Abortion and Peter Singer: Singing out of Tune

2 Comments
ultrasound of an unborn child
Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

“For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.”

Psalm 139:13

It is not a controversial fact that life begins at fertilization.1 For instance, a Princeton University webpage lists fifteen academic sources that support this point. One of the quoted sources clearly states that “fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed”.2 An article from PubMed states that “Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions… assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view [human life begins at fertilization]”.3 I could go on.

So, the abortion debate is now centred on philosophical considerations. One case study will do. Peter Singer, Emeritus Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, answers whether he would save a mouse or human being from a fire: in “almost all cases [he] would save the human being”. Interestingly, the reason for this saving is “not because the human being is human” but because “it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future”. Singer’s criteria for something that is worth saving involves some kind of temporal awareness. To explicitly connect this answer to abortion, “no newborn baby is a person” because newborn babies do not have “a sense of the future”.4

Read More

Fragments from Narnia – Part Eight: The War Against Children

black metal swing
Photo by Robin McPherson on Pexels.com

“Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.'”

Exodus 1:15-16

“You are the child,” said Mr. Tumnus. “I had orders from the White Witch that if ever I saw a Son of Adam or a Daughter of Eve in the wood, I was to catch them and hand them over to her. And you are the first I ever met. And I’ve pretended to be your friend and asked you to tea, and all the time I’ve been meaning to wait till you were asleep and then go and tell her.”

C. S. Lewis, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

Articles in this Series

See the first article for the list.

The War Against Children

I do not believe Lewis’ mention of the White Witch’s command against any “Son of Adam” or “Daughter of Eve” was arbitrarily chosen. Namely, when the White Witch commanded Tumnus to catch any child of Adam or Eve and give them to her, it was not merely because of her general malice. She, like her real-world analogue Satan, has a specific agenda against children. In addressing this agenda, this article will be split into two parts. The first part addresses why this agenda is the case. The second part discusses specific cultural manifestations of this agenda. However, before all this, a few preliminary comments on supernaturalism must be made.

Supernaturalism simply refers to belief in the supernatural. The supernatural is stuff outside the natural, things that cannot be accounted for through empirical evidence or scientific experiments. The supernatural includes God, demons, Satan, angels, and so on. Though these supernatural entities exert influence on the natural world, they themselves are not part of it. God is spirit (Jn. 4:24), angels are called “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14), and demons and Satan, on account of being fallen angels (Rev. 12:7-8), are spirits too.

Read More

Fragments from Narnia – Part Two: Daughter of Eve

leafed trees
Photo by Button Pusher on Pexels.com

“[T]hen the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

Genesis 2:7

“Good evening, good evening,” said the Faun. “Excuse me—I don’t want to be inquisitive—but should I be right in thinking that you are a Daughter of Eve?”
“My name’s Lucy,’ said she, not quite understanding him.”

C. S. LEWIS, the lion, the wtich, and the wardrobe

Articles in this Series

See the first article for the list.

Daughter of Eve

Now would be a good time to reiterate that my reflections on Narnia will not be strictly exegetical. I will not be noticing everything Lewis may have wanted me to notice, and I may be commenting on things that Lewis did not intend to imply. As long as this is done responsibly and in moderation, I think this is quite fine. I mention all of this because I want to provide a few thoughts on the passage above, which occurs at the start of the second chapter of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. It is an incidental comment: Lucy did not understand what Mr. Tumnus meant by “Daughter of Eve”. I do not know if what I will say here is what Lewis intended.1 Nevertheless, I chose to highlight this because in modern times, due to belief in Darwinian evolution, society no longer considers humanity as sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; rather, we are the mere product of naturalistic mechanisms. I will argue here that this is not without consequence.

To launch instantly into a drastic example, take the comments of Peter Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton. In a section on his website about commonly asked questions, he responds to a question asking whether he would rather save a mouse or a human being from a fire. He says: “Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests.” This comment is already significant enough: he does not say “in all cases” but “in almost all cases”. I am not sure whether Singer means that there would be one case where he rescues the mouse over the human, but that is not my primary focus here. Note what Singer says next; the reason that he would save the human is “not because the human being is human” because just being part of a species “isn’t morally significant”.

Read More

The National Jellyfish

2 Comments

Here at the Sojournal we have been suspicious of Luxon from the beginning. Claiming to be a Christian, he has regularly exhibited jellyfish-like tendencies – a lack of a spine, and a willingness to drift with the current. (Other articles on Luxon are here, here and here.) His latest folly comes a day after Christians and conservatives the world over are celebrating the best bit of news we’ve had for a long time: Roe v Wade being overturned. Simon O’Connor, posted the following on his Facebook page which sad death-loving leftists took umbridge with.

Luxon forced O’Connor to take the post down because, and I quote “it was causing distress and does not represent the position of the National Party.” In this Luxon demonstrates once again that he is an unprincipled coward. To care more for the distress of some trauma queens over the loss of a ‘right’ to dismember babies more than the tens of millions of dead bodies that Roe v Wade has led to shows a broken moral compass. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. And the first step to calling evil good, is refusing to celebrate good or castigate evil.

What the overturning of Roe v Wade has demonstrated is that Christians can impact culture through smart politics. For too long, many pietistic Christians have personalised their faith and shunned things like politics because our personal faith in Jesus is more important and politics is dirty. As important as that personal faith is, we have been commanded to make disciples of the nations and teach these disciples to obey all that Christ commanded. What’s sad, is a man like Trump, who does not seem to have lived any sort of Christian life is responsible for a major change like this, but a man who claims to be a Christian like Luxon, can’t even let a fellow Christian celebrate it. Christians can and should be involved in seeing Christ’s rule and reign extended. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that we can expect National to enact godly law while it is led by such a jellyfish. My encouragement to all Christians is to give up on National at the next election. This man is not the leader we are looking for. He lacks courage and conviction and is focused on gaining power at any cost without holding to any real principles. In this he represents no real change from Jacinda Ardern.

Self-Awareness 0 Hypocrisy 1

The lack of self-awareness of some of the left is just gob-stopping.

Thus says the pink-haired woman who supported forced masking, vaccine passports and mandated vaccination that affected so many New Zealanders. We have just had two years of religious zealots such as her ruining our lives, livelihoods and our country’s economy all in the name of supposedly saving lives. But dare we on the right actually try saving lives by…I don’t know… stopping the murder of innocent babies, we are religious zealots who are taking people’s rights away.

The right to take innocent human life is no right at all despite what the demons from hell and their servants on earth might think on the matter. Interestingly enough, like so many of her ilk, she’s not willing to hear from the other side. Only those she mentions and follows can reply. Because there is no argument for abortion. You either are against it, or you are committed to an evil atrocity and both history and Christ will judge you for it.

Then we have our childish prime minister adding her deep ‘wisdom’ on the issue. She boasts of our country’s recent shame of turning the murder of innocent unborn children into a ‘health’ issue. Then without stopping to wash the blood from her hands, she sanctimoniously mounts her high horse to speak to the people. The overturning of Roe v Wade according to her facile approach is about the personal convictions of some robbing others of the right to make their own decisions.

Wow. Another silly leftist woman so full of hubris that she can’t see her own hypocrisy. How dare this woman lecture on this topic? How dare she talk about personal beliefs infringing on the rights of people to make their own decisions? You forced almost an entire country to get vaccinated, many against their will and at threat of the loss of livelihood with an experimental vaccine. Stop talking. You have no moral right to wax eloquent about not robbing people of their right to choose.

Thank goodness both these women are on the wane. The sooner they are gone from public life, the better for our country. God protect us from godless and meddling women.

The Resistance – The Word and Prayer – Part 2C

Yesterday we sought to give some practical suggestions which will help Christians make the Word and prayer central to their households. This is an essential step as we build the Christian Resistance and seek to see New Zealand turn back to Christ. As each family cell in the Resistance is led by men who prioritise the Word and prayer, we should expect to see God working great things. His Word will not return to him empty but will achieve the purpose for which he sent it out (Isaiah 55:11). And we know that purpose: it is that the knowledge of the Lord will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea (Habakkuk 2:14).

4. Hold to the Sufficiency of Scripture Practically

It is also vital that as we read the Scriptures we hold to the sufficiency of Scripture. And I don’t mean just nod intellectually to this concept. I mean actually believe and act upon it. The Apostle Paul wrote these words that most Christians know by heart. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Paul argues that Scripture can be applied so that the man of God can be complete and equipped for every good work.

Do we know what to think about helping the poor? The Scriptures are sufficient for developing a robust and Christ-honouring approach. Do we want to know how Christians should respond to the COVID-19 lockdowns and potential vaccine mandates? We should search the Scriptures. Do we want to know whether redistributive tax policy is a Christian approach to government? We have the Scriptures which enable us to be equipped for every good work, whether it is in politics, family life, work-life, economics or science.

Read More

Contradictory Nazis

The Whitehouse. “When people are able to make choices without government interference for themselves in terms of their well being and the well-being of their family in consultation with whomever they may choose, we are a stronger society.“

Also the Whitehouse. If you work for the government you must be vaccinated or lose your job. If you are working in a company of over 100 people you must be vaccinated or be subjected to weekly tests.

I guess people are allowed their own ‘well-being’ decisions when it involves murdering unborn children, but not when it comes to whether they get vaccinated. Murder as a well-being choice is ok, but not getting a prick in the arm…that’s a line too far.

Hypocrisy

Isn’t it interesting that the government which so keen to ‘save lives’ by locking us down in our homes to escape from a virus is also the same government that got behind the decriminalisation of Abortion Legislation Bill of 2020 that allows over a thousand NZ babies to be slaughtered every month.

I guess they don’t care about lives that don’t have a vote.

Straining Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Recently we highlighted our callous politicians and cultural elites including the media who have no compassion for children despite constantly bleating on about how caring they are. These are people who constantly attempt to position themselves as on the moral high ground yet have no qualms about supporting the murder of innocent and defenceless unborn children.

Well I read of this tragedy last week. The title begins with “Abortion Tragedy”, and some of my readers with more sanguine hopes for human nature and culture in NZ might be thinking at this point, “Oh wow, there are still some out there who see abortion as a tragedy.” Yeah nah. The rest of the headline reads, “Couple left to terminate pregnancy at 25 weeks after midwife misses two ultrasounds”.

So here is what happened in a nutshell. The couple’s midwife failed to read two early ultrasounds which would have ensured she identified problems with the pregnancy up to four weeks earlier. The tragedy (apparently) is not the abortion itself, but the fact that it would have been better to happen earlier, since abortions after 20 weeks are not advised.

The New Zealand Herald noted that the couple won an apology from the midwife. Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels. Sure, the midwife did not do her job properly. The baby seemed to have abnormalities that are consistent with some kind of chromosomal abnormality (like Downs syndrome) based on what I can understand from the notes on the case. But these would-be parents have sacrificed their child because of his or her disability. They have essentially determined that there is no dignity in a disabled child, or that raising one would cramp their style. Where is their apology? They have demanded a midwife apologise for not doing a good job, when they have killed their weak and defenceless child for the crime of being abnormal, and then have the brazen audacity to complain that they should have had the information they needed to commit this killing four weeks earlier.