Issue Of Personhood Foundational In Bioethical Debates

In numerous bioethical debates approached from a secular perspective, many seemingly noble principles such as autonomy, individual choice, dignity, the common good, and the preservation of limited resources are invoked to justify various positions. However, when these complex issues are approached from a Judeo-Christian perspective, many times the implications and morality of these decisions are altered profoundly.

Perhaps the most fundamental concern raised by a standpoint informed by the principles of the Bible is none other than personhood. Though something we each possess, its value varies drastically depending on the worldview each of us brings to the concept.

For example, to the person living out a consistently evolutionary or materialistic perspective, the idea of personhood is not that important since it is merely an arbitrarily contrived social and intellectual construct with no inherent worth other than what we decide to give it. Thus, it is no major concern if the concept is altered to exclude those at the extreme ends of life’s continuum unable to sustain themselves apart from intensive medical intervention.

However, if one approaches the matter from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the concept of personhood impacts dramatically the techniques and procedures one finds morally justifiable. Since man is made in the image of God, the life and spirit of man (his personhood if you will) is unique in all of creation. As such, it is due a respect placing it just below the reverence due God Himself.

Since the human being holds a special place in the heart of God, it is God Himself that establishes the guidelines regarding how we are permitted to relate to and treat other human beings. In Genesis 9:6, where God establishes His covenant with Noah it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man”. Later in the Ten Commandments this decree is reiterated in the command “Thou shalt not commit murder”.

From this, it is established that it is morally incorrect to take an innocent human life not having itself taken another human life. Therefore, it is improper to deliberately take a human life that does not threaten yours or has not violated the law.

Since the minds of men dwell continually on evil, a number of wily thinkers attempt to skirt around the issue by redefining personhood to make it distinct from the humanity of these individuals facing the prospects of having these procedures inflicted upon them. However, even these attempts prove inadequate as they endeavor to describe things how some would like them to be rather than how God created them.

For humanity/personhood is something one possesses inherently rather than bestowed upon you as a result of having reached some developmental milestone. The individual remains a distinct biological entity throughout the continuum of existence.

If anything, by limiting personhood to those having reached some arbitrary standard such as viability, quickening, or sentience speaks more to the limitations of medical science than an actual state of ontology. And with advances, these frontiers are being pushed back further all the time.

Things are now to the point where doctors are able to do surgery inside the mother’s womb. A photo of one such procedure where a tiny hand reached out of the mother’s abdomen got Matt Drudge fired from the Fox News Network. It was feared such an image might unsettle or disturb the consciences of viewers regarding the issue of abortion.

Scott Rae in “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” concludes his examination of the abortion issue with the following argument advocating for personhood of the unborn: “(1) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception... (2) From conception to adulthood this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus... (3) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (142).”

by Frederick Meekins

WMAL Morning Host Losing Touch With Moral Conservatism

WMAL is a station in the Washington Metropolitan Area where listeners can turn for solid conservative opinion throughout the broadcast day.

However, regarding Mornings On The Mall co-host Larry O'Connor, one might be advised to turn a skeptical ear.

On the 11/4/23 edition, he intoned that the only law he believed in in regards to the immigration debate was that of supply and demand.

So does that mean that if there was a market for outright slavery that that particular form of peonage would be acceptable?

O'Connor's response regarding news of the alleged harassment by Miami Dolphin's Ritchie Incognito of teammate Jonathan Martin involving death threats and the expression of a desire to defecate in his victim's mouth was little better in terms of the moral position enunciated.

According to O'Connor, instead of filing a complaint about the matter, a 300 pounder should have settled the issue like a man.

That is, of course, being euphemism to take the matter outside.

As we learned from Kenny Rogers' “Coward Of The County”, sometimes you have to fight when you're a man.

However, Martin's girth is of no relevance, especially when he'd be confronting others of similar size possibly given to homoerotic violence.

Why shouldn't Martin avail himself of the procedures intended for the purposes of preventing the situation from escalating to a point of no return where the individual defending himself might end up facing a litany of legal or criminal charges?

By Frederick Meekins

Schumer and the Hillary Gang

by David Lawrence

Schumer's endorsement of Hlllary is just another excuse for Chuck to push his jowls into the doggie bowl of the limelight.  He actually means--"Vote for Hillary but take a picture of me." If only he were a woman and good looking I’m sure he’d be lining up to compete as a bathing suit model for Sport’s Illustrated.

 

He is as false and egotistical as good-times-are-coming failed Obama. It is a joke that he says, ""Hillary's experience is unrivaled and her vision is unparalleled." 

 

Most of Hillary’s experience was as an Alinksyite, a radical, universal health care enthusiast and a wife who refused to admit that Bill was cheating because it might endanger their political careers.

 

Recently, she played a significant role in the Benghazi screw up. Her comment, “What difference, does it make?” rivals Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” for callous indifference. 

 

Hillary’s only real credentials are having been married to Bill who ended up a sexual degenerate who failed to accept bin Laden’s transfer as a prisoner from the Sudan and backed Obama’s presidency twice when he was far too intelligent to believe that Obama had the experience or open-mindedness for the job. 

 

Schumer is just a reflection walking into a mirror and patting himself on the back. He applauds himself because—well, who else would?

 

Hillary is Bill dressed in a skirt, an attempted continuation of a liberal dynasty that has already failed and refuses to respect American traditions. She is popular.  That’s usually a symbol of inadequacy where the voting public is ignorant and self-interested.  

 

Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  Obama said, “I’ll get you food stamps.”  Hillary implies, “I’m my husband.”  And Schumer asks,
“Where are the photographers?”

 

Vote gatherers accuse the Republicans of failing. But it is the Democrats who are ruining the economy, the military, our ethics, our traditions and our Emersonian self-reliance. The Democrat voters have failed us, not the Republicans. 

 

How?  They have failed us by voting for short term pleasure and hand-outs rather than long term governance.

 

I am writing this in New York City, the land of the liberal la-la’s. A few days ago I enjoyed the fruitless exercise of voting for Joe Lhotta.  Of course De Blassio won.  He is the wrong man for the wrong job, a liberal’s antagonistic delight.   

 

When I was flying to Paris in the eighties De Blassio was visiting Moscow.  He honeymooned in Cuba and visited Nicaragua.  He loves fascistic liberalism, a communist government that is strewn with corpses from China to Cambodia.

 

And Hillary?  A not so bright woman who loves power.  And Bill?  A bright man who loves women. 

 

-------------

 

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature.  He has published over 200 blogs, 600 poems, a memoir “The King of White-Collar Boxing,” several books of poems, including “Lane Changes.” Both can be purchased on Amazon.com.  He was a professional boxer and a CEO.  Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Hillary Advocates Bull In A China Shop Police State While In Buffalo

In a speech in Buffalo, New York, Hillary Clinton let slip a startling degree of insight into her political ideology and philosophy of government.

Responding to a heckler carted off by security, the former Senator and Secretary of State admonished that citizenship does not involve yelling but rather coming together to sit down and talk about the kind of future that we want as a nation.

Hecklers should be removed from such settings and not allowed to disrupt the message those gathered have assembled to hear.

However, the incident raises a number of questions.

Does this prohibition against raucous and uncontrolled vocalization of a disturbing volume also apply to those the former First Lady and presidential-aspirant would consider her allies or simply her opponents?

Back during the Bush Presidency in her role as Senator during debate surrounding the Patriot Act, Hillary Clinton reminded (in a rather loud voice it should be pointed out) reminded dissent was itself the highest form of patriotism.

Even more disturbing was how Hillary categorized the heckler.

Instead of simply calling for the removal of this disruptive nuisance refusing to exercise the First Amendment in an orderly manner, Hillary suggested that this individual typified any that would dare challenge or disagree with her publicly.

Thus, in a Hillary regime, would those in Congress refusing to go along with her and more importantly the citizens daring to speak out against her be similarly manhandled by the federal security establishment?

We do indeed need to talk about the kind of future we want for America.

However, the kind of future advocated by Hillary will simply bring additional ruination upon this once great country.

By Frederick Meekins

Obama’s Deeds are Dust in the Wind

by David Lawrence

Obama was hired to improve job opportunities and the economy.  It is sadly-funny that he would have been elected over Romney who was a financial whiz when Obama was merely a community organizer and an adjunct, untenured professor. Electing Obama is equivalent to choosing a lawyer from ACORN instead of Warren Buffett to head up Berkshire Hathaway. He didn’t have the experience then; he doesn’t have the flexibility of compromise now. 

Just look at the Government shut down.  Democrats want to blame it on Republican Bureaucrats and The Tea Party.  That would be like blaming Russia’s previous poverty and the Cold War on clerks in Siberia rather than Stalin.

Since Obama’s being elected twice, our financial institutions have been downgraded, real unemployment is peaking  and his latest job demoralizer—ObamaCare—is causing the loss of full-time jobs and healthcare at places like UVA, Walgreens, Trader Joe’s, Wegmans, UPS etc.

The thing that amazes me is how anybody with a conscience could defend Obamacare’s administration which has raised the debt from ten trillion dollars to seventeen trillion dollars. Obamacare is about to throw us into another couple of trillion dollars in debt.  If Obama were the CEO of a company he would have been fired a long time ago.  If he made speeches defending his business performance, the Board of Directors would have thrown up in paper cups.

Obama once called Bush immoral for increasing the debt from five trillion to ten trillion dollars. Yet he has done worse yet still considers himself the great hope of the middle class. The middle class is earning less during his administration and he is choking them.  His own race, African-Americans, are doing the worst of all.  Yet he flatters his victims and pretends that he is a savior rather than a deterrent.

Are people so race conscious that Obama gets a pass from all his financial devastation just because he is black?  The whites have found a subterranean racist way to undercut Martin Luther King, Jr. who wanted his children not to be “judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Instead liberals elect a person because of the color of his skin. Reverse prejudice is prejudice nevertheless.

I am sickened when talking heads like Bob Beckel and Krirsten Powers go on the O’Reilly Show and defend Obama’s fiscal malfeasance.  It is unconscionable and immoral. O’Reilly should know better than to argue with ridiculous, slanted positions.  It’s a waste of time. Having these Democrat ideologues on his show does not create a fair dialogue but makes the show into a joke. A masochistic joke.  Not so funny.  Ridiculous. 

Obama will never admit that he is wrong and correct his mistakes.  Our children will be paying for Obama’s giant ego for years. Liberals and Democrats have themselves to blame. They wave flags of empathy like they care about everybody yet they inadvertently prepare the way for the sad failure of their children. They are haters masked as charitable, loving people. Their leader, Obama, is a good speaker when aided by a teleprompter.  His deeds are dust in the wind. Unfortunately, the dust makes us blink.

 

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature.  He has published over 200 blogs, 600 poems, a memoir “The King of White-Collar Boxing,” several books of poems, including “Lane Changes.” Both can be purchased on Amazon.com.  He was a professional boxer and a CEO.  Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Grammar Marms Ignorant Of The Looming Genetic Tyranny

At Liberty University, Senator Rand Paul warned of the temptations and dangers inherent to genetic experimentation and manipulation.

But instead of confronting one of the most profound issues that an advanced technological society will face in the years and decades ahead, smaller minds and those of limited imagination are focusing on whether or not the legislator's remarks were rhetorically footnoted with all of the punctuation put in the right place.

Those with too much time on their hands unable to substantially refute the Senator's remarks, such as Rachel Maddow, are claiming that he plagiarized his summary of the film Gattica from Wikipedia.

If truck drivers and hog farmers rather than academics and journalists were the ones that got all worked up over plagiarism, would this linguistic oversight be considered all that much of an outrage?

Snobs siding with Maddow flippantly query what does Gattica have to do with a political campaign stop.

After all, that distracts from much more important work such as the legalization of gay marriage and the distribution of subsidized birth control.

However, will these libertines keep singing the same tune when a test is developed possibly determining whether or not someone might be inclined towards the particular variety of temptation of which Rachel Maddow is herself afflicted as evidenced by her mannish appearance?

Perhaps Senator Paul should have been more careful in observing the protocols of scholastic attribution.

But isn't this response to his remarks akin to dismissing someone warning against the dangers of the looming Final Solution because the analyst in question forget to mention what review of Mein Kampf was being quoted from?

by Frederick Meekins