Given the amount of immediate blog action on this story I first ran into at Jill Stanek’s rather than joining the fray of speculation, calls of outrage or diving into intense debate, I backed away – considered the mental health state of the young lady, and eventually started to question Yale University and in particular their Art department.

Doesn’t Connecticut have laws that govern infectious or pathological waste?

Why yes – they do. Certainly the University of Connecticut Health Center knows all about it.

Perspective abortion, artwork

This was from a survey on the same day that Dawn Eden presented her case on the Today show. See my post below for my take.

Anyone who thinks that MSNBC, NBC or the like are respectable needs to simply do a gender swap with the terms used and see if it fits.

Pathetic.

Perspective discrimination, misandry

When it comes to certain objective behavior, it’s nearly impossible to read a comment thread on the Web without running into this kind of exchange:

moralist: I believe (objBehavior) is wrong because I’ve been harmed by (objBehavior).

amoralist: I’ll defend your right to say (objBehavior) is wrong, but saying (objBehavior) applies to everyone is wrong.

What is the amoralist actually saying?

First, the amoralist acknowledges that: the moralist is asserting that (objBehavior) is harmful in all cases and is therefore immoral.

Then the amoralist asserts that: (objBehavior) is not harmful in all cases so the objBehavior is therefore moral.

Can you spot the problem?

The amoralist must be omniscient – all knowing – because he’s trying to prove the negative: no harm in all cases. (The negative, a universal meaning void, zip, zero, nada, nothing.)

And – as if trying to prove the negative wasn’t strong enough, the amoralist has actually declared he knows about universals by using the qualifying phrase “applies to everyone” – which means all humans and every occurrence of this (objBehavior).

Clarify the amoralist assertion like this:

You’re telling me there are one or more cases where (objBehavior) is not harmful.

Chances are he’ll confirm he’s trying to prove the negative. So when you run into one of these situations you could tell him “If I understand you correctly, you’ve got nothing to prove…quite literally.”

The amoralist has encountered an insurmountable problem: he is at odds with objective reality and universal logic.

Warning: Deep thinking ahead!

Moral behavior is not subjective, like opinions. Morality is objectively, universally applicable, because humans are objective. We visibly exist and we are all subject to both good and evil.

Logically, good cannot be evil, there are no other values in between, so what is asserted as a vice cannot be a virtue. Virtue and vice are not interchangeable – that would be nonsense, akin to saying the light is both on and off at the same time. They would negate each other and become meaningless.

Either objective behavior is good for everyone or it’s harmful for everyone. Put another way, if an objective behavior harms one person, it harms all others if they engage in it. That’s a moral statement.

The only way an objective behavior can be proven morally harmless is if no one is ever harmed; not doing so rejects those who’ve been harmed as persons.

Since the amoralist is defending the moralist’s right to say he was harmed, he’s acknowledging the moralist as a person, and since he cannot prove the negative on that objective behavior, the only way for the amoralist to believe he’s correct about such moral relativity is to simply assume he’s correct about morals being relative.

The statement begs the question.

Perspective moral relativity

Earlier this week on the Today show Dawn Eden had the opportunity to introduce the idea of chastity (and promote her book “The Thrill of the Chaste”) to a national audience. She did an excellent job answering the implied questions “Why remain chaste? Why forego sex while dating and wait until marriage?”

Dawn provided her own reason for choosing chastity: “you can’t seek permanence through impermanence”.

What a great statement. For me, that stimulated some thinking about what we seek in relationships and how we build intimacy with members of the opposite sex. Given that the panel was all women, I thought I would take a shot at expanding upon that statement, particularly with regard to a man’s need for respect.

First off, please note that while Dawn’s response is not a biblical quote, it is a biblical viewpoint, because God is the most permanent being we can possibly imagine having a relationship with. So permanence is this immensely desirable characteristic. Permanence means stability because the unknown is removed. It’s also immeasurably valuable, because we have no way of conceiving the value of a universal.

In searching for a spouse wouldn’t we desire those permament intrinsic qualities, as well as cultivating them in ourselves? In so doing we would be creating a relationship based on the quality of endurance and permanence, instead of impermanence.

But do we really express that desire when we seek relationships? Do we truly believe permanence is valuable?

Whatever attitudes we hold, whatever we believe to be true is eventually expressed to others. For instance, if we believe it’s okay to test sexual compatibility then immediately doubt is cast into the relationship. If that doubt is exposed to the light – what would it reveal about the true character of the person who wants to test compatibility?

Let me make that more concrete: Jo Arden Maeder suggests that women should test sexual compatibility then lie about their reasons to their men. We can test that by asking “Would she – Jo Arden Maeder, ever actually state to her ‘man’ that she was testing him for sexual compatibility?”

Some would argue a man’s greatest need is respect, while others would say it’s sex. The reality is a man’s greatest need is respect when it comes to sex.

Even promoting the idea of undertaking a sexual compatability test devalues and disrespects men because it reduces us to our sexual organs and performance in bed. With regard to sexual organs, in any other venue, when we are judged by an immutable characteristic, such as our skin color, age, sexual organs or body mass, we call such judgements discrimination. To even suggest the notion hints at misandry – and a quick perusal of the Today show site indicates that attitude in abundance. To focus on performance reduces men to a mere product who’s utility comes through providing pleasure to the one who seeks it.

Therein lies the crux of the problem – and so highly visible in that Today show segment and the like. Most feminine oriented media and magazines speculate endlessly about why things aren’t working and what needs to be done to fix them. This does a great job selling products, but in the end it reduces us all to merely being products, the kind prone to breakage and need of replacement. In other words, there’s no respect at all.

What made Dawn stand out in the crowd was her rejection of that idea and her focus on the imperishable and wonderful, and in the process she introduced something bright, sparkling and permanent into the lives of many: Hope.

Perspective chastity, Eden, Relationships, review, sex

Sometimes meetings happen that are completely unexpected.

Jill Stanek had just such an experience with Steve Trombley, the CEO of the newly consolidated Planned Parenthood of Illinois.

Though Jill and Steve couldn’t be further apart on the issue of abortion, they ended up next to each other on a plane headed to Dallas. You can read about Jill’s take on it here.

God’s ways are mysterious, and humorously humbling – it’s rather hard not to see this occurrence as some sort of sign.

What can be accomplished through such encounters? The late Anna Sullivan of Rhode Island Right to Life showed her rival Mary Anne Sorrentino – the former Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in RI, small bits of kindness that conveyed great sacrificial love whenever they met prior to their abortion debates. It included letters and recognition, even during turbulent times. The love God showed through Anna was so much that Mary Anne wept greatly at the passing of her friend.

What Anna knew, which Mary Anne is learning, is that love is not a feeling, but something you do. Even if it’s something you don’t want to do, like asking sincere questions about the other, not to frame arguments, but to learn of their life. It means seeking that image of God within them, no matter how dim or obscure that might seem. Such efforts are a sacrifice – a small bit of holiness.

As followers of Christ, one of the hardest things for us to learn is how to separate the sin from the sinner, and look at people through a heart of forgiveness and love. It’s easy to know it in our heads, but so much harder to truly love our neighbors in our hearts.

As a father, Steve believes he’s doing right, yet he must realize that life is incredibly precious. During the long hours of the night he’ll wonder about his legacy – about making a better world for his grandchildren. He’ll likely wonder if his own children aborted his grandchildren, and what their lives would have meant to him. He might even miss the love they would have shown him. And he may regret the joy he never knew because one of his own decided to treat another of his own as a mistake instead of a gift, as property instead of a human being.

What does it matter – why does he do what he does, if ultimately the goal is to provide a better world for the coming generations?

Truthfully the abortion industry deals with the doubt and despair of many, so it’s no wonder they seek after a candidate who pledges to provide them hope, but ultimately cannot deliver.

Steve happens to be one of those in the depths of despair.

God is sovereign. We know the end of the story.

The question is do we have the courage to love others like Christ even though they might be killing themselves and their posterity?

That’s easier said than done.

Perspective abortion, PPA, Stanek

Jay Watts over at the LTI Blog dives into a straw bale mountain by way of JivinJehoshaphat’s link to an article on DailyKos but ends up hitting a wall of irrationality – in particular, when Jay reaches the repetitious secular argument that we’re nothing but more-evolved primates.

That argument calls for a consistent, but thoroughly thought-provoking response:

When someone states that human life is no more precious than an animal species, then I say to that person “that their time is better spent arguing with that particular animal instead of me, for why do I matter any more to them than that animal, or for that matter a rock?” Follow that statement with direct action – leave. Eventually they’ll get the idea that the humans they despise might be more interesting, and valuable, than their beloved animal. Even if they don’t get the clue, your time is better spent elsewhere anyway.

If people insist on being non-sensical, simply show them they are, then leave them alone. It’s no use arguing with an insulting fool/mocker.

Perspective evolution