Semper Reformanda

Strong argument from ACLJ brief in partial-birth abortion case: "The U.S. Supreme Court in Roe held that human children prior to birth are not “persons” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ruling is itself unconstitutional, as well as violative of fundamental human rights, because it drives a wedge between biological humanity (which prenatal human offspring undeniably have) and legal personhood (i.e., the right to the equal protection of the law). The repellant notion underlying Roe -- that there are “subhuman” members of the human species -- conflicts directly with the very purposes of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which undid the great injustice of treating black Americans as slaves and property instead of as human beings entitled at law to full respect."

New feature: I am now allowing comments on my posts. I hope it works okay. Comment-away!

Al Gore, Champion of Limited Government?:

Al Gore receives a disproportionate amount of disdain from me because the man seems to be incapable of recognizing the difference between what he says about government and the legislation he supports. Take the following quote from a recent speech:

"There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.

Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not only "better angels" in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation - especially the temptation to abuse power over others.

Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is needed in our constitution because every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens."

Do I even have to point out the inconsistency in what Al Gore says and what legislation he supports in government?

Do conservatives ignore the spiritual dimensions of sex?: Tim Sandefur claims that conservatives focus only on the physicality of love and sex, and ignore the "spiritual" dimension of love and sex.

Aside from the fact that it is odd for an objectivist atheist to use the term "spiritual", or to discuss ethereal concepts like love (I am reminded of the scene in CONTACT when Palmer Joss asks atheist Ellie Arroway to prove that she loved her father), how does Sandefur define "spiritual"? Well, he quotes Rand, who said (among other things in the quote he provides) that sex is "a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man [or woman], sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence…"

The last sentence is the most important. Sex, to Rand and Sandefur, is an act of worship...but who is worshipped? Ourselves, our own needs, our own desires, and our own "existence."

A Christian, of course, lives by the two greatest commandments: to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Self comes third, if at all. Sex for a Christian is just as much an act of worship...but the worship is directed to God and for His glory.

Tim also charges conservatives with similar thinking in the abortion debate...that we argue for the rights of the unborn simply because it has human DNA. This charge is unfounded. This conservative believes in the rights of the unborn because I have faith in God and I believe God's Word when it says that we are all fearfully and wonderfully made by our Creator, and I see no distinction between a 12 week old unborn child and a child just birthed from the womb. Sandefur will have a hard time distinguishing between a 12 week and 1 day old infant as well, not to mention the mentally ill, and he has admitted as much in the past. In any case, to argue that my abortion position relies solely on the "physical" completely ignores my faith in God, as well as my submission to His authority in my life..

Are we freer than we were 100 years ago?: Tim Sandefur, in his (nicely) newly designed blog, says that he sat on a panel at FreedomFest. The topic was whether we were more free now than 100 years ago. Tim says most of the panelists agreed that we were. I would like to understand this calculus, because my first response would be to say no, we are not freer than we were 100 years ago. Sure, in some people's mind, we are more free because homosexuals can "marry" and because women can kill their own children. Granting for the purposes of argument that these kinds of things count for an increase in freedom, what about the increase in the tax burden? The growth of government? The continuing decline in the value of our money? I just find it hard to believe that we are really more free now than we were 100 years ago, but I don't know the calculus the panel used to derive their estimate.

The Price of Freedom?: While innocent Americans are beheaded in Iraq, pornographers resumed their trade after a scare over an HIV breakout among participants.