After reading your classmates’ threads, choose one to which you will respond, then write a reply that interacts with your classmate’s thread and presents a well-reasoned alternative or complimentary idea to their approach to the issue. You do not have to defend a position that is diametrically opposed to your classmate’s position, but you do need to either defend a position that is significantly different than his/hers or defend the same position in a very different way. If possible, you must reply to a classmate to whom no one else has yet replied. Treat your classmate’s opinion with sensitivity and respect.
This is a university-level writing assignment. Therefore it must be carefully proofread, free of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Do not use slang, emoticons, or abbreviations (as if you are texting or sending an email to a friend).
REPLY TO THIS POST
In my last discussion, I picked the framework of Christian ethics but left out naming it as such. Christian ethics is a well-rounded concept with a source (the Bible), community virtues, relations, and a teleological perspective. The structure analogy brings forth the balance needed in the decision-making process throughout life, keeping in mind the structure of moral acts, moral agents, communities, and finally, the end of the purpose for individual life.[1] The Christian ethics process involves testing both biblically and theologically.[2]
The topic I would like to address is transgender children. This is a hot topic in the public square and creates tension between ethical lines. This idea that children are born without a natural biological inclination to identify as a boy or girl is being pushed through schools, hospitals, psychology spaces, and universities. This push comes from highly educated personnel who have studied biology and psychology and are engaging in pseudoscience in the name of love and money or perhaps should be stated for the love of money. The clash is intense, but many people, especially younger generations, seem numb to the tragic reality of such normalization.
Using pre-reflection and starting with a biblical perspective, the idea that children are nonbinary does not correlate with creation.[3] The first book of the Bible states that God created a male and female, leaving zero room for any other option (Genesis 1:27 New International Version). In each situation, the stripping of the biological identity from early childhood or adolescence rejects the rightly ordained design and direction from God. The offer is wrapped in the original deception from the Garden of Eden, where people would become gods; making these kinds of decisions, like choosing gender, replaces God and the truth of human creation (Genesis 3:4). The fall of humanity created a vacuum in our moral compass and our thought life, people are easily swayed and lose the solid grounding of truth. Reflecting on these decisions of gender choice creates a long list of hypothetical outcomes and a need for backup with unavailable or miscued data. Many children and adolescents struggle with identity, and the answers are defined in scripture. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not turn from it (Proverbs 22:6)”. Scripture teaches us that our children need us to direct them. This knowledge can be used in immoral ways just as quickly as it can be applied to protect the foundations of flourishing. Outcomes for people who struggle with identity are staggering. Teleologically, it’s a grim ending leading to depression, anxiety, suicide ideation, and many more issues that lead to death. Sin separates us from God. Biblical truth about sin is a harsh reality. James 1 spells out an order of events that occur when sin enters, and once it’s fully grown, it leads to death. Ethically, this is a huge issue; allowing children/adolescents to make permanent decisions about their biological bodies leads to tragic outcomes and, therefore, should not be permitted.
Virtue ethics is the competing system that advocates for children’s/adolescents’ right to choose their desired biological gender. Vertue ethics tends to deny the notion of moral principles.[4] In addition, it relies solely on a moral agent, so your truth is the truth. Vertue’s ethical need for community guidance can obstruct the panoramic view of life and the flourishing outside its walls. An example of this comes from the Word of God; in many examples in the Bible, God gave the people of Israel rules and told them to be separate, not to entangle themselves with the surrounding communities. He warned them that if they did, they would fail and turn to the gods of these lands and, in turn, provoke God to anger. Israel failed this test repeatedly, drawing on virtue ethics around them instead of God’s laws, rules, and commands that require obedience and boldness to be different. The temptation to be independent of the moral code and to create our morality can creep in and infect others like a plague. The world screams that love is total and complete acceptance, no matter what. That affirmation of delusions is most needed for children as they struggle with identity, like handing them a one-way ticket on a runaway train. A child’s trust is easily misguided and abused by the community as they display a narrative of smoking mirrors. If everyone agrees on a narrative surrounding you, does this become fact? Children are easy prey, and this is why the Bible has substantial implications for anyone who leads them astray. “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Mathew 18:5-6).”