No. A vandal—up until ‘unjust law’...should be killed or whatever if you have to protect your private property. People have always had (until recently) the right to defend their property—with the killing of life if necessary.
People were hung just for stealing a horse...why—because without a horse people could die on the frontier. Without a horse, it destroyed their ability to take care of themselves and family.
Having a baby is natural. It is what a woman’s body is designed for (Natural Law Theory)....if she makes the choice to do something which causes life, then it is her duty to raise and care for the offspring, even in the case of rape and incest. Sad. but two wrongs don’t make a right.
The primary duty of mankind is to care for their offspring and be responsible...do unto others as you would have them do unto you....that is the basis of Western Philosophy for thousands of years.
Natural Law Theory includes the teleological design of the human being and having children is necessary for the future of societies. It is considered a great sickness when mothers in the animal kingdom kill their own young. Never happens under normal, healthy times. Only human beings feel it necessary to destroy their own genetic material...it is nihilism and destroys a human being. It is evil and when we had “Just Law” abortions were never allowed in this country for hundreds of years.
We used to uphold Natural Rights according to God’s laws—the design of our Constitution and legal system.
To reduce human beings to the level of a piece of trash is the slippery slope that we are witnessing now with the degradation of women and their bodies which is so prevalent on MTV and all tv.
Women have been reduced to an ugly, disfigured, sex object-—just a commodity to be used and discarded, never treasured and loved —exactly like the baby she put in the toilet.
People do generally have the right to defend their property, but there are restrictions. How exactly those restrictions are drawn is, within very broad bounds, a matter of state legislative authority. Some actions which in one state would constitute Murder in the First Degree would, in another state, be regarded as justifiable (if not praiseworthy) homicide. The primary duty of mankind is to care for their offspring and be responsible...do unto others as you would have them do unto you....that is the basis of Western Philosophy for thousands of years.
True, but to die without offspring may be regarded as its own punishment.
My argument is not whether abortion should be legal or illegal, but rather whether it is legitimately a matter of federal government authority. I would suggest that it is not. I would expect that many states would, if allowed to do so, impose more rules restricting abortion; some states would pass the least restrictive rules they could get away with. While I might not be happy with a state that decided not to impose any meaningful restrictions on abortion, I would not regard that as being in most cases a matter of federal jurisdiction.