Video Response to Freakonomics podcast on "Misadventures in Baby Making"

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

Part 1 - Podcast Discussion                                                               Part 2 - Clarification on Roe v. Wade on follow-up to previous post

  

Part 3 - These are sensitive topics so forgive me if I don't handle them with the care they deserve.

 

Part 1

Did the ultrasound machine result in higher rates of abortion? If so, does that mean we should ban it? What about if we knew people were selectively aborting certain children e.g. children with disabilities or based solely on their sex? What if we had a test that could tell you more such as hair or eye color, intelligence, or physical capabilities? Should we ban certain abortions based on motives? Who then defines which "motives" are appropriate or inappropriate? As we move further into the future with advancement in technology these questions are becoming much more important.

In the show they discuss how Steven Quick created a blood test to determine several genetic factors. His purpose for creating the test was to reduce the stress of not knowing, reduce the chances of harming the baby, and allow parents who choose to not abort their children to begin preparations in the event they find out the child will have disabilities. These arguments are good reason to not blame the technology for peoples actions. 

Another difficult question to answer is "When is it ok to kill a child in the womb?". In my opinion the only two reasons would be 1. If it jeopardized the life of my wife 2. If the child would face short term terminal death and only live a short life of suffering. Although, in my context I'm suggesting taking the child early rather than doing a D&C. I share a personal account regarding this very question. 

What if we had the ability to modify or engineer children at conception? Could one of the consequences of eliminating handicaps be the reduction of the drive or human spirit to over come adversity? Even so, who are we to not allow parents to make the tough choices which they see as best for their children? Life is difficult enough, removing any other obstacles seems a given.

Part 2

In part 2 I try to explain my understanding of Roe v. Wade. That it was more about the right to doctor/patient confidentiality or privacy rather than the "reproductive rights of women" (do men have any rights?)  or a women's "right to her body" (does the child have no rights to theirs?). They deferred to common law to avoid dealing with the question "when is a child a person". The Republicans use this hot button issue to keep a strong voter base realizing they really don't have to do anything about it. Roe v. Wade could have been overturned at Planned Parenthood v. Casey but nothing changed even with a strong Republican majority. Ironically, the question of "when is an unborn child a person" is defined and coded into law under 18 U.S.C. § 1841: US Code- Section 1841

I also attempt to clarify my thoughts on the scenario of the terminally ill suffering child or adult. 

Part 3

 I felt the need to add a Public Service Announcement regarding the difficult topics of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. 

So here it is: Don't give up. Don't take the "easy" way out. Don't insult the Creator by destroying his creation. Instead, turn to Him and reflect on the suffering of His Son Jesus to assist you through it and may He carry you to the end and welcome you into His presence. May your suffering not go in vain. 

Video Response to Philosophy Bites Philip Pettit on Consequentialism

To listen to the podcast I'm discussing you can download the mp3 here.

My thoughts on Philosophy Bites podcast on Philip Pettit's interview on Consequentialism. Consequentialism is closely related to the philosophy Utilitarianism. It bases it's means on the conclusions or the consequences of an action. Immanuel Kant was apparently a Nonconsequentialist. The question I keep asking myself is, "where is the hope?" Is choosing a lesser evil not still evil?

Video Response to TEDTalk by Joan Halifax on Compassion

To listen and view the the presentation I'm discussing you can go here.

My thoughts on Joan Halifax's TEDTalk on Compassion. What does it mean to be compassionate? How do we (or even should we) balance helping individuals with helping a nation? If an overpopulated nation is out of natural resources and can't feed itself does giving them food help or just prolong the suffering? No one would think its good to let the children starve though. What happens if our compassion and means to offering it conflict? E.g. Those who justify abortion to prevent children being born into families where they are not wanted or worse abused. What drives our compassion? Is it out of self interest? Do not all our motivations originate out of self interest?

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child

This is an interesting topic I actually struggle with. I am by no means opposed to spanking as I indeed find it to be a very effective means of discipline. In fact, just recently I've been encouraged to take up "the switch" as it is extremely effective. The struggle arises from many things. The first is the ability to discern what is worthy of discipline. Pretty much any disobedience is worthy of disciplining but deciding where to draw that line takes wisdom (something I often lack). Trying to judge that line with another adult is also very difficult as what may be inappropriate for one may not be for another.

Another area of struggle is the idea that using violence is the best means for behavior correction. Indeed it is effective at any degree in life but one has to question is it the best way to generate that sought after behavior change or obedience? Did its use in earlier eras explain some of history's brutality? The fear of what others may think or worse that someone might actually report you for abuse is always at the back of my mind. "Time outs" do prove somewhat effective and are the most common way I discipline. But I confess, sometimes it feels fruitless after 20 minutes of trying to force them to stay in one spot or they repeat their disobediance moments after being released from time out.

I find it ironic though that if we were to lock up our children like we do adults who disobey rules we would also be punished.  It takes surprising strength to withhold and restrain my anger when I feel an act is worthy of a spanking but at other times it takes tremendous courage and wisdom to strike a child in faith that it is for their own good. In the end, this aspect of life requires faith and God's grace to raise a child correctly. It requires me to overcome my flesh that desires me to be lazy and "let it slide" and to balance it with controlling my temper and not harming them. Truthfully, the method of discipline is as less important as compared to its consistent execution and its result.

The System

So banks are back to their old ways again but I have to wonder, is this really a surprise to anyone? It always irks me when news report headlines like "results were more or less than analysts expected" or something along the lines about how "results weren't as expected." Why it irks me is I do believe we have a bunch of really intelligent people in charge of things but the media dumbs things down to a few talking points which results in a horde of ill-informed strongly opinionated drones to do the bidding of the leaders they appointed. How backwards is that!

If you'll step back with me and take a view from 30,000 ft you'll see things much different in regards to our current economic mess.  Many easily jump to short term solutions but lets look at our economic system. People often wonder "why are we having a recession?" The talking points (depending on your source) are: greedy bankers, incompetent government forcing bad policies on banks, and greedy individuals buying more than they can afford. All these may be true but is their an underlying system that supports such activities?

I feel there is. Our economic system is designed to be a risk-taking environment that encourages greed. Many cry this is why socialism is necessary but I'll save that for another topic. I want to focus on the US economic system. The US has to keep growing or else it collapses. There can be no stagnation. Since we are a debt economy if we stagnate just for a little, loans start to default. It doesn't matter if the loans will get a return or not in the long run. The point is to get the money circulating again as quickly as possible which is why the FED pump so much money into banks and then expects them to loan it out. The FED criticizes banks for making "bad" loans but in order for the economy to grow, loans have to be made, period. So the FED also criticizes banks for not making loans because the FED gets heat from the politicians because everyone is losing jobs and income. In order to succeed in this system you take "risks" by getting a loan and doing something with it. It doesn't really matter what because if there is enough money in the economy someone is going to buy whatever it is you are selling for whatever price they can afford.

What we are experiencing in our generation is an adjustment in the markets due to the limitations of natural resources. We have an unlimited supply of money and an unlimited supply of labor, and the last ingredient for a market to work is resources which unfortunately we can't artificially create. What has been good for a time has now set us on a course of unsustainable growth. Fiat currency enables rapid growth and corporations provide for a more efficient means of collecting money for wide spread market penetration and possible research and development. All good things but the consequences are amoral entities that damage our environment and treat humans as if they are pieces in a machine. For deeper thoughts: going back to the gold standard and the idea of ending corporations would certainly set us on a sustainable growth path and reduce moral hazard since someone is forced to be held accountable for the actions of a private business. Unfortunately, such a dramatic shift in the economy would wipe out a vast majority of those currently employed resulting ultimately in the collapse of society. There has to be some way to transition from our current system to another slowly or else we will experience an ever greater deterioration of living standards or greater imbalance of living standards (depending on which country you live in).

We need much more thought into our global economic direction to avoid further wars which will ultimately result as resources dwindle or as economic disparity increases and resentment builds. The likely outcome as the world "flattens" is everyone becomes more "equal" unfortunately that means equally poor. You see, everything is tied together in a way. I hope you see it too. I wonder how many of our leaders see it? I have a feeling many do and those that do can (and probably do) exploit it to their benefit while maybe a few are simply pawns used by those who do understand the system. Now, the only real question left is can you change the system without becoming a part of it?

Self Righteousness

Why would someone call someone else self-righteous? Often this is meant as an insult. It is meant to say "you think more highly of yourself than you ought" or "you are arrogant, full of yourself, or conceited". Often the reason why someone would make this claim to someone is because they either:

A. Think the person’s ideals are too difficult to obtain themselves and therefore think the person is lying and thus a hypocrite
or
B. Knows the person’s ideals are too difficult to obtain themselves and seek to bring the other person down to their level because they know they can’t bring themselves up to theirs.

I know because I've done both. Let us be quick to listen and slow to speak so when our brother rebukes us let us not assume his intentions are malicious but his concern is sincere.

"The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly." -Proverbs 15:2

'Personhood' Amendment On Colorado Ballot

NPR ran a broadcast about a new item on the Colorado ballots about defining 'personhood'. I'm surprised this amendment hasn't been proposed already. According to the broadcast it said that Colorado was the first state to get enough signatures. Are you serious? How did this of all amendments not get first created (and passed) in the Bible belt?

Regardless, the arguments brought against such an amendment (in my humble opinion) are lame. The many arguments are this would make us rethink all of our laws. Well duh. We've lived with Roe v. Wade for how many years now? I'm sure its bound to have impacted the writing of MANY laws. Regardless of this change the arguments brought against this amendment seem weak. For example, one person said: "what about HOV lanes?" Simple, if the person is occupying a seat then you qualify. Since the baby occupies the same seat as the mother, you don't.

But that was a weak argument. What about something like: "what if you drink without knowing you were pregnant or did something to kill the baby accidentally?" First, it would be hard to prove that drinking or some other action was the direct cause of the death so the case would likely be dismissed but even if it could, is the child not entitled to rights? The argument is the same as "what if I drive at night and hit a pedestrian I didn't see on the road?" It's called manslaughter. Oh no! we can't take responsibility for our actions because remember the baby is a parasite that invaded us first! /sarcasm    

The other argument brought forth is about frozen fertilized eggs. This one would obviously require some more legal work but lets think about this another way. Babies can't think or act for themselves but neither can mentally handicapped people. How do we treat them? We can spin circles around this argument all day but it would take some good work to convince me otherwise.

Lastly, one guy pointed out that it was unconstitutional! What does that even mean? Of coarse it would contradict existing law, that is the whole point! People act like once a law is written it can't be changed (at least not if the law plays to their interest).

Those Who Don't Learn History Are Doomed to Repeat It

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." -Thomas Jefferson (see full quote and context here). See modern context here.

Through My Eyes

A tragic story came to a close recently about a woman who was convicted of microwaving her 1 month old child to death. The woman was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Around the country I’m sure people rejoiced over this woman’s just sentence. What saddens me is the absurdity with our culture today. I cannot see how “pro-choice” is ever a choice. Take this case for example, would this be such a heinous crime if it were committed 1 month earlier when this child was still in its mother’s womb? Perhaps if the child wasn’t microwaved but rather scrambled, suctioned, injected, or had it’s skull crushed, would that make it less heinous? Of course not.

The argument over privacy is ludicrous. Are any crimes ever attempted out in the open? If I murder someone in my house is it just because it’s on private property? No. The only argument then is on a woman’s “right” to her body. This argument too is crazy. How is it we live in a country that says we can’t put drugs in our body or take our own life but we can take the life of another who grows in us? The argument is often presented as the child is an unwanted “parasite.” The woman thus has a right to remove it. How is it we’ve come to think of humans as parasites? I guess the homeless could be thought of as parasites to society, maybe we should free ourselves of them as well?

A problem I have with the Democratic Party in general is that they tend to embrace “pro-choice” as the idea, “we know what is best for others.” (I hope you see the irony in this stance and the Democratic Party's many others). The argument goes that it would be better to not be born at all than be born unloved or unwanted… Tell that to my adopted friends.

Lastly, what about the rare but terrible circumstances of rape or incest? If we follow logic rather than our emotions the answer is obvious. Again, tell that to some of my adopted friends. I don’t know which ones may have such a horrible story but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to know either. What about the woman? Will taking the life of this unwanted child take away her memories of the horrible event? This argument is just a cop-out.

Perhaps only in the event of medical necessity should such a difficult decision ever be made but even many doctors will tell you this is an extremely rare circumstance. To me the choice is obvious. I'm saddened in knowing most abortions are due to people who have no desire to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I see this through a moral lens instilled in me by my religious beliefs. Others may see it through their own philosophical moral view. The question now is, can we come to agree as a society if we don’t have an absolute moral reference?