Thoughts on Abortion - 1

I think the break-down between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Advocates is the contention that a fetus constitutes a Person. This represents a fundamental philosophical gap, with no clear way around.

Assuming for a moment that a fetus is actually a Person, I've run into a few interesting thought experiments.

If a fetus is a Person, then it follows that it could most likely be treated as a child. But if it's a child, then it's the parents job to look after it. The parents are responsible and liable for its well-being. If a child is malnourished, then the parents are criminally liable. If a child arrives at school bruised, then the parents are criminally liable. Given the expansive reach of Child Protective Services, parents responsible for almost every aspect of their children's lives (except for raising the damned things, we let our teachers take responsibility for that!)So let's say that the fetus's parents are entirely responsible for its well-being, as if it were a child.

What happens if the mother has a miscarriage?

Is that potential manslaughter? Are the parents criminally responsible for that death?

In his work the Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton argues that man is not simply a specialized animal, but rather a unique and special element of God's creation. Although his prose are beautiful, but his logic is fatally flawed.

The basis of Chesterton's claims lies in his interpretation of man's inherent desire to create art. He claims that Man is the only entity known to create Art; thus, he is far more than an animal, an uneducated brute. Man's Artistic Intent forms the foundation for the arguments Chesterton present during the rest of his work, culminating in the conclusion that Jesus Christ could have been nothing other than the true-born Son of God. But alas, Chesterton's arguments crumble like a Grecian temple amidst the passing of time.

My counter-argument is quite simple: Elephants. It is a solid fact that Elephants can and do paint. Painting produced by these Elephants are often sold in order to raise funds for various conservation groups. So, immediately we come upon an example of yet another creature that can, at the very least, paint. Scientific fact proves wrong Chesterton's basic assumption, and any logical construct founded on wrong assumptions is also wrong.

But now we must really dig into the meat of the issue. Chesterton did NOT claim that Man alone can paint, but that Man alone can create Art; and, herein lies the rub. What constitutes Art?

Can we really classify an Elephant's trained chicken-scratches as art? How can we know that the Elephant possesses no creativity?

Now that it has been shown that Animals can also create, Chesterton's arguments rely on making and proving distinctions between those respective creations of Men and Animals.

Biblical Truthiness

One of the tenants of Christianity that causes quite a bit of fuss is the assertion that the Bible represent the literal Word of God. This tenant of the faith never fails to stir up men's emotions, causing harsh and even bitter arguments, even among the truest of friends. While I have come to understand the positions of those on both sides of the issue, I've reached a point in my life at which I can confidently say that I just don't care.

My position, one that I believe to be unique amongst both the Faithful and the Godless, is that the question of whether or not the Bible comes unadulterated from the word of the Almighty is moot. It simply has no practical implications for me. and my reasoning is quite simple: It's because I've READ the Bible.

I know what's good about the Good Book; and to be utterly fair, it really is good. The message carried by the New Testament: one of Faith, Hope and Love (I usually ignore Leviticus) is one so profound that I think it speaks for itself. I think the words stand on their own.

I don't think the Bible needs the additional credibility associated with Divine Mandate. The lessons learned from it's parables carry no more weight when narrated by the Angels than by a Jewish carpenter who never went to work. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't agree with the Bible because of Heavenly Writ, I agree with the Bible because I think it's right: an opinion utterly unaffected by it's origin.

I treat the Bible as a useful moral and philosophical tool, providing insight in moments when I find myself sucked into a the depths of a moral quagmire. I don't care if I buy a hammer from Home Depot or Lowe's. I care if the hammer helps me build a fence. By the same logic, I don't care with from whence the Bible comes. It's there. It's useful. I'll use it.

If the issue of it's authorship is really so crucial to your Faith, then by all means continue the arguments; but I'm going to grab a beer, I've got a fence to finish.