The Salty Peanut Gallery

As a spin-off to our little bioethics debate our good friend Byron at The No Kool Aid Zone has written some Thoughts on a “Christian Worldview”, Part I. (Presumably there are more to come. Byron Simpsonization courtesy of Webbiedude Paul.)

A Christian worldveiw is something Byron considers “vitally important to living the Christian life.” He defines it as “the outworking of Romans 12:2, the ‘transformation’ that Paul tells us takes place as our minds are ‘renewed’ to think according, not to our natural inclinations, but the Bible’s teaching, which often runs very counter to our natural predilections.” No argument here. “But here’s what’s come up in a couple of posts recently,” he writes. “How does that Christian worldview demand that we interact with others, and how does it demand we interact with law?”

With that thought in mind Byron suggests this principle:

Submitted: When a given course of action impinges upon the legitimate human rights of another, no individual ought to be free to perform that action. However, when a given course of action does not harm the well-being (defined narrowly, by the way, meaning “real harm”, and not this touchy-feely nonsense promoted by the PC crowd) or infringe upon the rights of another, a person should be, before the law, free to engage in that action, even if it doesn’t morally pass muster for the Christian.

Translation: Should Christians seek to impose their moral values on civil laws? Here are some biblical principles to consider.

We know that man is spiritually depraved. “There is none righteous.” “There is none who does good.” This suggests two things. Apart from divine wisdom man is incapable of discerning right from wrong. Apart from divine intervention man is incapable of inhibiting his inevitable demise.

We also know that as followers of Jesus Christ “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” we are urged to “shine as lights in the world”, be “the salt of the earth”, and “love your neighbor”. This suggests some things as well. First, if we truly love someone we will not stand idly by and allow them to destroy themselves. We will take measures to try and inhibit or avert their destruction. Second, as the keepers of the secrets of God, believers have the necessary wisdom to enable society to craft just laws that will protect its citizens and to some degree inhibit moral degradation. The bottom line is this. Without the influence of Christian morality society has no basis for righteousness and justice and will ultimately crumble. History has proven this to be true.

So then from a Christian worldview to what degree should a just government interfere in the private lives of its citizen, to not only provide protection from one another, but to also provide protection from themselves? Is it wrong for example for motorcycle riders to be required to wear a helmet? Should seatbelts and child safety seats be required by law? These are instances in which the law intervenes to protect citizens from themselves resulting in thousands of saved lives. The libertarian would say that these laws are unjust, but how does that square with the wisdom of God?

Something else to consider. A given course of action may not directly harm the well-being or infringe upon the rights of another, but it may still be indirectly harmful in the moral decay that it brings to society. I would argue that this is the biblical basis for at least some of the specific restrictions conservatives would back, but that libertarians would not (i.e. prostitution, marijuana, drugs, etc.). I’m not saying it’s consistent, so please don’t use the alcohol and tobacco argument. I’m simply saying that I believe there is a biblical basis for implementing restrictions on actions that cause personal harm and contribute to moral decay.

Men Are Just Happier People – What do you expect from such simple creatures?

* Your last name stays put.
* The garage is all yours.
* Wedding plans take care of themselves.
* Chocolate is just another snack.
* You can be President.
* You can never be pregnant.
* Car mechanics tell you the truth.
* The world is your urinal.
* You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
* You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
* Same work, more pay.
* Wrinkles add character.
* Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
* The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.
* New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
* One mood all the time.
* Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
* You know stuff about tanks.
* A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
* You can open all your own jars.
* You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
* If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
* Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
* Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
* You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
* Everything on your face stays its original color.
* The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
* You only have to shave your face and neck.
* You can play with toys all your life.
* Your belly usually hides your big hips.
* One wallet and one pair of shoes — one color for all seasons.
* You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
* You can “do” your nails with a pocket knife.
* You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
* You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.

No wonder men are happier.

Our good friend Byron over at “The No Kool Aid Zone” has posed an interesting question that addresses a unique moral dilemma of our day. It involves an issue that some would find “repugnant’ and “offensive”, while others would deem it to be reasonable. His question deals with the ethics of harvesting human organs for profit. Here’s the question:

I want to submit that innocent people are dying needlessly in America because we have a hangup over something, labeling it “immoral” without any Scriptural sanction to do so, and that if we’d get past this hangup, everybody would win. Everybody. In a world where people are dying needlessly waiting on transplant organs, whence cometh our “moral” objections to allowing a person to sell an organ?

In addressing this issue we should first specify whether we’re talking about donors who are living or deceased, since either situation presents its own unique concerns. Byron begins with the example of a lady in his church who donated a kidney to her father. So let’s begin the discussion from that angle.

Initially Byron contends that there is no “scriptural sanction” for labeling organ selling “immoral”. I disagree. One of the main reasons people find the idea of selling human body parts so distasteful is that it devalues the human body to nothing more than a commodity, a product to be bought or sold on the open market to the highest bidder. “But it’s my body,” some may argue, “and I can do with it whatever I please.” Just because you own something doesn’t give you the right to transfer power or ownership of it to anyone else in any way that you please. I would contend that once we head down this slippery slope we begin devaluing people as property and infringing upon the sanctity of human life, a very clear principle from scripture (Psalm 139:14, Genesis 1:27).

For the believer however this creates an even greater issue. In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Paul exhorts, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” To say that we as believers are free to sell that which does not belong to us is further problematic.

But there is another issue at stake. Who do you think the restrictions on the sale of human organs are meant to protect? Down through history it’s not the rich who have sold themselves into slavery; it’s the poor. And it’s not the rich who sell their organs for profit; it’s the poor. If your argument is that lifting restrictions will create “a surplus of potential life-saving organs”, who do you think will purchase these organs? Compensating people for their organs will only drive up the cost of transplant surgery, limiting it’s availability to those who are rich enough to afford it. Selling organs leads to exploitation of the poor and that too is a moral issue addressed in scripture (Psalm 10:2, Proverbs 14:31).

But what if we’re talking about donors who are deceased? Byron poses another hypothetical situation in which a young person is tragically killed in a car accident.

A poor family is approached about organ donation — but they can’t get any remuneration; they have to agree to the deal out of the goodness of their hearts. But the rich doctor gets richer, etc. No, getting money for the organs wouldn’t bring back their loved one, but it might significantly help out the young widow and help provide for the kids. And yet we prohibit this, currently, for reasons that utterly escape me.

Let me see if I can provide at least one possible reason. Here’s an alternate scenario that you may not have considered. Remember Terri Shiavo? She was the woman who collapsed in her home and suffered brain damage ultimately becoming dependent on a feeding tube for the next fifteen years. Her husband petitioned the courts to have her feeding tube removed after she was diagnosed a vegetable, but her parents opposed this, arguing that she was still conscious. The controversy stretched on for years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups, even the state and federal government. After numerous appeals, motions, petitions, and hearings the husband finally won, the feeding tube was removed, and Terri Shiavo starved to death. What’s my point?

By allowing family members to be compensated for their deceased relative’s organs, we are opening up a Pandora’s Box of possible abuses. It’s already difficult enough when physicians must give advice regarding patients on life support who are possible organ donors. Now add the potential of financial gain into the mix and the pressure placed on those charged with these kinds of decisions increases. A greater temptation now exists to withhold medical treatment for profit. In addition to whatever life insurance they may receive, the Michael Schiavo’s of this world are now entitled to even greater compensation. Is that really what we want?

From a purely pragmatic point of view the issue of organ selling may seem on the surface to be a win-win situation. But I would contend that the moral objections are very real and do in deed have scriptural sanction.

From the “Politics As Usual” files in honor of recent tall tails told by certain presidential candidates…