Wednesday, January 22, 2003

Dave Winer: On this day 30 years ago, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v Wade, forever changing US law, culture, society, lifestyles, and setting in motion a philosophical debate that continues to this day. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, or somewhere inbetween, this may be a moment to pause and perhaps listen, to understand that there are points of view other than your own, and hard questions that do not have simple answers. [Scripting News] I thought Dave Winer's comments were the best that I have heard about the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Believe me, the best comments are not coming from the so called "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps. I am perhaps the only liberal in this country that is anti-abortion. It's a personal decision that I have come to (I leaned to the "pro-choice" side until a few years ago) as I have sought to apply the teachings of Jesus to my life. As with my views on the death penalty, I believe that if there is even a chance that an abortion could be murder, then it is better to have none than to let even one innocent human being die. The problem, as I see it, is that the debate is no longer about what is right, but rather about whose ideology is correct. The "pro-choice" camp talks about "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body". But no one on that side talks about the right of the unborn child, who has no say in this decision. And trust me, ever since I saw my now 6-month old son in the ultrasound for the first time, I have been even more convinced that a fetus is, in fact, an unborn child. And then on the "pro-life" side, you're either a "murderer" or a "baby killer" if you support the right to abortion, or even worse, have one yourself. But there is a great silence when they are asked what should be done beyond outlawing abortion. What will you do to help the mothers who will be forced into poverty by this pregnancy, and their children who will suffer because of it? How will you help those women who are not ready to be mothers for whom the only choice is abortion or adoption (but who cannot find anyone who will adopt their child because it is the "wrong color")? And why is it wrong to teach our children that even though abstinence is by far the better decision, if they must have sex they must also protect themselves so there will be no need for abortion? We must move beyond the "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" debate and move to a position of pro-responsibility. For those are not ready to have children, it is their responsibility to be abstinent (ideally) or use birth control to stop themselves from having a child. For those of us who pay taxes and vote, we must take responsibility for making sure that abortion is outlawed, and AT THE SAME TIME funding government programs to help those who have children before they are ready. And for all of us who live in this country, and especially those of us who are calling for abortion to be outlawed, we must be willing to adopt the children born to mothers who cannot keep them, regardless of whether they are the same color as we are. For if we fail to do this, we are confronted with two unsavory alternatives: That we are possibly allowing for the murder of innocent children. That we will drive women underground to pursue illegal and unsafe abortions, and force many others into poverty. It's our choice. We can either come up with a responsible alternative to the status quo in the post-Roe v. Wade United States, or we will have one of the two alternatives above, as we already do. It's OUR choice.   2:57:22 PM

RIAA's Rosen Sets Sights on ISPs. "Well, Ms. Rosen, I'll tell you what: You forward all your e-mail unedited to a public mailing list, scan and post all your private written correspondence to the same list, give us all-read access to your hard drives and post 24-7 webcams in your boudoir and bathroom, and then I'll believe you understand the invasion of privacy your shrill insistence on flushing what's left of the Constitution down the toilet entails," Ferrell suggested. [Wired] I am becoming more and more convinced that music lovers who are concerned with their fair use and privacy rights in this country have only one choice: boycott. Perhaps the only way we can eliminate the anti-democratic methods the music industry is using to prop up their faltering, old-economy business model is for them to collapse completely and be replaced by a new, more democratic music industry which treats its customers with respect and grants its artists dignity and a share of the profits. In the "intellectual property economy" we have entered into, access to information is crucial for a person to succeed. And while it is a stretch to say that access to music is the door to opportunity, if we don't fight the battles here while they are present, we won't be able to fight them when the "Copyright Cartel," as Dan Gillmor calls them, tries to take away our rights to quote from articles online. Or do research at a library. Or to read articles critical of Big Media. Unfortunately, large corporations, which are driven by their need to increase shareholder value, have generally proven themselves to be enemies of democracy, not allies. In their blind pursuit of increased profits, they seem more than willing to trample on individual liberties. The free market has proven to be an excellent method for creating wealth in the world. Let us hope that it can be equally effective at punishing those who would oppose our civil rights for the sake of their own profits.   2:28:38 PM