Regarding Liberty, Govt. Intervention in Abortion Seems Wrong
The basic principle of Liberty is that nobody has a greater right to your life or your body than yourself.
To say that a woman should not be able to decide for herself whether she wants to have an abortion is to say that the unborn or government has a greater right to her body and life than she does. This goes against the philosophy.
While abortion does involve killing, the core difference between killing the unborn and killing another person is that the unborn is entirely reliant upon the mother's body.
Since the unborn is nothing different than any other human, would we agree that an adult human had the right to use a woman's body for their survival without her consent? Absolutely not.
So the only issue is age - we feel compassion for the helpless, innocent, or young.
However, if it is based entirely upon compassion, then it must be the mother's decision to make; whether she wants to be compassionate or not.
This really bothers me because I think most people don't look at the abortion issue logically because of the 'baby' factor.
There are certain instances when most people have agreed killing is justified, such as in self defense, punishment, or war. While it's not pleasant to think about at all, it's only logical that a person should be allowed to kill another person that was completely dependent upon their own body to live. And, it should be a person's free-will whether they would want to show compassion in sharing their body for another's survival. How a person's body is used should never be dictated by a third party.
Am I missing something? If an adult needed to use your body in order to survive and live, would it be right for them to do so without your consent?
Even worse, would it be right for the government to tell you that you must allow an adult to use your body whether you wanted to or not, simply because if you didn't they would die?
If you substitute 'baby' for 'adult', you will see it is really the same dilema, both a baby and an adult are humans, no different.
Congratulations! This thread is being awarded
the best blatant DIVERSION thread of the day. The economy is tanking, we're about to have a financial Patriot Act passed and you're talking about a topic that no two people have EVER agreed completely on. You've been bumping this for hours just blah blah blahing.
Isn't there a Pro-Choice or Pro-Life forum you can go on, I think Yahoo has one. Wouldn't you rather start a new Bob Barr thread or something?
Ya Wohl, Herr
Ya Wohl, Herr Fuhrer!!!!
I think you will find that a person can actually do several things at once, and even focus on several subjects at once. Look at the other threads, I think you will find that several of us here have also contributed on those as well.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
BTW: US has fastest rate of births of industrialize countries
Part of that is because the rate of having abortions is going down.
Does an unborn have the right to buy alcohol?
No.
Then certain rights aren't available to everyone.
Few people will argue that life start at conception, but that doesn't mean the unborn has the right to not be murdered...and it doesn't mean that women suddenly lose certain rights just because she's pregnant. Being legally forced to carry a pregnancy is like being legally forced to do anything else...it's at the point of a gun!
So these rights compete against each other...kind of a wash...and for a variety of practical reasons, abortion is allowed up through most, but not all, of the pregnancy.
If the forcing of the woman part was removed, I'm sure a lot more people would be pro-life.
Maybe Certain Rights Aren't
availble to everyone. One must be 35 to run for president. Does that mean we can kill anyone under 35?
By your own suggestion that "certain" rights aren't available to an unborn baby, you imply the baby has at least *some* rights. If a baby doesn't have the right to LIFE, then it has NO rights.
The right to life is the most basic and foundational right. If not life, what rights do you think babies have? The right to assemble, bear arms, and own property? Jury trial? Pursuit of happiness? To be secure in possessions?
Nobody has the right to kill an innocent life.
purchasing alcohol is not a
purchasing alcohol is not a right. it is a privilege. the discussion is in regard to "inalienable" (God-given, natural, or whatever you want to call them) rights. you have 3: life, liberty, and property ('fruit of your labor').
actually there's not much debate that when 23 male chromosomes combine with 23 female chromosomes, a cell with a unique DNA structure is formed containing enough genetic information to grow into a fully functioning human being. if this is not the point of delineation, what better one can you offer?
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
Read my comments below, it
Read my comments below, it answers your argument succinctly.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
I have a few problems with your argument
The first is your assumption that if anothers person's life was dependent on curtailing some of your rights whether that would be acceptable. Of course it is. Rights are hierarchial, they are not equal and the right to life supercedes all others. When they conflict the higher right trumps the lower one. Second, babies are also dependent and not independent. You can make the argument that abandoning a baby to die from thirst/starvation is both moral and constitutionally protected because you have no obligation to another person but would you really make that argument? Third, according to your argument it is fine to abort a child up to the time of it's birth, (and actually long after it's birth) again, is that the argument you wish to make? Fourth, aborting a child is not acting only on the woman's body but the fetuses. So even if the woman is allowed the right to do with her own body what she wishes this does not give her the right to act against the fetuses body by killing it.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
To make distinctions between
To make distinctions between the rights of one person over the rights of another we should consider what the Founders called “self-evident truths”. They, as do I, hold those truths to be, in every sense of the word, “self-evident”, no matter what “religious” concept or lack thereof, you may hold, there was indeed an endowment of certain unalienable Rights, and among those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Self-evident truths are just that, they are evident to the logical mind operating though the capacity of rational thought. An endowment is the principle that there is an innate right, deep within humanity, deep within the nature of a person that is neither granted by another person nor can it be deprived without breaking the most basic, the most elemental principles of life.
The right to life is an inalienable one, it is not within the scope of government or the individual to determine who has or who does not have such a right, nor is it a right that can be logically stratified by sociological rationalizing. It is a cardinal principle, one that is foundational to every other principle of Liberty and once a cardinal principle, such as the right to life, is compromised by arbitrary relativism becomes the applicable law and all other principles and indeed rights then rest solely upon such arbitrary application. Indeed, we have seen a drastic reduction in our Constitutional Rights because they are now viewed through the eyes of relativism without regard to the most cardinal principles, the self-evident truth that declares each individual has the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It should be reasonable to conclude therefore that the deprivation of Right to Life itself will preclude the Right to Liberty or any possible Pursuit of Happiness.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
You only have a right to life as you exist.
If you cannot exist without the compassion or sacrifice of others, then you only exist through the compassion or sacrifice of others.
A person that needs special circumstances to exist, only exists as long as those special circumstances are provided.
Simply existing does not entitle a person to the sacrifice of others.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
WHAT???? My you really
WHAT???? My you really are having to stretch a great deal to try to support your argument aren't you?
Yet, you have already admitted that a Fetus is not only a human, a genetically specific individual, but you have also admitted that the Fetus has the Right to Life.
Which is it? What really is your argument? Where, once again, is your rational logic within the subject. You cannot have it all ways, what ya doing covering all the bases in your argument, that doesn't really work now does it?
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Apparently, you didn't even understand my post.
Because your response makes no sense in relation to it.
You only have the right to life as you exist. If your existence requires the cooperation of others, then you must rely on that cooperation to exist - you cannot demand anyone elses cooperation.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
There is a very good reason
There is a very good reason for that, because your post made absolutely no sense whatsoever, especially in light of what you have said prior to that post. Considering that it appeared to be a reply to the post above your comment then no, it made absolutely no sense at all. There were no frames of reference for me to respond to.
If you wish to clarify your comment in a manner which has a logical line of thought then I would be more than happy to respond, especially if that line of thought relates to the my comments above your reply.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
I thought I had made the entire issue as simple as possible...
1) You only have a right to life as you exist.
2) If you cannot exist without the sacrifice of others, then you only exist through the sacrifice of others.
3) Simply existing does not require that others must sacrifice.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Yet, that contradicts your
Yet, that contradicts your own words earlier. So, now you are taking a step in a different direction, so I must ask that you ask yourself why? If you, in one breath, state that a Fetus does indeed have a Right to Life, that a Fetus is a human being, that a Fetus is indeed a genetically specific individual and yet now, you attempt to put some extremely obscure pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo our of something or some source to attempt to attack the argument a different way. That is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
It's not a different direction, it's exactly the same.
You still don't understand, all I did was simplify the whole issue. But it's exactly the same stance I have taken from the beginning.
It's going to require a little thought on your part, otherwise I will have to make an example to try to explain it to you, which has not worked in the past, because you always focus on the trees rather than the forest.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
No, you didn't simplify your
No, you didn't simplify your argument, you simply have said in one instance that a Fetus has the Right to Life, but now you appear, at least in some very odd way, that "You only have a right to life as you exist." That statement is extremely vague and I am not sure at all how it relates to the subject at hand or how you are attempting to make it relate.
"If you cannot exist without the sacrifice of others, then you only exist through the sacrifice of others" Once again, you make no real connection to the subject however, if you are attempting to make a connection between your qualification that a person ONLY has the Right to Life as he or she exist then you will naturally exclude a great many people who are incapacitated in various ways from the Right to Life. Are you now, by such qualifications, justifying the extermination of those who, for what ever reason, do not meet your standards of existence? It would appear, from such a line of logic, that would be your next natural step in the progression of such an ideology.
"Simply existing does not require that others must sacrifice" Once again, how do you relate this statement to the subject at hand. How does this relate to the Natural Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Your whole intent is just to try to wear me out?
You have no right to demand the use of someone else.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
No, my intent is to
No, my intent is to understand your position and why it seems to be so contradictory. You were, after all, the one who began the thread, were you not? Does that not place the responsibility upon you to defend your position and open you to rebuttal? If you are not prepared to fully explore the subject that you purpose for discussion then I would suggest you avoid making such post.
When I post a thread on any subject I am fully prepared to explore and defend my position, that is the responsibility of the person making the original commentary.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
That's not what I meant...again.
You don't acknowledge any of the points I make, and rarely answer my questions.
I guess the one benefit I'm getting out of all this is further reflection. However, upon further reflection, I'm becoming more and more convinced that nobody should ever tell anyone else what to do with their body; even if another believes they are using their body for the worst atrocity possible.
Along the same lines, I'm thinking everyone should be allowed to commit suicide if they like, rather than being locked up in a mental institution for the rest of their lives.
It's your own personal choice what you do with your life and body - with regard to abortion, it's unfortunate that new life has to depend upon another's body, but that's the way it is.
And, no, once again, I don't think that means parents can neglect or abuse children they decide to give birth to, because once that decision is made, you become responsible for that person that is no longer dependant upon your body.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
My problem is federally
My problem is federally funded abortion at home and abroad.
If people want to destroy life in the womb, they should do it on their own dime.
That would solve most of the problems with the abortion issue in America.
Davy C Rockett
http://www.thelibertypost.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://christianquest.net
Davy C Rockett
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://cystic-fibrosis-symptom.com
http://medical-definitions.com
abortion
Well then don't go on any social programs to look for help with physical problems either ,if you want your own contol ,take it all..
says
Ron Paul covered this topic
Ron Paul covered this topic a while back in one of his speeches.
The logic behind reversing Roe vs Wade boils down to current laws treating the injury of the unborn as being criminal actions, but for mothers it is permissible to do so. How can it be murder when the actions of one party results in the death of a fetus while at the same time a mother choosing to terminate / end the life of her fetus considered to be perfectly fine?
I haven't always felt this way, though, but I am starting to see many things from a different point of view.
...
The problem with this argument is that infanticide
of the type you talk about came AFTER the decisions about abortion. While the two laws do logically contradict each other it is the second that should be stricken according to precedent.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
i understand the argument
i understand the argument you are trying to make. however, the problem with it is that it ignores the order of the rights of the individual. the right to life is the paramount right that presupposes the other two rights of liberty and property. if you don't have the right to live, then the other two rights are meaningless. according to your argument a woman should have the right to terminate an infant (after birth) since it is totally dependent upon her 'body..to survive and live' through caring and nurturing. but everyone agrees that this is a denial of the baby's (an individual's) right to life and is therefore considered murder. the key to liberty is to understand the responsibility that comes with it. the individual should be free to live the way he/she chooses up to the point of where it begins to infringe on the rights of another. in other words, your rights end at my rights' doorstep. as you said, "a baby and an adult are humans, no different." correct. but a baby is no less human because it has not yet passed through the birth canal. their rights must be respected in the same way we wish ours to be. liberty is not license. it is freedom with responsibility, and it is nothing without life.
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
Who has the right to tell you what to do with your body?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
you do...
...right up until what you choose to do with your body infringes on the rights of another individual. in this case, the right of the unborn individual to life. once you choose to use your body to infringe on the rights of another, it then explicitly falls into the hands of the govt. according to the Founders: "...to secure these rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Ensuring your and my rights to life, liberty, and property are the one legitimate purpose for the govt.'s existence.
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
You have stated the
You have stated the quintessential question? What gives anyone the right over the body of another...
Yet, you contradict your own questioning because in one instance you state that no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body and then you turn around and state that indeed a person does have that right over someone else's body, that of the Fetus. You have already admitted that the Fetus has the right to life, that it is a human, an individual and yet you state that one person (the mother) has the right over the body of another (the Fetus). That is an essential contradiction in your own reasoning.
You have presented yourself with a circular equation to which there is no adequate solution to your own argument. If you conclude that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your own body, does that not also extend to the body of another, in this case the body of the Fetus, which you have admitted is a person, a genetically specific individual who has the right to life and all that such a right encompasses.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
There's a clear distinction that you are avoiding.
Are you aware of what it is?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
I am not avoiding any
I am not avoiding any distinction...you have made those distinction already and admitted to the very thing that you made claim you are against. That no one has the right to determine what happens to your body or the body of another...there is not a single question more fundamental than that.
Rags make Paper; Paper makes Money; Money makes Banks;Banks make Loans; Loans make Beggars; Beggars make Rags
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes