Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sexual Roulette and intended consequences
Let us suppose I have a fancy revolver with twenty chambers. Suppose that we put one bullet in the revolver, in one of the chambers. Suppose also that I and my pal enjoy the frisson of terror and risk that rushes up our spines when we spin the chambers and hold the revolver to our friend's head and pull the trigger. Of course, I do not want to kill my friend, and he does not want to kill me. But we are both willing to incur the risk of death to have that spasm of fright and glee. Now, it won't do to compare our actions to those of, say, a bridge-painter, who knows when he climbs up his ladder that there is a measurable chance that he will fall to his death (it is, I'm told, one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, and therefore fabulously well remunerated). That is because the purpose of a ladder is that it be climbed, not that it be fallen from, whereas the very purpose of a gun is to shoot a bullet.Read the whole thing.Suppose that my friend and I play this game of American Roulette once a year, on one of our birthdays. Now suppose that my friend's number comes up, and I shoot him through the head. By law, and by the moral philosophy that undergirds the law, I do not get to plead that I did not intend his death. Perhaps I did not want him to die, but I certainly did intend the chance that he would die: I intentionally used a weapon against him, a weapon whose purpose it is to kill, and I used it in a way that would ensure his death, if the right chamber came up. It would be up to judge and jury to assess the correct punishment in my case, but as a matter of fact I am a murderer.
Except in the case of rape, there are no "unintended pregnancies," none. There are plenty of women who do not want to be pregnant, and plenty of men who do not want them to be pregnant, but in all those cases the pregnancies are the results of intentional actions of a sort that have pregnancy as their perfectly natural and perfectly predictable consequence. Contraception does not change the nature of the act itself; indeed, it makes the actors more keenly aware that what they are doing is the sort of thing that makes babies, since otherwise they would not go so far out of their way (donning or inserting into the body uncomfortable devices, or flooding the system with pregnancy-mimicking hormones) to thwart the body's natural functions. The "problem" in the case of Sexual Roulette is not that the body fails, but that it succeeds.
So the pregnancies are the result of intention. The problem is that the children are not wanted, and that is a very different thing. For the question we should immediately ask is not, "How do we dispose of this child we do not want?" but "What is wrong with us that we do not want this child?"
(HT: James Grant, via Z)
Thursday, May 14, 2009
No, Mr. President, killing is killing no matter what we call it
It's a magnificent thing: The only newly-originating life in the universe that comes in the image of God is Man. The only newly-originating life in the universe that lasts forever is Man.
This is an awesome thing.
And, as everyone knows, that reverence is not shared by our new President, over whom we have rejoiced.
He is trapped and blind in a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he released this statement,
We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
To which I say:
- No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.
- No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.
- No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.
Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.
We have hope in our sovereign God.
(From the sermon: "The Baby in My Arms Leaped for Joy.")
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Neither poverty nor riches
deny them not to me before I die:
Remove far from me falsehood and lying;
give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that is needful for me,
lest I be full and deny you
and say, 'Who is the LORD?'
or lest I be poor and steal
and profane the name of my God." - Proverbs 30:7-9
What a crazy prayer, right? Give me only what I need, no more, no less. Help me to stay dependent on you. This so goes against my ideas of, 'put enough away in case of emergencies', because surely there's wisdom there. How to balance this? God provided for the Israelites manna each day, only what they needed for the day, in order to show them each day that it was He who provides for them. I heard a pastor say that this is like telling God you want to live paycheck to paycheck.
God provides for me, it's not my employer, my customers, the government, but God. It is to him I will look in hard economic times, when business isn't going well, when I lose my job, when I feel compelled to give away the money I had saved to help someone else who doesn't have enough for today.
Am I willing to do hard things, to put myself, my family, in a place where God has to provide or else we're in trouble? I say willing, because maybe that is what God is calling me to and maybe it's not. But maybe, just maybe, he's not calling me to store away as much as I can (or go buy that new must have...whatever) while my brother wonders if, not what, but if he is going to eat today.
Everything we have belongs to the Lord. Everything we have must be "on the table" for God to use as he deems. He has given it to me, he can take it away. How can I best steward that which the Lord has given me? What has he called me to buy, to spend, to save, to give?
Thursday, April 09, 2009
What's Easter about?
THAT'S EASTER Life to Death from St Helen’s Church on Vimeo.
On the historical reliability of the resurrection
THAT'S EASTER Death to Life from St Helen’s Church on Vimeo.
(HT: BTW)
Labels: Easter