Defending Faith

Everyone’s a critic, and some of them are trolls

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:27:00 +0000

So it appears that Josh Stein, a.k.a. the philosotroll, was not a fan of my most recent appearance on Life Report. Well, can’t please em’ all I suppose. But I was curious as to what Stein found so objectionable in my appearance on episode #150 where I discussed the question, “What makes human beings valuable?”

Stein first attacks my discussion of the “imago dei” as being a sufficient reason to grant the right to life to unborn children and, in the end, all humans. According to this view, human beings are valuable because they are made in God’s image and are given a special value, or sacredness, because they stand in a special relationship to God. I suspect that Stein is an atheist and so that is why he considers the view so objectionable. But aside from ridicule, he gives us no reason to reject the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic that humans are valuable because God created them.

Even secular, pro-choice philosophers like David Boonin admit that this argument would work if God exists. Boonin evaluates the following pro-life argument in his book A Defense of Abortion:

P1. The fetus is a human life from the moment of conception

P2. Every human life is sacred

P3. If the life of an individual is sacred, then the individual has a right to life.

C. The fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception

Boonin says the argument is “plainly valid” and he assumes that P1 is true. The question is whether P3 and P2 are true and follow from one another. Boonin writes, “If ‘sacred’ is used in the religious sense in P2, then, as I have suggested, P3 may well seem reasonable.” [David Boonin. A Defense of Abortion. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003) 31.] So if the religious assumptions could be grounded or proved, then we would have a good moral (but not necessarily legal) argument against abortion.

Stein says I “aggressively ignored” how to explain the imago dei to an atheist, but I for the life of me can’t see what he means. Of course, I would have to present some compelling reasons to believe that God exists in order for an atheist to understand or accept the imago dei argument. The atheist may disagree with those reasons, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. For someone who thinks I’m so ignorant of Kant (or at least neo-Kantian philosophy) he seems to forget that the moral argument for God (though not the form I use) came from Kant himself so it isn’t some crackpot argument but has real merit that is explored by contemporary philosophers.

Stein then argues that my claim that objective truths must be grounded, and especially that they must (or even can) be grounded in God is “audacious” and “unjustified.” Really? What about theists like Robert Adams, Phillip Quinn, and Jerry Walls who argue for moral realism based on theism. Or, consider atheists who reject moral realism because moral realism would entail the existence of God. J.L. Mackie, an influential atheist who wrote in his book The Miracle of Theism that, “Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them.” [J.L. Mackie. The Miracle of Theism (Oxford, Clarendon: 1982), 115]

Stein says that I ironically begged the question when I said that using the Bible to prove abortion is wrong would be a fallacious appeal to authority but the imago dei is not such a fallacy. Here I simply disagree and would say that I have independent reasons to believe that God exists and endows humans with value (unlike the circular reasoning found in Biblical fundamentalism). So no, I haven’t begged the question at all.

Next, Stein says that I am completely mistaken that atheistic moral realism assumes that moral facts exist as brute facts without explanation. Here he is partially correct. I should have been clearer and said that under atheistic moral realism moral facts either have no explanation in any other facts (i.e. brute facts) or they are explained by themselves. After all, someone could be a Platonic moral realist who believes that moral facts or objective values exist as eternal forms and explain their own existence just as God explains his own existence. Even if this were true, we would still need the brute fact that explains why we should be morally compelled to follow platonic virtues like love and courage instead of platonic vices like hate or cowardice. Plato proposed the GOOD as that which grounds the other virtues. I just drop one of the “O’s” and I think we’ve found the answer.

So in regards to morality being a brute fact, that’s why during my appearance on the show I cited Dartmouth philosophy professor Walter-Sinnott Armstrong who answers the question, “Why is it wrong to cause harm without a good reason?” by saying “It just is, don’t you agree?” (Page 47) To me, this seems to be an appeal to the self-evident truth that it is wrong to cause suffering. But there’s no reason why it’s wrong. It just is -- or it’s a brute fact. Atheist Erik Wielenberg who authored the book Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe, writes:

Of the ethical states of affairs that obtain necessarily, at least some are brute facts. That pain is intrinsically bad is not explained in terms of other states of affairs that obtain. Moreover, at least some necessarily obtaining brute ethical facts are not trivial but substantive. Therefore, I have an ontological commitment shared by many theists: I am committed to the obtaining of substantive, metaphysically necessary, brute facts. (Page 26)

(And a note to Stein: I have taken nominalism such as the kind advocated by people like Quine and Sellars seriously. I just think it’s a false view in metaphysics. Also, while popular, is certainly not a majority view in philosophy today.)

Stein also says that the future-like-ours argument does not work because some traits we have do not persist through time. For example, he writes, “Trent would not claim that the moral standing of a six-year-old is the same as the moral standing of a thirty-year-old when it comes to, for example, culpability.” Of course not, because moral culpability is a property that emerges from other properties and traits (such as intelligence, experience, and moral awareness). Culpability refers to psychology so yes, it would be fluid and not persist through time in a constant fashion, but the FLO argument refers to metaphysics and Stein simply has not refuted it.

In the end I would say that in this post I’ve only seen complaints, and not arguments, that are supposed to refute the position I presented on Life Report.

Hello! Good News!

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:07:00 +0000

I’m not sure if anyone is still reading this blog, and if you are, well, it must be a boring read since I haven’t updated in a while. The reason for my absence is that I am creating an apologetics ministry complete with a website that will have hundreds of pages of content, so it’s a lot of work!

However, something big has happened for me in that time. I got engaged!

Yes, my girlfriend Laura is now my fiancée, and while this is old news for some, it is still amazing and I want to post it here on my blog. Scumbag Blogger won't let me link to my Facebook album, but I'll simply say that I asked Laura after giving her a combination of flowers, a memorized passage of prose about marriage, a diamond ring, and Melting Pot. I think it was Melting Pot that tipped the scales for Yes (both of us agree it's so good!). However, I thought I would list the reasons, in no particular order, why I am marrying Laura.

She makes me laugh. Seriously, I would be miserable if I spent my life with someone who did not have a sense of humor. I have never met another girl that can make me laugh until my gut hurts and I doubt I ever would.
She makes me holy. Laura is so focused at keeping God at the center of our relationship and I am so thankful that she motivates us as a couple to go to mass or adoration. “Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all. Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting, but the woman who fears the LORD is to be praised." (Proverbs 31:29-30)
She’s just really fun. We’ve had some funny adventures together and maybe if you’re with us in person, we can regale you with tales of our exploits. But I am so happy to marry someone with a sense of novelty and adventure.
She is extremely sweet and kind. Laura always takes time to help and talk to the homeless regardless of how off-putting they may be. She doesn't just do it out of duty, but she loves the downtrodden as valuable persons who are made in God's image. She has really motivated me in this area and I am eternally grateful for that.
She loves her family. You can tell how you will be treated in marriage by how your fiancée treats her family, and I can tell that I will be treated very well and hope to treat her with the same affection and care.
She listens but doesn’t back down. I’m glad that Laura listens when I have a problem and doesn’t just force her own will or bend for my will all the time. She puts me in my place when I need it and I actually like it (maybe not at that moment but I do respect it).
She enjoys argument and debate, including pro-life apologetics. If only you could see the two of us at a Justice for All exhibit. I love watching her destroy people in arguments. It's pretty awesome.
She is smart. I like to talk about dorky things, including philosophy, and I’ve rarely met a girl who can follow these concepts. Laura is really really smart.
Laura is really good looking. Seriously.
She is willing to follow God and trust him. I love that Laura will just go for something if she feels that God is calling her in that area. Whether it’s wanting to do a mission trip or work for JFA, if she feels called Laura will go for it.
She is forgiving. I sometimes get shortsighted and too focused on work and I’m glad that Laura has been so forgiving of the times I become neglectful. I want her in marriage to be my everything and the focus of my earthly life, but I know that forgiveness is what makes marriages work and I am glad she practices that.
She puts up with all of my weirdness. Considering how much I annoy myself sometimes, I wonder why she would ever want to marry me! But her smile and hug when I see her reaffirms what I know is buried deep in her heart towards me.
She's just Laura Beeson. Unique and irreplaceable. Who else could I marry?

Basically, I see marriage as two people becoming a permanent team in life so that they face the good and bad together until death do them part. I know Laura will be an awesome mother, wife, encourager, spiritual mentor, and simply my best friend to face life with. You all have no idea how honored I feel to get to marry her. Can’t wait to post wedding stuff as it moves forward!

Respect Life Course Assignment #1

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:21:00 +0000

This is an assignment for the students enrolled in my "Philosophical Foundations for Respect Life" course being hosted in Phoenix. However, any readers who want to do this assignment for fun are more than welcome.

Assignment: Debate Review
Due Date: November 10th
Submission Guidelines: Email as a MS Word doc to thorn@diocesephoenix.org
Objective: Write a 750 - 1000 word review of ONE of the following abortion debates linked below. In your review summarize the arguments made by each side and then review the performance of each debater in terms of the strength of their argument and the persuasiveness of their appeal (voice, tone, rapport, clarity, organization, confidence, civility, etc.). Finally, explain how you would or would not have argued the pro-life position differently than how it was argued in the debate.

Here are the debates you can choose from:

Beginning

Scott Klusendorf vs. Nadine Strossen

Alan Shlemon vs. Cecili Chadwick

Intermediate

Peter Kreeft vs. David Boonin

Patrick Lee vs. David Boonin

Advanced

Don Marquis vs. Michael Tooley

Leave a comment if you have any questions about the assignment or feel free to email me at thorn@diocesephoenix.org.

Where do they get these ideas?

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:21:00 +0000

On October 8^th Ann Rose’s article “Fertilized Eggs Are NOT People!” appeared on the pro-choice blog RH Reality Check. Rose claims the unborn at fertilization are not persons and tries to argue by means of a reduction ad absurdum that fetal personhood would lead to unacceptable consequences. She uses the upcoming vote in Mississippi to define the unborn as persons as her springboard. Here are my responses to her. She writes (in red):

Here are some examples that come to mind of the possible impacts this amendment would have. Add your own insane scenarios in the comments section:

1. A pregnant woman who goes out to dinner with family and friends and accidentally picks up the wrong glass and has a swig of rum and coke can be charged for child abuse. No more than the woman who accidentally pours alcohol into her baby’s bottle. The law would treat accidents like accidents. More to the point, I wonder if Rose thinks women should ever be held liable for drinking while pregnant. I mean to even say such an action is immoral would be to judge women and not trust them, right?

2. What about pregnant illegal immigrants? The right wing is pretty hot on getting them out of the country as fast as possible. Well, this is going to be a big problem when the pregnant immigrant is actually two people...one who is legal (the fertilized egg) and the other who is not (the living, breathing woman). I guess at this point most folks trying to avoid deportation should get pregnant and move to Mississippi and have their "legal" zygote/fetus/child apply for welfare and medicaid.

I have no problem with refusing to deport someone because they are pregnant. However, it is easier from a logistical standpoint to grant citizenship by birth because conception can be hard to determine. While a child waits to become a citizen, however, they still have basic human rights (such as the right-to-life), just like all other undocumented workers and other non-citizens in this country have.

3. Women who are found to have birth control pills could be prosecuted for attempted murder. The supreme irony here is that on the RH homepage right above Rose's link, Amanda Marcotte argued on RH Reality Check that the birth control pill does NOT affect an embryo after fertilization. If this is true, and Marcotte is right, then Rose’s point is moot and regular hormonal contraceptives would not be an issue.

4. If a pregnant woman wearing 2" heels trips and falls, subsequently having a miscarriage, she could be prosecuted for manslaughter. No more than a woman who trips while holding her newborn and kills him would be tried for manslaughter. We would consider it a tragic accident.

5. When a woman has a life threatening ectopic pregnancy, who decides which "person" gets to live and which "person" gets to die? Rose profoundly misunderstands ectopic pregnancy. In this case the embryo has implanted outside of the uterus and there is virtually no chance the baby will survive. Therefore, we save the life we can (which is the mother’s), just as we would save a mother in a car accident if there was a 99% chance her pinned child would die and doing nothing would also result in the mother’s death. Treating the unborn as a valuable human being does nothing to undermine the intrinsic value and rights of pregnant women.

6. Will an ultrasound picture be an acceptable form of ID for the fetus/person to be able to travel out of the country? Will "don't know yet" be acceptable as a category for gender? Children need ID’s so that they when they travel abroad their well-being can be looked after and they won’t simply be sold overseas for example. But the unborn aren’t going anywhere before they are born. If they are born overseas, then they would simply be a citizen of the country where they are born. Just because they aren’t citizens now doesn’t mean they lack the right-to-life. As I said before, illegal immigrants aren’t citizens but we treat them like persons.

7. How will any future candidate for President prove that they were conceived/born in the United States? With a birth certificate, since that’s all the constitution requires.

It’s almost a relief to think about how idiotic this amendment is.

Hello Pot, noticed you called my friend Kettle black. Thought you two should meet.

"We Trust Black Women"

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:40:00 +0000

Watch this video where Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation is shouted down by pro-choice advocates.

The hypocrisy is revealed near the end of the video where they shout down a black woman who wants to hear both sides of the issue. Right, you trust SOME women . . . the ones who already agree with you.

Also, this is philosophically one of the worst arguments for abortion I can imagine.

1. Black women's decisions involving the lives of human beings they are caring for are beyond moral scrutiny (we trust black women)
2. Abortion is a decision that involves the life of a human being that is being cared for
3. Therefore, a black woman's choice to have an abortion is beyond moral scrutiny.

Premise 1 is obviously false. Conclusion is not supported but asserted. Pro-choice FAIL.

Stephen Hawking vs. God

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:10:00 +0000

This past weekend I led a retreat at the ASU Newman Center. It was an apologetics retreat called God is Real and I hope to use it to teach Catholics that science, philosophy, and history can provide good evidence that God exists and that he has revealed himself in the person of Christ. I’ve been busy in the last few weeks preparing for the retreat as well as a talk on God’s existence that I gave at the Newman Center last Thursday. But since that is over, I’ve had a chance to view the recent Discovery channel show Curiosity and their first episode “Did God Create the Universe?" hosted by Stephen Hawking. Hawking is a world-famous physicist, but most people know him as “the smart guy in a wheelchair who sounds like a computer.”

So how would I summarize the show and Hawking’s view on God? Basically, “religion was something stupid people used to explain the universe, but now science has answered everything and we don’t need God. In fact, God couldn’t have made the universe even if he tried.” . . . Okay, let me make a few points:

Vikings, Greeks and Christians

If religion were a person, its character was definitely assassinated during this special. The show (through high-production value cut-scenes) shows vikings screaming away a wolf god trying to devour the sun (their primitive explanations of solar eclipses) and Christians rejecting commonsense views of the world (like heliocentrism) because they didn’t fit with their theology.

This gives the impression that religious people appeal to God in order to explain everything while non-religious people are more thoughtful and correct.

First, why not give Christians some credit. They did not believe that natural phenomenon were controlled by “the gods” like the vikings did, but instead that God created the universe out of nothing and allowed it to operate under natural laws that could be discovered by human reason. Indeed, St. Augustine considered it scandalous if Christians were ignorant about science. He writes,

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters . . .” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 -- 408 A.D.)

Second, the view that the earth is at the center of the universe came from the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, and was not necessarily a Christian doctrine, though it became one when Christian theologians tried to accommodate the views of Greek philosophers into their theology. The special also brought up the whole Galileo affair, which is ably handled by Catholic Answers.

Hawking then claimed that at a 1985 conference in Rome, Pope John Paul II told him and other scientists in attendance that they should explore the beginning of the universe, but that the ultimate origin of the universe was “off limits” because that is where God specially acted. Naturally, Hawking defiantly rebuffed this directive. I don’t know exactly what the Pope said to Hawking, but I will agree with the late Blessed Pope John Paul II that what happened during the beginning stages of the universe are physical questions that physicists can answer (like in Steve Weinberg’s book The First Three Minutes). However, the matter of how the entire universe came to be is a metaphysical question that philosophers should handle because that question lies outside of the scientific method.

Though I do respect his brilliance, I find it arrogant that Hawking thinks science can answer everything, which is a philosophical position (and not a scientific position) called scientism. Of course, science helps us learn about the world and gives us premises for philosophical arguments, but it is self-refuting to say that ALL truth can be discovered by the scientific method because there is no experiment that can validate the claim “truth can only be verified by the scientific method.”

Did God Create the Universe?

This is the standard argument I use to give evidence that God created the universe, the kalām cosmological argument. It goes like this:

1.    Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence
2.    The universe began to exist
3.    Therefore the universe had a cause for its existence

What fascinated me about the show is that the easiest premise to attack is premise two. This would involve the skeptic claiming that the universe had no beginning. Indeed, that was Hawking’s strategy in A Brief History of Time and The Grand Design where he claimed his and James Hartle's model of the universe’s beginning (The 1983 Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Proposal) demonstrates that there was no single moment of time for the universe to "begin" in, and hence it never “began to exist.” But in the show Hawking defended the standard model of the Big Bang originating from an infinitely dense singularity. This model was originally created by Friedmann and Lemaitre . . . Fr. Georges Lemaitre . . . a Catholic priest. Oh wait, I thought religion never contributed to our understanding of the world.

Oops.

Hawking then advances three arguments in defense of an atheist beginning for the universe.

1. "The universe's positive energy and negative energy “add up to nothing” so God isn’t needed to create the universe because it is the 'ultimate free lunch'" (a phrase Hawking didn’t bother to attribute to American cosmologist Alan Guth).

a. Nothing and “a universe of equal negative and positive energy” are not the same thing. Hawking uses the example of a man digging a hole and making a hill at the same time, but that is a terrible example because something (an agent, or the man) is needed to transform flat ground into a hole and a hill, and the same is true of transforming "nothing" into "the universe."

2. "Quantum physics shows us that sub-atomic particles can pop into existence out of nothing so it is not true that everything needs a cause" (an attack on the first premise of the kalām argument).

a. First, our universe is incomprehensibly more massive and stable than a quantum virtual particle that appears and disappears, so some other mechanism needs to be proposed for the universe's sudden appearance from nothing.

b. Second, the quantum vacuum is not “nothing” (see the picture to the left). It is a field at a very low energy level that can fluctuate (like how foam fluctuates on the surface of the ocean). If this is how our universe came to be, then why don’t we observe more universes emerging from quantum vacuums in big bangs today?

c. Furthermore, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that a quantum vacuum could not have existed forever if it existed in a universe with average positive expansion. So even if our universe did emerge from a quantum vacuum, the vacuum itself would still require an explanation.

d. Finally, Hawking’s interpretation of quantum mechanics is just one of at least TEN interpretations that could also be correct. While some interpretations, like the Copenhagen interpretation, include uncaused events, others, like the interpretations offered by David Bohm, are fully deterministic and do not resort to uncaused causes.

3. "Time did not exist at the big bang, so no cause is needed because causation only applies in time. In addition, God could not have created the universe because 'he had no time' in which to make it. "

a. The cause of an event does not have to be temporally prior to an event in order to be the event’s cause. The 18^th century philosopher Immanuel Kant uses the example of a heavy ball leaving an impression in a pillow. Imagine that the ball has been lying on the pillow for all eternity. There has never been a “time” when the ball has not caused the pillow to be indented, but the ball is still the material cause for the indentation. In this case, the cause and effect are simultaneous. Likewise, the cause of God creating the universe and the effect of the universe coming into existence are simultaneous events that happen in time and still have a causal relation.

b. God can still cause an event in time (like the Big Bang) even if he acted in a timeless state. That is because God is not temporally prior to the universe, but logically prior to it. Consider the following argument:

1. All men are mortal

2. Socrates is a man

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

All of these premises are true at "the same time" and the argument would still be true even if it existed in a realm where there was “no time.” But notice that the argument only works if premise 1 comes “before” premise 2. That is because premise 2 derives its meaning from premise 1. We say premise 1 is logically prior to premise 2 in order for the argument to work. But it is not temporally prior, even though we say premise 1 comes “before” premise 2. Likewise, God existed “before” the universe in the logical sense, but not the temporal sense.

In conclusion, Hawking ended the show with perhaps the oddest musing an atheist could have given. He said, “No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

Wait. There can’t be a "grand design," without a grand designer. And if there’s no God, who are you giving gratitude to for the universe? And what is there to appreciate?

If God does not exist, then our species will eventually go extinct, or the sun will explode, or the universe itself will lose all of its energy and be reduced in billions of years to a cold, lifeless state called heat death. All of our achievements will be as futile as building a sandcastle at low tide. No matter how elaborate and beautiful the castle, the indifference of nature will destroy it and it will be like it never existed. New Atheist Richard Dawkins writes:

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” -- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

That’s not a “grand design” with which I have “gratitude.”

In closing, I am thankful for the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer and especially William Lane Craig for helping me learn material to counter this kind of error. I will leave the final smack down of Stephen Hawking to one Albert Einstein. Boom!

How Far Away is the Moon from the Earth?

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:14:00 +0000

If the earth were the size of a basketball and the moon was the size of a tennis ball, how far apart would you have to hold them to keep everything to scale? What do you think most people think the scaled distance is? Watch this fun video to find out.

One Ella Lot of Confusion

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Over at RH Reality Check Jodi Jacobson tries to take Michelle Bachman to task for supposed exaggerations about contraception causing abortions. After claiming that talking to “anti-choicers” about the distinction between contraception and abortion is like arguing with a two-year-old (I suppose name-calling is a tactic reserved for five-year-olds and pro-choice bloggers) Jacobson goes on to say:

"In the GOP-Tea Party debate Monday night, co-hosted by CNN, Michele Bachmann repeated the falsehood once again that emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill," causes abortion and that by including contraceptives under health reform without a co-pay, the Obama Administration was forcing people to pay for abortion.

What the Obama Administration did was to include contraception under health reform without a co-pay, because it is an essential form of primary preventive care for women and because among other things, the use of contraception to space and limit births also contributes to dramatic improvements of infant and child health in planned pregnancies.

And what the morning after pill does not do is to cause abortion, because it prevents pregnancy and by definition you can't have an abortion if you are not pregnant."

The whole disagreement comes from defining pregnancy as the moment when an embryo implants in the mother’s body (usually in the uterus).

It also stems from defining abortion as the termination of a pregnancy. Therefore, Jacobson and her cohorts get a loophole in that if a drug kills a human embryo prior to implantation, then it is technically not causing an “abortion.” Well, it still kills a small human being I find that more than a bit troubling to say the least.

The question of whether or not contraceptives interfere with implantation is a technical one I won’t discuss here. But I will say that it is simply false that the emergency contraception covered under the Obama plan never cause abortions, or the "termination of an embryo after it has implanted."

The FDA currently considers ulipristal acetate, more commonly known as Ella, to be emergency contraception. The manufacturers of Ella claim the drug is able to prevent pregnancy even if taken up to five days after intercourse. But Ella is a progesterone inhibitor and the only other drug that operates in that way on the market is RU-486, or the abortion pill. Even the FDA admits in animal studies (see section 8.1) that Ella causes “embryofetal loss.” So the overarching claim that no abortifacient is covered under the mandatory contraception plan is definitely false.

Should we "Let him die?"

noreply@blogger.com (Trent Horn) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:30:00 +0000

I tuned in late to the Monday night CNN Republican Presidential debate, but I was in time to watch what would be considered the most “shocking” moment of the evening. The Huffington Post describes the event this way:

A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

"What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

Paul interjected to offer an explanation for how this was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. He added that communities and non-government institutions can fill the void that the public sector is currently playing.

I think two rebukes are in order.

First, liberal media outlets like Huffington Post have selectively edited the question Wolf Blitzer asked Rep. Paul. They make it look like Blitzer is asking about some poor soul who can’t afford health insurance and who is now in danger of dying because of his economic circumstances. But this is what Blitzer asked BEFORE the quote above (you can watch the full video HERE):

“A healthy young, 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living but decides, ‘You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month on health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.’ But something terrible happens, all the sudden he needs it. What’s going to happen if he goes into a coma? Who pays for that?”
“What he should do is whatever he wants to do,” Paul replied. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…”
“Are you saying society should just let him die?” Blitzer asked.

Now the context of the question is more apparent, and different, than what emerges from the previous quote. I understand (though don’t agree with) why the crowd impulsively cheered the idea that the man should be allowed to die. It seems unfair that someone like me who always paid for health insurance when I needed it (even when doing so wasn’t easy on my finances) should have to cover the foolish and risky actions of someone who CAN afford health insurance, but simply CHOOSES to not buy it.

But I believe that this conservative retreat into “fairness” should be rebuked just as much as the liberal doctoring of the whole event at the debate. Yes, some people do stupid things and it would be easy to let them hang themselves with their own stupidity. But if God is real and created ALL people in His image, then we have an obligation to care for our fellow man. I mean, maybe the victim helped by the Good Samaritan deserved to be left on the road after his decision to walk a route by himself known to be infested with robbers. But the moral of the parable is that God's love is oriented towards helping those who don't deserve it the most, people like you and me who either stupidly reject His free offer of grace or sin and willingly give that grace up (that's even worse than someone who refuses to buy health insurance they can easily afford).

I think the scripture that should guide our actions in helping those who are sick and choose to not help themselves is found in Romans 5:6-8:

For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

Love demands that we help even the most foolish or ungrateful. Of course, I am speaking about what individuals are commanded to do to when it comes to caring for one another. The role of government in these matters is a much trickier question (though related one) and I will save that for a future post.