I have moved to wordpress

http://schr8r.wordpress.com/

Freedom...

I just wrote my last undergrad exam last night and feel somewhat cathartic that it is over. I feel that now I can write and read without obligation literature that I want to read. And to cultivate my fiction portfolio, I asked my wife to recommend three books to read. They were Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Dostoevsky's The Idiot, and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray (note: these are not her top three novels, just novels recommended for me).

This post is selfish in nature (aren't all posts though?) in that I am now accountable to read these books. Hopefully I will be posting about them in the future.

Is abortion okay in cases of rape and/or incest?

I had a recent discussion with a young gentleman on the abortion issue and heard the often used argument in favor of abortion: I don't like abortions, but if it is a case of rape or incest, then I think it is okay.

Is it okay?

Why is it that abortion is okay in these two cases? One answer is that it reminds the mother of a horrible past, and it isn't her fault that she got pregnant. Therefore, in order to help her "move on" in her life, an abortion seems like a viable option. At this point, one should empathize with the victimized mother-to-be because this is certainly a traumatic and unfortunate circumstance. No one deserves to have his/her personal freedoms infringed upon by someone else.

However, emotions aside, the argument goes like this: If someone reminds you of a horrible past, then it is okay to kill him/her.

Is this okay? Do people kill other people because of a bad memory? Perhaps some people do, but this is wrong, and it is a bad argument. This innocent human being in the embryo/fetus stage should not have his/her rights infringed upon by someone else because of a horrible event that happened in the past. There are many children that have been born from victims of rape and incest. Would it be alright to kill these children?

I hope and pray that your answer is "no."

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.