Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
"The child is totally her own person."
That is the falsehood that the radical (i.e. unreasonable) anti-abortion argument is built upon, and falls apart because of. The child is NOT totally her own person. Very early on, she is Totally dependent on another person! In order for her to live, she must violate the mother's right to be secure in HER person.
No one has the right to borrow your person, without consent. The right of stopping the seizure is a 4th (and 9th and 13th) Amendment right.
Also, you have no idea what the 13th Amendment was about.
13th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Most of the States had abortion laws on the books at the time all those amendments were adopted. Once again, your post fails the plain common sense test.
If, by "unreasonable," you mean that we refuse, under any circumstances, to rationalize murder, then color me loopy.
"The child is totally her own person."
In other words, it is false on first inspection and is in no way self-evident; however, those lacking the common sense to first see it, could avail themselves of a wisdom donation by re-reading my post.
The child has to borrow another person. That means the child is not her own person.
Ever heard of "involuntary servitude"? You quoted the amendment, but you don't seem to realize the point I was making. It is that without legal abortion at some point during the pregnancy, the rape victim is being forced to involuntarily serve the rapist's spawn, by carrying it to term against her will.
Slavery is also forced "labor", but I don't need a double entendre to win this argument. In fact, just the 4th Amendment alone, will do.
You have a happy new year, ya hear? When you drink, if you drink, you won't have to worry about harming another person, if you're not pregnant, because if you're not pregnant there is no one inside you who is not their own person who will end up drinking what you drink.
Isn't it funny how the child inside a pregnant person is not their own person? She has a drink if the host person takes a drink. How absurd it would be, to say of an unborn child that "The child is totally her own person." Absolutely absurd.
No I didn't mean by "unreasonable," that you refuse, under any circumstances, to rationalize murder. I'm not asking you to rationalize murder. That's a bit of a cheap shot and you probably know it. I'm asking you to balance two unalienable rights - liberty and life.
We all have a right to life as long as it doesn't infringe on another's liberty.
The liberty I'm refering to in this case is that of a raped woman to be secure in her own person. This is protected by the 4th Amendment.
By "unreasonable", I meant "unable to be reasoned with". Blind. What right do any of us have to use another's person (i.e. their physical bodies), absent their consent, to survive? Why grant the pre-born superior rights instead of equal rights?
If we can't survive without another's person, and we die because of it, no one has committed murder.
I can't believe that a reasonable person would fight against allowing a woman to stop another's seizure of her person under ANY circumstances.
This statement is at least imprecise. Liberty does not always take precedence over life. Furthermore, if a mother can be convinced to lower her value of life, her liberty will be permanently constrained.
P. S. Any easy shot is not always a cheap shot ;)
Jim got me to peek under the hood here at FR a bit closer with the Sean Hannity fiasco. I don't like what I've found.
I'll see you in Valhalla.
Excellent post which I happened upon a little late in the game.
It's sad but not surprising to see so-called conservatives calling pro-Lifers "communist" and "fascist" because we abhor and oppose the murder of babies.
All of this will someday be answered for.
What right do any of us have to use another's person (i.e. their physical bodies), absent their consent, to survive? Why grant the pre-born superior rights instead of equal rights?
BTTT
Have you seen these posts from our fearless FReeper Founder:
Move on from abortion? Not on your life!
Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
With these in mind would you consider a new PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in regards to Pro-Abort Rudy?
We simply cannot afford Rudy and you have a very persuasive way of writing that would help get the message out that Jim has already so eloquently begun with the threads above and of course his great forum in general.
Please consider a thread on Rudy. I offer any assistance I can and guarantee that all the Pro-Life PING lists will be on there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.