March 15, 2006

While I am Personally Opposed to Killing Abortionists….

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
Leave a Comment 

Paul Hill was convicted for killing an abortion doctor and his security guard. Hill’s rationale for his actions was as follows: “Whatever force is legitimate in defending a born child is legitimate in defending an unborn child.” First Things (journal of religion, culture, and public life) asked several pro-life apologists to respond to Hill’s rationale (back in 1994).

Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, wrote with both wit and hint of sarcasm:

I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9412/articles/killing.html#George

If you substitute the word “abortionists” with “fetus” you will have the typical abortion-choice argument offered by those who claim to be pro-life “personally,” but don’t want to impose their personal beliefs on others who may disagree. George capitalized on their rhetoric and used it against them in his satirical reply. Most people reading his comments would be horrified if they thought he was being serious, and that is what George wants. Why? Because if the unborn are just as human as the born, then the outrage they feel at such reasoning should be applied equally to the issue of abortion.

If we would not give people the choice to kill of abortion doctors on the grounds that (1) it is a matter of conscience and religion, and (2) we cannot impose our personal opposition to the practice on others, then we should not allow the choice to kill the unborn using those same justifications.

HT to Scott Klusendorf for bringing this back-issue of First Things to my attention.

 

 

March 14, 2006

Pro-Life with a Footnote: Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[2] Comments 

Opinion Dynamics Corp conducted a poll for Fox News to get a feel for the nation’s reaction to South Dakota’s abortion ban (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187083,00.html). ODC found that only 35% of Americans would support the same legislation in their own state, whereas 59% would oppose it. Why? Three out of four people (74%) oppose it because it does not make an exception for abortion in cases of rape and incest (political breakdown: 82%=independents, 79%=democrats, 67%=republicans), and 62% oppose it because it does not make an exception for the mother’s health (not to be confused with an exception to save the mother’s life, which the law does have).

I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss the issue of abortion as it pertains to rape and incest. It has been my experience—and these polls show—that many who generally consider themselves pro-life and oppose abortion on demand, allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

While I understand the emotional appeal of this position, it is not a rational position for pro-lifers to take because it is inconsistent with the pro-life logic. If it is wrong to take the life of the unborn because they are human beings, and the unborn “thing” produced by the rape or incest is a human being, then it is wrong to purposely take its life. A human being is what it is regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conception.

When someone says they are opposed to abortion except in cases of rape and incest, ask them why they believe abortion is morally wrong in all other cases. They will probably say something to the effect that they are opposed to abortion in those cases because it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. At that point ask them, “Does abortion do something different to those children conceived through rape or incest?” The circumstances under which the child was conceived is morally irrelevant to the question of their worth as members of the human race.

There is no question that rape is a violent assault against an innocent women, and entirely unjust, but abortion is a violent assault against an innocent child. Why decry the one injustice, but allow the other? Would we allow a woman to kill her three month old because he was conceived by rape? If it is not morally acceptable to kill the child once it is outside of the womb because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception, why is it permissible for her to kill her child so long as it is still in the womb for the same reason? Certainly the 8” travel down the birth canal does nothing to change what the unborn is.

Most pro-lifers who allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest do so for emotional reasons. They say, “It’s not fair to require a woman to carry a baby that was conceived through incest or rape to term because of the emotional pain it will cause the mother.” There is no question that it can be an extremely difficult emotional issue, but it is not a difficult moral issue. The most important question is not, Will this cause me emotional pain?, but, “What is the unborn?” Clearly it is a human being, and human beings are the kinds of things that are worthy of our respect and protection.

Furthermore, aborting the baby will do nothing to “unrape” the mother. It will do nothing to make her forget the horror of being raped, and will do nothing to take away her emotional pain. If anything, it will compound her pain, because she will have to deal with both the pain of rape and the pain of aborting her child.

To help someone to see the lunacy of their logic ask them if it’s morally acceptable to kill the rapist/pedophile who committed the crime against the woman. If it is not morally proper to take the life of the human being guilty of committing the moral evil against the girl, why would it be morally proper to take the life of the innocent human being in the womb?” Since when do we force another human being to give up their life so someone else can feel better? Hardship and emotional pain never justifies homicide.


 

For additional reading see my article entitled Pro-Life with a Footnote.

 

March 13, 2006

Are All Lives Worth Living?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Bioethics, Euthanasia
Leave a Comment 

Al Mohler has a great post today by the above title. He examines the issue of “wrongful life” claims that are growing in popularity. While the entire article is worth reading, the last two paragraphs are worth repeating here:


When any life is deemed to be unworthy of living, every single human life is cheapened, discounted, and threatened. We are living in an age increasingly without moral rules–an age in which choices about life and death are now commonly made with specific reference to what kind of child we would welcome, and what quality of life we will accept and protect. The Christian affirmation must be that every single life is worthy of living–every life is worthy of our protection, our care, and our welcome. No one should ever discount the difficulties of dealing with children who are born with severe genetic abnormalities or serious diseases. Most of us, within our extended families or circle of friends, are intimately familiar with just how excruciating many of these situations can be. Nevertheless, these are the very same issues we will all face in terms of issues at the end of life, and at many points between birth and death.

The eugenic temptation is, in this modern age of advanced medical technologies, always too close at hand. If we do not learn to resist it, human dignity will soon rest in the dustbin.

 


 

March 13, 2006

South Dakota Bans Abortion

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

I’m sure some of you have already heard that the state of South Dakota passed legislation banning all abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is at stake (Mississippi and Tennessee are considering similar abortion-banning laws). They know such a law is unconstitutional. They passed it as a direct challenge to Roe. They know it will be challenged by pro-abortion groups, and overturned by the lower courts. Their desire is to have it reviewed by the Supreme Court, and their hope is that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe.

While I am pro-life to the core, heartily support the content of this legislation, and want to see Roe challenged, I am strongly opposed to South Dakota’s actions…on a tactical level. As Scott Klusendorf has said, it is the right bill but the wrong time. The strategy seems doomed to fail, and its failure could set the pro-life movement back for years to come, resulting in the unintended effect of more dead babies.

The problem with SD’s strategy is that they forgot how to count. While conservatives have been excited over the recent appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the fact remains that there are still only four judicial conservatives on the Court. We need five votes to overturn Roe. It’s almost certain that Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy will uphold Roe. Only Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are likely to vote for its demise. Some even doubt that Roberts and Alito would vote against Roe because new justices are less likely to overturn such a precedent.

SD may be betting on the death or retirement of one of the Roe supporters (maybe Stevens) prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court (which I think would take 1-2 years—correct me if I’m wrong Andy or Seni). That could happen but it’s not likely, and is a risky gamble. As Steve Chapman wrote, “But that’s not counting chickens before they’re hatched — it’s counting them before the eggs are even laid.” Besides, if a vacancy did open up on the Court it would make the next nomination battle extremely intense, with the Democrats filibustering any nominee that even hints s/he does not support Roe. If the seat remains vacant when the case is heard, it would be a 4-4 vote and Roe would remain the law of the land. Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t even have to hear the case, in which case it is dead on arrival.

SD may also be betting that Kennedy will decide to vote against Roe. I think this is a false hope. Counting on Kennedy to vote to overturn Roe is quite a gamble, and if the gamble doesn’t go in our favor we’ll be in worse legal position than we are now because Roe will have been directly reaffirmed twice, setting a “super” precedent. A legal defeat now could set us back years in the legal landscape.

I don’t think Kennedy would vote to overturn Roe for two obvious reasons. First, he is fairly liberal in his constitutional philosophy, and Roe rests on that sort of an approach to constitutional interpretation. Secondly, and most importantly, he has already voted to uphold Roe in the past, even if the decision was at the last minute (It’s been said that he was going to vote against Roe in Casey, but was persuaded by O’Connor to change his opinion at the last moment. I don’t know if that is true or not.). So even if he wants to overturn Roe now he is fighting against two precedents: Roe, and his own vote in Casey. Not only does he have the negative pressure of casting a vote to overturn a well-established precedent that millions of women have come to rely on, but he also has the pressure of admitting that his past ruling was mistaken. I think those two hurdles combined are too much for him to overcome, even if he thinks Roe should be overturned (and that is only speculation).

Hopefully SD will have enough sense not to appeal the case once the law is ruled unconstitutional. If we want to see Roe overturned it is best to do so in a piecemeal fashion as we have been (parental notification laws, waiting periods, partial-birth abortion bans, etc.) until we have enough judicially conservative justices on the bench who will overturn Roe for the bad law it is. Then we can challenge Roe. We must be mindful of both the legal and political landscape in which we are working. I don’t think SD considered either. Their legislation makes a wonderful statement, but I don’t think it will be effective for furthering the pro-life cause…at this time.

What do you think?

For further reading on the strategical problems of South Dakota’s approach I would recommend the following:

Costly Gestures

South Dakota’s Impatience on Abortion

A Pro-Life Mistake

 

March 3, 2006

Wesley J. Smith Calls a Cloning Spade a Cloning Spade

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning
Leave a Comment 

Lawyer and bioethicist, Wesley J. Smith, wrote a short piece in The Kansas City Star regarding the true defininition of cloning. If you will remember, it is in Missouri where they are proposing a state constitutional ban on cloning that would actually create a constitution right to clone. According to Smith The KS Star has been parroting the same lies as are found in the proposed amendment, but they were gracious enough to allow him to post an opinion piece presenting the other side. It’s a good read.

 

March 3, 2006

Update on “Bias and the Skewing of Reality in the Media”

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends
Leave a Comment 

The author of the article, Kenneth Chang, was interviewed by the Discovery Institute. Chang came clean on some things and “admitted” that the story was skewed. You can read about it over at the Discovery Institute’s news section here.

 

March 2, 2006

Why Pray for the Lost to be Saved?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology
[77] Comments 

Why should we pray for the lost to be saved? Why should we pray for revival? We’ve been told we should, and it is a strongly rooted practice among us, but is the idea of praying for the lost to find salvation a Biblical concept? Is it a reasonable concept? I am persuaded that the answer to both of these questions is no.

The Bible repeatedly tells us to pray for the laborers who are harvesting the field of souls, but I am not aware of any passage that tells us to pray for the lost souls themselves. Consider the following passages:

Luke 10:2—Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest. (see also Mt 9:38)
Eph 6:18-19—Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; and for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel.

Col 4:3—Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

II Thes 3:1—Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

If the Bible does not instruct us to pray for the lost, why has the practice become so deeply rooted among us? My personal theory is that we want to believe our prayers for the lost are efficacious for their salvation because it gives us a sense of control. Prayer is something tangible. When we pray it gives us the sense that we have contributed something to the situation so as to possibly affect the outcome we desire. We want to think that our prayers will be instrumentally responsible in someone’s salvation. The more we pray the better chance they have of being saved, we reason. It’s often described as “intercessory prayer” in which we stand before God in their stead. But does the Bible ever describe such “intercessory prayer?” There are 11 passages in Scripture that speak of intercession, none of which ever involve interceding for the salvation of the lost:

Is 53:12—Jesus intercedes for us in His sinless sacrifice

Is 59:6—The intercessor God was looking for was someone to administer justice in an unjust society. Since He could not find one He took it upon Himself to judge

Jer 7:16—God says not to make intercession for Ephraim because He wants to destroy them.

Jer 27:18—Make intercession to God so that temple vessels do not go to Babylon

Jer 36:25—Intercession from one human to another

Rom 8:26—Spirit makes intercession for us through us, not through us for someone else

Rom 8:34—Christ makes intercession for us

Rom 11:2—Elijah interceded for judgment against Israel

I Tim 2:1—Make intercessions for all men, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in godliness

Heb 7:25—Jesus is our high priest who makes intercession for us

In these passages Jesus is interceding for us, or people are interceding on behalf of others requesting that they be judged! Not once do we find someone praying for the lost and such a prayer called “intercession.”

While it is a common belief and practice among us to pray for years for our friends and loved ones who have rejected the Gospel message that they might be saved, we never find the early church praying for people for years on end that they might change their mind about Jesus. They simply preached the Gospel, collected the fruit, and moved on. Some accepted the message while others rejected it. Those who accepted it were welcomed into the believing community. Those who rejected it were left to themselves. The apostles moved on to other places and other people. In Acts 18:6 Luke said that when the Jews rejected Paul’s message he shook his clothes and said, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” According to Paul he did his duty in preaching the message of Christ. How his audience chose to respond was up to them. They were responsible for their choice, not Paul. So when they chose to reject the message Paul moved on to other people and locations. He did not stick around and continue pleading with them to change their hearts and minds toward Christ. He followed Jesus’ advice not to cast pearls before pigs, and Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve and seventy to brush the dust off their shoes and move on to the next city if their message was rejected (Mt 10; Mk 6; Lk 9, 10). Our job is to preach the Gospel, not to ensure the results. If those who hear the Gospel accept it, we are delighted. If they don’t accept it, we mourn their fate but we move on. I am afraid that we waste too much precious time preaching to and praying for those whose hearts are hard toward God, having freely chosen to reject Him.

On the logical end of things, what do we think praying for people to be saved accomplishes? If we say enough prayers for someone, is God going to overrule their free will and force them to be saved? Of course not! If God was in the business of making people serve Him evangelism would not be necessary, and free will would be a farce. So what’s the point of praying for the lost, then? Do we think it will motivate God to work “overtime” in their lives? Do we honestly think God is just sitting around twiddling His thumbs until we say our prayer, and then He kicks it into high gear? Of course not! God is already actively doing all He can do to bring the lost to saving faith, whether we pray for them or not. He loves them more than we ever could. That’s why He paid the ultimate sacrifice for them: He gave His life in exchange for theirs. When did He determine to do this? After we prayed? No, before we ever even existed! So if our prayers for the lost cannot make God work any harder on their hearts, and our prayers cannot change the will of the sinner, what is the purpose in praying for them?

How does this tie into revival? We always hear “Pray for revival to come,” but revival is not the kind of thing that comes through prayer. Souls are saved through the preaching of the Gospel, not by a well-meaning saint praying in the prayer room. Our prayer lives may help us be the kind of Christians we need to be to engage the unbelieving public with the Gospel (boldness, character), but prayers for the lost are not efficacious in themselves. Strangely enough, spending lots of time praying for revival may actually hinder revival because it keeps us from doing the one thing that brings revival: evangelism.

This may sound cold-hearted to some, but I do not mean it that way. I’m just trying to be Biblical in the content of my prayers and my approach toward evangelism. I am trying to think through the things we do, weighing them against Scripture and reason. I am still open to being persuaded back toward the traditional understanding/practices if anyone can supply me with some solid Biblical references and a reasonable explanation as to how prayers for the lost can alter their eternal destiny. Would anybody like to give it a shot?

 

March 2, 2006

Missouri’s Cloning Ban that Doesn’t

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Politics
[6] Comments 

Back on August 9, 2005 I sent an e-blog regarding the proposed and so-called “Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005” of the U.S. Senate. I pointed out how the proposed law did anything but ban cloning. Through an obfuscation and redefinition of basic biological and scientific terms it will do the exact opposite of its title: it will make human cloning legal throughout the United States. The only thing it will ban is a particular use of clones. While researchers are able to kill them for their stem cells, they are not allowed to insert them into a woman’s womb and allow them to be born nine months later. There’s nothing more outrageous than requiring the death of a tiny human being, all the while making it punishable by law to allow it to live! The moral monstrosity of this state-sanctioned creation and murder of human beings is outdone only by the deception through which it is being presented to the American people.

Well, the U.S. Congress is not alone in this move. The state of Missouri has proposed a bill of its own. It is called the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” (I guess they figured a nearly identical title worked for CA, so they might as well try it too) It also proposes to ban cloning, stating that “no person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.” But like the federal legislation, it does anything but prevent cloning. The obfuscation and deception involved in this bill far surpasses that of the federal proposal. I will quote several portions of the proposed legislation, followed by my comments in blue which detail the nature of the obfuscation.

Statement 1—“No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.”

I wonder why it is that they use “blastocyst” rather than “embryo”? Is it because people will know what an embryo is, but not a blastocyst?

Furthermore, why is it that an embryo cannot be produced by fertilization for the purpose of stem-cell research, but an embryo can be produced by cloning for stem-cell research? The product is the same. The means by which the product was created does not change what it is, and does not change the moral issues surrounding embryo research.

Statement 2—“Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent….”

To “donate” a blastocyst requires that it be produced by natural fertilization. So it’s alright to kill an embryo produced by fertilization so long as it was not created solely for that purpose, and it was not the research scientists who created it? This is a rather meaningless moral distinction.

In the definitions section we find the following obfuscation of terms:

Definition 1—“ ‘Blastocyst’ means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.”

That may be the way they are using it in this section, but a blastocyst is what it is whether it is implanted into a uterus or not.

Definition 2—“ ‘Clone or attempt to clone a human being’ means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.”

The wording here is a little confusing. What they are trying to communicate is that cloning refers to implanting into the uterus anything other than an embryo (the “product”) that was produced through natural fertilization (wherein an egg is penetrated by a sperm, producing a new human organism), and which may result in the birth of a human being. Since the real process of cloning does not involve male sperm, and since the researchers have no intent of allowing the clone to be implanted into a womb and gestated to full-term (because they want to kill it for its parts), according to this definition of cloning they don’t have to call it cloning. How convenient that they define cloning in such a way that it has nothing to do with cloning, ban the pseudo-form of cloning, and then go on about their cloning business all the while saying they are not cloning! Can you imagine if we defined stealing like that?: Stealing is when I take something from your house that belongs to you. Since I am taking something from your car that belongs to you I am not stealing. Ridiculous!

The fact of the matter is that their definition of cloning is an out-and-out lie, and they know it. Cloning does not refer to where we put the so-called “product of fertilization,” or any other product for that matter. Cloning refers to the process of creating a new human being who is genetically identical to another human being. That new human being is called a clone. A clone is a clone regardless of where it is, or what we do with it. Where a (cloned) human being is does not change what it is.

The way this paragraph is worded it leaves room for researchers to implant a cloned embryo into a uterus and gestate it for up to 9 months, so long as it is not allowed to be born (just like in New Jersey). How? Because it only states that a “product of fertilization” cannot be implanted into a uterus and be birthed. “Anything other” than a “product of fertilization” does not apply. A clone is not the product of fertilization, and thus it could be implanted into a womb and gestated to near birth, only to be killed prior to that event.

One final thing to point out in this paragraph was the statement that implanting the “product of fertilization…could result in the creation of a human fetus,” as though the fetus is something that is created at a later stage in the pregnancy. “Fetus” is a term biologists and embryologists assign to a human being in utero who is between the age of 8 weeks and birth. It describes a particular stage of development of a human being, in the same manner as “newborn, infant, toddler, adolescent, teenager,” and “adult” describe stages of development in ex utero human beings. In the same way we would not say of a newborn that he/she could result in the “creation of an adult,” neither should we say an implanted embryo could result in the creation of a human fetus. Nothing new is being created. The tiny human being is simply maturing according to its kind.

Definition 5—“ ‘Human embryonic stem cell research,’ also referred to as ‘early stem cell research,’ means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer.”

“Early stem cell research” is a term I have just begun to hear in this debate. The reason it is becoming the euphemism of choice is because it lacks the word “human” and “embryo,” both of which humanize the object of medical experimentation, and both of which stir up people’s moral sensibilities. That is why they want to avoid them.

Proponents of the bill have also created a website fact-sheet to supposedly set the record straight regarding what the initiative does and does not do. This also contains several bits of intentional misinformation.

They write:

“FACT #3: The Initiative clearly and strictly bans human cloning.

Opponents of stem cell research claim that making stem cells in a lab dish is the same thing as ‘human cloning.’ Scientists and most other people disagree with that view and understand that ‘human cloning’ means creating a duplicate human being – not making stem cells in a lab dish.”

First, embryonic stem cell researchers do not make stem cells; embryos make stem cells. The researchers simply harvest them, which requires that they kill the embryo.

Secondly, the location of the embryos has nothing to do with human cloning. Human cloning is a process of creating a genetic copy of another human. Whether the “product” of the cloning process is in a lab dish or in a womb, it is still a human, and the means by which it was created was that of cloning.

Thirdly, to say “scientists and most other people” think making stem cells in a lab dish is not cloning means nothing. For one, by not qualifying “scientists” they give the false impression that all scientists agree with this statement. Not true. For another, what “most other people” believe is irrelevant, even if it were true that most people believe what they say they believe. It is the science of biology and embryology, not the general populace, that determines whether or not making stem cells (by making an embryo) asexually is the same as human cloning.

“FACT #4: Early stem cell research does not involve abortion.

Early stem cell research does not involve or harm an embryo or fetus in a pregnant woman’s uterus – and it does not involve abortion. And, nothing in the Initiative changes or conflicts with Missouri’s abortion laws. The two basic sources of ES cells are: (1) leftover fertility clinic embryos that will not be implanted in a woman’s uterus and would otherwise be discarded and destroyed; and (2) the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) process, which uses stem cells made in a lab dish with a patient’s own cells and an unfertilized, donated human egg.”

True, it does not involve or harm an embryo or fetus in a “uterus,” but it does involve and harm an embryo. Why is its location morally relevant? How does where it is change what it is? Furthermore, how can we use its location to redefine the meaning of the process that brought it into existence? Saying an embryo created by SCNT that is implanted in a womb is a human being, while an embryo created by SCNT that is in a lab dish is not is like saying an embryo created by fertilization that is implanted in the womb is a human being, while an embryo created by fertilization that is in a lab dish is not. Oh wait…they said that as well!

Saying that SCNT uses “stem cells made in a lab dish with a patient’s own cells and an unfertilized…egg” is false. The process of SCNT does not involve stem cells. It only involves a somatic cell and an enucleated egg. The embryo that is produced through SCNT produces stem cells, but stem cells are not used for the process.

I’m so glad the proponents of this constitutional amendment cleared up the misinformation out there! Hardly! The have added to it.

 

March 1, 2006

Bias and the Skewing of Reality in the Media

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends
[2] Comments 

To demonstrate the bias and sloppy thinking involved in reporting these days consider a recent NY Times article, “Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition”, written by Kenneth Chang. Chang’s article is an examination of the Discovery Institute’s (an intelligent design think-tank) running list of 514 Ph.D-level scientists who have signed onto a statement indicating that they are skeptical of Darwinian evolution.

 

Chang writes:

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition’s sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

Just because many of the signers have religious beliefs does not mean that their skepticism toward Darwinian evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. That is a judgment call that is quite specious. Michael Behe, for example, says he was quite content in both his faith and Darwinism. It was what he saw under the microscope that caused him to be skeptical of Darwinian claims. The author does go on to admit that “of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds but also say that evolution runs against their religious beliefs,” but this appears much later in the article.


And what’s wrong with “only” 25% of the signers being biologists? That would make them the majority! Twenty-five percent of 514 is 129 people. That is some 50 more than the next nearest category he names (actually the number is 154, which is 30% of the signers, and 78 more than the next nearest category named)! Wouldn’t it have been more accurate to those who dissent the most are biologists? Instead, the author chose to downplay the most significant portion of signers as though somehow it was less than satisfactory. Furthermore, aren’t the opinions of chemists, engineers, and physicists important to the debate? Of course they are, because all of these fields are used by Darwinists to muster evidence for their theory. The diversity of fields shows that dissent over Darwinism is not limited to one group of people, but pervades through several scientific disciplines.

He goes on to say, “The petition was started in 2001 by the institute, which champions intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and supports a “teach the controversy” approach, like the one scuttled by the state Board of Education in Ohio last week.”

Here he simply gets his facts wrong like so many others reporting on intelligent design in the media. The Discovery Institute does not champion ID as an alternative to evolution. Many ID folks believe in evolution. What ID is an alternative to is the purely naturalistic, neo-Darwinian form of evolution.

 

February 27, 2006

Physicians are Picky About Who They Kill These Days

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Capital Punishment
1 Comment 

Michael Morales is a convicted rapist and killer who was sentenced to death by lethal injection in the state of CA. He was supposed to be executed on Tuesday the 21st at 12:01, but U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel put a stay on his execution until he could be certain that Mr. Morales would not feel any pain in the process. The accepted solution to this requirement was to have a registered anesthesiologist present who could confirm that Mr. Morales was completely unconscious and unable to feel any pain prior to the lethal injection. Two anesthesiologists accepted the responsibility, but later backed out. Why? Because some are arguing that a doctor participating in an execution is not ethically proper. As a result Mr. Morales has yet to be executed.

The American Medical Association, the California Medical Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists are three of several groups that have raised ethical condemnations of the plan. The latter organization argues against the plan on the premise that “Physicians are healers, not executioners. The doctor-patient relationship depends upon the inviolate principle that a doctor uses his or her medical expertise only for the benefit of patients.”

I am glad to see some ethical awareness in the medical community, but I am baffled how selective this ethical sensitivity is. For over 30 years physicians have been the main providers of abortions in this country, and in Oregon physicians are involved in the euthanizing of the terminally ill. How is it that participating in these executions is ethically acceptable, but participating in the execution of a man guilty of gross moral crimes against humanity is not? Where is the consistency?

 

February 24, 2006

German court convicts man for insulting Islam

Posted by Jason Dulle under Islam, Political Incorrectness, Politics, Religions
[3] Comments 

From Reuters:

A German court on Thursday convicted a businessman of insulting Islam by printing the word “Koran” on toilet paper and offering it to mosques.

The 61-year-old man, identified only as Manfred van H., was given a one-year jail sentence, suspended for five years, and ordered to complete 300 hours of community service, a district court in the western German town of Luedinghausen ruled.

The conviction comes after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad — sparking violent protests around the world from Muslims who saw the images as sacrilegious and an attack on their beliefs.

Manfred van H. printed out sheets of toilet paper bearing the word “Koran” shortly after a group of Muslims carried out a series of bomb attacks in London in July 2005. He sent the paper to German television stations, magazines and some 15 mosques.

Prosecutors said that in an accompanying letter Manfred van H. called Islam’s holy book a “cookbook for terrorists.” He also offered his toilet paper for sale on the Internet at a price of 4 euros ($4.76) per roll, saying the proceeds would go toward a “memorial to all the victims of Islamic terrorism.”

The maximum sentence for insulting religious beliefs under the German criminal code is three years in prison.

While this may not be happening in America, it is happening in a Western nation where they are supposed to value freedom of speech and tolerance. While I believe Manfred’s actions were foolish, being jailed for them is just plain scary. More and more we are seeing people being censured in Western countries from criticizing other religions (besides Christianity of course, which is always fair game) or homosexuality. I fear for the future of the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression. The new religion in town is pluralism, whose moral code is relativism, and whose only law is the acceptance of every view as equally valid.

 

February 19, 2006

The Evil of Inflicting Life on Unwanted Children

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
Leave a Comment 

Anne Lamott, a so-called “progressive” Christian, wrote an article in the LA Times concerning a response she gave to a question about abortion during a panel discussion in Washington about social justice. She is staunchly pro-choice, and even had an abortion herself. Listen to what he has to say about abortion:

 

“I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.
…
“I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies — some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for — when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.
…
“But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.”


Let me make a few observations in the way of evaluation. In the first paragraph she made a moral distinction between the born and the unborn, and asserted that the choice of the born trumps the right to life of the unborn. Why? Why doesn’t the existence of the unborn life trump her right to choose? The baby’s location? But since when does where you are determine what you are, or what rights you are entitled to? Maybe Lamott can explain to us how it is that being in a womb robs a human being of his/her rights. Are there any other places humans reside in which they cease being the subject of basic rights? How about Washington?

Based on her comments in the second paragraph she seems to be arguing that the born have the right to decide the fate of the unborn because of differences in size. Why? How is size morally relevant? Since when does your size determine one’s moral worth, and who is the subject of rights and who is not? Does an adult female have the right to decide the fate of a 5 year old human being because she is bigger than her? Of course not! So why can an adult female decide the fate of a one month old human being? Is it because it sooo small? Well, then, exactly how big does one have to be before they are protected from being killed with impunity? What is the exact size? And what is it about that size that magically transforms the unborn into a morally significant subject of rights?

Lamott’s last paragraph is the most confusing. While she says each human life is sacred (including the unborn’s), she argues that the right to an abortion is a crucial part of the fight for that sacredness. What?!? We protect the sacredness of each human life by protecting a woman’s right to rob a tiny human being of his life? If words mean anything at all her position is nonsensical.Lamott’s most outrageous statement, however, was when she said we “must not inflict life on children who will be resented.” Inflict life? Since when is life something to be avoided? She acts as though it is a disease. And what’s so bad that life would not be worth living? Having someone resent you? There’s no doubt that being resented by anyone—yet alone your mother—would be a horrible experience, but since when do we kill people so they won’t experience potential emotional pain? Should we kill our unborn children because someone other than the mother might resent them someday? And how is it that something as immoral as resentment makes it a “moral necessity” that we kill unwanted children? It seems to me that one immoral act is being used to justify another, all in the name of morality. Such is the moral confusion of our generation, and it is being done in the name of Christianity. God help her!

 

February 19, 2006

new political rhetoric on abortion dismantled

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Tactics
Leave a Comment 

William Saletan of Slate recently proposed some new rhetoric for abortion-choice politicians to use when they are debating pro-lifers. His proposal is as follows: “My opponent and I both want to avoid as many abortions as possible. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn’t.”

Pretty good! It makes the abortion-choice candidate look sympathetic to the pro-life and abortion-choice side, all the while making the pro-life candidate look like someone who does not trust people to make their own choices. But there are some serious logical problems with this approach.

First, if you truly want to avoid as many abortions as possible then the ultimate goal should be to eliminate all abortions. Why? Because abortion is unnecessary, making it possible to eliminate the procedure altogether. One might argue that some abortions are necessary, particularly when the mother’s life is at stake. I can accept that qualification, but since that situation accounts for less than a fraction of 1% of all abortions we’re still talking about the real possibility of eliminating more than 99.9% of all abortions. Does the abortion-choice candidate truly want to eliminate 99.9% of all abortions? I highly doubt it. I would advise a pro-life candidate to call his opponent on this. Make him say he wishes to eliminate all elective abortions. I’ll guarantee he won’t do it.

Secondly, if you want to avoid as many abortions as possible, and you know there are women out there who are opposed to your desire, why would you trust them to work toward your objective? If you desired to save more Jews during the Holocaust, would you say the difference between you and the Allies is that you trusted the Nazis to work with you toward that objective while they did not? Of course not! How about murder? Would anyone say the difference between them and their opponent is that they trust murderers to work with them to eliminate murder while their opponent does not? Of course not! Then how can we trust women who want to murder their babies to work with us to avoid abortion? We can’t. We must legislate morality on them just as we do in every other area of the law.

So much for Saletan’s new rhetoric!

 

« Previous Page