|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Abortion Destined to Prevail After SD Law?
Cal Thomas warns that trying to reverse the abortion culture in one fell swoop, as a pending bill in South Dakota attempts to do, is a noble gesture but could ultimately leave the pro-life movement in disarray.
Since the 1973 Roe decision, surveys have shown that people remain divided over abortion. Depending on the way questions are asked, people reflect varying opinions on whether abortion should remain legal and if restrictions should be placed on the procedure. Polls have shown that while a majority believes abortion takes a human life and that it is an immoral act, there are some circumstances under which a majority would not restrict abortion and other circumstances under which it would.
That there is a gap between people's perception about the morality of abortion and their willingness to allow it under some circumstances reflects something far deeper than polls reveal: a disconnection between the concept of objective and eternal truth and the narcissistic, me-first age in which we live.
While I wish the fence-swingers well and hope they hit a home run, my guess is they will not succeed; not now. Perhaps a better strategy would be to attempt to get on base with a simpler plan that is even now causing abortion-minded women to choose to have their babies. I don't disagree with the merits of Thomas' analysis, nor do I think the abortion-banning law in South Dakota will have the desired effect of overturning Roe v. Wade and reversing the societal tolerance of abortion. However, it's difficult for me to slight the effort by the state's legislature, for if abortion truly is as culturally debilitating and life-destroying as some of us belive it to be, should our reaction be to cringe at such a bold step?
Granted, we should not rest all of our hopes in this one piece of legislation that is likely to be revoked by some level of the judiciary. And Thomas addresses some other areas that are deserving of attention.
I don't, however, believe that the culture will be worse off, even if the South Dakota law ultimately leads to a reaffirmation of Roe by the Supreme Court -- and should such a decision be handed down, it may modify some of the most problematic reasoning of Roe and serve the gradual shift away from unrestricted abortion.
--- Thursday, February 23, 2006
Abortion Aborted
NARAL may see a bill now passed by the South Dakota legislature as a "monumental setback for women," but I call it progress.
Setting up South Dakota to become the first state in 14 years to start a direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade, lawmakers voted on Wednesday to outlaw nearly all abortions.
Across the country, abortion rights advocates reacted with outrage and dismay. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which runs the sole abortion clinic in South Dakota, said it was bracing to fight the move in court immediately, if the governor signs it....After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life.
They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle. Politically -- and practically -- I'm not sure how lasting an impact this law will have, assuming that it is signed by the governor. Court action will inevitably keep it from being enforced anytime soon, but I find it difficult not to applaud South Dakota lawmakers for taking a bold step toward eliminating an abhorrent practice from their state. Women, and babies, will be better off for it.
As I was reminded last night at a talk in DC by Discovery Institute fellow Wesley Smith, human life at all stages of development carries innate worth and deserves our protection. Strategically, the South Dakota law may not spell the end of the Roe v. Wade. But it is right -- and maybe that's enough.
--- Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Abortion Back in Court
The Supreme Court today agreed to consider the controversial ban on partial-birth abortion that has been rejected in several lower courts already -- based on the High Court's own ruling on a similar law in 2000.
The Supreme Court wasted little time jumping back into the contentious abortion issue, agreeing Tuesday to review the constitutionality of a federal law banning a controversial late-term procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion....
A federal appeals court had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 was unconstitutional because it did not provide a health exception to pregnant women facing a medical emergency.
'Health exception'
The outcome of this latest challenge could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the "health exception."
In states where such exceptions are allowed, they include the possibility of severe blood loss, damage to vital organs or loss of fertility. And doctors would be given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed. This is, of course, the first big test on the abortion debate that will come before the new Court. And it would seem that the new set of justices -- including recently confirmed Samuel Alito -- along with the Court's reluctance last month to overturn a New Hampshire parental notification law, could be indicators that could bode well for the survival of the partial-birth abortion ban this time around.
And so it should be. If abortion is a stain on America's conscience -- and I very much believe it is -- then the gruesome practice that is called "partial-birth" abortion is an act that makes the stain impossible to cover up. Opposition to its ban is, predictably, framed as protection toward women, but it takes a great deal of imagination to pretend that leaving such an atrocity legal will serve a woman in any way that warrants the brutal destruction of her child.
The Meaning of a Life
Members of the President's Council on Bioethics appear to have starkly differing views on the intrinsic value of human embryos. Following a recent NY Times op-ed by one member suggesting that cloning was by no means an assault on human life, Robert George and Gilbert Meilaender counter that embryos are not merely tools to be researched, manipulated, and discarded for medical advancement.
It will not do to opine that a living human embryo of the sort all of us once were (which Gazzaniga prefers to characterize as "that thing in a petri dish") cannot be a member of our community, entitled to the same protections as the rest of us, unless and until it has acquired "the memories and loves and hopes that accumulate over the years" without offering any serious discussion of what this means for newborns, for those afflicted by retardation, and for those suffering from dementia.
It will not do to opine that the distinction between body and brain is decisive for determining whose life should be protected without even considering whether the living and developing human body ought not elicit from us a kind of reverence and respect that would keep us from simply using it in the service of our goals, even praiseworthy goals.
Gazzaniga is, of course, not alone in failing to engage in the kind of serious reflection we need right now (though as an informed scholar he does bear some special responsibilities that others may not). Others also want to rid our nation's debates about embryonic-stem-cell research of any so-called "political" interference with the research agendas of scientists. But this effort badly misrepresents the nature of both science and politics....For we think that this debate is about a question that is not simply scientific but is unavoidably (and in the best sense of the word) political. Whose good counts in the common good we all share? Whose life may not simply be used as a means to improve the lives of the rest of us? It bears reminding in these ever-present debates that bioethical issues are by and large a one-way street. Once society, law, or science decide to relax their resistance toward a pursuit or study, there is very little chance that we will be able to reverse course later. And we likely unable to either predict or restrain the consequences of such endeavors. If that sounds a bit scary, it should. These are new arenas with physical and ideological implications that could drastically change the way the world perceives human life. We do best to give the utmost deference to the intricacies of life and walk very slowly (or better, not at all) toward that brave new world where human beings -- born or unborn -- are thoughtlessly tossed aside if they are not deemed useful.
--- Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Aborting the Extremes
EJ Dionne suggests that solving the abortion issue requires retiring to the "middle ground" and seeking to reduce the need for abortions rather than banning them.
For many staunch supporters and opponents of abortion rights, the search for a third way on the issue seems like so much phony political positioning.
But the truth is that politicians are already engaging in strained positioning on abortion. They know there is a large ambivalent middle ground of public opinion that is uneasy with abortion itself and also uneasy with a government ban on the procedure. So they fudge.
No one has been more masterful at holding his pro-life base and appealing to the middle than President Bush. He speaks regularly of his support for a "culture of life" but never says he would overturn Roe v. Wade. In Congress, supporters of abortion rights in both parties will signal their moderation by opposing partial-birth abortion or favoring parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions. Whatever their merits, such laws do little to cut the abortion rate.
But there is a new argument on abortion that may establish a more authentic middle ground. It would use government not to outlaw abortion altogether but to reduce its likelihood. And at least one politician, Thomas R. Suozzi, the county executive of New York's Nassau County, has shown that the position involves more than soothing rhetoric....
Right about this point, I can see my friends in the right-to-life movement rolling their eyes and insisting that all this prevention talk is a dodge. Maybe so, but my question to them is whether they honestly think that their current political strategy, focused on knocking down Roe and making abortion illegal, will actually protect fetal life by substantially reducing the number of abortions. The underlying assumption here is that the debate features one extreme that wants to outlaw the practice of abortion and another that seeks its approval at any time and for any reason. While most Americans admittedly cling to a position somewhere in the middle of those views, it is a mistake to consider that position "moderate" -- and therefore more reasonable.
Nearly every abortion is, it seems to me, an extreme action that violates the laws of nature and nature's God. That a society could become as uncomfortable with a prohibition of abortion as with abortion itself is a sign, not of moderation, but of a distorted moral conscience.
Certainly, however, it is a worthwhile effort to seek to limit the undesired pregnancies that too often end in an unborn child's destruction. Yet that task should not come with the qualifying message that, well, abortion is still an acceptable answer if a mistake happens -- as such, we would gain no ground either morally or practically. Perhaps the deeper problem is that emphasizing "safe" sex as a solution to abortion (unless by "safe," we mean confined to a marriage relationship) draws the core of the debate back to the would-be parents, rather than the young life that is created. The question thus returns to the ubiquitous attempts to evade the consequences of immorality, with abortion remaining available as a fall-back plan.
While reclaiming the virtue of sex is, unquestionably, an important aspect in the battle to shrink (or eliminate) the number of abortions in America, it is not enough. If we cannot firmly declare that abortion is a moral travesty, for no greater reason than that it violates the sanctity of human life, then any other efforts, however "moderate," will be in vain.
--- Monday, February 13, 2006
Darwin's Birthday Pulpit
This weekend marked the birthday of evolutionary icon Charles Darwin, and news outlets were apparently eager to celebrate with their local church congregations.
From the New York Times:
On the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin, ministers at several hundred churches around the country preached yesterday against recent efforts to undermine the theory of evolution, asserting that the opposition many Christians say exists between science and faith is false.
At St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church, a small contemporary structure among the pricey homes of north Atlanta, the Rev. Patricia Templeton told the 85 worshipers gathered yesterday, "A faith that requires you to close your mind in order to believe is not much of a faith at all." From the Chicago Tribune:
Darwin's theory holds that all life on Earth, including humans, shares common ancestry and developed over millions of years through the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation. The concept is repugnant to many conservative Christians because it conflicts with their belief that man was specially created in the image of God.
Zimmerman said today's event is designed to educate Americans about two things.
"The first part was to demonstrate to the American public that the shrill fundamentalist voices that were demanding that people had to choose between religion and science were simply wrong. The second part was to demonstrate that those fundamentalist leaders that keep standing up and shouting that you can't accept modern science were not speaking for the majority of Christian leaders in this country," said Zimmerman, a former biology professor. From Newsday:
The Rev. Richard E. Edwards will not mince words in his sermon today about God and Charles Darwin, the 19th century naturalist whose theory of evolution rocked the world.
"I want to reaffirm the compatibility of Biblical tradition and modern science," said Edwards, pastor of Stony Brook Community Church, a small, Methodist congregation that draws members from the nearby university and medical center. "This is a community where science counts, and where folks really need to hear that."
At a time when conservative Christians are mounting aggressive challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools, Edwards is one of about 400 pastors nationwide, mostly from mainline Protestant churches, who are participating in "Evolution Sunday" to promote the idea that Christianity and science may coexist peacefully. It certainly isn't surprising to see such elation mark the anniversary of Darwin's birth (or his natural selection, as it were); but it is somewhat startling -- and disappointing -- to find the echoes of evolution's song resounding in church halls, albeit those of the most liberal denominations. While it is one thing to find sincere Christians who believe that God may have used millions of years of evolution to generate His creation, it is quite another for the theory and its creator to be praised (worshipped, even?) in the midst of time presumably dedicated to the Lord of the Universe.
To frame the commemoration as a reclaiming of "science" further conflates the issue, by placing the vastly improbable concept of evolution on the pedestal of science and relegating belief in the supernatural to unenlightened mysticism. Indeed, "science" and "religion" can never be truly separated -- both terms must fall within the pursuit of truth if either are to mean anything. Clinging to the mantras of Darwinism stands at odds with even the most strained interpretations of Scripture -- though the fact that such celebrations took place in church assemblies demonstrates that "faith" is required every bit as much to put one's trust in evolution rather than the infinite power of an Designer.
And while some Christian gatherings may be proudly taking up the banner of Darwin, nature itself constantly boasts of its intricate design and pronounces the majesty of its Creator. "But Jesus answered, 'I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!'" Are we listening?
--- Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Worth Fighting For
Lee Harris has an interesting perspective at National Review on the cartoon chaos, suggesting that if the debacle is a "clash of civilizations," it's a pretty one-sided affair.
Does the so-called "cartoon war" represent the clash of civilizations?
I wish I could answer "yes," but I can't.
In order for there to be a clash of civilizations, it is necessary for there to be two civilizations, both of which are prepared to defend their deepest cultural values. Those in the Islamic world who are violently protesting the Danish cartoons clearly represent a civilization that is keen on maintaining its own deeply held traditions and convictions, as the Muslim rioters are prepared to do, even to the point of bloodshed. The Danish cartoons are an affront to their own religion and culture, and it is pointless for those in the West to wish that Muslims could learn to be less fanatic in their approach to their faith: What we call fanaticism is an essential element of their faith, and it is one of the reasons that Islam is still a living religion in a world where so many others are moribund. Clearly, the violent response to the editorial cartoons has been an affront to Western values that has not been forcefully rebutted. Even from a secular viewpoint, it is somewhat astonishing that the reaction has been met with apologies and retractions instead of firm rebuke. And rather than reinforcing the importance of liberty in speech and opinion, many in the West appear to be rethinking whether free speech is really such a virtue.
It seems more likely that this incredible series of events has revealed two civilizations in disarray -- one drifting toward a sacrifice of truth and free speech on the altar of political correctness and the other displaying an insatiable vitriol toward its philosophical enemies. I don't see how either can survive without returning to a deeper understanding and respect of humanity.
Under attack here is more than just a few newspapers (or embassies, or nations...). The very principles of justice and freedom are being assaulted, and we must stand unfliching. However tasteless the original cartoons may have been, we cannot empathize with those who would resort to violence in response.
--- Monday, February 06, 2006
Images of Violence
It is difficult not to be bewildered by the ongoing violence being perpetrated in Europe and the Middle East in response to some political cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad unfavorably. As George Neumayr notes at National Review Online:
Uproars over criticism of radical Islam almost always follow the same ironic trajectory. First, someone makes an observation about the violent character of Mohammed or Islam. Then what follows? Violent protests and rioting, which serve to illustrate and confirm vividly the criticism that occasioned them.
Only radical Muslims would consider rioting a rational rebuttal to descriptions of Islam as violent. What other religious group riots or issues death threats after it is criticized? It is precisely because Christianity is so tame that Western liberals often feel safe to lampoon its history as violent. They wouldn't dare level similarly harsh criticism of Islam.
One of the unstated reasons for hesitating before calling radical Islam violent -- the reason the fog of political correctness thickens around it -- is that it does contain elements of violence. Western society falls silent lest its criticism of Islam result in an explosion of anger validating the criticism. To put it lightly, these events do not bode well for the expansion of discourse in the Islamic world, and destroys the image that it is, at heart, a peaceful religion. These are clearly not isolated incidents -- and over a matter so trivial as profane (sort of) images in a few newspapers.
A column in the British Mirror, however, places the chaos in another light, suggesting that it demonstrates that Muslims at least take their religion seriously enough to get angry about its alleged defacement.
The trouble with the West is that we have forgotten that some things are sacred.
We find it so difficult to comprehend the reaction of the Muslim world to that ham-fisted Danish cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist because our churches stand empty, our faith is weak and our God has left the building.
The idea that this is still a Christian country is laughable. We may haul in the local vicar for weddings and funerals, but that's about it. We worship our idols -- celebrity and money, the sex lives of the rich and famous -- but the Good Book is about as relevant to most of our lives as the ration book. While the Muslims rioting in the streets certainly seem to take their reverence seriously enough, one finds it difficult to comprehend the need to take up arms to defend one's faith from...bad drawings? The column doesn't necessarily defend the hysterical response to the cartoons, but I think the empathy is not so well deserved. On the one hand, it is not right or worthwhile to provoke or mock religious views with obscene images or grotesque language -- though Christianity has certainly endured its share.
But whether these cartoons were inflammatory or not, there can be no excuse or justification for the insanity taking place in their aftermath. Among other obvious problems, as Neumayr points out, the response serves only to reinforce the point the cartoons attempted to make.
Still, at times it seems that believers in Christ have taken the opposite extreme when it comes to the defense of their faith -- not storming embassies to defend the truth of the Lord, yet often not even arousing from a state of pluralistic apathy. If it is really the God of the universe being ridiculed, rejected, or reinvented, then why shouldn't we meet the challenge of upholding this truth (by words rather than bullets or bombs)?
Our anger is tempered, meanwhile, by the desire to see all men come to know Christ and the recognition that the real battle exists between spiritual, not human, forces. This restraint appears to be missing within Islam -- at least as we've seen it displayed in violent reaction to a few cartoons.
--- Friday, February 03, 2006
Marriage Melting
Stanley Kurtz sees the push for polygamy in Canada to be merely a step toward removing any and all significance from the marriage relationship.
It's like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what Bailey and her friends really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.
The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country's liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by Bailey's polygamy report, even though the judicial elite's intentions had been completely public for five years. (Granted, these intentions were telegraphed in a semi-incomprehensible intellectual gibberish, with the really scary stuff hidden in footnotes.)
If it were merely a matter of a few thousand so-called "Mormon fundamentalists," legalized polygamy wouldn't stand a chance in Canada. Even the addition of Canada's rapidly growing Muslim immigrant population wouldn't create a winning pro-polygamy coalition (although pressure from Canada's Muslims does matter). It's the many and powerful legal elites (including judges) -- the ones who see marriage itself as an outdated and oppressive patriarchal institution -- who make decriminalizing polygamy something to worry about. From a cultural standpoint, it is not so difficult to see why marriage would come under attack the way it has in the Western world. Matrimony is, after all, one of the few areas of society left that demands such commitment and moral rigor. Though as a read through the local newspaper or gossip magazine shows, the West has been abandoning ship on marriage for several decades now, eroding its permanence, chipping away at its exclusivity, and erasing its mystique. Divorce, adultery, and promiscuity no longer carry the societal stigma that placed scarlet letters -- at least figuratively -- on those who failed to abide by marriage's sacred confines.
Thus, why should we be surprised if our enlightened cultures seek to confuse, blur, or eliminate the strict boundaries necessary for marriage to achieve its greatest glory? Offering sacrifice, rejecting sensual temptations, loving unconditionally -- these are central elements of marriage, yet they require a denial of self that contradicts the self-serving age.
A Vote for Violence
Charles Krauthammer suggests that the recent Palestinian elections provide a useful clarity to public opinion in the region and that the world should respond accordingly.
Amid much gnashing of teeth, the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections is being called a disaster. On the contrary. It is deeply clarifying and ultimately cleansing. If the world responds correctly, it will mark a turning point for the better.
The Palestinian people have spoken. According to their apologists, sure, Hamas wants to destroy Israel, wage permanent war and send suicide bombers into discotheques to drive nails into the skulls of young Israelis, but what the Palestinians were really voting for was efficient garbage collection.
It is time to stop infantilizing the Palestinians. As Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said in a news conference four days after the election, "The Palestinian people have chosen Hamas with its known stances." By a landslide, the Palestinian people have chosen these known stances: rejectionism, Islamism, terrorism, rank anti-Semitism, and the destruction of Israel in a romance of blood, death and revolution. Garbage collection on Wednesdays. Krauthammer further points out that since this election has demonstrated a support for terrorists, the United States and its allies must withhold its solidarity until the Palestinian people and their leaders are sufficiently aligned with the pursuit of peace. This seems to be the necessary and inevitable response, if we are to be truly intolerant of terrorism as a means to political or social ends. There is no longer room for dual approaches -- simultaneously fighting terror and establishing a Palestinian state -- and we are now unable to circumvent Hamas' influence by working with a supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority. This does not create an easy solution by any means, but it underscores the need for a clear and unfazed stand against terrorism.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
