Long before the Daily Wire launched the infamous Leftist Tears tumbler, I was a loyal supporter, and I have no intention of withdrawing that support now.
Having been separated from the early Church and the natural law tradition, many Protestants have an ad hoc view of morality. For example, they will argue that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and yet simultaneously support IVF, not releasing that by replacing the unitive and procreative act of marriage with technology they have undermined their own position on marriage.
Accurate. I grew up protestant, and I'm a recent convert. The seminary I attended was evangelical but placed a heavy emphasis on natural law ethics, specifically Aristotelian/Thomism. During that time, IVF and contraception came up. Professors and students argued for contraception but against IVF, but outside the walls of the seminary, Pro-life Christians were getting IVF procedures done regularly. I found that many staunchly young earth biblical fundamentalists were very much pro-IVF. I learned that one pastor even asked for prayer from the whole congregation.
In short, these churches care more about the age of the earth than they do about the value of human life within the IVF and surrogacy industry.
I find it interesting that from a natural law perspective they would argue for contraception but against IVF because I would argue that both belong to the same moral genus. Contraception is intrinsically evil because it separates the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect. In other words it intentionally obstructs the telos of sex. Similarly, IVF replaces the act of sex entirely. Male and female simply provide the raw material needed for IVF to be possible. Anyway, I just found that interesting and I don’t think it’s a consistent position.
Agreed. But it makes sense when you think of Protestants as Cartesian on the scripture (it is the axiom) and rationalist on morality. This is how they can have agreement in theology but relativism in morality.
I used to support the DW, but had to stop after the way they treated Candace Owens.
I've always really liked Matt Walsh, even before he joined DW, and I like Knowles, too. I worry that Ben exercises undue influence over the other commentators when it comes to issues related to Israel and Gaza, and I fear that was a big motivation in their ostracization of Owens. I don't think you have to be an antisemite to say Israel has done some pretty rotten things (and I don't support Palestine, either). I agree with Ben on a lot of things, but the war in the middle East is understandably a blind spot for him.
But I've always had issues with Jeremy. He has consistently given bad moral takes over the years, like minimizing the problems with pornography, and this latest take on IVF is no surprise. He should stick to running the company and making business decisions. That's his forte, not political commentary.
How they handled Candace was unusual, but I think they have been vindicated since her support of Kanye and Andrew Tate.
I'm not sure Ben exercises any extra influence over his commentators because he's pro-Israel. It's just the nature of powerful people to exercise influence. If Ben were pro-Palestine, he would influence his commentators in the other direction. In the end, powerful people just do exercise influence. It's true for everyone out there, including little people like myself who have to keep a job.
Walsh, for example, has repeatedly said that we should not support Israel. But for Matt and Michael, I think it's just another war that they don't want the U.S. involved in.
I agree with you on Jeremy. Forgot he had made those comments on porn. Wasn't it something like "Men can't be expected not to look at pornography"?
Having been separated from the early Church and the natural law tradition, many Protestants have an ad hoc view of morality. For example, they will argue that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and yet simultaneously support IVF, not releasing that by replacing the unitive and procreative act of marriage with technology they have undermined their own position on marriage.
Accurate. I grew up protestant, and I'm a recent convert. The seminary I attended was evangelical but placed a heavy emphasis on natural law ethics, specifically Aristotelian/Thomism. During that time, IVF and contraception came up. Professors and students argued for contraception but against IVF, but outside the walls of the seminary, Pro-life Christians were getting IVF procedures done regularly. I found that many staunchly young earth biblical fundamentalists were very much pro-IVF. I learned that one pastor even asked for prayer from the whole congregation.
In short, these churches care more about the age of the earth than they do about the value of human life within the IVF and surrogacy industry.
I find it interesting that from a natural law perspective they would argue for contraception but against IVF because I would argue that both belong to the same moral genus. Contraception is intrinsically evil because it separates the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect. In other words it intentionally obstructs the telos of sex. Similarly, IVF replaces the act of sex entirely. Male and female simply provide the raw material needed for IVF to be possible. Anyway, I just found that interesting and I don’t think it’s a consistent position.
Agreed. But it makes sense when you think of Protestants as Cartesian on the scripture (it is the axiom) and rationalist on morality. This is how they can have agreement in theology but relativism in morality.
I used to support the DW, but had to stop after the way they treated Candace Owens.
I've always really liked Matt Walsh, even before he joined DW, and I like Knowles, too. I worry that Ben exercises undue influence over the other commentators when it comes to issues related to Israel and Gaza, and I fear that was a big motivation in their ostracization of Owens. I don't think you have to be an antisemite to say Israel has done some pretty rotten things (and I don't support Palestine, either). I agree with Ben on a lot of things, but the war in the middle East is understandably a blind spot for him.
But I've always had issues with Jeremy. He has consistently given bad moral takes over the years, like minimizing the problems with pornography, and this latest take on IVF is no surprise. He should stick to running the company and making business decisions. That's his forte, not political commentary.
How they handled Candace was unusual, but I think they have been vindicated since her support of Kanye and Andrew Tate.
I'm not sure Ben exercises any extra influence over his commentators because he's pro-Israel. It's just the nature of powerful people to exercise influence. If Ben were pro-Palestine, he would influence his commentators in the other direction. In the end, powerful people just do exercise influence. It's true for everyone out there, including little people like myself who have to keep a job.
Walsh, for example, has repeatedly said that we should not support Israel. But for Matt and Michael, I think it's just another war that they don't want the U.S. involved in.
I agree with you on Jeremy. Forgot he had made those comments on porn. Wasn't it something like "Men can't be expected not to look at pornography"?
Thanks for reading and commenting.
God bless.
IVF is evil and its practitioners are engaged in evil.