Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide

I wrote a paper for my English class that I wanted to share.
The paper is seven or eight pages long, but that is too much for your average blog post.
So, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days. Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.
I encourage you, however, to keep reading (and sometimes re-reading) the subsequent posts (and prior posts) as it will become clearer as you go.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide

It is not true that all human beings have fundamental human rights.
Have you been to Darfur lately? In Darfur, government sanctioned ethnic cleansing occurs daily. Remember a place called Rwanda? Same story there. How about Kosovo? If these place names don’t jog your memory, maybe 1940’s Germany and Adolf Hitler or Russia and Joseph Stalin will be more familiar examples.

But, one might object that there is a difference between “is” and “ought.”
In other words, just because a situation “is” a certain way, doesn’t mean it “ought” to be that way. Someone who holds this point of view would say that while certain basic and fundamental human rights really do exist and “ought” to be honored among human beings, it, unfortunately, “is” the case that they are not granted to all human beings at all times.
This is not a problem with rights but a problem with humans. And it is not whether these rights are or aren’t granted that determines when and which human beings get them. Human beings should have these fundamental rights simply because we are human beings.
This person would also certainly agree to the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rights, meaning that human beings have intrinsic rights by virtue of being human and that these rights are not somehow added to us from some outside source (extrinsically).

Abortion: What Is It?

Imagine the following conversation between two lady friends as they bump into each other in the grocery store:

“Hi Anita, how are you? I haven’t seen you in months!”

“Oh, I’m getting by. You know me, Lisa, a little morning sickness can’t keep me down for long.”

“I can see that! You’re looking great. When are you due?”

“Only three weeks to go. We’re almost done turning the spare room into a nursery.”

“Wow, that’s great, Anita. Do you know what it’s going to be?”

“Well, initially John and I wanted it to be a surprise but the suspense was just too much. We went in and found out what it was just last week. It’s a girl!”

“Uh huh….and…”

Lisa’s facial expression surprised Anita. It seemed as if she didn’t hear her.

“It’s going to be a girl, Lisa, just what John and I wanted!”

“Ok, ok, if you don’t want to tell me that’s alright. I’ll be surprised.”

“What do you mean Lisa? I just told you twice that it’s a girl.”

“Yeah, but that only tells me the sex. I want to know what it is. You know…..”

“Gosh, Lisa, I guess I don’t know. What do you want me to tell you?”

“Well, for crying out loud, Anita, is it a human being?!?!”

“What else would it be, Lisa, a frog?”

Obviously this conversation is absurd but it shows us something important.
No one really questions whether the unborn is human or not; this is common sense. It also supports a well known biological law that states that life only comes from preceding life, and reproduction occurs in kind (hence, the word, reproduction).
In other words, pregnant elephants give birth to elephants, not mice, pregnant dogs give birth to dogs, not cats, and pregnant humans give birth to humans, not frogs. Or, put another way, what else would it be?

Justifiable Homicide

What is "Justifiable Homicide"?

Here is the definition that I found at the following address:
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/justifiable.html:

"Justifiable homicide is the killing of one person by another that is committed without malice or criminal intent. When a person commits a justifiable homicide they are not guilty of a criminal offense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty. Capital punishment is also considered justifiable homicide. Preventing a prisoner from fleeing by means of deadly force may also be considered justifiable homicide." So, apparently, there are times when killing someone is not a crime. It also appears that there is a pretty narrow range of circumstances where killing someone is permissible; defense of self or others, preventing serious crime, and capital punishment are identified here.

So, what are some examples of times when it is not ok to kill someone?

For example:

Is it ok for me to kill someone who is interfering with my education or career?
May I kill someone who generally makes my life more difficult?
What if I am simply not ready to deal with someone; may I kill that person?

Seven states report information regarding the reasons women give when asked why they are having an abortion. Other relevant information can be obtained from the Center For Disease Control's abortion surveillance and the Allan Guttmacher Institute.

Following are some tabulated results from the Allan Guttmacher Institute:

Nationwide, the percentage of abortions performed as a result of rape or incest is 0.3%. That’s three tenths of one percent. Abortions performed in response to risk of maternal health or life is 1%. In the case of abortions performed in cases of fetal abnormality, the figure is 0.5%.
About 98% of abortions performed in the United States are elective and performed for primarily social reasons, economic reasons, and birth control.
For example, in a 2004 AGI survey, 25% of the women said the most important reason for having their abortion was being unready. Coming in second place as the most important reason was “can’t afford a baby” at 23% of women. The third most popular answer for the reason for their abortion was that she has all the children she wants or her children are grown at 19% of women. When tallying up all data regarding this question, since the women were able to select primary (most important) and secondary reasons for their abortions, the answers were similar. Among all responses to the question about why the woman was having the abortion, the number one answer at 74% was concern over how a baby would change the woman’s life. 73% chose can’t afford a baby, 42% stated they were unmarried as a reason for abortion and 48% said they were having relationship problems or wanted to avoid being a single parent. 38% said the child would interfere with their education or career plans.

Justifiable?

Hardly!

Atonement

What’s a scapegoat?

Leviticus describes two goats that play a role in the “Day of Atonement.” In this book, Aaron, the High Priest would lay both hands on one of the animals, placing the sins of all Israel on its head. Then the animal would be led out of the camp and into the wilderness. In this way, the goat symbolically bears the sins of the people in their place and is separated from them.

The other goat is slaughtered and its blood is taken behind the curtain of the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on the atonement cover of the ark of the covenant.

So, what does this have to do with atonement?
Glad you asked.

The reason for what happens to the goats is to provide atonement. The word, atone means to make amends (when something is mended it is made whole or one) for a wrong; this action makes the situation whole again or at one. In our case, we are under judgment from God for our wrongdoing and are not at one with Him. If atonement (at one ment) is successful, the relationship is restored, made whole, at one.

Because all people sin and are themselves sinners, God’s justice demands a penalty be paid. Luckily, a scapegoat has been provided to take our blame. That scapegoat is represented in Jesus. The death of Jesus satisfies both God’s justice and His love in that sin gets punished and the people He loves get forgiven.

There have been many people over history (Ghandi, Buddha, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, etc.) who have spoken of and taught ways to live better lives, ways to treat others properly in society, and even ways to achieve fulfillment and happiness in this life. The one thing these people can't do is pay the debt that you owe (make atonement) for your own sin. You need a scapegoat that can bear your blame and suffer in your place. Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus has done that. If you don’t accept the forgiveness that Jesus offers, you don’t get forgiven. It’s that simple.

Definition of Scapegoat: One that bears the blame for others; a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Definition of Atonement: Compensation for a wrong; something done to make amends for wrongdoing, Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Have your sins been placed on the head of Jesus?