Women risk their life to give life, men do not
Submitted by paul4won on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 08:27That is why women have the RIGHT - yes a PHYSICALLY unalienable RIGHT - make all the laws you want she can STILL end an unwanted pregnancy - a woman has a NATURAL RIGHT to take the life of the fetus.
If you self-righteous morons would ever "get it" that this is a DIVIDE AND CONQUER tactic, you might be able to stop alienating 1/2 the populace.
I have the "RIGHT" ti punch you in the nose, my "RIGHT" ends where your nose begins. There is NOTHING that givesn ANY human a right to tell me what to do with the contents of my BODY. The fetus is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT upon the mother's MERCY. That is why mothers are special, we DO have the ability to bestow or deny life.
Good bye, and good luck. I am going back to hang out with the liberals until this is all over. I can see no victory, when the "moral" people are missing the boat so entirely. At least they are kind to each other. You people are just fucking cruel for no good reason.
Hey, have you emailed the White House to complain about all the babies they are killing? When does Jesus say it is OK to start killing them? 13? 18? 21?
Many a Man
has risked his life or even given it to protect his woman.
Any man worth his salt spends his working life sustaining his woman and their children.
Too many have abandoned the moral underpinnings of that social commitment. Once that happens, all kinds of inhuman ideas become possible, even killing one's own offspring.
I don't know who you are calling self-righteous morons or why
you are bringing this up. I haven't noticed any massive attention being paid to this issue. Why did you post this all of a sudden?
As for your argument, you are dead wrong.
Rights are based on responsibility. Technically, "rights" simply are a list of sovereign authorities it is "correct" or "right" that you should have.
In order to fulfill your responsibilities, you must have authority to act to do so. (else the responsibility belongs to someone else. To have the responsibility to do something but no power or authority to take action to fulfill it is just plain silly)
Thus rights ARE your authorities. That is why the word "right" with respect to "liberty" and "right" with respect to "correct" are spelled the same and sound the same, because they are in fact, the same word.
As an example, you have the responsibility to protect your own life. That responsibility does not lie with anyone else. Thus you have the "right" or the "proper/correct" authority to defend yourself. Thus it is only right, correct, or proper, that you keep and bear arms. The "right" to keep and bear arms, is merely the authority to act which is "proper" for you considering your responsibility.
Applied to abortion, there is no responsibility you can demonstrate that would require that it is right or proper for a mother to kill her unborn child.
On the contrary, by engaging consensually in the sexual act, a woman has taken on responsibility for another life, and thus CANNOT have the right to kill that life. (That would be the antithesis of fulfilling her new responsibility)
You might have arguments in the realm of people incurring responsibilities involuntarily, such as in the case of rape, but your point would stop there.
(there is also the matter that a very rare situation arises that the two lives, mother and child, become mutually exclusive due to medical complications. In this case, there is no objective choice. The choice is not an option, it is forced, only one will live. In the case of a mother in this situation who has other children already, it would be against her responsibility already incurred to them, if she were to carry the baby and die in child birth.)
I suggest you take your own brand of self-righteousness and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. This is the Daily Paul. And Ron Paul does not condone or encourage abortion, has never performed one, and has never, in the over 4000 babies he has delivered EVER found it medically necessary to abort a child. The argument of "danger" to the mother, or the mother's vaguely defined "health" is bogus according to Dr. Paul.
And all philosophical arguments about "rights" aside, I'll take the professional opinion of an OB/GYN over your ranting and raving any day.
Are you sure you are on the right website?
I Understand You
A woman has the right to kill and innocent human lfe. I understand that POV, but disagree.
What is more evil than the killing of an innocent human being?
This issue is not complicated.
Reply:
Hats off to all the women, they always make so many sacrifices for others. Thanks for sharing this article! :)
*link removed*
32 minutes here and you have
32 minutes here and you have to bump this stupid thread.. Abortion is wrong period.. it is murder. If you didn't want the child in the first place then you should have taken precautions and acted like an adult before you took your panties off.. pure and simple. You are held accountable for your actions.
“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul
Agree, why dig this up again
This thread is a strong argument for retroactive abortion.
I was gonna say...
Rehash of divisive garbage. Barf!
It's a spambot buddy
.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
The stark truth rebesoul.
You don't mince any words.
sometimes they shouldn't be...
The stark truth can wake someone up....
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Abortion is a Constitutional issue, not a moral one.
Aside: I could not help but notice that your argument seems to be based on nothing more substantial than "because I said so." Nothing in the Ethics of Liberty or the Constitution gives you, regardless of your gender, the RIGHT to kill the innocent. By your logic there will never be any such thing as "dead beat dads" since they, in accordance with their liberty, could simply walk away at any time and who are we to require them to pay for their children? I would like to see how long your liberal friends stay with you when you tell them that.
Now on to my response...
According to the 5th and 14th Amendments, life, liberty or property can only be infringed after due process and equal protection under the law have been provided. Equal protection requires that the unborn have the same protection as the born. The born cannot have their lives infringed without having first committed a capital crime. Thus, the unborn, since they are incapable of committing a capital crime, may not have their lives infringed either. Moreover, since it is impossible for the unborn to have notice or an opportunity to be heard, there can be no process equal to the constitutional requirement of due process.
Answer to rape and incest and the mother's liberty infringed against her consent:
The baby is not the criminal, the unwanted-father is. The remedy must be against him, not the child. The unwanted father is also the infringer upon the woman's liberty. Again, the remedy is against him, not the child. The state is the protector of the baby's due process and equal rights and the force for legal retribution against the unwanted-father. The state allowing murder of the innocent to correct the actions of the guilty does not provide due process or equal protection to either the baby or the mother.
Answer to the infringement upon the mother's 9th amendment privacy and liberty rights:
The mother's liberty has been infringed by her own consent when she engaged in consensual sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a consequence. Consent is not infringement. State allowance of murder for the convenience of fixing the mother's mistake after the fact is not due process or equal protection for the baby and is therefore unconstitutional.
Answer to 'the 5th Amendment protects persons…the baby is not a person yet.
According to the European slave traders, the Africans they sold were not people either. According to the plantation owners in the Caribbean and the Americas, their slaves were not people either. According to the Taney Supreme Court of 1857, Dred Scott, a slave suing for his freedom, was not a person either. According to Hitler, the Jews were not people either. According to the Hutus, the Tutsis were not people either. According to the Janjaweed Militia the Darfurian Civilians were not people either. Questioning the personhood of other humans has always been and always will be the losing argument. If a human embryo was found on Mars in a stasis jar would NASA report the finding of mere life…or would NASA report the finding of HUMAN life?
Answer to 'abortion is a states rights issue.'
The 14th Amendment prevents the states from infringing upon the lives, liberty or property of persons within their jurisdictions without first providing due process and equal protection under the law.
Answer to the mother seeking out unhealthy and dangerous back-alley abortions when their illegality is finally enforced.'
To make rape "safer" for the perpetrator we would not dream of making rape legal so long as it is conducted in a monitored and sterile environment. Why then would we make murder safer for the murderer? Remember, the legal definition of murder is the unlawful premature premeditated ending of another human life. What else is abortion if not exactly that?
Answer to 'what about the life of the mother'?
The Hippocratic oath requires that the Doctor "do no harm." Thus, he/she should do everything possible to protect and save both the baby and the mother. However, our society has decided collectively, over time, that only a doctor may decide who lives and who dies when faced with the near impossible choice of one over the other. Given that this particular facet of the issue is not covered by the Constitution, it should be debated and incorporated in accordance with whatever collective consent (75% ratification process) is reached.
About RJ Harris:
RJ Harris is a currently serving nineteen-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer, two-time Iraq War Veteran and U.S. Congressional Candidate for Oklahoma's 4th Congressional District. He is a University of Oklahoma graduate in Philosophy and a second year law student at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. RJ is a Constitutional Conservative Republican and the first 912 Liberty Candidate in the nation. He has appeared on Fox News' Freedom Watch twice with Judge Andrew Napolitano and been the featured guest on conservative/libertarian talk-radio programs across the country. www.rjharris2010.com
RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian
www.rjharris2012.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RJHarrisOfficial
Good post. What is your
Good post. What is your answer to jcr@mac.com's post:
"Abortion is a right, and it derives from your own right to life.
My position on abortion doesn't require any equivocation on whether the unborn fetus is a person with the full rights of any other person.
If another full-grown human being depends on a continuous blood transfusion from you to stay alive, it's regrettable if you deprive them of it, but it's still your right to do so, just as it's your right to refuse to donate an organ. This doesn't change if you agreed to this arrangement initially, or if you gained pleasure at the outset of the ordeal.
An abortion is a sad thing, and it should be avoided, but not at the cost of surrendering our sovereignty over our own bodies to the state.
I will also add, that if we accept the state's command of our bodies, then who's to say the state won't someday decide to make abortions mandatory as has happened within living memory in China?
Particularly if the congress manages to complete the government takeover of the medical care industry, do you trust them? What if they decide that a particular child is likely to cost too much to keep alive, and they decide that an abortion is medically indicated?
-jcr"
Self defense
"Answer to 'what about the life of the mother'?"
How come you didn't include self defense in your rebuttal? If you are threatened with great bodily harm or death by another person your entitled to defend yourself right? Does it matter if that person is interior or exterior? I think abortion must be legal in cases where the life of the mother is threatened and abortion is safer than live birth. However, that brings up the question: I'm I justified if I push an innocent you out the airplane door so we can conserve enough fuel to land safely, thus defending my life?
Thank you
Thank you RJ
Tracy
http://randforsenate.blogspot.com/
~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. See also http://www.jointreygrayson.com/ Spread these links around
SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.
http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/
Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4
great post.. I agree..
great post.. I agree..
“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul
In your view of Constitutional rights,
does one have property rights that cannot be infringed. Is the state forcing a woman to allow a fetus to use her body, no matter how the fetus got there and infringement of her rights? If the state can command how one uses her body, then logically would it not be possible for the state to randomly pick a surrogate woman and force her to have a fetus implanted from another woman who's life might be threatened by continuation of her pregnancy?. If one person's body can be with the force of the state used to save the life of another, then would not it then be possible for the state to command people to be donors of body parts that others need for survival, such as a kidney or bone marrow?
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Henry: You are un-earthing why I think Rothbard's Propertarian
Rights arguments are so porous.
They will have an endless come back to this -- You will never confuse them.
My argument brings it to the ONLY true Individualist model -- Consumer-Sovereignty and the WISE teachings of Mises.
*read below
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
The issue is "value" not morality -- Morality has not stopped
abortion nor has it stayed executions nor has it prevented crime nor has it ended prostitution nor has it ended drug use nor has it lessoned abortion.
Create "value" in the un-born child and you will see abortions drop.
Sometimes I think "most" Christians would rather see abortion continue if we stop for any other reason than "morality"
Morality is highly subjective and the Constitution is a red-light at 3am -- "who sits at the red light when no one is looking?" I don't.
I'm against abortion too.
When has there been a "serious" piece of legislation to over-turn Roe v Wade (by a Republican or Democrat), yet nearly all of them say they are against abortion or would like to see the numbers fall.
Abortion went up and the "value" of the child went down owing to two major events: Destruction of the Dollar (et al effects) and Subsidization of "Abdication"
Abdication can only happen by "allowance" -- Voting and Lobbying.
When fewer people were voting the value of children was higher -- this is a fact (agrarian age). But if you allow some to vote eventually all will want to vote.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Interesting points.
I have always found it strange that the state generally prohibits mothers from selling their babies, while allowing attorneys, doctors and hospitals to profit significantly from babies being born and then put up for adoption.
I think you are correct, and that if women could legally sell their unwanted babies to the highest bidder, then there would be an incentive to choose adoption over abortion.
But when you consider that government is force, mostly controlled by men, and significantly influenced by those who subscribe to the God theory of creation, you can see why there is much insanity in addition to bias against women. When you view women as property, either officially, or subliminally, it is easy to think laws controlling their bodies are just fine.
But not to worry; the coming collapse of the human population from the lack of energy to maintain the industrial age will have the effect of not only making the relatively few survivors want more children to work for the family, but slavery will again be officially embraced by those in power.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Lock. Enough with the revisions.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
The Solution is SOOOOO Simple
You guys are fighting over Corporatist Alternatives.
Prior to Roe v Wade there were no national organizations fighting against abortions.
The "secret" abortions that were happening (RARELY EVER resulted in injury of the mother) were of such a low volume that it must of not been worth the effort.
The solution lies in the free-market: Where #1 women can have abortions and #2 the value of the child is worth a lot lot lot more and #3 the women pay the "true" costs.
I've already shown how the un-born is worth more in a free-society then in corporatism.
The true costs will be a disinsentive -- people can always pool resources to have free-clinics, but the costs will still be astronimical.
Responsibility will go up while abortions will go way way way down.
Right now the average subsidized cost for abortion is $900 per. That's at 1.3M abortions per year.
The free-market cost will be much much higher -- probably $5,000 or more per. This is a major surgery. A wart removal is $900 for godsake.
If the doctor was not subsidized he'd have to pay true market costs on insurance -- Right now its almost impossible to sue an abortion doctor.
As the value of the child goes up, owing to the entrepreneurial effect in the free-market, more and more mothers will keep their babies. Owing to the fact that most women say they dump the fetus because of cost / inconvenience.
As abortions drop costs go up.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"I've already shown how the un-born is worth more in a
free-society"
Not really. Let's do some quick math.
The average cost of raising a child is about 100,000 dollars (i.e., the expected amount which is required to start a getting a "return on investment"). This is over a period of 18 years.
You claim the return on investment is some vague-very-high-number. It is, in fact, possibly zero. Upon reaching the age of majority a child is not required to pay back anything to their parents! But let's say they do pay it back. Let's say they make 2.1 million over a period of 40 years (an average for someone with a bachelors degree). 1/20 of that needs to go back to the parents in order for them to recoup their losses.
Per capita discretionary income is roughly ten thousand dollars a year. Assuming that is all given back to the parents it would take ten years (solely, with no discretionary income spent on anything else).
After ten years of working the parent is back at zero. So far we are 28 years into the cycle with 30 years of work left. If the offspring continues the payments (unlikely) the parent can expect to end up with a 300,000 thousand dollar net return, or 300%.
Over 65 years.
That's about 4.6% a year with no net gain until 28 years. Long term bonds net about a 4.9%. This is with all time spent by parents disregarded.
I think we can all agree that you don't have kids to make money.
CHA-CHING!
CHA-CHING!
Joesome: Thanks for picking me ;-) You know how I love debate
I'm addressing your points by paragraph.
#1 You are assessing the cost of raising a child in Corporatism where the dollar is ever in retrograde. I was arguing that the solution to end this debate is to ignore it and fight for a free-market. In a free-society currency is in perfect competition which gives it stability with a very slight (yet steady) increase over time -- making wise investments in childrens upbringing and education more valuable in the future rather than less.
#2 I personally think the wealthy will contribute greatly to a childs education (voluntarily) -- especially children who are excelling. Remember in a free-society all the GE courses are dropped and everything is competitive education scenarios (very pragmatic) plus mentoring. It will be very apparent to the child the benefit they've been given by the parent or benefactor.
#3 (continued on your 2nd paragraph). You are not meditating on the profit-drivers in a free-society. The ONLY way to have profit bursts (drive dynamic wealth) is to have highly liquid assets or a great line of credit. Rothbard - Hayek - Mises all agree that a free-society is a saver society. Means the wealthy and middle-class save most of their income. The wealthy on the other-hand can only drive wealth by seeking entrepreneurialism or intrepreneurialism (innovation - startups - etc).
#4 Given the greatest number of abortions and the greatest number of entrepreneurs come out of the low and middle incomes the value of each un-born child goes up exponentially give we don't know which ones will be Einsteins or not -- smile.
The more I read your argument the more I see you are arguing in a Corporatist Enviroment -- You missed the part where I was talking about free-markets. Are we in agreement given this fact or can you argue against the above?
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"The wealthy on the other-hand can only drive wealth by seeking
entrepreneurialism"
This statement. Even in a free society wealth can be made without innovation. All you need is wealth in the first place. Wealth begets wealth. I do, however, agree that education could use some competition in the broader sense (as opposed the prussian system we have now).
"we don't know which ones will be Einsteins or not"
This statement as well. It is precisely the fact that a genius cannot be identified early that makes babies "cheap". Of course if a woman knew she was going to have a genius she would keep it. As it is now, however, it's something akin to paying 100,000 dollars for a rock (out of a pit of millions of rocks) in the hope that the inside will be filled with gold- simply not an economical proposition.
Condensed:
1. The supply of babies is extraordinarily high (any two people can make a baby).
2. The average baby, however, does not turn into a genius.
3. Having a baby in the hope they will turn into a genius is a poor gamble.
And currency (corporative, free-market, whatever) really has no bearing. Food costs such in such in relation to child care etc. etc. That ratio will remain the same regardless of what monetary value is stamped upon it.
CHA-CHING!
CHA-CHING!
Seperation of Church and State
I am personally undecided on the abortion issue. I can see valid points on both sides.
But I don't think the government should be making laws about it.
When does a fetus become a human? At what point does an unborn child gain a soul? These are questions for priests and theologians, not for politicians.
Whether or not to have an abortion is a matter a woman should discuss with her family, and with her priest, reverend, priestess, rabbi, guru, etc...
And since it is a religious issue, the government has no business sticking their collective noses anywhere near the issue.
Also - there will always be women who seek to end an unwanted pregnancy. If they can't get one legally they will go to a back alley butcher. Better to keep a legal, and safe, option available.
Nah. Women can't murder people...no matter what.
And that includes unwanted babies, rape-babies, and incest-babies. They have a right to live.
Now if you can prove that just having a baby threatens women's lives, then pregnant women can kill all the unborn babies they want...self-defense.
Personally, I think it is pretty easy to prove. Having a baby almost always rips a woman's ku-ku apart, there's loss of blood, brain-raking pain, etc. easily a potential of death. That is why a doctor or mid-wife is almost always employed.
Also, just being pregnant comes with quite a few life-threatening situations.
Basically, I believe life begins at conception...thus, there is a unique human life that has rights...including the right to live. However, women have the right to prevent the life threatening incident of giving birth and substantial pregnancy.
Also, my NWO side says abortion is a nifty way to control the population...and in the long run, is better than having tons of unwanted babies. We already see what happens in neighborhoods that is primarily composed of broken families. We can't have that on a large scale.
And Husbands and Fathers
And husbands and fathers spend their lives supporting and protecting their families. The decent ones at least.
Many a husband and father has risked or even forfeited his life for the defense of his wife and children.
The time for a woman to decide not to bear a child is before she engages in the activity that starts the process. Sex is pleasurable, but it is not mere recreation.
There is something unnatural and evil about a mother wanting to destroy her own offspring.
The only defensible exception might be in the case of forcible rape. That can be debated.
Actually, sex can very well be for recreation.
Abortion just happens to be the last option of birth control.
CHA-CHING!
This ls Completely Logical...
Which is why radical pro-death feminists won't be able to deal rightly with it, with out a heart change!
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Ron Paul is pro-life.
He is against abortion.
grant