Archive for the ‘Culture of Death’ Category

One of the most vexing questions people ask me is “What is your argument against abortion?” This is vexing not because I don’t have an argument, but because I have several arguments against abortion. I don’t think we’re limited to just one here.

But one argument I’ve thought about is based on Kant’s categorical imperative, namely the formulation of it that states we should only act in a way that we could universally will to become a standard for all other people. That is, if we can’t will that others act in the same way we do in every single case, we should not act this way.

So consider this argument:
1. If we will for one woman to get an abortion, we should will for all women to get abortions.
2. If all women get abortions, we will go extinct.
3. We should not will for our own extinction.
4. Thus, we should not will for all women to get abortions.
5. Thus, we should not will for any woman to get an abortion.

This is really just an extended edition of modus tollens, and we could break the argument into two arguments:
1. If we will all women to get abortions, we will our own extinction.
2. We should not will for our own extinction.
3. Therefore, we should not will for all women to get abortions.

And argument two:
1. No person should be exempted from universal moral laws.
2. It is a universal moral law that abortion is wrong (see the argument above).
3. Therefore, no individual woman should be permitted to get an abortion.

Now some people might object and say “Perhaps abortion is only permissible under Circumstance X, Y, or Z; and we could universally will that any individual under those circumstances get an abortion.” Kant had little room for this type of reasoning, he did not tend to allow exceptions to moral laws based on circumstance.

I am not quite as intense as Kant in that regard. But that’s not the point. Suppose there are circumstances under which abortion should be permitted, there is a vast difference between permitting something and willing it. I may permit my football team to kick a field goal, but I will for them to score touchdowns. It is only in non-ideal circumstances that abortion should even be considered permissible (and I would argue these are relatively few in number). But I still don’t will it, and given any other choice I would likely opt for that.

In the United States, most abortions are not out performed out of medical necessity, and so the arguments presented here would at least eliminate vast numbers of abortions. Additionally, I’m not aware of too many people that want to argue for the extinction of the human race. Hence, they’ll have to attack Kant’s categorical imperative, and it’s a surprisingly defensible rule of thumb.

God bless,



As someone who has fought for years against recreational dating (As a side, notice how many of my friends have got engaged and married lately? The answer is a heck of a lot), let me say with all the gentle tenderness that I can muster that the author of this article knows nothing. The Greek word for men in his category is something like “dim wit” or “moron.” The Hebrew word might be translated like “fool.”

First, chivalry is not dead. Granted, it is in exile from the cultural mainstream, but it’s not dead.

Second, the author asks “What happened to paying for dinners and drinks? What happened to pulling out chairs and holding doors? What happened to walking on the outside, closest to the street and all that sh*t? Where did we lose the chivalrous touch? When did it become acceptable to just text a girl, inviting her to come bang? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining about those instances, I’m just saying, why have we strayed away from what has been established as the norm?”

Any man with a brain functioning at about 10% of average capacity realizes the answer is in the question. What happened to all of those things is PRECISELY that it became “acceptable” in our culture’s eyes to “just text a girl, inviting her to come bang”. What happened is that little boys like John Picciuto stopped complaining about such evils. A culture centers around what it worships, and a materialistic and hedonistic culture is incapable of sustaining any true form of chivalry for any length of time. That, my friends, obviously takes a Christian culture, and the type that we have not had for at least the last 100 years or so.

Finally, “The real problem here is that women, for one reason or another, have become complacent and allowed men to get away with adhering to the bare minimum.”

No sir, the REAL problem here is that you’re a cotton headed ninny muggins. Men lead, and you don’t get men to lead the culture back into chivalry and courtship by denying one of the fundamental truths necessary for chivalry and courtship. You don’t get men to take responsibility by denying that men are actually responsible. You can’t clamor for chivalry and sacrificial responsibility by pinning males failures off on females (which is really irresponsible).

It is a sure sign of moral decay in society when teachers, those entrusted by large segments of society with indoctrinating instilling moral values in our children, fail to walk by even basic standards of morality.  I’m speaking of James Hooker (that’s really his name, though it applies to him in other senses) and Jordon Powers.  The Hooker, a 41 year old teacher, left his wife, children and job to be in a relationship with Powers.  Powers, as you probably know, is an 18 year old student.

Fundamentally, this is a sign that our morality is collapsing.  This is only what can be expected in a relativistic or subjectivist society.  When we deny the existence of objective moral truth, everything is permissible.  On relativism, moral standards are arbitrary lines in the sand.  Eventually, people cross those lines, and it gets continually pushed back.  Of course, we all know how this ends:  Walking over a cliff.  People in our society want to be able to do anything with no consequences.  They fail to keep in mind that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  Guess what the equal and opposite reaction to walking over a cliff is?  Anyone?

Of course, this fundamental collapse of morality manifests itself in our educational system.  My senior year of high school, I recall my speech teacher talking about how in her homeroom she had more “Straight F” averages than “Straight A” averages.  It used to be that grades of C were bad, but for many now that’s the norm and completely acceptable.  This is indicative of something we conservative Christians have known for a long time:  An educational system hijacked by secular values simply doesn’t work.  It doesn’t work because it’s not true.  Education must be infused with biblical truth.

Finally, our families are collapsing.  The Hooker is acting wickedly and immorally toward his family.  He has an obligation as a husband and father to provide for and lead in his family.  His negligence here is despicable.  But it is in fact simply the consistent outworking of our secular relativistic worldview.  Society cannot function without strong families, and the Hooker provides an excellent example of a weak man who is weakening families.

Something must be noted about our concept of “love.”  In this case, it seems to be something of a vacuous feeling.  It’s just so exciting for a teacher and student, right!  But love is more than a feeling, and more than a spur-of-the-moment flaking.  I suspect that for Hooker this isn’t love, but lust.  For the girl, she’s probably not mature enough to understand her own feelings.

We can all agree, this situation is a travesty.  It highlights the decay of moral decency in our society.  But Hooker is acting no worse than many members of Congress, and at least one of our current presidential candidates.