Thoughts on California's Marriage Ruling

The cultural understanding of the purpose of marriage has been destroyed over the last 40 years because almost all sense, reason and respect has disappeared in public discourse.

Serious discourse on weighty culture-altering matters is practically non-existent, beaten down by drumbeats of obnoxious self-centered demands. For many, debate over the deep issues of life counts simply as a sideshow distraction from other forms of amusement. Most simply argue with a great unwillingness to get past their own ignorance and educate themselves, choosing instead to accept the shallow and trivial moment and every position that supports their own desires.

As a nation, we suffer terribly from a lack of rational imagination to foresee long-term consequences.

The California judicial fiat is only a spasm in the death throes of the Republic of the United States. The Cold-War era idea that relaxing laws on contraception could eventually lead to a devaluation by society in the sanctity and purpose of marriage seemed so incomprehensible as to be laughable. Yet we see the destruction all around us, some more aware of the source than others.

We try to interpret specific court rulings as though spotting a bullet in mid-flight without trying to understand the trajectory; without comprehending the pattern and result. You never see the one that hits you.

Those who believe that this ruling has few long term consequences upon families completely overlook the power exerted by a particular lobby towards manipulating judicial and public opinion in complete disregard for the natural order of things. To say that this particular power will not be exploited shows an ignorance of the degenerate state of man.

Forty years from now, the unexpected consequences will be known.

Those consequences simply won't be a joyous matter, any more than people take joy in divorce, having an abortion, fearing for their lives or struggling with an incurable or life-altering disease contracted through promiscuous relations.

As we descend into darkness, it's inevitable that the Lord shines brighter. So it must be.

More thoughts on Abortion and the Holocaust

Is worldwide abortion a Holocaust?

The word Holocaust, for all practical purposes, has become a "reserved" label for the death of the Jews and their supporters at the hands of Nazi Germany in WWII. So I wouldn't use the word directly, to imply genocide in general. This respects everyone.

I do consider abortion a kind of genocide because a specific group, the unborn, are targeted as being subhuman or non-human, and then power is exercised over them which leads to their destruction. I think that because the mother (and often the father) are complicit with that destruction, it "orphans" the child and strikes with a particular viciousness at the idea of family, and the ideal that God calls us to in this regard. Clearly it's Satanic mockery of God's plan of salvation towards us as His children, becoming part of His family.

Please understand why I write what I do because I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the unborn, but we need to be clear as to what is different in these cases, and then use those differences to explain why people need to change from the heart and not simply because the state has imposed laws.

What is fundamentally different between these two calamities is the decision point of those given the power (the mothers alone) and the consequences they bear. The Jews as a people were being destroyed by a state - Nazi Germany. But Germany, as a state, was only halted through violence, so those who lived by the sword also died by the sword - Nazi Germany fell. The German people suffered as a side effect of their political and moral ignorance.

In the case of abortion genocide, the mother, for all practical purposes, decides - and yes pressure and coercion have their influence - however, the mother also has risk and suffers the consequences for having made that decision. In effect, the mother puts herself into a kind of "concentration camp". That's a vastly different situation - incredibly wrong, horrible consequences, but not the same situation as the Germans who relinquished their political sovereignty. We don't do either case a favor by framing them as similar when they really aren't the same when it comes to the decisionmaker's consequences.

Sidewalk counselors, and those who regret abortion and speak out about it - such as Annie Banno over at After Abortion understand the persecution, and perhaps have come to a place of healing, but they really can't be compared in the same way to Irena Sendler, for reasons I gave previously.

One of my favorite Scripture passages is what our Lord read in the synagogue from Isaiah 61:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed and proclaim the year of the Lord's favor [NIV Lk 4:18-19]

The captivity of sin which leads to the despair of abortion, and the death of the child is something from which freedom needs to be proclaimed and embraced. The truth needs to be revealed - massively, and completely, but we can't be false in how this comes about.

If the contentious issue on this matter is one of value judgement, then that is where the focus should be: why it is a value judgement to begin with? Which brings us solidly back to the pointed question - "what are the unborn? - are they human like us?"

This is far more fertile ground for discussing our condition, than drawing parallels that paint others who are blind to the truth as demons.

Abortion and the Holocaust

Jill Stanek posted a story about a true Polish hero, Irena Sendler who was instrumental in saving nearly 2500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. A truly amazing story and a beautiful woman.

At the end of her post, Jill made a comparison between this woman and activists within the pro-life movement:

Such a beautiful woman and story. Someday many in the pro-life movement, like sidewalk counselors outside abortion mills, will be similarly honored.

The comments section soon blazed.

I'm hoping here to add a perspective that adds some light, and a lot less heat.

In 1991 I walked the ground of the Warsaw Ghetto area for six weeks. Among the dilapidated remaining buildings, complete with bullet holes and other signs of combat, I saw continued anti-semitism, particularly against the synagogue where I was conducting computer training.

One summer, when I was 12, I saw enough of the concentration camps through B&W footage at a local college to know I didn't want to visit those camps when co-workers invited me to join them in 1991. Those who had visited the camps woke from horrible nightmares for weeks after.

Jill's post is a fallacious equivocation - a comparison between these two situations - the nightmare of the Warsaw Ghetto/Holocaust, and the genocide of the unborn.

They aren't the same. And we shouldn't paint them as such.

One could draw many comparisons, but the differences are primarily in the overwhelming despair and state imposition of the Holocaust and the distributive nature of the decisions made by millions of women for the genocide of the unborn. Each genocide has an incidious nature, but Jill's efforts, the amazing numbers of PRCs, the efforts of so many pro-life proponents in a land where people still have freedom to choose (with caveats), speaks to the light that shines brilliantly, whereas Europe was immensely dark at that time.

What makes Irena so special was her duty to save lives, at the continual extreme and imminent danger of losing her own.

While sidewalk counselors may be exposed to extreme hatred and potential violence, our rule of law still protects their rights as citizens, when all hope of such protection was missing in Poland at that time.

We should recognize Irena Sendler for her extreme dedication and sacrifice, but let us pray that things do not deteriorate to the point where such personal heroism is again necessary in the face of a state imposed genocidal solution.

My power supply ain't supplying power.

UPDATE - back in operation. Apparently the power supply was toasted - found the scorch marks inside. Thanking God it didn't turn into a fire.


Currently, my computer is non-operational.
Email can be directed to my thrufire account at gmail.

Hope to be back up soon.

Abortion Art or Infectious Hoax?

Given the amount of immediate blog action on this story I first ran into at Jill Stanek's rather than joining the fray of speculation, calls of outrage or diving into intense debate, I backed away - considered the mental health state of the young lady, and eventually started to question Yale University and in particular their Art department.

Doesn't Connecticut have laws that govern infectious or pathological waste?

Why yes - they do. Certainly the University of Connecticut Health Center knows all about it.

Too much debating?

Relax!

Adam Hamilton's Color Theory (part 2)

or Illumination of Ideas

This is a continuation of my last post Adam Hamilton's Color Theory.

I want to be fair to Adam, because in my prior post I stated he's assuming both sides can agree on 7 points:

1. Legitimate concerns of both sides


2. Life of mother exception


3. Decrease is desirable


4. Universal birth control access and info


5. Pregnancy duration & moral complexity


6. Coercion


7. Safety

The single thread running through these is a concern, perhaps love, for other humans. His illustrations reinforce this idea of a single dimension.

Yet I hope my extended illustration showed we can't always assume others see things in common with us, even though we're using the same language and words, and appear to have the same desire.

My prior post was about seeing, and that's critical. Adam clearly sees himself as pro-life, while others see him as pseudo or perhaps semi pro-life. As I pointed out, how we perceive ourselves within the context of the problem is an essential starting point. Do we truly understand the common element? That light - absolute transcendent Truth, must be at the core of our being and we must willfully be obedient to it. If we're not intellectually, emotionally and spiritually honest with ourselves, then there is little hope we'll be honest with others. If two sides cannot agree about this truth, then there is no common ground at all.

The conflict between abortion-choice and pro-life is a clash of two distinct world-views about truth. The metaphysical grounds aren't the same - it's multi-dimensional yet primarily a spiritual contest. If you want to talk about a single continuum, you'd have to address how each individual views life itself, and what they truly believe when it comes to their own origin, meaning, morality and destiny.

Adam has an incredibly powerful and moving testimony about his own origin which places him firmly within the context of the problem, giving him a legitimacy and a voice as one who was redeemed.

But how does Adam see the meaning of his life? What about his morality, and destiny? How has this origin shaped his view of others and is that viewed through the light of absolute transcendent truth? Does he see a cohesiveness, an intrinsic quality that declares his being as a whole - as a human being? Do others see him with the same intrinsic meaning?

It is not enough to believe we hold the truth, we need to constantly pursue it and we need to know it's a true light and not merely a reflection.

Adam's mother loved him dearly and was willing to sacrifice her life for him. In other words her focus was not on herself, but on another - specifically Adam.

She saw something that transcended herself, that went beyond her immediate situation. Through love, she caught a glimpse of Life, the Light of the World himself. In doing so, she sought the illumination of an idea she joyfully called Adam, a man who is still pursuing the Truth.

For those who are in the dark, whether it is origin, meaning, morality or destiny, only a glimmer of light can be revealed at a time, because too much light revealed at once would be blinding.

Yet every agreement starts with the smallest perceivable amount of light, and that is sufficient to say we have something in common, even if it's just a shade of gray.

Adam Hamilton's Color Theory

or there's more to gray than meets the eye

Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason is soliciting comments regarding Adam Hamilton's interview in Newsweek, which Adam discusses on his own blog.

Steve's a very thoughtful and considerate guy, so when he notes someone besides himself is looking for common ground in the abortion debate it's worth a closer look. Prior to opening the discussion, Steve is taking his time to reflect on the solutions described by Adam.

Okay - I admit, I didn't reflect for so long, because simply browsing the chapter revealed some thinking that needs some immediate clarification, and it has to do with reflection. I may think differently after a more thorough read.

I think Adam's quote, along with his book illustrations summarizes what I see as essential to understanding his discussion:

I believe that number could be halved if people might be willing to see enough gray to work together with those who view this issue differently than they do.

Adam needs a little lesson on color theory, because he's forgetting that how you morally proceed is based entirely on your perspective of God and the nature of man - in other words your foundational world-view.

Here's a nice gray metaphor - are we paper or are we a dark computer screen?

The additive color model is distinctly different from the subtractive. One adds light, while the other removes it. For instance, starting with a white page, dark spots added will remove the light reflection from the surface to arrive at gray. Conversely, if you are starting with a dark screen, you must add light to arrive at gray.

So is the substrate light or dark to begin with? In other words, is man currently good or evil? The substrate governs how we procede. But what is added, the procedure, also is crucial.

Clearly abortion is a moral procedure, but is it light or a dark spot? You can't answer that question without knowing if the substrate is dark or light.

So Adam's prescription for working towards middle ground makes an assumption that cannot be made - at least in a world of black and white, or more aptly, in a world of truth and light.

Because if the intention is to move towards gray, two opposite models will lead you there from two distinct directions, but only one fulfills God's will.

He assumes the substrate is the common ground, or a single dimension, which it isn't.

Only the light is the common element.

If we are called to be salt and light to this world, then our every move should reveal Christ to illuminate the darkness we face.

Mark Pickup: A non-submissive voice for Human Dignity

Perfect example of how culture redefines personhood one small consensual step at a time.

If we don't learn the lessons of the past - we're condemned to repeat them.

Controlled Burn: Bodily Rights or Lileigh's Location (Part I)

AKA: Thompson's Violinist Argument (and variants) or Parasite Pregnancies

Lileigh was an 8-1/2 month developed unborn child who suffered an injury prior to birth, was born via c-section, then died. Technically, the judge ruled her death a non-homocide because she wasn't considered a person at the time of the attack based on Colorado law. Her location was critical, both to the cause of her death, and how she was treated by the court. Lileigh's death highlights the irrational logic of abortion-choice, where one can legally be a non-person human-being.

Lately over at Jill Stanek's blog I've run into many abortion-choice advocates who are mother-bodily rights proponents who argue:

that the unborn are human beings, but by being in their mother's womb, the mother's bodily rights means their right to life is at the lone consent of the mother.

In short: The mother's bodily "sovereignty" overrules all rights of the child she carries.

The pre-condition which initially raises this issue is that the mother consented to intercourse, but not the resulting pregnancy: hence the abortion.

Francis Beckwith, in Defending Life, points out this issue, as framed, has been dealt with extensively by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin and others in variations on Thompson's violinist example.

Here's the scope of issues:

• 1. Metaphysical: The intrinsic nature of contestants - procreation & relationships;


• 2. Morality: agency of rights/responsibilities;


• 3. Intuitions, analogies and philosophical anthropologies - rationale & application.

Note: Initially I thought I would be able to handle this in one rather long post - however, after some reflection I've decided that it might be easier to comprehend if I broke it up into 3 parts. We'll start with the first part, with the remaining parts to follow.

1. Metaphysical: Intrinsic Nature of Contestants

Since the contest is between the rights of two conflicting human beings, we first need to establish the metaphysical basis of origin, substance and existence. The critical question to ask is this:

Are the two human beings equal on every morally relevant point to decide this contest?

Thompson et al. concede that the child is indeed a human being. However, the extent of her rights as a human being are contested, immediately indicating that the unborn's personhood is not considered the same as that of the born human being, specifically because of their relationship. We'll discuss relationship, personhood, non-intrinsic objections, then summarize the metaphysical question.

a. Relationship

Because of the mother-child relationship we immediately run into a very hard fact that provides a basis for rejecting every other philosophical anthropology, because the existence (not merely life) of one of the beings is dependent, in part, upon the other being.

"Aha!" say the abortion-choicers, I rest my case. Not so fast - all that's really been stated is that Thompson's violinist arguments and the like cannot apply to this issue at all, because the substance-existence relationship is not found in any other example.

In other words all of Thompson et al. examples are controversial non sequiturs which fail before they even get off the ground of solid metaphysical reasoning because the mother-child relationship is completely unique when it comes to human beings. If we're talking about the rights of two bodies, then you must start with the bodies, the flesh and blood - right?

Let's back up a second, because the unborn's existence (again, not yet discussing on-going life) is dependent only in part upon the mother. As we now know, the father provided the other half of the DNA for that child's substance. Quite literally, at the completion of conception, two have become one flesh. It's also factual our existence is not detachable from an unbroken chain of pregnancies - a relational continuum of life. The violinist examples do not have that essential pre-condition. They assume a metaphysical grounding detached from this means of origin within the context of the vital relationship that brings about humanity.

So what they throw out cannot be thrown out: that the conceptual process and the substance nature of both mother and child are of the same nature, an on-going human nature.

However, does 1) being of the same substance of human flesh and blood and 2) the existence of both "beings" brought about through a unbroken chain of pregnancies make them morally equal on all bodily rights?

Well, with criminal violations aside, we treat all born human beings of that same substance and that procreative process equally. Since all other born human beings arrived on this planet the same way, the human substance - flesh and blood, and the conception & gestational process is universally equal to all human beings. Clearly both substance and gestational process are pivotal to our discussion.

b. Personhood

Arriving at the issue of personhood, the question must be raised: do the two contestants have the same moral basis for personhood? That is, not do they possess the same degree of development of person, but do they each possess all the essential common characteristics we recognize as necessary for a human person?

I believe this is the great schism in the debate, because the abortion-choice position assumes:

That human beings can redefine the personhood of other human beings

But do human beings possess that right? The issue is critical because we're dealing with personal autonomy. How can we test this?

Because the mother-child existence relationship is unique, the only reasonable test of a human being's personhood we can perform is to swap the two contestants locations making the daughter the mother and the mother the daughter. The mother is now within the body of the daughter - think of the movie Freaky Friday, then zoom back to the time of pregnancy. (But unlike Freaky Friday, the bodies are exchanged as well.) Granted this is a conceptual swap, but from a practical sense, our chain of unbroken pregnancies acknowledges the mother was a daughter at one time. So the proceative/gestational relationship is not rejected and the only assumption is removal of time constraints so we can exchange the spatial & birth order relationships between the two contested human beings.

Should that change the moral basis of the mother's person, by exchanging places with the daughter?

One would reasonably say no - it shouldn't and that's precisely my point: to claim it would change the moral basis would be a circular argument (and reveal the personhood begging schism) because the claimed abortion "right" shouldn't change no matter who was in the womb.

So far we've run into two problems:
1. The abortion choice position begs the question by assuming a rationale based upon a non-sequitur and in so doing they reject the metaphysical basis of their own personhood - the natural human procreative/gestational process.
2. They beg the question again by assuming a definition of personhood that cannot logically exist in the world of living, propogating humanity.

I know - that's some deep thinking, so let me clarify: As human beings we don't morally possess the right to redefine the personhood of any other other human being because such redefinition can be applied to yourself as a human being. It subjects humans and is circular. For logicians out there - whole (intrinsic or universally true) human beings cannot be declared non-whole, (partial or universally false) human beings. That's self refuting, like saying TRUE is FALSE.

c. Non-intrinsic objections

Some say I'm begging the question on two points:
1. I'm simply assuming the unborn is a person.
2. I'm also assuming that development is non-essential.

On the first point I provided three solid reasons: substance, relationship and conception/gestational process. As each of us is that human substance, have those relationships and have undergone that pro-creative process, these are morally essential to all human persons. Conversely, as you cannot remove one of these without completely eliminating the human being, they must also be intrinsic to the human person.

On the second point, it might be said "You have a human organism, but it's not a person until it has developed sentience and a thinking mind state". So this abortion-choice view of personhood assumes state of mind is an essential consideration of personhood, such that without it, a human being can be considered a non-person. Restated: to be considered a whole human being, the mind-state of a whole human being must be present.

Let's try removing a person's mind-state to see if we can still have a human being, and to make it fun, let's use Rene Descarte (Cogito ergo sum "I think, therefore I am" ). If Decartes was knocked unconscious, would he have ceased to be a person? Well, as far as we could tell, he wasn't thinking, so therefore he wasn't! Not really. ;-)

How about this one: If you weren't mentally aware of your birth at the time of your birth, then how can you ever claim you were born?

Expected functioning of the mind is not a necessary pre-condition for human personhood. To make the matter completely clear - Terri Schiavo was still considered a person by Pinellas County, the State of Florida and The United States of America even though her mind ceased its normal functioning, otherwise legal matters would not have been initiated on her behalf.

Often mind functioning and official identification, are assumed to be, but are not, essential to the intrinsic nature of a human person.

In Lileigh's case, the legal reasoning for a human to be officially identified as being born, (and duly recorded as such), is to ensure there was an observable relationship between official charges and specific bodies. Birth is an official identification by the state for record keeping purposes, but was not the first acknowledgment of her being. Due to medical practice, pregnancy is an official diagnosis that must be declared by a licensed official physician of the state. That's the first official state acknowledgment of Lileigh as a human being, and rightly a more just point of official identification. In Leleigh's case, the fact that there was not an official identification of her person prior to her birth doesn't mean she wasn't one.

Official identification of Brain functionality doesn't redefine personhood
Official identification of brain functionality is based on the inherent characteristics of the whole human person. Borrowing a piece from Scott Klusendorf's observations of the UDDA - death is the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. In other words, no further development is going on.

Given the live, nascent growing form of the embryonic brain and that we don't reject/redefine the personhood of any born human based on stages of development, the abortion-choice advocate assumes what they are trying to prove - for the unborn to be considered a whole human being, their idea of the mind-state of a whole human being must be present. They beg the question.
As development occurs in some manner equally among all human beings, it therefore cannot be a differentiating factor in this moral equality contest.

So do human beings possess the right to redefine the personhood of other human beings?

Clearly the answer is no, not without doing something horrible to their own sense and understanding of humanity, and thereby entering a realm of circular, self-refuting logic.

d. Metaphysical Summary

Okay - let's ask once more that 1st critical question:

Are the two beings equal on every morally relevant point to decide this contest?

Only if you rationally accept the view of a human being in all stages of life, including pre-natal, is a person of human substance that is a full-fledged related member of the human community, who is subject to every other moral consideration we respect. There simply is no such thing as human non-persons, but that path - of declaring others as such, is historically cruel, and becomes a distortion of human morality. 

Therefore: Yes - the two human beings are morally equal with regard to their metaphysical standing.

The scope of that moral consideration is the subject of the next part: Morality: Agency - Rights and Responsibilities

Pro-Life Case Website - an idea

As a pro-life advocate, I've long been frustrated with not having a central "bank" with regard to arguments and evidence to "point" to. I've often re-written the same arguments to different people with little change, because the abortion-choice arguments come down to very few viewpoints, most of which have to deny the humanity of the unborn.

I'd really like to see something similar to what Michael Speilman did at Abort73.com in providing the pro-life case, except putting each argument on a single page where both sides are represented, along with relevant evidence photos or references. I'd also like to display the dry syllogistic argument in a form that would point out the error.

Francis Beckwith did a great job in his book "Defending Life" by providing an almost exhaustive treatment of each abortion argument. I kind of envision what he did as a hyperlinked argument that you could "drill" down into and supplemented by media support.

Then when you encounter abortion arguments you can identify it as one on an argument page and send the abortion-choice advocate there with a pre-made link.

Such a pro-life case site would would serve several purposes:

1. Provide a single comprehensive educational point of reference for pro-life advocates.
2. Provide best of class arguments for the pro-life position.
3. Be able to interlink a web of material. Think wiki, but more finely grained.
4. Provide explanations why abortion choice advocates hold a particular view.
5. Invite abortion choicers a place to try to shoot holes into the case for life.

The long term goal is to educate such a large body of pro-life advocates that so thoroughly know their material, and who can so gracefully and devastatingly weild it, that opposing the pro-life position would be considered foolish, selfish and shameful.

What do you think?

Body/Self: To who am I speaking?

In the abortion debate there is a line of argument that goes like this:

The fetus is not a moral sentient being because it doesn't think, therefore it's not a person and can be killed.

Such arguments are known as body/self dualism.

As you can see, those who argue this believe a human body exists, then later a "person" inhabits that body. The premise is non-sensical and needs to be shown as such.

Using that logic, how can one demand bodily rights when one doesn't view their body as intrinsic to their person? Since the origin of their personhood is doubtful, evidence must be produced that they are in fact valid and rightful owners of said body, the body they are claiming ownership over, for how do I know I'm not dealing with a "person" who's using a stolen body? In fact, how do I know if there's not more than one person in that body?

Sounds foolish? Yes - but that's what they are arguing: that human beings aren't intrinsic. They demand we treat them as intrinsically valuable human beings, while arguing that the fetus is not.

Take the proverbial advice and never argue with a fool - because people might not know which one is which.

Geeks, Meat & Misandry

This was from a survey on the same day that Dawn Eden presented her case on the Today show. See my post below for my take.

Anyone who thinks that MSNBC, NBC or the like are respectable needs to simply do a gender swap with the terms used and see if it fits.

Pathetic.

Controlled Burn:Relatively speaking

When it comes to certain objective behavior, it's nearly impossible to read a comment thread on the Web without running into this kind of exchange:

moralist: I believe (objBehavior) is wrong because I've been harmed by (objBehavior).

amoralist: I'll defend your right to say (objBehavior) is wrong, but saying (objBehavior) applies to everyone is wrong.

What is the amoralist actually saying?

First, the amoralist acknowledges that: the moralist is asserting that (objBehavior) is harmful in all cases and is therefore immoral.

Then the amoralist asserts that: (objBehavior) is not harmful in all cases so the objBehavior is therefore moral.

Can you spot the problem?

The amoralist must be omniscient - all knowing - because he's trying to prove the negative: no harm in all cases. (The negative, a universal meaning void, zip, zero, nada, nothing.)

And - as if trying to prove the negative wasn't strong enough, the amoralist has actually declared he knows about universals by using the qualifying phrase "applies to everyone" - which means all humans and every occurrence of this (objBehavior).

Clarify the amoralist assertion like this:

You're telling me there are one or more cases where (objBehavior) is not harmful.

Chances are he'll confirm he's trying to prove the negative. So when you run into one of these situations you could tell him "If I understand you correctly, you've got nothing to prove...quite literally."

The amoralist has encountered an insurmountable problem: he is at odds with objective reality and universal logic.

Warning: Deep thinking ahead!

Moral behavior is not subjective, like opinions. Morality is objectively, universally applicable, because humans are objective. We visibly exist and we are all subject to both good and evil.

Logically, good cannot be evil, there are no other values in between, so what is asserted as a vice cannot be a virtue. Virtue and vice are not interchangeable - that would be nonsense, akin to saying the light is both on and off at the same time. They would negate each other and become meaningless.

Either objective behavior is good for everyone or it's harmful for everyone. Put another way, if an objective behavior harms one person, it harms all others if they engage in it. That's a moral statement.

The only way an objective behavior can be proven morally harmless is if no one is ever harmed; not doing so rejects those who've been harmed as persons.

Since the amoralist is defending the moralist's right to say he was harmed, he's acknowledging the moralist as a person, and since he cannot prove the negative on that objective behavior, the only way for the amoralist to believe he's correct about such moral relativity is to simply assume he's correct about morals being relative.

The statement begs the question.

A Thrilling Defense of Sexless Dating

Earlier this week on the Today show Dawn Eden had the opportunity to introduce the idea of chastity (and promote her book "The Thrill of the Chaste") to a national audience. She did an excellent job answering the implied questions “Why remain chaste? Why forego sex while dating and wait until marriage?”

Dawn provided her own reason for choosing chastity: “you can't seek permanence through impermanence”.

What a great statement. For me, that stimulated some thinking about what we seek in relationships and how we build intimacy with members of the opposite sex. Given that the panel was all women, I thought I would take a shot at expanding upon that statement, particularly with regard to a man's need for respect.

First off, please note that while Dawn's response is not a biblical quote, it is a biblical viewpoint, because God is the most permanent being we can possibly imagine having a relationship with. So permanence is this immensely desirable characteristic. Permanence means stability because the unknown is removed. It's also immeasurably valuable, because we have no way of conceiving the value of a universal.

In searching for a spouse wouldn't we desire those permament intrinsic qualities, as well as cultivating them in ourselves? In so doing we would be creating a relationship based on the quality of endurance and permanence, instead of impermanence.

But do we really express that desire when we seek relationships? Do we truly believe permanence is valuable?

Whatever attitudes we hold, whatever we believe to be true is eventually expressed to others. For instance, if we believe it's okay to test sexual compatibility then immediately doubt is cast into the relationship. If that doubt is exposed to the light - what would it reveal about the true character of the person who wants to test compatibility?

Let me make that more concrete: Jo Arden Maeder suggests that women should test sexual compatibility then lie about their reasons to their men. We can test that by asking "Would she - Jo Arden Maeder, ever actually state to her 'man' that she was testing him for sexual compatibility?"

Some would argue a man's greatest need is respect, while others would say it's sex. The reality is a man's greatest need is respect when it comes to sex.

Even promoting the idea of undertaking a sexual compatability test devalues and disrespects men because it reduces us to our sexual organs and performance in bed. With regard to sexual organs, in any other venue, when we are judged by an immutable characteristic, such as our skin color, age, sexual organs or body mass, we call such judgements discrimination. To even suggest the notion hints at misandry - and a quick perusal of the Today show site indicates that attitude in abundance. To focus on performance reduces men to a mere product who's utility comes through providing pleasure to the one who seeks it.

Therein lies the crux of the problem - and so highly visible in that Today show segment and the like. Most feminine oriented media and magazines speculate endlessly about why things aren't working and what needs to be done to fix them. This does a great job selling products, but in the end it reduces us all to merely being products, the kind prone to breakage and need of replacement. In other words, there's no respect at all.

What made Dawn stand out in the crowd was her rejection of that idea and her focus on the imperishable and wonderful, and in the process she introduced something bright, sparkling and permanent into the lives of many: Hope.

Falling Down

Sometimes, like little children we forget God, we run off on our own, then, suddenly we fall down. We trip ourselves up, or some event happens and we wonder - “why did that happen to me? What am I supposed to do now?”

The wisest advice is to assess where you are. Are you down on your face? Are you on your knees? Are you in pain? Are there tears?

It’s at times like these that we need to praise God, because we are down for a reason: we're actually where we need to be, humble, hurt and looking up.

Maybe we were going faster than God wanted us to go. Most likely moving in the wrong direction. Maybe we failed to be repentant and humble.

So what would you rather have, lots of small stumbles or one terribly hard crash?

What's in a name? - coming soon

A good way to start off a blog is to reflect why it has a particular name and theme, which I hope to do over the next week or so - provided God doesn't have other plans!

Given that posting essays is slightly different than my usual experiences providing reactionary comment, I'll be trying to find a pleasing balance between illustrations, insight, references to source materials and meaningful application.

Comments on the success of that balance would be greatly appreciated!

The other thing I'm trying to get used to is the extra polish needed - or I could say refinement.

Divine Appointments

Sometimes meetings happen that are completely unexpected.

Jill Stanek had just such an experience with Steve Trombley, the CEO of the newly consolidated Planned Parenthood of Illinois.

Though Jill and Steve couldn’t be further apart on the issue of abortion, they ended up next to each other on a plane headed to Dallas. You can read about Jill’s take on it here.

God’s ways are mysterious, and humorously humbling - it’s rather hard not to see this occurrence as some sort of sign.

What can be accomplished through such encounters? The late Anna Sullivan of Rhode Island Right to Life showed her rival Mary Anne Sorrentino - the former Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in RI, small bits of kindness that conveyed great sacrificial love whenever they met prior to their abortion debates. It included letters and recognition, even during turbulent times. The love God showed through Anna was so much that Mary Anne wept greatly at the passing of her friend.

What Anna knew, which Mary Anne is learning, is that love is not a feeling, but something you do. Even if it’s something you don’t want to do, like asking sincere questions about the other, not to frame arguments, but to learn of their life. It means seeking that image of God within them, no matter how dim or obscure that might seem. Such efforts are a sacrifice - a small bit of holiness.

As followers of Christ, one of the hardest things for us to learn is how to separate the sin from the sinner, and look at people through a heart of forgiveness and love. It’s easy to know it in our heads, but so much harder to truly love our neighbors in our hearts.

As a father, Steve believes he’s doing right, yet he must realize that life is incredibly precious. During the long hours of the night he’ll wonder about his legacy - about making a better world for his grandchildren. He’ll likely wonder if his own children aborted his grandchildren, and what their lives would have meant to him. He might even miss the love they would have shown him. And he may regret the joy he never knew because one of his own decided to treat another of his own as a mistake instead of a gift, as property instead of a human being.

What does it matter - why does he do what he does, if ultimately the goal is to provide a better world for the coming generations?

Truthfully the abortion industry deals with the doubt and despair of many, so it’s no wonder they seek after a candidate who pledges to provide them hope, but ultimately cannot deliver.

Steve happens to be one of those in the depths of despair.

God is sovereign. We know the end of the story.

The question is do we have the courage to love others like Christ even though they might be killing themselves and their posterity?

That’s easier said than done.

Loaves & Lives

Lately I've been grappling with the idea of "intrinsic value" which seems to be, well, essential, to most thought provoking pro-life human value arguments. This idea escapes so many people - in argument after argument I've noticed that few seem to grasp what “intrinsic” means, offering instead their own interpretation. And it's not merely the pro-choice crowd that misunderstands the idea.

Stand to Reason's Greg Koukl, while interviewing Robert P. George (who, along with Christopher Tollefson wrote "Embryo:A Defense of Human Life") mentioned that radio host and columnist Dennis Prager, while understanding the pro-life position, also failed to grasp the meaning of "intrinsic value". (Listen to STR Podcast of 2/19/08 at 37:30 in)

Inspiration being what it is, the other morning I woke up with bread on my mind - how wonderfully diverse bread is, and yet so representative of humanity in terms of illustrating this idea of our intrinsic value.

Like people, bread comes in all sorts of shapes, sizes and different forms, from whole loafs to flat breads to rolls and biscuits. Sometimes yeast is added, sometimes it isn't. It also comes in various colors, textures and tastes based upon numerous ingredients, yet it all has one single thing in common: grain flour.

From a challah loaf to a pita pocket, without grain flour, there is no bread. It could be said that particular ingredient is intrinisic to bread.

The analogy to human beings is that our flesh and blood, the human cellular material which is the combined ingredients from both mother and father, defines us as humans - not any other ingredient that might be added after.

Our flesh and blood is intrinsic to our nature as human beings, to our very personhood as beings. Just as you can't remove the grain flour and still have bread, you cannot remove flesh and blood and still have a human being regardless of their concious state.

Disconnecting personhood from flesh and blood (dualism) undermines all bodily rights reasoning for abortion. How can you rightly claim it's your personal body, if you don't believe it has a coherent, intrinsic value as a whole?

When Christ lifted up the loaf, he may have been illustrating more about his relationship to humanity than what was immediately apparent.

Let the writing begin!

Well, I finally decided to spend time writing on my own blog as opposed to simply posting as comments on others. The thought occured to me that I was spreading seed in other's fields, but never in my own... how could I expect fruit if no one knew where to find me?

Over the last few months I've been learning XHTML, CSS, PHP, Joomla and JavaScript - (Look I speak in tongues!)

Anyhow, as I come up to speed, the blog will undergo some changes. Eventually, I'll have to move it to another location, because I definitely mean to get a full operation going.

This is the first real post, which calls for a blessing:

May God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, bless this blog, so that it brings Him glory, may He be forever praised! Amen.