Abortion, Infant Mortality and the Freedom of Choice Act

N. Adam left the following comment on my last post. Given that tomorrow is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I wanted to provide a full response here:

[I]t is rather curious how a site like the one you've linked to [here] can be so opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research on moral standing alone, yet (according to my google searches) have absolutely nothing meaningful to say about the horrible infant morality rate in the US and the fact that we have tens of millions of children [who] are currently without healthcare.

It's a fair observation, and similar to the one Timothy Mills made a while back. As I responded to Timothy, there is a very clear distinction to be made between intentional and unintentional death, whereby it is hardly illegitimate to focus one's primary attention on the former. But the issue is even clearer in this case. The site N. Adam refers to is specifically focused on a fighting a particular piece of legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), so it can hardly be blamed for failing to address issues not connected with FOCA, as infant mortality is not.

A more important question, then, is whether fighting FOCA itself is a worthwhile cause, or whether our time ought better to be spent fighting the "horrible" rate of infant mortality in the United States. Sadly, that is easily answered: the US infant mortality rate is the 28th worst in the world, more than twice as high as some other developed nations. In short, infant mortality (and the poor education and health care that contribute to it) absolutely should be a concern to all of us. Nevertheless, in the US this amounts to less than 28,000 deaths a year, whereas abortion currently takes 1,200,000 lives a year. I'm no math wiz, but I'm pretty sure 1.2 million is more than 28 thousand.

But that is only half the issue, for we are not talking about which of those numbers are more important to reduce; we are talking about a bill that would very likely increase the number of abortions performed in this country. If made law, FOCA would eliminate all state and local restrictions on abortion, including partial birth abortion bans, parental consent laws, waiting periods, and many other restrictions which have already been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. There is also concern that the bill might supersede the Hyde Amendment, which currently restricts federal funding for abortions, and many believe it would force religious health care providers (such as Catholic hospitals) to perform abortions or close their doors. In short, FOCA would reduce or eliminate all limitations on abortion, and would almost certainly increase the total number performed annually, as has been the case in those states, like Maryland, which have passed similar legislation (for fuller discussions of the likely impact of this legislation go here and here).

As a Senator, President Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill, and once vowed that "the first thing" he would do as President would be to sign it. Thus, while there are many things about Obama that I like, I am thankful that so far he has not kept that promise (in fact, I'm quite impressed by the legislation he did choose to sign first), and I sincerely pray that he is never able to do so.

To return to N. Adam's observation, then, I do not find it the least bit curious that the site I linked should focus its attention squarely on abortion; it is, after all, called FightFOCA. But more fundamentally, I fail to see why it should seem strange that the pro-life movement generally focuses more attention on abortion than infant death, given that the US infant mortality rate is only 6.9 per 1000 live births, while the abortion rate is currently 19.4%, or about 194 per 1000 known pregnancies (the lowest rate since Roe v. Wade).

Now imagine you lived in a country where theft had been legal for 36 years, and because of this, pick-pocketing had become quite pervasive: 194 out of every 1000 people in this hypothetical country have their wallets stolen, while 7 out of every 1000 people lose their wallets by accident. Now imagine that various pro-Picking organizations argue vehemently that to outlaw the practice would not stop people from stealing; it would only make life more dangerous for those who choose to steal. This argument has convinced the Supreme Court of this hypothetical country, but various states within it have been unimpressed by the rhetoric and passed laws to limit theft where possible. Now imagine that these laws seem to be working--pickpocketing is at its lowest level since theft became legal, except in those few states which passed their own Freedom of Picking Acts, in which the rate of pickpocketing has continued to increase.

Now imagine the country elected a man who said "the first thing" he would do upon entering office would be to pass legislation to repeal all those local restrictions on theft and even force tax-payers and religious organizations to support the practice. Would you find it strange if a group of the citizens of that country formed an organization intent on fighting that new legislation? Would you find it odd if their website failed to devote equal attention to the 7 people per 1000 who lose their wallets accidentally, as they devote to the 194 people per 1000 who are robbed?

Don't misunderstand me, I for one believe that a truly pro-life view absolutely must care as much about the born as the unborn (if not more). I've argued again and again that the current dichotomy over such issues is nothing but harmful. But no one that I know of is trying to make infant mortality "safe, legal and rare." No one I know of wants to reduce health care for children. Unfortunately, our new President does want to eliminate state and local laws which reduce abortion, and I for one will not stand by and say nothing. I'm thankful that the 500,000 other signers of the FightFOCA petition feel the same.

A Good Choice

HT Mark Shea.

Congratulations Obama! Thank you for your efforts to raise the level of civility and optimism in our nation and around the world. Thank you for your hopeful and bi-partisan approach, as evidenced by your cabinet appointments and Inaugural address. I pray that you truly are able to lead us to a brighter future. That said, while there are many campaign promises that I hope you are able to keep, there is one in particular that I very much hope you are not.

Happy Martin Luther King Jr Day!

Full text of the speech here.

UPDATE: Matt Kelley offers some excellent reflections on another of King's speeches, which is perhaps even more relevant than the above. Do click through and read it (HT James McGrath's reader).

Battlestar Galactica - Sometimes a Great Notion

What would you do if all your hopes fell to ashes. How would you respond if all your dreams of heaven turned into hell? Such are the questions put to our long-suffering heroes in last night's episode of Battlestar Galactica. Unfortunately, the unmitigated despair we got for an answer was far from inspiring. We waited a year for this?

It's probably not a good sign that my wife's reaction was: "Do we really have to sit through nine more episodes of this? Can't they just answer our questions and be done with it?" The best thing about BSG has always been the story it told, but after last night I've lost the plot. Even the answers they finally gave were depressing, especially the anticlimactic identification of the final Cylon. I'm not sure what was worse: Who they picked, or the admission that they only decided at the end of last season. The Cylons had a plan; did the writers?

Still, as Carmen Anders notes, BSG has given us some dark and dreary episodes in the past, and they always paved the way for something better. If all seems lost now, that doesn't mean it will end that way, and really, we could hardly have expected sunshine and puppy dogs after all that has happened. Our characters have been hanging their hopes on Earth for years now, and to finally get there and find it worse than what they left could hardly fail to devastate them. It's not a fun way to begin the final episodes of the series, but it was brutally honest.

On that score I particularly liked the brief scene when Adama was walking to Tigh's quarters with a loaded gun, as Galactica's crew fell to pieces around him--it perfectly revealed his loss of control and concern. I also agree with Barbara Nicolosi that Dualla's and Kara's storylines were particularly well done. They were shocking, but made a certain terrible sense in retrospect.

So in the end, I still have hope for Galactica, but I'm not sure what I'll do if it comes to nothing.

Quote - Nietzsche on Christian Faith

From Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil (translated by Helen Zimmern):

The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice: the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit.... Modern men, with their obtuseness as regards all Christian nomenclature, have no longer the sense for the terribly superlative conception which was implied to an antique taste by the paradox of the formula, "God on the Cross." Hitherto there had never and nowhere been such boldness in inversion, nor anything at once so dreadful, questioning, and questionable as this formula: it promised the transvaluation of all ancient values. (pg. 34 Dover Thrift Edition)

Three Cheers for Continuum and T&T Clark!

Last month I mentioned that I'd won the Continuum/T&T Clark give-away at SBL. Well the books arrived today and I'm pleased to announce that they even exceeded my expectations. Not only did they let me choose $250 worth of free books, but they even let me take them at the conference price! These are the volumes I chose:

Paula Gooder The Pentateuch (retail $40)
James Charlesworth Resurrection: The Origins and Future of a Biblical Doctrine ($35)
Larry Hurtado One God, One Lord: New Edition ($50)
Loren Stuckenbruck (ed.) Early Christian and Jewish Monotheism ($84)
Mark Goodacre The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze ($35)
Stephen Um The Theme of Temple Christology in John's Gospel ($168)
John Day (ed.) Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel ($50)
Total retail value: $462

So let me give a hearty Hip Hip Hurray! to Continuum and T&T Clark!

By the way, they also have a blog here.

(P.S. I normally dislike these kinds of "look what I got!" posts when I see them on other blogs, but I didn't want to let this pass without giving Continuum/T&T Clark the thanks they deserve!)

Children, Avert Your Eyes!

Oh dear:

HT Exploring Our Matrix and Sub Ratione Dei

Quote - Richard Longenecker on Apostolic Exegesis

Richard Longenecker in Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (as with most things I quote, I could quibble over some details, but it's a good summary):

There is a great deal that was held in common by the earliest Christian preachers and the New Testament writers in their use of Scripture.... All treated the biblical text with some degree of freedom, believing that from among the various textual traditions then current they could do something of textual criticism on a theological basis since they knew the conclusion to which that biblical testimony was pointing. All seem prepared to employ not only biblical citations but also, to a limited extent, statements of truth found outside the canon, whether of Jewish, pagan or uncertain origin. And all of them, most importantly, worked from the same two fixed points: (1) the messiahship and lordship of Jesus, as validated by the resurrection and witnessed to by the Spirit; and (2) the revelation of God in the Old Testament as pointing forward to Jesus. Thus their perspective was avowedly christocentric and their treatment thoroughly christological. (pgs. 189-90)

Reading the Bible in Context--But What Context?

Recently, John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry called my blog "Christian postmodern," which puzzled me at first, but I suppose makes sense in light of various things I've said around here, not least in my sidebar and this post. The problem with nice thing about a label like "postmodern" is that it's ambiguous enough to take however I want--in this case I'll go with "hip and unconventional"--but since others may define the term differently, I wanted to clarify my position, particularly regarding how I understand biblical interpretation:

To many, "a postmodern doctrine of Scripture" (John's phrase) means a reading cut off from its original context, based on the assumption that meaning and truth are flexible and necessarily imposed by the reader. Thus you might have a feminist, post-colonial or vegan reading of a text, with little concern at all for whether such a thing was intended by the original "author." Now, on the one hand, I do have a great deal of sympathy for such an approach. The very fact that the Bible has been written and rewritten, collected and interpreted through numerous different contexts--from bronze age nomadic tribes to Imperial Rome and beyond--suggests that flexibility and reapplication are inherent to its very nature, as I suggested in the post linked above.

In fact, it is not at all clear to me that the authors of the New Testament themselves felt restricted to the "original intended meaning" in their own interpretation of the Scriptures they treasured, so why should we? They clearly believed that more recent events and knowledge, especially the life and death of Jesus but also including broader political and cultural realities, set their scriptures in new and quite unexpected light. Nor is it easy to see why such a process had to end with the New Testament authors. Thus, I not only think it is appropriate to ask new questions of Scripture, but such may even be demanded by the text itself. After all, is "the word of God living and active" (Heb 4:12), or only dull and lifeless? Doesn't Paul say we have been given "a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:6)?

But clearly that can only be half the story, for why bother reading in the first place if you are not willing to hear what someone else has to say? If we only bring our own questions and perspectives to the text, there is little point in reading at all, and almost no chance of reading well. This is especially the case when dealing with an ancient document like the Bible, which derives from a very different cultural context. As John's post makes clear in the case of Jeremiah 7:22, ignorance of the original context inevitably leads to distorted understandings of the text, and this is hardly excusable simply because our interests lie elsewhere. Thus, even if it is legitimate and even necessary to go beyond the text, such can only be done responsibly after we have made every effort to understand it on its own terms.

More fundamentally, has not the primary purpose of preserving and reinterpreting scripture precisely been to face these new situations in ways that are faithful to, or at least aware of, what has gone before? If it is appropriate for us to ask new questions, then, we must also learn to hear anew the questions the text itself was intended to ask and answer, as these are often enough not questions we ourselves are likely to ask. If we are not willing to do that, we might as well ignore the text altogether and focus our attention elsewhere.

Ultimately, I don't think there is just one legitimate context in which scripture is to be interpreted. Rather, there is a necessary tension between our own varied contexts and the "original" context of scripture. To read the Bible faithfully is to live into that tension, allowing our questions (and answers) to shape and be shaped by those of our predecessors, to learn from our tradition even if we refuse to be trapped by it.

Bumper Sticker Wisdom

Seen next to an Obama sticker (make of that what you will):

Don't Believe Everything You Think

12+ Best Links of 2008

Sherry at Semicolon had the great idea to compile the twelve best things she linked in 2008 (naturally, the fact that she included one of my posts has nothing to do with why I like the idea!). Anyway here are my twelve (plus) favorite links from 2008, in chronological order:

Be Grateful, It's Your Birthday, by Julie Grisolano, is easily the most thoughtful and moving article about the impact of abortion that I read last year. Please read it, then consider signing this.

Equally heartbreaking is Sex and Scandal at Duke from Rolling Stone. It's an older article (written in 2006), but still well worth a read.

On a lighter note, there's Hell Abolished, God Adopts Gold Sticker System at The Wittenburg Door, which also wins the prize for most comments I've ever seen on a post (5441!).

Kim Fabricius, who is always worth your time, is at his very best in this paradoxical sermon: Lose Your Faith.

On another note, with the final episodes of Battlestar Galactica premiering in less than two weeks (!!), this is still the best post I've seen on the mid-season finale: Battlestar Galactica Provides Earth-Shattering 'Revelations' (major spoiler warning).

Next is another from The Wittenburg Door, but this one is more substantial (but still funny): Joe Bob Parties With the Atheists.

Steven Greydanus posted an excellent article on good, evil and the supernatural in recent film, at Christianity Today: Hellboy, Evil and the Cross.

Two for one: Nick Milne posted the most comprehensive of the many responses to P.Z. Myers' desecration of the Eucharist, the Quran, and a copy of The God Delusion, while Francis Beckwith offered perhaps the most succinct summary of my own view of the debacle.

And back to the fluff, there's Five O'Clock People, whose latest CD is still awesome, and still maddeningly unavailable; listen to it here.

Back to the meat, and another double-dip, here's a thought-provoking article at The Other Journal on Why Every Christian Should 'Quite Rightly Pass for an Atheist', and the response: On What Could Quite Rightly Pass for a Fetish.

Halden at Inhabitatio Dei wrote an outstanding post on Moral Equivalence, War, and Abortion.

Alan Knox had an excellent and humorous series on Scripture... As We Live it.

And finally--a bonus--my favorite comic of 2008 (from xkcd):

Evan Almighty

I saw Evan Almighty again tonight and and enjoyed it quite a bit more than the first time. I tend to dislike movies where, if they were remotely realistic, everything would end badly, and you keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. So here we have a newly elected U.S. Congressman going to seed, followed around by wild animals, and shouting about a flood and how God told him to build an ark. There's simply no way this is going to end well, or maintain any believability if it does. Nor does the film itself provide a convincing resolution to the mess--I'm pretty sure that even if everything could happen as it did in the movie, the authorities would be more likely to believe Evan sabotaged the dam than that God actually warned him of the danger. And I'm certain that any flood that could carry a boat right up to the Capitol Building would destroy most of Washington D.C. in the process.

But whatever. This time I knew what to expect and so wasn't as distracted by the absurdities and just enjoyed it as a humorous parable about a man far too concerned with outward appearances with whom God has some fun, and uses to do some good. And as a parable, it works pretty well (for instance, see Carmen's excellent observations here). What I especially like about it, however, is its exploration of how God answers prayer. On one side, of course, the movie is full of instances of direct, miraculous, acts of God, but on the other hand, it suggests that God's usual practice is much more subtle and personal:

Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for their family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?

Ultimately, and as I've said before, God is less interested in fixing our circumstances than he is in fixing us--making us into the kind of people who live for and love one another, regardless of our circumstances. Yet it is still we who must choose how to live in each circumstance. Though God wants to transform us, to cleanse us of our self-focus and make us into the people we are meant to be, he can only do so through our choices.Whatever its failings, Evan Almighty explores that tension very well, and has a lot of fun doing it.

Happy New Year!

Welcome to 2009, the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species, 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, 450th anniversary of the final edition of Calvin's Institutes, and 500th birthday of John Calvin. One of my goals this year is to read both books. If you'd like to join me, you can get them in daily installments: DailyLit has On the Origin of Species in 205 parts here; and Princeton Theological Seminary has The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 365 parts here. Both can be subscribed to with a reader.

Here are my other resolutions:

1. To finish my thesis (I hope to defend in September).
2. To apply to PhD programs (which means taking the GRE, ugh!).
3. To present at least one paper at a conference.
4. To publish at least one paper.
5. To publish at least one book review.
6. To read at least 3 chapters of Greek per week.
7. To read at least 3 chapters of Hebrew per week.
8. To get my French back to reading competence.

Anyone else like to share their resolutions?

Red Dwarf - Backwards

If you feel like wasting some time this New Year's Eve (or New Years Day, for you Aussies and Kiwis), here's a brilliant episode from the classic British sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. I was reminded of it today, and it's just as funny as I remember:

Quote - McGrath on Reading the New Testament

James McGrath, in his published dissertation, John's Apologetic Christology (which just happens to be directly relevant to my thesis), makes a point that should be obvious but is too easily forgotten:

[A] century was just as long in the ancient world as it is today, and for this reason it is simply unjustified to assume that what was controversial in the third and subsequent centuries was controversial in the first century. Thus, in much the same way that one would be cautious in reading the Synoptics in light of John, much less in light of the council of Nicaea, so one must be cautious of reading first-century sources in light of the views held by rabbis of the third and subsequent centuries. (pg. 73)

And of course, the same applies to the New Testament itself: the time between the 30s (when Jesus taught), the 50s (when Paul wrote) and the 90s (when John's Gospel reached its final form) was just as long in the first century as it was in the twentieth.