Saturday, April 28, 2012
2:11 pm
Daniel J. Summers
When George Stephanapoulos brought up a birth control question in one of the Republican debates, Mitt Romney was taken quite by surprise, as were most of the other analysts and pundits. This wasn't an issue; why was the question posed? As it turned out, this was the first rumbling of the “Re-Elect Barack Obama 2012” narrative - “The Republicans hate women!” From Sandra Fluke's testimony, Rush Limbaugh's criticism, and the resulting fallout (which I thoroughly dissected in the post immediately preceding this one); to the framing of the debate on Obamacare; to the sneering condescension shown by more than one person towards Ann Romney, stay-at-home wife to her husband Mitt; the narrative has been plodding forward.
Part of this is based on the quite-successful efforts against Planned Parenthood, in the wake of revelations that many of their offices were caught covering up for underage sexual abuse, failing to report what they were legally required to report. However, cutting back on Planned Parenthood might cut back on abortions, the 2nd Sacrament of Liberalism, and we simply cannot have that. With the stakes so high, the Great Uniter Himself can't just leave the battle to his surrogates:
If a Republican candidate made such a claim against a person or party, he or she would rightly be taken to task by media watchdogs for making false claims. Just THINK about this claim. Now, let me ask you this. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO “DENY” HEALTH CARE TO ANYONE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER? I am a Republican, I have many friends who are Republicans, and I have never heard any of them talk about denying anyone health care.
This is the lunacy behind this question. But, their lunacy is enabled by the alternate dictionary through which they view the world. This is a different lexicon that we were taught in school. Here, if the government isn't paying for something, it's being withheld or denied; if the individual in need can't get something because they can't afford it, and you don't believe the government should pay for it - well, why do you hate them? There is also no distinction between necessary and elective procedures; “health care” must cover them all. Your objections to this can't possibly be motivated by your morals, or your belief that there is a better way; they must be motivated by hate. Therefore, Republicans are hate-filled bigots who want you to die.
I can assure you that any health care plan that covers breast cancer will also cover mammograms; if it doesn't, I would stay away from that company! The cost of a mammogram far outweighs the cost of oncological care, and since the insurance company's job is to save as much money as possible, they would rather pay for mammograms than pay for cancer treatments. If they did not cover mammograms, they would also be at a competitive disadvantage to companies that do.
Will the media call out this lunacy? Probably not; they'll just leave us to bask in the warmth of this toasty, smoldering straw man.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
10:50 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Contraception has been in the news quite a bit recently, culminating this week in testimony before Congress and calls for Rush Limbaugh's microphone over his response. Let's look at the timeline and how we got here, then I'll share my thoughts on the whole thing. (If you're in a hurry, skip to the last 2 paragraphs; but, if you have the time, read the whole thing, as it goes deeper than I have seen most analysis go.)
This issue came to the forefront of popular discussion when the Roman Catholic church expressed their opposition to the provision of the health care reform bill (AKA “ObamaCare”) that required employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptive care. Official church doctrine regards this as sin, and requiring their hospitals and other organizations to provide this, they claim, is a violation of their religious beliefs. The fact that Rick Santorum, a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is a practicing Roman Catholic (and has lived these beliefs for years), has brought this issue even into the primary process.
Some legislators, seeing this as a legitimate complaint from the church, presented legislation that would amend this requirement, allowing an exemption for employers who have religious objections to these requirements. To help combat this, a Georgetown University student named Sandra Fluke testified to Congress about how important she held contraception, and how she felt that free contraceptive coverage was an integral part of health insurance coverage. Rush Limbaugh, long known for “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” (his term), seized this testimony and ran with over-the-top commentary, using terms to describe Ms. Fluke that have people calling for his job.
Those are the facts as they now stand. Let's dig in, shall we?
The first thing we need to discuss is the term “contraception;” the literal definition is “against the fertilization of the egg” (contra = against, con-ception = fertilization of the egg). A popular synonym for contraception is “pregnancy prevention,” but that is a much broader term. Some feminists define contraception as “that which prevents birth,” an even broader definition than pregnancy prevention. There cannot be an agreement on contraception until we can all agree on what that means. We'll leave abortion out of it, as the view of abortion being contraception is a minority one, and it's not part of this mandate.
What is part of this mandate, however, are drugs that are collectively termed abortofacients; these are techniques or medicines that do not prevent the fertilization of the egg, but they prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg onto the uterine wall. RU-486, the “morning-after pill,” and certain intrauterine devices (IUDs) fall into this category. These methods of “contraception” violate not only the Roman Catholic views against contraception, but the evangelical churches' beliefs that life begins at conception - it is equivalent to an abortion. This greatly expands the pool of those organizations which would be required to provide coverage which violates their moral beliefs.
Some would say that the argument of “it's against my religion” has been made spuriously in the past, and they would be right. However, the prior misuse of this argument cannot be used to strip away the principle, long recognized in this country, that we generally do not create laws that force mainstream religious organizations to violate their consciences. I personally do not hold to the belief that contraception is wrong; however, I do hold to the belief that life begins with conception. This is described in Scripture, and has been validated with medical advances over the past few decades. So, I believe that this law is a bad law because, among its other many problems, it forces religious organizations to either violate their conscience or face criminal prosecution. In a nation founded on the principle of religious liberty, this is not something we should do.
Now, let's turn our attention to Sandra Fluke and her testimony before Congress. Her testimony brought a valuable insight into the mindset of many of her generation. She said “Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” Let's ignore the math of that statement ($1,000/year?) for now and look at what she didn't say. Implicit in this statement is the fact that she feels entitled to not only practice sexual activity as much as she wants, but to be free from the consequences of that activity. That is one of the lies that now permeated a second generation. They have been told that their sexuality is best expressed by using it repeatedly, and however they choose to do it, that defines who they are. The sexually “repressed” have been ridiculed or even shunned, while the sexually “liberated” are celebrated. Thanks to contraceptive methods, they can express themselves free from the traditional consequences of sexual activity.
This is a lie. “Liberated” sexuality does not empower women; rather, it strips them of their power, instinctively inherent in the human race. It is no secret that the male of the human species is inordinately preoccupied with this aspect of his life from adolescence forward; traditionally, while the female may have wanted the same thing, she would hold back, which encouraged men to make a commitment they might not otherwise make. The old adage “Why would you buy a cow when you can get the milk for free?” illustrates this principle quite vividly. 40 years out from the sexual revolution, commitment has taken a nose-dive into near non-existence. Cohabitation, hooking up, friends with benefits, and no-fault divorce now provide avenues for sexual activity that were not available to men in the past. So, rather than commit to one person, and do the hard work of changing themselves to become better mates in order to earn this gift from their brides, men can just float from one partner to another. If a partner sees something in him that, were he to change, would make him a better man, he has very little motivation to endure that change. This has led to weaker men and weaker women, and in two generations has brought us to the place where over 50% of babies born to women under 30 are now born out of wedlock.
Yes, we're getting deep into this, but it is crucial that we do so, because this begins to get to the biggest problem with the Fluke generation (heh - I should copyright that). We can expect nothing different, because they simply haven't been taught, and they did not see it modeled in anything but generations so old they'd never dream of mimicking them. They see no reason for people to have a problem with this. This is also why there is such a visceral reaction when these beliefs are challenged. That doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to seek out and evaluate whether what they believe is right, but it helps to understand their thought process.
Notice also that I am not judging the character or intentions of the generation as I described it above. Even with parents teaching their children these things, and living them out in front of their children, people will make choices that are less than optimal. The above should be read as a commentary on society, not as a condemnation of its participants. Besides, assigning blame to people is counterproductive; we need to look at the decisions that were made, where they have led us, and determine what decisions we should make to get us to where we need to be. My goal is to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society.
(Wow, what a rabbit trail. OK, back to my point from 4 paragraphs ago…) Although I doubt she sees it this way, what she expressed in her testimony was a desire to choose to act however she wants, but be free from the negative consequences of her actions. This is what has provoked such a reaction from her detractors - why should I (through government-funded insurance programs) pay for your decisions, or for shielding you from the consequences of your decisions? Engaging in sexual activity is a choice; you don't just “catch” sex. (We're ignoring rape with this statement - but what kind of attitude do you have to have to always have contraception for fear of rape? That doesn't apply in this argument.)
This brings us to Rush Limbaugh, who used absurdity to greatly ridicule Ms. Fluke. He said some things that he knew were over the top; that's what he does, both to illustrate points and to garner ratings. Predictably, there have been calls for his job, and some advertisers have pulled their spots from his show. Since I started this post earlier this morning, he has apologized to her for the incendiary words that he used. (Interestingly, one of those words has been used triumphantly by feminists to describe themselves, as a celebration of their sexual freedom; if she truly is a feminist activist, one might think she would take that as a compliment. Sadly, the double-standard discussion will have to wait for another time, or this post will never wrap up.)
Just as we looked at the Fluke generation, think about the Limbaugh generation. Rush is part of the first generation that began, in large numbers, to shed the morals and values that had been with us for hundreds of years. He is now seeing the results of this, and is flabbergasted that things have gone so far so quickly. He also enjoys getting people riled up, particularly the “femi-nazis,” a group that is pretty easy to tick off. So, when we look at his statements, considering his history and background can help put his comments into their intended context. As has been proved by both the right and the left, an out-of-context sound bite can be made to say whatever one wants; however, the truth, whether exculpatory or damning, can only be determined by evaluating the statement as whole.
Are there any of you who feel that Limbaugh should have been censured, who also feel that, now that he's apologized, all his sponsors should return to his program on Monday? Now you're starting to see it. He may very well have to live with the negative consequences of his actions, even though he has apologized for them. Should his insurance company produce the lost revenue from these advertisers? Of course not - he would be crazy to suggest that they should. This is the exact same principle we evaluated above! Maybe seeing it turned on someone less sympathetic will help you understand the issue more clearly.
Personally, I believe that shielding people from the negative consequences of their isolated bad actions can be beneficial, particularly if they are allowed to experience part of those, and have to expend some effort in ameliorating the remainder. (I'm not talking about Limbaugh here; this is a general statement.) As the adage goes, “Good decisions come from experience; experience comes from bad decisions.” People are not perfect, and they are going to make choices which bring negative consequences. Notice, though, that I started this by saying “personally.” Forgiveness is a personal virtue, not a government policy. However, even with forgiveness, it is often neither possible nor desirable to shield the person from the consequences of their actions. What people like Sandra Fluke want is for the government to spare no expense in its attempt to shield her from whatever consequences she deems undesirable. A government policy of forgiveness, paired with the equal application of the law, amounts to a tacit approval of the activity. It is not fair to forgive or shield one person and not another; some would argue that limiting it to one instance would not be fair either. It just simply does not work.
Sexual activity is certainly not the only area where we see this mindset at work. One of the major sparks behind the Occupy movement was frustration from people who got a college education, but could not parlay that education into employment. They wanted their school loans forgiven - and, with the value they were seeing from that piece of paper, who could blame them? But, again, actions have consequences. They chose to get the education in certain degrees, and at a pace that incurred debt. Their demand that others pay to shield them from the negative consequences of those decisions was met with some sympathy, but mostly derision from people who saw them as a bunch of freeloaders, protesting their poor state from their iPhones and iPads.
Let's distill all of the above down to five main points. First, the contraception provision in ObamaCare is wrong, and inconsistent with our legal traditions; it becomes more so as the definition of the term contraception is widened. Second, the nuclear family is the most beneficial for society, and provides the greatest motivation for both man and woman to improve themselves as they grow closer to one another. Third, while people like Ms. Fluke may not see it, they are expecting others to pay to shield them from the negative consequences of their actions, and this is what many people, myself included, find distasteful. Fourth, consider the context from which both sides originate when analyzing arguments, particularly those which generate a strong reaction; it may not make their argument any more believable, but it will help reveal not just what they are saying, but what they want. Fifth, while forgiveness is a positive personal character trait, it is incompatible with government policy.
I hope my analysis has helped you evaluate this issue; it goes way deeper than sound bites can convey. At its core, this is about respecting religious convictions and accepting personal responsibility. I hope and pray that my nation chooses to do both.
Friday, December 23, 2011
1:43 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Christmas 2011 happens to fall on a Sunday. This has led to a number of churches moving their services to Saturday in lieu of Sunday, and a number of other churches loudly proclaiming that, of all days, worshiping Christ is something that should and will happen on schedule. One would think that this would be the end of it; however, some (not all) people on both sides seem to be invoking the “more spiritual” argument in defense of their schedules. This bothers me, and I believe both sides are causing harm with this argument, turning the focus from Christ (the reason for the season) to man's actions.
Let's take the rearrangers. The primary motivation I've heard for churches modifying their usual schedule is so that families can maintain their Christmas morning traditions. Having a church service requires “work” for more than just the Pastor; for a 10am service, people may need to be there as early as 8am to prepare the facilities, and may require people as as late as 12:30pm to close everything up once the hour-long service is over. Adjusting the schedule frees all these people from these obligations. God's presence is not limited to the walls of a church building, and as the second-biggest celebration on the church calendar, moving a service is not contrary to Scripture. The meeting is still happening, so these people are not violating Hebrews 10:25, which says:
...not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
On the other side, we have the people who feel, of all days of the year, the celebration of the birth of the One we worship is the last day they would consider not meeting. They see it as an opportunity - Christmas only falls on Sunday once every 6 years (depending on how leap years fall), and this year is one of those lucky years. Worshiping on the Lord's Day and Christmas at the same time? Awesome! They see the worship of God as preeminent, not subject to rearranging at the whim of man's schedules.
Neither of these positions violates any Scripture I can find. And, let me be clear, I believe that “right with God” Christians can hold either of these views. It is not the views, it is the “holier than thou” arguments I'm hearing made in defense of these views. The thing is, we as mere humans cannot possibly know enough to make value judgments about either of these views. Motivation and heart are the key items here. Jesus made it clear that good works from a wrong heart are worthless.
On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.”
If those who are rearranging are doing it out of selfishness, they are wrong. If those who are keeping their schedule are doing it out of moral superiority, they are wrong. Those who are looking down on either of these groups is also wrong. The focus should be Christ, not man's performance.
This weekend, worship Christ, the newborn King. Do it Saturday, do it Sunday, maybe even do it both days (that's our family's plan). Focus on Him, not on others. Then, after this weekend, continue. Worshiping Christ should be a daily occurrence in our lives.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
10:52 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This is the first in a series doing the education that the colleges which the Occupy Wall Street gang (#OWS hereafter, taken from the shortened version of their #OccupyWallStreet Twitter hash tag) failed to impart. I have two in the queue behind this one, but there may be more.
For those living under a rock, a group has been camped out in New York, protesting Wall Street. There was a list of demand published, but many protesters were quick to point out that there was no official list. However, there have been recurring themes. Corporations are greedy. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Debt is bad. People aren't hiring them even though they have a college degree. A job is a right.
Dear #OWS, your parents and your colleges have failed you. Before we dig into details of why your demands are unworkable, there are a few big-picture things we need to discuss.
Welcome to the Real World
This is where your parents have failed you. You are the generation who grew up “safer” than ever, protected from terrible things like concrete under your playground equipment, lack of head protection when you rode your bike, having to suffer the indignation of losing your soccer match because they didn't keep score, etc. You are the result of a social experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong, where a bunch of too-smart people decided that the way children were reared for generations had to change. They were going to do it better. They were going to do it more safely. They remembered how bad they felt as children, when they were picked last for sports, or struck out and helped their team lose a game; or how they were made fun of during the awkward stages as they grew from children to adults; or how they never fit in with the “in” clique at school. So, they tried to eliminate all these things. No scorekeeping, and everyone gets a trophy. “Don't say that word!” “Bullying is wrong!”
Where they went wrong is that by their attempts to eliminate bad things, they did not teach you how to deal with these bad things. I'm all for the elimination of bullying, but you can't wish that and make it go away; you should be trained on how to deal with it. In real life, there are winners and losers; there is no “no scorekeeping” option. Everyone does not get a trophy. There are attempts, and there are failures. You have tragically had your opportunities to learn how to deal with this as a child snatched from you. Now, you're behaving as children would normally behave; you're just a lot bigger. You're adults, so you think that your demands aren't childish. Sadly, I'm here to inform you that they are. Railing against the real world is futile; you are not going to change it, at least not much. You would be much better served applying yourself and learning how things work.
A College Degree Is a Tool, Not a Guarantee
Here is one area where your college has failed you. No matter what the admissions adviser told you, a college degree is not a guarantee of a good job. Even in good economic times, a college degree is likely to get you in the door, at an entry-level position. (You understand where the term “entry-level” comes from right? The level you start, when you enter a company?) The people that have been there for 10 years beg to differ with your assertion that you should start out at the level to which they have worked themselves up. And, if your degree ends with “Studies,” you're probably 1/4 as employable as someone with a degree oriented toward something a business would actually need.
The Corporations You Decry Have Made Your Protest Possible
You have utilized the services of several public and private companies. Let's take a look at the evil that's made this protest possible, shall we?
Twitter - Still a private company, Twitter was valued at $10B earlier this year.
Google (GOOG) - You know, the owners of YouTube, the developers of the Android mobile operating system, and the target of your “Google It!” chants? They are a publicly-traded company valued at $57.85B (plus assets, minus liabilities)
Did you drive, or take public transportation, to get to the site of your occupation? Those evil oil companies made that possible.
Now, what you're not going to read in future installments are claims that the “real world” is perfect. There is room for change, and there are people running companies who have no business running them. However, if you want to maintain the lifestyle in America to which you've become accustomed, or improve it, you really don't want to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I'm sorry your parents and colleges have failed you. If you stay tuned to this spot, I'll help educate you on why the things you're so worked up about, contrary to what your “I wish communism worked because it's just such a good idea” professors taught you, are actually good for you.
Friday, September 23, 2011
5:42 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Can you believe the state of Georgia executed a man where 7 of the 9 witnesses against him recanted? If you find that hard to swallow, you should; it's simply not true. The reality is that 34 witnesses testified against Davis - 34. It is true that 7 of them altered their testimony in some way; however, those alterations included:
2 statements with subtle differences before the trial; these discrepancies were both addressed during the trial, and the witnesses did not say they lied or were coerced at all.
2 statements were impossible to believe (according to the judge); they didn't match with the other testimony, and one of them even conflicted with Davis' mother's testimony.
2 came from affidavits where the defense refused to put the affiants on the stand, rendering them unable to be cross-examined. The judge did not allow this.
1 was a credible recantation, but the judge felt his testimony was of limited value for the prosecution.
So, rather than 78% (7/9) of the witnesses recanting, as claimed in the popular version of the story (picked up and perpetrated by those who are philosophically opposed to the death penalty in any case), we're looking at 3% (1/34) of the witnesses recanting. Now, for those who are opposed to the death penalty, that's still 3% too much; but, when you have someone who shot someone else once to knock them down, then came back and shot them again, while standing at point-blank range above them - 3% is within the margin of error. Even if everyone opposed to death penalty lied to keep him alive, you'd expect the percentage to be higher than that.
Lest you think I'm making this up, the documents are available for public perusal. Part 1Part 2
I know that many of my friends are feeling sorrow and anger over this execution; hopefully having the facts will help you feel less sorrow or anger. In this case, you may object to the method, but know that it was not applied inappropriately in this case.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
11:02 am
Daniel J. Summers
Only a month late (when I originally wrote the bulk of this - now it's more like 8 months late), this is the 8th annual “Sanctity of Human Life” post. It's going to be a long one; please don't TL;DR it. There's too much to this topic to do it justice in 5 paragraphs, and putting it out in parts would invite debate and assumptions about the parts I'd left out. This post is free of my typical snark, and also free of (atypical for me) hyperbole; I am completely serious, and have reviewed my words to ensure they are the ones I intended to use. The premise is simply this - abortion is morally wrong (which we now know, given advances in medical science), and as such, should not be legal nor easy to obtain.
Let's start with the framework within which I view the issue. I believe that man was created by God and placed here on this planet to live for His glory, and that He has given us the earth for our pleasure and enjoyment. I believe that evil exists in this world, that bad things happen, and that actions have consequences. I generally believe (though not always) in erring on the side of caution. I believe that, as God's creation, all life is sacred. I believe that God has enabled man to discover many beneficial things in the area of medicine and health care, and I believe that He expects us to use this knowledge within the framework and principles laid out in His Word.
(I fully realize that many of you reading this may not agree with that framework. Feel free to debate about what appears below, but the above paragraph contains things that, for me, are past debate. I've heard the arguments against it, and I'm simply unconvinced.)
In looking back through my archives, the post entitled “Abortion: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Passed” was my 5th post on this blog. In this post from 2003, I mentioned (without citing) the medical advances that had happened since 1973's Roe v. Wade decision. This page has a good description of what happens day-by-day. At 21 days (3 weeks), the heart begins beating. With ovulation occurring 14 days after menstruation starts, and another 14 until it's due to start again, a woman would likely not even realize she's late before her baby's heart is beating. 9 days later, at 30 days, this heart is circulating its own blood supply, completely separate from the mother's, thanks to the placenta. Day 35, we've got a 5-fingered hand, and on day 40, we have brain waves. By one and one-half menstrual cycles, we've gone from nothing to a beating heart and brain waves.
Let's look at what happens up to 12 weeks, which is when pretty much anyone who approves of abortion thinks it's OK. The liver starts making blood cells, and the brain is controlling the limbs in week 6. Week 7 brings the jaw, tooth buds, and eyelids. Week 8, and I quote, “the fetus has everything found in a fully developed adult,” including stomach acid and a complete nervous system. Fingerprints, fingernails, and hair appear in week 9. In week 10, “the fetus can bend, stretch, make fists, open hands, lift its head, squint, swallow and wrinkle its forehead.” Week 11 brings urination, and in week 12, the baby is breathing amniotic fluid, has sleep/awake cycles, and does exercises. All this knowledge has been gained due to ultrasound technology and other study.
Now, God, morality, and everything else aside - read those descriptions again. Does that sound like an unviable tissue mass? Sure, it's dependent upon its mother for sustenance, but how is that different from a newborn baby? It isn't - and that's what we've learned. It's not a blob of cells that represent an inconvenience, it's a new creation that has been entrusted to the mother. Even without counting abortion, an estimated 25-33% of pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth (according to HopeXchange, an organization that help people cope with these types of losses). With numbers that high, it would seem to me that the tissue masses that are unviable are taking care of things themselves.
Respect for life is one of this country's core principles; “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Laws against murder are nearly universal, even in countries that cannot claim the God-seeking history that ours can. It is simple human nature that reasonable humans understand - it is wrong to take the life of another without cause. (This is not to imply that I am anti-death penalty or anti-military; there are limited times when life-taking can happen in a moral way.) With science again backing up Scripture, we see that the developing fetus is simply a pre-born baby that is being knit together in its mother's womb.
So now, let's look at the whole “safe, legal, and rare” thing, a phrase used by many pro-choice supporters to describe their desired state of abortion. It's a given that “safe” doesn't apply to the unborn baby - they suffer near 100% fatalities. (Yes, near.) But is abortion as we know it today safe for the mother?
A recent study in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that abortion accounts one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole, correlating to greater-than-double risks for alcohol abuse and suicide, and triple risks for marijuana use. Melissa Clouthier has a great summary of this study, as well as some commentary.
Recent medial studies have found that there is an increase in breast cancer risk for those who have had abortions, similar to those who have given birth prematurely (before 32 weeks). The reason is that the cells that the body produces during the early stages of pregnancy are immature, cancer-prone cells, which mature during the final two months of pregnancy.
There are many risks to the uterus as well. Risks of uterine perforation, cervical lacerations, and placenta previa all increase due to the trauma on the internal lining of the uterus.
Now, childbirth brings its own complications, to be sure; I don't mean to imply that birth is completely safe. However, birth does have the advantage of being how our bodies are designed to work. Given the risks, I believe abortion is unsafe for both mother and baby.
We've established unsafe; how about legal? We know that Roe v. Wade “legalized” abortion, but there are still laws regarding its practice. Different states have different laws; nearly all states permit abortion through the first trimester, and some allow it through the second trimester. Few permit it in the third trimester, and there is now a Federal law against “partial-birth abortion,” a practice so abhorrent I'm not even going to describe it here. But, do its practitioners follow these laws? Some do; others, like Kermit Gosnell (link gone) do not, and Lila Rose has made a career exposing the unethical and often illegal practices at the nation's #1 abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
Hmm - we're 0 for 2.
How about rare? Well, let's look at the statistics. In 2008, there were 1.2M, down a little from the previous year; however, births were also down 2%, to 4.2M births. So, we prevented 22% of the pregnancies from resulting in births. I would not consider something that happens between a fifth and a quarter of the time rare, and I don't think anyone else would define it that way either. What it comes down to is this: if it's safe and legal (as we've been told, and those who question are ridiculed), it won't be rare.
Now, let's contrast this with the opening paragraphs. Abortion is not safe; it kills the baby, and causes health problems from the ex-mother. It's not rare; it occurs in over 1 out of 5 conceptions. As a person with the beliefs I laid out above, this is an absolute no-brainer. God created our bodies to reproduce; it's a natural consequence of the act that leads to conception. The easiest way to avoid conception is to avoid intercourse (also advocated in Scripture for those who are not married), and the fruits of that intercourse are, time and time again, referred to as gifts from God.
As an American, I see 20% of two generations now cut down before they breathed their first breath. I see counselors having a very easy time convincing people not to have abortions, simply by using ultrasound to show these ladies the life that is living inside them. I hear of post-abortion counseling groups with waiting lists. Have we aborted the person who was to find the cure for cancer? The scientist who was to determine how to produce food in desolate regions? The person who was to invent the flying car? Who can say what the long-term consequences have been for our folly of convenience.
It's not safe. If it's made illegal, only then can we hope to make it rare.
Friday, September 2, 2011
1:11 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Last week, Focus on the Family had a very rare 3-part series called “Thriving as a Modern-Day Woman.” Now, you may be thinking, why am I listening to a program on how to thrive as a woman? Well, the name of the episode is taken from the book Thriving as a Modern-Day Woman, written by Shaunti Feldhan and Robert Lewis. Robert Lewis is also the author of Raising a Modern-Day Knight, a book about raising sons; it draws parallels among the current time, the time of the knights, and the Bible. So, there's the hook. :) If Robert Lewis is involved, I'll listen.
The discussion was interesting, but as I was listening (as a non-woman), one thing became clear. Guys, we are the ones who can enable our wives to thrive. Women have a great ability to see what's done, and what isn't. If “what isn't” falls under something we should have taken care of, but we aren't doing it, she's going to either nag us to do it, or she'll just do it herself. Neither of these helps her focus on what she should be focusing on, nor is it very productive.
So, what things “should” she be focusing on? I love Dr. Juli Slattery's hosting technique; invariably, she'll ask the question, “Well, what does this look like?” The point is that this may be all over the map, depending on how the couples relate to one another. However, it is based on roles set forth in the Bible, on how both a husband and wife are on the same team, and are happiest when they are filling these God-given roles.
But, enough babbling from me about it - go listen for yourself; it's an hour and a half well-spent. For bonus points, put this on your portable audio player and go walking while you listen!
Focus on the Family - “Thriving as a Modern-Day Woman” - (no longer available for download)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
1:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This is the middle post of my three-post “Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” The linked words in that title will take you to the other two posts. Here are the things that I considered bad in 2010.
Wikileaks
Wikileaks began as a whistleblower website, where people could release information about injustices. In 2010, they made a leap into classified government documents. Purportedly stolen by PFC Bradley Manning, these documents were not only embarrassing for some government agencies, the information contained in those documents identified informants and other non-public allies in the War or Terror. While the creator of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is currently in custody (due to some somewhat-questionable sex crime charges), there is little legal enforceability on a citizen of another country disclosing secrets of another. Several US companies have severed ties with the site, and kudos to them for that; however, I believe that the net result of this will be bad.
ObamaCare
What I've identified as the most ridiculous quote of 2010 (“We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it”) was spoken in reference to this bill. Going by the formal name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (colloquially known as “Obamacare”), this bill enacted many reforms to our health care system, most notably in the area of insurance coverage. The bill mandates that all people purchase and retain health care insurance (a provision already rule unconstitutional), stipulates that insurers must cover preexisting conditions and may not drop insured people for certain conditions, and provides for the creation of a public co-op. There may be more, but at 1,300+ pages, who knows?
We are already seeing the unintended consequences of this legislation. Insurance rates are going up, with many companies raising rates 25% or more. This shouldn't catch anyone by surprise; what is called “insurance” in the bill is more like a membership. Insurance is a bet against bad things happening, which is the entire reason preexisting conditions aren't covered. Where's the bet when you know the outcome? Insurance rates are not designed for this type of use. (Conspiracy theorists could speculate that those who passed the law knew this. They really wanted public control, but the people didn't want it - instead, they passed a bill that will bankrupt the insurance companies. Then, who rides in to save the day? Liberal government!)
Insurance is but one of the problems with this bill; there are many others where the unintended consequences outweigh the intended benefits. Hopefully, the 112th Congress can undo this monstrosity before most of its provisions become effective. Until then, though, this remains on the bad list.
The FCC Implements Net Neutrality
“Net neutrality” is the concept that network service providers (ISPs, cell carriers, etc.) must treat all network traffic equally. This means that they cannot favor certain types of packets (ex. their own video streaming) while slowing down other packets (ex. competitors' video streaming, voice over IP). While, on the surface, this sound good, it fails to take into account bandwidth considerations, and the consequences of that bandwidth being used up. A TV signal can be broadcast through the air, and whether one TV or a million TVs receive the signal, the signal is the same; however, the same signal received over the Internet must be duplicated once for each end point receiving it - it is a request-response network. It's not as cut-and-dried of an issue as some of its more ardent supporters would like to paint it.
Congress has failed to implement net neutrality legislation, and courts have ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no jurisdiction to implement it on its own. That didn't stop the intrepid FCC, which issued net neutrality guidelines near the end of the year. Hopefully 2011 will find these regulations to be unenforceable; as it stands now, though, these regulations are bad, and have the potential to slow innovation around the network.
Recently, one of my Facebook friends posted a link to an article entitled "How Do Christians Become Conservative?" I believe that this article was significantly flawed; I hope those friends will take the time to read this and think about what it says. Know my heart in this; it's not a me vs. them, conservative vs. liberal thing, it's about truth. As a Christian, I want to ensure that claims made about my Savior are accurate; after all, if we're supposed to follow His example, shouldn't we make sure we know what that is?
The article was written by a man named Mike Lux. In this article, he goes through great pains to show how Jesus was actually a progressive (a term liberals like to use for themselves to avoid the negative connotations associated with liberalism). I found his theology questionable, being based in large part on taking quotes out of context. Over the course of this entry (and at least one more to come), I'd like to show where this is misguided. I have no personal vendetta against Mr. Lux, nor do I derive any pleasure at showing where his arguments break down; this is not about him or me.
(Regular readers of my occasional posts here will know that I either post short items or long items; this isn't going to be short. Quotes below are from Mr. Lux, unless otherwise noted.)
First off, I want to address his view of Scripture.
I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn't going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I'll be there with a lot of my favorite people.
I focused here on the Jesus of the Gospels (principally Matthew, Mark and Luke - the Gospel of John is almost all focused on mystical spiritualism).…
Judeo-Christian scripture is a rich and complicated work of literature. Written over the course of (at least) several hundred years by dozens of different authors, there are a variety of perspectives and many times outright contradictions in the theology and the politics of the writing (if it's all inspired word for word by God, He seems to have changed his mind a lot).
This, then, is an unbeliever trying to tell believers what Scripture says. He obviously does not believe 2 Timothy 3:16, which states “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness…” Either all of the Bible is true, or none of It is; if It is not entirely true, how do we know which portions are and which portions aren't? Why base your faith or arguments in a flawed book?
Given this view of the Bible, it almost makes sense why his arguments are so selective. There are portions of the Bible that can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say. A serious study of the Scriptures must consider the many different contexts; the context within the surrounding verses, the context with Scripture even in different books of the Bible, and the context of the culture in which the statements were made.
The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his.
This is true; however, it wasn't just His followers for whom He was concerned regarding spiritual well-being. In fact, one verse that is frequently taken out of context is Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.
When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
Wow! How non-judgemental! I've lost count of how many times I've heard this being used by someone to justify why a Christian shouldn't point out their sin to them. There's just one problem with this - I (just as they do) conveniently left out the last part, which changes things just a bit.
“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin any more.” (emphasis mine)
Jesus didn't condemn her (a point lost on some Christians, that's for sure); but, He did not ignore her sin! He gave her forgiveness and a charge to change her behavior. This is certainly only one example (and not even one Mr. Lux made), but it's illustrative of how omitting something can change the meaning of Scripture.
With that example, let's dive into Mr. Lux's use of that technique.
In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed.
He's speaking of Luke 6:20-26. “Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours.” (v. 20b) However, compare this with Matthew's account in Matthew 5:3 - “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.” So, is Jesus talking about poverty, or is He talking about pride? Balanced against the remainder of Scripture, both Old and New Testament, I believe He's talking about pride. Realizing that one is a sinner and needs forgiveness requires a humility that's unnatural for us humans. Generally speaking, those who are wealthy tend to rely on their wealth, rather than the saving grace that Jesus offers.
I'll grant him that yes, Luke 6:24-25 do appear to say what he says they do when taken out of context. There are other Scriptures that speak to the difficulty someone who has riches can have following the Lord.
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good but One - God. You know the commandments: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not defraud; honor your father and mother.”
He said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these from my youth.”
Then, looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: Go, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” But he was stunned at this demand, and he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.
Jesus loved this person who wanted to follow Him. However, He knew the hindrance that these possessions would have on this man's ability to focus on following Christ. Jesus didn't condemn him for having these possessions and riches; rather, He told him how he should use them. Caring for the poor and needy is an outcome of one's relationship with Christ; in fact, James 1:27 says “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress…” There are several other places where rich people are told to use their acquired wealth to help the poor; they're not condemned for earning it, just directed to use it in a different way. Again, this fruit comes from the seed of a relationship with Christ.
(On a side note - this is not a governmental edict. Isn't it “progressives” who accuse conservatives of trying to make America into a theocracy? Of trying to make God's law into man's law? Where's the “separation of church and state” argument, Mr. Lux?)
For today, let's look at one more of the claims from the original article.
He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.
This is true. However, did He chase these bankers and merchants from the temple because they were wealthy? Of course not - this claim shows his ignorance of how these things worked. Originally, the Jews were supposed to bring a spotless lamb or dove to the temple for a sacrifice, or certain amounts of grain or other produce for an offering. As the Jews branched into pursuits other than agriculture and farming, and as they became more busy (sound familiar?), a cottage industry sprang up with people who would sell spotless lambs and doves and measures of produce that the people could purchase, then offer to the priests to take care of their responsibilities.
Scripture doesn't condemn this aspect; and, as with pretty much any business, a little profit goes a long way to ensuring the business can continue. However, greed soon set in, and these vendors were not selling what they claimed to sell. Some of the animals were not spotless. False weights were used to charge people more than what they rightfully should have been charged. This was the reason Jesus went through the temple like a bull in a china shop, and the only time we see Him being physically violent. What was His problem? “Is it not written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves!” (Mark 11:17) “Den of thieves” was not class warfare; it was an accurate description of those selling 2 ounces of product for the price of 3, and those passing off blemished animals as spotless. This story (recorded nearly word-for-word by three of the Gospels) is about people scamming others, using their desire to worship God for their own monetary gain.
There will be (at least) a part 2; I still haven't addressed his claim that Matthew 25 shows how to get to heaven (hint: don't be rich), nor have I addressed the (red herring, IMO) of limited socialism within the early church, as described in the book of Acts. It will be linked below once it's written.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
10:16 pm
Daniel J. Summers
(OK - that's counting years I missed it. Not missing it this year…)
This year, Sanctity of Human Life Sunday has been expanded to Sanctity of Human Life Week, beginning 17 Jan 10. The image you see to the left will be my profile picture on Facebook for the duration of this week. These days, with medical technology being what it is, the argument against abortion is really quite simple. Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, ultrasound was in its infancy (pardon the pun). We had no clue, comparatively, to what goes on inside a womb the way we do today. Most babies' hearts are beating before their mothers realizes they are pregnant. All the activity that goes on in there is amazing, and 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds have opened up this world to us.
What's the difference if the baby is drinking through a tube or through its mouth? We don't euthanize preemies that have to have feeding tubes; and even after birth, the mother has the responsibility of feeding her baby. There are periods during pregnancy now when, depending on what the mother wants, she can either have a preemie (who, though challenged, will probably make it), or an abortion. Is that the “choice” that the pro-choice crowd is for? Why is it that, during this most precarious time, when they need protecting the most, people feel entitled to snuff out that life? There's a reason that I call my abortion category “Prenatal Murder” - that's exactly what it is.
And the numbers - these numbers are staggering! Current Red Cross estimates put the Haiti earthquake casualty count at 45,000-50,000. Around the world, there are 1,206,000 abortions a month; divide that by 30, you get 40,200 a day. In the United States alone, we're running at 1,206,200 a year, which means we take about two weeks to kill that many babies just in this country.
There's a Haiti-a-day going on in the wombs of women around the world. These precious babies' voices are too soft to be heard - will you speak up for them?
Christmas 2011 happens to fall on a Sunday. This has led to a number of churches moving their services to Saturday in lieu of Sunday, and a number of other churches loudly proclaiming that, of all days, worshiping Christ is something that should and will happen on schedule. One would think that this would be the end of it; however, some (not all) people on both sides seem to be invoking the “more spiritual” argument in defense of their schedules. This bothers me, and I believe both sides are causing harm with this argument, turning the focus from Christ (the reason for the season) to man's actions.
This year, Sanctity of Human Life Sunday has been expanded to Sanctity of Human Life Week, beginning 17 Jan 10. The image you see to the left will be my profile picture on Facebook for the duration of this week. These days, with medical technology being what it is, the argument against abortion is really quite simple. Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, ultrasound was in its infancy (pardon the pun). We had no clue, comparatively, to what goes on inside a womb the way we do today. Most babies' hearts are beating before their mothers realizes they are pregnant. All the activity that goes on in there is amazing, and 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds have opened up this world to us.