Anthony Martin’s comments on Choosing The Fittest, prompted me to write this post. It felt it was too interesting to leave it hidden in the comments, away from the many eyes of my faithful readers.
Although it certainly speaks to our humanity, I’m not sure the disparity in numbers can be used as a valid argument for or against any type of killing. Still, there certainly is a difference between abortion, euthanasia, and other nefarious harvesters of life, and the death that comes as a consequence of war, specifically, a just war.
It is interesting to note that many theologians (liberal and conservative alike) fall into the “Thou shalt not kill” trap, believing that anyone that participates in a war is automatically breaking this commandment. The original language suggests that a better reading would be “You shall not murder”. There is a definite distinction between killing in war and murder.
Lest we use only one argument to dismiss the arguments of the ill informed, it is also important to look at the context in which the commandment was given. It would make very little sense for God to command his people not to participate in war, and then send them to war with thousands of people in the area.
One final thought, it is also quite unintelligible to claim that as Christians we must refrain from eating animals because we are prohibited from killing! The context of, hmm, the entire Bible forbids this interpretation by any but the most liberal or self-convinced of theologians.
When we’re taking about a disparity of millions, I think it’s valid. I’m tired of this just war, but I’ll trust and go along with my commander-in-chief on it. I certainly won’t not go along with it if the numbers were similar to the abortion numbers.
So the question is, would I go along with abortion if the numbers were always similar to a just war. I’d like to think I wouldn’t, but unfortunately it’s just not the world we live in. Ahh hypotheticals.
Comment by — November 15, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
I would say that I know exactly how I would behave if abortion numbers were anything >0. To my mind it is not a question of numbers. The murder of a child is morally wrong. This practice can become more repugnant, and perhaps demand a greater judgment as it increases, it cannot, on the other hand, reduce its morally deficient status as the numbers decrease. There must be a line drawn between emotional response to actions and the appropriate response of justice. Justice = 0 Abortions.
Comment by — November 15, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
You and I know it’s wrong because we’ve thought about it. If, hypothetically, there were only 1000 abortions every year, none of us would ever think about it.
The numbers get our attention, then we work out the moral implications. The moral implications were always there whether the abortions happened or not, but as a people, we tend to ignore them unless the effect us directly.
Let me give an example. Let’s say science invents two devices. 1: The molecular transporter and, 2: The quantum transporter.
The molecular transporter works by scanning the subject and creating a digital representation of the state of the molecules and their positions. It then transmits that representation to the remote site. Optionally, the transmitter also sends energy that represents the fully constituted subject. This energy might come from the original subject or from previously stored energy. Once the representation has been transmitted, the original subject is destroyed. A copy then is reconstituted at the remote site.
The quantum transporter works by using a property of matter known as quantum entanglement. It temporarily causes the matter to exist in two locations at once. When the subject is 100% entangled in the other location, the entanglement is reversed such that the subject only exists in the one remote location (it’s that simple).
Both processes are perceived as safe in that a perfect transport takes place. But obviously the first process works by creating a copy and destroying the original.
Atheists would be fine with either process and don’t mind being copied and destroyed over and over. Over time, Christians would protest the first, calling it murder, but not necessarily right away. Since no one has ever had this happen, the moral implications are purely fantasy. No one has a political agenda about this because it hasn’t happened.
In the above scenario, there will always be people who put it together at the beginning and realize the first method is murder. But mass opinion about it wouldn’t form unless people were using it on a massive scale.
Just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean we can’t form a moral opinion, there’s just no pressure to do so. But imagine the banners, pickets, and bumper-stickers:
“I am original, are you?”
“Jesus hates copies.”
“Jesus loves originals.”
“Jesus loves copies and originals.”
“Jesus hates copies and originals.”
“Copied and proud.”
“January 10th is National Copy Pride Day.”
People who are pro-original would then demand any facility with the molecular transporter have it’s system replaced with a quantum transporter at a huge costs to the government and big-business. People who are pro-copy would demand equal rights because they are being discriminated against for being copies. Will the original majority prevail?
Comment by — November 16, 2006 @ 11:13 am
“You and I know it’s wrong because we’ve thought about it. If, hypothetically, there were only 1000 abortions every year, none of us would ever think about it.â€Â
This is a statement of opinion, and one that I do not share. Certainly there would not be the need for the same level of involvement in pro-life activities if the numbers were low. However, those being murdered would still be important and would need to be given attention.
“The numbers get our attention, then we work out the moral implications.â€Â
I do not believe this, neither do I see your analogy as helpful except perhaps for the first generation of people that must decided if something is morally right or wrong. Furthermore, I would submit that the large majority of decisions involving life and death (and most other things) do not fall into grey areas for those that have a solid biblical theology. This is not to say that application of moral principles is easy or black and white in a fallen world, however being able to see what is right and what is wrong (at a very elemental level) should be easy indeed.
Finally, if science ever does invent such a device…that would rock!
Comment by — November 16, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
The whole point I’m trying to make here is that something can be morally wrong without our realizing it. That’s what my analogy was supposed to illustrate, although I think it failed (my bad).
Comment by — November 17, 2006 @ 12:13 am
It is possible that something can be morally wrong without our realizing it. Hopefully we do not live in our ignorance for too long.
Comment by — November 17, 2006 @ 10:16 am