research

Abortion: Why Both Sides Will Lose in the Supreme Court (Again)

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , , , ,

    As I stated in my last blog (Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-ChoiceBoth Right?), many people on both sides of the abortion debate would like to see the Supreme Court revisit their 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in many states.  Some hope that the court would ban abortions altogether and others hope that the court would clarify and broaden Roe v. Wade so that all abortion is legalized.  At the same time, others would prefer that this not happen because, as is often the case, once the court opens the case for arguments, anything can happen.  Based on what I have read, I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  I think that if the Supreme Court is ever willing to reconsider Roe v. Wade, both sides will be unhappy with the outcome.

Why?  
     In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the court affirmed that a woman had a constitutionally protected right to privacy until the second or third trimester[i].  The court later abandoned the trimester “framework” but affirmed that a woman had a right to abortion until the infant was viable.  Wikipedia says that “The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”, adding that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”[ii]
    For the court, the argument was never whether or not a woman had a right to abortion, but about how to discern when one right can be superior to another when two constitutionally protected rights, life and privacy, are in conflict.  For the court, there was never really a question of whether or not there was a right to life or a right to privacy.  The question was how to choose which holds a superior claim and when.  For the court in 1973, viability was the measure that worked.  When the baby was developed enough that it could survive, even with “artificial aid,” then the right to life held the superior claim.
    Neither “side” could declare a clear victory in 1973.  Abortions could be performed but could still be restricted and regulated by the states after the point of viability.  If the court were to reconsider Roe, I suspect that both sides would again be unsatisfied with the results.  Here’s why I think so: Science.
    In 1973 the court chose to use viability, even with artificial aid, as the point at which an infant secured a right to life, but the tools available to the courts, and to medical science, were limited.  It wasn’t until 1975 that ultrasound technology began to be introduced to obstetrics.  At that point, two years after Roe, a fetal heartbeat could be detected and ultrasound could show the skull and a general body shape.  Today, the available technology is dramatically different.  Now, ultrasound technology can provide three dimensional images of the fetus and parents can go home from the doctor’s office with “photographs” of their baby months before birth and long before “viability.”  While the 1973 court looked to viability as a means to determine when life began, medical science is now pushing against that boundary.  While infants in 1973 were considered viable at 28 weeks and possibly to 24 weeks, infants today routinely survive at 25 weeks and as early as 22 weeks.  While there were limited options in determining the beginning of life in 1973, today’s technology can detect a fetal heartbeat at 22 days gestation, brainwaves at six weeks and a fully functioning nervous system at 20 weeks (and some argue for an even earlier date).
    Based only on the court’s 1973 ruling, the present capabilities of medical science, and the current political winds, I think that it is very likely that a rehearing of Roe v. Wade would uphold a right to privacy (and thus a right to choose an abortion) but would also uphold more restrictive definitions of what constitutes life, when life begins, and the point at which an infant secures a right to life. 
Once again, both sides would win…
…and lose…
…and neither side would be happy with the outcome.
Next: Why I Would Argue for the Earliest Definition of Life

Seven Car Shopping Tips to Save You Money

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , ,


    Recently, it became obvious that it was time to replace our 2001 Chevy minivan.  We had already replaced or repaired the windshield wipers four or five times and they were broken… again.  It was also time for the brakes to get some major work, the rust was so bad we were worried about structural things instead of just cosmetics, and to top it all off, the odometer was nearing 250,000 miles.  As much as we both hate it, Patti and I agreed that it was time to go car shopping.  Our experience made me remember a few simple rules that saved us a lot of money.

1)      Decide what you need – Before you start looking at cars, decide what you need first, and then decide what other options you might want, but can live without if necessary.  We decided that, we needed seating for at least seven (eight is better) and since we drive our van about 20,000 miles each year, we wanted the best fuel economy possible.  Our Chevy Venture got 27 miles per gallon on the highway when it was newer and still was getting a little over 20.  We hoped to get a new car with 27 mpg but could live with a little less if necessary.
2)      Decide how much you can afford – The time to figure this out is at home and not on the dealer’s lot while you are having an emotional reaction to plush, leather, heated seats or an awesome big block V-8.  Pick a number you (and your spouse) can live with and stick to it.  Dealers will always try to push you higher than you want to go.  Stick to your guns and be prepared to walk away.
3)      Do your homework – Before we left the house we went online.  If you don’t have an Internet connection at home, go to the library but research what’s out there.  You should know what you want, how much that car should cost, and which dealerships have the cars that you are looking for at a price that you can afford (or can haggle down to).  In our search we found that only two or three manufacturers make a van that met our requirements and only a few dealers who had them.
4)      New cars are for suckers and rich people – Okay, not everyone is going to agree, but for those of us who are trying to make every penny count, new cars just don’t make good sense.  A new car loses about $5000 in value the day you drive it off of the lot.  Is it worth five grand just so you can say it’s new?  Buy a car that’s a year or two old and the price can drop as much as 50 percent.  Because our Venture had almost 250,000 miles, buying a car with 50,000 on the odometer was no big deal and well worth the savings.
5)     Pay cash – What?   Many of you will think that this is impossible, but it isn’t.  Dave Ramsey explains this in more detail (I strongly recommend his class – Financial Peace University) but simply put, if you take out a 5 year car loan, you will pay for your car TWICE.  Once for the car, and once for the interest on the loan.  This is not a good deal.  If your loan is almost paid off, don’tbuy another car.  Instead, keep on making payments… to yourself.  Write the same check every month and put it into a savings account.  You should be able to make your car last a few years longer.  Then, when your car is on its last legs, use the money in savings to pay for the car.    You might not reach this goal on your first try, but if you can get halfway there, you’ve saved a bunch of money and can make it all the way the next time.  If you haven’t done this, you can’t imagine how good it feels to own a car and owe… nothing.
6)      Don’t get emotionally attached – Decide what you want and then go look for it.  Don’t hang all your hopes on one deal.  If this deal doesn’t work out, another one will.  Someone has the car you want andcan afford.  Keep looking until you find it.
7)      Be willing to walk away – I said this before but I cannot overstate this.  Car salesmen want you to fall in love with the car you are buying.  They will do anything in their power to make you think that this is THE ONE.  In the end, we finally found a 2010 Honda Odyssey that was close to our price.  The dealer tried to get us to a higher price several times.  They encouraged us to drive the car home for a while hoping that we would fall in love with it.  Once you fall in love, they gotcha.  Once you’re in love you will pay $500 or $1000 more than you planned.  We knew how much we could afford to spend and were willing to walk away no matter how much we liked the car.  We walked away… twice… and they finally came down to ourprice.
These are a few of the things that helped us, I hope they help you too.
(Next: Seven Things Car Dealers Should Know)

Just How Many Homosexuals Are There?

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , , , , , ,

    Given the current media frenzy over President Obama’s ‘coming out’ to support gay marriage as well as North Carolina’s vote to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman, I found it interesting to find that most Americans have no idea how many gay, lesbian or bisexual persons live among us, or at least, they think they know but don’t.  Certainly, anyone who watches television or most any other media knows that nearly every program has a gay or lesbian character or openly deals with the subject in one way or another.  This media exposure has, perhaps, swayed the public perception of homosexuals in our population. 
     
    Back in 1948 Alfred Kinsey shocked the world when he estimated that fully 10 percent of American men were gay.  But by May of 2011, the Gallup organization surveyed Americans and asked them to estimate how many Americans are gay or lesbian.  What they found was that more than half of all Americans estimated that gays and lesbians represented at least 20 percent (1 in 5) of the population and 35 percent believed that gays and lesbians made up 25 percent (1 in 4) or more of all Americans  (full survey results here) .  Young people (those under 29), liberals, Democrats, and women are more likely to give a higher estimate while those over 50, conservatives, Republicans, and men are likely to give a somewhat lower answer.  So what’s the truth?
    The truth is that almost no one is even close to the truth.  In Gallup’s survey, less than 4 percent of those taking the survey estimated that the population of gays and lesbians was less than 5 percent.  These would be the only people whose guess was close.   A quick look through Wikipedia and other available Internet articles provide estimates as low as 1 or 2 percent and as high as 6 percent but according to Gallup, the best available data puts the real numbers at 3.5 percent (gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals).
    I don’t have any particular agenda to saying this other than I find it interesting how many people simply assume that the gay and lesbian population is nearly ten times larger than it really is.  As we move forward, both as a nation and as people of faith, we need to have some important conversations about equal rights, fairness and compassion.   
When we do, it might just be helpful to start with the truth.

Living Together, No Harm No Foul?

PastorPartridge Sermon , , ,

    Folks inside and outside the church are known to ask the question “Why not?” when discussing the idea of living together prior to marriage (or simply outside of marriage altogether).  Such a choice is often defended by suggesting that there is a benefit from “getting to know each other” prior to making a major commitment.  Obviously, from the perspective of the church there is no half-step toward marriage.  Few of us are naïve enough to believe that a man and woman who live together will refrain from sexual relations and so we assume that living together implies a sexual relationship outside the boundaries of scripture.  Simply put, no one believes that you can “live together” without committing sin in the eyes of God.
    None of that is news.  Most people, whether they attend church or not, know that this is the position of the church.  What’s new is that the Bible and the church aren’t the only ones suggesting that living together might be a bad idea and it’s the new voice that you might find surprising… the federal government.  Some years ago federal research revealed that women who had even one abortion had nearly double the risk of cervical cancer but that news was politically unpopular and got little press.   Likewise, I suspect that you will not hear the Surgeon General say this at a press conference any time soon, nor do I expect to hear this from any major news outlets.  
The news that I read today was on Jim Daly’s (Jim Daly is the President of Focus on the Family) blog, Finding Home.  Dr. Bradford Wilcox from the University of Virginia is a researcher who has studied and written extensively on “marriage, parenthood, and cohabitation, and on the ways that gender, religion, and children influence the quality and stability of American marriages and family life.” (from the UVA website)  Dr. Wilcox has been analyzing a recent federal study on marriage and finds some truly startling statistics.  I have asked Focus on the Family for the name of the study – I will let you know if hear anything
The data tells us that, at least if you have children, living together is far more dangerous than being married.  According to Dr. Wilcox:

“…children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.  Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents.”
    The church (and society, generally) has long held that it was best for a child to be raised by both a mother and a father whenever possible.  This research indicates that this is true when that man and woman are married.  In the words of Dr. Wilcox, “one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend–especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.“

    No one is saying that women who live with an unmarried partner are bad parents.  Neither do I suggest that single parents have it easy and that living together doesn’t solve problems related to finance, child care and time management.  What these findings do suggest is that single women with children should consider such living arrangements with great care because there is a significant risk to their children.  Although I am certain that the federal government will not draw the obvious conclusion, I will.  Marriage does make a difference and the commitment represented by a simple piece of paper does mean something.

Startling news, because of its source.

Scripturally, not at all surprising.

.