In an article previously published in this Journal, Anthony Oyowe critically engages with my attempt to demonstrate how the human rights characteristic of South Africa’s Constitution can be grounded on a certain interpretation of Afro-communitarian values that are often associated with talk of ‘ubuntu’. Drawing on recurrent themes of human dignity and communal relationships in the sub-Saharan tradition, I have advanced a moral-philosophical principle that I argue entails and plausibly explains a wide array of individual rights to civil liberties, political (...) power, criminal procedures and economic resources. Oyowe’s most important criticism of my theory is in effect that it is caught in a dilemma: either the principle I articulate can account for human rights, in which case it does not count as communitarian, or it does count as the latter, but cannot account for the former. In this article, I reply to Oyowe, contending that he misinterprets key facets of my theory to the point of not yet engaging with its core strategy for deriving human rights from salient elements of ubuntu. I conclude that Oyowe is unjustified in claiming that there are ‘theoretical lapses’ that ‘cast enormous doubts’ on my project of deriving human rights from a basic moral principle with a recognizably sub-Saharan and communitarian pedigree. (shrink)

Over the last decade, more U.S. taxpayers money has been spent trying to anticipate and address the bioethical issues raised by advances in human genetics than any other set of issues in the field. Does this make sense? Not everyone in bioethics thinks so. Some think there are more important topics, like issues of health care justice, that will be neglected if the field continues to follow the money to dwell on the moral challenges of a relatively small community of (...) research scientists. Others decry genetic exceptionalism as inappropriately singling out this scientific enterprise for criticism and regulation, when the same issues are faced even more acutely in other parts of the biomedical world. Human genetics is not accelerating as fast as pharmacology, for example, or as easy to abuse as virology, or as philosophically challenging as neurology. (shrink)

Infertility is one of the key themes in the Old Testament narrative. This infertility was experienced by the Israelite matriarchs Sarai, Rebekah and Rachel as well as several other women. This article argues that the concept infertility has given rise to injustice and discrimination, especially against women. For this reason, a constructive and a contextual dialogue between the biblical context and the context of the present is required to offer a new understanding and a liberating spirit to women and men. (...) It is crucial because there is a traditional assumption that infertility is a disgrace and misfortune for a family. The inability to have children can create problems in the home, such as divorce or polygamy for the sake of having children. Infertility constitutes a severe problem for couples in a culture that emphasises the importance of producing descendants.CONTRIBUTION: This article offers a theological contribution from the Old Testament as a critique of the culture in terms of how infertile women are treated, that is, infertility as God's grace. Also, this article offers a Christian theological understanding of the handling of infertility in an Indonesian context. It aims to redefine infertility and bring each couple to the realisation that the plight of infertility or having no children should no longer be seen as a burden for a couple but rather as part of God's grace for their lives. (shrink)