Category Archives: Issue 28

Drones in Warfare

Joanna Larson

Inside a dimly-lit trailer at Creech Air Force Base, an hour outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, Lieutenant Steve Watts and Airman First Class Carrie Gershon fly an MQ-9 Reaper drone by remote control over a small village in Kenya, Africa. Their mission is to eliminate two confirmed terrorists by firing a Hellfire missile at their meeting point, but the pilots are faced with an impossible dilemma: if they bomb the house and kill the terrorists, they risk killing an innocent girl selling bread just outside the door; if they don’t bomb the terrorists and save the girl, they risk the terrorists escaping and fulfilling their plan to suicide bomb eighty people. This story, from the movie Eye In The Sky, is a Hollywood portrayal of real-life situations that happen almost every day. This movie provides good insight into the thought, care, and precision drone pilots need to make tough decisions that can ultimately save hundreds of lives and benefit our country.

In order to understand my thesis better, I will define two key terms. The following definitions are quoted or adapted from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are unmanned aircraft guided by remote control or onboard computers. “ Reconnaissance” is a preliminary survey to gain information; especially : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory. I am defining these terms for clarification when they are used later.

Post 9/11, drones have become the US Military’s weapon of choice, but they have been around for much longer. Air Warfare is a relatively new phenomena. The first aerial attacks occurred in 1911, used by the Italians against the Turks, but the use of aircraft in battle did not become a widespread concept until The Great War in 1914-1918. The concept of drones was inevitable from the beginning. As much as the use of aircraft was beneficial, there was still one major disadvantage: soldiers’ lives were risked because they needed to be physically in the plane to complete their missions (Sifton). During World War 1, the US Military hired Elmer Ambrose Sperry, inventor of the gyroscopic compass, to build a biplane that could be launched by a catapult and then guided by radio signals over enemy positions to be blown up with TNT. A biplane is an aircraft with two main supporting surfaces usually placed one above the other (Merriam-Webster). The program was considered a failure, as the planes often crashed soon after takeoff. After World War 1, interest in automated flying weapons systems increased. In 1925, the British Royal Navy designed a small, pilotless aircraft called the RAE Larynx that could torpedo into targets and blow them up. The RAE Larynx was intended to be used against German Zeppelins, blimp-like aircraft that had reigned terror on Europe by dropping bombs. Overall, primitive drones like these proved relatively ineffective. In World War 2, drone production began to gain some ground, but ultimately failed again. The US Navy began to refit B-24 Bomber planes to target German bunkers. These planes were filled with explosives and guided by remote control. At this point, remote control technology was still crude, so a pilot would have to takeoff in the plane and guide it to a cruising altitude. Then, the pilot would parachute safely to England, and a “mothership” would guide the plane to its intended target. This program was considered unsuccessful because many of the planes crashed before the pilots could parachute to safety. John F. Kennedy’s older brother, Joseph, was killed when the drone in which he was flying exploded prematurely (Sifton).

After all the failed attempts in World War 1 and World War 2, development of drones stagnated for decades; there was no pressing need for them. Instead, cruise missiles became the world’s weapon of choice. The Cold War prompted the creation of these weapons. Cruise missiles are guided missiles that have a terrain-following radar system and fly at moderate speed and low altitude. They are similar to drones, as they are guided by remote control. Unlike drones, they could not linger over locations or return to a base. Since the missile itself was the weapon, its delivery was very blunt and semi-unpredictable (Sifton). The military needed something with more precision. Air Force scientists continued to work with the idea of unmanned aircraft, and in the early ’70s, they focused on non-weaponized UAVs, specifically made for surveillance. Advances in technology during the ’80s and ’90s brought us the beginnings of modern day drones.

In 1981, aerospace engineer Abraham Karem created a drone called “Albatross.” He proved his drone could stay in the air for up to 56 hours. This prompted the military’s research and development department to fund his research. Karem’s next creation, “The Amber,” was a drone the military flew on numerous missions to gather intelligence. In 1995, Karem introduced his newest creation: the “Predator.” The Predator would eventually become one of the US Military’s most feared weapons (Whittle).

The government was impatient with its civilian contractors about the speed of development, so it started its own drone department. For many years, the benefits of this program were very few, because the CIA was forced by congress to keep a very tight grip on the program. In 1992, the Bosnian War lifted many of these restrictions. The military needed persistent surveillance over Bosnia, so it responded with the Predator drone. This version of the Predator proved to be successful, with its ability to stay airborne for many hours and its impressive line of sight. This was the first time drone pilots could be in a different region to operate the drone. In 1995, the Air Force began its very first drone squadron: the 11th reconnaissance squadron stationed at Creech AFB, just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. Here began production to turn this non-weaponized surveillance hunter into a killer. The predator now lives up to its name, as it is a fully weaponized system that can conduct surveillance missions as well as strike targets. The US Air Force’s official web site gives this description of today’s Predator:

The MQ-1B Predator is an armed, multi-mission, medium-altitude, long-endurance remotely piloted aircraft that is employed primarily as an intelligence-collection asset and secondarily against dynamic execution targets. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons, it provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination and reconnaissance (SCAR) against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets. Predators can also perform the following missions and tasks: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, close air support, combat search and rescue, precision strike, buddy-lase, convoy/raid overwatch, route clearance, target development, and terminal air guidance. The MQ-1’s capabilities make it uniquely qualified to conduct irregular warfare operations in support of combatant commander objectives.

The M in MQ-1B Predator stands for multi-role. Multi-role means the Predator is capable of both persistent surveillance as well as striking targets. Some drones are surveillance only, while some others are for striking only. The US Air Force says this about the Predator: The Predator remotely piloted aircraft system continues to provide required armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to overseas contingency operations warfighters. During August 2011, the Predator surpassed one million hours of total development, test, training, and combat — a significant accomplishment for the U.S. Air Force.

The other two major drones used by the Air Force are the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper. The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system is the premier provider of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information. Able to fly at high altitudes for greater than 30 hours, the Global Hawk is designed to gather near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather – day or night (Northrop Grumman). Although the Global Hawk doesn’t carry Hellfire missiles, it is invaluable for its high-quality imaging systems. The information Global Hawks provide is so important that at any point in time, there is always a Global Hawk in the air. The MQ-9 Reaper is the primary offensive strike unmanned aerial vehicle for the Air Force. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons – it provides a unique capability to perform strikes, coordination, and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets (“MQ-9”). Although missiles are the Reaper’s most known feature, its surveillance systems are crucial to the mission. They provide intel, images, and video that support soldiers.

Safety and Surveillance are the two most important reasons drones are relevant in today’s world. Drones provide safety to US Military personnel like no other weapon. Their ability to be a protective eye in the sky, as well as the gains made from the intelligence collected make them invaluable. The way warfare is conducted has changed since 9/11. Post-9/11, terrorists’ thirst for the destruction of America has significantly increased. The amount of money and resources put into drone development and drone squadrons help us understand why drones are such an integral part of how the War On Terror is being fought.

Not everyone might be as interested in the military as those so closely involved with it. If an individual doesn’t know anyone currently serving in the military or who has served in the past, it can be difficult to find an emotional connection to the military. Not everyone may care about the day-to-day operations of the military, but it’s important to understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. Our military exists for our defense. They fight for our welfare; we ought to care about their safety. Their safety is our safety.

In order to prove the United States must continue the use of drone warfare, I will confirm three arguments: first, drones help keep the country safe by eliminating terrorist threats overseas; second, drones provide safety to US military personnel by providing high-quality imaging and video of enemy territory; and third, drones limit the amount of civilian casualties because of their accuracy and technical precision. I will then refute two counter arguments: first, airmen who work with drones have an emotional disconnect from war; and second, drones are unethical.

My first confirmation argument is drones help keep the country safe by eliminating terrorist threats overseas. The dictionary defines a terrorist as “ a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Over the past few decades, terrorism has increased exponentially. On September 11, 2001, planes hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people. This unprecedented attack on our own soil was a horrific tragedy, and a s the War On Terror intensifies, the United States has taken the fight to the heart of the enemy in their own land , exposing the people who would kill every American before they have the chance to reach them. Drones are an effective tool in this endeavor.

Two methods can measure the military effectiveness of drones. First is their ability to successfully disrupt enemy capabilities. In declassified documents found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound, it is evident drone strikes made Bin Laden and his comrades very uneasy. One of the letters stated, “Over the last two years, the problem of the spying war and spying aircrafts benefited the enemy greatly and led to the killing of many jihadi cadres, leaders, and others. This is something that is concerning us and exhausting us” (“Drones in the Abbottabad”).

The second measurement is how well drone strikes slow and inhibit communication between the enemy as they’re trying to prevent suspicion. The fear of being located by drones causes terrorist groups to communicate via letters, which slows communication overall. Survivors in a strike often cause conflict in their group because the leaders look for informants. Author Ensign Lacinski states:

Further, UAVs have proved effective at eliminating terrorist leadership including Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan founder Baitullah Mehsud; Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader Tahir Yuldashev; Majmiddin Jalolov, leader of the Islamic Jihad Union; and Saleh al-Somali, al Qaeda’s chief of operations, among others. The combination of these effects has produced a profound degradation on militant organizations that reduces their capabilities to launch regional and international attacks.

My second confirmation argument is drones provide safety to US military personnel by providing high-quality imaging and video of enemy territory . The imaging and video they provide is critical as they can alert soldiers of incoming enemy presence that might not be noticed from the ground. Drones provide safety by alerting soldiers of incoming enemy presence, providing imagery for soldiers to get from point A to point B, and helping soldiers plan attacks on and assets the enemy. Drones can spot enemy vehicles coming from miles away and give friendly forces sufficient time to plan accordingly. I will discuss three broad categories of drones that protect soldiers by providing imaging and video: High altitude drones, medium altitude drones, and low altitude drones.

High altitude drones, such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk: t he RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system are the premier provider of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information. By persistent intelligence, I mean a strategy that emphasizes the ability of some collection systems to linger on demand in an area to detect, locate, characterize, identify, track, target, and possibly provide battle damage assessment and retargeting in real or near time (The Free Dictionary). Able to fly at high altitudes for greater than 30 hours, the Global Hawk is designed to gather near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather – day or night (“Global Hawk”). Although the Global Hawk doesn’t carry missiles, it is invaluable for its high-quality imaging systems. The information Global Hawks provide is so important that at any point in time, there is always a Global Hawk in the air.

Second are medium altitude drones, such as the MQ-9 Reaper. The MQ-9 Reaper is the primary offensive strike unmanned aerial vehicle for the Air Force. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons, it provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination, and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets (“MQ-9 Reaper”). By loiter time, I mean the ability to stay airborne for a significant amount of time. Although missiles are the Reaper’s most known feature, its surveillance systems are crucial to the mission.

Third are low altitude drones such as the the RQ-11B Raven. The RQ-11B Raven small unmanned aircraft system provides real-time direct situational awareness and target information for Joint Special Operations troops in the U.S. military. The Raven includes a color electro-optical camera and an infrared camera for night operations. The air vehicle is hand-launched, weighs less than 5 pounds and has an endurance of up to 80 minutes (“RQ-11B Raven”). Because the Raven is so small, it has the ability to get closer to its target, which provides advantages for the soldiers who are relying on the information it collects. These advantages might include the ability to get geographically closer to enemy territory than a larger drone, such as the Global Hawk. Many different types of drones provide detailed images and video to give soldiers intel to keep them safe.

Drones image and video two main things: US soldiers and the enemy. As I mentioned before, one of the reasons drones are constantly surveying the land is to help protect soldiers by alerting them of unseen threats. For example, a Global Hawk could survey a desert US forces need to trek through. The Global Hawk will take images of the land to help determine the easiest or safest way through. Regarding the enemy, one of the many benefits of videoing them is for US forces to follow their location and expose meeting places. When an enemy is located, pilots use the images the drone has taken of the building to identify where all the exits and entrances are. They can identify where they believe enemies will run if they strike the building. Then, if any of them escape the strike, they know where to target their next missile, or where to tell ground troops to find them.

In June 2017, MQ-1 Predator drone pilots were going through their normal work routine. They were gathering intelligence of the local area in Iraq when they noticed something alarming: an armoured vehicle with bulletproof windowing and tires was moving in the direction of friendly forces. The pilots relayed a message to the soldiers warning them of a possible VBIED (vehicle-borne improvised explosive device) so they could take action necessary to defend themselves. Based on the speed of the vehicle, the pilots knew the soldiers only had minutes to prepare. It was clear they needed to take action. It took one minute of planning from the pilots and a thirty-second missile flight from the drone to reach its target. A Hellfire missile was shot at the vehicle, and based on the size of the explosion, it was clear the vehicle was in fact a car bomb. If the drone pilots were a minute too late, an estimated 850 combatants and indigenous Iraqis would have been in danger from the car bomb (Vlogger). This is an example of how drones help protect our soldiers through imaging and video.

My third confirmation argument is drones limit the amount of civilian casualties because of their accuracy and technical precision. Accuracy and precision are important regarding civilian casualties in that if pilots are not meticulous in their targeting, they could strike the wrong place and kill the wrong people. Because drones are so accurate and precise, the military must be extremely careful in deciding who they target and must be competent in recognizing and avoiding potential collateral damage (Lacinkski, 4). A drone is a machine; it doesn’t know the difference between enemy and friend. Its actions depend solely upon the commands of its operator. That’s why drone pilots in all branches of the military go through rigorous training processes, to make sure they are fully capable of understanding and operating these powerful machines. Avoiding collateral damage is a critically important task for the military. Unnecessary collateral damage can cause increased political tension between countries, but more importantly, the United States has to deal with the moral implications of the innocent lives that were lost.

Over the course of the entirety of UAV strikes in Pakistan, the SCRT report estimates 400 noncombatants were killed along with 200 additional “probable noncombatants.” This figure represents 27 percent of all casualties. However, as the usage of UAVs evolved with improvements in intelligence, weapons, and stricter rules of engagement, civilian casualties were significantly reduced. In nine strikes conducted in Afghanistan thus far this year, an estimated one civilian has been killed relative to as many as 65 militants (1.5 percent of casualties). UAVs, though imperfect, continue to make improvements in reducing collateral damage (Lacinski 2).

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that since 2010, a minimum of 4,721 confirmed strikes has killed 7,275-10,586 people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, with only 737-1551 of those being civilians. Although any loss of civilian life is tragic, we must keep in mind the cost of war, and that drone strikes are a more discriminating weapon of war; meaning, they have the ability to surgically strike their targets, inflicting fewer civilian casualties.

The first counter argument to my thesis is airmen who work with drones have an emotional disconnect from war. This means they are desensitized to the horrors of war while they’re safe at home in the United States. This is false for two reasons: they still experience war and all the emotions that come with it even though they’re not on the ground, and high rates of PTSD among airmen and intelligence analysts prove operating drones causes emotional stress.

Over the course of a day, a drone pilot or intelligence analyst, someone who manages and evaluates information that drones provide, might monitor hours of typical activity; the “patterns of life.” A pattern of life is “ the specific set of behaviors and movements associated with a particular entity over a given period of time” (Biltgen and Ryan). Intelligence analysts and pilots study these patterns of life: people visiting friends, shopping in the marketplace or taking their kids to school. Because pilots and analysts are monitoring everything at all times of the day, they sometimes have to witness things much more gruesome than regular patterns of life. Col. Jason Brown, Wing Commander of the 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia says that “They (airmen) are exposed to the most gruesome things that you can think about that could happen on a battlefield. They find mass graves; they witness executions.” Airmen have had to watch rape, mass executions, beheadings, people be skinned alive or tortured to death just to name a few. And it’s all in high definition (Sarah McCammon). You’re not disconnected in these types of scenarios, you are immersed. In many cases, when observing these types of horrible acts, airmen leverage kinetic capabilities of drones to deliver justice. Let’s consider an example to illustrate how engaged airmen involved with drone warfare are. When recalling a tough decision during a mission a few years back, Staff Sgt. Kimi of the 480th said, “To this day I still think about it, but it’s been a couple of years. I made the correct decision, but knowing that I could have made the wrong one, and a lot of people could have died because of a wrong decision — I just could not stop thinking about it” (Kimi). The thought of making wrong calls often haunts airmen, just like Staff Sgt. Kimi. Although these airmen are not physically in the places they’re fighting, they’re still engaged in the fight and they can still experience all the mental and emotional trauma a soldier on the ground can. Granted, it might not be on a level as personal, but anyone who thinks the airmen are completely disconnected from the actions they do does not have a full understanding of the emotional burdens that come with the job. In combat, forces on the ground are often in communication with drone pilots in the United States. The pilots inform them of which roads to take, or what direction the enemy is coming from. There are also times when soldiers are in the middle of a gunfight with militants and call in for air support. Col. Christopher Larson of the US Air Force states emotional disconnect is a myth. When you have soldiers on the ground in the middle of a firefight radio to you, screaming for air support, you understand the importance of what you’re doing. There are real people down there, depending on you (Larson). There are also times when drone pilots and analysts have to watch American soldiers die, whether it be from a gunshot or an IED or something of that nature. It’s a terrible thing to witness, and saying they’re all just emotionless killers playing a video game trivializes these traumatic incidents.

The second reason this counterargument is false is drone pilots have been found to have higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts than people with other Air Force support roles. A study published by the Department of Defense last year suggests drone pilots experience PTSD in a similar way to soldiers on the ground. This is largely due to the fact so much power lies in their hands. At the press of a button, they could wipe out an entire town or kill hundreds of civilians. A 2012 military medicine study reports 10.72% of operators experience high levels of distress and 1.57% of operators show high levels of PTSD symptomology. The nature of the job is also very confidential. It wears on pilots to be in combat at 5, then home for dinner at 5:30 and not being able to talk to their significant other or family. The emotional distress is often taken out on family (Jason Koebler). Long shifts also contribute to this. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James addressed this issue during the State of the Air Force in 2015, saying,

I visited Creech Air Force Base and saw our remotely-piloted aircraft ISR mission firsthand. Of course, the chief has been there many, many times. The airmen who perform this essential mission do a phenomenal job, but talks with the RPA pilots and the sensor operators, and their leaders certainly told me —suggested to me, that this is a force that is under significant stress — significant stress from what is an unrelenting pace of operations. Now, these pilots, just to give you a little color on this, fly six days in a row. They are working 13, 14 hour days on average. And to give you a contrast, an average pilot in one of our manned Air Force aircraft flies between 200 and 300 hours per year. Again, these are averages. But in the RPA world, the pilots log four times that much, ranging from 900 to 1100 flight hours per year. And again, this is very stressful operations because mistakes can cost lives (“State of the Air Force”).

The combination of the long work hours, statistics of distress and PTSD, and the confidentiality of the job can be emotionally debilitating for pilots. If piloting drones was just like playing an emotionless video game, all of this evidence should not be present.

The second counterargument against my thesis is drones are unethical. They’re an unfair and inhumane form of warfare because their targets have no idea what is about to occur. This is false because the enemy has to realize that their actions make them targets. The fact that they don’t know when a strike will occur doesn’t change the ethics of the situation. It wouldn’t be more any more ethical if they knew exactly when and where a strike is going to happen. The very nature of their intentions to do harm gives them an indication that they are a target. We won’t sit idly by and let them carry out their evil plans. Their actions cannot go without consequences.

According to the Jus Ad Bellum section of the Just War Theory, a theory that the United States explicitly acknowledges in regards to waging war, for an act to be permissible, it must meet two requirements: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination says only military targets and combatants can become targets. It is illegal for the military to attack innocent civilians. The military doesn’t go around dropping bombs on random people. Bad people get eliminated because they have shown characteristics of a terrorist, or are a confirmed terrorist. Proportionality says the military advantage gained from an attack cannot outweigh the civilian damage. Drones possess the technology to acquire information that allows operators to make distinctions between combatants and non combatants. Planners then leverage this information to minimize collateral damage while at the same time maximizing the military effect of the strike (Lacinski 4). So in effect, the use of drone technology, when applied against the backdrop of the Just War Theory, is an ethical use of technology to conduct war.

Many people get caught up in the collateral damage argument. While this is something to be taken very seriously, we need to realize that the force America is putting on terrorist organizations is necessary. Terrorists would not hesitate for one second to kill every single American. As I stated, the only people who are targeted in the first place are people who have proved to us they are worth such a serious death. Whether it’s a drone strike or a bullet from a soldier on the ground, these people have given us reason to eliminate them.

As Christians, this issue can be very difficult to comprehend and decide how we should feel about it. We are called to love our enemy, but loving our enemy doesn’t mean allowing them to do evil. In fact, it can mean just the opposite. The act of loving means helping and defending the people that they’re persecuting. The act of loving means protecting our country. C.S. Lewis says this when talking about war in his book, Mere Christianity:

I imagine somebody will say, ‘Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy’s acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?’ All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives forever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one’s own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it anymore. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head. It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves — to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Lewis’s words remind us we shouldn’t take pleasure in the destruction of our enemies. Our hearts should be saddened by the evil they do, and saddened by the fact that their evil has reached a point where it needs to be stopped. But defending America and people all over the world who cannot defend themselves is something that is necessary. It’s not something of which we need to be ashamed.

The men and women of the United States military have sworn an oath to protect this country each and every day. They fully understand the risks that come with this honor. They are willing to risk their lives to preserve our freedom and security. Consider this, Since September 11, 2001, thousands and thousands have paid the ultimate price (Department of Defense). Consider also these examples: The average age of servicemen and women in the military is twenty-nine years old. Of these, an average of sixty-one percent are married. As of 2015, in a study of the military community, the amount of family members far outnumber the number of active duty members. All of these active duty men and women deserve a chance to come home safe and sound. Their wives, husbands, children and parents deserve to hug them, kiss them and see them again. If they are so willing to sacrifice their lives for ours, should we not provide them with all the tools we can to help them return home safely? Drones are a tool to help accomplish this and so much more. The safety and security drones provide to service members are invaluable. Their safety is our safety. The intelligence drones collect give long lasting benefits to this country. It is our responsibility as United States citizens to be vigilant and informed on this issue, so we can help keep the military in check for their actions regarding drones. Their mission to fly, fight and win is something that deserves our full support.

Works Cited

“Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operator.” U.S. Air Force — Career Detail, http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/airborne-intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance-isr-operator.

“Biplane.” Merriam-Webster , Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biplane.

Budanovic, Nikola. “The Early Days Of Drones – Unmanned Aircraft From World War One AndWorld War Two.” WAR HISTORY ONLINE , 21 July 2017, http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/short-history-drones-part-1.html.

Biltgen, Patrick, and Stephen Ryan. Activity-Based Intelligence: Principles and Applications. Artech House Publishers, 2016.

Blain, Loz. “US Navy Tests Aerial Drones for Real-Time Mine Detection.” New Atlas — New Technology & Science News , New Atlas, 1 June 2017, newatlas.com/us-navy-mine-detection-drone/49849/.

Budanovic, Nikola. “The Early Days Of Drones – Unmanned Aircraft From World War One And World War Two.” WAR HISTORY ONLINE , 21 July 2017, http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/short-history-drones-part-1.html.

Chappelle, Wayne L., et al. “Symptoms of Psychological Distress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in United States Air Force ‘Drone’ Operators.” Military Medicine , Aug. 2014, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=67c1c387-b197-4abe-998b-c6d7961e0c8c@sessionmgr102.

“Cruise Missile.” Merriam-Webster , Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruise missile.

“Drones in the Abbottabad Documents.” Center for the Study of the Drone , 25 Mar. 2016, dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-in-the-abbottabad-documents/.

“Drone Warfare.” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war.

“Global Hawk.” Northrop Grumman, http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GlobalHawk/Pages/default.aspx.

“History of U.S. Drones.” Understanding Empire: Technology, Power, Politics , 23 Jan. 2017, understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-history-of-u-s-drones/.

Just War Theory , oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html.

Koebler, Jason. “The Curious, Stressful Life of a US Military Drone Pilot.” Motherboard , 18 Sept. 2014, motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjdxq/the-curious-stressful-life-of-a-us-military-drone-pilot.

Lacinski, Ensign. “Unmanned Ethics.” US Naval Institute Proceedings, Sept. 2015 usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-09/unmanned-ethics

Larson, Christopher. Personal Interview. 12 February 2018.

Lewis, C. F. M. Mere Christianity. Fount Paperbacks, 1977.

McCammon, Sarah. “The Warfare May Be Remote But The Trauma Is Real.” NPR , NPR, 24 Apr. 2017, http://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525413427/for-drone-pilots-warfare-may-be-remote-but-the-trauma-is-real.

“MQ-9 Reaper.” Military.com , http://www.military.com/equipment/mq-9-reaper.

“Persistent Surveillance.” The Free Dictionary , Farlex, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persistentsurveillance.

Rozenfeld, Monica. “Military Drones: From World War II to the Present.” Military Drones: From World War II to the Present — IEEE — The Institute, theinstitute.ieee.org/tech-history/technology-history/military-drones-from-world-war-ii-to-the-present.

“RQ-11B Raven.” Military.com , http://www.military.com/equipment/rq-11b-raven.

Sherman, Robert and Tom Weiner. “Drones Spare Troops, Have Powerful Impact.” Sandiegouniontribune.com , 7 Sept. 2016, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-drones-troops-impact-2014oct09-story.html.

Sifton, John. “A Brief History of Drones.” The Nation , 29 June 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-drones/.

Smith, Stew. “What Are The Iraq And Afghanistan Casualty Statistics?” The Balance, http://www.thebalance.com/the-cost-of-war-3356924.

“State of the Air Force Press Briefing by Secretary James and General W.” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE , http://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/606995/.

Vlogger. “A Drone Strike That Saved Hundreds of Lives.” Military.com , Vlogger, 30 Jan. 2017, http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/improvised-weapons/a-drone-strike-thatsaved-hundreds-of-lives/5302970247001.

Whittle, Richard. “The Man Who Invented the Predator.” Air & Space Magazine , Air & Space Magazine, 31 Mar. 2013, http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-man-who-invented-the-predator-3970502/.

“World War One: How the German Zeppelin Wrought Terror.” BBC News , BBC, 4 Aug. 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-27517166.

Multi-Sport Athletes

Leave a reply

Amanda Mericle

If I told you someone scored a touchdown and a homerun in the same week you wouldn’t believe me because today athletes are focused on one sport, especially at the professional level. However, one man, Deion Sanders, was able to participate in football and baseball at the professional level and complete this feat of athleticism. He is also the only man to play in both the Super Bowl and the World Series. Sanders is not alone in his support of multi-sport participation as many other professional athletes in the past and present have played multiple sports. There are even more examples of multi-sport athletes at the college level, and a few schools have even begun to encourage the participation in multiple sports. Athletes who participate in multiple sports are able to experience different environments, develop better skills, and maintain a passion for the game. There are several benefits to participating in multiple sports so why do many athletes, coaches, and parents still believe focusing on one sport is the best option?

I will first need to define a few technical terms central to my thesis. The following definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Medscape, a medical dictionary. An athlete is “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina” (“Athlete”). An overuse injury, otherwise known as cumulative trauma disorder, is “described as tissue damage that results from repetitive demand over the course of time” (Laker). Burnout is “exhaustion of physical or emotional strength or motivation usually as a result of prolonged stress or frustration” (“Burnout”). Cross-training means “to engage in various sports or exercises especially for well-rounded health and muscular development” (“Cross-training”).

Forty years ago, high school athletes were striving to letter in multiple sports before their senior year. If you were able to letter in three sports as a sophomore or even a freshman, you were at the top of your class. Playing a varsity sport in high school was the pinnacle of many athletes’ careers and only a few went out for sports at the collegiate level. Outside of school-sponsored sports, there were not many other opportunities for athletes. Summer leagues did exist but they were not as competitive as they are now and there were no travel teams. The idea of dropping a sport to focus on a single sport never crossed an athlete’s mind and athletes did not quit a sport unless they were injured. They played sports because they loved the thrill they got and it was a way to spend time with friends. Back then, the emphasis was not placed on which travel teams got you the best exposure for college but it was on how many different sports you could play during high school. Over the past forty years, the trend of sport specialization has been rising, and the age at which athletes specialize has been getting younger and younger (Wojtys).

Today, we see athletes dropping all sports but one at alarming young ages. There are instances where kids start focusing on one sport as young as six or seven. We see this through the rise of travel teams geared towards children of these ages. This is alarming because when I think of six and seven-year old kids I think of kids like my brother, who is eight. He spends a majority of his time outside riding his bike or kicking around a soccer ball just like he should be doing as an eight-year old kid. However, not all eight-year old kids are like my brother and they spend a majority of their time focusing on a single sport, often not even by their own choice. Children should not have to cope with the pressure of succeeding at a single sport when they are this young. Even high school students should not feel pressured to solely focus on one sport but at least at an older age they can begin to make decisions for themselves. This is one of the reasons why we see many athletes suffer from “burnout,” which was not an issue forty years ago. Many athletes who have been focusing on one sport their entire lives since they were young lose the joy and passion they once had for the game. The six and seven-year old children who were put on a club soccer team fail to see the point of playing once they reach high school because it may not have been their idea in the first place and they have not been able to get this across to their parents before. Some athletes decide to specialize in one sport even before high school in order to achieve greater levels of skill and move on to the next level. Others even bypass school sports altogether and focus on travel teams such as the year-round Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) or move to different cities and live with sponsor families so they can be exposed to better opportunities for their chosen sport. However, by doing this, these young athletes center their entire lives around a single sport and miss out on other opportunities around them like making memories other friends. By playing multiple sports, athletes do not always have to be around the same people and they can decide if they even want to specialize at all. Many kids decide to play sports just for the fun of it rather than play with the weight of others’ expectations on them (Wojtys).

It is important for us to encourage our athletes to participate in multiple sports because they will have many benefits as a result. Encouraging our athletes can be helpful for their overall happiness, health, and skill. Specializing on one sport puts not only physical pressure on an athlete but also emotional pressure. Oftentimes, specializing leads to a more controlled career for an athlete. It is not the athletes controlling their careers and focusing on what they love but the parents and coaches telling the athletes what they think is best for them. This leads to the athlete losing his passion and love for the game, especially if he has specialized at a young age. By playing multiple sports when they are younger, athletes have the opportunity to experience different sports and choose which ones they enjoy playing instead of being encouraged to focus on one sport at a young age and never getting the chance to experience anything different. My thesis is relevant because it will help people understand the benefits of playing multiple sports and why our society should encourage the participation in multiple sports. Encouraging this participation benefits athletes but it is not only athletes who should care because anyone who cares about the wellbeing of children should be an advocate for this cause. It has been proven by studies that young athletes who participate in multiple sports experience fewer injuries. Also, multi-sport athletes develop different relationships with teammates because they move from team to team. Playing multiple sports also increases a child’s wellbeing because he is able to determine what he does and does not like without being influenced by what his parents decide what sport they want him to play. Simply the reasoning of overuse injuries and psychological pressure should be enough to convince any person that multiple sport participation is the moral choice.

In order to prove it is beneficial for athletes to play multiple sports, I will confirm three arguments: playing multiple sports decreases the risk of serious injury, cross-training improves an athlete’s overall skill, and college recruiters look for multi-sport athletes rather than single-sport athletes. I will then refute two counterarguments: it is necessary for athletes to follow the 10,000-hour rule for better results and single-sport athletes will experience greater success, as shown by their skill level, as well as a longer career in their chosen sport.

My first argument is playing multiple sports is beneficial to athletes because it decreases their risk of serious injury. A myth has been spread that specialization in one sport is the best option for athletes who wish to continue their athletic career at higher levels. However, this is simply not the truth, especially in an athlete’s younger years. The types of injuries most prevalent in single-sport athletes are overuse injuries. These types of injuries occur because these athletes are repeating the same motions over and over again. There is no change in the athletes’ movements so the same muscles and joints are being used every time they play.

Two examples of an overuse injury are shoulder injuries and Tommy John injuries, which are common in throwing sports such as baseball or softball and cause serious problems for an athlete. These types of injuries can lead to issues down the road and can severely hinder an athlete in his later adult years (Andrews 98). Tommy John injuries are especially dangerous because the MLB and other baseball organizations have been lulled into a false sense of security that after receiving Tommy John surgery, an athlete will make a full recovery and experience no further issues. In 2014 alone, more pitchers underwent Tommy John surgeries than during the entire decade of the 1990s. A recent survey found that twenty-five percent of MLB pitchers have had Tommy John surgery and some have even had second and third surgeries. Why would pitchers need to go back to receive further operations on their elbow if the surgery is “successful”?

One such athlete who underwent two Tommy John surgeries is Jarrod Parker, a pitcher for the Oakland Athletics. In 2016, thirteen months after receiving his second surgery, Jarrod was pitching in a game when he experienced a sharp pain in the area of his elbow that had been operated on. Parker also experienced immediate swelling in his elbow and trainers soon discovered he had fractured his elbow. Jarrod Parker underwent surgery to repair his elbow but has recently decided to retire from baseball. He was only twenty-nine and still had a promising future ahead of him. Even though coaches, parents, and athletes have this example, and many others, to look at, they still believe Tommy John surgery will actually make an elbow stronger and give an athlete the ability to throw harder. However, analysis of pitchers after they have undergone surgery has shown performance declines in speed and accuracy and getting the surgery may not even get an athlete back to the performance level he was at before the injury. Only eighty percent of pitchers who receive the treatment get back to where they were and sixty-seven percent keep playing for more than one season after the first surgery. The Tommy John surgery also involves great risk because there is a complication rate of twenty percent. Ulnar nerve injury, factures, and infection are very common after the procedure. Also, the recovery time spans from twelve to eighteen months with nearly a year of intense physical therapy until an athlete can return to fast-speed pitching. Even Tommy John himself took nearly three years to return to pitching.

After undergoing this surgery, athletes are not good to go. Of the pitchers who receive first-time Tommy John surgery, twenty-five percent need additional procedures, thirty-four percent experience shoulder injuries, and fifty-seven percent return to the disabled list at least one more time. Experts agree that the best way to avoid these problems is to never need the surgery in the first place. The way they suggest to accomplish this is to play multiple sports so an athlete is not throwing year-round and his arm can be given a break (Monto).

A study done at Ohio State University found athletes who specialized early, high school aged and younger, experienced a higher rate of adult physical activity than those who played multiple sports (O’Sullivan). Athletes can avoid worrying about how their bodies will hold up in the later years by rotating the sports they play. This will give overused muscles, normally muscles around the joint areas, a break while still enabling the athlete to remain active and in shape.

Because playing multiple sports decreases the risk of injury, an athlete will also be less likely to experience a season-ending, or potentially career-ending, injury such as the injury Jarrod Parker experienced. Dr. Neeru Jayanthi of Loyola University found in a study of 1200 athletes, athletes who specialized were 70-93 percent more likely to be seriously injured than athletes who played multiple sports (O’Sullivan). Athletes who only participate in a single sport dedicate all their time to one sport, so their muscles are not able to rest, which leads to injuries like stress fractures and muscle tears. These types of injuries are not so bad when given time to heal but oftentimes single-sport athletes do not allow enough time for their injuries to heal and the same muscles are being overworked. Oftentimes, a single-sport athlete will injure himself and start working the same injured muscles too soon because he either injured himself during the season and tries to play too soon or he uses the injured muscle while training during the off-season. A single-sport athlete is more susceptible to overuse injuries because he performs the same movements day in and day out and the same muscles never get a break. A multi-sport athlete is able to give his muscles a break because different sports require different movements which means different muscles will be used each season.

Cross-training helps to heal overuse injuries because as an athlete moves to his next sport, he will likely not be working the same exact muscles which allows him to not aggravate muscles which may have been overworked the previous season. Single-sport athletes injure themselves and never have a chance to recover because they are competitively participating in their chosen sport all year long. This statistic from Loyola University that single-sport athletes are seventy to ninety percent more likely to be seriously injured than multi-sport athletes should be a wake-up call to all athletes and coaches and parents to push for multi-sport participation (O’Sullivan).

Another statistic is the amount of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) tears among athletes, especially female athletes. When compared to male athletes, female athletes are about two to ten times more likely to experience an ACL tear because of the differences in how the bodies of men and women are made. A factor that contributes to females being more likely to tear their ACL is anatomy. In women’s bodies, the intercondylar notch, a groove at the bottom of the femur where it meets the knee, is much smaller than in men’s bodies. Because the notch is narrower, this restricts the movement of the knee, especially when an athlete is making twisting movements. Women also have wider hips than men which affects the alignment of the knee and makes women more prone to knees moving inwards, which puts stress on the ACL. Another factor is the gender difference when looking at biomechanics. Women’s knees tend to be more flexible than men’s which means it is easier for females to hyperextend or strain their knee and surrounding muscles and tendons. Also, women’s hips and upper leg muscles are not as strong as men’s so when force is exerted through jumping or changing direction, more of the force is absorbed through the knee rather than through the surrounding muscles. The last factor that helps explain why females have a higher tendency to tear their ACL is hormones. Although scientists do not understand the correlation between ACL tears and hormones, some studies have found that females have a higher risk of experiencing an ACL injury during their menstrual cycle and seem to be more susceptible to injury during the first part of their cycle (DeVries).

The rate at which these injuries occur among female athletes who specialize, especially in soccer, is increasingly higher than those who choose to participate in multiple sports (Gotlin 214). A study done at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health found athletes who specialized in one sport were fifty percent more likely to experience a lower-extremity injury, an injury defined as an injury to the lower musculoskeletal system, than athletes who participated in multiple sports. These types of injuries include ACL tears (Rerjck). Continuing to specialize in one sport also leads to further ACL tears and other knee-related injuries (Gotlin 214).

My second argument is multi-sport participation is beneficial because cross-training improves an athlete’s all-around skill. Experts suggest playing multiple sports builds up different muscles and produces an all-around better athlete. Most athletes have a sport they have decided is their favorite; however, this does not mean playing other sports will hurt their abilities in their top sport. Many athletes play a different sport in their offseason and develop skills that complement their primary sport. For example, if a football player plays basketball in his offseason, the hand-eye coordination developed in basketball will help him when he starts up football again. One athlete who is an example of this is Clayton Richard, a veteran pitcher for the San Diego Padres. He never solely focused on baseball. Richard was a three-sport athlete at McCutcheon High School and excelled at baseball, basketball, and football. He remarked, “It was a tremendous benefit. If I had picked one in high school, I don’t know that I’d still be playing.” The skills he developed in basketball and football, such as hand-eye coordination and footwork, aided his baseball abilities and enabled him to become a star pitcher for a professional baseball team (King).

My third argument is athletes should play multiple sports because college recruiters look for multi-sport athletes rather than single-sport athletes. The goal of any athlete who is serious about his sport is to get recruited by a college after high school. The best way for an athlete to accomplish this is to participate in multiple sports because many coaches, college and professional, look for athletes who have had experience in multiple sports. Many college coaches have started to see the benefits of having multi-sport athletes on their rosters. One coach who has seen this is Pete Carroll, former USC and current Seattle Seahawks football coach. He stated,

The first questions I’ll ask about a kid are, “What other sports does he play? What does he do? What are his positions? Is he a big hitter in baseball? Is he a pitcher? Does he play hoops?” All of those things are important to me. I hate that kids don’t play three sports in high school. I think that they should play year-round and get every bit of it that they can through that experience. I really, really don’t favor kids having to specialize in one sport. Even [at USC], I want to be the biggest proponent for two-sport athletes on the college level. I want guys that are so special athletically, and so competitive, that they can compete in more than one sport (O’Sullivan).

Pete Carroll, other coaches, and even elite athletes have all begun to voice their opinion on this issue, and the resounding opinion of all these coaches and athletes is playing multiple sports in high school helped them get to where they are today. In an interview, Dom Starsia, the men’s lacrosse coach for the University of Virginia, revealed his opinion on whether he prefers athletes to specialize or diversify when it comes to sports. He stated,

My trick question to young campers is always, “How do you learn the concepts of team offense in lacrosse or team defense in lacrosse in the off-season, when you’re not playing with your team?” The answer is by playing basketball, by playing hockey and by playing soccer and those other team games, because many of those principles are exactly the same. Probably 95 percent [of our players] are multi-sport athletes. It’s always a bit strange to me if somebody is not playing other sports in high school (O’Sullivan).

Many times, athletes will make the decision to drop all other sports at such an early age because they believe it is the only way they will be able to play in college. However, many colleges have begun a trend toward recruiting multi-sport athletes. One such college is Ohio State University, which posted a graph that portrayed the number of football players who had only played football in high school and the number of football players who had played multiple sports. Only five Buckeyes had played only football in high school and the other forty-two had played at least one other sport in high school. These statistics not only came from a state university but came after this university had won the national championship, which means these multi-sport athletes were not playing for some tiny, unknown school. The majority of the players recruited for this prestigious state school were multi-sport athletes, which means there must be a benefit for participating in multiple sports while in high school (King). Ohio State is not alone in its beliefs, as Clemson’s head coach, Dabo Swinney, also agrees.

The trend toward preferring multi-sport athletes even continues to the professional level. In the 2016 NFL draft, 224 of the 253 picks were multi-sport athletes and in the 2017 NFL draft, 30 of the 32 first-round draft picks had participated in multiple sports. Even though playing multiple sports will not guarantee an athlete will participate in collegiate level sports, it will greatly improve the chances and is a necessity now more than ever.

The first counterargument to my thesis is it is necessary for athletes to follow the 10,000-hour rule for better results. Several years ago, Anders Ericsson, a Swedish researcher, and his colleagues developed the idea that ten years or 10,000 hours of focused and specific practice were needed to master the skills in a particular field. This argument favors sport specialization, especially at an early age, because according to this rule, the only way athletes will meet their full potential and reach expert status is if they are exposed to a sport at an early age and maintain a high volume of practice over time. According to the Aspen Institute research brief, this rule “inevitably promotes early specialization” (DeLench). This mantra of practicing for 10,000 hours has been recited countless times by coaches, the sports industry, and best-selling authors such as Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote Outlier and made the 10,000-hour rule well-known among a mass audience.

While research does show a correlation between athletes practicing and their improvement in their sport, this does not mean 10,000 hours are required to reach an expert skill level. Studies actually show in many sports considerably less than 10,000 hours are required to reach a high level at that sport. Top competitors in sports such as basketball, field hockey, and wrestling only require 4,000 to 6,000 hours of deliberate practice to reach professional levels (DeLench). This means athletes do not need to spend every waking moment practicing one sport to become highly skilled at it, and they can spend some of their time enjoying other sports. A study performed at Princeton University found deliberate practice, which was defined as “engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain,” did not affect the performance levels of athletes as much as advocates for the 10,000-hour rule had claimed. Deliberate practice accounted for just a ten percent difference in performance (DeLench). This study weakened the myth athletes need ten years or 10,000 hours of intentional practice to master one sport, which means athletes do not have to specialize in a single sport at an early age and can try multiple sports while they are still young, even if they decide to focus on one after high school.

The concept of 10,000 hours is also flawed because when athletes at similar experience levels are compared, the amount of practice and training time that went into getting them to that experience level differs greatly. The amount of practice and the amount of training time is different because it depends on the athlete. Several factors determine how long or how much an athlete needs to train to reach a certain experience level. Some of these factors are coach/parent involvement, genetic background, and an athlete’s physical fitness level. Many athletes are blessed to have coaches and parents in their lives who support them and want to see them succeed. These coaches and parents listen to the athlete they are helping and do what they can to help him reach his goals. Some athletes even have a jump on other athletes just because of their genetic background. Some athletes are born athletes and have no problem figuring out a sport while other athletes need more time to work on their coordination and skills. An athlete’s fitness level also factors into how much time he must spend on training. If you are fit, it will be much easier to reach a certain experience level because you will only need to spend time training in technical skills for your sport (DeLench).

The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) concluded “diversified sports training during early and middle adolescence may be a more effective strategy in ultimately developing elite-level skills in the primary sport due to a positive transfer of skills” and athletes should consider “delaying intensive, specialized training until late adolescence, rather than a specific age, to optimize skill development in most sports” (DeLench). By “a positive transfer of skills,” the AMSSM means athletes who participate in multiple sports are able to carry skills learned in one sport over to the next sport. As a three-sport athlete, I am able to carry skills developed through one sport over to the other two. For example, in soccer I am primarily defensively focused and have developed an instinct to be able to foresee where a player wants to pass the ball. By developing this instinct, I am able to intercept the ball as the opposing team passes it. This skill has transferred over to basketball beautifully because I am able to use the same movements and techniques. The footwork I use to play defense in soccer is almost identical to the footwork I use to play defense in basketball. The problem with the 10,000-hour rule is it discredits the coach/parent involvement, genetic ability, and even physical fitness as reasons for an athlete’s success and only points to deliberate practice as a reason for success in a sport.

The second counterargument to my thesis is single-sport athletes will experience greater success, as shown by their skill level, as well as a longer career in their chosen sport. They believe focusing on one sport increases an athlete’s skill level and enables them to play longer. However, researchers have begun to discover the exact opposite. Because of the cross-sport skills multi-sport athletes are able to develop, they actually become more skilled and have a higher sports IQ than single-sport athletes. An athlete’s sports IQ refers to his knowledge of the game, how well he is able to apply skills learned through drills to game situations, and how quickly he is able to make decisions in the middle of a game. This is why baseball players play basketball during their offseason to increase their hand-eye coordination or soccer players run track to improve their speed and reaction time (Eytel).

Athletes who participate in multiple sports are also more likely to experience longer-term success than single-sport athletes. One reason for this is because there tends to be a lower burnout rate among multi-sport athletes than among single-sport athletes. Burnout becomes a serious problem for athletes who specialize too early because the extreme pressure put on all the practices, games, and skills makes a young athlete lose the love for the game by the time college, and sometimes even high school, rolls around. By participating in multiple sports, an athlete is able to balance different sports and retain a passion to play each one. By playing multiple sports, an athlete is not always surrounded by the same people, playing the same sport on the same team. He is able to experience engaging with different teammates and different coaches. A multi-sport athlete also has the opportunity to experience different roles on a team. He could be the star player on the soccer team and a bench player on the basketball. This provides an athlete with humility because he will not always be the best player on the team and it can be a learning experience. A multi-sport athlete is given diverse opportunities and experiences different teams, teammates, and coaches (Duffek).

Another reason why multi-sport athletes experience longer term success than single-sport athletes is athletes who play multiple sports experience less injuries, especially overuse injuries, which I referred to in my first confirmation argument. Because of this, multi-sport athletes can have a healthier, longer career and will most likely be more active in adulthood than athletes who focused on a single sport. As athletes grow older, they will most likely begin to feel pain from all the things they have put their bodies through. However, because athletes who participated in multiple sports allowed their muscles to rest, the pain will be minimal compared to the pain felt by single-sport athletes. Single-sport athletes, especially those who maintained serious injuries from their sport, will not be as mobile as multi-sport athletes. All of this goes back to examples of overuse injuries and how cross-training can aid athletes by decreasing their risk of serious injuries (Duffek).

Think back to Deion Sanders. He is now a legend because he accomplished what was thought to be impossible. He competed in multiple sports and because of this, he was able to have a career most athletes only dream about. Athletes, coaches, and parents, think of the athletic feats that can be accomplished if more athletes follow Deion Sanders’s example and participate in multiple sports. Now I am not saying every single athlete has to play at least two sports at the professional level, but I am saying playing multiple sports, at least through high school, will increase an athlete’s physical abilities, lengthen his career, and provide a greater passion for his chosen sports. Even if you are not an athlete or a parent of an athlete, you should still be able to see the importance of this issue purely from the medical evidence. If there is a way to help athletes avoid serious injuries, should we not encourage it? Why do we stand by and watch young athletes experience ACL tears or crumble under the pressure of expectations? I challenge all of you to speak out against sport specialization, especially when it is affecting our young athletes, and encourage the athletes of tomorrow to become multi-sport athletes. Parents, allow your children to experience different sports at a young age and be open-minded to their preferences. Coaches, encourage your team to play different sports during their offseason and inform athletes of the benefits of doing this. Athletes, if you are not a multi-sport athlete already, give it thought because many experts agree with me when I say it is beneficial to your health and overall skill.

Works Cited

Andrews, Dr. James R. Any Given Monday. New York: Scribner, 2013. Print.

“Athlete.” merriamwebster.com. Merriam-Webster, Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

“Burnout.” merriamwebster.com. Merriam-Webster, Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

“Cross-training.” merriamwebster.com. Merriam-Webster, Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

De Lench, Brooke. “Early Sport Specialization: Some Benefits, But Many Drawbacks.” momsteam.com. momsTEAM, Web. 27 Jan. 2018.

DeVries, Carrie. “Why Are Women at Greater Risk for ACL Injuries.” sportshealth.com. SPORTS-health, 7 May 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2018

Duffek, Jaimie. “A Few Surprises in the Data Behind Single-Sport and Multisport Athletes.” usatoday.com. USA Today, 28 March 2017. Web. 27 Jan. 2018.

Eytel, Chelsea. “Multi-Sport Athletes vs. Single Sport Athletes – The Pros and Cons.” NSR.com. NSR, 20 June 2017. Web. 07 Dec. 2017.

Gallucci, John Jr. Soccer Injury Prevention and Treatment. New York: Demos Medical Publishing, 2014. Print.

Gotlin, Robert S. Sports Injuries Guidebook. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2008. Print.

King, Sam. “Multiple Sports Good for High School Athletes.” jconline.com. Journal&Courier, 6 May 2017. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Laker, Scott. “Overuse Injury.” medscape.com. Medscape, 31 July 2017. Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

Monton, Dr. Rocco. “Why Tommy John Surgery is Ruining Pitchers.” stack.com. Blue Star Sports, 10 June 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.

Moser, Rosemarie S. Ahead of the Game. Hanover: Dartmouth, 2012. Print.

O’Sullivan, John. “The Perils of Single-Sport Participation.” changingthegameproject.com. Changing the Game Project, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Rerjck, Mark. “The Importance of Multi-Sport Participation.” NFHS.org. NFHS, 01 June 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2017.

Smith, Kent. Promoting the Multi-Sport Athlete. National Federation of State High School Associations, 2009. wiaa.com. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Timmons, Alex. “The 10 Greatest Multi-Sport Athletes of All Time.” bleacherreport.com. Bleacher Report, 2 Nov. 2008. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Wojtys, Edward. “Sports Specialization vs Diversification.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Sports Health, May 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

Language: Reflector of the Light of our Hearts

Leave a reply

Golnar Beikzadeh

Hosgeldiniz! Willkommen! Khosh oomadin! Bienvenido! You probably at least once in your life were in a situation you really wished you could speak one more language and know what’s going on around, especially when you are in a foreign country. When we are born we are not able to talk, we cry instead to say we are hungry, thirsty, or we need something. Language is a necessary part of our lives: we introduce ourselves, start a conversation and may start a friendship, relationship, business, or even be a witness to a person and change someone’s life forever. When there are thousands are languages among billions of people from so many different nationalities, why are we limiting ourselves with only one language? What don’t we teach our society the importance of being bilingual? The world with so many different languages is like a pencil case with different colours and shades; we don’t want to colour our picture with only one colour pencil. Our education system needs to aware of this; then our painting, our soul, and our understandings will be more colourful.

My history of the issue and kairotic relevancy can be combined together. I immigrated to the United States of America about two years ago, so as a foreigner and a person who can speak more than one language, I always felt very blessed and thankful to get to experience bilingualism. It’s a very different way of thinking. I see this as a need for the American education system to make it mandatory and take it seriously as they might take science and math at high school education all over the nation. It is very important for people to be able to speak at least one other language than their mother tongue. I remember back in the days when I wasn’t able to speak English, the time I was constantly misunderstanding people and being misunderstood, I had a very different understanding of a Western society than I do have now. It might sound crazy, but in my culture we have an idiom that it goes like this: if you know three languages, then you can be counted as three people in a body, and if you know four it’s the same, you will count as four people in a body. I believe these words because in this case you can have a wider perspective and understanding of the world and different cultures. You can put yourself in someone else’s shoes and walk the streets of life with them, feel how that person feels and view the life how the other person views.

I find it necessary for people to learn additional languages so they can understand and be understood by more people. Our community needs people with higher sympathies and awareness for the world because it’s not only about us, our family, our community, or our country; in fact, it’s about humanity. We as Christians should constantly search for people in need and be a voice for the voiceless. Whether we like it or not we need to realize one of the most important keys in cross-cultural relationships is language, because as I said language brings culture with it. Rather like sympathy, being able to speak other languages is very beneficial for our brains and souls, our personal development, our statement in life, and our relationships with one another. It also changes how society views us.

Since I’m talking about the benefits of being bilingual and why should the education system in the United States of America needs to take this issue more seriously, I’m going to define the term bilingualism. Dictionary.com defines bilingualism as being fluent in two languages; a native speaker who can communicate very well in a language besides his is called bilingual. Some people argue if bilingualism means being fluent or just being able to speak and communicate in a basic level. I think it is being able to connect and understand what they mean behind what they say. Also, no matter what level of learning a language you are in, you must strive more than you think you can to truly see the unseen behind the curtain.

In order to prove taking four years of an additional language must be mandatory and be taken seriously, I will confirm four arguments: it keeps our brains dynamic and work actively whether we use it or not; it’s an important element in cross-cultural relationship and gives people different worldviews, so we become less judgmental individuals; it opens a door to a sea of opportunities; and last but not least it gives us so many social benefits. I will then refute two counterarguments: we cannot force anyone to take a language class and high school students are mature enough to choose what class they want to take; and we don’t need to learn an additional language as long as we don’t go out of the country, and even if we go we can always find English speakers all over the world because English is an international language and everyone all around the world must learn it.

My first confirmation is the purpose of learning languages is to understand how others see the world. All humans in the world grow up with different perspectives. These perspectives are shaped by their culture, community, family, society, languages, etc. These perspectives allow them to process the events in their mind differently. We often can be pretty quick to judge people from different places, and most of the time it’s because what they do doesn’t match our culture and we don’t know the motive and story behind their actions. By learning a new language, you also learn a new culture because culture and language often go hand-in-hand. Culture includes codes of behavior, so the more we dig into a culture the more empathy we can have toward other people. Their behaviors tend to be more acceptable, because we start to view the events from their perspectives and we take our cultural blinders off. Every country has a dark side and a bright side, even the ones you may not really like. Having friends from different backgrounds and cultures with whom you can talk in their native language helps you to become a more open-minded person. We will realize how much we have in common: we might be different, but we all are human and can find small pieces of ourselves in each person’s story. For an example, there are so many stereotypes about counties in the Middle East. Most of them are real but we shouldn’t let these stereotypes affect our view toward their citizens. If we knew their language we could understand them better, and maybe we could love them instead of judge them. It was just one example. It can be true with Spanish-speaking countries. This doesn’t mean we have to learn all the languages in the world in order to have empathy with their folks, but if we experience this even with one ethnic group, we also can relate this experience to other cases.

Bilingual people’s vocabulary and skill of expressing themselves are better than people who only speak their native language. Every culture has some unique phrases and words that belong only to that particular language; these phrases can never be exactly translated into other language. This can be a good thing, because when we are learning new phrases, we can also learn how to talk about our certain feelings, which we weren’t able to express in our own language. Also, the more vocabulary we know the wider we can think about reality and the more we can understand and be understood. Even with reading the Bible, I can give a personal example about this: whenever I think the Word is not clear to me or I cannot fully understand what God is telling me, I read the same verse in Turkish or Persian. Although they both gives the same information or sermon, my mind processes them differently. For an example in both Turkish and Persian, there are two different words for the word “love,” very similar but slightly different. In the Scripture Jesus’s love is different from human love, so they use a specific word, but in English there is no specific difference for the kind of love expressed in the Bible. So, learning languages not only helps us see how people or nations see the world but it also helps us learn how God sees it as well.

My second argument is learning multiple languages gives the learner many personal benefits. Additional languages help people to talk with people from different nationalities and come out of their comfort zones; it gives us a wide field of opportunities for missions. Foreigners love when people from different nationalities try to speak their language; it is one of the signs that you show you care about them and like to learn more about their culture. In the Bible we see Jesus wants us to give the good news to all the nations. When we are doing evangelism, the second language can help us in some ways we cannot even think of before learning it. During mission trips, conferences, and even family vacations we can meet up with new people and by using our language skills we can be closer to them in spiritual terms or talk and share with them our faith. Being able to speak a second language gives you confidence, especially when we are talking about ourselves and achievements; these achievements can be academic or social.

Bilingual people earn more money. In the United States of America, the employees who know more than one language have more open doors in terms of job opportunities. Companies are more willing to give job positions to those who are bilingual. They are better at dealing with foreign costumers, international businesses, trades, and deals. They can have many experiences during business meetings to foreign countries including getting inspired by their different ideas, techniques, and technologies. When they come back to United States they can use these new ways to improve and develop their businesses and communities. Bilinguals sometimes can even earn a higher salary than their co-workers. Based on the researches on Times.com,

When it comes to money, members of the U.S. military can earn up to $1,000 more per month if they are proficient in multiple languages. If learning a whole new alphabet sounds intimidating, there is good news: Saiz’s study found that the pay premium for learning German was higher than the average, at 4%. And if you, say, want to test drive Deutsch before committing to a costly class — some top programs charge thousands of dollars to get you proficient — there are plenty of ways to learn beginner language skills for free.

I can’t tell you enough of how knowing foreign languages can open many doors. For an example, even one day if you lose everything you have including your job or maybe your university opportunity you can still make money by giving language lessons to people.

My third argument is being bilingual keeps our brain dynamic and helps it work actively. One of the biggest reasons why a person should learn an additional language is its health aspect. Bilinguals can improve their brain functions and increase the ability to focus, listen, and observe multiple things at the time. Bilinguals have good decision-making skills; they can easily decide about difficult subjects because they are doing this constantly on some daily basis. When they are casually talking, they are choosing to use each word among all those words that appear as a picture in their brains. To give an example, when I hear the word apple, a big, bright red apple appears in my mind; while I hear the word “elma,” a picture of the apples I see in the kitchen comes to my mind, and the reason is because I use “elma” at home, while when I first learned English I looked at the pictures in my textbooks, which were unrealistic, big, bright red apples and I repeated it as an “apple” and it stayed there since then. Imagine how bilinguals’ brains work fast when they are switching between the words and the pictures in their brains. Therefore, these people’s brains work faster when it comes to solving real-life problems, doing their tasks, and making decisions on what they want for their own lives. People who can speak in multiple languages can dream in another language, think, and even talk with themselves in different languages, which actually trains your brain.

As we get older, our brains get older too, but bilinguals’ brains get old much slower, based on the article “Learning Second Language ‘slows Brain Ageing’” on BBC News. Researchers found that reading, verbal fluency, and intelligence were improved in a study of 262 people tested either aged 11 or in their seventies. The strongest effects were seen in general intelligence and reading. It’s mostly because of their brain functions and reading abilities. Our brain develops resistance to unexpected events, and the person doesn’t lose himself over some tragic events in older ages. Alzheimer’s is one of the common illnesses among senior citizens, and it’s also one the biggest reasons why people are afraid of aging. People who speak more than one language can keep their memories fresher; even if they don’t use their additional language, their brains still makes choices between the words in their brains. Based on this, if your mind is active and fresh obviously you will have more energy in your life.

“The Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual” article by Marian Viorica, Ph.D. and Anthony Shook explains how knowing more than one language is good for our brains. It provides information about how the brain of a bilingual person is constantly at work: even if you use one language the other one is also active. The cognitive and neurological benefits of bilingualism extend from early childhood to old age as the brain more efficiently processes information and staves off cognitive decline. To maintain the relative balance between two languages, the bilingual brain relies on executive functions, a regulatory system of general cognitive abilities that includes processes such as attention and inhibition. Because both of a bilingual person’s language systems are always active and competing, that person uses these control mechanisms every time she or he speaks or listens. This constant practice strengthens the control mechanisms and changes the associated brain regions.

My fourth argument is students all over the United States must take 4 years of foreign language because of its social benefits. You can make cross-cultural friendships which may last a lifetime. Friend groups that have more than one language provide opportunities for diverse, authentic cultural experiences. You can make friendships with foreigners by using the mutual language of English, but in order to know a person deeply and really well you need to understand his culture and the reasons behind all his behaviors. During trips overseas, your tour guide may explain the culture and everything about the country, but sitting down and talking with a local can give you unexpected knowledge and a different experience, and also when you know the language everything will look friendlier and you’ll feel less home-sick in such situations. Now that I’m talking about how being bilingual gives you a field of opportunities, I find it necessary to make a point once again on how it’s going to help us to be witnesses. When we have the chance to reach a wider group of people, we have more opportunities to evangelize.

You can make so many new discoveries. It’s so boring to listen only to English songs when there are thousands of types of songs: same with movies, arts, books, and anything you can imagine. Knowing the original language of the movie you are watching is much more satisfying than watching it with subtitles. You may discover new authors and artists that speak to your heart and enjoy them the most. This is actually one of the reasons why people always say knowing another language will make your worldview wider.

The first counterargument against my thesis is schools should give the freedom of choice to their students. Not everyone enjoys learning a new language and people should use their time by focusing on what they are passionate for. Since most people think learning a new language requires skills more than training and academic discipline, it’s not going to be fair and enjoyable for everyone. Students have to take certain credits of math and science every year even though they might not like it; neither math nor science is enjoyable for everyone and practice and discipline is required to learn them. But we will not have any great achievements if we live continuously in our comfort zones. We need to overcome and have healthy academic struggles and challenges in high school in order to go above our limits and others’ expectations, so taking additional foreign languages cannot hurt that much.

One of the reasons people might not agree with my statement would be because of the hardships of earning a whole new language. It takes dedication and so much patience. It’s sometimes extremely hard to pronounce the words that only exist in that particular language, and high schoolers shouldn’t be under this much stress and pressure while they have so many other important subjects to study and spend time on when they aren’t even sure whether they are actually being able to use it or not. Sone people just don’t get it and teenagers shouldn’t been forced to take an additional langue when they aren’t smart enough to learn it.

My second counterargument against my thesis is most Americans do not think an additional language is necessary for them. America is a large country and traveling is very expensive, and that’s why Americans do not travel to other countries as much as Europeans do. Based on this, they will not have a lot of opportunities to use the other languages even if they do learn them. Even if they get to travel outside of the United States, they can find people who speak English in their hotel, historical, and tourist places. But people should consider it’s not all about you and you can’t expect others to know your mother tongue while that’s your only language, especially when you go to their country. Also, the trips and the visits are always much more enjoyable when you can understand almost everyone around; you may notice or realize the details you would never notice if you couldn’t speak the language. And you don’t need a foreign language when you are traveling, there is need for it always.

One of the reasons why some would not agree with my thesis is they don’t find it necessary for native English speakers since English is an international language. English is a second language in most of the regions in the world and this is a main reason why we expect everyone to learn English, but we don’t try to understand them often. For an example, there is always an English version description for almost every complicated product in the world and the reason is obvious, to be understood by everyone. Some people argue when we can get things worked out by using English in most major cities in the world (especially in Europe) why should we even bother ourselves to learn a new language and culture we might not even necessarily use in our daily basis? But as I said earlier it’s not all about us, and even if we don’t get a chance to speak that language often it is still going to help us because our brains are still trying to choose words and they are working actively.

Now that you know the benefits of bilingualism, take a small step and improve your certain language skills or start taking some classes. Make cross-cultural friendships. Let other people know how it improves our life, our school, our community. I believe high schools can play an extremely important role to cultivate this idea by making additional language classes one of the most important and necessary subjects for their students to take each year throughout their high school career in order to graduate. God doesn’t care about only one nation or doesn’t ask us to save only the ones who are like us. He wants us to go all over the word, love all the people regardless of their language, culture, or nationality. When we understand what others feel, or what are the morals behind their actions, it’s going to be easier to help them, to care about them, and to love them. Our world needs more empathy: let us learn about others more so we can positively influence others more.

Work Cited

“Additional Language as a French Teacher.” Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Athanasopoulos, Panos. “How the Language You Speak Changes Your View of the World.” The Conversation, 13 Dec. 2017.

Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. “Why Bilinguals Are Smarter.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2012.

Cerebrum: the Dana Forum on Brain Science, The Dana Foundation, 31 Oct. 2012.

Fan, Samantha P. “The Exposure Advantage.” Psychological Science, 8 May 2015.

Fránquiz, María E. “Key Concepts in Bilingual Education: Identity Texts, Cultural Citizenship, and Humanizing Pedagogy.” New England Reading Association Journal, New England Reading Association, 1 July 2012.

Keysar, Boyaz. “The Foreign-Language Effect.” SAGE Journals, 18 Apr. 2012.

“Learning Second Language ‘Slows Brain Ageing.’” BBC News, BBC, 2 June 2014.

Marian, Viorica, Ph.D. and Anthony Shook. “The Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual.”

“Returned Missionaries Discover Benefits of Being Bilingual.” The Daily Universe, 22 Aug. 2014.

“Want a Healthy Lifestyle? Reap These Benefits of Being Bilingual!” Fluent Language.

The Immorality of Capital Punishment

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Let’s imagine tomorrow morning you receive a call your beloved brother has been arrested for murder. After vigorous trials, your brother is found to be guilty and is sentenced to death. Let’s also assume the evidence appears valid, as though he has in fact committed the accused crime. How many of you would cease to love your brother? Despite the action he is accused of committing, would that be enough to completely extinguish your love and compassion for a member of your family? More importantly, how many of you could be the actual individual to pull the lever or inject the drugs into your sibling’s system that stops his heart? How many of you could extinguish the life of someone you love? Someone born of the same flesh, someone raised in the same home, someone cradled by the same mother. How many of you could easily and unalterably remove life from someone you used to share life with, share clothes with, share friends with? You may think this has no connection to capital punishment, but it has everything to do with it; in the eyes of Christ, everyone is our brother.

Capital punishment is not a new idea; it has been present in societies since ancient times. However, public opposition of capital punishment did not surface until the 1700s. Capital punishment laws were instituted as Europeans began to settle in America and the colonists retained many of these laws. During the eighteenth century, a group of Americans began to speak out in opposition of the death penalty, believing it morally and politically wrong. Benjamin Rush, a physician, country founder, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was among this group. Rush wrote several essays throughout the late 1700s denouncing capital punishment and calling for it to be outlawed. In one essay, entitled “Abolish the Absurd and Unchristian Practice,” Rush wrote, “I have said nothing upon the manner of inflicting death as a punishment for crimes, because I consider it as an improper punishment for any crime. Even murder itself is propagated by the punishment of death for murder.” He was stating here the very act of punishing murder with death was proven to actually propagate (or promote) more killing in society.

Italian philosopher and criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote an essay in 1767 titled, “Of Crimes and Punishments.” Beccaria wrote there was no excuse or justification for the intentional killing of a criminal and commented the system was an “example of barbarity.” After years of working in his chosen field, Beccaria had come to understand “the punishment of death has never prevented determined men from injuring society” and therefore, he advocated a system of lifetime imprisonment he believed would be a “much more powerful preventative than the fear of death which men always behold in distant obscurity.” Thomas Jefferson was inspired by the writings of Beccaria and attempted to pass a bill that would limit the use of capital punishment only in response to murder and treason; however, his bill was defeated by one vote.

In the early part of the nineteenth century, several states revised their death penalty laws. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey abolished public executions. By 1849, 10 other states followed after them. Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty completely except in cases of treason. Tennessee and Alabama broke away from their fellow states by enacting discretionary death penalty laws, giving them the right to choose whether a convicted person should die or not depending on circumstances. In 1895, a total of 18 states enacted these discretionary laws. The 1900s gave rise to the Progressive Era when revisions of federal law were abundant. By 1917, a total of nine states had abolished the death penalty. The Prohibition created an unfortunate setback in the crime rates of America. By 1933, the homicide rates had nearly doubled since 1915. Because of this increase in crime, support of capital punishment escalated dramatically. In the 1930s, more criminals were put to death than any other decade in American history. The steadfast support of the death penalty continued until the 1960s when anti-death-penalty movements became popular. Since then, disputes persist within the country whether the use of capital punishment is justified and should be performed. Since November 9, 2016, thirty-one states in America retain the use of capital punishment, and nineteen states have eradicated this system of punishment. These nineteen states have acknowledged the moral indecency of utilizing capital punishment, however several states and individuals are still blind to its dishonorable components.

I will now define some terms that will be discussed frequently in my paper so you may have an accurate interpretation of the arguments I wish to convey. I will be using “capital punishment” and “death penalty” interchangeably because they represent the same legal process. Merriam-Webster defines capital punishment as “punishment by death: the practice of killing people as punishment for serious crimes.” As I go on to argue the death penalty is immoral, I am discussing morality on the basis of Merriam-Webster’s definition of moral, which states, “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.” I will specifically argue on the basis of biblical ethics and morality expressed in Scripture.

What does this have to do with you? Loving your brothers and sisters does not mean never letting them face punishment for their sins. In fact, Revelation 3:19 states, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” However, is capital punishment a moral act of loving, biblical discipline? — I do not believe so. The truth is this topic applies to all Christians, because God calls us, without excuse, to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). If Christians desire to love God with all of themselves and glorify Him, then they must love their neighbors. Because the death penalty does not exemplify a spirit of loving one’s neighbor as I will later discuss, it should not be supported by Christians. Even non-Christians may see the immorality of the death penalty through the following arguments.

My thesis is capital punishment should be considered immoral in the eyes of Christians. I will defend this statement by confirming three points: the system devalues human life by utilizing cruel and unusual punishment, prevents a chance for the salvation and restoration of prisoners, and is unsupported by the Bible in light of the New Testament. I will then refute three counterarguments: capital punishment is morally justified through due process of law, capital punishment is morally practical because it has served as a successful crime deterrent for centuries, and capital punishment is justified by the laws of the Old Testament.

My first confirmation argument is capital punishment devalues life by utilizing cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. “Cruel punishment” suggests something that causes undue pain, stress, or anxiety. The definition of “unusual punishment” is continually modified by the government to suit the evolving standards of decency the world declares as appropriate. This can make it difficult to judge whether a punishment is moral. For instance, it was once considered appropriate, but now considered cruel and unusual, to punish by the flaying of skin, crushing by an elephant’s foot, or the breaking of one’s back repeatedly. No matter the evolving standards of decency, punishment is considered cruel and unusual when it causes unpleasant and embarrassing pain that devalues human life. The devaluation of life is directly connected to human dignity, which is negatively affected by emotional devastation through humiliation, lack of respect, and abasement in front of public, family, or friends. These individuals are criminals, but according to the law, that does not make them any less human and they deserve to be treated as such.

In Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross, Justice Breyer stated “the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.” Breyer asserts the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment and should be prohibited by the government. In this same case, the state’s expert claimed the first administered drug would make “virtual certainty” inmates do not feel pain caused by the second and third drug. However, there is a term in the medical world called the “ceiling effect,” which represents the optimal effect of a drug. Once a specific limit is reached, any additional administration may produce negative side effects. This means although the first drug in an execution is meant to prevent the potential for intense pain, this is only plausible if it is administered properly. Most states have adopted a three-step protocol of sodium thiopental to cause unconsciousness, a paralytic agent, which inhibits muscular movement and causes respiratory arrest, and finally potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest. David Waisel, an associate professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, discusses the most common anesthetic drug used in executions, midazolam, and claims “mounting evidence suggests that midazolam does not anesthetize inmates during executions, as shown by movement and difficulty breathing long after injection.” When Kenneth Williams was executed in Arkansas in May of 2017, several witnesses reported movements that indicated Williams was not unconscious after midazolam was administered. His “head began rocking forward and back,” and his chest “began convulsing up from the table.” A few moments later the convulsions became increasingly violent and “there was an audible cry of pain.” Four minutes into the execution, Williams was still struggling and “repeatedly clenching and unclenching his jaw.” This was not a random case but has been seen multiple times and has become almost predictable in the system today, Waisel remarks. In the execution of Clayton Lockett in 2014, the IV was administered improperly, causing the initial anesthetic drug to enter into the inmate’s system at far too low a rate. It was recorded the “physician determined that Lockett was unconscious,” but after the second and third drug were administered, Lockett began to move and speak. He claimed to be in an extreme amount of burning pain, a result of the second and third drugs, which cause the body to shut down. Waisel expresses the effectiveness of the first drug is imperative for the process to be considered humane. He goes on to say the drug must have “rapid onset so that the inmate does not go through an extended period of difficulty breathing and to block the burning pain of potassium chloride.” Since the current system of capital punishment continues to utilize midazolam, despite medical studies displaying its lack of effect, the system remains inhumane. Even if the drugs could eliminate pain, the process of taking a life as punishment is still immoral as I will discuss in my following confirmations.

My second confirmation argument is capital punishment prevents a chance for the salvation and restoration of prisoners. I recently had the opportunity to attend a Prayer Breakfast hosted by several Virginia legislators. The guest speaker was Reverend Eric Manning, who serves at Emmanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina where the horrific mass shooting took place. I was absolutely struck with the amount of love and mercy he had after everything his church endured. He made an outstanding comment I believe is essential to daily life as Christians: “When we acknowledge that we are all sinners saved by grace, we have no need to be hostile or hate.” While capital punishment does not prevent prisoners from hearing God’s word, it does hinder their willingness to accept the message and use the rest of their life for the better. Bishop Dominick Lagonegro of the Chaplains Apostle Committee frequently visits death row inmates and stated, “it is extremely challenging to bring hope when there is no room for rehabilitation.” Even those placed in prison for brutally killing another person are sinners equal in God’s eyes, saved through Christ’s blood, and deserve to hear the Good News of forgiveness and salvation. By neglecting to show mercy and sentencing these individuals to death, we miss an opportunity to be used by God to alter the direction of their lives. We can have a positive influence on prisoners by aiding in their restoration and acknowledgment of being a chosen child of God.

Another issue with capital punishment is its prevention of restoration when innocent lives are taken. Utilizing life imprisonment instead of the death penalty can not only allow prisoners a better opportunity to find Christ and receive spiritual salvation, but also physical salvation when wrongly accused. Here are two examples of cases where an individual went to prison for a murder they did not commit. Thankfully, death penalty was not inflicted and they were able to continue their lives.

On February 17, 1987, Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his own wife and sentenced to life in prison. In 2011, DNA was retested on the bloody bandana and the DNA was found to match a convicted felon named Mark Norwood. Norwood had been found at the scene of the murder of Debra Masters Baker, who had been murdered in the same method Morton’s wife had. Debra was murdered 2 years after Morton’s wife was, while Morton was in prison. Michael Morton was released in 2011 after spending nearly 25 years in prison. Upon further investigation by the Innocence Project, it was also discovered that the judge had concealed evidence that could have initially proven Morton innocent. This judge served a sentence for criminal contempt and resigned from his position as district court judge, permanently surrendering his law license. In this case, a judge made a personal judgment to conceal evidence, which only succeeding in forcing an innocent man to serve 25 years for the murder of his own wife. Thankfully, Morton faced life imprisonment and not the death penalty, so when his innocence was discovered he could continue to live out the rest of his life.

When Marvin Anderson was only 18 years old, he was wrongfully convicted of rape, robbery, abduction, and sodomy. After spending 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, he was paroled in August, 2002. Four years later, the Innocence Project discovered new DNA evidence and he was finally proven innocent. Marvin was the 99^th person exonerated in the United States due to post-conviction DNA evidence. Today, he serves as Chief of the Hanover, Virginia Fire Department and an active Innocence Project Board Member, helping other wrongfully convicted prisoners get their lives back.

These men were given a second chance at life, because their innocence was discovered, but this is not the case for all prisoners. Innocent people have lost their lives for crimes they have not committed. As Christians, we have no excuse not to make every single effort to save any lives we can. Life imprisonment allows for discoveries of innocence and the possibility of spiritual restoration and salvation. Not all prisoners will come to Christ, but if we could save just one, it would be worth it. If a bus filled with children was going to drive off of a bridge tomorrow to certain death and you had the chance to save at least one child, would you not try? The same applies to our world. We are all heading off a bridge to eternal death because of sin. Not all will find God before they die, yet Christ chose to die on the cross for every one of us. If God loved the world enough to sacrifice His son, how can we refuse to love these prisoners? How can we execute them and withhold the love and compassion Christ showed us? Even making a small shift from execution to life without parole, could give prisoners the extra time they need to prove their innocence or to find God and be used for His glory.

My final confirmation argument is the current application of capital punishment is unsupported by the Bible in light of the New Testament. Although the death penalty is often mentioned in the Old Testament, it is not mandated in the New Testament. Because the New Testament gospel of grace is meant to fulfill the Old Testament practices, it is worth questioning whether capital punishment is valid today or only appropriate within the context of the Old Testament covenant. Christ’s death on the cross took the place of all sacrifices and fulfilled the old covenants of law, thrusting the world into a new relationship with the Lord. His death made it unnecessary to execute persons to maintain human dignity, because his crucifixion and message established human worth and value forever. Christ’s sacrifice relieves us of eternal, spiritual death as expressed in Hebrews 9:14, which states, “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God.” Ephesians 2:14-16 conveys Christ’s sacrifice also relieves us of the physical laws of the Old Testament and hostility itself shall be dead: “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing hostility itself.”

Just as God gifted us with an opportunity to receive forgiveness for our sins through love and repentance, Christians should likewise mirror God’s love when approaching crime. When reciting the Lord’s Prayer, people ask God to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” As he suffered on the cross, Christ called out, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Christ asked his Father to forgive those who willingly tortured, whipped, stabbed, and killed him. If Christ can find forgiveness in His heart for these citizens, how dare we cast forgiveness to the side in our own lives? Keep in mind I am not arguing no one should ever face punishment for their actions; forgiveness is not the same as neglecting safety for society. I am arguing punishment does not have to mean a permanent execution of life.

The first counterargument I will refute is capital punishment is morally justified through due process of law. Those embracing this argument claim the Fifth Amendment is moral justification for capital punishment, because it guarantees everyone due process of law; therefore, each person convicted of murder and sentenced to death is rightly deserving of it. Justice Scalia argued the Fifth Amendment is the constitutional basis for capital punishment because, “It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital…crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” and no one will be “deprived of life…without due process of law.” Joseph Blocher, Professor of Law at Duke University, explains if the Fifth Amendment were to be used in moral defense of the death penalty, “the Court would have to first reject the ‘evolving standards of decency’ and embrace an especially strict ‘originalist’ approach to cruel and unusual punishment that it has consistently rejected.” What Blocher means by this statement is the current methods used in capital punishment do not meet the standards of decency the government has established in the Eighth Amendment, because it has become “cruel and unusual.” Christians may not conform to the idea of “evolving standards of decency” due to our beliefs in moral absolutes, however, this argument does demonstrate the government itself cannot use the Fifth Amendment as justification since the process no longer adheres to its own stated guidelines. Justice Brennan, when discussing the Fifth Amendment, stated, “it merely requires that when and if the death penalty is a possible punishment, the defendant shall enjoy certain procedural safeguards, such as indictment by a grand jury and, of course, due process of law.” This means the Fifth Amendment provides the right for people to be punished by death, if the process meets specific standards, but does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. Once again, I am not claiming if the process was humane, it would be biblically moral. I am stating the entire argument of the Fifth Amendment as justification for the death penalty is invalid because the process does not meet the standards the Amendment requires. Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons stated, “By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons.” French President Jacques Chirac stated in an address to America, “You are well aware of the European Union’s determined stand on the abolition of the death penalty. It is based on the conviction that this penalty is contrary to human dignity.” The cruelty of capital punishment methods today, recognized by some countries, cannot continue to be ignored by others on the supposed moral basis of the Fifth Amendment. Individuals must understand the validity of the Fifth Amendment as a moral basis for capital punishment is only appropriate in light of other Amendments which protect human dignity. Because capital punishment devalues human life and dignity as explained by my first confirmation, the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as moral justification for the death penalty by anyone, including Christians.

The second counterargument I will refute is the concept capital punishment is morally practical because it has served as a successful crime deterrent for centuries. The first problem with this argument is the assumption if something has been “successful” throughout history, it is morally just. If past effectiveness was the sole determiner of morality, we would still be promoting slavery, sexist prejudices, and child labor. These acts viewed as immoral and dehumanizing today were once seen as completely acceptable and even biblical in the eyes of some of their advocates. Arguments stating capital punishment is practical for today’s world on the basis it was utilized “effectively” in the past hold no real significance for judging the morality of capital punishment according to the true word of God.

The second problem with this argument is its dependence on capital punishment being an effective crime deterrent, while statistical data disproves this concept. Since 2000, the effect of incarceration on the crime rate has been essentially zero. Increased incarceration only made up 6% of the reduction of crime in the 1990s and today accounts for less than 1% of the crime decline. When comparing crime rates in states with capital punishment and those without, The Brennan Center for Justice concluded, “Based on empirical analysis [real world data and results, not concepts or theories], this report finds that increased incarceration at today’s levels has a negligible crime control benefit.” The Brennan Center adds, “In line with much of the past research, this report finds that the use of the death penalty has no significant effect on crime…The same is true for the effect of the use of the death penalty on homicides specifically.” Professor John Blume of Cornell University Law School found states which have abolished capital punishment “by and large have lower murder rates than states that retain capital punishment.” The most notorious killers, such as Bundy, Gaskins, and Gacey, committed their crimes in states with active death penalties, and as Blume points out, “The threat of capital punishment, in short, was no deterrent to them.”

The final counterargument I will refute proposes capital punishment is justified by the laws of the Old Testament. Many Christians and Jews alike refer to the books of the Torah and Pentateuch as “God’s Law,” because they contain the Mosaic law. Believers often use arguments stating the Mosaic Law explicitly calls for the use of the death penalty for certain crimes. The verses most often quoted in support of the death penalty are Exodus 21: 23-25, Leviticus 24:17, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Exodus reads, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Leviticus reads, “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…Whoever kills a man must be put to death.” Deuteronomy reads, “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” After reading these verses, it would logically follow the Scriptures support capital punishment. However, one must read beyond these verses to understand the context.

The biggest problem with this belief is that in the New Testament, God clearly releases man from the bond of the law through Christ. In Matthew 5:17, Christ affirms, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Christ, the Son of God incarnate, directly references the verses from the Old Testament used to justify capital punishment in his New Testament ministry in Matthew 5:38-39; Christ instructs, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.” Christ restates a law of the Old Testament and follows with “but I say to you” showing this is not an addition to the law but a replacement. There is more to our walk with God than law.

In 2 Corinthians, Paul condemns those still blinded by the law of Moses and points us to Christ: “But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:14-17). In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul explains the death of Christ has replaced our need to obey the Mosaic Law: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” The laws in the Old Testament were not meaningless in their time, but now through Christ we no longer must obey them.

As Christians, we must be careful not to allow ourselves to be blinded by law and neglect a personal relationship with the Lord and our fellow brothers and sisters. Someone using the laws of the Old Testament as moral justification for capital punishment is in danger of getting caught up in Pharisaical thinking, picking and choosing the scriptures which suit their needs and ignoring the redemptive truth of the New Testament. Even if one were to completely ignore the work of Christ and insist on obeying the laws of the Old Testament, he or she would be forced to apply the laws to all aspects of life, not just capital punishment. According to these verses, every act against a neighbor must be returned to him in the same way. The government would have to blind everyone who has blinded, steal from everyone who has stolen, hit anyone convicted of a hit-and-run with a car—where does it end? This form of “lawful punishment” would certainly classify as “cruel and unusual” and reach an inevitable state of unethical and immoral basis well beyond where it currently is. The argument the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament justifies the use of capital punishment is clearly refuted by the New Testament covenant secured by the death of Christ.

Many argue the death penalty not only punishes a criminal act but also provides “justice” and “closure” for the families of victims. I wish to clarify what people truly desire from this punishment. Through capital punishment, many are blinded by their hatred and grief and desire to see the assailant suffer themselves for their actions. This is not justice nor closure, but the desire for revenge. Christ warns the life of hatred toward enemies makes people no different from the very ones they hate:

You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (Matthew 5:43-47)

Although the Old Testament seems to be characterized by lawful instruction more than mercy and love, Leviticus 19:18 still warns readers that “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Loving someone and expressing forgiveness does not suggest an endorsement of lifestyle or choices. God chose to hate the sin not the sinner, and we have no excuse for refusing to do the same. No one is perfect and therefore none is justified in condemning his brother. In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus instructs his followers to remove the log in their own eyes before ordering their neighbor to remove the speck in his or her eye. Jesus insists in John 8:7 that those who are without sin may cast the first stone. God himself can determine all fates because he alone is just and perfect. James 4:12 warns, “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” Christians will argue the Bible is contradictory and there is no obvious argument for, nor against capital punishment. However, God is clear in His word how He desires us to treat other human beings no matter what they’ve done. Bishop Dominick Legonegro remarks, “Every human being possesses a basic dignity that comes from God, not from any human quality or accomplishment, not from race or gender or age or economic status. Human life is inherently precious.”

After these arguments I have both made and refuted, you may still wonder if it is even possible for Christians to act on this realization of capital punishment’s immorality. One remarkable woman set a standard with her Christ-like love. Mark Bingham was one of the many to die in the Pennsylvania plane crash of September 11, 2001. His mother, Alice Hoagland would have had every right to hate the al-Qaeda members responsible for this but this is not what she did. Alice argued against the death penalty for Zacarias Moussauoi, a member convicted of helping plan the attacks. Hoagland stated, “We Americans have the opportunity to demonstrate our compassion toward a man who has shown no compassion for America. We are a nation of laws, of justice, and of mercy. By sparing his life, we can demonstrate our humanity by acknowledging the humanity of a man who badly needs compassion.”

One could not present a better example of the kind of love Christ calls us to. As Jesus hanged on the cross, a criminal suffering the same punishment asked Him for forgiveness. Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Today. Not tomorrow. Not after you check off this list of good deeds. Moments before death, Christ found mercy in His heart for a guilty and impure man. My fellow Christians, we have no excuse.

The question becomes, what can you do with this information? How can you demonstrate your Christ-like love and compassion? The best way you achieve this is by aiding in public awareness of the immorality of this system. This can include donating to non-profit organizations such as the Innocence Project, The Center for Justice and Reconciliation, and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty that work towards freeing those wrongfully convicted, rehabilitating and witnessing to prisoners, and ultimately eliminating the current, inhumane system. You can start a ministry group in your church designed to spread awareness of injustice of the death penalty. You can witness to and serve prisoners for it is written, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did to me’” (Matthew 25:40).

Look to your left and right. God calls you to love the people sitting next to you, everyone in this room, everyone on this earth, every person with a heartbeat as if he or she is your biological brother or sister. If you could not pull the switch, inject the drugs, or turn your back on the brother or sister you love so dearly, you should not be capable of doing that to any human being. Do you honestly believe your personal vendetta, flawed legal system, or fabricated practicality of this system morally justifies terminating the life of your brother or sister? If you could follow through with this immoral execution with no remorse or regret for the life you’ve taken, then please ask yourself what makes you any different from the very criminals you seek to kill? “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, ‘Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother’” (Zechariah 7:9, KJV). Capital punishment is not the enactment of true justice; it is the legitimization of our personal retaliations. Without a doubt, capital punishment should be viewed as immoral in the eyes of Christians.

Bibliography

Blocher, Joseph. The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment. Vol. 111. Northwestern University Law Review. Joseph Blocher, 2016. PDF.

“Capital Punishment.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 06, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital%20punishment.

“The Cases — Marvin Anderson.” Innocence Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. https://www.innicenceproject.org/cases/marvin-anderson/.

Glossip v. Gross. 14US7955. June 29, 2015.

Guernsey, JoAnn Bren. Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure? USA Today’s Debate: Voices and Perspectives. Twenty-First Century Books, 2010.

Lentol, Joseph, Helene Weinstein, and Jeffrion Aubry. The Death Penalty In New York. Report. Assembly on Codes, Judiciary and Correction. New York City, NY, 2005.

“Michael Morton.” Innocence Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/michael-morton/.

“Moral.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 06, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral.

Parks, Peggy J. Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? In Controversy. San Diego, CA: Reference Point Press, 2010.

Roeder, Dr. Oliver, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling. What Caused the Crime Decline? New York City, NY: Brennan Center For Justice, 2015.

Waisel, David. “The drugs we use for executions can cause immense pain and suffering.” The Washington Post, May 11, 2017. Accessed January 17, 2018.

American Foster Care: A System in Need of Reform

Leave a reply

Emma Kenney

A child is curled up, shaking underneath her bed. She knows her guardian will be home soon, and she waits in dread for that moment. Maybe he won’t be drunk this time or angry or in the mood to see her. Maybe he’ll be so tired he will go straight to bed. She’s been in this new home for about six months now, and she hasn’t seen her case-worker since the day the woman had dropped her off with this man. She’s been removed from the custody of her birth mother after the single parent had been evicted from her old apartment. Child Protective Services has rightly said the streets were no place for a child, and the girl could be reunited with her mother after the woman found a stable job, and new apartment and got back on her feet. The new home had seen nice enough at first, but once it was apparent her case worker wasn’t coming back to check on her, the abuse had begun.

This story sounds awful, right, and it must be an over-exaggerated example or an anomaly? Unfortunately, this happens within the American foster care system more often than one would hope. The system is broken and in need of repair. I will be arguing “the American (government) foster care system needs to be reformed.”

To understand fully why the foster care system needs to be reformed it is necessary to understand what exactly the foster care system is meant to be. Foster Care is defined by the National Adoption Center as, “a temporary arrangement in which adults provide for the care of a child or children whose birth parent is unable to care for them.” In simple terms, this means the foster care system is supposed to remove children from inadequate homes and place them into temporary homes where they will be able to grow and develop both mentally and physically. Inadequate homes are ones where the children are being abused or neglected by their guardians, either unintentionally or intentionally, as in the story told previously.

However, more often than not the system is not accomplishing this purpose. Even those who have been in charge of the system believe the system is in need of reform. Wade Horn, who served as the leader of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) child welfare wing under President George W. Bush, was and is a firm supporter of a reformed foster care system.

The first important thing to know about foster care is it has two parts: the first part is government run, and the second part is privatized. In both of these, children are placed in foster homes with individual families or in group homes with multiple children. Both parts work essentially the same way in that the majority of their funding is based on how many kids they place. The government portion gets a baseline fund, though privatized foster care does not, and unlike the government portion, the privatized section of the system has essentially no rules set in place at the moment to keep it in check. The first step to reforming that portion would be to simply get some regulations created to protect the children. For the sake of continuity within my thesis, however, I will focus only on the government-run section of the foster care system.

The second important thing to know about foster care is it is not meant to be a permanent solution or home for children. It is only supposed to be a temporary home until a child can either be returned to his or her birth family or adopted into a fit home.

Once again, my thesis is “the American (government) foster care system needs to be reformed.” My confirmation arguments are “the current system is not accomplishing its purpose,” “the current system is a waste of money,” and “the current system is catastrophic for the mental health and development of children.” The counterarguments I will then refute are “reform won’t work,” “reform isn’t worth it,” and “reform is too expensive.”

My first confirmation argument is “the current system is not accomplishing its purpose.” The National Adoption Center tells us the foster care system has two purposes: 1) to provide adequate care for a child who has been removed from an unfit home, and 2) to be a temporary home for said child.

First, let’s discuss how the system is not providing adequate care for children. “Adequate care” here means any care that if not provided would be grounds to remove a child from their birth home. Many complicated factors go into this, but the Children’s Bureau states at least the following must be provided for a child to receive adequate care: a safe home, enough food and clothing, adequate medical care, any mental and physical needs of the child, and protection from domestic violence. When any of these are not provided, a child is not receiving adequate care. Studies have shown roughly 30% of foster children admit to being abused within the system, but it is believed the percentage of children being abused is much higher (over 50%) since in many cases the children are afraid to speak up about the abuse they face or are taught to believe it is okay. This alone should show there is something significantly wrong with the system. Its job is to take children out of abusive homes, yet it simply places upwards of 50% of those children into abusive homes sometimes even worse than the homes they were removed from. On top of that, the system is the cause of an alarmingly high child mortality toll. Deb Stone, who has both fostered and adopted children and served as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused children states, “An estimated 1,564 [foster] children died from abuse in 2012… Neglect was involved in 70% of [those] child fatalities.”

One only has to look at Child Protective Services (CPS) and similar branches to see more of this failure to provide adequate care. Social workers essentially have two goals to accomplish after placing a child in a home. First, they must complete a large amount of paperwork concerning the child they placed and the home said child was placed into. Second, they are to periodically visit the child to make sure she’s been placed into a home good for her. These visits neglected leads to children remaining stuck in abusive or negligent foster homes. However, heavily because these branches are significantly understaffed in relation to the number of children within the system, social workers must spend so much time completing paperwork they don’t have time to check in on the children they have placed. Susanne Babbel, a former social worker and foster parent and current psychologist, states:

During my own time working with foster care agencies and group homes, I often witnessed the agency staff become overwhelmed with the number of children they were required to monitor — not to mention the pressure of completing mountains of paperwork. The paperwork would often trump the actual visits in priority because it was required in order to keep the agency funded and our jobs intact.

Another factor preventing the system from accomplishing its purpose of providing adequate care is the act of children being placed in inadequate homes. To understand this part of the problem, one must understand funding for the system depends on how many children are placed and kept in homes per year. This creates a problem, because in their desire to stay funded these branches don’t always do complete background checks on the individuals applying to foster children, or they overlook offenses in order to place another child. Children are often placed in homes with parents who are poorly educated as well, as, according to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, only approximately 50% of foster parents even have a high school diploma or equivalent. This doesn’t always have a negative effect, but it most certainly can and does in many cases. On top of that parents throughout the system, even ones who would otherwise be good, are often underprepared as there is no supervised or regulated training on what being a foster parent thoroughly entails. This means they don’t know how to properly handle the often emotionally unwell children being placed into their care. Studies conducted in multiple states show the majority of foster parents don’t even make it a full year before they decide to stop fostering. This means children aren’t being placed in fit homes at all: they are simply being bounced around from home to home. In her article “U.S. Foster Care: A Flawed Solution That Leads to Long-Term Problems?” Stone discusses how one particular boy she fostered had already been through 17 other homes by the time he was placed with her; that little boy was only 10 years old. Sadly this is far too common within the American foster care system, and the vast majority of children are placed in at least 2 homes, often many more. So long as this is a common occurrence, the system will never achieve its purpose at all.

Now let’s discuss how the foster care system is not accomplishing its purpose of being only a temporary home. Over 50% of children (roughly 218,733) remain in the system for more than a year, and approximately 15% (roughly 65,620) remain in the system for at least 3 years. On top of that, over 10% of children (over 43,747) stay within the system until they either reach adulthood and age out or reach 16 and successfully file for emancipation. This means approximately 40,000 children per year are stuck in the system until they are old enough to legally exit it on their own.

My second confirmation argument is “the current system is a waste of money.” The system receives two different kinds of government funding. The first is baseline for all 50 states and is not based upon state population or any other numbers. For example, using small easy numbers, the government could decide in 2020 each state will receive $100 as its foster care budget. The second type of funding is determined by how many children are successfully placed in homes the year before. Using small and easy numbers once again, this is along the lines of the government determining every child placed in a home in 2019 still in said home by January 1, 2020 was $1 toward the 2020 budget. This means states that place and keep 50 children in homes receive $50 toward their budget (for a total budget of $150), while states that place and keep 10 children in homes receive only $10 toward their budget (for a total budget of $110).

As we have seen, this means children are often placed or kept in unfit homes in order to keep numbers up so the program will receive sufficient funding the following year. This essentially means the program is doing the opposite of its job and is being paid to do so, which is both wasteful and absurd in concept, especially considering how much money goes toward the foster care system each year. Approximately $9,000,000,000 (9 billion American dollars) are poured into the foster care system each year. With approximately 400,000 children in foster care per year, this means roughly $22,500 are being spent per child per year. With an estimated 50% of children facing abuse within the system, approximately $4,500,000,000 is being poured into placing children into abusive homes, which directly goes against the purpose of the American foster care system.

My third confirmation argument is “the current system is disastrous for the mental health and development of children.” Crucial brain development takes place as a child; this development is so important it shapes the personality and mental stability of a person for, in most cases, the rest of her life. This means when children are placed in abusive or negligent homes they are debilitated on a mental level for the rest of their lives. “Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care” by AAP News says, “During the first 3 to 4 years of life, the anatomic brain structures that govern personality, learning process, and coping with stress and emotion are established, strengthened, and made permanent. If unused, these structures atrophy.”

This leads to problems such as depression and anxiety, as statistics show children within the system are about five times more likely to commit suicide as adults and nearly eight times more likely to be hospitalized with a serious psychiatric disorder. They are also about 12 times as likely to be given psychotropic medications (medications used to treat mental illness that affect the chemical makeup of your brain, such as antidepressants and antipsychotics). On top of that, the system can also lead children to develop various attachment disorders. Since they are often moved around so much, they are taught never to become too attached to anything or anyone for fear of losing them as soon as they get too close. This creates a lifelong problem of closed off, distrustful adults who are unable to form relational bonds for fear of losing them.

The first counterargument I will refute is, “Reform won’t actually be effective.” Many people argue the system is simply too big and too messed up to be fixed, and while it is true no single thing will be able to fix the entire system it is simply not true reform will be ineffective. Often people become incredibly discouraged by the idea the foster care system is messed up on a gigantic scale and therefore lacks what could be considered a quick and easy fix, but they fail to realize successful reformation isn’t synonymous with instantaneous reform.

It is inaccurate that reform will not be effective. The biggest proof of this is the fact effective reform has already been seen at a state level. Organizations like Children’s Rights work alongside states and cities to pass court-enforceable regulations for the American foster care system, such as social workers must visit children the place every two months. They do this by assessing a state’s foster care system and helping state governments implement various legislation and progress to correct the problems they see. They also may offer finances to help states successfully implement these new programs and laws. This particular organization boasts many improvements to the system, including the following:

In Georgia in 2003, children in metropolitan Atlanta foster care would often go six or more months without a visit from a caseworker. But by 2015, workers provided 96 percent of required twice-monthly visits to children. In Michigan in 2006, approximately 6,300 Michigan children were legally free for adoption, but instead were growing up as permanent wards of the state. By 2014, the number dropped to under 2,700. In Milwaukee the rate at which children were abused and neglected in foster care was reduced tenfold between 2000 and 2014. Allegations of maltreatment, which used to sit for months, are now referred and investigated within days.

The fact reform has been successful at this level shows reform is an attainable and effective goal. Various states have reformed or begun to reform various issues of the system, and if the federal government would implement even one of those regulations country-wide, the system would begin to improve on a large scale. There is no denying it would take time (Milwaukee took over a decade to see the full extent of their reform), but there’s also no denying time does not take away from the effectiveness of reform.

The second counterargument I will refute is “reform isn’t worth it.” To argue reformation of the foster care system isn’t worth it is to argue the children within said system are not worth it. It sends the message even though the system in its current state involves and allows so much abuse and neglect, because it won’t be an easy task they are not important enough to help. The United Nations created something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This declaration essentially lays out a set of “fundamental human rights to be protected.” Articles one and two describe how everyone is equal and entitled to the rights set out in said declaration. Article three declares, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” and article five declares, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” However, children in the foster care system are having these rights violated. These children face rape and abuse of all kinds, and as previously stated, over 1,500 children die from abuse within the system every single year. When we say reform is not worth it we are indirectly telling children within the foster care system they are not even worth having their fundamental human rights protected.

The third counterargument I will refute is “reform is too expensive.” There are two different variants of this argument. The first is it is too expensive in relation to worth. The second variant of this argument is simply reform would just be too expensive in general, meaning even if reform should be done there is no legitimate way it could be done.

First, we will go over the claim reform is too expensive in relation to worth. I previously explained why reform is worth it, and the same can be applied to the financial aspect. When we say reform is too expensive to be worth it we are really saying the rights of children (which I’ve already shown hold as much value as any other age) do not matter enough to be fixed. We are saying we are not willing to pay the price to ensure children within the foster care have access to the rights which have already been proven to be theirs.

Second, we will go over the claim reform is just too expensive in general. It has already been stated the roughly 9 billion American dollars are spent on the foster care system per year (roughly $22,500 per child). While it is unfair to say none of that is being used properly, far too much of that is being spent only for children to be neglected, abused, and killed within the foster care system. This means a large portion of that 9 billion American dollars is being wasted in relation to money spent versus success of the system. While reform has the potential to seem somewhat costly initially, since the system is currently wasting money reforming the system would actually be cost effective for the United States in the long run. Reform would allow money spent on foster care and child services to be effectively and consistently put to good use, and even lower expenses over all. One of the main ways the system could lower expenses would be by fulfilling the portion of its purpose that relates to placing kids in long term homes and getting them out of foster care. Over 10% of children remain in the system until they age out of the system. If a child is in the system just from the time they are 16 onwards, $67,500 will be spent on said child. If they are in the system from 8 (which is the average age a child enters foster care) onwards, $247,500 will be spent. That is roughly a quarter of a million dollars being spent on a child when the whole purpose is to either reunite the child with their family or getting them adopted. Reform allows a greater number of children exit the system before aging out, overall lowering the total cost per year of the foster system.

Well, what now? I’ve shown you why the system needs reform, and I’ve refuted arguments saying otherwise, but where do we go from here? This paper has shown the foster care system is incredibly broken on various levels to the point no one thing will be able to fix it entirely, but there are various efforts that can be done to begin the process. A huge improvement that could be done is employing more social workers within the departments working with foster kids, even if they are only there temporarily. Earlier I described how social workers are often swamped with paper work, which means it is easy to get behind. Extra workers would help manage this workload, even if only temporary. Another thing to be done is doing a better job of getting kids out of the system, whether this is reuniting them with their birth parents or getting them adopted. The foster care system was never meant to be a permanent home, but as I showed previously a relatively large number of children are remaining within the system until they age out, occupying valuable time and money in the process. If the foster care system put more of an emphasis on moving children out of the system and into good homes it would free up that time and money to cycle more children through the system properly.

One needn’t be a social worker to help, though. We can help in multiple ways. The first is making sure we are educated on the issue. The majority of people are at least somewhat aware of the fact an issue exists, but often they do not realize just how big the issue is. It is much easier to convince people something needs to be done if we are aware of all the facts. The second way we can help is by voting for politicians who care and want to do something about the issue. If we vote for people who don’t care or want to help it will be much harder for reform to take place. The third way we can help is by supporting and donating to organizations like Children’s Rights. One of the biggest ways we can help is by supporting the organizations already helping reform become a reality.

In the end it is important we fight for reform in the ways we can. This is especially important for those who call themselves Christians. We are called to care for widows and orphans and to love others in the way of Jesus. We cannot leave the next generation of children to suffer in a broken system of neglect, abuse, and death.

Bibliography

AAP News Committee. “Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care.” Pediatrics. AAP News and Journals Gateway. November 2000. Web. 19 Jan. 2017.

Babbel, Susanne, PhD, MFT. “The Foster Care System and Its Victims: Part 1.” Psychology Today. N.P., 11 Oct. 2011. Web.

—. “The Foster Care System and Its Victims: Part 2.” Psychology Today. N.P., 11 Oct. 2011. Web.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Determining the Best Interests of the Child.” Children’s Bureau. March 2016.

Children’s Rights. “Foster Care Reform.” Children’s Rights. N.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2018.

“Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care.” Pediactrics. AAP News & Journals. Gateway, July 2000. Web. 16 Nov 2016.

Find Law — Family Law Practitioners. “Foster Care Funding and Federal Programs.” Find Law, n.d. Web. 15 Jan 2018.

FindLaw. “Foster Care Funding and Federal Care.” N.D. web. 23 Feb. 2018.

Kelly, John. “HHS Will Not Discuss New Personnel.” The Chronicle of Social Change, 7 April 2017.

National Adoption Center. “What IS Foster Care?” National Adoption Center, n.d. Web. 03 March 2016.

Stone, Deb. “U.S. Foster Care: A Flawed Solution That Leads to Long-Term Problems?” STIR Journal. N.p. 12 May 2014. Web. 14 Jan 2018.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. “The AFCARS [Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System] Report.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. November 2017.

United Nations General Assembly. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. 10 December, 1948.

Zill, Nicholas Ph.D. “Better Prospects, Lower Costs: The Case for Increasing Foster Care Adoption.” National Council for Adoption. May 2011.

Contravening Contraception

Leave a reply

Ruth Grant

What if I said almost everything you, the reader, have learned about sex and marriage from the church was false? No, this paper will not give justification for pre-marital sex or other sexual “freedoms” taught by the left-wing Christian population. Rather, this paper is to all Christians, from every background and denomination. This is a call to examine and rethink our views for the purpose of marriage, sex, and family and, in particular, to relate this to our view of contraception. Most Protestants have been taught though children are a blessing from God, it is not required the marital act be procreative. The secondary benefits of sex like pleasure, unity, and companionship are good in and of themselves, they will say. Therefore, the question of birth control is largely tossed aside by most Protestants as a “Catholic problem.” But this question cannot be ignored! It is crucial to our Christian faith and knowing God. The approval of contraception from the majority of the church has some serious implications on how we as the church understand God’s sovereignty. As R.C. Sproul has said, “if God is not sovereign, [then] God is not God.” A proper understanding of God’s design for sex, marriage, and family gives us more insight into His sovereignty and His love and can cultivate a deeper relationship with Him. Therefore, Christians must believe the practice of contraception is contrary to God’s design for sex, marriage, and family and must be rejected in order to pursue holiness.

The issue of contraception is one of the most important yet ignored issues of the Christian faith. From the dawn of the early church until around 1930, the church at large has condemned its practice in all forms, whether by medicinal methods or by natural methods like the rhythm method or natural family planning (NFP). In 1930, the Anglican Church officially recognized the use of contraception under some circumstances in the Lambeth Conference. A year later, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the Federal Council of Churches, an ecumenical body that included Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Church of the Brethren denominations, made statements that defended limiting the family and advocated for the repeal of laws that restricted the use of contraception, particularly the Comstock Laws that prohibited the buying or selling of contraception, pornography, or other “lewd materials” (Carlson).

Though the church has always rejected this practice, it still had been a struggle and discussion within the church. Many church fathers and theologians commented on this issue because of how prevalent it is in every culture and how many secular ideas entered the church. Contraception in some form has been used since ancient times and it is seen throughout Scripture as an unholy practice of which God does not approve, as will be proven in the confirmation section. The purpose of this paper is to prove how important the issue of contraception is in the family life of a Christian and the consequences of accepting such a practice as it has some serious implications for the Christian’s view of God’s sovereignty and His role in the conception of children.

To help understand this thesis, four terms must be defined. “Contraception” can be defined as the deliberate use of any method, whether artificial or natural means such as natural family planning, or any sexual act that prevents the conception of a covenant child. There are several references to “covenant children” in this paper. By this, I mean children who are born to Christian parents and are therefore participants in the covenant of Grace God has made with His people. An abortifacient is chiefly a drug that causes abortions (Merriam-Webster). God’s design for sex, marriage, and family is couples be fruitful and multiply that they may produce covenant children and raise more disciples of Christ, who will live to glorify God. This idea will be expounded upon in the confirmation. Finally, the idea of pursuing holiness means the Christian will grow in his or her understanding of God and His holiness, seek to become more like Him, and to glorify Him through his or her marriage and family life.

In order to prove contraception is contrary to God’s design and must be rejected by the Christian, I will confirm three arguments: Most medical contraceptive methods are abortifacients and are therefore, murderous; using contraception denies God’s sovereignty over everything, including fertility; and Christians throughout the ages have universally condemned this practice. I will then refute three counterarguments: If God is truly sovereign, He will override any attempt at avoiding conception if it is His will for a child to be conceived; sex in marriage can be good for unity and strengthening the marriage bond regardless of whether it is procreative or not; and whether a couple decides to use contraceptive methods is really a matter of Christian liberty and is not explicitly condemned in Scripture.

My first confirmation argument is most medical contraceptives are abortifacients and are therefore, muderous. These must be rejected as a legitimate method of family planning. The church has unfortunately accepted these methods. The common birth control methods generally approved of by Christians must be examined. Most Christians who have studied science and read the Bible about what God says about abortion would agree abortion is murder and therefore wrong. These Christians would agree a human life begins at conception. Most Christians, however, don’t understand how most contraceptives work and how secular culture has even redefined “pregnancy” and “conception.” Contraceptives such as “the pill,” the patch, the ring, IUDs, depo-provera shots, and emergency contraception such as ella and Plan B, can cause a very early abortion by prohibiting an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining (Pasquale and Cadoff).

All the contraceptives just mentioned except for the IUD combine the hormones estrogen and progestin. The combination of these two is meant to serve two primary purposes: to prevent ovulation, stopping an egg from releasing into the fallopian tubes, and also to thicken cervical mucus, which changes throughout the woman’s cycle and affects sperm’s ability to get through the cervix to fertilize an egg. These are the primary means used in the pill to prevent a pregnancy. However, there is a third method if the other two fail. The progestin interacts with the endometrium lining, making it a thinner, more hostile environment for an embryo to implant. All advocates of this kind of contraception will say it’s really not a baby until implantation. This completely redefines what a pregnancy is and when conception is. To be pro-life, you cannot argue a life begins at implantation and not at conception. It’s intellectually dishonest as the so-called “cluster of cells” formed at the time of conception is completely distinct with all 23 chromosomes he or she will have for life and is scientifically and biologically a distinct entity from the mother. There are disturbing statistics of how many abortions occur every year. These don’t even account for the possible millions of unintended abortions due to these contraceptive methods. IUDs work a little differently. Many of them release copper into the uterus working as a spermicide as well as release progestin into the uterus to thicken cervical mucus and interfere with the balance of hormones in the endometrium lining (Pasquale and Cadoff). The synthetic progestin hormones interacting with the natural balance of progesterone in the body causes the endometrium to be an inhospitable environment for the implantation of an embryo, which is a serious ethical problem. This means an already-conceived child is potentially dying due to the inability to implant and receive nutrients from the mother. If you are truly pro-life, it is intellectually dishonest to approve of these methods as they act in a way that is entirely contrary to the pro-life position.

My second confirmation argument is the practice of contraception denies God’s sovereignty over everything, including fertility. It is clear in Scripture sex is designed to be practiced within the covenant of marriage. This is so children can be raised in a stable environment in a family. Sex was designed by God to create covenant children. This is made clear in Scripture. His desire for His followers is to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28, 9:1). This is not a mere blessing, it is a command. Imperatives in the Hebrew Bible are only expressed as requests or desire when an inferior is speaking to a superior. However in the Hebrew language, if a superior is talking to an inferior as God was talking to Adam and Eve, it is always a command (Hodge 129). This command is given explicitly and directly to couples joined together in marriage by God since creation. This is repeated twice: not only before the Fall to Adam and Eve, but post-flood to Noah and His sons also (Gen. 9:1). Therefore, to purposefully go against God’s created order and primary use of sex when He has given this great command is abominable.

It is important to note God throughout Scripture gives children as a blessing to those whom He favors. He opens Rachel’s womb in Genesis 30:22. The same language is also used when referring to Leah in God’s work in giving her children in Genesis 29:31. Samuel’s mother Hannah dealt with infertility and begged God for a child. God gave heed to her prayer and gave her Samuel. Lot’s daughters slept with their father in order to bear sons after fleeing Sodom. This was obviously a sinful act and God did not favor it, however we see with all of these women children were something to be desired and sought after. God’s people desired children, which was not a common attitude in the world around them. The pagan Babylonians at the time intentionally avoided conceiving and practiced forms of contraception in forms of herbs and potions, coitus interruptus, or the rhythm method (Hodge 53-80). It is important to understand this radical attitude of God’s people. Though stories like Lot’s daughters teach us a lesson of what not to do and show us a horrible way to go about having children, we understand how important it was they procreate and follow God’s command.

One of the most famous stories regarding sexual ethics in the Bible is the story of Onan. In Genesis 38, Onan’s brother Er is put to death because he is evil in the sight of Jehovah, and because his brother had no heir, Onan had to go into his sister-in-law and produce an heir for his brother. The narrative tells us he did this, but he “wasted his seed” on the ground, a term commonly been known to mean coitus interruptus. This was so grievous to God He struck Onan dead. This is not because of what he didn’t do (give an heir to his brother) but what he did do (waste his seed). Genesis 38:10 says, “But it was evil in the eyes of Jehovah, that which he did, so He put him to death as well.” Brian Harrison, head of the Theology department in the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, comments this about Onan’s sin: “If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, his only offense, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act.” He continues to say when a marital, lawful sexual act takes place in Scripture, in English it is always translated to “going into” one’s wife or “knowing” one’s spouse. However, more explicit terms like “lying with” or “uncovering nakedness” and especially this explicit act described indicates something illicit and sinful. This is also proven in a clear reading of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 that the punishment for not fulfilling the law under this circumstance is not death, but for the woman and the man to go before the elders, the woman will pull off his sandal and spit in his face (v9). Therefore the sin of Onan has to do particularly with the contraceptive act, not just failing to give an heir to his brother.

Leviticus 18 is a portion of OT moral law that lays out a list of sexual sins God finds detestable. Some of these things include incestuous relationships, sleeping with a woman and her daughter, sleeping with a woman during her menstrual period, sleeping with your neighbor’s wife, homosexual activity, and bestiality to name a few. Most Christians would agree these things are unnatural relations that go against God’s created order in Eden, but many Christians don’t think about why they are unnatural. It is impossible for two men to reproduce. It is impossible for a man to reproduce with an animal. It is unlikely for a woman to conceive while on her period (something people in this time period would do to prevent conception). Incest is not healthy and can produce genetic problems for a child as a product of these relationships. These sins have one thing in common: it is impossible or nearly impossible to procreate. Other sins mentioned such as sleeping with a woman and her daughter or sleeping with your neighbor’s wife also contradict God’s design for marriage. It is possible to conceive a child in these acts, however it is not within the marriage covenant God designed. We can discern God, therefore, desires his children to have sex for the purpose of having and raising children born into the Covenant in the fear of the Lord, with all of the other benefits of sex such as pleasure and unity coming second to this purpose. More disciples of Christ are potentially created in the birth of children.

These sentiments are echoed in the NT in Paul’s condemnation of homosexual activity and unnatural relations with women in Romans 1. Paul’s description of homosexuality is the two combined words “male” and “bed.” The word for this is arsenokoites. These descriptions were used in the Old Testament and were echoed by Paul in the New Testament. If Paul’s words are to be believed and homosexuality is still unnatural as it doesn’t produce children and is a waste of semen as Onan’s sin was, then it logically follows this is unnatural because it is not fulfilling the primary purpose of sex and is wrong because of that. Therefore, for Christians to believe homosexuality and all these other unnatural sins are wrong yet to affirm the practice of contraception is illogical.

All true Christians agree on the concept God is sovereign. However, the attitude toward acceptance of birth control, whether intentionally or unintentionally, implies God is sovereign over all, except over one’s fertility. The miracle of conception is seen as a purely naturalistic event. It is seen as an ability God has given to humans but one He is not actively involved in. This is simply a form of Christianized deism. No Christian would argue God is not actively involved in His creation, so why would one believe He is not sovereign and involved in this act He created for those who bear His image to produce more image bearers? God designed this earth and designed human beings especially so specifically it requires the presence of an Almighty God to create and sustain this complex life. We see all throughout Scripture God supernaturally intervenes in this natural process He has created and given to man. In Psalm 139:16, we see God sees our unformed substance and in His book were all written the days ordained for us. God knew people before they were born or conceived. Verse 13 says, “For you formed my inward parts; You wove me together in my mother’s womb.” Job also says in Job 10:10-11, “Did You not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese; clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews….” This verse is a poetic representation of the reproductive act: the term milk being semen and curdling like cheese meaning the joining to an egg to form a solid substance (Henry). This is a description of the Almighty God forming a child in the womb. God knows us before we even come into existence. One cannot read the Bible and deny God is sovereign over everything, including the formation of children in the womb. All people that come into existence have a purpose, as we see throughout Romans 9 as Paul talks about all those in Scripture whom God has raised up for His eternal purpose and to show His glory first and foremost such as Pharaoh, and Jacob and Esau. All of these people, whether good or bad, were part of God’s plan.

We also see in the stories of Rachel, Leah, Hannah, Sarah, Rebekah, and many other women in the Bible the language of the Lord “opening her womb” is used. To be faithful to the text, this should be interpreted literally. They still participated in the sexual act to conceive a child, but it was God that had to make the environment possible for them to conceive. It was considered a blessing from the Lord. For every one of her children except for Levi, Leah recognized those children were from the Lord. She says after the birth of Judah “this time I will praise the Lord” (Genesis 29:30). This was different from her response to Levi, in which she turned the glory on herself and said Jacob would now love her because she had born him three sons (v34). Rachel was barren for a long time, and seeing Leah had sons, she was upset. She told Jacob to give her children lest she die (30:1). Jacob rebuked her saying, “Am I in the place of God who has withheld you the fruit of the womb?” Jacob was angry at Rachel for not giving this credit to God and assuming it was Jacob’s fault. Part of the purpose of these stories is to show it is God that gives us children. These children are merely entrusted to us by God: “Children are a heritage of the Lord, offspring a reward from Him” (Psalm 127:3-5). This includes all children, both good and bad. Jesus died for all people without distinction. This means He died even for children who are awful or who grow up to be criminals. We cannot know what God has planned for any person who is born into this world, but we can trust that in all things, God will be glorified, “for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:36).

All things are under His dominion and belong to Him, therefore it is not our place as people to decide how many children we should have. That is not our responsibility. It is the Lord who gives and takes away. If Christians truly believe in God’s sovereignty and faithfully exegete these passages in context, then there is no need to plan what children to have and when. The blessing of children are dependent upon the Lord. Intentionally using contraceptive measures to ensure a child cannot come into the world is something the church for centuries condemned as something worse than murder, as will be discussed in my final confirmation argument.

My third confirmation argument is Christians throughout the ages have universally condemned this practice. This argument is one from the historic Christian church, from its conception to approximately 1930. In 1930, the Anglican church was the first protestant church to approve of the use of contraception. They allowed sex merely for the sole purpose of pleasure with no other purpose behind it as God intended. God designed sex to be pleasurable, but that is not its only purpose. The primary concern for couples is to please God by allowing the act to be procreative. To use sex for oneself and one’s own pleasure without the desire to please God by following His commands is hedonistic and wrong. Many other protestants followed suit in this hedonism. They argue there is no explicit Biblical condemnation of contraception. This is not valid. The Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn many things. The word pedophilia is not specifically used in Scripture, but no Christian would make the argument it is not condemned in Scripture implicitly. The church for centuries until the Lambeth Conference in 1930 universally condemned contraception. These people include preachers, teachers, and influential Christians, celibate and married alike such as Augustine, John Calvin, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, David J. Engelsma, The Synod of Dort, Matthew Henry, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Knox, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, John Owen, John Wesley, the Westminster Divines (writers of the Westminster Standards in the 1640s), and many more (Hodge 35-38). This is not to say doctrine is decided by humans or the majority rules on morality. The issue at hand is implicitly talked about throughout Scripture. Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura. This does not mean the church should not learn from the teachings and confessions of the Christian church derived from Scripture alone. These faithful teachers of the Word have studied and have come to the same conclusion: contraception is wrong. Doctrinal unity throughout the ages shows faithfulness to the Word of God and the true Christian faith. There is and always has been division over certain doctrinal matters in the church, however, this was never one of them until recently. It is important for the church today to learn from its past and from faithful teachers of Scripture. All of the Christians previously mentioned have spoken in their works about the topic of contraception and all have come to the same conclusion: preventing a covenant child from coming into the world is wrong. Early church father John Chrysostom said,

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before conception? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. … Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His [natural] laws? … Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men — even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks….”

The point of Chrysostom is these parents are showing hate to their child God is planning to give them by making attempts to thwart His plan and never allowing that life to exist. So many children are not conceived every year due to the wide use of contraceptives. John Calvin said this in His Institutes:

We are not our own: therefore, neither our reason nor our will should dominate our plans and actions. We are not our own: therefore, let us not make the gratification of our flesh our end. We are not out own: therefore, as much as possible, let us forget ourselves and our own interests.

Rather we are God’s. Therefore, let us live and die to Him. We are God’s. Therefore, let His wisdom and His will govern all our actions. We are God’s, therefore, let us — in every way in all our lives — run to Him as our only proper end.”

This means everything we are belongs to God. Our lives, our bodies, and our spirits are His. Relying on His Holiness and sovereignty should be our aim in all of life and in our fertility. We should not aim to fulfill our hedonistic passions and use this gift solely for pleasure, a great secondary benefit God has given, but not His intended primary purpose (possibility of procreation). But as Calvin says, may we seek the Lord and run to Him as our only proper end.

The first counterargument I will refute is if God is truly sovereign, He will override any attempt at avoiding conception if it is His will for a child to be conceived. Nothing can stand in the way of His purposes, therefore, it is appropriate to plan and use caution but also to trust His judgment and know He can override your plans. This line of reasoning sounds reasonable and even holy in some ways. Many protestants hold to this view. However, it is a skewed interpretation of God’s sovereignty, His will, and requires a skewed view of God’s design for sex. I have already discussed in my confirmation God’s design for sex is not exclusively for pleasure without the procreative aspect. This idea comes not from the Bible, but from the naturalistic view God is not actively involved in the creation of children in the womb and conception is solely a human ability. This idea is also not from Scripture but comes from naturalistic philosophies that have crept into the church since its infancy. With a closer examination of Scripture, it is clear this argument has too many holes.

Both sides of the argument share the presupposition God is sovereign. The pro contraception side, however, misunderstands the meaning of God’s sovereignty and His will for His people. God’s efficacious will shows His overarching rule and dominion over all things. Everything that occurs falls under God’s efficacious will. For example, it was God’s efficacious will for Joseph to be sold into slavery by His brothers, mistreated, interpret the Pharaoh’s dream, be given power, and eventually save the lives of his brothers during the famine. However, for Joseph to be mistreated and sold into slavery was not something God directly caused. The sinful acts that took place on the part of Joseph’s brothers that brought about God’s efficacious will fell under God’s permissive will. He was not the direct cause of the sin but used it to fulfill His purposes. The same can be said about Job. God was not the cause of the torture Job went through, He allowed Satan to torture Job under His permissive will. God could have divinely intervened in both cases but chose not to and used man’s sin for His ultimate purpose and for His own glory. This does not mean it is morally acceptable to use God’s sovereignty as an excuse for disobedience. God can use our mistakes for good, but is that a good excuse to continue to sin and shun what God desires of us? This is a similar line of reasoning Paul warned the church in Rome about on the topic of grace. Romans 6:1-2 says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Just as Christians may not continue to sin and rely on God’s grace, so Christians should not sin by ignoring God’s clear design and relying on His “sovereignty,” meaning He will override our sin if need be. This is not what God would have us believe about Him. We should look at God’s sovereignty as a beautiful thing and as believers, seek to act within His will.

The second counterargument I will refute is sex within marriage can be good for unity and strengthening the marriage bond regardless of whether it is procreative or not. Greg Parsons makes the argument in his article, “Guidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs,” since no children are mentioned in Song of Songs, he argues, then it is acceptable to have sex for only pleasure’s sake. This argument essentially presents an either/or statement: Either you can have sex for procreation OR you can have sex for pleasure. This is a false dichotomy. These two ideas are not contradictory to one another. God created sex for the purpose of conceiving children AND God created sex to be pleasurable.

There are seasons in life in which couples are infertile, miscarriages occur, or women hit menopause and are past their childbearing years. God allows the first two to happen under His permissive will. It is difficult to understand why God would allow such terrible things to happen, but Scripture says all things work together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28) and God uses evil for our good (Genesis 50:20). This does not mean that during these times, the primary purpose of sex should be overlooked. God can open the womb of the infertile as He did with Hannah and Scripture also tells us God is near to the broken hearted and saves such as have a contrite spirit (Psalm 34:18) as most will have when a tragedy like a miscarriage occurs. Sex should still be had in a manner that would allow for the conception of a child. As for women past the age of childbearing, sex should still be had in a manner that glorifies God with our bodies. God opened the wombs of Sarah and Elizabeth when they were too old to have children. God can still intervene and work His will in creating covenant children even in women who are post menopausal. He most likely will not, as these women were exceptions, however it is good to have sex during this time because there are secondary benefits to be had such as pleasure and unity. Even in these times, it is a both/and event. The act must allow for procreation and is pleasurable and unifying simultaneously.

The argument sex is good in and of itself for pleasure and unity regardless of whether or not it is procreative is also a fantastic argument in favor of homosexual relationships. Most Protestant Christians who have studied Scripture all agree the Bible condemns homosexuality as it condemns many other sexual sins. In the confirmation section of this paper, the sins described in Leviticus 18 were discussed, of which homosexuality was one. When considering the question why homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, the unanimous response of Christians polled is twofold: first, it is not “intuitive” meaning the sexual organs of men are not made for one another nor are the sexual organs of women made for one another. Rather, they are made for the opposite sex. “Sex makes sense” when it is with the opposite, whereas it “doesn’t make sense” when with the same sex. Second, homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore a purpose of sex is removed from the act. Why does God institute marriage? His institution of marriage in Eden was to be fruitful and multiply. He created male and female in His image to reproduce so more bearers of His image could be conceived. The argument being made requires us to ask the question, “do homosexuals experience unity and pleasure in the sexual act?” The answer to that is “yes.” That act produces the same dopamine release and provides the same feelings as heterosexual acts. If God approves of sex within marriage for pleasure’s purposes regardless of whether or not conception could occur is essentially another application of the idea “God wants me to be happy.” If God just wants us to be happy, and homosexuals are happy in their relationship, then according to this logic homosexuality would be an acceptable method of expression. True Christians know our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever, borrowing from the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. His purposes for us is not that we be happy, but to worship Him as He is worthy of all our worship (Revelation 5:12). Making this argument is essentially making an argument in favor of any sexual sin one may wish.

The Bible is clear regarding God’s purpose for sex within marriage: God desires children to be brought forth as He wills (Genesis 1:28, 9:1) because they belong to Him and are a heritage from Him (Psalm 127:3). God is also clear about His disdain for sexual immorality throughout the Bible. The term used in the OT was zanah and the Koine Greek NT word used was porneia. Understanding the meaning of porneia in the NT strengthens the argument practicing contraception is sinful and refutes the argument the Bible does not speak to this issue.

The third counterargument I will refute states whether a couple decides to use contraceptive methods is really a matter of Christian liberty and is not explicitly condemned in Scripture. In order to refute this argument, it is important to understand the meaning of the term porneia. It is used throughout the NT, especially in Paul’s letters when referring to the broad idea of “sexual immorality.” Postmodern Christians popularly interpret that term as sex before marriage or sex outside of marriage. While sex was created to be practiced within the covenant of marriage and it is wrong to violate that principle, that is not exclusively what Paul is speaking about here (Hodge). The term was much broader than just sex outside of marriage. It translated more literally to “the misuse of the sexual act.” Throughout the NT specific sexual sins like sex outside of marriage, which is a form of adultery, are distinguished by using the word moicheia such as in Matthew 15:19 where Jesus specifies the sexual sin of adultery instead of using the more broad word porneia. From this, we see there is more to porneia than just pre-marital/adulterous sex. In Acts 15:20-29, the council at Jerusalem concludes the Gentiles must abstain from porneia. The Gentiles were not uncivilized. They had laws regarding adulterous affairs and other types of fornication. However, the new Gentile Christians were told to abstain from porneia indicating there were things the Jews saw as sexually immoral but the Gentiles did not. The verb form of porneia used is porneuo as found in Jude v7. Jude v6-8 describe angels having sex with human women (v6), sodomy (v7), and masturbation or coitus interruptus (v8). In this context we see three different distortions of the sexual act. Therefore, it is clear the Bible does distinguish different sexual sins.

There is also another word used in Scripture: pharmakeia or pharmakos, meaning “potion making” and “potion maker.” These words speak directly to the contraception issue at hand. Pharmakeia is often translated to “sorcerer” in the NT (Gal. 5:20, Rev. 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15). We think of sorcerers in terms of witchcraft, but these sorcerers were usually people who created potions of many sorts, including ones used to avoid conception. These potion makers also knew incantations and spells and used amulets and trinkets to cause infertility (Hodge 91). Scripture has a low view of these people as the potions and herbs they used were not made to preserve life like healing drugs (which are good) are, they are used to prevent it. Revelation 18 talks about Babylon the Great. It is said all the nations partake in her porneia (sexual immorality). However in 18:23, the apostle John switches and uses the word pharmakeia. In 21:8 and 22:15, the writer alternates between using the words porneia and pharmakeia indicating practicing one leads to the practice of the other (Hodge 92-93). The arguments from the Greek against sexual immorality, the distortion of the sexual act, and the use of these “potions” are condemned in the New Testament.

Those who argue the Bible does not speak explicitly to the issue of contraception are correct. The Bible does not explicitly speak to the issue. The Bible doesn’t do this because the Jews and the early church would have shared the same presuppositions about contraceptive measures. Whereas the Bible never explicitly condemns the practice, God’s attitude toward conception and children and family is made known and His people shared the same idea the family was important and central to society. The idea family is not the central sphere of society is a Postmodern idea that has infiltrated the church.

Now that it is proven the Bible does speak to this topic if not explicitly, then implicitly, we must discuss the idea of “Christian liberty.” The idea of this liberty comes from Romans 14-15, in which Paul states certain things a stronger brother in Christ can do in good conscience the weaker brother cannot. This includes drinking wine or eating meat sacrificed to idols. The point is the weaker brother should not be judged for these differences. Postmodern Christians, however, read moral implications into this passage in order to support their eisegesis.

First, Paul is not speaking in terms of moral absolutes. He is speaking in terms of Jew-Gentile relations. Many Jews had convictions about eating and drinking things deemed unclean. Paul says in 14:14, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” This is not talking about moral relativity, but aspects of the law Gentiles did not feel the need to follow but Jews did. Paul tells both parties not to condemn one another for these convictions, because Christ has set us free. This concept of freedom Paul talks about comes from Isaiah 61:1, in which Isaiah says the Lord has anointed Him to “proclaim liberty to the captives.” The word “liberty” in this context refers back to the concept of the Year of Jubilee, in which the people rested from their labor, captives were freed, and debts were dropped. The final Jubilee Year was inaugurated by Christ’s coming, in which He set His people free from and paid our debt for our sin. The freedom we have in Christ is not freedom to do as we please, but freedom from the Law of works and the bondage of sin. We are now under Grace and are not in bondage to the Law in working for our Salvation. It has already been accomplished. This is what Paul is talking about: freedom in Christ in dealing with Jew-Gentile relations, not freedom to accept situational ethics/moral relativity.

The Apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:16, to live “as free [men], and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” We are not called to use the freedom we have from sin to please ourselves, rather our lives must reflect God and what He has done for us. This does not mean we can never take pleasure in anything. In fact we should have joy because Christ has given us joy in salvation. However, there can be no argument made for Christian liberty in the contraception debate. God has not given us freedom to deny His Sovereignty and combat His design, both of which are grievous sins. These sexual morals are objective, not subjective, and no matter of “Christian liberty.” In order to make the argument, one would have to argue OT Laws echoed in the NT allow for such a practice, which has already been disproven. It is clear through multiple passages on children and family and the stories of many couples God had blessed with children and descendants all throughout Scripture there is simply no justification for this practice. Everything in Scripture relating to this points to the fact God does not approve of the practice of contraception.

Christians must avoid this sexual sin. I urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to pray about this important issue and take a second look at the thought process used to justify the practice of contraception. Examine the history, the motives, and the character of its advocates and the movement. The church has been involved in this secular practice far too long. It is time to stop! It is time to stop ignoring God’s design for marriage. It is time to stop using sex for selfish motives instead of using it to glorify God as He commands. It is time to stop participating in a practice that is not in any way Christian nor does it demonstrate God’s love for His children. Rather, it is time to think about sex as something sacred and good because God uses it to create covenant children, people with a purpose in His sovereign plan, and potentially, more followers of Christ who will grow up to do great things for the Kingdom of God. It is time to look not to our own interests but each of us to the interest of others (Phil. 2:4). This includes the interests of those unborn children who we may not know, but whom God knows intimately and is waiting to form together in the womb that they may glorify and enjoy Him forever.

Works Cited

BBC Ethics. “Moral Case Against Contraception,” BBC Ethics, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/against_l.shtml.

Calvin, Jean. A Little Book on the Christian Life. Edited and Translated by Aaron C. Denlinger and Burk Parsons. Reformation Trust Publishing, A Division of Ligonier Ministries, 2017.

Carlson, Allan, “History of Contraception in the Protestant Church.” Family Policy, 1999, rpt. in www.bound4life.com/history-of-contraception-in-the-protestant-church/.

Carlson, Allan, Godly Seed: American Evangelicals Confront Birth Control, 1873-1973., Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Carlson, Allan. Interview by E.J. Hutchinson. The Calvinist International, 29 May 2013, https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/05/29/carlson-interview/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2017.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on Job 10, https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Job/Job_010.cfm. Accessed 24 Jan. 2018.

Hodge, Bryan C., The Christian Case Against Contraception. Wipf and Stock publishers, 2010.

House, H. Wayne, “Should Christians Use Birth Control?” Christian Research Institute, 2009. www.equip.org/article/should-christians-use-birth-control/.

Pasquale, Samuel A., and Jennifer Cadoff. The Birth Control Book: a Complete Guide to Your Contraceptive Options. Ballantine Books, 1996.

Sproul, R.C. “God’s Sovereignty.” Chosen By God Lecture series, Ligonier Ministries, 1986.

Biblical Womanhood

Leave a reply

Madison Coffey

Imagine a gift so precious you cannot put a price tag on it. Its price is far above jewels: a blessing from God bestowed on a father and mother; a soul to love, raise, nurture and guide. What a responsibility! What an honor. That is what the gift of a child is. As stated in Psalm 127:3, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” I will tell you about a woman named Carolynn. Carolynn worked very hard from the time she was in elementary school. Her parents have always taught her to work hard, study hard, and keep her grades up as high as she could by herself so she could learn and strengthen these skills for when she needed them in her future, like in college and any career path she might take. Carolynn was thankful for her parents’ direction; she grew up getting straight As every year. She grew up, and graduated valedictorian, with great honor. Carolynn went to college to be a surgeon, and while she was there she met her husband. Before long, she and her husband had a beautiful baby girl. But once she had her daughter, she realized she really wanted to stay home with her and help nurture her baby and be there for every step and every milestone she would hit throughout her life. Her husband is also a surgeon, so both of their incomes are more than enough for the three of them. Carolynn has the choice: she could quit her job and raise her daughter, or she could continue working and have hardly any relationship with her child and hire a nanny to raise her for her. If she chose this she would not know very much about her daughter; the nanny would potentially have to inform Carolynn of her child’s likes/dislikes. She could miss so many important milestones of her child’s life while never being there to raise her. Carolynn would come home at night to tell her daughter goodnight but nothing more. I believe, although Carolynn has worked so hard to get where she is today in her career, she should stay home to raise her daughter. She is financially able to and she’s not choosing her job over her child. Choosing your job over staying home to care for your family, I believe, is against God’s will.

My thesis is women should not give up their God-given roles as a wife/mother, if given the choice. I will first give a brief history of when women in America began to leave their traditional Biblical roles to help us understand why this issue is prevalent today. Before the Civil War, women lived the lives I would say reflected how God preferred them to live. Women would stay at home to take care of their children and perform household chores, while the men were generally the ones working out in the workforce to maintain a steady income for the family. This soon began to change after the Civil War; the role of women was now the opposite. Women began to fight for working rights, and they wanted to gain a sense of political and even economic working freedom. They felt more freedom because they were doing work men did. A major shift in the workforce around this time occurred. African-American women became a very important part of the labor force. They needed to earn a steady income after they were freed from slavery. Middle class white women also began to enter the workforce. While many husbands left America to fight in WW2, the women had to go out and find themselves jobs in the workforce in order to adequately provide for their entire family. This gave women their first taste of independence because they were doing what men usually did, but this feeling ended when the men returned from World War II. The men came home and wanted to get their jobs back, which meant the women would lose their jobs and return to the more feminine jobs. This history didn’t end with World War II.

Women’s lives were changed giving them an opportunity to not be given the label of a regular housewife. Around the 1960s and ’70s, a feminist movement started to peak. There were two waves the movement focused on. The movement began, in a way, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in the 19^th century, culminating in 1920, when women won the right to vote with the 19^th Amendment. This renewed feminist movement in the ’60s started to touch on every area of a woman’s experience of life, including family, sexuality, and work. It focused on taking apart workplace inequality, such as the denial of certain jobs that were better and had a higher salary than jobs women could get. In 1964, a Representative of Virginia named Howard Smith proposed to add a prohibition of gender discrimination into the Civil Right Act being considered at the time. The Congressmen mocked him, but the law was later passed with the amendment act, from a Representative of Michigan named Martha Griffiths (Tavanna). The most recent event we have seen reflecting the history of women entering the workforce was the 2016 presidential election, when Hilary Clinton came close to becoming the first woman President of the United States of America (Burkett).

To better help us all understand the issue and its importance, I will now define the term “main provider.” “Provider” in Merriam Webster’s dictionary means “One that Provides; especially breadwinner.” The term “breadwinner” according to Webster’s dictionary is “A member of a family whose wages supply its livelihood.” My third term I want to explain is “Helpmeet.” In Hebrew, “helpmeet” is derived from the word Ezer. Ezer, which is commonly translated as “help,” is a combination of two roots, one meaning “to rescue,” “to save,” and the other meaning “to be strong.” Just as the roots merged into one word, so did their meanings. The word “helpmeet” is seen in Genesis 2:18 in the KJV version: “ It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

A suitable wife is compatible with her husband in many respects — physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. This doesn’t mean the man and woman are the same in everything, only that they fit together in harmony. They complement each other. This issue is important because women today who strive for the historical norm to be stay-at-home wives/mothers are looked down upon. But the most important thing to understand is this is how women were ordained to be by God. This can be seen in Proverbs 31:10. God says the worth of an excellent wife is far above jewels. “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.” In Titus 2:3-5, Paul firmly counsels the older women to teach the younger women, among other things, “to love their husbands and children, … to be busy at home.”

In order to prove women should not give up their God-given roles to be a wife/mother if given the choice, I will confirm three arguments: first, Proverbs 31 is a good basis for how women can glorify God; second, God’s original intention for the creation of woman was to be the man’s helpmeet as read in Genesis 2:1; third, a mother’s role in the lives of her children is crucial in a child’s development. I will then refute three counterarguments: 1) How wanting to be a wife and a mother is unrealistic. 2) When God wrote about how He wanted a woman to live her life, He was referring to that day and age. This is the 21^st century, things have changed. 3) What if God doesn’t call me to be a wife or mother?

My first confirmation argument is God gives us a biblical example and definitions of what a woman should strive to be like and things she should try to accomplish. In Proverbs 31:10-31, God details the attributes of a virtuous wife/mother or ideal woman. I do realize no human being is perfect and we could never be the perfect wife and mother, but God does detail what a mother and wife should strive to look like and do in order to glorify Him. This passage begins by talking about virtue: the first line in verse 10 tells women they are precious and worthwhile. Verses 11-12 state the wife has the heart of her husband entrusted in her hand and she will do him good for the rest of her life. This means the husband trusts his wife to never commit adultery against him. He trusts her with his heart. Verse 15 goes more into the mother’s role: “She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.” This verse specifically talks about how God expects the woman to wake up early in the morning even just to make food and feed her family. In verse 23, God says a woman’s husband should be known in the gates when he sitteth among the elders of the land. The husband is respected among the elders because of her reputation. In verse 24-25, “She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.” God says the wife should want to learn how to make fine linen and sell it, and she should have strength and honor to present herself every day. This relates to my argument because this was part of the way the wife actually contributed to helping make money with her husband, while being at home and still able to take care of her family’s needs. In verse 28, God says her children will rise up and call her blessed, and her husband also, and he praiseth her. A woman cannot achieve these attributes when she is away from her family. From this passage in the Bible, you can tell God really desires women be at home and helping their families, as opposed to how some families are today in which mothers don’t even have time to take care of their families because they choose to work rather than being home when they didn’t have to be. This does not apply if working is a necessity rather than a luxury or choice.

My second confirmation is God’s original intention for the creation of a woman was to be a man’s helpmeet. Genesis 2:18 says, “And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him a helpmeet for him.’” There you have it. God created the woman to be a helper to the man. The reason Eve was formed was to complete Adam. She was made uniquely suited to complement/fulfill his needs. Eve was not designed to be like Adam, she was designed to be the opposite of what he was. Eve possessed all of the qualities Adam did not have, including the different responsibilities he couldn’t complete. While women do much to help and assist men in their stewardship, women have been given a stewardship uniquely theirs, which is every bit as important as men’s stewardship. It’s important to understand the purpose of God creating us was to be the helpmeet of a man.

My third confirmation is being a stay-at-home mom affects a child’s ability to function throughout his or her life. Home is where bonding takes place. When a child attaches, that child can learn to trust people. Learning to trust people is essential for having healthy and successful relationships in life. The home is where the child learns who he or she is. We are all created uniquely by God, including our spiritual gifts and talents. The most effective place for children to learn is in the home. It’s important that a child’s mother is always available to the child. In Erica Kromisar’s book Being There, she gives scientific evidence that demonstrates how important it is mothers be with their children and be the caretakers of their children, especially in the first three years of life. Komisar writes, “Babies are much more neurologically fragile than we’ve ever understood.” She cites the research of a neuroscientist named Nim Tottenham from Columbia University: “‘that babies are born without a central nervous system’ and ‘mothers are the central nervous system to babies,’ especially for the first nine months after birth.” You might wonder what exactly this means, as did I. Komisar explains, “Every time a mother comforts a baby in distress, she’s actually regulating that baby’s emotions from the outside in. After three years, the baby internalizes that ability to regulate their emotions, but not until then.” So we can conclude a baby’s very neurological health depends on the continual connection with the mom for 3 years, which can’t happen if the mom leaves the home. And as Komisar tells us, this happens in the course of a mother being with her child. Every time she comforts the baby, the baby’s own central nervous system is actually not just being comforted but being developed (Taranto). Motherhood is a ministry of availability. If we are going to make the important decision to have a child, then we should make sure we follow through with the commitments and the obligations that go along with having and raising a child.

The first counterargument I will refute says, “wanting to be a wife and a mother is unrealistic.” Some people say it’s a selfish goal. Some wouldn’t even consider wanting to be a wife or mother a goal at all. I argue wanting to be a wife and mother is not a selfish goal at all. If this goal is what my God has put on my heart to pursue, then that reason alone is enough to show it isn’t selfish. But a bigger reason is the fact people think women who are wives and mothers JUST sit around all day and cook and maybe clean the house, but that is nowhere near all that they do. She JUST brings forth life into the universe, and she JUST shapes and molds and raises those lives. She JUST manages, directs, and maintains the workings of the household, while caring for children who JUST rely on her for everything. She JUST teaches her children how to be human beings, and, as they grow, she will JUST train them in all things, from morals, to manners, to the ABCs.

I have to go through people giving me a disappointed look or tone all the time when I actually tell them what I want to do, every time someone asks me the classic questions everyone is obligated to ask a graduate, especially “What do you want to do when you graduate?” Usually my answers are exactly what people today want to hear: it usually sounds like, “Oh, I probably am going to college and start out majoring in graphic design and see where I go from there.” But really inside, I don’t want to go to college; I want to get married and maybe have a part-time job. But if I told people that, they would probably look at me like I’m the stupidest person on earth. Why? Usually they say, “Do you know what kind of world we live in today, Madi? You’re not being realistic, you have to go to college and get a good degree so you can be prepared because our economy is so bad and it’s only going to get worse. It isn’t today like how it was when God wrote that in that time of the Bible. Go to college and get a good paying job.” This leads to my second refutation point.

The second counterargument I will refute is the idea “Our society has changed, God wrote Proverbs 31 for women in that culture at that time. Society is different now; women have different roles than the did hundreds of years ago.” The first thing I will say to that is Malachi 3:6, “For I am the Lord, I change not.” Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not human, that he should not lie, not a human being that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he not promise and not fulfill?” Nowhere in those verses does it ever say anything like, “As times goes by and the cultures and society changes, then these things that I have listed about women will change and you will no longer have to try to strive to accomplish these things.” The world might change, but God does not change. God does not change His laws and beliefs to suit our ways.

This reminds me of an old story my grandfather used to tell me. There once was an older couple driving down the highway on their way to church, as they have every Sunday for the past 20 years of marriage. One Sunday morning, the couple pulled up beside another couple at a stop light; the older wife looked at the other couple in the car next to her. She turned away from them with a depressed and angry look on her face. Her husband noticed his wife was upset, so he said, “Sweetie, what is the matter, why do you seem upset with me all of a sudden?” His wife answered, “Don’t you remember how we used to sit so close to each other like that? We don’t anymore; we have changed.” Her husband looked at her while sitting in the driver’s seat and said, “I haven’t moved from where I’m sitting.” In this case, the husband represents God. The wife had drifted apart from her husband; in the end of the story she realizes she was the only one who could have moved, away from her husband. The same goes for Society and God: He never changes or moves, only we do.

The final argument I will refute is “What if God doesn’t call me to be a wife or mother?” I will respond with this simple answer: if God doesn’t call you to get married, then He is calling you to serve Him in another mission field. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8: “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.” Notice he says some have the gift of singleness and some the gift of marriage. Although it seems nearly everyone marries, I understand it is not necessarily God’s will for everyone. I’m speaking to those women who are being called by God to get married, and those women only. Anyone who isn’t being called to get married is being called to devote her entire life to spreading the Word of God.

The point I want to make clear is we all need to understand college isn’t for everyone. Do not be discouraged to live the Biblical life women once used to go by. God has called men to live a certain way; God has called women to live a certain way. There is no shame in living the way God has designed us to be. God has written down biblical roles a woman is to do her best to follow. Although none of us is perfect, we should do our best to follow how God wants us to live. We have to remember God is powerful enough to bless us if we live the way we are supposed to live, despite the “pressures” of economic circumstances today. God will enable us to live how we should regardless of how society thinks we need to live, no matter the “standard of living.” God would not tell us He wants us to be a certain way, and then not let us be able to just because the world has made it harder to do so. God never changes, and his purpose for man and woman has not changed either.

Works Cited

“The 1960s-70s American Feminist Movement: Breaking Down Barriers for Women.” Tavaana, tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women.

Burkett, Elinor. “Women’s Movement.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2 Aug. 2016, http://www.britannica.com/topic/womens-movement.

“Provider.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provider.

“Thursday, November 2, 2017 – The Briefing.” AlbertMohler.com, albertmohler.com/2017/11/02/briefing-11-02-17/.

Taranto, James. “The Politicization of Motherhood.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 27 Oct. 2017, http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politicization-of-motherhood-1509144044.

Redeeming Pandora

A Journal of Scholarship and Opinion

Category Archives: Issue 28

Drones in Warfare

Joanna Larson

Multi-Sport Athletes

Amanda Mericle

Language: Reflector of the Light of our Hearts

Golnar Beikzadeh

The Immorality of Capital Punishment

Tarah Leake

American Foster Care: A System in Need of Reform

Emma Kenney

Contravening Contraception

Ruth Grant

Biblical Womanhood

Madison Coffey