Interesting online discussion on Abortion and Personhood

Original Poster (OP)
‎"As the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade passes, it’s important to remember the both sides of the evangelical anti-abortion movement’s history. Yes, it did involve legitimate moral concerns about abortion, it did occasion serious reflection on the issue by evangelical scholars and pastors, and it did bring a formerly apolitical segment of America into the political process.

But its founding moral outrage stemmed not from Roe v. Wade, but from the prospect of government-imposed desegregation; it rest its intellectual foundation on highly dubious, non-scholarly arguments advanced by Francis Schaeffer; it mobilized lay evangelicals to action by telling them the Bible teaches something it does not actually teach; and it actively suppressed the scholarship of evangelicals who held alternative viewpoints."
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6801/the_not_so_lofty_origins_of_the_evangelical_pro_life_movement_/

(Me)
I actually think the Bible does talk to this issue. Whether it comes from the commandment not to murder or to the judgment of the Canaanites and others who sacrifice their children to Moloch. I do not think it is an unwarranted leap to apply either to the issue of abortion. In fact, I think it rationally follows from both. Especially when you understand the context of ancient near-east cultures and their promiscuous activities needed a form of birth control. Child sacrifice being the only possible form of abortion for them. – Yes, I grant that the word ‘abortion’ is not in the Bible, neither is the word gravity, but that is not an argument against gravity or abortion.

(John)
God is Pro Life otherwise he might as well not have made Adam or Eve.

(OP)
Donald your argument assumes that the debate over abortion is a debate over whether or not we should murder people--one would which certainly would be settled by the Bible's clear prohibition of murdering people. In reality, however, the debate is over whether or not embryos or fetuses are people in the first place. Those who don't think they are (and the Bible gives no conclusive reason to think one way or another on the subject--commandments against murder are irrelevant to the question of when full moral life begins) would not find themselves guilty of supporting murder by supporting abortion.

(Me)
OP what do you mean by "people" and "full moral life"?

(OP)
I mean an entity that possesses rights, such as you or I. The debate over abortion is a debate over whether or when the embryo is an entity like that. It's not a debate over whether or not we should murder people.

(Me)
OP How or what does an entity have to do to gain those rights? Does the act of birth confer those rights?

(OP)
That's the question at the heart of the debate over abortion. And that's exactly my point. It is not a debate over whether or not we should murder people; it's a debate over whether or when the embryo has the same rights as we do.

(Me)
I think that is the problem. The debate has been moved from concrete human rights to slippery subjective personhood rights. Reframing the debate from human rights to personhood rights leaves us with the question as to who decides this subjective definition of personhood. Any definition can be challenged. For example if it was based on moral capability how could you make the argument it wrong to kill a child after birth? What is the difference in moral capability an embryo have over a new born or over someone with advance dementia? In Jewish circles and still in some Christian groups children are not seen as being morally until the age of accountability. Would we say that it is ok to take their life until that age? If not, says who? It becomes a subjective slippery slope that will change with society’s whims.

Human rights on the other had are not subjective. We as human beings recognize the inherent value of all human life regardless of arbitrary divisions. Human rights are about protecting all, regardless of what they can do for society, their race, their sexual orientation, their stage of development or disorder. We can determine with scientific accuracy that the embryo is a unique, human life. Further the embryo has not broken any laws and is also innocent. So we have an innocent, unique, living human. Don’t we as moral agents have a duty to protect innocent human beings?

(OP)
And hence you've expressed one side of the debate over whether or not the embryo has human rights. My argument here is not that the embryo does not have human rights, although I do believe that, but that the question of whether it does (a question which the bible does not answer) is at the heart of the debate over abortion--not the question of whether or not murder is permissible (a question which the bible does answer).

(John)
God said he knew us before we were in our mothers womb. That settles it for Christians on whether it is life or not. Unless your one of those pick and choose Christians when it comes to Gods word.

(OP)
That verse was not widely interpreted as teaching when life begins until around 1980, when the evangelical Right emerged. Probably because 1) it's a poetic reflection on God's foreknowledge, not a treatise on personhood and 2) it says that God knew us before we were in the womb. On your reading, shouldn't we then conclude that life begins before conception?

So no, the Bible does not answer the question, despite the very recent, politically-motivated efforts to suggest otherwise.

(John)
Yes life was already here when he spoke it here. I dont try to figure out every single thing with my own thoughts. I let the Holy Spirit guide me into all truth and wisdom of Gods word. His word changed my life 5yrs ago and continues to everyday. Thank You Jesus!!

(John)
When you speak politically are you talking about the morons up in Washington, The ones who use God to get votes or the other ones who mock God. Well I dont pay one bit attention to anything them liars spew from their greedy evil mouths. The President included with them.

(Me)
By definition an embryo is a human and thus has human rights.

(Me)
The Bible is silent about nuclear war. Yet I think any rational person using the precepts of the Bible can come to the conclusion that it is wrong and violates God’s created order. Likewise, abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. The Bible not speaking to the issue directly is to be expected. If the Bible said abortion was wrong the original readers would not understand the context and that portion of the Bible would be meaningless to thousands of years of readers. Yet we can take the precepts of the Bible and natures witness to God’s created order (science) and come to the conclusion that in fact it is a human being, that it is unique from the mother and father, that it is innocent and that it is alive. God’s created order is that we use sex for reproduction and abortion violates the God ordained outcome.

(Me)
OP are you saying that even though the Bible does not speak directly about a recent medical procedure, you think that God should have included it in the Bible 3500 years ago, if He really thought it was wrong?

(OP)
Your getting your conclusions there from catholic natural law theology, not science. Science cannot prove that the embryo is a human being since the category "human being" is defined by moral and philosophical criteria as much as by scientific ones. And you're forgetting that abortion has in fact been practiced for thousands of years, including at the time the Bible was written.

(Me)
1.) I am not getting the definition from catholic natural law theory. I am using a Biological definition of what a Human being is.

Let me explain my point including more explicit references to the biology that is pertinent. First, the embryo is unique from the mother and the father, the child has a unique DNA sequence from the parents. Second, the DNA of the embryo is not that of a baboon or mushroom, it is human DNA. Third, is it growing (reproducing on a cellular level) and metabolizing the definition of biological life. We can even determine there is brain activity before the child is born. As far as we can tell all humans share a certain sequence of DNA that makes them Human and there are variations that uniquely identify the particular person from other people. I don’t need natural law to make my case. The only other premise I had was that the child was innocent. Generally, you need to prove guilt, otherwise innocence is presumed.

What cannot be defined scientifically is personhood as you have defined it. How would you define ‘full moral life’ scientifically? It can’t be done.
(Me)
2.) What specific evidence is there that ancient cultures performed abortions, other than death by exposure and sacrifice? Both of which are infanticide and morally on the same level. I spoke to this issue earlier as the Bible does say God finds infanticide detestable.

(OP)
The criteria you set forth for defining the category "human being" depend on philosophical assumptions about the nature of humans. I could just as easily assert a list of empirically verifiable features and say they characterize the nature of persons, such as the presence of a neocortex. Why a set of criteria should define a category like "human being" or "person" is determined by philosophy, not science.

As to the history of abortion, here's one place to start: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

(Me)
OP The article you cited about abortion in the past uses a very broad definition for abortion and merely restates the type of activity I already mentioned that is not technically abortion in today’s use of the word but miscarriage or other forms of infanticide. For example in the cited article they equate the Code of Hammurabi’s “miscarriage through assault” as abortion.

So if you maintain the broad definition for abortion (as in the website you cited) in order to prove it has been done in Biblical times then the Bible does speak directly to the issue. If not, then abortion is not in the Bible because it is to narrow a definition and not something the readers could have related too.

(OP)
What you really mean is that we define infanticide to extended to unborn life then the Bible condemns abortion. But to do that is to assume the fetus is a person, the very question we are debating. #circularreasoning

(Me)
OP I think you may be missing something. I am not advocating the position that the Bible speaks directly to the issue, only that ‘your’ reference uses a broad of a definition for abortion. If you find it circular, then you should not reference it. ;-)

My claim is that we are taking the life of an innocent human being and that using the precepts of the Bible come to the rational conclusion that abortion is wrong in God’s eyes. I don’t claim the fetus is a ‘person,’ I think that is an ambiguous and arbitrary term. I think the fetus is an innocent ‘human being’.

The difference is a human being is something you are and a person is something you can do. Any being that qualifies as a "person" has to meet a set of criteria to gain rights. In fact, scientists claim that dolphins qualify as a “person” under the same set of criteria. However unborn and even newborns don’t qualify as persons under this criterion. This same a linguistic sleight of hand has been used in the past to exclude some humans from right from African America slaves in the US to Jews in Germany.

(OP)
The claim that the embryo is a human being is a philosophical one, just as much as the claim that it is a person, as the category cannot fully be defined by science. It is based on criteria that exclude some entities and include others.

(Me)
OP Well we have found our area of disagreement. When I say ‘human beings,’ I mean a ‘Homo sapiens’. To me the two terms are synonymous and can be quantifiable via sciences as I have previously explained and you have not yet refuted. I don’t want to be accused of using the term inappropriately, so here are some official definitions: “human being n. A human. human being n a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child.” The medical dictionary defines human being as “human [h(y)o̅o̅′mən] Etymology: L, humanus a member of the genus Homo and particularly of the species H. sapiens.” Form a science dictionary “A member of the species Homo sapiens” Based on the official definition and how I use the term ‘human being’ it is a question science can answer simply based on a DNA test. Therefore, it is not a philosophical question.

I believe the Bible supports this definition. The Bible uses adam as the term for all human beings. Sometimes translated ‘man’ it is used in the same way we often use the male specific term to mean all human beings. I don’t think this is a just happenstance. The Bible often sees all humans as an extension of Adam. As his descendants we carry forth his same nature. In science we see the same thing in the parents passing on their genetic makeup to their child via conception and the process of DNA transference. I won’t press this much further other than to say it is a fair interpretation and most importantly both view “human beingsness” as innate and not subjective.

Now that I have clarified what I mean by human being you might be able to see where I am coming from. My point is you use ‘person’ as an ambiguous term, you agree it is ambiguous and think there should be debate over what it means to be a person. I think that debates on the ambiguity of a term when the rights of human beings (homo sapiens) is involved will undermine the rights of all. That is why in the past people talked of human rights and not personhood rights. Human rights being rights you do nothing to earn but are simply conferred based upon your being human (a being of inherent worth to God).

Since you and I were discussion how the Bible sees this issue I think it is important to reflect on your definition of personhood and what Biblical support you have for that definition, so that I can better understand from the Bible how you support your view of what it means to be a person.

(OP)
Donald, you are confused in several ways. First of all, if having unique human DNA not found in any other cells means an entity is a human being, then the sperm an egg would be human beings, since they also have unique DNA produced by the process of meiosis. Second, quoting a dictionary definition of human being obviously doesn't prove the category is a purely scientific one anymore than quote a dictionary definition of person. It is no more purely scientific than the category "person," as any definition of "human being" requires a particular set of criteria to be put forth (ex. unique human DNA, gathered into close proximity, a member of the human species, etc...") that depend on philosophical assumptions that are outside the realm of science. You fault personhood thinkers for setting forth a category defined by philosophical criteria than excludes some forms of human life, but "human being" is also a category defined by philosophical criteria that excludes some forms of human life. Why, for example, do you include the embryo but not the egg? Or why not cells in the human body? Both are living, may be genetically unique, are human life, and in the proper context may develop into a child. Yet you exclude these based on a category that depends on philosophical criteria, just as the personhood advocate does. My point here is not to argue for a particular definition of person, but to point out that both "human being" and "person" are philosophically-defined categories that will exclude some form of human life. The difference between them is semantics, and nothing more.

(Me)
I used my definition advisedly when I previously said ‘unique’ human person. An egg or any other cell has only the mother’s DNA, something I can test by science. (And we rely on this fact for court cases) The Embryo however has unique DNA from the mother, again something that can be determined scientifically. There is no contradiction in my argument. Again the official definitions and I do not mean that a toe nail or piece of hair is a human being simply because it has human DNA. Where I think you may be confused is I am not saying DNA = human being, what I am saying DNA can be used as a test to determine the child is unique from the mother and human. The embryo is not the mother and it is not a dog, it is a unique human being. This is scientifically proven and irrefutable. Is the DNA of the embryo unique? Does the embryo have human DNA? These are yes or no questions that science can easily answer. I can see nothing philosophical about them, they seem to be hard facts.

In this explanation, where is the philosophical criteria I am setting forth?

(OP)
You're not understanding my objection. Your assertion that whether or not an embryo is a human being is a strictly scientific question is wrong because how the category "human being" is defined is not strictly scientific. This is the structure of your argument:

1. A "human being" is an entity that is living, human, and possesses unique DNA from the mother and father. (a philosophical argument)

2. An embryo can be scientifically show to be living, human, and possessing unique DNA from the mother and father. (a scientific argument)

3. Therefore, the embryo is a human being. (a logical deduction)

#2 is true: the embryo can be shown to possess those characteristics. But #1 is a definition that is based on philosophical assumptions that not everyone shares (for example, James C. Peterson, the Chair of the Ethics division at McMaster University has an essay titled "Is a Human Embryo a Human Being?" in which he answers "no"). And it cannot be shown to be true by science. You assume without argument that 1 is true.

(Me)
Nice syllogism. If premise #1 is incorrect please show it. Appealing to authority won’t cut it, especially a professional in ethics and not one in biology. Just out of curiosity if he is correct and the embryo is not a human being what exactly is it? Is it a dog or a goat or a dolphin? Having read these arguments before I can only assume your point will be that it is different because of it’s developmental state. If so, I think there might be a categorical error. For example, a puppy is a dog at a different development stage not a different species. Both puppy and dog are Canis lupus familiaris. My argument is an embryo is a human being at a different developmental stage. A human being and a human embryo are both Homo sapiens.

My point has been we should not determine human rights based upon a subjective definition of personhood but rather on the concrete definition of let’s say Homo sapiens. This seems to be the safest approach.

I do appreciate your patience in explaining your point so that I can understand where you are coming from. I think I am still stuck because I am not sure why you object to my definition or how it is exactly different from yours. If Human being does not equal Homo sapiens, something I think is scientifically determinable at any stage of development, then what is a human being?

(OP)
I'm not appealing to authority to prove premise 1 is incorrect; I'm demonstrating that premise 1 is precisely the question being debated. Saying his opinion doesn't matter because he is not a biologist presumably discredits your opinion as well, in addition to being absurd. On the other hand, I do have advanced training in human biology; I'll have an M.D. from Johns Hopkins in a few months. Does that mean I'm right and you are wrong?

The question under debate here is: Does the embryo belong to a category--whether you call it person or human being is irrelevant--that gives it moral value? You enter the debate assuming without argument that it does and then proceeding with your argument on the basis of that assumption, thus engaging in circular reasoning. Your definition of human being is just as subjective as any definition of person is. And here's one problem with it: if your criteria for human being is "living, human, and possessing unique DNA from the mother and father," a definition you agreed with, then Hydatidaform moles--tumors that form from embryos--are human beings. And homo sapiens is just another word for human being, so substituting that word in does nothing to solve the problem.

(Me)
One of my points has been that we disagree on definitions, I don’t believe that human being = person. I believe the definition of human being is self evident and I use DNA to prove scientifically one point that it is unique human from the mother. I think the DNA can confirm the self evident nature of my premise and gives us a concrete way to confirm and thus not circular.

However, you avoid answer the question, what do you think a human embryo is if it is not a human being?

(OP)
Well that settles it then! Here we have this enormous debate raging among philosophers as to whether the embryo is a human being and here you come, with what credentials I'm not sure, saying the answer is self-evident! Because it has human DNA!

There's really no more to discuss at that point, other than noting that by that criterion every cell in the human body is a human being. I personally think the embryo is human life (as are all cells in the human body) but that it is special because it has the potential to become a human being, giving it an increasing amount of moral value as development proceeds in the womb.

 It should be noted though that the majority of embryos (over 50%) spontaneously miscarry and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. Since you believe embryos have the same moral worth as children, I'd be curious to know what you think about the fact that those who share your position, and presumably you yourself, evince no concern at all about studying and trying to address what would be the number 1 killer in history.

Or to pose another question--your position that embryos are humans requires you to believe that abortion in America is an atrocity with nearly ten times the lives lost as the Holocaust. And you think voting for Republicans and debating people online is a proportional and adequate response to a holocaust that has continued unabated for 40 years? To the slaughter of tens of millions of people?

(Me)
Obviously the question is not settled. There are philosophers, ethicist, biologists and medical doctors on both sides of this debate. I have read from both sides and I think we should be able to follow the logic to the most rational conclusion simply based on the logic and not the credentials of the proponent of the view.

We are going in circles on the DNA issue. If I cut my finger off, I would not call the finger a human being. Yes it would have Human DNA but it is only a part of a Human being, or was if I cut it off. By self-evident I mean no one in their right mind would look at the finger and say look at the human being.

Here is a better explanation of the categorical error. When I use the term human being I mean to differentiate the being from a dog, cat, elephant or even dolphin. The term then seeks to differentiate an animal by the category of species. When I use the word embryo, adult, child, adolescent, or senior I mean to differentiate by the category of development of the being. You seem to be using the species category term of human being to apply it to a development level of a being to come up with moral worth definition.

I mentioned dolphin’s because there are those today who argue that dolphins are persons such as Thomas White, philosopher at Loyola Marymount University, who made the argument that dolphins aren't merely like people; they may actually be people, or he calls them, "nonhuman persons." His use of the term "nonhuman persons," seems to indicate the same categorical understanding I have and yet he would agree with you on the moral worth distinction for “person.”

Sorry, I am not a Republican and I don’t vote party line. I am curious where I could find your definition of person in the Bible. The Bible address philosophy and you say human being (person) is a philosophical question, so there must be something there. Even more curious to me is, do you think that God finds abortion morally good, bad or neutral?

(Chuck)
Autobiographical point: I became pro-life in the 1970's before it was the consensus among evangelicals, and it was a Catholic who convinced me. I had not read Schaeffer. My point is that evangelicals entered the pro-life fold for a variety of reasons -- including philosophical. Perhaps several leaders on the Right joined the fold for the reasons mentioned in this article, but that is a historic curiosity and doesn't address the merits of the argument. The statement "with what credentials I'm not sure" strikes me as strange at best. We don't need credentials to render an opinion on this subject. No matter what his credentials are, Donald Hester's argument that the embryo is composed of human DNA is powerful. It seems to me that any doubt should favor the preservation of the embryonic life. Concerning the reference to the spontaneous miscarriage of 50% of all embryos, we should remind ourselves that a similar figure applied to the death of children in previous centuries. No reasonable person used that as justification for taking their life.

(OP)
Yes but they would use that as a justification to try to save those lives, something which those who believe life begins at conception show no concern about. And again, if simply having human DNA makes something a human being, then every cell in our bodies is a human being. I only bring up credentials because Dinald had earlier summarily dismissed the opinion of a respected bioethicist because that person was not a biologist.

(Me)
I am not sure how you know I have no concern for miscarriages. My wife and I lost our first child to a miscarriage, while not as emotionally taxing as having lost a child of let say a 10 year old, it was still a loss we mourned. That being said there is a difference between miscarriage and abortion in that one is intentional (a moral decision is made) verse something that is accidental.

My argument is NOT that DNA = human being. My argument is DNA can show the embryo is a human being without the need to appeal to philosophy. With DNA we can determine that 1.) An embryo is a human being and 2.) Distinct from the mother.

My other argument is the term ‘Human Being’ does not mean a development stage or moral value judgment on a life. Human being in the colloquial use and technical definition is a determination of species of animal.

It may have seemed like I was dismissing the credential, for that I apologize. What I was attempting to do was demonstrate the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. In my subsequent comments I clarified that no matter what an expert says we should be able to follow the logic of their arguments to determine the rationality of their claim.

BTW OP I appreciate your time in explaining your position. Through this discussion I think I better clarified my position. I also think it is important for people on both sides of this issue to discuss it without the tempers, accusations, malice, or divisiveness.

My hope is that this open, honest and civil dialogue about the issue of abortion will benefit people who struggle with this issue as they carefully consider and weigh both sides of this issue.

Original post: What issues are people basing their vote on? Social, economic or foreign policy? Which one is more important?

P1: Economic

Me: Seems like it should be economic. I think without a strong economy social matters won’t matter much and foreign policy would be unenforceable without a strong economy.

P2: Social. Without strong social policies, you can't have a strong economy.

Me: I guess it depends on what you mean by social issues, I can make the case that without strong ethics a strong economy is not possible. Sure you can pass all kinds of laws but if people can’t self-govern they then need to be governed. That has always led to impoverished conditions. If you go beyond ethics to specific contemporary issues, I would not agree. Not that the contemporary issues don’t have an ethical aspect. However, economically we were fine before those issues arose. That leads me to believe those issues don’t have a large influence on economics.

P3: I don't believe for one moment that Republicans spend less or have smaller government than Democrats. So, if we're just choosing between D and R, and both sides continue to send us deeper into the shitter economically, I vote based on social and foreign policy issues. If we were to throw in some third-party candidates, I would have to actually give some thought to who I would vote for, but I don't see any third-party candidates being a real contender under our current political setup. :(

Me: What type of foreign policy would you propose?

P2: My main social issues here are schools and abortion rights. I would argue that children who receive a good education are less likely to end up in prison or on government assistance, and pay more into taxes because they have higher paying jobs. So decent schools for everyone is a social issue that we should fund better than we do. Abortion rights are important, because if a woman doesn't have the right to determine whether she wants to have more children, then not only do we have a lot more unwanted children, many born into homes without adequate funds, we also have women who cannot go to school or get jobs, because they are home taking care of children. One could argue that that's contraception, not abortion, but I think that the same government that wants to deny one, wants to deny the other.

P3: Me? I align much more with the Libertarians when it comes to foreign policy.

Me: P2, sorry I don't see how abortion rights helps or hinders the economy. Maybe I am missing something there. I also don’t see schools as a social issue especially if you feel they need more funding. Education is important for Jobs I agree but if we think it is a funding issue then it is economic. If you think the schools teaching philosophy is wrong or needs to change then I would see it as a social issue.

P2: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/access-contraception-economic-issue

Me: P3, in theory as a libertarian I tend to agree, however, I don’t know if it is a tenable position anymore. If we retreat into our boarders and pretend the rest of the world does not exist what would happen? Would Iran wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Would China continue to exploit 3rd world countries and drain natural resources from those countries? The issue about foreign policy is about stability in the world. Given history and human nature 100% peace and stability is impossible. Without a strong economy and some reasonably decent treatment of foreign countries there would be war around the world. Some may say the United States is imperialistic. That may be true but do you think if we weren’t no other country would fill the void? Pax Romana. This is the reason why Obama broke his promise to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He couldn’t do it with creating massive instability in the region.

P2: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604dickenssawhill.pdf

P3: Don, think of it like this: There are over a million abortions performed each year (a sad statistic, and proof that we need more reproductive education and cheap, easy access to all forms of birth control). If every one of those children had been born, many of them to poor families, that's just that many more children being taken care of by welfare, food stamps, and medicaid -- a huge drain on the economy. I think our best bet to end abortions is not to make them illegal (which does little to reduce the number of abortions performed, and greatly increases the number of dead women AND fetuses), but to make them unneeded through education, affordable health care, and adequate social programs.

Me: Not to poison the well but didn’t the Roosevelt’s fund Margret Sanger’s eugenics here in the United States?

P2: I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, though...

P3: Iraq and Afghanistan are a different beast now because we did so much to create instability in the region. However, I would like to see the US do a lot less invading and a lot more diplomacy wherever possible. I think there is a huge area between "police of the world" and "hunkering down ignoring the world."

Me: P2, your right, I just not sure I would consider them to be unbiased.

P3: *cough* you're *cough* :P

Me: P3 who should be the police of the world then? Or should we let Iran do what they want with Israel?

Me: P3 your idea of ending abortion by education does not seem to be rational. Do you really think education would end it? I don’t think it would. I think it is a stretch. The only real question is when is ok to take the life of an innocent human being. Is being poor a reason?

P3: There shouldn't be just one "police of the world" at all. It should be a group of nations, such as the UN or something similar.

Me: The UN has not troops or money. They have to borrow from us.

P3: Education alone? Not at all. You have to look at all the reasons a woman chooses to have an abortion and then find solutions to those. Just making it illegal accomplishes nothing other than killing women. If your goal is killing off the whores who opened their legs, then making it illegal is a great solution. If your goal is to protect ALL stages of life, then reducing abortion can only be brought about through comprehensive education policies, accessible and affordable health care (prenatal, psychiatric, etc.), and social programs.

Me: The UN has sanctions but often they don’t produce the desired results. Plus China and Russia veto any action.

Me: P3, you didn't answer my questions. When is ok to take the life of an innocent human being?

P3: I personally don't think it's ever okay. But I realize that not everyone shares my views on when a fetus is a human and when not. I think that's a decision that should be left between a woman and her doctor. At the same time, I think that we need to work hard to reduce the reasons women make that choice in the first place. Think about this practically. The way things are now, there are a lot of abortions. Making it illegal would have little impact on the number of abortions performed, but a great impact on the number of dead women. So approaching this from a legal standpoint, we need to keep it legal while at the same time working hard to reduce the need for abortions. THAT is how I can help to save innocent lives.

Me: If it is never ok then why would we allow it?

Me: Isn’t the point of law to protect the innocent?

P3: You're talking in ideals. I'm looking at reality. The reality of the situation is that making abortion illegal will just result in more dead women, with little affect on the number of dead fetuses. What has that accomplished, aside from MORE death? I feel like a broken record here. If you want to protect innocent unborn children, you have to reduce the CAUSE of abortions. You have to make women not WANT to get one and not feel so desperate that they NEED one. You need to educate women about their bodies so they don't get pregnant in the first place. You need to provide women (and men) with as much contraception as they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, this is the only way. I value ALL life, and I'm not into slut-shaming. I want to be realistic and create laws that ACTUALLY protect the innocent by reducing the number of abortions.

Me: What proof do you have that there will be more dead woman? It sounds like you are saying it is ok to take an innocent human life if the perpetrator might hurt or kill them themself. If we apply that logic to other crimes we would not make bank robbery illegal because banks robbers might get hurt. We should really just focus on the cause of them being a bank robber instead of making it against the law. What is sounds like to me is it IS alright to take the life of an innocent human being if it what a person thinks is best for them.

P3: No, what I'm saying is that no one should get an abortion because I believe it's killing an innocent life. And in order to achieve the goal of no abortions, I support social programs, education, and access to healthcare that will lead to a great decrease in the number performed. Where are you getting that I think it's okay to take a life? I'm only arguing for what is PROVEN to work (see Europe) at reducing abortions. Again, if you want fewer abortions, you reduce the reasons that women seek them in the first place. If you just make them illegal, all you're saying is that women dying in alleys and from drinking lysol somehow deserve it (slut-shaming).

P3: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html

Me: Does Europe still have abortions? Is one human life worth less than two? Maybe you won’t hurt or kill an innocent human being but other people would. Shouldn’t we do something to stop them from killing an innocent human being beyond just trying to low the numbers of killing?

P3: Many European countries have a much lower per-capita abortion rate than the US. Again, making abortion illegal will not stop it. How do you propose to make the abortion rate 0? Aside from waving a magic wand, the next best bet is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and increasing the support for women who want to CTT but don't feel they can (emotionally, financially, etc).

Me: I am not saying that woman deserve to die (slut-shamming).

P3: That's what happens when abortions are illegal. Then you have two dead instead of one. I am "pro-life" in the sense that I place value on ALL life and want to decrease the number of deaths of all living people (born and unborn).

Me: Do we create laws and really think crime will be zero? No we don’t but it is not a reason not to have a law.

Me: Who will speak for the innocent? Who will stand up for their right to life? If you are “pro-life” why would you support the only one who has a choice of life and death for the other?

P3: I support reducing abortions in the only way that works. Again, if you want to save lives, you reduce the REASONS women get abortions. If you actually care about saving lives (women and unborn children), you would do everything in your power to decrease the deaths. Making abortion illegal is not the way you accomplish that. Hundreds of years of history shows this. If you want to bury your head in the sand and just hope that it will "go away" if you wish hard enough, be my guest. But it won't do squat. You have to educate and support these women if you want to reduce abortions (and deaths via back-alley and at-home abortions).

P3: I support the rights of the unborn by supporting policies that are proven to decrease abortions. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps in a few decades or a century, by continuing to support women and their reproductive health and knowledge, we can come to a point where it isn't needed any more.

Me: So it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being if we have not addressed the reasons why woman want to take the life of an innocent human being that they conceived?

P3: /sigh. Where on earth are you getting that from?

P3: If I thought it was "ok" why on earth would I be fighting for reducing the number of abortions?

P2: Personally, I believe that the issue in the abortion debate is whose rights are paramount, the unborn child's, or the mother's? The child's right to life vs. the mother's right to control her own body and reproduction. Innocent vs. guilty shouldn't be a part of it. To tell a fully grown and developed person that her rights are subservient to those of the child developing inside of her is to say that she is less than the child. If it were possible to beam that baby out, and put it in the uterus of a woman who wanted a child, we'd live in a perfect world. But we don't. I do agree with Sarah that education is key, and even more important is access to free or at least affordable contraception. When people have access to these things, abortion rates and teen pregnancies go down. But so many people focus on the teen pregnancy, they ignore a woman who has 3 kids already, her birth control fails, and she doesn't want another child. Should the family be forced to have an unwanted child? I don't think so. The only 100% effective form of birth control is abstinence. My great grandmother resorted to that after 6 pregnancies in 7 years. I don't think either she or her husband were too thrilled about that solution, but it's the only one that was available to them.

Me: I am not burying my head in the sand hundreds of years of history has shown that laws and punishments ARE a deterrent. Plus your argument keeps coming around to the idea that it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being because it is a practical way to reduce abortions. Maybe the keep word is innocent. An INNOCENT human life is killed.

Me: I am not saying we should not do what we can to give woman reasons not to have abortions or prevent pregnancy. Why not have a law as well? A law to protect the innocent.

P3: Where did I say that it's okay to take a life because it's a way to reduce abortions? I don't believe those words have ever come from my fingers. I said that the way to reduce abortions is to educate, empower, and support women so that there is no NEED for abortions. Where are you getting that I think it's all fine and dandy to get an abortion? Am I being misunderstood? I cannot even comprehend where you are getting that.

P3: Because reality, history, and evidence suggest that just making abortion illegal across the board only has a small affect on the number of abortions, while having a huge affect on the number of dead women. If you're cool with more death, that's fine. I, on the other hand, would like to reduce the death.

Me: P2, how do we determine whose rights are paramount? Who should determine that? So you agree the child has rights? And the mothers right to… (whatever reason she comes up with) over rides the child’s right to life?

Me: P3, I am just following your conclusions to their logical ends. If there is no excuse for taking the life of an innocent human being why do you keep saying there is a reason mainly the possibility the mother might harm herself in an illegal abortion? So it is OK in your worldview for someone else to take the life of an innocent human being.

P2: Yes. A fully formed human being who can survive on her own has rights that override those of an unborn child. That is how we determine whose rights are paramount. If there were a way to separate them, that would be awesome. But we can't, so someone has to decide. You decide the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the mother. I disagree.

Me: P2, what about a child of 6 months? Does the mother have the right to take that life? It is not fully formed and can't live on its own either.

Me: P2, I do not think that any all rights are equal. Do you? I do think the right to life is greater than the right to more disposable income. Mother’s or child’s right to life should be equal unless we want to define a child as something less than human.

P3: That is not at all the logical end to my argument. My point is that we need to reduce the number of abortions. Period. Full stop. Now, looking at this objectively, whether or not abortion remains legal or illegal has little affect on the rate of abortions performed. By saying that I wish them to remain legal is NOT saying that I support them or think it's okay to have one. I just know, from facts and research, that illegal = more deaths, while legal = fewer deaths. Looking at it from an "all life is sacred" point of view, I support the side the results in the fewest deaths. Again, that does not mean I like abortions or think they are okay. In fact, I support policies that would actually have an affect on reducing, and possibly eventually ending, abortions. Isn't that the goal we all have? Why choose a method that will never get us to our goal, when there is one that can and will?

P2: No, not a baby that has been born. The mother's right to her body is no longer the issue. When the baby is 6 months old, then the child's right to life doesn't come into direct conflict with the mother's rights.

Me: P3, if that is true why not do both? Education and giving woman reasons not to get pregnant and a law? Wouldn’t that give us the best results?

P2: Disposable income? What about being able to feed the children you have first? What about being able to attend college and work? What about not being forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth? You make it sound like a flippant decision that loose women make lightly. I would disagree, and I think that above all, a woman has the right to decide if she is going to go through all of that or not. No matter her reasons, be they noble or foolish.

Me: P2, why does or how does the location of a child increase or decrease the Child’s right to life? This is actually interesting article on this topic http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411 Basically The Journal of Medical Ethics has an article that states that the reason given for an abortion are no different than the arguments for after-birth abortions.

P3: As it stands right now, making it illegal would do more harm than good. But if we ever get to the point where all women have the financial and mental support to carry a pregnancy to term, and pregnancy was never a life-threatening condition, I might be able to get behind that. I just think that's still a long way off. In the meantime, I am coming at this from a purely practical perspective: the goal is fewer deaths, so I support the policies that achieve that result. Period.

P2: I think that's a ridiculous argument, actually. The mother has the right to decide whether she wants to have a baby or not. The state should not be able to decide that for her. The very real right to life of the baby are not made less real, it's just that the very real right of the mother are in direct opposition. The right of the mother to not have children is not in opposition to her child's right to life once it is born. Then she can put it up for adoption, have it raised by her parents (if they're willing), etc. It is ONLY when the child is still within her body, and there is NO way for both people's rights to be honored, that, sadly, hers take precedence.

Me: P2, I don’t know what mothers are make flippant decisions. I don’t know what they are thinking, but I can’t conceive of a reason why a mother should be able to kill her child. Nor do I think it is good policy of the government to make umpteen exceptions for a mother to take the life of her child.

P2: Well, I'll agree that exceptions are trying to have it both ways. If it's murder when you conceived consensually, it's still murder when rape or incest were the cause. But I do think, if a mother does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do so.

Me: P2, but why does the location matter? You said it is her child. Is it an innocent life? We shouldn’t protect an innocent life simple based upon its location. Am I missing something?

P2: Yes. You are missing that the child's right to life is in direct opposition to the mother's right to her own body and future. Period. They are both very valid rights. It's a tragic situation. But they cannot, CAN NOT, both be satisfied. If she does not want to give birth, and the baby wants to be born, there is no way for them both to have their rights. Once the baby is out, there are many, many ways for them both to have their rights.

Me: P3, I think you are making my point, you are not pro-life. You are equivocating the term to mean something less than someone who is pro-life. You do think it is ok to take the life of an innocent human so long as it reduces the number of deaths. So, if we apply that logic we should have just given Germans more reasons not to kill Jews instead of stopping them with force? Because that would have worked. BTW lots of American men and woman died to protect the Jews right to life.

Me: P2, “child's right to life is in direct opposition to the mother's right to her own body and future.” I get that, I just don’t see the mother’s right to her body or future is greater than the life of her child. Being a parent is about sacrifice. I should ask what you mean buy future. Is that a nice way to wrap what is essential greed with a nice bow? I mean more disposable income over the life of another child, that seems selfish and greed based to me. I am not saying that all woman have that as a reason but I think greed will account for most of them. It is not mother’s right to life and her child’s right to life it is a mothers “future” verse the life of her child. I hate to call it greed because that sounds terrible on the mother’s part but I really seems to be correct.

P2: I don't think it's greed to want to have control over your own life, your own body, and your own reproduction. Perhaps you do. Her future? By that I mean, she doesn't want (more) children. (I put more in parenthesis because some women who have abortions already have children, others do not, and I want to acknowledge both possibilities.) I don't think it's greed to want to have some control over your life and your future. Being a parent is indeed about sacrifice. What if you do not want that sacrifice? What if you do not want to be a parent? You have that right. It's a complicated, sticky issue. But to use the term 'innocent' every time you talk about the child, and the term 'greed' when you talk about the mother, brings a level of blame into it that I do not think belongs here. There is no need to blame a woman for getting pregnant, which is a pretty bow for what I'm hearing. But when it comes down to it, at a very base level, I think that a woman's greed when it comes to how she is going to live her own life takes precedent over the right of her unborn child to be born. Anything we can do to make abortions less common is a good thing, short of denying women the right to have control over their bodies and their reproductive life.

Me: P2, I don’t have problems with woman having control over their lives, bodies or reproductive provided it does not take the life of an innocent child. The reasons you gave above all seem to be selfish (a border and better term than greed). You are trying to change the terms you use to make it sound better. “Reproductive life” sounds better than killing her “child”. You are the one who call it a child. That’s call it what it is and stop trying to whitewash what we are talking about. I think a child’s right to life supersedes any right of the mother short of the mother’s right to life.

P2: So we agree that it's a matter of rights. We just disagree about whose rights are paramount. I think it's the mother's rights, you think it's the child's. That's fine. So, to your original question, what issue is most important to you? This discussion was mainly about social issues, but I'm not sure you ever had the chance to say what was most important to you. Social, economic, or foreign?

P2 (And I don't think I've whitewashed anything...I called it a child, I said I think that exceptions are just politics. I think ending a life is tragic. But I think forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and go through labor is tragic as well.)

Me: I am grateful that you are so candid about your position. I am just surprised that you don’t see something wrong with the idea that the rights of some people supersede the right to life to an innocent child. I appreciate your stance, but I feel it is important that someone stand up for those innocent children that cannot exercise their rights.

Me: I don’t think the killing of a child as tragic, I think it is wrong or even evil. Life is full of choices and all choices have consequences. Taking the life of a child should not be an alternative to avoid the consequences of our choices.

P2: What about rape and incest, where the consequences have no relation to the mother's choice? I've said what I think, but you're saying that abortion is an alternative to consequences of choices.

P2: And I feel very strongly about this issue, and I do appreciate your passion towards your view. I wish there were a way to bring our views in line with each other. Alas, it can not be. Women cannot have the full right to control their bodies if abortion is illegal. The lives of unborn children cannot have the full right to be born if women have the right to control their bodies. That's the tragic part, to me, that there is truly no good answer. At the end of it all, I am absolutely unwilling to say that a woman who has had an abortion is evil.

Me: I was wondering why that had not come up yet. Fist this is a logical fallacy taking a minority event as justification for all. Logic issues aside. Do you think it right to punish a child for the crimes of the father?

P2: I didn't bring it up because I don't think it's a real issue. As I said before, I think it's politics. But you brought the matter of choices, and consequences of those choices up, so I wondered what you felt.

Me: So, do you think it right to punish a child for the crimes of the father?

Me: P2, you are right everyone can’t have every right because it will infringe on the rights of others. Our country was founded on the principle that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness provided it does not infringe on the right s of others. This is the essence of the libertarian platform. The child’s rights are being infringed. This is the most basic of all rights and it can’t be superseded otherwise all other rights are meaningless. If you could see that it is the most basic and necessary right I think you would see that it should not be superseded.

P2: I see your point, but I disagree with your conclusions. I was raised in a libertarian, pro-choice household. The majority of libertarians are pro choice, because they value individual rights. I don't consider myself libertarian any more, and haven't for a long time. But I cut my teeth on the principles of it, and I understand it. I'm not saying you don't, just that I do understand the issues and the politics involved. Thanks for a spirited discussion tonight, it's been a lot more reasoned than that on the TV, that's for sure. :)

Me: I know many Libertarians live a contradiction. They have not followed their stated ideals to their logical conclusion.

P2: Well, your interpretation of the logical conclusion. Not theirs. I don't think all logical conclusions are the same.

Me: Without the right to life no other right matter. We can just kill people and they never have an opportunity to practice any other right. What is tragic is there is a war against women, especially the unborn women who never get any rights.

Me: Please tell me how my logical conclusion is wrong. I am a rational person, I can handle it. If libertarians believe that we have the right to do as we wish provided we don’t infringe upon the rights of others, how does the pro-life position not follow? The only way that follows is if all rights are viewed as equal. However, other than in this discussion I have never had anyone make the claim that the right to buy a car supersedes the right of a life. Or a less drastic example of the right to free speech supersedes the right to life. In fact, our government recognizes you don’t have the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater because someone might get hurt or killed. In other words, their right to life and safety (Basic human needs) supersedes the free speech rights of the individual yelling “fire”.

Me: To clarify and put it as plainly as possible. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a child, no justification for abortion is adequate.

P2: I didn't say your logical conclusion was wrong, so much as that it does not agree with mine or that of the pro-choice libertarians. I don't think anyone said the right to buy a car, or the right to free speech, superseded the right to life, though certainly people have died for the right to free speech, as you well know, as you have served our country in the military, which I have not. I do think you're rational and can handle it, I just think that one person's logical conclusion is not the same as another person's. In my opinion, the right to liberty over my own body supersedes the right of the UNBORN child. A woman should not be forced to carry a life inside of her that she does not want. That is the argument. The right to life of the unborn child does NOT supersede the woman's right to freedom. The definition of unborn child = person is mostly semantics, and I don't like to get pulled into that argument, because I can see both sides. That unborn child, fetus, embryo, would be a person if they were allowed to be born, and to pretend otherwise is fallacious. But to say that the unborn child has the same rights as the woman carrying it is wrong. I understand that you do not agree on this, but that is how I feel.

Me: I don’t think logic is not the issue it is the presuppositions that are different. Logic is not opinion based where presuppositions are. Logic is just the tool.

Me: I think we are going back in a circle now, but maybe we did not explore the depth of this issue. I don’t see the location of the child as an adequate justification for taking the life of a child. Giubilini and Minerva make a convincing argument that any argument for abortion is valid for what they call “after birth abortion”. Their argument is valid and logically flows even if it is disturbing. I don’t see a difference of location to be compelling and neither do they. So why is it different for you?

P2: See, we're never going to agree. You do not see the location of the child as being the crux of the issue, and I see it as the entire issue. I disagree with their argument and find it silly. It is different because a woman is being forced to carry a life form inside of her body that she does. not. want. That's liberty. That's privacy. That is the entire issue.

P4: Interesting discussion. So if a baby is aborted at 7 months it does not have the right to life. But if it is born prematurely at 7 months it does? Isn't that rather arbitrary?

P2: Not arbitrary. At 7 months pregnancy, it is still inside the mother, and her rights take precedent. If it is born, her rights are no longer infringed by the baby's rights. But abortions of 7 month old fetuses are extremely rare, and generally involve cases when the baby would not survive, or the mother would not survive, or both. They are not generally done because a woman has decided that she doesn't want to have a baby.

P4: The rarity of something is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong. The same sustainable baby still lives or dies at the whim of the mother for any reason. By definition - arbitrary. And what I get from this discussion is that women get abortions not because of what is happening inside their bodies but of the consequences of what happens outside their bodies i.e.being responsible for the baby. So the right being claimed is not really about their bodies but about the ability to decide whether to be a mother or not. Which I think is a different discussion.

Me: P2, it has gone from a child to a “life form" now. Either way it is a distinct life form or human being than the mother. It is not the mothers body that is being killed it is a child. This is a biological fact.

Me: P2, so let me see if I can sum up your position. It is ok for a mother to take the life of her child only when it is in her uterus. Any other time or place is wrong. Because any right of the mother outweighs the life of her child only in utero. After the child is born the right of the child to life supersedes all of the mother’s rights. Is that your position?

P2: Yes, that is my position.

Me: It seems in your position a great amount of rights transfer only after birth. The child has no rights until it is born?

P2: Not if the child's rights are in violation with the mother's. It's not that I don't think the child has any rights...it's that when the choice has to be made between hers and the baby's, hers take precedence.

Me: What kinds of rights does the unborn child have then?

Me: What I don’t get is how you or anyone justifies that birth is the critical factor. Who’s to say Giubilini and Minerva are wrong? You pick birth they pick a few months after and Alex Sanger even longer after birth. All three use the same arguments. So picking the time i.e. birth, seems arbitrary to me. How are your arguments different from Giubilini and Minerva or Sanger?

P2: Sigh. Can we agree to disagree here? It seems to me like you are a man who really enjoys political arguments, and I am a woman who really, really does not. I have tried to make my point, which is that I think the woman has rights while she is carrying the baby. Her rights come first. That is all. Giubilini and Minerva are arguing a stupid point, trying to trap people who believe in a woman's right to choose into saying that abortion is murder, and therefore, murder of anyone who is dependent upon them is fine. And how is my arguing that a woman has the right to control her body the same as someone arguing that it's ok to kill a 6 month old baby? It's not the same at all. The critical factor is, it's HER BODY, HER CHOICE.

Me: P2, I think we agree that we disagree. BTW I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this frankly and honestly without malice. I like to discuss issues because that is how we learn and avoid counterproductive conflicts. I would like to add one final point if I could. Your last statement is just simple not accurate. It is not HER BODY that is the issue here, it is the CHILD’S BODY that is. Second, her choice for what? Choice sounds so noble and liberty affirming. Well until you realize the CHOCIE is to take the life of an INNOCENT CHILD. HER CHOICE is meaningless without what the CHOICE is really about. This becomes a misleading shell game of words. I guess you are right we will just disagree, hopefully someone else finds these posts helpful as they carefully consider and weigh both side of this issue.

Me: “Slavery consists in being subject to the will of another…” Thomas Paine

I went with my brothers and children to see The Amazing Spider-Man, this 4th of July. If you remember that Marvel/Stan Lee has done a number of reinterpretations of Spider-Man over the years, you won’t be surprised with this movie. This movie is not Spider-Man 4. It is much like the alternate timeline in the new Star Trek movies or the new Batman series. (Although the new Star Trek does have continuity with the old as an alternate time line that Batman and Spider-Man do not have.) This Spider-Man is a bit cockier than his alternate and he has mechanical webs (as in cartoon and comics) and not biological webs (as in the last 3 movies and some comics). Most people tell me they prefer the mechanical web. I like either type of web; in fact, I liked the previous movies and this one as well.

The moral of the movie was a bit different than the previous movies; however, the theme is still responsibility. If you remember form the previous movies the moral was “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this movie it is “If you can do good, it is not a choice, it is your responsibility.” There are subtle and interesting differences between the two. The movie plays heavy on the ethics of Transhumanism as well. This movie is a treasure trove to draw upon for philosophical, moral, and ethical discussions.

Finally, the cinematography was outstanding. There were a number of times, more than in most movies, where a still of the screen would be an awesome and powerful picture. We saw the movie in IMAX 3-D and it was well done. I give this movie 5 out of 5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

A Modern Retelling of John 8:1-11

This is simply a modern retelling of John 8:1-11 about the woman caught in adultery.  I think this speaks for itself.

A Man Caught in Homosexuality

Jesus returned to the City, but early the next morning he was back again at Church. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them.  As he was speaking, the religious teachers and leaders brought a man who had been caught in the act of sodomy. They put him in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this man was caught in the act of sodomy. The Bible says this sin is punishable by death. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the man. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the man, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” he said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Notes

Based on the New Living Translation

I should probably make a number of qualifying statements for this but I think it stands on its own.  Ten pages of footnotes would detract from the power of the simplicity.  You can bring up a number of objections to my retelling, but, I believe it is theologically sound.  I pick this particular issue out of many that I could have.  I could just as easily retell the story with any number of other sins.  The woman who had an abortion, the couple that got divorced etc…  This passage came to mind while I was reading a blog post entitled, “Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All?”

Chronicle (the Movie)

I think there is much more to this movie than meets the eye.

Spoiler Alert: Don’t read if you want to see the movie.

Storyline: Three high school friends gain telekinetic powers after making an incredible discovery of a strange object in a cave. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as one of them embraces his darker side.

What would happen if you gave a group of teenagers extremely strong telekinetic powers?

It depends on the teenagers. In this movie you have three very different teenagers brought together by accidently gaining telekinetic powers from an unknown source. They bond together as they learn what they can do with their powers. Steve is running for class president and is the most popular kid in school. Andrew is an unpopular misfit with a dying mother and alcoholic abusive father. Matt fits in somewhere between the two.

Andrew uses his powers and accidentally hurts someone. Matthew, his cousin, says they need to come up with rules on when and how to use the powers. I can see him quoting Uncle Ben from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this situation, Matt was pleading for an moral standard.

Together they continue to learn and grow their powers. However, giving people powers that are not prepared for it can be devastating. Andrew and Steve do a magic show during the schools talent show. Andrew’s reputation changes instantly; finally, he is popular. However, Teenagers’ feelings are fickle, so when Andrew pukes on a girl at the after party, the taunting becomes worse that it was before. In addition, his father becomes more abusive as he thinks his son is up to no good. Andrew starts to feel the walls closing in.

Out of anger, Andrew accidentally kills Steve, who was trying to tell him he was still his friend. He then confronts his father and beats him up for a change. This becomes the beginning of the end, as if Andrew had tasted blood for the first time.

In a key scene to the story Andrew sits in a junk yard and crushes a car with his mind. In his internal monologue Andrew uses naturalistic evolutionary bases to explain his justification for his coming actions. His first premise is the idea that an apex predator does not feel guilt in killing inferior animals. His next premise is that he is now a superior being. His conclusion is that he then should not feel guilty if he harms others.

The final straw comes when he cannot buy medicine to ease his mother’s pain. He then rationalizes robbing people. When a robbery at a gas station goes wrong and the station explodes, Andrew ends up unconscious in the hospital. His dad comes in and tells him his mother has died and blames him because he had to go look for him that night.

Andrew snaps and the mayhem begins. Matt goes to talk to him and reason with him, but he won’t listen. The talk deteriorates to an all-out brawl. They tear the city up with their fight. In the end his anger gets the best of him, and Matt has to kill him.

You can see the materialistic naturalism based morality play out with the Judeo-Christian based objective morality being contrasted as the story progresses.[1] The self-destructive materialistic naturalism played out to it’s natural conclusion. The moral of the story: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you don’t believe you have a responsibility, you will follow self-gratification to your own destruction, leaving behind untold carnage. This is a powerful story with a powerful message.

Movie Information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

Footnote:

[1] Both materialistic naturalism and Judeo-Christian moralities are objective. I just want to point out they are both based on something rather than the relativist position where morality depends on any number of factors. Materialistic naturalism is very much like social Darwinism (social evolution). Naturalism holds that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe and not supernatural ones, i.e. God. Materialism holds that the only things that exist in the Universe are matter and energy. Morality is thus derived as a result of material interactions i.e. genetics. It follows from this that if there is no higher power, why do we have constraints on behavior? Why not live out survival of the fittest? Morality is thus objective because you are hardwired for it. Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?

On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian view is that morality comes from the Creator. Especially in Christian doctrine, every person was created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and thus has value. It follows then that killing of people is wrong because there is a command not to from God and because people are of value to God.

One could argue that the movie does not specifically show Matt’s position as Judeo-Christian. I guess that is true, it could be based on Jainism where all life and non-violence is considered sacred. Some Native American tribes would have a similar quasi-pantheistic or animistic view. In any case Matt’s view of morality is transcendent (being entirely beyond the universe) while Andrews is materialistic (being entirely in the universe).

This picture is from the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, VA.

Integrity

You are playing a ball game and you touch the ball before it is called out-of-bounds by the referee. The referee did not see you touch the ball and called the ball out-of-bounds against the other team. What do you do?

The Marine Corps Leadership Traits defines integrity as:

“Uprightness of character and soundness of moral principles; includes the qualities of truthfulness and honesty.”

The Knights Code of Honor defines integrity as:

"A Knight must be a man of his word with his actions seen and unseen governed by an inner code of honesty."

People often define integrity as always telling the truth. I think that is part of the definition. I define integrity as constancy of character. Your character is the sum total of all your values and actions. Honesty is one aspect of your character. When you consistently follow those values and your acts match those values all the time, you have integrity. To tell the truth some of the time is not integrity.

When you have integrity, people can rely upon you. They know that you will live up to your values even when no one is watching. Do you want to have friends that always tell you the truth or do you want them to tell you the truth some times? Would you rely on fiends who tell you the truth all the time, or are there for you all the time? Or would you rather rely on friends who flake on you all the time?

When I think of integrity, I think of steel. When we rate steel, we rate it based upon how well the steel maintains its’ form under stress. In other words, the steel does not bend because of the weight or stress on it. It maintains its shape and stays straight. When you build a bridge, you want it made of steel that does not bend under pressure. You would not want to cross a bridge that did not have integrity; you would not trust it to keep you safe.

“The one who lives with integrity will be helped, but the one who distorts right and wrong will suddenly fall.” Proverbs 28:18

"Let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait for You." Psalm 25:21

How well do you keep true to your values when you are under stress, especially the stress of peer pressure? Do you say no when others are smoking pot or doing drugs? What if it is your friends and they are pressuring you? Can you maintain your values when your friends are pressing you to compromise? Do you do what is right no matter the cost?

Some people fold like blankets under pressure. You know, I have never tried building a bridge out of blankets. I really don’t think it would work well. I think I will stay with tried and true steel.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said:

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."

One of the best quotes I have heard about integrity comes from the Garth Brooks song titled ‘The Change’.

“I hear them saying, you'll never change things and no matter what you do it remains the same thing. But it is not the world I am changing. I do this so this world will know that it will not change me.”

Some videos on integrity that I found on YouTube:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-CHyWDky1Y
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYYOXTuUeQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioht4sSgibY

Why is it so difficult to admit when we are wrong? I mean when we have wronged a friend or loved one. It is easy to admit when you cut someone off in traffic. All you do is shrug your shoulders and give the “oops” face. You don’t know the person, it’s a minor offense and you are not likely to see the person again. So, it is easy to admit fault in that type of situation.

Now, when you hurt a good friend, it is often difficult to admit guilt. In fact, most people rationalize why it is ok to do whatever it was that was done. Let’s say a good friend asks you to help him move this weekend. You say ok, I will be there to help. Then you have another friend ask you to play golf the same day. You come up with some rational reason to golf rather than help your friend in need.

So what do you do? Call your first friend and tell them you would rather golf? I mean that is the truth. Of course, that is not the easy thing to do, nor is it what you want to do but it would be the right thing to do. Many people come up with an excuse, like “I threw my back out”. An easy way to solve problems like this is not to commit to something you don’t really want to. If you make a commitment, fulfill it. If you don’t, admit you are wrong.

When I was in middle school, I was picked on almost relentlessly. I was a dorky, awkward kid. It was a private school so must of my classmate families had money. My mother had to work two jobs to pay the tuition. So, I never had the right clothes. Kids are really mean at that point in their life, and I was the brunt of their attacks. You start to believe what they say about you. What can I say? I hated my life at that point.

To feel better about myself I did some stupid stuff. A new student came to class and the other kids had a new target and the verbal abuse was now directed at someone else. The stupid thing I did was joining in with the other kids. Yes, I became what I hated. What an ass I was. I should have stood up and helped her.

I regret to this day that I joined in on being a bully and not a defender. It is difficult to stand up for what is right. It is more difficult to publicly admit that you were wrong. It is not easy to do and I wish I would not have to admit my mistakes.

Lavey, I am sorry I joined in with the other kids who picked on you. I am sorry I did not do what was right and stand up for you when they verbally picked on you. I was wrong.

See related blog posts:
Emotions Can’t Tell Time
Reflections on My Redeemer

X-Men First Class, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/) is one of those movies that is penetrating with deeper meaning. For example did you notice the interaction and philosophical differences between Professor Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) regarding the situation and rising tensions between humans and mutants? Erik, a victim of the Nazi holocaust, believes that mutants should force humans to accept them and further sees the mutants as a superior race. I find this ironic in light of the fact that he was a victim of intolerance and hatred by people claiming to be a superior race. Erik takes the approach that the ends justify the means and might makes right. Charles, on the other hand, focuses on the peaceful solution. Not joining humans necessarily, but protecting them and treating them as equals. He takes the high road, or what we might call high ethical standards.

I see parallels in this tension between Magneto and Professor X’s worldviews and the civil rights movement here in America. If you parallel Martin Luther King Jr. with Professor X and Malcolm X with Magneto, you may begin to see what I mean. I am reminded of a great play I saw in college. I forget the name of it, but the play was a mythical meeting between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and the discussion that followed. Each one of them arguing (or better debating) passionately for their solution to the problem.

One oddity of this parallel is the "X" in their names is in opposition. Professor “X” taking the pacifist approach and Malcolm “X” the by all means necessary approach.

X-Men the First Class movie explores these same tensions and debates. With this story, it starts with them working together for a greater good. Later, they see that their philosophies are not compatible and they part ways. Knowing the rest of the story and what follows, we see they become enemies. This is because they realize their two approaches are incompatible.

Check out the movie and let me know what you think. If you have seen the movie, do you see where I am coming from?

On my recent trip to Atlanta, Georgia, a friend and I were walking around exploring the city. Our walk took an unexpected turn when a Good Samaritan requesting spare change asked us if we were going to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. We had not planned to because, for some reason, I thought the memorial was in Alabama. I am not really even sure why I thought it was in Alabama. At any rate, we found out it was there and we decided it was a must-see. It seems that divine providence guided our path.

As I passed through what appeared to be a rundown part of town, we happened upon a pan handler whose only request was food. I always feel hesitant to help out aggressive pan handlers, especially when they open with the line, “Don’t worry, I ain’t going to mug you.” We know he would not be buying booze if we bought him the food rather than give him cash. We obliged his request and went to a little chicken restaurant and bought him food. He led us to the restaurant and, for that reason I did sense danger and was wary. I am in security and I was calculating my risk, continuously. However, with a little prayer and thinking thoughts like Matthew West's song "The Motions" or Josh Wilson's song "I Refuse," we proceeded to serve our fellow man, my neighbor.

After we completed the purchase, we left the restaurant and reentered the rundown neighborhood. In less than a block, the neighborhood changed dramatically. As I entered into the National Park and Preservation area I felt as if I was moving from hostility to a place of peace. The pot-holed, dirty streets and rundown buildings were replaced with well-trimmed lawns, maintained buildings and clean streets. The symbolism of that place and my soul were in sync.

We were exploring the grounds when I saw a very recognizable blue and white sign with the words Ebenezer Baptist Church. I couldn’t wait any longer; I eagerly made my way to the church. I was taken aback when I entered the church. It was such a humble place, simple and small. It had decorations such as stained glass however, the overriding aspect was functionality. It was a humble building that you might otherwise take as run-of-the-mill, yet this church was the epicenter for the civil-rights movement.

I walked into the church and took a seat on one of the pews. I sat there in quiet reflection. Yes, it is a simple building. Then, I realized it is not the building that made a difference, it was a man with a dream that made all the difference in the world. I sat that and wondered what it would have been like one Sunday morning listening to a man with a dream some said was too big.

“Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve… You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve… You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I realized this place and, more importantly, a poor preacher from Atlanta are significant to African American history, United States history and Church history. How many people can you say that about? I know Protestants don't have saints, but if they ever do, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. needs to be on the top of the list. I have to admit that I am happy to see that our government recognizes the significance of Martin Luther King Jr.

For me, I won’t forget the day I sat where he once preached the true Christian principles of love and peace instead of hate and revenge. When I see him in heaven someday, I will thank him for his service. He has inspired me, I hope he inspires you.

Your Emotions Can't Tell Time

The other day I was browsing Facebook when I noticed a suggested friend who was someone I went to school with long ago. The problem was this 'suggested friend' was a schoolmate who was a total jerk to me. I noticed very quickly I remembered what he said and did to me and I found myself upset and angry as if he had just done it or said it to me.

This is the problem with emotions. In order to trigger them, you just need to remember or think about something that made you feel that way once before. Then, bam! The emotions are back just like that. Even if, intellectually, you forgave the person or you now realize it was minor or long enough ago to not matter anymore.

After a few seconds, I realized that kids are mean and that what he said and did was mean, but it was over 20 years ago. Does it matter to me now? Not at all. However, emotions don't understand time they just react to what you are thinking.

You will find another example of this with actors. Good actors will draw on thoughts to create the emotions they need for the scene they are in. If they need anger, they will focus their thoughts on something that angers them and if they need to show love, they focus on thoughts of love.

I wonder if this means we can control our emotions based upon controlling our thoughts?

Here is a related quote:

“Words can never adequately convey the incredible impact of our attitudes toward life. The longer I live the more convinced I become that life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we respond to it.” - Charles R. Swindoll

When we think about our Redeemer do we see Him as our Savior who gets us into heaven or do we see Him as the one who takes what is broken and uses it for ultimate good? Intellectually I have always agreed that it is more than a ticket to heaven but practically I did not know how that worked out in my own life. Recently at a men's retreat I get a fresh and vivid look out how Jesus does more than redeem me, He redeems my past. When Paul's tells us the God causes all things to work out for good for us (Rom 8:28) does he really mean it? I have things in my past, skeletons in the closet, which I thought were better of left buried in the past and forgotten. However, our Savoir wants to redeem those past events, mistakes, pains and our current troubles. He wants to turn them into good. God can use those incidents for good, redeeming the broken and using it for a good purpose that ultimately shows His glory.

We are not the only people on the planet who have had to deal with those same issues. People struggle with them all the time. The question is will we allow God to use our struggles to help others? If we allow Him to use our past failings to draw people to Him, He takes a bad situation and redeems it for good. If we sit back ignore or pretend everything is ok He can't redeem those situations.

Kenny Luck, the guest speaker at the men's retreat said, "no risk without loss, no loss without pain and no pain without purpose." It is the hard and narrow road. People may wonder why I would want to drudge up past. Especially mistakes or painful memories that most people think are better left deep and forgotten. This is a valid question. With mistakes and memories come the emotions that are tide to them. Avoid the pain, right? Our Redeemer will redeem those situations. Our Redeemer will see us through the loss and the pain and will ultimately show us the purpose. I would like to think my mistakes have a purpose other than my failure.

Opening ourselves up like this is a big risk. Are we willing to take the risk? Do we trust our Redeemer? Yes it is a leap of faith. I am ready to jump, hesitant but ready.

This movies starts off with a very happy beginning. Back dropped in the heydays of the 1940 as seen by children. "Set during World War II, a story seen through the innocent eyes of Bruno, the eight-year-old son of the commandant at a concentration camp, whose forbidden friendship with a Jewish boy on the other side of the camp fence has startling and unexpected consequences." Pasted from <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/> 

Someone on FaceBook sent me a link to this video. It compares slavery and the holocaust with abortion. I know that everyone does not think that it is fair to compare the three different events. Citing they are to vastly different. However, I think that there is room to debate the coloration. I lean more toward the idea they are fair comparisons even if the events are different given in each case the value of life was in question.

Volition (n)- The act of making a choice. Sometimes the choice of inaction has consequences stronger than we could ever imagine. Throughout history, men have been faced with difficult choices in a world that makes it easy for them to conform. This film explores the hope that lies behind every decision made in the face of adversity; the hope that is buried in the heart of those that look beyond themselves and see something bigger worth fighting for.   Pasted from <http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/film/?film=420351f1aefa2b42b1772fe9d5cc044a>

Recently two very prominent Christians who turn out to be gay. Ted Haggard who was very outspoken against homosexuality now admits he suffers from same sex attraction (SSA). Ray Boltz a prominent Christian musician says he has always struggled with it and was tired of living a lie. It almost seems like it is epidemic within Christianity.

There is a group of people that I look up to or think exemplify a certain trait that is worth of emulation. I call them heroes for the lack of a better term. As a disclaimer, I realize that no one is perfect. I may count someone as a hero who may also have negative traits. For example Noah is a great hero because he was faithful, however, he was also a drunk. 

In some of my previous posts on Atheist, I have explored the source of their ethics.

 “But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back. Do to others as you would like them to do to you. If you love only those who love you, why should you get credit for that? Even sinners love those who love them! And if you do good only to those who do good to you, why should you get credit? Even sinners do that much! And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, why should you get credit? Even sinners will lend to other sinners for a full return. Love your enemies! Do good to them. Lend to them without expecting to be repaid. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to those who are unthankful and wicked." 

- Tyndale House Publishers: Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 2004, S. Lk 6:27-35

• Matthew 5:44
• Matthew 22:37-39
• Mark 12:30-31
• Luke 6:27
• Luke 6:35
• Luke 10:27
• John 13:34-35
• John 15:17
• Romans 13:8-10
• Galatians 5:14
• Ephesians 5:25, 28, 33
• Colossians 3:19
• 1 Thessalonians 4:9
• James 2:8
• 1 Peter 1:22
• 1 John 4:11-12, 19-21

1. Christian Hypocrisy http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/49-christian-hypocrisy
2. Question of the Week 1 http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/44-question-of-the-week-1
3. How would you answer Richard Dawkins II http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/40-what-would-you-say-to-richard-dawkins-question-ii
4. How would you answer Richard Dawkins? http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/40-what-would-you-say-to-richard-dawkins-question-ii

The second post in a series exploring homosexuality and Christianity.

I want to take some time and explore different perspectives on homosexuality.� I have not spent any time researching homosexuality from a Biblical perspective.� The funny thing is I know Christians who have good reasons to have opposing positions.�

I think that in today’s culture it is important to have an educated opinion on a subject that is causing a great deal of separation.� Currently, I don’t have an opinion only because I have heard very convincing and contradicting opinions from many Christians.� I really don’t want to take the easy way out and just except someone else’s opinion.

As I work through this, I will end up with a series of blogs and hopefully I will receive comments that will help me explore this issue in ways I would not have conceived.

Some of the issues I think that need to be addressed are:

• Is homosexuality a sin?
• Can you be a Christian and a Homosexual?
• How should Christians treat homosexuals?
• Should Christians enforce their morals on non-Christians?
• Gay marriage, the State’s and Church’s role in marriage.

�

Stay tuned for more posts on the subject and please let me know your opinion.� This is a very divisive topic and one where emotions tend to run wild.� My intention is to learn and reserve judgment until I feel confident I have an educated opinion.

I need sleep but can't sleep because I need to write this.