The Monster’s Story
September 12, 2011
David Mills
Dr. John C. Cutler was a monster. A monster who died after a long and successful life in government and academia, with scholarships and lectures created in his memory. As readers may know, in the mid-1940s he experimented upon poor Guatemalans, including mental patients and orphans as young as nine, trying to find a cure for syphilis. The most horrifying example, already much posted on the web (I quoted it on “First Thoughts” a few days ago), is “that of a mental patient named Berta.”
She was, says the New York Times, reporting a recent hearing of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues,
first deliberately infected with syphilis and, months later, given penicillin. After that, Dr. John C. Cutler of the Public Health Service, who led the experiments, described her as so unwell that she “appeared she was going to die.” Nonetheless, he inserted pus from a male gonorrhea victim into her eyes, urethra and rectum. Four days later, infected in both eyes and bleeding from the urethra, she died.
We do not know exactly how horrific were the experiments, but only because Cutler kept such poor records, and because he knew he was not supposed to be doing what he was doing and kept the experiments hidden. He was working for the government, and important people knew what he was doing in Guatemala—including the surgeon general, Dr. Thomas Parran, who noted, “You know, we couldn’t do such an experiment in this country.”
Cutler went on to work on the notorious Tuskegee experiments before becoming assistant surgeon general and then a professor at the University of Pittsburgh. And died at an advanced age, full of honors. Put not your trust in academic princes, as the psalmist could have said.
What makes what Cutler did so wrong? The members of the commission pointed almost uniformly to his failure to get the informed consent of his subjects, but what makes experimenting on people without getting their informed consent wrong? What is the ground of the developed ethical system for experimenting on human beings—a system developed through the Nuremberg trials—that the commission invoked in condemning Cutler’s work?
That is the difficult, and for the modern mainstream ethicist with certain commitments, the dangerous question. The answer would seem to be an understanding of intrinsic human dignity and the absolute integrity of the human person: that men and women are creatures who must make such decisions for themselves. And that dignity is most secure when fixed in something transcendent, something eternal and ultimate. If it isn’t, men like Cutler will do what he did, for the greater good, as he (presumably) saw it then.
Cutler’s offense wasn’t just deceiving people but treating them as people who could justifiably be deceived. His sin wasn’t just using them as means but seeing them as means. They are ends, and there are some things we cannot do to creatures who are ends in themselves. Ever. For any reason, however good, however urgent.
And this, to be fair, some members of the commission recognized. Its chairman, the University of Pennsylvania’s Amy Gutmann, said that Cutler “did not treat them [his victims] as human beings. He thought of them as material” for study. One member, the University of Virginia’s John Arras, said the researchers’ “attitude toward the Guatemalan people was pretty much what you’d expect if they were doing research on rabbits.”
Completely true. But relevant to others Gutmann, at least, would not include. The unborn human being, for example, and particularly that child in his embryonic stage. The mainstream bioethicist does not see that child as a human being, but as material for study—the diseases he wants to cure that way being as brutal as syphilis—creatures to whom his attitude is, if anything, less sympathetic than it is to the rabbits.
Arras declared that the worst parts of Cutler’s research “amounted to torture, and should be denounced no matter what historical era we’re talking about.” I have no idea what religious commitments he has, if any, but speaking publicly in a secular mode, in a press release issued by his university, he can only say in response to such evil, “The most powerful argument is to repeat a story.”
Stories can move hearts and therefore (sometimes) minds, but they do not replace a fixed moral standard, the kind of standard only religious people nowadays seem able or at least willing to provide in the public square. Stories are just stories, without a way to read them. They do not supply their own meaning. Only a fixed moral standard lets the reader see the correct meaning.
Arras is assuming, I think, that the story of Cutler’s abuse of Berta will teach people something about the morality of experimentation, because they will react to it the same way he does. And he is almost certainly right. Now, today, for normally moralled people looking back at an experiment conducted sixty years ago by people now dead. It’s an easy call, condemning Cutler.
But Cutler, and the consequentialists and utilitarians today, some of whom predictably pop up in our own comment section, would read the story differently, or perhaps tell a different one. He would have had to tell himself some justifying story, and I am fairly sure it would have gone something like this: syphilis is a brutal disease that had to be cured, because it caused so much suffering.
Perhaps corners were cut and mistakes were made, but they were cut and made in an urgent cause, by men who desperately wanted to save lives. Life isn’t black and white, and sometimes a few have to be sacrificed for the many. Someone has to be willing to make the hard decisions. People decades later shouldn’t judge him from the safety of a world he helped save from the effects of syphilis.
As stories go, it’s just as good a story as the one Arras presents. It makes sense of all the facts, it orders them to a moral and a dramatic end, it offers both a clear morality and an understanding of complexity. Without some fixed criteria for judging between the stories, it is as good a story, and therefore as effective a justification for acting as he did, as Arras’s story is—absent a fixed belief in the dignity of the human person—a reason for condemning it.
And yet Cutler’s story justified a man inserting pus from a male gonorrhea victim into the eyes, urethra, and rectum of a dying woman. Because in that story, in what we can guess was Cutler’s story, the victims were not men and women endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them the right not to be treated like rabbits, but mere “material” for his research.
We can guess why. They were judged proper subjects for experimentation because they were Guatemalan, or poor, or dark-skinned, or simply because they were vulnerable. They were the kind of people wealthy, powerful, white Americans could exploit—which exploitation seems to have included, in Berta’s case at least, something very close to murder.
You and I might think that we would never tell ourselves the story Cutler must have told himself. The Christian knows that in fact he might, were his circumstances different, because he has told himself similar stories on (we hope) much smaller matters. Cutler was a monster, but in all of us, except perhaps for the saint, lies the capacity for monstrousness, and the ability to tell ourselves stories of which we are the hero.
And we know that this is true even without such introspection, because this kind of story is one many people, people even more eminent than Cutler, tell about the kind of research that destroys embryonic human beings. It’s a little surprising how few apply to those experimenting on the unborn the standards they apply to a scientist who worked in a Central American country sixty years ago.
They will protest that the cases are different, that the embryo is not fully human, not yet a person, that it can therefore be destroyed for the greater good. Which is essentially what Cutler must have thought of Berta and her peers.
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
The New York Times' story on the Commission's work, Panel Hears Grim Details of Venereal Disease Tests
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's report on Dr. Cutler, Late Pitt dean Cutler denounced for infecting Guatemalans with syphilis in research experiment
Wikipedia entries on John C. Cutler and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
Comments:
9.12.2011 | 9:26am
David Mills says:
By the way, here are two useful quotes from the Commission's meetings I couldn't fit into the article:
From Susan E. Lederer, Ph.D., Robert Turell Professor of History of Medicine and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health:
// You know, we had a conversation earlier like when he said he was going to offer the observation that Guatemala couldn’t happen again, I guess today. I’m not so sure that there aren’t circumstances in which it would not happen. But what we can hope for is that the response would be dramatically different and that it wouldn’t be sanctioned in the way that Dr. Cutler, who was not a fringe person by any sense, a very central person with connections to all the important syphilologists that they apparently overlooked it. ( www.bioethics.gov/cms/node/202) //
From Allen Hornblum, who's written two books on the use of prisoners in medical research:
// I am working with a couple colleagues now on the history of using institutionalized children as test subjects for research. And I can assure you some of the material I am finding is quite astounding, including the fact that Nobel Prize winners went to institutions for the feeble minded to use them as test subjects. . . . some of the top researchers of the twentieth century, most of them are famous but some are infamous.
. . . The doctors, as Dan said earlier when they do these studies, it is a cost benefit analysis and there is much more benefit to doing research, even when it breaks rules and laws and cuts corners than by following the rules. And that is why I believe the Commission has to make a very strong condemnation of Dr. Cutler and the institutions and doctors that he worked with, not just with regard to Tuskegee and Guatemala but there are so many other incidents and events out there.
As Susan said, we will continue to discover these. There will be another commission like yours in ten years going over what you didn’t look at or what you didn’t do. So I would encourage you to be as aggressive as possible, not just describe what happened but really condemn those who broke the law because there are doctors making decisions right now and those decisions are going the wrong way. (www.bioethics.gov/cms/node/203 ) //
From Susan E. Lederer, Ph.D., Robert Turell Professor of History of Medicine and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health:
// You know, we had a conversation earlier like when he said he was going to offer the observation that Guatemala couldn’t happen again, I guess today. I’m not so sure that there aren’t circumstances in which it would not happen. But what we can hope for is that the response would be dramatically different and that it wouldn’t be sanctioned in the way that Dr. Cutler, who was not a fringe person by any sense, a very central person with connections to all the important syphilologists that they apparently overlooked it. ( www.bioethics.gov/cms/node/202) //
From Allen Hornblum, who's written two books on the use of prisoners in medical research:
// I am working with a couple colleagues now on the history of using institutionalized children as test subjects for research. And I can assure you some of the material I am finding is quite astounding, including the fact that Nobel Prize winners went to institutions for the feeble minded to use them as test subjects. . . . some of the top researchers of the twentieth century, most of them are famous but some are infamous.
. . . The doctors, as Dan said earlier when they do these studies, it is a cost benefit analysis and there is much more benefit to doing research, even when it breaks rules and laws and cuts corners than by following the rules. And that is why I believe the Commission has to make a very strong condemnation of Dr. Cutler and the institutions and doctors that he worked with, not just with regard to Tuskegee and Guatemala but there are so many other incidents and events out there.
As Susan said, we will continue to discover these. There will be another commission like yours in ten years going over what you didn’t look at or what you didn’t do. So I would encourage you to be as aggressive as possible, not just describe what happened but really condemn those who broke the law because there are doctors making decisions right now and those decisions are going the wrong way. (www.bioethics.gov/cms/node/203 ) //
9.12.2011 | 10:12am
Remember Rollen says:
People often "fix" morally perverse principles in the "transcendent...eternal and ultimate." For sound moral principles, such a grounding is often superfluous. So, morally speaking, there is little to be gained and much to lose in insisting upon such a grounding.
9.12.2011 | 10:58am
David Nickol says:
Philip Sandstrom,
I think you are incorrect that Dr. Mengele "worked out of a high-minded but vastly misguided ideal of 'eugenics.'" By the accounts I have read, the man was a sadist.
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion, and her idea of eugenics was to provide women with the tools to control their own fertility, and they would make the right choices. She did not believe in or promote abortion. She certainly is not in any way comparable to Cutler or Mengele! It is certainly easy to understand why those who are pro-life hate Planned Parenthood, but Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with eugenics.
I think you are incorrect that Dr. Mengele "worked out of a high-minded but vastly misguided ideal of 'eugenics.'" By the accounts I have read, the man was a sadist.
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion, and her idea of eugenics was to provide women with the tools to control their own fertility, and they would make the right choices. She did not believe in or promote abortion. She certainly is not in any way comparable to Cutler or Mengele! It is certainly easy to understand why those who are pro-life hate Planned Parenthood, but Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with eugenics.
9.12.2011 | 11:29am
Resh Galuta says:
It is true (as R. Rollen says) that perverse principles can often be fixed in the "Transcendent Eternal Ultimate," but it is still a worthwhile test of principles to require that they be therein fixable; because any principle that can't be fixed in the TEU is most likely perverse.
But it is also usually sufficient to subject one's principles to more mundane tests, for example, enlightened self-interest. Very few people, even those who have no use for the TEU, will consent to the principle "it is permissible to torture a few innocents for the benefit of many others." Almost everybody will reflect that he or some member of his family or some close friend could end up being one of the few and oppose the principle on those grounds.
But it is also usually sufficient to subject one's principles to more mundane tests, for example, enlightened self-interest. Very few people, even those who have no use for the TEU, will consent to the principle "it is permissible to torture a few innocents for the benefit of many others." Almost everybody will reflect that he or some member of his family or some close friend could end up being one of the few and oppose the principle on those grounds.
9.12.2011 | 11:53am
Suzy says:
Just as dangerous - even more dangerous - is the anti-abortionist. Whose arguments minimize, ignore, and essentially attack the Soul, the Spirit itself.
The anti-abortionist often declares a young embryo, a lump of cells, to be entirely a human person. Even though it cannot be determined to have a mind, or soul.
And what are the consequences, the associations, of those who disregard, attack, and minimize, the soul? Who declare souless, mindless beings to ben entirely human? Such persons are infinitely worse than even your Dr., above.
The anti-abortionist often declares a young embryo, a lump of cells, to be entirely a human person. Even though it cannot be determined to have a mind, or soul.
And what are the consequences, the associations, of those who disregard, attack, and minimize, the soul? Who declare souless, mindless beings to ben entirely human? Such persons are infinitely worse than even your Dr., above.
9.12.2011 | 12:10pm
Cogito says:
Have you ever actually seen a very young embryo, in a jar? It does not look human, in the least.
Even in life, in the womb, the embryo is not quite fully alive or conscious. It does not have a recognizable mind. In form? It is horribly misshapen. At a very young age, as a blastocyst, or zygote, it looks like a tiny soccer ball. At an older age, it looks quite like a bean, with legs. Then? Rather like a salamander.
And in fact? If anything, the embryo itself, looks rather like a sort of half-human monster. As indeed it is, not having yet acquired adequate growth, or a human mind.
And curiously therefore, those who advocate for embryos? Are advocates of half-human monsters.
Even in life, in the womb, the embryo is not quite fully alive or conscious. It does not have a recognizable mind. In form? It is horribly misshapen. At a very young age, as a blastocyst, or zygote, it looks like a tiny soccer ball. At an older age, it looks quite like a bean, with legs. Then? Rather like a salamander.
And in fact? If anything, the embryo itself, looks rather like a sort of half-human monster. As indeed it is, not having yet acquired adequate growth, or a human mind.
And curiously therefore, those who advocate for embryos? Are advocates of half-human monsters.
9.12.2011 | 12:12pm
Exactly. Yet another example of "treating people as things," about which Elizabeth Scalia lucidly wrote in this space just days ago: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/terry-pratchett-and-the-thing-of-sin. Thank you.
9.12.2011 | 12:20pm
Craig Roberts says:
@Remember Rollen
Your reasoning can be summed up as 'People often lie, so nobody should be trusted.'
What makes objective truth 'transcendent...eternal and ultimate' is that it cannot be 'morally perverse' by definition. Just because some are confused about what is right does not mean we should accept perversity as the norm.
Your reasoning can be summed up as 'People often lie, so nobody should be trusted.'
What makes objective truth 'transcendent...eternal and ultimate' is that it cannot be 'morally perverse' by definition. Just because some are confused about what is right does not mean we should accept perversity as the norm.
9.12.2011 | 12:30pm
John says:
Maybe Cogito is being ironic. In any case, in medicine the term "monster" for children with deformities has been dropped because of its obviously offensive connotations of an evil being.
9.12.2011 | 12:40pm
Irenaeus says:
It's interesting to observe that abortion-rights proponents always want to talk about the "soul" in a manoeuvre to preserve, at least, abortion rights at early stages of pregnancy, while pro-life folk talk about science, e.g., that a human person has a unique genetic code at the earliest stages.
As far as souls go, however, Suzy's comment is part and parcel of the Gnosticism running rampant in contemporary culture. As if bodies didn't matter! We are bodies, not just souls or minds.
As far as souls go, however, Suzy's comment is part and parcel of the Gnosticism running rampant in contemporary culture. As if bodies didn't matter! We are bodies, not just souls or minds.
9.12.2011 | 12:41pm
Karen LH says:
@Cogito,
Or you could say, as others have, that the embryo looks exactly like a human being — at that stage of development.
I'm not sure that "looks like" is a very good criterion. If your only experience of human beings is adults, then a newborn is going to look like a half-human grotesquerie. Or if your only experience is of the Northern European racial type, then a black man is going to look not-quite-human: his skin will look the wrong color and his features will look distorted.
Or you could say, as others have, that the embryo looks exactly like a human being — at that stage of development.
I'm not sure that "looks like" is a very good criterion. If your only experience of human beings is adults, then a newborn is going to look like a half-human grotesquerie. Or if your only experience is of the Northern European racial type, then a black man is going to look not-quite-human: his skin will look the wrong color and his features will look distorted.
9.12.2011 | 12:42pm
Irenaeus says:
We can also ask ourselves if it matters if the aborted baby in the jar had a soul before it was killed:
http://womenofgrace.com/breaking_news/?p=9150
http://womenofgrace.com/breaking_news/?p=9150
9.12.2011 | 12:50pm
Albert says:
People often assert that moral principles need not be fixed in the transcendent and ultimate; such assertions are peculiarly modern sorts of wishful thinking.
9.12.2011 | 12:57pm
@David Nickol - Whitewashing the stain of eugenics from Margaret Sanger is a hopeless task. Just one sample of her writing from the April 1933 Birth Control Review: "Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." (http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2008/03/six-quotes-hint-why-marget-sanger.html)
@Suzy - That is what a human being is, and all that it is, at that stage in its development. How do you know it does NOT have a soul? Are you willing to bet your eternal destiny by dismissing such considerations and making a choice to kill it, knowing God's righteous command, "Thou shalt not kill?"
@Cogito - It would seem that you need to hear Jesus' rebuke in John 7:24: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
@Suzy - That is what a human being is, and all that it is, at that stage in its development. How do you know it does NOT have a soul? Are you willing to bet your eternal destiny by dismissing such considerations and making a choice to kill it, knowing God's righteous command, "Thou shalt not kill?"
@Cogito - It would seem that you need to hear Jesus' rebuke in John 7:24: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
9.12.2011 | 1:26pm
CKG says:
@Suzy - but of course, one of those clumps of cells was you, once upon a time. It had your human DNA, and was never going to be anything other than you. And if your mother had had an abortion, you would have died. You didn't suddenly come to be when you passed through your mother's birth-canal, and there was no 'magic moment' when you emerged out of 'clump-ness' into humanity. It was you, human Suzy, all along. . .
@Cogito - Honestly, for one whose very pseudonym proclaims to the blog-o-sphere, 'I think', you miss what any seven-year-old knows quite clearly - that appearance and reality are quite distinct and separate things. . .
@Cogito - Honestly, for one whose very pseudonym proclaims to the blog-o-sphere, 'I think', you miss what any seven-year-old knows quite clearly - that appearance and reality are quite distinct and separate things. . .
9.12.2011 | 1:55pm
Ray Ingles says:
"The answer would seem to be an understanding of intrinsic human dignity and the absolute integrity of the human person: that men and women are creatures who must make such decisions for themselves. And that dignity is most secure when fixed in something transcendent, something eternal and ultimate."
Of course, there's the separate question of whether there is, in fact, "something transcendent, something eternal and ultimate" to fix principles in. Even if it would be terrible if there weren't... that's not an argument that it actually exists.
Possibly the people looking for other ways of developing ethics aren't doing it to allow terrible experiments to happen. Just possibly they are exploring other ways of *preventing* them.
A not-unrelated question: Is there something transcendent about the idea that you shouldn't sacrifice your queen at the start of a chess game? If not, does that mean it's therefore a good idea?
Of course, there's the separate question of whether there is, in fact, "something transcendent, something eternal and ultimate" to fix principles in. Even if it would be terrible if there weren't... that's not an argument that it actually exists.
Possibly the people looking for other ways of developing ethics aren't doing it to allow terrible experiments to happen. Just possibly they are exploring other ways of *preventing* them.
A not-unrelated question: Is there something transcendent about the idea that you shouldn't sacrifice your queen at the start of a chess game? If not, does that mean it's therefore a good idea?
9.12.2011 | 2:27pm
Randy says:
David Nickol,
Maybe Sanger thought she was being benevolent, worrying that the poor stupid inferior classes would litter the nation with their defective children, and use up all the resources that good decent intelligent people needed to improve the race. But like many of her era, she was motivated by a belief in race- and class-superiority. Just read what she wrote. She wasn't hiding it. She thought she and the eugenicists had it all figured out. She and Hitler would've gotten along famously. Their only disagreement might've been in what constitutes inferiority--a detail.
Maybe Sanger thought she was being benevolent, worrying that the poor stupid inferior classes would litter the nation with their defective children, and use up all the resources that good decent intelligent people needed to improve the race. But like many of her era, she was motivated by a belief in race- and class-superiority. Just read what she wrote. She wasn't hiding it. She thought she and the eugenicists had it all figured out. She and Hitler would've gotten along famously. Their only disagreement might've been in what constitutes inferiority--a detail.
9.12.2011 | 3:39pm
AL says:
@ David Nickol,
You are right that Sanger was not a proponent of abortion, but she was--for most of her public career--an old-fashioned progressive eugenicist, with a deep streak of racism in her. To be fair, on that last count she did apparently change her views near the end of her life. But that did not change the fact that she thought the best solution to the problems of minorities was to discourage reproduction.
@ Randy,
No, Sanger was not a Nazi. Don't let your rhetoric get away with you. She was a bit of a moral dunce, yes, but there are degrees of evil. Nothing so weakens an argument as clumsy hyperbole.
You are right that Sanger was not a proponent of abortion, but she was--for most of her public career--an old-fashioned progressive eugenicist, with a deep streak of racism in her. To be fair, on that last count she did apparently change her views near the end of her life. But that did not change the fact that she thought the best solution to the problems of minorities was to discourage reproduction.
@ Randy,
No, Sanger was not a Nazi. Don't let your rhetoric get away with you. She was a bit of a moral dunce, yes, but there are degrees of evil. Nothing so weakens an argument as clumsy hyperbole.
9.12.2011 | 3:45pm
Cogito says:
Appearances are sometimes deceiving; but in biology, morphology is considered quite revealing. The fact that a very young embryo does not look like a human person, is quite revealing.
And, confirming morphology, philosophers and theologins like Aquinas, found that indeed, just as Psalm 139 suggested, the embryo could not be formed enough - or as science confirms today, specifically does not have a large enough brain - to sustain the thing that, most philosophers agree, makes us human: to sustain high intelligence, and reason.
Today of course, we know well enough, that racial differences do not make any difference in whether someone is a human person. Today we know that beyond the superficial appearances, are important structural elements - like the larger brain. That makes us human, black or white. That is the chief organ of the rational soul. Which various theologins identified with the Christian spirit or "soul."
Does it take a "transcendent" authority, to establish this? It does not. The fact is, that real human persons, are often powerful enough to assert their own authority and presense, as a positive force, in various revolutions. Even without reference to a transcendent justification. Even the weakest among poor adults, has some power and authority. Just by natural ability, natural law.
Of course, in mentioning the soul, I am not a Gnostic. The body is important too. However? Obviously, regarding those "Christian" anti-abortionists who here and elsewhere totally dismiss the soul, as extremely important in being human? Obviously, they are not really Christians at all. No one could have such total disregard for the mind, spirit, or soul - and the moment it recognizably appears, not long after birth - and still presume to call himself a Christian Rather, ironically, anti-abortionists are soul-less materialist/physicalists, of course. Merely pretending to be religious.
Real children with deformitives, should not be called "monsters" of course, since they are human persons. But embryos, which are so horribly deformed and incomplete, as to be in effect, mere soulless animals? Are so short of being human, that to make them the very center of your religion - is quite simply, monstrous.
And, confirming morphology, philosophers and theologins like Aquinas, found that indeed, just as Psalm 139 suggested, the embryo could not be formed enough - or as science confirms today, specifically does not have a large enough brain - to sustain the thing that, most philosophers agree, makes us human: to sustain high intelligence, and reason.
Today of course, we know well enough, that racial differences do not make any difference in whether someone is a human person. Today we know that beyond the superficial appearances, are important structural elements - like the larger brain. That makes us human, black or white. That is the chief organ of the rational soul. Which various theologins identified with the Christian spirit or "soul."
Does it take a "transcendent" authority, to establish this? It does not. The fact is, that real human persons, are often powerful enough to assert their own authority and presense, as a positive force, in various revolutions. Even without reference to a transcendent justification. Even the weakest among poor adults, has some power and authority. Just by natural ability, natural law.
Of course, in mentioning the soul, I am not a Gnostic. The body is important too. However? Obviously, regarding those "Christian" anti-abortionists who here and elsewhere totally dismiss the soul, as extremely important in being human? Obviously, they are not really Christians at all. No one could have such total disregard for the mind, spirit, or soul - and the moment it recognizably appears, not long after birth - and still presume to call himself a Christian Rather, ironically, anti-abortionists are soul-less materialist/physicalists, of course. Merely pretending to be religious.
Real children with deformitives, should not be called "monsters" of course, since they are human persons. But embryos, which are so horribly deformed and incomplete, as to be in effect, mere soulless animals? Are so short of being human, that to make them the very center of your religion - is quite simply, monstrous.
9.12.2011 | 4:02pm
David Nickol says:
@ With God all things r possible
@ Randy
Margaret Sanger's views and eugenics in general are irrelevant to this topic. Sanger was a woman of her time, and many people in the early part of the 20th century believed in one form or another of eugenics. Take a look at this excerpt from the old online Catholic Encyclopedia (1914):
**********
The crux of the eugenic question is in the proposals for segregation and sterilization. Both may be either voluntary or compulsory. The aim is to prevent defectives from propagating their kind. Segregation means not only the separation of defectives from the rest of the community but also separation of the sexes from each other amongst the defectives themselves. Sterilization is a surgical operation by which the subjects are made incapable of procreation. Formerly it consisted of castration in men, and excision of the ovaries in women. But recently two much simpler operations have been discovered, namely, vasectomy for men and ligature of the Fallopian tubes (Kehrer's method) for women. They are not grave when considered as dangerous operations, but they are grave as regards their moral effects. Herein lies the difficulty of judging them. The Holy Office has not yet given any decision concerning them. Speculatively speaking, therefore, the question is open. [Omitting here warnings about moral dangers of sterilization. DN] The welfare of the State, if seriously threatened by the degenerate, could be better protected by segregation. Therefore the operation is not permissible, except as a necessary means to bodily health, and consequently except for this necessity may not be performed even with the patient's consent. The Church has never regarded the marriage of degenerates as unlawful in itself: they cannot be deprived of their right without a grave reason. Even eugenists like Dr. Saleeby and Dr. Havelock Ellis disapprove of compulsory surgery. As for compulsory segregation it seems to be both right and good, provided that all due safeguards are taken in respect of the grades of feebleness. The spirit of the Church is to extend rather than curtail the freedom of the individual. The Catholic conscience guards against the State being unduly exalted at the expense of the family. The latest activity of the eugenics movement was the First International Congress held in London in 1912. It was divided into four chief divisions: (1) the bearing upon eugenics of biological research, (2) the bearing upon eugenics of sociological and historical research, (3) the bearing upon eugenics of legislation and social customs, (4) the consideration of the practical applications of eugenic principles.
**********
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16038b.htm
In general, someone who long ago held views similar to Margaret Sanger's are "exposed" nowadays only to attempt to discredit them for something else. Margaret Sanger is basically hated by pro-lifers because of Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood is largely hated because it performs abortions. Margaret Sanger herself, however, was opposed to abortion, and she does not bear responsibility for the abortions performed by Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger is, morally, nowhere near being comparable to Hitler or Dr. John Cutler. We rightly reject talk nowadays of "degenerates" and "defectives," and we rightly reject racial superiority. But all of those ideas and more can be found in a Catholic Encyclopedia that is not quite even a century old. There is no justification for the irrational hatred of Margaret Sanger.
@ Randy
Margaret Sanger's views and eugenics in general are irrelevant to this topic. Sanger was a woman of her time, and many people in the early part of the 20th century believed in one form or another of eugenics. Take a look at this excerpt from the old online Catholic Encyclopedia (1914):
**********
The crux of the eugenic question is in the proposals for segregation and sterilization. Both may be either voluntary or compulsory. The aim is to prevent defectives from propagating their kind. Segregation means not only the separation of defectives from the rest of the community but also separation of the sexes from each other amongst the defectives themselves. Sterilization is a surgical operation by which the subjects are made incapable of procreation. Formerly it consisted of castration in men, and excision of the ovaries in women. But recently two much simpler operations have been discovered, namely, vasectomy for men and ligature of the Fallopian tubes (Kehrer's method) for women. They are not grave when considered as dangerous operations, but they are grave as regards their moral effects. Herein lies the difficulty of judging them. The Holy Office has not yet given any decision concerning them. Speculatively speaking, therefore, the question is open. [Omitting here warnings about moral dangers of sterilization. DN] The welfare of the State, if seriously threatened by the degenerate, could be better protected by segregation. Therefore the operation is not permissible, except as a necessary means to bodily health, and consequently except for this necessity may not be performed even with the patient's consent. The Church has never regarded the marriage of degenerates as unlawful in itself: they cannot be deprived of their right without a grave reason. Even eugenists like Dr. Saleeby and Dr. Havelock Ellis disapprove of compulsory surgery. As for compulsory segregation it seems to be both right and good, provided that all due safeguards are taken in respect of the grades of feebleness. The spirit of the Church is to extend rather than curtail the freedom of the individual. The Catholic conscience guards against the State being unduly exalted at the expense of the family. The latest activity of the eugenics movement was the First International Congress held in London in 1912. It was divided into four chief divisions: (1) the bearing upon eugenics of biological research, (2) the bearing upon eugenics of sociological and historical research, (3) the bearing upon eugenics of legislation and social customs, (4) the consideration of the practical applications of eugenic principles.
**********
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16038b.htm
In general, someone who long ago held views similar to Margaret Sanger's are "exposed" nowadays only to attempt to discredit them for something else. Margaret Sanger is basically hated by pro-lifers because of Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood is largely hated because it performs abortions. Margaret Sanger herself, however, was opposed to abortion, and she does not bear responsibility for the abortions performed by Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger is, morally, nowhere near being comparable to Hitler or Dr. John Cutler. We rightly reject talk nowadays of "degenerates" and "defectives," and we rightly reject racial superiority. But all of those ideas and more can be found in a Catholic Encyclopedia that is not quite even a century old. There is no justification for the irrational hatred of Margaret Sanger.
9.12.2011 | 4:06pm
@Cogito - Please don't be shackled by theories that only a philosopher could believe. Scripture is what is needed here, since it cuts through thoughts and motives:
“Then [Jesus] will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” -- Matt 24:41-46
The immediate context of this passage is the Messiah's judgment on those who did not protect the Jews during the Great Tribulation (yes, I'm premillenial), but the larger point is that people who know God will risk everything to do right, even for the smallest and weakest human created by God. Men and women--from embryos on up--are beyond price because they are made by God, in his own image. Those who don't know God won't take any risks, or indeed put up with the least inconvenience, to protect "the least of these" because there is no love for God, or from God, in their hearts. When scripture says that God is love, it means love that risks everything, and no other kind.
The realization that a person does not have that kind of love inside, even in an embryonic form, should be a terrifying thought.
“Then [Jesus] will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” -- Matt 24:41-46
The immediate context of this passage is the Messiah's judgment on those who did not protect the Jews during the Great Tribulation (yes, I'm premillenial), but the larger point is that people who know God will risk everything to do right, even for the smallest and weakest human created by God. Men and women--from embryos on up--are beyond price because they are made by God, in his own image. Those who don't know God won't take any risks, or indeed put up with the least inconvenience, to protect "the least of these" because there is no love for God, or from God, in their hearts. When scripture says that God is love, it means love that risks everything, and no other kind.
The realization that a person does not have that kind of love inside, even in an embryonic form, should be a terrifying thought.
9.12.2011 | 4:27pm
Gil Costello says:
At what stage does a human person have a soul? I accept the Church's teaching that it is at conception. And if the Christian God is real, then it seems inescapable that He knew every person before they were conceived, Him being omniscient. That’s why those who have had an abortion and are now for the first time facing up to what they had done knowingly or unknowingly can take heart: Because God has known us before conception, we are fully restored to who we were in God’s mind before conception, the fullness of who we are as God had known us before we were snuffed out. In other words, every child who dies before leaving the womb or not long after leaving the womb, will be who she/he is in her/his fullness in heaven.
9.12.2011 | 4:42pm
@David Nichol - Thanks for your quotation at length from the Catholic encylopedia. It does provide a snapshot of cautious ethical thinking at the time concerning what until recently were called the mentally retarded. Good point.
But as to Sanger, we need to hear Jesus' words that we will know a tree by its fruit. The larger root of which Margaret Sanger was a visible, vocal and influential part, grew and bloomed into the evils of the holocaust, abortion on demand, abortion for sex selection (aka the global war on baby girls), and euthanasia. Margaret Sanger is not responsible for the moral choices of others, but her sins have been visited on the "third and fourth generation" of her countrymen and around the world. Her body of work helped create the culture of death that has seized the United States. God will judge what her part is in 50 million abortions, but I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
We (I and those who may agree with me) don't hate Margaret Sanger; we hate the sin that has multiplied because of her. We realize that but for the grace of God, any of us could be like her, but we contend that her trajectory was predictable (i.e., without God, anything is permissible). We also assert that her moral and ethical prescriptions are belong on the "dangerous [drawing of skull and crossbones] poison" shelf of history.
But as to Sanger, we need to hear Jesus' words that we will know a tree by its fruit. The larger root of which Margaret Sanger was a visible, vocal and influential part, grew and bloomed into the evils of the holocaust, abortion on demand, abortion for sex selection (aka the global war on baby girls), and euthanasia. Margaret Sanger is not responsible for the moral choices of others, but her sins have been visited on the "third and fourth generation" of her countrymen and around the world. Her body of work helped create the culture of death that has seized the United States. God will judge what her part is in 50 million abortions, but I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
We (I and those who may agree with me) don't hate Margaret Sanger; we hate the sin that has multiplied because of her. We realize that but for the grace of God, any of us could be like her, but we contend that her trajectory was predictable (i.e., without God, anything is permissible). We also assert that her moral and ethical prescriptions are belong on the "dangerous [drawing of skull and crossbones] poison" shelf of history.
9.12.2011 | 5:27pm
AKO says:
"Nonetheless, he inserted pus from a male gonorrhea victim into her eyes, urethra and rectum. Four days later, infected in both eyes and bleeding from the urethra, she died."
What the hell? This is ridiculous! What did this "Doctor" think was going to happen? Did he not have any respect for human life or was science and the sacrifice of one life worth the cure for the many?
What the hell? This is ridiculous! What did this "Doctor" think was going to happen? Did he not have any respect for human life or was science and the sacrifice of one life worth the cure for the many?
9.12.2011 | 7:20pm
pentamom says:
"The anti-abortionist often declares a young embryo, a lump of cells, to be entirely a human person. Even though it cannot be determined to have a mind, or soul."
The only alternative is to arrogate to ourselves the right and capacity to determine which members of the biological human species are, and are not, entirely human persons. Every time that has been attempted, it has been an unmitigated disaster (cf. the post above.)
It's not that there's any substantive reason for doubt that very, very young humans should be treated as persons and pro-lifers are "insisting" upon it -- it's that it's the logical conclusion that all humans should have human rights, lest we empower ourselves to decide which ones should not.
The only alternative is to arrogate to ourselves the right and capacity to determine which members of the biological human species are, and are not, entirely human persons. Every time that has been attempted, it has been an unmitigated disaster (cf. the post above.)
It's not that there's any substantive reason for doubt that very, very young humans should be treated as persons and pro-lifers are "insisting" upon it -- it's that it's the logical conclusion that all humans should have human rights, lest we empower ourselves to decide which ones should not.
9.12.2011 | 8:34pm
David Poecking says:
Please note that the Catholic Encyclopedia, using the language of the day, came to the correct moral conclusion *despite* the bad language. Margaret Sanger surrendered to the logic of the language, and came to the wrong moral conclusion.
That was a tangential argument, but it supports one of David Mills' conclusions: It is necessary to have principles that transcend the story of the day.
That was a tangential argument, but it supports one of David Mills' conclusions: It is necessary to have principles that transcend the story of the day.
9.12.2011 | 11:23pm
edmond says:
@Pentamom:
"The anti-abortionist often declares a young embryo, a lump of cells, to be entirely a human person. Even though it cannot be determined to have a mind, or soul."
The problem with the "ensoulment" fantasy is that it deceivingly tries to be a truth without any quantitative resolution. When you arrogate unto yourself the right to determine who is human and who is not on the basis of mind and soul, you better have quantitative metrics to prove an embryo has no mind and soul. How do you quantitatively that there is no soul in the embryo? How will you be able to conduct tests? Proponents of soul determination tread on dangerous ground in generalizing with evident lack of certainty, cheaply peg the existence of human life on an inept hunch.
As for Sanger and her eugenics, good grief, get real. Jesus Christ healed the man with he withered hand, the blind, paralytic. No wonder we see fewer miracles these days, science through eugenics wants to get in on the act, e.g. "The Master Race part 2"
"The anti-abortionist often declares a young embryo, a lump of cells, to be entirely a human person. Even though it cannot be determined to have a mind, or soul."
The problem with the "ensoulment" fantasy is that it deceivingly tries to be a truth without any quantitative resolution. When you arrogate unto yourself the right to determine who is human and who is not on the basis of mind and soul, you better have quantitative metrics to prove an embryo has no mind and soul. How do you quantitatively that there is no soul in the embryo? How will you be able to conduct tests? Proponents of soul determination tread on dangerous ground in generalizing with evident lack of certainty, cheaply peg the existence of human life on an inept hunch.
As for Sanger and her eugenics, good grief, get real. Jesus Christ healed the man with he withered hand, the blind, paralytic. No wonder we see fewer miracles these days, science through eugenics wants to get in on the act, e.g. "The Master Race part 2"
9.13.2011 | 12:06am
pentamom says:
Edmond, notice that the part of my post you quoted was a quote of Suzy, and the rest of my post agrees with your first paragraph. I think the "ensoulment" thing is a giant red herring -- we don't even need to go there. Just extend human rights to all biological humans, period. There is no downside to that approach.
9.13.2011 | 4:12am
edmond says:
Yes Pentamom, I meant that first para as a response to Suzy. And I did flash the red herring because it has been smelling terribly since the last articles that it was mentioned, hopefully to preclude its recycling. I agree that a blanket of human rights protection should include embryos. I just wish some state/s would have the backbone to push for legislation to recognize the embryo as human life from the point of conception. Testosterone anyone?
9.13.2011 | 9:53am
Ergo Sum says:
PENT:
Don't we all declare this or that, to be human or not? If someone says a chimp or our dog is a human, don't you say "no"?
Don't we all declare this or that, to be human or not? If someone says a chimp or our dog is a human, don't you say "no"?
9.13.2011 | 1:36pm
Ray Ingles says:
edmond - "The problem with the "ensoulment" fantasy is that it deceivingly tries to be a truth without any quantitative resolution. When you arrogate unto yourself the right to determine who is human and who is not on the basis of mind and soul, you better have quantitative metrics to prove an embryo has no mind and soul. How do you quantitatively that there is no soul in the embryo?"
I'm not worried about souls, I'm worried about *minds*. I can't prove anything about souls one way or another, as you note. Minds are a different story, though: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/braincase.html
(Short version: no developed and interconnected brain, no mind.)
I'm not worried about souls, I'm worried about *minds*. I can't prove anything about souls one way or another, as you note. Minds are a different story, though: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/braincase.html
(Short version: no developed and interconnected brain, no mind.)
9.13.2011 | 2:01pm
kelso says:
The soul is the principle of life in a material being. It is manifest wherever there is immanent action, such as growth, assimilation of food, and power to reproduce its kind after maturation. The human soul is rational, even if the brain is not yet developed enough to be an organ for abstract reasoning. How great the error of those who deny pre-borns have souls, even from conception! If they have no soul, how do they develop into the fullness of form that is always due to the nature that is man. Viability has nothing to do with the soul, Only the body. The soul of man is immortal because it is a spiritual soul. It transcends the material in its intellectual and volitional operations. The Greek philosophers knew this even before Christ came into the world. How do you end the life of a spiritual substance? It must live forever once it is brought into existence. You cannot kill it. And, if you believe it is annihilated, how is that? How can a spiritual substance be annihilated? For that matter, how can anything be annihilated. Just as from nothing nothing can come (prescinding from the Omnipotent God of creation) so, too, something cannot become nothing. The death of living things is not annihilation but a substantial change, from this thing to that, from a potency to act. So, too, with the pre-born, and babies, they have a potency to exercise reason, to bring that power into act when the brain is capable. But it is not the brain that "thinks" but the soul using the brain. It is not the eye that sees, but the soul using that organ to see.
9.13.2011 | 5:37pm
Ray Ingles says:
Kelso - "If they have no soul, how do they develop into the fullness of form that is always due to the nature that is man."
Molecular biology. (See Haldane's Error here: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/haldane.html )
Molecular biology. (See Haldane's Error here: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/haldane.html )
9.13.2011 | 5:55pm
pentamom says:
@ ergo sum: PENT:
Don't we all declare this or that, to be human or not? If someone says a chimp or our dog is a human, don't you say "no"?
Why are you asking that? I said nothing about "declaring something to be human or not." What is human or not is a biological determination, easily made.
What we should never do, and have no rational reason to do, is declare which humans are persons or not.
Don't we all declare this or that, to be human or not? If someone says a chimp or our dog is a human, don't you say "no"?
Why are you asking that? I said nothing about "declaring something to be human or not." What is human or not is a biological determination, easily made.
What we should never do, and have no rational reason to do, is declare which humans are persons or not.
9.13.2011 | 10:50pm
Mary De Voe says:
Embryonic stem cells = 0, Adult stem cells = many cures. Why did not Cutler experiment on syphilis patients as he had in the Tuskegee experiment? Why did not Cutler trust in God to provide a cure without his violating natural law, God’s law and his own oath in causing the death of another person? The doctor takes an oath to “do no harm” and Cutler must have taken the oath. Catholic scientists, especially Louis Pasteur relied on observation in true science to discover the cures for milk maids’ cowpox disease which revealed the vaccination for smallpox, the vaccine against hydrophobia, rabies, and pasteurization, a process that will forever bear his name, to destroy tuberculin milk. Was it necessary for Cutler to destroy an innocent person for the sake of science? NEVER. Cutler was feeding his egomania which exhibits a sick mind, a mind which violated his own oath.
The finite mind cannot imagine the infinite. Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he said that the soul is infused at viability or birth or whenever but at least Aquinas believed in the human soul. The human being’s soul is human existence. The human being’s soul is LIFE, immortal life. Being alive and growing is the mission and purpose of the newly begotten soul with its body in the womb and even before implantation. The conjecture of when a soul is infused into the human being who is composed of body and soul is academic nonsense.
Cutler destroyed the human life of an innocent person because she was an innocent person and in that woman, Cutler denied to our Creator the power to endow unalienable rights and sovereign personhood to each and everyone’s immortal soul. Cutler’s compassion did not extend to the victims of syphilis whom he purportedly tried to cure. Cutler may have found a cure. Was it the best cure or is there a better, easier and holier cure that Cutler left undiscovered by his evil philosophy?
The finite mind cannot imagine the infinite. Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he said that the soul is infused at viability or birth or whenever but at least Aquinas believed in the human soul. The human being’s soul is human existence. The human being’s soul is LIFE, immortal life. Being alive and growing is the mission and purpose of the newly begotten soul with its body in the womb and even before implantation. The conjecture of when a soul is infused into the human being who is composed of body and soul is academic nonsense.
Cutler destroyed the human life of an innocent person because she was an innocent person and in that woman, Cutler denied to our Creator the power to endow unalienable rights and sovereign personhood to each and everyone’s immortal soul. Cutler’s compassion did not extend to the victims of syphilis whom he purportedly tried to cure. Cutler may have found a cure. Was it the best cure or is there a better, easier and holier cure that Cutler left undiscovered by his evil philosophy?
9.14.2011 | 8:24am
Mary De Voe says:
Authentic science requires that Cutler not commit premeditated homicide.
9.14.2011 | 10:06am
Porphyry says:
To deny the humanity of the fetus because "it looks like a clump of cells" is to indulge in folk-reasoning of the crudest sort. Its on the same continuum of reasoning as an argument that black people aren't human because they "don't look like us". The "soul" as traditionally understood is the principle of life, or in classic Aristotelian language, it is the "substantial form" of the body. The fact that the embryo has begun the process of development is a sufficient condition for its ensoulment. Ray Ingles naively assumes that we can empirically detect minds simply by observing the brain. This is not true. We can observe behaviors, and we can observe neurophysiological processes. We cannot observe beliefs, desires, experiences, or any other mental states. Those states are theoretical posits, and they are on no better empirical footing that the classical conception of the soul. Thinking that "mind" is a better criteria for personhood than "soul" is merely a post-Cartesian philosophical prejudice pretending to be established science.
9.14.2011 | 10:32am
Cogito says:
COUNTLESS theologins identified the soul, with the mind. By way of the "Rational Soul," of say, Aquinas.
And the soul or mind, is not complete at conception. There is every reason to think that the mind "grows," or is not complete at conception. Even Jesus in fact, "grew" in understanding, wisdom. His soul grew.
Therefore? We do NOT have a complete soul or spirit at conception, or at birth. Rather, it develops as we mature.
And by the way? Since the soul is identified with the mind? It can be observed, in some cases 1) directly, by observing the brain; and 2) and in others by inference from behavior, and 3) in ourselves, from introspection.
Many claim we cannot say that this or that, is a human 1) being or 2) person. But we do this all the time. We do of course say and think every day, taht a chimp, or a dog, or a human hair, is not a human person. And finally? All the evidence gained from these and other sources, points to simply saying that a blastochyst or zygote, is indeed, simply, not a person. Having no appreciably human mind or spirit.
And the soul or mind, is not complete at conception. There is every reason to think that the mind "grows," or is not complete at conception. Even Jesus in fact, "grew" in understanding, wisdom. His soul grew.
Therefore? We do NOT have a complete soul or spirit at conception, or at birth. Rather, it develops as we mature.
And by the way? Since the soul is identified with the mind? It can be observed, in some cases 1) directly, by observing the brain; and 2) and in others by inference from behavior, and 3) in ourselves, from introspection.
Many claim we cannot say that this or that, is a human 1) being or 2) person. But we do this all the time. We do of course say and think every day, taht a chimp, or a dog, or a human hair, is not a human person. And finally? All the evidence gained from these and other sources, points to simply saying that a blastochyst or zygote, is indeed, simply, not a person. Having no appreciably human mind or spirit.
9.14.2011 | 11:44am
Ray Ingles says:
Ray Ingles naively assumes that we can empirically detect minds simply by observing the brain.
Actually, the reverse: We can't demonstrate any minds absent a brain. I.e. one can posit that a brain is not a *sufficient* condition for a mind, but - certainly at least in humans - the presence of a brain is a *necessary* condition for the presence of a mind.
Thus, a fetus without a brain lacks a mind. It *might* still not have a mind after the brain fully forms and interconnects; but at that point, as you note, we can't prove it *doesn't* have a mind. Thus I oppose abortion after 20 weeks (except in cases of medical necessity; you can't force someone to risk their lives for another).
Actually, the reverse: We can't demonstrate any minds absent a brain. I.e. one can posit that a brain is not a *sufficient* condition for a mind, but - certainly at least in humans - the presence of a brain is a *necessary* condition for the presence of a mind.
Thus, a fetus without a brain lacks a mind. It *might* still not have a mind after the brain fully forms and interconnects; but at that point, as you note, we can't prove it *doesn't* have a mind. Thus I oppose abortion after 20 weeks (except in cases of medical necessity; you can't force someone to risk their lives for another).
9.14.2011 | 2:48pm
Gil Costello says:
As I've written elsewhere, during the late 60s, at age 20, when I was committed to radical kundalini yoga, I would have these "mystical experiences" (you can call them psychological states) during my 4-hour meditation stints. I became accomplished at quieting my mind: not associating with any thoughts or images passing through my meditation point. Then one day something strange happened: I entered a zone where not only every passing thought and image disappeared, but also my meditation point: there was no thought, no image, no light, dark or grey, no anything—yet the awareness of existing was more profound than it had ever been.
Years later I was reading Descartes and came across his cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) and it occurred to me that he was profoundly wrong in establishing personhood in the thought processes (not intentionally on his part, but high abstraction nonetheless becoming the great I Am), for I had experienced existence independent of any thought, and because he is considered the father of modern philosophy, we have arrived in living in high abstraction, i.e., word constructs as reality in opposition to the mystery of every person who has existence independent of thought.
It is easier than ever for us to dehumanize human life. All we have to do is determine how elaborate a person’s thought process is, the only way possible for the actualization of existence in the Cartesian paradigm. I’m convinced that, among other things, we are unconsciously becoming a service nation because hands-on work is perceived as having little if any value, and why to have value one must have a university degree, and the absurdity is that even coffee shops won’t hire someone to make coffee if he/she doesn’t have a degree or is at least working on one.
What chance do fetuses, infants and the infirmed have in a future of the ever-escalating notion that human dignity only resides in word constructs? In other words, what chance does humanity really have when we have abolished all notions of transcendent dignity?
Years later I was reading Descartes and came across his cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) and it occurred to me that he was profoundly wrong in establishing personhood in the thought processes (not intentionally on his part, but high abstraction nonetheless becoming the great I Am), for I had experienced existence independent of any thought, and because he is considered the father of modern philosophy, we have arrived in living in high abstraction, i.e., word constructs as reality in opposition to the mystery of every person who has existence independent of thought.
It is easier than ever for us to dehumanize human life. All we have to do is determine how elaborate a person’s thought process is, the only way possible for the actualization of existence in the Cartesian paradigm. I’m convinced that, among other things, we are unconsciously becoming a service nation because hands-on work is perceived as having little if any value, and why to have value one must have a university degree, and the absurdity is that even coffee shops won’t hire someone to make coffee if he/she doesn’t have a degree or is at least working on one.
What chance do fetuses, infants and the infirmed have in a future of the ever-escalating notion that human dignity only resides in word constructs? In other words, what chance does humanity really have when we have abolished all notions of transcendent dignity?
9.15.2011 | 12:08am
Daniel Rodan Weikert says:
Good article David. One point you did not have to emphasize much (because it runs automatically through the article) is that the slippery slope of attempting to "cost analyze" morality usually trips upon itself. This leads to a historical question. 70 years ago many (in the secular mindset) would not have questioned the "greater good" ideal for what most medical professionals would now consider absurd. Which begs the question, how far removed are the abortion or euthanasia professional rationalists from being in the same boat? Not far of course, which you state in different words.
I would hope that many medical professionals will realize this is not so much about ethical "progression", to turn from these practices, but that it's a matter of timeless virtue regarding all human life.
Many comments above point to the problem however. That as a western culture (we are not the first of course) many have deconstructed how we understand these things. Therefore sometimes stunting true classical understanding of progression towards what are we really meant to be as humans.
I would hope that many medical professionals will realize this is not so much about ethical "progression", to turn from these practices, but that it's a matter of timeless virtue regarding all human life.
Many comments above point to the problem however. That as a western culture (we are not the first of course) many have deconstructed how we understand these things. Therefore sometimes stunting true classical understanding of progression towards what are we really meant to be as humans.
9.15.2011 | 7:26am
edmond says:
HV: I believe you are in denial on theocracy existing predominantly in islamic states. You may brand it differently to sugarcoat it but most of the islamic government structures are entwined in their belief systems. As to the degree that government and religious practices are married is really not important, the basis of government is the islamic religious law. How untheocratic can that be? What is more evident are the socio-political, cultural and global directions taken by these states, e.g. migration,prayer time in some companies, etc., As for the clergy, these are the representatives of Allah and their "dictatorship" if you must, is really Allah speaking through them.
9.15.2011 | 9:48am
Cogito says:
Gil:
I agree that 1) we do not value work with our "hands" enough, any more.
But? On the other hand, 2) most people agree that the essence of being human, is our mind, spirit, consciousness, intelligence.
Or better said? 3) It's a balance between BOTH.
BY the way, Daniel: in a sense, Christian sacrifice is about sacrificing ourselves, for the "Greater good" of others. Helping the poor, and so forth. So that a kind of utilitarian functionalism, is found at the root of the Bible.
I agree that 1) we do not value work with our "hands" enough, any more.
But? On the other hand, 2) most people agree that the essence of being human, is our mind, spirit, consciousness, intelligence.
Or better said? 3) It's a balance between BOTH.
BY the way, Daniel: in a sense, Christian sacrifice is about sacrificing ourselves, for the "Greater good" of others. Helping the poor, and so forth. So that a kind of utilitarian functionalism, is found at the root of the Bible.
9.15.2011 | 12:05pm
Gil Costello says:
Cogito:
In what could be called my end days or the fullness of my days, I've come to believe that the essence of being human is to love, what the apostle John tells us is the new commandment, and this coincides with the revelation that God is Love, and if we are made in his image and likeness, if we enter extreme poverty, as a child in the womb or a person in a coma, where there is no discernible evidence of mind, spirit, consciousness and intelligence, if we reside in love we are all that we can be in the image and likeness of God. And then, too, it is obvious that almost everywhere we look the mind, spirit, consciousness and intelligence is in service to the will, and why Nietzsche's popularity has not abated, and we reflect on what Jesus had to say about himself, that he never does his will, but the will of he who sent him. And it is no coincidence that the lives of parents who have "disabled" children who lack in the extreme the powers of mind, consciousness and intelligence are so enriched. These lovely children are most often the angels we encounter in this world.
I also reject "utilitarian functionalism" as a Christian way of life. Christians are required only to love as they are loved by God, and that love translates into action in what we call charity. Otherwise our charitable ways get trapped in what I call the hell of reciprocity, where utilitarianism is based on results, not love.
In what could be called my end days or the fullness of my days, I've come to believe that the essence of being human is to love, what the apostle John tells us is the new commandment, and this coincides with the revelation that God is Love, and if we are made in his image and likeness, if we enter extreme poverty, as a child in the womb or a person in a coma, where there is no discernible evidence of mind, spirit, consciousness and intelligence, if we reside in love we are all that we can be in the image and likeness of God. And then, too, it is obvious that almost everywhere we look the mind, spirit, consciousness and intelligence is in service to the will, and why Nietzsche's popularity has not abated, and we reflect on what Jesus had to say about himself, that he never does his will, but the will of he who sent him. And it is no coincidence that the lives of parents who have "disabled" children who lack in the extreme the powers of mind, consciousness and intelligence are so enriched. These lovely children are most often the angels we encounter in this world.
I also reject "utilitarian functionalism" as a Christian way of life. Christians are required only to love as they are loved by God, and that love translates into action in what we call charity. Otherwise our charitable ways get trapped in what I call the hell of reciprocity, where utilitarianism is based on results, not love.
9.15.2011 | 2:15pm
Daniel Rodan Weikert says:
Cogito:
Just to clarify. I was referring more in the context to my comment (relating to Mr. Mills article) about the percieved "Greater good" of the secular mindset to justify actions which cannot be measured as good themselves.
Now in the reality of the gospel, as you say, sacrifice can be made for a greater good. Which is more a good leading to another good. Or in Christ's sake, one of the greatest goods (his sacrifice) leading to one of our greatest goods (redemption).
So basically my comment was in no way demeaning the understanding of christian sacrifice, but simply recognizing that without a christian understanding of morality or the human person....a greater good concept can 'sometimes' be abused by subjectivism to justify a percieved end not related to an overt christian outcome.
Just to clarify. I was referring more in the context to my comment (relating to Mr. Mills article) about the percieved "Greater good" of the secular mindset to justify actions which cannot be measured as good themselves.
Now in the reality of the gospel, as you say, sacrifice can be made for a greater good. Which is more a good leading to another good. Or in Christ's sake, one of the greatest goods (his sacrifice) leading to one of our greatest goods (redemption).
So basically my comment was in no way demeaning the understanding of christian sacrifice, but simply recognizing that without a christian understanding of morality or the human person....a greater good concept can 'sometimes' be abused by subjectivism to justify a percieved end not related to an overt christian outcome.
9.15.2011 | 11:19pm
edmond says:
My apologies to the group my latest post was meant for the other topic on theocracy. How it got here, I don't know.
9.25.2011 | 2:28am
Lynn M. says:
I have a simple thought for you all..being human means !/ we don't have to LOOK human to be human 2? our humanity is not based on the function of our brain etc...we are developing as any other living thing on earth develops, therefore, we are still human during out entire time in the womb and beyond, and thirdly...
Being human also means we have potential life (remember kinetic and potential energy) well our potential life has to do with our human contribution adn growth AFTER we are born...to kill a chlid in the womb is also to wipe out any contribution it has as a human to this life on earth..that child was supposed to GROW UP, have a family and hopefully offspring! When we reduce humans in the womb to "viable" and "not fully human" etc, we strip that person of the dignity they had in the womb..God says "before you were born, I KNEW YOU" That means, we have a soul (even though our brains are not fully functioning yet) and souls are NOT to be denied their right to live..What makes you YOU is your personality and who you are inside your heart...not what you looked like..and EVERY mother I have ever met who changed her mind and DIDN"T get that abortion, has said.." I'm so glad I didn't do it...I would have MISSED the opportunity to love this person and have them love me."
Being human means having the right to be loved..by whomever will raise you..if not the mother someone else..there is ALWAYS someone who loves you...if not, God says "when you mother and father forsake you, I will take you up." All the abused people and unborn children who are rejected, go to be with their Maker to live a life we refused them here...but their blood is on our hands.
All humans from conception to death, deserve life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and LOVE!
Being human also means we have potential life (remember kinetic and potential energy) well our potential life has to do with our human contribution adn growth AFTER we are born...to kill a chlid in the womb is also to wipe out any contribution it has as a human to this life on earth..that child was supposed to GROW UP, have a family and hopefully offspring! When we reduce humans in the womb to "viable" and "not fully human" etc, we strip that person of the dignity they had in the womb..God says "before you were born, I KNEW YOU" That means, we have a soul (even though our brains are not fully functioning yet) and souls are NOT to be denied their right to live..What makes you YOU is your personality and who you are inside your heart...not what you looked like..and EVERY mother I have ever met who changed her mind and DIDN"T get that abortion, has said.." I'm so glad I didn't do it...I would have MISSED the opportunity to love this person and have them love me."
Being human means having the right to be loved..by whomever will raise you..if not the mother someone else..there is ALWAYS someone who loves you...if not, God says "when you mother and father forsake you, I will take you up." All the abused people and unborn children who are rejected, go to be with their Maker to live a life we refused them here...but their blood is on our hands.
All humans from conception to death, deserve life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and LOVE!
10.27.2011 | 10:38am
Rottweiler says:
Clearly what the Doctor did was wrong and he is a Monster. But.. the US Goverment should NOT pay for something this devil did. Not now.
4.9.2013 | 1:59pm
Thiago says:
Well, that is truly horrible, and some sort of justice will be served. Preferably now, as possible, but later works, too. I though I was glad that know scandals arouse from asbestos abatement in Chicago IL, but this is a whole different level.
Both men worked, along with many others, out of a high-minded but vastly misguided ideal of 'eugenics'. Unfortunately, this sort of action was much wider spread in society than most people would like to admit -- consider the ideas of Margaret Sanger which are still in operation today with "Planned Parenthood".