Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:18:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
682 times
|
| |
|
|
No, thank *YOU*, John. That was an incredibly lucid, well-reasoned and powerful
argument.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| Hi Maggie, This is debate, so that's what we'll do. "Maggie Cambron" <mcambron@pacbell.net> wrote in message... (...) I'm (...) clarification. I disagree. I don't believe anyone's viewpoint will be swayed if we all keep our opinions to ourselves. I (...) (24 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
