Category Archives: Sanctity of Human Life

Why Pro-Lifers Should Compromise on Abortion Policy

Posted on by
5


Pro-life abortion justice
CONTEMPLATION OF JUSTICE – from the US Supreme Court building, sculpted by J E Fraser. (Manipulated photo used with permission: Matt H. Wade: CC-BY-SA-3.0 ).

I’m going to present to you a rationale for compromising on pro-life public policy from a biblical perspective. It’s a rationale I don’t recall hearing in my 40 something years as a conservative evangelical pro-life person. If you consider yourself to be pro-life, I’d like to hear what you think.

First, I should probably give you my pro-life creds. It was during my art college years, (1978 – 1982), that I first thought much about abortion as a social and human rights issue. I was smack in the middle of the religious right push to rally the church around the issue of abortion during the late 70s. The works of Dr. Frances Schaeffer, (now deceased), and his angry son Franky, (now an ex-evangelical), were highly influential for me.

For several years I regularly picketed my local Planned Parenthood clinic, as well as an occasional independent abortion clinic. During the “Summer of Mercy” (1991) organized by Operation Rescue, I was arrested along with a group of other pro-life activists at that same Planned Parenthood for a planned, peaceful act of civil disobedience. By design, we were dragged, one by one, to a paddy wagon and put in jail for locking arms and sitting quietly in front of the entrance of the clinic.

So I got to see the pro-life movement up close. I had a lot of invigorating conversations with pro-lifers of differing backgrounds from mine, as well as with the ever-present counter-protesters. I had a life-changing conversation that I still remember with a brilliant young woman from Feminists for Life. I still smile at the memory of two blonde, articulate, regular female protesters, who had a commanding presence and were always joined at the hip, and whom the counter- protesters nicknamed “the Barbie Dolls from Hell.”

I got to see first-hand that the oft repeated media accusations against pro-lifers are not true: accusations that pro-lifers don’t care about life once it is out of the womb. That pro-lifers don’t care about women. That the pro-life movement is driven by men, and so on. These were compassionate people who lived out their convictions.

I tell you all of this to show that I have been ardently pro-life for my entire adult life, and continue to be so. I believe that upholding a belief in the sanctity of human life for all people is good for all people. (No, I am not in favor of capitol punishment, btw.)

I know the pro-life arguments around the hard cases regarding abortion – life of the mother, rape and incest, and severe fetal deformity/disease.

The proposed exceptions

These exceptional cases bring us to the question of compromise. Since the overturning of Roe, mainstream pro-life organizations have been speaking of “an abortion free America” and “a total ban on abortion.” I understand where they’re coming from. If abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, which it demonstrably is, then there can’t be room for compromise.

But, what if God thinks otherwise?

Evangelicals believe in a God who is love (1 Jn 4:16), a God who “is light and in Whom there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5), a God who created male and female as equals in His image (Gn 1:26,27), Who “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should repent” (Ez 18:23, 32; ch 33:11), who created the ideal of lifelong, faithful, monogamous, marriage (Gn 2:23-25; Mt. 19:3-6).

So, hypothetically, if such a God were to deliver a body of public policy to a nation of people, He wouldn’t compromise on what He knows to be right, would He?

Except that, if you think about it, that’s exactly what he did when he delivered the 10 commandments and the Torah to the Hebrew nation under Moses. The Torah contains several concessions. Jesus spells one out here: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” He’s explicitly allowing a concession around a right and good ideal because of mans’ brokenness.

I contend that the Torah is not an expression of God’s ideal. The ideal expression came with Jesus and the New Covenant – you have heard it said…but I say to you: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Hold on to that particular thought for a moment.

This idea is not widely understood. I get flak for this all the time in my conversations with atheists and “skeptics.” In the Torah they think they see God condoning male sexism, slavery, xenophobia, and genocide. If God is so good, they say, then why did He hand deliver such an inferior body of law to His people? The Freedom From Religion Foundation could do better than that. Supposedly.

Well…why would a compassionate, holy, and just God compromise His standards with fallen people?

I’m sure the answer is multi-faceted, but the obvious one to me is that the Hebrew nation couldn’t have handled a higher standard, so God gave them a low bar. If God were to remain just, demanding obedience to the highest bar would’ve wiped the Hebrews out. Can you imagine – “if you even look at a woman to lust after her you are liable to judgment”? Not committing adultery was at least possible for them. As it was, the nation failed miserably to obey God’s Torah for much of its history, even given a law containing concessions.

Before Moses and the Torah, the Hebrew nation was enslaved for 400 years to an idolatrous nation that served a pantheon of gods. This was all Moses’s generation had known apart from whatever slivers of oral tradition around YHWH may have survived within the enslaved population. The Hebrew people who received the Torah from God were unregenerate, were not born again, did not have the Spirit of God dwelling within them. That would all come later when Jesus would eventually establish a better covenant, a better salvation, and a better kingdom based on better promises, and a better torah. (“Torah” literally means “instruction.”)

This is my rationale for compromise today. Let’s apply it to abortion policy in America.

I believe the pro-life position to be correct and good. It’s certainly best for innocent life in the womb, but also arguably for women and society as a whole. But we are now charged with coming up with public policy that must apply to a diverse population of people, many of whom do not hold to a pro-life ethic. Furthermore, law demands compliance, and consequences for failure to comply. I’m arguing that we need to set the bar lower than “an abortion-free America.”

In my opinion, post Roe, abortion should be allowable in 3 exceptional cases. In each of these cases, the mother will have had no say in some aspect of her pregnancy. Therefore, compromise is justifiable. Let’s look at each case.

When the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother

This one is a no-brainer. Abortion has always been allowed to save the life of the mother, and pro-life groups argue that this is still the case today, post-Roe, in every state despite what some media claim. The pro-life position has never been that the life of a developing fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother, but that the rights of both should be considered.

In cases of pregnancy resulting from rape and/or incest

I understand the pro-life arguments against abortion in this case – that the resulting new life is not at fault; that two wrongs don’t make a right, and so on. I have a friend who describes himself as “the product of a rape.” He has a lovely family now and is happy to be here.

Nonetheless, the reality is that if a woman can be forcibly made pregnant, and then by law cannot terminate that pregnancy, then we truly are mandating forced pregnancy. I don’t see justice for the woman in that. For those women who choose to carry such pregnancies to term for the sake of the developing baby inside of them, they are remarkable human beings choosing extraordinary compassion and self- sacrifice. But I think it is too much to ask that women should have no choice in such a situation.

In cases of severe fetal deformity/life threatening disease

Again, I understand the arguments. But again, I think forcing compliance is asking too much of women who do not agree with those arguments. There are a number of fetal diseases that usually result in the death of a developing baby before, during, or shortly after birth.

I have supported and watched a mother who is very close to me carry a baby diagnosed with trisomy 18. We all hoped and prayed for a miracle. She carried the baby for 20 weeks, and then delivered a stillborn son. I watched her and her husband humanize and dignify this baby’s short life by naming him, holding him after birth, weeping over him, and eventually scattering his ashes in the mountains. I think what she did was amazing, right, and beautiful – tragic though it was.

This woman had a supportive husband and extended family in addition to her faith and pro-life convictions. But I think it is too much to ask to force all women, even those who may not believe in miracles or who may be in difficult circumstances, to comply with a total abortion ban in cases like this.

Conclusion

I am not advocating compromising one’s own pro-life position here. The question here is about setting a lower bar regarding public policy for the diverse, general population. Kinda like God did with the Hebrews. Allowing abortion in these difficult situations does not require abortion for those who hold to an uncompromising pro-life ethic. It does not militate against a culture of life. It does seek to balance the interests of girls and women with the interests of their developing offspring.

There is nothing else like pregnancy in terms of what it requires of an individual. An unplanned pregnancy in and of itself is a life-altering undertaking, even without abusive or life threatening circumstances surrounding it. Few woman would choose a life-threatening pregnancy, non-consensual sex, or a life-threatening diagnosis for her developing offspring. While it is indisputable that a new human life begins at conception, it is a justifiable compromise that women have the option to end a pregnancy in these situations.

I am very interested in hearing your comments below.

(Here is the link to my new rebuttal video to, “The History of Abortion,” in case you missed it):
https://youtu.be/JLvniDOrQgo

What Is REALLY Behind the Pro-Life Movement? A Response

Posted on by
3
a depiction of the abortion debate
I created this ink illustration in 1990 as part of an ad that I intended to run in the Kansas City Star. I never followed through, but I still think it’s a pretty fair depiction of the abortion debate. So I put it in my video…

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted, despite the consequential events that have occurred in the world over recent months. The reason for my disappearance is that I’ve been working on a video. I’ll keep this post short because I’m hoping you will watch the video. I also hope you will like, subscribe, and share it. (Assuming of course that you like it, want to see more, and think it’s worth sharing!)

I’ve wanted to get into video for some time because I’ve heard that more people are inclined to watch than read, especially young people. However, I don’t particularly like being in front of a camera, so my art and design will serve as the visual part. I don’t particularly like the sound of my voice either, but there’s not much I can do about that.

…Except maybe, for the narration of my next video, I’m thinking of faking a Scottish accent. ‘Cause…you know…my name is Scott. So even if it’s badly done, no one can accuse me of not being Scottish.

This first video is a response to another video, narrated by actress Alyssa Milano, that came out just days after the Supreme Court decision sending the question of abortion rights back to the states. Milano’s video is called, “The History of Abortion.” Many of the statements made in that video were so egregiously incorrect that I just couldn’t ignore it. I think you’ll find my video response fascinating, and you’ll hear some things you haven’t heard before.

At the same time, I’m hoping that my video won’t come off as an attack. It’s clear to me that God has called us to be peacemakers and ministers of reconciliation. For some time I’ve felt compelled to be a bridge-builder to whatever extent that is possible. Unfortunately I still see far too little of this in public discourse, and I’m especially bothered by people who call themselves Christians and conservatives behaving like jerks toward people who disagree with them.

Of Course, this is a human tendency, not a Christian or conservative one, but I guess it’s just that I expect more from people who call themselves followers of Jesus. Thanks to all of you who have commented here over the years, for your respectful approach!

I think I will leave it at that for now, and let the video speak for itself. I will need to follow this up soon with a post for my pro-life friends, as I’ve been doing an informal survey and would love to hear your opinions as well. I will leave you hanging as to what my question is, though if you watch the video you might figure it out.

Here is the link:

George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789

Posted on by
2
Portrait of George Washington rendered in a contemporary and celebratory manner

Below I print verbatim our first president’s Thanksgiving Proclamation. It is worth reading in view of the challenges that our nation is currently facing. Since this is my blog, I have highlighted my favorite parts. Enjoy and give thanks!

By the President of the United States of America,

a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Statue of George Washington defaced - BLM sprayed across the base
July 2020 – Defaced statue of George Washington in New Orleans. “BLM” was sprayed across the statue’s base. – 4WWL-TV

George Washington and slavery
It is common in today’s political climate to denigrate George Washington along with several other American founders because they were slaveholders. Some assert that the founding documents are fundamentally flawed because of this fact. They insist that phrases such as the above “blessing to all the people,” and Jefferson’s “all men are created equal,” were not intended to include women and people of color. While some criticisms of several important American founders are justified, it does not follow that the founding documents are therefore innately and irreparably racist and sexist. What these men wrote laid the groundwork for the eventual abolition of slavery and equal rights for women.

America did in fact fight a war to end slavery within one generation of its founding. The Civil War was fought on principle, at great cost to the nation. The abolitionist movement was almost entirely due to the religious fervor and moral stance of white Christians, along with some Black abolitionists who had escaped bondage. Meanwhile, white enlightenment secularists were missing in action, at best, regarding the issue of slavery.

If it seems duplicitous that some of the key American founders who laid the constitutional groundwork to abolish slavery and inequality continued to hold slaves, that’s because it was duplicitous. The world was coming to grips with the evils of slavery even as America was being born. After the American revolution, in 1777 Vermont became the first sovereign American state to abolish the slave trade. The transatlantic slave trade reached its peak in the 1780s. British abolitionist William Wilberforce was born in 1759.

There is much evidence that slavery gave rise to racism, (belief in the racial inferiority of blacks), and not the reverse. “New world” race relations in the early 1600s generally saw blacks and whites on equal footing. Unfortunately, over the next couple of centuries, bad science, bad theology, and bad public policy increasingly fostered a white supremacist subculture, eventually enshrining slavery as an institution and condoning black slaves as property. By the time America’s independence was won, opinion on slavery was divided and hotly debated.

The most prominent slaveholder founders – namely Washington, Jefferson, and Madison – all made anti-slavery statements even as they held slaves. Washington’s will stipulated that his slaves be freed upon his wife’s death, (which didn’t fully happen). Ben Franklin freed his few slaves and later became president of the Pennsylvanian Abolition Society. Some founders, such as America’s second president John Adams, and the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, were anti-slavery from the start. There was never a universally pro-slavery America. America was not “built on slavery.”

Nonetheless, one may rightfully ask how such duplicity could exist in some freedom-minded founders when the full humanity of black individuals was so obvious. My answer is that all human beings are broken, and we are all prone to find ways to justify unjust, even violent, practices to preserve our own interests at the expense of others.

To take a modern example, we have known for over a couple of centuries that a new human life begins at conception. Modern biological science is clear and indisputable on this. Yet, here we are in the 21st century fighting a cold civil war over abortion on demand – a supposed right for “people with uteri.” We live and work, side by side, with people who disagree on this issue. We currently have elected lawmakers fighting to keep late term abortion legal, and others seeking to abolish it altogether. There are otherwise decent people on both sides of the issue.

Saying this in no way minimizes the evil of slavery or justifies the early American slaveholders. The comparison between legal abortion and slavery simply demonstrates how a practice that is seen as an obvious and non-negotiable personal right by one side can be seen as an obviously barbaric and reprehensible practice by the other, even in our “enlightened” era.

If you object to this comparison, and would like to make the case that comparing legal slavery to legal abortion is comparing apples to oranges, I would like to hear your argument in the comment section.

In closing, and in view of our fractured, divided, often hysterical and overly politicized cultural atmosphere, I leave you with one more quote. This one is also from our wise-but-imperfect first president, George Washington, from his farewell address. It is brilliant in its prophetic nature to us today:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism….In governments purely elective, [a spirit of party is] not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

Amen to that, and a happy thanksgiving to you and your loved ones!

My original, illustrated storybooks may be the perfect gift for the child in your life!
Order before the end of November to ensure delivery before Christmas.
For more info and to order, visit MY WEBSITE

Going Forward, One Word Should Be Part of Any Discussion on Sex and Gender

Posted on by
2

I won’t make you wait for it. The word is Transhumanism.

This is a revolution that no one is talking about. Where are the news media and where are the “experts” on this? We should be having a national discussion around whether we even want to be on board with the dubious idea of transhumanism, and, for those who do, how they should cautiously proceed. Instead we are barreling down the transhuman highway with the windshield painted fuchsia.

What is Transhumanism? (Abbreviated as H+)
Transhumanism is a philosophical movement opining that we can and should overcome the natural biological limitations of humanity by means of science and technology. Some transhumanists envision enhancing human longevity and cognitive abilities to the degree that humans become “posthuman” creatures.

H+ stems from an evolutionary worldview. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, if one believes in a mindlessly and accidentally evolved universe, that we should intelligently direct the course of our own evolution now that we have the means to do so.

Here’s an illustrative quote from one transhumanist:

We believe it is our basic human right to be able to upgrade ourselves, and to develop and leverage the fundamental technologies that enable the next phase of evolution. We believe the future of the human race will not only allow us to opt out of nature’s selective processes and choose our own evolutionary paths, but that our very survival as a species depends on it. These beliefs are the cornerstone of Transhumanism. (Amal DT Graffstra).

To clarify, H+ is not the use of science and technology to restore the body’s natural functions or to facilitate healing. That is the role of traditional medical science. Nor is H+ the use of technology to restore disfigurement, or even to enhance one’s physical attractiveness. That is the role plastic/cosmetic surgery. Rather H+ seeks to transcend our natural human limitations and engineer an improved humanity.

The issue here is not science vs anti-science. The issue at hand is around what should be the legitimate role of science and technology.

Transhumanism is already here
My guess is that most people don’t recognize the revolution for what it is because, if we’ve thought about it at all, we think of transhumanism as a futuristic, sci-fi fantasy. And it’s true that we aren’t yet capable of brain-machine interfaces, or mastering the aging process. But there is a sub-category of transhumanism that is not waiting for the future. That sub-category is called postgenderism.

Postgenderism seeks to use science and technology to create a world where human beings are free from the “harmful constraints” of the traditional binary concept of gender:

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies… Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction… Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice…
(Beyond the Gender Binary, Dvorsky and Hughes, 2008).

Notice that like H+, and as a sub-category of H+, postgenderism:
1) is a utopian endeavor,
2) seeks to override or transcend natural human limitations.
3) employs science and technology to carry out its aims

To be charitable, H+ and it offshoot, postgenderism, hope to improve the human condition and relieve human suffering, including “psychic suffering”. But the crucial question is, “Does it, can it, and will it deliver?” I think we have reason to be very concerned about the answer.

From the standpoint of a biblical worldview, the fundamental problems with the human condition are beyond that which science and technology can fix. It is indicative of human arrogance to assume we can improve upon our natural humanity through technological means.

Present day examples of H+/postgenderism
If it seems like a stretch to believe that H+/postgenderism is here, think about what is routinely happening today in the field of human sexuality.  I should state that I am not a medical professional of any stripe, but as a layman, three current examples with which we are all now familiar come to mind:

1) Abortion-on-demand – Consider this through the lens of postgenderism. Abortion-on-demand is now non-negotiable for modern feminism because, to the feminist mind, human biology renders men and women “unequal.” The possibility of abortion access erases the inequity that nature imposes upon women, thus making gender at least somewhat less relevant. In the feminist mind, without abortion, natural female biology is seen as a form of slavery; a social injustice; a limit on female autonomy. If planning and/or contraception fail, abortion allows women to overcome their biological limitations – thus abortion qualifies as a crude H+ half measure until the development of the artificial womb.

Note that elective abortion falls outside the parameters of healing medicine: pregnancy is not a disease. A developing embryo is not an invasive parasite. A fetus is not a tumor. Elective abortion exists in America for ideological reasons. For the immediate future, the cutting edge of the abortion industry seeks a “safe” abortive chemical solution, making abortion access less dependent on invasive surgical procedures and more widely available.

2) Hormone therapy and puberty blocking drugs – Researchers have learned some of the mechanics of how hormones work, and why males and females develop the way they do. We can now appropriate technology to artificially delay puberty, and to alter the body’s natural processes to create secondary sexual features like facial hair and breasts. Transgender individuals are appropriating this technology to bring their bodies into alignment with their psychical identity.

Whether or not this is a good idea is another conversation. My point here is that it is undeniable that such chemical therapy is now commonplace, and it falls squarely under the agendas of H+/postgenderism – it is the use of science and technology to transcend one’s natural physiology for conceptual reasons.

3) Sex reassignment surgery – Surgically altering healthy, functioning sex organs is an extreme procedure from which there is no going back, practically speaking. Doing so for ideological reasons is a clear example of H+/postgenderist practice.

In my non-expert opinion, I would concede that there are a number of developmental sexual abnormalities for which such therapy and surgeries would arguably constitute a legit medical fix. But for purposes of this discussion it is the H+/postgender vision of a society where gender is considered to be a fluid, non-binary, matter of choice for everyone, including children, that I’m concerned with.

Why does this matter for you?
Progressive ideologues are  imposing H+/postgenderism onto the culture under the guise of justice and equality. We are told that the changes around gender ideology are simply the next, inevitable stage of the civil rights movement. So compassionate people cannot disagree with what is happening. You want to be a compassionate person, don’t you? This is all about minimizing suffering.

Perhaps this all seems to have come from out of nowhere to you. Like an accidental explosion at the cotton candy factory, sending sticky wisps of rainbow-colored spun sugar down on us all. What I would like the reader to consider is that these societal changes have been inspired by “progressive” political ideology, and they have been in the making for decades. One can map the progress.

I am unequivocally on board with compassion, fairness, equality, and minimizing suffering, but the changes stemming from gender ideology are not some inevitable next stage in social progress based on scientifically informed reason. They are changes stemming from the opinions of ideologically driven activists. No one should feel pressure to get on board.

This is about authority
The point of this article is not so much to convince those with whom I disagree of the rightness of my position. My point is to amplify the logical consequences of two differing worldviews in the interest of enabling people to make informed choices.

This is ultimately about authority. Transhumanism and postgenderism stem from a specific set of beliefs about the universe. If one believes that we exist as a result of purposeless, accidental, evolutionary processes, then natural law and human biology carry little weight. They simply exist, for no authoritative reason. We are free to take control of the reigns and to direct our destiny as we see fit. On paper, at least, there is little to prevent us from creating our own reality.

But a lot of ideas sound good on paper. Car alarms and self-flushing toilets, for example. Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, human brokenness always gets in the way of utopia in this present age.

By contrast, followers of Jesus embrace a different set of beliefs about the universe. We believe that objective, divine authority actually exists; that it always has, and it always will. The gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus’s last statement to His disciples:

“All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me…”

That’s an extravagantly bold statement coming from a figure who is universally regarded as being a good teacher. Followers of Jesus are bound to believe it. Jesus and His disciples also made definitive statements about gender, marriage, family, the innate value of human life, and the unreliability of the human heart. These statements are simply not compatible with H+/postgenderism.

An “upgrade” for humanity is indeed coming, but according to Jesus and His disciples it will come from the Author of Life, not from our own H+ biohacking. In the meantime, in this age, it seems clear to me that we don’t have all the information, and that therefore, apart from revelation, we often don’t know what’s best for ourselves and for each other.

If you’re a liberal, you might object that your beliefs have nothing to do with an H+/postgenderist agenda. You might argue that you believe in an infinite spectrum of genders for reasons of fairness; that  “gender is what’s between your ears” is the more compassionate position; that you believe that “what matters is two loving parents, more so than a biological mom and dad” for reasons of inclusivity; that you support abortion-on-demand in support of “reproductive freedom” for women, and so on.

However, those reasons notwithstanding, one is still embracing T+/postgenderist thinking if one is favorable to the use of technology to transcend our natural human limitations. One is establishing oneself (or humanity) as the ultimate authority in defining and determining enlightenment, morality, and salvation. A line from The Humanist Manifesto ll comes to mind, published in 1973, the year of the Roe v Wade decision:

“No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

So how do we live together?
This is a fascinating time to be alive. The choices before us couldn’t be more consequential. The consequences of choosing wrongly couldn’t be more perilous, from the standpoint of both worldviews. And yet, it is essential that we all live together peaceably and respectfully. How can we do this, given this extreme disparity of belief?

I contend that as Americans, we can still unite around the practice of pluralism and freedom for all within the constraints of the US Constitution. That includes free speech, a free press, religious liberty, and respecting parents’ rights to raise their own children as they see fit. All sides must be on guard against totalitarian thinking. All sides must be on guard against magical thinking. Amongst those with whom we agree, it would make the world a better place if we would hold each other to a standard of honesty, compassion, and respect for the individual.

I welcome your thoughts in the comment section.

— Scott Freeman, July 2021

This Young Girl Will Touch Your Heart

Posted on by
4

At our little church, members take turns leading the congregation in breaking bread every week. A few weeks ago during communion, one of the dads said a few words and then turned the platform over to his daughter, Autumn.

Autumn is 12 years old and was born with Down syndrome. The youngest child of a big, loving, musical family, she loves to dance and worship. She has also been learning American Sign Language (ASL) and wanted to sign a worship song she had been learning. The video below is her mom’s iPhone recording of what Autumn shared with us that Sunday morning.

When I first met Autumn, I was struck by her name – a child with Down syndrome named Autumn, the youngest of 9 children. I assumed she was unplanned, and that her name reflected her parents’ later season of life into which she was born. Not that it was any of my business.

But I eventually asked Autumn’s mom, and she informed me that my assumption was incorrect. At age 45 she realized she wanted to have one more child. The parents understood the increased risk of having a child with Down syndrome due to their age, but they consciously chose to accept whatever blessing God might give them. God gave them Autumn.

This is beautiful to me. It also stands in remarkable contrast to the direction the world is heading. In recent months there have been news stories reporting that Iceland has essentially eradicated Down syndrome. But not through prevention or through finding a cure. Iceland has reduced its Down syndrome population through prenatal genetic testing and abortion.

This is a troubling accomplishment, but apparently Europe and the United States are not far behind in following Iceland’s chilling example. I love that Autumn’s mom and dad predetermined to love her, with or without a disability.

I don’t know how much Autumn understands of the song she is signing. But the truth of God’s promises remain regardless of how well they are understood. There is something moving about her simple belief in a Savior who loves her and welcomes her into His presence. I have a feeling that we are all in a similar position to Autumn with regard to our imperfect understanding of things to come.

Video used with permission from Lori Mihaly.
I do not own the rights to this music.
“I Can Only Imagine” was written by Bart Millard and released by the band Mercy Me in 2001.