Anti-Abortion, Pro-Roe v Wade

 

Abortion is always tragic.

It’s a loss of life. We can get into biological and theological arguments about when exactly cells become an individual life, but those cells – all cells – have always been a part of the collective reality we call “life.” Our modern, individualistic world focuses on individual life as if that’s the only life that exists. I’d argue individuals are only bit players in the grand reality of existence.

When we say Christians value life, we’re not (or at least we shouldn’t be) speaking only of individual life. Individual lives are indeed important, but only insomuch as they point us to a larger understanding of life. We want to be life-giving people, but that doesn’t mean our primary aim is procreation. It means we are contributing to the health and well-being of all life – usually through interactions with one or more individual lives, but with a higher purpose.

This is evidenced in the traditional evangelical approach to abortion: ban it. We want laws changed to criminalize the practice, not necessarily to put women in jail, but to fearfully discourage abortion as an option. We’re willing to lie to pregnant women about science, laws, health outcomes, and whatever else it takes to influence their choice away from abortion.

If the purpose of our efforts was to limit the number of individual abortions, this might be justifiable on a purely numeric scale (although these tactics remain morally suspect). The Christian aim, though, when it comes to abortion is not to limit the practice, but to eliminate it. Even one is too many!

Laws, fear, and coercion will never eliminate abortion. Making it difficult, scary, or unpopular will indeed stop some women from following through. Desperate women, though, will revert to back alleys, homemade poisons, coat hangers, and “falling” down the stairs – all common abortion practices in times and places where traditional evangelical approaches to abortion dominate.

Legal limits can never stop abortion, because they do not address the desire to have an abortion.

The only means to remove the desire for an abortion is to provide social conditions that preclude the desire. If women and children and families (and men, who are an integral factor in, and often root cause of, every unwanted pregnancy) were supported in true, loving community, there would not be a need for abortion. That’s the goal: elimination, not moderation.

That doesn’t mean Christians can’t or shouldn’t address individual life. Coming alongside vulnerable women, supporting them during pregnancy, and demonstrating your commitment to the value of their life and the value of the life of their future child is important. Adoption, especially adoption out of foster care, adoption of older children, and adoption of those with special needs, are important.

These things are not important, though, because they might limit abortions. These individual actions are important because we have a Christian duty to provide such loving care for all people at all times. There are hundreds of millions of vulnerable women around the world who’ve chosen to have their babies and still live unsupported and unloved. Abortion is irrelevant to the call for us to care for the vulnerable.

The point of life itself is to be a life-giving presence to all people in all circumstances, especially those most vulnerable to the insidious tentacles of trauma, pain, and death. Being present is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. THE end itself.

Guilt, shame, fear, and coercion cannot get us to the Kingdom of God – which is what Jesus called those optimal social conditions that prevent the desire for abortions. This Kingdom is also the future we have been promised. At the core of Christian faith is a belief that the Kingdom is not just a possibility, but a reality. Jesus announced and makes possible the world we seek; we must live into it as it comes into being around us.

The “end” Christians seek, the Kingdom of God, cannot be realized through guilt or shame or fear or coercion. We cannot achieve our goals through those means. The means by which we seek the Kingdom is the goal. We must do all things in love, because love is the only law in the Kingdom of God.

If you are calling guilt, coercion, shame, or fear “love,” because you have good intentions, you have missed the point. That is transactional morality; it is not what Jesus taught.

These conclusions can be infinitely expanded upon, but they are a good start for those who wish to end abortion:

The mandate to love means working for systems that fully support mothers and children.
The mandate to love means ensuring safety and equality for all women.
The mandate to love means holding accountable all people who abuse and manipulate women.
The mandate to love means working to change systems that oppress and disadvantage women.
The mandate to love means naming and addressing racial inequities that disadvantage women of color.
The mandate to love means naming and addressing economic inequities that disadvantage poor women.
The mandate to love means providing community and support to all women in all walks of life.
The mandate to love means organizing society in which every child is treated as if they were yours.

I was raised in a very conservative household. I picketed an abortion clinic when I was barely old enough to remember it. My parents remain, to this day, largely one issue (anti-Roe v Wade) voters. Many of the members of my denomination would largely be appalled if they knew our own Manual of Christian life and practice allows for abortion after much prayer and counsel with a pastor.

My creativity on this issue was sparked by reading John Irving’s novel, The Cider House Rules, which powerfully illustrates not the value of abortion, but the tragic realities out of which women seek abortions. I began to see the problem not as the intellectual moral debate over abortion itself, but the deficiencies of a society that immorally withholds life-giving options from desperate pregnant women.

I began to study the scriptures more directly and think about how to apply Jesus’ words on the Kingdom to this particular issue. All you’ve read above is the summary of that process – a process that’s boiled down to one troubling conclusion:

The Christian mandate to love means ensuring safe access to abortions for those who desire them.

I believe this not because I’ve become persuaded that abortions are acceptable or justified or moral, but because I don’t believe it’s Christ-like for the most vulnerable in our society to pay the price for our collective sin and indifference.

The woman caught in adultery was not justified in her actions. Jesus did not excuse her behavior, but he refused to allow her to be the scapegoat for a society’s sinful indifference.

An abortion is not the “fault” of the woman who seeks it or the doctor who performs it. It is not the “fault” of the child’s father or the laws that allow it. Every abortion is a condemnation of our collective failure to provide the healthcare, emotional support, education, housing, validation, purpose, and physical protection every member of our society is entitled to as a beloved child of God.

We ALL bear collective AND individual responsibility. We don’t ignore individuals in need, but we can’t limit our scope to fixing individual problems. Christian faith calls us to a higher purpose: to embody a people, God’s people, who exist to be an example to the world of God’s Kingdom – a place where, among other things, abortions don’t exist, not because they’re illegal, but because they’re unnecessary.

If you think this perspective on the world is fantastical or unrealistic or impossible, please, let me introduce you to Jesus Christ and the wonderful message of the gospels: the Kingdom of God is at hand. If we fail to see it, it is only because we fail to live into it.

Rationality and Fear

There was a sit-in at the US House of Representatives last week. Some Democratic lawmakers occupied the floor of the House for 25 hours in an attempt to force a vote on gun control measures (that would almost certainly fail anyway). This is not a post about guns (although Fresh Air did a fascinating piece on gun culture a couple weeks back), though - its more about tactics. I'm well beyond really engaging much on guns, especially in a public venue - but the reason for that couldn't have been more aptly illustrated than with a meme that I saw floating around the day after the sit-in.

It said, essentially (and you'll find stories about it all over the internet) that 26 of the Democrats involved are also gun owners. That's it. Almost no other context. I think the implication is that this is hypocritical position. I think. It's still not clear to me. Although, I suppose, it's very clear to the people who are the real recipients of the message.

A lot of people in the US believe "gun control" means "taking my guns away," despite the incredible irrationality of the message. It's not that these people are themselves irrational or stupid - often quite the opposite - it's just that our fear-based political system encourages this kind of black/white thinking devoid of rationality.

Again, I don't want to delve into guns specifically, but to illustrate the logical point. The US Supreme Court has pretty much upheld two basic constitutional facts about guns, 1) people have a right to own guns for self-defense, and 2) the government has the right to regulate and control the use and possession of guns. The entirety of rational gun conversation (what little there is) falls in between these two poles. However, the vast majority of actual gun conversations in the US are people who think either option 1 or option 2 are invalid - that the Court got them wrong.**

This is why the notion of gun owners also supporting gun control seems hypocritical to those on both extremes - gun control advocates should not own guns and gun owners should not advocate for gun control. These are both legally, logically, and constitutionally irrational statements, but they're certainly real.


We can have the same fun with abortion if we want to: cut and paste the following on Facebook and see what happens "I believe abortion is killing and I believe women should have the right to do it." This is a real position that a lot of people hold,^ but you'll absolutely confound extreme activists with it - in fact, you may do the impossible and bring them together in their mutual hatred of you.


David Brooks wrote a piece a week or so ago that talks a little bit about this. I'm not sure it's super well-written, but the idea is phenomenal (and he borrowed it from Richard Rohr, so you know it's got to be pretty great). He talks about those people who are inside specific groups, but not so far inside as to be subsumed by group identity (and thus group think). These are people who have opinions, but deal with some measure of distance from those ideas - another term might be "principled pragmatism" or maybe just plain "rational."

It's not something we have much of in our current public discourse. Maybe not in our private discourse either. I remember last month, as the United Methodists were trying to figure out how to talk about homosexuality and the Church, someone came up with the idea of having small groups share opinions to make sure it wasn't just the loudest, most passionate people (on both sides) who were heard. There was a lot of talk about the "silent middle," and perhaps some good reason to believe they really do exist.

I hesitate to appropriate "silent majority" in any event these days, because I'm no longer certain the middle is the majority. We're just so shaped and formed by this kind of all-or-nothing, burn the ships behind us, siege mentality for everything social, political, or electoral that we've almost forgotten just how important it is to live together.

In the end, this is one of the core reasons I'm doing the work to get on the Presidential ballot in Colorado (which should almost be official by now). Yes, it's fun and funny and strange - and precisely the kind of thing I like to do just to say I did it. But there's also something more. A few people have made comments about how it seems to be mocking the electoral process or demeaning the importance of our governmental system - and they're right. I'm happy to demean the importance of our system, because most people put far, far, far, far, far, far, far too much importance on this system - as if their entire existence depends on our government (and all its citizens) agreeing that they're right about everything. It's just not that important - I'm not sure anything is that important.

But we've been told its so vitally important for so long, we believe it. When we believe these things have existential import for our very survival, it's really easy to be influenced by fear - which is 100% entirely irrational. Well, fear itself is a very rational response to certain stimuli, but what we do with fear is downright nuts - I think I'd rather be trapped in a small room with a deranged meth-head than someone who's scared for their life. Fear don't mess around.

You know how to combat fear? Knowledge. Specifically knowledge about that which you fear. When that which we fear is our neighbor who thinks differently from us, it's not that difficult to walk next door and have a conversation.



Although maybe you should call first... in case they've got a gun.





*But seriously, folks, one of the votes these Dems wanted was a repeal of the federal ban on funding gun violence RESEARCH! If we aren't allowed to even find out about gun violence, there's no way anyone will come up with a legitimate plan to address it.

I, personally, do not believe in self defense (although I wouldn't want my view legislated, necessarily) - but if we're talking constitutionality, I'm fine with both positions. I do, however, think you can't honestly call yourself a "strict constructionalist" and also think option 1 is constitutional - there's some logical confusion there; however, I suspect the answer is really for people to stop calling themselves "strict constructionalists," and not to change the rulings.

^Me included.

^^And, no, I have no idea what potatoes have to do with anything, but that picture came up on a google image search for "rationality and fear," and I thought it was funny.

Killing: Abortion and Guns

Lately, since our election season seems to have kicked into full swing more than a YEAR before the actual election, it seems like there's been a rapid increase of both abortion and gun related memes on Facebook. Now a Facebook meme is a great way to further trivialize the already trivial, but it's a terrible place to insult the intelligence and morality of people with whom you disagree on important issues. If people (read: Christians) are really concerned about the increasing divide in the US, the first move is pretty much anything, but demeaning and demonizing those people you believe to be "on the other team."

It seems even more silly to me when it feels like (and granted discerning the tone of a meme is somewhat difficult) everyone is really just talking about one thing: killing.

Now there are of course some gun advocates who genuinely want to preserve the right to hunt and are worried that new gun laws would make that more difficult. However, I don't see much virulent rhetoric from these people, in fact, most of them are pretty confident we're not headed that direction. The real ire comes from those people who are afraid gun restrictions will prevent them from defending themselves in ways they deem fit - while there aren't too many non-crank-wackos who talk about this in the language of killing, it is ultimately the extension that must be discussed when talking self defense - people want the right to kill in defense of their life or the life of a loved one.

And, there are, of course, some abortion activists enamored with the notion of family planning by abortion, contraception after-the-fact, if you will, who make the debate pretty callous and unfeeling - but these, too, are very few and far between. Most people recognize the physical and emotional toll an abortion plays on a woman (and those who love her, if they know) as well as the moral complications of such a decision - and would rather have as few abortions as necessary. Many people would rather not outlaw abortion simply because they're not comfortable making that decision for another person - likewise, you don't see a lot of rhetorical engagement from these people. Again, the rhetoric rarely gets formed in the language of killing, but it is the extension of the debate - even if one doesn't recognize a fetus as a person, it is certainly living tissue that might potentially be forced to stop living.

Ultimately, these are both discussions about in what circumstances killing is appropriate. In the end, such positions are just value judgments - either this "bad" person has done enough to deserve a self-defensive death (self defense, being itself, a value judgement) or the life into which this child might be born will not provide the kind of love and attention each human being deserves (which is, again, a value judgement in itself) and preventing that birth is the best choice.

There is an argument about someone who's alive and made choices vs someone not yet born who didn't - and that's certainly a valid argument to have - but it skirts the subject. In both cases, the counter argument is simply speculative: you never know how this "bad" person might respond to being treated with love and care as opposed to violence and death; you never know how this child or this mother or the larger community would respond to the love and life of a new baby. These counter arguments are, of course, equally powerful and valid.

Then there are also the arguments of how these decisions affect the larger society. Do we want to be a part of a society where human life is so devalued that virtually anyone can make unilateral decisions about ending it - whether at the end of a gun or of medical instrumentation? Likewise, do we want to be part of a society that stands idly by while people are threatened or killed or while children are raised unloved or under-resourced?

There are consequences to any action.

That is ultimately my response to discussions of this kind. We need to think more. We need to recognize both the value of life and the necessary interconnectedness of all life. There is no individual life on this planet. We all impact each other in ways seen and unseen. We are all in this together. Life is important and the decision to take a life is equally important. It is not a flippant decision. Too often our debates about such things make it an easy answer, "of course I can shoot someone who break into my home," "of course I can choose whether to have a child or not." And there's strong historical precedent for both.

At the same time, there's also a strong historical precedent that people wrestle not only with the decisions themselves, but with the morality of the decision itself. What does it mean to choose life? What does it mean to choose killing? This plays out in a number of other ways as well - military service, police work, capital punishment, euthanasia - even health care and nutrition debates. Life is a pretty big deal. Ending it, even more so. This shouldn't be something we settle easily... especially when it interacts with reality.

As a Christian, it's pretty easy to take a theoretical stance. Killing is wrong. Jesus makes the case pretty clear - "do not resist an evil person," "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek." The Christian stance is always one of self-sacrifice over killing. But those theoretical answers prove far more difficult when we put them up against real life scenarios - usually scenarios that spring upon us unexpectedly. We just can't say what we would do or even what we should do, because living in the midst of that chaos is part of the process. We can follow the words of Jesus, but in the real world, it is rarely without some reservation (not to mention our various competing interpretations of what exactly Jesus meant).

We can use our beliefs to engage in practices that help form us into the kind of people who will respond as we so choose - but in the end, actually experiencing such a decision makes the difference. Listen, I pray for a world where no one will feel the need to get an abortion and no one will feel the need to own a gun, but until that world comes, I live in this one.

There are sensible gun laws out there to be had. There really are. There are sensible abortion regulations that could exist. We constantly get push back on these issues around the notion of freedom. I believe in freedom. I do think, as much as possible, people should be able to make their own decisions. What I don't believe, though, is that this notion of freedom should supersede the consideration of life. Guns may not be the only way to kill a person, but they make that killing much easier - that needs to be part of the discussion. Abortion may be the choice of a woman (because even when abortion is illegal, it still happens a lot), but it is the ending of, at the very least, potential life. The decisions we make around these topics are not and should not be easy.

I've never heard anyone talk more openly and honestly about the realities and potential of guns than police officers, who face those decisions every day. I've never heard anyone talk more openly and honestly and about the realities and potential of abortion than doctors who perform them. You don't often hear casual definitive statements from these people, because they live lives in the midst of the mess. They see the realities of life on both sides of these decisions. They take killing seriously. They understand these issues are about life and have no easy answers. In other words: they're not meme-worthy - and it's our making them so that is the real tragedy.

Defunding Planned Parenthood Means MORE Abortion

Listen, I'm no fan of abortion. Well, I'm not sure anyone is really a "fan" of it necessarily. I certainly wish we didn't have abortions. I grieve every woman who feels unsupported, scared, or alone enough to make such a choice. It's a societal tragedy that we've not created a space to welcome every and any child into the world for a decent life. Sadly, though, we just haven't.

I'm no fan of abortion. I'm also no fan of making it illegal. Beyond the philosophical and theological issues with legislating morality, for me it's quite pragmatic: legal or not, there will still be abortions and I'd rather have women getting them in safe, healthy places than the dirty backrooms and coat hangers which I hope are things of the past (at least in this country).

As a Christian, I am adamantly opposed to killing of any kind. I don't believe killing is ever justified - although I do admit, sometimes, the pressures of the world (or a particular situation) and our oft-deficient imaginations, lead us to make the regrettable choice to take life. As much as it's wrong and unjust, occasionally, in this messed up world of ours, taking life seems the best of many bad choices available.

We can judge and argue over when those times arise - we can talk about things like war and execution and self-defense and suicide - and we'll likely disagree. We're always looking for other options, other ways to protect life (or at least we should be) - and that's great. But we're all going to find those tricky situations where taking life feels like the best option - as sad as that is.

I don't think the legality of abortion will change that dynamic for many women, if any. I also don't think it's consistent with a Christian response to such tragedy. I want to work for a world in which fewer and fewer women find this choice the best one for them when encountering a difficult or unexpected pregnancy. There are a lot of ways to do that.

One of the ways people have come up with lately is the notion of defunding Planned Parenthood - and organization that facilitated 327,615 abortions in 2013-2014 (the full annual report is available here). And there's a case to be made there. About 3% of services PP provides are abortion services - and figures hover around 10-12% for the percentage of PP clients who receive these services. Planned Parenthood gets 41% of its revenue from governmental sources (much of it Medicaid reimbursements for its poor clients, who are most of the population PP serves). Cutting those funds might make a real difference.

However, the Hyde Amendment, routinely attached to Federal Appropriations bills since 1976, prevents the use of federal funds for abortion services, unless there is rape, incest, or the mother's life is threatened. Yes, there are some ways to get around this, but any federal funds that do trickle through are minimal, at best. Planned Parenthood spends virtually no federal money on abortions. Defunding Planned Parenthood on the Federal level will not change the number of abortions PP facilitates at all.

If something like a defunding happened, PP could make up a good portion of the money lost through increased private fundraising - any remaining shortfall would likely mean less money for STD testing and treatment, PP's largest service area and also contraception. Contraception - providing free or reduced cost birth control - accounts for 34% of Planned Parrenthood's work, more than 10 times the number of abortions provided. Contraception is the single biggest way to avoid pregnancies most likely to end in abortion.

Yes, freeing up PP money for other organizations that don't facilitate abortion at all would be a great option. Unfortunately, most of the areas PP works, they are the only place for women to go for cancer screenings, contraception, and other health needs. PP is a real asset to many poor communities who have no other medical services. The other organizations who would get the federal money after a defunding are largely outside the poorest, most vulnerable communities - we'd be abandoning the very women who need the most help (not to mention putting lives at risk as those women determined to end their pregnancy will lack safe, healthy ways to do so).

This option does put us on the right track, though.

I don't like the way some proponents of abortion (including Planned Parenthood in many cases) are working for an attitude towards abortion that makes it no different than having a wart removed. I don't think there should be a stigma attached to anyone or anything, but I'm not opposed to making sure people understand what they're really doing when they end a pregnancy. It shouldn't be an unemotional, stress-free decision any more than serving on a jury in a death-penalty case or sitting on the front lines of a war might be. Life is a big deal (for a more in depth discussion of how and why I use the word "life.")

But, let's say society changes. Let's say people really understand the "pro-life" position and chose to continue their pregnancies, we have to recognize the great repercussions. Adoption would go up, sure, but not nearly enough. Anyone who's ever had a child understands the bond that exists. I don't think I'd ever be strong enough to give up my child, even if I knew I couldn't give her a proper upbringing. It takes an amazingly, crazy-strong individual to give a child up for adoption - these parents are the strongest of human beings. There is just no way every abortion can be traded for an adoption. It won't happen. I'd be surprised if 10% went that direction. Adoption is great and there are lots of kids in foster care right now who need a family, but it's not a viable solution.

What we'd have is an influx of kids living in very difficult situations, many in situations that, quite honestly, aren't preferable to abortion.

If we, as Christians, believe in the importance of life strongly enough, it's in those situations where we have to intervene. Frankly, we do a pretty poor job of it for the kids who are already here, let alone the ones yet to come. If we'd stop wasting our money on politicians and lobbyists, there might be enough to make a real difference. More importantly, though, we need to begin investing our lives. Christians and others opposed to abortion should be starting and supporting health centers in poor neighborhoods (maybe those that could eventually be worthy of funding, taking grants away from Planned Parenthood based on merit rather than legal action) - but not just health centers, daycares and afterschool programs - community centers that educate parents and help children succeed. These services are far more important to ensuring a real and true life for everyone around us.

Making abortion illegal once again might make us feel good in our worship services each week, but it does nothing to further the loving community Christ came to institute. Until we're willing to invest our lives in the lives of others we have no hope of creating the kind of loving community capable of truly valuing every human in the way it deserves.

If you want to end abortion - and believe me, I do - the enemy is not planned parenthood, it's selfishness and fear. If we want to combat those real enemies, we need to start with ourselves. We need to start with finding those around us who need our love and support and inviting them into our lives. The challenge of the gospel is to step out of our comfortable, self-sustaining existence and actually link our futures, our health, our well-being with the poor and the suffering. This means not running away when we get hurt or things get tough; it means surviving together or not surviving at all. This is what God did for us and it is what we're called to do.

So let's stop getting bogged down with bogeymen and get to loving people. Laws don't solve problems. Love does. We've got far more important things to do with our time.

Life

I saw a line the other day, attached to a link about some abortion doctor that said, "Can't we all finally agree abortion terminates a human life."

I don't want there to be abortions. I don't think they should exist. I grieve the fact we live in a world where women feel so alone and vulnerable and scared.

I'd answer the question with another question, "Can we all finally agree there's no such thing as "A" human life?" There is life. All of us, really every thing in the universe participates in that life. Whether you believe that life is God's life into which all are invited or if that life is the beautiful cosmic mixing of subatomic particles out of which we emerge, we still must admit we're all connected.

Yes, we have individual choices and we make individual decisions, we even have names and faces and DNA that can separate us and tell us apart, but that doesn't mean we're disconnected.

When I die, I'm likely to decompose and the things that defined me then become parts of a tree or a worm or a cloud or a river and likely all four. In one sense I will have ceased to be and in another it's impossible to cease to be. There is just life, just existence.

We can say God created that newly fertilized fetus and it's true and it's not true. A sperm and an egg united to create that baby. Who created those, well they came from a man and a woman, who were created by other cells and other people and if we trace it all the way back, no matter what path we follow, we can get to God, if you believe that, but we get to some force at the beginning. Something.

Yes, God created that baby, but in the same way I created a cherry because I planted the seed that grew into a tree.

The point is not who created life or invited us into life or made us a part of life. The point is not even when life begins or when we join life. The point is that when life exists, it is precious and must be protected. Any life ceasing to be, outside the sort of natural progression of the universe, is a terrible thing.

Life ceasing to be is not simply another word for death, although death certainly qualifies. We're veering more into the philosophical here, but life requires determination, independence - even if it's at the end of a long series of genetic, instinctual responses, life dies a little when it's forcibly kept from doing what it longs to do.

Force. Coercion. They might as well be death. We run from like as if we're scared for our lives.

Of course, we also embrace them as tools of convenience. We use coercion to keep people from being coercive. We use force to keep people from using force.

I don't deny that the natural end of life is freedom and self-determination, I simply argue that just because it's a natural end doesn't make it good. It's not something to be strived for, not something to be sought.

If my aim in life is to ensure the absolute freedom of those around me, even at the expense of my own, ultimately it becomes the virtue by which others expend their free choice. Soon we have a whole society of people, a whole universe working only for the absolutely openness and independence of everyone else and people are truly free.

The system works when we respond in kind. The system also breaks down when we respond in kind. We deny freedom to each other, often for the benefit of our own. As we see such freedom denied, we claim it and define it and defend it. And we lose it.

Life is not a possession. It is not something to be held or created or defined. Life is something we inhabit and we inhabit together.

If we contain our conversations on life to such narrow, artificial definitions, contorting the discussion to play into our own preconceptions, we're really not talking about or dealing with life. We're dealing with a disease, something that's already eaten away at life, creating a lose-lose situation.

We've been handed a messed up world, one in which life is not all it could be, a diseased world. We've somehow decided we're either going to force people to live with the disease or put a band-aid on it, kick the can down the road, and avoid dealing with the disease until later.

To me, that's not a situation where we're choosing for or against life. That's a situation where life has already left the building. Our question then, is simply, how to we breathe life into this disease?

Well?

What have you got?