Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.
Naturally I hope that the full force of the law comes down on this abortionist, if he's guilty. But from a philosophical angle, what the heck is wrong with Sycloria Williams? Why does she object to what the doctor (allegedly) did to her daughter? She had already decided her daughter was to die. The abortionist simply carried out her wishes. I understand that as a strictly legal matter, the abortionist appears to have committed a homicide. But as a moral and philosophical matter, he only delayed what Sycloria Williams wanted done by a few minutes. The baby that he is said to have discarded after it was unintentionally born would have been dismembered in Sycloria Williams womb at the request of Sycloria Williams, had things gone right.
I think this mother is filled with remorse over her decision to kill her own child, and is blaming this abortionist. Again, may nothing be spared to punish this doctor if he's guilty (though I have to ask: is he subject to being charged with murder? Or only professional sanction?). But as a moral matter, the mother is no innocent, and I don't sympathize with her in her lawsuit. The only moral ground she has to stand on, it seems to me, is one of consumer complaint for a service not rendered.
Obama, for the record, opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act before the Illinois legislature, and played a central role in defeating it. We will see no abortion compromise or moderation from this president, only ameliorative talk. He'll have to go to a crisis pregnancy clinic and talks up their work before I'll believe he is anything other than a pro-abortion zealot.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Franklin,
A few quick responses, since I se our previous contretemps continues to generate discussion.
(1) The Gospel of Christ, Christianity, and the reductive-to-the-point-of-being-straw-based construct you are calling "Christian Culture" are (somewhat) related, but *not* identical things. An affirmation of the truth of the Gospel of Christ does not require one to accept or to defend all or even very much of the thing called Christianity, which is a very complex and heterogeneous history of responses to the Gospel of Christ. And such an affirmation certainly doesn't require one to accept or to defend the reductive straw-construct you are calling "Christian Culture."
(2) When I said that no one is more close-minded than a self-styled "free thinker," I was not referring to a close-mindedness toward the Gospel of Christ, or toward Christianity, or toward the particular things that you are calling "Christian Culture." Instead I was referring to a close-mindedness on the part of the self-styled "free thinker" that his or her own thought is no *more* "free" and no *less* bound than any other kind of thought -- that it is bound just as surely as is any kind of thought whatsoever on the presuppositions on which it depends. "Free thinking" depends on the (false) presupposition that thinking *can* and *ought* to be "free." Likewise, to pick up on what Rob G. says about you above, your (purported) rejection of "dogma" is *itself* as *dogmatic* a move as are any of the acts of presupposition on which other dogmas depend. You begin by claiming that there is no basis for dogma and/or that one ought not to make dogmatic claims. But that beginning is *itself* a dogmatic claim -- though not necessarily a *more* or a *less* dogmatic claim than any other sort of dogmatic claim -- with is to say any other sort of claim that is *possible* to make.
(3) You agree that you are close-minded toward the Gospel of Christ or -- if you prefer -- the dogma of the truth of the Gospel of Christ. Why then do you fault some of Christians for being close-minded toward the dogma of moral-relativity, which is the dogma that cultural-leftists like Daniel -- and you, I suppose -- are appealing to when you critique pro-life Christians or opponents of abortion more generally, when you fault them for appealing to "authority" or "dogma" and for "imposing" their "authority" and "dogma" on others in the process of living their lives and as such fulfilling their moral obligations on pro-life Christian or anti-abortion lines. Many of us who oppose abortion and other policies of the cultural-left would prefer that folks like you and Daniel kept your culturally-leftist or liberal-fundamentalism or morally relativistic dogma *to your selves* and stopped trying to impose your will upon us on the basis of a moral authority that some of us *do not share.* Now the difference between many of us non-cultural-leftists on the one hand and folks like you and Daniel on the other hand, is that *we* recognize that this conflict is one based on opposing dogmas and *not* one based on a conflict between dogma or "blind faith" in authority on the one hand and "free thinking" on the other hand. Folks like you and Daniel are no more "free" in your thinking than anyone else. You are just less self-perceptive and more philosophically naive.
And that truly is my last word. Reply if you wish. Or, if not, not. Bon jour.
Fletcher, thanks for posting. I truly believe that no person should feel compelled to post, regardless of the topic. I personally reject any notion that silence means anything but silence, and any assumptions about silence serve, at best, the ego of the person mentioning it. Your (general) mileage may vary, of course.
Also in service to more diverse discussion:
1) I believe that nothing is served by my denying the strength and ubiquitous influence of Christianity in our society. The shorthand "Christian Culture" may beg many questions, but I do ask you to work with it rather than against it. If nothing else, it can serve to save other readers one of us (myself, notably) expounding at great length in what can rightly be taken as lectures. That said, I embrace my culture, personal disagreements with its source included.
2) I don't disagree with your dogma rebuttal... but again, it serves to obfuscate rather than illuminate. I've worked very hard to come to any confidence in my beliefs. I continue that work, despite what you or others may assume about the strength of my beliefs, and certainly despite any "relativity" you may ascribe to them. Rob's allusion to our prior discussions masks many hours and hundreds of words around that very issue. Rob can certainly offer his take on them as he wishes, but I will assert one key fact: that I reject a dogma is not necessarily indicative that I want to replace it with mine or another. I can, without conceding any hypocrisy, acknowledge the value of a belief system even while arguing with or outright rejecting aspects of it. You can do the same with my belief system. I like to see that as a constructive process. Again, YMMV.
3) ...the dogma of the truth of the Gospel of Christ. Let us be clear on something, being how I understand this: The Gospel of Christ is not the dogma. Dogma is a human construct. It converts the passing on of a tradition into the embedding of a belief system that is given a life of its own. It gives rise to corruption and crime, rather than preventing it. I don't blame Jesus for the dogma. I do blame the humans (almost all of them men) for the consequences of their creating, propagating and enforcing the dogma. In general, I point to dogma as the cause of crisis in faith, loss of faith and the punishment of anyone who wants to get to or return to the source. The Protestant Reformation is a prime example, and aptly named for it.
My moral "relativity" is solely in comparison to yours (general or personal, however you wish to view it). I have a bone to pick with yours (general). Living, as I do, in a majority Christian population, I see people who are probably Christian acting unethically -- and my personal, dogmatic way of stating it is immorally -- every day. They park in handicapped spots without any evidence of their qualifying for it. They throw trash on the street from their cars. They let their dogs urinate and defecate where people walk. I would very much like to visit them with proportionate consequences to their actions. That I don't says more for how common those behaviors are than it does for my willingness to act.
You may rightly point out that daily mundane "violations" do not compare with abortion, and I could agree. That said, I refuse to sit still for accusations of moral relativity, especially when -- in this thread -- I have disclosed very little about my personal moral stance on abortion. You may continue to assume that it does not agree with yours, of course. What you may not assume is that I live my life other than morally.
Franklin,
I think ultimately we will have to agree to disagree about the extent to which the culture we share can be described as a "Christian" culture -- one founded on Christianity -- let alone one founded on the gospel of Christ.
Christianity -- and even the Gospel of Christ to which Christianity responds -- have certainly been *among* the most importance influences upon the culture we share.
But the same could be said of the various modes of pre-Christian paganism of which we are the legatees quite as much as we are the legatees of the Gospel of Christ or of Christianity.
And the same could be said likewise of the various "Enlightenment" modes of liberalism -- broadly and philosophically as opposed to politically defined -- that one can find expounded in this space each and every day with a dogmatic fervency that equals, and indeed surpasses, that which Christianity or the Gospel of Christ can claim.
T. S. Eliot once wrote a book on *The Idea of Christian Culture,* -- a book whose title makes the barbed yet understated point that "Christian Culture" remains for the most part an *idea* and -- as the old say goes -- not one that has been tried and found wanting, but one which has not been tried.
Now, since the Gospel of Christ, Christianity, and whatever one might choose to call "Christian Culture" are -- as I have said -- three (somewhat) related, though not three *identical* things, it is possible to form a Christianity of varying degrees of distance from the Gospel of Christ and likewise possible to form an idea of "Christian Culture" of varying degrees of distance from Christianity, let alone from the Gospel of Christ.
I submit that the examples you offer as unproblematic instances of "Christian Culture" are in fact rather *far* from Christianity, let alone from the Gospel of Christ, however *close* those who authored those instances might take or have taken themselves to be.
The issue I take with Daniel should -- by itself -- make it clear to you that -- for me -- Christian Culture, Christianity, and (certainly) the substance of the Gospel of Christ entail more than a willingness to affix the label "Christian" to oneself.
In any event, even if one were to adopt your extremely loose and overly-inclusive conception of "Christian Culture," whereby Christianity and/or the Gospel of Christ are responsible for everything that Franklin Evans dislikes about our culture, then one would also have to recognize that the "ubiquitous" and all-pervasive influence of Christianity can therefore also claim responsibility -- or rather *credit* -- for everything about our culture of which Franklin Evans approves.
Of course, that said, I, for one, don't recommend reducing "Christian Culture," Christianity, or the Gospel of Christ to mere names for things that Franklin Evans doesn't like.
And, likewise, I wouldn't recommend reducing paganism or "Enlightenment" to names merely for things that Franklin *does* like -- as opposed to the great many things he no doubt *dislikes,* for which they are *to blame* quite *as much* -- and arguably *more* -- that "Christian Culture," Christianity, or the Gospel of Christ.
Finally, I'll conclude by reminding you -- as I pointed out in an earlier post -- that the Gospel of Christ is *confirmed* and not *disproved* by inability of Christians -- like everyone else -- to "save" ourselves through moralistic self-perfection.
Which does not, therefore, exempt us from our duty to attempt the moral self-correction of ourselves and our world, in accordance with God's law, acceptance of which is our only means of genuine progress in social or in personal terms.
That was well stated, Fletcher. I'll conclude my own agreement to disagree with a slight modification of your last assertion: nothing exempts us from our duty to attempt the moral self-correction of ourselves and our world. I acknowledge and even honor the qualifying motivation of "in accourdance with God's law", and ask that other such qualifiers implied by my leaving that off the end of my statement constitute equally valid motivations.
I read the CNN news article relaying this story and was sickened. My heart was broken for this baby girl and my heart was broken for this young mother. I'm highly disturbed by your willingness to stand only in harsh judgment of Sycloria, ignoring Christ's heart for her. No doubt she will be held accountable for her actions and is suffering the inevitable consequences even now. God is no doubt angered by her selfishness and the injustice she made possible. BUT. But God's heart is to forgive and to heal Sycloria. He yearns for her and wants to take these sins and use them for her good. We as Christians get caught up in the correctness of our pro-life stance and forget that God longs to forgive each of those involved. We will make no life changing differences by refusing to extend God's heart to these people. It is not simply an issue of politics, it is an issue of individual hurting people. We claim a passion for the rights of these unborn children, which we without restraint should. But it should not stop there. We should have that same passion for justice and the rights of those already born. We should be willing to proclaim that Sycloria was grossly wrong and that we love her anyway. We should proclaim that we are willing to fight for a young eighteen year old girl who though held accountable for her own decisions was nonetheless taken advantage of and convinced of the reasonableness of this decision. I obviously don't know Sycloria's situation but I assume a whole lot of hurt, confusion and pain in her life. And I refuse to stand by and accept that her life should and will continue that way. Living thousands of miles from her I can't initiate a person-to-person relationship with her but I will pray honestly and wholeheartedly for her healing and for justice to be served to those who murdered her child. This is not just a philosophical discussion to be won by clever points made on one side or the other. It is an issue involving real people with real hurts that God wants to heal.
I've emailed the Florida District Attorney demanding he charge with murder those responsible for this baby's murder and I've formed a group, inviting others to do the same thing. "I, the Lord, love justice." I, who love the Lord, will stand up for this murdered baby and for her hurting mother. I urge you, if you honestly care for these unborn babies, please ask God to open your heart to their hurting mothers as well. Their guilt can be forgiven just as was yours. I ask you to email Bill McCollum, the Florida District Attorney, and demand he charge with murder those responsible for this baby's death. Let's not just talk,let's take action as well. God wants to set the captives free.
The following is a link to the group I've formed wherein you'll find the FL DA's email address. http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=66243146534#/group.php?gid=66243146534
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.