Jack-a-lope?

Poor guy. I can't help but think what Jack will do to Leah and me when we are in our old age diapers and unable to move around. Until then, we're gonna have fun.

Pro-Abortion Argument: Are you willing to take in all the "unwanted" children in the world?

"I don't think that anybody has the right to object to abortions unless they're willing to take care of all of the unwanted children brought into the world if abortion was made illegal."

Have you heard of this argument before? I have from both Christians and non-Christians. At first, it seems like the argument handcuffs you. Are you willing to take in the "unwanted" children of the world? After stammering for a while, you might think that you should say, "Yes, of course!" However, realistically, this is impossible. The next dart thrown your way may be phrased this way: "Well, if you say that you are pro-life, what have you done to help the single moms who have to raise their unwanted children on their own?" If you haven't done anything, you're the fool. If you have done something, it is not enough; you're in a double bind. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about such pro-abortion rhetoric.

Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason suggests that you respond this way:

"What would you say if I suggested that we solve the homeless problem in this way. We herd all of the homeless together, who are really a drag on our resources, and inject them with a poison or gas them. Let's just kill them and get them out of the way. Would you object to that?" I presume the answer would be yes and then the response that I would offer would be: "What if I told you that you have no right to object to killing the homeless unless you're willing to take some of the homeless into your home or help to pay for them out of your own pocket. Your moral objection isn't sound if you aren't willing to take care of the needs that accrue as a result of letting them live."

Obviously in a circumstance like that the person is going to say that it's not an appropriate kind of argument for the same reason that it's not appropriate to say that the United States couldn't object to the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany unless we were willing to take all six million Jews onto our own soil. The reason is because we're talking about human beings. We're talking about people's lives and you don't make a trade off like that. If a person's life is in jeopardy it doesn't matter whether you're willing to care for that life or not for you to have a legitimate moral objection against the taking of that innocent life.

That's the point.

Jack

Here are some pics of Jack. He is such a joy to have and to play with. I still can't believe I am a dad!

Abortion Debate: Location, Location, Location.

At work, I am an English Instructor by definition, but really I just help adults learn how to read better. I teach some grammar including punctuation, misplaced modifiers, and past participles ('ridden' is the past participle of the verb 'ride'...ride, rode, has/have ridden). To switch it up, I incorporate some reading comprehension exercises usually taken from newspapers. It is a great job and I am very thankful to have it.

Today our class discussed an article about President Obama addressing grad students at Notre Dame University. This event was controversial because many thought it contradictory for a Catholic University to honor a speaker who was pro-abortion. During our tangential classroom discussion one student suggested that the fetus is not a person because it could not live on its own outside the womb. Playing the advocate (and also myself), I engaged her in a debate. I have a great relationship with this student (thus far) and felt comfortable in talking about this issue. Our dialogue went something like this...

Me: So, are you saying that a fetus is not a person because it can't live outside the womb?

Student: Yes, it needs the mother to survive. It can only survive outside the womb after 22 weeks or something like that.

Me: Hold on. There are two things going on here. First, you mentioned that a baby is not a person because it cannot live on its own outside the womb.

Student: Yeah.

Me: So this is a matter of location, environment right? Can anything survive outside its natural environment? If you were sent into space without an oxygen mask, you would die. If you were dropped into the ocean without food or water, you would die. Even if you were just born and left on your own to survive, you would die. Now, in any of these three instances, are you not still a person?

Student: Yeah, but, it needs the mother to survive.

Another student: Like a parasite.

Me: Hold on, so your saying that a fetus is not a person because it relies on something else to survive.

Student: Yeah, it would die otherwise.

Me: Couldn't you say the same about someone on oxygen? Or someone on insulin? Or someone on kidney dialysis? Do not these people still retain personhood? (Student #3 nods head in agreement).

Student: Yeah, but...a fetus can't live on its own.

(Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Think, McFly!)

Unfortunately, we had to get back to the lesson. But the pro-abortion argument goes like this: A fetus is not a person because it is in the wrong environment; it can't live outside the womb on its own. Steve Wagner from str.org posted a response to this kind of argument: "How long can you breathe under water? Well, did you know that the unborn is not only surrounded by amniotic fluid, she is breathing it in an out of her lungs? If you can't survive in her world, why are you asking her to survive in yours? Isn't that a bit arbitrary and unfair?"

The fact of the matter is that nothing can survive outside its environment. Can a fish live out of water? No, but it is still a fish.

if...

I would agree that women shouldn't be forced into back alley abortions, and I would agree that the government should fund such procedures, and I would agree that is a woman's choice of what she wants to do with her body, and I would agree that Christians should not solicit and persuade Abortion clinic clients not to have an abortion...

I agree with all these things if the fetus is not a human being.

For if a fetus is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. As Greg Koukl put it, 'if a fetus is not a human being, you can't take it out and eat for all I care, it's just a blob of flesh." However, if the fetus is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. In the next few blogs, if I am not too busy changing the diapers of our new born son, I will post a couple of the oft quoted Pro-Abortion arguments and the errors that lie within.

(This argument was taken from Scott Klusendorf's Life Training Institute http://www.prolifetraining.com/.)

"The Fightin' Side of Me"

I hear people talkin' bad, 
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight, 
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides, 
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man, 
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me. 
Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

I read about some squirrely guy,
Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

Merle Haggard

Me too, Merle!

Jesus, Judging, and Contextomy

A first glance, two of the three words in the title seem related but not the other.  In fact, if you were like me, you may not have ever seen or heard the word before, (and now after seeing it, find yourself having a hard time pronouncing it).  Contextomy was a word coined by historian Milton Mayer to describe the practice of quoting a text out of context.  He used it to describe Julius Streicher, a Nazi, who misquoted the Torah and Talmudic texts in his newspaper to incite anti-semitism in Germany during WWII.

Contextomy occurs frequently in this post-modern age.  Although we might not call it that, we certainly recognize it especially when one suggests that another should not judge 'lest ye be judged.'  I don't think anyone speaks Medieval English anymore and yet we know that Jesus Christ minted the phrase two millennia ago.  And one may think, albeit incorrectly, that Jesus suggested people not make moral judgments against one another.  However reading the passage of Matthew 7:1 in context, Jesus goes on to call other people "pigs," "dogs," and "wolves in sheep's clothing."  So, either  Jesus was a hypocrite or he had something else in mind when he condemned the Pharisees.  

Defending the latter statement, Paul Copan in True for You, But Not for Me, suggests: "What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another's eye – which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted."  It only takes a few minutes of flipping through the New Testament Gospels and Epistles to see that Jesus and his disciples encouraged a restraining of immorality as it did not reflect the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed.  

In the 21st Century there is mass contextomy taking place.  "You shouldn't judge!" is demanded of by both Christian and non-Christian circles, perhaps unwittingly and/or ignorantly.  If taken as is, wouldn't this statement produce anarchy?  No one would be culpable for any wrong doing.  Lying, stealing, and cheating would be allowed.  Suicide bombers would be justified in their missions.  Hitler would not have been wrong.  Yet this is not what we say, or think, because we know that these things were wrong.  We know that 911 and the Holocaust were examples of gross immorality and yet if one is to remain morally neutral, one could not suggest that Hitler and Bin Laden were wrong.  One could not even say that what they did was evil.  And yet moral neutrality is demanded by people every day, perpetuating the relativistic non-sense peddled by postmodernists.  

The next time someone tells you that you shouldn't judge, ask them "Why Not?"  Their answer will require a judgment value itself and the argument will commit suicide.  They will be judging you for judging.  Let's not delude ourselves or let others delude themselves, for mankind's sake, into thinking that one can maintain moral neutrality when we know that certain things are right and wrong.  

Jesus did not remain morally neutral and didn't ask his  disciples to be.  The ability to judge is consistent with humankind being made in the image of God.  So discern what is wrong and see the problem with contextomy.