Tag Archives: pro-life

How Not to Go Dutch

A Dutch hospital now has a protocol for euthanizing ill babies (thanks Drudge), and evidently this has been happening on the sly for some time, which is no surprise, given that the Dutch have a bad track record with reporting and enforcing adult euthanasia laws (which again were legislated only after euthanasia had a wide following in that country–see the excellent chapters on the Netherlands in The Case Against Assisted Suicide).

Many will be rightfully horrified, but to those horrified folk who are pro-choice, I ask: why not? What's the magic difference between a 1st-trimester abortion, a partial-birth abortion, and infanticide? I've heard various justifications, but I think it basically boils down to three positions. Let's see how these would help us hold off atrocities like what goes on in the Dutch medical system. The positions are:

Continue reading

Irrational and/or Pathological

I don’t have time right now to answer in full Theomorph’s latest intellectual challenge, but I’ll take a moment to react to this:

Many people have argued that we make laws against acts like murder, theft, and assault because we have no choice if we want to maintain a stable society. We have even created psychological definitions of "normal" behavior that label as antisocial and mentally ill the people who are prone to these acts. Hence, while there may be some people who privately have no moral qualms with murder, theft, or assault, the rest of us have no problem with imposing our "morality" on them, because any arguments they might make in favor of their morality would be labeled as not just irrational, but pathological.

However, most people do not consider the desire to obtain an abortion as irrational or pathological. In fact, there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion.

Theo might be trying to be provocative again. If so, call me provoked. This viewpoint creeps me out and makes me shudder. Since when do two wrongs make a right? This kind of "feminism" really pisses me off. Women do not have to become men to gain equality! That is not real feminism. Real feminists seek to achieve equality (such as equal pay, equal respect, and equal rights) by embracing that which is feminine and challenging society to accept them without imposing androgyny.

If men are scum that sometimes plant seed and fail to care for what grows, we must try to stop that from happening. Whether it be by law or by education, we should seek to solve this problem, not encourage women to be just as selfish and inconsiderate. Besides, using abortion to level the playing field begs the question of whether abortion really benefits women. I’m sure Feminists for Life have a few things to say about that nonsense.

Do I think abortion is irrational? Yes. Its unsound judgment. Is it pathological? Yes. It’s a symptom of a diseased society. On a visceral level, irrespective of my faith, I am disgusted and frightened by the notion of a society that sees children as an unwanted responsibility or investment to slough off. If children outside the womb are treated as unwanted and sloughed off, the parents are charged with criminal neglect or worse, depending on the means. If medical professionals treat patients as unwanted, they’re in serious trouble, too. Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? Well, another question is being begged here.

That question is whether or not a fetus may/must be considered person and thus deserving of protection. That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion. Atheists are often quick to point out that ethics and morals need not be grounded in religion. Well, if that’s really what they believe then they shouldn’t be upset if some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning. Such reasoning exists and yet secularists still reject the pro-life movement off-hand, seemingly as though it were part of some conspiracy to construct a theocracy.

Finally, there are a lot of things that humans can be stuck with in the course of their lives. Some things can be avoided. Others can’t. Some may/should be avoided. Others shouldn’t. I have a great deal of sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, that unfortunate situation in and of itself does not secure them the right (since Theomorph objects to "giving" rights) to end a fetus’ life. That it is a life, there is no doubt. Is it a person? That’s a question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily and that supporters of abortion rights don’t seem to want answered. So long as it’s about a woman’s body, a woman’s rights, and a woman’s choice, pro-lifers look like a bunch of Puritans itching for a witch trial. I wonder how slave owners saw abolitionists.

Some Developments in Biomedicine

  • Thanks to Wired,
    I was tipped off on an article published in Nature about a type of stem
    cell that
    seems to be at the heart of the most advanced
    brain tumors in adults and children
    . It is considered stem-cell like
    since its
    chief marker, CD133, is a protein associated with embryonic nerve cells,
    and because
    it has tremendous ability to reproduce. In one dramatic experiment, 16
    of 19 mice
    injected with CD133-positive human tumor cells developed tumors. Of the
    15 that
    received tumor cells negative for CD133 markers, none developed tumors,
    though traces
    of the cells were still found in the mouse brains during dissection,
    implying that
    while these human cells could live in the mouse, they could not develop
    a tumor
    on their own. This opens a new dimension into how cancer develops (and
    where these
    so-called “stem cells” really come from), and also hints that
    a CD133
    blocker may be a new weapon against cancer. Considering that an advanced
    brain tumor
    right now is more or less a death sentence within a year, this could be
    quite important!
    Dysfunctional stem cells were previously known to be at the
    heart of leukemia
    , but this is the first solid tumor with a stem
    cell as its
    apparent source.
  • There’s some interesting Type I diabetes research where Harvard
    researcher Denise
    Faustman seems to have suppressed the autoimmune reaction against
    beta-cells in
    the pancreas which leads to insulin depletion and diabetes. What’s
    really neat is
    that beta cells seem to spontaneously regenerate when the autoimmune
    reaction is
    suppressed, promising a knock-down cure for that disease. I read about
    this on the
    NY Times, but it’s now no longer open for free access, so check out this
    blurb from
    Do
    No Harm
    about the research and Lee Iacocca’s funding initiative for
    Dr. Faustman.
  • Check out the
    Public Library of Science
    , an organization that publishes
    peer-reviewed scientific
    journals that are free to the public and entirely online.

The Eye of a Needle

Some of the comments made it apparent that some of my points were unclear. I’ve made some minor changes and a few additions in the hopes of making myself clear. – Funky]

I was wandering through the Book of Acts last night and a few things jumped out at me. I’ll be posting about them over the next few days or weeks. For now, I’ll limit myself to what appears to be an indictment of how most Christians live their lives, i.e. richly.

"And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." – Acts 2:44-47

"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common." – Acts 4:32

This certainly seems to advocate a communal lifestyle for Christians. Tying this into the Red vs. Blue craziness, I find it interesting that Red Christians get most of the moral teachings right but disregard the economic teachings, and the Blue Christians get the economic teachings while mostly ignoring the moral teachings. As a Purple Christian, I find this to be very frustrating.

I’ve heard more lame defenses of free market capitalism from Red Christians than I care to remember. I don’t buy it. Tell me why redistribution of wealth is wrong. Tell me why market forces are reason enough to pay off-shore workers peanuts. Tell me why consumerism isn’t unChristian. Tell me why there aren’t more fiery sermons against commercial Christmas.

I’m not just talking about all the sales and products being pushed, but the very giving of "wants" as gifts. Why isn’t more emphasis put of making charitable donations? volunteering time? giving heartfelt, homemade gifts? Being poor shouldn’t be the only reason your kids don’t get a new video game system. We all, young and old, have too many toys. How do they profit our souls? I’m trying very hard to make do with what I have and stop drooling over technological goodies I don’t have.

Recently, I have found myself increasingly convicted by this. I humbly ask of my readers – shouldn’t we all be? Please don’t think I’m giving moral imperatives lower priority. I’m just refusing to ignore social justice. I refuse to believe government doesn’t have a part to play in Christian charity. A lot of conservatives seem to disagree with me. Convince me.

On a related note, I’d like to point out the following:

WORD-FM (101.5) [Pittsburgh area] talk host Marty Minto will do several live broadcasts from area rescue missions next week with the goal of raising more than $30,000 for feeding the hungry and homeless on Thanksgiving. The programs will air from New Castle City Rescue Mission on Monday, Washington City Rescue Mission on Tuesday and Light of Life Rescue Mission on Wednesday.

WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!
PLEASE CALL AND DONATE WHAT YOU CAN
1-866-496-7336

Alternatives to the GOP?

Some commentators on Funky’s
blog
have complained that pro-life Christians have found themselves
voting Republican
whether they wanted to or not. Mr. Bush’s actions in Iraq had me
wondering if we
could somehow find a pro-life Nader, but unlike Nader, who would have
the Democrats
become more liberal (at least with economic issues), perhaps our
pro-life Nader
would help pull the Republicans to a more moderate set of social and
international
policies–i.e., maybe tug them to the left. Or, this pro-life Nader
could rally
pro-life Democrats and even encourage that party to get a little more
open-minded
about its abortion plank.

Well, with that in mind, check out this article in Wired.com about the
still-undetermined
role of blogs
in elections
, and the Washington
Post
article on how Evangelicals often campaigned for Bush
independently of
the GOP or Bush’s own staff. The latter is comforting, since it means
that many
Christians are not in lock-step with the Republicans so much as they
thought that
the Republican candidate was a better pick. They worked independently,
behold, here
is an
NY Times article
about how the Dems can woo the church-goers yet
again. Of particular
note are the candid comments from Fr. Richard Neuhaus, editor of the
influential
journal First Things
(and a personal
favorite of this contributor!).

So with this in mind, we should draw some hope that pro-life Christians
may use
their leverage to get a better candidate. The trick is now to work on
finding and
supporting some good ones.