Rights Belong to Individuals

In my last post, I talked about how Obama-care has mandated employers to provide things like contraceptives and other services which might conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. In an effort to defend this dangerous idea, liberals have raised many weak arguments. One example of a weak argument is the idea that, since pregnancies and babies are expensive, paying for contraceptives actually reduces the overall cost of health care.

The wisdom of this argument (if any) rests on the premise that it's better to sacrifice individual liberties for the betterment of society as a whole. In this case, by forcing employers to pay for contraceptives, everyone enjoys lower health care costs. This same argument has been used for years regarding seat belt laws: since seat belts saves lives and reduce injuries, forcing individuals to wear seat belts reduces health care costs to society.

First, let me ask: Is this really the precedent liberals want to set? Do they really want the benefit to society to be greater than the rights of the individual? In this case, they probably do which is why they raise the argument. However, this opens the door to tyranny. According to this logic, what would stop congress from passing a law mandating that everyone use contraceptives? Some might say, “Well, congress wouldn't do that” but the question still remains if congress has the power to do it. If we buy into the argument that congress can decide what's best for society – even at the cost of individual liberty – then yes, we've given them the power to do it!


In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born?  For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives.  If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?

Second, there's a glaring flaw in the liberals' arguments: You see, the very notion that society incurs a cost for individuals' health care decisions stems from the liberal idea that society should pay the costs individuals' health care. Here's a suggestion: if someone makes a poor decision, let him suffer the consequences of it. When people don't have any consequences for bad decisions, it's a license to sin.

Since we've been talking about contraceptives, let's talk about a related issue – out of wedlock births. Today, more than half of all births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. In almost every area examined, children born to unwed mothers suffer for it. They are more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of school, and to commit crimes. What is the liberal solution to the problem? It's to give money to women who have children out of wedlock! Unmarried mothers often get food stamps, free health care (Medicaid), rent subsidies, daycare subsidies, etc. What if they have still another child? Why, they get more money, of course! Here's the weirdest part – if the women consider marrying the fathers of their children, they understand they will likely loose their government benefits. So women have babies and get benefits – they marry and loose benefits. By the way, with contraceptives so readily available, why is the illegitimacy rate so high anyway? Given the fact that illegitimacy rates are so high, do you think that at least some women might have an incentive to make bad decisions?

Consider the alternative. What if women who have children don't receive more government benefits but are simply burdened with another mouth to feed? What if they knew they would be saddled with higher and higher daycare costs for every child they have (while they have to work two or three jobs to pay for it)? If a woman knew how much of a burden a child would be, might she make better decisions about birth control or premarital sex?

Compelling all people to share the burden of those few who make bad decisions is another road to tyranny. When individuals have no consequence for making bad decisions, they have no incentive to make better decisions. This leads to higher and higher costs for the rest of us. It's the exact opposite of what liberals are trying to argue now. There is no savings. If something seems “free,” then more people will abuse it which leads to higher costs. If women believe they can have children with no consequence, then the overall cost to society is greater: higher poverty, higher taxes, higher crime, higher dropout rates, and higher everything.

Rights belong to individuals. So do responsibilities. When the government tries to protect the rights of society at the expense of the rights of the individual, it's not liberty. It's despotism.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

Farewell to Davy Jones

I was surprised and saddened today when I heard about the passing of Davy Jones. At the risk of giving away my age, I remember watching the Monkees when I was young. A few years back, when my daughter was younger, she was watching a Barney special. At one point, some monkeys were pushing a bed out onto the stage when Baby Bop said, “Hey, hey, they're the monkeys.” My daughter never understood why I found that so funny.

I actually had a fleeting encounter with Davy Jones about 10 years ago or so. Maybe it's generous to even call it an “encounter.” It was more like a near-encounter. Let me recount it for you.

I was attending a men's retreat in Northern KY, just across the river from Cincinnati, OH. During one of the breaks, I had gone into the lobby of the hotel and noticed a group of men standing around at the opposite side of the lobby. I didn't think anything about it and went back into the conference room. After a few minutes, my father-in-law came back to the table and told me it was Davy Jones who had been in the lobby.  He was apparently staying at the same hotel as we were but I didn't even see him.  Like I said, it was a near-encounter.

Here's the funny part. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis was the featured speaker at the retreat. When the meeting resumed, he announced to everyone that Davy Jones was just in the lobby. He then said something to the effect of, “I guess here's a man who really was once a 'Monkee'.” I'm sure everyone saw that one coming but it was still a good laugh.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure of Jones' spiritual condition. We should all pray for his family and surviving bandmates. Farewell to the man who was once a Monkee.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

Whenever creationists asks about the origin of life, evolutionists usually respond by saying, “that's not part of evolution.” I've always thought it was rather convenient of them to propose a theory where all life has descended from a common ancestor yet excuse themselves from explaining origin of the common ancestor but never mind that now. Everyone knows what's really going on: evolutionists secretly know that the origin of life is a legitimate question for which they have no answer. So they dodge the question with, “that's not part of the theory,” in hopes of buying enough time to come up with a plausible natural explanation which they will make a part of their theory.

LiveScience is an online, science magazine that regularly posts “countdown” lists, similar to David Letterman's Top 10 lists. One list they have is the top 7 theories on the origin of life (I guess they couldn't come up with 10). Each theory received a short description which you can read for yourself but here is an even briefer summary:

Electric Spark: Inspired by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, this theory suggests that lightning interacting with methane gas in the earth's atmosphere created amino acids.

Community Clay: This is the idea that mineral crystals in clay helped organize the first living cells.

Deep-Sea Vents: Some people believe life began in the hydrogen-rich environment of submarine, hydrothermal vents.

Chilly Start: Instead of super-hot, hydrothermal vents, some believe life began inside hundreds of feet of ice that supposedly covered the early oceans.

RNA World: Before DNA, some speculate that life began with RNA. Of course, they don't have a conclusive theory on the origin of RNA either.

Simple Beginnings: Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.

Panspermia: This is the idea that life did not begin on earth at all but was brought here from space via comets or meteors. Some extremists who hold this view believe life was intentionally planted here by intelligent aliens but LiveScience didn't mention them in their description of panspermia.

I know these are meant to be thumbnail sketches of the various theories but I believe they say a lot about scientists' ideas about the origin of life.

First off, I noticed the casual use of the word “theory.” Some creationists have criticized evolution by saying, “It's just a theory.” This usually brings howls of ridicule from evolutionist explaining how a “theory” is more than just a “guess”; It's supposed to be a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Here, though, they just mean “guess,” don't they? “Theories” are only well-substantiated when creationists suggest that evolution is just a guess. When evolutionists use the word, “guesses” are fine. The correct title of the countdown should be “7 Guesses About the Origin of Life.”

Some of these guesses, though, don't even address the origin of life.  Panspermia, for example, merely pushes the problem further back and onto another world.  And the idea that life began as RNA instead of DNA doesn't explain the origin of RNA.

Did you also notice the huge range covered by the various guesses? Maybe life began in hot vents or maybe it was in ice. Maybe it formed in the sea or maybe in the clay. Maybe life didn't even begin on earth. Some of these competing theories... I mean "guesses"... aren't even close to each other but are mutually exclusive. It's not like scientists have narrowed it down to a range of ideas – they're wild guesses. This isn't science; it's story telling.

This brings me to my final point. It's painfully obvious that scientists truly have no idea about the origin of life. Yet, if they have no idea, then how can they credibly claim that God didn't create life? Do they really mean to say, “I don't know how life began but I KNOW God didn't create it!”? Yes, they really do mean to say that. Even though they have absolutely no idea how life began, they refuse to consider the possibility that God created life. It's disqualified in advance because of their tenet of methodological naturalism. I've written before how there is no scientific reason to reject a supernatural explanation. It's merely their bias.

Some evolutionists would rather continue in ignorance rather than consider a plausible, supernatural explanation for the origin of life. Still others would rather believe we are martians, planted here by aliens rather than believe we are created by God. It's their presupposed naturalism which blinds them to how silly they're being.