Don't Ask a Test Tube to be a Father

This past January, the Sundance Film Festival debuted The Kids Are Alright, a movie about the tests a lesbian couple endures when their two children seek out to find their sperm-donor father. Of course, the movie's pro-homosexual message at the end is all about the difficulties every couple faces through years of commitment, echoed approvingly by an article in Psychology Today.1 But this is a movie, and just like everything else that comes out of Hollywood, the truth is a very different – and disturbing – thing.

In this case, the truth comes from the definitively non-conservative online magazine Slate. In their article "The Sperm-Donor Kids Are Not Really All Right", authors Karen Clark and Elizabeth Marquardt look at how having a sperm donor father affects the emotional stability and overall well-being of a child, and the results are startling.  Here is just a brief summary of some of Clark and Marquart's findings:

• Regardless of socioeconomic status, donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25.
• They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse.
• They are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems.

Some people may be tempted to think that this is typical of any displaced child since they have unresolved questions of their biology, not knowing who one of their parents was. However Clark and Marquart also studied children who were adopted, and in comparing donor offspring to adopted children they write:

As a group, the donor offspring in our study are suffering more than those who were adopted: hurting more, feeling more confused, and feeling more isolated from their families. (And our study found that the adoptees on average are struggling more than those raised by their biological parents.) The donor offspring are more likely than the adopted to have struggled with addiction and delinquency and, similar to the adopted, a significant number have confronted depression or other mental illness. Nearly half of donor offspring, and more than half of adoptees, agree, "It is better to adopt than to use donated sperm or eggs to have a child."

In the film (disclaimer: I've not seen the movie; I've only viewed the trailer) one of the children asks his father "Why did you donate your sperm?" The man replies "It seemed a whole lot more fun at the time than donating blood." This sums up much of what is wrong with our culture’s view of creating a family. People who take a frivolous approach to having a child (or providing the materials such as sperm or ovum to create them) are not looking toward the future child’s best interest. In fact, many people seem to believe that children are just one more accessory they are entitled to, so that their list of stuff is complete. But as we see, such frivolous attitudes lead to real, damaging consequences. And these consequences not only affect the sperm-donor kids, but they affect the society as a whole who has to cope with, treat, or jail the negative actions they perform as a result.

God's original design for marriage is a father and a mother committed for life, bringing up their biological offspring. Even in our "enlightened" era, it looks like that formula is still the best for raising strong, well-adjusted individuals. No matter what Hollywood preaches, the truth tells the tale.

You can read the entire Slate article here.
You can see the actual study from Clark and Marquart here.

References

1. For the Psychology Today review of the movie, go here.
Image courtesy Brendan Dolan-Gavitt and licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) License.

Science Discovers We're Hard-Wired for Morality - Just Like the Bible Claims

Have you ever read one of those "stupid criminal" stories? You know, criminals like Ells Cleveland. Cleveland was arrested in Honolulu and questioned on suspicion of robbing four banks. "Four?" responded Cleveland, according to the detective's affidavit. "I didn't do four; I only robbed three banks!"

There's something that feels so satisfying about a crook who gets caught by his own foolishness. That's because humans have an innate sense of morality within us. We not only have consciences, but we also feel the need to have right and wrong boundaries within which to live. The Bible tells us clearly that when people who never hear about the Bible instinctively do the things the Bible commands "they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." We are hard-wired to be moral beings.

But we don't need to rely solely on the Bible to see this claim as true. Modern science is starting to discover this truth as well. Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom has been studying infant development and has come to the conclusion that human beings are hard-wired for morality. It exists and can be seen even before babies can speak.

In very careful experiments, 6 to 10 month-old babies were shown a puppet being helped by a "good" puppet friend and hindered by a "bad" puppet friend. The helper and hindering puppets were then placed on a tray and brought to the child, where they overwhelmingly reached for the "good" puppet. The results surprised Bloom who had previously believed that babies were blank slates upon which any type of morality could be impressed. Bloom concludes "Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone."1

Stop being so judgmental!

The claims of relativism, however, deny this basic premise. Relativism holds that there is no inherent good or bad, right or wrong. Much like Bloom's initial belief, they think that morality is something denies the moral sensitivities we're born with. But no one can live this way in real life, and relativists contradict themselves even in the way they rear their own children. They set down rules – the biggest of which is "you shouldn't make other people feel bad." They worry about negative judgments affecting children's development. But, any statement that tells a person what they should or shouldn't do is by definition a prescriptive statement. It's a prescription for behavior and like a medicine that prescribed to cure an illness, the statement is given with the belief that by behaving a certain way will be better for those involved. However, this doesn't make sense. Medicine works because basic human biology is the same for everyone. A doctor doesn't dispense medicine made for animals, but discoveries made that treat human illnesses in Europe or Asia will work effectively in the US, too.

To believe that morality is not similarly universal means that the same prescriptions will not work in different cultures or contexts. But if we are to "stop being so judgmental" because such actions are "bad" for people, then the relativist has underscored the fact that they believe there is a right and wrong way for people to act. In fact, I would venture to guess that even a relativist would have a problem with parents who never corrected any of their children's naughty behavior, but allowed them to do whatever they wished. Our society would classify such parents as criminally negligent and they would be charged with a crime. That's because our society naturally recognizes that moral boundaries are essential in raising quality human beings and to remove them is actually harmful not beneficial.

For more on the inherent morality of babies and Paul Bloom's research, reach the New York Times article "The Moral Life of Babies" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html 

References

1. Bloom, Paul. "The Moral Life of Babies." New York Times Sunday Magazine 9 May 2010: MM44. Web. 5/9/2010. ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html

Six Tips to Help You Share Your Faith

There are many different articles out on the web dealing with Christian apologetics and how to defend your faith with others. Most deal with the technical nature of a specific claim or offer analogies for you to use when explaining your opinion.

However, there is another aspect of apologetics that is often ignored - how to talk appropriately to people. 1 Peter 3:15 (the "apologetics verse") says that we "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence "(emphasis added).  People seem to forget that the "gentleness and reverence part are included in the verse.  Knowing how to approach people is just as important as having all your facts together.  Remember, people have intrinsic value, and approaching them that way is part of our biblical mandate.

My friend Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason offers these six tips on engaging others in respectful, apologetically-driven conversations, tips we should always keep in mind when sharing our faith with others.

Apologetic Tip #1: Start with questions, not statements.

Apologetic Tip #2: Take the time necessary to get to know the other person's views. That might even be your first few conversations.

Apologetic Tip #3: Remember that people are image bearers to be valued, not merely apologetic targets to be conquered.

Apologetic Tip #4: Laugh. Joke around a little. Add a little sarcasm. This can take some of the tension out of a serious conversation.

Apologetic Tip #5: Talk over a meal. Table fellowship can communicate love, care, friendship--important things to undergird your apologetic.

Apologetic Tip #6: Don't sacrifice truth in the name of love. Don't sacrifice love in the name of truth. Need both 4 a powerful apologetic.

For more of Brett's writings and videos, check out www.strplace.com.

War is Hell - and so is Divorce

An interesting article appeared in today's Los Angeles Times about the detrimental effects a father's deployment in Iraq has had on his family - particularly his 4-year-old daughter Tatum. Marine Staff Sgt. Tyrone Baugh was deployed for one year in Iraq and the effects on his toddler were shocking. She became rebellious, punching and throwing scissors at her teachers. The article reports:

A recent Rand Corp. study commissioned by the National Assn. of Military Families showed that approximately a third of children aged 11 to 17 from military families reported anxiety symptoms — sleeplessness, unexplained fears — double that seen in civilian families.

The youngest are also turning out to be more vulnerable than once thought: Tricare, the military's health insurance system, reported that mental health visits for children under 5 jumped 73% between 2005 and 2009.

"We would like to think that little kids won't remember, or won't notice; we know that's not accurate," said Ellen DeVoe, an associate professor of clinical practice at Boston University, who is developing a program to support young children with a parent returning from war. "Even babies and toddlers understand and will miss their parent. They may become withdrawn, they may cling to the parent at home. They don't yet understand the concept of time."

So, if being away from your young children for only a year can do so much damage, why isn't anyone asking "What about being divorced and being separated from them for their entire childhood?" Although divorced parents can have visitation rights, many of the same issues and feelings of abandonment and isolation come into play, especially when the divorce is being processed.

In the article, it states that Sgt. Baugh was returned stateside, but stationed in a town other than where his family had taken up residence, so he had to visit the kids on weekends and when he could. It also states that the problem persisted because Tatum didn't have full access to her father. And when the family tried to alleviate the problem by having Tatum move in with her dad, she cried at night because she didn't have her mom with her.

If a one year separation is problematic enough to warrant a front-page story in the Times, then the nastiness of a full-blown divorce must be off the charts. But something tells me it's too politically incorrect to chide divorcing parents in this day and age. I doubt the Times would cover that kind of story.

Image courtesy Tony Guyton and licensed via the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License.

Christians in the Arena

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."  -Theodore Roosevelt, April 23, 1910

100 years ago today Theodore Roosevelt visited Sarbonne University in Paris and gave an incredible speech entitled “Citizenship in a Republic” about how the efforts of ordinary citizens play a vital role in making democratic countries strong.  The quote above has become the most famous from that speech – so much so that the speech is more often referred to as the “Man in the Arena” speech instead of its title.

As Christians, I feel the quote above is quite applicable to the responsibility we have as citizens in the Kingdom of God.  The assault on faith has become more and more blatant; with judges barring a day of prayer and activists protesting any Christian who states that they think their beliefs are really true.  Of course the arena image immediately calls to mind those brave Christians in the first few centuries of the church who were forced to face the wild beasts or professional gladiators of ancient Rome. Although facing the most unimaginable fears, the saints did so because of their devotion to their Lord.

We are blessed that in the Western world we do not have to face such horrors. But as citizens of a city “whose architect and builder is God”(Heb 11:10),  we need to be ready to step into the arena and engage others in the war of ideas.  Will we be men and women whose faces are “marred by dust and sweat and blood” to spread the good news of the gospel?  And while you think you may “fail” at such tasks, know that it is a better thing than to be one of those “cold and timid souls who neither know victory or defeat.”