Well, Sam is officially gone. It was a crappy morning because I got up a little early so I could spend time with Sam before Nathaniel woke up and Sam was called into the office because the Colonel decided that he wanted to be briefed when he got up to Monterey so Sam had to return all of the binders that he had taken home yesterday. Grrr...luckily Sam was able to push back the leave time so we did get some time this morning to sit and drink coffee (and hot cocoa for Nathaniel) before rushing out the door.
Anyways, my title of the blog is purposeful, I swear.
I just want people to know that there may be times where I sound like I'm whining or complaining or fishing for extra help in a passive manner. While I can't promise not to whine about Sam being gone and being both mommy and daddy (and student/intern as well) full time, I can promise that I'm not being passive-aggressive on this blog. I promise that if I need help I will ask for it unashamedly. I know I'm not super woman, and as much as I would love to be Super Woman (she looks great in tights and she can fly!) I know my limits and I know when I need help. So, I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything if I am ever complaining about how I'm supposed to get my hair cut or get the car fixed or treat my cats for worms. I am simply venting.
On another note: If anyone has any healthy, easy recipes that I can use, that would be great. I'm not normally the cook in the house but I know it isn't healthy to eat corn dogs and chicken nuggets for the next 13 months!
On a completely different note: Is it healthy if I can feel my heart skipping beats and making sounds like, "ka-chug, ka-chug, ka-chug"? That happened about 10 minutes ago and it did it for about 5 beats. Kind of freaked me out...
Our attempts at raising God-fearing children while joining the real world. It's been a crazy ride so far, but God is ALWAYS good.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thank goodness it's all over.
I'm so thankful that the election is over. Now I just have to listen to people whine and complain (or gritch and moan as one of my co-workers puts it) for about a week before things calm down.
I have to say that I got REALLY sick of all of the one-sided arguments coming from different people, all of them assuming that I was voting the way they were. Or people who just wouldn't get off of one topic and who kept on beating the dead horse (yes, one of those people ended up with a really long post on this blog. That's what I get for sharing authorship with my hubby!). Let's just say, I'm glad it's finished.
I also have to say that I will not share with anyone how I voted. One of my students asked me today how I voted and I told him that it was a private matter that I chose not to share with people. He then prodded me even more saying, "I at least have to know how you voted on Prop 8. It's a Christian thing, I need to know if I can respect you." Even though this response made me frustrated, especially after the two part series our pastors just gave on loving our neighbor and not judging or over spiritualizing things, I responded again that it was a private matter and that there is a reason that voting is done in little booths. He eventually dropped it.
So, since Sam leaves tomorrow for his long deployment I will now get off of the internet and watch him put his boy to bed for the last time for a long time. It's hard. Please pray for us and if I don't update on this thing for awhile and seem like I've fallen off of the face of the earth, give me a call, I may not be doing that great.
Hugs!
I have to say that I got REALLY sick of all of the one-sided arguments coming from different people, all of them assuming that I was voting the way they were. Or people who just wouldn't get off of one topic and who kept on beating the dead horse (yes, one of those people ended up with a really long post on this blog. That's what I get for sharing authorship with my hubby!). Let's just say, I'm glad it's finished.
I also have to say that I will not share with anyone how I voted. One of my students asked me today how I voted and I told him that it was a private matter that I chose not to share with people. He then prodded me even more saying, "I at least have to know how you voted on Prop 8. It's a Christian thing, I need to know if I can respect you." Even though this response made me frustrated, especially after the two part series our pastors just gave on loving our neighbor and not judging or over spiritualizing things, I responded again that it was a private matter and that there is a reason that voting is done in little booths. He eventually dropped it.
So, since Sam leaves tomorrow for his long deployment I will now get off of the internet and watch him put his boy to bed for the last time for a long time. It's hard. Please pray for us and if I don't update on this thing for awhile and seem like I've fallen off of the face of the earth, give me a call, I may not be doing that great.
Hugs!
Monday, November 3, 2008
A Rebuttal from a Friend
I want to publish a rebuttal to one of my arguments that a good friend who goes by the blogger name Aristocles sent me. I publish it not because it has me convinced or because I think it is airtight; I publish it because it addresses head on some of the issues I have been raising. And I think it is important to air a disagreeing voice before election day. I respect Aristocles very much, and want to give his impassioned argument some space on my blog.
"I have now realized. I was mislead. In many of my replies and counter-rebuttals concerning the basic argument --if you're pro-life you oughtn't vote Obama-- I continually made a mistake.
What is it? I'll get to that, in a jiff.
When pro-lifers-for-Obama responded, they never failed to bring forward this question:
What will reduce abortions the most efficiently?
They all believe that Obama's planned-out strategy will reduce the number of abortions to a far greater extent than McCain's policies. This has led to the oft quipped: "Obama is more pro-life than McCain." The argument is, of course, based on a calculation concerning consequences. The consequences concern the very lives of human beings. McCain, it's granted, has a pro-life ideology on his platform. McCain has even voted many times in the past for pro-life laws. McCain will appoint judges that will likely be favorable to overturning the Roe v. Wade precedent.
Yes, yes, and yes. BUT, they, the pro-lifer Obama fans, will say: Obama will tackle the root causes of abortion. He's focussed and poised to address this typical shortfall in the history of the pro-life movement.
Thus, this reasoning concludes: only with an Obama not McCain presidency (the official pro-choice platform is not a big concern) WE the WISE voters can know with confidence that the bad consequences will likely be reduced. Only with Obama can we the conscientious pro-lifers be confident that the death toll will go down, the bloodshed lessened, the underlying causes finally addressed. After all, the reasoning continues, overturning Roe will barely, if at all, reduce abortions. After all, the reasoning continues, it will only go to the state legislatures, allowing a neighboring state to accomplish the abortion where one's homestate won't. After all, the reasoning continues, what will McCain do to address these causes? The case seems obvious. How, the table turns, can a pro-lifer who is truly in the know, vote for anyone BUT OBAMA?
I admit this has a definite ring of wisdom. And then my argument trots up to the plate. I suppose I was an underdog from the get go. The pro-life Obama friends take aim at my argument.
The fist volley: this argument assumes a dubious one issue voting mentality. The second: Republicans/conservatives have too long been duped by the simplistic adherence to a myopic strategy --Overturn Roe. The third volley: McCain isn't pro-life to the core anyway (he's even a flip-flopper on the matter). The fourth volley: and even if he is, he won't address these causes that motivate abortion in the first place; McCain's pro-life platform is window dressing as the death knell rings its frightful voice for more innocent unborn. The fifth volley: Christians and the Political Right have wrongly and too long been captive to naivete and emotive appeals, and, have too long paid not heed to the real guts of the matter. And the guts of the matter are nuanced and informed calculations of probabilities. Thus, the final volley, back to the unanswerable question: Under which candidate in the given political air of the future, the context of our crystal ball of 2008-2012, can we bet on abortion be more likely reduced than not?
And, supposing all the volleys are countered by the old school, underdog, like me, but that last one, number six, remains firm, tall, and undefeated. What can I possibly do? How can I resist the force of this tide of political wisdom? How can I at once distance myself from the myoptic, the naive, the old Republican war-hawks, corporation loving, oil motivated conservatives and yet at the same time advance an argument with a conclusion these devils would probably agree with? Thus, I embark upon, what to you pro-life Obama fans, seems an impossible journey. And, then, in attempting to respond I get caught up in the task of projecting future probabilities. I'll call it the fortune teller context. I have to now bear the burden of explaining how we can think, prior to the future term, that it is more likely that with McCain it is probable abortion will be reduced versus what will likely happen with Obama.
The opposition, you pro-life Obama fans will say. "Sure, sure, Obama will sign FOCA, but who cares if it doesn't go through congress? Sure, sure, a judge or two might get appointed, why think Roe will be challenged soon, and if it were, why care? Will it reduce abortion much? And if so, how long do we have to wait? Sure, states will get in the mix, but then we'll only contribute to the myopic trend of ignoring the guts of the issue, abortion reduction by addressing causes, like economic hardship and unwanted pregnancy conditions. It's overdue for a pro-life change of direction. And careful calculation in our fortune teller context gives us reason to bet on Obama's policies if we are really pro-life."
And you'd likely continue similarly as follows, "For we the really full-orbed pro-lifers aren't fixated on the legal issue, the pie in the sky. We are nuts and bolts, boots on the ground voters, fully equipped with an aresenal of weapons able to deliver armchair probability judgements. And these, we suppose will put Obama on the winning ticket. Any sophisticated pro-life voter would bet, bank on, predict with confidence, that abortions will be reduced in an Obama presidency."
And that's the context I go into in order to counter-rebut. I have to provide my own calculations for why I am betting on McCain (and whatever comes after 2012) rather than Obama. And thus, I'm caught in the fog of probability calculations from our fortune teller context. I have to enter the foray of forecasting the future. Thus, the whole discussion becomes more and more nuanced and difficult to manage. Even unbearable boring to the morally inscensed anti-Rupublican, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, and anti-old school conservatism. (Ah, ah, don't jump to conclusions: I"m not supporting this litany of bad buys and bad ideas; I don't need to, it's not in the logical space of this pro-life argument this election.)
I would and do still, however, maintain in the face of all the buzz, that betting on Obama to reduce abortion is a bad bet. How will making abortions easier, more affordable, and more acceptable contribute to their reduction? How will using morning after pills reduce abortions? How will education allowing unwise and entirely unprepared almost-adults the permission to have sex -so long as its safe- contribute to preventing contexts where unwanted pregnancies occur? How does a sophisticated and wise air of agnosticism on whether the right to life does or doesn't apply to the unborn, the cloned embryos, or the botched abortion victims ... how does this agnosticism contribute to caution in having an abortion, or motivation to adopt? And I could go on. But, I think, this CONTEXT OF DEBATE is based on a serious MORAL BLUNDER.
And the mistake I made was not recognizing this blunder behind the scenes. Okay. Big deal. What gives?
A TALE OF TWO INJUSTICES
The injustice of abortion, for a prolifer, is not exhausted by the numbers in the death toll.
There is a tale of two injustices to tell. And below I will tell it. First, I will comment on the first injustice of the two, namely, the number of abortions and their so-called reduction levels given an Obama or McCain presidency.
True enough, pro-lifers want to overturn RVW because it reduces abortions. No one attempts to argue that overturning it would increase abortions. But if reduction is the key, the question is what's the most efficient means? And then we get back to our fortune teller context where we have nothing to rely on but armchair probability judgments. We don't even have the good fortune of massively compiled and thoroughly researched statistics on Obama or McCain presidencies of 2008-2012; unfortunately, it's one thing Obama can't fund, even though he has enough dough to go around. So, we have gut instincts, nothing more, to help us determine the likelihood of conditions favoring reduction of the death toll, conditions that depend upon a thousand contingencies of the ever future future.
It is certainly, indubitably and INJUSTICE that innocents are killed. Appalling, disgusting, and morally repugnant, that the innocents are the most helpless, defenseless and most full of potential and promise of any class of humans on this good globe of God's and us, His stewards. And all efforts, so long as they don't employ evil, should be pursued to reduce the number of human beings destroyed for mostly frivolous reasons --like not wanting the child one didn't want to be pregnant with, or the protection of one's precious quality of life, remember, my pro-life friends, the number of abortion for the gut-wrenching reasons are few, very few and far between. (One easily accessible example of a means to reduce that is intrinsically evil is Obama's plan to use morning after pills as a means of reducing abortion).
Let me digress for one moment. I want to address a background issue. After this I'll return to the tale of two injustices.
Even on a McCain presidency it's not as if the efforts of millions of pro-lifers, pro-lifer organizations and Christian churches or other religious groups, will be prevented from addressing the very causes we are told Obama will address. His isn't the only means or instrument to addressing these causes. And be addressed they must. These things can be done and done well, Obama or no. But, and I risk digression, to rely on Obama and the government as the number one instrument to supply both the means and their execution is to presuppose a philosophy of government that is itself questionable. In fact, to presuppose this might be to presuppose a philosophy of government inimical to the fundamental rights our government was set up to protect.
Okay, end digression. I was talking about the tale of two injustices, the first being the death toll on innocent lives, embryos and fetuses, especially.
The injustice that gets lost in this fog of probability calculation is the IN JUSTICE OF TEH EXISTENCE of the Roe v. Wade precedent/de facto law. That law is NOT JUST just by its mere existence, regardless of the death toll (which is a horrendous evil and injustice of unbearable, intolerable degree). The existence of this de facto law is morally wrong IN AND OF ITSELF, that is, its existence is a moral blight. No calculation of the death toll is necessary. It's a different injustice.
In this light the slavery parallel shines clear. For a candidate that leaves the law of owning people yet fights with government programs and tax dollars to make conditions better for slaves while tirelessly addressing the root causes of the slave owner's desire to own human beings as property is a candidate that leaves unaddressed an intrinsic moral blight: the law that says human beings of this one type are ownable as property of another. Such a candidate is either morally incompetant or somehow morally distorted to look past the injustice in the very existence of the pro-slavery law.
But, the parallel here isn't exact, I'm sorry to inform you pro-life Obama fans. Let's make it parallel. This candidate not only leaves unaddressed the intrinsically evil law, but entrenches it deeper into the legal system, surrounding it with anti-missile defenses and an army of propagandists (the cronies defending his decision in the Illinois debacle come to mind, let alone the toady media talking heads) to direct attention away from it toward 'addressing the root causes of slavery', for the sake of reducing the number of owned human beings.
So, the pro-life Obama friends now must employ the moral scale. Only this time it's not future reductions given Obama vs. future reductions given McCain. No. Now there is a different set on the scale. Potential abortion reduction (far from established without a crystal ball and in light of my and others' arguments to the contrary) on one side of the scale. On the other side, the protection, entrenching, and outright promise to advance the sustained existence of an intrinsically evil law. Are you willing to pay the cost of entrenching an intrinsic injustice for the benefit of possibly reducing abortions through government means, which are by far not the only means, nor necessarily the most effective, nor necessarily those based on the best theory of government and its role in human affairs?
I have to raise this alarm because I myself was lost in the utilitarian calculation game of abortion reduction given this or that future scenario (Barack or John, with this or that balance of Dem/GOP in the House or Senate, with this or that bill in the offing, with this or that set of judges given this or that possible consideration of Roe or anything in the neighbor, etc., etc.)
But reduction chances going up, down, or remaining the same does NOT EXHAUST THE INJUSTICE of the abortion phenomenon in America (or mutatis mutandis in the world)
I challenge you, the pro-life Obama crew, to check up on your assumptions. Do you presuppose that the injustice of the abortion phenomenon is NOTHING BUT a function of how many innocent lives are lost? Does this cause you to look at overturning Roe as only valuable insofar as it reduces the abortion death toll? Is it your, perhaps unchecked assumption, the very one that bled into my responses, the BIG MISTAKE in many of my responses and replies? I unwittingly began to think that the only injustice in this sad state of affairs, in this grand land, was completely exhausted by the death toll numbers rather than the very nature of things: esp., of that intrinsically unjust de facto law.
Obama will not only fail to address this injustice, enshrined in our quasi legal supreme court precedent. He will attempt to buttress it, protect it, cherish it, and further its scope. He would happily add a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to make sure all women have rights that include abortion (which entails doctors, clinics, funding, etc., to make it happen).
And this brings us pro-lifers back to our roots. We need to address the causes of our misdirected defense of these innocent victims that are unquestionably fully included in our human community and come born with rights given by God.
That intrinsically wrong de facto law was, back then, and still is, based upon an absurd grounding. It was grounded in a woman's right to privacy. This is pure bosh. What then is it based on? What will pro-choicers be forced to say?
And when the discussion turns here, those that are not pro-life, who do not believe all human life has the fundamental rights of personhood, chiefly the right to live, will have to confront the false beliefs that ground the pro-choice agenda. Beliefs that neither rationally support nor logically entail unjust laws or the permission of intentional killing.
Like I've said rather sketchily before:IF TOMORROW EVERYONE BELIEVED that abortion (and I hasten to add embryo destruction) is horrendously evil, then REDUCTION WOULD OCCUR in massive quantity and the Roe v Wade would be overturned and states would outlaw abortion. Further, there would be many more motivated to address the causes of abortion, governmental assistance aside. Churches would not be full of pro-lifers that think its an unfortunate given, but ones motivated by the absolute horror of abortion (watching the videos make it unavoidably, painfully, obvious), and thus willing to take action, out of the only true and just motive for all good, love of others and of God.
Belief coupled with heart's desires is the surest motor of action. And ultimately, aside from who gets elected, pro-lifers must seek to change not just consequences, not just material causes of abortion, but ultimately the hearts of those that seek, endorse, and uphold the actions and right of abortion.
At the eleventh hour,
with a glimmer of hope,
if not for this election, for the days and weeks and years following,
for the lives of all victims of abortion and embryo research,
for the lives of all those suffering and forced into desperation towards abortion,
especially the mother's involved,
let us pray to the Lord.
Lord have Mercy."
"I have now realized. I was mislead. In many of my replies and counter-rebuttals concerning the basic argument --if you're pro-life you oughtn't vote Obama-- I continually made a mistake.
What is it? I'll get to that, in a jiff.
When pro-lifers-for-Obama responded, they never failed to bring forward this question:
What will reduce abortions the most efficiently?
They all believe that Obama's planned-out strategy will reduce the number of abortions to a far greater extent than McCain's policies. This has led to the oft quipped: "Obama is more pro-life than McCain." The argument is, of course, based on a calculation concerning consequences. The consequences concern the very lives of human beings. McCain, it's granted, has a pro-life ideology on his platform. McCain has even voted many times in the past for pro-life laws. McCain will appoint judges that will likely be favorable to overturning the Roe v. Wade precedent.
Yes, yes, and yes. BUT, they, the pro-lifer Obama fans, will say: Obama will tackle the root causes of abortion. He's focussed and poised to address this typical shortfall in the history of the pro-life movement.
Thus, this reasoning concludes: only with an Obama not McCain presidency (the official pro-choice platform is not a big concern) WE the WISE voters can know with confidence that the bad consequences will likely be reduced. Only with Obama can we the conscientious pro-lifers be confident that the death toll will go down, the bloodshed lessened, the underlying causes finally addressed. After all, the reasoning continues, overturning Roe will barely, if at all, reduce abortions. After all, the reasoning continues, it will only go to the state legislatures, allowing a neighboring state to accomplish the abortion where one's homestate won't. After all, the reasoning continues, what will McCain do to address these causes? The case seems obvious. How, the table turns, can a pro-lifer who is truly in the know, vote for anyone BUT OBAMA?
I admit this has a definite ring of wisdom. And then my argument trots up to the plate. I suppose I was an underdog from the get go. The pro-life Obama friends take aim at my argument.
The fist volley: this argument assumes a dubious one issue voting mentality. The second: Republicans/conservatives have too long been duped by the simplistic adherence to a myopic strategy --Overturn Roe. The third volley: McCain isn't pro-life to the core anyway (he's even a flip-flopper on the matter). The fourth volley: and even if he is, he won't address these causes that motivate abortion in the first place; McCain's pro-life platform is window dressing as the death knell rings its frightful voice for more innocent unborn. The fifth volley: Christians and the Political Right have wrongly and too long been captive to naivete and emotive appeals, and, have too long paid not heed to the real guts of the matter. And the guts of the matter are nuanced and informed calculations of probabilities. Thus, the final volley, back to the unanswerable question: Under which candidate in the given political air of the future, the context of our crystal ball of 2008-2012, can we bet on abortion be more likely reduced than not?
And, supposing all the volleys are countered by the old school, underdog, like me, but that last one, number six, remains firm, tall, and undefeated. What can I possibly do? How can I resist the force of this tide of political wisdom? How can I at once distance myself from the myoptic, the naive, the old Republican war-hawks, corporation loving, oil motivated conservatives and yet at the same time advance an argument with a conclusion these devils would probably agree with? Thus, I embark upon, what to you pro-life Obama fans, seems an impossible journey. And, then, in attempting to respond I get caught up in the task of projecting future probabilities. I'll call it the fortune teller context. I have to now bear the burden of explaining how we can think, prior to the future term, that it is more likely that with McCain it is probable abortion will be reduced versus what will likely happen with Obama.
The opposition, you pro-life Obama fans will say. "Sure, sure, Obama will sign FOCA, but who cares if it doesn't go through congress? Sure, sure, a judge or two might get appointed, why think Roe will be challenged soon, and if it were, why care? Will it reduce abortion much? And if so, how long do we have to wait? Sure, states will get in the mix, but then we'll only contribute to the myopic trend of ignoring the guts of the issue, abortion reduction by addressing causes, like economic hardship and unwanted pregnancy conditions. It's overdue for a pro-life change of direction. And careful calculation in our fortune teller context gives us reason to bet on Obama's policies if we are really pro-life."
And you'd likely continue similarly as follows, "For we the really full-orbed pro-lifers aren't fixated on the legal issue, the pie in the sky. We are nuts and bolts, boots on the ground voters, fully equipped with an aresenal of weapons able to deliver armchair probability judgements. And these, we suppose will put Obama on the winning ticket. Any sophisticated pro-life voter would bet, bank on, predict with confidence, that abortions will be reduced in an Obama presidency."
And that's the context I go into in order to counter-rebut. I have to provide my own calculations for why I am betting on McCain (and whatever comes after 2012) rather than Obama. And thus, I'm caught in the fog of probability calculations from our fortune teller context. I have to enter the foray of forecasting the future. Thus, the whole discussion becomes more and more nuanced and difficult to manage. Even unbearable boring to the morally inscensed anti-Rupublican, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, and anti-old school conservatism. (Ah, ah, don't jump to conclusions: I"m not supporting this litany of bad buys and bad ideas; I don't need to, it's not in the logical space of this pro-life argument this election.)
I would and do still, however, maintain in the face of all the buzz, that betting on Obama to reduce abortion is a bad bet. How will making abortions easier, more affordable, and more acceptable contribute to their reduction? How will using morning after pills reduce abortions? How will education allowing unwise and entirely unprepared almost-adults the permission to have sex -so long as its safe- contribute to preventing contexts where unwanted pregnancies occur? How does a sophisticated and wise air of agnosticism on whether the right to life does or doesn't apply to the unborn, the cloned embryos, or the botched abortion victims ... how does this agnosticism contribute to caution in having an abortion, or motivation to adopt? And I could go on. But, I think, this CONTEXT OF DEBATE is based on a serious MORAL BLUNDER.
And the mistake I made was not recognizing this blunder behind the scenes. Okay. Big deal. What gives?
A TALE OF TWO INJUSTICES
The injustice of abortion, for a prolifer, is not exhausted by the numbers in the death toll.
There is a tale of two injustices to tell. And below I will tell it. First, I will comment on the first injustice of the two, namely, the number of abortions and their so-called reduction levels given an Obama or McCain presidency.
True enough, pro-lifers want to overturn RVW because it reduces abortions. No one attempts to argue that overturning it would increase abortions. But if reduction is the key, the question is what's the most efficient means? And then we get back to our fortune teller context where we have nothing to rely on but armchair probability judgments. We don't even have the good fortune of massively compiled and thoroughly researched statistics on Obama or McCain presidencies of 2008-2012; unfortunately, it's one thing Obama can't fund, even though he has enough dough to go around. So, we have gut instincts, nothing more, to help us determine the likelihood of conditions favoring reduction of the death toll, conditions that depend upon a thousand contingencies of the ever future future.
It is certainly, indubitably and INJUSTICE that innocents are killed. Appalling, disgusting, and morally repugnant, that the innocents are the most helpless, defenseless and most full of potential and promise of any class of humans on this good globe of God's and us, His stewards. And all efforts, so long as they don't employ evil, should be pursued to reduce the number of human beings destroyed for mostly frivolous reasons --like not wanting the child one didn't want to be pregnant with, or the protection of one's precious quality of life, remember, my pro-life friends, the number of abortion for the gut-wrenching reasons are few, very few and far between. (One easily accessible example of a means to reduce that is intrinsically evil is Obama's plan to use morning after pills as a means of reducing abortion).
Let me digress for one moment. I want to address a background issue. After this I'll return to the tale of two injustices.
Even on a McCain presidency it's not as if the efforts of millions of pro-lifers, pro-lifer organizations and Christian churches or other religious groups, will be prevented from addressing the very causes we are told Obama will address. His isn't the only means or instrument to addressing these causes. And be addressed they must. These things can be done and done well, Obama or no. But, and I risk digression, to rely on Obama and the government as the number one instrument to supply both the means and their execution is to presuppose a philosophy of government that is itself questionable. In fact, to presuppose this might be to presuppose a philosophy of government inimical to the fundamental rights our government was set up to protect.
Okay, end digression. I was talking about the tale of two injustices, the first being the death toll on innocent lives, embryos and fetuses, especially.
The injustice that gets lost in this fog of probability calculation is the IN JUSTICE OF TEH EXISTENCE of the Roe v. Wade precedent/de facto law. That law is NOT JUST just by its mere existence, regardless of the death toll (which is a horrendous evil and injustice of unbearable, intolerable degree). The existence of this de facto law is morally wrong IN AND OF ITSELF, that is, its existence is a moral blight. No calculation of the death toll is necessary. It's a different injustice.
In this light the slavery parallel shines clear. For a candidate that leaves the law of owning people yet fights with government programs and tax dollars to make conditions better for slaves while tirelessly addressing the root causes of the slave owner's desire to own human beings as property is a candidate that leaves unaddressed an intrinsic moral blight: the law that says human beings of this one type are ownable as property of another. Such a candidate is either morally incompetant or somehow morally distorted to look past the injustice in the very existence of the pro-slavery law.
But, the parallel here isn't exact, I'm sorry to inform you pro-life Obama fans. Let's make it parallel. This candidate not only leaves unaddressed the intrinsically evil law, but entrenches it deeper into the legal system, surrounding it with anti-missile defenses and an army of propagandists (the cronies defending his decision in the Illinois debacle come to mind, let alone the toady media talking heads) to direct attention away from it toward 'addressing the root causes of slavery', for the sake of reducing the number of owned human beings.
So, the pro-life Obama friends now must employ the moral scale. Only this time it's not future reductions given Obama vs. future reductions given McCain. No. Now there is a different set on the scale. Potential abortion reduction (far from established without a crystal ball and in light of my and others' arguments to the contrary) on one side of the scale. On the other side, the protection, entrenching, and outright promise to advance the sustained existence of an intrinsically evil law. Are you willing to pay the cost of entrenching an intrinsic injustice for the benefit of possibly reducing abortions through government means, which are by far not the only means, nor necessarily the most effective, nor necessarily those based on the best theory of government and its role in human affairs?
I have to raise this alarm because I myself was lost in the utilitarian calculation game of abortion reduction given this or that future scenario (Barack or John, with this or that balance of Dem/GOP in the House or Senate, with this or that bill in the offing, with this or that set of judges given this or that possible consideration of Roe or anything in the neighbor, etc., etc.)
But reduction chances going up, down, or remaining the same does NOT EXHAUST THE INJUSTICE of the abortion phenomenon in America (or mutatis mutandis in the world)
I challenge you, the pro-life Obama crew, to check up on your assumptions. Do you presuppose that the injustice of the abortion phenomenon is NOTHING BUT a function of how many innocent lives are lost? Does this cause you to look at overturning Roe as only valuable insofar as it reduces the abortion death toll? Is it your, perhaps unchecked assumption, the very one that bled into my responses, the BIG MISTAKE in many of my responses and replies? I unwittingly began to think that the only injustice in this sad state of affairs, in this grand land, was completely exhausted by the death toll numbers rather than the very nature of things: esp., of that intrinsically unjust de facto law.
Obama will not only fail to address this injustice, enshrined in our quasi legal supreme court precedent. He will attempt to buttress it, protect it, cherish it, and further its scope. He would happily add a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to make sure all women have rights that include abortion (which entails doctors, clinics, funding, etc., to make it happen).
And this brings us pro-lifers back to our roots. We need to address the causes of our misdirected defense of these innocent victims that are unquestionably fully included in our human community and come born with rights given by God.
That intrinsically wrong de facto law was, back then, and still is, based upon an absurd grounding. It was grounded in a woman's right to privacy. This is pure bosh. What then is it based on? What will pro-choicers be forced to say?
And when the discussion turns here, those that are not pro-life, who do not believe all human life has the fundamental rights of personhood, chiefly the right to live, will have to confront the false beliefs that ground the pro-choice agenda. Beliefs that neither rationally support nor logically entail unjust laws or the permission of intentional killing.
Like I've said rather sketchily before:IF TOMORROW EVERYONE BELIEVED that abortion (and I hasten to add embryo destruction) is horrendously evil, then REDUCTION WOULD OCCUR in massive quantity and the Roe v Wade would be overturned and states would outlaw abortion. Further, there would be many more motivated to address the causes of abortion, governmental assistance aside. Churches would not be full of pro-lifers that think its an unfortunate given, but ones motivated by the absolute horror of abortion (watching the videos make it unavoidably, painfully, obvious), and thus willing to take action, out of the only true and just motive for all good, love of others and of God.
Belief coupled with heart's desires is the surest motor of action. And ultimately, aside from who gets elected, pro-lifers must seek to change not just consequences, not just material causes of abortion, but ultimately the hearts of those that seek, endorse, and uphold the actions and right of abortion.
At the eleventh hour,
with a glimmer of hope,
if not for this election, for the days and weeks and years following,
for the lives of all victims of abortion and embryo research,
for the lives of all those suffering and forced into desperation towards abortion,
especially the mother's involved,
let us pray to the Lord.
Lord have Mercy."
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Halloween 2008
Well, in spite of class and a butt load of Army stuff for Sam, we managed to do Halloween this year. I figured I could have skipped the whole thing since Nathaniel is still so young, but we were nice parents.
We went to the local "pumpkin patch" on Tuesday. I was dressed up as the Great Pumpkin for our youth event (where the kids go on a scavenger hunt looking for the Great Pumpkin) so Sam and Nathaniel came along. It was so ghetto! I'm used to actually going into the patch where the pumpkins grow and picking the pumpkin (along with a hay ride and apple cider). Here, the pumpkins were sitting in rows and there were a whole bunch of really ghetto carnival rides. We spent way too much money on a pumpkin (which we have yet to carve) and worried for Nathaniel's safety on a couple of the rides. Nathaniel had a blast though.
Last night we went trick or treating. It took Nathaniel probably 2 houses to figure out what to do and then he was pushing the bigger kids aside to knock on the door. It was so funny because sometimes he would just say, "Candy!" instead of Trick or treat. He got enough candy to last through potty training and had a really good time. We were lame and had him wear his Batman pajamas as his costume. It worked!
Of course, when we got home our next door neighbors were having a huge party that quickly got out of hand. Everyone was really drunk and people ended up banging on our front door (since our doors are about three feet across from each other) and were shouting in the hallway. Not to mention the music blaring...The police showed up twice! Things finally calmed down around midnight, which didn't help since we had to be up at the butt crack of dawn this morning. I also have a quiz in an hour...ugh!
That's about it. I think we are going to carve our pumpkin tonight. Yup, let's just extend the holiday a bit...
We went to the local "pumpkin patch" on Tuesday. I was dressed up as the Great Pumpkin for our youth event (where the kids go on a scavenger hunt looking for the Great Pumpkin) so Sam and Nathaniel came along. It was so ghetto! I'm used to actually going into the patch where the pumpkins grow and picking the pumpkin (along with a hay ride and apple cider). Here, the pumpkins were sitting in rows and there were a whole bunch of really ghetto carnival rides. We spent way too much money on a pumpkin (which we have yet to carve) and worried for Nathaniel's safety on a couple of the rides. Nathaniel had a blast though.
Last night we went trick or treating. It took Nathaniel probably 2 houses to figure out what to do and then he was pushing the bigger kids aside to knock on the door. It was so funny because sometimes he would just say, "Candy!" instead of Trick or treat. He got enough candy to last through potty training and had a really good time. We were lame and had him wear his Batman pajamas as his costume. It worked!
Of course, when we got home our next door neighbors were having a huge party that quickly got out of hand. Everyone was really drunk and people ended up banging on our front door (since our doors are about three feet across from each other) and were shouting in the hallway. Not to mention the music blaring...The police showed up twice! Things finally calmed down around midnight, which didn't help since we had to be up at the butt crack of dawn this morning. I also have a quiz in an hour...ugh!
That's about it. I think we are going to carve our pumpkin tonight. Yup, let's just extend the holiday a bit...
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Amazing vacation!
I just have to update about our amazing vacation before I go to bed tonight. It was such a fun time. Last night we went to Goofy's Kitchen and dined with the characters (a great way to keep Nathaniel in line because we just kept promising him dinner with Goofy) and swam in the pool at our hotel. It was really nice. Here are some pics.
Today we went to Disneyland for a few hours, then Sam and I dropped Nathaniel off at the sitter's and headed out for our special Club 33 date. It was amazing and so fun and special. We felt posh. My favorite part (aside from the amazing food and the atmosphere that was anything but Disney...) was the toilet in the ladies room. I know, I'm such a dork (and I even took a picture), but when I walked in the stall and I thought I was in the wrong place because there was what looked like a wicker chair...it was so surreal. It was a porcelain chair! I had to lift the seat up to find the toilet portion! Crazy!
Enjoy the photos!
Today we went to Disneyland for a few hours, then Sam and I dropped Nathaniel off at the sitter's and headed out for our special Club 33 date. It was amazing and so fun and special. We felt posh. My favorite part (aside from the amazing food and the atmosphere that was anything but Disney...) was the toilet in the ladies room. I know, I'm such a dork (and I even took a picture), but when I walked in the stall and I thought I was in the wrong place because there was what looked like a wicker chair...it was so surreal. It was a porcelain chair! I had to lift the seat up to find the toilet portion! Crazy!
Enjoy the photos!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
More about politics.
As of late my email has been bombarded with impassioned friends calling people to vote for the candidate who will "end abortion". These emails pull at my heart strings because of course I want to end abortion. I would love it if someone could vote for the magic candidate who had the power to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy simply because it was inconvenient to the mother or because the child was "unwanted". But, I know better. I know that abortion will not be made illegal in my life time. I also know that many of the people who support abortion say that if we make abortion illegal then we will be making it impossible for those who are raped to abort their child or for an abortion to happen in cases of incest or a threat to the health of the mother. Statistically speaking, the number of abortions that occur because of those two cases is actually quite low. Besides that, why is anyone's life less important or worth any less than anyone else's because of how he/she was conceived? Yes, rape is a terrible thing and to be forced to carry a baby to term would be extremely difficult, but isn't a human life worth more than a simple "inconvenience"?
But, I digress. I didn't want this post to be about abortion. Instead, I wanted to post a link to something that was very thought provoking. It's an article by Jim Wallis who blogged about the importance of looking at all of the so-called "non-negotiables" of voting and to look at the whole picture of all of the issues. So, rather than get on my political soapbox, I will let someone else get on his and I challenge you to think about what is important to you. I challenge you to think about the whole picture.
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3166
Thanks.
But, I digress. I didn't want this post to be about abortion. Instead, I wanted to post a link to something that was very thought provoking. It's an article by Jim Wallis who blogged about the importance of looking at all of the so-called "non-negotiables" of voting and to look at the whole picture of all of the issues. So, rather than get on my political soapbox, I will let someone else get on his and I challenge you to think about what is important to you. I challenge you to think about the whole picture.
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3166
Thanks.
What a week!
There is something about midterms that make me a little crazy. Add on the fact that I need to get all of my homework done by tomorrow morning (and I have a TON of it) and there is a ton of other work to be done and we have one extremely tired (and stressed out) mommy.
I took my midterm for Acts and honestly, it really wasn't that fair of an exam. I studied enough for it, and I had a handle on the study guide, but the professor got a little tricky. Instead of giving exact dates in his multiple choice answers, he gave events that happened around the dates I needed. Not to mention throwing in tricky little questions like, "Who were two well known zealots in Judaism?" when I thought I was just supposed to know what zealous meant in the time of Acts. The exam wasn't bad, though. I honestly just want to pass and I really am learning a lot and really enjoying the class so... that helps a ton. I do have to say that the group of students from class who gathered around where I was sitting trying to do homework who were discussing every single question on the exam ad nauseum was NOT appreciated. I'm of the camp where once I've taken an exam it does me no good to talk about the questions. I tend to stress out when I think about every single answer that I got wrong.
So, between today and tomorrow I have to work, write a theological "something-or-other" for my church plant group in Acts, read a book and write a book report and organize a theological discussion about Matthew 11:28 and also look at fasting and write up a class on how to do it and why it's important. Yipes! Oh, and I have to spend three hours prepping for another class (it's our mandatory prep time for class each week. We have to spend three hours reading commentaries and stuff about the passage we are studying).
Oh. And Sam leaves in less than two weeks.
But, as I look over everything I have to do I feel content. I don't feel too stressed out because I love everything I'm doing. I hate to admit this, but I'm kind of going to miss school after I graduate. Not enough to get my Ph.d. or go for my Th.M., but enough where I will probably find myself taking classes here and there until I'm old. Gosh, I'm such a dork. At least Sam is one too! (heaven help us if our children end up being jocks!).
I took my midterm for Acts and honestly, it really wasn't that fair of an exam. I studied enough for it, and I had a handle on the study guide, but the professor got a little tricky. Instead of giving exact dates in his multiple choice answers, he gave events that happened around the dates I needed. Not to mention throwing in tricky little questions like, "Who were two well known zealots in Judaism?" when I thought I was just supposed to know what zealous meant in the time of Acts. The exam wasn't bad, though. I honestly just want to pass and I really am learning a lot and really enjoying the class so... that helps a ton. I do have to say that the group of students from class who gathered around where I was sitting trying to do homework who were discussing every single question on the exam ad nauseum was NOT appreciated. I'm of the camp where once I've taken an exam it does me no good to talk about the questions. I tend to stress out when I think about every single answer that I got wrong.
So, between today and tomorrow I have to work, write a theological "something-or-other" for my church plant group in Acts, read a book and write a book report and organize a theological discussion about Matthew 11:28 and also look at fasting and write up a class on how to do it and why it's important. Yipes! Oh, and I have to spend three hours prepping for another class (it's our mandatory prep time for class each week. We have to spend three hours reading commentaries and stuff about the passage we are studying).
Oh. And Sam leaves in less than two weeks.
But, as I look over everything I have to do I feel content. I don't feel too stressed out because I love everything I'm doing. I hate to admit this, but I'm kind of going to miss school after I graduate. Not enough to get my Ph.d. or go for my Th.M., but enough where I will probably find myself taking classes here and there until I'm old. Gosh, I'm such a dork. At least Sam is one too! (heaven help us if our children end up being jocks!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)