Human Life - Commodity or Sacred?

In a recent article entitled “Test Poses Challenge for OB-GYNs”, Dr. Adam Wolfberg noted that “... there is indirect evidence that the (CVS procedure) is more likely to cause a miscarriage when it is performed by a less-experienced doctor. ... several reports from individual hospitals demonstrate that the miscarriage rate declined over time as the hospital's staff became more experienced.” He noted that the CVS procedure requires the individual performing it to “... place a needle into a pea-sized target three inches below the skin using a grainy ultrasound image as a guide.” He further wrote that “estimates of the risk of miscarriage vary, but the rate is thought to be around 1%. That is higher than the miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis, a similar procedure. But amniocentesis can't be performed until well into the second trimester, while CVS can be performed by the third month of pregnancy -- an important factor for many women.”

To gain experience in performing the CVS procedure, Dr. Wolfberg noted that “mechanical structures, pregnant pigs, computer simulators, and a grocery aisle worth of fruits, vegetables and cuts of meat have all been punctured by doctors honing their skills.”

The troubling part of the article was when he noted that: “In some cities, women who are about to undergo an elective abortion are asked whether, after receiving anesthesia, they are willing to allow a doctor in training to perform a CVS just before the abortion. Elsewhere, trainees are allowed to perform the CVS if ultrasound findings place the pregnancy at particularly high risk for a chromosomal abnormality such as Down syndrome.” But then, why not? After all, isn’t human life a disposable commodity? Why shouldn’t the child selected to die by abortion, or the “inferior” child who might have Down syndrome, be treated like a lab rat suitable for experimentation?

As President Obama noted when he treated human life as a disposable commodity in the area of embryonic stem cell research, “We certainly do not want to make a false choice between sound science and moral values”. As he also commented, “don’t we have a duty to care for others to ease human suffering?” Unless of course you are the down syndrome child, or the soon to be murdered child through abortion, or perhaps the elderly person whose quality of life is no longer financially justifiable, or perhaps you were Jewish in Nazi Germany.

When our nation was formed, the founders in part noted in the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words in part express a world view where human life is sacred. It is special. It should be protected and nurtured, even if it is inconvenient, or may have down syndrome, or is disabled and requires extraordinary care.

For me, I do not want someone holding President Obama’s worldview to be my health care provider. World views do matter.

Dr. George Tiller

In his article entitled “Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive” - On the Problem of Divinely Commanded Genocide, Randall Rauser quotes David Neff and writes: “the effects of violence and abuse on children are some of the most persuasive evidence that any language short of the vocabulary of evil is bankrupt”. Mr. Rauser goes on to observe that “If evil is to have any meaning, then we will apply it naturally and without qualification to the intentional killing of healthy children, as in the 1994 Rwandan genocide when Hutus slaughtered approximately four hundred thousand Tutsi and moderate Hutu children."

Dr. George Tiller was recently killed while at his church. Dr. Tiller was an abortionist who is reported as having been videotaped talking about babies slipping out of the womb alive during abortions and calling that “sloppy medicine.” Dr. Tiller had admitted to having aborted babies a day before the mother’s due date. It is reported that Dr. Tillers murder “... has drawn condemnation and outrage from the president (Obama) and stirred strong emotions across the nation.”

I do not know what Dr. Tiller or President Obama or those opposing the pro-life world view would answer if asked if they share Mr. Rauser’s opinion that “If evil is to have any meaning, then (it should be applied) naturally and without qualification to the intentional killing of healthy children.” If they share this view, then why would they be “outraged” over the death of a man who has spent his career killing children?

World Views Do Matter - President Obama and Abortion

During his recent commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, President Obama called for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words”. He asked if “... it is possible for us to join hands in common effort?” He was talking about the abortion issue.

I wonder what President Obama would say if the issue involved black slavery and it was someone close to him that was being subjected to slavery and to physical abuse. Would he call for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words”?

I wonder what President Obama would say if the issue involved someone close to him, such as one of his daughters, being trafficked and held in forced servitude, often in the sex trade. Would he call for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words”?

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately 1,200,000 unborn children are killed each year through abortion. The National Right to Life web site estimates that nearly 50,000,000 abortions have occurred since the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. Contrast this against the estimate that came out of the Nuremberg Tribunal that approximately 6,000,000 jews were killed in the holocaust. The holocaust pales in comparison to the slaughter resulting from abortion. Would President Obama call for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” regarding the holocaust?

President Obama’s world view is clear. He supports the slaughter of unborn children. This is the path he is following.

I share the sentiment expressed by La Shawn Barber in her recent blog post where in part she wrote:

“Sorry, Barack. When it comes to abortion, there is no “common effort,” “good will,” or “vigorous debate” for me. Unlike you, a supporter of child killing, whether it means tearing the baby from the womb via vacuum suction or partially delivering the baby then sucking out its brain, I think it’s heinous, deplorable, and reprehensible. No amount of double-talk or can’t-we-all-just-get-along rhetoric will ever change the horrible facts of snuffing out innocent life.”

Nearly 3,300 unborn children are killed each day through abortion. Nearly 50,000,000 lives lost to date, in part the result of the cold hearts, the closed minds, and the empty rhetoric of those such as President Obama.

World Views Do Matter - Stem Cell Research

On June 22, 2007, former President George W. Bush, signed Executive Order 13435, titled “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways”. In part, this Executive Order was intended “... to provide leadership with respect to research on pluripotent stem cells derived by ethically responsible techniques so that the potential of pluripotent stem cells can be explored without violating human dignity or demeaning human life.” During his presidency, George W. Bush became the first president to provide federal funds for stem cell research.

Executive Order 13435 instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “... conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus.”

The order set parameters designed “... to establish moral and ethical boundaries to allow the Nation to move forward vigorously with medical research, while also maintaining the highest ethical standards and respecting human life and human dignity.” It recognized a moral argument that “... the destruction of nascent life for research violates the principle that no life should be used as a mere means for achieving the medical benefit of another.”

It further treated with humanity and dignity, human embryos and fetuses, recognizing them “... as living members of the human species” and not “... raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold.”

This Executive Order also identified limits on the role of the government noting a “... moral obligation of the government to exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, both supporting important medical research and respecting ethical and moral boundaries.”

This Executive Order reflected a world view where human life is respected and precious. The result, dignity and respect for humanity.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order and stated that he was lifting “... the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.” This was a disturbing misrepresentation by President Obama. No ban then existed. In fact, there never has been any ban from using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

In addition to his misrepresentation about the alleged ban, President Obama contended that “... in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced ... a false choice between sound science and moral values.” He characterized himself as “... as a person of faith” with a duty to care for others to “... ease human suffering”. Toward that objective, he repealed Executive Order 13435. He stated that he was making “... scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

When considering the “science”, the established research shows stunning results. There are two types of stem cells being used in research, embryonic and adult. Embryonic research generally requires the destruction of human life. Adult stem cell research does not. Adult stem cell research has resulted in multiple treatments currently in use, saving and prolonging lives. The results have been stunning. On the other hand, no new therapies exist from embryonic stem cell research. The failures from embryonic stem cell research are almost as stunning as the unsupported promises of this type of research. President Obama is promoting the research that scientifically to date, has resulted in failure. Perhaps President Obama is ignorant of the scientific results.

The scientific results and the moral arguments both support adult stem cell research and oppose embryonic stem cell research. Interestingly, this supports a world view where life is treated with respect and dignity, which is also the world view rejected by President Obama. His choice is to proceed in contradiction of the current scientific evidence and embrace a world view that rejects the dignity and sanctity of life.

A May 4, 2009 blog post by La Shawn Barber entitled “Abort-able”, in part contains some spectacular images of a young child in the “safety” of his mother’s womb. In reality, as Ms. Barber clearly points out, this child could be killed at any of the stages shown, including having its skull drilled pre delivery so the child’s brain can be extracted. This step is required to avoid a charge of murder. It is not good to “murder” but of course “aborting” is good and acceptable and should be protected. Drilling the child’s head outside of the womb is murder but drilling its head while in the process of birthing, isn’t? The absurdity of this position is almost as astounding and disturbing as the inhumanity of those embracing this world view, the world view embraced by President Obama.

When President Obama rescinded President Bush’s Executive Order, he further proclaimed: “... let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

From the world view embraced by President Obama, we need to provide “resources”, namely human life, for experimental purposes. From his world view, human life is a disposable commodity that is nothing more then the product of chance and is therefore no greater then the world it inhabits. Therefore, it is acceptable to “let scientists do their jobs” and experiment away by exploiting and destroying human life and by doing so, add to the loss of humanity and human dignity. As President Obama further illustrates in his comments and actions, from a world view where intentional misrepresentation is an acceptable means to an end, it is acceptable to distort reality to advance a political agenda.

From the Righthouse to the Outpost

Regular readers of this blog no doubt have noticed that posting has ceased at this site. That is because I have begun writing at the Evangelical Outpost. The Outpost is a top 10 Christian blog started by Joe Carter, formerly of the Family Research Council. At the site you will find a number of thought provoking essays on a variety of topics. I am honored by the opportunity to write for the Outpost and hope that you will join me there.

Thanks for stopping by and reading the Righthouse!

G.K. Chesterton on "Change You Can Believe In"

"It is true that a man (a silly man) might make change itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his own progress, he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must not begin to flirt gaily with the ideal of monotony. Progress itself cannot progress. It is worth remark, in passing, that when Tennyson, in a wild and rather weak manner, welcomed the idea of infinite alteration in society, he instinctively took a metaphor which suggests an imprisoned tedium. He wrote-

Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change.

He thought of change itself as an unchangeable groove; and so it is. Change is about the narrowest and hardest groove that a man can get into.

The main point here, however, is that this idea of a fundamental alteration in the standard is one of the things that make thought about the past or future simply impossible."

- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Washington Post Unwilling to Entertain Serious Argument from Douglas Feith

By Rob Stevenson, a Junior at Biola University

Anyone examining the beginnings of Operation Iraqi Freedom needs to read "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the assessment, the level of scholarship in his 540 page memoir of his service as the 3^rd ranking civilian in the Pentagon is surpassed only by his 140 page appendix of notes.

For such a thoroughly researched document by a person of such seniority and access, media coverage of "War and Decision" has been conspicuous by its absence. Radio and new media have covered the book, but thus far newspapers and other mainstream media have not.

In the interest of full disclosure, I love the Washington Post and rarely miss an article by their Pentagon Reporter, Tom Ricks. Today however, I was disappointed. In a conversation this morning, Mr. Feith informed me that the Post does not intend to review this groundbreaking work. Not now. Not ever.

To their credit, there are lots of books and one can't review all of them. After all, "War and Decision" is only ranked #4 in Amazon.com's "International Relations" category, #2 in the "Freedom and Security" category and #1 in "Terrorism." I guess being the first and thus far only well document inside view of the planning and execution of a major military conflict just isn't what it used to be.

The Post ran a front page story on March 9^th, based on a leaked copy of the manuscript. Although it correctly identified the author and the title, the article mischaracterized the book and missed key points, specifically Mr. Feith's exposition of the "Post-war Plan." Apparently I am not the only reader who objected to this coverage, since the article triggered a letter to the editor by the executive editor of the book's publisher, Harper Collins.

I enjoy reading the Post and I enjoy reading Tom Ricks, but friends must hold one another accountable.

The Bottom Line:
The Washington Post, and institutions like it, have a narrative: 'The invasion of Iraq was a fiasco and the occupation an inescapable quagmire.'

Any rebuttle to this statement, no matter how well argued or researched, is simply not considered.

The Mainstream Press is not interested in the sort of historiographical work done by Mr. Feith. This would require knowledge and insight, not mere opinion.

Is Marx Assumption Correct That Economic Forces Base All Facets of Life?*

It seems as though we are more than just creatures of commodity. Marx admits that his theory is entirely rooted in the premise of class struggle, a notion that there is always an oppressing class and an oppressed class. These classes are identified primarily by material possessions and control of material production. They are formed by the economic forces that motivate one's desire of possessions and one's ability to produce those possessions. As embodied creatures, we need certain amounts of material goods in order to survive. We need food, water, occasionally shelter from the material elements. We also need interpersonal interaction with other humans which is a material necessity of a kind. However, beyond these material necessities, I am not convinced that material goods can bear the burden of Marx's theory. In order for Marx to be correct, a super-majority of human persons must locate their identify in the quantity and quality of their possessions to such a high degree that it literally defines the epochs of human history.

There is room, especially within the capitalist and materialist elements of society, to find sympathy for Marx's thinking. After all, class envy plays a powerful role in modern politics and one does not have to look very hard to find the individual who identifies himself/herself by the value of his/her car, the size of his/her house, or the fashionable nature of his/her attire. However, equally prominent in our society are individuals who are contented with their commodities, people who aspire to live a comfortable, middle-class life driving a nice (but not luxurious) car, living in a nice house, and raising a family. The fact that we readily relate and identify the idea of a "middle class" is damning to Marx's theory; what would he do with these men and women who are not poor, not rich, but live a life in the middle, suspended between his extreme and ever warring poles, that seem to be just right. Even more damning to Marx's theory is two millennia of Christendom. Many modern Christians who hold loosely on to material possessions could not hold a candle to their brothers and sisters of earlier eras who seemed to care little for the material world. For an extreme example of this, one needs only to look at Christian martyrs whose only struggle was not only against the rich, but also against the poor insomuch as each of these needs to the love and saving knowledge of Christ.

Marx rightly recognizes a tension in life, but he misidentifies it as a tension of class struggle. In reality, is a tension of good versus evil. It is true that the devil can work through material commodities; we are damned when we buy in to Satan's deceptive perversion of desires for material commodities. However, I often wonder who loves material possessions more: the rich or the poor? In the end, I am not convinced that each is not tempted equally in his or her own way by a desire for the material. However, Satan also tempts us with non-material elements, such as hatred, which seems to lead to just as much if not more of the conflict which we see in the world around us. Ever hated someone for the ideas which they espouse? Ever hate them for their ethnicity? For their religion? Examples of struggles based on non-material things are in the news constantly especially in the middle east.

Marx's project is to educate us to believe in a material world filled with struggles over the merely material. If he were correct, he would succeed in locating the "problem of sin" (though we cannot call it that) and the hope of man in a solution which rights the wrongs of the material distribution. However, such a world does not make sense for many reasons not the least of which includes everything from the poetry of Emerson to the struggles of St. Francis. True, the problem of sin is located in poverty, in the absence or the abuse of material commodities, but the problem of sin is also located in racism which, in and of itself, has nothing to do with material commodities. I am therefore compelled to believe that Marx's material box does not hold all of the contents relating to human struggle throughout time.

(*Note: This essay was written as a response to a question posed at the end of a session in the Torrey Honors Institute which focused on a reading of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)

In Blogs There's Trust

It no longer makes sense to hold a low view of internet publication. Here is one more reason why this is the case:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news, according to a new survey. (story)

For a multitude of reasons, people are turning to the internet as their primary pipeline of information. As the main stream media journalists continue to lose the trust of Americans, it should not come as a surprise that people are increasingly turning to the internet as their primary source of information. The headlines come to you on your schedule, from a source whom you trust, in the midst of a conversational environment taking place in a community that you know.

Iraq "Re-Liberation"

With all of our hoping for change, you think that we would appreciate the change that we are seeing in the long, tiring Iraq war.

This time last year, the Iraq war was the failed actor on the world stage, however, now things have changed for the better and it seems as though the Iraqi citizens are happy for an encore. Reporting from Iraq, Richard Lowry of National Review argues that we are winning the physical and the ideological wars. In an election year where liberals voice disparagement for the US presence in Iraq, even going so far as to argue that our presence is the primary source of turmoil in the Near East, it seems as though Iraqis are of a different opinion:

At the village level, the War on Terror is less a grand ideological struggle than an elemental fight to replace men with guns who want to prey on the local population (al-Qaeda) with men with guns who want to help it (us). No romanticism about human nature is required to see that most people will prefer the latter.

For all of the American liberal's concern about imperialism and the imposition of our culture on foreign nations, it should not be surprising to a reasonable observer that Iraqi's would much prefer the ills brought on by Brittany than those brought on by Bin Laden. Perhaps one of the most poignant observations for Americans voting on a war that is being defined more by slogans than by working solutions is:

Iraq is a mind-bogglingly complex country that defies generalizations, except this one: Where U.S. troops have a substantial presence, there is more security, more grassroots political activity, and more economic progress. Hence the success of the surge, and the imperative not to draw down from it too quickly.

Our excellently trained soldiers and highly advanced military equipment have been very useful to bringing about this success. However, more important to the success than those benefits of being a world superpower is something much more basic and fundamentally human; we have gained the trust and support of local citizens:

There are about 30,000 CLCs [concerned local citizens] in Baghdad, and they have been key to securing the city. The CLCs have “thickened” U.S. forces on the ground and helped the U.S. get to roughly the force-to-population ratio recommended in the counterinsurgency manual. They provide crucial intelligence — in one town, they even went out in the morning and put out orange traffic cones to warn where the IEDs had been placed.

Despite one's opinion on the initial decision to invade Iraq, our moral obligation to the Iraqi's should remain at the forefront of our minds this election season. More than oil, Iraqi (and largely Arab) trust in America is the most valuable commodity in which we are investing our blood and treasure. If we do not see the war through to victory, our loss will be great; almost as great as the loss which would be felt by the Iraqi's:

Before he lets his American visitors leave, Hassen Nssaif Jasim insists — fixing us with a glare and twice asking if he can rely on us — that we take home a message: “We are very serious, and we are going to go all the way to the end of the path. We don’t want you to leave.”

It seems that Iraqis hope for change as well; let us not bring about change that will extinguish their hope.

*Note: This essay was originally posted at the Near East Update blog, a blog specializing on issues in the Middle East.