Correspondance with a Chicago Radio Pastor
Dear Illinois Leader,
I am a Transhumanist. Scott Thomas was incorrect to write in his column of Wednesday, December 1 that Transhumanists hold humans to be of equal worth with microprocessors or sheep. They are not as sentient as humans. Embryos, however, are single-celled organisms that have not even become fetuses yet, much less people. The tissues used for stem-cell research have the potential to grow human minds if they are allowed to do so. But if not, they remain empty tissues. An early fetus is not a person because the lights are not yet on and no-one is home. The onset of consciousness is the onset of human rights. It is morally incompetent to preserve potential people at the expense of existing people.
-Matt Arnold, Oak Park Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt,
What is morally incompetent is creating human life, solely to destroy it, in hopes of altering human life.
Your moral compass points south. If, as you state, "The onset of consciousness is the onset of human rights", then please tell me the exact moment the onset of consciousness universally takes place. Has a 1 year old infant, still oblivious to the dangers of crawling up on a table, reached the onset of consciousness? Has a one week old baby that smiles when I make a stupid face reached the onset of consciousness. Has a 6 month old human fetus, reacting to a needle probing its body by flinching, reached the onset of consciousness? If no, then when is the magic, universally recognized, moment of the onset of consciousness? If yes, same question, except from a standpoint of how far back, towar the embryo, do we go before we know that exact moment? Does it differ from human life to human life? And, once gained, can one lose his or her consciousness and, therefore, be of diminished value to the transhumanist? And, like the onset of consciousness, when is the universally accepted moment of losing it?
My morality says, we don't know the exact answer to any of those, therefore, the only moral thing to do is assume the extreme until PROVEN otherwise. That is not only the competent approach, but the only consistent approach.
As I stated in the column, mine is a Christian worldview. The Bible tells me that, while in the womb, John (later to be John the Bapatist) lept inside his mother (Elizabeth) when Mary (Mother of Jesus) entered the room, pregnant with Jesus for less than 8 days. From God's perspective, a human being (John) recognized another human being (Jesus), while both were pre-born.
So, from a Christian worldview, my morality is right on the button. Your response shows me a Spiritual incompetence. I'll pray that changes in your life.
Scott Thomas
Afternoon Host
AM 1160 - WYLL Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas,
thank you for sending a personal reply. I understand your concerns, since I am the son of a pastor. Early in life I became a born-again Christian by choice and conviction, although you know I came to different convictions in my adult life. I acknowledge that you want society to be safe in our decisions and you have admirable good intentions, as I did at that time.
Thank you specifically for asking such important questions in your letter. I'm pleased to report that scientific instrumentation verifies that in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other features that an embryo lacks, the lights are on and somebody's home. Did you not know we have the ability to detect the onset of brain waves and even the ability of third-trimester fetuses to learn? You and I agree that a nine-inch trip down the birth canal is not what bestows personhood. Even though the answer to your question is more of a months-long window than a single universal instant, that window has an obvious beginning and end: how can there be thoughts in an organism without brain cells?
This is why one may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person, as call a human embryo a person. If we are to take the path you advise, we would have to extend human rights to sperms and eggs. They are not from a different species. They are not dead. That makes them "human life," but life in the biological and not biographical sense. If conception is the onset of personhood, why is it that an embryo will just sit there and become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall? They can be kept in a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
Your example of an infant is very helpful to my case. As a father, you would surely agree that your infant can not rightfully claim the full human right of freedom. Human parents grant independence gradually through the teenage years. So you are already used to the idea that human rights come in degrees with age. An organism that has not yet grown its first brain cell is not capable of choosing, feeling, thinking, loving, suffering, and desiring. Only people can do that.
This proves that the excerpt you cite from the bible is legendary embroidery. I can't recall from memory of my bible studies and bible college whether or not John the Baptist was even far enough along in pregnancy to have developed limbs to jump with. I understand, from personal experience, that when one's idiosyncratic and arbitrary choice of which holy book to place one's faith in is called into question, this is an instant thought-stopper for a person of faith. I wonder what you would do if you were confronted with a Muslim, a Jew, or a Hindu who would quote their own holy book back at you as a thought stopper and telling you they would pray for you? It's really enough to make me weep when I think about humans not employing the only interface they have-- reasoning with each other. I'm sorry for my choice of phrase "moral incompetence" which obviously has hurt your feelings. Nevertheless, ethics is a skill of observation and reasoning, like arithmetic. And like a mathematical illiterate who only uses a calculator, you exempt yourself from having to practice moral reasoning by getting it out of a book. I really can't describe it any other way.
-Matt
Comments
sothisislife on Dec. 6, 2004 5:43 PM
It irritates me when people say things like "The bible tells me that..." it makes me want to say "Well that's great that you lead your life according to a book that was written two thousand years ago by people who would be considered wacko cult members by today's standards, but the bible does not tell me what to do. I make my own choices and opinions."
wormquartet on Dec. 7, 2004 12:17 PM — Not just that...
It's citing the bible as a substitute for proof that bothers me....and claiming that someone who doesn't share his views is "Spiritually incompetent." Scientific evidence trumps your storybook, buddy...
-=ShoEboX=-
cosette-valjean on Dec. 6, 2004 7:25 PM — Wow.
Why even bother communicating with such a person who is not honest enough to think for himself says things like "I'll pray for you." Yuck.
matt-arnold on Dec. 7, 2004 12:41 PM — Re: Wow.
The interesting thing I've noticed about "I'll pray for you" is that this is how one closes a conversation when one's flavor of religion does not allow one to say an obscenity and give the finger. It's secret code for that. :) Because "I'll pray for you" is just a way to express contempt, it's unnecessary to make good on this promise for every heretic infidel they meet. Who has that kind of time? A good response is, "No you won't. Not really."
cosette-valjean on Dec. 7, 2004 12:56 PM — Re: Wow.
Yep, secret christian profanity..... Of course, you remember the types of people who felt they had to honor those statements and covered all infidels with a blanket prayer. "God will understand." They tell themselves. Ugh!!!
twoofdtm on Dec. 7, 2004 2:34 PM — Re: Wow.
One of my best friends does the same thing. I think when she does it for me though it's not the snubby snap so much as her way of saying I love you. Which is really odd. She know's I don't really expect her to or that I really think she'll do any good if she does but it makes her feel better so I let her ya know?
renniekins on Dec. 6, 2004 8:27 PM
Interesting. It's a shame, because his argument started out sounding reasoned and logical, before deteriorating into Bible-thumping. Can't wait to hear his response, if any.
Anonymous on Dec. 7, 2004 7:51 AM — Great dialogue
Hey, Matt, this is Paul Perdue -- I've been reading your blog for awhile and I enjoy it. The dialogue is a good one. Keep it up!
matt-arnold on Dec. 7, 2004 11:11 AM — Re: Great dialogue
Thanks, Paul! It means a lot coming from you.
brendand on May. 7, 2005 1:56 AM
I *LOVE* this.
matt-arnold on May. 7, 2005 3:32 PM
Thanks! Did you go to the following four LJ posts and read the rest of it?
brendand on May. 9, 2005 3:15 AM
No, I didn't. I'll have to do that sometime...
bardicwench on May. 7, 2005 2:20 AM
I love your response to him, Matt... though I fully expect him NOT to reply to you, since he won't be able to come up with anything that to contradict you other than "The Bible Says..."
matt-arnold on May. 7, 2005 3:30 PM
Shay, he did reply. Check out the next few posts in my livejournal after this one. The entire exchange is there.
Leave a Comment