Coronavirus news

[Dan Fienen]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

At conception, a separate, whole and distinct human person is brought into existence.  Shorthand that how you will, it happens well before the baby is able to breathe on its own outside the womb.

Yes, at conception, a separate, whole and distinct human DNA is created. (It can even happen in a petri dish!) However, unless it is implanted properly in a woman's womb, it will not survive. If it is implanted and the mother (another separate, whole and distinct human) dies, so will the child. It is not a viable human being. It cannot live on its own. If the fetus dies and is not removed, the decaying body can poison and kill the mother. For about nine months, it shares a life with the mother. It is not a separate life.

Thousands of organisms with human DNA survived being infected with a SARS-CoV-2 virus only by being placed on ventilators and fed and hydrated intravenously. They did not breathe independently or live independently. During that time were they no longer human since they were not separate lives breathing independently but totally dependent on others?

[peter_speckhard]

Nobody can survive on their own, certainly not an infant. The fetus is every bit a distinct human life as an infant— unable to survive on its own, but not rightly killed by anyone.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thousands of organisms with human DNA survived being infected with a SARS-CoV-2 virus only by being placed on ventilators and fed and hydrated intravenously. They did not breathe independently or live independently. During that time were they no longer human since they were not separate lives breathing independently but totally dependent on others?

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own. When recovery seems likely (the ability to live on their own); the machines give the body time to reach that point. When life is not viable without the machines; sometimes decisions are made to disconnect the machines. I've also been with family members when they took a loved one off artificial supports. They could not live without the machines. We even have a rite for "When Life-Sustaining Care Is Ended." I have used it.


There is a point where we can take fetuses from their mothers and have machines keep them alive until they are able to breath on their own. That is seen as the time of viability. Prior to that, the infant, without the mother, will die regardless of the helps we might provide.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Nobody can survive on their own, certainly not an infant. The fetus is every bit a distinct human life as an infant— unable to survive on its own, but not rightly killed by anyone.

Most infants are breathing on their own. Prior to about 20 weeks of gestation, a fetus is unable to breath on its own, regardless of the helps machines might provide. While fetuses and infants are both human lives; there's a great difference in viability.

[peter_speckhard]

Nobody can survive on their own, certainly not an infant. The fetus is every bit a distinct human life as an infant— unable to survive on its own, but not rightly killed by anyone.

Most infants are breathing on their own. Prior to about 20 weeks of gestation, a fetus is unable to breath on its own, regardless of the helps machines might provide. While fetuses and infants are both human lives; there's a great difference in viability.

True. Also irrelevant as long as we agree that non-viable people are people. Regardless, though, a infant left on its own will survive maybe a couple of days. Eating and drinking are necessities just like breathing. A 20 week fetus in utero left alone will likely survive at least another 20 weeks. The fetus is more viable than the infant. The difference is that the one providing sustenance to the fetus has to be a particular person, while people can take turns providing for the infant. Neither of them are viable on their own, but both are people. That God designed humanity such that human life begins inside another human life is just a fact of humanity. It does not justify killing.

[Michael Slusser]

Nobody can survive on their own, certainly not an infant. The fetus is every bit a distinct human life as an infant— unable to survive on its own, but not rightly killed by anyone.

Most infants are breathing on their own. Prior to about 20 weeks of gestation, a fetus is unable to breath on its own, regardless of the helps machines might provide. While fetuses and infants are both human lives; there's a great difference in viability.

Before that point, however, this not-yet-viable infant is entitled to some legal protections, is it not? Obvious ones are the warning labels on alcohol, tobacco products, and some medications that women might take.

In other words, in the eyes of the law a child can deserve and get protection even before he or she is viable--right?

Peace,
Michael

[DeHall1]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

I'm just pointing out the text of the document -- if you disagree, that's between you and the 95% of the biologists included in the study, not with me.

[Dan Fienen]

Thousands of organisms with human DNA survived being infected with a SARS-CoV-2 virus only by being placed on ventilators and fed and hydrated intravenously. They did not breathe independently or live independently. During that time were they no longer human since they were not separate lives breathing independently but totally dependent on others?

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own. When recovery seems likely (the ability to live on their own); the machines give the body time to reach that point. When life is not viable without the machines; sometimes decisions are made to disconnect the machines. I've also been with family members when they took a loved one off artificial supports. They could not live without the machines. We even have a rite for "When Life-Sustaining Care Is Ended." I have used it.


There is a point where we can take fetuses from their mothers and have machines keep them alive until they are able to breath on their own. That is seen as the time of viability. Prior to that, the infant, without the mother, will die regardless of the helps we might provide.

How many of the children aborted each could well have been been viable if they had just been given more time to develop? Similar to how people can be viable if given support to recover even though at the time they could not survive on their own.

[John_Hannah]

There wasn't any, John. The Humble Correspondent posted his article from the Times for one reason: to upset people. He wanted to start an argument. He knew how Peter and others would react to what he was posting. There is nothing theological in the article he posted, it was just an accusation that Republicans/conservatives are anti-science.

The question is what are you, as part of the ALBP Board, going to do about it? Late last year we were told posts had to be theological and no more flaming. Yet, when the HC, posts this article...crickets. Even though Peter is a moderator, he can't really do anything; there is too much personal animosity between them. This is where board members need to step in and say, "You knew the rules. You broke them. You're suspended from posting for a month. You do it again, and you're banned permanently."

"There is nothing theological in the article he posted, it was just an accusation that Republicans/conservatives are anti-science."

There is nothing theological in most of the 331 pages of posts on this thread, whether Democrat or Republican leaning (or explicitly).

"The question is what are you, as part of the ALBP Board, going to do about it?"

Moderation is in the hands of the moderators.

[pearson]

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own.

Why is "viability" the proper criterion?  And what is it a criterion for?  The definition of life?  The definition of human organism?  The definition of murder?  "Viability" seems a thoroughly arbitrary place to draw the line.  What makes it normative?

Tom Pearson 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Nobody can survive on their own, certainly not an infant. The fetus is every bit a distinct human life as an infant— unable to survive on its own, but not rightly killed by anyone.

Most infants are breathing on their own. Prior to about 20 weeks of gestation, a fetus is unable to breath on its own, regardless of the helps machines might provide. While fetuses and infants are both human lives; there's a great difference in viability.

Before that point, however, this not-yet-viable infant is entitled to some legal protections, is it not? Obvious ones are the warning labels on alcohol, tobacco products, and some medications that women might take.

In other words, in the eyes of the law a child can deserve and get protection even before he or she is viable--right?

The warning labels aren't for the child, but for the mother. She is primarily responsible for the health of the child growing within her. Such warnings recognize that there is a unique connection between mother and child that is different than between an infant and adults.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own.

Why is "viability" the proper criterion?  And what is it a criterion for?  The definition of life?  The definition of human organism?  The definition of murder?  "Viability" seems a thoroughly arbitrary place to draw the line.  What makes it normative?

It makes a whale of a difference whether a procedure is an abortion or a pre-mature birth. Taking a child out of the womb at 10 weeks is an abortion. Everyone knows that the child will die. Taking a child out of the womb at 24 weeks is a pre-mature birth. The child will likely live.


Or, when removing life-support. If the patient is capable of recovering (i.e., viable), it could be seen as murder. If the patient is not capable of recovering (i.e., not-viable), it's an acceptable step.

[Dan Fienen]

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own.

Why is "viability" the proper criterion?  And what is it a criterion for?  The definition of life?  The definition of human organism?  The definition of murder?  "Viability" seems a thoroughly arbitrary place to draw the line.  What makes it normative?

It makes a whale of a difference whether a procedure is an abortion or a pre-mature birth. Taking a child out of the womb at 10 weeks is an abortion. Everyone knows that the child will die. Taking a child out of the womb at 24 weeks is a pre-mature birth. The child will likely live.

Then if an abortion is performed after 24 weeks where the intended result is a dead baby even though delivery at that gestational age is completely possible is it murder?

[Brian Stoffregen]

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own.

Why is "viability" the proper criterion?  And what is it a criterion for?  The definition of life?  The definition of human organism?  The definition of murder?  "Viability" seems a thoroughly arbitrary place to draw the line.  What makes it normative?

It makes a whale of a difference whether a procedure is an abortion or a pre-mature birth. Taking a child out of the womb at 10 weeks is an abortion. Everyone knows that the child will die. Taking a child out of the womb at 24 weeks is a pre-mature birth. The child will likely live.

Then if an abortion is performed after 24 weeks where the intended result is a dead baby even though delivery at that gestational age is completely possible is it murder?

No. Murder implies that it is an illegal killing. Abortion is legal. There are such things as legal killings that aren't crimes.

[peter_speckhard]

The issue is not whether they are human or not; but whether they are viable - able to live on their own.

Why is "viability" the proper criterion?  And what is it a criterion for?  The definition of life?  The definition of human organism?  The definition of murder?  "Viability" seems a thoroughly arbitrary place to draw the line.  What makes it normative?

It makes a whale of a difference whether a procedure is an abortion or a pre-mature birth. Taking a child out of the womb at 10 weeks is an abortion. Everyone knows that the child will die. Taking a child out of the womb at 24 weeks is a pre-mature birth. The child will likely live.

Then if an abortion is performed after 24 weeks where the intended result is a dead baby even though delivery at that gestational age is completely possible is it murder?

No. Murder implies that it is an illegal killing. Abortion is legal. There are such things as legal killings that aren't crimes.

What should be criminal is this degree of sophistry. Every gassed Jew was gassed legally. They were still murdered. Most lynched people were lynched by duly deputized legal authorities. They were still murdered. You know that. You stay things like the above for no reason other than to be glib and to justify the slaughter of the unborn, as though Roe v. Wade determined the validity of the Commandments. The law is unjust. An unjust law does not justify the injustice.