In another thread about a video discussing the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), the issue of rights has come under discussion.
Taken separately, most of the statements excerpted from the IPPF's declaration on sexual rights are relatively innocuous and I don't understand the outrage directed towards them. However, the general unease of evangelical conservatives towards the IPPF's agenda is not completely unfounded because the IPPF (and, locally, Planned Parenthood) really is not a human rights organization. Founded by big-mouthed eugenicist Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's agenda was originally to reduce the birth rate of undesirable populations (Google "Negro Project") by making birth control readily available (preferably free) and educating (indoctrinating) on its use.
Eugenics is one of the most egregious failure of social engineering. Social engineering is the attempt to use government to bring about a certain outcome within the social order. Most social engineering projects are motivated by the desire to achieve ends that are, prima facie, desirable. Three-strike laws, hate-crime laws and firearms sentencing kickers, for example, are social engineering laws whose intent is to bring about a crime-free society. Any decent person would like society to be crime-free. In fact, we might state this a little more strongly, that every person has a right to live in a crime-free society. So, it's imperative for a moral government to implement laws which will eradicate crime.
But the problem with defining rights in accordance to the aims of social engineering is that it always results in half-hearted rights. For example, reproductive rights organizations are generally opposed to polygamy and often prostitution, in line with the belief that polygamous society and societies with prostitution result in reduced rights for women. But this is obviously inconsistent - if individuals ought to be free to have sexual relations as they see fit, so long as they are not being coerced directly or indirectly, then any sexual arrangement which people choose to form is by right. This half-heartedness can be found in all forms of "rights" that originate from social-engineering projects.
While the horror of evangelicals at the idea of sexual/reproductive freedom is unfounded, the general apprehension about the sincerity of IPPF and similar organizations who claim to favor "sexual rights" is justified. Any organization whose purpose is to engineer a "better" society will inevitably run amok of individual rights.
Taken separately, most of the statements excerpted from the IPPF's declaration on sexual rights are relatively innocuous and I don't understand the outrage directed towards them. However, the general unease of evangelical conservatives towards the IPPF's agenda is not completely unfounded because the IPPF (and, locally, Planned Parenthood) really is not a human rights organization. Founded by big-mouthed eugenicist Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's agenda was originally to reduce the birth rate of undesirable populations (Google "Negro Project") by making birth control readily available (preferably free) and educating (indoctrinating) on its use.
Eugenics is one of the most egregious failure of social engineering. Social engineering is the attempt to use government to bring about a certain outcome within the social order. Most social engineering projects are motivated by the desire to achieve ends that are, prima facie, desirable. Three-strike laws, hate-crime laws and firearms sentencing kickers, for example, are social engineering laws whose intent is to bring about a crime-free society. Any decent person would like society to be crime-free. In fact, we might state this a little more strongly, that every person has a right to live in a crime-free society. So, it's imperative for a moral government to implement laws which will eradicate crime.
But the problem with defining rights in accordance to the aims of social engineering is that it always results in half-hearted rights. For example, reproductive rights organizations are generally opposed to polygamy and often prostitution, in line with the belief that polygamous society and societies with prostitution result in reduced rights for women. But this is obviously inconsistent - if individuals ought to be free to have sexual relations as they see fit, so long as they are not being coerced directly or indirectly, then any sexual arrangement which people choose to form is by right. This half-heartedness can be found in all forms of "rights" that originate from social-engineering projects.
While the horror of evangelicals at the idea of sexual/reproductive freedom is unfounded, the general apprehension about the sincerity of IPPF and similar organizations who claim to favor "sexual rights" is justified. Any organization whose purpose is to engineer a "better" society will inevitably run amok of individual rights.
Comments