Human Beings Matter More

HBMM?

2013-04-25T09:02:00.002-05:00

While I was dragging my feet all over this hillside, my daughter wanted to know what I was writing. When I said, "Humans matter more...," she asked, "More than what?"

We began discussing it. She decided humans matter more than animals. Then she said, "And humans and animals matter more than guns." And then she added, "Guns matter more than alligators, because we don't want alligators to eat us," or something like that.

I thought, "She's got it about right. Human beings matter more than all of those things."

Human beings matter more. I've devoted my life to helping people understand this simple incomplete sentence, in hopes that they will fill in the blank correctly. In hopes that it will encourage them to see how it applies to themselves and to others, to actions and decisions. In hopes that this simple sentence will force us then to ask, "How am I treating humans as less than?" and "What is it within humans that makes them matter?" and "If it's not something we can do, but something we are, who are we forgetting?" We discriminate based on abilities and location. But should we?

You matter more...more than my momentary pleasures or my prosperity or even more lofty things like some correct philosophical point I want to make. Human beings matter more.

My daughter got the point of the incomplete sentence almost immediately. It elicited from her very naturally a string of things not as important as humans. I wonder if we can hold that point in focus even as we march further and further away from youth and the clarity that so naturally attends it.

Welcome to the discussion. You truly matter more than just about anything else in the universe.

"Wise Blood" by Flannery O'Connor - A Short Review

2013-04-23T09:21:00.000-05:00

I finished Flannery O'Connor's first novel, Wise Blood (1952), a few months ago and just now am finding time to post a word about it.

I believe Wise Blood is among the most helpful refutations of one (or more) of the most pernicious intellectual and spiritual idea(s) plaguing common people and academics today. But if I spoke in detail about which one(s), I would diminish your experience of Ms. O'Connor's masterful response. O'Connor believed one of the chief aims of the fiction writer is to make the experience of a story concrete for the reader. So, my strong suggestion is that you pick up the book and allow her to give you that concrete experience.

Something or Nothing or ?

2013-04-22T15:29:00.001-05:00

When you hear only one side of a story, you actually know less than nothing about it.

Tips for Being Present, Part 3: Being Present to Family and Friends

2012-12-19T12:43:00.001-06:00

Confine computers to a special room so that you're not tempted to "check your email" or "google something" when the most important people in your life wait for your attention.
Look the person in the eyes.
Verbalize if you're thinking about something or processing something (or even obsessing over something) so that this important person in the room won't expect you to be fully present to him or her.
Stow your cell phone. It's not realistic to do what many of us would love to do: throw it away. Instead, put it on silent and put it away.
Be careful of texting: it's a ~~great~~ shoddy way to be present to someone who is not even present with you anyway. If you must text, go to another room to do it.
Don't multi-task. I don't care how skilled you are. It's a poor way to be present to another person.

Tips for Being Present, Part 2: Being Present in Conversations on Important Topics

2012-12-19T12:39:00.000-06:00

Don't worry about forgetting your thought. If it's important, God will help you remember it later.
Don't look at your cell phone. If you are expecting an important call, let the person know up front.
Set the expectation and do what's necessary so that you might continue the conversation in the future. If you can cover important points in a later interaction, you can relax during this interaction.

Trade contact information. With strangers, offer yours first, and ask for the other person's, but don't expect it.
In this first interaction, focus on developing the sort of rapport that makes future interactions possible.
If you come at the conversation humbly, you can worry less and devote less mental energy to coming up with answers on the spot.

"I'd like to think about this."
"I'm not sure how to respond to that. Could I think about it and get back to you?"

If you ask clarifying questions instead of assuming you know what a person means, you almost can't fail at being present.
If you genuinely seek areas of common ground ("I think you've made a good point."), you almost cannot fail at being present.
Study Up: The more you know, the less you'll struggle with tracking with the ideas discussed. You can focus more attention on the person.

Tips for Being Present, Part I: How Do You Spell Christmas Presence?

2012-12-19T09:00:00.000-06:00

There’s one distraction that’s even more menacing to relationships than cell phones or computers. To find out what it is, along with my tips for giving the people you care about the best presence of all, read my Christmas letter. I guarantee it won't distract you for more than 5 minutes!

After-Birth Abortion?

2012-03-26T13:06:00.002-05:00

Josh Brahm recently posted a helpful response to the "After-Birth Abortion" article in JME.

Reading Journal: "King of the Birds"

2012-01-21T22:06:00.001-06:00

Flannery O'Connor, Mystery and Manners -- Occasional Prose, ed. Sally and Robert Fitzgerald (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2001), 3-21

Reading Journal: "Asbestos Removal Closes NYC Schools (Contaminated Mountains Out of Mole Spills)"

2012-01-18T12:31:00.001-06:00

John Allen Paulos, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), 140-143

Reading Journal: "Ranking Health Risks: Experts and Laymen Differ (The Dyscalculia Syndrome)"

2012-01-18T12:30:00.001-06:00

John Allen Paulos, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), 133-139

Reading Journal: "Cult Members Accuse Government of Plot"

2012-01-17T01:03:00.001-06:00

John Allen Paulos, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), 49-52

Help Us Reveal the Mystery Picture (Update #8)

2012-01-03T10:28:00.000-06:00

Note: Since beginning our drive to find new supporters, we have received $460/mo in new commitments and $9985 in special gifts. Thank you!

Help us knock out one or more of the boxes! Click this link: Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.

For an explanation, see my Nov. 2011 Newsletter ("Reveal the Mystery Picture").

To learn more about my work training thousands to make abortion unthinkable for millions, one person at a time, click these links:

"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
About Steve
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Trent Horn, Open Mic, and Common Ground

2011-12-30T11:39:00.000-06:00

Trent Horn, past JFA staff and now the Respect Life Coordinator for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, creates dialogue on the open mic at CBR's GAP Exhibit at NAU in the fall of 2011. Good work, Trent!

[Note on the video: Although I appreciate the attempt by the video producer to "narrate the debate" by giving a score card at various points in the discussion, I think chalking up moments of common ground as "pro-life arguments" is misleading. Trent is using common ground here precisely as I suggested it be used in Common Ground Without Compromise: as a genuine attempt to build rapport so that we can discuss our disagreements (and so that both parties can make their arguments) more productively...namely, to an audience with hearts and minds open to rethinking. Strictly speaking, these points of common ground are not arguments. At best, their assertions or statements of what people believe.]

Messing with the Pageant (Christmas 2011 Newsletter)

2011-12-23T09:00:00.000-06:00

Should church music directors let foulmouthed, cigar-smoking teens play the lead roles in this year's Christmas pageant?

See my Christmas 2011 newsletter to see why my answer is "Yes" and to find out what important aspect of JFA's work just such a pageant mirrors.

Click here to read "Messing with the Pageant."

Merry Christmas!

Reveal (Update #7)

2011-12-22T19:57:00.002-06:00

Note: Since beginning our drive to find new supporters, we have received $350/mo in new commitments and $3925 in special gifts. Thank you!

Help us knock out one or more of the boxes! Click this link: Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.

For an explanation, see my Nov. 2011 Newsletter ("Reveal the Mystery Picture").

To learn more about my work training thousands to make abortion unthinkable for millions, one person at a time, click these links:

"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
About Steve
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Reveal the Mystery Picture (Update #6)

2011-12-13T21:25:00.000-06:00

Note: Since beginning our drive to find new supporters, we have received $325/mo in new commitments and $3150 in special gifts. Thank you!

Help us knock out one or more of the boxes! Click this link: Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.

For an explanation, see my Nov. 2011 Newsletter ("Reveal the Mystery Picture").

To learn more about my work training thousands to make abortion unthinkable for millions, one person at a time, click these links:

"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
About Steve
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Reveal (Update #5)

2011-12-06T21:14:00.001-06:00

Note: Since beginning our drive to find new supporters, we have received $275/mo in new commitments and $1350 in special gifts. Thank you!

Help us knock out one or more of the boxes! Click this link: Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.

For an explanation, see my Nov. 2011 Newsletter ("Reveal the Mystery Picture").

To learn more about my work training thousands to make abortion unthinkable for millions, one person at a time, click these links:

"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
About Steve
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Reveal (Funding Drive Update #4)

2011-12-01T10:40:00.001-06:00

To help us knock out one or more of the boxes, click this link: Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.

For an explanation, see my Nov. 2011 Newsletter ("Reveal the Mystery Picture").

To learn more about my work training thousands to make abortion unthinkable for millions, one person at a time, click these links:

"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
About Steve
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Note: Since beginning our drive to find new supporters, we have received $250/mo in new commitments and $1200 in special gifts.

Reveal (Update #3)

2011-11-14T05:30:00.000-06:00

For an explanation, see my Nov. 2011 Newsletter ("Reveal the Mystery Picture").

Reveal a Picture of Impact (Funding Drive Update #2)

2011-11-13T15:47:00.001-06:00

Note: Each new decision to partner with the Wagner family reveals more of the picture of the impact those gifts make. Pray for more people to help and check back often to see our progress!

Want to help us knock out a box or two? Click these links to give or to learn more:

Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.
"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
Steve's Bio
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Can You Help Us Reveal a Picture of Impact? (Funding Drive Update #1)

2011-11-03T13:31:00.000-05:00

Note: Each decision to partner with the Wagner family reveals more of the picture of the impact those gifts make. Pray for more people to help and check back often to see our progress!

Want to help us knock out a box or two? Click these links to give or to learn more:

Give Online, Automatically, or by Mail.
"Is Steve's Work Worth Supporting?"
Steve's Bio
JFA's Website (Including WHO we train, WHAT we train them to do, and HOW we train them)

Pro-Lifers Squirm at the Punishment Question...But Why? (Part V)

2011-08-27T14:30:00.003-05:00

A few years ago, I posted a series of blogs on the question, "If abortion were made illegal, how would you recommend punishing women if they get an abortion?"

Pro-Lifers Squirm at the Punishment Question...but Why? (8/7/07) (referring to this post by Anna Quindlen - my original post has an old link)
Pro-Lifers Squirm...Part II (8/9/07)
Pro-Lifers Squirm...but Why? Part III (8/11/07)
Pro-Lifers Squirm...but Why? Part IV (8/14/07)

Here are two further thoughts:

(1) As Greg Koukl points out in his post at STR (IV above), we can look to existing law as a guide. We might say, "If abortion is made illegal, women should be punished according to the same standards and guidelines that men are now punished for killing the unborn." Obviously, I'm not referring here to the way male abortion providers are now punished, since abortion providers are not now punished for killing the unborn (generally speaking). I'm referring to the current "Unborn Victims of Violence" or "fetal homicide" laws that treat the unborn child as a real human being. Indeed, as I pointed out in Question 3 of Common Ground Without Compromise, the fact that Scott Peterson was convicted of a second count of murder (second degree, against his unborn child, Conner) may have been what pushed the court to sentence him to death row. (The first count was Peterson's conviction of murder in the first degree against his late wife Laci.) So, in the context of how we currently punish the killing of the unborn (when it's against the mother's wishes), the pro-life view that the killing of the unborn should be punished similarly to the way killing already-born children is punished seems a lot less odd and a little more attainable.

I'm not saying, by the way, that everything that might be true about the Scott Peterson case (or any other fetal homicide case) is true of a woman having an abortion, whether before or after abortion is made illegal. I'm speaking strictly of a certain principled approach to law that treats the killing of the unborn just like the killing of the already-born child. If you read the posts above, you will see that I think all relevant factors should be taken into account when a court is considering how to punish (motive and intent among them). So, nothing in any of these posts should be construed as saying that I think women who have abortions, broadly speaking, are intentional murderers or share any personality traits with criminals like Peterson. Each case would have to be appraised according to its unique details, as the legal system currently does when assessing punishment for the killing of already-born humans (or wanted unborn humans, for that matter).

I suppose I should also clarify that the sound bite above ("If abortion is made illegal, women should be punished according to the same standards and guidelines that men are now punished for killing the unborn.") is meant to intrigue. It's not meant to cover all cases. Surely, if a woman other than the mother or abortion provider kills an unborn child in states with fetal homicide laws, she can also punished under those laws.

(2) What complicates this whole discussion of punishment is an implicit equivocation on the term "should." How should they be punished in an "ideal" legal world? Or, how should they be punished in the real legal world, taking into account things like a transitional period between the current situation to the "ideal" one?

I think sometimes when the question is asked, the pro-life person doesn't want to answer the "ideal" legal world version of the question because it sounds harsh in the present real legal world ("Abortion is not much more than a surgery"). The purpose of my posts above was partly to clarify that we shouldn't shy away from what we think the "ideal" would be (killing the unborn would be treated like the killing of already-born children), but we should also recognize that putting the "ideal" in place is complicated pragmatically, socially, and politically. So, while we need to give a clear answer to the "ideal" question (if we shy away we appear to be inconsistent in our view that the unborn is a human being), we also need to clarify that actually putting that "ideal" legal world in place may be much more complicated even than making abortion illegal is. And we all know how difficult making abortion illegal is.

"Don't Make Them Feel Guilty." Good advice?

2011-08-26T09:26:00.005-05:00

Regarding women and men who have participated in abortion, I've heard some pro-life advocates say "Don't make them feel guilty." I think the sentiment that's usually behind this statement is helpful, but I think it can be easily misunderstood when it's expressed this way. There are two possible meanings of "Don't make them feel guilty."

Help them avoid feeling bad about their abortion experience. (Indeed, some have said, "You don't need to feel bad.")
Avoid making it appear that you are a better person who can look down your nose casting judgment.

Let me respond to #1.

No, actually, if the person had an abortion, feeling bad about it is essential to coming to Christ for forgiveness. That's precisely what this person needs. So, I suggest that #1 is not helpful.

I think regularly about Greg Koukl's statement about the gospel (I suggest memorizing this.):

The Gospel is offensive enough. Don't add any more offense to it. But we should not remove the offense inherent to the Gospel, either.*

I think we could say something similar regarding the person who's participated in abortion:

The truth about the wrongness of abortion (guilt) is offensive enough. Don't add any more offense to it. But we should not remove the offense inherent to the truth about the wrongness of abortion (guilt), either.

Practically speaking, this means we follow #2 above: Avoid making it appear that you are a better person who can look down your nose casting judgment. So, this means we follow my colleague Tammy Cook's advice: we don't treat abortion as the unforgiveable sin. And, we don't treat it as "so much worse than anything I have done." Instead, we turn the mirror on ourselves and reflect on our own fallenness. This will naturally produce the empathy that's going to be most helpful to the person who has participated in abortion.

Let me add two additional thoughts:

(1) I don't mean that every person who has an abortion is equally guilty or should feel equal intensity of guilt. I do mean that whatever the appropriate amount of guilt is for someone to feel, based on all of the relevant factors (which I'm not sure I can enumerate), we should not get in the way of someone feeling that by tossing off dismissive statements like, "It's not so bad."

I think many of us (if I am any indication) have an inclination to simply try to make people feel better. Sadly, this inclination is stronger in us than the inclination to be helpful to them for the purpose of their long-term, whole-person good. My argument in this post is that we should suppress our desire to simply make people feel better and focus our efforts on walking with them as they reckon with what they've done. While taking this approach, we should encourage them toward Christ rather than away from Him into the sort of self-reliance and isolation that is so enticing to all of us when we have done wrong.

(2) I am also mindful in writing this post that I have done many serious wrongs and I am guilty. What I am arguing above is that the best way for friends of mine to be helpful to me is to let me feel that guilt and point me to Christ, who brings me to God spotless, based on His free gift of forgiveness. So, if I am not connected to the wrongness of what I've done, they might ask questions to help me connect. And, if I am beating myself silly because my sense of healthy guilt has morphed into a mechanism for self-centered inaction or depression, my friends should attempt to help me correct that by reminding me that being too focused on guilt says something about my acceptance of Christ's forgiveness. (I'm not mapping out how this discussion should go, though, so don't take this as instructions for what to say when. I'm simply mapping a general approach.)

The point here is that I don't point the finger at women and men who have made decisions to participate in abortion, as if I have done no wrong. I have done many serious wrongs. So, the following is a message not just to others, but to me:

The truth about my guilt is offensive enough. Don't add any more offense to it. But please don't remove the offense inherent to my guilt, either.

*Note: I've altered the wording in the article slightly, based on personal conversations with Greg.

35% of "Pro-Lifers" Say Abortion Should Be Legal?

2011-08-19T09:05:00.002-05:00

I've posted twice already on the new Gallup abortion poll numbers:

Here's another thought. Look at Gallup's summary of the data (see the second table here):

David Lee brought one of the numbers to my attention: 35% of self-proclaimed pro-lifers believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester. Note that 26-27% of the "pro-life" group also believe aborting a "mentally impaired" or "physically impaired" child should be legal.

It's because of this phenomenon ("pro-life" people taking "pro-choice" positions when it comes to law) that I made the comment in my book (and we make the same comment during JFA's ADD Seminar), that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can't tell you much in themselves. You need to ask more questions of people to know what they themselves mean by it. In my experience, the term "pro-life" sometimes means,

"I'm personally pro-life, but I can't tell others what to do with their bodies."

It's difficult, though, to distinguish that position from the classic pro-choice position that says,

"Regardless of how I feel about abortion personally, I believe we shouldn't make laws against it. Women should be able to choose it."

71% Say Abortion Should NOT Be Legal...

2011-08-15T09:29:00.007-05:00

...in the second trimester, according to Gallup's 2011 poll. (See Page 11, Question 21.) (68% said abortion should be illegal in the second trimester in Gallup's 2003 poll).

86% say abortion should not be legal in the third trimester (compared to 84% in Gallup's 2003 poll).

Gallup also found some interesting common ground on certain reasons for abortion (see Q. 20 in the data):

There's still very little support for abortion when the reason is "I can't afford a child." (61% think it should be illegal.) There's less support than in 2003 for keeping it legal to kill an unborn child with a physical disability (45% in 2011 think it should be illegal vs. 37% in 2003) or mental disability (46% in 2011 think it should be illegal vs. 39% in 2003).

And, there's still widespread support for keeping abortion legal in the case of rape (75%) and when the mother's life is in danger (83%).

Sadly, Gallup didn't combine specificity on the timing of abortion with specificity on the reasons for abortion, as it did in 2003. (See the data here.) For more on this, see Question 11 in Common Ground Without Compromise (available for free at www.commongroundbook.com for a limited time).