The Daily Detour

Twitter and the loss of shame

(TDD Warning: Some of the content on the linked articles may not be suitable for some of our younger TDD readers. Please use appropriate discretion.)

A story about Twitter was burning up the internet this past week. It involved Penelope Trunk, who broadcasted to her Twitter audience that she was having a miscarriage during a recent board meeting. She went on to express her gratefulness for the miscarriage since there are legal hoops to jump in order to have an abortion in Wisconsin. As you might imagine, her controversial statements are being met with very mixed responses. Among other things, they undermine the pro-choice cause, seeming to reinforce the callous nature that many pro-lifers assume about those who support abortion. Ms. Trunk's responses remind me of a similar article in the New York Times magazine, "When One Is Enough" which also reinforces that mentality.

Beyond that, the book The Death of Outrage also springs to mind. When Bill Bennet first penned the book, its premise was directed at former President Clinton's indiscretions in the Oval Office. But the thesis still applies. We as a culture have gradually descended into a state of apathy concerning societal morality. Such is the nature of a culture that attempts to do away with moral absolutes in favor of tolerance-based moral relativity. We lose our basis for judging right and wrong, and thus, morality gets diluted.

As I have written in the past, we have a collective conscience that has begun to atrophy. And we are not better off for it. Will we ever learn? 

Hospital forced to let patient die

In a most unusual bioethical situation, a hospital in England was legally bound to let a patient die. Kerrie Wooltorton "is believed to be the first person to use a living will to commit suicide." She drank antifreeze, but not before writing a note to the hospital medical staff not to rescusitate here if she is brought into the hospital. As she wrote in her letter, ""If I come into hospital regarding an overdose or any attempt of my life, I would like for NO life saving treatment to be given."

Imagine you're a doctor in that situation. What would you do?

It's a simple question with a not-so-simple answer.

Who's in charge...man or God?

As part of the teaching series that I'm in the midst of right now, I sent out a London Times article from back in 2003. The occasion was celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first test-tube baby, Louise Joy Brown. Robert Edwards, one of the original two-man team that was responsible for the in-vitro fertilization technology, was being interviewed to commemorate that milestone.

What was especially revealing in the article was the point of discussion for our class on worldviews--namely, the clash between science and God. It was encapsulated in Edwards' revelation:

“It was a fantastic achievement but it was about more than infertility,” says Edwards, who rarely gives interviews but, when he does, delights in speaking his mind. “It was also about issues like stem cells and the ethics of human conception. I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.”

And what did he conclude? “It was us,” he smiles triumphantly.

Interestingly, the article also goes on to elaborate on this idea, even quoting him saying, "A child in your own image — just think of what it means to people. It’s fantastic."

No longer are we made in God's image. The "fantastic" reality is that we can create babies made in our own image. I'm reminded of Paul's comments in Romans 1 in which he wrote, "They...exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man...they worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" (vv. 23, 25).

And so the clash between man and God lives on... It almost makes you wonder what God thinks of all of this. 

A refreshing display of sportmanship

Maybe you have already seen this story, but if not, I pass it along to you for some encouragement. The incident involves high school football player Matt Ziesel, a young player with Downs Syndrome who was part of the team but was never able to play. He was so enthusiastic that he suited up with pads and helmet every game, ready and willing to get into the game, but he only road the bench. Until this week. In a blow-out game, both teams worked to make it an unforgettable night for Matt.

On a related, more serious note, imagine if Matt's parents had followed the admonition of people like bioethicist Peter Singer and had eliminated people like Matt whose lives Singer has deemed as "not worth living". So many opportunities lost...

UPDATE: My apologies to any of you who clicked the link above and were taken to a Bonhoeffer book at Amazon. A technological oversight brought to my attention by one of our alert readers. The problem is corrected now and should take you to this very heart-warming story (and a link to the video of Matt's touchdown run).

Would you have killed Hitler?

As you presumably know, I've been teaching an 8 week series on Christian thinking and application at two different churches here in Indianapolis. As a part of the first week's lesson, I've included a case study about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his role in an assassination attempt of Adolf Hitler. He is part of what I wrote in that controversial case study, along with some of the questions for your reflection.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hanged on April 9, 1945 in the Flossenburn concentration camp, mere weeks before Allies liberated Nazi Germany. He was only 39 years old.

The crime for which Bonhoeffer was brutally executed was his participation in an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler.

...he was a Christian and  a pastor. In fact, he actually known less for his role in the assassination attempt on Hitler and more for his sermons and writing during the years he spent in both Germany and the United States. And it his book The Cost of Discipleship which secured his reputation as one of the leading voices in the twentieth century.

Questions to Consider:

1. Do you believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer--as a Christian and a pastor--should have been involved in an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler?

2. How do you think his Christian faith affected his decision to participate? Should it have affected his decision?

3. Knowing what we know about Hitler's legacy, if you were in Bonhoeffer's place to do something to prevent it--even if it meant assassination--would you do it? Why/why not?

4. What might the Bible to say about Dietrich Bonhoeffer's situation?

These are not easy questions to answer. And it is easy for us who sit in the safe confines of suburbia to suggest what we would or wouldn't do in Bonhoeffer's situation. But these are important things to think about. So, what do you think? 

The silence from the pro-abortion lobby

I just ran across this brief commentary from Jeffrey Weiss over at Politics Daily concerning the apparent absence of condemnation by the pro-abortion groups over the recent killing of pro-life activist James Pouillon. His comments are well-written and persuasive. They certainly don't deserve any additions from me. The only thing I would say is that I concur with his observation that their does seem to be a strange silence over the whole affair from those who supporting abortion. I wonder, "Why?"

"Lines That Divide" Stem Cell documentary

There is a new documentary that is being screened around the country entitled, "Lines That Divide". It focuses on the current stem cell debate and has been put together by a former classmate of mine at Trinity International University, Jennifer Lahl. She is the founder and national director of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.

In addition to Jennifer Lahl's work on the film, it was written and directed by Brian Godawa, whose best-known film To End All Wars (starring Kiefer Sutherland) is one of the best movies I've seen. A few years ago I had the opportunity chat briefly with Mr. Godawa while attending a worldview/apologetics conference down in Georgia. His pursuit is in putting together film projects that are inspirational, but also controversial. This documentary on stem cell research fits the bill.

I would encourage you to seek out this movie and watch it. Not only do we all need more education on this controversial issue, but it's also important to share this information with those in our circles of influence.

The latest slide on stem cell's slippery slope

I was just trolling around Facebook and came across fellow Centurion Stuart McKelvie's comment about a disturbing Breakpoint commentary. The subject of Chuck Colson's commentary concerns the latest developments in the stem cell research debate--this time arguing that we should consider harvesting organs from aborted fetuses in order to supply the needs of those waiting on the transplant list. All of this is with the "noble" intent of saving lives.

This entire idea is the essence of utilitarianism--the philosophy built on the idea of "doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people". In this case, taking one life (the fetus) in order to save other lives is justified. But where do we draw the line in such thinking?

Friends, this is not the speculations of futuristic science fiction. We are quickly moving down this gruesome path, and in some cases, we have already arrived.

In settling into my new job, I ran across a compelling quote shared with me some time ago by one of our TDD readers, which I have since posted in my office:

"Doing nothing is no longer an option!"

Especially for those of us who are Christians, the Bible compells us to "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8). And furthermore, it says in Proverbs 24:11-12,

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

Beyond merely a spiritual perspective, there is a pragmatic consideration that should grab all of our attention whether we're religious or not. The fact is, utilitarianism left unchecked means that ultimately nobody is immune from its grasp. Either we or our families will eventually succumb to the whims and "wisdom" of the most powerful among us. And that is a reality that can become extremely dangerous indeed.

More and more lately I have found myself being confronted with this nagging question, "John, what will it take for you act? How bad do things have to get before you finally say, 'Enough his enough!', and do something to combat the problems?" That is something for all of us to think about. So, be disturbed by this latest commentary on the stem cell debate, and do something about it (or any of the other issues confronting us today). If we don't, who will? 

The tragic consequences of fertility world records

You may have heard of Maria del Carmen Bousada, the woman who holds the world record for being oldest woman to be pregnant and give birth. She was 66 years old when she underwent in vitro fertilization. The subsequent birth of her two twins created news worldwide, and stirred afresh the ongoing debate as to the implications and responsibilities related to fertility efforts (particularly given the fact that she lied to the fertility clinic and said she was 55-years old, the maximum threshold for females who want to undergo artificial insemination).

That debate has taken on a new twist with the announcement last week that Ms. Bousada has died at age 69, leaving behind her now-two-year old twins babies. (So much for her assurances to the fertility doctors that because her own mother lived to be 101 years old, she too would be old enough to properly care for the children.)

As with any of the bioethical issues that are addressed on this blog, the proverbial "slippery slope" is a constant theme. And rightly so, as this particular incident demonstrates. Whether we are considering the implications of such complex issues like embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or cloning, the results of such decisions are typically so far in the future as to render the present discussions virtually theoretical. But then the reality of those irrevocable decisions comes crashing to the fore, as this tragedy confirms. Whatever the motivations behind this increasing trend among older women to try to have children, it doesn't seem as though the long-term ramifications of those decisions are thoroughly considered. And the result is typically a short-term "solution" with long-term consequences.

What is to become of these two little babies? The reality that they now face was something that Ms. Bousada did not presumably anticipate when she went through the fertility process. But it is a reality nonetheless, and this tragedy has the potential to be only the beginning of similar life-altering tragedies along this bioethical trajectory upon which our culture finds itself.

This is all the more reason why Christians and other ethically-minded individuals need to not only strategically think through these pressing issues with a thorough seriousness, but they also must be much more intentional about advocating for better alternatives. If not, we can only expect similar outcomes to become more common in the future. And whether we anticipate it or not, real people are affected by such decisions.

Home gender test opens up ethical issues

A company out in California has now made it possible for pregnant women to find out as early as 10 weeks into the pregnancy what the sex of their unborn child is. The company, Intelligender, boasts a 78-80% accuracy rate.

The prospect of being able to determine the gender of one's child raises pros and cons on both sides. On the plus side, being able to know the sex of your child as early as 10 weeks into the pregnancy begins to personalize the little being inside the mother. No longer is it just a mass of human tissue, but rather a human being, and this understanding strengthens the bond between parents and child.

The potential downside concerns the ethical issues that are currently swirling around gender-selection debate. There is the possibility that a pregnant mother might be more inclined to abort the unborn child if she determines that the sex of that child is not to her liking. Because gender could be determined at an earlier stage in gestation it is psychologically easier to rationalize the termination of a baby when their development is not as advanced. (Of course, the knowledge that your child is either a boy or a girl personalizes the child even more, and thus, may make it that much more difficult to terminate the pregnancy.)

Often, many people (and many Christians) attempt to distance themselves from various bioethical issues (stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, even abortion), assuming that those issues don't apply to their daily lives. Nothing is further from the truth. And especially with the continuing advancements in biomedical technology, bioethical issues will continue to pervade our daily experience. So it is imperative that we begin to think seriously and strategically about these various issues in order to know how we will respond when confronted with them.

For example, in this case, there are two issues to consider: 1.) If you could know the gender of your child even 10 weeks earlier in the pregnancy, would you want to? For those of us parents who didn't want to wait until delivery day for the surprise, the answer is presumably, "Yes!", 2.) But the more significant question to thoughtfully consider is, "If you could determine the gender of your child, would you?" The answer lies in that Pandora's box of issues which pursue the balance between "the things of God" and the things of man. And we cross that line at our peril.