Tag Archives: rights

Politics From the Pulpit

There are great discussions going on in the comments to these posts, both of which
touch on faith in public life. I encourage those who haven’t done already to hop
in. 🙂

Merry
Christmas, ACLU

Still
Hope

I’d like to thank all those who’ve been participating. I don’t usually get such
lively debate in my comments. I really think a blog without comments is only half
a blog, so I really appreciate the exchange of thoughts going on. That said, I now
encourage those who enjoy the chatter about the first post to head over to The
Smedley Log, where H2 has expanded his thoughts from the comments
. He deserves
a traffic spike, too, so spread the love. 😉

Theomorph
also has a post related to this topic
, though he was inspired by an essay by
David Brin, not this blog.

What Ever Happened to Fair Use?

This really bugs me. Once I have recorded material in my posession, I should be permitted to do whatever I please with it, provided I don’t violate any copyrights or harm someone (Other reasonable restraints of 1st amendment rights might also apply.).

From Public
Knowledge
:

H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act

The provisions were included in H.R. 4077 as passed by the House. The original House version of this bill provided an affirmative right for those who used technology to skip objectionable material, such as profanity, violence, or other adult material, in the audio / video works that they legally purchased. This is a right that most believe manufacturers of technology and consumers already have�regardless of H.R. 4077. The entertainment community has hijacked this provision and turned it against consumers and the tech community. Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped. Additionally, technology manufacturers must provide a notice at the beginning each showing stating that �the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture.� This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head.

(Thanks, Jollyblogger)

Strange Bedfellows

People are going to think my life (or at least my blog) revolves around Theomorph,
but I just can’t wait to hear what he has to say about this.

Atheist supports
Ratzinger crusade against secularism

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has
enlisted in his defence of Christianity against secular Europe, the German philosopher
Jürgen Habermas [a self-described “methodical atheist”], who said
in an essay published this month that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the
ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks
of Western civilisation”.

Irrational and/or Pathological

I don’t have time right now to answer in full Theomorph’s latest intellectual challenge, but I’ll take a moment to react to this:

Many people have argued that we make laws against acts like murder, theft, and assault because we have no choice if we want to maintain a stable society. We have even created psychological definitions of "normal" behavior that label as antisocial and mentally ill the people who are prone to these acts. Hence, while there may be some people who privately have no moral qualms with murder, theft, or assault, the rest of us have no problem with imposing our "morality" on them, because any arguments they might make in favor of their morality would be labeled as not just irrational, but pathological.

However, most people do not consider the desire to obtain an abortion as irrational or pathological. In fact, there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion.

Theo might be trying to be provocative again. If so, call me provoked. This viewpoint creeps me out and makes me shudder. Since when do two wrongs make a right? This kind of "feminism" really pisses me off. Women do not have to become men to gain equality! That is not real feminism. Real feminists seek to achieve equality (such as equal pay, equal respect, and equal rights) by embracing that which is feminine and challenging society to accept them without imposing androgyny.

If men are scum that sometimes plant seed and fail to care for what grows, we must try to stop that from happening. Whether it be by law or by education, we should seek to solve this problem, not encourage women to be just as selfish and inconsiderate. Besides, using abortion to level the playing field begs the question of whether abortion really benefits women. I’m sure Feminists for Life have a few things to say about that nonsense.

Do I think abortion is irrational? Yes. Its unsound judgment. Is it pathological? Yes. It’s a symptom of a diseased society. On a visceral level, irrespective of my faith, I am disgusted and frightened by the notion of a society that sees children as an unwanted responsibility or investment to slough off. If children outside the womb are treated as unwanted and sloughed off, the parents are charged with criminal neglect or worse, depending on the means. If medical professionals treat patients as unwanted, they’re in serious trouble, too. Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? Well, another question is being begged here.

That question is whether or not a fetus may/must be considered person and thus deserving of protection. That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion. Atheists are often quick to point out that ethics and morals need not be grounded in religion. Well, if that’s really what they believe then they shouldn’t be upset if some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning. Such reasoning exists and yet secularists still reject the pro-life movement off-hand, seemingly as though it were part of some conspiracy to construct a theocracy.

Finally, there are a lot of things that humans can be stuck with in the course of their lives. Some things can be avoided. Others can’t. Some may/should be avoided. Others shouldn’t. I have a great deal of sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, that unfortunate situation in and of itself does not secure them the right (since Theomorph objects to "giving" rights) to end a fetus’ life. That it is a life, there is no doubt. Is it a person? That’s a question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily and that supporters of abortion rights don’t seem to want answered. So long as it’s about a woman’s body, a woman’s rights, and a woman’s choice, pro-lifers look like a bunch of Puritans itching for a witch trial. I wonder how slave owners saw abolitionists.