Sharing Life — Abortion, Stem Cells, Euthanasia, Intelligent Design, Reproduction Technology

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 04-1144 will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 30, 2005. The case will revisit the standard of scrutiny the Court imposes upon a State’s restriction of access to abortion. Specifically, the question posed is whether the State must include in the restrictive an exception for the mental or physical health of the mother. This exception has been part of constitutional law since the Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833. The State of New Hampshire will argue in Ayotte that the correct standard is whether a pregnant woman can demonstrate that the restriction cannot be valid under any possible set of circumstances. This standard was set in a non-abortion case, United States v. Salerno (1987) 481 U.S. 739.

The statute in question is a “parental notification law” enacted by New Hampshire. The law is very similar to the failed Proposition 73 put before California voters in November 2005. (See earlier posts to this blog). The statute requires 48 hours written notice by a physician to the parents of a minor child seeking an abortion. The statute provides the minor a procedure to seek a court order exempting her from the notice requirement on a showing of her maturity to make an independent decision.

This case will be argued before the author of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey justice: Sandra Day O’Connor, who is sitting pending her replacement (likely by nominee Samuel A. Alito). Also, this will be the first abortion case heard before the Court in five years, and the first abortion case with John G. Roberts, recently appointed and confirmed as presiding justice. If Alito is confirmed before a decision is rendered, it is likely the case will be reargued.

The ramifications of this decision are described by both sides in the dispute as “huge”. You can easily see why: if the Salerno standard is adopted, restrictions are likely to be upheld in the future. If the Salerno standard is rejected conclusively even by the conservative members of the Court, virtually any hypothetical harm to the mental (not even physical) health of the mother will be legal cause to allow abortion. Stated differently, the issue seems to be either a wide open door to abortion on demand, or a partially opened door that cannot be forced open further.

In another abortion case, also to be argued November 30, 2005, Operation Rescue v. National Organization of Women (NOW), NOW is seeking to hold persons who use public means to discourage use of abortion clinics to be guilty of “racketeering” and “extortion” under a federal law intended for organized crime: the federal “RICO” statute. The issue here is whether a law intended primarily to deter criminal organizations will be used to silence the vocal and aggressive tactics of a well known “right to life” group.

2006 will be a pivotal legal year for the future of Roe v. Wade. The likely process, if the court upholds the New Hampshire law, will be a progressive erosion of the “personal autonomy” right created by the justices in the Roe v. Wade decision. In its place will emerge a greater deference to the “reserved” right of the people, through their elected State governments, to determine the content of the “right to life” when that life is pre-natal.

As a lawyer, I’m aware that any proponent of a proposition has the burden of “producing evidence” to meet the ultimate “burden of proof”. First, if Darwinists state life has resulted by random natural forces, then they have the burden of producing evidence to answer the questions: “What do you mean that life originated by random events?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?”. Greg Koukl at “Stand to Reason” () suggests a third question to expose a particular fallacy in the proponent’s argument: “Could you clear up for me how micro-evolution is proof of cross-species evolution?”

On the other hand, we have overwhelming evidence that God exists. I am listening to J.P. Moreland’s CD from my Apologetics Certificate Program at Biola, “The Case for God”. Moreland lays out multiple arguments that cumulatively carry the burden of proof that God is the originator of all existence, and particularly organic life. You cover some of these in your extensive “lessons”.

Since Evolutionists maintain only “natural processes” are at work, they refuse to entertain alternative propositions for the origins of life. In the law, a proponent (plaintiff) only wins by “default” when there is no “answer” on file, and no evidence presented in rebuttal. The best defense, I have learned from trial strategy, is a good offense. Particularly, the best defense is to present an alternative, independent reason for why things happen as they did. The “Case for God” is scientific. Nature is full of God’s intelligence, and screams his handiwork even to the deaf. Even the phrases “Natural Selection” and “Natural Processes” suggest an Intelligence that “selects” and “processes”.

You may have heard of SETI. It is an organization funded by the government, using scientific investigation, to systematically “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence”. It had to adopt criteria for identifying “intelligence” “out there” when it found it. The criteria are: 1) complexity; 2) order; 3) non-repetition; 4) the whole of the structure is dependent on every part.

So, a human sentence (or a series of 100 prime numbers, as in the case of the movie “Contact” with Jodi Foster) satisfies all four criteria. Take biologist Michael Behe’s cellular flagellum identified in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Remove a part of the flagellum apparatus, and the whole thing ceases. The living cell is a complex, ordered, non-repeated, whole operation that communicates information. Metaphorically, it is a “statement” that has “meaning”, i.e., purpose. This is of course the Intelligent Design [“I.D.”] argument, but is only one of 4 or 5 others that Moreland summarizes.

Making the case FOR God, based on scientific evidence is the best way to expose the weaknesses of the case for a purely “random chance” theory of life. Chuck Colson tells the story of Anthony Flew, long renowned atheist, in his book “The Good Life” (2005). Flew was “overcome” in his atheism by the evidence for I.D. He simply could not deny that life was too complex, ordered, and unique to be the product of chance. [It requires much more “faith” to believe in chance than to believe in design in view of the evidence.]

In conclusion, the “Origin of the Species” has become more like a religious text than an scientific treatise.

Discipline is not an end in itself, but a preparation for a higher purpose. Discipline in life is to prepare us to live life more effectively and productively. We practice now to be more skillful later.

Spiritual disciplines are followed so we are ready and able to act rightly when the occasion for work or change presents itself. We are agile opportunists to achieve a high goal.

Christians train in the spiritual disciplines to be ready to respond to an opportunity to do God’s work in a fallen world. God’s work is redemptive. It requires skilled laborers.

Christians look to Christ as their spiritual trainer. He is God to us, in human dimension and form. He translates God into terms we can grasp. This is the love of God. Christians then are to practice the same disciplines practiced by Christ: prayer, solitude, meditation, service, sacrifice, humility, singleness of purpose, simplicity, purity, frugality, and love. There are few truly disciplined Christians today. It is difficult to tell Christians apart from the culture they inhabit.

Here is the purpose of discipline: that God can use us for His purposes because we are trustworthy and available. We are to pray to be effective channels of his power for his honor and glory.

Dallas Willard, Professor of Philosophy at U.S.C. states that prayer is an ongoing discussion with God about working together with God to accomplish His purposes. Such is the prayer of a true disciple.