stat counnnter

Friday, September 12, 2008

More Blogroll Additions

After recently updating my blogroll with objectivist additions, I'm happy to add even more. The first two of these are oversights on my part, the rest I discovered this week.

First is Armchair Intellectual hosted by Gideon Reich. His last post laments the shamefully low level of intelligence of the educated class manifested by its refusal to identity our real enemy, instead calling it "war on terrorism."

Second is Ari Armstrong who reports that "Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, intentionally obfuscates the facts of the measure."

Third is Adam Reed's blog Born to Identify at which he addresses "The Church's preposterously dishonest abuse of biology." The dishonesty is in the Church's claim "While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception... The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact." Obviously, the Church is counting on its flock not understanding the concept 'fact' or 'rights' or 'objective.'

Fourth is Applying Philosophy to Life at which KM posts on "Property Rights and Philosophy-Applied philosophy 2."

Fifth to be added is Ragnar Danneskjold whose last post "Taboo" looks at some grotesquely irrational and primitive superstitions.

Sixth is a Canadian blog Paul McKeever of the Canadian Freedom Party. I liked his post on "Freedom vs Freedumb"

Seventh and last for today is Adventures in Existence hosted by Renee Katz. Sometimes today's accepted beliefs are so obviously irrational they need to be ridiculed, made fun of, treated with the disrespect they deserve. Renee does a good job of that with her cartoons in addition to her well reasoned posts and comments.

I know there are other objectivist blogs out there but I haven't had time to peruse them. I'm working on it though.


Renee Katz said...

Thanks for the link. I recently added a buttload of blogs to my blogroll too.

PaulineG said...

Re Adam Reed’s accusation that the Church is abusing biology:

The Church is in no way dishonest or guilty of “abusing biology”. Adam is picking truths that suit his purpose in isolation from other pertinent truths – precisely what he accuses the Church of doing.

The Church is clearly correct in its observation that the embryo from conception is a unique and separate human life. That this separate life is located within the woman, dependent on her and interacting physiologically with her is also clearly true.

But Adam fails to demonstrate the relevance of this to its status as a separate human life and therefore also to its moral status.

Gina Liggett said...

You may have mentioned "Noodlefood" blog, but in case you haven't. Also "Politics without God" blog. Both sites provide Objectivist arguments intended for not-necessarily Objectivist audience with the goal of putting the good ideas out there.

Renee Katz said...

That's because it's not a separate human life, it's life depends on the woman, and you are telling me that another person has the right to tell a pregnant woman that she has to keep it inside of her body and HER rights and HER wants are irrelevent; that she is basically just an vessle for this baby that isn't even conscious yet. That is absolutely vile.

Mike N said...

You're welcome.

Adam and commenter Renee are right. The fetus is not a seperate life. Its life comes from the mother. To call it a seperate life is to ignore the physical connection and meaning of the umbilical cord and pretend that the fetus is just being carried like a backpack. It isn't. It is the mother's life that is the source of the fetus's life, not god or the church or society. You can't call something seperate until it is in fact seperate physically. The fetus is a potential individual and will become an individual when real seperation takes place at birth.
That's when a rights respecting society recognizes its inalienable right to life.

The mother is the giver of life. Her reproductive system belongs to her, not the Church and not god or society. She has the ultimate say as to it use and disposal. When life begins is not the issue. The issue is when do we as a rights respecting society recognize its individual rights? That time is when it becomes a seperate individual and that is at birth.

Mike N said...

I've had 'noodlefood' on my blogroll for awhile now but I will look into "Politics Without God". Thanks for the heads up.