Relative life

Here's a response I sent to the editor at Forbes.com for an article published today:

In the abortion debate the basic issue is whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human person. If the fetus is a person then abortion is immoral, if it is not then abortion is no more an issue than removing a wart. That being said, the pro-abortion camp gives away their true stand in some of the things they say. For example, in this article the claim is made that a fetus younger than "x" weeks of gestation cannot feel pain and, therefore, does not need anesthetic during an abortion procedure. The question that comes to my mind is this: If a fetus is not a human person, why do we care if it feels pain during a medical procedure designed to remove it from existence? The back-side of this question is: If it is a human person, then why is it acceptable to kill it? We all know that even a simple, fertilized zygote has all the genetic structure of a fully-developed human being. And with that genetic structure being unique, it is a unique human person. We also know that like produces like. Fish do not produce rabbits and dogs to not procuce lizards. In the same way, human beings produce human beings. Those who are in favor of abortion either do not understand that what is being destroyed is a human life or (and I'd rather like to think that this second group is very small) they advocate killing of innocent human beings that they deem as unfit to live according to their own subjective standard. I would like to conclude by stating that, since there is a debate as to when "life" begins, why not give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt. If it deserves the dignity of anesthetic during this gruesome procedure, why not allow it the dignity of its first breath from the womb?

ABC throws a curve

Last night I was blind-sided by something I saw on ABC while channel-surfing for about 5 minutes (that's about the extent of TV I get to see in any given weeknight). It was at the end of the show Boston Legal (a spinoff of The Practice). For those not familiar, the show stars James Spader as a sleazy lawyer in a fairly sleazy law firm in Boston. The characters and plots are pretty much left-wing in their slant. That's why I was so confused. From what I can gather from the 90 seconds or so that I watched, the firm had taken as a client a teacher(?) who was being sued for teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in his classroom. For whatever reason, this group of lawyers decided to take his side in the courtroom battle. At the point I began watching, the judge was delivering his decision and it basically went along these lines: Scientists should not be afraid to have other theories taught alongside evolution and intelligent design is not in violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Case dismissed.
My jaw dropped. What in the world does this mean?? Hollywood screenwriters producing a script that champions a cause seen as a plot by the "religious right" to sneak religion into public schools? And a major broadcast network actually airing it?? Regardless of what the thought process was in putting the episode together and airing it, I'm very thankful that God saw fit to work it out in this way. Perhaps the arguments made in the episode (and now I wish I'd seen it to hear how they argued the case) will get some folks who are currently in the "undecided" column on this issue onto the side of intelligent design. Again, I'm dumbfounded by this unexpected turn of events in the media...and confused. I need an aspirin.

Pathetic "pastor"

After reading this, I will never buy anything by Joel Osteen (not that I have to this point anyway...but all the same).

Legalism and pluralism in the church

Sorry I haven't posted much lately... been very busy at work. Found this excellent point surfing through some other blogs (see the full article here):

"I find it odd that, in an age marked by an explosion of licentious antinomianism in the Church, most pastors are preoccupied with 'legalism' so-called. Teenagers in the church can be fornicating with one another; wives can be leading their husbands around by the nose; or husbands can be passive and withdrawn from their responsibilities, but is this kind of open rebellion against the law of God attacked by pastors? Hardly. They’re too busy condemning the father whose daughters wear head coverings and Pilgrim dresses. 'Legalism!' he cries, and most of his sermons denounce such 'false piety,' while temple prostitution takes place right under his nose. It seems to me that our priorities are all bent out of shape. The primary problem in the Church today is not an over-zealous, legalistic application of God’s Word to all areas of life. The primary problem is rank, unadulterated antinomianism. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is theological pluralism. It’s the 'I’m okay, you’re okay' theology of syncretism. It’s the ear-tickling, hip, Burger King ('have it your way') Christianity. "

A thought on embryonic stem-cell research

Another excellent note on the STR blog.

There is a lot of deception going on in the way this debate is being covered in the media. It is made (in most outlets) to sound like conservatives are against stem-cell research. This is not true. There is much stem-cell research being conducted with adult stem-cells as well as stem-cells from the blood collected from the umbilical cords of newborns (cord-blood stem-cells). Both of these areas of research have shown promise, where embryonic stem-cell research has yielded little or no gain. Yet those in favor of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) insist on tearing apart these pre-born children in order to cannibalize their stem-cells. Another misconception being foisted by the media is that the President is against stem-cell research. Again false. He has made it perfectly clear that he only opposes embryonic stem-cell research and has pledged that no tax money will be spent in support of it. He has not banned the research...he has only stripped it of federal funding. If those in favor of ESCR want it to continue, they can donate their money...just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for this morally bankrupt work.

I also believe that there is one issue that is not being addressed in this debate (at least not by those who favor ESCR) and that is what happens when the main argument is taken to its logical conclusion. The argument I've seen presented most often is that "the embryos will be destroyed anyway." Under this logic, why not perform experimentation on terminal alzheimers patients? Why not fiddle with the genes of those in a "persistent vegitative state"? Truth be known, there are some on the radical side of the issue that would concur with these conclusions, but the mass of people making this argument refuse to see the connection between the unborn embryos and the terminally ill. They just cannot see that using the logic of "the embryo will be destroyed (will die) anyway" matches perfectly with "the invalid will die anyway."

It brings to mind the Scriptures where it is stated "professing to be wise, they became fools...." (Rom 1:22).

Pluralism unmasked

Found this on the Stand to Reason weblog. Wonder how many other pluralists would be willing to admit to their exclusivism?

Worldviews in Conflict

Felt the need to post this excerpt from Dr. Albert Mohler's blog:

"As Christians, we are unavoidably engaged in a great battle of worldviews--a conflict over the most basic issues of truth and meaning. A worldview that starts with the existence and sovereign authority of the self-revealing God of the Bible will be diametrically opposed to worldviews that deny God or engage in what we might call 'defining divinity down.'"

That pretty much sums it up. And it accurately reflects the words of Christ in John 14:6 -- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Sounds pretty exclusivistic to me.

It takes a village....

Check this article.
While I don't agree with the JW take on blood transfusions, who's to say that the next step won't be court-ordered abortions where the parents won't be allowed to intervene based on religious grounds? Here's what the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child" goes: the children no longer belong to the parents, they belong to the state.