Rob, it is not satire. The authors are demonically serious. You are correct in your conclusion. If we can willy-nilly define any other human being as a non-person we are all doomed.

Are we still quite sure this wasn’t a Jonathan Swift-style effort in underlining the reasons for why late-term abortion should be considered murder? Satire, perhaps? Who actually thinks like this?

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

According to whom? What makes a person a person? There is only a stark assertion here without explanation. If a newborn fetus is not a person because it lacks cognitive abilities, could the same not be said of those with Alzheimers, mental retardation or any other mental disease or illness?

Tyler, since your post appears to be a reply to mine. Where do you see that I am “thundering against reason”? That is just the opposite of my intent. Reason has to be subjected to God’s goverance just as every other aspect of our fallen being. It takes sacrifice and humility to willing harness one’s reason to God. Only the greatest of intellects are able to achieve, or perhaps the greatness of their intellect is simply the fruit of their humility.

Anyone who claims to be Orthodox Chrisitan and assumes a stance of anti-reason does not understand the Church.

Tyler, too funny– especially since in the Baptism service specifically everyone is to be a ‘reasoning sheep of Christ’s flock’!

It is always amusing when someone thunders against reason using reason; for example “we cannot trust reason”. We are asked to assume that THIS statement is to be trusted. If it is true that reason is corrupt and cannot aim at truth, then the best one can do is to be silent before any assertion or claim, and join a monastery away from the world. (Yet even then, our reasons have an uncanny tenacity to aim at truth…)

You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born

The Didache, A.D. 70

‘Nuff said.

I take Fr Seraphim’s words in this sense: that the individual human mind and its tendenacy to elevate itself to kingly status must be submitted to the will of God and His love in all things, in all thoughts and in all efforts. Seems akin to crucifixion to me: “….Thy will, not mine be done…”

This is espeically true for someone like Fr. Seraphim who came from a culture in which the individual mind was elevated to an especially high level and contrarian thinking was often rewarded. It was one of the reaons, I think, that Fr. Seraphim said so strongly that it is not just the words of the Fathers we must know, but we must take on the mind of the Fathers. The sacafice of the autonomous individual for the person in communion with Christ and in the Body of Christ is never easy. The nilhist spirit of our age is always calling to us to be separate, to think our own thoughts, to do what seems good to us and gives us pleasure, ease and satisfaction.

When I was in high school, I was in a George Bernard Shaw play, Caesar & Cleopatra . That was during a time when God was leading me (as I look back) to Himself. My character was Caesar’s slave, a man from Britan. At the end of the play Ceasar frees him but my character decides to continue to serve Caesar anyway by saying, “Only as Caesar’s slave have I known true freedom”. I have always associated that with our interrelationship with God–even then at age 16.

All obedience is initially a crucifixion but, in God, it always leads to new life and greater freedom.

….Someone has been working on his Lenten sermons!

The scriptures say to make all thoughts captive to Christ. I’m not so sure the mind can be “crucified.”

WRT “Human logic and “thought” is not fallen and is to be relied upon, above everything.”, this is actually the Protestant understanding which has been condemned as heresy and *not* the Orthodox or Catholic understanding. So what is? This link explains both the Orthodox and Catholic positions accurately:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

The key reason so much of the modern world has gone insane is that its logic is no longer founded on God and is now founded on man, and since man without God is dead, the logic of modern man is the logic of death.

What Blessed Father Seraphim Rose, meant by “I realized that I must first crucify my mind.” was not that he had to become irrational like the Sufi Nasrudin or nonrational like Zen Buddhist Monks. Quite the contrary, what he meant was that he had to crucify his mind so that Christ could raise it up on the 3rd day and his mind could live.

The presuppositions (as I see them):

1. Human logic and “thought” is not fallen and is to be relied upon, above everything. This lies in stark contrast with our Eastern Orthodox frame of reference, which understands and acknowledges that our own logic and “thought” are part of our fallen humanity, and thus even our own logic may not always be trusted. Everything, including human logic, must be saved by Christ. I recall the famous words of Blessed Father Seraphim Rose, when he became a monastic: “I realized that I must first crucify my mind.”

We see from this ridiculous “bioethics” discussion that human logic can lead us anywhere. It’s high time our culture quit placing such heavy emphasis on logical thought and more emphasis on the heart — though this is a difficult task in post-Christian western society.

2. The super-individualism of western society is taken as a given in the authors’ point of view. “….Then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford” then authors write. It’s as if it is assumed that there would be no caring hearts, no generosity from others in helping those who are in difficult financial circumstances. Rugged individualism is presumed, that people are on their own in life with no help from others.

So sad that this stuff passes as appropriate to be published in an academic journal. And what is even more sad is how many people who do not have the understanding or moral underpinnings or human compassion to deal with this garbage when they read it fall victim to the “logical analysis” that is presented and then believe it?

I’d be curious to hear Tristam Englehardt’s response to this (he is, if I am correct, a very prominent bioethicist who is also an Orthodox Christian).

A blessed and fruitful Lent to all.