Tag Archives: Health-care

News

Obesity in Christian churches: what happened to the sin of gluttony?

13 Comments

From Fox News. (H/T Dad)

Excerpt:

But a potentially larger crisis is looming in the pews of churches across America. In fact, statistics suggest that the church today may indeed be in worse condition than the general population. A 2006 Purdue study found that the fundamental Christians are by far the heaviest of all religious groups led by the Baptists with a 30% obesity rate compared with Jews at 1%, Buddhists and Hindus at 0.7%.

[…]Similarly, a 2011 Northwestern University study tracking 3,433 men and women for 18 years found that young adults who attend church or a bible study once a week are 50% more likely to be obese.

The Pawtucket Heart Health Program found that people who attended church were more likely than non-church members to be 20 percent overweight and have higher cholesterol and blood pressure numbers.

Finally, a 2001 Pulpit and Pew study of 2,500 clergy found that 76% were overweight or obese compare to 61% of the general population at the time of the study.

At the church level pastors and clergy are burdened by the skyrocketing number of their members with chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease and confess that a growing and disproportionate amount their time is spent caring for their ill members and less time spent in study, discipleship, and evangelism.

[…]The obesity epidemic in the church appears to be undermining the primary purpose of the church and its missions work by straining church budgets, decidedly absorbing money that would be spent on missions abroad, and consuming the time and energy of pastors and church members.

I like the tone of this article for two reasons. First, it looks at the Christian mission financially and practically, noting how factors like obesity undermine the primary missions of the church. Second, it does not propose government solutions, but only advises that pastors address the top in sermons.

Speaking for myself, these practical sorts of concerns are always at the forefront of my thoughts. I always think about how I am going to achieve things and how much it will cost. Christianity should be practical, as well as spiritual. We need to emphasize the importance of being informed and being skilled at life. I think it’s a mistake to focus so much on church attendance and spiritual things that we neglect how we are going to achieve the things that we are supposed to be achieving in the world outside of the church.

News

NHS spends £1 million a week on repeat abortions

3 Comments

From the UK Telegraph. (H/T Dina)

Excerpt:

According to statistics, thousands of women are using the service to terminate unwanted foetuses; in some cases up to nine times.

The abortions are understood to cost up to £1,000 every time, with five out of every six repeat terminations being requested by a woman who is unmarried.

In 2010, 189,000 terminations took place, with more than 64,000 of them being performed on someone who had already undergone the procedure.

The statistics, revealed by the Department of Health in response to a Parliamentary question entered by Diane Abbott MP, have led some critics to accuse women of using the procedure as a form of contraception.

Josephine Quintavalle, from the Pro-Life Alliance, told the Daily Mail: ‘The number of repeat abortions is simply extraordinary.

“Abortion is an unpleasant and harrowing experience for women and to hear it is happening repeatedly makes your hair stand on end.

“These figures show that sadly, abortion is being seen by many as a form of contraception.

“But is this surprising when we live in a society which says it’s all right to have an abortion once.

“If it’s fine once, why not two, three or four times.”

It is understood repeat abortions currently account for around a thirds of all terminations.

The figures showed the majority of repeat abortions happened in London, with more than half of all of the procedures performed in Croydon being on women for the second time or more.

Around 9,500 women across the country were married, with a further 50,000 being single or living with a partner. In 2010, 85 women had an abortion for the eighth time.

In the UK, schools teach sex education to 5 year olds. So they have quite naturally had an explosion in the number of abortions, as well as the number of out-of-wedlock births.

The UK has generous welfare benefits for single mothers who have children out of wedlock.

Excerpt:

Single mother Tracey Turner, 26… currently receives £136.50 a week in benefits, which includes £42.50 income support and £94 child tax credit.

On top of this, her local council pays all of her £161-a-week rent and gives her a hefty discount on local rates.

A British pound is worth about $1.60 USD. 300 pounds a week x 52 weeks = 15500 pounds = about $25000 USD per year in benefits, not including the “hefty discount on local rates”. Local rates = local tax rates. This is not counting any other welfare programs that might be offered to those who choose to be sexually active before they have gotten a man to commit to provide for them for life. Why be accountable to a man when you can get free abortions and/or free welfare checks? Just pick the one you like best – who cares if can provide or not, as long as he’s good looking and fun. What could go wrong?

Related posts

Polemics

A secular case against legalized abortion

2 Comments
Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old
Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old

Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against gay marriage is here.

Now, you may think that the view that the unborn deserve protection during pregnancy is something that you either take on faith or not. But I want to explain how you can make a case for the right to life of the unborn, just by using reason and evidence.

To defend the pro-life position, I think you need to sustain 3 arguments:

  1. The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
  2. There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born.
  3. None of the justifications given for terminating an unborn baby are morally adequate.

Now, the pro-abortion debater may object to point 1, perhaps by claiming that the unborn baby is either not living, or not human, or not distinct from the mother.

Defending point 1: Well, it is pretty obvious that the unborn child is not inanimate matter. It is definitely living and growing through all 9 months of pregnancy. (Click here for a video that shows what a baby looks like through all 9 months of pregnancy). Since it has human DNA, that makes it a human. And its DNA is different from either its mother or father, so it clearly not just a tissue growth of the father or the mother. More on this point at Christian Cadre, here. An unborn child cannot be the woman’s own body, because then the woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes and two different DNA signatures. When you have two different human DNA signatures, you have two different humans.

Secondly, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the unborn that is not yet present or developed while it is still in the womb, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, it does not deserve the protection of the law.

Defending point 2: You need to show that the unborn are not different from the already-born in any meaningful way. The main differences between them are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Once these characteristics are identified, you can explain that none of these differences provide moral justification for terminating a life. For example, babies inside and outside the womb have the same value, because location does not change a human’s intrinsic value. More at Stand to Reason, here.

Additionally, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the already-born that is not yet present or developed in the unborn, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, that it does not deserve protection, (e.g. – sentience). Most of the these objections that you may encounter are refuted in this essay by Francis Beckwith. Usually these objections fall apart because they assume the thing they are trying to prove, namely, that the unborn deserves less protection than the already born.

Finally, the pro-abortion debater may conceded your points 1 and 2, and admit that the unborn is fully human. But they may then try to provide a moral justification for terminating the life of the unborn, regardless.

Defending point 3: I fully grant that it is sometimes justifiable to terminate an innocent human life, if there is a moral justification. Is there such a justification for abortion? One of the best known attempts to justify abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist” argument. This argument is summarized by Paul Manata, one of the experts over at Triablogue:

Briefly, this argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Thompson says that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But she asks, “Do you have to?” She appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”

Manata then goes on to defeat Thomson’s proposal here, with a short, memorable illustration, which I highly recommend that you check out. More info on how to respond to similar arguments is here.

The best book for beginners on the pro-life view is this book:

For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Learn about the pro-life case

And some posts motivating Christians and conservatives to take abortion seriously: