Tag Archives: guilt

On Abortion

If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong” Mike Huckabee

Going to a humanistic but practical definition of the Moral Good outlined by a Philosophy professor I took a class with:

Moral good is a quality of the action or intention of a free and knowing agent, which action/intention adds/preserves the physical i.e.biological, psychological, economic, etc–whatever is “natural”(to the object) good of some natural whole such as humans and other species in some rational subordination to human and with keeping in mind the distinction between essential goods and incidental (trivial) goods.

In the issue of Abortion, are there some benefits which are essential and some which are trivial? In a relative scale, a continuum, are there some benefits which are better than others?

What are the benefits of Abortion as defined by it’s supporters?

  • Health of the mother.
  • Protection of the victim in cases of rape and/or incest.
  • Protection from abuse of the mother and/or an unwanted child.
  • Protection of those who are going to abort anyways by providing safe/legal environment to have it performed.
  • Preventing deformed and handicapped children from having a less worthwhile life.
  • Quality of life of the rest of the family.
  • Happiness.

To these I would add protection of the perpetrators of rape and incest.

What are a few of the problems with Abortion? The anti-goods. This list is very short. I wanted general categories rather than specifics.

  • Abortion kills human life.
  • Abortion causes physical and emotional issues in the mothers.
  • Abortion destroys potential.

Now, compare any other these items in these two lists, the “goods” against the “bads”, and is there a case where the “goods” are morally superior to the “bads”? For the sake of our discussion, how do the list of “goods” and “bads” line up on the continuum from essential to trivial?

In the extreme case, perhaps the strongest, most emotionally charged arguments for Abortion are those involving rape and incest and the life of the mother. How do these cases compare in the essential to trivial continuum with those against Abortion?

I would submit that killing a human to resolve an ugly, evil situation such as rape or incest does not mitigate the evil of the original situation nor the lasting consequences of it. If anything, adding the guilt of murder to an already traumatized victim cannot be a safe course of action.

And what of the child? The child has no say in the circumstances of it’s conception. The child could well be a prodigy, it could be special needs, it could be normal and unique like all other children. With special needs children, any person who can look at such a child and not be struck both the intense love such a child needs and is capable of reciprocating, is sorely lacking in humanity. The point is, to unjustly cut off the potential of any child at any point is a grave mistake and a crime with few equals.

Therefore, comparing the competing cases, we see that on the continuum, any benefit to the mother to be attained by killing her child would be trivial compared to the essential goods to be attained in the potential of that child.

And what of the idea that another child could rob the older children of some of their owed love from their parents? Is love a zero-sum game, where there is a set and finite amount of love contained in this world, that to add to those who need love we subtract from the total available to any other? To believe that is to believe a lie, an obvious and tawdry lie. A child both receives love and gives love, adding to the total love in a family. Love is not, cannot be, selfish. We experience love when we are not even the direct or intended recipients of it. To witness love is to feel love and experience it. As older children observe their parents giving of themselves, selflessly, to a new and dependent child, they can understand true love as it is modeled for them.

Finally, what of happiness? Is a smaller family a happier family? Are children likely to be aborted more likely to experience unhappy lives? It is true that abortion primarily appeals to poor and minority families (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a documented White Supremacist and supported eugenics and abortion as methods of controlling what she deemed to be unworthy aspects of society), but are these necessarily unhappy families? If even one of the children may experience a happy family, basic decency demands we give that child the chance to experience that life. And not every child who experiences an unhappy child will necessarily experience an unhappy adulthood. We are not automatons completely dependent on our situations and histories. Instead, we have choice in how we respond and react to each of our situations. To deny the chance that child may grow up to use their troubled history as a springboard to launch them into the far reaches of achievement in society and culture. Or do you have so little faith in humanity?

Abortion is wrong, evil, hateful, arrogant, stupid, and blind.

Wealth Begets Religious Apathy, Except In The U.S.

Over at the Acton Institute’s Power Blog, Jordan Ballor mentions a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finding that the wealthier a country, the less citizens’ lives revolve around religion. The one country bucking the trend? The U.S., but why?

Ballor gives a somewhat lengthy and ambiguous answer.

Ballor theorizes that it is America’s heritage and the “penetration of the Gospel message into people’s hearts and minds.” As an example, he notes that Satan’s attacks American’s differently than others. He quotes a John Piper column, “Gutsy Guilt:”

“The great tragedy is not masturbation or fornication or pornography. The tragedy is that Satan uses guilt from these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had or might have. In their place, he gives you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures, until you die in your lakeside rocking chair.”

Interesting thoughts and worth a read, if nothing else, for the mental exercise.

This Fat Doesn’t Fly

Pearl Before Swine - Sept. 18, 2007

I have little sympathy for fat people, and even less when they’re sitting next to me in an airplane. Apparently at least one fat person thinks he ought to be allowed to try and squeeze his bulk into a single seat with no thought for the poor person(s) forced to share 2/3rds of (their) seat(s) with him. This is selfishness, and I support Southwest Airlines in their decision to require people to purchase two seats if they cannot lower the armrests past their gluttonous bodies.

Thankfully, the gentleman who was compelled to buy a second seat to store himself has taken the terrible “shame” he experienced and used it to drive himself to lose weight. Good for him. Give it a bit more time and he’ll be thanking Southwest for shaming him into actually doing something good.

The sad part of this story is the fact that shame is seen as something which ought to be assuaged, the guilt is bad because it is guilt, not because it indicates how the person is in the wrong. Mr. Hill ought to have been ashamed of his weight long before he got to the airline ticket counter. Shame is a good thing, it tells us when we’re wrong and ought to change.

There is a significant difference between merciless taunting and true shame. I do not need to act any less loving or caring to cause shame in another. To taunt one for their difference or deformity is wrong at all times and in all cases. It is when the over-reaction to taunting causes all commentary and truth telling to be considered taboo that the whole culture loses its ability to self-regulate and now we have ugly fat people, and ugly fat kids, and walking medical bills, and public stupidity, and so many other visible scars walking the streets and sleeping on park benches.

I do not discount that these are humans who need love more than most. But Jesus came for those who knew and admitted they were sick.

OJ Vs. The Law

Regardless of whether or not OJ is guilty of armed robbery as he has been charged, he is wrong in his actions.

If we are to believe the biggest escaped-in-the-open lying murderer of our time, he was simply trying to get back some memorabilia that was stolen from him. When he heard the goods were in a Las Vegas hotel and he was conveniently in town for a wedding, he went to the room where the goods were supposedly stored and attempted to reclaim them.

There are problems here, several of them:

  • Did he file a police report when the items went missing? When someone as *ahem* important as he loses personal memorabilia, it is a wise thing to file a police report, just in case.
  • Did he think his version of vigilante justice would make sense to anyone besides his own, twisted self? There are many things we have the freedom to do in America, but dispensing our own justice when the law of the land has been broken is not one of them.
  • Did he think that anyone would believe him? At all?

For a Christian, we are told that God reserves the right of vengeance to Himself. By acting out our own vengeance we rob God of His perfect justice which He’s stored up in His storehouses for dispensing on that day He has ordained for each of us. God has given the responsibility for certain applications of justice to earthly systems of authority based on the individual responsibilities of each of those systems. To parents He gave the reward and punishment of their children. The the church those inside the church. To the various municipal authorities each their own based on their defined areas of responsibility. But each derives it’s authority from it’s own authorities and ultimately from God Himself, the final arbiter and judge.

When two people not under the authority of the church and willfully unrepentant are at odds, generally the responsibility for justice, punishment and restoration falls to the civil courts and judicial system. Such is the case of OJ. If we are to believe his tales, he is still in the wrong for seeking to dispense his own form of gang justice.

Does he think he is a law unto himself? With the same smug smile he showed so self-righteously throughout the murder trial last decade, he is the epitome of the post-modern relativist morality. What is right for him is right for him, and others rules and laws make no difference to him. He does as he pleases and answers to no man for his deeds or thoughts.

As he skated the conviction and wounded justice so many years ago, he may now fall for pride.

What Islam Gets Wrong

All my reading and perusing today seemed to be along the lines of the problem of Islam. There are several gems which I’d like to bring to y’alls attention.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has put together rebuttals to the Amanpour slander-fest, CNN’s “Holy War”. I have not seen, nor do I care to see (as I like to avoid those things which will certainly shorten my life by raising blood pressure and depleting IQ) this series but I’ve heard naught but the most steady slamming of its vociferous and detestably slanderous lies. Even others in the MSM have taken shots at the show.

CAMERA breaks its rebuttals down into three separate articles :

  1. God’s Jewish Warriors – CNN’s Abomination

    “God’s Jewish Warriors” (is) one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing “martyrdom,” or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

  2. God’s Muslim Warriors — CNN’s Double Standard

    While much of the program was informative and fair (in contrast to the propagandistic nature of Part One,”God’s Jewish Warriors”), there were serious flaws and glaring omissions. Among the most important shortcomings, extremist Muslim beliefs and practices were often minimized and many of the key causes for the spread of Muslim supremacist beliefs went unexplored.

  3. God’s Christian Warriors— CNN Slurs Christians

    At the end of this segment, devoted to “God’s Christian Warriors,” Amanpour left viewers with a warning that society cannot ignore “the millions of people who feel their faith is being ignored, is being pushed aside and who are certain they know how to make the world right.”

    Given the huge levels of religiously motivated violence taking place in the world today – most of it perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims – Amanpour is right. Religious fundamentalism cannot be ignored.

    But if Americans are going to determine how to respond to religious extremism on both an international and societal level, they surely cannot rely on Amanpour’s coverage of the issue. In her coverage of “Christian Warriors” Amanpour demonstrates a predictable inability to discern the difference between Christians in the U.S. who organize politically to affect public policy and suicide bombers in the Middle East who target civilians in an attempt to intimidate their opponents into submission.

So there you have it. CNN thinks I’m as likely as Sadr to kill and maim and destroy life and property merely because I believe that God (not Allah, the false god) has standards and rules and promises blessing to those who follow them. God, unlike the false demon Allah, forbids the killing of people except when they themselves have killed and are judged worthy of that judgment, instead reserving the right to vengeance to Himself and urging us instead to love and seek to turn those who disagree with us with tangible acts of mercy and humility.

Allah, the demon, requires that each of his servants be enactors of bloody retribution on those they deem his enemies. Humans cannot judge the heart or the motives, only God the Just Judge can do that. We have limited means of determining the real events while God with His infinite knowledge and wisdom and insight into each our hearts and minds is the perfect Judge and protects both the innocence of the innocent and the guilt of the guilty with His reserving that vengeance to Himself.

Islam also breed distrust and dishonesty among its adherents. It is permissible to lie in certain circumstances in Islam: when dealing with infidels (that’s us) and when your wife asks if you love her (that makes me mad and sad). In much the same way as Mormonism, the female in Islam is a second-rate baby machine whose purpose here and hereafter is to please the men by providing sexual service in a place of servitude,bringing (male) progeny for the man to further his name. The infidel exists only to be given one chance to convert and then to experience immediate destruction, often in humiliating and horrific manner. There is no acceptance. There is no forgiveness. There is no choice.