Month Archives: November 2012

Adoption’s Answered Prayers

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 27, 2012

Next week, Dr. Russell Moore of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary will be speaking about adoption here at FRC. An adoptive father himself, Russell brings both great understanding and deep commitment to the need for bringing orphaned children into loving, stable homes. You can find out more about the event, and register for it here.

For a good look at what it’s like to adopt internationally, read Jennie Allen’s moving article, “Answer to Prayers: An Adoption Story.” And unlike many good stories, this one is true.

Chinese study shows abortion increases breast cancer risk

by Family Research Council

November 27, 2012

Life News reports:

C. Yanhua of the First Peoples Hospital of Kunming in Yunnan province and his colleagues found the abortion-breast cancer association after comparing data from 263 cases of breast cancer and 457 controls without the disease. Their analysis covers the years 2009-2011 … In conclusion, in this study the estrogen related risk factors of breast cancer included woman who had longer menstrual cycle, older age of first live birth, never breastfeeding, nulliparity, and number of abortions more than one. Therefore, it is recommended to women with these risk factors perform breast cancer screening tests earlier and regularly, they said.

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that U.S. abortions fell 5 percent during the recession and its aftermath in the biggest one-year decrease in at least a decade, perhaps because women are more careful to use birth control when times are tough, researchers say.

Abortion and Religion in Ireland

by Family Research Council

November 27, 2012

Recently, Savita Halapannavaran, an Indian woman residing in Ireland, suffered a miscarriage and died in a public hospital. Her parents claimed that the hospitals refusal to give her an abortion (while her baby still had a heartbeat) lead to her death, even though Halappanavars autopsy has revealed that she died of blood poisoning and E. coli ESBL, an antibiotic-resistant strain of the bacterium.

Accusations continued to fly and the womans husband said the fault lay with Ireland being a Catholic country. Likewise, news outlets and blogs rushed to report that religion was to blame for the womans death. The womans father has appealed directly to the Irish Prime Minister to change the countrys legislation on abortion. But should this really be viewed as an issue of Irish legality? A 1992 ruling by the Irish Supreme Court said that abortion was legal when a womans life was at stake. Whats going on here?

The National Catholic Register reports:

Instead of jumping to the conclusions that Halappanavar needed an abortion and that Ireland needs to legalize the killing of the youngest of its kind, the reasonable approach would be to get to the bottom of what Halappanavars condition was and examine how it was or was not responded to, Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, wrote Nov. 20.

E. coli ESBL [official cause of the mothers death] has recently spread throughout theU.K., causing urinary-tract infections that can develop into blood poisoning. The presence of E. coli ESBL is particularly problematic if Halappanavar was given antibiotics to fight an infection that was resistant to those very antibiotics, Gray said.

As happens so often, all the facts surrounding this case may not be public, or fully known, but the hospital and the governments Health Service Executive are investigating.

And Gray continues:

We have yet to hear from the hospital and the medical professionals involved as to what precisely happened, but with this report of her dying from E. coli ESBL, one wonders how killing Halappanavars baby, Prasa, would have killed the E. coli.

This is an undeniably tragic situation, but also very complicated. We must ask the question whywith the science of this mothers condition uncertainwas religion the first thing to be blamed?

The Irony of the November 2012 Marriage Votes

by Peter Sprigg

November 26, 2012

November 6, 2012turned out not to be a good day for those of us who believe in maintaining the natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The pro-family movements 32-state winning streak in state-wide ballot measures dealing with marriage was broken by narrow defeats in all four states considering the issue. An amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman (such as those already adopted in thirty states) fell short in Minnesota, voters in Maryland and Washington gave approval to legislative bills to legalize same-sex marriage, and the electorate in Maine legalized same-sex marriage by voter initiative.

Advocates of homosexual marriage will celebrate the outcome in these states as a breakthrough indicating momentum in support of redefining our most fundamental social institution. The irony, however, is that their narrow margin of victory in these four relatively liberal states may provide evidence that a solid majority of Americans nationwide still opposes same-sex marriage.

How can that be? The answer is simple. In a year in which the losing candidate for president, Republican Mitt Romney, won 48 percent of the popular vote nationwide, the one-man-one-woman marriage position strongly outpolled Romney in all four states where the marriage issue was on the ballot.

Here are the results from the states (updated through November 20), comparing the results for the more liberal position on marriage (support for same-sex marriage) with the more liberal presidential candidate (President Obama), and the more conservative position (support for one-man-one-woman marriage) with the more conservative candidate (Romney):

Maine

Question 1 (legalize same-sex marriage)

Yes 52.59% (Obama 56.37%)

No 47.41% (Romney 41.17%)

 

Maryland

Question 6 (legalize same-sex marriage)

For 52.4% (Obama 62.0%)

Against 47.6% (Romney 35.9%)

 

Minnesota

Amendment 1 (define marriage as one man and one woman)

Yes 47.44% (Romney 44.96%)

No 51.19% (Obama 52.65%)

 

Washington

Referendum 74 (legalize same-sex marriage)

Approved 53.46% (Obama 55.98%)

Rejected 46.54% (Romney 41.51%)

 

The vote for natural marriage runs ahead of the vote for Romney in each of these states, by margins ranging from 2.48 percent in Minnesota to a whopping 11.7 percent in Maryland.

Adding the vote totals for all four states together, I came up with the following totals:

For same-sex marriage: 51.99% (for Obama 56.70%)

For natural 1M1W marriage: 47.18% (for Romney 40.95%)

Thus, in the four states combined, the pro-family position outpolled Romney by 6.2 percent. This certainly casts doubt on any theory that in order to be more successful at the polls, Republican candidates should move leftward on this issue.

It also, however, casts doubt upon the claims (from some recent public opinion polls) that a majority of Americans now support legalizing same-sex marriage. How do I calculate that? Well, in these four states, the vote in favor of homosexual marriage was only 91 percent as large as Obamas vote, while the vote to defend the natural marriage of a man and a woman was 114 percent of Romneys vote.

If we extrapolate those figures to the popular vote for Obama (50.8 percent) and Romney (47.6 percent) nationwide, we come up with an estimate that 54 percent of Americans would probably still vote to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, while only 46 percent would vote to redefine it a solid margin of 8 percent. However, a post-election survey by the National Organization for Marriage, asking a straightforward question about the definition of marriage (free of the confusing and misleading ballot language found in states like Maryland), found that an even higher percentage of Americans, 60 percent, agree that marriage is between one man and one woman, while only 34 percent disagree.

As they have been doing ever since a Massachusetts court first redefined marriage nine years ago, advocates of homosexual marriage will undoubtedly trumpet that the tide has turned and momentum is on their side. However, with the score against them by 41-9 in state definitions of marriage, 31-4 in statewide ballot measures, and 60-34 percent in public opinion, the redefinition of marriage remains a long way from inevitable.

What do the Waiters at Red Lobster and Some Adjunct Profs Have in Common? Obamacare.

by Chris Gacek

November 23, 2012

Sometimes you just dont see one coming. Before the election, I had heard the news that Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Oliver Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse) announced that it was going to reduce the hours of its staff to less than thirty hours per week to keep these employees from coming within the reach of Obamacare. This was one of those pesky unintended consequences of socialism. Very unfortunate, but many of us tried to stop it.

Yet, I didnt expect the same employer strategm to reach beyond the ranks of traditional hourly workers. Then, a friend sent me this article about the Community College of Alleghany County (CCAC). The administration there has made this decision regarding its four-hundred adjunct professors:

On Tuesday, CCAC employees were notified that Obamacare defines full-time employees as those working 30 hours or more per week and that on Dec. 31 temporary part-time employees will be cut back to 25 hours. The move will save an estimated $6 million.

While it is of course the colleges preference to provide coverage to these positions, there simply are not funds available to do so, said CCAC spokesperson David Hoovler. Several years of cuts or largely flat funding from our government supporters have led to significant cost reductions by CCAC, leaving little room to trim the colleges budget further.

Wow, I never thought I would see college faculty being treated like this. Just missed it. When it comes down to it, adjunct professors are hourly employees also. I wonder what percentage of the CCAC adjunct faculty voted for Romney??

Remembering Pioneers in Patient Treatments

by Krystle Gabele

November 20, 2012

My colleague, Dr. David Prentice was recently published in a scholarly journal, Tissue Science & Engineering. This journal recently honored pioneers of the adult stem cell research community. His article, Remembering Pioneers in Patient Treatments, celebrated the achievements of researchers who have made a profound impact on advancing stem cell treatments.

We sometimes lose sight of that ultimate goal, the real reason behind our exciting laboratory investigations, late nights in the lab, grant submissions, published papers, and talks at meetings. That is why it is so important to celebrate these pioneers of basic science and of patient treatments. It is also important to remember practitioners who have labored in the laboratory and in the clinic, with that patientcentered goal in mind.

You can read Dr. Prentices article here, and to learn more about adult stem cell treatments, visit our website, Stem Cell Research Facts.

A Tale of Three Converts

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 20, 2012

Farhan Haji Mose was cut in two this past Friday. His crime was conversion from Islam to Christianity. He was 25.

Beheaded before he was severed, Farhan was executed before a crowd of Muslims and Christians. His body was dumped on a beach in the Somali port city of Barawa, where it was found by a local fisherman.

Farhan became a Christian in 2010 while visiting Kenya on a business trip. For this, his killers accused him of being a spy and joining a foreign religion.

Al-Shabaab is the name of the terrorist/Islamist organization that murdered Farhan. They run much of southern Somalia, arguably the worlds most lawless state. Among their most notorious achievements:

Morning Star News reports that Al Shabaab rebels have killed dozens of Christian converts from Islam since embarking on a campaign to rid Somalia of Christianity. The insurgents, variously estimated at 3,000 to 7,000, seek to impose a stricter version of Sharia (Islamic law) on Somalia.

Rimsha Masih, a young, mentally-challenged Pakistani woman, was freed from prison earlier today after charges that she burned pages of the Quran were found baseless and then dropped. International pressure on the government of Pakistan played a role, as did the common decency (or political concerns) of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and various Muslim religious leaders. Rimsha is a Christian.

Asia Bibbi, a young Pakistani Christian wife and mother of five, was arrested and imprisoned in 2010 for blasphemy against Islam (she talked to some friends about her faith in Jesus). She is under a death sentence, but thus far Pakistani fear of international outrage has surmounted the brutality of its courts and religious laws.

One Christian murdered. Another freed. Another left dangling over the mouth of death.

Why has God allowed their lives to be so disposed? Why has He let one captive go free, kept another in prison, and allowed a third to be horrifically murdered?

We dont know, other than that He is God and is sovereign, loving, just, and deeper in His wisdom and working than we can begin to comprehend. Yet whatever He permits, however small or large, significant or seemingly unimportant, He is intersecting every event in every life to accomplish purposes which are, for now, obscure to us. But He never leaves, never forsakes. He does not exempt us from pain. Rather, He is with us in it.

May God have mercy on the killers of Farhad and give great comfort to his family. May He protect Rimsha Masih and her family; they can no longer go back to their village for fear of reprisal. And may He strengthen and sustain Asia Bibbi as she awaits the liberty that is rightfully hers.

Last week, FRC partnered with our friends at Voice of the Martyrs to highlight the suffering of Christians throughout the world, Christians whose only crime is owning Jesus as Savior and Lord. You can watch it here, and be inspired to take the action steps given at the end to help defend our brothers and sisters in Christ whose lives are at risk simply for following the God of the universe.

Be faithful unto death, said the Lord Jesus, and I will give you the crown of life (Revelation2:10). Farhad Haji Mose has now been crowned with a life no force on earth or hell can ever take away from him. It will be joyous to meet him someday.

Responding to Peter Wehner on Moral Issues and the Mind of God

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 19, 2012

My friend Peter Wehner is one of the most compelling voices in the public square today, not only among Evangelicals but the entire commentariat. His philosophical sophistication and street-level political smarts in addition to the fact he is a masterful writer make him one of a relative handful of pundits worth reading.

Today, though, in a rare spasm of disagreement, I take issue with Peters column. He argues that when some Christians (he cites former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, specifically) claim some issues matter more than others, they are overstepping the bounds of theological propriety. As he puts it, with characteristic elegance, Its not at all clear to me, for example, that a vote against the same-sex marriage initiative in Maryland has more eternal significance that our policies on genocide, world hunger, sexual trafficking, slavery, religious persecution in Islamic and Communist nations, and malaria and global AIDS.

I agree, with one major qualification: It is difficult to argue that the most profound domestic issues we are facing do not have to do with the deterioration of individual dignity (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.), family stability (same-sex marriage, the effects of widespread divorce and cohabitation, especially in some communities, and so forth), and religious liberty (e.g., the Obama health care mandate requiring religious employers to provide insurance plans that include abortion, abortion drugs, and sterilization coverage).

At a conference we attended last year, my friend Ryan Bomberger posed this question to the audience: Does anyone in this room believe that inAmericain the 1860s, there was any more pressing moral issue than slavery? And, asked Ryan, should any Christian in our time argue that there is any more critical moral issue than the destruction of unborn life?

Nothing is more final than death, to which the deaths of 53 million unborn children since 1973s Roe decision mutely, and gruesomely, testify. And if the unborn child has been created in Gods image and likeness, ending the legal means by which her destruction within the womb is accomplished should be an immutable priority.

To add to Ryans query: Should any serious American Evangelical believer deny that the gravest threat to the institution of the family is homosexual marriage? If consent and affection are all that constitute the basis of a marital bond, then no types of relational marriages are off limits. If we want to help our children and safeguard the society in which they are raised, we need to strengthen marriage between one man and one woman, period.

And one more: Should any serious American Evangelical doubt that the threat to our religious liberty imposed by a federal mandate to violate the convictions of ones deeply-held faith is pronounced, and pronouncedly dangerous?

Again, I am speaking of domestic issues. The list of issues Peter offers is similar to one I have articulated elsewhere; the evils of which he writes should shape the balloting decision of every thinking Christian.

However, within certain parameters, these issues are as morally non-controversial as they are biblically imperative. Even people of the Left give at least lip service to fighting these things, even if the means by which they seek to do so are inadequate, poorly-grounded, or half-hearted.

Yet the profundity of an issues moral import can be determined by its immediacy, cruelty and/or danger, and extent. Within that context, I will argue that in our country, the fate of 3,000 unborn children who are aborted every day, and the lives of the mothers permanently scarred by this procedure, are of greater import than saving an obscure species of rodent or endingWest Virginiacoal mining.

Consider the words of Jesus:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matthew 23:23-25)

Jesus answered (Pilate), You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin (John19:11).

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Mathew 10:29-31).

Weightier provisions. Greater sin. You are more valuable. Not everything is equally important to God. Some things matter more and here at home, those things are captured well in the words of The Manhattan Declaration:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

I share Peters concern that when Christians profess to know Gods will about such matters of prudential judgment as strategic missile defense, federal education programs, and entitlement reform, they are overstepping their prophetic authority and reducing the Word of God to their own intellectual putty.

Yet when speaking of the needs of our fallen and failing country, life, marriage, and religious liberty surmount other, competing moral issues because of their magnitude in scope and definitude in impact.

Who agrees? Who disagrees? I welcome comment.

A Pro-Life Lincoln?

by Robert Morrison

November 19, 2012

This is the 149th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address.

An old man in Boston in the 1830s peeked out from his closed shutters at the horrible spectacle in the streets below. His house was locked up tight against the visit of that monster, the President of the United States. He had sent his family away, but the old man stayed behind to guard the estate, to protect the family silver. When the presidential carriage passed below, however, the old man saw the happy throng of his neighbors. He saw not a rough, savage backwoodsman, but a tall, spare, white-haired war hero, cloaked in dignity, and wrapped in goodwill. The old man couldnt help himself. He threw open the shutters and waved enthusiastically. He yelled out the window: Hurrah! Hurrah!

Graciously, President Andrew Jackson tipped his hat and bowed to Mr. Boston. Mr. Bostons heart was the first of the many Old Hickory won that day. I am like Mr. Boston. I went to the local theater today to see Lincoln. I expected to hate it. I know the politics of the director and the producers of this film. And what could I expect of that British actor, Daniel Day-Lewis? But I fling open the shutters of my heart and Im yelling: Hurrah! Hurrah! This is a wonderful movie. Go see it! Take your children (your teenage and above children.) View it as a family. Day-Lewiss performance as Lincoln may be the best Lincoln we will ever see. He is wise and funny, sometimes crude, and yet elevated beyond the ken of normal men.

You will see here why his young secretaries, John Hay and John Nicolay, called Lincoln the Tycoon. Most Lincoln biographers treat his White House years as a burden, a trial. They deplore the fact that poor Mr. Lincoln was beset by an endless parade of office seekers and those wanting favors of every kind. Well, why didnt Lincoln tell his shrewd and politically savvy Secretary of State William Seward to handle the appointments? Or why didnt he summon Sewards man Thurlow Weed down to Washington and let Weed handle all political patronage?

Because Lincoln knew thats where the power was. He knew that this was how you learn what the American people are thinking, feeling. To have given those reins to another was to let that man drive the team. Not going to happen. Early in his administration, Lincoln had told Hay and Nicolay, I cant afford to let Seward take the first trick. Wings clipped, but not too severely, Seward became Lincolns ally and then his best friend. Daniel Day-Lewis has rescued Abraham Lincoln from the embalmers. Sometimes I think Im the tiredest man on earth, Lincoln said late in his term. Day-Lewis walks as if his feet hurt. His shoulders are hunched. He slumps in the saddle.

If you want a Napoleonic figure on horseback, call for Gen. George B. McClellan. That Young Napoleon had all the qualities of the Corsican conquerorexcept, of course, decision. And speed.

The movie covers only a few weeks at the end of Lincolns life. And yet it captures so much of the drama of the times Lincoln lived through. Did he shape events? He was quick to say no. I confess events have shaped me, he said. We know, though, that Lincoln was the central figure in Americas Civil War. Okay.

Does Hollywood mess up the history? Yes and no. They certainly get U.S. Grant wrong. They show Gen. Grant giving Lincoln political advice and dealing with the Confederate peace commissioners as a proconsul. Thats not Grant. Thats one of his greatest qualities. Unlike McClellan, who lectured Lincoln on his political responsibilities, Grant avoided all such. He was strictly subordinate to Lincolns authorityat all times. But the movie certainly gets Grant right at Appomattox. And thats the big thing. This is the Grant who orders his jubilant artillerists to cease firing their One Hundred Gun salute. The rebels are our countrymen once again, says Grant, determined not to allow a single gesture that might humiliate Lees defeated gray legions.

The story involves the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in a lame-duck session of the U.S. House of Representatives. January, 1865, was the first time the Constitution mentioned slaveryas it abolished it forever. President Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment. There is no provision in the Constitution for a president to sign an amendment.

So why did he? Those on the right today who try to argue that Lincoln didnt really care about slavery all that much will have to answer this question: Why therefore did he feel compelled to sign that instrument? Too bad the movie didnt show Lincoln signing the amendment. Hollywood shows Sec. of State William Seward dealing with some low, shady characters. Are they some of Sewards Albany, New York, wire-pullers and backroom manipulators? Probably. Did Seward bribe Democratic House Members who had been defeated in the previous November election? Did he offer them federal jobs as a reward for voting for the Thirteenth Amendment?

I will quote the Great Emancipator himself: Damfino. I wont spoil the ending by telling the reader what happens. Suffice it to say it is probably not news that the Thirteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution. What may be news is that every vote cast against the Thirteenth Amendment was cast by a Democrat.

How can I maintain that this is a pro-life Lincoln? He speaks of the sacrifice of his day as necessary for millions yet unborn. We know Lincoln thought the Civil War was being fought for a vast future. We know he looked to an America in the 1930s that would have 130 million peopleand he welcomed that quadrupling of our population. Would he have disapproved of abortion? We cannot say. He certainly did approve of womens suffrage and said so. But he might well have been like Susan B. Anthony and the other early Suffragists who were for womens rights and strongly pro-life.

Liberals today embrace Lincoln. Good for them. Let us rally around Lincoln. Lincoln said nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon. Are not unborn children so stamped? Lincoln spoke in parables. Even an ant knows when he has been wronged. Take from him the crumb of bread he has earned from his own labor and he will resist.

TIMEs Joe Klein tells us that ultrasound has made it impossible to deny the reality that that thing in the womb is a human being. Look at The Silent Scream. See that unborn child try to fend off the lethal probe. See as she struggles for her life. If the ant knows he is wronged, what would Lincoln say of that ultrasound homicide? Would he deny that reality?

Film critic Rex Reed panned Daniel Day-Lewiss portrayal of Lincoln. He says its as wooden as George Washingtons teeth. Rex Reed knows no more of Lincoln than Ralph Reed does. And besides, Washingtons teeth were hippopotamus ivory. Rex Reed must have missed the scene where President Lincoln pardons a 16-year old soldier boy. The boy has been condemned to be shot for cowardice. He pauses, reflectively, and you know what Abraham is thinking: My son Willie would be 16 now, or nearly so. It moved me to tears. Youd have to have a wooden heart not to appreciate what Lincoln is feeling.

Daniel Day-Lewis, from Wales, has captured our Lincoln better than any other before him. This is doubtless fitting. It was a British biographer of Lincoln, after all, Lord Charnwood, who gave us this priceless insight a hundred years ago: The Union soldiers stopped calling the president Old Abe and Uncle Abe in the bloody autumn of 1862. That was after hed issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Then, they began calling him Father Abraham. Now, with this triumphant film, we have a Father Abraham for all Americans to share. The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah.

Enlightened Death: The Argument for Assisted Suicide

by Sharon Barrett

November 19, 2012

Since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, science has offered a panacea for mans problems. From the vaccine to the internal combustion engine to the computer chip, man has discovered that whatever his need happens to be whether it is transportation, communication, or that all-important commodity, health he can invent a solution and put it on the market.

The Enlightenment worldview affected more than Western cultures view of science and technology. It also affected our view of God first, by denying His supernatural intervention in the world, and second, by rendering His moral revelation unnecessary.

As a result, human needs and desires replaced transcendent truth as mans measure of morality. For instance, Frances Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, adopted in 1789 in the wake of the bloody French Revolution, declares that law and government derive their authority from the general will of the people. In other words, mans inalienable rights do not come from his Creator, and neither do his moral duties to other men.

The end result of this worldview is the radical individualism of the Romantic era that followed the Enlightenment. The only thing that matters is whether the individual finds fulfillment in his circumstances. If his circumstances dont meet his needs and desires, he has the right to change them.

The twentieth century saw the effects of this thinking in social issues like no-fault divorce and abortion on demand. In the twenty-first century, another issue arose, making its way onto two state ballots this November: assisted suicide. As MARRI intern Maria Reig Teetor points out, modern medicine has empowered us to eliminate many causes of death, so legalizing the choice to end ones life medically is ironic.

More than ironic, it is an illustration of the decline of Western culture:

The key to this discussion is to acknowledge that when we eliminate religion from a culture, when we deny moral values and human dignity, were left with our own self-preservation as our only ethical guiding light.

When justice and human dignity are no longer a priority, we go to every length we can to prevent suffering and to create comfort. As with numerous other areas of life, like education, sexuality, marriage, friendship, and leisure, our culture teaches us that its all about our personal satisfaction. When there is no ultimate respect for human dignity, its natural for men to elevate health to their highest goal in life.

Health, comfort, protection from suffering, personal satisfaction…these are now rights that outweigh the protection of life itself. Using right-to-die language places assisted suicide on the same level as the right to kill implicit in most abortion legislation. Maria Reig Teetor follows this line of reasoning:

What if a person has the power to decide for someone else that his or her life is filled with pain or distress, as Terri Schiavos husband did in Florida in 2005? Or to decide that someone elses life is causing him or her to suffer, so he or she has the right to eliminate that suffering by eliminating the other person? (This is an argument used to support abortion, when an unborn baby causes financial or personal inconvenience to the mother.) Has our society drifted so far from ethical moorings that we would legalize murder on demand?

Modern medicine cannot solve the question of legalized murder. Neither can a worldview that ignores moral revelation. Without the enlightenment of Gods Word (Ps. 119:104-105), our culture will continue its unassisted slide toward suicide.

October 2012 «

» December 2012

Archives