A Woman's Right To Insanity

The AP reports that the California mom who dropped her three sons into San Francisco Bay was:

"declared criminally insane Wednesday by a judge whose decision spared her a possible life sentence."

"The rare ruling came a day after a jury found LaShuan Harris, 24, guilty of second-degree murder in the 2005 drownings of her three boys.

The decision voids the jury verdicts, and Harris will be sent to a mental hospital indefinitely instead of state prison. She can be released if doctors ever find her legally sane.

"Yesterday there was no justice," defense attorney Teresa Caffese said. "Yesterday it was about the law. Today there was justice."

Defense attorney Caffese has missed the point. What about a woman's right to choose? The only difference in Harris' actions is that her children were outside the womb. If they had been inside the womb, Harris would be off the hook. No messy court case. No second-degree murder charge. No need for a judge to rule her criminally insane.

My point is not to criticize the judge or attorneys. They are acting consistent with the law. It is legislators who have created an intellectually inconsistent law. And they did so for purely politically reasons, not for justice.

As I mentioned yesterday in Abortion Schizophrenia, there is no difference in the nature of being between that which lives inside the mother's womb and that which lives outside her womb. Both are human beings, scientifically, medically, and philosophically.

Since there is no ontological difference between the two then the law should not treat them differently when someone intentionally kills them. But these lawmakers are beholden to an ideology rather than justice.

Where are the Kate Michelman's and Gloria Steinham's now? Where is Planned Parenthood's lawsuit claiming that this woman's right to choose is being trampled? They will keep silent. The womb blocks the killing of the unborn child from the public view. Dropping the child off a San Francisco pier, that's different. Lots of witnesses to the horror. So pro-choicers willingly sacrifice this woman's right to choose to keep the light from shining on the inhumanity of their view.

Abortion Schizophrenia

The AP reports that the mom who dropped her three boys into San Francisco Bay in October 2005 was convicted today of second-degree murder.

According to the report, LaShaun Harris "claimed she was sacrificing her young sons for God." Now, if any of her children were still in her womb, she could have sacrificed them via abortion and never been charged. In fact, she didn't even need the Almighty's direction to do so. She could have aborted for any reason she wanted: she couldn't support them, they were inconvenient, or even if they gave her gas pains.

Kill them inside the womb, society is supposed to turn their heads. Oh, but do it outside the womb and suddenly society is shocked; aghast. How could a mother do this they ask? On Jan 10, an abcnews.com article, SF Mom Guilty of Assault in Kid's Death, reported that "defense attorney Teresa Caffese said she was relieved jurors concluded that Harris did not kill her children in a premeditated act." Caffese said:

"My client is mentally ill. She is medicated. She needs help. She needs to be in
a mental hospital."

Why is this mother mentally ill? For that matter why does the reason matter?

The child inside the womb is only different from the child outside the womb - in this case, the Harris children - in four ways - size, level of dependency, environment, degree of dependency - none of which are morally relevant to its humanness.

The unborn child is smaller than the Harris children but size does not convey rights. Nancy Pelosi is not less of a person than Shaquille O'Neal simply because she is smaller.

The unborn is less developed than the Harris children but then the Harris children are less developed than the mother, judge, and defense attorney. If the development of a human being determines their right to life then the Harris children, not to mention disabled adults, should be allowed to be killed without retribution.

Nor does the environment determine a human beings right to life. Can an astronaut be killed just because she depends on life support to support her life? A child at 23 weeks inside the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a person than a premature baby who is sustained by an neonatal incubator.

An unborn child depends on his mother for survival. But if dependency means one loses the right to life than anyone on dialysis can also be killed, as well as those dependant on insulin. There is no moral difference between the person plugged into a kidney machine and the unborn child plugged into her mother.

Caffese said that Harris was "schizophrenic" and "believed she was sending her children to a better place." To a schizophrenic society that belief is okay when conducted behind the walls of the womb; out of sight. But out in the open, the truth - the inhumanity - can no longer be hidden.

Martin Luther King Day - 2007

Today is the official day set aside to honor, someone who I think is one of the greatest Americans in our country's history, Martin Luther King, Jr.

Washington State Governor, Christine Gregoire issued a statement honor King. Gregoire states, "

King called on us to live up to the ideals that we claim to value as Americans ... His vision encompassed ... all people in need and he taught us many lessons - the continuing struggle for justice, nonviolence, the need to change the status quo, the importance of spiritual foundations
and the contributions of diversity."

Gregoire continues on, quoting The Letter from the Birmingham Jail (which I consider one of the top 5 documents in our nations history):

"Human progress ... comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God."

Yet, what many miss (and I suspect by Gregoire's actions she does too) is that King didn't just say spiritual foundations were important, he grounded the civil rights movement on spiritual - and more precisely Judeo-Christian - foundations. In fact, the civil rights movement would not have been possible apart from its Judeo-Christian foundation.

For example, how do you define a just and an unjust law. Here's how King define them:

"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in the eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality (i.e. the dignity and worth of man who is made in the image of God) is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."[1]

What does King mean by the human personaility? Here's his views from The Ethical Demands of Integration:

"Every human being has etched in his personality the indelible stamp of the Creator.[2]

"This idea of the dignity and worth of human personality is expressed eloquently and unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence. ‘All men,’ it says, ‘are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.’"[3]

How many legislators forty years later, would create just laws based on how they uplift the image of God that is stamped on each human being?

King recognized that man’s dignity derives from the Creator’s design and a law that does not also recognize the Creator's design is unjust. One’s character, not their skin color, reveals God’s image.

People want to say they honor the man but what they will not tell you, probably because they do not know it themselves, that they do not actually hold his view.

The next time someone quotes or extolls Martin Luther King or say they are continuing in the steps of the civil rights movement, quote King's definition of just and unjust laws (without telling them you are quoting King) and watch the reaction. Then ask them what they think of Dr. King.

You'll be astonished at how many say they honor the man's name but reject the very views that made the man's name one to honor.


[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from the Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963, Reprinted in "A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.", edited by James M. Washington, First HarperCollins, 1986. The phrase in brackets "[i.e. the dignity and worth of man who is made in the image of God] is King’s definition of the term "human personality" from "The Ethical Demands of Integration, pp. 118-119.
[2] Ibid., "The Ethical Demands of Integration," pp. 118-119.
[3] Ibid., p. 119.

Ideology of the Nazi Doctors

The New York Times reports

"The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to broaden federal support for embryonic stem cell research, ... which would authorize federal support for research using stem cells derived from excess embryos that fertility clinics would otherwise discard."

The AP provides this report on why a Representative views embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) as important.

Addressing "those who do not have the will to stand up against a presidential veto," freshman Rep. Zach Space, D-Ohio, described his 16-year-old son's battle against juvenile diabetes and wondered aloud what awaited him as an adult.

"This research represents the only meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime," Space said.

Embryonic stem cells hold the promise of medical breakthroughs because they have the ability to become any tissue in the body. But the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization, a step that stirs passions over the beginning of life. (emphasis added)

It is a scientific fact that a unique human life begins at conception (i.e. the uniting of the male genetic material and the female genetic material). The destruction of these embryos, then, result in a dead human life.

The Nazi's also conducted medical research and experiments on those they deemed expendable for the benefit of science and the betterment of the Aryan race. Killing as healing. In fact, the first paragraph of the New York Times article only needs minor tweaking to read:

"The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to broaden federal support for [Nazi medical] research, ... which would authorize federal support for research using stem cells derived from excess [prisoners] that [camps] would otherwise discard."

What if we discovered two-year olds contained the miracle cure for all diseases. AIDS, breast cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimers. All mere memories. But to obtain this miracle cure, the two-year old must be killed. Should we do it?

What about killing those two-year olds who are disabled, unwanted, or inconvenient? Look at the millions of people suffering with diseases that could be cured. Isn't the sacrifice of these unwanteds worth the betterment of those who are important to us?

The answer should be obvious. Just because something may provide a cure doesn't make it moral to do. It is wrong to kill innocent life. ESCR kills an innocent life.

Rep. Space and other supporters of ESCR support the concept that the destruction of human beings for medical research is legitimate for healing.

Killing as healing.

One could very well imagine a Nazi doctor excusing his evil by saying, "This research represents the only meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime."

Thinking Christ's Thoughts After Him

During my virtual wanderings tonight my eye struck upon an interesting ad. The headline stated, "A Different Kind of Christmas" and claimed:

"Our Faith is 2,000 years old."
"Our thinking is not."

Clicking the link takes one to a United Church of Christ site to "Pledge for all the People". The site clearly pitches the view that the UCC accepts everyone.

This is a startling admission from the UCC.

In two sentences totaling ten words, the UCC shows they are not serious about Christianity. A disciple is one who follows another's teachings. So a disciple of Jesus Christ is one who follows Christ's teachings. But Christ's teachings are 2000 years old (older if you consider Christ claimed he himself was God). If the UCC's thinking is not 2000 years old, then they cannot be following Christ's thinking.

Foundational errors lead to significant problems elsewhere. The claim that the UCC accepts all people is misleading because it tries to contrast the UCC as different from other Christian churches. Yet, most Christian churches also accept all people. While Christ invited all people, his message was clearly that He is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

How do we go through Jesus? In John 14:15, Jesus says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." So while churches invite the people, the difference is that serious Christian churches try to follow Christ's teachings, as best as possible, which clearly modeled how to be conformed into his image. That includes behaving righteously as their Teacher taught.

So the United Church of Christ is different from other churches in that they invite all people but they won't concern themselves with the spiritual righteousness of those individuals.

Jesus taught just the opposite. He said to come as you are but be like him.

Denying that fact, is to follow another Jesus, placing those that the UCC welcomes in eternal peril.

Peaceful Passing of Power

Today marked a remarkable event. The power of the United States governemnt passed from one group to another.

No bloodshed.

No violence.

No IEDs exploding. Or generals seizing power.

Power passed peacefully. We are very fortunate for this is very rare in human history.

No matter where we stand politically, we should all be thankful because, despite our worldview differences, we all hold to a common view that makes our system of government work.