THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
OPINION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005
WWW.KANSAN.COM
PAGE 5A
SOUKING-UP
Rights come from God
In his Oct. 27 guest commentary entitled "Abortion unlienable right," David Armstrong argues in favor of the abortion rights saying that he is "propcchoice because [he] believe[s] in privacy, women's rights, healthy families, population control and freedom."
Most of his arguments sound more like Sanger-esque eugenics than anything having to do at all with rights.
But, that's another discussion entirely. So, to put first things first, one must first recognize from where man's rights come before he can start claiming that this or that is one of man's unalienable rights.
Whereas the secularist believes that man is created in the image and likeness of pond scum (truly an awe-inspiring image), people of faith believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God.
According to this secular reasoning, man should have no rights in and of himself. If man is, as the secularist would have people believe, only a collection of random materials brought together through random forces, what dignity does that instill in him?
What importance has he over a rock or tree? Rocks do not
ANDREW SOUKUP opinion@kansan.com
have an unalienable right to liberty. Trees are not entitled to a pursuit for happiness. It would be awfully arrogant of man to think that he deserves better than these things which exist for the same reasons he does.
Similarly, one's rights do not come from the government. Even liberal secularists should agree with this precept. When asked where their rights come from, most people will answer that it is the Constitution that provides them their rights.
But, the Constitution does not provide rights; it guarantees them. If it was the government's prerogative to give its citizens their rights, should it not also be within its authority to take them away?
With every right they perceive being taken away through the Patriot Act and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, those, such as Armstrong, who say that we must keep God out of the public sector continue to reap what they sew. Without
any absolute moral standard, how can one claim any recognition of an absolute, unalienable right?
It is from his likeness to God that man draws his dignity.
Belief in the rights of men must stem from the recognition that man was created for a purpose. Human dignity and human rights come from the simple fact that men are here for a reason. If my life has no meaning, then I have no need for a right to life.
Without a right to life, what need have I for any other rights?
A belief in the worth of any person is contingent on a belief in a purpose for that person; it is contingent upon recognition of his likeness to God.
If man is the greatest thing to ever exist, then it is a pretty poor situation he is in. It is one thing to debate whether or not God might be pro-choice or pro-gay marriage or anything else.
But, when faith is pushed out of the picture, the debate becomes a moot point since man's rights are meaningless, because, apart from his relation to God, man has no rights.
Soukup is junior in linguistics.
Free All for
Call 864-0500
Free for all callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded. Instant message the Free for All at "ukdtreofearl."
Hey, this is for the guy in front of Oliver playing his guitar. Just because you have a guitar and you know 3 bars of music doesn't mean you should play those 3 bars for an hour straight.
★
We invaded Iraq because they were barbarians who ignore civil rights, and now we're not only using their old prisons to torture and humiliate their people, but we're also using old Soviet prisoners to do it in secret. *Hurry, hurry, pray?*
You know, Free for All, the day you get text-messaging is the day I get happy in my pants.
So, I was at the game today, and I can't even remember if we won or lost.
Huck the Fuskers!
Anyways, what are you doing tonight?
Oh wait, wrong IM window.
So John, you're like the Hamburlgar except you steal sandwiches.
The North Templin Liberation Front would liberate Nebraska, but one, some things just aren't worth it, and two, our football team pretty much did that for us.
A rent-a-cop pulled up next to me and I flipped him off.
He rolled down his window and chucked a sprinkled donut at the passenger side window and it stuck.
Things change, Mox. You're the startin' quarterback now.
+
This is for the girls who ruined my lunch at the Underground today by yelling out names of US casualties. I'm sure over 2000 deceased US soldiers love having you exploit their names to further your own political ambitions.
Professor Rowland for president!
I hate Ottawa with the burning passion of a thousand STDs.
That preacher guy on Wescoe and Fred Phelps must be BFF.
it is November 1st and I am listening to Z-95.7
and they are playing Christmas music. Come on people.
Free for All should be called the Bitch for All.
If KU goes to Austin this weekend and wins,
we're tearing down the goalposts here.
The horoscopes are really bad. Well, today Scopios were supposed to have a 5-star day, and me and my boyfriend are both Scorpios and he's not my boyfriend anymore.
+
Did you know there's a song about you? Ted Nugent wrote it in 1976. Here it is. (Difficult to discern Ted Nugent plays for 20 seconds or so.) wasn't that
The kid that plays the bongo drums really needs to shut up. Now.
great?
I just had sex at Abercrombie and Fitch. There's nothing like having sex to the bumping of techno
Is it bad if I'm turned on by scooping out the inside of a pumpkin?
Hi, this is to the guy who was at the Rec Center on Tuesday night and he had a tattoo with Chinese letters on his leg. I just wanted to say that I like you and I was wondering if you had a girlfriend.
I would really like to kick Nebraska in the balls.
TALK TO US
Austin Caster, editor
864-4854 or acaster@kansan.com
George W. Bush is a Sith Lord.
Go Chiefs!
Jonathan Kealing, managing editor 864-4854 or jkealing@kansan.com
Matthew Sevcik, opinion editor
864-4924 or msevcik@kansan.com
Sarah Connelly, business manager
864-404-1 or addreder@kansan.com
Joshua Bickel, managing editor 864-4854 or.ibickel@kansan.com
Jennifer Weaver, sales and marketing adviser
864-7864 or jweaver@kansan.com
SUBMISSIONS
Mcalom Gibson, general manager, newsroom
8761 7667 or mgibson@kamann.com
John Morgan, sales director
864-4426 or addrender@kansan.com
The chance a system like this could randomly evolve all at once is about the same chance you would have of picking up a single, specific grain of sand.
General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kanasan.com.
Meanwhile, intelligent design offers valid explanations for the origins of life. At the molecular level of our biological systems, we are crammed with pathways that can only be explained by design. One example is the human blood-clotting system. If one protein is lost, the whole system loses its function.
LETTER GUIDELINES
We are aware of our intelligence. We have a conscience and mind that allow us to make complex judgments and decisions. These things set us apart from all other animals on earth. Here is an important question: How would unintelligent evolution explain the appearance of intelligent beings?
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions.
For any questions, call Austin Caster at 864-4810 or e-mail opinion @kansan.com.
▼ GUEST COMMENTARY
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
**Maximum Length:** 200 word limit
**Include:** Author's name and telephone number; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name; class, home-town (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
species.
Also: The Kansas will not print guess columns that attack another columnist
EDITORIAL BOARD
Two theories of evolution exist, and they are quite different. The first is a well-documented fact: microevolution - genetic variation within a species; for example, Charles Darwin's finches and the size variation of their beaks.
If the scientific community backs creative evolution originally proposed by Charles Darwin, then the burden lies on the scientific community to practice good science by testing hypotheses, finding and reporting facts in an unbiased fashion and not assuming anything until facts can defend the original hypothesis. The facts are in and they point to an intelligent designer, not a porous story of natural origins.
Design debate: Darwin dar-loses
The second type, macroevolution, or creation evolution, attempts to answer the question "How did we get here?"
Ellis Ford, Yanting Wang, Joel Simone, Dan Hoyt, Annie Weltmer, Nathan Nathan McGinnis, Josh Goeting, Sara Garlick, Travis Brown, Julian Portillo, David Archer
SUBMIT TO
Kansan newroom
111 Staffer-Fint Hall
1436 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 68045
(785) 864-4810 opinion@kansan.com
Creation evolution fails to find factual evidence to defend its hypothesis, while the intelligent design hypothesis offers a plausible explanation to life's beginnings. But, advocates of intelligent design should not criticize science itself. Instead they should criticize the scientific claims that lack supporting evidence, like creation evolution.
Creation evolution is a story of chemicals spontaneously coming together long ago in a "primordial soup," naturally becoming a living cell, unintentionally evolving into more complex organisms and eventually into human beings. Alternatively, the intelligent design hypothesis offers the answer that we were created by an intelligent creator.
"Primordial soup" is the term given to the mixture of chemicals that sorted themselves together into more complex organic molecules according to the theory of creation evolution.
The soup theory relies on the assumption that organic molecules later combined into cells. To have faith that the "soup" is a legitimate source of life raises problems and objections.
the sun and other stars would have been intense enough to break the chemical bonds in the organic molecules. Therefore, whether oxygen was present, the primordial soup hypothesis is cooked.
DUSTIN ELLIOTT opinion@kansan.com
Oxygen's presence would have destroyed the early organic molecules needed for life to form because it is so reactive. However, if no oxygen was present on the early Earth, there would have been no ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation from
Darwin was the first person to propose the idea of creation evolution. He hypothesized that organisms become more complex over time and naturally evolve into new species.
Darwin also admitted that the one thing that would debunk his hypothesis is a lack of a transitional species, such as a reptile that had evolved into a bird, in fossils that have been recorded.
What do we find in the fossil record? We find countless species who have not evolved in a transitional manner and a miniscule amount of transitional
$\diamond$ Elliott is an Overland Park junior in biochemistry.
The Short Stack
Jayplay label homophobic
Editor's note: The Short Stack is a new opinion page feature in which we publish less lengthy comments and letters to the editor. If you have something to say, but aren't drunk enough to call the Free for All and don't like to write long, lofty essays, then e-mail The Short Stack at opinion@kansan.com.
David Ta and Ryan Joy are more than roommates. They are committed life partners who have been together for years. Your feature story, "Taming of the Tabby," from the Oct. 27 edition of Jayplay revises and minimizes that element of their lives, shamelessly presenting them as "two roommates" with some cats. This type of journalistic erasure is not only homophobic
could have easily and nonobtrusively been reflected in the story without making it a central element. Shame on you for promoting and continuing the hegemonic notion of a completely heterosexual society.
and closed-minded, but is unethical in that it intentionally misrepresents two people. They are open and honest about who they are, and that should have been reflected in the article. Some may contend that their sexual orientation is not a key issue in the story, but their sexual orientation is a reality that should not be distorted with a roommate label. The relationship
Jimmie Manning is a Liberal graduate student in communication and women's studies.
Abortion beliefs outdated, laughable
I've read the Kansan everyday for two years and have never come across an article as laughable as David Armstrong's article claiming abortion as an "unalienable-right." His attempt to justify the annual murder of 46 million human beings is backwards and anti-progressive. The idea that the world has approached a population limit is outdated and academically dishonest. Hitler used this idea to advocate war and David provides no facts to support the claim.
The United Nations reports that quality of life is higher in more densely populated countries and food supplies have doubled in the last 40 years. Such "over-population" nonsense only opens the door for policy discussion on euthanasia, forced sterilization and genocide.
per year. Reliable statistics put the number closer to 120. Besides, legal murder of millions is not justified by isolated incidents of "murder gone wrong." David's article, like the abortion-rights movement, is full of holes and devoid of logic. We can only hope, as this movement continues to crumble, that mankind will forgo such narrow-mindedness, embracing a more enlightened view.
Secondly, it's time to put the "coat-hanger abortions" myth to rest. Bernard Nathanson, an early abortion-rights advocate, admitted to completely falsifying such numbers as 10,000 deaths
Dennis Chanay is a Paola Sophomore
Dems close senate, with repercussion
Last Monday, Democrats unexpectedly called for a closed session of the Senate. The reason?
To force our own beloved Senator Roberts to keep his promise to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. While the bold move was welcome news to Democrats sick of
seeing their party behave like eight-year-old bedwetters, it has enormous implications for all Americans. If, as the Republicans claim, there was no manipulation of intelligence, then they have nothing to fear from such an investigation.
But if our worst fears are true, and our (sort-of) elected leaders deliberately to all to
of us to justify a war, then we have a right to know, and the Congress has a duty to find out.
We must demand that our Republican senators do their job and investigate the President, even if they are playing on the same team.
Drew Schendel Lawrence law student
18
---