Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:51:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
722 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Maggie,
This is debate, so that's what we'll do.
"Maggie Cambron" <mcambron@pacbell.net> wrote in message...
> In .debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > Thanks James
>
> I don't want to add fuel to a debate over the right to choice either since • I'm
> certain no one's viewpoint will be swayed, but I would like some
clarification.
I disagree. I don't believe anyone's viewpoint will be swayed if we all
keep our opinions to ourselves. I will gladly give you clarification. I
learn a lot more by thinking and discussion than I do by keeping my opinion
to myself and asking others to do the same. I don't see much reason to
believe something unless I know it to be true - and then I am not believing,
but knowing.
> Are you thanking James for expressing an opinion with which you agree?
Thank you for asking. I thanked James for expressing his opinion in
clear and rational terms, as opposed to the all too common emotional and
irrational phrases that are normally associated with this topic that flow
quickly and without thought, as if the person arguing had turned on
auto-pilot. The statement Simpson replied to was one of the latter, yet he
kept his head and gave a reasoned reply. I appreciate his consideration and
thoroughness in his explanation, as his reply contained substance which I
can compare to my own viewpoint much more easily than I can compare harsh
words that really do not convey any new idea, or any substance. The first
post, about a woman's sovereignty, said nothing of why that sovereignty
should be an issue. It was basically a wisecrack, a quip - a taunt. An
uncalled for taunt which Simpson and others could not resist. In my view
that post said nothing, but was only fuel to a fire - a fire that many here
do not want to fan, yet someone did anyway. I appreciated Simpson's reply
to that taunt, he didn't reply in the same tone, and he didn't waste my time
with a similar useless post. It was a useful and educational post about WHY
he believes what he does. Reading hundreds of posts saying, "you're wrong"
or "I disagree" would be useless to me - a waste of my time, so I thanked
him for using his mind and sharing something useful.
In debating I am very interested in the why. Most people can't or won't
explain why they believe something. I am scientific in this respect
though - it is very difficult for me to allow myself to believe anything
without knowing why I believe it.
> If that
> is the case, how do you reconcile your views with your advocacy of
> Libertarianism (CMIIAW-- this is the impression I get from your posts in
> another strand of this thread)?
First, before I am a Libertarian, I am me. I am entitled wholly to any
view I wish to take; I need not agree with anyone, and I need not justify or
reconcile my opinions to anyone. I do so often, though, as I would like
others to understand, learn from and from time to time agree with me and,
more importantly, so I can more fully understand myself. In short, I don't
reconcile my views.
Second, there is much more to politics than abortion. A person being
aligned with any particular party is not the deciding factor for his stance
on abortion. In my mind there are more important reasons to vote than this
issue. Many disagree, but it seems like a somewhat irrelevant issue to me.
A handful of Republicans believe in a woman's right to do as she wishes with
her property (her person). Only a few Democrats believe in a fetus' right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Many Libertarians believe
either, or both. I believe both, but I believe one takes precedence over
the other, when the two collide. My views are not inconsistent with the
LP's, as the LP really has no single answer on the subject of abortion. Why
should I or the LP be pigeon-holed anyway?
Larry gave some statistics. I think there is much less conformity of
thought in the Libertarian Party than there is in either of the big parties,
and so I am not shocked to know that people within the LP vary widely on the
abortion issue, more than people in the two big political parties.
Here is how and why I agree with Simpson, more or less:
I am a human and I view my physical body as my property (no one else's,
not society's). My body is my most prized possession, in fact. I believe
all humans have the right to view their bodies in the same way, as their own
personal property that no one else has a claim on. Anyone who is unable to
view his own body entirely as his own property is enslaved.
As human beings we, whether male or female, have the right to do as we
wish with anything we own(1) - our property, including our bodies - as long
as it does not violate the rights of another human being.
I think this should demonstrate that I very much agree with the idea that
each woman (or man) has full dominion over her own body, and that the
government has no right to tell her what to do with her most personal
property.
.
I believe that I do not have the right to damage another person's
property whatsoever, except when acting in my own defense when a person
violates my rights. That applies to everyone else, too. I do not consider
conception to be a physical attack. Occasionally, the birth process can
result in damage to either body involved, and in such a case, I do believe
defense of one's body is acceptable. That is the case when abortion is
acceptable, and most anti-abortionists, from whatever party, or country,
agree with that, I think.
Determining when an individual begins to exist is a great topic of
debate, as we all know. I believe conception is the beginning of existence
of the individual. I don't know how to argue this part, because I do not
comprehend the argument made against me. The argument against me says that
up to 4 months (or 6 months or something) after conception, the new
individual does not yet exist. But if you look at a crispy fetus after an
abortion operation, there is definitely something that was once existing. I
do not understand the argument against me. It is denial. I do not know how
to argue against denial. The only way I know is to attempt to enlighten
when it is worthwhile, to remove the denial. I can not change a person's
denial, only the person can. I can offer millions of examples... I can
reason. If the other person can reason, then the person can learn...
By ultrasound, you can see a fetus. You can see the tiny arms and legs
of a tiny human being. You can see the blood flowing through it. You can
see the heart of it beating. You can see a life-form. This is not an organ
in a woman's body, but an organism. Its not her property, but her
offspring's property. It is its own property, as all human beings are.
A two year old child is not very intelligent, and it is not very big. It
does not have much in common with a grown human being. But we treat it like
a human being. It is protected and its rights are defended like any human
being's should be. It is still very unable of defending itself, just like a
fetus. The hypocrisy is to protect life at one stage of life and not to
protect it at another. It is the same as protecting human beings all of
their life except the four months following their 30th birthday. That is
ludicrous.
A woman who has a child has a legal and innate obligation to care for and
protect her child. In our present system, the same is true when the unborn
child has reached a certain age...
Determining when a child becomes completely responsible for his own
actions is not easy. We have chosen the age of 18, unless he is guilty of
terrible actions. I don't have an answer for what age a child becomes an
adult, or when a person who is another person's responsibility becomes his
own responsibility - that is for another debate. But I do know that a fetus
is incapable of being responsible for itself, and therefore its creators are
responsible for it. Those who are charged with protecting their creation do
not have the right to forego that responsibility. As a child is considered
an extension of the adults who created it, and therefore the responsibility
of those adults until the child is grown and responsible for itself, a fetus
is also the responsibility of its creators. It is the duty of the creators
to protect the fetus. Destroying it is the opposite of protecting it. This
very young, very defenseless human being is exactly that... a human being.
I believe it deserves the same rights as any human being(3). Above I wrote
I believe a human being's body is its own property. This tiny human being
is incapable of defending his property, and the responsibility of protecting
anything he owns until he is responsible for himself lies with his creators
(and with those who govern its creators). Although I am much larger than a
fetus, I personally am incapable of protecting my property from every
possible threat. That is why I appreciate government, for protecting my
rights that would not exist without it. I do not believe in being a part of
a government that protects the rights of some but not all, but I have no
choice. The government should not make it legal for the governed to violate
the rights of any human being.
Nothing gives the creators the right to treat this unresponsible unborn
individual as their own property. Many believe that because the creators
are legally and innately responsible for a child that the child is the
creators' property(3). This is a fallacy. It would be more accurate to say
the opposite. If the creator(s) have created a child by negligence, then
they may very well feel enslaved by the child (feel like the child owns
them), because there are laws that require them to protect and be
responsible for their child. The truth is that although the creation - the
child - is not responsible for itself, and the creators are responsible for
it, the creators must still recognize the human rights of the child. In
much the same way, the government is responsible for protecting the rights
of the governed, and must also recognize the human rights of the governed
itself. It is sworn to protect and to serve, not merely protect or serve.
The child is not the creators' slave - he is not their property, but his own
property, as all human beings must be. His body is his property, and it is
wrong for any other human being (even his creators) to harm his property,
including his (tiny) person. I wrote above about one's right to the pursuit
of happiness colliding with another person's property rights. I said I
believe that humans have both of these rights, but I tell you here that I
believe the first right, property rights of one person supercedes the right
to the pursuit of happiness of another person. The fetus' right to life,
its property rights that give it dominion over its own body, supercede a
woman's right to her pursuit of happiness.
An abortion can occur in one of two ways.
1 - necessarily
2 - unnecessarily
It may be considered necessary to abort an unborn child when the female
creator's own life is threatened by the birth process - she then is given
that choice of her life or its. Unless it is life-threatening, it is not an
attack on the woman, therefore no self defense can be called upon, and
therefore the abortion is unnecessary. IMO, the state should not sanction
an unnecessary abortion - a murder.
Using self defense (the only acceptable reason for killing another human
being) as an alibi for an abortion does not work. The fetus' invasion of
the woman's womb may be seen by some as an unprovoked attack and therefore
gives the woman the right to defend herself. This fails because women are
sufficiently informed in our society to know what causes this invasion.
The only action an individual can ever take that is wholly caused by
other individuals is the act of beginning one's life - the fetus can not be
held accountable for beginning its life - someone must be held accountable
for every action, so the creators are held accountable, and they must be
responsible for their actions.
If a woman believes it is her body, and the little human being that began
life in her womb does not have a right to be there, she needs to remember
that it was a decision and an action of her own that caused the tiny human
being to begin living within her. The tiny human being is blameless. The
tiny human being has not originated an attack. It is wrong for a woman to
believe she has a right to defend herself by using force against another,
when it was she who attacked herself. She chose to create the child and
really has a duty to protect the tiny human being inside her.
Some would argue that the unborn child is not a human being until it has
been in the woman's womb for a specified amount of time. So what is this
non-human stuff inside the woman? A dog? A car? A cosmos? A house? A
filing cabinet? Get real. Denial... like I said.
1 - I know that those who govern here (and everywhere, I assume) disagree
with me about this.
2 - I believe I have the right to express this belief, and to hopefully
convince others to agree with me, in hopes that these tiny human beings will
be once again be granted those rights which have been robbed.
3 - This is a possible unexamined underlying belief they would find if they
took the time to discover why it is they believe the things they do. Most
don't do this very thoroughly.
> Most of what I have heard about Libertarian
> views I have picked up from scanning (rather than reading in-depth) posts • here
> so I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that they, of all people, • would
> want to keep the government from being able to interfere with a woman's
> sovereignty over her own body, as Dave! puts it.
That would be true, if there were a consensus among libertarians that the
other human being's body was a part of the woman's body. I don't expect
that to be agreed upon anytime soon.
> Maggie C.
Thanks Maggie,
John
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| OK, I am taking on the somewhat daunting task of responding to this huge note. (...) Me too, I guess that's why I read and respond to this stuff. (...) How much damage has to be included in the threat to the woman's body before it's OK for her to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Thank you, John , for a well thought out response to my post. You have swayed my viewpoint, as did Larry's referral to the poll of Libertarians on their opinions on the matter of choice. It was naive of me to assume that because one is a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) That should be self-evident, and if it is not, then no amount of rational discourse will aid your understanding. (...) My "wisecrack," as you call it, was an appropriately glib response to the original glib post. Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I don't want to add fuel to a debate over the right to choice either since I'm certain no one's viewpoint will be swayed, but I would like some clarification. Are you thanking James for expressing an opinion with which you agree? If that is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
