The Modern Lie About Humility

The Modern Lie About Humility

In second grade, I lived down the street from a set of twins that were my classmates.  One day, they told me their parents thought I was too boastful.  I was upset about it. I actually remember crying myself to sleep! Since that day, I have been self-conscious about humility. Figuring out how to be humble has been a struggle for me.  My entire life, people have regularly considered me “headstrong”, “proud”, “boastful”, and “confident”.  There are likely situations in which I go overboard, but here is the deal: the modern concept of humility is a lie.

I Have Accomplished Some Awesome Things

I could make a mile long list of the things I have done that get me excited, make me smile from cheek to cheek, or rustle up feelings inside me that make be believe I could take on Ndamakong Suh. For your sake (and possibly mine, since Suh is huge), I will refrain.  However, I will say one. My most recent accomplishment that makes me proud is finishing the law school portion of my joint degree.  It is an amazing feat! I am excited to join a club that includes many founding fathers, great philosophers, and a host of modern scholars/businesspeople.  There is a sense of dignity, respect, and trust associated with those who have received their jurisdoctorate.   People expect a level of knowledge and wisdom out of you that they do not expect from others.  It is awesome to achieve!

The Lie—False Humility

I noticed many of my fellow law students shrugging off my congratulations to them, as if it were no big deal that they had just finished law school.  Often, people receiving compliments for doing awesome things shrug them off. “Thanks, but it was really nothing” or some variation of that lie comes out of our mouths.  This is what society has led us to believe being humble is.

It is a lie.  Finishing law school really is special.    Working two jobs as a single mother to support your family really is special.  Giving up 5 hours of your week to volunteer really is special.  Living a chaste life really is special.  Fighting for a good cause really is special.  Spending every day teaching our youth really is special.  People are how they act. The diminishment of action is a diminishment of the human person. Lying and diminishing your accomplishments, diminishes your worth.

You probably get the idea.  Everybody has something to be proud of—and it is not humble to downplay it. It is a lie.   You damage yourself and anybody who hears it. 

Real Ways to Be Humble

1. Pass on the credit

When somebody else deserves some of the credit for your accomplishments, make sure they get it.  My parents, my wife, my friends, my professors, and my classmates all deserve a portion of the credit for my completion of the jurisdoctorate.  I would not have wanted to do it without their love and support. In all instances, I can (and probably should) also pass the credit to God for breathing me into existence, holding me there, and endowing me with the gifts necessary to make it through law school. While passing on the credit might diminish my role in the accomplishment, it does not diminish the accomplishment.

2. Celebrate Everybody Else’s Accomplishments

The biggest struggle I have with humility, and often the least practiced/contemplated, is the expression of excitement over other people’s accomplishments.  Many of us are arrogant, “that’s good, but I would have done better.”  Some of us are envious, “good for them, but they started from a better position than me.”  Arrogance (pride) and envy are the true enemies of humility. How would you want somebody else to celebrate your accomplishments?  That is how you should be celebrating theirs.  Do not let your big head get in the way.  Celebrate in joy and happiness for whatever great thing they have done!

If somebody is continually pointing out good things to you that they have done, they are probably just in need of some affirmation.  Give it to them. Seeking this reassurance is likely indicative of a lower self-esteem, rather than high self-esteem.  If you are the person that is continually asking for affirmation, start looking for places to celebrate other people’s accomplishments.  When you start to give value to the actions of others, it is inherent that you will start to see the value in your own actions. If you are in a place where you do not think you do anything awesome, find two awesome things a day that others are doing and congratulate them on it.  It will change your life.

3. Forgive People

True forgiveness requires a person to forget the sin.  “I’ll forgive, but I’ll never forget” actually means the forgiver is not “forgiving” the other person.  I think it takes a lot of humility to forgive others for their wrongs.  The logic behind forgiveness requires you to first admit your own sin.  None of us are perfect, thus forgiveness is necessary in our relationships. 

Conclusion

There are two good responses to, “Wow, great job!” and similar compliments:

1. Yeah, you know what! It really was a great job…let’s go get a beer (unless you are under 21, then ice cream should be used)!

2. Well, I can’t take all the credit…[insert where credit is due]. (Still admits it was a great job).

If somebody has accomplished something great, or deserves some recognition, let them know what a good job they are doing. That is real humility.  Being able to forgive people that have done you wrong also requires a great deal of humility.    

Live Action puts its cause before The Cause

This post stems from a reading of the five following articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/05/why-live-actions-tactics-are-wrong.html
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/fig-leaves-and-falsehoods
http://www.catholicvote.org/why-live-action-did-right-and-why-we-all-should-know-that/
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/the-case-against-false-assertions
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/12/why-tollefsen-and-pruss-are-wrong-about-lying

Janet Smith Misunderstands Aquinas

I am incredibly saddened by Smith’s analysis of Aquinas. She either misunderstands or misrepresents his views several times within her paper. Hopefully it’s merely a misunderstanding of his words about lying (which you can find here, specifically refer to Art. III Reply to Objection 6 and Art. IV Reply to Objection 5). She regularly overstates his position and extends it into realms he does not actually enter.  She also limits his consideration of the issue to actions between men, not men and God.  It is clear that while Aquinas was concerned with the former, the latter shaped his view on Truth. Smith is a brilliant scholar when it comes to NFP, respect for women, and human sexuality. I have had the pleasure of meeting her, discussing those issues with her, reading portions from several of her books, and regularly following her blog. However, she sets the bar low with her analysis of Aquinas’ view on lying.  

The question about differentiating actions versus words meant to mislead is much more compelling. I'll have to cover that later--and would likely take another post of this length.

Peter Kreeft forgot to carry out the implications of his argument

Did Kreeft botch his argument?  Surely he does not mean that, “all decent human beings intuitively know that it is moral to tell falsehoods to protect the lives of the innocent from those threatening serious evil.”  This, as will be noted later, clearly defines Augustine and Aquinas as indecent human beings.  From my other experiences with Kreeft’s writing, it’s both charitable and (likely) accurate to assume he doesn't mean exactly what he stated.  It is likely more accurate to say that such a sin is either lesser or excusable. Aquinas thought several types of lies were venial sins and not mortal. One such type was a lie told in order to save a life.  I am certain Aquinas would never have equated venial sins with a “moral action”, thus defeating Kreeft’s assumption.  Kreeft also does not view Thomists as legalistic.  Thomists are between relativists and Kantians.  The entire article is a play to emotions rather than logic—he even creates an appeal to authority on logic (himself) which is generally considered a logical fallacy.  Quite frankly, I’m not sure I've ever read a lower quality piece by him.

Error on the side of caution

Let us say that you take the approach that the Catholic Church is unclear/undecided on its teaching about lying.  You accept it as a given that the teaching is open to two interpretations, one of which the Church guarantees to be correct—it is just not sure which one, yet.  One allows lying in various situations, but with no guarantee. The other states that all lies are sins. At present, it is unclear which situation is the safe one.  Augustine, Aquinas, Gregory, Dionysius, and the Catechism state categorically that lying is a sin.  It is going to take much more than an illogical plea to the heart by Kreeft to convince me that Augustine, Aquinas, Dionysius, Gregory the Great, and the Catechism are incorrect. Moreover, let me be clear, if you think lying is moral, you disagree with Augustine, Aquinas, and the most recent Catechism.  Objectors do not raise up the Church Fathers, but attempt to do so on their own rationale.  One must be cautious that they have not placed the pro-life cause before The Cause.  Often, political issues and passions drive us to ignoring and justifying our faults when they would otherwise be obvious.  They are two areas in which the human species needs to be particularly cautious.

The Results of Lying Are Unclear

Even if one risks lying in various situations, its morality likely depends on the good being achieved. The most common example is the lie to protect another’s life (i.e. somebody telling a Nazi they have not seen a Jew while hiding one in their attic). There is no doubt that lying, in general, is wrong.  However, it may be okay if there is a link to a life being saved.  In the case of Live Action, we have a very tenuous link. Somehow, people assume that the video saves lives. That effect is not actually true. Here is what has to happen in order for the assumption to be correct:  first, the lie is stated.  Second, we must hope that the respondent is willing to commit a grave sin (uh oh...another MAJOR issue here). Third, we must expose this sinner on various forms of national news.  Fourth, we must transplant the viewpoints of one sinner to an organization.  Fifth, the willingness to sin must outrage a significant portion of the population—so much so that an Amendment to the Constitution occurs including the “unborn” under the 14^th Amendment.  Alternatively for fifth, we rely on publicity to cause the judicial system to re-examine Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and overturn it—giving power back to the states.

As you can see, with no certitude can we determine a single individual is rescued from murder in these situations.  In fact, the link is so tenuous that it's likely irrational. This is very different from praying outside of an abortion clinic and/or expressing the joys human life represents with every breath.  Those things are regularly tied to life saving events.  Live Action’s tactics are not. We have no reason to believe it has produced fruit, but certainly scandal.  Should God exempt that which is tantamount to sin for a greater good if the greater good is nonexistent?  Absolutely not.  Intent clearly can not mitigate sin if it is irrational, unless there is a factor beyond the sinner’s control. This is not the case for Lila Rose (the brilliant, compassionate, and well-spoken woman behind Live Action).

Conclusion

Aquinas states that an officious sin (one committed to save another’s life) is not mortal, but venial.  Janet Smith states that Aquinas has zero tolerance for an officious lie, but she is incorrect.  Zero tolerance would have equated the lie to mortal sin. It is clear that Aquinas believed an individual would end up in Heaven without engaging the sacrament of Confession if the only thing holding him/her back was an officious lie. Furthermore, the lack of linkage between the lie and those saved might invalidate its venial nature anyways.  The lack of support for a view in opposition from a single Father of the Church begs the question.  At the very least, it should call us all to proceed with extreme caution.

Father's questions about sting operations and other similar issues will be considered as soon as I get some sleep, hit up mass, and move my brother-in-law out of his apartment.

Enjoy your day!

God Exists, You Don't Need Religious Texts to Know It.

You and I exist, but we might not have.  Humans exist, but they might not have.  The earth and other planets exist, but they might not have.  Our universe exists, but it might not have.  Phew, that's enough. Seemingly, everything that exists might not have.

Neither we, humans, the Earth, or the universe is the explanation of its own existence. My existence was contingent upon something else--my parents.  I am a receiver of existence. So are my parents.

It is impossible to conceive of a universe in which all things are receivers of existence. It's easy to realize this when we put it into terms.  If all things which existed were receivers of existence, it would go on forever.  One might ask, "What's the problem with this? Can't there be an infinite number of events before right now?"  The answer is simply, "No."  That would mean we counted through an infinite number of events to reach right now. It is impossible to count to infinite.

The Need for a Giver
Logic requires a starting point, or a giver. Contingent existence requires that something exists in its own right.  It "is".  For simplicity sake, let's refer to this being as the "giver".

Often, I hear, "But, what accounts for the giver's existence? Where does the giver come from?"  The answer is something you will have to follow closely.  Since this giver is not contingent, the source of the giver's existence is contained within the giver itself. This means there is something about what the giver is that requires its exist. "What" something is refers to the nature of a being.  My nature is human, which means I possess certain qualities.  One is that I am contingent. We may, or may not exist.  The giver on the other hand must exist. The giver cannot not exist. The giver, is existence.  This is the Primary Truth about "the giver".

(As a side note, it might shock some of you to know philosophers realized this 5 centuries before Christ).

What This Tells Us about Our Giver
Some of you are saying, "So what?  That doesn't mean a whole lot.  So there's a reason we all exist.  It doesn't tell us anything about this 'giver person'."

One thing we can know is that the giver exists without limit. There is no deficiency about being. Deficiencies are that which are not. The giver exists to the fullest of existence.  The giver is infinite.   This means the giver exists in the perfections of all things.  For instance, the giver could not make something exist that the giver is not.  Since we can see and hear, we know that the giver can see all and hear all.  Furthermore, knowledge and charity are found in created things.  This means the giver must know all and love all. That means the cosmic being, far away from us in the order of existence, is also close and personal with us. It knows and loves us.

For Today, This is What We Know
1. We are contingent, and contingent beings require one who is not contingent.
2. A being that is not contingent has a nature requiring that it is existence.
3. A being that is, must exist to the fullest extent of that which are.
4. Perfections which exist in nature, must exist in the giver.  (ex: love and knowledge).
5. The giver of our existence knows and loves us.

Let that sink in for a moment, this much is knowable without Sacred Scripture, and was developed by people that did not know or follow the Judeo-Christian religions.

What You're Worth--And How You Treat People

What are we really worth, and how do we decide what others are worth?  There are three ways to give something value.  We can value something by examining what it does for us.  We determine value through the materials making up an item.  We can also give something value based on who made it.

How we determine a person's worth is often displayed by our actions.

You're Worth What You Produce

One option is that you're worth what you're able to provide to society.  This is one of the major criticisms of Capitalism.  We (including myself) tend to view people as means to an end.  What can they give us? What skills, talents, passions, and work ethic do they possess?  If it's not something that we can use, we often discard them and move on.  This doesn't just happen in business though, it happens when picking friends.  How funny are they? Are they cool enough for me?  How much better would they make my flag football team (okay, that's mostly me)?  If most of us don't see any value in their addition to our groups, we don't bother talking to them.

This obviously brings us to a sad conclusion: those that don't bring any value to the table are worth nothing.  This has very bad implications for the sick, lame, disabled, and downtrodden.  What do you do with something of no worth?  We toss it.  Americans do this on a daily basis.  One study estimates upwards of 90% of children with down syndrome are aborted.  Several states not only provide euthanasia, but are now pushing for Dutch Reform which allows doctors to make the decision to end lives of the sick and elderly.

It shouldn't be a shocker though, aborting and euthanasing those that would not contribute is an easy extension of this view.  If you've ever read The Giver, Lois Lowery extends the philosophy a bit farther--and it's terrifying.

You're Worth What You're Made Of

Imagine for a second a cabinet maker.  (S)he is about to make a cabinet.  (S)he has the option of selecting several different types of wood to make it with.  Obviously, the type of wood that is chosen is going to impact the value of the cabinet. Often, this value depends on the qualities and rarity of the wood.

The same could be said for us.  But, of what are we made? The truth of the matter is that we are merely a collection of atoms and elements.  We likely come out of some primordial goop.  It's not pretty to think about what we are.  Furthermore, how rare is a human? Well, humans seem to do a pretty good job or replacing themselves. Humans are composed of the same material and quality.

What will you give me for a collection of atoms that came from goop and could be replaced 250,000x in Lincoln, Nebraska alone?  Probably not much.

Here's my favorite part.  Most modern physicists and Christians believe the universe was created ex nihilo. That literally means from nothing.  There was nothing, then the Big Bang happened, and there was something.  Moses told the rest of us that 4000 years ago in his first sentence of Genesis.  But what does being made from "nothing" imply?

Well, for one, let's think about the cabinet.  The cabinet maker can make the cabinet and leave it alone. It will remain a cabinet because of the qualities of wood.  What would happen if the cabinet maker had made the cabinet from nothing and (s)he left it?  It would disappear.  Nothing does not have the quality to retain it's shape.

The same is true of us. That which is of nothing, is really worth nothing when it's valued is derived from that which it is made--nothing. Phew, say that 5x fast.

You're Given Worth Based On Who Made You

Picture a painting by Pablo Picasso.  Quite frankly, I've never been a big fan of his works.  I don't find them beautiful like I do works by Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Dali, etc. For those of you that do find his work beautiful, just imagine his ugliest painting.  What's it's value?  Even I'd take a Picasso merely because of the name associated with it!  Often, things are valuable merely because of who makes it.

We could be quite literal about it and ask who our parents are.  Often, that's how society views our worth.  You likely possess more skills, qualities, and options if you are born to wealthier parents.  We have to ask ourselves though, what does that mean for individuals born to the poor?  Are they somehow worth less because of who their parents were?

Here is where Christianity provides the most insight on how to determine a human being's worth.  We are all conceived with the help of God.  He brings us into being, and knows us before we are born.  He spends every second holding us in existence (because we are made of nothing).

Rich, poor, strong, weak, smart, dumb---it doesn't matter!  We're all made by the same Being.  We have intrinsic value because of Him.  He calls us to treat others, especially the weak and the poor with charity and respect.  Our human dignity is derived from this Being.

Here are Your Options

1. Treat people as if they are worth what they produce.  This leads to huge inequalities.

2. Treat people as if they are worth what they are made of.  A few answers to this are muck, water, air, and even worse--nothing!
3. Treat people as if they are worth that which made them.  This implies we all come from the same Being.  We are all endowed with the same rights.  We are equals, and every human deserves love/respect.

The way we treat others often indicates how we derive their value.

Thinking is really hard and exposes an individual to being wrong!

Thinking is hard.  I mean, it's really hard--and if you do it, sometimes you'll be wrong.  I find the lack of emphasis on logic and reason among my peers mind boggling.  I began reading Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis two nights ago (for a 3rd time).  Here are a few reflections he has on the topic along with my additional thoughts:

Thinking=Doing

"At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it.  They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as a result of the chain of reasoning."

Many of us don't want to change.  We want to go with the flow.  Our life ought to reflect what we think and believe.  It's much more convenient for us if we don't hold any opinions or viewpoints--because then we can do whatever we want. 

Determining What to Think is Complicated

"[We have] been accustomed, ever since we [were little] to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside [our] heads."

Sometimes, it's really difficult to think about all the moving parts involved with different issues.  Take for instance the current gun rights/control debate.  I've been on 20 different sites and read editorials from probably 40 different individuals with various political affiliations and beliefs.  Many present compelling cases, and mutually exclusive cases.  It's often difficult to reduce their editorial into the positions the author holds.  Does one reject gun control because (s)he believes human dignity requires the freedom to defend oneself, or does (s)he reject it because (s)he believes the 2nd Amendment protects it.  Does (s)he reject it because human dignity requires better protection of innocent lives often killed by individuals using guns?  Does (s)he reject it because (s)he believes the 2nd Amendment no longer matters?  Do both parties accept it or reject it merely because their leaders tell them to do so?

To complicate matters, most of the facts on issues aren't released or presented in individual articles.  For instance, the recent legislation voted down by the Senate wasn't merely about background checks--but that's all people seem to be talking about.  Some democrats and republicans flipped (totaling 9) because they believed the bill was actually pro gun rights.  Wait, what? A bill restricting one's ability to purchase guns is pro gun rights?  Yup, because there were plenty of additional provisions that actually gave gun owners additional rights.  That's the political game.

Merely finding information on a topic is difficult.  Figuring out the political slants, underlying beliefs/assumptions, and biases is even more difficult.  Where people are coming from is an important frame of reference, but we rarely have access to it without spending a lot of time searching.

Thinking Requires that Shift Our Focus
Demon says, "Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favor, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experience."

By stopping to think about something, we have to shift our focus from the "now" into something that seems to have less substance.  We are no longer capable of using our time to pursue present desires, but we must reflect on how we ought to manage our lives.  Removing ourselves from the stream can be very difficult.

So What Can We Do?
[Demon says,] "By the very act of arguing, you awake the [individual's] reasoning; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result?"

1.  If you're Catholic, check your viewpoints against Hers.  The Church is our bastion for Truth, Justice, and Charity.  Figure out if She has an official stance on an issue.  If She does, it's right--you just need to figure out why, and be able to explain it.

2. Discuss your opinions with others, but don't force the conversation on people. As you can see by the Lewis quote above, merely engaging in the discussion might lead them (or you) to Truth.  Practicing our "thinking" abilities will get better at it in the future.  Remember not to have an unwanted conversation with others.  Forcing the issue will likely push them away from your views, even if they ultimately agree with you!

3. Be open minded, and be willing to be wrong (if She has no official stance). Engaging yourself in formulating opinions requires testing them by discussing the issues with others.  This means that you might be wrong--and that's okay!  If you're wrong, change your opinion.  That's admirable and respectable--not something to be looked down upon as it's presented by the modern media and politicians. Sometimes you might be correct about the issue, but incorrect in how you present it. Be open to changes in that regard.

4. Be charitable and loving in your discussions with others.  Even if they are of a different opinion, commend them for their thoughts.  It's difficult to be courageous enough to disagree with somebody and voice it.  "Crossing the aisle" and mending gaps requires respecting the other side.  If you can't respect their opinion, respect what they are doing.  

5. Find role models that exhibit the above behaviors when making and addressing views. Instead of having to parse through all the information, let them do it for you. Remember though, they aren't going to present all the facts.  Find somebody that does the same thing on the other side, and read that too. This will help you formulate holistic views, and protect you from saying something ignorant in discussions with others.

Few People Can Defend Traditional Marriage--Too Many Try.

     It's been almost impossible to get away from talking about same sex marriage over the last week.  The discussion has flooded Facebook walls, profile pictures, Twitter feeds, television commercials, blogs, papers, every major news outlet, and even family dinner tables.  For the second time in a year, we've got a (pair of) Supreme Court case(s)  that are more highly publicized than a new season of The Bachelor (the other was Obamacare).

     It's rare that I see an argument against same sex marriage that is coherent, logical, and charitable.  Most are guilty of at least one major pitfall.  All of these pitfalls undermine their position, and actually end up creating advocacy for same sex marriage. There is an objective way to present the position, but it requires steadfast adherence to logic--and, likely, positions that most conservatives are unwilling to tend.  Finally, most are unable to address the role the government plays when considering the actions (not characteristics) of individuals.

Major Pitfalls
1. The individual uses an objective statement, but can't tackle comparisons/objections based on other circumstances that violate the statement.  This is largely a result of an inconsistent holistic moral philosophy addressed later.

2. The individual uses relative truths.  Nothing is held to be objective, or self-evident.  Generally, relativists arguing against each other merely leads to a frustrating stalemate--because no matter what is said, it is merely opinion. Relativism is always doomed to failure when opposing same sex marriage--you just sound mean and unreasonable.

3. Instead of attempting to use logic, the individual resorts to name calling, ignoring their dissenters, and repeating themselves to no avail.  Instead of bridging gaps, the individuals burns bridges, destroys roads, and sometimes launches nukes at the other side.  Without charity (the virtue associated with love), we are nothing.

Objectively Presenting Marriage

Explaining Marriage
In order to present an objective viewpoint concerning marriage that can be followed and supported using natural law, you must first define marriage.  As often pointed out (usually to show that marriage doesn't belong to Christians), marriage existed long before any texts for Judaic religions. It was codified in Hammurabi's code. No scholar or historian doubts that the social institution of marriage existed prior to this codification. Marriage is deeply ingrained in the nature of humans--it is a natural response to existence and survival of our species.  What has marriage traditionally been understood to mean?

1. The lifelong union of a man and woman for the benefit of their children that is ordered toward unity and procreation.  Limiting either of these goals, limits your ability to defend traditional marriage--it's likely impossible.

Stop right here.  Most people have already messed up.  How does the person you are speaking with define marriage? You need to find out. Many people in society today view marriage as, "a public declaration of affection between (two) people that have romantic feelings for one another."  If you don't agree about what marriage "is", then you've got to at least understand each other's frame of reference. Once you do, you can explore them.

After that's established, you need to ask them to examine how their definition applies to 2 basic situations. This, generally, is capable of demonstrating the theoretical differences between the two positions.

  A. Unions involving more than two people.
If "marriage" is defined in the second sense, there's no rational objection to allowing multiple individuals to marry.  Can more than two people have a public declaration of their romantic feelings for one another?  Are those feelings somehow less than those of a homosexual couple?  What is actually different about the situation same sex advocates want and that of a polyamorous situation? As far as I--and most others--can see, there's no logical reason to deny one and allow the other.

  B. Unions involving related individuals
If two people are cousins (or siblings) and want to be married, what is stopping them under the second definition?  Doesn't stopping them violate their equal right to happiness and choice of life partner/sexual partner? In principle, there is little difference.  One might object to the offspring produced--however, marriage has nothing to do with offspring if same sex couples are allowed to marry.  Children are only part of the traditional definition.

If nothing else, press for a definition of marriage that can consistently limit other applications.  There's not one capable of doing it.

How 99.9% of Opponents to Same Sex Marriage Already Botched Their Case 
  A. Advocacy and Use of Contraceptives
Yup, you're reading this correctly.  If you advocate/use contraceptives, you've likely created self-defeating logic.  Sex is no longer fulfilling both of its purposes.  Sex between a man and woman naturally unites them as one, and also generates a possibility for procreation.  When you remove the second as a possibility, sex becomes no more than an act which unites two people.  It's easy to slip that into the second definition above.  Same sex couples can easily participate in sex that is only oriented towards uniting individuals.  However, they cannot participate in a sexual act that causes reproduction (barring entry of a third party). I'll go ahead and say it, contraceptives are the #1 reason that same sex marriage and abortion are viable options in the United States.  Both are logical ends after its widespread use.

  B. Accepting Divorce as a Viable Solution to Marital Issues
Most divorces in America occur because one, or both, of the parents are inwardly focused and not focused on their children.  Many marriages end in divorce before they have children (a result of contraception). If there aren't children, and if we aren't focusing on the children when making our decisions--we aren't fulfilling what traditional marriage upholds.

  C. Believing Sex outside of Marriage is Okay, but Same Sex Marriage isn't
This one is more rare, but it happens.  If part of marriage involves sex, and part of sex uniquely unites (bet Ron Burgandy practices that alliteration) individuals, then sex outside of marriage violates your principle.  An adherence to this practice, or apathy towards its occurrence results in changing the definition of marriage.

Roles and Capabilities of the United States Government

The 3 P's
The United States is capable of doing 3 things with any action. It can promote, permit, or prohibit.  Generally, actions that are beneficial to the welfare of people are promoted.  Actions that are not beneficial, or would violate an individual right if prohibited are permitted.  Actions that damage the welfare of society are prohibited, unless such prohibition violates a fundamental right found in the Constitution.

Currently, heterosexual sex is promoted through marriage and homosexual sex is permitted.   Yup, you heard me--permitted.  Both groups can have sex whenever and wherever (read privately) they want.  Both can get married.  Only heterosexual couples receive benefits from the government for doing so.   The difference between their wedding ceremony (in most states) is that they are given a piece of paper entitling them to various benefits.

The benefits are given to promote longevity of relations that may create children.  The government promotes heterosexual marriage because those marriages often lead to children, and children are better raised in households where a mother and father are present. There is a much lower risk of growing up in poverty, being exposed to abusive relationships, committing suicide, and depression.  Children are only a result of sexual relations between a man and woman.  To encourage longevity in the sexual relationship of a man and woman, the state offers benefits associated with taxes, transfer of assets in life and death, and several other minor benefits.   The same characteristics are not associated with homosexual sex, so they are not--and should not be--promoted by the government.

It's all about the Children

In natural law and under the current role of the United States government, the emphasis is on the children.  They are the ones that benefit from the current arrangement.  By shifting the focus from children, to the people in a relationship, we've already drifted away from the reason we recognize marriage.  The people being married aren't the point--the welfare of their posterity is.

All of that said, Justice Kennedy (the man likely deciding the case creating all the noise) made some interesting statements during oral arguments today. He believes all of this is what actually makes the case compelling, "there is an immediate legal injury … and that’s the voice of these children [of same-sex parents].… They want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”  The irony of this is, most proponents of same-sex marriage scoff at the idea that children have anything to do with marriage--and it might be the very thing that provides legal standing to address the issue. Make no mistake, Kennedy realizes that, "We have five years of information [about same-sex marriage] to weigh against 2000 years of history".  It seems likely to me that the court will punt the issue and make no decision at all.  It may wait for more evidence regarding the results of same sex couples parenting children to examine the implication. (Of course, my prediction to Obamacare was also horribly wrong.)

If anything changes, the traditional definition of marriage will likely be construed in this way:  The lifelong union of a man and woman for the benefit of their children is ordered toward unity and child rearing. This is slightly different than the first definition presented by the individual claiming the natural law.  It still does not prevent the slope into polyamorous relationships, relationships between siblings, or relationships between vastly different ages (past the age of reason).  If the ruling comes out that way, many states will begin changing the way their laws work with these other situations. It is the only logical consequence.

How to Change This Result
1. Immediately stop using and advocating for contraceptives.
2. Begin taking measures to drastically reduce the number of divorces.
3. Lift sex up to be an act limited to marriage.

If you aren't doing these things, you've already begun redefining marriage--how can you blame same sex couples for attempting to do the same?  If you can't defend the position, or if your theory is inconsistent, you shouldn't try to defend it. It does more damage than good.  Sometimes there is wisdom in silence.

Why I am ardently Pro-Life

Why I am ardently Pro-Life:
Today, thousands of individuals march upon Lincoln, Nebraska’s capital in the state’s March for Life—our main pro-life rally.  In honor of the march, I will address two objections to abolishing abortion that I have personally encountered since the march last year—disabilities and rape.  Then, I will explain briefly why I am pro-life.

Abortion in the Case of Disability and Its Natural Extensions
My wife is pregnant. Not just pregnant, she’s about-to-pop pregnant. Her due date was yesterday.  Within the last week, I had two individuals on separate occasions ask me if I was worried my child would be born disabled.  They both seemed to indicate that they would not advocate for such a child to be carried to term—although I might be wrong.  If nothing else, they were terrified of the concept—so much so, they feared having children.  My heart was broken.

In 2012, 92% of children with Down syndrome were aborted.  Take a breath for a second and consider what that really means. 92 out of 100 children that would be born with this disability were eliminated.  Why were they aborted? I think the answer is because the parents were afraid of the commitment such a child requires and were unwilling to change their lifestyle enough to accommodate the needs of said child. In general, our culture is inward focused and not outward focused.  Certainly, raising children with disabilities presents difficulties that I can’t truly appreciate or imagine, but does it justify the radical response? In general, what does the response really say about the way we view human beings?

Determining a principle reason for the cause is tough. Recently, a few philosophers have claimed it is merciful to abort a baby rather than give birth to it.  The term “disability” is used loosely and is almost always subjective.  This means that the standard to be applied depends on the person viewing the situation.  One general premise is that the “quality” of life is lower than most other human beings.  Determining who is likely to have a lower quality of life naturally extends the realm of possible abortion candidates.  It is no coincidence that pro-choicers advocate for abortion as a way to control poverty. People have a tendency to view others born with seemingly lesser qualities or goods than they, themselves, were born with as undesirable. Societies/cultures begin to create self-perpetuating judgments of the human beings capable of participating within the society.

If you believe eugenics is justifiable in the case of disabilities, it is also justifiable in the case of the extremely poor.  Nothing, at least morally, significantly distinguishes the concept.  As an example of another similar case, an individual should not object to the growing rate of females being aborted around the world. It is no different (no, I’m not indicating females are disabled—merely viewed as less beneficial within certain societies).  Today, there are 117 males in China for every 100 females.  Due to a limitation on the number of children a family can have, families abort females much more frequently because they are less productive and have lower qualities of life within the society. This seems to be a natural extension of the principles underlying abortion of the disabled.  Generally, it is not the strong who need protection, but the weak and underrepresented.  Do we value human beings because of what they bring to the table for society, or do we value them because they are human beings?  I know it’s the latter, but for some reason answered the question to my friends with a response from the former. It just seemed more comfortable and easier to convey.

You might be wondering what I told my friends. I told both of my friends that I wasn't concerned about it at all.  Am I terrified of it? Heck yes. However, I am able to balance that fear with the fruits I have seen disabled children produce in society—both individually and through their impact on those around them. I explained these fruits to them. One side of my family has two children with fragile x syndrome.  Every time I see them, I am amazed at their growth and progress as human beings.  However, what I am most impressed with is the development of the parents.  When I was younger, I remember them angering quickly and sometimes coming to tears out of frustration. Today, they are incredibly patient people—not only with their children, but with everybody they come into contact with.

When I was in high school, I coached a basketball team of boys for 3 years. When I started, they were in 4^th grade, and my last year of coaching was when they were in 6^th.  One family had three children, and two of their children were disabled.  The oldest daughter had Down syndrome and their oldest son was born without a traditional hand and without traditional feet. He often required leg braces to run down the court.  He had to shoot, catch, and dribble the ball with one hand.  Without a doubt, this boy has inspired me my entire life. I saw him progress as an athlete. He became a great basketball player and an even better baseball player.  His work ethic, joy, and acceptance of his hardships changed the way I viewed my own challenges and have helped me tackle things I considered tough or impossible.  I have no doubt that most people can look to individuals with physical/mental disabilities and be inspired. Think back to the guy that ran in the Olympics with metal legs—what a story!

I was able to be a “teammate”/cheerer for their daughter with Down syndrome at the Special Olympics.  There are few moments in my life as overwhelming as the appreciative hug she gave as she crossed the finish line for her race.  She was expressing true appreciation and joy without any concept of reserve. Often, I wish I was blessed with an ability to do that, but I hold back my joy and appreciation because it may seem weird. I’m afraid what others might think.  She never had that social construct, but was honest and open with her actions and feelings.

Years down the road, as I reflected on the impact disabled children have upon parents and families, I realized that it can create an amazing bond. In order to raise disabled children, everybody in the family has to make sacrifices.  The parents give of themselves until they seemingly can’t give anymore. Then, they give again.  They become so ingrained in the habit of caring for others, that they become people easily loved and admired by most.  I would guess most of you know some parents of disabled children. Think about the ones you know.  Do you consider them blessed with virtues of patience, kindness, and self-giving? I’m sure they didn’t come easy, but disabled members of society can greatly increase the traits within parents, brothers, sisters, classmates, etc.

Even if disabled individuals were a drain on society and individuals, abortion would not be the proper response. Plenty of people, many years into life, could be placed into this category. We don’t extinguish their lives, but tend to take care of them through various facets of our welfare system.

Cases of Rape:
One of the most common objections to the pro-life cause is that abortion needs to be legal in cases of rape. This is rather popular publicly, notwithstanding that this represents less than 1% of all abortions; it’s a serious concern that needs to be addressed. Pro-choicers zealously hammer rape cases in political debates and day-to-day discussions.  They do this because objectors to abortion in the cases of rape seem mean, inconsiderate, and out of touch with basic considerations for the feelings of females that were raped.  Failure to properly address the point cost 3 republican politicians their Congressional seats during the last election. The underlying principle of this abortion justification is that a woman does not desire/want/consent to her pregnancy.  Thus, if a woman does not desire/want/consent to her pregnancy, she should not be forced to have the child.  Maybe put more simply, a pregnancy that a woman does not expect or plan is unjust.

Pro-choicers hammer the issue because if you extend the underlying principle, abortion ought to be legal in more circumstances than rape (read any use of contraceptives).  If you think I’m stretching the issue, let this quote from Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 explicitly state my conclusion, “the Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” Casey uses contraceptives as a justification for abortion seven times in its decision.

If you didn't catch that, the Supreme Court justifies and upholds abortion because contraceptives might fail.  If you believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, there is no reason to object to this principle. It seems to me that consistent thought requires you to accept or reject abortion in both cases because the fundamental reasons are the same.  Those who object to abortion in all cases excluding rape have no logical reason to do so, but merely hold their positions because they’ve not thought deeply enough about the subject matter to present a consistent and holistic reason to object to abortion. 

As a society, we do not punish a child for sins of its parents (in this case a rapist father), but we consider them guilt-free.  When viewing the issue from the child’s standpoint, allowing abortion in the case of rape comes down hardest and unjustly upon the innocent child.

What Does It Mean for Me to be Pro-Life?

There is more to being pro-life than loving babies, protecting the unborn, and marching in parades aimed at creating political movements that lower the use of abortive services.

If you are pro-life, you have to be pro-future. You have to be pro-children. I don’t mean just the unborn, but the born as well. I mean the young adults attempting to find a foothold within the world. I mean the single mothers stuck between a rock and a hard place. I mean the homeless that are unemployed and living on the streets. I mean the murderers, rapists, and terrorists.  The pro-life movement must be holistic, or it isn’t consistent and capable of withstanding scrutiny. It must unabashedly be pro-life in every circumstance. This requires examining what is best for our children and posterity.

You don’t need to quote a Bible verse in order to explain any of these things. All you need to do is believe that loving your fellow man is our most important duty in society.  Everything falls into its rightful place after that. Protecting the weak and defenseless, giving basic human rights to those that don’t respect ours, and ensuring nobody has to starve to death all fall within the pro-life umbrella.

To me, being pro-life requires many things.  It requires an opposition to abortion.  It requires a critical examination of the causes of poverty and all methods of alleviating poverty.  It requires giving people second and third chances when their past doesn't show they deserve it.  It requires considering the implications of any project upon the environment.  It requires killing people—in war or as punishment—to be a last resort.  Mostly, it requires standing up for anybody whose needs are un/underrepresented. It requires an adherence to objective moral truth derived from natural law, otherwise all matters are subjective.

In order to be consistent, allowing any abortions requires you to allow all abortions. One leads to another because justifying one and not the others requires inconsistent logic.  Pick a side. If nobody will stand for the weak, who will stand for me in my time of need? I’m certain it will come. In the meantime, I will stand up for the weak and defenseless.