Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S
I think you pay only surface attention to this issue.While I am not a "pro-lifer", I am very much in favor of restrictions on non-medically required "choice" abortions.Most particularly in second trimester.There is also the incredibly troubling spectre of choosing to abort based on sex or potential health problems of the infant. I find extremely troubling the Liberal line of "its a womans choice", when they also seek to demonize pregnant women who have a glass of wine or smoke cigarettes during pregnancy.Those "choices" dont seem to make a lot of sense to me, except from a Liberal desire to controll all aspects of female fertillity to their narrowly defined and approved codes.
The Demcrats only offer women unlimited Abortion and dependancy on Government, or the societal requirement that every woman must be an overachieving superwoman, able to effortlessly blend a career and family.
Ann Coulter may have distilled this to its essence, but her statement is true.Democrats ignore female biology.They have should have quit while they were ahead, but in their mindless zeal, have gone beyond common sense and have actually reduced their political platform to an all or nothing stance on an extremely complicated and emotional issue.It is not such a leap to fear someday they may decide to "choose" to force women to abort a pregnancy they deem less than desirable.For our own good.And for the sake of the children.
I tend to trust the Republican platform as a more comprehensive and cautious approach to this troubling issue, and I am constantly annoyed that Democrats assume all women are monolithically naive and as shortsighted as they want us to appear.
Toss out the shrill far right and the fearmongering far left 5%ers in both parties, and it still works out that the Republican platform is the more logical one regarding reproductive freedom IMHO.
It should probably be named "pro-innocent-life" but that's too long. I am pro-life and in favor of the death penalty because I believe that is the best way to protect innocent victims from criminals. No criminal put to death has ever managed to repeat offend. On the other hand, history is full of examples of lifers who have escaped, or gotten paroled, etc and managed to murder/rape/rob again. My first priority is protecting innocent life.
Who? The Libertarians?
There actually are libertarians who would allow that a marriage contract can contain stiff penalties for sexual infidelity, and that a right to life should be as fundamental as a right to property.
Implication being that you can? OK, prove it.
cannot prove that an abortion is an error
Damn right I can.
the initiation of force against a human being without justification is always a provable error
So preventing the initiation of force on the fetus is not justification?
Nonsense. If you're capable of contemplating whether a choice is good or bad you have proved your human essence (i.e. "soul" or "spirit"), because non-human life has never demonstrated such a capacity.
The comparison, first of all, of the Right to Life to the Right to Property, and saying both are equally fundamental, is flawed. How can one own property if one has no life? At the moment of death the process of distributing the deceased's property begins. Conversely, one can live without owning property. A baby in his or her mother's womb owns nothing, and yet lives just as certainly as you or I. The only way the argument works is if you consider your living body your property, which the Libertarians do in the case of women but not unborn children.
Perhaps there are those within the party who recognize the right of unborn children to their life, but that is not the Libertarian Party Platform. If you proudly wear the label "Libertarian" after your name you are advocating their entire platform. On the subject of the Right to Life the Libertarian Party Platform differs NOT ONE IOTA from that of the Liberal Democrats/Socialists.
Your definition of non-human would encompass those in comas, the metally retarded, Alzheimer's patients, anyone under the age of 2, stroke patients, the criminally insane, the clinically depressed, the morally depraved....
Sure, let's off 'em all, ravinson, and let you keep defining for us what makes men human, and thus gives men rights.
You may be "capable of contemplating whether a choice is good or bad," ravinson, but you have not arrived at logical conclusions. There are many folks who spend their entire lives without a moment in contemplation, as well as those who will judge "good" and "bad" very differently than you or I. These differences are not wherein humanity rests.
The Delusional: Those who admit that an unborn baby is human but believe the mother has the right to kill it ... just because.
The Willfully Ignorant: Those who do not believe the unborn baby is alive. This, of course, goes against all scientific evidence to the contrary. The Willfully Ignorant position is that the baby magically transforms from an inanimate object into a full-fledged human bieng by passing through the birth canal.
Yeah, I know. Yea for them. But the majority support all kinds of crazy social reforms.
According to this piece, most libertarians are pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and so on. I didn't take time to check the specs on this piece, but I feel it's in line with what most consider the stereotypical libertarian--for the most part economically conservative and socially liberal. I'm of the impression that libertarians try to look like conservatives because, in America, conservativism is more mainstream right now than any other political ideal. Libertarians look plain crazy to me. A faction of anarchists even exist in the party.
...I don't think the death penalty deters crime, it's definitely not cost effective, and I don't think retribution is much of a moral argument. Do you really want to argue about this as well?
I really wasn't trying to start a debate on this, but what is an effectve way to deal with murder? I'm only advocating the death pentalty for violent crimes, not for larceny, btw. The recidivism rate is 0% under the death pentalty. I don't understand how one can call for the rights of a woman and not in the same regard call for the rights of the murdered. Life is above any right, because without it no other rights exist. If all people are created equal, if all human life is precious; if a person takes a life why is it not just to do the same to him?
Well, given the success of the south in seceding in 1861, I would advise against this course of action. But if you could pull it off, whatever you called it, it would still just be your property and it is perfectly reasonable to keep drug users off your property
Well actually, this is in effect what the status quo in this country have done. Most Americans are against legalized ######. My kind of federalism allows this type of autonomous government.
Can't a vice be criminal? No.
Actually, the Constitutional answer is 'yes' if you believe in the Constitution's federalism. Congress can pass laws against vice, and most certainly local governments have the Constitutional right to also. Any law that defends the rights of its abiders is based on morality. In effect and in intent, laws are not amoral. Murder for example is based on the right of a person to live, not even an individual has the right to take his own right, because God gave Him life. Man does not bring himself into existance. Our Constitution was based on the belief that a God with a Law exists who expects his creation to abide by those Laws.
Well, here you enter murky territory, because our government does allow for many local ordinances to restrict freedom of speech, expression...
The Constitution concerns mostly laws made by the Federal government. Under the U.S. federalistic system, Congress cannot pass laws against freedom of speech, but cities and local governments can. The household, for example, is a mini, self-contained government. At least originally, under U.S. law, the owner can restrict free speech. The same goes for a city. The city can ban profanity in their court house for example. This is where federalism comes in. If you don't like the laws move to another state type of deal.
For one thing, porn is not an independent entity that sprouts up on its own, maliciously forcing itself down peoples eyesockets. It is a business that exists because there is a demand.
Yes, to allow porn is a choice. If a city outlaws porn, porn is not bought and sold in public because the citzens don't want it sold in public. The people of the city have agreed to keep those out of the city who would fight the city people's rights to live life the way they understand is right. This choice should be backed by the Federal government, and the city should not be forced to legislate morality they feel is incorrect. According to federalism, the people of the city own the city, so they should be able to make the choices that govern their property.
What if you have a village of 100 people, and 99 of them decide that the 100th guy is "ruining" it for them by having fun, not giving them his property, or worshipping God in his own manner privately? Would it be good or moral for them to imprison him?
Only if he's making a public nuisance of himself. If this guy is trying to push his morality on the town by passing out tracts, they can tell him to stop by abridging his free speech. He can pass out tracks in the next town. The town shouldn't be held hostage to his freedom of speech. If this guy stays on his own property and dosen't bother anyone, he's fine. He's probably going to get tired of being ignored after a while and leave the town anyway.
I'm not always advocating imprisonment either. A stiff fine would be just in some situations. In fact, I'm actually against imprisonment for larceny in most cases. I think the person who steals should pay it back four-fold or be banished if he does not attempt to pay. The punishment should fit the crime.
Ok, my bit about slavery was a bit overdone. You do choose what society you live in to some extent, but you will always have to live with laws you don't agree with. I'm not saying you shouldn't fight those laws, but what in effect happens when you accept laws against your judgement is you have decided to take one for the team. Federalism allows you to switch teams more easily than when nation-wide law is in effect. In this regard, the smaller the government the faster changes can be made in effect. But no two men are alike and, as you have said, will have to agree to disagree if they both seek a common good. I think we both agree that our government should allow this to happen; our methods will differ. More than the questions of objectives are the questions of what are the means to these objectives. You may want to live in a society were two men live side by side and can disagree without killilng each other. I may also agree to this. But at some point we will disagree on the extreme to which this position is held, or rather, the extreme to which the law should be obeyed.
For instance, we both agree to not shoot our rifles after 8:00 pm, so we can sleep. Fair enough. My reason for this is I respect you on basis that you are made by God who loves people, and you need your sleep. Your reason is you don't know where I as a human originated from, but you know that more than likely if you are nice to me, I'll be nice to you.
So be it, a homosexual lives down the street from us and he likes to demonstrate out in his yard sometimes by using a megaphone to spout off any liberal nonesense that strikes his fancy. In most cases you happen to agree with him and think it's funny, so you don't say anything. I , on the other hand, on a normal basis, go in my house, put my headphones on, and listen to Rush Limbaugh when neighbor errupts. One night at 9, Mr. Rogers is up screeming again, but this time I need sleep, I have a really big meeting the next morning. I know that guns scare Mr. Rogers, cause he's a left-wing gun-grabbing wienie. So, in the spirit of our agreement of trying to keep the night quiet, I take out my shotgun and with a grin, walk out on my back porch and fire.
Mr. Rogers screems like a woman and hides in his house scared to even breath. I get sleep, am happy the next morining. Later that week you approach me and get mad cause I fired the gun. (Don't take this too personal, I'm not trying to make you look like the bad guy here.) You tell me that wasn't nice what I did and besides I broke our agreement. I tell you I couldn't sleep because queer old Mr. Rogers was keeping me up. You retort that you had no problem sleeping and felt that his bantering had almost a rythmic effect and you slept soundly. (Stretching the imagination some, I know.) You were not bothered by what I thought a disturbance. If I had been following our agreement as I had promised, I would have asked you before I shot the gun. The greater social good of this agreement was not met by my actions. Only by a moral act of my own to consider your inclinations of the situation, would I have called you and asked your opinion. But in the heat of the moment I resisted that moral inclination. In this situation ideaologically I chose to go with my moral leanings. If I had not, I would have enslaved myself with a law I had thought previously moral. Being a good citizen, should I know apologize for my actions or tell you to take a hike, the agreement was not just?
The point of that is to try to show that value cannot be measured by static law. To force legalization of drugs in all America would force many to surrender what they deem the most valuable liberty of all, their morals. For me as a Christain, to allow my neighbour to ruin his brain would be just as immoral to allow him to blow his arm off, but the dilema is what to do in the event that he does? What is the best way to stop my fellow man from hurting himself without hurting him worse? The answer to that hinges on what my fellow man's value system is. What will he not give up to hurt himself. This will vary case by case. Perhaps a stiff fine will do it for some. Perhaps prison for others. Perhaps information on the subject is best.
I understand that I can't just sit back and make laws and all of man's problems will go away. I also can't expect man to want to live under God's law, because, left to himself, man generally can't. I need some way of influence, some way of coercion to stop him from going down that road of self-destruction, not only for him, but for myself. A man who cares so little about himself will no doubt care little about me. A person who will put his life at risk, just so he can ruin his brain and call it fun, will probably not stop to put my life at risk for the very same reason. My personal moral objective is to either help that person or to keep him as far away from me as possible if he will not receive help. If the law is a good tool for that objective, so be it.
Fine, but what if a person decides he wants "his" state free of all the Jews? Unless it was his actual property he was referring to as "state", he would be wrong to expel them from a polity in which those Jews were citizens, and doubly wrong if he imprisons them.
But this is wrong on only your personal moral basis. You have switched from personal liberty of all to your personal morality of perhaps the majority. If the majority could be wrong, so could the minority. I agree that Jews are people. But in the same token so are babies. Why are Jews more important than babies? Could it not be proven that Jews may not serve the social order as well alive as dead? If morality has anything to do with the answer, the greater good isn't even pea swat compared to individual life.
Unless you live on an island, whatever you do does affect your family and friends. Doing too much dope messes you up.
More than going to prison? Or being killed? Let's put this in proportion. The fact that I am joining the military affects my family and friends, causing them endless sleepless nights and suffering as they worry about me. Would they be right in having me imprisoned for seeking a profession that is to my liking rather than theirs? Are the comfort and emotions of my family and friends to be prioritized over my RIGHT to pursuit of happiness? What if your family decided that Christianity was "messing" you up? Would that be a grounds for coercing you not to have your faith?
Why are you in the military? To protect life. Why are you doing drugs? To give yourself pleasure. No no. I'm against much of the violent punishments given drug users. My personl opinion is this: If separation from society is what is called for, instead of throwing drug users in prison, send them off to a reservation. Let them live away from everyone, but let them live as they please in that domain. In effect, force them to live with themseleves. If they want to quit the dope, let them go. If they don't, fine them to pay for the costs of reinstating them and send them back. I would even call for a free market in the area. But the area should be zoned off to where that area is the only allowed territory for drugs to exist.
I'm not so sure nation-wide drug laws should be effected that way though. Better yet, let Constitutional federalism take its course. Give more authority back to local establishments to legislate morality the way they see fit, for or against drugs in this case. I believe we would see only a handfull of drug using counties in this country. It could go either way. Depending on personal morals, drug use could grow or shrink, but either way, Constitutional liberty is sustained.
The recidivism rate for life imprisonment is also 100%. Plus you get to correct your error if you were wrong. Killling is not within the scope of the rights of the victim, unless they can do so before the murder is committed in a preventive fashion. Killing after a jury trial etc is purely retribution; it's expensive; and its dubious whether justice is truly served. Why? because either way it is highly unlikely that criminal will suffer nearly as much unless some truly cruel means are used, and even then I think there are good grounds for us to know the limitations of what we are able to perceive and realize that true justice is not within human reach; the proper role of criminal law is prevention through deterrence, and effective prevention of recidivism.
Well actually, this is in effect what the status quo in this country have done. Most Americans are against legalized ######. My kind of federalism allows this type of autonomous government.
It sounds like your brand of federalism is not that at all; it remains tyranny of the majority...IE, since I don't want drugs on my property, and most people do not want drugs on their property, then NO ONE can have drugs on their property. That is the cry of a petulant child, not the basis for humane , useful, limited government.
Actually, the Constitutional answer is 'yes' if you believe in the Constitution's federalism. Congress can pass laws against vice, and most certainly local governments have the Constitutional right to also. Any law that defends the rights of its abiders is based on morality.
I explained to you the difference between a vice and a crime (that a vice is self inflicted). Of course many laws stem from morality, but they ought to remain in place due to their utilitarian effect. Prohibition of alcohol was born of morality; since its practical effect was decreasing alcohol consumption (which it DID do, after all), but at the cost of criminalizing large sections of the populace, creating a vast criminal underworld, and distracting the police with a massive range of targets, it was simply impractical and ultimately immoral in its application (jailing an otherwise law-abiding citizen for having a drink? Cmon!)
Laws against murder continue to exist because they are practical and serve a moral end at very little cost.
If you don't like the laws move to another state type of deal... This choice should be backed by the Federal government, and the city should not be forced to legislate morality they feel is incorrect. According to federalism, the people of the city own the city, so they should be able to make the choices that govern their property... The point of that is to try to show that value cannot be measured by static law. To force legalization of drugs in all America would force many to surrender what they deem the most valuable liberty of all, their morals.
I will never understand why you choose to see morals and liberty as a zero sum game all the time. There is a distinct difference between me harming myself and expecting to just be left alone and me harming another. It cannot inflict moral harm on you for another to use pornography or drugs unless you are of weak moral character. You have absolutely no right, morally, to force another man to live his life according to religious standards of your own choosing.
In many ways, that right has been created immorally but legally by agenda driven Puritans, both of the conservative (Don't do drugs/porn) and of the Liberal (tax cigarrettes, tax fatty foods, etc). It is wrong, cruel and not productive towards your stated end of reducing said behaviour to criminalize it; all you do is arbitrarily criminalize a lifestyle choice that affects no one but the user, and there is no way your desire to be intrusive on other people's lives supercededes their basic liberties of pursuit of happiness.
If the stat you wish to create is one where such intrusiveness is the status quo, I wish you the best of luck; I could not tolerate being infantilized and coerced into virtue. Virtue exists because man selects it of his own volition. We should restrict with laws only that which materially and significantly harms another. What you want is totalitarian theocracy.
If separation from society is what is called for, instead of throwing drug users in prison, send them off to a reservation.
Think of the company you keep with this kind of thinking. If it walks like a concentration camp, if it quacks like a concentration camp, it must BE a concentration camp. You honestly think imprisoning them is a REASONABLE AND HUMANE choice that ought to be yours to make? You really think that you help your neighbor by casting him into exile and removing his rights as a citizen because he does not wish to live under your interpretation of personal virtue?
Give more authority back to local establishments to legislate morality the way they see fit, for or against drugs in this case.
As you may have picked up, I still think your foundational thinking is wrong. You include far too much in the scope of governmental power; you put far too much faith in the government not abusing such power, and in the equivalency of a moral BASIS of a law to a moral OUTCOME to the law existing (there is a difference!).
The state level government ought to have a lot more discretion than the federal govt currently allows it. But it should also ensure that it is bound by a constitution to maximize the liberty of its citizens in an orderly manner. Anything else, while legal, is far more immoral; it has more in common with Saudi Arabian virtue police than with the founding fathers.
+I apologize for the tardiness of my response, I had a serious research paper to churn out+
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.