Strollerderby : religious right

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

In the latest salvo against abortion rights, North Dakota's house of representatives this week passed a law defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights of a human being. The bil, which passed with a 51-41 vote, will now move to the state's senate for its consideration. If it is approved, legal challenges are expected that could end up in the United States Supreme Court -- a body that is now widely seen as having a five-justice majority willing to restrict abortion rights first enumerated in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Dan Ruby, the Republican state congressman who sponsored the bill, says it's not intended to ban abortion, simply to define when life begins -- a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, but apparently is obvious to the North Dakota Republican Party -- and to give that life "some protections under our Constitution."

This is hardly the first or the only legislative assault on Roe, and it certainly won't be the last. It is, however, part of an interesting new political/religious movement that uses the term "personhood" to attempt to define not only fetuses, but blastocytes (what's next, follicles?) as fully-fledged human beings deserving of all the legal status of a baby, child, or adult. The so-called "personhood movement" aims to roll back abortion rights by means of state legislative action, primarily working in states that outlawed or restricted abortion in the days pre-Roe, when each state had its own laws regarding reproductive rights. In defining even a fertilized egg as human, backers are not only taking aim at abortion but also at many forms of birth control, which operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the woman's uterus. It could also result in pregnant women being prosecuted for behavior said to endanger their fetuses.

I'm interested in this movement, and wonder when they will turn their attention to granting "personhood" rights to children who have already been born. One group of persons whose rights need protecting is children who are US citizens but whose parents are not -- an estimated 100,000 parents were deported over the past decade whose children, having been born here, should be enjoying all the rights of other US citizens, rather than left behind by their parents or forced to return to countries with fewer opportunities for them. And how about extending "personhood" rights to gay Americans who would like to marry and raise their children together, just as their straight friends and relatives do?

The religious right's emphasis on what happens before birth and after death is mystifying to me at times. I'd like to remind them that there's life after birth, and protecting those lives seems a much better use of everyone's time, energy, and attention.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

Jon Stewart Slam Dunks the Argument for Gay Marriage

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:42:00 GMT

There are few things more satisfying than watching someone make a clear ethical and logical argument for something you believe in, particularly when that argument is being broadcast to living rooms around America--and is being made to Mike Huckabee.

Just one of the many reasons this video made me love Jon Stewart even more than I thought possible: "I would argue," he says, "that a loving gay family with a financially secure background beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline anyday." That is really just the tip of the iceberg of his eloquence.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Photo: sueschaub.com

S&M Barbie

Brett Singer — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Let me take you through my reactions to this story.

Hello, what's this? S&M Barbie? The toy? The overdeveloped, underfed doll? The one dating a man with no genitals? That seems… odd. Let's take a look.

Yowza! Barbie in fishnets! F'real! All right. We had the high heels for babies. But those were supposed to be a joke (not a funny one, but still). This is just bizarre. I hate agreeing with the Christian Right, but when they say, "Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far," I'm tempted to agree.

I have to admit, though, that she sort of looks like Black Canary from DC Comics…

Wait a minute! That IS Black Canary! So it's Barbie, dressed up like Black Canary. That… still seems odd. Why would they choose her? For a non-JLA fan (that's Justice League of America, in case you are yourself one of those non-fans), she's a bit of an obscure character. Why not someone better known, like Wonder Woman? Black Canary is a blonde, I guess. Well, actually she's a brunette but she wears a wig instead of a mask… I'm sorry, did you fall asleep? OK, I'll stop geeking out.

So it's Black Canary, which makes it an action figure. But there already is a Black Canary action figure. Actually, there are several, but here's one for comparison purposes:
Source: flickr

For what it's worth (excuse me while I geek out again) Black Canary is, despite her appearance, a fairly positive female role model. She's considered one of the best hand-to-hand fighters, male or female, in the DCU (that's "DC comics Universe") and is currently the leader of the Justice League. She takes no crap, kicks major ass, and asks questions later. Barbie once said, "Math class is tough!" (source) So you could make an argument that Black Canary is a better role model than Barbie, and therefore the doll is empowering.

I don't really see the point of doing this, especially since Barbie's target audience is young girls. So while I think the Vast Christian Right Wing Conspiracy is a bit over the top, I do think it's kind of an odd choice for a Barbie doll. What's next, Big Gay Ken? Oh wait, they did that already.

Source: flickr

A commenter on Boing Boing says that this is a collectible meant for an "older" audience and that young girls don't play with such things. Another commenter says "uh-uh, they totally do." (Not a direct quote.)

So there you go.

It's weird, but is it really offensive? Would you buy one of these for your daughter? Is this sexist, empowering, just a bad choice for a doll?

image: boingboing.net

Jim Abbott is a ballplayer you can look up to

Hulk want puny blogger to review Hulk movie

Breast Self-Exams May Do More Harm Than Good

Foster Care Worker Pregnant with Teen's Baby

Topless Barbie Leads to Man's Arrest

Top 5 Worst Sweet-to-Sexy Toy Makeovers

The Latest on Barbie v. Bratz

Evolution Bad: Ben Stein’s Intelligent Design

Cole Gamble — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:31:00 GMT

We interrupt your regularly scheduled animosity toward Scientology with this Religious News Break. Did you know there is a conspiracy to squelch the teachings of Intelligent Design from our schools? Once again those fat cats at Big Science are choking us with their “truths” when what our children really clamor for is the rebel yell that is Intelligent Design.

At least, that’s what Ben Stein wants you to think. Stein stars in a new documentary called Expelled which asserts that creationism must be taken seriously by scientists. Among Mr. Stein and the filmmakers’ persuasive points: the theory of evolution paved the way for the holocaust…

Bueller? Bueller?

Expelled just opened last Friday, so if you want to catch it, you might wanna go soon. I predict it will have a short theatrical life and then enjoy a resurrection of cult-like following on DVD.

Before I jump into my rant let’s get to the questions for you. I realize I might make a lot of assumptions about our reading audience on Babble. Perhaps there are more intelligent design supporters out there than I give credit, so let me ask: do you think there is room for intelligent design in school curriculums? Is there room for it anywhere? Do you think it’s harmful to view it as a credible alternative to evolution?

Still here? Okay. Here’s MY big question: Why do science and religion have to go head-to-head ever? Pardon the cliché, but they are apples and oranges. In my mind, the two deal in categories of thought completely exclusive from one another. In other words:

Science looks for KNOWING. How do the chemicals in our brains create the sensation of love? How do they create pain?

Religion looks for MEANING. What does love mean? What does hurting mean?

As I have mentioned before, I believe faith and reason can coexist, we just need to know where they belong. Knowledge belongs in schools, faith belongs in churches. I don’t know why understanding the separation is so hard. I wouldn’t swing a bat in a china shop, nor would I bring an antique vase to a baseball game. Religion is a philosophy. It’s meaningful, but not fact. Biblical fact is not fact. You can’t apply the tenets of any philosophy to answer a scientific matter. That’s why you will never see a mechanic fix a Volkswagen by applying the Socratic Method.

Trying to shoehorn faith into the construct of science is as ill-fitting as, well, trying to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. Intelligent design is a closed system. Where science is always reaching out for answers, intelligent design draws a box around everything we understand and calls everything outside that box “God.” Case closed. Makes it hard to find new cures for diseases when you’ve already determined that is unknowable. Back in the early days of man, when there was no science only religion, the average human lifespan was under 30. If you are reading this and over the age of thirty, science is what got you here. Intelligent design, not so much.

How many minutes does Intelligent Design have left in the public’s attention span? Intelligent design just doesn’t seem like a concept that has legs. (You might argue it’s always been there, but thrusting it as an “empirically” proven theory to sit along side evolution seems like a rather modern and perhaps desperate positioning.)

Finally, it kind of hurts my heart because I had a soft spot for Ben Stein, silly old conservative he is. Yeah he was a speechwriter for Nixon. Yes, he’s responsible for Jimmy Kimmel, and by extension, responsible for The Man Show. His stint as host of a game show that might have actually been harder than Jeopardy gave me the impression that he is a man who puts intelligence first, not “intelligence.” I met him once and he seemed like a genuinely nice man (not that he shouldn’t be) full of curiosity. We were in a theatre I worked and he grilled me about the history of the theatre and this crazy thing called “improv” that we performed there. He just struck me as someone who valued knowledge and wanted to know more about everything he encountered. Oh well.