Some Racists Are OK

At least that is the conclusion I and others have reached when things like the quote below are said and the political elite doesn't even deign to notice:

Two kinds of racism:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Read the whole thing.

(Via SoCon Or Bust.)

Philosophy is Hard

Especially when you have a cold. Nonetheless Professor Beckwith cites four pdf documents of some of his arguments against a Rawlsian view of democracy and law. They are worth reading and pondering, though I did burn out by the last one:

President Obama: Ex-Liberal:

President Barack Obama has abandoned liberalism. What I mean by liberalism is not the political philosophy that we typically associate with left-of-center politicians and candidates. The president, of course, remains unabashedly in that camp. What I am referring to is a particular posture concerning moral questions, which the preside.

Read the whole thing.

(Via New Advent World Watch.)

Book Review

Well, nothing quite that exalted. Rather, an opportunity to celebrate completing my first new book of the year: Natural Rights and the Right to Choose
by Hadley Arkes. It's an extended meditation on the state of the politics and law in the US regarding access to abortion. Dr. Arkes makes the case the the Born-Alive Infant Protection laws are the necessary first step to force the public to engage the issue of abortion. The abortion proponents can't oppose it and it forces the public into an awareness of just how draconian the abortion laws really are.

It's not a heavy read, but you do have to keep your thinking cap on. Only time will tell if Dr. Arkes hopefulness is justified. I do recommend it for those interested in the intersection of law and politics.

Just War

Assuming that the title is not an oxymoron, it is worth investigating what the rights and wrongs, legally and ethically, are in the current Gaza conflict. Here is one thoughtful contribution. (I regret to say I can't figure out which blog pointed me to this--sorry!):

Commentary » Blog Archive » Gaza and the Law of Armed Conflict:

While much of the world engages in hand-wringing, placard-waving, teeth-gnashing, and rocket-launching over Israel’s “disproportionate” response to Hamas attacks from Gaza, it’s worth looking at what the doctrines of “proportionality” actually say.

Read the whole thing.

(Via .)

Sola scriptura minus the scriptura » GetReligion

Those supporting things like Same Sex "Marriage" are caught in a confusion about the arguments against the same. They believe that their opponents are arguing a Divine Command kind of morality. The philosopher, following Socrates, wants to know, are things moral because God says so (ergo morality is arbitrary) or does God command it because it is good (ergo morality is superior to God). Saint Thomas answers "that God creates moral norms that reflect his own essence, meaning that his demands are not arbitrary...". All of this is covered in Professor Kreeft's book, of course. And this is the foundation for Natural Law reasoning . Which lead us to Professor Finnis' book. Aren't we glad that I read and shared?

So are senior editors up to Philosophy 101? Well, not everyone:

Sola scriptura minus the scriptura » GetReligion:

Newsweek’s cover story when I read the first line. It was just that bad. It was written by senior editor Lisa Miller who oversees all of the magazine’s religion coverage. Which is pretty shocking when you look at the unbelievable ignorance on display in her grossly unfair first paragraph:

Read the whole thing.

(Via GetRelgion.)

Universal Human Rights

Read and follow-up, please:

THE UN 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS PETITION [Michael Jarecki]


10/1/2008


The UN will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this December 10th.

To celebrate this occasion, radical pro-abortion groups intend to present the UN General Assembly with petitions calling for a universal right to abortion.

Campaigns are being waged right now by International Planned Parenthood Federation and Maire Stopes International, the two groups responsible for more abortions than any other groups in the world. Both are beloved of the powers that be at the UN; and their efforts to promote an international right to abortion are welcomed by many UN Member States, perhaps most of the UN bureaucracy, and powerful US foundations that give millions to promote abortion at the UN and around the world.

The link below is a petition calling on UN Members States to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion. Please consider signing the petition and passing it on to others to sign as well.

Here is the link: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.95/default.asp

E-Mail Author

Via Heart, Mind & Strength

Since We're Talking About Abortion and Politics

let's give Amy Welborn a listen:

Straw Everywhere : So much, it’s making me sneeze.

One of the points that is frequently raised by those who say they are opposed to abortion but who nonetheless give their support, advice and endorsement to candidates who are unequivocally and proudly supportive of unrestricted access to abortion (phew)…

Read the rest.

(Via Charlotte was Both.)

Whither the Human Rights Industry?

Are we slowly heading into an Orwellian nightmare for those who don't think correctly?

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?:

‘If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?’

The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk,…

(Via Catholic Exchange.)

A Long Read

While recuperating. The ideas presented here are thought provoking and don't fall into the usual "good guy/bad guy" typology. The writer's hope that un-elected bodies can be set up (by the very politicians who are responsible for this current mess) to define truth disinterestedly seems naive to me. To attempt to define truth as an objective reality you must first believe it exists and then believe that we are at least theoretically capable of knowing it. The present generation trained in the same university system as the complainants may not be able to grasp those ideas.

But the post is worth a read for it's dispassionate take on the conflict being acted out in the basement of the Law Courts building:

Covenant Zone: "Thoughts on seeing a human rights tribunal in action
I have been reflecting on a little time spent at the British Columbia Human Rights tribunal on Monday, mostly spent listening to the testimony of Khurrum Awan, the young man largely responsible for starting the ball rolling on what became the Mohamed Elmasry/CIC complaint against Maclean's. "

(Via Andrew Coyne's Blog.)

This is Not Therapeutic

But several of the blogs I follow are ablaze with the Mark Steyn/Maclean's magazine prosecution in a B.C. Human Rights tribunal, now in it's second day. I've had some experience with quasi-judicial bodies, having been before the Labour Relations Board, once as a complainant.

What struck me then, in my callow youth, was how chummy all the lawyers on all sides (Union, Employer & LRB) were. This was conducted in a less formal version of court, but had well established procedures and precedents, all administered by or at least vetted by competent lawyers.

The HRC's, on the other hand, act as if quasi-judicial means "make it up as you go along". A less competent group to decide whose speech will be free cannot be imagined. And we owe this to politicians trying earn votes by sloppily crafting laws and handing over their administration to apparatchiks and grievance-mongers. This is isn't helping my recovery at all:

Steynianism 159: "~ AND JUST WHO ARE these three kangaroo court ‘judges’?; The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal: we have jurisdiction over all political discourse!; on B.C.’s quirk; looks like Triple jeopardy; Now Faisal Joseph wants to have the Tribunal discuss the TVO show; Now Awan is blaming TVO!; This isn’t a law suit; Memories of Khurrum; Awan can dish it out — but he can’t take it; Who died and made Elmasry the Muslim Pope? Like Mohammed Elmasry, I blame the Jews …. (ezralevant.com)"

(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)

The Light Shines in the Darkness

(John 1:5) The National Post has a long entry (six pages) on the CHRC controversy; specifically on the opening up of the Lemire hearing to the public.

Steynianism 88.0: "~ STEYN3– SCRUTINIZING THE HUMAN RIGHTS MACHINE: A gargantuan front-page story in The National Post - plus: Kevin Baker wants ‘some of that CHRC hate-love’ …. (np)"

(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)

What He Said

Here's a more articulate version of the foetal pain issue:

Fetal Pain: Another Sign of Personhood: "Here is the link to a fascinating article in the Sunday N.Y. Times Magazine entitled 'The First Ache.' The article starts with a pediatrician-researcher who asserts that the evidence indicates that the fetus feels pain at '20 weeks gestation (halfway through a full-term pregnancy) and possibly earlier.' The bottom-line is that no one really knows when the fetus first begins to experience pain, but the evidence is now very clear that the fetus does feel pain at least halfway through a full-term pregnancy.

The article is fascinating in the way science--common sense science--confirms the humanity of the fetus. After all, as one priest I admire put it, the word 'fetus' is merely Latin for 'offspring.' The pediatrician introduced in the beginning of the article is a pioneer in the field of infant and fetal pain and first began his inquiry into their experience of pain when he noticed years ago how infants who were routinely denied anesthesia during surgical operations were in 'terrible shape' after their operations. This particular pediatrician did what a good scientist does and tested if the poor post-surgical condition was due to the stress of being operated on without anesthesia. You guessed it: those infants given anesthesia during surgery came out in extraordinarily better shape. Yet, it was routine, accepted medical practice twenty-five years ago to deny anesthesia to newborn infants because doctors 'were convinced that newborns' nervous systems were too immature to sense pain, and that the dangers of anesthesia exceeded any potential benefits' (p. 46).

The old rationale for denying surgical anesthesia to newborns reminds me of the cavalier way in which neurologists averred that Terri Schiavo could not feel the pain of her lengthy, court-ordered starvation and dehydration. Doctors commonly make knee-jerk and off-the-cuff analyses that need to be tested by the more scientifically minded. If medicine is a science and not just a collection of customary, convenient practices at any given moment, then the off-the-cuff assumptions must be rigorously questioned.

The article is full of good quotes and insights. I will pick one to share here. The scientifically curious pediatrician described above is a Dr. Sunny Anand, whose work led to abandoning the assumption that newborns don't feel pain (by the way, how could anyone have bought into that assumption when newborn boys cry loudly when circumcised in the hospital?). Here is Dr. Anand's scientific view of the fetus:

The fetus is not 'a little adult,' Anand says, and we shouldn't expect it to look or act like one. Rather, it's a singular being with a life of the senses that is different, but no less real, than our own.

'The First Ache,' at p. 47.

Anand's statement gets to the crux of the primitive and unjust discrimination against the unborn: you are too different to merit personhood and its protections. Our society uses the same primitive reasoning to exclude people like Terri Schiavo from the protections given to persons. The same reasoning is extended to unborn children with Down's Syndrome who are being aborted at alarming rates. 'You are too different to merit personhood'--Hitler would have agreed with that sort of reasoning."

(Via Catholic Analysis.)

Don't Read This Article

Because, if you end up agreeing with it, you'll be labelled a "free-speecher" and, Lord knows, you don't want to be called, gasp, names. After all, the highest good is to stamp out hate. Of course, real free speech means allowing inhabitants of our country to publicly advocate the murder of our soldiers. What? What contradiction? I don't see one:

Steynianism 48.0: "Mark Milke wonders what about treason? …. (rjjago.wordpress.com, canada.com)"

(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)

Just So We Hit All the Sore Spots

Here's a post (via Free Mark Steyn!) that notes the progress of the liberal project (as Mark Shea says so often) from "what could it hurt?" to "how were we supposed to know?"

ProWomanProLife » Who’s laughing now?: "

Feb
08
2008

Who’s laughing now?

Published by Brigitte Pellerin at 3:15 pm under Feminism, Policy, Politics, Women's rights

Remember when we were debating same-sex marriage some of us tried to point out that once you start messing with the definition of marriage there’s no telling where it’ll end? That polygamy would be next? Because once you decide that a marriage is simply the recognition of a loving relationship, there’s no reason to get hung up on the number of people involved in said loving relationship?

I remember. We were laughed at. We were told tut-tut, of course not, because polygamy is illegal.

Oh yeah?

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

“Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims,” Ali said yesterday. “Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others.”

[…]

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

Once again, I wonder where the feminists are… Why aren’t they up in arms about this? Do they think polygamy is good for women?"

(Via ProWomanProLife.)