Why Stop at Birth? The Chilling Logic of Abortion Rights

Tags

abortion, after-birth abortion, infanticide, Journal of Medical Ethics, pro-choice, pro-life, progressive personhood

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva believe in the moral defensibility of infanticide. Of course they don’t call it that. The prefer “to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.”

These two philosophers, writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, present a chilling argument that:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

While most people will find this appalling, it is simply the logical conclusion of progressive personhood (“the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development.”) taken to its logical conclusion.

As I have noted before, this creates a subjective criteria for determining personhood. At what point does a “potential person” become an “actual person,” and who gets to decide?

Hence, Giubilini and Minerva can attest,

if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

But who determines who is a “potential person” and an “actual person?” If these authors have their way, personhood is not achieved until some time after birth.

[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

Who are these “non-persons?” Those with disease, birth defects or any child who would place undue stress or burden (emotional, financial etc.) on the mother.

Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

Though I have known this is the ultimate logic of the pro-choice arguments, this is still one of the most disturbing journal articles I have ever read. Murder by any other name — infanticide, after-birth abortion, neonaticide — is still murder. Even pro-choice advocates recognize the disturbing “morality” argued for here.

The early church had to stand and speak against the practice of infanticide in the Roman Empire. As we gradually regress to a pagan society, Christians are being called to do so once again.

Why You Should Raise Your Children . . . Where You Live

Tags

children, evangelicalism, Family, Kathy Keller, latent elitism, rural, urban, urbanophilia

Last week, Christianity Today published Kathy Keller’s article Why You Should Raise Your Kids in the City. In it, she argues that the city is not only acceptable, it is a “wonderful place to raise children.”

Her premise is that “Because most Christians don’t think about the city as a great place to raise their family, Christians are moving into the city at a vastly slower rate than the rest of the world’s people.” While I can think of other reasons this might be the case, it is certainly a primary factor for many.

Mrs. Keller speaks from experience. For 23 years, she and her husband Tim, serve the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. They raised three sons in New York City. That certainly qualifies her as an authority on the subject, and she makes some excellent points. The perception of the city is not usually “family-friendly”, and this article helps dispel that myth.

via mamnaimie @ flickr

What I find vaguely unsettling are some of the “Reasons to Love City Living” attached at the end of the article. Some that are merely misconceptions:

*you do things with your kids, rather than sending them out to play in the yard
In the country we do things with our kids AND let them play in the yard (what’s wrong with playing alone in the yard anyway?) Ultimately, this probably has more to do with parenting rather than location.

*great food in every restaurant—no bad meals
Because delicious restaurant-served food is essential to raising Godly kids. Take them to Golden Corral and you may forfeit their soul. (OK. Bad example. That may actually be true.) Obviously, Mrs. Keller hasn’t been to the cities I’ve been too. We have great food in the country, we just don’t always go to a restaurant to get it!

These aren’t all that troubling, just incongruous in an article intending to destroy stereotypes.

Other reasons are more troubling:

* you are able to process the sinfulness of the world, which is up close and visible in the city, with your children; they aren’t shielded from it until just as they are leaving home and you are no longer as much an influence in their lives.

What is insinuated here is that children raised in a less exposed environment will somehow be less than prepared for life. Again, I agree that a child can be raised well in an ungodly environment. The problem is in suggesting that it is inherently superior to do so.

* The best reason to raise kids in the city: they see young, hip, urban Christians in the church, new believers who have been there and done that and find Christ better than all of it;

Rather than being the best, this may be the most disturbing for me. First, it seems to elevate “young, hip, urban,” as necessary qualifications for a role model. Further it implies that the best (though not only) models for our children are those with a negative testimony. I fully understand the value of hearing a warning from someone who has “been there and done that.” I am not convinced I must live in the city to encounter those with a “past.” Nor am I convinced however that it is somehow more valuable than my children seeing someone who has been faithful to Christ their entire life.

photo via KOMUnews @ flickr

Though Mrs. Keller acknowledges there are spiritual pros and cons for raising children in any region, all of this subtly hints at the latent elitism of evangelicalism’s current infatuation with cities (dare I call it urbanophilia?). It might also explain why I found this article or at least the concluding list vaguely unsettling. I’ve expressed my feelings on this trend in regards to ministry, and my feelings are the same for the family.

Neither urban, rural, or suburban is somehow superior. Our countryside may not be cool in secular terms, and we are a long way from hip and urban. But God has called me to serve in a rural area, and that is where I should raise my children for His glory.

Late-Night Thoughts on the Gospel and Missions

Tags

Culture, Gospel, gospel-centeredness, Jesus Christ, Missions, trans-cultural

It’s late at night (so I make no claim for coherence), but my mind is focused on the Gospel and the mission of the church to share it globally. These are not new thoughts, but I don’t think I’ve ever put them in to writing. At any rate, I thought I’d share them here as a means of getting them on “paper.” I welcome your thoughts or comments on this topic.

The Gospel and Missions

The message of the Gospel is not limited to our culturally-influenced understanding of it. We often risk conforming it to our nationality/culture/experience.

For example: I’ve heard people say, “It just doesn’t seem like Christmas, the weather is too warm.” What we mean is – “It doesn’t seem like what I culturally associate with this holiday.” Christ’s birth can and should be celebrated regardless of the climate.

The Gospel itself is trans-cultural. We should be able to share it with clarity and integrity in any culture in the world. The language may be different, but the message remains the same.

Unfortunately, we add baggage to the message. Whatever does not translate from one culture to another is not the Gospel – it is culture. The purpose of missions is not to Americanize people, but to proclaim the Gospel to them.

Why would we not seek to remove as much of this “baggage” as possible? Without changing or hindering the Gospel message, get rid of anything unnecessary, especially that which is nothing more than personal or national preference. Some call this being “missional.” I call it being Biblical.

Christ is King over all nations and cultures and peoples. The Message of the Gospel is that man is incapable of self-initiated, outward change. We must be changed from the inside. Though it is often counter-cultural, every culture needs to hear and experience this. The Gospel is the life-transforming power of God unto salvation. That goes beyond man-made boundaries.

Nephos IX

Tags

abortion, Brian Regan, dinosaurs, Hobby Lobby, Jon Acuff, King, Martin Luther, Twitter, Wal-Martfree book

1. Jon Acuff proves Solomon invented Twitter. Well, maybe “proves” is a little strong, but see what you think . . .

Solomon invented Twitter

2. This bit of MLK history from Owen Strachan illustrates that spiritual and theological convictions can motivate great change.

Christopher Hitchens was Wrong: Martin Luther King Jr. on Cosmic Companionship

3. Ever wondered why dinosaurs don’t talk? Brian Regan’s son has the answer.

4. Weddings are a blessed part of pastoral ministry. They also raise questions and can provide headaches. Brian Croft helps with the questions.

What are the boundary lines to determine whether a pastor can/should conduct a wedding?

5. This is one of the most chilling, sobering things I’ve ever seen. Justin Taylor shares the trailer It’s a Girl! The Three Deadliest Words in the World.

The 200 Million Missing Girls.

6. Desiring God offers a free e-book on abortion and asks you to “Please feel free to download it, print it, copy it, and share it with as many people as you like.”

Exposing the Dark Work of Abortion

7. Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby has an extraordinary collection of Bible artifacts. Here he discusses a few items from the collection, including a recently recovered papyrus fragment of Romans – estimated to be the earliest (2nd century) extant manuscript of the book.

Hobby Lobby president’s rare collection.

8. Increased religious freedom in China? Christianity Today reports that increasingly the Chinese have legal access to Christian literature.

Discipling the Dragon: Christian Publishing Finds Success in China.

9. Abraham Piper has found his favorite Wal-Mart in the Dominican Republic. I think I agree.

HT: 22 Words.

Nephos 9

Tags

Bible Study, Christians and politics, church signs, crazy goats, laziness, Obama, same-sex marriage, Tebow

Here for your weekend reading enjoyment:

1. Believing in Tim Tebow

I know everyone’s “Tebowed” out, but this article focuses on what’s important about him.

2. 13 Pictures of Crazy Goats on Cliffs

Mountain goats have to either be the craziest or most fearless creature on four legs. You decide.

3. Let Me Tell You How to Vote

Dr. Kevin Bauder addresses Christians and voting.

4. Slay Your Dragons Before Breakfast

Michael Hyatt faces the same morning dragon I do: Lethargy! This is how he defeats him early.

5. More Than Enough

A conversation between Phillip and Andrew as imagined by Jon Bloom.

6. President Obama and Same-sex Marriage: The Dance Continues

Will the President’s “evolving” views on gay rights and same-sex marriage affect this year’s election?

7.

For those of us who are still trying to figure out primaries, caucuses, conventions and super-delegates, this video clears it all up.

8. Church Sign of the Week

Some have wondered if God cares about football. These churches seem to think so.

9.

Nephos 9: Tebow Version

Tags

Christian, criticism, Denver Broncos, football, Sports, Tim Tebow

I’ve not posted much (if anything) about Denver Bronco quarterback Tim Tebow. Mostly, I’ve sat and watched, or read, his incredible story unfold this season. That said, here in a special Monday edition of Nephos Nine are 9 thoughts about Tim Tebow:

1. Everyone who criticizes him is not anti-Christian. To characterize every attack as faith-based is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

2. Everyone who likes him is not unaware of his short-comings on the field.

3. There HAS been criticism (open and some not so) of HOW he expresses his faith. Ironically, the sharpest criticism I’ve seen about this seems to come from other Christian athletes.

4. I appreciate his desire to live a righteous life. This has been true since college, and I believe this is partly why he is such a mystery to some people. For him it is just part of his commitment to God – to our society it is an anomaly.

5. While I’ve not been a big fan of him as a player (he IS a Gator, and old habits die hard), I DO appreciate his desire to bring glory to God as a person.

6. It’s no big deal that he prays during a game or after a touchdown. God may not care about the final score of a football game. He does care that His children give Him thanks and acknowledgement when they succeed. I’ve heard Tebow give glory to God in wins AND losses.

7. He purposefully uses the “platform” of his popularity. His clearly specific answers regarding his relationship with Christ demonstrate this strategic approach. Others athletes have used their “platform,” but few as vocally and intentionally as he has. In the interviews I have seen of him, he tends to be more aggressive and/or clear in his expression of how his faith shapes his life than your average “I thank God for that win,” or pointing to the sky after a score.

8. I am amazed at those who seem obsessed with a desire for his failure. The vehemence of those who predict his failure is part of what makes his success so dramatic.

9. You can’t help but be impressed with his passion/drive/enthusiasm for the game. It’s infectious. Yesterday’s win vs. Chicago was like watching a kid playing in his backyard after Christmas dinner.

Whatever your opinion of him, Tebow has certainly elicited passionate responses (positive and negative) from the public. I pray for him because he has a huge target on his back. It’s true of any “celebrity” Christian – “With increased recognition comes increased risk.” Like all the rest of us he is not perfect, and the moment he slips, even slightly, it will be amplified beyond proportion.

So how about you? What do you think of Tebow? Fan, critic, or indifferent?

Compromise By Any Other Name

Tags

Bro. Andrew, compromise, Contemporary Christianity, integrity

Many are familiar with the name of Bro. Andrew. God’s Smuggler, his autobiographical account of smuggling Bibles into the countries behind the Iron Curtain, has been a challenge and inspiration to Christians for years.

On one of his early trips to Budapest, Hungary, his guide takes him to meet a pastor who has been forced to make lamp shades in order to support his family. His license to preach had been revoked by the communist government without explanation. Having lost his livelihood, this pastor worked from early morning to late night in order to meet the most basic needs of his family. Bro. Andrew is troubled by what he sees.

“After we left I asked Professor B (his host) how typical this pastor’s plight was.”

“Fairly typical among the churches that do not compromise,” he said, “But many compromise. They ‘adjust’ to the regime not only in politics but in the basics of the faith, so that they become little more than arms of the government.”

Later, Bro. Andrew meets a pastor of one of these churches. He points to some of the children from his church that are participating in a school program. Each one has a bright red scarf around their neck.

“One of the requirements for the scarf was a ‘proper attitude’ toward the religious superstitions of their parents.”

“What superstitions?” I asked.

“Oh – miracles. And the creating story. Original sin. Fallen man. That sort of thing.”

“What about the fact that Jesus was God?”

“They would put that at the top of the list.”

“How do you yourself feel?”

The pastor lowered his eyes. “What can you do…” he shrugged his shoulders.

With the school ceremony over, the pastor took us to see his church. He was talking about the improved heat plant and the new windows and the enlarged playing field out back, when suddenly he said to me, ‘Brother Andrew, what should I do?’”

It’s easy to spot compromise under such government pressure. We would all acknowledge the verdict that this pastor compromised his beliefs for survival. How convenient for us to judge his actions.

But is the “free” American church any different? How many churches in our country are “adjusting” in order to survive? Is our compromise any less serious? Read the following paragraph substituting the word “culture” for government.

“Fairly typical among the churches that do not compromise,” he said, “But many compromise. They ‘adjust’ to the culture not only in methods but in the basics of the faith, so that they become little more than arms of the culture.”

Thus changed, this paragraph could describe any number of churches in America.

Adjust your message to appeal to more hearers. Don’t tell people they are sinners. Don’t tell them there is a hell. Convince them that they can have a good life if they will “turn their life around”. The Bible is merely a “hand-book” for life. Give them “relevant” teaching that meets what they think they need.

Revise your philosophy of ministry. Adopt a mentality that says “The ends justifies the means.” Ignore the spiritual factor of kingdom ministry. Focus on the marketing and methods from the business world to “grow” a church.

Many pastors are asking the same question, “What can you do?” In order to survive, must we “adjust”? Must we compromise? There’s no question of the results. Safety. Crowds. Facilities. Survival. But, through the mist of the “blessings of relevance,” we may have lost sight of something far more important: Truth.

The answer is, No!  We must not compromise. We must not adjust. Truth is truth and will always be so. When we compromise, we run the risk of becoming just another “arm of the culture.” Will there be sacrifices? Will it be difficult? Yes, Jesus said so. But when we give account of ourselves before God, I’m willing to believe it will be worth it.

Sure, there were churches behind the Iron Curtain that compromised under the pressure of persecution. But far too many contemporary American churches are compromising under the pressure of popularity and success.