engineering the last breath

James was stood-up by his partner Gideon today. So he had to lead us alone in the discussion “Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized?”

Birth. Death. Two events that mark the boundaries of a person’s life. The time we were born was of course out of our hands. It was the decision (or non-decision) of our parents.

But what about the time of our death? Should we be allowed to determine when we die?

Pain. Suffering. Anguish. Torment. Misery. Agony. Should these be allowed to continue?

These two questions laid the groundwork for our discussion.

Unfortunately, opinions weren’t as free-flowing as James had hoped for. Oh, wait, or was that a different discussion? My memory of the dialogue seems to have been displaced by other information. *sigh* The limits of the human mind.

It’s important to note that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is different. Euthanasia involves a physician acting directly to end a person’s life. In physician-assisted suicide, the physician merely provides the means (for example a lethal medication) for a person to end his or her life himself/herself.

But I guess my stand on this issue at the moment is the typical conservative evangelical one. Who are we to take our own lives? This life is a gift from a Higher Power (more popularly known as God). Only He/She (let us remember God has characteristics of both male and female) alone should have the say in when a person’s existence is brought to an end.

Monisa brought up a good point. The Hippocrates Oath forbids physician-assisted suicide. Since all doctors take the oath upon graduation, they are forsaking their duty as a physician when they get involved in physician-assisted suicide.

Some argue that physician-assisted suicide allows people to have a dignified death. Better to end one's life rather than live in a state of complete dependence on others, some argue. Better to die quickly then slowly degenerate and get worse and worse. Better to commit suicide for the good of others rather than leech away money for healthcare (whether from the government or private pockets).

I don't agree. "Death with dignity" is just a euphemism for blantant disregard for the sanctity of life.

But what about the problem of pain? Perhaps two quotes would be in order here.

“Pain is good.” This is an ascetic speaking. A Christian flagellant would say that pain absolves us from our sins and allows us to feel (at least a little bit) what Christ felt dying on the cross for us. On the other hand, a practitioner of certain eastern religions would say that pain is just an illusion.

“Pain is bad.” This is a hedonistic utilitarian speaking. The purpose of life is to maximize happiness and pleasure. Pain is inherently bad and must be eliminated at all costs.

But pain is real, very real. And we have to deal with it.

That’s what morphine is for, right?

And thus, my last journal entry ends. It’s been quite the ride. But our time is up, dear Journal. And with that, I must bid thee adieu.

of guns, geese and gazelles

“Is hunting wrong?” That was the question posed to the class today by Hazel and Lee En, the final team of lasses to lead us in a meeting of minds (or perhaps more accurately, mouths).

Hunting is something that has been around since man learned to fashion weapons out of bone, stone and wood. At the very beginning hunting was a means of survival, an activity carried out to provide food for hungry proto-humans.

But of course, the most virulent virus of all, homo sapiens, soon began hunting for sport. Thus animals that weren’t wanted for their meat began to be killed to showcase bravery and/or just for the fun of it all.

Thus the issue at hand now is whether hunting is something that should be carried out. Suddenly my recollection of the discussion has become vague and unsure, but I faintly remember that Hazel and Lee En were of the opinion that hunting was wrong. Someone (it could have been one of them) said that since we already have domesticated animals such as cattle and poultry to supply us with food. My answer to that is simple. What’s the difference between hunting down a wild boar and slaughtering a pig? Both involve taking the life of an animal. Neither method is more humane. The farming business is just as bad as the hunting business. Thus, that argument is unsubstantial. Now, a vegetarian would be able to make a stand against hunting, but as for ordinary people who dine on their pork chops and roast beef heartily, they’d better come up with a better line of reasoning to go against hunting without sounding like hypocrites.

Others might say that they are against hunting of animals for sport because it’s barbaric and unnecessary. I am inclined to agree. But once again, I don’t see why we should save the whales while we butcher the cows. Why should the life of one animal have a higher value than another? Aren’t we discriminating against certain species simply because by tradition we have been using them for food all these years?

To justify hunting animals as being right, a person needs to have an anthropocentric worldview. According to this view, humans have a higher status than the rest of the animal world (whether because of higher evolution or due to a special position accorded to us by God). And I will admit that I hold such a worldview. (Did I fool you in my previous paragraphs?) However, I don’t believe in senseless slaughter of animals either. Thus I am somewhat in the middle. I believe hunting is alright so as long as the animal hunted is not hunted till scarcity or extinction. But the motive of hunting is also important. As Kantian theory says, we must do things out of duty for it to be moral. We humans have a duty as stewards of this world and over the animals. Therefore we shouldn’t abuse this position for our own selfish wants. A responsible attitude is required for hunting to be considered alright.

So don’t get trigger-happy!

from the eye to the hand to the…

Once again, an unorthodox day for conversation! The topic was “Does pornography cause sexual violence?” And who better to lead this discussion than the unorthodox double act of Romesh and Shafiq!

The topic split the class into three clear groups. A few vehemently argued that pornography does cause sexual violence. Another group was sceptical of the idea. Finally the third group (which I was part of) felt that while pornography may cause sexual violence, it is not always the case.

Romesh and Shafiq were somewhat leaning towards the “does not” group. Shafiq presented some statistics that backed up their case. However, they managed to retain some degree of neutrality but expounded a little bit on the arguments on the other side. Rom did bring up the fact that pornography degrades women (and men, though that happens to a lesser degree), turning them into sex objects.

The conversation also veered into the territory of sex education. Only a teeny tiny minority of the class had received any formal sex education. Parents also had not done their job of explaining “the birds and the bees” to their children, if our little class is indeed a microcosm of Malaysian society (which it is probably not, but oh, well).

Aside: I will make sure that I talk to my children about sex. It’s far better that they are introduced to it by me as a parent rather than them learning about it from friends, who might have a distorted view of it, thanks to, well, porn.

I believe it would be ignorant to pin all sexual violence on pornography, as some who use pornography do not engage in sexual harassment, while some who do not use pornography are guilty of sexual violence. However, to the question whether there is a indirect link between the two I would answer, “Yes.”

Just one example is the case of Tsutomo Miyazaki, the Japanese serial murderer and rapist. Between 1988 and 1989, Miyazaki murdered and raped four girls aged four to seven. When he was apprehended, a search of his house revealed that he had six thousand pornographic anime videotapes. Was the pornography the only cause for his heinous acts? Probably not. But did they contribute to his unhealthy lust and obsessions? Possibly.

Pornography blurs the line between fantasy and reality. The deviant sexual actions found in some forms of pornography may lead those watching it or reading about it to fantasize about performing the same acts on members of the opposite sex. And as these sexual acts might not be agreeable to a person’s spouse or consenting sexual partner, a person might turn to sexual assault and rape to fulfil his or her desires.

The thing that makes this link hard to prove is the fact that studies are hard to be conducted. Testimonies from sexual criminals may confirm some suspicions, but are little lacking in the quantifiable nature of experiments and surveys.

So.. to be safe.. let’s just not watch/read porn, okay?

“spare the rod…”

Mm. A diatribe on a Thursday. An anomaly. But nevertheless, quite an interesting one. Jocelyn and Chee Ling stepped up to lead the class in the discussion, “Does spanking lead children to become more violent?”

The moderators were, following the pattern of previous discussions, quite partial in their discussion, choosing to focus their efforts on convincing the class to nod in agreement to the question (written on the whiteboard), “Does spanking leads to violence?” ‘Twas rather unsurprising in my opinion, especially given Jocelyn’s rather non-traditional (some might say liberal) views on previous topics. 

A quick show of hands revealed that most students in the class have been familiar to corporal punishment as children. Even for those who weren’t punished using such means, the fact that most would probably have children in the future and have to make decisions in discipline made the topic a very relevant one to the entire class.

Jocelyn did most of the talking. Her contention was that spanking and other methods of corporal punishment led to fear and resentment, thus creating people who were more likely to perform violent acts. They might reason that since they were punished using “violence” (some might call it “harsh discipline” instead), violence is something that they can resort to in certain circumstances.

A plausible argument, indeed. But too simplistic, in my opinion. The effects of corporal punishment depends on the administration of it. Of course, in cases whereby parents constantly whack their children for every minor infraction, then this can lead to psychological scarring. However, when used carefully and only in circumstances whereby no amount of reasoning can solve the problem, corporal punishment can be an effective method of discipline. Contrary to popular opinion, not all parents who spank their children are not evil authoritarian sadists. Those who are form a tiny minority. Most parents who use corporal punishment love their children and desire the best for them and thus recognise the importance of discipline in personality formation.

There were a number of anecdotal stories from proponents of both sides of the argument. Among those who spoke for spanking included Tao, though he himself acknowledged that he was for many years afraid of his father due to the spanking he received. Romesh on the other hand said that the discipline he receieved only made him rebel more.

Many Christians will quote Proverbs 13:24, saying “Spare the rod, and spoil the child.” What most people don’t realise is that that’s an incorrect quotation. What the verse really says is, “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.” (New International Version) The focus here is not on spoiling the child, but on love. Note the phrase “careful to discipline him”. Careless and capricious corporal punishment will be counter-productive, but prudent usage of pain as a means of correction will reinforce a lesson well. 

I believe it’s pivotal that parents explain the reasons behind their disciplining of their child. The child must be reassured that he is being punished due to the fact that his/her parents love him/her and do not want him/her to do wrong things. A warm hug after a careful explanation will ensure that the negative ramifications of corporal discipline will be negated.

It’s also important to bear in mind that what works for one child might not work for another. The individuality of each unique kid is such that some might be responsive towards corporal discipline while others more suited to reasoning. But ultimately, spanking/caning/etc. should be a last resort that should be made available to every parent. Banning all forms of corporal discipline and calling it “child abuse” would be a most unwise move.

Perhaps you might say I'm going off-tangent. "Hey! The discussion is not whether spanking should be used, but rather whether it leads to violence!" Well, if it leads to violence, then it shouldn't be used. If it doesn't, then it is still open as a method of discipline. Of course, just because it doesn't lead to violence doesn't justify over-usage. There are other possible consequences of heartless spanking apart from provoking violence. 

Well, as always, I believe the answer to this question is a complicated one. But I will end here with Proverbs 13:24 again, this time in “The Message” version:

“A refusal to correct is a refusal to love; love your children by disciplining them.”

“i now pronounce you husband and husband (or wife and wife)”

The lone ranger Jonathan led us today in a heated debate on the topic, “Should same-sex marriages be legally recognized?”

It was indeed a welcome change from the monotony of previous weeks whereby the discussions seemed more like presentations. Jonathan made it clear from the start that he was not only against same-sex marriages, but homosexuality in general. This provoked a flurry of responses throughout the whole time he was talking. Some might view such interjections as being rude, as we were cutting him off. But in view of the fact that it was meant to be a conversation and not a lecture, I believe the comments and objections were perfectly justified. 

Jonathan’s main argument was lock and key analogy. He likened a male to a key and a female to a lock. These two go together, he said. Two locks and two keys do not complement each other the way one of each does. Thus his contention was that a marriage was never meant to be for two members of the same sex.

But I think most of us went off-tangent during the dialogue. We were focused on whether homosexual relationships should be accepted. The issue at hand was actually regarding marriage. Some people are fine with homosexuals doing whatever they wish to do and even being united in “domestic partnerships” but consider marriage as an institution that is closed to these practitioners of alternative lifestyles, reserving it only for heterosexual couples. 

An interesting development during the discussion was when Jonathan was questioned by Mr. Graham whether he felt as strongly about lesbian relationships as gay ones. Jonathan then was forced to reveal that he felt that male homosexual relationships are more repulsive to him than female ones. I believe this is the case for many, but not for me though.

My views on this issue have yet to be fully formed. At the moment I oppose same-sex marriages for a number of reasons. Firstly I do not believe that sexuality is 100% genetic. There are other factors that come into play as far as sexuality is concerned, for example upbringing, childhood experiences and peer influences. Of course I do not think that sexuality is something that’s simply just a choice either. There are certainly some who are more disposed to homosexual feelings than others. But this does not mean that such attractions are acceptable. For example, there are some who are more tempted to steal than others. Does this mean that the actions of an individual who is more predisposed to steal are right, simply because the temptation is something that comes from within?

I’m still pondering about this. 

Perhaps I’m idealistic, but I believe that marriage should ideally be between a man and a woman. But this ideal could be a product of societal upbringing, rather than proper reflection. Thus, I cannot speak with conviction on this topic. Not yet, anyway.

Nevertheless, I’m against all forms of homophobia and believe that we should treat every individual with homosexual feelings with love and respect. I will continue to pray and explore this issue, hoping to find answers to my questions.

the life of the unborn

“Is abortion immoral?” That was the focus of our discussion today, which was led by Aswathy and Kavitha. Interestingly, Deepak and I originally picked this topic, but we switched to the topic of prostitution as I didn’t feel that abortion would be controversial enough in our Malaysian society, where most of us would be pro-life. My hunch proved right when only two people out of the twenty-nine in our class were in support of abortion. When Aswathy asked the class what we thought abortion was, Deepak immediately ejaculated, “Murder!”

Jocelyn was in favour of giving the choice of abortion to women as she felt that those who had been raped should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy rather than live with a constant reminder of the traumatic experience they went through. Deepak countered by saying that rape victims could give up their children for adoption rather than “kill” them, but Jocelyn shot back saying, “Don’t you know going through those nine months is hard?”

I can’t remember what Mike said (once again). But I remember that it was a typical Michaelian argument. Novel, intriguing and contentious. Heh.

Oh, wait, now I remember! Mike said that abortion should be allowed in cases whereby the baby was found to have a mental or physical disability. Mr. Graham immediately voiced his opinion that he believed such a thing to be wrong, and I believe most of the class (me included) were of the same view. Special children are indeed special, and must be given their right to live a good life. I have a cousin with cerebral palsy, and he indeed is a unique character who is intelligent, mischievous, and fun to have around.

Mr. Graham’s view was interesting. He said he would personally never want an abortion to happen, but he felt that women should still be given the right to make that choice for themselves.

As for me, I personally feel that abortion is wrong, but I believe that banning it is not the answer. As a Christian, I feel that Christians cannot force others to live by Christian standards through laws, but must spread the message of love and help others realise that abortion is wrong. Forbidding abortion will not stop illegal abortions from taking place. It will also not stop people from dumping babies or committing infanticide. The solution does not lie in legislation; it is in leading people to see what is wrong and what is right. We must help people make the right choice to uphold life, because no matter what the law says, if a person does not want to keep a baby she will do whatever it takes to get rid of it, regardless of what the law says.

Recently in February, the South Dakota Senate voted to ban all abortions in the state with the exception of cases whereby the woman’s life is endangered. This goes against the famous (or infamous?) case Roe vs. Wade, and whether the ruling will be overturned or not remains to be seen.

So, thus the great debate continues.

between life and death

It’s Friday again! The dynamic duo of Mike and Ken led us today in the controversial topic, “Should juveniles be executed?”

They started off on a… controversial note by declaring that they support the execution of juveniles. What a way to begin the discussion. Somehow I can’t remember exactly what Michael said, but I know Ken’s main point was that juveniles should be responsible for their actions as they are old enough to think logically and weigh the consequences before doing something.

Ken said that by the age of fourteen, a person’s brain is fully developed. While I don’t doubt that claim, we cannot equate biological development with psychological development. Just because a person’s brain has grown to its adult size and fulfilled all the necessary requirements to be considered “fully developed” doesn’t guarantee by any measure that he or she is mature enough to fully understand the consequences of his or her actions. Maturity comes with teaching and experience, not just with biological growth. A 20-year old that hasn’t gone through the necessary stages of early childhood, primary school years, secondary school years and so on will still remain like a child, with thinking patterns and reasoning patterns similar to a child.

Ken also mentioned that it would be unjust to let juveniles who have taken lives off just like that, as this wouldn’t be fair to the family of the victim of the murder. My personal stand is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Avenging the death of one by killing his or her murderer is something that has been done since the beginning of civilization, but is despicable. Such punishment is revenge, not justice. Sentences should serve to make wrongdoers repent from their actions and become better people, and not simply for punishment’s sake. The settling of scores through vengeful punishment, I simply cannot support.

What makes sentencing a juvenile to death even worse is the fact that he or she has many years ahead of him or her that we now be snatched away.

Haiku:
“If we hang a kid,
His years ahead will be gone,
Never to be found.”

One interesting thing was that more than half the class was against the death penalty in any situation. I was one of those who share such views. In my opinion, putting someone to death under any circumstances cannot be right. Perhaps you might call me a pacifist, as I don’t believe in going to war or killing whatever “enemies” there might be in the world. I believe that we should uphold and celebrate the gift of life, and rather than denying others of life we should strive to live together in this world in peace. Yes, call me a hippie, call me a Quaker, call me anything you wish, but you cannot change my mind that everyone has a right to live, and a right to re-live even after performing a heinous crime. That is the beauty of grace, isn’t it? Just as we, a bunch of good-for-nothing sinners, outlaws, bandits and evildoers were given a new lease of life by God through his magnificent grace, we should extend this grace to others who have done wrong. Redemption is the key word here, as well as grace. The significance of these two words is in giving a person an infinite number of chances in love instead of the chastisement he or she deserves.

Yes, a killer/rapist/drug pusher has indeed done a terrible thing (or even terrible things). I vehemently oppose trying to make a horrible crime seem less than what it is.

Yet we must learn to forgive.

We must believe that evil people can be turned around if shown love and given the chance to repent.

That's what we have to do, for the sake of love in this world.

αγαπη

A confusing topic this week, it was. Naresh and Ian, it was led by. ‘Twas “Is love a mechanism of evolution?”

To be honest, I didn’t quite get what the topic was about. My first impression from reading the topic was that it had something to do with biological evolution. Perhaps the question was whether love had something to do with natural selection and how the human race evolved into what it is today.

However, the content of our discussion veered more towards cultural evolution. The impact of love, so to speak, on how cultures developed throughout the ages. No, wait a minute, that’s wrong. What we talked about was whether love was something that evolved as time went by… or was it? Frankly, I was quite lost throughout the discussion, probably because what we were talking about was not what I had expected the topic to be about.

I googled (I like this neologism) the exact phrase for the topic and got 61 results. Most were related to a book in the “Taking Sides” series whereby one of the issues was indeed, “Is love a mechanism of evolution?” This is the synopsis/abstract of the argument:

Anthropologist Helen Fisher contends that love is a chemical mechanism through which natural selection initiates and sustains human pair-bonds. Furthermore, she maintains that serial monogamy has adaptive advantages and is visible in worldwide patterns of divorce. Freelance writers Jeffrey S. Reber and Marissa S. Beyers contend that love is not merely biological but also fundamentally relational, social, and psychological. Additionally, they argue that Fisher's commitment to an evolutionary perspective leads to a biased interpretation of the evidence.

Mm… quite an interesting issue indeed. But our discussion in class didn’t even come close to touching this area of contention. We were mainly talking about what “love” was to each of us, whether we could live without it, whether it was just something that came into being as a result of cultural evolution etc.

So maybe all I can do is offer my thoughts on love.

Love for me is something beautiful, like an unsullied piece of nature that gives you a glimpse of the One who makes all things beautiful in His time. It is in our love for each other that we learn a little bit (just a little little bit) about the unfathomable depths of God’s love for his creation. There are four sorts of love in the Greek language, but the most of beautiful of these is agape, or selfless, altruistic love. This is the purest form of love that we can have. While most forms of love are conditional and subject to reciprocality, agape is love with no strings attached. It is a love that keeps giving without even a thought of getting anything in return. It does not wax or wane according to seasons or the changeability of things. It can be experienced, but not understood as it transcends human comprehension.

It is the sereneness of a thousand sunsets, the unspeakable vastness of the heavens, the light from all the stars in the universe, the untarnished innocence of a child’s affection, the drop of water that fills entire oceans, the breath of air that gives life to all known organisms, the lamp that extinguishes the darkness of a thousand nights…

It is simply… sublime.

word cloud

from http://snapshirts.com/custom.php

the spirit within

Whoop de doo. Another Friday. Another discussion in class. This time around Bobby and Ishnad were chairing the discussion on the topic: “Are humans inhertly violence?” Whoops. I guess they made a mistake writing that on the board. Heh. The topic according to the topic list was supposed to be “Are humans inherently violent?”

The discussion was pretty umm.. unilateral. I kinda felt like I was being lectured to rather than being in a discussion. But I guess some pretty good thoughts were presented by the duo.

Bobby gave a.. well, it was as long as a speech about why humans are inherently violent. I must admit I spaced out a couple times while he was talking. I felt it was a little bit too protracted, but I’m sure it must have had a lot of good content.

Ishnad talked about how a person’s treatment of animals can be a sign of how violent he/she is. Now I’m not sure how that really relates to the topic, but it was rather interesting. He even finished off with a quote by Immanuel Kant, so hey, that was cool.

Then Bobby asked for opinions from the floor about the issue. James disagreed with the duo, saying that violence is something that is learnt rather than built-in. Ah, it seems like he’s more of a “nurture” person than a “nature” person. Mr. Graham also gave some evidence supporting the argument that humans are not born violent, probably to counterbalance the opinionatedness of the moderators.

Mm, you might notice that I’m giving more of an account on what happened rather than an actual reflection. Okay, time to switch gears now…

Basically there are two opposing schools of thought for this issue. On one side we have those who believe that humans were created good, and are corrupted by outside influences. The other group believes that we are wicked by nature, and thus it is of no surprise that we are capable of such shocking violence and cruelty.

If you had asked me this question a year ago, I would have given you the stock evangelical Christian response. I would have said that I believe humans were created good, but corrupted themselves by sin in the Garden of Eden. Today however I am not as sure as I used to be about that. I guess my view right now is that there is constantly a battle between an individual’s good side and his/her evil side. There are different forces at play that pull the individual’s judgement towards either side. But ultimately the decision lies in that individual himself.

I need to read and reflect more upon this subject.