The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I'm not qualified to have an

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What? (see in situ)

I'm not qualified to have an

I'm not qualified to have an opinion on when life begins. I'm a business owner, not a doctor/scientist. That isn't a question open to "opinion" anyway, its a question open to a ruling based on evidence.

My "opinion" is that we should determine to the best possible point when a human life has begun, erroring on the side of caution, then call the intentional slaying of that life thereafter what it is; murder.

Naturally self defense as in the case of significant risk of the mother dying or cases of rape/incest are a different matter. There is no excuse to murder a human however for the sake of convenience. If birth control pills are doing that (which I had not heard before) than they are not doing a good job. My understanding was that they prevented pregnancy, not kill human beings. If that is true, there is probably a lawsuit for fraud in the future for birth control companies who have claimed otherwise.

You don't have a right to take a human's life by force in violation of their rights. A baby's right to live trumps your right to avoid inconvenience. If you got pregnant by your own actions, that makes you responsible for that life.

All that is left to do is to determine when that smattering of cells is a human life. I'm not qualified to say, however I know this; if we discovered a single celled algae on Mars, we'd call it life.

All that said: I do have a right to defend my child's life, born or not. If someone tried to kill my child in her mother's womb, I would kill them, and I would also be perfectly justified to do so according to my natural right to self defense. The defendant's case would in no way be able to use "It wasn't a human life yet" as a defense. That wouldn't hold water. Its the same reason a person who kills a pregnant woman gets double homicide.

You can't have it both ways. No matter if a woman is 1 day pregnant or 8 months, if you take her babies life maliciously or even accidentally, you will be charged with his/her wrongful death if you're found guilty of murder/manslaughter. That's the law. How come when a woman decides to assassinate her own child, she is somehow above the same law I would face in taking her child's life? Is an unborn human someone's personal property? If so, are all defenseless humans devoid of their natural rights simply because they depend on others to survive? Can I go down and purchase a retard as a personal slave? Or buy a person in a coma to do with as I please? Ridiculous.

According to natural law, humans cannot own humans. If you cannot own someone, than you have no right to take from them their right to life. Period. So, the only question is, when is it a human life? I want a ruling, then I want the language to reflect reality so ignorance isn't an excuse, and then I want the damned law to be enforced.