Secular Spiritual Values: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on spiritual values. The question was:

What are "spiritual" values? In your recent discussion of "Materialism in Marriage," you talked about the importance of "spiritual values." However, I found that confusing, since I've always associated "spirituality" with religion, often of the woozy variety. So what are spiritual values? How are they different from material values? Why are they important?

My Answer, In Brief: Understood rationally, "spiritual values" are values that sustain and nourish the mind. They are objective requirements of a person's life and happiness.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 21:21
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Art, Ethics, Friendship, Introspection, Pleasure, Spiritual Values, Values

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Materialism in Marriage

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on spiritual values, advancing liberty through a new political party, welfare reform versus immigration reform, declining a friend's plans for business partnership, and more – is available here: Episode of 24 February 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Link-O-Rama

• Catholic Hospital Chain Wins Lawsuit by Arguing Fetus Is Not a Person: "A Catholic health provider has abandoned its beliefs by arguing that a dead fetus and a dead person are not the same thing in order to win a malpractice lawsuit." Well, that's not an example of sticking by principle, now is it? (Update: Bishops will review Catholic hospital's malpractice defense.)
• Anti-Abortion Group to Lawmakers: Please, Let's Talk About Rape!: If Personhood USA was a front for Democrats, it would act... well, exactly as it does. Recall that every GOP presidential candidate except Romney willingly embraced "personhood for zygotes" in this last election and participated in Personhood USA's debates. (Alas, Romney then selected a personhood zealot for his running mate.) Such zealous social conservatism is a big part of why the GOP has been losing elections in Colorado and elsewhere... and why they'll continue to do so without serious reform.
• WTF, Evolution?: "Honoring natural selection's most baffling creations. Go home, evolution, you are drunk." Oh creationists, what does your god have to say for himself now?
• Vassar Uses Anti-Gay Protest to Raise Funds to Help Gay Youth: Kudos to Vassar for turning hateful speech by the Westboro Baptist nutters into fundraising for a good cause.
• Cardinal Peter Turkson, Possible Pope Successor, Has Defended Legislation Like Uganda's 'Kill The Gays' Bill: Disgusting, but thoroughly biblical.
• Fetuses Don’t Have Rights; Pregnant Women Do; This Distinction is Crucial: Fetuses are not persons with rights, but that doesn't mean that random people can intentionally or negligently cause the death of a fetus without legal penalty.

Read more...

Democrats and Republicans: United for Rapists

If you thought that only Republicans made idiotic comments about rape, think again. According to Colorado Democrat Joe Salazar, women on campus are incapable of understanding the basics of self-defense law, and so they should be disarmed so that they don't "pop a round at somebody."



Here's what he said:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. And universities have ben faced with that situation for a long time. It's why we have call boxes. That's why we have safe zones. That's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble -- and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.

Basically, the Democrats want to disarm women, so that they can't fight off a rapist. Then the Republicans want to prevent those women from obtaining Plan B or an abortion, if they get pregnant. It's lovely to see both sides united in the "War Against Women."

Also, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs advises women to "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating" and "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." Because nothing could go wrong with that, right? (Note: That wasn't posted in response to any of the recent debates about gun control, thankfully.)

Here's what I said about the importance of allowing concealed carry on campus in a prior blog post:

When I was a graduate student at CU Boulder, I had to walk a few blocks off-campus, through a residential neighborhood, to get to my car. I took classes in the evening on occasion, and during those times, my walk was dark and lonely. Like other students, I'd receive periodic reports of sexual assaults just off-campus, and that worried me.

The police chief's advice of carrying a "safety whistle" was pure absurdity to me. If I was attacked, that wouldn't do me a lick of good. Also, I knew that I couldn't hope to outrun my attacker: I'm a slow sprinter, and even in elementary school, I only ever beat the fat girl in running the 50-yard dash. Really, I wanted my "safety Ruger" -- because that could have actually kept me safe! Instead, I often took Kate, my German Shepherd with me to those late classes. She probably wouldn't have helped much if I'd been attacked, but she might have deterred a criminal.

Moreover, in the wake of school shootings, I hated to think of being disarmed and defenseless, particularly as a teacher in a classroom full of terrified students. I'd have an obligation to protect my students as best as I could, yet I'd be unable to do much of anything. I hated that with a passion.

I suspect (and even hope, somewhat) that the Democrats have reached their high-water-mark in Colorado with these new gun controls... if only the Republicans don't out-stupid them before the 2014 election.

Read more...

North Dakota Passes Personhood Legislation

Here's some very bad news from North Dakota, particularly for couples suffering from infertility:

North Dakota's Senate approved two anti-abortion bills on Monday that would ban the destruction of human embryos and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point a fetus can feel pain.

Senators voted 30-17 to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The measure is a challenge to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

The embryo measure narrowly passed 24-23, with the full Senate present. The measure's aim is to prohibit the intentional destruction of embryos and to regulate in-vitro fertilization, in which a woman's egg is fertilized outside her body. The bill defines a human being as "an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development."

For more on what's wrong with such "personhood" laws, read The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and myself.

Also, worse might be coming from North Dakota:

The North Dakota House this month also passed a bill that would ban doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat were detected. The House also has passed a bill would prevent women from having abortions based on gender selection or a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome.

Every restriction on abortion means forcing the burdens of pregnancy -- and likely motherhood -- on unprepared, incapable, and unwilling women. That's a violation of their right to life, and it's a serious moral evil.

Read more...

The Value of Marriage: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the value of marriage. The question was:

What is the value of marriage? How is it different from living with a romantic partner in a committed relationship? Is marriage only a legal matter? Or does it have some personal or social benefit?

My Answer, In Brief: The explicit, considered, and public commitment of a marriage offers major legal, business, social, and personal benefits over and above merely living together.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 17:47
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Dating, Family, Law, Marriage, Relationships, Romance

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Staying in a Marriage, Living Together Outside Marriage, State Involvement in Marriage, and more on marriage

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the value of marriage, antibiotic resistance in a free society, concern for attractiveness to others, semi-automatic handguns versus revolvers, and more – is available here: Episode of 17 February 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Atheism as Religion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on atheism as religion. The question was:

Is atheism just another form of religion? I often hear from religious people that atheism is just another form of religion – and just as much based on faith as Christianity and the like. Is that right or wrong?

My Answer, In Brief: Atheism is not any kind of religion or faith. Religion involves belief (without adequate evidence) in the supernatural, and atheism denies such claims because they're utterly without rational foundation.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 8:40
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Faith, Religion Relevant Links:

• Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the value of studying personality, the golden rule, yelling at employees, atheism as religion, and more – is available here: Episode of 3 February 2013.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

The Christian Conservative Echo Chamber

In his recent article, Why I'm Canceling my SI Subscription, Andrew Klavan is up in arms about the supposedly hostile leftism of culture -- Sports Illustrated in particular. It begins:

I am going to let my subscription to Sports Illustrated lapse when it runs out this year. I hope lots of other people will do the same. Like too many other publications, the magazine has become dishonest, dishonorable and even occasionally despicable in its conformist, lockstep left-wing bias. Republican politicians and conservative positions are routinely insulted in articles having nothing to do with either. Yawn-inducing left wing predictability is brought to the discussion of every issue. No SI writer is allowed to disagree with leftism ever. Despite its great photographs and occasionally good athlete profiles, the magazine has remade itself into crap in the name of political conformity.

For me, the Super Bowl issue with its smarmy and poorly reported article on religion in football was the last straw. The article was not an offense to God, it was an offense to journalism. Mark Oppenheimer, a left wing anti-religion writer for the left wing New York Times, among other left wing venues, does the left wing hit job on football players of faith. ...

Despite all that overblown rhetoric, he cites just one one example from the article. Here is the offending quote:

It's clear that for a substantial number of athletes and coaches, there is no tension between being a Christian and being an aggressive athlete. On the contrary, many of them argue that football builds character and thereby makes a man more of a Christian -- a commingling of faith and football now accepted by fans.

But is that a mistake? Just 50 years ago such coziness between public Christianity and football would have seemed absurd. Athletes were nobody's idea of good ambassadors for religion; they were more likely to be seen as dissolute drinkers and womanizers -- more the roguish Joe Namath than the devout Roger Staubach.The aggressive, violent play preached by coaches of an earlier generation was accepted as natural precisely because sport was pagan, not Christian. Christianity was peaceful, charitable and pious. Sport was bloody, ruthless, impious.

In the 1950s and 60s that antagonism began to soften..."

That's it. Not only does that example not support Klavan's hyperventiliating about left-wing bias, but it also equates public expressions of Christianity by private individuals with conservativism, such that any skepticism about that is nothing but left-wing bias. In fact, (1) most political leftists are Christians, and (2) many devout Christians are uncomfortable with the loud expressions of faith often heard from football players.

Are conservative Christians unaware of just how silly this makes them look to anyone outside their echo chamber?

Alas, I think not. Lord have mercy on us!

Read more...

Tacit Consent to Pregnancy? No!

This short commentary raises an excellent question about the "if you have sex, you're consenting to pregnancy" argument against abortion rights.

According to many pro-lifers, when women consent to sex, they thereby consent to (and commit themselves to) bearing any resulting children. And so, in deciding to having sex, these women have in effect voluntarily waived their right to get an abortion.

Now, I find this pro-life claim utterly baffling: consent to sex is clearly different from consenting to anything further, many women deliberately use birth control to avoid pregnancy, many women plan on getting an abortion if they should end up pregnant, etc. According to this pro-life claim, it seems, we are supposed to interpret the act of consensual sex itself as involving some sort of mysterious tacit consent and occult commitments that are not only morally significant, but so overwhelmingly morally important as to completely override the actual preferences of the woman. I don't think actions carry occult commitments, and this all seems like superstition to me.

But here's my question. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that actions do carry occult commitments. Even granting this, we still need a way of telling what those commitments are. Without a method of interpretation, we're utterly in the dark. For example, a typical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear the child, waiving one's right to an abortion. But a more radical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear and raise the child, waiving one's right to an abortion as well as one's right to put the child up for adoption. My question is: how are we supposed to tell which interpretation is correct, and which occult commitments are (and are not) carried by the act of consensual sex?

Ultimately, all arguments against abortion rights -- including the argument from tacit consent -- depend on the claim that the fetus has a right to life.  Ari Armstrong and I refuted that argument in our 2010 policy paper, The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.  If you've not yet read it, be sure to check out the section on "Individual Rights and Abortion."

That being said... over the past few months, I've been thinking off and on about how to defend abortion rights in a way that's more persuasive than the standard pro-choice arguments, including the better arguments of Objectivists.  I want to find a way to make my own view resonate better with reasonable people of the "but it's a baby!" mindset.  So if you have any thoughts on more effective rhetoric on this issue, I'd be interested to hear that in the comments.  I'd be particularly interested to hear from people who switched from "pro-life" to pro-choice views: What convinced you?

Read more...

Veto Power over Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on veto power over abortion. The question was:

Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby? Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It's his baby, shouldn't he have some say?

My Answer, In Brief: The right to abortion is not based on any property right in the fetus. Rather, the right to abortion is based on a woman's right to her own body, including the fact that the embryo or fetus is not a person. The man might object, but he has no moral or legal right to interfere.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 9:11
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Children, Ethics, Fatherhood, Pregnancy, Rights Relevant Links:

• The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly the section Rights in Pregnancy
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh in The Objective Standard
• Philosophy in Action: Child Support from Unwilling Fathers

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I also answered questions on solutions to widespread racism, recommended works of Aristotle, staying in a marriage, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 January 2013.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Veto Power over Abortion: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer a question on veto power over abortion. The question is:

Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby? Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It's his baby, shouldn't he have some say?

Interested? I hope so!

This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 20 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET. The full show will cover solutions to widespread racism, recommended works of Aristotle, veto power over abortion, staying in a marriage, and more. Be sure to check out the full slate of questions.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 20 January 2013.

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later!

Read more...

Romance Between an Atheist and a Believer: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on romance between an atheist and a believer. The question was:

Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work? What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter?

My Answer, In Brief: Religion is a fundamental motivator of values, and so romance between an atheist and a religious believer is possible, but fraught with danger.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 23:20
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Character, Children, Compromise, Ethics, Honesty, Integrity, Marriage, Relationships, Religion, Romance Relevant Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Atheism

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on free will and natural law, romance between an atheist and a believer, bringing children into a statist world, and more – is available here: Episode of 13 January 2013.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Link-O-Rama

• Letters of Note: Hot Hot Hot: The staff of "Will & Grace" respond to a letter of protest written by "a 'former gay man' and Youth & Gender Specialist at Focus on the Family, a Christian organisation which actively promotes sexual orientation conversion therapy." Too funny!
• The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist: Why am I not surprised that atheists face death only in Muslim countries?
• 60 Moments That Gave Me The Chills During Seattle's First Day Of Marriage Equality: Committed love is what opponents of gay marriage are fighting -- and that's why they're losing.
• We Are Not Murderers, Mr. Scalia: Scalia's comment that "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?" -- that's what happens when people don't grasp that morality has an objective foundation in facts, and that it's not a matter of tradition, authority, or feelings. BLECH.
• Paul Ryan Cosponsors New Fetal Personhood Bill: I really think that this should be titled: "Paul Ryan Cosponsors Fetal Personhood Bill to Remind America Why He Lost the Election and Why We Should Be Grateful for That."

Read more...

Paul Sherman on Free Speech in Elections: Philosophy in Action Podcast

I interviewed Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections" on Philosophy in Action Radio on Wednesday, 9 January 2013.

You can listen to or download the audio podcast any time. You'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

Podcast: 9 January 2013: Paul Sherman on "Free Speech in Elections"

Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He argues persuasively that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech. He has successfully argued that view in courts across the country.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades."

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 59:19
• Download: Standard MP3 File (20.4 MB)

Topics:

• Common federal and state campaign finance laws
• The history of campaign finance laws
• Breadth in decisions, and my case
• The results of campaign finance laws
• Private enforcement of campaign finance laws
• The value of "transparency" and "accountability" in elections
• Money as a form of speech
• Protections for corporate speech
• Privacy and campaign contributions
• The irrelevance of funding to campaigns
• SuperPACS
• Individuals versus groups in campaign finance
• The Institute for Justice's current cases and strategy
• Truly supporting the First Amendment
• How to effectively defend free speech

Relevant Links:

• Institute for Justice
• Wikipedia: Benjamin Tillman
• Oral Argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Tags:

Activism, Campaign Finance, Elections, Free Speech, Government, Law, Politics, Rights

Episode Sponsor

This episode was sponsored the incomparable Audible.com.

I've subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my "Platinum Annual Membership," I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.

If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You'll get a great deal, and you'll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It's a win-win – and I love that!

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Support
Our WorkRemember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That's because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar! We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is welcome. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.

Read more...

Paul Sherman on Free Speech in Elections: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On tonight's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections."

This episode of internet radio airs on this evening, 9 January 2013, at 6 PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later.

Here's a bit more about the show:

Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He claims that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech, and he has successfully argued that view in courts across the country.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades."

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 9 January 2013.

I hope that you join us on Wednesday evening, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Gay "Conversion" Therapy: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on gay "conversion" therapy. I thought that might be of interest. The question was:

Was California right or wrong to ban "gay cure" therapy for minors? Recently, California banned "reparative" or "conversion" therapy – meaning, therapy that aims to make gay teenagers straight. Such therapy is widely regarded as dangerous pseudo-science by mental health professionals. The ban only applies to patients under 18. So adults can still choose such therapy for themselves, but parents cannot foist it on their minor children. Is such therapy a form of child abuse? Or should parents have the power to compel such therapy on their children, even if they're morally wrong to do so?

My Answer, In Brief: Gay "conversion" therapy, even when voluntary, can be deeply destructive to a teenager. I'm not sure that it should be banned, however.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 23:57
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Ethics, GLBT, Law, Parenting, Psychology, Rights, Torts Relevant Links:

• Wikipedia: Gay Conversion Therapy
• My So-Called Ex-Gay Life by Gabriel Arana
• The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy by Douglas C. Haldeman, Ph.D.
• Mission Impossible: Why Reparative Therapy and Ex-Gay Ministries Fail by Kim I. Mills
• Anti-Gay Organizations: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and Exodus International

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on manipulating finances to qualify for welfare, initiating contact in friendship, poking fun at values, gay "conversion" therapy, and more – is available as a podcast here: Episode of 6 January 2013.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...