Posts Tagged health

Kermit Gosnell, Infanticide, and the Horrifying Reality of Abortion

After a spell of media silence, the horrifying details about Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion clinic and the reality of abortion itself, are finally starting to get some visibility.

For a good overview of the clinic in question and the devastating implications of abortion in general, I urge you to watch this video from the 3801 Lancaster Film Project and share it with those you know. (Warning: The video contains graphic images.)

“There is an effect of abortion on our community,” says one man in the video. “That effect has an impact on our demography. It has an impact on our survival. It has an impact on the health of our community, and certainly on the health of our families.” Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Great Despotic Rot: Obamacare, the Supreme Court Ruling, and Spurious Claims to Deity

Health care, sign, rightsDoug Wilson recently wrote a powerful repudiation of Obamacare and the recent Supreme Court ruling, focusing largely on the (non)biblical implications—which is to say, all of the implications (HT).

Wilson begins his critique by exploring the meaning and Biblical importance of limited government, kicking things off with the following verses:

And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

Here we find the gospel, with all of its political implications (meaning authority and submission implications), rubbing up against a culture and a system that has its own version of things. And here, where Christians overtly ride tensions with earthly despots, we see a push toward the intended order of things—a rendering of the rendering, we might say.

Here we see a glimpse of why government must be limited, and what or who does the limiting:

Limited government does not refer to the size of government, but rather refers to a certain concept of government. Limited government means that vast portions of human life and experience lie outside the business of the civil magistrate, and that everyone, both governors and governed, understand this boundary. False concepts of government will indeed affect the size of the state eventually, but the size is not really the main issue. Size is the symptom, not the cause. The cancer is one thing, and the fever, fatigue, or dizziness is quite another. Limited government recognizes, and rejoices in, its finitude. Government that has metastasized does not.

So in the absence of a functional limiting principle, every act of legislation is a grasping after the serpent’s promise—you shall be as God. Absolutist governments are therefore anti-Christian in principle long before any decisions are made, whether those decisions are good or bad. If the Supreme Court upheld a law that required all of us to carry an umbrella whenever it looked like rain, the issue would not be the umbrella, or the rain, or the accuracy of the weather report, or the wisdom of taking the umbrella on any given occasion, but rather what such overreach revealed about who on earth they think they are.

The Bible requires limited government because any claim to unlimited government by mortals is a spurious claim to Deity. To make such claims is a fatal conceit, and to acquiesce in them is cowardice in the face of such conceit.

Next, Wilson applies this approach, revealing the “fatal conceits” and “spurious claims to Deity” in Obamacare and the Supreme Court’s upholding of the law—developments that most Americans seem to now shrug off as inevitable ends of Western civilization.

The application:

The heart of the problem is that the Supreme Court has now in effect declared that there is no limiting principle in our form of government at the federal level. This means that if we are to live under limited government—the kind of government the Bible requires—that limitation must be enforced at the state and local levels and, failing that, at the level of the church, and failing that, at the level of families and individuals.

Simply repealing Obamacare as a policy matter is no longer enough. Obamacare must be rejected because it is inconsistent with the moral obligation of limited government, and not because it was “unpopular” or “will cost too much.” The problem we are facing is not because of a stupid law. Of course Congress will pass stupid laws from time to time. The problem is the claimed prerogative to a stupidity without limit. We can bear with stupidity from time to time. It is the claim to omnipotent stupidity that has awakened our concern. In a godly form of civil government, we must reject anything that concludes with those fatal words—“without limit.”

Congress is not Jesus, the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being, and there was no baptism for any of them at the Jordan; there was no fluttering dove that descended. Congress did not die for us, and if Congress were to die, Congress could not rise from the dead. This means that Congress does not own me, or the members of this congregation. We have all been purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot be possessed in this manner by another. We have already been bought with a price—Christ’s broken body and shed blood. Talk about a single payer.

Lastly, the solution: Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Scarcity vs. Nonscarcity: Why Do Christians Struggle with Economics?

Half empty plate, scarcity, nonscarcity, economicsIn a recent post at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Jeffrey Tucker tries to explain why modern religious people have such a hard time grappling with economics. (“Why Religious People Struggle with Economics”)

Indeed, although the discipline was originally systemized by Catholics in the 15th and 16th centuries (as Tucker duly notes), today’s Christians — whether Protestant or Catholic, progressive or conservative — often fail miserably in their attempts to comment on the subject. This, after all, is why I started this blog in the first place.

For Tucker, the roots of the problem go much deeper than a lack of mere knowledge:

It’s not just that the writers, as thoughtful as they might otherwise be on all matters of faith and morals, do not know anything about economic theory. The problem is even more foundational: the widespread tendency is to deny the validity of the science itself. It is treated as some kind of pseudoscience invented to thwart the achievement of social justice or the realization of the perfectly moral utopia of faith. They therefore dismiss the entire discipline as forgettable and maybe even evil. It’s almost as if the entire subject is outside their field of intellectual vision.

The issue, then, is recognizing the difference between the realms of scarcity and nonscarcity, a topic that I have discussed on several occasions (here, here, and here):

If one exists, lives, and thinks primarily in the realm of the nonscarce good, the problems associated with scarcity — the realm that concerns economics — will always be elusive. To be sure, it might seem strange to think of things such as grace, ideas, prayers, and images as goods, but this term merely describes something that is desired by people. (There are also things we might describe as nongoods, which are things that no one wants.) So it is not really a point of controversy to use this term. What really requires explanation is Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Prosperity Explosion: Is Income Disparity Necessary for Growth?

Hans Rosling recently released a marvelous video on the relationship between income and life expectancy over the last 200 years (HT). The visualization is stunning.

See it for yourself:

One item worthy of note is how Rosling describes our “remarkable progress” as occurring despite “enormous disparities.” It is a small but important distinction to dissect.

Is it not true that loosening up trade and expanding freedom requires income disparity, or the mere allowance of it? After all, it is during the de-centralization and the individual freedom of the Industrial Revolution that the bottom-left countries started moving decidedly toward the upper right. In a free society, income disparity is typically a sign of efficiency, i.e., maximizing, channeling, and organizing human potential and innovation effectively (thus a subsequent boost to life expectancy).

This isn’t to say that the current extent of income disparity is inevitable, or that all forms of such disparity are signs of efficiency, but overall, you cannot have steady growth without a steady improvement of allocation, and you cannot maximize allocation improvement without allowing for inequality in economic rewards.

Don’t get me wrong. I share Rosling’s optimistic outlook about the future. I do think we can close the gap between “the West and the rest.” It is indeed possible and desirable that we get most people to the healthy-wealthy corner of Rosling’s chart.

Hans Rosling, data, visualizationHowever, I don’t think we can accomplish this if we see economic inequality as an evil or a hindrance to our productivity. It is in the countries that view it as such that we consistently find resistance to upper-right movement.

It is not, as Rosling says, despite income disparity that prosperity has exploded; it is in part because freedom-loving people stopped fearing it. We began living lives of individual invention and personal risk rather than cowering beneath crippling insulation and slavish submission.

It is only by allowing for life to happen that we can hope for life to improve.

(Photo Credit)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Health, Wealth, and Happiness: The Physical Benefits of Self-Sacrifice

Vitruvian Man, Leonardo Da VinciToday at Common Sense Concept, I offer the third installment to my series on Ayn Rand and the topic of selfless self-interestedness (part 1, part 2). I have previously discussed the spiritual benefits of self-sacrifice, but this time I focus on the physical ones, namely health, wealth, and happiness.

To back up my claim, I rely heavily on Arthur Brooks’ book, Who Really Cares?, which was highly transformative in the shaping of my worldview during college. (Hint: I highly recommend it.)

As Brooks concludes:

Happy, healthy, successful, opportunity-oriented people are most likely to give and to volunteer. At the same time, charitable people are more likely than uncharitable people to be happy, healthy, and financially prosperous. Yes, prosperous people are more likely to give to charity — but charity can also make them prosperous and more likely to make even more charitable contributions.

However, as I’ve mentioned previously, this doesn’t mean such benefits are to be the purpose or the drive of our sacrifice. If so, it wouldn’t be sacrifice. The point, rather, is as follows:

First and foremost, they are important to observe because they further illuminate that Jesus was indeed telling the truth. Give and it shall be given unto you. The last shall be first. Lose your life and you shall find it.

Second, such benefits are further proof that God is good in the here and now. He is not the dictatorial menace painted by Ayn Rand — the lofty bearded wizard who gets pleasure out of striking us with poverty and watching us bleed on an altar of self-flagellation. Rather, he is the Father who shepherds His sheep, the Creator who cares for the birds and the lilies.

To read the full post, click here.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , ,


Organic, Local, and Slow: the Pampered vs. the Starving

Pesticide to be sprayed on food crops.

You can thank "poison" like this for helping us feed the world's billions.

Robert Paarlberg has a fantastic piece over at Foreign Policy on the negative organic food is having on the world.

“What’s that?” you say. “You mean I can’t improve my body, heal Mother Earth, and fix poverty in Africa all with one chomp of my socially-conscious organic apple? But I paid an extra dollar!”

People “go organic” for plenty of reasons, but whether it’s for health, the environment, or charity, Paarlberg argues that your efforts are ill-conceived and counterproductive.

But what’s his primary problem with the organic movement?

Helping the world’s poor feed themselves is no longer the rallying cry it once was. Food may be today’s cause célèbre, but in the pampered West, that means trendy causes like making food “sustainable” — in other words, organic, local, and slow. Appealing as that might sound, it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it the most.

Indeed, the way people obsess over the food they eat has always struck me as downright bizarre. I understand that we should eat healthy and take care of our bodies, but this global effort to organicize the planet has always seemed a bit overhyped and preachy to me — particularly because the evidence for the argument never seems to match the impetus for its execution.

The more I watch the organic movement’s momentum increase, the more I realize that its implications are much grimmer than I originally suspected. This isn’t so much on the health side of things — in fact, I don’t think there is really any difference on that front — but the push for organic food is doing great harm to the environment, as well as our efforts to decrease global poverty.

In case you didn’t know, many moons ago all farming was “organic,” and people were starving to death.  Some things never change, for you’ll notice that in most Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,