The philosophy of abortion-on-demand

Yesterday, the US Senate passed a bill which, when signed into law by the President, will make it a felony to cross state lines to bring a minor to an abortion “provider” without her parents’ knowledge. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), among others, wanted to make an exception for grandparents and clergymen or other confidants, but her attempt to amend the legislation failed. In the eyes of some of these pro-abortion lawmakers, any restriction on abortion is an attack on women’s rights, and, in a fit of hyperbolic rage, they declare that the restriction will result in women’s deaths. Ann Coulter, author of the bestseller Godless: The Church of Liberalism, makes the case that abortion is this “church’s” “sacrament.” Indeed, those of the pro-abortion view do treat abortion as a sacred right, to be held inviolable.

I was reading comments on Blogs for Bush about this issue. If you have the time, you can check them out. Notably, those who defend abortion cannot come to grips with the humanity of the unborn child. They try to say that human life begins with sentience, or conscious awareness of one’s existence. Instead of dependence on the pure, simple biological fact that life begins at conception, they must resort to human philosophy and opinion. When you read about Descartes (Cogito, ergo sum=I think, therefore I am), and realize that this philosophy is being used to dehumanize the unborn, or when you see waved the existentialist banner in order to defend the butchery that Roe v. Wade legalized, I hope you see that understanding philosophy—even non-Christian, humanistic, atheistic philosophy—is important and relevant.

Post your assignment for the week in the comments section.

Modern science

Later this afternoon, the Senate is expected to force President Bush to issue his first veto. The legislation about to cross his desk would authorize expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Contrary to popular opinion, Bush has not banned all scientific research with such stem cells; rather, he has limited funding to only those stem cell lines already in existence. The bill’s supporters imply that embryonic stem cells hold the key to curing Parkinson’s disease, healing spinal injuries and paralysis, cancer, and a host of other ailments. The president, however, sees the bioethical question very clearly. If experimentation is allowed on the frozen embryos in a fertility clinic that are only going to be disposed of anyway, doesn’t that cheapen human life? Even to speak of them as “disposable” is offensive. And what will be the next demand for the insatiable death brigade? To allow intentional creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research? Or, if some cure is found, to have “farmers” creating a supply of embryos as if human beings were no more valuable than laying hens?

UPDATE: President Bush did, in fact, veto the bill. Most people think that stem cell research has been banned by the president, when the reality is that this bill would have expanded federal funding for it. Nothing is stopping the free enterprise system and the pharmaceutical companies from pursuing the R & D if they think it's going to provide miracle cures for everyone.

Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing beneficial. The Korean scientist who claimed success was exposed to be a fraud. The use of adult stem cells, on the other hand, actually shows promise of medical benefit. Why, then, are so many legislators and advocates so insistent on promoting the embryonic agenda? Could it be that the entire abortion industry relies on convincing the public that life does not begin at conception, and that the unborn human is not really anything more than a blob of cells? Here is a good link to The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity’s web site. Do a little reading in there before going on.

A scientist’s worldview will be reflected in his approach to research and investigation. Prior to the Enlightenment, most scientific discovery was typical of the Protestant Christian worldview, namely, that God has created the universe and everything in it, and scientific inquiry is a way to discover more and more truth about the awesome power and wisdom of the Creator. However, most modern scientific inquiry (or, as Schaeffer puts it, “modern modern science”) today starts with the presupposition that God does not exist, and that everything we see is simply the result of natural selection and chance evolution. Because of this, so much of the godless scientist’s understanding of the universe remains shrouded in “mystery,” and developing human life is seen as a tool to harvest and exploit.

In the comment section, defend the proposition that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview, as expressed in chapter 7 of How Should We Then Live?

Hiding the good news

According to estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, tax revenues are expected to produce the greatest amount of revenue in history. The projected budget deficit will be revised downward by 100 billion dollars. This good economic news I found on the AP wire yesterday with the headline Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit. But I had a difficult time finding any mention of this news today. Even though most liberals and progressives, like the editors and publishers of the NY Times, accuse the Bush administration of advancing economic policy that favors big business and gives tax cuts to the wealthy, the article says that the increase in tax revenue is due to phenomenal increases in tax funds from corporations and the wealthy.

A good analysis of this article can be found in this article, "Eeyore Covers the Budget." Eeyore, of course, is the gloomy donkey friend of Winnie the Pooh. There is never reason for optimism and hope with him. That's why the NY Times and other liberal outlets of the mainstream media must hide good economic news that vindicates and validates President Bush's policy of tax cuts, and why even good news must be spun with "Yeah, but" clauses. It is clear that this is meant to influence the American electorate to believe that the economy is a disaster from which only the Democrats can be counted on to save the country. Good news is withheld or corrupted for the sake of political power.

I can't help making a comparison to the time of the Reformation. The good news was withheld from lay people. The good news of the Gospel, had it "gotten out" without corruption or spin, would have let them know that they didn't need to do penance or buy indulgences or make pilgrimage or rely on the sacramental system of the Church in order to maybe get into heaven after a purgatorial stay. After the good news got out via Luther and the other reformers, the Church continued to try to maintain its grip on power, both militarily and politically. Religious wars were the norm in Europe until 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty-Years' War on terms that strongly favored the powerful monarchy of France.

For some, the good news was the proclamation of Freedom--from bondage to sin and to the demands of God's law. It was, and is, good news to trust that our sins are forgiven in Christ, and that we need not fear God's punishment because Jesus has died on the cross and paid the price demanded for our sin. But for others, the "good news" was merely seen as liberation from authority and autocracy of every kind. Freedom from an oppressive church meant freedom from God altogether. These were the sons of the "Enlightenment," a truly ironic label for those who chose to leave one dark cave and enter another.

There are always going to be some who distort good news to suit their own ends. There will always be those who choose not to believe good news. Does that make those who bring the good news "dividers, not uniters?" I suggest you also take a look at this piece from the LA Times, in which the mainline denominations of Christianity are analyzed. Those who hold to truth and proclaim good news will always be seen as "dividers" by those whose political power depends on the repression of good news.

Use the comments section to relate your observations of the phenomenon of "spinning" good news away, either in a political sense or in a religious one.

Superman and Hamdan

(Warning…spoiler alert)

Superman Returns is the leader in box office sales this week. American moviegoers love their superheroes, as the success of the Spiderman and Batman series, as well as The Incredibles and the X-Men proves. There was a little consternation that the editor of the Daily Planet gave orders to one of his staff to find out if Superman still stands for “truth, justice, and all that stuff,” and not, as it was 50 years ago, “truth, justice, and the American way.” Producers suggested that overseas audiences might have a different interpretation of the phrase “the American way,” and it is probably not favorable. But if conservatives are offended at the excising of that phrase from the Superman lexicon, and choose to avoid seeing Superman Returns in protest, they’re missing a rather conservative movie, with Christian metaphors that rival The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe for their subtle brilliance.

Lex Luthor is a criminal genius who has been freed from prison prematurely due to a technicality: Superman left earth to seek what remained of his home planet, and therefore could not testify against his arch-enemy. Luthor taunts him that he was so ignorant that he thought that a once-captured villain would be incarcerated for good; not so fast, said he—what about Miranda and habeas corpus, etc.? In short, in Metropolis, the accused have rights, too.

In the Supreme Court’s final decision of the 2006 term, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the litigator was an accused terrorist captured from the battlefields of Afghanistan and jailed at the US facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The case was an important test of what should be done with these combatants. Were they entitled to protection and humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions? The Bush administration argued that they were not, since they did not fight under national colors nor in a uniform that distinguished them from the non-combatant civilian population. The president also made the case that these alleged (?) terrorists were not wanted in their home countries and that, since they were not US citizens, they were not entitled to US Constitutional protections of any civil liberties but ought to face a military tribunal for their justice.

At the appellate level, the court found in favor of the administration. Because John Roberts, now chief justice, was in the majority in that decision, he recused himself from the case. In what has been termed a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration, the remaining 8 justices ruled 5-3 against the Bush position. They declared that, since the US and Afghanistan were signatories of the Geneva Conventions, America was obligated to honor its pledge, and that military tribunals were inappropriate. However, the court left it to Congress to craft a strategy for the disposition of the Guantanamo-held captives.

The Hamdan case is a prototypical checks and balances issue. Congress had passed legislation declaring that the US Judicial system had no jurisdiction over these enemy combatants. Obviously, the Supreme Court felt otherwise. The Executive branch insisted that the constitutional powers granted to the President as commander-in-chief allowed him to suspend Miranda, habeas corpus, and all those other technicalities that Lex Luthor used to spring himself from the Big House. Obviously, the Supreme Court felt otherwise.

Liberals are ecstatic. They see the outcome of this case as limiting executive power, which, in their collective mind, has been arrogantly abused by BushCheneyRove Inc. Certainly this is the focus of one of your questions to discuss this week: English and American constitutionalism limited the power of the executive and believed that kings, presidents, and all in government were human beings responsible to God’s law above all else, and could not get away with murder. Your second question deals with checks and balances, and the Hamdan case is a vivid reminder of the tensions that occur when all three branches of our government feel that they are the last word on an issue. What light does the Fall into sin shed on the necessity of checks and balances?

Share your comments on the focus questions for chapter 5 of How Should we Then Live, on Superman Returns, the Hamdan case, and anything else interesting or relevant.