RE: new abortion quiz

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is the objection against using this type of physical evidence to indicate the nature of what is being observed? It was the invention of the ultrasound that prompted Dr. Bernard Nathanson to reverse his view on abortion---after being involved in tens of thousands abortions. You want to sanitize the data so that the subject becomes a philosophical game for self-appointed ethicists. If you have a weak stomach, then you should not look. Abortionists are fully aware of their wretched minds and with the use of RU-486 will bring the destruction of life closer to conception in an attempt to conceal their murderous acts.

Moorad

________________________________

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wed 10/13/2004 6:13 PM
To: BundrickD@evangel.edu
Cc: Alexanian, Moorad; lcameron@apa.org; sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: new abortion quiz

David,
If I accept your statements, ethical matters are to be settled irrationally, despite your protestation. Where did I say that the scientific method is the final arbiter? that it alone is rational? It cannot decide ethical matters, or theological. The best it can do is describe how people act, not how they should act. Where do you get the idea that I reject revelation as authoritative? Are you saying that "theological/moral principles" are irrational? You contrast them with reason.
 
What I began with is that Moorad shouldn't try to settle an ethical matter by turning stomachs. That is what is happening with TV broadcasts of the terrorists sawing off heads in Iraq. Sheila was trying to establish discourse, that is, rational discussion. Her attempt mirrors what is essential in theology, ethics, government, et al. If one does not reasonably organize the data from revelation, the result is schism, heresy or worse. On the other hand, if effectiveness is the criterion, few matters are superior to the /argumentum ad baculum/.
 
Let me continue my lecture on logic with what I call Premise Number One because it is the basis of more arguments than any other premise I have encountered. It is a form, virtually never overtly expressed: Since you disagree with me on [fill in the item of disagreement], you are [insert any appropriate pejorative term]. Did I detect its use recently?
Dave
 
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:26:56 -0500 "Bundrick, David" <BundrickD@evangel.edu> writes:

        From my perspective, Dave, a major difficulty is represented by your claim that ethical decisions are to be made rationally. Certainly rationality is an important component in ethical decision-making, and that is (I believe) part of the imago dei (Isaiah 1:18: "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord").
         
        So obviously, decisions should not be made irrationally. But I would question your (apparent) presupposition that reason (or the scientific method) rules absolute (trumps everything else) in making ethical decisions. I do not believe that to be consistent with a Christian worldview based on Scripture.
         
        I believe we would do well to follow the principle of complementarity and make these tough ethical decisions on the basis of an understanding (as complete as possible) of both science/reason and theological/moral principles. One should be able (in fact, obligated) to consider experience--including the understanding and (likely emotional) viewing of the abortion process, for example--as an important component of such ethical decision-making.
         
        Perhaps we are really on the same page. I have not been able to track the complete listserv discussion on this matter, and apologize if I have therefore missed salient points of the friendly debate.
         
        David Bundrick
Received on Wed Oct 13 19:36:10 2004