Pages

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Castro, the Pope, and Common Decency

I'm sure many are connected to people on social media who are not their friends.  I know many people on my friends lists & contacts are not my friends.  Many are acquaintances.  Some I've never met.

However, I try to be friendly to all of them.

If I'm aware the brother (or anyone close) of someone on my friends/contacts list dies, I'm going to send my condolences and offer my prayers.  Sadly I don't find out many of such deaths and are unable to express words of comfort.

 Even if the deceased was a criminal - I'm not going to say something like:  "Hey, I'm glad your scumbag brother died.  He did so many bad things.  So many of us are glad he's dead."


Fidel Castro did many bad things for decades.  There's no denying that.  Hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of people fled Cuba while he was dictator.  Many went into the water on homemade rafts and sailed to Florida.  Many Cubans risked their lives to flee from Castro and his cruelty.  Many people died because of his cruelty.

Yet, when Castro died, would it not be fitting to send condolences to his family?  Sure, especially if you're a Head of State or an international figure.

That's what Pope Francis did and some are criticizing the Pope for being civil.

For instance Allan West said:  "But listen to the Pope’s response to Castro’s death, and you’d get the impression we just lost a hero."  

Castro was cruel on his entire nation - especially the Catholics living in Cuba.  The Pope (and the two Popes prior) have tried to heal the wounds cause by Fidel Castro.  They've pleaded and reasoned for him to change.

Pope Francis was instrumental in opening diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

No conservatives were upset when Gorbachev and Reagan became friendly and tried to work things out.  No conservatives blamed a dead Reagan for being a commie when Gorby came to Ronnie's funeral!

Yet, Pope Francis reaches out to the surviving brother, offers condolences and prayers for all - especially the people of Cuba.  He didn't call Castro a hero.  He didn't praise Castro for being a nice dictator.

What's wrong with that?   Nothing.  Wouldn't you want the same?

Here is the full text of the telegram from Pope Francis: 
On receiving the sad news of the death of your dear brother, His Excellency Mister Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, former president of the State Council and of the Government of the Republic of Cuba, I express my sentiments of sorrow to Your Excellency and other family members of the deceased dignitary, as well as to the people of this beloved nation. At the same time, I offer prayers to the Lord for his rest and I entrust the whole Cuban people to the maternal intercession of our Lady of the Charity of El Cobre, patroness of that country.
Francisco, PP

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Answering the Violinist Argument

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  


Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.


This is a valid argument.  


Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:


I addressed the first three objections in previous posts.  You may see those post by following the links above.

In this post I address the fifth group of objections: The Violinist Argument.



The violinist argument


            In this objection I present what is sometimes called “the violinist argument.”  This argument begins by accepting that the fetus is a living, human being and that its right to life certainly outweighs the woman’s rights concerning her choice and decisions about her body, so, then, an abortion may not be performed.  However, as Judith Jarvis Thompson goes on to say,
                It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
            Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?  What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.[1]

This argument is similar to saying that if a woman’s freedom or liberty is being attacked in any way – rape, kidnapping, etc. – then she has the legal authority to repel the attacker.  Whether the attacker is outside of her body or inside is inconsequential, the woman has the right to maintain her liberty and freedom.  If a fetus is threatening a woman’s freedom, she has the right to use lethal force and abort the fetus.

Response to the violinist argument


The violinist argument does sound rather convincing at first, but once a person gets past the appeal to pity the argument sounds off key.  Thompson presents a reasonable argument to something other than abortion.  Her analogy is clever, but it is a faulty analogy when compared to pregnancy and abortion.  Her analogy is faulty in several respects.

Pregnancy is Not a Crime:

First, kidnapping is a crime, pregnancy is not.  Granted, some places declare families may have only a certain number of children; but no one that I am aware is sent to prison because of a pregnancy.  Abortions are performed in China in these cases, but to my knowledge no one is arrested.[2]  Even in places such as China, since parents are not arrested for the first pregnancy it goes to show that it is not a crime.  However, first time kidnappers are not left off the hook.  Kidnapping is repulsive in every culture.  In nearly every culture a pregnancy is often considered a joyous occasion.  In every culture there are women who would love to have a baby; yet I do not think many wish to be kidnapped.  Equating pregnancy to kidnapping is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails.

Pregnancy is Not an Unnatural Surgery:

The violinist argument also fails to be valid by equating surgery with maternity.  The surgical attachment of a person to the outside of another person is an abnormal and unnatural process.  The process of pregnancy is natural and has been happening long before surgery or physicians walked the earth.  Equating surgery to pregnancy is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails again.

Pregnancy does Not Render a Woman Helpless:

In the violinist argument the woman remains helpless for nine months or more.  Pregnant women still are capable of many jobs and activities.  It is true that it is often the case that women are limited to what they can and cannot (or should not) do while they are pregnant, but it is ludicrous to say that this somehow compares to being bedridden with a fully grown man sewn to your back.  Equating these situations is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails a third time.

Pregnancy is Not an Unnatural Bond with a Stranger:

The mother/child relationship is a special bond known throughout the world and history.  Even though there are cases where this relationship is soured with horrific results, the rest of the world was shocked and did not respond by simply saying, “Oh, well, those things happen.”  Every culture expects mothers and their children to possess a bond that cannot be accurately described in casual terms.  Thompson, however, attempts to reason that the mother’s feelings towards her child are of the same nature as her feelings to a complete stranger.  To equate the stranger/stranger relationship with that of a mother & child is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails a fourth time.

Pregnancy is Not Science Fiction:

Another flaw with Thompson’s argument is that she does nothing more than to appeal to a fictitious, extremely far-fetched scenario.  Thompson tries to persuade her readers that since they would justify the woman’s choice to withhold life support in this improbable scenario that we should therefore also see justification in women’s choices that lead to over a million abortions each year.  To equate the rare with the rampant is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails again.

Abortion is Not Merely Withholding Life Support:

Author, speaker, and radio personality, Greg Koukl also responds to Thompson’s violinist argument.  He comments on the flaws that I too noticed: artificial attachment vs. natural process; equating the mother/child relationship to that of a host/predator type of engagement or to the stranger/stranger relationship.  However, he also points to a most serious flaw in the violinist argument.  Koukl says it this way:  
“In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances.  Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment.  It is actively taking another human being’s life trough poisoning or dismemberment.  A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.”[3]  
Koukl found the crucial flaw in Thompson’s argument.  Abortion is not simply withholding life-support from an organism that is dying by natural means.  Abortion is unnaturally and intentionally ending a life that is following nature’s course of life.  Abortion is not withholding mercy; abortion is taking an innocent life.  Equating abortion to the withholding of life-support from dying individuals is unreasonable.  

Thompson’s analogy fails, period.



End Note:


There is help for those who have participated in an abortion.  Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.

[1] Thompson, Judith Jarvis, “A Defense of Abortion,” Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1971): 
[2] I do not think abortion is justified even in the case as China’s population problems.
[3] Greg Koukl, “Unstringing the Violinist,” [article online], available from  http://str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/unstrign.htm; Internet; accessed 8 February 2003.  No longer at this site address.  Cannot find update.




Saturday, November 5, 2016

"Women's Health" Objections: Answering the Pro-Abortionists

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  


Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.


This is a valid argument.  


Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:


I addressed the first three objections in previous posts.  You may see those post by following the links above.

In this post I address the fourth group of objections: Objections from "women's health."


The objection concerning endangering the mother’s life


            The fourth objection troubles some pro-lifers:  what if the mother’s life is in danger and an abortion will keep her alive?  Some pro-abortionists will throw this objection back to the pro-life side.  If the intentional act of taking a human life is wrong, and if some innocent woman is about to die because of complications in pregnancy or delivery, then those who have forbidden abortion have intentionally done something that ends the life of an innocent human being, therefore, abortion should be legal at least in the case when a woman’s life is in danger.

            This is a very popular starting point for pro-abortionists.  They cloak abortion under the mantra of “women’s health” or “women’s reproductive health.”  They hide the killing of the unborn baby by redirecting the argument to a potentially life-saving procedure towards the mother.

Response to objections concerning saving the mother’s life


There are two cases to this objection and they must be dealt with separately.  The first is the case where continuing the pregnancy will result in the death of both the mother and the baby unless an abortion is performed.  The second is the case where it is highly likely that one or the other will die, but it is highly unlikely that both will die.  I will answer the first, but I will leave my answer for the second to a later time because it goes into the Principle of Double Effect.  This is beyond the scope of this post.

Save One Life or None?

In the case that it is likely that both mother and child will die, I think it is clear that an abortion is the right thing to do.  This is neither inconsistent nor contrary to my argument.  Here’s why.  We are faced with a dilemma: either only one person lives or none live.  
This is not the same as the dilemma to kill one or to kill two.  
Nor is it the same as the dilemma to let one live or to let two die.  
I am not playing a game of semantics here.  In this case it is certain that the baby will die no matter what course of action is chosen.  Sadly, nothing can be done to stop that.  An abortion will not change the outcome for the baby, but it will save the life of the mother in this case.  Saving the life of one person - and not at the expense of another person’s life - is a noble act.
In the case at hand, the baby is developing, not in a good way, but in a destructive way to two lives.  Something is fatally wrong with the natural process - not just to one human being, but to two human beings.
A life is saved by stopping the pregnancy.  Not stopping this pregnancy is an act that will intentionally end the life of a human being (the mother).  This is in agreement with my thesis.  I could easily say that the pro-abortionists are in agreement with my pro-life position in this instance; that is, acting in a way that saves an innocent human life.
Notice I am not stating that the abortion is performed simply because the baby has a disease (Downs Syndrome, bone deformity, etc).  I am not saying an abortion is permitted because of the baby is not "perfect."  It is morally wrong to perform an abortion merely because the baby has a disease, deformity, or even a life-ending complication.  In these cases the baby should be born and allowed to live out his or her natural life the best we can provide.  We should try to save the child's life in cases of disease.  We should care for the sick.  We don't kill innocent humans beings simply because they're less than perfect.
The case here, when baby is certain to die and the mother will likely die, permits aborting the pregnancy so the mother can live.   A life is saved, but not at the cost of another innocent life.

A Few Statistics on Abortion and Women's Health:


Saving the life of the mother is not why most abortions are performed!
Even the abortionists admit that in their own research:
"The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner.[4]"

There you have it from their own research.  Most abortions are not performed for saving the life of the woman.   Most abortions are for the convenience of the woman.


The Center for Disease Control states:

"Many studies show that an increasing number of pregnant women in the United States have chronic health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and chronic heart disease.  These conditions may put a pregnant woman at higher risk of pregnancy complications. Although the overall risk of dying from pregnancy complications is low, some women are at a higher risk than others. The higher pregnancy-related mortality ratios during 2009-2011 are due to an increase in infection and sepsis deaths. Many of these deaths occurred during the 2009-2010 influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 pandemic which occurred in the United States between April 2009 and June 2010.  Influenza deaths accounted for 12 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths during that 15 month period."

The danger to pregnant women is not the baby in the womb, but other diseases that can be treated with methods other than abortion!  In fact, the abortion does not even treat the disease above.  Stop killing the innocent unborn and claim it's for the health of the woman.  



"Of the 3,404 deaths within a year of pregnancy termination that occurred during 2011-2012 and were reported to CDC, 1,329 were found to be pregnancy-related. The pregnancy-related mortality ratios were 17.8 and 15.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011 and 2012, respectively."

That is, in 2012, 0.0159 % of pregnancies resulted in the death of the mother.  For the same year, there were 669,202 abortions in the United States reported to the CDC.



 According to the CDC and assuming approximately half of all babies are female, there were approximately 334,601 females killed during an abortion in 2012.


Abortion is not about a female's health.   


The pro-abortion arguments that abortion is all about women's health are invalid. 


End Note:


There is help for those who have participated in an abortion.  Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Objections of the Lesser Evil: Answering the Pro-Abortion Argument.

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  


Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.


This is a valid argument.  


Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:


I addressed the first two objections in previous posts.  You may see those post by following the links above.

In this post I address the third group of objections: Objections from lesser evil.

Objections from the lesser evil


            A third class of objections try to address the conditions that caused the pregnancy or of the well-being of the child should it be born.  These include pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, pregnancy occurring during an unfortunate time of the woman’s life, or pregnancy to a woman who is unable to or unlikely to love and care for her child.  This class of objections is often given by those who may concede that abortion is wrong and not a matter of choice, but that in these cases it is a “necessary evil.”  Those that offer these objections believe that, should the pregnancy go to term, the woman and/or the child will be in such a predicament that it is best to end the suffering before it gets any worse.

Response to objections of the lesser evil


Rape or Incest:

In the cases of rape or incest we do not give the woman the right to later go and kill the rapist (or the relative).  And, if she is not permitted to later kill the perpetrator of the crime, then why should she be permitted to kill the result of that crime (i.e. abort the baby)?  Will aborting the baby erase the crime?  No, it only adds to the crime.  Certainly we would not approve if the mother decided to have the baby and seven years later look her child in the eye and say, “You are a result of rape.  Every time I look at you I think about the incident and I just can’t take it anymore, so I’m going to kill you and hope that the memory goes away.”   Any person who thinks that of a child is in need of help, but he child needs to be protected nonetheless.
An embryo is as human as a seven-year old, it is just not as developed.  Age and location of the human are not qualifiers for murder.  Abortion in these cases will not heal any emotional wounds.  Having the baby will not necessarily complicate matters either.  The mother can give the baby in adoption or keep the child herself.  There are many parents suffering from infertility who are wanting to adopt and love a child as their own.  None of us can predict the future and know for certain that the mother & child of unfortunate circumstances cannot bond stronger than others and have a love for each other that few others can understand.
Rape is one of the worst crimes.  I honestly would applaud any woman who killed such an attacker as he is committing (or about to commit) this crime.  She is not the taking of an innocent life by killing her attacker.  I would give her words of encouragement and consolation for the rest of her life, but if a pregnancy should come as a result, then an abortion is not a moral option no matter how painful that would be for us to accept.  Sadly, even under such terrible circumstances, neither of us have the right to take the life of this innocent human being that is growing in her womb.  A child unwanted by his or her mother, regardless of the reasons why, is not deserving of death whether they are in or out of the womb.

Inability to Care for the Child:

No one has the right to end the child's life even if the child is wanted by the mother, but the mother is incapable of taking care of the child due to financial, physical, emotional, or intellectual problems.  Abortion is not the last resort.  It should not even be an option because we are dealing with innocent life.  The value of an innocent life far outweighs the emotional comfort of others.  A child unwanted by his mother will most certainly be welcomed by someone else.  The fetus of an incapable mother can most certainly be a child to a capable, loving, adopting mother.
I have seen children living in poverty yet smiling and laughing and playing with their friends.  We would be horrified if someone came along and thought these children should die so they would not have to live in this state of poverty.  So why would we think it is permissible to do the same to a child in the womb?  Age and location of the human are not qualifiers for murder. 
Imagine if someone came up to me and said: “Mark, a year from now you will be living in poverty.  We think it is best that we kill you now so that you won’t have to go through life that way.  Relax, we’ll be doing you a favor.”  I imagine that my reply would not sound very gentlemanly and my actions would likely become threatening to their physical well-being.  
In fact, I was suddenly laid off from work when my son was six-weeks old.  My family went from "getting by" to "struggling."  I had to swallow my pride and collect unemployment, food stamps, and WIC to provide for my family.  Unemployment checks do not go far, my friend.  I know.  There are not many jobs out there for unemployed mathematicians.  Yet, I grew to love my family more & more out of this experience.  I became more aware of how much I love them by realizing how much I'd go through for them.  My love grew during my weakness.  I had a Masters Degree and I ended up stocking shelves for minimum wage, but I loved my infant son with all my heart.
Eventually I got a job teaching.  It didn't pay much and I still struggled to pay bills.  Eventually a better offer came along in less than a year.   It's amazing how much life can change in a couple of short years.  No one has the right to "predict" the future and think their making the right choice by taking an innocent life
Poverty or being unwanted is not justification for taking an innocent life.

The pro-abortion arguments that abortion is sometimes the lesser evil are invalid.


End Note:

There is help for those who have participated in an abortion.  Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.