A voice for the unborn

“We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life – the unborn – without diminishing the value of all human life … there is no cause more important.” – Ronald Regan

There seems to be a drastic decline in the value of human life. The lives of innocent children and the unborn are no exception. This is evident from the following report of a testimony given in trial in Trinidad: “He also told of a failed attempt to kill her because there was a child with her but said if he was offered more money he would have also killed the child” [www.trinidadexpress.com]. The value of human life in its earliest stages is diminishing even more in light of research which deliberately destroys one human being so that another may benefit immediately. Michael Kinsley, in favour of stem-cell research, writes: “An embryo feels nothing, thinks nothing, cannot suffer and is not aware of its own existence.” Peter Singer of Princeton University takes this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” Therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

In, “Should the Baby live?”, Mr. Singer writes, “When we kill a newborn, there is no person whose life has begun. When I think of myself as the person I am now, I realize that I did not come into existence until sometime after my birth.” Mr. Singer completely misses the mark. If he did not exist until sometime after “his birth”, in what sense is the birth his? The only way he can make sense is to admit that he existed (in the embryonic stage) before birth. One cannot help but wonder what the proponents of stem-cell research or abortion would say if they were the ones about to be killed. The sad irony is, people who defend these practices are alive and kicking.

Killing embryonic human beings is wrong

“Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.” – Albert Schweitzer

There seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the moral issue surrounding the harvesting of the unborn. Human embryos may be less developed, or “immature”, but they are still human beings. The embryos are not potentially human, but humans with great potential. If the embryo is a human person, then the continual harvesting of the unborn is one of the clearest-cut examples of genocide since the Holocaust. German doctors convicted at the Nuremberg Trials argued that they were only using the brains of the Jews for “the common good”. They claimed that the troops, not the doctors, killed the Jews. The doctors argued that they had “a moral imperative” to make beneficial use of the bodies supplied to them. The Court rejected this claim. Any civilized society should also reject embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), which uses an evil means (killing) to secure an end some believe is for “the common good.”

The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics [www.stemcellresearch.org] have reported that: “Embryonic stem cells pose an unusual risk for genetic changes and tumor formation, with the risk increasing the longer the cells are grown, thus making their therapeutic use even more speculative and problematic.” Despite this, advocates of ESCR either downplay or completely ignore the alternatives. Stem cells can be acquired from adult sources and umbilical cord blood, which kills no one. President Bush recently signed the “umbilical cord blood bill” to the tune of US$79 million. Scientists now believe that adult stem cells are more flexible than previously thought and as a result are now exploring ways of treating disease using adult, not embryonic stem cells. In the British Medical Journal [January 30, 1999], Deborah Josefson notes that researchers have found that adult stem cells were as effective in reconstituting the immune system as fetal neural stem cells. In addition, the problem of immune rejection can be circumvented when an individual’s own cells are used. Adult stem cells can also reverse degenerative diseases of the eye [Science, Vol. 287, March 17, 2000].

Patrick Lee [Associate Professor of Philosophy, Franciscan University of Steubenville] and Robert George [McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University] ended one of their articles on the ethics of ESCR, on this note: “Human physical organisms come to be at conception, whether by a natural process or by lab technology. It is wrong to kill and dismember them – at any stage of their existence – in the hope of benefiting others.” I would strongly urge the policymakers in this country not to aid in any form or fashion – either through funding or promoting – this grotesquely immoral practice. Or do we lack the moral and the political wisdom to do so?

Are we all God's children?

No doubt many of you would have heard some people saying: “But we are all God’s children”. I think this is mostly an honest mistake, but it is still just that, a mistake. We are all God’s creation but we are not all God’s children. Scripture is clear on this issue.

In John 8:44 Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” In verse 47 he adds, “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” If we were all “God’s children” why would Jesus tell the Pharisees “ye are of your father the devil”? Furthermore, why would he add, “because ye are not of God”? He certainly doesn’t mean they were not created by God. As politically incorrect as it sounds, Jesus identified two categories of people: children of the devil and children of God. John makes this point again in 1 John 3:10 (ISV), “This is how God’s children and the devil’s children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.” If “we are all God’s children” why would we the Scriptures say, “This is how God’s children and the devil’s children are distinguished”?

In the opening of the Gospel of John we learn who have the right to be called the children of God: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). According to scripture it is very simple. If you have the Son, you have life and you are a child of God. If you do not have the Son then you do not have life and are a child of the devil. It’s not very politically correct but it cannot be watered down. Such is the nature of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What is truth?

“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” – Jesus

Truth is a word that is often used. But what is truth? Aristotle defined truth in, Metaphysics 4.16 as, “to say of what is that it is or to say of what is not that it is not.” In Soliloquies, Augustine defines true as, “the true is that which is.” In “True to Life: Why Truth Matters”, Michael Lynch writes, “It is the way the world is that matters for truth, not what we believe about the world.”

In the seventeenth-century, chemists noted that something similar happens when metal rusts and wood burns. According to the science of the day, the common cause was phlogiston (the release of an invisible gas). Today however it is known that it is oxygen which is gained, not lost, in both processes. Yet phlogiston was “confirmed” as the cause by the most knowledge scientists of the day. But it was false. This is a good lesson to be mindful of: just because we believe it doesn’t mean its true, and just because it’s true doesn’t mean we’ll believe it.

Truth is one of the few things that are intrinsically good. Money for example, is only instrumentally good, in that it is merely an instrument in acquiring other things – food, clothing, shelter and so on. There is also something very liberating about the truth. Once we know the truth, painful as it can be sometimes, we tend to press on with our life with more certainty. As Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) Very true indeed.

The canker of our age

“Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.” – Albert Einstein

Moral relativism, the idea that right and wrong are more of a personal preference rather than an objective truth binding on everyone has unfortunately permeated the entire fabric of our society. When it comes to principles of right and wrong, morality is reduced to a matter of individual preference. But when people express moral convictions they are not merely expressing a preference. They are affirming that a particular conduct is wrong, period.

Moral relativism promotes the pseudo virtues of neutrality and tolerance. But people who think they are being “neutral” and “tolerant” do serious damage. They might get a few pats on the back here and there but they send the wrong message to our children. Children grow up believing that it is simply up to them do decide what is right or wrong. Relativists are essentially sowing the seeds for moral anarchy.

Two things need to consider. One, all human beings find God’s moral law written upon their heart: “… the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness …” (Romans 2:15). A law demands a lawgiver. Without a transcendent law or lawgiver, all transgressions (sin) are nullified, but, “through the law comes the full knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20) Two, when someone does something wrong, their conscience bears witness to the fact that they have broken God’s moral law. This creates within us the feeling of guilt because we know we have committed moral crimes against God. It is at this point that the Christian worldview makes the most sense. All have sinned and fallen short, since no one can perfectly keep the law. That is the bad news. The good news is this: we can be freely justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).

The new tolerance

In our postmodern era, the true meaning of a once noble virtue, namely tolerance, has been distorted into a vice. The word “tolerant” is now used rather loosely to describe a person who is non-judgmental, impartial and neutral. But we need to be absolutely clear in our minds about this once noble virtue or we will completely drown in a morass of confusion. Tolerance can apply to three things – persons, behaviours or ideas – and the rules differ for each. We tolerate people by allowing them to express views. We tolerate some behaviour because certain types of behaviour can be detrimental to society. As Lincoln said, “there is no right to do wrong.” Finally, we tolerate ideas by allowing different ideas a charitable hearing, not by dogmatically affirming that all ideas are equally true.

The new tolerance is elitist regarding persons but egalitarian regarding ideas. A more sensible guideline is: be egalitarian regarding persons, but elitist regarding ideas. True tolerance applies to how we regard people, not ideas and beliefs. We can respect people who hold different viewpoints from ours by listening to them. But we can disagree with their ideas because some ideas are good and some are foolish. Some are true and some are false.

Like most of the West, we are seemingly committed to this new tolerance. It therefore follows that if you disagree with someone (God forbid you tell them they are wrong), you are apt to be labelled “intolerant” or “narrow-minded” (the usual ad hominem fallacies). But people often take offense when none is given or intended. If one says that P is false, it does not logically follow one hates everyone who believes P. This is where our postmodern friends seem to be confused. They treat viewpoints, beliefs, ideas and people as synonymic. This is erroneous and the sooner we realize this the more progress we can make in addressing the issues of our day. Those who insist on confronting people with name-calling rather than confronting the ideas should remember the old adage: “When you keep throwing mud you disadvantage yourself in two ways. You get your hands dirty and you continually lose ground.”

Why atheism is illogical

“He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.” – George Orwell

The outright denial of God, is completely illogical. The atheist is in effect stating an absolute negative, which is self-defeating. The term atheism comes from two Greek words. The prefix “a”, the negative meaning “without” and Greek word “theos” meaning “deity” or “God”. Atheists continue to attack theism (primarily Christianity) because it is impossible to defend their own position (an absolute negative), which is a formal logical fallacy. To dogmatically affirm, there is no God, one would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. If atheists were intellectually honest, they would have to say, at best: “With my limited knowledge, it does not seem as if God exists.” Which leads us to the more reasonable, but equally embarrassing position of, agnosticism.

The word “agnosticism” in the Greek also comes from two words, the prefix “a”, and “gnosko” meaning “know”. The agnostic is in effect saying, “I am without knowledge”, or “I do not know”, concerning the question of God’s existence. Interestingly, in Latin, the word “agnostic” is the same word as “ignoramus”. Many agnostics therefore prefer to retain the title of atheist, but in effect cling to agnosticism.

One of the participants at the Harvard Veritas Forum [available at www.rzim.org] commented, “On the question of Nietzsche’s rejection of God, that was out of his own existential pain which he suffered.” I can almost guarantee you, that most people who cling to the aggressive form of atheism are deeply hurting inside. Unable to reconcile their pain with the concept of a loving God, they deny His existence. More often than not, atheists hate God rather than disbelieve in Him. The sooner they realize the feeling is not mutual, the better.

The ultimate contradiction

No doubt many of you would have heard it said: “there is no truth”, “truth is relative” or something to that effect. Now quite apart from anything else, this is absolute nonsense. Anyone who argues, there is no truth, or, truth is relative, will inevitably end in error because their starting premise is wrong. Aristotle was probably the first to make this observation when he wrote, “Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion.” In other words, if there is no truth, then the very statement [there is no truth] cannot itself be true. And if that statement is not true, then why should anyone listen to anything else you have to say? The funny thing is, this is almost exclusively asserted by those who are supposed to be “educated.” Go figure.

Abortion's pivotal question

“If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” – Mother Teresa

Language is a powerful tool because it moulds our minds and how words are used influences our receptivity to an idea. Some ideas, if communicated in straightforward terms would be offensive, but if we drape them in “politically correct” terms they become more palatable. Pro-choice is perhaps the most wicked example of semantic power. As a result, abortion is one of the chief moral crimes of our time.

The key issue with abortion is not whether abortion is legal. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean it is morally right. Slavery was legal, apartheid was legal and so was everything Hitler did in Germany. The key issue is not about a woman’s right to choose either. As former abortion clinic worker, Judith Fetrow said, “There is a great difference between the intellectual support of the woman’s right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers.” A woman’s “right to choose” is the oft used political justification for abortion. However, this is a shallow misunderstanding and a betrayal of the word “choice”. Choice cannot exist apart from the context to which it is being applied. A choice only means something when we address the issue of what we are choosing. Sharon Osbourne [www.selfevidenttruth.org] now regrets her choice: “I had an abortion at 17 and it was the worst thing I ever did. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you.” [London Daily Mail, Dec. 18, 2004]

Abortion involves killing and discarding the unborn. When we peel away the high-sounding, empty politically correct buzz-words, the key issue is this: What is the unborn? Gregory Koukl [www.str.org] writes, “If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.”

Philosophical jokes

A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?


"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"

"Define 'light bulb'..."

"How can you be sure it needs changing?"

Three. One to change it and two to stand around arguing over whether or not the light bulb exists.