Don't Let Health-Care Apologists Get Away with Faulty Assumptions [SK]

As you can see, I'm away in London suffering for God (ignore the date on the pic), but, even here, the Democrats most recent appeal to Christians is making headlines. I dealt with the faulty nature of this appeal in a previous post, but here is Al Gore's latest example of Scripture twisting:

Playing off the focus of the Kennedy funeral on the Gospel of Matthew’s parable of Jesus taking care of “the least of us,” Gore thundered that the country has “a moral duty to pass health care reform. This year.”

I have just one question for Mr. Gore: Are the unborn whom we are permitted to kill under this health care plan included in 'the least of these?' For example, if the plan you reference allowed killing toddlers to benefit the health of others, would you still say we had a moral obligation to pass it this year?

With all due respect to the former VP, he needs to answer those questions before lecturing us about our alleged moral and Biblical obligations to help the poor. And while we're at it, Scripture doesn't come close to backing up his alleged case. If he'd bother to actually read the text, here's what he'd conclude:

1. All humans have value because they bear the image of their creator. (Gen 1: 26, 9:6, etc.)
2. Because humans bear God's image, the shedding of innocent blood is strictly forbidden. (Exodus 23:7, Provers 6:16-19, to name a few)
3. The science of embryology clearly teaches that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinict, living, and whole human beings.
4. Therefore the unborn, like all humans, bear the image of their maker and should not be killed without justification.

Still want to quote Scripture, Mr.Gore?

An Abortion "Health Care" Dilemma [Serge]

Scott has a great post here. However, I wonder if supporters of Obamacare have really considered what the inclusion of abortion means in that bill.

Supporters of a universal health care system assert that there is some form of intrinsic right to health care. This is not a right to not have disease (which would be ludicrous), but a right to have another human being treat your disease (and hopefully improve your health) when you get one. And, of course, have the public pay the person providing the treatment.

Whether or not such a right exists is another interesting discussion, but lets assume such a right does exist. Assume we need Obamacare because we have a right to be treated if we get sick. Where does abortion fit into all of this? In the vast majority of cases, a woman seeking an abortion is not sick. The fetus that she is carrying is most often completely and perfectly healthy.

Furthermore, unlike other medical treatments that serve the purpose of increasing the overall heath of the human beings it affects, abortion does the opposite. The abortion procedure does nothing to improve the health of the pregnant Mom, and is specifically designed to kill the child growing inside of her. Health care can usually defined as treating a disease or sickness to increase the overall health of the human that is being treated. However, in abortion , there is no disease. There is no sickness. The treatment does not increase overall health. In fact, an abortion can only be successful if it provides the ultimate failure of health, which of course is death.

So in order to assert our right to be treated in case we get sick, we need to support and fund a procedure which does nothing to treat disease or sickness, but is intended to provide the ultimate failure of health. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Health Care: Should Pro-Lifers Overlook the Bad for the Good? [SK]

A Facebook message:

If you don't like aspects of the [House health-care] plan, offer some comprehensive alternatives. All you are doing is promoting the status quo. If your plan is to reject the whole plan because it has something you don't like, then no plan will ever get implemented. We will continue until the current plan collapses. There are far more indirect ways to kill people within the current situation than abortion. The unborn may be your priority, but the practical results of a stalemate will be a choice for others to die. And even if the state doesn't pay for abortion, abortion will continue. I don't think abortion is a good idea, but I also don't believe legislation against it is the best way to prevent it. I think your energies would be far more effective elsewhere. To me the anti-abortion issue and the gay rights issue is simply two ways to raise outrage among Christians to raise money.

Me:
It's true that despite President Obama's protestations to the contrary, the House health care bill (HR 3200) allows coverage for abortion. (See here and here.) Nevertheless, my critic says I should set aside my objections in favor of the overall good state-run healthcare brings.

I can't do it. Too much is wrong here.

First, notice my critic confuses moral claims with preference ones. He writes: "If your plan is to reject the whole plan because it has something you don't like, then no plan will ever get implemented." Problem is, pro-life advocates like me oppose this plan not because we dislike abortion (indeed, one could like abortion and still argue it's immoral), but because we think abortion is morally wrong. Now, if he wants to argue that we're mistaken about that, so be it. Let him make that case. But notice he does no such thing. He simply changes the kind of claim the pro-lifer makes.

Second, my critic's objection to pro-life concerns over the health care legislation is question-begging. More than once, he simply assumes the unborn are not human. For example, suppose the legislation in question was near perfect, but funded the destruction of two year olds to provide comprehensive health care for the rest of us. Can you imagine, even for a moment, him saying, "Well, let's not reject the whole just because of something we don't like." Never in a million years. The only reason he argues this way about a health plan that funds the destruction of the unborn is because he's assuming, without argument, they are not human like the rest of us. But that's precisely the point he must argue for his case to logically succeed.

Third, we get this odd claim: "And even if the state doesn't pay for abortion, abortion will continue." Of course it will, just like alcoholism continues even though the state doesn't provide free beers. The more precise question is will abortion rates remain unchanged when the state pays instead of the individual? For his claim to have any real force, he needs to advance some kind of argument suggesting that abortion rates do not change substantially when the public foots the bill. But I'm unaware of any analyst who makes that claim while some make just the opposite one.

My critic also says that he "doesn't think abortion is a good idea" but thinks legislation is not the best way to prevent it and that pro-lifers would be far more effective if they spent their energies elsewhere. Oh? Where might that be? Again, we're not told. But there are bigger problems. For starters, he never says why he thinks abortion is not a good idea. That is, if abortion doesn't take the life of a defenseless human, why be opposed at all? But if it does take the life a human without justification, why is legislating against it a bad idea? Again, we're given no answer. Moreover, pro-lifers are not out to merely "prevent" elective abortion. We want to make it unthinkable the way that killing toddlers is unthinkable to anyone with a functioning conscience. In other words, a society that has few abortions, but leaves it legal to kill unborn humans, would still be deeply immoral. In short, reducing abortion isn't necessarily pro-life. (See Frank Beckwith's piece on that point here.) Imagine a 19th century lawmaker who said that slavery was not a good idea and he hoped to prevent it, but nevertheless owning slaves should remain legal. If those in power adopt his thinking, would this be a good society?

Again, I think my critic can only argue that abortion is bad, but should remain legal, because he assumes the unborn are not human, like slaves are. But that's the question that must be resolved before trumpeting the virtues of this particular health-care bill.

Finally, there is this parting shot: "To me the anti-abortion issue and the gay rights issue is simply two ways to raise outrage among Christians to raise money." Forget for the moment that he offers no evidence for his claim. I can reply to his charge with one word: So? Maybe we do and maybe we don't use these issues to raise money. Either way, how does this refute pro-life claims that 1) the unborn are human, and 2) it's wrong to kill them with state cash? What we have here is a classic case of the genetic fallacy--that is, faulting an idea for its origins rather than its substance. Instead of telling us why pro-lifers are wrong about the humanity of the unborn, my critic jumps right to my alleged motivation for doing pro-life work. As Greg Koukl points out, this just won't work. "Psychological motivations give you information about the one who believes, but they tell you nothing about the truth of his beliefs."
-

Possibilities of Life [Elizabeth]

I pen this blog on the heels of a relaxing day spent in the mountains of north Georgia with my friend, Amy. Sunday turned out to be an uncharacteristically cool day. We enjoyed fellowship in a setting filled with evidence of God’s majesty.

The serene landscape was ironic when juxtaposed with my chaotic and emotional week. In my job as a crime reporter, I had to cover the sentencing of an 18-year-old who accidentally shot and killed his best friend on New Year’s Eve. The heartbreak in that courtroom was palpable. One family grieved the tragic loss of their only son, while another family rallied around a man who must come to grips with what he did and learn to live again.

Last week I also followed the story of a man who was physically abusing his 3-month-old son. That child is now in intensive care at an Atlanta hospital fighting for his life. The infant's father laughed about the situation in an interview with investigators.

One need not look far to see pain and suffering and tragedy. If we allowed ourselves to cry for all the pain in this world, we might never stop.

Despite this, the world is still a beautiful place with moments of grace, mercy, faith, hope and love.

I am grateful to be alive — grateful my parents allowed me to be born and that my Heavenly Father allowed me to be born again of water and the Spirit.

That said, I was angered this week by a Planned Parenthood podcast aimed at convincing women that abortion is “a very uncomplicated procedure” sought by women “wanting to be the best parent you can be and not feeling ready to do it.”

Is killing your unborn child so you don’t potentially mess them up later in life good parenting?

Last week in the world of pop culture, news exploded about reality star Kourtney Kardashian choosing life over abortion for her unborn child.

Kardashian gave an interview with People Magazine, and in it she spoke candidly about how she agonized over the decision about whether to keep her baby.

“For me, all the reasons why I wouldn't keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn't like I was raped, it's not like I'm 16. I'm 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time.”

I hope her testimony encourages people who might otherwise choose abortion to give life a second glance. But, I’m still disheartened by the image of immorality she endorses in her lifestyle — encouraging women to take the same path of promiscuity that leads to these difficult decisions.

Even the pro-life niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. — Dr. Alveda King — weighed in on Kardashian’s news.

“The courage of Kourtney Kardashian and the hundreds of young women who are coming to similar conclusions regarding unplanned pregnancies is proof that abortion is not the answer for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for women,” said King.

It is indeed not the answer. Your pregnancy may be unplanned. Maybe you don’t have all your ducks in a row, and the thought of a baby is overwhelming.

At least consider your options.

If you do decide to keep your child and love him in the midst of an imperfect world, it will most assuredly change your life forever. He will get hurt. He will cause you heartache. He will struggle in a world longing for the salvation of Christ.

But that’s life. Give him the chance to live it.

The "Abstinence" of True Feminism [Elizabeth]

An article in the latest magazine issue of First Things, a Catholic publication, introduces an unconventional concept worth contemplating.

In the article, “Her Choice, Her Problem: How Abortion Empowers Men,” Richard Stith builds on radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon’s argument that Roe v. Wade actually does little to liberate women and, instead, “frees male sexual aggression.”

MacKinnon argues in her essay “Privacy vs. Equality” that men control sexuality.

“The availability of abortion removes the one remaining legitimized reason that women have had for refusing sex besides the headache,” she said.

Which is why, she says, the Playboy Foundation has always supported abortion rights.

“Male responsibility really does end at conception,” Stith points out in his article. “Men these days can choose only sex, not fatherhood; mothers alone determine whether children shall be allowed to exist. Legalized abortion was supposed to grant enormous freedom to women, but it has had the perverse result of freeing men and trapping women.”

Stith writes that MacKinnon’s essay, which was given little credence when it was published, warrants further discussion. He argues that in a competitive sexual marketplace, the number of women willing to have an abortion “reduces an individual woman’s bargaining power.”

“As a result, in order not to lose her guy, she may be pressured into doing precisely what she doesn’t want to do: have unprotected sex, then an unwanted pregnancy, then the abortion she had all along been trying to avoid,” he said.

I think there’s some truth here. I for one have heard men admit they will never wear a condom during sex because there is no shortage of women who’ll oblige their demand for optimal pleasure. It’s sad, but it’s true.

It seems to me, following this logic — and contrary to what many feminists would argue — that the only way to be a true feminist is to make a man wait until marriage to have sex.

HT, Her Choice, Her Problem

LTI Podcast #17 - "Common Ground Part 2" [Serge]

Rich, Jay and Bob conclude their discussion on President Obama's appeal for common ground in the abortion debate. Rich continues his series on cultural cognitive dissonance by discussing the concept of informed consent. Why are women and girls seeking abortions not provided with the same information and opportunities that those seeking wisdom tooth extractions presently get?

http://media.libsyn.com/media/serge13102/LTIPodcast17.mp3 or subscribe with Itunes at http://serge13102.libsyn.com/rss (click the advanced tab, click "subscribe to podcast", and then copy and paste the bolded url into the field).

What's in a word? [Megan]

            Words are important.

            Other than Christ himself, the individual who has most profoundly demonstrated the importance of words in my life is my husband. He takes his words very seriously.

He uses gently (and sometimes not-so-gently) probing questions to force even me — the person he knows better than anyone — to carefully clarify my views. That practice — however frustrating it can be — has served to make me much more careful about making blithe or flippant statements, both in and out of his company.

            During a recent episode of “Renewing Your Mind,” (www.ligonier.org), Dr. R.C. Sproul explored the importance of words — vocabulary in particular, and benefits of the classical education model. Sproul said mankind’s ability to verbalize ideas and concepts is a major distinguishing factor between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom. That distinction resonates theologically — our relationship with God is principally verbal, both in terms of the way He communicates with us (we have the written Word and the Word incarnate), and the way we communicate with Him (prayer is, more often than not, expressed in words).

            Sproul said humans were created with the capacity to communicate. More specifically, followers of Christ are called to communicate the truth as expressed in the Word. And, as Sproul so eloquently pointed out, truth and fallacies are often separated by a razor’s edge. In other words, communication is something that should be done with precision.

            With such a small margin of error, it seems communication in the “marketplace of ideas” should be taken much more seriously. I don’t think the majority of individuals willingly tout things they know are false, but such falsehoods are uttered frighteningly often. Some are wrapped in such intimidating language — “bigger vocabularies” — it’s easy to accept them. When truth is separated by the edge of a razor, a slip in the wrong direction can make the influence of one’s words dangerous. But then, we see it happen all the time.

            There is a missing element in the cycle. Even today’s “educated” circle from facts to some form of rhetoric, and forget to check their information at the gates of logic. Droves of high school seniors leave the classroom, for the most part, still in rote-memorization mode. Minds that naturally began to question ideas at the age of 12 or 13 discovered that such questioning was lost in the classroom. There were just more facts to memorize. It makes sense that minds so thirsty for logic turn toward authority figures and other curiosities with fervor. 

            Young people graduate with the notion that facts are out there to be memorized and parroted — not thought through. Sadly, that notion sticks for many if not most.

            It makes it difficult to blame those who hear and adopt enticing sound bytes like, “I am pro-choice. I would never have an abortion, but I believe the government should stay out of a woman’s private decisions.” Or “Women have the freedom to do whatever they choose with their own bodies.” And let’s not forget, “You’re just being judgmental. Even though you think it’s wrong, you shouldn’t force your views on others.”

            The same insidious cycle exists for many who want to further their pro-life views. Sadly, the statement, “The Bible says it’s wrong, so I think it’s wrong,” doesn’t hold much water with someone who rejects the Bible as valid to begin with because they’ve accepted someone else’s elegant-but-empty dismissal of it.

            The absence of logic is the reason a simple question stops so many in their tracks. They find themselves groping for a bridge they never constructed, and finding a chasm.

            The good news is — armed with the truth and a few well-directed questions — we can expose the chasms in people’s thinking about issues regarding the unborn. Equipping individuals to do just that is what LTI is all about.

            It’s a fact that we use vocabulary to express our thoughts and ideas, including those that shed light on the truth about abortion and other issues.

            How important are words, you ask?

            Logically speaking, words save lives.