The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life
Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception

This is relevant to Colorado politics because the proposed Amendment 62 is about this issue (details).

Here’s the table of contents, which links to each section of the analysis.  There’s also a version in PDF format.

Contents

• Introduction

• The ‘Personhood’ Movement
  • “Personhood” and the Abortion Debate
  • Colorado Campaigns
  • Campaigns in Other States
• The Destructive Effects of ‘Personhood’
  • A Legal Quagmire
  • Harsh Legal Penalties
  • Bans of Elective Abortions
  • Abortions to Protect a Woman’s Health
  • Abortions for Rape, Incest, and Fetal Deformity
  • Bans of Common Birth Control Methods
  • Bans of Common Fertility Treatments
  • Bans of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
  • Amendment 62 Is Anti-Life
• Individual Rights and Abortion
  • The Compromise of Roe v. Wade
  • Today’s “Pro-Choice” Rhetoric
  • The Core Arguments for “Personhood” Laws
  • Rights in Pregnancy
• The Morality of Abortion
• ‘Personhood’ and the Separation of Church and State
• Amendment 62 Is Not a ‘Message’
• Notes

Some food for thought by Robert Nozick, an excerpt from Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 290-292 (1974), winner of the National Book Foundation’s National Book Award in 1975.

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.

4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.

5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.

6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

   Let us pause in this sequence to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed master can do this also.
   

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.

8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)

9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

Boulder’s Sacred Heart of Jesus school has decided that two schoolchildren cannot return to their private, Catholic school after this year because their parents are a lesbian couple. … What do you think?

My response, published in the Camera on March 14:

The Sacred Heart school teaches that “gay marriage is against the will of God,” writes the school’s pastor Bill Breslin. “Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don’t believe in?” he asks. Good question. Parents consider many factors when choosing a school. Maybe other factors outweighed this one — especially since the two children are in preschool and kindergarten. What would Sacred Heart teachers do, present a puppet show about human sexuality?

Puppets or not, parish schools like Sacred Heart seek to, in Breslin’s words, “to assist children in becoming disciples of Christ and to stand as a light shining in the darkness that has rejected Christianity and the truth of being human, including the meaning of human sexuality.”

To distinguish light from darkness, students must learn about, discuss, and debate both “dark” and “light” ideas.  Imagine a “Defense Against the Dark Arts” class from the Harry Potter novels – without the physical danger, of course. Not that school officials would approve the title. The syllabus could include the Wikipedia entry on “biology and sexual orientation.”  Students could debate the documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So,” which shows how gays suffer from religious moralizing and presents tolerant interpretations of relevant Biblical passages. Advanced students could view the South Park episode that mocks “conversion therapy” aimed at “correcting” a homosexual’s sexual orientation.

In such a class students might become critical and independent thinkers, and not substitute their own judgments with those of scripture or authority figures.

*          *          *
Scene from the South Park episode:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:155505

Watch the whole episode.

I’m an atheist, and I love Christmas. If you think that’s a contradiction, think again. …

“The best aspect of Christmas,” Ayn Rand once observed, is “that Christmas has been commercialized.” The gift buying “stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the street decorations put up by departments stores and other institutions—the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors—provide the city with a spectacular display, which only ‘commercial greed’ could afford to give us. One would have to be terribly depressed to resist the wonderful gaiety of that spectacle.”

Before Christians co-opted the holiday in the fourth century … it was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice, of the days beginning to grow longer. The Northern European tradition of bringing evergreens indoors, for instance, was a reminder that life and production were soon to return to the now frozen earth. …

When you genuinely feel good about your own life and when you’re allowed to acknowledge and celebrate that joy, you come to wish the same happiness for others. It is those who despise their own lives who lash out at and make life miserable for the rest of us.

The commercialism of Christmas reinforces our goodwill. When you scour the malls in search of the perfect gift for a loved one and witness the cornucopia of goods and lights and decorations, you can’t help but feel that your fellow human beings are not enemies to be feared or fools to be avoided but fellow travelers and potential allies in the quest for joy. …

But any celebration can be corrupted. It’s not uncommon today to hear people say Christmas is their most stressful period. … Seeking something to blame, they blame the commercialism of the season. But there is no commandment, “Thou shall buy a present for every­one you know.” This is the religious mentality of duty rearing its ugly head again. Do and buy only that which you can truly afford and enjoy; there are myriad ways to celebrate with loved ones without spending a cent.

Read the whole article: Commercialism Only Adds to Joy of the Holidays.

http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer44/player.swf

The event and book sites linked above summarize the content. There’s also a link to the mp3 version, which you can split up into separate tracks using a nifty program like Slice Audio File Splitter. (Yes, my media player is old & lacks a bookmarking feature.)

Here’s an excerpt of a book review by Alberto Benegas-Lynch, Jr. of the National Academy of Sciences
in Buenos Aires , Argentina:

Civilization means understanding and endorsing certain values and principles, which in turn depends on an open debate of ideas. This collection of essays provides a unique and insightful perspective on classical liberalism. Palmer’s arguments are powerful and combine the abstract with the tangible in unusually well written and thoroughly researched essays. They are a philosophical feast, touching on a board range of topics. It is an honest and outspoken voice. It is entertaining and enlightening. The essays are a sweeping blow to those who advocate collectivism and they reinforce the stand of those of us who believe that a free society is a much better place to live for all persons of good will.

This coming Saturday (Nov. 7) Front Range Objectivism is hosting the program’s annual fund-raising dinner in Arvada:

“Free Books to Colorado Teachers” Fundraising Dinner!
The evening will include two talks by local Objectivist philosophers,

a joint question and answer period, and then a fundraising auction.

For more details on the talks and auction, see:

http://bit.ly/q1RuA

* When: Saturday, November 7, 2009, 5:30 pm social hour (cash bar);
6:30 pm dinner; 7:30 pm talks and Q&A; 9:00 pm auction

* Where: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado

* Cost: $40 per individual, plus $25 suggested donation to the FRO
Free Books to Colorado Teachers Campaign. $25 for students.

RSVP by November 1 to Anders Ingemarson via e-mail to
anders@frontrangeobjectivism.com
or by phone at 303-751-3111. Space is limited!  Visit the event web

page for payment details: http://bit.ly/q1RuA

For more details on the FRO’s “Free Books to Colorado Teachers”
Project, visit:

http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/cbp.html

In races across the country, voters face terrible choices, with theocrats on one side, socialists on the other.

Nearly a year ago, I sent a letter to various candidates asking them to endorse the separation of church and state. While I never got around to sending the letter to the state senate candidates,  Szabo has made it clear that she strongly endorses faith-based politics. Which is why I strongly oppose her.

I have been arguing for months that a major reason Republicans have killed themselves in Colorado is their unflagging commitment to faith-based politics. …

Maybe someday Colorado Republicans will learn that the Interior West leans toward liberty and away from faith-based politics. There are some hopeful signs. Until then, I guess I’m a Democrat by default, as much as that sickens me.

Read the whole post here.

Browsing around YouTube, I found Derren Brown’s “Instant Conversion” videos where, apparently, he “converts” non-believers into believers (in some kind of religious belief.) Quite impressive, intriguing, and well, creepy! [watch part 1, part 2].

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

I just might read his novel. It’s nice to see a main stream author take on controversial positions.

More then 50,000 (& counting) people died because of the earthquake in Indonesia. Now that is a climate issue worth considering: how do people deal with more common occurances? OK, this was the largest earthquake in forty years, but still, its effects, and those of hurricanes and tornadoes, are much more concrete than “climate change.” Perhaps the resources should be spent addressing these issues. Roger Pielke addresses this in “Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock”, Atlantic Monthly, July 2000. (Their on-line policy has changed so only subscribers can access it, or those with the subscriber ID. Clever. I expect other magazines will follow. )

In other news, I’m again optimistic about my research progress. I asked a professor for some guidance, and I got it!

I also saw the movie, The Incredibles, which was enjoyable, and it was nice to see the message that we should be proud of our virtues. Rather anti-egalitarian. Yet, the villian was pretty smart, himself.

Last night’s Objectivist meeting was fun – if debating the legitimacy of intellectual “property” is your idea of fun. On the topic of policy, I started reading The Economic Laws of Scienctific Research. The acknowledgements section was great, as Terrence Kealey, the author, mentioned his “enemies.” I should quote the passage. Hillarious.