moral law

Adrift Down the Tubes

Three news items for you to chew on.

Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable

A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That’s an 11-point increase from seven years ago.

[…]

Of the poll’s 16 ethical issues rated for moral acceptability, divorce topped the list, followed by gambling, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Extramarital affairs — often a cause of divorce — are at the bottom of the list, with just 7 percent of Americans finding them morally acceptable.

By what moral law and standard do my fellow Americans make this judgment? (At 70%, that includes a lot of real — as well as nominal — Christians. Wow!)

And why does that moral law and standard make extramarital affairs so unacceptable?

OK, here’s the second story:

Boston Doctor Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

So Doc Spack is catching lots of flak. I wonder if it’s coming from any in the 70% mentioned above. And why.

Now from the Mail Online (UK), the third story:

Fathers aren’t needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model

Fathers were last night effectively declared an irrelevance in modern Britain.

The requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment was scrapped by MPs.

In a free vote, they swept away the rule despite impassioned pleas that the Government plan would “drive another nail into the coffin of the traditional family”.

Labour rebels said it would send entirely the wrong signal to society as Britain faces a crisis in responsible parenting. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had warned it would remove the father from the heart of the family.

Pity Aliza

She’s Exercising Her “Rights”:

Art major Aliza Shvarts ’08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts’ project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for “shock value.”

“I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,” Shvarts said.

It has, Aliza.

And I hope it also inspires some sort of praying.

Then Tax Abortions Also!

Taxes trigger big drop in U.S. smoking

Higher state taxes on smoking are producing sharp declines in tobacco consumption in the United States, just as Congress considers a huge federal cigarette tax hike, USA Today reported in its Friday editions.

The newspaper, conducting its own analysis of taxation and consumption figures, said the degree of decline in smoking appears to be tied directly to the size of the tax increase.

We know taxing smokes isn’t about legislating morality. So taxing abortion wouldn’t be either.

We know that consistency demands that “pro-choicers” should oppose someone deciding to smoke just as much as they should oppose someone deciding to have an abortion.

And what would be done with the money generated by state and federal taxes on abortions?

Well, I take you back to the story for my answer:

The Senate last week approved a $35 billion tobacco tax increase as a way to pay for expanded government health care for children. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has proposed its own plan to provide health care to children through higher tobacco taxes

Abortion taxes for the children!

Makes sense to me.

Above all, love God!