Is Abortion a Moral Right or Morally Wrong: What is the issue?

It is absolutely critical that the issue dividing the pro-life and pro-abortion advocates be clarified and not muddled by irrelevancies. As author Scott Klusendorf points out in The Case for Life, “If you think a particular argument for elective abortion begs the question regarding the status of the unborn, here’s how to clarify things: Ask if this particular justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers. If not, the argument assumes that the unborn are not fully human.” (The Case for Life, P. 25, Para. 1). With that being said, the issue needs to be about the humanity or personhood status of the unborn. Since hardly anybody appeals to economic conveniences, or rights to privacy to justify killing infants and toddlers, to appeal to those circumstances in the case of abortion is to assume the unborn are not human persons. Let me give an illustration that can help clarify this. Bob and Debbie are hanging out over coffee and the topic of abortion comes up in the conversation. Debbie says, “I think the woman should be allowed to have an abortion because what if she can’t raise the child due to her economic situation?” Bob doesn’t think that reason is good enough. “But it’s wrong to have an abortion because you are killing a child. Don’t you think that’s something the woman should consider?” Debbie, however, wasn’t very impressed with Bob’s question. She kept insisting that the woman should not be prevented from having an abortion because it was her body and her rights.

Now what was Debbie’s underlying assumption when she said that women should be permitted to have an abortion due to financial issues? She was assuming that the unborn was not a human being without giving any argument for it. This is called begging the question. In logic, when one begs the question, he or she is assuming the very thing they are trying to prove or frontloading a hidden assumption without defending it. In philosophical issues, every assumption is open for questioning and no one is exempt.

Here is how that assumption can be exposed. Debbie tells Bob, “It’s not your place to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It’s a fundamental right to being a woman to have an abortion.” Now suppose Bob were to turn around and say, “Alright. Let’s imagine that I have a two-year-old girl who has terrible health issues and has cost us great financial distress. We are considering on killing her in the privacy of our home. It’s nobody’s place to tell us what we can do with our two year old.” Debbie will have to say that she is opposed to that because she generally believes, along with most people, that the toddler is a human being. But what was Bob’s point here? He was exposing her hidden assumption that she was not defending: that the unborn is a not a human being. Since Debbie would not use the same reasons, she gave for abortion, for killing an infant, newborn, or toddler, it follows that the real issue is not the mother’s poverty but what the unborn is.

Or sometimes you might hear someone say the following to a pro-lifer, "Don't like abortion. Don't have one." The reduction of the issue of abortion to choosing between different preferences has become too common in our culture. People quite readily are oft bent on making the abortion debate a debate over one's own personal and private preferences. What exactly is wrong with the above line? Well there are at least 3 problems with it. First, it does not take into account what the pro-life advocate is actually claiming. Pro-life advocates are not saying they dislike abortion. They are saying that abortion unjustifiably kills an innocent and defenseless human being. So reducing the topic of abortion to matters of taste is to fail to understand what exactly is being claimed here. Second, the person saying that also fails to understand the difference between preference and moral claims. Preference claims are simply descriptions of a person's state of what they like or dislike. It has little or nothing to do with what they ought or ought not do. 

Statements like "I like chocolate ice cream", "Gummy bears taste better than teddy grahams", or "Apple pie is better than lemon pie" are all preference claims. There isn't any demand or obligation that you could infer from any of those statements. Most of us would probably think it would be odd if I were to say "You're wrong for liking chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream" because we all intuitively realize that the contents in that claim are purely preference based. Third, the statement - if meant to be an argument for abortion choice - is a bad argument because it begs the question. The statement is true only if the unborn are not human beings. But that is precisely the topic of the debate! In fact, if the unborn are not human beings, you don't need the argument!

So in conclusion, the central issue in abortion is whether the unborn is a human being or a person. This is supported by the fact that most – if not all – reasons given to support abortion are question begging and do not address the real issue. The purpose of using a toddler as an example is not to argue that the toddler is a human being but to address the real issue. With that being said, let us turn to whether the pro-life case is sound or not.

Is Abortion a moral right or morally wrong - Part 1

The pro-life position, in establishing a case the for humanity, personhood, and intrinsic value of the unborn, based on scientific and philosophical reasoning, is arguably rationally and morally justified. By contrast the abortion-choice position ultimately lacks substance in establishing the claim that a woman has a right to an abortion, which entails killing a human embryo or fetus prior to being born.

Are there any good or compelling reasons to think that abortion is morally wrong or is it a matter of subjective judgment? Whose side of the debate is supported by the evidence and can be defended cogently in the face of objections? In this blog series I will defend five contentions. First, I will clarify the real issue in the abortion debate. Second, I will argue that the unborn is intrinsically valuable as a human person, through science and philosophy, and that killing it through an abortion procedure is morally wrong. Third, I will address popular level objections to the pro-life position from scientific and philosophical angles. Fourth, I will address the crucial arguments against the pro-life position from Judith Thomson, David Boonin, and others and attempt to show why they fail to succeed. And fifth, I will address one particular objection that could undermine the entire abortion debate for both sides of the issue.

Judith Thomson argues in A Defense of Abortion that a woman has the right to an abortion based on two considerations and analogies she gives: the violinist and the right to self-defense. Consequently her argument stresses the point that a woman has the right to defend her body against a fetus that endangers her life – resulting in an abortion – and has the right to withhold bodily support from the fetus that will result in its death, even while granting the pro life claim that the unborn is biologically a human being, is a person, and has a right to life. Additionally, David Boonin argues in his book A Defense of Abortion that the fetus must obtain, what he calls, organized cortical brain activity that will enable the fetus to have desires and hence a right to life. Abortion is morally justified prior to the fetus’ acquiring cortical brain activity.

It is not the goal of this blog series to provide indubitable proofs for either side since absolute certainty is virtually impossible to attain in most areas of life. Rather the goal is to present a case that is scientifically and philosophically defensible enough to withstand some of the strongest objections to the pro-life position.

Before I begin, there are some preliminary comments I need to make so as to clarify what I will and will not be arguing in this paper. First, I will not be arguing for any possible motivations one might have to either have an abortion or why they support a woman’s right to it. I am here to discuss reasons that I think are persuasive why I am morally opposed to abortion. Second, I will only present arguments that I have found persuasive and have studied in some detail. There are many other arguments for and against abortion choice that will not be covered in this paper.

There are essentially two stances, morally speaking, that one can take on this issue: either abortion is morally justified or it is not. There is no third alternative. Pro-life advocates claim that killing a defenseless human being is morally wrong and that abortion does that. They argue that on the basis of the unborn as a human person who is intrinsically valuable. Abortion rights advocates argue possibly two views: (1) Abortion is always acceptable at any stage during pregnancy; (2) Abortion is acceptable at certain stages of pregnancy but not others when the fetus has acquired certain levels of development (viability) or self-awareness that qualifies it as a person with a right to life (i.e. past 20 weeks of gestation). Philosopher and defender of abortion rights David Boonin argues in his book A Defense of Abortion in support of # 2.

Anti-abortion or pro-life advocates are opposed to #1 and #2. Both sides could be wrong. We may never know the human, personhood, and moral status of the unborn. But neither side can be simultaneously right morally speaking because they contradict each other. Essentially, the primary difference between pro-life advocates and abortion rights advocates is their view of the unborn in virtue of what makes it a person. Abortion rights advocates are willing to grant the unborn are human beings but they would distinguish between human persons and human non-persons. A proponent of this distinction is Mary Anne Warren in her article On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion in the book The Problem of Abortion edited by Joel Feinberg. Pro-life advocates claim that the unborn is a person in virtue of the kind of nature it has, not in virtue of certain powers or properties it can gain or lose at any given moment (i.e. self awareness). Abortion rights advocates would defend Warren’s view. They cannot both be correct because their claims are contradictory. Hence, one must carefully evaluate both sides of the debate and decide which side has the most compelling arguments.

In summary, I will not be arguing for any possible motivations one might have to either have an abortion or why they support a woman’s right to it and I will only present the arguments that have persuaded me in this study. 

Pro-Life Case and the Gospel

Three Reasons Why to Only Preach the Gospel but not Talk about Abortion and Give a Sound Pro-Life Case Will Not Work

I want to briefly sketch three factors that show why merely preaching the gospel without discussing abortion and arguing a Pro-Life case will not work.

The degree to which a person is receptive to the gospel message will depend on their views regarding the ideas embedded within the gospel message.

If a person values other human beings for how well they perform or function, then they will have trouble seeing how their Creator can still value them even when they might have lived the worst life imaginable. If people think that our nature has nothing to do with our moral perceptions but that our moral perceptions and actions are byproducts of our skill sets and levels of development, then they will have a hard time seeing how sin, separation, and judgment from God is a universal reality for everyone – including those who are worse off in terms of their abilities and intelligence - who has rejected Him and His redemptive plan for humanity.

The culture we live in and the ideas that dominate our cultural context of ideas will determine the general reception Christians receive from secularists in presenting the gospel.

If our culture is largely secular in what shapes the marketplace of ideas, then the gospel presentation will largely be reduced to being appealing to uneducated citizens but perhaps a “harmless” superstition to the academia. Since science or scientism is taken to be the foundation and mechanism for what counts as real knowledge, “educated” people or people who have real knowledge about subjects and fields, won't be largely interested in talking about the moral responsibilities and duties people have to one another but rather the sociological, psychological, and neurological aspects of peoples’ brain chemistry since those factors are simply descriptions of their past history. 

And since those factors, that secularists only consider, are believed to be the only relevant issues for why people are the way they are and act the way they do, any other reason proposed will be considered to not reflect "objective" features of the nature and moral makeup of human beings. Why? Because they cannot be cashed out in scientifically measurable ways. 

Since the gospel presentation does not really appeal to those factors in determining that people are genuinely guilty before God for their sins and are responsible for their lives, it will largely be appealing to the uneducated man but not appealing to the educated elite. 

If the culture at large has a radically different understanding of the sanctity of life than our Christian understanding of it, then this will affect the effectiveness of the gospel’s ability to transform broken lives and get people to see that their value to their Creator does not depend on the quality of lives they have.

The assumptions people have – before and after talking and thinking - about the issue of abortion and its immediate and broader effects on people will also affect the effectiveness of presenting the gospel message.

What makes a person responsible for his or her actions? Is it their environment, levels of development - social, intellectual, physical, etc - or primarily the fact they have a certain nature that grounds the kinds of choices they ought and ought not to make and that they have a Creator to whom they ultimately owe their allegiance to? 

Is real forgiveness possible and if so what must be done to discover it? Is forgiveness an option primarily or only for those who have done less than worse acts than others have done? Would Ted Bundy be more able to be forgiven because he murdered fewer people than Hitler? Or is it something that is genuinely available for everyone, even for the worst possible criminal? 

Can a person be restored to God and if yes then what makes restoration possible in the first place? A person's understanding of human value will also affect their understanding of the meaning of restoring a severed relationship with their Creator. If a person's value is grounded in, being a human being, being made in God's image, not in his or her performances, levels of development, successes, failures, or whether their acts were horrific or good, then they can be restored to the very God who gave them the value they possessed from the moment they began to exist.

Conclusion

                   

Those three factors that I discussed which I hope to have proven are as follows: (1) The degree to which a person is receptive to the gospel message will depend on their views regarding the ideas embedded within the gospel message. (2) The culture we live in and the ideas that dominate our cultural context of ideas will determine the general reception Christians receive from secularists in presenting the gospel. And (3) the assumptions people have – before and after talking and thinking - about the issue of abortion and its immediate and broader effects on people will also affect the effectiveness of presenting the gospel message. Let us carry on this mission in Jesus' name!

Abortion: Setting the Record Straight

Abortion can be an emotionally stirring topic for many people, especially Christians. Many times people will appeal to emotional charged insults or victimize a certain individual(s) in the debate. But is there a way to limit the role emotions play in how Christians interact with those who are for abortion? I believe there is and I base it on two factors. First, by the nature of the people involved, people don't have to strictly rely on their emotional reactions for this issue. People have emotions, but they also have heads. They can think and arrive at rational conclusions. Can our emotions affect our thinking abilities? Absolutely. But we are not required to just stick with our feelings if we're to make a successful case for our pro-life position. Second, in my experiences with different people, I have discovered that if I am calm and resolute in defending the pro-life position, the person listening to me most likely will also be calm and composed. I think that sometimes people – on both sides – get too emotionally tangled up because at least one of them have a difficult time sustaining their emotional filters. I don't think the abortion issue is unique in this case. I think the same principle applies even to counseling situations or giving advice to someone who might be on the verge of making a tragic mistake.

So what can pro-lifers do in this discussion? There are two things that are simple and yet compelling if presented the right way. First, it is absolutely critical that the issue dividing the pro-life and pro-abortion advocates be clarified and not muddled by irrelevancies. As apologist Scott Klusendorf points out in The Case for Life, “If you think a particular argument for elective abortion begs the question regarding the status of the unborn, here’s how to clarify things: Ask if this particular justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers. If not, the argument assumes that the unborn are not fully human.” (The Case for Life, P. 25, Para. 1). With that being said, the issue needs to be about the humanity or personhood status of the unborn. Since hardly anybody appeals to bodily rights, economic conveniences, or rights to privacy to justify killing infants and toddlers, to appeal to those circumstances in the case of abortion is to assume the unborn are not human persons. Second, when defending the claim that the unborn are human persons, and hence deserving of the right to life and legal protection, use the acronym S.L.E.D. That word stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, & Degree of Dependency. A simple and clear way to use this to defend the personhood of the unborn is by claiming the following:

•  Unborns, infants, and toddlers have different sizes, levels of development, come from different environments, and have different degrees of dependency.
• Hardly anybody thinks that one is morally justified in killing someone based on a difference reflected in SLED
• Since the unborn undergoes those changes just as infants and toddlers do, it follows that those changes cannot be used to justify killing the unborn but sparing the infants and toddlers.

In a nutshell, peoples’ value and personhood do not depend on their sizes, levels of development, environments, and degrees of dependency.

Conclusion

So if you are for the pro-life position and want to be adequately prepared to defend it, then first gather your emotions and set them apart in the debate as best you can. Second, be calm and have your thoughts together. People are more apt to listen to you if you are not coming off as aggressive or hostile. Third, clarify the issue and refuse to be distracted by side issues. Fourth, get familiar with the acronym S.L.E.D. and practice it before you begin talking with people about it. And last, spend some time in prayer and ask God to fill you with the Holy Spirit so that you will not only be a powerful communicator of an important truth but bringing glory and honor to Him. Since we are born again, we must take care to represent Christ as he actually is. I’d like to end this with a verse from Colossians 4:6: Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person.

Random Thoughts

What are friends like? Some might say they are people who are there for you during difficult times. I would agree with that. Some might say they are people who stick with you even when it would be easy to leave. Who wouldn't agree to that? What about people who deliberately take an interest in your life and want to know who you are? Are there people right now who are playing those roles in relation to me? I would say not.

Yeah sure I have people who - when they have the time - call me and want to hang out. Those people aren't abundant in number. I can think of at least a few people. Now have I hung out with people who haven't done either and who I consider as friends? Yeah of course.

But what about people who ask me questions about my life, struggles, accomplishments, and who aren't asking me questions in terms of how I can help them but are just wanting to know who I am?

I frankly know none of such people.

But someone might ask: Ben can you really expect people to do what you do? After all, they are not you and you are not them.

I think that question makes an invalid assumption. It assumes that the reason why I expect people to do that is *precisely* because I am doing it. But that's a false assumption. I do not believe that the fact I am doing it is something unique to Ben Williamson. I think it's something that is primary to friendships.

If you have nothing to inquire about the other person in terms of their history, growth, progress, and struggles in a variety of ways, then how can you confidently say you are their friend?

Sure they might be your friend because they do the things necessary for a friendship exist but you don't reciprocate their actions, and neither do you give any evidence that you have an interest in their lives.

It's one thing to say "I am interested in being your friend or knowing you" and it's another matter to prove it.

So far most, if not all of my current friendships, exist because I was the person to initiate it. Now there's nothing wrong with me being the primary initiator. But if I keep that role the entire time I am supposedly friends with them, then is this just a giving series of experiences but not a give-and-take example of a friendship?

I am honest guy to people. But unfortunately I cannot tell people sometimes what I really think about them because it would hurt their feelings. So as a result, I hide my feelings from them.

I honestly don't really know what else to write about as far as this topic is concerned. Yes I care about people, I enjoy imparting wisdom, knowledge, and insight to people, and I love making people feel happy.

But I don't feel connected to people. Will I do good to people regardless of how they treat me? Absolutely. Will I see myself as their friend? Probably so. Will I see them as my friends? Probably not. Because they don't know me deeply. Sure they know my character qualities as far as how I interact with them. But they don't know where I've been in life, my ups and downs, and so forth. Why?

Because they don't ask questions. Why don't they ask questions? For some, because they don't care or don't think it matters. For some, because it hasn't come to their minds and so they have nothing to ask.

I guess there's a big difference between being there for people and you considering them to be a friend.

I don't expect people to respond to this blog post because it's too much work because either they are burdened with other things (which I'm sympathetically understanding of) or they don't feel like exploring it.

I guess I would rather talk about anything that isn't personal with people because I just don't trust people in general. There are people I know who are genuine and I appreciate those people and I try to earn and keep their trust.

I try not to take peoples' trust for granted. I realize that trust is something that can be easily lost and hardly gained. So I appreciate it and take it to heart when people confide in me for certain matters, issues, or questions in their lives.

Maybe the reason why I'm talking about all of this is because I have too much time on my hands to think about these issues. If I were more busy, then maybe this would not bother me so much. But then again, if I stayed active in being physically fit in what I eat and how I exercise and read regularly and cultivated certain habits, I probably would feel much happier.

I guess I have poured so much into people and have received little in return. If this is what it means to have friends, then it's not a worthwhile investment. But of course, as a wise person would point out, my expectations as to what defines good investment is critical.

I realize that most people would not be as immediately and directly straightforward and disclosing of themselves as I am in the timespan that I normally show myself. Most people, in my experience, require more time for that to occur.

I want to be patient and give friendships time to develop. But I also fear that people use that as an excuse to be lazy.

I guess that when it comes to investing in people as friends, I have to consider a few things. First, I have to consider whether they are worth my time. Second, I have to expect minimal results so that I won't be as disappointed as I normally am. Third, I need to know what their *and* my philosophy of friendship is and see whether it's a true or faulty philosophy of friendship and whether it coheres with mine. I am *not* saying that if their philosophy of friendship doesn't cohere with mine, then automatically they have the wrong one.

It's a separate issue whether my philosophy of friendship is a true and coherent one as opposed to whether someone else's philosophy of friendship is compatible with mine or vice versa. Whether two views are compatible with each other has nothing to do with the truth of either views.

So I guess in rehashing what I was saying earlier, I need to address the 8 different but related questions:
(1) Is this person worth my time?
(2) Am I expecting minimal results and if so what are they?
(3) What is his or her philosophy of friendship?
(4) What is my philosophy of friendship?
(5) Do they have a true philosophy of friendship?
(6) Do I have a true philosophy of friendship?
(7) Does his or her philosophy of friendships cohere with mine
(8) Does my philosophy of friendship cohere with his or hers?

Thanksgiving

To be honest with you, I hadn't really thought about whether this Thanksgiving would have been something more special or unique than other Thanksgivings I've experienced. I mean, what would you expect? There is going to be a nice meal with plenty of good food, smiling faces to see, and a cozy place to celebrate it all at. What more could be added to the picture?

I started to think that maybe something different was coming because of a friend my sister Cheri had invited to our place. Her name is Erin. She's a very smart, bright, compassionate individual. She's unlike many other woman I have met in my life. It's not often when I meet a woman who can engage me as a scholar would and have a soft, sensitive side to herself that was quite endearing. Our family had talked with her about controversial issues like, the problem of suffering in the world (more specifically the Holocaust) and how to talk with people about contrary viewpoints.

After we had our full, I passed out for nearly an hour or so. I was exhausted from eating so much. After waking up, our family entered the living room, sat down on the couches, and started gathering to talk about what we were thankful for. We naturally went around the room through different people. The first person was Jeremy my brother in law. He's always brief and to the point about matters. He rarely or never I should say provides some commentary on what he is thinking, unless it's an extraordinary moment. I cannot remember who all went after him but sooner or later the discussion came to me.

I had been thinking of what I was going to say. I wanted it to mean something special. I wasn't content to just stick with famous old cliches like "I'm thankful for God, my family, friends..." blah blah blah. By the way, I hope you don't think I am not thankful for God, family, and friends. I very much am. I'm just tired of repeating the same expressions over and over again because of not having something fresh to say. I think people ought to take some time for once, and really do some mental lifting and think of some new ways to express their gratitude.

Well what did I say? Glad you asked. For the very first time in my life, I went around the room and highlighted something good and unique in each person in the room that I had resonated with for some time. I started with my dad. My dad is the reason why I'm a gentleman to women. He treats my mother like a princess. He calls her baby, loves kissing her in front of me and my sisters, and is the hardest working person I know. It is also from my dad that I truly learned generosity. Most people would say that I'm a generous guy. Well yes I have made choices in life but my dad is one prime example of that.

I then went to Cheri who is the middle child in the family (I'm the youngest out of 3). Cheri pulls no punches on what it takes to build a relationship with people. If you want to reap the benefits of love and fulfillment, then you have to put in the time and effort to appreciate that blessing. She is unabashedly realistic on how people are in the real world because she has lived in the real world for such a long time. And I'm thankful to her for impacting my understanding of how relationships work in (1) What I expect from others (2) What I know others expect from me and (3) What God expects from me.

My mother is the most sacrificial woman I know in life. There is no one I know who has sacrificed more than she has. I remember one time, when I was home with her, telling mom of how bad I felt for not cooking any meals for the fact I was too lazy to get to it! I basically told her that I did not think it was fair for her to bear the full burden of cooking and preparing meals around the house. I think she deserved a helping hand.

I moved to Erin and basically told her what I summarized in the beginning of this blog posting (minus the flowering details).

I was also short and brief with Jeremy. Even though I wouldn't say he's a close friend of mine, Jeremy and I have gotten closer and closer to possibly calling each other brothers. I'm not necessarily talking about spiritual brothers even though we are brothers in Christ. I'm talking about having him as a sub blood brother. I say that because I never had a brother growing up.

I moved to Nadyia who was the last person on my list. Nadyia is the oldest of us kids. I appreciate her analytical nature and not quick to buy into any idea out there, no matter how plausible it might seem on the surface. Some people might take this as being a bit judgmental. That very well could be true. But I also think it could reveal an attitude of discernment and wisdom. Be careful and know what you are getting yourself into whenever you are contemplating to pursue something you deem so highly important.

Last but not least, myself. I am so thankful that I have, for the first time in my life, spent so much time investing in myself in so many different ways. I have a personal journal that I have with certain thoughts and guidelines that I try to pray everyday of my life. Even though I have so much to learn and so many areas to grow in, I know I have grown so much over the last several years of life.

One big proof of that is the fact that I have conceptualized what it means to be a healthy person all around in my physical, emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual life. I have reflected on it all and I have been trying to incorporate those truths into my regular life. Has it been a struggle? You bet it has. But I am still in a work in progress.

Til' next time folks!

Updates on my life

Hey guys. As you all know, I have not been on here for at least a month or two. There are two simple reasons as to why that's the case, and here they are: laziness and discouragement.

Laziness

There have been many times in my life when I started something - whatever you could call it - but wouldn't finish it. Better yet, I would start something but would for some reason or another not keep it up. Why would this happen so much? I guess one reason at least is because I had thought for a long time that if I wanted to do something, then it was supposed to be natural or easy. But if it turned out to be hard or if I didn't want to do it at some time or another, then I must not really want to do it. This gets into how one can make sense of doing something that requires consistent effort and yet it enjoyable. I think basketball would be a good example of that. I don't dread the idea or act of basketball. I enjoy playing it a lot. But when it comes to reading and writing my thoughts in a blog page - like I'm doing right now - or in a journal - which I haven't done in several weeks or months - I struggle miserably with sticking to those things. 

I have been told that I'm a good speaker and a good writer. I know that laziness has to be broken one way or the other. I have to form habits. Habits are difficult to form from the get go. That's why they require discipline and commitment. But my difficulty is *how* am I supposed to commit myself to something I am supposed to *love* and be *passionate about*? I guess that I have been more of a feelings oriented kind of guy for most of my life than an intellectually oriented guy, that might be one of the reasons why I'm struggling to break laziness. I have a hard time staying committed to something that requires consistent effort which - over time - will become a lifestyle and hence easy to maintain. Why do I have a hard time? Because I have a *extremely* hard time with the "just do it" principle. It's almost like I have to sit and deliberate and think to myself, "When is that feeling of wanting to do this gonna arrive?" It's almost like I have to wait before that feeling of wanting to do something is somehow going to magically spur me on to do whatever I had planned to do in the first place. I feel almost as though that if I just do it - even though I don't feel like it and know that it's right - then I must not have done it genuinely or sincerely. It's almost like sincerity has to come in some kind of emotional form. 

And truthfully it can be simple things that may not be that significant at all. For example, there are things like getting out of bed in the morning, taking out the trash when it's full, washing the dishes in the sink, picking up loose clothes on my bed, flossing and brushing my teeth consistently (I do think this is a very important thing just to let you know) which I know I should do and aren't as huge as spending time with the Lord, reading a good book, getting my homework done, or something else. 

So maybe I just need to scratch the whole "wait till you feel like it" principle when it comes to doing things on a regular basis of whatever degree of importance they might have. I honestly wish the feelings of doing something good and constructive were always there. It's really frustrating that they oftentimes aren't. I can be extremely moody and emotionally inconsistent with myself on any given day if something doesn't go right. 

Logically speaking, it seems to me that doing something logically comes before liking or disliking it. Now there are some things that we don't do and we can know whether we would like them or not (i.e. falling on our heads, getting shot, bitten by a dog, etc.). So I grant that point. But in other cases, we do something because we like it. It's the fact we like doing something that enables us to keep doing it, but we wouldn't have known whether we like or dislike it, if we had never tried it in the first place. So essentially, we have to do something before we like or dislike something.

You might be wondering how this ties into what I've been saying all along. It's basically like this. I'm guessing that since my emotions are reactions based on what is going on with me or what I am doing in a certain situation, I can do something and honestly hope to God that the feelings will go along with whatever I'm doing eventually. I think I have some control over my feelings but not as much as I'd like to have. But I do have control over what I do or am capable of doing. So I can always do something, whether or not the feelings arrive. In fact, Gary Chapman in his book about the five love languages said that (in a relationship context of course) we can speak our spouse's love language even when the feelings of romance aren't there, and that the feelings can oftentimes arrive when we speak their love language. 

Discouragement

I couldn't count to you the number of times I have been discouraged by something in my life. Whether it had to do with being good looking enough for a girl to like me or to having a catchy enough personality, there was always something that could get me down. With regards to reading and writing, I think I get discouraged many times because I possibly expect too much of myself. I sometimes go back and forth on the kind of expectations I have set for myself. Sometimes I will have high expectations because I am feeling confident in a mountaintop way and then other times I will honestly expect little to nothing from myself. Even though I'm specifically talking about reading and writing, I can talk about relationships for a little bit. 

I have gotten discouraged before many times with myself over whether I was any fit for a girl for the following reason: I didn't know how to take things slow or be patient. Because my excitement over making a new friend would escalate nearly out of control, I would end up losing a potential friend. And then I would think that I just didn't have the wherewithal to make good use of having friendships. Discouragement would set in and eventually it would turn into cynicism. I would think all women were suspect and downright hypocrites and just thinking only about their own wants and needs, and not even thinking they had any moral obligations towards men. Of course I knew I was making a sweeping generalization in my mind, but I didn't care because granting the truth didn't make me feel any better. 

But getting back to the subject of reading and writing, I would think that if my day had gone uninterrupted and as according to plan, then I would feel like doing what I already had planned to do, unless something happened. Like if I overslept and didn't feel like getting out of bed at the appointed time, I would feel less motivated to spend time with the Lord or have my coffee or clean up before taking off for school.  

One big factor for me in all of this is that I would have a very hard time getting away from media and just sticking my nose into my book. Technology is a wonderful thing nowadays but it can be a tremendous obstacle potentially to doing things that are really important. I am more likely to check Facebook to see if someone messaged me than I am to read God's word, pray, read a good book, or do something else more important. I know some of you reading this might be thinking, "Man this guy's priorities are out of whack!" and you might be right to a certain extent. And because I would be easily detoured from doing important things, I would get discouraged over 2 things: (1) Over failing to get to what was important and (2) repeating the same thing over and over again. 

So what can I do about discouragement? I don't think the phrase "Just give it to the Lord" will do all the work necessary. It's not because I don't think the Lord can handle my troubles and difficulties in life. I know He can. I just think that some people think that God will just fix peoples' problems without people putting in some effort as well. God doesn't do all the work for us folks, just to let you know. So what can I do? Well, I think I might have to do some digging to find out the real source to the problem. There's always a deep rooted source as to why some people consistently struggle with certain things in their lives. I know that to be true in my own life. Maybe I can explore my past history and see if there are clues in my past that could shed light on why I struggle with discouragement now and have continued to struggle with it. Maybe I could think about certain false assumptions I have about accomplishing things in life and see if they shed light on why I get easily discouraged. These are just ideas.

I think that the possible link to all of this goes back to the fact that I was - from starting out as a boy from elementary through high school/college - an emotional guy who primarily thrived on emotions. Because I want my feelings to be present in everything that I do and I find out they're not often in certain cases, I get easily discouraged and wonder what has gone wrong with me. So maybe I could think that my emotions are not always supposed to be the thing that *pushes* me to do something but rather that the *importance of the thing in question* should be what motivates me. In other words, I shouldn't base my motivation on myself but on what I want to do. I should let the significance of what I want to do determine my level of motivation. I think that might be plausible.

Sometimes using pep talk with myself helps me out of these situations. Like if I am lying in bed and want to get up and get moving for the day but am struggling to find the motivation, I will sometimes say in my head, "Ben nothing or no one is blocking you from getting up. There's nothing physically standing in your way preventing you from getting up." When I say that to myself or will entertain that thought in my mind, it will sometimes alleviate the situation for me. Is it the best way to handle the situation? I don't know honestly. But I know it works.

So I have basically poured out what has been going on with me lately yall about discouragement and laziness and I would like to ask *all of you* who read this post to do this for me, as a way of helping me with laziness and discouragement:

(1) Post a topic on the Facebook group page ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/478602538874355/ ) that you want me to write about or discuss.

(2) Keep tabs on me (however regularly you want; it doesn't have to be all the time) as to how it's coming along.

That would really help me in those areas. Whenever I am asked to write about something important, it motivates me to write about it because I have people who are depending on me to come up with something. If I am depending on myself to come up with something, 8 times out of 10 I will come up with hardly anything or very little. That's the honest truth. It's sad but true. But I'm working on it.

Plus, since most of you guys are believers (yes I do have unbelieving friends on my Facebook group page), I need the boost and support. I can't battle these things alone. So if you could stick to # 1 and # 2, that would be AWESOME!

As a reminder, I'll post (about 1 and 2) on the group page so that people don't forget. Thanks for taking the time to read my ranting about my complicated life. Thanks guys.