Confounded Logic

Over the last month I've come across a number of stories and articles related to the issue of abortion. All of them made me scratch my head a little bit regarding the logic of our culture (especially the "pro-choice" political position). I thought I'd mention each article and then make some of my own comments.

In January I learned of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his filthy, disgusting, horrific abortion operation that he had been running in Philadelphia since 1979.

Also last month a Christian friend of mine linked to some of his top blog posts of 2010. His #1 post of the year had to do with his views on abortion. While my friend considers himself "pro-life," he believes that the practice of abortion should remain legal. In reference to Roe v. Wade he writes, "...we have forgotten that one of the primary reasons for legalizing abortion was to put an end to the then common and extremely dangerous practice of 'back-ally' abortions. In other words, abortion was legalized so that it could be closely and safely regulated. In effect, legalizing abortion did not create the practice but instead served to wrangle it in."

A few days ago I read of a pregnant woman here in Colorado who was given an incorrect prescription from her pharmacist - an abortion pill - by mistake. Last I'd heard, the devastated woman didn't yet know whether the fetus inside her was still alive or not. If it is, it will likely have severe birth defects that will almost certainly take its life shortly after birth.

Yesterday I read of a survey that was done in which babies with the disease spina bifida were surgically treated. In some cases, the surgery was performed on fetuses in utero (between 19-26 weeks old), and for other babies, the operation took place shortly after birth. The study found that the surgeries performed on the unborn fetuses were more effective than those on the already-born babies. In other words, having the operation done before birth made it more likely that the child would be able to walk, and have fewer neurological problems.

Everyone (regardless of political persuasion) seems to agree that Dr. Gosnell (from the first story) is a disgusting creep. I don't quite understand, however, why "pro-choice" people are at all outraged. Is it because his clinic was dirtier than others? It certainly can't be the fact that he killed babies - that's the very foundation of their position! Maybe it's that he used scissors. Barbaric? Perhaps. But if I were given the choice between being murdered by a scissors-wielding doctor and being murdered by a doctor with a giant vacuum that would crush me to death, it wouldn't really matter which one I chose, would it?

The last two stories I mentioned (the incorrect prescription to the pregnant woman, and the study about fetal surgery) are discussed well in THIS blog post by Joel Lindsey. Joel points out the "moral schizophrenia" of America's response to these stories. We're outraged because a pregnant woman has (most likely) lost her baby, but the only difference between her baby and the million that are legally aborted each year is that she wants hers. Similarly, in the story about fetal surgery 19-week old fetuses are treated as patients, given the very best of medical care... but again, the only difference between these fetuses and those that are aborted is that the mothers want them.

So we come to my friend's view on abortion, which frankly has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. I guess first of all I'll point out that facts are facts. Estimates are that perhaps 50-60,000 abortions took place the year before Roe. Since the practice became legal, the numbers have climbed dramatically to more than a million per year today. If my friend is "pro-life" as he claims, I take that to mean that he believes abortion is the killing of an innocent life. How can you possibly believe that the killing of one million lives is preferable to the killing of 60,000? I'll agree that 60,000 is still a shocking and horrific number, but it's 94% better than a million, right? Or is it because the 60,000 were killed in private homes and not culturally- and government-sanctioned medical centers (like the lovely one run by Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia)? That's quite a job the government seems to have done "wrangling in" the "dangerous" practice of abortion. The words "safely regulated," when used in reference to a practice that is, by definition, murder, sound pretty silly to me. That's like saying we ought to make genocide safely regulated. A lot of good that will do, I'm sure.

"Back-ally" or not, abortion is every bit as dangerous to the fetus today as it was then. Now there's just a whole lot more of it.

Chandler on homosexuality

The videos below are from a seminar that pastor Matt Chandler gave at his church, The Village Church in Dallas, on the topic of homosexuality. The first 1.5 hours is Chandler's teaching, and the last video (a little over 35 minutes) is Chandler taking questions from his audience via text message. I've referenced this pastor before because I think he's one of the best speakers/preachers I've ever heard, and he's engaging and entertaining, and more full of grace and love than just about anyone else as well.

Even though it's about two hours' worth of videos, I would strongly encourage you to take the time some evening (instead of watching a movie?). His teaching goes far deeper than just addressing the issue of homosexuality. It left me more convicted of my own sin and my need for repentance than any sermon I've heard in a while.


Culture and Theology: Homosexuality - Part 1 from The Village Church on Vimeo.


Culture and Theology: Homosexuality - Part 2 from The Village Church on Vimeo.


Culture and Theology: Homosexuality - Q&A from The Village Church on Vimeo.

Art

I believe that there is actual truth in the world, and that some things are good and some things are bad regardless of what an individual might think about them. But when it comes to art I'm completely in the dark.

I have no idea what makes some art "good" and some "bad." A year or two ago I saw a couple of news stories about some 9-year old "prodigy" who completed these "brilliant" and "beautiful" paintings that sold for thousands of dollars. To me it looked like the kid had used paint to scribble on a canvas. If I had painted the exact same things, mine wouldn't have sold for 10 cents at a garage sale.

I remember almost none of the stuff I learned in elementary school art classes. What I remember the best was when we learned how to draw a person's face. We learned that a person's head is more of an oval in shape than a circle. I also remember learning that the eyes sit roughly in the middle of a person's head -- about even with the ears (as opposed to way up at the top of the face, which is where my stick-figures' eyes always had been). After I learned these things in elementary school, my drawings of peoples' faces got a lot better. But Pablo Picasso probably would have failed elementary school art, because he never really seemed to care where facial features were supposed to go. Yet he's a famous artist whose works still sell for crazy amounts of money all over the world. Why?

My ignorance of "good" art is not restricted to paintings or visual arts either. It extends to music. I like to consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about music, but at times I feel like a complete moron. I watched Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" music video the other day. Whereas most people apparently see a revolutionary and artistic video performed to a groundbreaking song and musical style, I see a complete whack-job wearing the most non-sensical costumes that seem to be designed around two objectives: 1) making Lady Gaga as naked as possible without being censored on television, and 2) ugliness (and I'm talking about the costumes, not the woman wearing them).

Let's not limit ourselves to music and paintings. What about audio-visual arts like movies? I can be just as stupid about those! When the movie Sin City first came out I went and saw it in the theater with a group of my friends from college. If I hadn't been dependent on my friends for a ride home, I probably would have walked out of it. It was awful. In my opinion it had less of a plot than if I had shot home video of a drunk guy stumbling down the sidewalk. As far as I could tell, it was mostly about sex and violence. I didn't understand it, and I regretted spending money on a ticket. But on the way home, my friends and I were discussing it. One of my more intelligent, more cultured friends tried to explain to me how artistic and creative the movie had been. I told him that I could throw mud on the wall and draw a monkey out of it and you could call it "artistic and creative," or you could just be upset that I had thrown mud all over an otherwise clean wall. I guess I don't understand who decides where the line is between a stupid waste of time and a priceless masterpiece.

Part of what's frustrating is that oftentimes I do see rather subtle things in a song's lyrics or a movie's cinematography that make me think I have at least a slight eye for artistic things. One example is the final, climactic, dramatic scene in one of my all-time favorite movies, A Few Good Men. Colonel Jessep (Jack Nicholson) enters the courtroom to take the witness stand, and the camera angle is from below, looking up at him, and through some kind of lens that makes him look almost larger than life; proud, extremely powerful, and intimidating. By the end of the scene, after Jessep has exploded on the witness stand and gotten himself into all kinds of trouble, the camera angle looks slightly down on him, making him appear weak, and almost inconsequential. In the last 20 minutes of the movie he goes from a big, bullying, tough-guy, almost super-hero to a weakened criminal who's under arrest. It's one of the things I LOVE about movies. A filmmaker can rouse emotions and responses from the audience that would not come from just the dialogue or the action. I consider it very "artistic." I can usually tell what makes one photograph better than another. I can go to an art museum and really enjoy myself, but I'll probably linger at only 5-6 different exhibits that seem to attract me. The vast majority will probably not make much sense to me, so I'll glance quickly and move on.

But surely an artistic work's "goodness" or "badness" is not simply a matter of subjective opinion, right? Is Lady Gaga a great artist only because a lot of people happen to enjoy her music and videos? I find that hard to believe. Somebody educate me.

Jackson

Here is a really excellent post about the tragedy of Michael Jackson's death, the culture that helped shape him, and a call to sharing the message of Jesus Christ.