Defending Human Value: The Foundation of Personhood

Devotional

Day 1: The Inherent Value of Every Human Being

Society often confuses human value with human function, leading to the dehumanization of certain groups. Historically, racists and Nazis used arbitrary standards to justify mistreatment. Today, pro-choice advocates use criteria like development and dependency to deny the unborn their personhood. This confusion undermines the inherent value of every human being. By understanding that our value is intrinsic and not based on our abilities or functions, we can better appreciate the worth of every individual, regardless of their stage of development or condition. This perspective challenges us to see and treat all people with the dignity they deserve. [00:31]

Psalm 139:13-14 (ESV): "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well."

Reflection: Think of a group or individual in society who is often devalued or marginalized. How can you actively show them the inherent value they possess as God's creation today?

Day 2: The Flaws in Functional Criteria for Personhood

Pro-choice advocates propose various litmus tests for personhood, such as self-awareness and consciousness. However, these criteria are inconsistent and fail to justify why they should determine human value. For example, infants and people in comas do not meet these criteria, yet we do not consider it morally acceptable to kill them. This inconsistency reveals the flawed nature of using functional criteria to determine personhood. By recognizing these flaws, we can better advocate for the protection of all human life, regardless of its current state of function. [03:00]

Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV): "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Reflection: Reflect on a time when you or someone you know was judged based on abilities or functions. How can you shift your perspective to see and affirm the intrinsic value in yourself and others?

Day 3: The Subjectivity of Viability

Viability is an ever-changing standard dependent on medical technology, making it a subjective and unreliable basis for human rights. Grounding rights in such arbitrary functions ultimately destroys the concept of human equality, as it implies that rights vary among individuals. This subjectivity challenges us to find a more consistent and justifiable basis for human rights that does not fluctuate with technological advancements. By doing so, we can uphold the principle of human equality more effectively. [05:59]

Isaiah 44:2 (ESV): "Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen."

Reflection: Consider how advancements in technology have changed societal views on personhood and rights. How can you advocate for a consistent standard of human rights that upholds equality for all?

Day 4: The Inconsistency of Desire-Based Rights

Some argue that rights are based on desires, claiming that if the unborn do not have desires, they do not have rights. This argument fails when applied to suicidally depressed individuals or Buddhists seeking nirvana, who also lack desires. This inconsistency reveals the flawed nature of desire-based rights. By understanding these inconsistencies, we can better defend the rights of those who may not currently express desires but still possess inherent value. [04:44]

Job 31:15 (ESV): "Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?"

Reflection: Think about a time when your own desires were not aligned with your inherent value. How can you remind yourself and others that our worth is not based on our current desires or feelings?

Day 5: The Consistent Basis for Human Rights

The only consistent and justifiable basis for human rights is our shared human nature, which begins at conception. This foundation upholds the principle of human equality, as it is the one thing we all have in common. Grounding rights in anything else leads to inequality and dehumanization. By recognizing our shared human nature as the basis for rights, we can better advocate for the protection and dignity of all human beings from conception onward. [10:49]

Galatians 1:15 (ESV): "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace."

Reflection: Reflect on the concept of shared human nature. How can you incorporate this understanding into your daily interactions and advocacy for human rights?

Sermon Summary

### Summary

In today's sermon, we explored the profound and often contentious issue of human value and personhood. We began by examining how society often confuses human value with human function, leading to the dehumanization of certain groups. Historically, racists used arbitrary standards like skin color and IQ to justify the mistreatment of African Americans. Similarly, Nazis used religion and appearance to dehumanize Jews. Today, pro-choice advocates use criteria such as level of development, environment, and dependency to deny the unborn their personhood.

We delved into the various litmus tests for personhood that pro-choice advocates propose, such as self-awareness, consciousness, desires, ability to feel pain, and viability. Each of these criteria was scrutinized and found lacking. For instance, infants are not self-aware until months after birth, and people in comas are not conscious, yet we do not consider it morally acceptable to kill them. Similarly, the argument that the unborn do not have desires or cannot feel pain was debunked by comparing them to suicidally depressed individuals and people with congenital analgesia, respectively.

The concept of viability was also critiqued as a subjective and ever-changing standard, dependent on medical technology. This led to the conclusion that grounding human rights in such arbitrary functions ultimately destroys the concept of human equality. If rights are based on functions that vary among individuals, then rights themselves become unequal.

We concluded by emphasizing that the only consistent and justifiable basis for human rights is our shared human nature, which begins at the moment of conception. This is the only foundation that can uphold the principle of human equality, as it is the one thing we all have in common.

###

Key Takeaways

1. choice advocates use criteria like development and dependency to deny the unborn their personhood. This confusion undermines the inherent value of every human being. [00:31]
2. Flawed Litmus Tests for Personhood: Pro-choice advocates propose various litmus tests for personhood, such as self-awareness and consciousness. However, these criteria are inconsistent and fail to justify why they should determine human value. For example, infants and people in comas do not meet these criteria, yet we do not consider it morally acceptable to kill them.

3. The Subjectivity of Viability: Viability is an ever-changing standard dependent on medical technology, making it a subjective and unreliable basis for human rights. Grounding rights in such arbitrary functions ultimately destroys the concept of human equality, as it implies that rights vary among individuals.

4. The Inconsistency of Desire-Based Rights: Some argue that rights are based on desires, claiming that if the unborn do not have desires, they do not have rights. This argument fails when applied to suicidally depressed individuals or Buddhists seeking nirvana, who also lack desires. This inconsistency reveals the flawed nature of desire-based rights.

5. The Only Consistent Basis for Human Rights: The only consistent and justifiable basis for human rights is our shared human nature, which begins at conception. This foundation upholds the principle of human equality, as it is the one thing we all have in common. Grounding rights in anything else leads to inequality and dehumanization.

### [00:31]

Youtube Chapters

[00:00] - Welcome
[00:31] - Human Value vs. Human Function
[01:08] - Historical Litmus Tests for Personhood
[01:50] - Arbitrary Standards and Dehumanization
[02:25] - Modern Litmus Tests for the Unborn
[03:00] - Self-Awareness and Consciousness
[03:43] - The Inconsistency of Consciousness
[04:14] - Desire-Based Rights
[04:44] - The Flaws in Desire-Based Arguments
[05:21] - Ability to Feel Pain
[05:59] - The Subjectivity of Viability
[06:38] - Dependency and Viability
[07:16] - Dependency in Born Individuals
[07:43] - The Inconsistency of Functional Criteria
[08:20] - Arbitrary Functions and Human Value
[08:45] - The Destruction of Human Equality
[09:20] - Abraham Lincoln's Argument
[10:49] - The Only Consistent Basis for Human Rights

Bible Study Guide

Observation Questions

According to Genesis 1:27, what is the basis for human value and equality?
In Psalm 139:13-16, how does the psalmist describe God's involvement in the creation of human life?
What does Jeremiah 1:5 reveal about God's knowledge and purpose for individuals even before birth?
How does the sermon illustrate the inconsistency of using functions like self-awareness and consciousness as criteria for personhood? [03:00]

Interpretation Questions

How does grounding human rights in our shared human nature, as described in Genesis 1:27, support the principle of human equality? [10:49]
What are the implications of Psalm 139:13-16 for the argument that human value is based on development or dependency?
How does Jeremiah 1:5 challenge the idea that personhood begins at a certain level of development or viability?
Why does the sermon argue that using arbitrary functions to determine personhood ultimately destroys the concept of human equality? [09:20]

Application Questions

Reflect on Genesis 1:27. How does recognizing that all humans are made in the image of God influence your view on issues of human rights and equality?
Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of being "fearfully and wonderfully made." How can this understanding shape your interactions with others, especially those who are marginalized or dehumanized in society?
Jeremiah 1:5 emphasizes God's purpose for individuals even before birth. How can this perspective affect your stance on the value of unborn life?
The sermon critiques the use of self-awareness and consciousness as criteria for personhood. How can you apply this understanding in conversations about the value of life at all stages? [03:00]
Considering the sermon’s argument against desire-based rights, how can you advocate for the inherent value of individuals who may not express desires, such as those in comas or with severe disabilities? [04:44]
The concept of viability is described as subjective and ever-changing. How can you support a consistent and objective basis for human rights in your community? [05:59]
Reflect on the sermon’s conclusion that human rights should be grounded in our shared human nature. How can you promote this view in discussions about human equality and justice? [10:49]

Sermon Clips

1. "So what happens when being human is not enough to ground your rights? Well, then the high priests of secular progressivism and the elite class, the political class, they get to determine the litmus test for personhood. In 1850, that litmus test was IQ and skin color. Those were the number one arguments of racists. The Democratic Party said that blacks had the wrong skin color and they were stupider. Those were their primary arguments." [00:31] (24 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

2. "They begin to come up with cognitive abilities or functions that they say you must meet in order to be a person. But they don't create these categories just accidentally. They create them with the foreknowledge and express intention of justifying the mistreatment of the unborn. Here's what I mean by this. Do you think racists actually believed that it was skin color that was decisive in human value? They didn't actually believe that." [01:08] (25 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

3. "So pro-lifers do the same thing, pro-choicers do the same thing to the unborn today. So they say you must be capable of these functions to be a person. And not ironically, the unborn does not meet these functions. So they are self-awareness, consciousness, desires, ability to feel pain, and viability. Okay, let's go through them briefly. Oh, you can kill babies because they're not self-aware. That's what they say." [02:25] (24 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

4. "The unborn doesn't know that they're being aborted. They're not aware of their own existence. So it's fine. That's my litmus test. That's my litmus test for personhood. Okay, very well, did you know the most recent scientific evidence has shown that infants are not self-aware until months after birth? Meaning they're not aware of themselves as a unique individual that's never existed before and will never exist again." [03:00] (18 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

5. "What about consciousness? Oh, the unborn's not conscious, right? Well, neither are our loved ones when they're in a coma. Can we slit their throat? In fact, what if you're in the waiting room with your family having that hard conversation about whether to remove life support or not because grandpa's in a coma, and then I sneak into the room and I slit his throat beforehand? I guess I haven't done anything wrong, right? Right, pro-choicer?" [03:43] (21 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

6. "What about ability to feel pain? The baby doesn't know it's being suctioned or having its limbs ripped off its body. Well, actually, the most recent science of neural pain has suggested that the unborn child responds to stimuli as early as seven or eight weeks. And then by 18 weeks, they're fully capable of experiencing pain at the same level of you and I. So when you kill an 18-week unborn child, it is as painful to them as if I ripped your limbs off your body." [05:21] (22 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

7. "We can kill unborn children through abortion because they're not viable. Now, viability, if you don't know, is this ridiculous subjective term that refers to when the child can survive outside the womb. Problem is, that changes every few years because we develop medical technology that enables us to make unborn children able to survive outside the womb. And the earliest baby to have survived, born, alive, went home healthy, 21 weeks and zero days." [05:59] (24 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

8. "Now, of course, the pro-choicer never explains why these functions are value-giving in the first place. This is an important point. They never explain why the possession of viability, self-awareness, consciousness, desires, they never explain why the possession of those functions grant value in the first place. They just assume that it's those functions. But why those functions? Why not the ability to multiply? Why not the ability to play violin? Those are my new litmus tests for personhood pro-choice." [07:43] (31 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

9. "Lastly, if you grant this premise, remember, that they confuse human value with human function, if you grant this premise that you're only valuable based on your functions and utility and what you can provide to others rather than who you are, a human being, if you grant that premise, human equality is destroyed. We're not even equal anymore. If you grant that premise, you don't just dehumanize the unborn, you dehumanize all human beings." [08:45] (25 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

10. "So if you don't ground rights in the only thing we have in common, which is a human nature, and when did we get a human nature? When we became human. And when did we become human? The moment of conception. So it's only the pro-life position that can even maintain this idea of human equality, because it grounds our rights in the only thing we have in common." [10:49] (19 seconds) (Download raw clip | Download cropped clip)

Ask a question about this sermon

Chatbot

Transcript

What was the most surprising thing in this sermon?

Were there any personal stories shared?