Dehumanizing humans

I suspect one reason some people think like this meme depicts above is because they don't have children. See declining birth rates in the US and other western nations. It's as if a baby is something "other" to them. I guess more like knowledge by description than knowledge by acquaintance. Anyway, to these people it may seem like it's an abstract debate, without significant personal stakes. That is, it's a debate between "a person with rights" vs. "a woman's right to bodily autonomy" as if "rights" is the sole or central concern, while our "humanness" is something incidental or secondary. As if "rights" are conferred by one group of human beings to another group of human beings, so it's ultimately human beings who decide which "rights" are more fundamental. They can't seem to appreciate that we're dealing with human beings who, simply by virtue of being human, have inherent or innate rights.

At best, they might see kids around them. However, they may see kids, but do they truly see kids? I know too many people or couples who "can't stand kids". Who don't wish to be around kids let alone have kids. People who are more career-minded than family-minded. (I'm referring to childless couples by choice, not childless couples who longed for children, but sadly never could have children due to infertility or other reasons.)

At the same time, it's easier to kill someone if the killer doesn't consider their victim a human being. Or considers them a lesser kind of human being. Like when Germans began to see the Jews as rats or vermin (cf. Kafka's Metamorphosis, Spiegelman's Maus). Like masters seeing slaves as their inferiors. Or like considering babies (at the embryonic or fetal stage of life) mere "clumps of cells".

People can de-God God by failing to esteem God as he ought to be esteemed, but people can also de-humanize humans by failing to esteem humans as we ought to be esteemed. Human beings aren't God, of course, but we're not a chunk of randomly assembled molecules in an aqueous solution either.

Ad uxorem

1. Psychologically speaking, it seems women tend to be more flexible in shaping themselves into what the men whom they love and respect in their lives want. In fact, women are often more than happy to please the men they love and respect.

As an aside, maybe this is part of what it means for the woman to have been a "helper" fit for Adam, to have been taken from his "rib", to have been his "bone" and his "flesh". It's as if wives naturally wish to mold themselves into their husbands' vision in life.

2. However, it wouldn't seem quite right if the husband shapes himself into what his wife wants. In fact, whenever that happens, it seems to me both husband and wife end up miserable.

Most girlfriends or wives don't respect a boyfriend or husband who does whatever she wants him to do, who looks to her for guidance, who looks to her to make the big decisions in life, who looks to her to lead the family.

They may say they do, but they don't. Their attitudes and behavior put the lie to that.

At best, a wife might enjoy wielding that kind of power over her husband, but she won't respect him. She may wear the pants in the family, but she'll begrudge it - and him.

3. Today many women seem inflexible. They don't wish to change or adapt to the men in their lives. They don't wish to follow any man. Rather they expect men to change to accommodate them. They expect men to heed them.

At the same time, these women don't typically respect men who follow their lead all the time. Not when it comes to the men in their own lives.

Of course, they're fine with getting men in general to support what they want. Such as hyperfeminism, the #MeToo movement, abortion. But I'm primarily referring to a wife and her husband.

In any case, these women are caught in a catch-22 of their own making. On the one hand, they refuse to follow their man, but expect him to follow her. On the other hand, they don't respect men who are wrapped around their finger. As such, these women make themselves miserable.

4. Sadly, there seem to be ever more women like this in our society and culture. I suppose that's largely owing to second and third wave feminism.

5. Of course, none of this is to deny men or husbands have problems. That's a separate topic.

At the same time, even this needs to be kept in context. For one thing, there's an ongoing war against men and masculinity in our culture.

6. By contrast, there's Christian marriage. For instance, perhaps we can draw some inspiration from Tertullian, even if it's too idealistic and idealized:

How shall we ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the church arranges, the sacrifice strengthens, upon which the blessing sets a seal, at which angels are present as witnesses, and to which the Father gives his consent? For not even on earth do children marry properly and legally without their fathers' permission.

How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God's church and partake of God's banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other's company; they never bring sorrow to each other's hearts. Unembarrassed they visit the sick and assist the needy. They give alms without anxiety; they attend the sacrifice without difficulty; they perform their daily exercises of piety without hindrance. They need not be furtive about making the sign of the cross, nor timorous in greeting the brethren, nor silent in asking a blessing of God. Psalms and hymns they sing to one another, striving to see which one of them will chant more beautifully the praises of their Lord. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these he gives his peace. Where there are two together, there also he is present; and where he is, there evil is not.

These, then, are the thoughts which the apostle in that brief expression of his has left for our consideration. Recall them to your mind, if ever there should be need to do so. Use them to strengthen yourself against the bad example which certain women give you. In no other way than this are Christians permitted to marry - and, even if they were, it would not be the prudent thing to do.

Love & marriage

An evangelical Christian publicly solicits advice about whether he should break off his engagement to a woman who believes abortion and homosexuality are morally licit. My response, though I'm sure others can do better:

1. I'm assuming you and others (e.g. friends, family, pastors) have already attempted to reason with her, but she still won't change her mind. If you haven't, of course, then this is something you should try to do if you wish to salvage the relationship. Try to graciously win her over to the truth. If you have tried, time and time again, but she remains unconvinced, then what more can you do? You can't reason with her if she doesn't wish to listen to reason.

2. Romantic love that motivates people toward marriage is wonderful. However, a good marriage can't be built solely out of romantic love. If romantic love is all there is, a marriage simply won't last. It'll be like fireworks fizzling out after all the champagne, toasts, kisses, and celebrations are finished. After the honeymoon period, there needs to be something that will give a marriage staying power. Staying power to last a lifetime. In short, what's most needed is fundamentally shared beliefs and values about the most important things in life. And nothing is more important in life than God. The God of the Bible, who is the one, true, and living God.

3. There are central issues and peripheral issues in Christianity. There are issues which Christians can agree to disagree on and issues which they can't or else it'd undermine what it means to be a Christian. Abortion and homosexuality are central issues.

a. Abortion is, at heart, about life, about neighbor-love, about loving and protecting life in the weakest and most vulnerable, i.e., babies. This reflects the character of the God of the Bible who protects the helpless, the weak, and so on. If she's willing to put her "right to choose" over and against the baby's "right to live", to prioritize personal autonomy over what's moral, then is that the kind of person you want to be your wife and the mother of your children? For example, wouldn't you be concerned she might abort your child behind your back if she decides it's inconvenient for her?

(By the way, I can cite medical and scientific literature demonstrating a zygote-embryo-fetus is a human life. All these terms are different stages of development but the same baby. It's like saying newborn, infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly. Just different terms for different stages in life but the same human being.)

b. As for homosexuality, as well as transgenderism and other related issues, the problem is this dives deeply into what it means to be human. To be male and female. To have been created in the image of God.

That's something secular society is confused about because they don't really believe in God. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then there's no objective universal foundation for "being" a human being. Not that I can see. If God doesn't exist, or at least if God's thoughts don't matter, then humans don't have a fixed fundamental nature of what it means to be a human being. We can decide for ourselves who or what it means to be human if we don't need to hear from God what it means to be human.

Hence, in essence, almost anything goes. You're a man who wants to have sex with other men? You're a woman who wants to have sex with other women? You're a man, but you want to be a woman? You're a woman, but you want to be a man? No problem, do whatever makes you happy. That's the basic mantra in secular society.

However, one need only look at the lives of homosexuals who have had plenty of sex with other homosexuals. Not to mention the lives of transgendered men and women who have become what they always wanted. Sure, like everyone, they put on a happy front, but their lives are often hollow and miserable on closer inspection.

And read what Rob Gagnon, Rosaria Butterfield, Vaughan Roberts, Christopher Yuan, and Jackie Hill-Perry have to say about homosexuality. Some of them were former homosexuals who became Christians.

4. You're already doubting yourself, asking if you're a "silly fundamentalist", and so on. As such, it seems to me if you marry her, then it's far more likely she'll have a liberalizing effect on your beliefs and values than the other way around. It's a story I've seen more than once with my own eyes. A husband gradually accommodates to his wife. He believes whatever she wants him to believe. He does whatever she wants him to do. He lets her be the boss. He thinks she'll be pleased. However, in the end, how much does she really respect him for believing or doing whatever she thinks best?

5. By contrast, if you do break off the engagement, it might make her see that you really do have beliefs and values you're willing to stand up for, even at great personal cost to you. It shows her, as heart-breaking as this would be for you and her, and as much as you love her, that you have a higher love and duty to God. This may or may not make her reconsider her own beliefs. That's not something you can or should count on. However, she won't be able to disrespect you for living up to your beliefs and values. If anything, it'll likely be the opposite: she may be sad, angry, upset, or worse, but she'll have good reason to respect you.

Babies are "parasites"

Robert P. George comments:

Scholars of the history of genocides observe that people who want to kill other people invariably develop and deploy forms of rhetoric designed to dehumanize the victims. A well-known example is the Nazis referring to the Jews as "vermin." In the debate over abortion, a similar rhetoric is deployed to dehumanize unborn children. Abortion advocates, such as those pictured here (with big smiles on their faces), label them "parasites." To justify killing them, they suggest that they are the moral equivalent of lice or leeches or tapeworms.

Don't like abortions?

1. Don't like murders? Just ignore them. Like you ignore aborted babies.

2. In general, I've read conservatives give more than liberals when it comes to charity or philanthropy. For example, even the New York Times concedes as much. I couldn't find information about adoption rates between conservatives and liberals, but maybe someone else can.

3. There's a burgeoning adoption movement among conservative evangelical Christians. Several Christian leaders like John Piper, Russell Moore, and Justin Taylor have adopted kids, I think. However, liberals and progressives criticize and attempt to put roadblocks to prevent conservative Christians from adopting (e.g. "The Trouble With the Christian Adoption Movement").

4. I'd never suggest for a second it's good for a child to be in foster care or anything similar. However, consider the attitude of Robert Kim Henderson in comparison to the "victim" attitude of the left. Henderson was a foster kid who served in the USAF, graduated from Yale University, and is currently a PhD student (psychology) at the University of Cambridge. Henderson writes:

There aren’t many conservative students at Yale: fewer than 12 percent, according to a survey by our student newspaper. There are fewer former foster children. I am one of the rare students on campus who can claim both identities.

My unusual upbringing has shaped my conservatism. My birth mother was addicted to drugs. As a young child, I spent five years in foster care. At age 7, I was adopted, but for a long time after that I was raised in broken homes.

Foster care, broken homes and military service have fashioned my judgments. My experiences drive me to reflect on what environments are best for children. Certainly not the ones I came from.

Where I came from can be understood through my name: Robert Kim Henderson. All three names were taken from different adults.

Robert comes from my supposed biological father. The only information I have about him is his name from a document provided by a social worker responsible for my case when I was a foster child.

My middle name, Kim, comes from my biological mother. It was her family name. She succumbed to drug addiction, rendering her unable to care for me.

And my last name: Henderson. It comes from my former adoptive father. After my adoptive mother left him, he severed ties with me in order to hurt her. He figured that my emotional pain from his desertion would be transmitted to my adoptive mother. He was right. The three people who gave me their names have something in common: All abandoned me. None took responsibility.

Last year, a fellow student told me I was a victim. Yale is the only place where someone has said this to me. I responded that if someone had told me I was a victim when I was a kid, I would never have made it to the Air Force, where I served for eight years, or to Yale. I would have given up. When I was 10, a teacher told me that if I applied myself, I could alter my future. This advice changed my life.

Spark of life

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. (Deut 30:19-20)

Some people talk about the origin of life in this way. What caused inert matter to come alive? What catalyzed inert molecules to self-organize into self-replicating lifeforms? What's the spark that ignited life? What vital force keeps life going?

Indeed, there are many theories for abiogenesis. There are many theories about some élan vital. However, all of these people would agree it'd be marvelous if we could discover this promethean fire that first set life alight. It'd be wonderful if we could see the origin of life unfold. In action, in real time.

Ironically, many people miss what's right under their noses. Every single baby from the moment of its conception is a self-catalyzed, self-organized, and self-replicating lifeform. From a single-celled zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn. This wonderful and marvelous little cell is alive! How is that possible? This little cell starts as the tiniest of sparks, then a mere flicker, then a burning flame, and finally bursting forth in glorious day. It's no wonder past generations considered every life a miracle, for life itself truly is a miracle of sorts, a "miracle" that even secular scientists would marvel to see.

However, abortionists wish to extinguish this precious little life. They wish to douse the spark of life as soon as they can. For what reason? Because life isn't expedient for them at this time. Abortionists live in a culture of death.

(To be fair, other creatures have life. That's amazing too. However, humans are unique. That's obviously true from a Christian perspective given the imago Dei. However, even short of this, there are arguably distinctive features about us that other earthbound creatures don't have - I can't comment on alpha centaurians! Our ability to create, discover, and/or appreciate art, music, literature, mathematics, and so on is the tip of the iceberg.)

Be still, my beating heart

Rachel Willis

We need to stop calling it a “fetal heartbeat law” it should be called an “embryonic cardiac vibration law” because it’s not considered a fetus until the 10th week of pregnancy (8th week from conception)

1. You could just as easily call some adult hearts "cardiac vibration" units. More on this below.

2. The distinction between a human embryo, human fetus, human baby, and a human adult is in essence the same distinction one would make between a canine embryo, a canine fetus, a puppy dog, and an adult dog. The point is embryo, fetus, puppy, and dog represent different stages of development in the exact same creature. If we aborted a canine embryo, we wouldn't say we aborted a mere clump of cells. No, we'd say we aborted a dog. Why not the same for a human being?

3. What relevant distinction does Rachel see in "weeks after pregnancy" vs. "weeks after conception"? Is she referring to a woman's last menstrual period? From what I've seen, physicians and scientists (embryologists) generally talk about weeks after conception.

4. Medical terms and stages and so forth are based on systems developed by physicians and scientists. A system is a general way to gauge roughly where the creature is along in its development in comparison to the majority of other creatures developing. However, it's not a hard and fast rule let alone scientific law. In fact, in a sense, the system is arbitrarily selected inasmuch as the system is based on a creature's external physical features which can vary between individuals in the same kind of creature and which can vary in different situations.

5. Importantly, the terminology and stages are based on physical characteristics. It's not as if doctors and scientists are able to directly detect and measure the internal élan vital (there's likely a better term for this) that drives and propels the creature toward continued development, toward life. Nevertheless we can infer this vital force exists.

and it’s not actually a heartbeat because in the sixth week (of pregnancy. 4th week from conception) an embryo does not have a developed heart, (or brain, or spine) it has a cluster of cells that can be detected vibrating or pulsing.

1. Some adults don't have fully developed hearts (or brains or spines), or even "beating" hearts, or even any hearts at all, but they're no less human beings. Simply consider people with artificial hearts, mechanical heart pumps, replacement heart valves, bioprosthetic hearts, and so on.

2. Not to mention some people undergoing major heart surgery (for example) will need to have their hearts stopped, then they'll be placed on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine that provides blood and oxygen for them while their heart is stopped. Does it mean they're no longer human beings when their heart isn't beating, but they instantly become human beings again when their heart starts beating again?

3. No, the baby's heart is not merely "vibrating". The heart beat may start as a flutter, but doesn't remain a flutter. The baby's heart will begin to beat at 4 weeks after conception (though usually it's not loud enough to be detected with common machines used in a doctor's office until a couple of weeks later).

4. What's the relevant distinction between "pulsing" (or pulsating) and "beating"? Doctors and nurses take your "pulse" which is a measure of the presence and rhythm of your heartbeat. Call it what you will, the point is that certain cardiac cells are conducting electrical signals which cause the heart to beat or pulse in a particular rhythm.

It is not doing the work of a human heart and is a weird and completely non-medical goal post with no connection to the start of personhood.

Why does having a heart beat matter in determining whether one is a human being? I've taken a dead frog's heart, applied various chemical solutions to the heart, and caused the heart to beat in a dead frog. Similarly, in some organ transplantations among deceased organ donors, their hearts are kept beating. So why the focus on the beating heart?

If it feels significant to someone wanting a baby, I can understand that, but it’s not science.

Your comments are riddled with unscientific and other deficiencies.

It’s main significance to a potential mother, depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding that pregnancy. To want a “heartbeat” and hear one is a beautiful thing. Just like peeing on a stick that says you’re pregnant is magic, if you want a baby. But just because you love the idea of a baby doesn’t magically make your urine a life.

Wut. What does urine have to do with heartbeats?

Pregnancy is sometimes or oftentimes detected based on the levels of a hormone called b-HCG (beta human chorionic gonadotropin) in a woman's urine. If the b-HCG levels in the urine are high enough, then it's likely the woman is pregnant.

However, if you wish to go with b-HCG levels, then b-HCG hormones begin being secreted in the very first week after conception! Much earlier than the first heartbeat.

And our poetic associations with heartbeats, and hearts cannot be the basis for stripping American women of their constitutional right to medical care.

But scientific ignorance can be used to argue for murdering babies?

Three lessons from the Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman debate

"Polling Data Consistently Shows Women are Pro-Life on Abortion"

"Ironically, it turns out that women are much more supportive of the fictitious 'war on women' than men."

Read the rest here.