Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee

A child is not property. A child is a person. People are not things, or property.

But the problem starts with the idea that your body is your property. That's nonsense too. Your body is you. Every human being is a combination of body and soul. If you are a materialist and don't believe in souls, then all the more reason to say that your body is you.

Possessive individualism was a philosophical error that has led to a lot of trouble.


10 posted on 07/08/2005 6:16:44 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Cicero
" People are not things, or property.

Unless you are in the military or in prison. ;-)

16 posted on 07/08/2005 6:25:11 PM PDT by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero

May I encourage you to cite an Authority for the truth that "Every human being is a combination of Body and soul?" Rush mentioned the Author of the 1,100+ chapter document that has always served well as the Final Authority for all such issues.


28 posted on 07/08/2005 6:58:44 PM PDT by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero
But the problem starts with the idea that your body is your property. That's nonsense too. Your body is you. Every human being is a combination of body and soul. If you are a materialist and don't believe in souls, then all the more reason to say that your body is you.

But then that begs the question, "if your body is 'you,' then what 'rights' does the government have over your body, or over 'you?'" For instance, does the government have the right to keep you from hurting yourself? To what extent? Should the government outlaw things like Ultimate Fighting or boxing? What about terribly physical sports like football (did you ever see Jim Otto after retiring from the Oakland Raiders try to walk?). What about outlawing motorcycles, or swimming pools?

How much authority should the government have over your body?

Mark

Please note, I'm in no way disagreeing with Rush's point here.

33 posted on 07/08/2005 7:05:26 PM PDT by MarkL (It was a shocking cock-up. The mice were furious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero
Individualism isn't the problem here, its the denial of individualism that's at issue. The child in the womb is a separate distinct individual living inside the body of another individual. The child is jointly conceived. The child has its own body and soul from conception. It is a complete individual from that point on. No one, especially the mother has a right to control that individual living within her. If a woman wants choice and the control of her own body, she should start by controlling her sexual appetites and/or practices to ensure she doesn't accidentally conspire to create a new individual!
98 posted on 07/09/2005 4:14:59 PM PDT by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson