RE: What about Fetal Rights?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/11/16/what-about-fetal-rights/:

I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that in a conflict between mother and fetus, a woman’s right must always take precedence. A human being’s rights under the law increase with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as well as world wide for most of history. To suggest that a fetus has the same rights as a mature adult individual borders on the perverse. A woman’s rights should never be placed second to the needs of her fetus. To do so is to treat women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only second as autonomous individuals.

The fact that an adult has more rights than a minor or unborn baby/fetus doesn't mean that the adult's "right must always take precedence." The same reasoning would allow a parent to kill an minor child. The parent's rights do take precedence but there are limits. The parent's rights are limited by the rights of a child -- it is unlawful for a parent to neglect or abuse a child.

Issue groups endorsing specific candidates

What do you think of issue groups endorsing specific candidates? To me to makes it seem like they are too political. For example the National Right to Life just endorsed Fred Thompson. I definitely think they should rate the candidates but it makes me questions the values and goals of the organization when they endorse a candidate. Your thoughts?

Christmas wish list

I'm starting my Christmas wish list early this year. Just buy anything from http://www.gfa.org/gift?motiv=WA7B-G4GC

Printing mail?

(Anna is by the printer when it prints a page)
Anna: Poppa...
Me: Yes?
Anna: There's some mail for you [Refering to the page that was printed]

Link to me

Have you every heard of linkedin.com? It is a professional
networking site that I have found to be useful. If you decide to sign up and you know me then please add me to your network.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesstauffer

Right to die -- Why not right to live?

Many people want to give people with "terminal illnesses" the right to kill themself. Why not give them the right to user experimental drugs to improve their life instead?

See
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/15/the-food-and-drug-administrations-deadly-policies/

Should the government do every good thing?

An article from Focus on the Family Action is titled "Urge Congress to Preserve Abstinence Funding". I agree that abstinence education is good but I don't think the federal government is good at that or should do that. And when the government does things that it shouldn't, then it generally causes more problems. I usually agree with Focus on the Family and Focus on the Family Action but I disagree when they suggest that the federal government should do things it wasn't designed to do (even "good things"). Abstinence funding should come from families, churches, non-profits, and local school districts.

Being seated in almost empty restaurants

It seems that almost every time we go to a restaurant that doesn't have many people there at the time we are seated near the other people. Why do they do that? I would prefer to be seated away from the other people so that we have more privacy. We have experienced this in a wide variety of restaurants.

Also, are there restaurants where you can just walk in and request a private room? I have tried searching and I can only find restaurants that require you to call so you can "plan your event".

Legislating morality

I often hear "you can't legislate morality" but that doesn't make sense to me. Murder is morally wrong and goverment has laws against murder. Maybe some people mean that laws can't change the morals of the people -- and I agree with that. But laws can change the actions of the people to reduce behaviour that is "immoral". Laws against murder don't prevent all murder but they do reduce it signifcantly. "Moral" laws help prevent people from harming each other.

The question then becomes: Which morals should be made into laws? I believe that answer to that varies by level and location of the government jurisdiction. i.e. Murder is generally a state crime and pet laws (leash, doo doo pickup, etc) are generally local crimes.

Freewill vs. predestination

First, does it really matter? i.e. Does the answer affect how you live your life? In both cases you must strive to serve God so I don't see how the answer matters.

Second, being able to see the future doesn't mean that one determines the future. If I see a car speeding toward a brick wall, I may be able to see what will happen in the future but that doesn't mean that I have any affect on the future. Just because God knows the future doesn't mean that he chose everything that will happen in it.

Do you see any problems with my arguments?