Currently on Leave from Blogging...

Obviously, I haven't been posting for some time. I may pick it up again; just too busy with the stuff of life right now.

Physician, Heal Thyself

During an attempt to criticize a woman because of her political potential, a medical doctor loses his way in a discussion about abortion.

---

There's something about the dynamic new Republican VP nominee, Sarah Palin, that compels physician and Salon.com blogger Rahul K. Parikh to leave the familiar grounds of medical expertise and traipse, rather clumsily, into the wilder territory of political and ethical commentary.

Parikh's latest concern is that Sarah Palin elected to have a prenatal test to determine whether or not her unborn child, Trig, had Down syndrome, and the doctor's argument is that Palin is a hypocrite because that test provided her with a choice (to abort or not) that—being pro-life—she would deny to others.

The difficulty with the doctor's diagnosis is that he begs a crucial question: namely, what are the unborn? If the unborn are not fully human persons, not bearers of rights as you and I are, then no problem. But if they are fully human persons and subjects of dignity, then his reasoning is dead on arrival. Parikh seems blind to the fact that the validity of his reasoning hangs on such a question, and not seeing it, he repeatedly stumbles, making the same mistake throughout his article.

To take just one example, consider the following commentary from Dr. Parikh:

By knowingly giving birth to a Down syndrome child, Palin represents a minority of women. A 2002 study found that about 90 percent of pregnancies in the United States where the fetus was diagnosed with Down syndrome were terminated.

Rabid anti-choice activists have called that trend eugenics via medicine. But try telling that to a mother who is told early on in her pregnancy that she will be raising a child who will have a host of medical and developmental problems, requiring intense medical and social attention for the rest of his or her life. It can be tragic and nearly impossible news to bear.

Now consider a slightly modified set of paragraphs—penned by me, not Parikh—which will help to make the point:

By knowingly caring for a Down syndrome child, Palin represents a minority of women. A 2002 study found that in about 90 percent of cases in the United States where a toddler was diagnosed with Down syndrome, the child was terminated.

Rabid anti-choice activists have called that trend eugenics via medicine. But try telling that to a mother who is told early on in her life as a parent that she will be raising a child who will have a host of medical and developmental problems, requiring intense medical and social attention for the rest of his or her life. It can be tragic and nearly impossible news to bear.

This may strike the reader as outrageous. And it should. Yet the changes made above boil down to simply substituting a class of individuals outside the womb (young child, toddler) for those inside the womb (the fetus). When that is done, the assumption in the doctor's rhetoric—namely, that the unborn are not fully human persons—is flushed out into the open, and his argument is revealed to be as hollow and unconvincing as the arguments of slave owners in the antebellum South. If there is a real human being at stake, his arguments are pathetic. If he believed that the unborn were fully human, then he couldn't possibly argue the way he does. So the whole thing turns on the question of the nature of the unborn: are they human beings, or not? Yet Dr. Parikh says nothing about that question.

To apply a medical analogy, this oversight is like a physician counseling a patient suffering from terminal cancer, and telling her that she just needs to drink more water, or make a dietary change, perhaps get a little more exercise. If you're engaged in ethical discussion about the situations justifying abortion, you need to deal with the real issue—the humanity of the unborn—before considering peripheral circumstances.

Given this background, is Sarah Palin a hypocrite for having a test that—the doctor admits—would help to prepare her and her family to deal with a child with special needs? What if he had said this: "Sarah is a hypocrite because she had her newborn tested for Down's syndrome, and decided to keep him, but she had the choice whether to kill the toddler or not and would deny that choice to others"? Would it really make any sense to call such a woman a hypocrite under those circumstances? Of course not. And yet that is more akin to the frame of reference that Sarah Palin is operating out of, because abortion, in her view, is the killing of a defenseless human being. Not only that, it is also the loss of a significant blessing to a family and to humanity, generally—in Sarah Palin's words, a "gift" of "unspeakable joy." Whether or not you agree with her, you can't call her a hypocrite.

There are excellent arguments for the full humanity of the unborn (e.g. those marshaled in Francis Beckwith's Defending Life from Cambridge University Press, or Robert George's Embryo, or Patrick Lee's fine work, Abortion and Unborn Human Life), but again, Parikh writes as if he is simply unaware of the question, and ignorant of the scientific and philosophical evidence for the personhood of the unborn.

Even from a medical standpoint, this would seem to reflect extremely poorly on a physician that has commented as Dr. Parikh has. Why? Because physicians are supposed to act in the interest of patients, to heal, and not to harm. But if the physician in question doesn't even raise the relevant questions about who the patients are in a given situation, and who may be in harm's way during a medical procedure, isn't he operating recklessly? Isn't there an element of gross incompetence or malpractice at play, morally if not legally? These are basic questions, after all, certainly basic to the medical profession that must deal with situations at the beginning and end of human life.

All through the article at Salon.com, Dr. Parikh begs these crucial questions, and simply assumes without argument that the unborn are not fully human. He takes pains to criticize a courageous mother of five with a special needs child—precisely for political reasons—but hasn't done his homework on an issue important to both his commentary and his profession. Leave Sarah Palin alone, Doctor. Heal thyself.

HT: Between Two Worlds

Guess Who? Answers

As I am distracted by work, and preparing for a study at our church on the Resurrection of Jesus (both the evidence for and meaning of the event), as well as preparing for a talk on some medieval theologian-philosophers (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, et al) for my son's fifth-grade class, I have just enough time to post the answers to the first Guess Who? post of several days ago.

Quote #1 Answer:

Physician, cultural critic, and (apparently atheist or agnostic) Theodore Dalrymple.

Quote #2 Answer:

Philosopher of Science, Agnostic, and frequent critic of Creationism and Intelligent Design, Michael Ruse
(HT: Paul Copan)

. . .

I found both of these quotes -- resulting from reflection on the human condition and relating it back to the Christian doctrine of human sinfulness -- fascinating in part because they come from people who do not subscribe to, or even reject, Christianity.

Dalrymple is particularly interesting because of his experience as a prison doctor and physician to the poor in England. He has seen it all, and had many one-on-one dialogues with people in a variety of circumstances, from victims to perpetrators, to self-victimizing. This base of raw exposure to humanity forms the soil for his views on human nature, on the disintegration of culture, and so on, which find expression in City Journal and other publications. His essay, "The Frivolity of Evil," (the source of the quote) should be required reading for teenage girls, if not teenage boys, who are rapidly approaching sexual maturity. In a more recent essay, "What the New Atheists Don't See," he seems to admit to being an atheist or agnostic himself, though he is acutely critical of the "new atheists" (Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett) and is sympathetic to religion for its contribution to Western Society.

Guess Who?

Here are two statements about the reality of human evil/sinfulness/fallenness. Any guesses on who penned them? (And no searching with Google or the "Search Inside" feature of Amazon.com; that's cheating!)

Quote #1:

Perhaps the most alarming feature of this low-level but endemic evil, the one that brings it close to the conception of original sin, is that it is unforced and spontaneous. No one requires people to commit it. In the worst dictatorships, some of the evil that ordinary men and women do, they do out of fear of not committing it. There, goodness requires heroism. [...] But in modern Britain, no such conditions exist: the government does not require citizens to behave as I have described and punish them if they do not. The evil is freely chosen.

Not that the government is blameless in the matter--far from it. Intellectuals propounded the idea that man should be freed from the shackles of social convention and self-control, and the government, without any demand from below, enacted laws that promoted unrestrained behavior and created a welfare system that protected people from some of its economic consequences. When the barriers to evil are brought down, it flourishes; and never again will I be tempted to believe in the fundamental goodness of man, or that evil is something exceptional or alien to human nature.

Quote #2:

I think Christianity is spot on about original sin--how could one think otherwise, when the world’s most civilized and advanced people (the people of Beethoven, Goethe, Kant) embraced that slime-ball Hitler and participated in the Holocaust? I think Saint Paul and the great Christian philosophers had real insights into sin and freedom and responsibility, and I want to build on this rather than turn from it.

Recommended for Martin Luther King Day

Justin Taylor has posted King's "I Have a Dream" speech (courtesy of YouTube; a great use of the technology in this case, BTW) and Rev. John Piper has some good thoughts as well , in particular, an excerpt from King's writings that expresses so well what it must have been like to be a victim of racism. Well worth reading. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is also thought by some to be a good example of Natural Law reasoning.

The Liberating Faith, Part I

In his New York Times best-selling book, god is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens rails against religion and Christianity in particular as a principle factor in motivating and sustaining, if not outright establishing, the appalling cultural institution of black slavery in the antebellum South. He paints a picture of a useless and hypocritical Christian church -- on the one hand immobile, asleep at the wheel, while great injustices were taking place; on the other, passionately quoting Scripture and preaching in support of subjugation of blacks, all while presenting the outward signs of Christianity. "This huge and terrible industry was blessed by all churches and for a long time aroused absolutely no religious protest," he writes. [p. 176] Regarding the use of Scripture, "Christian preachers of all kinds had justified slavery until the American Civil War and even afterwards, on the supposed biblical warrant that of the three sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Jephet), had been cursed and cast into servitude." [166] Hitchens became even more explicit about his personal views on Scripture and slavery in an interview with the Times Online:

My point is therefore that religion is optional and if you say, "Well I think we should free the slaves because Jesus wants it", I think it is a fatuous thing to say but it is not a wrong thing to say. It ought to be enough to say "I think we should free the slaves." There is no scriptural authority of any kind for freeing the slaves, none, but there's a good deal of scriptural warrant for slavery, which is why it lasted as long as it did and why it persists, especially in the Muslim world. Because it is indeed warranted by the text, which emancipation is not. It is a very important question. In my book there is a good deal of material about the conditions under which Jews can have slaves and what they are allowed to do to them. A lot of it is in Leviticus and Exodus, I believe.

Coming from his book again, of the abolitionists and slavery supporters, he recalls the following disturbing fact: "As Lincoln pointed out in his highly ambivalent second inaugural address, both sides in the quarrel made that claim [that God was on their side], at least in their pulpits, just as both were addicted to loud, confident quotations from holy writ." [178] In light of this assessment, does religious/Christian belief really make a difference in people's behavior? Does it, on the whole, make them better? Hitchens answer is a resounding "NO." After briefly considering the role of a few actors in the drama at the time, he sums up with the following words of condemnation:

Even a glance at the whole record will show, first, that person for person, American freethinkers and agnostics and atheists come out the best. The chance that someone's secular or freethinking opinion would cause him or her to denounce the whole injustice was extremely high. The chance that someone's religious belief would cause him or her to take a stand against slavery and racism was statistically quite small. But the chance that someone's religious belief would cause him or her to uphold slavery and racism was statistically extremely high, and the latter fact helps us to understand why the victory of simple justice took so long to bring about. [180-181]

Although some of this account will be challenged in subsequent posts, it must be soberly admitted that Hitchens is not entirely off the mark. Tragically, many claiming the name of Christ at the time did argue for slavery's legitimacy, and some were even slave owners. Frederick Douglass, one-time slave turned articulate abolitionist had similar stinging criticisms to make from his personal experience. The following account demonstrates the offense in spades:

I have said my master found religious sanction for his cruelty. As an example, I will state one of many facts going to prove the charge. I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of Scripture—”He that knoweth his master’s will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Master would keep this lacerated young woman tied up in this horrid situation four or five hours at a time. I have known him to tie her up early in the morning, and whip her before breakfast; leave her, go to his store, return at dinner, and whip her again, cutting her in the places already made raw with his cruel lash. The secret of master’s cruelty toward “Henny” is found in the fact of her being almost helpless. When quite a child, she fell into the fire, and burned herself horribly. Her hands were so burnt that she never got the use of them. She could do very little but bear heavy burdens. She was to master a bill of expense; and as he was a mean man, she was a constant offence to him. He seemed desirous of getting the poor girl out of existence. He gave her away once to his sister; but, being a poor gift, she was not disposed to keep her. Finally, my benevolent master, to use his own words, “set her adrift to take care of herself.” Here was a recently-converted man, holding on upon the mother, and at the same time turning out her helpless child, to starve and die! Master Thomas was one of the many pious slaveholders who hold slaves for the very charitable purpose of taking care of them.

[Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, pp. 82-83.]

Hitchens is right on this much: what happened to Douglass and other victims of slavery in the name of religion was unconscionable. But this is not the whole picture; there is much more to be said on the subject of Christianity and slavery, as the rest of this series will attempt to argue.

Pitting Truth Against Beauty

The pastor of our local church spoke this past Sunday on Philippians 4:8, in which the Apostle Paul is exhorting his readers to dwell on "higher things":

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

The pastor then went into a discussion of temptations that (especially) men face in being confronted with the images of our culture (e.g. the magazine rack at the convenience store, the checkout display at the grocery store, and so on). And he brought up the fact that the images are often doctored. They are the result of, not only hours of hair and makeup work, but also extensive image retouching via Photoshop or other software. In effect, they are pictures of nobody at all - images of people who do not exist. And his point was that we are tempted to trade the real life beauty that is often right before us for something fake, fabricated, false. To highlight the point, he showed this video during the service (well worth a look):



Of course, the point can be expanded, as the video indicates. Young girls are repeatedly exposed to these unrealistic images, and meant to feel self-conscious for their realistic features - features often beautiful in their own right. As a father of three girls, I made the point of showing it to my girls myself, and reinforcing the fact that they are being fed lies by our culture.

There is a strong classical tradition that calls people to seek after the triad of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful (bonum, verum, pulchrum). They were seen as being in relationship to one another; indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition sees the three culminating in the Most High God. In this case, however, truth is sacrificed for the sake of beauty, and the results are as might be expected: the happiness of real human beings is affected - impaired - by the commercially-driven aesthetic quest unbridled by the truth.

Liberal feminist author Naomi Wolf commented on a similar situation in her New York Magazine article of 2003, "The Porn Myth" (warning: contains some explicit language). Commenting on anti-porn activist Andrea Dworkin's predictions, she argues that Dworkin

...was right about the warning, wrong about the outcome. As she foretold, pornography did breach the dike that separated a marginal, adult, private pursuit from the mainstream public arena. The whole world, post-Internet, did become pornographized. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training—and this is having a huge effect on how they interact.

But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

Interestingly, looking at the tragic effects of pornography has given Wolf a measure of respect for traditional religious belief and practice. She writes

I am not advocating a return to the days of hiding female sexuality, but I am noting that the power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time. In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time—to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.” These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family.

"And feminists," she continues, "have misunderstood many of these prohibitions." She goes on to describe a very different approach to sexuality inspiring "a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West." If we hold up sex as something sacred, and allow that to inform our practices - the way we dress and otherwise present ourselves (I think there can be different manifestations of this, not restricted to the particulars of Wolf's story) - it can be transforming to our relationships. Wendy Shalit came to the same conclusions in her excellent book A Return to Modesty.

Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. If we are willing to re-unite these old friends, and are willing to call upon the views of traditions that pay them tribute when it comes to the human form and countenance, then perhaps we can avoid some of the perils of modern culture. We may be surprised to find out just how satified we can be with what is real and right in front of us.