in the measure taken against drunk drivers. Such as a teen who is put away for killing someone while driving drunk, while another person gets ticketed and punished 10 times (without much jail time) until she finally goes and kills someone while driving drunk. Anyways, off that bit of a rabbit trail.

and thank you Barbour for supporting the Old Testament. I think there's a lot to be learned from Levitical laws. But that's a whole 'nother controversy: Support them to the letter? Support some of them while disregarding "out-of-date" ones? Disregard them period?

Continuing on in my preferred notation...

On the topic of Bad Exegetical Principles from People Who OUght to Know Better

Quoth Sharpton: I fully believe that the Bible shows that governments have the power to execute criminals who have committed murder (and, depending on opinions/readings, possibly rape).
Quoth Randy in response: Sure, find me that passage . . . Old Testament law, incidentally, just isn't gonna cut it for me in this argument. But see what you can nose up in the NT.

Quoth Jared: Also, (and here's the part where people will really disagree and yell at me) I don't see any biblical (NT) justification for Christians going to war for any reason (except, I suppose, as chaplains or medical personnel, etc.). In fact, I see just the opposite.

Randy and Jared, since when has it been acceptable to flippantly disregard the Old Testament as patently irrelevant?! Now, having gone through Hummel's Pentateuch class, I will happily agree with you that you can't go around willy-nilly expecting to exact a 1-to-1 correlation of modern principles of Christian morality with Levitical law. That said, I find it the pinnacle of idiocy to flippantly toss the baby out with the bath water and attempt to pretend as if the Old Testament has no bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand. If anything, the burden should fall to the individual who wants to go tossing out books of the Bible as irrelevant to the discussion at hand and not the other way around.

On the topic of "Ugh, I hate Slippery Slope Arguments"

Quoth Anna: If we try to say that we're letting that which is thrown away go to waste, then we might as well use the stem cells, we open the door to future possibilities of using stem cells form aborted babies and the intentional act of destroying embryos for research (which is how they get stem cells).

Now, by the numbers, there are roughly 400,000 frozen embryos in cryogenic freeze across the U.S. today. By most estimates, the average couple freezes between 20 and 30 embryos, understanding that half will probably not survive the freeze and the average IVF treatment uses 2-3 embryos and is performed 3 times before a woman is deemed infertile. Doing the math, there are somewhere between 20 and 30,000 unique genetic matchings in the nation's embryo banks. Now, assuming that only half of these (a low estimate, considering how skewed this demographic is towards rich yuppies) are willing to donate their un-used embryos to science, that still leaves you with 10,000 to 15,000 new genetic lines.

Noting that current federally-funded researchers draw from less than 100 unique genetic lines for embryonic stem cell research, of which 60-some are estimated to still be semi-viable, the likelihood that 10,000 to 15,000 new genetic lines would prove insufficient is somewhat lacking. Further, given the outcry surrounding this admittedly grey area of ethics and the national furor 10 years ago over the possibility of cloning humans, I find it highly unlikely that this slippery slope would be pursued with viable and far less controversial methods available.

Returning to the Sanctity of Life
Quoth Anna: I don't feel morally inconsistent for supporting capital punishment while opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion. and while I don't like war and I don't like it that civilians are accidentally killed....it's a fact of life. I'm not aware of how much they can do to avoid the accidental life of civilians in Iraq--but they are fighting those who are setting bombs in public places, so they are trying to protect civilians too. and, if we start comparing how much is done to prevent accidental death of babies, what about accidental death of people by cars and drunk drivers? There's some inconsitency in the measure taken against drunk drivers. Such as a teen who is put away for killing someone while driving drunk, while another person gets ticketed and punished 10 times (without much jail time) until she finally goes and kills someone while driving drunk.

First, with regards to the statement "it's a fact of life", I think this is probably the single best example of the double standard of Christian respect for life that we've had in this discussion by far. Bearing in mind that I know full well that you don't mean to sound anywhere near as flippant as I've made you sound by tearing this statement out of context, my essential problem with the Christian Conservative movement as it stands right now is that it isn't calling Bush to account for the 30,000 Iraqis that have died in the incursion into Iraq. That isn't to say that there isn't justification, but the fact remains that Christian Conservatives ought to be just as upset, and perhaps more upset about 30,000 lives that have been lost, most of whom are arguably going to hell, as they are about the embryos. And as Barbour said, to justify a pre-emptive war where we killed 30,000 people without them having killed one of ours first, the case for a pre-emptive war "MUST be proved better than the Iraq war has ever been."

That said, (and realizing that I've gone ahead and gone after my wife for far too long to have any hope of getting to sleep in bed tonight but forging on to perhaps regain some ground) you're right in that I find the inconsistencies in our own American laws and the unwillingness of many Christians to help in the addressing of those to be very peculiar. Now, I think part of this is simply due to drunk driving no longer getting the attention that it had been 10 years ago and part of this is due to a simple disregard for societal change among those for whom Prohibition is the solution and anything less causes society to get its just due. But, as you pointed out, this is probably a bunny trail for another time.

At the Heart of the Matter
As Tony Snow so aptly pointed out, "murder is wrong." I am not a biologist, nor am I a lawyer, I am simply an armchair pundit. I don't know where life begins... I can't answer that. To my mind it comes down to this: if there is even the slightest chance that life begins at conception, then it behooves us as Christians to stand against killing embryos for stem cell research or just as a matter of allowing excess embryos to die by way of disposal. I think that's why, like Barbour, I am leery of embryonic stem cell research. Unless I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that an embryo is not a life, I cannot condone its being destroyed, and thus I must side with Anna.

I can't speak for everyone, naturally, but I do not believe life begins at conception. According to some sources, 15 to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that percentage increases with age. Most miscarriages result from natural, unpreventable causes, and normally occur in the first trimester.

If a woman's body has that high a chance of rejecting an embryo on its own, I find it hard to accept it as a human life that must be protected.

Wait? So a high mortality rate belies a lack of viability and deserving of protection?!

In 1911, the infant mortality rate in the United States was 13.5%. That means that through the best efforts of the medicine at the time, 13.5% of infants who lived through birth died within their first year, almost all from things that could not be prevented at the time. While the argument isn't analagous, taken to it's conclusion, we have something of a Modest Proposal on our hands.

You are right, Scholl. That argument isn't analagous at all. There is a giant leap from a woman's body rejecting an embryo because of genetic causes to a baby dying from illness.

Also, that's a trick question. It can't be called a mortality rate if the thing in question isn't a life.

But, if you want to follow arguments to their conclusion:

If an embryo is a human life, procreation probably has resulted in more human deaths than anything else in history. If abortion and embryonic stem cell research is murder, miscarriage is manslaughter at the very least.

However, despite the fact that I am not comfortable with capital punishment and would never push for it myself, I can see the use for it from a judicial and law-enforcement standpoint. And, after all, the government is not and should not be Christian

I'll buy that and call it good, to a point.

Anna, you are arguing at complete cross-purposes to yourself. Aside from the fact that everything you said about drunk driving is in all ways irrelevant to the discussion . . . you claim that you don't see any moral inconsistency, and then you point out moral inconsistency. Also, you seem to suggest that some inconsistencies shouldn't be corrected because other inconsistencies would still exist, which is just nonsense.

And the slippery slope argument, as Scholl pointed out, is ludicrous in this case. If the research in question is wrong, let's call it wrong on its own merits. If it isn't wrong, let's not pretend that it is because of where you speculate that it might possibly lead. You are the first person I have seen suggest the use of stem cells from aborted babies. From what I hear, embryonic stem cells would be superior anyway, and no one is suggesting what you claim.

Moral inconsistencies???

Yes. First:

I don't feel morally inconsistent for supporting capital punishment while opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion.

I suppose the question is, do you oppose abortion simply because you believe killing babies is wrong or because you believe that all human life is sacred? If the former, then certainly there is no inconsistency and your feelings are correct. However, if that is the case, I'd like to know why you don't believe all human life is sacred, and where you get the idea that "thou shalt not kill" (there being so much to be learned from the OT) and other similar biblical principles applies more to babies than to anyone else. The NT doesn't differentiate, why do you?

Second:

while I don't like war and I don't like it that civilians are accidentally killed....it's a fact of life. I'm not aware of how much they can do to avoid the accidental life of civilians in Iraq

After so fiercely defending the poor poor frozen embryos (less than 5% of which will probably ever advance beyond that stage) from harm, it's a pity that all the sympathy you have left for the victims of our country's actions in Iraq boils down to "I don't like it, but oh well." There's plenty that could be done to help civilians, starting with staying out of their freaking country when you have no reason to be there.

Third:

but they are fighting those who are setting bombs in public places, so they are trying to protect civilians too.

Welcome to the shaky, shady realm of killing civilians while you are trying to protect them. Why do you think embryonic stem cell research is so important?! To save lives. Explain to me, please, why you'll allow sacrificing the innocent to save the innocent in one case and not in another.

Finally, I would like to close by stating that I can totally agree with this: To my mind it comes down to this: if there is even the slightest chance that life begins at conception, then it behooves us as Christians to stand against killing embryos for stem cell research or just as a matter of allowing excess embryos to die by way of disposal.

No more steak for Randy and Wheeler.

Randy: "If abortion and embryonic stem cell research is murder, miscarriage is manslaughter at the very least." I can't even begin .... Miscarriage isn't necessarily a woman's body rejecting the baby. It's just death from natural causes, much like someone dying from a bad heart.

Second: why are we talking about the war in Iraq in this discussion? I'm not discussing whether or not i think it's justified. But as we are there, in a war, we can't just sit there and do absolutely nothing in order to prevent killing citizens. I won't even try to start to understand the consistency in relation to the attacks that God ordered of the Israeli's oh so long ago....

POSSIBLY embryonic stem cells can save lives. So can stem cells from adults and umbilical cords...at one point many years ago as a freshman I remember seeing research and testimony to the fact. But embyonic stem cells can't be the ONLY way we have of researching to save lives. I always prefer a method that doesn't involved intentionally killing.

No more steak for Randy and Wheeler.

Anna, I offer my most humble and heartfelt apologies for having an opinion that differs from your own.

Miscarriage isn't necessarily a woman's body rejecting the baby. It's just death from natural causes, much like someone dying from a bad heart.

"Death"? If a sperm and egg form an embryo that can't even "live" in the womb, was it ever a human life? Was it's destruction really a "death"?

I can't imagine how it would feel to become pregnant and then miscarry. I can't begin to know the pain a woman wanting a child feels when it happens.

However, if an embryo is as much a human life as a 10-year old child, it's death should be investigated thoroughly. Should accidentally causing a miscarriage be equated to manslaughter?

Personally, I find the idea reprehensible, but I'm also not convinced abortion and embryonic stem cell research are acts of murder.

But embyonic stem cells can't be the ONLY way we have of researching to save lives.

You are absolutely correct. Embryonic stem cell research is not the only potentially life-saving research we can pursue. However, practically every credible scientist researching with stem cells says they are the most promising.

why are we talking about the war in Iraq in this discussion?

You've got to be kidding me. Allow me to cite two of my earlier statements, one in the original post, one in a comment:

And this brings me to my real point. The stem cell debate is completely tangential, it was just bothering me.

I'm not as interested in stem cell research as the general bent of this discussion would suggest.

The chief point of my entire post and my ensuing comments throughout the discussion was not to either support or oppose stem cell research but to expose what I perceive to be a huge blind spot/contradiction in Republican, conservative, Christian, and especially our president's morality.

I think, in terms of stem cell research, that both of us can agree with statement I quoted from Scholl at the very end of my last comment. As for the inconsistencies I felt existed in your first comment, I still need answers to three questions (fleshed out above with implications, if you wish to refer to them):

1) Do you oppose abortion simply because you believe killing babies is wrong or because you believe that all human life is sacred?

2) Do the innocents dying in the war in Iraq not deserve just as much staunch protest, sympathy, and defense on their behalf as you have granted the frozen embryos?

3) If it is wrong to cause the "death" of an innocent frozen embryo in the hope of saving innocent lives from various and sundry diseases, is it not equally wrong to begin a pre-emptive war in which you know innocent civilians will die in the hopes of saving other innocent civilians?

As to that last question, I realize that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with you and that you have no say in whether or not we are there . . . but then, the same is true of stem cell research. If you can have an opinion on stem cells, I think you can have an opinion on war in Iraq . . .

The thing that I keep coming back to (and one of my central points all along, just to continue to clarify) is that decisions regarding both of these issues have fallen upon the shoulders of our illustrious president, and he has taken up mutually contradictory positions regarding them. I therefore find him lacking in the basic moral fiber that so many people I know wish to attribute to him, and which he pretends so smugly to display. Because both I and said people believe (in different ways) that basic morality should be at the heart of any leader, I therefore find him (again) to be unfit to hold the position to which he has been (barely) elected. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Gentlemen (and lady), I admire you all for a rigorous but generally reasonable debate. You have done especially well considering how partisan and censorious the original post was. Like everybody else, I disagree with everybody else on something or another, if only by differing from your rhetoric. But I won't put my oar in, mostly because this keyboard is so dang tiny. Carry on; this is very entertaining.

1.) Because human life is sacred. and I mention that many states have laws and I believe there is OT law to the effect also that if someone does cause a miscarriage by an expressly harmful action, than they carry the penalty of causing death.

2.) Yes, they do deserve it. I never said they didn't. Sorry that I can't be passionate about every issue that can come from this.

3.) while i realize this is where the whole discussion started...i got sidetracked (not hard to do with this many comments flying around). Probably because I see this as two very separate issues. i will just say, your phrasing reminds me of how the sin of lying is equally as bad as the sin of murder?

Jared and Randy, be nice to the straw woman. She's my wife, and I feel obliged to take up for her when her arguments come from solid conclusions that she can't support so well by argumentation. So, because I'm an honest debator and don't want to do any of us the disservice of posting under Anna's name, just let me argue for her and we'll call it all good.

On the Topic of Question #1: (I like my formatting style... if you don't, bite me)

Quoth Wheeler: 1) Do you oppose abortion simply because you believe killing babies is wrong or because you believe that all human life is sacred?

Quoth Wheeler at greater length: I suppose the question is, do you oppose abortion simply because you believe killing babies is wrong or because you believe that all human life is sacred? If the former, then certainly there is no inconsistency and your feelings are correct. However, if that is the case, I'd like to know why you don't believe all human life is sacred, and where you get the idea that "thou shalt not kill" (there being so much to be learned from the OT) and other similar biblical principles applies more to babies than to anyone else. The NT doesn't differentiate, why do you?

Wheeler, you and i both know that Just War is a complex issue for another time and another place. Suffice it to say that I don't think there's anyone (Anna included) who thinks that simply killing babies is wrong and otherwise, sanctity of life doesn't carry. "Thou shalt not kill," therefore, is universally applicable but subordinated in select areas of capital punishment and just war. Yes, I know, it segues nicely to just war arguments and capital punishment arguments... but let's agree not to go there for now and I think we'll all be happier.

Insofar as the issue of innocent bystanders goes, I think it's important to differentiate between a "bomb as you will and come what may" approach that the Israelis and Hezbollah are so famous for and a deliberate and calculated effort to minimize civilian loss. Are the American ground forces going as out of their way to avoid civilian deaths as the practitioners of modern medicine go to avoid miscarriage? I would like to think so... but there are unscrupulous, undertrained and corrupt soldiers, much the same as there are (though admittedly, to a much lesser extent) unscrupulous, undertrained and corrupt doctors.

Oh... and I suppose it could be said that one should be up in arms specifically on the war in Iraq for a pre-emptive war in which case, civilian losses are incurred which could (and should) have been avoided at least until such time as the case for just war is made... but that brings us back around to just war, and I just begged you not to go there, so I shan't either.

On the Topic of Question #2:

Quoth Wheeler: 2) Do the innocents dying in the war in Iraq not deserve just as much staunch protest, sympathy, and defense on their behalf as you have granted the frozen embryos?

Quoth Wheeler at greater length: After so fiercely defending the poor poor frozen embryos (less than 5% of which will probably ever advance beyond that stage) from harm, it's a pity that all the sympathy you have left for the victims of our country's actions in Iraq boils down to "I don't like it, but oh well." There's plenty that could be done to help civilians, starting with staying out of their freaking country when you have no reason to be there.

I don't think that there's any argument to the contrary. That said, and to Anna's defense, one cannot argue vehemently for every wrong in every case perpetrated against every victim. I belief you confuse Anna's staunch advocacy against killing babies (in her mind... regardless of the agreement or lack thereof of others) and less vehement advocacy for dead civilians for a disregard for said civilians rather than a lack of ability to articulate vehemently for the cause. In short, were one able to advocate equally against all evils, it would be wonderful... but short of that, abortion is probably a bigger issue for Anna than others. That's not to say that she shouldn't learn to express that as different for a disregard for other issues... but yeah, that's the danger of arguing with women (who frequently work off of intuition and emotion rather than logical constructs.)

On the Topic of Question #3:

Quoth Wheeler: If it is wrong to cause the "death" of an innocent frozen embryo in the hope of saving innocent lives from various and sundry diseases, is it not equally wrong to begin a pre-emptive war in which you know innocent civilians will die in the hopes of saving other innocent civilians?

As to that last question, I realize that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with you and that you have no say in whether or not we are there . . . but then, the same is true of stem cell research. If you can have an opinion on stem cells, I think you can have an opinion on war in Iraq . . .

Quoth Wheeler at lesser length: Welcome to the shaky, shady realm of killing civilians while you are trying to protect them. Why do you think embryonic stem cell research is so important?! To save lives. Explain to me, please, why you'll allow sacrificing the innocent to save the innocent in one case and not in another

I think she tossed an opinion out there, finally. To Anna's mind, all lives are equal and embryos are lives. Now, as to the matter of degree, Anna seems to have a hard time dealing with definitive statements... but let me do this one for her: All lives are sacred, all deaths equally so, and just because I (Anna) can't get equally emotional about all of them doesn't mean aren't equally meaningful in the end.

On the Matter of Wilson:

Quoth wilson: Gentlemen (and lady), I admire you all for a rigorous but generally reasonable debate. You have done especially well considering how partisan and censorious the original post was. Like everybody else, I disagree with everybody else on something or another, if only by differing from your rhetoric. But I won't put my oar in, mostly because this keyboard is so dang tiny. Carry on; this is very entertaining.

Get back here you bastard and fight like a man. Oh... and since I'm talking for Anna, it should be noted that she would say something like, "Please come back and share your thoughts with us, Jonathan."

Finally

This discussion either needs to be wrapped up by Tuesday so that I can force Anna to take a leave. To paraphrase from a famous commercial: "Above are Anna's arguments... Tuesday and beyond will yield Anna's arguments on drugs. Please don't submit yourselves (or me) to Anna's arguments on drugs. Any questions?"

Well, I think we're coming along nicely, but I'm not done yet. I'm rather disappointed that I haven't yet gotten anyone to agree that the president is morally bankrupt. C'mon, people, throw me a freaking bone here. Anyway, moving on . . .

Wheeler, you and i both know that Just War is a complex issue for another time and another place.

The hell I do. This doesn't have to be a huge can of worms . . . Allow me to resurrect something Barbour said earlier: However, despite the fact that I am not comfortable with capital punishment and would never push for it myself, I can see the use for it from a judicial and law-enforcement standpoint. And, after all, the government is not and should not be Christian . . .

I lined up with that statement in regards to capital punishment, and I can paraphrase a war position out of it as well, along the lines of "Despite the fact that I am not particularly comfortable with war, would never push for it myself, and would certainly never go to war, I can see the use for it from a national security/foreign policy standpoint as a last resort." Also, the only thing I'm really going after at this point is pre-emptive war in general and the war in Iraq specifically. With that in mind, do you really need to dodge the issue?

Also, my first question was directed at capital punishment vs. abortion, chiefly. And your answer was not satisfactory: Human life is sacred, except sometimes when it isn't. In fact, I think your exact answer was even worse . . . something about universal applicability that wasn't actually universal. Try harder.

Question 2 . . . I'll call it good.

To Anna's mind, all lives are equal and embryos are lives . . .

. . . which are more equal than some actual fully-formed human beings. Sorry, but that's what I'm seeing there . . . I'm assuming your response will be along the lines of number 2, so I'll call it good in advance after noting that it highlights my point.

In closing, I present this amusing poem which I found amongst a bunch of other poems in a link Asa sent me. You should go check out the link, there's lots of good stuff there. This one in particular just seemed relevant, though I should say that I am not trying to accuse anyone in this discussion of the attitude below.

Down With Fanatics!

If I had my way with violent men
I'd simmer them in oil,
I'd fill a pot with bitumen
And bring them to the boil.
I execrate the terrorist
And those who harbour him,
And if I weren't a moralist
I'd tear them limb from limb.

Fanatics are an evil breed
Whom decent men should shun;
I'd like to flog them till they bleed,
Yes, every mother's son,
I'd like to tie them to a board
And let them taste the cat,
While giving praise, oh thank the Lord,
That I am not like that.

For we should love the human kind,
As Jesus taught us to,
And those who don't should be struck blind
And beaten black and blue;
I'd like to roast them in a grill
And listen to them shriek,
Then break them on the wheel until
They turned the other cheek.

-- Roger Woddis

All human life is sacred. Capital punishment is PUNISHMENT, a consequence to someone's wrongful action. The life of the murderer is still sacred, but his actions have consequence.

and i'm with you on War....while I really don't like it and what not, it is a use of government.

Yeah, I'm afraid I see a whole lot of question-begging here now. Many people believe that war and capital punishment are sometimes justifiable precisely on the basis of the sacredness of human life. So I don't think you can make a charge of hypocrisy stick, Wheeler, without going to the trouble of reasoning through the whole justification for this particular invasion. Otherwise, the hypocrisy could just as easily lie on your side; you justify the murder of innocent human embryos for the sake of saving the lives of adults, while opposing the war that probably saved the lives of many more thousands of people who would have been murdered by Saddam otherwise. Now, I don't want to call you a hypocrite; let's just say you're misguided and discuss the reasons why.

Two things.

First, Anna (or Scholl), regarding capital punishment:

I fear that, put to such use, the sanctity of life will cease to have any meaning at all. The life of a murderer is sacred, but that doesn't actually mean anything in terms of whether or not it should be taken? Is it simply less sacred, then? In what way is it actually sacred at all?

And I've always hated the "actions have consequences" argument. It doesn't make any sense. A consequence is something that follows naturally as a result of what you have done. Because you ate your cake, you no longer have it. Because you dropped a cannonball, it fell to the ground. Because you killed some guy, his children are fatherless. Because you do not believe in God, you spend eternity in hell. These are consequences of actions. Punishments are not quite the same thing. Execution is not a natural consequence of murder, it is artificial, imposed by humans.

The only two reasons for it that I can see are: 1) He killed someone, it is only fair that he die. 2) He must be removed from society to prevent his killing again. The first is nonsense because in order for him to die, someone must do the killing, and (all human life being equally sacred) how is that not just as bad? And anyway, if you are a Christian, you believe he'll get what's really coming to him after death, whether he live 1 year or 50. His time on earth is insignificant in the eternal scheme in any case. The second can be accomplished just as well by life imprisonment, which should also be ideal for the Christian as it gives the person in question more time to repent (however little he may deserve the chance).

Second, Wilson, regarding war, stem cells, and hypocrisy:

Otherwise, the hypocrisy could just as easily lie on your side; you justify the murder of innocent human embryos for the sake of saving the lives of adults, while opposing the war that probably saved the lives of many more thousands of people who would have been murdered by Saddam otherwise.

False, sir! Even back at the beginning, my tacit support of stem cell research was never more than "completely tangential" and for the sake of discussion. And, I closed a comment just a few days ago in complete agreement with Scholl's "if there is even the slightest chance that life begins at conception, then it behooves us as Christians to stand against killing embryos for stem cell research or just as a matter of allowing excess embryos to die by way of disposal." I'm pretty sure that I can't be accused of seriously justifying murder . . . of anyone.

If I have argued in favor of stem cell research and in opposition of the war in Iraq, it is precisely to counter those who seem to feel just the reverse and to illustrate that you simply cannot have it both ways and stay consistent. Either you are for both or against both. If one is immoral, the other is as well.

I feel that the president himself has confirmed this with statements like: "That is the issue before us. And that is whether or not we use tax payer's money to destroy life." and "This country's gotta be very careful on destroying life to save life." If we should indeed, as he himself has said, avoid using tax money to destroy life (he didn't even specify "innocent" life), and exercise great care in deciding to destroy life to save life, then (no matter what the arguments) he makes his own invasion of Iraq begin to look very shaky indeed.

If, for whatever reason, you don't want to call him a hypocrite, then let's just say he is misguided and discuss the reasons why . . . this is, so far, the thing I care about most in the discussion, and it also happens to be the only thing that is being ignored.

And I still must observe (without attempting to justify anything) that the possibilities of stem cell research look a hell of a lot more plausible than "Saddam has WMD and he's gonna use 'em on us!" ever did.

I fear you may have taken me too literally. I did not intend to characterize your actual position, any more than I actually believe the justification I gave for the invasion of Iraq.

However, I simply cannot agree that these issues are tied together that closely. They are not analogous enough, as even you implicitly recognize in suggesting that the case for ESCR is much stronger than the case for the invasion. I certainly agree that Bush's choice of words is imprecise and deliciously unfortunate for a "wartime president," but this does not amount to hypocrisy. It amounts merely to fuzzy thinking, and it need not invalidate either of the president's decisions -- just his rhetoric in defense of those positions.

By the way, I do like your criticism of capital punishment in the above comment.

WARNING: Rambling and rapidly-composed comments ahead.

"sacred, noun: (1) dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity; (2) worthy of religious veneration; (5) worthy of respect; venerable" (courtesy dictionary.com)

This seems to be a major sticking point. People on both sides of the argument toss out phrases like "Life is sacred!" and "Aren't murderers' lives equally sacred?" and expect these to explain everything. But what does it really mean to say that life is sacred? Does the sanctity of life mean that killing (the destruction of said life) is always wrong, in every case? I think that it does not, or else God Himself would have violated that sanctity, both by His own power and through human intermediaries (insert Old Testament reference here).

Rather, I think life's sanctity means that, at least from a moral perspective, life cannot be destroyed carelessly or on a whim. There may be circumstances in which killing is acceptable, perhaps even necessary. Killing, like most other things, must be considered in a particular context.

An imperfect analogy: Sexual intercourse can be good (in the context of marriage), bad (in an extramarital context), or horribly evil (in the context of rape). Sex itself (divorced from context) is neither good nor evil. In the same (or a similar) way, killing in itself (without a context) is morally neutral. Killing in self-defense might be acceptable; or perhaps killing in self-defense is wrong, but killing to save the life of another is right.

(It's interesting to me that most of the translations of the Bible I've seen translate Exodus 20:13 as "You shall not murder [emphasis mine]." I haven't done a word study on the original Hebrew yet, but in English, "murder" is not the same as "kill"; "murder" is killing in a particular context, just like "adultery" is sex in a particular context.)

I don't know what the "mitigating circumstances" for killing might be. Maybe destroying embryos for research is morally acceptable; maybe it's not. Maybe killing civilians (intentionally or otherwise) to ensure victory is okay; maybe it's not. My point is that killing embryos (assuming they are indeed human) for stem cells and killing soldiers (or civilians) in war are two different things. If this is true, then the charges of "moral bankruptcy" and "hypocrisy" seem to be based on an overly simplified moral calculus.

Of course, I could be very wrong about this. Discuss (like you needed my invitation ;-p)

First, I think Martinez articulated well the angle I was coming from. I guess that's why he works with words, and I work with computers.
Now, for those NT references. I'm just going to give the locations, to save space.
Romans 13:1-7
1 Peter 2:13-15
Not necessarily related, but interesting: Luke 22:35-38

Different people have their different points of view Jared! even so you should have some respect for our president. get my drift punk. If you say something about Sean Hanity, well just stop being dumb.
Ian

Ooh! Pwnd!

I will reply to the original post, but I need more time to make it worth reading.

By the way, I appreciate that I can actually read the numbers on the spam-blocker you have.

My, my . . . assailed on all sides, and abandoned by the only guy whose position in this discussion is even further "left" than mine. (In other words, get back in here, Randy!) Well, let's see if I can get this to make any sense at all.

Wilson, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that we can approach these two issues with the same moral ruler and judge them according to how they measure up to that standard. That said, I'm not trying to equate them as closely as you seem to think. Also, you essentially said that just because Bush has stupid (and possibly even invalid) reasons for his decisions doesn't mean he made the wrong decisions. Granted . . . but then he's still doing the right things for the wrong reasons. That may or may not invalidate his decisions, but I feel it invalidates him as a trustworthy "decider."

Martinez, responding to your comment coherently may be a little difficult because you (of necessity) approached the discussion so generally. I'll do my best. I had looked up sacred on dictionary.com as well and found their definition, in a word, unhelpful . . . I've tried to stick to the phrase "sanctity of life" instead. Dictionary.com used a word in the definition for "sanctity" which I found much more helpful: "Inviolable."

I don't think it really works to use God as an example of what is right or wrong in this case, since part of my argument is that we are treading in His realm when we kill other human beings. I thought it was a valid question regarding the translation of the word "kill" in the Ten Commandments, so I did some checking. It seems that that word can mean all forms of killing, both "right" and wrong. For instance, it is the same word used in Exodus 4 when God comes to kill Moses. This, if nothing else, shows that it is okay for God to kill but not necessarily okay for us. That principle carries over into the New Testament when God strikes down Ananias and Sapphira. The rest of what the Old Testament has to say about things like capital punishment and genocide does not.

That is the essential problem I have with dragging the OT into this debate. In the OT the Israelites are instructed both to kill and not to kill, pretty much concurrently. Obviously there are special circumstances at work here . . . circumstances which are certainly no longer at work by the time we get to the NT. The NT flat-out supplants the OT in a number of areas. This doesn't mean that the OT is no longer important or relevant, but there are instances where one can justify something with the OT and not be living by the values of the NT. In such cases I am sure you will all agree with me that the NT takes precedence.

While God's moral right and ability to kill a human being is never in question, by the New Testament you can no longer find a single example of one of His followers being instructed to kill another human being. It's just not there anymore. On the contrary, the entire value system of compassion, love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and charity stands in direct contradiction of any such action. Admonishment against sexual sin and teachings about when sex is okay are still very much a presence in the NT, but there are no "special cases" left where it is okay to kill.

Finally, as for my charges of moral bankruptcy and so forth, they are leveled squarely at the president, and my "overly simplified moral calculus" in regards to his self-contradiction is based entirely on his words and his standards. I certainly agree with you that there is a great deal more to be considered than simple black-and-white answers can address in these cases. However, Bush has reduced his decision-making to those terms, and, judging him in those terms, I find him severely lacking.

Sharpton, while I'm certainly not about to deny the validity of what those first two references contain by way instruction to Christians, I think I am on fairly safe ground when I say that they do not in any way support or justify capital punishment. Both of those passages instruct us not to rebel against the government and to submit ourselves to the laws laid down by our leaders. However, if that amounts to biblical approval of capital punishment then it also amounts to approval of slavery, genocide, and any other action a legally (or illegally) appointed government has ever performed.

I think that, if anything, those references strengthen the position that Christians should be passive and not violent in their dealings. It would be difficult to find a more ungodly government than that of the Romans during the time when Paul was writing these words, and yet he still does not promote resistance to it. I see no reason here why that same passivity should not go for war and capital punishment just as it does for open rebellion.

However, I'm not sure how relevant the instruction to submit fully to the government is in this case anyway, since it was written under a dictatorship and we live in a democracy. As I see it, being in a democracy, I can now disagree with and criticize the government, and even passively resist at times, but I still cannot break laws or rebel violently. Either way, there is no Christian justification for state-sponsored killing to be found here.

As for the final reference, I don't see its relevance either, but I would like to point out that, less than a dozen verses later, Jesus rather sharply brings the violence of the sword to a halt and undoes the bloody work it has done.

Ian my brother, welcome to the discussion. What is your opinion on all this?

Also, why do you think that I should show respect for the president? In a democracy, ostensibly, all people have equal status. Why do you believe that Bush should be entitled to more respect than, say, a normal person? I know that you don't always believe that people deserve respect just because of the office they hold. What about President Portillo? Did he ever really deserve respect? The respect that I had for Bush to begin with (and I did at one time have some) has been squandered, not only by bad decision-making and an ideology that appears to run entirely on buzzwords, but by frequent displays of a lack of intelligence, culture, refinement, wisdom, honesty, and many other qualities that I would like to see in the man who most represents our nation before the world. I believe that people in positions of power and authority should have to work harder to earn and retain our respect, rather than having it handed to them regardless of their lack of merit and ability. What do you think?

Now, one more thing. I'm really really curious as to why you brought Sean Hannity up. Have I been showing signs that I might be going after him at some point? I haven't seen or heard Hannity's show in probably 3 years, but I certainly don't have any particular animosity for the guy. I think he's a far better role model than Bill O'Reilly, far less offensive than Ann Coulter, and far less entertaining as a target than Tony Snow . . . So what's not to like?

To summarize and over-simplify: Wilson, how does fuzzy decision-making not throw the decisions it produces into very serious doubt? Martinez, are the ethics of killing really as fuzzy as you are making them out to be? Sharpton, are you sure you can justify Christian participation in and support of capital punishment and war biblically? Ian, what is your position and why?

Wheeler, I'm going to need some time, and probably help from others, for some kind of full exegetical defense of my position. But in the meantime, a couple of questions.
Do you think that it is absolutely, postitively, always wrong for a Christian to take a life? Even if it would directly be in defense of another life? We talk about not killing someone who would get sent to hell. What about keeping someone from being killed and sent to hell? Maybe something a little closer: what if someone threatens the life and safety of your wife? Sometimes less-than-lethal tools are not at our disposal. Is it still okay to sit back? Moving up from that, can a Christian be in the military to defend others from harm?

Another thought comes to me. More than once, Jesus Himself ministered to Roman military men. Paul as well. In the case of Paul, it specifically mentions the prison guard getting saved. But none of those times are the military men called to leave the military. Jesus said more than once to "go and sin no more". But He never says that in reference to the military men. Why?

It's late and I'm not going to proofread this. Hopefully it gels. I would like to note that this is one of the lines of the discussion that I am most interested in pursuing, despite the ongoing obsession with other things.

In answer to your first question: I don't know. I haven't really gotten anywhere near that point in my line of reasoning, so we don't necessarily have to go there. I think the best answer I can come up with is, no, it is not always wrong, but it is always right for a Christian not to take a life. I'll come back to that in a second.

Counterquestion: When is it right for a Christian to take a life? I could try to work my way through every single possible scenario (and there must be an extremely large number of them) where a Christian might have a reason to take a life and refute them, but all you need to do is provide one solid example of when a Christian should take a life. I'm not trying to cop-out, but it seems like that would be the easier approach to take to the question.

As to your specifics: Given the choice between killing someone and sending them to hell and not killing someone thereby allowing them to kill someone else who will then go to hell, I think I'd be on firmer ground by avoiding involvement in the killing. That said, it's kind of a weird example and I'm not really sure why it exists.

If someone threatened my wife's life and my only option was to kill them, I'd probably kill them. But I don't know whether we can say that would be right. I think the example of the early Christians leans more in the direction of sitting back. They certainly didn't try to defend themselves. That said, I hope that if someone killed my wife and I had the chance to kill them, I wouldn't take it. I don't think that would be right, and that is what I'm really asserting above more than any absolutely-always-in-every-case dictum. Try to be sure and address that . . . but we can play around with this a bit as well.

As to whether a Christian can be in the military: Yes, they can. I can't and won't condemn any Christians who are in the military. As you pointed out, Jesus certainly didn't. In fact, I can't and won't condemn any Christians who kill in defense of themselves or others. I guess the question is: Is it wrong to be a complete pacifist? Which is more "Christian"? It may not always be wrong to kill, but is it always more ideal not to?

As a brief sidenote, one of the professors here at LeTourneau once expressed to me that he believes lying is always wrong, and he would not lie even if it were to protect an innocent person from death. I'm guessing that this same professor would take an equally hard line on Christians killing, regardless. So the view is out there . . . One of the questions I have is, is it wrong?

"It may not always be wrong to kill, but is it always more ideal not to?" I would say yes, it is more ideal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some bloodthirsty maniac who wants to kill at a twitch of a finger (I know you didn't say that, but just to clear it up). If we never had to kill, I'd be fine with that.
Your point on not condemning Christians in the military clarifies something for me. You seem to be arguing against violence as much as possible, and taking a personal pacifist route. Am I correct?
Not going to go any further...it's early, I need to go to work soon, and I'm not quite clear thinking yet.

1) Regarding Clarity and Fuzziness:
Jared asked me: "Martinez, are the ethics of killing really as fuzzy as you are making them out to be?"

Sharpton asked Jared: "Do you think that it is absolutely, postitively, always wrong for a Christian to take a life?"

Jared answered Sharpton: "I don't know [...] the view is out there . . . One of the questions I have is, is it wrong?"

I now answer Jared: If the ethics of killing aren't fuzzy, then I need some philosophical contact lenses, because I'm not seeing any clear resolution.

I firmly believe that there is an answer to the question of if/when killing is ever acceptable. But there are so many sub-questions involved that I, for one, cannot see an easy answer. (Is "right" an absolute, or can some things be "more right" than others; that is, pacifism always "more right" than killing, even if a particular instance of killing is "right"?)

2) Regarding Moral Bankruptcy and Oversimiplified Calculi:
You raise a very good point; I mistakenly neglected the President's arguments in my analysis of yours. Playing within the boundaries of his own game (however oversimplified), while not necessarily the best choice, is certainly acceptable (and fun, too); carry on.

3) Regarding Exegesis:
Your points about God and the Testaments are well taken; my purpose in bringing up God's actions was not to compare His ethics to ours, but to make the point that "sacred" had not (and still hasn't) been adequately defined.

Conclusion: Regarding My Comments
If it seems like I'm dancing around the edges instead of picking a side, that's because I am and I haven't. If it seems like I'm picking on Jared too much, that's because (a) his are usually the latest comments when I check, and (b) I have an aversion to the idea of total pacifism. Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of violence and killing; but I recognize that violence and killing are parts of human history and human nature, and some gut feeling of mine rejects the idea that I cannot defend myself and those I love. I freely admit that this is an emotional and instinctual reaction, not a rational position. I'm trying to balance reason and instinct, because I favor reason but cannot totally escape instinct.

I'm addressing comments as thoughts come to me (in the moments when I think to check the blog), trying to focus on things that haven't already been commented on. If I slip into offensive statements or ad hominem fallacies, it is not intentional.

I have to go work now.

In answer to your question to me, Wheeler, your original post presented a choice: Bush is either a hypocrite or an idiot. Much of the ensuing discussion focused on the charge of hypocrisy, against which I defended the president because I believe the issue is more complicated than either you or he implies. The fact that you have been unable to give a clear account of your pacifism so far, I believe, bears out my view. (You still seem to be picking and choosing; although you present a laudable goal that I sympathize with, you do not yet have a clear moral doctrine.)

I do not believe that you are either a hypocrite or an idiot; I do believe, however, that you and the president are both oversimplifying the question. Neither of you is being sufficiently unequivocal in your moral claims to avoid giving a more detailed defense of his view.

Since when does "respect" equate to "utter deference to every comment and action made"?

When I attended an event at which Bush spoke about Social Security, I stood when he entered, I listened carefully, I applauded as he left, and I refrained from heckling him even though I disagree with a number of his policies and opinions. That, in my eyes, was showing respect.

However, that does not mean I refuse to express my own disagreement. I refuse to silence my own opinion out of "respect," a term that in some circles is becoming almost interchangeable with "idolatry."

Well, I swore I was going to quit making comments, but oh well.

1st: More Christian or Less Christian?????

I'm with Martinez and Sharpton on the killing....not killing is definitely the ideal, but I there is justification for government-sanctioned capital punishment in terms of consequences and earthly justice. We all know God will have justice in the end....but when God was directing the Israelites on how to run their nation, or at least giving them guidelines, he sanctioned capital punishment. The NT doesn't give us much in the way of guidelines for running a government...

on lying and killing and, more ideal, and such--I remember the storie of Corrie Ten Boom and her sister--they took different stances in order to do the right thing. In the end, God working things out for the good of all in both instances because that's what he does in our World to make sure his will is done and he protects his people if he still has work for them to do.

"A Plea for a New Post"

Concerning personal defense:

Just figure out what you're gonna do, 'cause you won't have nearly this amount of time to deliberate if a person threatens you or someone under your care.

My guess is that no matter what we decide ahead of time, most of us will not stand passively by if ourselves or a loved one is accosted.

Perhaps God instilled that instinct in us for a reason....

Jared...feel free to delete this comment. Just wanted you to know I do read your blog. Maybe the initial thoughts should go back to ...When we decide to take into our own hands the skill and design on making embroy's (future children) that we are not blessed with naturally...could this be the first step with getting out of sink with God's plan and purpose? And no, I am not being unthoughtful or unkind to woman who can not have children. I am speaking as one who has many children but was told she could never medically have any..but as the Dr. found out it was God's choice and plan..as well as a Mom who is adopted and has adopted. As was pointed out... there are many children that are in need of a good, Christian homes...and the love that a family can provide.

Well first of all I knew you did'nt say anything about Hanity but my question is why not? I mean he is a republican who suports Bush just like O'Reilly. I mean where's your brain? Just so you know I'm not a republican or a democrat 'cause I know that there is alot of idiots on either group. I like Bush because he does'nt just stand around watching whats going to hapen next and insted takes action like a real president should do (grgrm Bill grgrmgrm Clinton).
Ian

Ok, this is going back a fair way in the discussion (I blame my freaking dial-up for my reluctance to web-browse), but I just can't let this sit...

Quoth Wheeler: "The NT flat-out supplants the OT in a number of areas..."

WTF, mate? I think I understand the sentiment you are trying to express here (and I can see some validity in that sentiment), but your choice in wording is bloody terrible. I call to mind the words of Christ, who "did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it" (Matt. 5:17). Christ also made many statements about the eternality of God's Law and how not a thing of it will pass away. Now, the question we must ask ourselves is what "fulfill" means in the context of the NT and OT. I don't necessarily have a good answer to this one, but I sure as hell don't think that it means anything nearly as strong as "suplants."

And, because I hate myself, I will defend Wheeler on this one. *Clears throat* How about an example?

* In the OT, if I (assuming I am male) want to be faithful to God, I have to be circumcised. Period.

* In the NT, I don't have to. Period.

Sure, that represents a "fulfillment." But it also represents a reversal.

I also suggest a thought experiment to illustrate the paradigm shift that came with Christianity.

Imagine Jesus stoning an adulteress. Or launching a war to exterminate every man, woman, child, and animal belonging to a particular ethnic group. In the OT, both of those actions were (at least from time to time) a moral imperative. In the NT, they are unthinkable.

Why?

First, go here: http://worldofsven.co.uk/theology/postentry_17.php?w=theology_and_biblical_studies. This provides a much clearer restatement of the sentiments that got me started to begin with, and I was both startled and pleased to stumble across it.

Sharpton, yes, I am arguing against violence as much as possible, in a sense. But I'm also saying that avoiding lethal violence is always possible and always ideal. You said you agreed with the "ideal" part of that. As to my refusal to condemn Christians in the military or acts of self-defense, that is largely a product of two things. 1) My aversion to the word "condemn" as one implying judgment which I have no right to render. 2) My libertarian leanings . . . (i.e. I oppose the passage of a marriage amendment, and support the legalization of gay marriage, not because I think gay marriage is right, but because I don't believe our system of government can deny anyone equal rights and still take itself seriously).

The fact of the matter is, whether I disagree or not, people in the military and those who defend themselves and their families are heroically doing what they think is right in a very difficult situation. Any shot at them is a cheap shot at best. My primary targets in this case are "armchair murderers:" Those Christians who are not in a warzone, or facing down a killer with a gun, or even dealing with the unimaginably difficult emotions of what a criminal who has killed someone they love deserves, but who not only support capital punishment and entering a war, but positively foam at the mouth in their eagerness to get behind any such initiatives (yes, a little hyperbole there). I'm talking about the kind of Christian who sneers at those "bleeding-heart" liberals as if that were the most foolish thing in the world, completely ignoring that Christ was the ultimate bleeding-heart.

Martinez, I feel like it would take us about 3 minutes of conversation to either agree with each other or at least fully understand each other's position. I find that I already keenly miss the opportunity to have even those 3 minutes . . .

Wilson, let's just say point taken . . . I still think the guy is an idiot, but I think I've moved far beyond cheap-shotting the president in this debate. Yes, I realize that I was taking cheap shots, but part of my point was that the man leaves himself open to such things on a regular basis. Still . . . jumping-off point.

Anna, actually no, capital punishment is not justified in either of those terms. I've already refuted the totally fallacious "consequences" argument as sheer nonsense. I think it's only fair that you at least refute my refutation before you trot it out again. As for earthly justice: It doesn't exist. The term itself is an oxymoron. Check our much-beloved Ecclesiastes, particularly 5:8. The Wisdom books in general are littered with references to wickedness rewarded and the righteous abused. Even were there such a thing as earthly justice, I don't see how you could stretch its mere existence into an inherent justification of capital punishment.

As for your argument that God sanctioned it, therefore . . . wrong on two counts. 1) Completely ignoring histori-cultural context. I can't stress this one enough, but I can't even begin to list the many levels on which it is a mistake to teleport God's sanctioning of capital punishment to His chosen people millenia ago wholesale into the here and now. On the most superficial level, what were the Israelites supposed to do with their criminals? As a people they were constantly under attack, often in complete chaos. I certainly never heard that they had much of a prison system to speak of beyond the nearest handy well. Additionally, we happen to live in a democracy, not a theocracy or a religious monarchy. If you're going to cite principles of government set forth in the Old Testament, I'd have a hard time dreaming up a form of government that looks less like anything in Israel BC than what we have now.

2) Random selectivity in citing the Old Testament. So, God sanctioned capital punishment in the OT and that's why we should still have it? I suppose you also think that the method of implementation should be public stoning. What about genocide? Is that still cool? Should we stop eating pork? Would that be a good idea?

God legislates capital punishment in the Old Testament, it's true. Leviticus 20:10 is a good example. But wait! Suddenly, in John 8:1-11, Jesus very dramatically disperses an attempt to carry out that very law. If that isn't an example of a direct overturning of both the Old Testament law you keep trying to drag in and of Christian involvment in capital punishment, then I don't really know what it is.

Barbour, a couple of things: I think you're treating the OT like a sacred cow. It is just as open to question and interpretation as anything else, but I'm not trying to deny its applicability or its irreplaceable value to the Bible. However, it is dangerous to take everything in the Old Testament at face value without applying the benefits of study, context, and all the tools we have been given to interpret its meaning and significance. My attempts to remove it from the above debate have two motives: 1) I keep seeing its use grossly abused, as addressed just above. 2) For the reasons outlined by Wilson, I do think the NT supplants the OT where the two come into conflict (which they do . . . not irreconcilable conflict, and not a conflict which makes one or the other wrong, but one where they are operating within two distinct contexts). And I think that, when it comes to capital punishment, what the OT says is so over.

Before you jump back in with loud protests about my hinting that the NT and OT contradict each other at times, or about the hint that something in the OT might be obsolete, etc. look up Hebrews 8 (particularly v. 13) and 10 (particularly v. 9).

This may not be considered a deep theological thought...but through this all let us remember
#1. God created us humans knowing what we would choose to do...and who would be born thousands of years later..also knowing what they or we would choose to do. What we would choose to create or to kill, knowing that wars would happen, and sin would be rampant.
#2 He sent his son to provide a way to stay in relationship with him. No matter who we are, our station in life, our political convictions, our right or wrong thinking and actions, both in our past,now and the future. Forgivness is for all (including Presidents, Moms and Dads, college kids, smart or slow). if they choose to believe in him.
#3. He created our minds to think, our hearts to have passion and love on issues that are greater than us, and our souls to want connection with other people and him. He created us individuals on purpose and as such we will see things different, react differently, and make our own mistakes or choices. We will not always be right, or able to prove our point, to out speak or out think the issues or others but at least we are all forgiven...even if we are the President of a country *who is human as well as Christian, or simply a Mom who disciplines wrong at times, or a woman who makes a decision to end the possibility of a life, or someone who serves his country but ends up regretting it or not.
#4. He is a God of Grace and Love.