Appeals to the miraculous are common in healthcare, and arguments about end-of-life decision-making can quickly become theological. Assessments of hope have been recommended within the biopsychosocialspiritual model of medicine, but these assessments fail to account for the theological dimension of hope. Examples of failed assessments include recent efforts in palliative care and classic works, such as On Death and Dying by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. To adequately address the patient’s and family members’ hopes without patronizing or harming the patient, assessments must be done by a person trained in theology.
在医疗保健领域，对奇迹的诉求很常见，而关于临终决策的争论很快就会变得神学化。生物-心理-社会-精神医学模式建议对希望进行评估，但这些评估未能考虑到希望的神学维度。失败评估的例子包括最近在姑息治疗方面所做的努力以及经典著作，如伊丽莎白-库伯勒-罗斯（Elisabeth Kübler-Ross）的《论死亡与临终》（On Death and Dying）。为了在不袒护或伤害病人的情况下充分满足病人和家属的希望，评估工作必须由受过神学训练的人来完成。
{"title":"A Theological Framework for Understanding Hope in the Clinic","authors":"Andrea Thornton","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbae012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbae012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Appeals to the miraculous are common in healthcare, and arguments about end-of-life decision-making can quickly become theological. Assessments of hope have been recommended within the biopsychosocialspiritual model of medicine, but these assessments fail to account for the theological dimension of hope. Examples of failed assessments include recent efforts in palliative care and classic works, such as On Death and Dying by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. To adequately address the patient’s and family members’ hopes without patronizing or harming the patient, assessments must be done by a person trained in theology.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"44 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141924113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay explores the contemporary experiences of women who live with pain, given the complex responses they encounter within Western medical systems, including pervasive stigma, bias, clinician disbelief, and poor health outcomes. In response to these realities, as highlighted within recent literature and exemplified in a first-person account provided by the paper’s author, this essay explores the Christian practice of the Stations of the Cross as a faithful response to women living with pain. The Stations provide a distinctive Christian practice that invites women living with pain, as well as their clinicians and loved ones, into faithful care marked by prayer, solidarity, and hospitable listening. Practicing the Stations provides one faithful response that Christian clinicians and those who live with pain might engage in the clinic and beyond.
{"title":"Responding Faithfully to Women’s Pain: Practicing the Stations of the Cross","authors":"Sarah Barton","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This essay explores the contemporary experiences of women who live with pain, given the complex responses they encounter within Western medical systems, including pervasive stigma, bias, clinician disbelief, and poor health outcomes. In response to these realities, as highlighted within recent literature and exemplified in a first-person account provided by the paper’s author, this essay explores the Christian practice of the Stations of the Cross as a faithful response to women living with pain. The Stations provide a distinctive Christian practice that invites women living with pain, as well as their clinicians and loved ones, into faithful care marked by prayer, solidarity, and hospitable listening. Practicing the Stations provides one faithful response that Christian clinicians and those who live with pain might engage in the clinic and beyond.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124562607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eliminating pain is problematic when it comes to caring for people with disabilities or chronic pain. This paper locates the drive to completely eliminate pain as a project of the Enlightenment and contrasts it with the tradition of interpreting suffering throughout the Christian tradition. I introduce Jane Austen’s novel Mansfield Park as a way to continue the tradition of interpretative suffering after the Enlightenment. Using textual analysis of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, I demonstrate how the novel’s heroine, Fanny Price, is able to resist the drive to eliminate pain through her contemplative reflection on suffering which allows her to participate in right relationships with others and God. Finally, I offer twenty-first century applications of Mansfield Park by addressing changes we can make in the church and the clinic to understand better the role pain plays in Christian life and community.
{"title":"Responding to People in Pain with Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park","authors":"Jaime Konerman-Sease","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Eliminating pain is problematic when it comes to caring for people with disabilities or chronic pain. This paper locates the drive to completely eliminate pain as a project of the Enlightenment and contrasts it with the tradition of interpreting suffering throughout the Christian tradition. I introduce Jane Austen’s novel Mansfield Park as a way to continue the tradition of interpretative suffering after the Enlightenment. Using textual analysis of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, I demonstrate how the novel’s heroine, Fanny Price, is able to resist the drive to eliminate pain through her contemplative reflection on suffering which allows her to participate in right relationships with others and God. Finally, I offer twenty-first century applications of Mansfield Park by addressing changes we can make in the church and the clinic to understand better the role pain plays in Christian life and community.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133559190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I argue here that the ways we experience, think about, and treat pain are bound up with sociocultural and technological phenomena that shape our desires and expectations. I propose a way of imagining caring for and offering healing to those who suffer pain informed by the Christian theological tradition. This way does not aspire to replace the care and healing made possible by modern medicine, but rather to place it within the common life of a community of mutual love, hospitality, and reciprocal care.
{"title":"Reclaiming Broken Bodies (or, This Is Gonna Hurt Some): Pain, Healing, and the Opioid Crisis","authors":"J. Shuman","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 I argue here that the ways we experience, think about, and treat pain are bound up with sociocultural and technological phenomena that shape our desires and expectations. I propose a way of imagining caring for and offering healing to those who suffer pain informed by the Christian theological tradition. This way does not aspire to replace the care and healing made possible by modern medicine, but rather to place it within the common life of a community of mutual love, hospitality, and reciprocal care.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126093086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The medicalization of risk rests on foundational assumptions shared by economics and public health. Economists, however, think in terms of pursuing an array of goods, and hence, they offer useful critiques of the irrationality involved in trying to subordinate all goods to one narrow good, like avoiding death from a particular disease. Many of our approaches to health do not appear to be fully rational, suggesting that the deeper motivation lying behind our concerns about health are to be found in something other than the impulse to extend human lives as much as possible. This paper draws on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas to sketch a richer way of thinking about the goods we pursue in health care that can help us to avoid the pitfalls associated with the medicalization of risk.
风险的医疗化依赖于经济学和公共卫生共同的基本假设。然而，经济学家从追求一系列利益的角度进行思考，因此，他们对试图将所有利益从属于一种狭隘利益(比如避免死于某种特定疾病)的非理性行为提出了有益的批评。我们对待健康的许多方法似乎并不完全合理，这表明，我们对健康的关注背后更深层的动机是除了尽可能延长人类寿命的冲动之外的其他东西。本文借鉴圣托马斯·阿奎那(St. Thomas Aquinas)的神学思想，以一种更丰富的方式思考我们在医疗保健中追求的好处，这可以帮助我们避免与风险医疗化相关的陷阱。
{"title":"Health Care in Service of Life: Preventative Medicine in Light of the Analogia Entis","authors":"Mary L. Hirschfeld","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The medicalization of risk rests on foundational assumptions shared by economics and public health. Economists, however, think in terms of pursuing an array of goods, and hence, they offer useful critiques of the irrationality involved in trying to subordinate all goods to one narrow good, like avoiding death from a particular disease. Many of our approaches to health do not appear to be fully rational, suggesting that the deeper motivation lying behind our concerns about health are to be found in something other than the impulse to extend human lives as much as possible. This paper draws on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas to sketch a richer way of thinking about the goods we pursue in health care that can help us to avoid the pitfalls associated with the medicalization of risk.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124115059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As a way forward in assessing how the Old Testament wisdom tradition might speak to decisions in a modern medical context, in this paper, I propose exploring the iconographic function of the “tree of life” in the Old Testament, which is consistently associated with both wisdom as well as life and health, in order to tease out two-related issues that can help in providing a Christian theological framework for thinking about the problem of the medicalization of risk: first, how should the natural and good human desire for health and long life be framed in terms of the pursuit of wisdom? And, second, how might a sapientially formed character approach risk and uncertainty in making medical decisions? The answers to these questions help establish a framework in which more specific questions related to the medicalization of risk can be assessed. As such, this paper is deliberately programmatic and perspectival rather than prescriptive.
{"title":"The Tree of Life, Health, and Risk Through the Lens of Biblical Wisdom","authors":"Bradley C. Gregory","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As a way forward in assessing how the Old Testament wisdom tradition might speak to decisions in a modern medical context, in this paper, I propose exploring the iconographic function of the “tree of life” in the Old Testament, which is consistently associated with both wisdom as well as life and health, in order to tease out two-related issues that can help in providing a Christian theological framework for thinking about the problem of the medicalization of risk: first, how should the natural and good human desire for health and long life be framed in terms of the pursuit of wisdom? And, second, how might a sapientially formed character approach risk and uncertainty in making medical decisions? The answers to these questions help establish a framework in which more specific questions related to the medicalization of risk can be assessed. As such, this paper is deliberately programmatic and perspectival rather than prescriptive.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123657850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focuses on the possibility of sin as intellectual evil as operative in the contemporaneous culture in the debate over the essential nature of marriage and the accomplishment of the ends of marriage. It presents an account of theology as a science and the application of this understanding and its canons of operation to the issues presented in two recent documents—the Statement of the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research and the Affirmation of the Church’s Teaching on the Gift of Sexuality, each of which addresses the encyclical Humanae vitae on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The paper concludes with an examination of the essential nature of marriage to guide the fulfillment of its ends now described as intrinsic/essential and intrinsic/contingent.
{"title":"Sin as Intellectual Evil: Refusal of Insight in the Contemporary Debate on the Ends of Marriage","authors":"M. Hogan","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper focuses on the possibility of sin as intellectual evil as operative in the contemporaneous culture in the debate over the essential nature of marriage and the accomplishment of the ends of marriage. It presents an account of theology as a science and the application of this understanding and its canons of operation to the issues presented in two recent documents—the Statement of the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research and the Affirmation of the Church’s Teaching on the Gift of Sexuality, each of which addresses the encyclical Humanae vitae on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The paper concludes with an examination of the essential nature of marriage to guide the fulfillment of its ends now described as intrinsic/essential and intrinsic/contingent.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125157651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article discusses ways of developing bioethical guidance in the Orthodox Christian discourse. Here, “ethical” refers to what contributes to holiness, “un-ethical” refers to sin as what hinders man’s foundational calling to holiness. To explore the development of guidance for emerging bioethical issues, we use the “therapeutic” understanding of treatment for sin in two senses. (1) It refers to the spiritual means provided by the “hospital” of the Orthodox Church for healing the fallenness of human nature in general; and (2) it helps identify in particular cases both what counts as transgression of unconditional boundaries (defining what is illicit for everyone) and what is advisable in order to help particular persons to choose rightly within the area of the “more or less licit” (or “permissible”). Sources of the Orthodox faith that frame the general understanding of the boundaries between the permissible and the impermissible reflect the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church framing her Sacred (Holy) Tradition. In Holy Tradition, prayers, as communion with God, occupy a central position. This is why Orthodox moral reasoning, and thus also Orthodox bioethics, takes the form of liturgical bioethics. Penalties of excommunication determine hard boundaries that believers should not overstep: when crossing such boundaries, they enter on a spiritually dangerous path that completely distracts them away from God. Many minor sins, by contrast, have not been codified in Canons. They are not taken to remove the sinner completely from contact with the Lord. Within this realm of actions, it depends on a person’s spiritual maturity whether such actions are classified as sinful. Thus, an act can be counted merely as a small offense if committed by a beginner, while that same act can become a grave sin for an advanced believer. Due to acceleration of the technological progress, Orthodox recourse to Holy Tradition encounters ever-new challenges. There are bioethical issues that had not surfaced at the time of the Fathers of the Church. Today, Bishops gathered at a local council can supply the guidance lacking on a newly emerging bioethical problem. Even if ratified only by such local councils, the resulting decrees can also be regarded as the expression of the Holy Spirit working within a local Church and conveying His guidance. The article illustrates this source of Christian bioethics by reference to how the Russian Orthodox Church orients and develops its position on the ethics of reproductive technologies.
{"title":"Sources for Christian Bioethics: The Orthodox Discourse on Sin","authors":"R. Tarabrin, Tatiana Tarabrina","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article discusses ways of developing bioethical guidance in the Orthodox Christian discourse. Here, “ethical” refers to what contributes to holiness, “un-ethical” refers to sin as what hinders man’s foundational calling to holiness. To explore the development of guidance for emerging bioethical issues, we use the “therapeutic” understanding of treatment for sin in two senses. (1) It refers to the spiritual means provided by the “hospital” of the Orthodox Church for healing the fallenness of human nature in general; and (2) it helps identify in particular cases both what counts as transgression of unconditional boundaries (defining what is illicit for everyone) and what is advisable in order to help particular persons to choose rightly within the area of the “more or less licit” (or “permissible”). Sources of the Orthodox faith that frame the general understanding of the boundaries between the permissible and the impermissible reflect the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church framing her Sacred (Holy) Tradition. In Holy Tradition, prayers, as communion with God, occupy a central position. This is why Orthodox moral reasoning, and thus also Orthodox bioethics, takes the form of liturgical bioethics. Penalties of excommunication determine hard boundaries that believers should not overstep: when crossing such boundaries, they enter on a spiritually dangerous path that completely distracts them away from God. Many minor sins, by contrast, have not been codified in Canons. They are not taken to remove the sinner completely from contact with the Lord. Within this realm of actions, it depends on a person’s spiritual maturity whether such actions are classified as sinful. Thus, an act can be counted merely as a small offense if committed by a beginner, while that same act can become a grave sin for an advanced believer. Due to acceleration of the technological progress, Orthodox recourse to Holy Tradition encounters ever-new challenges. There are bioethical issues that had not surfaced at the time of the Fathers of the Church. Today, Bishops gathered at a local council can supply the guidance lacking on a newly emerging bioethical problem. Even if ratified only by such local councils, the resulting decrees can also be regarded as the expression of the Holy Spirit working within a local Church and conveying His guidance. The article illustrates this source of Christian bioethics by reference to how the Russian Orthodox Church orients and develops its position on the ethics of reproductive technologies.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131014403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For the sake of consistency with settled principles from other theological and ethical questions, there is a need for a Christian reexamination of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Both Old and New Testaments demonstrate that human personal life begins at conception or fertilization. Additionally, the Bible teaches that human beings are persons in the image of God from the very beginning of their existence. Thus, it can be concluded that the embryos created via IVF are persons in God’s image. Applying this to the destruction and freezing of embryos, several limitations or restrictions present themselves—embryos should not be purposefully destroyed or wasted, all embryos ought to be implanted, and embryos should not be frozen. Ultimately, however, due to the immense quantity of embryo wastage, it is concluded that Christians should avoid this form of assisted reproductive technology and consider it a pro-life issue.
{"title":"A Reexamination of In Vitro Fertilization","authors":"M. G. Muñoz","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 For the sake of consistency with settled principles from other theological and ethical questions, there is a need for a Christian reexamination of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Both Old and New Testaments demonstrate that human personal life begins at conception or fertilization. Additionally, the Bible teaches that human beings are persons in the image of God from the very beginning of their existence. Thus, it can be concluded that the embryos created via IVF are persons in God’s image. Applying this to the destruction and freezing of embryos, several limitations or restrictions present themselves—embryos should not be purposefully destroyed or wasted, all embryos ought to be implanted, and embryos should not be frozen. Ultimately, however, due to the immense quantity of embryo wastage, it is concluded that Christians should avoid this form of assisted reproductive technology and consider it a pro-life issue.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114322949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While the traditional Christian teaching opposing abortion has been relatively unanimous until the twentieth century, it has been claimed in more recent decades that certain Biblical passages support the view that the fetus, or unborn child, has a lesser moral status than a born child, in a way that might support the permissibility of abortion. In this paper, I address the foremost three texts used to argue this point: Genesis 2:7; Exodus 21:22–25; and Numbers 5:11–31. I argue that interpreting the former in the literal way necessary to support abortion leads to untenable moral and exegetical conclusions, indeed straightforwardly contradicting other Biblical texts. I then demonstrate that the most plausible readings of the other passages—on textual and contextual grounds—do not support a lesser moral status, one of the passages plausibly even supporting full moral status, for the unborn child.
{"title":"Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail","authors":"Calum Miller","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While the traditional Christian teaching opposing abortion has been relatively unanimous until the twentieth century, it has been claimed in more recent decades that certain Biblical passages support the view that the fetus, or unborn child, has a lesser moral status than a born child, in a way that might support the permissibility of abortion. In this paper, I address the foremost three texts used to argue this point: Genesis 2:7; Exodus 21:22–25; and Numbers 5:11–31. I argue that interpreting the former in the literal way necessary to support abortion leads to untenable moral and exegetical conclusions, indeed straightforwardly contradicting other Biblical texts. I then demonstrate that the most plausible readings of the other passages—on textual and contextual grounds—do not support a lesser moral status, one of the passages plausibly even supporting full moral status, for the unborn child.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125167488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：