Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Anti-abortion Legislation on the Move

UPI reports that the Senate is sending its version of a partial-birth abortion ban to the House for approval and/or modification. Speculation is that the President will have something to sign this fall.

Discussions - 2 Comments

Do I feel abortion is right? No. I don’t think anyone has the right to take another human life. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s in the name of capital punishment (legalese for "revenge") or abortion. Self-defense is about the only moral way to kill another human and even then only as a last resort. That’s MY take on it.

Now, do I feel the government has the right to pass anti-abortion laws? No. I’m a firm believer in "keep your laws off my body."

So, that is why I am pro-Choice but NOT pro-Abortion (if that makes any sense). :)

"Now, do I feel the government has the right to pass anti-abortion laws? No. I’m a firm believer in ’keep your laws off my body’."

Hmmm! So how do feel about the unborn human’s right to "keep your abortionist off their body"? The key is personhood. As a person, one human has a RIGHT of protection from the State and from all other humans. Until Roe v. Wade, "personhood" was defined OBJECTIVELY by merely being human. Roe changed the definition to a SUBJECTIVE one determined by? Ah, of course, the State. (Not unlike the State in Germany doing the same with various sub-persons, for instance Jews). So we start down the old "slippery slope" - 1st Trimester, 2nd Trimester, or 3rd Trimester humans may or may not qualify as being a "person" worthy for protection. Of course, the SUBJECTIVE definition of "personhood" could just as easy be Professor Singer’s 4th Trimester, or possible permit euthanasia in cases where someone get too old to play tennis or golf. "Quality of life" and all that stuff. It is certainly "Brave New World" you pro-Choice folk have birthed.

Of course Roe follows the time honored line of cases starting with Dred Scott v. Sandford, where the Supremes re-order man’s "Natural Rights". In Dred Scott, the Court re-ordered Mr. Scott’s right to liberty, subordinating to Ms. Sandford’s right to property. In Roe, they re-ordered the mother’s "liberty to make a choice" so as to trump the unborn human being’s "right to life".

Now ask yourself - if the State or anyone else can alienate your "right to liberty" so someone else enjoys their "unalienable" right to their property - is Liberty truly an "unalienable" right? If the State or anyone else can alienate your "right to life", merely to allow someone else the "unalienable" liberty to choose, is your "right to life" truly "unalienable"?

The Natural Rights of men, enshrined by Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers in the Declaration Independence are specifically ordered - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) for a good reason. The right to your own property is quite useless if you can be arbitrarily deprived of your "liberty". Likewise, your right to liberty is totally meaningless if you can be deprived of your life without "due process". Of course, the mother’s "right to choose" has now surpassed Adolf Hitler as cause of genocide. At around 40 million (and counting) since "Roe", in the U.S. alone, it will soon surpass the Soviet Union and shortly thereafter, Chairman Mao, as purveyors of "homocide" of the innocent. Something to think about as you celebrate your "right to choose" the death for an unborn human.

One other point, the convicted person who is sentenced to death, "chose" to do whatever heinous crimes they may have been convicted of in order to "earn" their execution. Additionally, they also enjoyed substantial "due process" before receiving a "death sentence", including a trial before a judge and a jury of their peers; defense counsel to present their case and cross-examine their accusers; and seemingly endless appeals. The "unborn" human being who is "murdered" by abortion did not "choose" their own conception (which was entirely do to the actions of their murderer), the only "crime" they are accused of, nor are they allowed any "due process" at all. They can’t even confront their accuser who seeks their death, so as to present a defense. Your logic on both "capital punishment" and also "self-defense" is totally wanting in light of your position "against" the State defending the innocent unborn human beings who are physically unable to defend themselves. Of course, killing her unborn child is not a case "self-defense" for the mother (although in very rare circumstances it could be, thus changing th dynamics). According to our Founders, the ONLY reason men institute governments is to secure for those unable to do so for themselves those "unalienable" rights of man, including the "Right to Life".

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2003/09/anti-abortion-legislation-on-the-move.php on line 451

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2003/09/anti-abortion-legislation-on-the-move.php on line 451