(Centennial Fellow) Editor's Note: The present article is continued from Brad Hughes' post immediately preceding this one.
The demography of abortion highly correlates with the Democratic party. The majority of the women obtaining abortions are poor, unmarried, belong to a minority, are poorly educated, have had an abortion before, and claim to be Christian. This cohort voted overwhelmingly for President Obama's re-election. This cohort is also highly concentrated in urban areas on the east and west coast. There has been approximately 1.2 million abortions performed in America this year alone. President Obama won the 2012 election by approximately 4 million votes. 98% of black women aged 18-29 voted for President Obama in 2012. There are tens of millions of women who have had abortions in America and their vote alone exceeded the margin of victory for President Obama's re-election.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the overwhelming reasons for abortion are rooted in financial concerns, including concerns about personal responsibilities, belief that the mother can't afford the child, the child would interfere with school or employment, and the child would create relationship problems. 50% of all abortions are performed on women between the ages of 15 and 24. 85% of abortions are performed on women who aren't married. 65% of women obtaining abortions are Protestant or Roman Catholic. 60% of abortions are done for women who are already mothers. 17 states (and the District of Columbia) use state Medicaid funds to pay for all (or most) of the expenses involved with the abortion. These states are predominantly "blue" with an electorate favoring Barack Obama for President. Two of the three "red" states that provide Medicaid funding for abortive mothers are Montana and Alaska, representing only 1.6 million people. Globally, almost all abortion deaths occur in less developed countries, yet US abortion advocates use fear-mongering in America that such a problem exists here when it does not.
Abortion is a business which targets the black population. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are done on black women. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than five times as likely as white women to have an abortion and black women have had about 16 million abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Charles Darwin, widely recognized as the father of evolution, expressed a racist philosophy in his book The Descent of Man where he postulated that "higher" races (whites) would survive while "savage" races (blacks) would decline if evolution were true. One of Darwin's protégées, Francis Galton, started the eugenics movement in Great Britain to improve the quality of the general population. He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying able couples with incentives to have children. He believed that a scheme of "marks" for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of what was to become Planned Parenthood, called blacks "human weeds" and immigrants "reckless breeders." Sanger advocated abortion as a means of eugenics to improve the quality of the general population in America. Sanger retooled the Birth Control League in 1939 to become the Birth Control Federation of America. Under this new name, Sanger’s first goal was called the “The Negro Project,” intended to persuade black women to stop having children. It is ironic that the organization originally conceived by Sanger as a means to reduce the black population would enjoy overwhelming support from that same group of people. Sadly, blacks make up less than 13% of the female population yet black women have about 37% of the abortions. Latinos rank second in terms of abortion procedures performed. According to the Center for Disease Control, 22% of all abortions in America are performed on Latinos. Approximately 60% of all abortions in the US are performed on blacks and Latinos while US taxpayers fund almost $500 million (approximately 50%) of Planned Parenthood revenues. The US Government Accounting Office, GAO, published a report citing that approximately $1.3 billion of federal funds given to Planned Parenthood between 2003 and 2008 could not be accounted for.
A recent study examined the high correlation between a high concentration of the minority population and the location of an abortion facility. The study states "...[ there were] 116 ZIP codes with more than one [abortion or abortion-referral] facility. Of those, 84 were disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. What this means is that, when the American family planning industry places multiple facilities in a ZIP code, that ZIP code is more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be disproportionately minority as not.” It is clear that abortionists target their market at minorities while the federal government is also subsidizing the industry that does so.
A "sin" or Pegovian tax is a tax that is applied to a market activity which generates negative externalities.This type of tax is intended to mitigate the social costs imposed by the behavior.Tax dollars are often extracted from such "sin" industries as gambling, pornography, liquor, tobacco, and now even unhealthy food. Unlike the foregoing, the government overtly subsidizes the abortion industry despite possible negative externalities of higher health care costs for the abortive mother over the long term. The question arises as to why the abortion industry enjoys favored tax status? Some have suggested that it is a favored constituency of the Democratic party thereby assuring it of additional votes in every election.
Abortion is morally wrong with rare medical exceptions. The moral absolutist knows that arguments for abortion fail on moral grounds. The old maxim states "The real measure of civilization in any society can be found in the way it treats its most vulnerable." Abortion is a moral failure, encouraged and financed by the secular state, and is a procedure performed on women who predominantly claim to be Christian. The Bible teaches that abortion is wrong. Apparently, many self-identified Christian women who have abortions must believe the Bible is correct in what it teaches except in the case of personal circumstance.
The moral relativist believes abortion addresses the mother's need for economic or emotional wellness and therefore justifies the termination of the unborn. Moral relativism, the ethical attribute of the secularist worldview, is self-refuting. Moral relativists can not say anything is objectively wrong because morality is in the conscience of the beholder. Consequently, the moral relativist can not successfully argue that theft of their personal property is objectively wrong or that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, because it might be subjectively right to the one committing the act. Hence, the self-refutation of the moral relativist is clearly evident.
History confirms that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been perpetrated under the auspices of moral relativism. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Enver, Tojo, and Leopold II were brutal tyrants of the last 125 years; all were secular in their worldview and all were moral relativists in their ethical discipline. These tyrants were responsible for over 112 million deaths from genocide, justified by moral relativism. Moral relativism is plagued with a history of horrific failures.
The overwhelming majority of abortions represent a supreme act of selfishness rooted in moral relativism. Ectopic pregnancies and genuine "life-threatening" conditions of the pregnant mother are both serious and rare. An Ectopic pregnancy is one that occurs outside the womb. It is a life-threatening condition to the mother. The baby cannot survive. Approximately 1% of pregnancies are Ectopic. They are notable exceptions and should be excluded from charges of moral relativism. Arguments against the moral relativism of abortion include:
Over 70% of Americans (and 65% of abortive mothers) claim to be Christian, the governing book of which (the Bible) clearly opposes the practice of abortion.
The viability of adoption presents an alternative solution to those considering abortion.
Medical reality confirms that some life is sustainable outside of the womb at four months, confirming that a second or third trimester abortion imposes death on a sustainable life.
Science confirms that human life begins at conception.
Post-Abortion Syndrome, PAS, is a condition that suggests a relationship exists between depression, stress disorders, etc. and abortive mothers.
A new study from the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention concludes that there is a relationship between abortive mothers and breast cancer.
The US government creates a moral hazard by funding Planned Parenthood and compelling religious institutions to make abortion options available through their insurance programs. The government treats abortion and adoption differently, thereby encouraging abortion as the preferred option.
Moral relativism suffuses the abortion industry. Moral relativism is an intellectual disease. C.S. Lewis said "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." Moral relativism afflicts our government policies, the US Supreme Court, the abortion providers, the abortive mother, the media, and the Democratic party in their collaboration to support the abortion industry. The government is complicit in that it subsidizes an industry which may impose higher long term costs on the abortive mother (while reducing the population of what it believes may be a socio-economic burden on the broader population.) The US Supreme Court is complicit in the twisting of the law to ignore the sanctity of life enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. The abortion providers are complicit in their desire to make large amounts of money despite network externalities which can drive irresponsible behavior. There have been numerous examples of mismanagement of public funds, performing abortions on non-pregnant women, botched abortions, etc. that illustrate the incompetence and corruption of the abortion industry. The abortive mother is complicit because the most cited reasons for abortion are personal convenience and personal finance. The media is complicit because it discourages airing footage of the abortion procedure (although it shows graphic footage regarding other atrocities.) The Democratic party (with 72 million registered Democrats in the US) is complicit because it strongly endorsed abortion in its party platform and media messaging in the 2012 presidential election, all designed as an artifice to garner more women votes for their candidate.
It is clear that moral relativism is at the core of the abortion decision for all participants. They all have something to gain at the expense of terminating the life of the unborn. However, unintended economic consequences often arise from moral failure, e.g., abortion may actually increase the feminization of poverty.
The US government has engaged in the politicization of this behavior resulting in additional unintended consequences. Abortions negatively impact the total fertility rate, TFR, of a nation. The TFR is a hypothetical measure of the number of children a fertile mother would have over her fertility period, typically from ages 15-49. A population can replace itself (netting out birth and death rates) at 2.1 children per female. The US TFR peaked in the 1950's at 3.8 and is currently below the replacement rate of 2.1 (for those who are native born.) When a nation falls below its replacement rate, it requires immigration to assure that the population is growing. The population needs to grow to support economic activity and provide the entitlement benefits demanded by the elder population. Immigration, absent assimilation, changes the cultural framework of a nation. As a nation fails to reproduce itself and it does not assimilate the increased number immigrants (to offset the reduced fertility rate) into its traditional cultural framework, the nation begins to reflect the multicultural composition of its immigrants. This can have negative consequences for the host country as has been articulated by leaders in the European Union. A TFR below the replacement rate can therefore negatively impact the current generation and the ones to come.
What kind of nation exalts life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness yet provides incentives so as to make termination of its unborn cheap and easy? What kind of nation exalts a woman's "right to choose" abortion but holds harmless the men who repeatedly impregnate abortive (and, in many cases, multiple) women? What kind of nation subsidizes the termination of life with taxpayer dollars and now requires religious institutions to include abortion options in its health insurance?
The remedy. It is clear that the moral relativism of abortion has implications for the moral and economic health of the US. There are two remedies for the moral relativism of abortion. The first remedy is for the woman who has had an abortion. There have been approximately 50 million abortions performed since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Many of these have been done on women who have had multiple abortions. Consequently, we can say that (at the least) there are tens of million of women who have had an abortion in the US. Many of these women have suffered from emotional and physical maladies arising from the abortion. The most important thing to understand from committing a moral wrong is that there is forgiveness if there is repentance. The Bible teaches in John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." Hebrews 8:12 states "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." The first step to forgiveness is repentance.
The second remedy is for the remainder of the society where abortion continues to impose a large cost. The US government is the most culpable actor in the failures of the national abortion policy. The passage of Obamacare will ostensibly provide additional support for the government involvement in the abortion industry. A government that endorses moral failures ultimately faces economic, if not divine, consequences which could threaten its very existence. The Bible is clear in its teaching that immoral behavior, e.g., moral relativism, is neither invisible to God nor does it escape judgment forever. Two of the three largest religions on the planet oppose abortion. Secularism, the third largest religion on the planet, aggressively supports the practice of abortion, particularly for certain people-groups. The role of secularist authority in world history is both bloody and evanescent. Every citizen who loves liberty should oppose the secular state when its policies violate objective truth. The preservation of freedom requires the responsibility for action.
An engaged citizenry may be the single most effective solution to address this problem.
Citizens should start by demanding that their representatives remove the favored tax status of the abortion industry. Such a decision honors the intent of our founding documents while assuring freedom and equality in its finest expression. There has been a significant sex education effort undertaken in the government schools which promotes sexual activity. A significant education effort needs to be undertaken in the opposite direction. Citizens should demand that the government produce public service announcements, PSA, which discourage the practice of abortion and encourage the act of adoption. November is national adoption month yet how many people know? Citizens should also demand that the government schools show what an actual abortion looks like. Engaged parents can either demand such remedies or enroll their children into private schools, home schools, etc. Parents must effectuate change at the local level.
There are about 50,000 adoptions annually in the US compared to about 1.25 million abortions, a ratio of about 25 abortions to one adoption. There are over two million prospective adoptive parents on the waiting list. Clearly, there should be additional incentives to address the oversupply of abortions and the unmet demand for adoption. A sound government policy that reflects the value of life would address this disequilibrium. An average abortion costs less than $1,000, takes about 15 minutes, but requires an approximately four hour appointment. The adoption process, depending upon the agency used, can cost tens of thousands of dollars (although the average is approximately $10,000) and can take months to over a year to complete. The administrative bureaucracy obviously needs improvement in the adoption process.
The moral relativism of abortion has not advanced the interests of our free and moral republic. The very least we can demand is that the government get out of the abortion business, remove the incentives that encourage abortion, increase the incentives for the education of alternatives such as abstinence, adoption, etc. and maintain a policy that celebrates the freedom and sanctity of all life.
The issue of abortion divides the country along moral grounds. It is not, at its core, a division between Republican and Democrat. It is not a division between young and old, rich and poor, or women and men. It is a division between the moral relativist and the moral absolutist. It is the moral relativist who has had the abortion that bears the burden of action. It is up to the moral relativist to reconcile science and morality with their action. Sooner or later, that reconciliation will require resolution. Let us pray that this reconciliation comes soon and to many.
 http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_34.asp#How many babies are adopted?
Centennial Fellow) Abortion is the most widely practiced elimination of humans in the world today. Secularists believe that terminating pregnancies can improve the quality of life for the living. Some Christians believe that abortion is wrong except in the case of personal circumstance. The US Supreme Court believes that terminating a pregnancy does not terminate a human life of value. The US government uses taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. The majority of abortions in the US are done for reasons of personal convenience or personal finance. If the government says it is legal and the majority of people say it is acceptable, does that make it right to kill the unborn? The foregoing are examples of moral relativism. Abortions, at over one million per year, represent the single most lethal practice of moral relativism in the US.
Moral relativism occurs when substituting subjective truth for objective truth. Subjective truth is based upon a personal preference or a truth claim that subjectively belongs to an individual, e.g., I like chocolate ice cream. Objective truth is based on the reality of the world which the individual discovers and can not change by internal feelings, e.g., the earth is round. Objective truth exists irrespective of subjective feelings. Preference claims are different than objective truth claims. Moral relativism is predicated upon preference claims (or subjective feelings) and is the ethical component of the secularist world view. Secularism is the worldview which believes there is no God, that government should substantially control economic behavior, that scientific naturalism is true, and that the state can bring about utopia on earth.
The Bible teaches that abortion is wrong. The Bible makes claims about objective truth and is clear about protecting the value of innocent life. It is also clear about the judgment that befalls a nation which sacrifices their young for personal reasons. The scriptures confirm that God knows the preborn child. "You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15). God also guides the preborn child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11). God is also involved with the preborn "God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (Galatians 1:15).
God condemns the killing of the innocent, "They mingled with the nations and learned their works…they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed" (Psalm 106:35, 37-38). Child-sacrifice is also condemned in the Bible. This sin of child-sacrifice, in fact, is mentioned as a major cause that the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, "They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…until the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight" (2 Kings 17:17-18). The Bible states that man was made in the image of God (Imago Dei) in Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
The Bible states that murder is wrong, "Thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13.) The Bible teaches that God created the child in the womb, "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well" (Psalm 139:13-14). The Bible also informs us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, indicating personhood (Luke 1:15). In addition, the Greek word Huios means "son," but it is also used in Luke 1:36 to refer to John the Baptist's existence in the womb before birth, at six months. The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children (a child, a boy, etc.) however, it is used to describe a child in the womb in Exodus 21:22. In Genesis 25:22, the word yeladim (children) is used in reference to Rebecca's children struggling while still in her womb. Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
The Bible teaches that we are to protect the weak and vulnerable who can't protect themselves. Proverbs 31:8-9 states "Speak up for those who can't speak for themselves."
Additional scriptures that support the argument for defending the vulnerable include: Psalm 82:2-4, Proverbs 6:16-19, Proverbs 17:5, Proverbs 12:6, Deuteronomy 27:25, Deuteronomy 19:10, Luke 17:2, Jeremiah 22:17, and Isaiah 59:2-3. For those who defy God as the author of life and reject the admonition to protect the innocent and vulnerable,
consideration should be given to Hebrews 4:13, "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's eyes. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account."
Abortion advocates use heroic acrobatics in twisting Exodus 21:22, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." Abortion advocates (who attempt to distort this biblical passage) maintain that this passage from the Bible asserts that a child's death can be offset by compensating the father. Such advocates ignore the fact that the child delivered prematurely in this instance is born alive. Further, secularists who reject God and the Bible as a legitimate authority on the value of life, can offer no explanation for either the origin of life or can they provide an example of man-made life, thereby demonstrating no moral authority of their own except for their moral relativism.
The Christian who supports abortion, in defiance of biblical teaching, must do so by special pleading. They can not find support from biblical or scientific arguments. The Bible clearly says it is wrong. Science tells us that humans beget humans and zygotes are simply first stage humans. Since a majority of those who obtain abortions claim to be Christian, it is reasonable to say this group of Christians support the teaching of the Bible except in the case of personal circumstance. This is moral relativism.
Secularists state that abortion is right. Unlike such hypocritical Christians, the secularists are straightforward in their support of moral relativism and abortion. President Obama, when asked when life begins, said "... answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." Secularists argue that what is aborted is not fully developed so it is not murder. This argument fails on several grounds, most notably that they do not argue for murdering adults who may be equally less developed than others, e.g., those that are developmentally disabled, those with an incapacitating affliction, those that may be in a coma, etc. Stage of development does not make one less human nor does the size of life make it less human. Just because the baby in the womb is smaller than the one outside the womb, or the former is more dependent upon the mother than the latter, is not sufficient cause for ending its life. Secularists argue that the baby is just part of the woman's body and therefore under her volitional control. Degree of dependence does not make one less human. This argument fails because the unborn have a different DNA composition, may have a different blood type, and may be a different gender. The baby is a different person than the mother carrying it. Two persons joined together is not sufficient cause for one to terminate the other's life. Even a conjoined twin would not be held harmless for terminating the life that shares its body.
Abortion advocates often will deconstruct the language to deceive the undiscerning by calling a baby in the womb "a fetus." Fetus is simply a derivative from the Latin word for baby. Ostensibly, the abortion advocates, in twisting words to symbolize something else, are paying homage to Lewis Carroll when he wrote in Alice in Wonderland, “Then you should say what you mean" the March Hare went on. "I do" Alice hastily replied; "at least - at least I mean what I say - that's the same thing, you know.”
Abortion advocates often argue that an unwanted baby should not be forced upon the mother. This argument fails because eliminating the unwanted is hardly a justifiable defense for terminating a life. As the Nuremberg trial illustrated, establishing a law to legalize the murder of the unwanted was not an adequate defense for the Nazi slaughter of the Jews. If the unwanted were arbitrarily eliminated by majority opinion, the world would have a much smaller population. Only the depraved would find such an argument appealing. In fact, the elimination of unwanted people is the record of history whereby whoever ruled made decisions about the value of people. The history of civilized man has been dominated by tyrants and rulers. Freedom is the sui generis of mankind in history.
The Magna Carta became a founding document of freedom and human rights and was the cornerstone for the US Constitution. Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, published in 1644, asserted that it was the law that ruled, not the king, and that the law should reflect the higher moral authority. Samuel von Pufendorf wrote in 1673 that "More inhumanity has been done by man himself than any other of nature's causes." Freedom and human rights, taken together, constitute the best of what mankind can be.
Abortion advocates argue that if a woman is raped (and becomes pregnant) she should have the authority to murder the child. This argument also fails because the unborn (who is a separate person as confirmed by different DNA) was not an accomplice in the rape. Further, the woman can not kill the rapist unless she believes her life is threatened and this defense may vary by state. If we accept the specious argument that a woman can kill her child because she has been violated by a criminal, why would we not accept that victims of heinous crimes should be allowed to torture and murder the offspring of their perpetrators? Retaliating by the first party against a third party when the second party was culpable makes no logical or moral sense. Further, there are many examples of children conceived by rape that develop into leaders with a significant impact on the world, e.g., the great jazz singer Ethel Waters and the celebrated evangelist James Robison. There is a web site devoted to those who were conceived by rape yet have lived lives of great significance, value, and fulfillment. The world is a better place for them being here.
Abortion advocates argue that the unborn can be murdered if economic hardship ensues from eventual birth. This argument also fails because a newly unemployed single mother can not murder her infant child because it has suddenly become "too expensive." It would be a failed society if we eliminated people from life because they were "too expensive." The question then arises about the difference between the living and the unborn? Is the unborn a human life? "Abortion involves killing and discarding something that's alive. Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate."
Advocates also argue that the unborn may be terminated because of the "handicapped" possibility which presents emotional hardship for the prospective parent(s). This argument also fails as we can not murder family members when they become handicapped or enfeebled, have Alzheimer's, or present emotional hardship in caring for their needs. Approximately 3% of all births result in some form of birth disorder. Parents of disabled children face difficult challenges every day but rejoice in the life that has been given. According to studies reported by the National Center for Bioethics Information, slightly more than nine out of 10 women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to abort their babies. Yet, parents of Down Syndrome children report great fulfillment and deep love for their children. Studies regarding children of incest have faced some methodological problems (which renders analysis problematic) however studies reported by the NIH typically indicate that the incidence of some form of disability may rise as high as 50%. Who has the moral authority to assert some disabilities of life become worthy of termination while others do not? Adoption may be the preferred alternative.
Pro-abortionists argue that the unborn can be killed because life does not begin until actual birth. This argument fails scientifically because life irrefutably begins at conception. The properties of life includes metabolism, growth, cell division and reproduction, response to stimuli, and adaptation to the environment, all of which is present in life at conception. This argument fails medically because approximately 500,000 premature births occur annually in the US. Approximately 12% of births are premature in the US. These children grow to become happy and healthy contributors to society. This argument also fails evidentially because of the abundance of sustainable early births. The current record of early sustainability is Amelia Taylor who was born at four months gestation, weighed approximately 1/2 pound, and was not much bigger than a "ballpoint pen" yet she survived and is healthy. Clearly, the unborn can survive outside of the woman's womb prior to full gestational birth.
Pro-abortionists argue that young women make judgment mistakes regarding sexual intimacy and should be forgiven for their "indiscretion." President Obama stated that if one of his daughters got pregnant from a sexual mistake he "wouldn't want them to be punished with a baby." Only the ignorant believe that the arrival of a baby is "punishment." It is beyond strange that a teenage mother can be forgiven for murdering her own unborn child while that same teenage mother could be prosecuted for killing a baby in the womb of a mother-to-be in a fatal car accident that she caused. Currently, there are 23 states with fetal homicide laws which apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy if someone kills a pregnant mother. Oddly, many states (through Medicaid funding) may pay the medical expenses for an abortive mother as a "reward" for her mistake, while the state may pay (through imprisonment costs) for punishing that same abortive mother who killed the fetus of another woman. Perverse state incentives can create a moral hazard. State contradictions aside, whoever thinks abortion harms no one, needs to see an actual abortion: http://www.catholic.org/video/watch.php?v=13
(CCU Student) One of the touchiest, most tip-toed-around issues today is the choice of abstinence until marriage. As the world becomes more tolerant and even encouraging of promiscuous behavior, many Christians are hard-pressed to remain strong in their stand of remaining pure until their wedding night. And then beyond that, there is the challenge to stay faithful throughout their marriage.
The issue is often overlooked, though, because of the possible embarrassment that may arise when parents give “the talk” to their children. So, instead, teenagers receive the secular world’s “YOLO” message (You Only Live Once) to live life to the fullest and do everything you can to have a good time. It is so critical that the road of increased teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and emotionally scarred lives not be traveled anymore.
Secular society has numbed people to the severity of infidelity. Through movies, television and music, the world laughs, jokes and nonchalantly comments about casual sex. The lives of real, ordinary people are transformed as they adopt the pattern portrayed on TV that sex is no big deal, has no consequences, whether physical, emotional, or relational, and is normal and fine to do outside a healthy marriage setting.
First of all, sex is a big deal. God created it to be the most intimate union any two people can have, and it was made to be between a husband and wife. To shrug off its importance is to discredit God’s workmanship.
To say there are no after-effects from sex outside of marriage is one of the most offensive lies culture has conjured. It questions our intelligence because there are going to be consequences. The obvious physical results of sex outside of marriage are unexpected pregnancy and STDs.
The emotional and relational consequences are often overlooked because they’re not as in the open as the physical effects. However, they are what drive people to keep looking for approval in all the wrong places and to continue in their promiscuous behavior. The regret, hurt, pain, embarrassment and entire range of emotions can be overbearing. The soiled reputation and lost relationships are also felt heavily by the victim.
God is strict in His word about the right time and setting for physical intimacy. Hebrews 13:4: “He knows the hurts it can cause if the act is taken out of its purposed place.” Yet God is always full of love, forgiveness, and compassion, and always offers the chance for redemption.
Christians need to make the teaching of sexual integrity a priority in their life. C.A.T.S. (Concerned about Teenage Sexuality) is a program in my hometown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, bringing this message to middle and high schoolers. By being in a peer-to-peer mentoring group, teens are at ease when someone their age walks into their health-ed class to talk about sexual integrity.
Sex is sacred and precious and needs to remain in the context for which it was originally created. Although the world says it’s normal, fun and right to do what you want when you want to, the Lord challenges us to have self-control.
By having patience for His plan to work out in our lives, we’ll be ultimately blessed. Romans 12:2 sums up how we are to live: “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing and perfect will of God.”
Kelli Klaus is a Colorado Christian University freshman from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and was a student delegate at Western Conservative Summit 2012. She wrote this for her hometown paper, The Gazette, where it appeared on Sept. 16.
('76 Contributor) I’ve been asked to comment on the theater massacre. I think there is just one cause; a crazy shooter with God only knows what, going through his brain. Unfortunately discussions will go far and wide from this obvious fact and range from gun control to societal issues. So here are my thoughts. I think societal issues led up to this massacre. I’m not going to spend much time on gun control other than to say I am firmly for our second amendment, no exceptions. I blame our obsession with political correctness, the destruction of the family and the lack of God in our society.I read a child’s quote where he asked God, why do you allow all this violence in our schools? God replied, I’m not allowed in schools. Just substitute the public square for schools and you have America in 2012. A godless society is a society without a moral compass. And then there’s political correctness; you can’t speak the truth…plain and simple. You want some truth? Natalie Holloway would be alive today if her friends were responsible and didn’t allow her to go off with a stranger. The massacre at Columbine probably wouldn’t have happened if Harris and Klebold’s parents had done their job and gone down into their rooms to see what they were doing. You want more truth? How about we’re going to find out real soon how mentally disturbed the theater shooter was. His mother reportedly said “that sounds like my son” when contacted by police. Could this be another case of parenting decisions gone wrong? Time will only tell how the role of kids’ rights and medical records privacy rules might have changed the outcome.
At the conclusion of the Washington Week trip I am left physically exhausted though intellectually and civically energized! Led by Professor Schaller, Dr. Krannawitter, and Dean Saxby, students visited think tanks, memorials, monuments, historical battlefields, renowned authors, museums, both chambers of Congress, the Becket Fund, and other influential D.C. individuals. We learned about foreign policy, education, our founding, the civil war and the ideas that led to the conflict, political persuasion, and many more issues facing our generation. [More]
Washington D.C. – Monday, May 14th CCU students gathered on the top floor of the American Enterprise Institute. The room could almost be mistaken for a combat command room thanks to AEI scholars leading students into a military simulation of the March 2002 Operation Anaconda during the Afghanistan war. The operation lasted several days and resulted in a Coalition victory with nearly 100 casualties and 500-800 Taliban killed.
Students were tasked with roll playing key persons in the U.S. attack. At the end of the simulation students were asked a very straightforward question “was this mission a success?” The majority of students seemed to think that the mission was not a success due to confusion and the loss of U.S. soldiers in battle. Now it is clear that, having gone through the simulation, aspects of the operation were not handled properly and that mistakes were made; but is it unreasonable for us to look at a battle where fifteen Coalition lives were lost en route to disbanding the largest gathering of Taliban and killing 500-800 enemy fighters? I think so.
We are at a strange time. With great advancements in technology we are made to think that anything is possible and in an arena where human lives are on the line we are hesitant to accept any loss. But this is still war and the men who fight for this country believe that there are certain things worth dying for. I believe we all should take such a noble stance and honor their sacrifices and acknowledge the great victory of this battle. Of course I pray that no life is needlessly lost, but I will not look on this battle as a loss.
For the information given to students by AEI click here.
Wednesday night, Washington, D.C. – American Enterprise Institute & Heritage Foundation scholars, media members, writers, donors, Congressmen gather along with 20 CCU Washington Week students & faculty. The occasion; Arthur Brooks, president of AEI, is speaking about his new book, “The Road to Freedom”. The lecture focused on the battle between conservatives & liberals in the public square. Brooks explained that as president of AEI it is clear that the truth and statistical backing rests within the conservative ideas and policies. Despite this, the left is winning the battle. Brooks believes this quandary is caused by the failure of conservatives to make a strong moral argument for our beliefs and our ignorance of the neuropsychological proof that moral arguments affect human brains in a way far more powerful than solely logical arguments.
To illustrate the failure of strictly logical arguments versus a moral case Brooks tells a joke – ‘Three friends go out golfing; a psychologist, a priest and a free market economist. They find themselves playing behind two incredibly slow golfers. These golfers are painfully slow and are ruining the friends’ day at the golf course. After several holes of impatiently waiting behind these two men who are shooting upwards of 12 strokes per hole, the three ask the caddy to allow them to play through. The caddy replies “you guys are free to play through, but I want you all to be aware of how rude you’ve been… Remember the fire at the schoolhouse last year, and the two firemen who lost their sight while rescuing 13 children from the blaze? Well that’s them and this weekly golf game is their most coveted source of fun since losing their vision, and you three have been heckling them this entire time.” The psychologist replies, “Wow, here I’ve devoted my life to trying to help people and I just learned a valuable lesson today.” The priest says “Oh my, I have a contrite heart and I have been humbled by these two great men.” The free-market economist pauses for a moment, and then says, “It would be more efficient if they were to play at night!”’(Paraphrase Quote)
Clearly the economist in this joke has made a factual and relevant argument, but he has completely failed to address the moral reality of this situation and thus ignored an integral element of human nature. This anecdote masterfully illustrates the climate of political discourse between the right & left today. Brooks went on to show that the right is not devoid of moral substance. Rather he showed that every claim has moral implications, and that we must reach towards those implications in our argumentation in order to reach others with the truth where it so often is overlooked.
My time in D.C. with the CCU and Centennial Institute Washington Week clan began with not the greatest of surprises – after driving 1,670 miles from Denver my car’s fuel pump failed just twenty miles short of our destination. Sparing you further details of the dilemma; I had a very interesting discussion with the driver of the tow truck, Kevin. Kevin made it very clear that he backed Obama for re-election. After unsuccessfully prying into his reasoning for such a stance, I began to lose hope for the discussion. Then Kevin introduced the idea of term limits for Congress. Kevin was highly in favor of a possible limit of service on the Hill for both chambers. This proposition is not foreign at CCU, Centennial Institute, or conservative dialogue in general, and provided a needed common ground between Kevin and myself on our short ride to the garage. This conversation would not be the last time that term limits would be raised during this trip.
On Friday, former Colorado Congressman and Senator, Hank Brown led CCU students on a tour of the Capitol. Senator Brown has extensive knowledge of the Capitol’s art, history, and symbolism. As a former Senator, Hank Brown provided CCU students a nearly unlimited access tour of both chambers. One very special place we found ourselves in was the House Appropriations Committee room. In this room, a portion of the fresco is composed of a painting of the Roman Senator and leader Cincinnatus being called from his plough to defend Rome. Senator Brown told us the significance of this lies not in the fact the Cincinnatus heard the call of duty and went to save Rome, but that he returned to his farm and denied the dictatorship of Rome after completing his service. This historical event was repeated in the life and service of George Washington. Both men loved their country, they left their home to serve and defend but returned when their service was no longer required, turning down dictatorial power.
These two men, Washington more commonly, are cited by those who argue for a Congressional term limit. We have seen a handful of men go to congress and serve valiantly at their posts as Senators of Congressman then return to their homes and occupations, imploring others to do the same. But are these self-imposing term limiters to be compared to Cincinnatus and Washington? To know this we must know the enemy in all three cases. In Cincinnatus’s time the enemy was the attacking Aequi forces. During Washington the threat was the British Empire. But today the greatest fight in front of a conservative congressman or woman is the fight to stop & reverse government growth and defend constitutional government. And while universally imposed term limits would theoretically aid that pursuit, Conservatives are not raising the memory of Cincinnatus or Washington when they leave the government in the hands of the entrenched spenders while patting themselves on the back for showing restraint. I applaud the honorable service of these Senators and Representatives, though I feel this is one area where leading by example hurts our cause. These strong conservative members should fight to the end of the battle; until term limits are instated, then leave their posts with dignity.
Economic distress is of pandemic proportions throughout western civilization. Greece, France, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland, and Italy are but a few international examples of countries under great economic distress. The United States, now facing a looming economic crisis of its own, has added over $5 trillion of new debt under the Obama Administration over the past three years, while being downgraded by Standard and Poors for the first time in history. The United States has moved from the top creditor in the world to the top debtor in the world over the past 30 years. The primary reason for the increasing economic distress in America and these other countries is the unwavering commitment to secularism. The belief in state solutions coincides with the abandonment of the Judeo-Christian worldview in western civilization. America had enjoyed the leadership position of being the greatest country in world history because it had elevated freedom and morality in its institutions, society, and government. As America has abandoned its commitment to personal liberty and morality, it has entered a period of moral decay and economic decline. The economics of capitalism and morality, thought by secularists to be handmaidens of imperial oppression, are actually the sine qua non of prosperity, progress, and peace. Moral decay precedes economic decay. Moral decay, left unchecked, leads to the concentration of state power that inevitably ends in either tyranny or collapse. A review of 20th century history speaks volumes about how distributed freedom, based upon a framework of Judeo-Christian morality, offers the single best hope for freedom and prosperity. If the evidence is so clear, why do we see such passion for secularism as the path to progress? Devotion to secularism is rooted in moral relativism. Moral relativism posits that no one is objectively right or wrong and therefore one should tolerate other behaviors, irrespective of aberration. Truth claims are based upon preferences, not reality, and moral authority resides within each individual. It is a moral framework that is self-refuting. One can not consistently be a moral relativist yet complain when their wallet is stolen. This is clearly manifest in the changing of American mores over the past several decades with respect to abortion, gambling, pornography, illegitimacy, divorce, same sex marriage, et. al. If nothing is wrong, all things are permissible. Ethicists call this the "logical slippery slope." There is a concept called "moral velocity", i.e., what is tolerated as unusual today will be widely practiced tomorrow. Civilizations inevitably decline in relation to their moral velocity. Individually, the majority of those who reject faith do so on moral grounds, e.g., they do not want to be accountable to a higher moral authority, i.e., God. Secondly, most secularists adhere to a philosophical construct that posits man is born good, has suffered due to the wrong institutional practices, and can be restored to a utopian state if institutions, i.e., government, can accomplish "heaven on earth." History teaches that totalitarianism begins with the promise of utopianism. Totalitarianism is always realized through the concentrated power of the state. Man has predominantly been ruled throughout history by this concentration of power through tyranny or monarchy. A democracy or republic represent the rare exceptions. America, as a constitutional republic, has been singularly exceptional. Until now, under this current administration. The founding fathers understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely long before Lord Acton gave voice to this truism. This is why they established checks and balances through the three branches of government, a bicameral legislature, shared power between the federal government and the states, the power of veto, and the restraints imposed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They understood, as the Bible taught, that man was not born good when John Adams said “...our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” They also knew that creating obstacles to unilateral change was the key to protecting liberty. Secularism is the worldview that opposes what the founding fathers believed about the nature of man and the purpose of government. The secularist worldview has been on the march throughout recent history due to the writings of people like Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Julius Wellhausen, John Maynard Keynes, John Dewey, and Soren Kierkegaard. Their body of philosophical work from the 19th century found expression in the actions of 20th century secularists such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in history with over 174 million killed through democide (death by government). (1) The full fruit of secularism is a horror to behold. Secularism was considered a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins when it stated "...among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." The American Humanist Association secured an IRS religious tax exemption. (2) “[Secularism] is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (3) Secularism is a religion where man reigns supreme. Unfortunately, history teaches us that man repeatedly fails to govern himself. It is when Judeo-Christian principles, a constitutional republic, and free market capitalism are joined together as the three pillars of strength that civilization flourishes as it has in the United States. Why do secularists turn from a winning formula? The secularist worldview is based upon atheism, moral relativism, government interventionism, scientific naturalism, evolution, and legal positivism. This explains why secularists support the changing of the U.S. Constitution, the changing of marriage laws to support gay marriage, the changing of capitalism to support social justice, the changing of education to require teaching macro-evolution as fact, the changing of U.S. sovereignty to embrace international consensus, and so on. This is the change that secularists adumbrated in the campaign before 2008, attempted to over-reach in their execution post election, and now divide Americans against each other in an effort to perpetuate their power. Many adherents to the Judeo-Christian worldview are now waking up to the language of deconstructionism (words mean whatever the reader wants them to mean). Change has simply meant the abandonment of Judeo-Christian principles, the restriction of free market capitalism, and the abrogation of the constitutional republic. Has discernment arrived too late to reverse course? Recent elections in France, Greece, and Germany suggest that those secularized countries, reluctant to reverse their course, will no longer support austerity measures imposed by the morality of rational economic thought. Like the Euro zone (the most secular geography on the planet) America is now entering a period of great economic risk. Some of America's largest and most secular states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon) have some of the lowest financial ratings by Standard and Poors, often due to bloated government payrolls, excessive union obligations, inability to control spending, and an emphasis on state provided solutions. California currently faces a $16 billion deficit yet has some of the highest tax rates in the country.(4) It is not a tax problem. It is a spending problem. It is a problem from following a secular worldview. The relationship between the addiction to state solutions and economic decline is irrefutable. Secularism promises hope and change but delivers widespread misery. It promises moral freedom but ultimately delivers economic bondage. Europe is learning slowly. Will America demonstrate it has learned the history of secularism? Vote against Barack Obama and the interests of secularism this November. The future of our republic depends on it. ------------- Footnotes
3. Humanist Manifesto I and II. Preamble.
96 800x600 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
(CCU Student) It was months ago, way back in May of this year, that Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan by CIA operatives. But I keep thinking about the moral and spiritual questions posed by all the jubilation over this man's death.
When citizens of the United States found out bin Laden had been assassinated, they celebrated. Baseball games were stopped because everyone was cheering. People started cheering in the grocery store or just where they were when they received the news. Some say people were out of line for celebrating a death, and others say they were celebrating because the man responsible for so many deaths is now dead. Which one is right?
Many people said they were celebrating for those who died because of Osama bin Laden. Yes, the attacks of 9/11 were ten years ago, but in some people’s hearts, it is still raw. Knowing that the coordinator of their loved ones death is dead is reason enough to celebrate. They are celebrating that he cannot hurt or kill anymore people, and that others will not go through what they have experienced.
I believe that people do have the right to celebrate Osama’s death. Although I was not close to someone who died in the 9/11 attacks, I will still celebrate that he cannot bring any more pain to our country. Why can’t people be happy for those who needed closure on 9/11?
There is the debate that the operatives should not have shot him, and instead captured him. However, Osama did have a gun and hostages, and the operatives did what they thought was necessary. If I was an operative, I would think through the pros and cons of shooting him, and made the necessary choice. The pros of shooting this man who has destroyed our country outweigh the cons.
The pros would be: 1) We do not want to jeopardize losing him; 2) He has hostages and a gun; 3) We have waited too long to find him; 4) He won’t come peacefully, which might in turn result of him killing his hostages; and 5) If we do capture him will we have others raid and try to free him. Overall, I believe that it was too risky to not shoot him.
The cons would be: 1) People will be happy we have him captive, and some would be glad that he had not been shot right away; 2) He can have a trial. All together, I think they made the right choice. They respected the Muslim countries' wishes of burying him there, which shows that our operatives do care about those countries' traditions.
The other side of this debate is that people say we, as Christians, should not be celebrating that Osama bin Laden went to hell. I disagree with this argument because the majority of people are not celebrating that he went to hell but that he is gone from this world. According to ABC News, citizens of the United States who claim to be Christian are around 83 percent. How many of that 83 percent talk about hell from the Bible? They don’t! They use it as a swearing term and do not care to admit that there is a real hell. They may say that they are a Christian, but they do not live the real lifestyle of Christianity. Therefore, I believe this side is wrong in that we are celebrating a life going to hell.