Ethics

“Will a federal emergency-medical-treatment law be rewritten to mandate that all hospitals provide abortions?”

Read more here.

Imagine for a moment, a la Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, you could transport founding father and patriot Patrick Henry to today’s time. Imagine further you would take him to an American airport. I’m sure he would be shocked bedazzled to see the flying contraptions (not to mention the small rectangular object people held up to their ears). He might even be delighted, hoping to go tell Benjamin Franklin of what he saw.

Yet then imagine his horror to see a TSA attendant invasively frisking a nun in public, one who refused to walk through a “magic-like” machine that showed a person without clothes. Let’s listen in to the conversation:

TSA worker: Can I see your ticket, sir? It says here you paid with cash not plastic. We may have to search you.

Patrick Henry: What do you mean, plastic? May I ask who you are?

TSA worker: I work for the Transportation Security Administration of the Federal Government?

Patrick Henry: The what?

TSA worker: Put your hands above your head and let us scan you?

Patrick Henry: I beg your pardon!

TSA worker: Security!

Patrick Henry: Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you.

TSA worker: It’s for your own safety sir [as the worker invasively frisks him]

Patrick Henry: My safety? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of this shame? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me modesty … or give me death!

This is a silly illustration is to show the depths to which we have sunk. At the price of supposed security, we are giving up far more important things. I oppose the new TSA regulations for the following reasons:

1) The new scanners are an invasion of privacy and decorum;

2) The new frisking tactics are an invasion of privacy and modesty;

3) The new system is unnecessary. The previous security system worked. Even the “Fruit of kaboom” underwear bomber’s plan did not work, as he had to go to such great lengths to circumvent the system that his bomb was not functional.

4) Last but least, the new system is too costly. Specially trained dogs could be much more effective and cost-effective.

In sum, count me with the growing group of Americans fed up with the erosion of our modesty and yes, our liberty. Yes, please forbid it Almighty God!

The Family Research Council has produced a superb primer on Ella, the so-called “morning-after pill” that could cause a skyrocketing in chemical abortions. It begins:

As we previously reported, on August 13th the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly announced approval of a new prescription abortion drug called “ella,” allowing Watson Pharmaceuticals to market this drug in the U.S. as an “emergency contraceptive” (EC). While proponents of ella claim that it is more effective than the so-called “morning-after-pill,” Plan B, ella can also function as an abortion drug (more like RU-486) [emphasis added].

Ella is similar in its chemical make-up to RU-486 and therefore can destroy an implanted embryo, in addition to other such effects as preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. Until now, the FDA has drawn the line between EC and abortion based on whether a drug prevents or ends an established pregnancy. Therefore, approving ella as an EC even under its own definition of an abortifacient is doubly misleading.

Due to the FDA’s approval of “ella” as an EC, pharmacists may believe they must cover ella as a prescription drug. However, many pharmacists do not know about the dangers of this drug or that it functions like an abortifacient. Many pharmacies may not know ella can cause an abortion, and need to be aware of these concerns before they begin stocking this abortion drug.

Read the rest here.

There’s an important article on InVitro Fetilization to wrestle with at this link. It begins:

In-vitro fertilization is a death-haunted work and has been since before its inception. Professor Robert Edwards said it took him twenty years to get the first embryo to “mature” outside the body. Twenty years of human experimentation resulting in how many deaths, just to get started?

With the number of deaths to his name you might think the Nobel committee would have given Robert Edwards the prize for peace rather than medicine. In topsy-turvy Nobel World, one makes as much sense as the other.

Proponents claim in-vitro fertilization has resulted in 4-million births to couples who might otherwise have been childless. What they leave off is the cost paid for those new lives, the staggering body count.

How many human beings had to die to get those 4-million babies? As many as 10-15 human embryos are created for every single baby that is born. Most are discarded, frozen, or killed for more experiments. This means as many as 40-million deaths were caused for those 4-million births.

Naturally, the Vatican has criticized the Nobel committee for giving an award to the man who invented this ghastly business.

Read the rest here.

A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

Read more here.

New York Times Magazine has a new piece that every pro-life person ought to read. Called ‘The New Abortion Providers‘, the piece shows has the medical community has silently trained a new general of doctors to provide abortions outside the context of abortion clinics, as part of their regular medical practices.

Below are pictures of two doctors, “Dr. Rachael Phelps (left), an alumna of the Family Planning Fellowship. Dr. Emily Godfrey (right), whose specialty is family medicine, with a patient undergoing a routine checkup.” Hardly the monstrous-looking depictions of abortion-providers we heard of in the 80s and 90s.

While the pro-life movement celebrates the closing of abortion clinics–and we should–the pro-choice movement, says the NY Times piece, feels just fine about the trend.

It’s a must read piece to understand the new landscape of the pro-life struggle in America. And it makes me all the more thankful for pro-life doctors who stay true to the pledge to “do no harm.”

The other month, we lauded Steve Jobs for taking a stand against pornography. Today, I tip my hat to Google for this step in the right direction:

“When you’re searching on Google, we think you should have the choice to keep adult content out of your search results. That’s why we developed SafeSearch, a feature that lets you filter sexually explicit web sites and images from your search results. While no filter is 100% accurate, SafeSearch helps you avoid content you may prefer not to see or would rather your children did not stumble across. We think it works pretty well, but we’re always looking for ways to improve the feature.”

“ICANN has approved XXX as a top-level domain,” reports PC World. The secular magazine gets it pretty close to right when they say: “The adult entertainment industry will soon have its own glaringly obvious domain, but unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily mean that dot-COM domains will suddenly be porn-free.”

They add, “However, porn sites will be like dolphins. All dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins. Dolphins are a subset of the larger whale family. Similarly, all XXX sites will be porn, but not all porn sites will be XXX. Many porn sites have a long and established presence as a dot-COM domain and will not simply abandon that.”

We rue ICAN’s decision, and in a blog post last Spring, warned this moment would come.

“A new Baptist Press article explores why citizens should not extend a new place in this World Wide Web for pornographers, explaining how it would among other things:

(a) create a more legitimate platform for an illegitimate cause,

(b) create a cultural Trojan horse, and

(c) pad pornographers pockets.

It says in part:

“A former U.S. Department of Justice employee is urging people to speak out against the proposed formation of an Internet domain exclusively for pornographic websites.

“Until May 10, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is accepting input from the public on whether to establish the domain, marking the third time the idea has been considered.

“Patrick Trueman, a former chief of the Justice Department’s child exploitation and obscenity section, said the .xxx domain would not clean up the .com domain by requiring all pornographers to move to .xxx.

‘The .com domain is a cash cow for pornographers and they are not leaving it,” Trueman wrote in comments submitted to ICANN. “ICANN has no enforcement powers to make them leave and thus clean up .com. Pornographers would simply expand to .xxx and maintain their current .com sites, perhaps doubling the number of porn sites and doubling their menace to society.’”

Read the rest here.

“About 80 unborn babies conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) are eliminated by abortion each year in Great Britain, according to a new report.”

Read more here.

I wish to add my voice to “a conservative group that monitors the entertainment industry [now] applauding Apple CEO Steve Jobs for his pledge to keep porn applications off the iPhone.”

“Jobs took a stance against porn when the iPhone was released in 2007 and has reiterated that stance at least three times during the past month while also taking a dig at a competitor, Google’s Android phone.”

Read more here.

“I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare…If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us,… they are too small.  There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditures excludes them.”

-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Christian Evangelical scholar and author Dr. Albert Mohler’s answer to this question might surprise you.

The piece linked to above was re-posted to his website on this, the 50th anniversary of “the Pill.”

Also check out this profound discussion between Dr. Mohler and author Randy Alcorn, “who agree that the Pill’s effects can be seen in a culture now far more relaxed in its approach to sex.” The two gentlemen “challenge the listening audience to ensure their thinking on this and every other technological advance is subjected to the Word of God.”

Christian author and spokeswoman Joni Eareckson Tada offers two non-negotiables in the health care debate in this sage piece. It begins:

“A few years ago, I helped write a book, How to Be a Christian in a Brave New World, about the bioethical challenges in the 21st century. Today, one of our foremost ethical challenges is how to accomplish health care reform in a way that respects most Americans’ traditional religious values.

“As a quadriplegic for the past 43 years, I have had more than my fair share of doctors’ visits and medical treatments. I know the difference between good care and bad care, and I can tell when a physician has my best interests at heart. I am thankful that, for the most part, my doctors have always treated me as the individual I am rather than just another patient in a wheelchair.

“For these reasons — my faith and my experience with medical care — I am very concerned about two specific items that currently exist in proposed health care legislation:
– Federal funding of abortions
– Rationing of care.”

I think she is spot on in this and the rest of her piece, which you read here at a link I found on Christianity Today‘s main website.

Her book, How to Be a Christian in a Brave New World, by the way, is one of the clearest, most concise ethical guides for Christians I have ever read. It covers hot topics like abortion, cloning, birth control, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and uses the lens of the Christian view of the world to guide the reader. I highly recommend it, as well as any of her writings.

“Let everyone regulate his conduct… by the golden rule of doing to others as in similar circumstances we would have them do to us, and the path of duty will be clear before him.”

-attributed to William Wilberforce

From WORLD magazine:

Planned Parenthood researchers report in the New England Journal of Medicine that a revised method of conducting drug-induced abortions has allegedly reduced the risk of serious complications by 93 percent. Previously Planned Parenthood diverged from the FDA’s recommended guidelines for RU-486 by administering an oral dose of mifepristone followed by a vaginal dose of misoprostol. But the 2005 deaths of four American women and one Canadian woman from bacterial infections spurred Planned Parenthood to conform to FDA standards and instead have women dissolve the misoprostol pill in their mouths, followed by a precautionary course of antibiotics.

As a result, Planned Parenthood said the number of serious infections resulting from drug-induced abortions has declined to one-16th of the original rate. Experts say the latest research will likely spark a future increase in chemical abortions, although Family Research Council spokesman Chris Gacek said, “It’s hard to know whether this increases the (total) number of abortions.” Last year, approximately a quarter of all U.S. abortions were performed with drugs rather than surgery.

Me: As we celebrate the closing of abortion clinics and the sunset of surgical abortions, let us stay aware that the Brave New World of abortion in a bottle is only dawning.

Making sure you saw this good news:

“Oklahoma Democratic Gov. Brad Henry has signed into law bills banning sex-selection abortions and human cloning.”

We are not at the end of fighting Brave-New-World creep in Oklahoma. We are not even at the beginning of the end. But this bill may signify we are at end of the beginning.

“Are Christians being more influenced by Jack Bauer than Jesus Christ?” a new Christianity Today piece asks.

“A new survey shows most churchgoers support torture.” Read more about this disturbing trend here.

“There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence gathering process, in Richard Land’s view. The practice known as ‘waterboarding’ is torture, he said.” Read the rest here.

Excepting his views on the Red River Shootout, I think I may have never disagreed with the man.

“A Georgia Senate committee has approved legislation that would limit the use of in vitro fertilization and embryo research. With concerns that the use of the medical technology is going overboard, pro-life groups are promoting the bill, the Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act.”

Read the rest here.

I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. In fact, I do not even own a white coat. But I can recognize unethical science when I see it, and embryonic stem cell research (albeit with noble intentions) fits in this category.

That is why I was aggravated to see that Gov. Henry vetoed a bill that would have essentially banned the practice in Oklahoma, while encouraging adult stem cell research. The latter is reported to have proven, positive results. The former does not, which is why it is surprising that the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the bill. You would think business executives would want to invest in the type of research that provides results.

Be that as it may, a veto-override in the Oklahoma State Senate has failed. To read more about the legislators who changed their vote, click here. I am not alone in my view, as more important people, such as Joni Eareckson Tada, oppose the use of embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds.

I have much admiration for conservative columnist Cal Thomas. He recently posted an article titled “Apologies Just Tell Our Enemies We’re Weak.”

He makes some excellent points in regards to Secretary Hillary Clinton apologizing to Mexico for the demand of drugs in America. This apology is not constructive. Some could say she was grandstanding and just continuing the “company line” of blaming the former administration for everything that is wrong.

And Cal is right when he says “what good does it do? Unless she has a suggested policy to accompany her confession or apology, I fail to see how it lowers the level of violence in Mexico or reduces the demand for illegal drugs in the U.S.”

However, I will not agree with him when he says apologizing shows weakness. When someone is wrong, admit it. When there isn’t admittance, there is pride.

The Bible says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” This will cause more weakness than confession ever will.

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s ban on federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. Adam Keiper, in a post on The Corner, made some really interesting points regarding the policy shift. One of the most interesting parts of the analysis was this question that Keiper asks of the President:

What counts as a purely “scientific decision”? What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone — that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere “ideology”? On what future issues will the president claim that science dictates a policy and trumps all other concerns?

If we’re not going to let ideology play a role in determining what happens in the name of science, why not allow unrestrained animal — or even human — testing? Is vivisection on the table then (no pun intended)? History has clearly shown that restraints must be put in place, or some very cruel, and, yes, evil people will push that laissez faire attitude as far as they can. If Obama envisions a scientific world untethered by any sort of ideology, whence comes morality in some respects, then he’s opening a Pandora’s Box that we will rue for decades.

Stem cells can cure a lot of things, just not the stem cells the President is pushing. Given the success of adult stem cells and the resounding lack of success of embryonic stem cells, the President’s decision is anything but non-ideological. It’s misguided, deluded, and infanticidal.

“America needs a Manhattan Project for character. Children must be taught to tell the truth, that falsehoods have bad consequences. Children must know that honor, respect for others, integrity and fair play are indispensable to a happy life.”

- former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, writing in a column in the Feb. 6, 2009, edition of The Oklahoman

Amid the backdrop of news stories on Guatanamo Bay detention camp’s future, and the runaway popularity of the show “24,” I bring up the said question.

A couple years back, Christianity Today published an important column on the piece entitled, “5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong: And why there should be no exceptions.”

We could debate all day what defines torture, but it seems to me it’s one of those things that is hard to put into words, but you know it when you see it. We could further debate if waterboarding qualifies as “torture.”

Setting aside specifics, I see no biblical or moral grounds in which the ends justify these means of torture in itself. But what do you think?

On a lighter note, Jay Leno quipped that with Obama doing away with any and all forms of torture, perhaps ABC’s The View might soon be cancelled. One can only hope.