Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Slain officer in Colorado Springs was a pro-life pastor

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Amid media speculation about the possible motivation of the Colorado Springs shooter who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic last Friday, one thing seems to have been overlooked: the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, was actually a pro-life pastor (h/t Terry Mattingly).

Time magazine reports that the officer was “heavily involved in his church, a non-denominational evangelical place of worship called Hope Chapel where he was a co-pastor.” Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statements can be viewed online here. The Chapel’s statement on marriage is doctrinally conservative, firmly opposed to gay marriage, and its affirmation that “children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord” is staunchly pro-life (emphases mine – VJT):

It is the belief of Hope Chapel that God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

We believe marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in a covenant commitment for a lifetime. Marriage is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church. Marriage also provides the man and the woman the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race. 1

We believe the husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image.2 The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.3 Being made in the image of God, as is her husband, and thus being equal to him, she has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband, and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.4

We believe children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.5 Parents are to demonstrate to their children God’s pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values, and to lead them to make choices based on biblical truth, through loving discipline and the consistent example of their own lifestyle.6 Children are to honor and obey their parents.7

We express our enthusiastic support for those public policies and programs which aim to strengthen the marriage commitment and to reverse the trend of the disintegration of the nuclear family.

As Christian ministers, we are bound to uphold the integrity of Scripture. We will only perform weddings for believing couples.8 We do not view marriage as a civil union, but as a covenant between a man and a woman, and almighty God.9 Therefore, we reserve the right to refuse to marry any who, according to the Bible, are ineligible. This includes those who are unrepentant with regard to pre-marital sex, those who are co-habiting together,10 and anyone who has not made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Gen 2:24; Eph 5:32; Gen 1:22; 8:17; 35:11; Prov 5:18; Mal 2:15
2 Gal 3:28, 1Pet 3:7; Gen 1:26-27
3 Eph 5:22-25; 1Cor 11:3
4 Gen 2:18; Eph 6:4; Prov 31:10-31
5 Psa 127:3; Psa 139:13-16
6 1Cor 11:1; 1Pet 2:21; Prov 13:24;
7 Exo 20:12; Eph 6:1; Col 3:20
8 2Cor 6:14
9 Jer 31:31-32; Mal 2:14
10 2Cor 12:21; Eph 5:3

In plain English: The Rev. Garrett Swasey believed that abortion is homicide.

Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statement also forcefully declares: “The Scriptures are fully and verbally inspired by God as the prophets were moved by His Spirit.” No room for ambiguity there.

In his report on the Colorado Springs shooting, Terry Mattingly includes a telling quote from the late Cardinal John O’Connor of New York City :

“If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me,” said the late Cardinal John O’Connor, preaching to his New York City flock in 1994. “It’s madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It’s madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing.”

Mattingly adds that the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, “made this statement to the gunman as he tried to protect people whose lives were at risk: ‘Shoot me.'” A recording of Rev. Swasey’s final sermon can be heard here.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones magazine, in an indignant article titled, “The New, Ugly Surge in Violence and Threats Against Abortion Providers,” suggests that the shootings at Colorado Springs may be connected with “an exponential increase in threats and violence against abortion providers since the release of a series of viral—and widely debunked—videos.” However, the cases of violence which the article cites go back almost 20 years, to the 1990s. (There have been cases of vandalism since then, but property offenses fall into a different moral category from crimes against persons.)

I might add that the Planned Parenthood videos, far from having been debunked, are in fact truthful and accurate (see here, here, here and here). Planned Parenthood has broken the law on at least four counts: illegal profiting from the sale of fetal tissue; performing illegal partial-birth abortions; illegally manipulating abortion procedures; and illegally performing abortions with the knowledge that the fetal body parts will be “donated” to research. As if that were not bad enough, these 39 Yelp reviews of the “services” provided by Planned Parenthood make horrific reading. As one reviewer put it: “If You Can Possibly Avoid Coming Here, Do It.” Reviewers describe Planned Parenthood clinics as “filthy,” “dirty” and manned by staff who displayed “complete indifference and a lack of compassion” and who were “not qualified for a consultation.” Summing it up, one reviewer wrote: “Worst service ever.”

Whatever the reasons may be for the appalling “services” provided by Planned Parenthood, money isn’t one of them: the organization boasted assets of more than $800 million in 2005-2006. Citing a 2007 report in the Weekly Standard, Slate Senior Editor Rachael Larimore writes that Planned Parenthood “gets at least a third of its clinic income — and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included — from its abortion procedures.” The oft-repeated the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides is therefore a shoddy statistic: Larimore describes it as “the most meaningless abortion statistic ever.” (Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson writes that 12 per cent would be a more accurate figure.) In addition, Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding – a figure which belies its frequent assertions that American taxpayers’ dollars do not to pay for abortions.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which performs just under one-third of all abortions in the United States, was founded by a women’s rights activist named Margaret Sanger, who opposed abortion and viewed it as an evil practice. In 1932, Sanger wrote: “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”

Meanwhile, the media reports that the shooting suspect allegedly made a comment to police about “no more baby parts.” However, it turns out that the suspect, who appears to have been an independent art dealer with a degree in public administration, had no political affiliations: he was registered as an unaffiliated voter in Colorado (where he owns a trailer on a piece of land in a town located 100 kilometers west of Colorado Springs), and people who knew him say that religion or abortion never came up in conversation. The man also had no on-line presence that anyone has yet found. Fr. Bill Carmody, a Catholic priest who has celebrated Mass regularly for 20 years in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs where the shootings took place says that the suspect was not part of his group, adding:“I don’t know him from Adam. I don’t recognize him at all.” Readers can learn more about the suspect’s history here.

Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson have forcefully condemned Friday’s shootings in Colorado Springs, which former Arkansas Governor Huckabee described as “domestic terrorism.”

In the wake of the shootings, President Obama has called for tighter gun control laws. Given the shooting suspect’s history of alleged domestic violence and his previous arrest records (including two counts of cruelty to animals), I have to say that I agree with the President.

What do readers think?

Comments
Pro Hac Vice:
Literally letting the terrorists win.
Who are you calling the terrorists?Virgil Cain
December 2, 2015
December
12
Dec
2
02
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Are you seriously proposing that people with a predisposition towards violent, bizarre and unpredictable behavior should be legally entitled to walk around the streets freely and to refuse to take medication which would reduce the risk of them injuring themselves or other people?
Yes. Because the alternative is that the refuse to get treatment: personally I'd prefer to have more people with mental health problems being treated (and also given social care). Plus, I don't think civilised societies should be forcing its citizens to be under continual surveillance unless there is a clear demonstrable reason for it. Frankly, your criterion, that the person has a "predisposition towards violent, bizarre and unpredictable behavior" would mean we should tag all men between the ages of about 15 and 35. If people have severe mental health problems that would make them a threat to themselves or others then there is the option to hospitalise them. But I think that's a decision that should be taken on a case by case basis, and by medical staff.Bob O'H
December 2, 2015
December
12
Dec
2
02
2015
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
Have these places resemble militarized zones which should help drive down clientele. Or better yet, just stop abortions and let’s put those resources behind finding alternatives. Literally letting the terrorists win.Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Lost in all of this is the fact that Planned Parenthood could do a better job securing their facilities and providing safety for their clients and their personnel. Any and all facilities that offer abortions and support abortions need to ramp up their security. Have these places resemble militarized zones which should help drive down clientele. Or better yet, just stop abortions and let's put those resources behind finding alternatives. It's 2015 and we haven't figured out how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That seems like the best place to put resources. Men have to take more responsibility- fines, jail, public shaming, community service- that should also help.Virgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
VJT at 102, thank you for having the courage to address the question directly and not try to evade it as others have. You have given an interesting and thought provoking answer. And I think that I would, to a large extent, agree with you. But the logical extension to this is that the categorizing abortion as murder by some is, if I am to be generous, misguided. However, the pessimist in me must conclude that the use of this term by many is intentionally and willfuly misleading.joehalfgallon
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
PHV #108 You are right. I should have said something like "pro-gun movement".markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
"Are you seriously proposing that people with a predisposition towards violent, bizarre and unpredictable behavior" Doesn't it depend on the extent of that predisposition? People with serious mental health problems are 3 or 4 times more likely to be violent than people without (on average) but that is still an extremely low risk.markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
I think you are right that the pro-gun lobby in the USA is so powerful that any kind of movement to change the culture would fail. The "pro-gun lobby" as a formal institution is a symptom, not a cause. As a culture we see gun ownership fundamentally differently than most of the rest of the world. And we're not only aware of the difference, it's a point of pride and identity for many of us. People complain about the NRA, but if it went bankrupt tomorrow virtually nothing would change. The culture has to change itself, which is why I think your analogy to the cultural shift against smoking is so interesting. In particular, I think that you're right that his will have to be a slow, long-term change. Whether it's possible to accelerate, or how to do it, or even whether it should be done, I have no idea.Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Bob O'H, You write: "What you suggest is, frankly, horrendous. Forcing people with mental illness to be tracked comes close to criminalising illness (would you do the same for someone taking antibiotics?). It would also have a detrimental effect on uptake of treatment." Are you seriously proposing that people with a predisposition towards violent, bizarre and unpredictable behavior should be legally entitled to walk around the streets freely and to refuse to take medication which would reduce the risk of them injuring themselves or other people? That sounds like libertarianism taken to an absurd extreme to me. Here's a stat for you, from Wikipedia: one-third to one-half of homeless people have severe psychiatric disorders, often co-occurring with substance abuse. Some people might call that freedom. I call it a tragedy. A truly civilized society wouldn't allow that. But if you're going to house the homeless, then they have to give up their independence. Every government benefit comes at some cost to liberty - as it should.vjtorley
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
VJT, I'm not sure if you were speaking to me or not--I'm not joehalfgallon. That's a very interesting distinction! I'll need to think about it; my initial reaction is that there will be huge grey areas in terms of defining whether a right has been "explicitly articulated," but that's not a fatal problem. (And it's probably an inevitable one; humans find grey areas like pigs find truffles.) It seems like a workable approach. I'm assuming it's possible for a society to change its articulation of rights over time. What sorts of things would you look for? In particular, do you think a consensus (or near-consensus) is necessary, or merely a strong and clear articulation that is heard and understood by most people, whether or not they agree with it? Slavery is the closest analog that jumps to mind. Let's say the abolitionist message has inundated the South--the public has universally heard and understood it, but largely rejected it. What sorts of things would you look for to determine when violence is acceptable as a tool for ending slavery, despite the society's refusal to accept the articulation of slaves' rights? I assume that it would be impossible to land on a specific moment in time or indicator; I'm curious about the general indicators. (Edited to add: either my eyes are going or you edited your comment as I was drafting my reply. I don't think in any way that changes my response, but sorry if I missed something.)Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
PVC #103 I think you are right that the pro-gun lobby in the USA is so powerful that any kind of movement to change the culture would fail. One problem being that any kind of initial change - legal or otherwise - would have almost no effect. It would be the start of a long and slow process. So the gun lobby can immediately respond by saying "that didn't work". I am afraid I also have no idea about gun usage in the media. Maybe another PhD! I guess I will just appreciate my good fortune in living somewhere where it is not an issue.markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
WJM "If you’re willing to reduce the homicide rate at any cost, there is always totalitarianism and a police state. Right? Let’s condition the masses via state-controlled propaganda messaging. Right?" That would be an unacceptable cost. Luckily there are many alternatives.markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
That's an interesting analogy. I think it would be virtually impossible to implement a similar top-down campaign, as with anti-gun advertising. The gun culture would go berserk. They'd see it as if it were anti-free speech advertisements, orchestrated by an untrusthworthy government for corrupt reasons. The backlash would probably swamp any positive effect. On the other hand, the idea of role models getting involved is very interesting. This would be harder (gun violence is much more entrenched in American media than smoking ever was) but probably more effective, especially if it was an organic change. But that presupposes some cultural shift; there's a little bit of a cart in front of the horse. It may be that mass-shooting-fatigue is providing enough of a cultural shift, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of this starting already. It would be fascinating to see whether gun usage in media is tracked, and if so, whether it falls after mass shootings. Do you know if such statistics are available?Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
joehalfgallon and Pro Hac Vice, I'm going to answer your question, as it is one which I agonized about during the 1980s, when discussing the morality of abortion with some Catholic friends of mine who studied philosophy. We thrashed the issue out at some length. The position I eventually arrived at was this: it may sometimes be morally justifiable to use force to defend rights (especially inalienable ones) which are explicitly recognized under common law, but in societies where these rights were never explicitly articulated in the first place, the use of force by citizens in defense of these rights is morally unjustifiable. Prior to the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 (and similar court decisions in the UK and Australia in 1967 and 1977, respectively), society was pro-natal, but it wasn't pro-life. A woman who had had four babies and one miscarriage would never have said: "I've had five children, but one died." Nor would she have considered praying for the soul of her unborn child, let alone holding a funeral for it. (In Japan, by the way, people commonly do just that. Abortion is legal, but the fetus is viewed as a human being.) In Western countries, however, people used to describe miscarriage was "nature's way," and they tended to put it out of their minds, as much as possible. Birth was the big marker: I can remember, back in 1972, when I was 10 or 11 years old and in Year 7, listening to my Social Science teacher refer to the day you were born as the day your life began, and no-one in the classroom picked her up on that: it seemed like a perfectly natural thing to say. Abortion was commonly viewed as disgusting and unnatural and contrary to the will of God, but I don't think many people would have actually called it "murder" until around the time when it became legalized. That was what really galvanized the pro-life movement. According to Thomist philosopher Dr. Ed Feser, "As late as the 1950s, Scholastic writers of unquestioned orthodoxy, in books having the Imprimatur, were debating the question of whether the rational soul was present at conception." The law didn't really recognize the unborn as human beings, either. A man who shot a pregnant woman would have been held guilty of one murder, not two, even if he knew she was carrying a baby. Blackstone's influential Commentaries on the laws of England (published in 1765) decreed that life began at quickening, not conception: "Life is an immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and, by potion or otherwise, killeth it within her womb, or if anyone beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide and manslaughter. But the modern law doth not look upon this offence in quite so atrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemesnor (sic)." (Vol I, p. 129.) Thus if someone were to use force to defend the right to life of the unborn child, he/she would not be defending a right that was ever recognized in law - at least, not before the sixth month of pregnancy. If, on the other hand, some legislature passed a law tomorrow allowing parents to decide to put their newborn babies to death during the first week after birth, if they decided that they didn't want them, that would be an altogether different matter. For the law of the land has recognized for centuries that newborn babies are legal persons with a right to life. Hence any legislature attempting to overturn that law would be trying to take away what the law already recognizes as an inalienable human right: namely, the right to life. Such an action would be null and void. and since the inalienable rights of citizens constitutes the basis of our society, any such legislative act would be tantamount to a declaration of war on society itself, which its members would be entitled to resist by force. Thus it would be morally lawful to use lethal force, where necessary, to prevent any doctor from performing infanticides, and to shut down any clinic where they were being performed. That leaves us with the interesting question of what concerned citizens should do if Ireland, whose citizens voted in a 1983 referendum to incorporate the rights of the unborn child into its Constitution, were to ever repeal that declaration. Would they be morally entitled to use force to prevent abortions from being carried out? Arguably so, for inalienable rights, once recognized by law, cannot be revoked. The only reason for not using force in that case would be a prudential one: that doing so would harm the pro-life cause, or alienate public opinion. However, the situation in America, the UK and Australia and New Zealand is completely different: the right to life of the unborn has never been incorporated into these countries' constitutions.vjtorley
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
VJT: "However, the important point is that because the self-assembly process is internally directed (i.e. controlled from within rather than without), the organism already has the same value as the rational adult it is building itself into" This needs justifying (also perhaps clarifying). Where does the moral principle come from that says If A is a self-directed process that will eventually assemble itself into B then A has the same moral worth as B. After all we all eventually direct ourselves into being corpses. Do we have the same moral value as a corpse? But I don't think, if you are honest with yourself, you really give the same moral value to a newly fertilized cell that you do to a new-born baby. Something of the order of 50% of all fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus wall and are passed on with menstruation probably without the mother knowing. Hardly anyone considers this a moral problem (of course, it might be a problem if you want to get pregnant). If the fertilized egg really had the moral value of a new-born baby this should be a disaster of megaproportions. We are allowing half of humanity to die almost immediately after conception! Why aren't we devoting all our medical reseach to preventing this holocaust of holocausts? Why don't we mourn and gnash our teeth and bemoan this disaster. The answer of course is because we don't actually care much about a single fertilized egg and, I suggest, neither do you.markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
"I’m not even sure what a concentrated effort to change the culture would look like." I don't deny it is a massive challenge. But there are precedents. One is the cultural change in attitudes to smoking. The law played a part in this - e.g. bans on advertising and smoking in public places - but so did communications and education (e.g. publicising the link between smoking and lung cancer) and things like getting role models such as sports heroes and film stars not to smoke (or at least not to be seen smoking).markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
markf: If you're willing to reduce the homicide rate at any cost, there is always totalitarianism and a police state. Right? Let's condition the masses via state-controlled propaganda messaging. Right? VJT: I realize that there are a lot of people that feel grateful to mob enforcers for keeping the streets safe for their children. However, how does the Yakuza make money? Why are they considered the Japanese mafia and an organized crime syndicate? Is it a case of them agreeing not to poop in their own yard, and making their money elsewhere? When you say that irate locals "ran them out", surely you realize that if there was nowhere else for them to run to,, there would be a different ending to that story? From the Ency. Brit.:
They engage in extortion, blackmail, smuggling, prostitution, drug trafficking, gambling, loan sharking, day-labour contracting, and other rackets and control many restaurants, bars, trucking companies, talent agencies, taxi fleets, factories, and other businesses in major Japanese cities. They are also involved in criminal activities worldwide. Yakuza are viewed by some Japanese as a necessary evil, in light of their chivalrous facade, and the organizational nature of their crime is sometimes viewed as a deterrent to impulsive individual street crime. It is in part because of the dual nature of their relationship with police—as both criminals and sometimes humanitarians—and the idolization of criminal groups as “underdogs” in popular media that the Japanese police agency in the 1990s instated the name b?ryokudan in an antigang law to reinforce the criminal nature of yakuza organizations
I don't think that if the Yakuza depended on those local operations, an unarmed citizenry would have "driven them out"; rather, it is their corrupt relationship with the police that keeps the peace. In essence, the country has a de facto agreement to let the Yakuza operate in peace as long as it helps to keep violent crimes down. Question: what is Japan's rate of unsolved disappearances? You say the suicide rate is very high there. Are you certain those are actually suicides? Food for thought. Here in America, the media refers to "gun-related homicides" as proof that guns are bad; but refuse to differentiate between justifiable homicides and criminal homicides. They also talk about gun-related violence (shootings), but refuses to inform the public that legal owners of guns have a lower gun-related criminal infraction rate than the police. I guess our rate of "homicides" would go down considerably as well if the government essentially endorsed a single nationwide crime syndicate and cooked the books so that the government could boast its low homicide rate. Freedom and safety. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other.William J Murray
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
I did a quick skim of your e-book, and you seem to address the question to a very limited extent at the end of Section J by reference to the comments of Jewels Green. Her position is that violent opposition to abortion is ineffective, based on her limited experience. I'm dubious; I think it's reasonable to expect that violence at clinics will discourage some marginal number of women from seeking abortions, and some marginal number of doctors from becoming abortionists, limiting both the supply of and demand for abortion services. In other words, Ms. Green's comments assume the dilemma away rather than resolving it. Do you address the issue elsewhere in your book?Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
As you’re probably aware, I wrote an e-book back in 2011 arguing on purely materialistic grounds that abortion was immoral and that a zygote is just as important as you or I. Do you believe it's acceptable to use violence in self-defense, or to defend another from unjustified homicide? If so, why would it be wrong to use force to disrupt the operations of an abortion clinic, if doing so would discourage some number of abortions?Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
If the US wants to reduce its homicide rate (which is still four times almost all other comparable countries) then you would think that a similar cultural change would at least be worth researching – but it seems to be an absolute taboo to even investigate gun control in some circles. I think this is correct--it's not just seen as unwise or improper, but as a violation of closely-held cultural norms. Taking steps to reduce gun ownership is literally taboo for many Americans. What if it weren't? What steps would detach Americans emotionally from our guns? I'm a lawyer, so I always think about legal solutions--but as you say, that's not a terribly effective form of gun control. It's easier to implement than cultural changes, though. I'm not even sure what a concentrated effort to change the culture would look like.Pro Hac Vice
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Hi markf, Regarding the immorality of abortion, you ask: "For those that are dualists isn’t the presence of the immaterial self what matters?" As you're probably aware, I wrote an e-book back in 2011 arguing on purely materialistic grounds that abortion was immoral and that a zygote is just as important as you or I. My e-book was titled, Embryo and Einstein - Why They're Equal. Briefly, I argued that a human embryo is a person, because it is a complete organism, embodying a developmental program by which it directs and controls its own development into a rational human adult, and in addition, it has already started assembling itself into a rational human adult. I contended that any organism which directs and controls its own self-assembly into a rational human adult is just as valuable as the adult it will become, and therefore has the same right to life as an adult. In a nutshell: since an organism's value resides in its meta-information (which allows it to actively control its own development) rather than the information it acquires from its surroundings, it follows that nothing acquired by an embryo in the course of its development can possibly make it more valuable than it already is. If you're a materialist, then you'll identify the locus of control for an embryo's self-assembly program with something in the embryo's genome - and perhaps additionally, the epigenetic information in its cells. If you're a dualist, you'll maintain that the real locus of control is one level higher up: something immaterial directing the genome, or whatever. However, the important point is that because the self-assembly process is internally directed (i.e. controlled from within rather than without), the organism already has the same value as the rational adult it is building itself into. That point remains valid, regardless of whether you're a materialist or a dualist.vjtorley
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
"As far as gun control, I’m not sure how you think decreasing the scope of who can legally own guns will prevent crazies or young adults from getting their hands on guns and using them." It is a fallacy to equate gun control with laws that limit ownership of guns. Gun control is above all a culture change where the cultural link between guns and violence is broken. In many stable Western democracies guns are not promoted or glorified as weapons and gun ownership is for sport or professional reasons. This is the case in most Western democracies and it affects not just the law-abiding citizen but the criminal. Not only do less people own guns but less criminals use guns (it is hard to be sure if they own them or not). Changing the law to limit who can own a gun can contribute to this culture but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Famously most households in Switzerland own guns, but they do not have a gun culture. There are many reasons for this (one is the law against carrying a loaded weapon in public) but clearly a limit on gun ownership was not necessary. The UK famously banned hand-gun ownership in response to Dunblane in the late 90s but it did not have an effect on the use of handguns in crimes until it was enforced with police operations against gangs in the mid-2000s. The law by itself was not sufficient. If the US wants to reduce its homicide rate (which is still four times almost all other comparable countries) then you would think that a similar cultural change would at least be worth researching - but it seems to be an absolute taboo to even investigate gun control in some circles.markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Hi William J. Murray, Thank you for your comment. You write:
You cite Japan as a country that is almost free from gun violence. Do you think the Yakuza have guns? Do you not think the Yakuza use their guns to make sure people do what they want? Do you not think that it is in the Yakuza’s best interests to strictly control the flow of illegal weapons into Japan?
Actually, I happen to live just down the street from some yakuza. Seriously. The house has a high wall and security cameras, but the owners are very quiet people, and you seldom see them. Back in the 1980s, there was quite a bit of violence among warring yakuza crime gangs, but it's much less common now, as public intolerance for that kind of violence has grown. My wife (who is Japanese) tells me that the yakuza have been hounded out of many neighborhoods by irate local residents. These days, they try to keep a low profile. You mentioned yakuza ownership of guns. The price of a handgun sold on the black market has recently risen from $2,500 to $10,000, as gang tensions have risen, but when the yakuza do fight, they usually fight each other, and they tend to leave ordinary people alone. I might also mention that the entire country of Japan had just 35 cases of firearm shootings in 2010. I don't know of anyone in Japan who would like to see firearms legally available. I should add that I always feel perfectly safe walking the streets of Japan at night, no matter what the hour. Children commonly ride the trains unaccompanied, as late as 10 p.m., as they go home from cram schools. I've met Western women who tell me that they feel safer walking the streets of Japan at night than they do when walking the streets in their home countries. I can think of one more reason why I would not want guns to become legally available in Japan: the suicide rate, which is at least 50% higher than America's, although considerably lower than South Korea's. Most suicides are by hanging or overdoses - or occasionally, jumping in front of trains (which held the Tokaido line trains up for an hour this afternoon). Ready availability of guns would likely increase the number of suicides. If Japan wants to minimize the loss of human life, then a continued ban on guns would be a wise idea.vjtorley
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
markf:
This justification fascinates me because it is a materialist justification based on the physical process of development.
No, it isn't a materialist justification as materialism cannot account for humans nor development. You lose, again.
Immaterial concepts such as the soul do not come into it.
Cuz you say so?Virgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
vjtorley @ 24 - What you suggest is, frankly, horrendous. Forcing people with mental illness to be tracked comes close to criminalising illness (would you do the same for someone taking antibiotics?). It would also have a detrimental effect on uptake of treatment. People with mental illness are vulnerable, and often have trust issues (that can become outright paranoia), so it can be difficult to get them to come forward for treatment. Telling them they have to be tagged if they want treatment is a quick and easy way to destroy any trust that has been built up. The net result will be the opposite of what you suggest: fewer people with mental health issues will be treated.Bob O'H
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
VJT said:
The true picture of what happened still eludes us. Actually, the “no more baby parts” comment strikes me as decidedly fishy: it’s just too pat. Something does not smell right.
Exactly my reaction. As far as gun control, I'm not sure how you think decreasing the scope of who can legally own guns will prevent crazies or young adults from getting their hands on guns and using them. You cite Japan as a country that is almost free from gun violence. Do you think the Yakuza have guns? Do you not think the Yakuza use their guns to make sure people do what they want? Do you not think that it is in the Yakuza's best interests to strictly control the flow of illegal weapons into Japan? Perhaps the reason there is no gun violence in Japan is precisely because ordinary people are prevented from acquiring guns by a sort of de facto partnership of government and Yakuza to keep guns away from ordinary citizens, leaving them entirely at the mercy of people in power, but governmental and the Japanese mafia. Is that a position you want to be in, as an ordinary citizen? Is reduced gun violence worth anything you have to give up, including the capacity to defy to the death the demands of a local branch of the underworld or corrupt government officials? Freedom and safety. The more of one you get, the less of the other you have.William J Murray
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
"Abortion is murder for the simple fact that the entire life cycle is a developmental process that starts at conception" This justification fascinates me because it is a materialist justification based on the physical process of development. Immaterial concepts such as the soul do not come into it. For those that are dualists isn't the presence of the immaterial self what matters?markf
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
jokehalfass:
Every life may begin at conception, but not all conceptions end up with a living, breathing human.
And not all deaths are murders. However abortion is murder in the same sense as a homicide.Virgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
"Abortion is murder for the simple fact that the entire life cycle is a developmental process that starts at conception." Every life may begin at conception, but not all conceptions end up with a living, breathing human. Even if we remove abortion from the equation.joehalfgallon
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Abortion is murder for the simple fact that the entire life cycle is a developmental process that starts at conception.Virgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply