Just thought I'd say I am absolutely not in the least bit sorry if the new abortion counter on the blog offends anyone. I know it's "divisive", and my counter isn't going to change anything.
I completely believe in liberty and personal choice, but abortion utterly denies the right of choice to the baby. This, to me, it the paradox and contradiction of the "pro-choice" position.
Letting the perpetrator make the "choice" for his/her victim is absolute and utter nonsense.
Wait until the baby person is of the age of consent, allow the human to make a choice as a rational, thinking, person, and then let him/her defend him or herself against the parent(s) who would kill it.
If America was utterly destroyed and erased as a nation solely for this genocide / holocaust / extermination, I would consider it nothing more than pure justice. Until the legally protected and defended practice of slaughtering innocent babies is stopped, the united States has absolutely no grounds whatsoever to look down its blood-splattered nose at Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or anyone else.
The American government has sanctioned the murder of more of its people than Mao, Hitler, or Stalin ever dreamed of.
COMBINED.
50 million since 1973, by some sources, and getting bigger by the hour.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it...
50 million. Dead. Americans. Children.
Comments are welcomed, and will be published, but know that I absolutely will not debate this with anyone, anymore than I would be willing to debate the legalization of killing three year olds. It is a conviction I hold at my core and you will not convince me otherwise.
Remember, in the "AP dictionary"...
Belief- Something I think is true
Conviction- Something I hold to be absolute, serious enough to die before recanting or compromising.
FYI- I do not intend to turn this into a blog solely dedicated to fighting the practice of child murder (although that would be a worthy cause, IMO), but it is my blog, after all.
To tie this into the current political/economic quagmire we're in, how does the generation responsible for Roe v. Wade expect my generation to support them in their social security years when we're short 50 million people???
Thanks for your time...
AP
Edit- There is no other subject, no, not one, that gets me as fired up, abrasive, and short-fused than this one. This subject has cost me many friends and relatives, and I do not regret losing their companionship one iota. This is not an intellectual disagreement. This is life and death. What does any other liberty matter when the most basic on, ie the right to life, is denied?
Remember this funny, quaint saying? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
Think Jose Guerena times, oh, I dunno, say...50,000,000.
At least Jose had time to arm himself against his murderers.
There you are, supposedly in the safest place on earth, the womb, and a killer comes in to kill you, just for being there. Just for being alive. You're so damned inconvenient that someone else has made the decision to take your life.
The baby doesn't even get the chance to mount an ineffective and futile defense.
No defense, but it does its best to fight off the attack and live.
Watch the ultrasound videos of babies frantically trying to evade the murder weapon and the subsequent pain induced. Watch the video of "the silent scream".
If your version of a "free" society includes the denial of life, no, more, the active murder of its most defenseless members, count me out. Forever.
50 million. And the infanticide advocates have the audacity to look down their noses at Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
70 comments:
AP,
Your opinion is yours, no argument from me. But I am old enough to remember the fly by night butchers with coathangers that killed so many women. I would not wish that on my enemies let alone the women of America.
Winston Bearkiller
I will grant you that abortion is murder.
I consider that parents, by virtue of their nature as parents, inevitably have the right to commit such murder. It's never a good choice, but sometimes a necessary one. They create the child and commit to supporting and raising it, they are fully responsible for its existence, the child depends on them completely. That gives them veto power over its existence. A strongly religious person, maybe leaning toward omnidirigence, might say that I left out something important there. Going into why I disagree would take too long right now.
The precise age cutoff where parents should no longer exercise such power can be debated. I do not think that it is always and inevitably wrong to kill a newborn. The Spartans, the Eskimos, multiple other pre-industrial societies did so, for good reasons. The Romans allowed it up to the age of (I think) nine.
I think it best to leave it up to individuals. Those who kill their children are saying, in effect, this recreation of myself should not exist. That is at least partly a judgement on the parent's own self. Maybe they're not wrong.
Should also mention: it's easy to talk about being short 50 million people. But it's not that simple. Abortion is drastically overrepresented among certain poor and dark-skinned segments of society, who would not necessarily be so useful in paying for pensions anyway. Birth control is more common in the middle class and up.
I am not offended, and we are being admonished.
Oh and thanks for adding this because I added the gadget myself.
We see totally eye to eye on this, AP.
May they all be D's...
Kidding?
Not so much...
Kerodin
III
I whole heartedly agree with not merely the belief, but the conviction that abortion is wrong; and not merely because I/we hold this conviction. Life is given by a Creator - or so the Bible and the Constitution would have us believe - and as such it is not something to be discarded.
If you will allow for a moment, to temporarily move side-step the moral (or higher) issue, you make a good point concerning the economic state of our country. We, generally speaking as a nation, have allowed the killing of not merely our posterity, but future taxpayers who would have contributed to the Ponzi scheme we call social security.
Suppose the average person makes $25,000 a year, and pays merely 1% of this in social security: from 25 million people, this is an intake of $6.25 billion per year. Over the course of these peoples' 45 years of employment, this is $281.125 trillion. Not only are these conservative numbers, but it doesn't take into account any children these lost souls would have been given.
In the most humanistic/socialistic of terms, in this area alone, the government has shown it cannot manage its greatest resource: people. Kind of ironic when you think of how many are swallowing the present socialist/progressive propaganda being shoveled on our plates.
If we come back to the moral - some might even say spiritual issue - perhaps this is part of a reckoning coming our way.
A deserved reckoning cannot be resisted...
The cause for, and/or people causing, the reckoning can!
Resist
John
Well said. We've sown the seeds of our own destruction by murdering our children for this long. As a result, I think it's likely that my grandchildren will have to speak either Spanish or Arabic.
Agree with you on this.
Without Life there are no issues... Being allowed to live, and being able to defend that life are the primary issues of this, or any day.
Actually, I like that counter- it's a rectal pain as it flashes (i.e. distracting), but it's an excellent reminder why we want our freedoms.
Besides, it's your blog- if people don't like being shown the numbers, they don't have to look at them.
Reminds me of the people who come over to visit, then complain because you didn't sweep the floors that morning, or you don't offer them coffee (my fave cuz if I don't want you around, I'll make you uncomfy, LOL). I just figure, 'Piss on 'em if they can't take a joke.'
Shy III
I disagree, but I'm not going to get drawn back into the one issue I think is crafted specifically to divide liberty-lovers so that we may be more easily conquered.
I have written my thoughts here, and more are linked inside that one.
Winston Bearkiller-
I have absolutely no sympathy for a murderer who is killed while committing murder. That includes drugged up psychos, gangsters, Jeffery Dahmer, and so-called "mothers" alike.
If a mother who would kill her child dies in the process of doing so, at least some good has come from it.
I'm not sorry at all if that offends.
Rollory-
I often see eye to eye with you, but saying that a parent has the right to kill his her child is, well, just...amazing to me.
A parent who would kill his or her child is an abberation of nature and society / the species would be better off without such a parent.
You said, "The precise age cutoff where parents should no longer exercise such power can be debated."
Areyoufreakingkiddingme?
No, it cannot be debated. Not here.
Killing a child is wrong. End.
If a "recreation" of a parent should not exist, than perhaps it is the parent who should be eliminated from society.
If you are truly saying that a parent should have the legal and does have the moral right to kill his or her offspring, I have not a lot more to say to you.
That's probably one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard.
"Going into why I disagree would take too long right now."
I'm not interested in hearing the rest.
Saying that a parent has the moral and should have the legal right to kill his/her own child has effectively ended all interest I might have had in furthering any discussion on this matter.
If I saw you in the process of trying to kill your child, or any other, I would defend your child as I would my own.
Again, I can't say I'm sorry if this offends.
I don't base this on Judeo-Christian religios principles, BTW. I was against infanticide in my pagan/wiccan years as well.
Killing a child is wrong.
Defending the life of a child is always right.
Kent-
Ask the ripped apart baby if being ripped apart, dissolved in acid, or being killed in any way violates your "no aggression" principle.
If the issue that divides liberty lovers is this one, it's a damned good one.
How in hell can you claim to be for "liberty" and the "non-aggression principle" yet maintain that you can end a human life at will?
Where is the baby's "liberty"?
How is infanticide in alignment with the "no aggression" thingy?
I have six children, and have seen with my own eyes a miscarried child of ours.
Anyone who says that dead baby I saw with my own eyes wasn't at one time a living, breathing human is an outright idiot.
If your version of "liberty" includes infanticide, count me out.
Completely.
Forever.
If you would deny the basic, fundemental right to life to the most defenseless of all people, your version of "liberty" means nothing to me.
I could care less what your justifications are.
It's bloody murder.
I saw two abortions years ago when I worked in a hospital. Truly disturbing and life altering to experience. At the time, I thought I was pro choice. After that experience...never again.
At that hospital, the girls would come in to use the abortions as birth control. I knew about 12 and 13 year olds who were pregnant with their first, and 20 year olds having their fourth abortion.
I recommend Ron Paul's new book on Liberty Defined. Chaper 1 is about abortion--moral, ethical individual choices (Paul is an OB who's delivered over 3000 kids) vs. government intervention. He is very anti abortion. He has a great/unique perspective.
And another Marine died during a police "welfare check" in Mi. last week.
I think the question is deeper than pro-life/pro-choice. The question is one of when does one become a human.
Those with certain religious conviction will often assert that a two cell fertilized egg embodies a soul. That would be a statement of faith against which the application of logic is a rather useless exercise.
For me, two cells is no more a functional human than my fingernail. On the opposite end of the spectrum a 39 week fetus is clearly and demonstrably a viable human being, and those that claim the birth event is the location of that horizon need their head examined.
I prefer to apply the same logic as I would an adult. If you can't measure brain activity in an adult, they're dead - even if they're still breathing on a machine. Equally, if you can't measure brain activity on an embryo, it isn't yet a human, only a potential human still dependent on its mother to "breathe".
On a separate and purely political note, I think it is interesting that abortion is practiced at a much higher rate among low income /minorities. That is a core demographic for the liberals who are most militantly "pro-choice". So, their policies only serve to reduce their future voter base and further it oddly seems like a sort of voluntary eugenics.
We've killed more of our own children than the Nazis, Soviets, Chi-coms and other dictatorships combined of their enemies. It's allowed because we took away the value of human life. A government to sanction such is, in my opinion, capable of any atrocity.
Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. "Human" does not always equal a person. Something can be of human origin without being a person. A human egg is not a person, nor is a human sperm a person. A fertilized human egg is also not a person- while a full-term baby is. How can you know with absolute certainty when during the gestation period the threshold of personhood is crossed? Is there science to back up that conviction?
How do you enforce your convictions against those whose convictions, held just as deeply and for reasons just as good, differ from yours?
As I say, I don't like abortion. However I like The State and its apparatus even less, and no prohibition of abortion will ever be effectively enforced without The State imposing upon people.
Is your apparent anger toward me justified? Do you really want no part of liberty if it doesn't include a prohibition on (and enforcement against) abortion?
you nailed this issue square on it's head.
We reap what we sow.
We've sown the wind. now it's time to reap the whirlwind.
AP - Bravo Zulu. Glad you see the light. Stoopid me made some bad decisions when I was younger and without faith in anything greater than myself. I see things differently now and am a firm believer in the sanctity of life from the womb to the tomb. Fight the good fight, bro.
There is no debate. Abortion is murder. Doesn't matter how it's done it is murder and always will be.
What is the difference between a doctor murdering a defenseless child inside the womb and someone murdering a defenseless person on the streets or in their homes.
Please explain that to me.
Very well put, the article and your replies.
Thank you very, VERY much for making me aware of this counter, which is now embedded on my own blog.
I agree, abortion is all about being Nazis, and deciding whose life is worthy of living.
I Believe any woman seeking abortion should be required to watch the vids you listed.
Barring civil war, it will never be outlawed... So we should work to ensure only the sickest will go through with it.
Education is the only way...
Ha...you're halfway home to egoism. This is your money quote:
"If I saw you in the process of trying to kill your child, or any other, I would defend your child as I would my own."
That's it; that's all there is to it. There is nobody to move your body except yourself. We are volitional creatures and if this is your intent, then it's done. All that's left is for everyone to understand that this is the FACT of the matter---there's no opinion or anything subject to debate. We can debate whether you're right or wrong, but we can't debate whether or not you're you. THAT is the cornerstone of a sane society.
This is the toughest topic on Earth; nothing divides people like this. So now read this, from someone who I'm pretty sure has the opposite view on the abortion issue than you:
"If you really think the child’s life, health or safety are at risk, and if you think failing to act would result in an injury worse than breaking into your neighbor’s house and kidnapping his kid, knock yourself out — and live with the consequences after the fact in court. If you’re right, you’ll be a hero. If you’re wrong — or if your neighbor is a good shot — you’re screwed. Not my problem, either way."
[It should be noted that the "court" here is in a non-coercive context, more like a voluntary arbiter. The cite is from http://tinyurl.com/6ytsgn7 but please don't be frightened by the title or topic.]
If two such opposite people can see ANY common ground on something like this, then anything is possible. Maybe there is hope yet.
Amen, my friend. AMEN.
So where do you stand on rape, incest, ectopic pregnancies, horrific congenital birth defects, etc.? Let me guess - it all falls into the same AP-based-absolute-moral-authority-conviction continuum...
So if:
"Killing a child is wrong."
and
"Defending the life of a child is always right."
and this is one of your "convictions" then how many hospital staff have you killed in defense our your "convictions"? How many “child murderers” have you brought to your personal brand of justice? Stoned any 14 year old girls for their transgressions against your convictions recently? Where is the practical application of your moral outrage? This “genocide” goes on every day yet you choose not to act – why? No need to march on DC to take a stand – go ahead and do what you know “must be done”. Or are you simply looking for an opportunity to legislate your morality, just like the rest of the “we know what’s best for you” brigade?
Here’s a few more for you:
How many disabled orphans have you adopted? Interesting how many of the conservative male pro-life brigade fall silent when this question comes up. While there are certainly exceptions, until every single one puts their money where their mouths are, their gleaming armor of moral invincibility starts looking mighty flimsy.
When an 11 year old girl is brutally raped by her father and ends up pregnant, does her well-being matter or must it be subsumed by the “gift” she has so generously been given? Now imagine that it’s your daughter and the “father” is some piece of street trash (or her brother) – still so morally certain?
Luckily, you have absolute control over your own personal uterus (Oh wait? You don’t have one? What a surprise). I guess that you will have to settle for controlling others based on your “conviction”.
I'm glad this topic gets you riled up and that you are so completely convinced of your personal moral superiority. If nothing else, it has opened my eyes to your true agenda. Just as you, I will fight to my last breath to keep your brand of "liberty" as far away from me and mine as possible. I see no Patriot here, just another would-be tyrant wrapped in a flag, desperately hoping for an opportunity to remake the world according to his personal morality. You are so absolutely convinced that you are “right” that everyone else better get on board or be left behind - better yet, be branded an “enemy of liberty” (sound familiar?)
Where have we heard this before?
Kent- I'll answer your question for you: YOU GOD DAMN RIGHT: IF YOU THINK ABORTION IS FINE, THEN I DO NOT WANT YOU ON MY TEAM.
Clear enough for you? If a baby isn't worth saving, then what about the older persons in our society- are you going to accept euthanasia next? Or if the man in the foxhole next to you farts too much, are you going to sacrifice him to your libtard gaia god?
You want to talk about 'human does not always equal a person'... then you are not on my team by your own choice. You want to think that a 'scientific definition' is what makes a human life- brain activity and heartbeat... but you want to say that jacking off isn't a viable human life, or the estrus cycle isn't a human life... where the hell do you get off comparing sperm and egg outside the womb to a baby in the womb?
What an imbecile argument.
Just as is the argument about 'coat hanger abortions done in back alleys' being justification for legalizing them. What bullshit lies are you all trying to justify in your lives?
"Veto power over an existance'? What the fuck is that, Rollory? Since when did the baby get to vote? You moron. It is never a necessary choice: if you don't want the baby, there is someone who does. That kind of bullshit doesn't even begin to walk freedom talk. Fully responsible for existance? Yes, they are: SHE should've kept an aspirin between her knees and HE should'a kept his damn pants on and zipped if they aren't willing to accept the consequences of their actions. And what the hell difference does it make what color the skin is? A life is a life, whether they pay your fucking retirement or not. Another bullshit argument for abortion.
IF 'LIBERTY' means I have to agree with abortion, put me in a fucking cage right now. Another bullshit argument that 'it's being used to divide us', Kent. Is there really ANY argument other than 'your front door' you're willing to stand up for?
If you're pro-abortion, you're a murderer. PERIOD. If you're a democrat, you're a murderer. Period. If you vote democrat, you're a murderer. Period. You can whine and piss and moan all you want about it, but you're a murderer, whether you do it yourself or hire it done.
As to hearing 'other thoughts' on why abortion should be legal... what kind of bullshit is that? You're so weak you gotta have others change your panties for you, too?
If you ain't pro-life, then you're not a patriot, you're a fucking wannabe not the least bit concerned for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness or freedom. Sure as hell don't want you on my team.
Shy III
One more point about this that I wanted to mention... all you 'pro abortion' asses... what're you going to tell your kids when they say they think it's time YOU'RE aborted?
"Gosh, Mom,Dad- we just really can't see keeping you around any more- you're such a DRAIN on the finances and besides, we didn't ASK to be your children, so WHY should we keep you around? You're worthless shit, anyway."
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Shy III
Kent-
Listen to your words.
"How do you enforce your convictions against those whose convictions, held just as deeply and for reasons just as good, differ from yours?"
How does anyone enforce anything?
Are you suggesting a complete anarchy, where no laws at all, not even against murder or armed robbery, are enforced? After all, there are always at least two sides to an argument.
In your state-less, enforcement-less utopia, make no mistake, there will be power, control, and enforcement.
Someone will fill the vacuum.
Onto a more pertinent question, how does the violence committed against the unborn not violate your "Zero Aggression Principle"?
You admit an unborn child is human. Then you claim to follow this: ""A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
I found that here.
Abortion is initiating force against a human. It violates the Z.A.P. You should reconcile this, and realize that sometimes, somethings need "enforced".
You say a human is not a person, and talk about a threshold where "personhood" is obtained.
It's really just elementary logic. You admit an unborn baby is a human.
An unborn human meets the following condition: "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
It is therefore alive.
The ZAP does not draw an arbitrary "personhood" line. It simply says "human".
I think you should reconsider or reword the ZAP in light of this.
In your quest to avoid "enforcement", I think you are being complicit in other forms of violence, enforcement, and aggression against others.
You have to stand for something, sometime.
Infanticide is violence against a human.
It is the antithesis of liberty.
My anger and frustration is directed toward a philosophy that would allow clear violations of life and liberty to occur in the name of keeping one's hands and conscience clean.
Sometimes you just have to say "hell no", and stand for something.
There is nothing wrong with being angry. You act as though there is.
If more men would get pissed off and put their feet down, we'd not be in half the mess we're in nationally.
I harbor and will display controlled anger towards anyone who condones infanticide. I will not apologize for it. I can be civil, I can work with and even be friends with such people, but this subject arouses anger in me from somewhere very deep.
Anger is natural.
Controlled anger can be positive and constructive.
Couldn't agree with you more. When our country legalized the murder of unborn children they opened pandoras box. As a side note our so called “conservative leaders" could end this for good but wont because its yet another platform for them to run on to get elected.
Linked here:
http://causapatet.blogspot.com/2011/06/50000000.html
And I am going to put that widget on my blog.
Thank you
P.S. Some of you need to look around you while noting the signs of the times ... God WILL NOT be mocked. Although He is patient and long suffering ... there comes a time of reckoning.
Most of what you see happening today is the direct cause of immorality in many spheres.
I agree with you, AP.
It is plain and simple wrong.
As a nation, we've turned a blind eye to these human sacrifices. Yep, that's what I said. Sacrifices of babies on the alter of immorality, selfish-convenience, and sexual promiscuity. My opinion based on observation.
I saw my 4th child, a girl, being still born at 23 weeks. This was a child we wanted, and for whatever, the good Lord in his infinite wisdom decided to take her home. This was not a mass of cells. This was not an inconvenient mass. This was a child. A child in development.
It sickens me to know that there are so many couples out there who are unable to have a child and would be willing to raise these unwanted children as their own, and instead, their selfish mothers pay someone, who took an oath to do no harm, to slice them up in the womb and suck them out with a vacuum.
Here's an article that hits the nail on the head.
America’s Moloch Worship – The Abomination of Abortion
I believe as a nation we're in for some fire and wrath.
Ironwill - III
There once was a time when I believed in a woman's right to "choose". Today, I no longer believe that.
I believe the one question that needs to be asked is "how many abortions are out-of-wedlock conceptions ?"
Abortion is just the ultimate example of the decay of American moral fiber.
DAN
III
Liberum Arbitrium-
Huh?
Touched a nerve, did I?
My blog, my opinions.
I'm not debating you on this; killing babies is wrong. Yeah, that's my morality, which you imply is inherently inferior to yours.
Is it or is it not wrong to kill a baby?
In all your emotionally charged scenarios, the baby is not at fault. Why create another victim?
You do make one good point though, why haven't I "taken action"?
Point blank, because I value being with my family more than I would value the limited value that would come from resorting to violence.
In that, I stand convicted, I guess, and I will not shy away from the guilt I bear for my "inaction".
Kinda sounds like you're flirting with incitement, to me.
Of course, every time you point a finger, four more are pointed back at you. Why haven't you, or any of us packed up and flown to Rwanda? Dharfour? How many lives would be saved if you went, took action, and were killed? Then me?
Does the fact that you/I/we are not there defending the helpless make it less of a genocide?
Genocide is genocide, regardless of others' actions or failure to act.
I will not back down from my stances or convictions. The lack of violence on my part does not, in and of itself, invalidate my views. This is a shoddy argument at best.
You do not agree with my morals on this; fine. Here's the funny thing though. It's my blog, so, uh, yeah, I'm going to push my morality on it.
I sure as hell am not going to push yours.
AP
AP- The ZAP does not merely say "human", it says human being. Human being = person which does not equal "merely human". The ZAP applies to human beings and therefore "persons", not to human tissue- otherwise you could never autopsy or bury a corpse or cut out and kill a tumor.
Alive and human are necessary to be a person, but not sufficient.
It is NOT "infanticide" if there is no infant. Calling early-stage abortion "infanticide" is dishonest and purely emotional. It is like when PETA tried to get people to call fish "sea kittens".
Enforce your views all you want and accept the consequences. But don't send other people to enforce your views for you.
Yes, you do have to "stand for something", but you are responsible for making sure you are not standing for the wrong thing. And shutting out other liberty lovers who don't buy into this "pro-life" stuff is doing the wrong thing.
I am against abortion, but this is what makes me even more sympathetic to those who are not.
Like I say, this subject does nothing but divide liberty lovers so that the authoritarians can keep us off their backs while we fight among ourselves. That I why I hate this subject with a passion.
Shy Wolf- Those examples you use would be very clear cases of killing a person- a living sentient, sapient (and yes, that is a critical difference) human being. You are building quite a strawman that you can then accuse me of killing.
I am NOT "pro-abortion". I am NOT "pro-abortion". I am NOT "pro-abortion". I am NOT "pro-abortion". Even after all the nonsense and hatred I am reading I am STILL not "pro-abortion".
Once there is sentience in the fetus or baby, abortion is murder. Before that it is not. And of course, when there is sapience in a human being (which comes with more mental development) killing an innocent person is murder.
I know no one will change their opinion based on either the original blog post, or any of the subsequent comments.
But, look at yourselves. Once this issue is brought up it creates nothing but anger and hatred. I don't care how you feel about abortion as long as I know I can count on you to stand beside me in a fight against an enemy who is shooting at me. And not one of those shooting at us will be a fetus. Not one! Yet, time after time I see the "pro-life" side saying they don't want anyone who disagrees with them fighting along side them. That is stupid.
It also disturbs me that too few "pro-life" people give a crap about children (and pregnant women) being murdered in Iraq or Pakistan or ??? by employees of the US military. Before they are born they are sacred (unless they happen to be inside the body of one of "them"); afterwards they are "collateral damage". Really? How is that "pro-life"? And if this doesn't apply to you, then obviously it is not directed to you, so don't get your panties in a wad.
Anyway, I don't intend to read any more comments on this post. I see this is destructive and pointless. It is making me upset at people I want to think of as allies. I don't need that; there are enough real enemies out there.
I would put to you that parents that would kill off a child because it is an inconvenience are not those that we want adding to the gene pool anyway. With six billion of us and climbing fast, humans are the one resource we are not running short on. Also, aborting a fetus (my opinion is that it is a child when scans show it sucking its thumb; not scientific but I’m comfortable with it) has a lot in common with sending your child off to die in one of this country’s many useless wars. Maybe it all boils down to whether or not you think all human life is special. I think that every man is sovereign and as such his life is special to him but not necessarily to the rest of us. This brings us full circle, yes, unborn children cannot fight for their lives but if their parents are not the type to carry on this fight then…
I love children and there are plenty of us out here. We don’t need laws restricting killing them but people to step forward, convince the parents not to be to carry them full term and then give them to someone who WANTS THEM. Most times this boils down to money. Pay them for the inconvenience and surprise, most will carry to term rather than abort. THE ANSWER IS NEVER ANOTHER LAW.
"You do make one good point though, why haven't I 'taken action'?
"Point blank, because I value being with my family more than I would value the limited value that would come from resorting to violence."
Man, are you on the right track...that's 75% to egoism!
Yeah, I expected an answer like that.
It's a Chesterton's fence. Some people do it. They have reasons. Maybe the reasons are based on false information, maybe they've made a mistake in their thinking somewhere - but choices like that aren't arrived at by random chance. People thought about it, and decided to do it, many times, throughout history. Denouncing the choice as impossibly wrong, as divorced from rational analysis, sheds no light on _why_ or on what the reasons were or on how they arrived at that conclusion or what might be changed in the circumstances to make the choice avoidable.
Libertarianism does not work within the family. Basing moral arguments off of zero aggression in that context doesn't work.
I'm not saying that as a general rule parents _should_ kill their children, or that I have any plans to do so, or that I would not be heartbroken if I found myself in a position where I was seriously considering it. I am saying that due to the nature of human beings and human existence, it is a power that parents have, and on some preferably rare occasions there are reasons to exercise it.
Also, this:
"If I saw you in the process of trying to kill your child, or any other, I would defend your child as I would my own."
is where I see a problem. However I have no problem with not discussing it further, you clearly feel strongly about the matter and usually discussion under such conditions leads nowhere.
For anybody who is interested, this has a discussion of some rather provocative data
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/328184.html
Shy Wolf -
"what're you going to tell your kids when they say they think it's time YOU'RE aborted?
"Gosh, Mom,Dad- we just really can't see keeping you around any more"
The USA does not have the money to pay for replacement hips and quadruple bypass heart surgery for everyone who wants it. Explain to me how saying to Grandma "no, I'm not going into debt for the rest of my life to give you another couple years of life" isn't _exactly_ what you're talking about.
Like it or not, hard choices exist.
I find it odd that every time someone tries to defend abortion we get this kind of drivel:
"So where do you stand on rape, incest, ectopic pregnancies, horrific congenital birth defects, etc.? Let me guess - it all falls into the same AP-based-absolute-moral-authority-conviction continuum..."
This is such a phony, smoke and mirrors kind of deflection from what is actually happening.... Baby murder. Employ an emotional response to justify an immoral action.
This is making the "exception to the rule" the actual rule. And at that I still vehemently object.... its still killing another human being regardless of the circumstances.
Those that employ the tactic of, "at what does a group of cells constitute a human being?" Again this is attempt to deflect from what is really going.... baby killing. Tell me, if such a clump of cells isn't a human being in the mother's womb.... then what exactly is it? Is it a rock? is it a dog or cat? how about a tree? If it isn't a human then you MUST be able to answer this question otherwise its a phony argument. You people that emply this argument have basically become so smart in your own eyes that you have deluded yourselves and have become fools.
At the risk of all the atheistic heathens that are reading this going into spasms, allow me to bring GOD into this ("gasp"... what a seemingly backwards moron they suddenly think as their eyes roll up in the back of their heads) God said in Genesis 1 that every life form should bring forth it's OWN KIND. A clump of fertilized cells HAS BECOME IT'S OWN KIND AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.
Yea, many of you have probably quit reading at the point I mentioned "GOD". Go ahead. Ever heard the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
But your own rejections of GOD is why you are so confused as to when a clump of cells is actually a human.
You MUST PROVIDE an answer to the question that if it isn't a human then WHAT IS IT and WHEN DOES IT BECOME HUMAN.
By itself questioning an issue and expecting "said question" to somehow serve as an answer or proof to your side of the debate is ILLOGICAL.
Go ahead and Bash me, attack my intelligence, question my IQ, etc etc etc.... It is what you do.... tear some one else down in order to build yourselves up.
GOOD DAY to You.
First, let us kill all the lawyers.(Shakespeare, Henry the VI,Part 2)
Though it would not have served it's purpose in the play, I should like to believe that playful rapscallion William Shakespeare would have enjoyed a good guffaw by including bankers and liberals to the list as well, just for fair balance sake.
40 to 50 million innocent, unrequited, tiny lives snuffed out: ...a million here a million there, pretty soon you're talking about some real numbers...so what's a few hundred thousand elitist politicians who all happen to be lawyers, to be permanently dismissed by whatever means, from our midst?
Appears to be a good return on investment from this vantage point.
Kent-
I get where you're coming from.
We agree on many points, I think.
I do not see heated discussion and anger generated by such as destructive.
Some of the most heated arguments imaginable take place between people who are the closest.
I would rather have that than the false veneer of "niceness" that pervades society.
I consider every person in this discussion to be -if not a friend- at least valuable acquaintences. Every person commenting here gave enough of a damn to voice their opinion, and that means something.
To me, arguing and disagreeing is more valuable than always being in agreement. I learn less from someone I agree with 100% than I do from someone with an opposite/different perspective.
Anyway, take that for what it's worth. I don't plan on making this blog a place for division and constant contention, but I do plan on stating the truth as I see it. IMO, a furious debate is good for any group from time to time.
;-)
AP
Just saw the ultrasound of our second child. 7 weeks along, and there are already legs and arms and a heartbeat. Couldn't do it, knowing what there is at only 7 weeks. I can hardly wait for my #2to get here, my 2 year old son is a precious gift. Not knowing him would be a crime against my very core.
Abortion discussions never go anywhere. Nobody ever budges an inch. But I'll state my considered opinion, which also is not likely to change.
There are two classes of living things on the planet, sentient beings and property. A sentient being is aware that it is alive. It fears death. It wants to remain alive. This desire is deeper, much deeper, than simple animal self preservation.
Intentionally killing a sentient being, other than in self defense, is murder. Property may be treated by the property owner in any way (s)he desires.
Human beings from the age of six months or so are usually sentient. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Dolphins and whales and apes may also be sentient. If flies were sentient, intentionally killing them, other than in self defense, would be murder.
A human sperm and egg are obviously not sentient. A three-year-old human child almost always is sentient. At some point between those two points, the developing human becomes sentient, and it becomes murder to intentionally kill it. The point at which killing that developing human becomes murder is a religious issue. Many people who self identify as Christian consider a human fetus to be sentient at conception. I consider it to happen sometime in the first year of life, but I'm willing to agree on birth as the point after which abortion becomes murder.
Personally, I don't see the difference between a human embryo shortly after conception and a separated egg and sperm. Both are potential sentient human beings, but neither will become sentient without a lot of work and commitment. If it is to be considered murder to abort a 1-week-old embryo, then I think it should be considered murder to NOT inseminate a fertile 20-something beauty. Both deny a potential human life.
Since I do not consider a fetus to be sentient until after birth, it is property. The mother is the obvious property owner, since the fetus is part of her body. Therefore, it is entirely her decision whether to bring the baby to term or to abort. It's nobody else's business.
After the baby is born, it becomes a sentient being with rights, it is no longer the mother's property, and she may not kill it.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Only to point out that this is a religious argument, hence not subject to rational discussion.
Bill-
You're right, it won't go anywhere.
It is not a "religious" discussion, as far as I am concerned, as I have held these views through several iterations of religious beliefs. It is a morality discussion. My views on it have nothing to do with religion.
Your belief that a human baby is not a sentient creature until after birth is a tenuous one, IMO, as the viability of human babies improves with technology. Babies can be saved now that were hopeless before.
No intellectual arguing will ever convince me that the babies, my children, that I watched develop via ultrasound, were not "sentient". The corpse of our miscarried baby was a dead body that used to have life. Live human = live human, no matter how you slice it (or dissolve it in acid, or stab it, or vacuum it out, etc).
The "silent scream" video baby felt pain as it was murdered.
I never thought I would see the day when the writer of the zero aggression principle would call living humans "property", consigning them to a sort of "untermensch" status. Human, but subhuman.
Subdividing living humans into "people" and "untermensch", into "people" and "property" has been done before, and it didn't work out so well.
Whatever thin line you draw between "sentient" and "non-sentient" is, by necessity, arbitrary, as the minute of birth is random.
What I gather you are saying is that a baby can be killed a day prior to birth, morally and ethically, even though if the mother had been made to laugh hard the day before, it could have been born a earlier.
I assume then you have no problem with the practice of a doctor turning the baby inside the womb, partially delivering breach, preventing the baby's head from leaving the mother, and piercing its skull, since it has not yet been born.
This does not violate the Zero Aggression Principle?
Untermensch again?
Until the baby has exited the mother, eg "birth", as far as I understand your take on it, the baby is "property", no more or less valuable than is a fly.
I tell you this...
I do not cremate flies. I kill any and all I see in my home. I throw them away in the trash.
We cremated our miscarried baby. Should I have thrown it away in the trash?
As you said though, this argument won't change anyone's mind, once set.
This though, "Only to point out that this is a religious argument, hence not subject to rational discussion." which implies that all religion based discussions (which this is not at all) are "not subject to rational discussion" is insulting and flat-out condescending.
What you seem to be saying is that all religious discussions are, simply by being of a religious nature, irrational.
Well then, so are any and all discussions of liberty. Liberty does not exist unless one has faith that it does. If one does not "believe" in liberty, and act on the faith and conviction that liberty is real and possible, then it is as preposterous of a subject as it the worship of cats.
(I would say this to Christians, however...by making infanticide a religious issue, by using biblical arguments, you completely and automatically lose the argument with anyone who does not accept your religion as authoritative.
It's no more a religious argument than is any other case of murder.)
Thanks for your thoughts, Bill.
I agree with you on a lot of things, but (obviously) not this.
But you already knew that. ;-)
AP
You provoked some other thoughts in this head of mine, Bill.
Arguing infanticide is like arguing liberty with a statist.
It's like arguing 2A issues with Carolyn McCarthy.
If the premises, definitions, and terms are not agreed to, there can be no chance of agreement.
For example-
I say "shall not be infringed" means that exactly. I think I (or my 13 year old daughter) should be able to anonymously buy an automatic, suppressed MP5SD with cash if I wish and have the means.
To others, that is horrible and scary. Not responsible, rational, whatever.
To some people, "shall not be infringed" means also "unless politicians or LEOs say so".
So, in a way, a lot of liberty-based discussions are bound to be fruitless, because the basics are not even agreed on.
So, perhaps infanticide discussions are fruitless.
Except for the one my mother had with a girl who decided not to kill her baby.
Or the extended one I had with the nurse that went on for weeks, who is now a very vocal and strident opponent of infanticide.
In a similar way, I have seen anti-liberty extremists come around as well.
If we all keep our mouths shut because it's "divisive" or "unproductive", then that's all it can ever be.
$.02
AP
Many of us bring God into this for a simple reason. It's always very revealing to watch certain people immediately go from discussing the subject matter to immediately insulting the Christian's IQ level. Yes it is condesending, and highly predictable as was demonstrated here. Some fall for this everytime we play the religious card.
Thanks to certain individuals on this comment page for demonstrating.
I have never seen any abortion discussion get anywhere...not ever, not once. It is the crossroads of the most profound moral beliefs and deepest natural instincts.
The whole thing is terribly complex. Every man here is a man of morality, yet when Bill wrote this...
"If it is to be considered murder to abort a 1-week-old embryo, then I think it should be considered murder to NOT inseminate a fertile 20-something beauty,"
Every such man thought, "Hmm...I wonder where that country is," or something like that. It's funny on the one hand, not so funny on the other.
There are still a few issues--very few, thankfully--that are simply beyond our means to grasp rationally. Luckily, the state of our society isn't one of those. Me, I'll just carry on and keep trying to build.
Heckuva thread; thanks.
A-men. A while back you posted a widget canvassing for opinions on what your 'thing' might be. You know, like how Mike V's 'thing' is Gunwalker? Maybe you found your 'thing'. There are a lot of pro-choice folks in the libertarian movement that could use a reboot of the simple logic and passionate conviction found in your post.
Thanks.
AP,
You Sir, are a man of conviction and integrity. Never give up. A child saved by your pro-life stand will thank you someday; if not in this life, in the life to come.
In your fight, remember this: One picture is worth a thousand words. The liberals hate the photographs and it jolts the ignorant awake. No longer can they say "I didn't know".
Salute.
Fighting abortion since 1973.
CB
III
I concur AP!
Pickdog
III
The "liberty" movement has so many murderers in it because they are following nihilistic philosophical principals from the seedbed of E. Europe and reading way too much Ayn Rand.
God or no God, drowning your own is the most unnatural act known.
Do not want kids?
DO NOT HAVE SEX!
Life requires responsibility.
Being irresponsible has consequences that can make wonderful reversals to the good.
Killing your child because you wish to be a slut is the same root of decadence that says kill that group of people because they are the competition.
Sorry AP if I was overly aggressive in my language.
Seems to me that abortion goes against the natural drive of the species to reproduce and is a threat to its survival.
AP,
The entire concept of self-ownership and ownership of one's body is so thoroughly violated by reserving the right to attack—and I suppose imprison—any woman who might decide to exercise her ownership of her body by controlling her fertility, that I can only think of one possible solution which protects all children from abortion, and provides all children with more enthusiastic parents.
This solution also removes the need to attack or imprison women in order to control their fertility against their wishes. It also demonstrates the highest level of humankind equality.
I propose as an alternative to abortions for all the Earth:
All young men must be sterilized within the first year of producing viable sperm. Failure to do so will result in imprisonment until such sterilization is performed. Each individual's sperm can be saved in a sperm bank. When the man is willing and able to accept the responsibilities of being a husband and father, he may then solicit for a woman willing to enter into both of those relationships as his partner, at least for the duration of the minority of any issue.
All of this is subject to strict contractual agreements under the common law. We might just see the return of the Ketubah. That would be quite nice.
That would make it all a lot easier to agree on the entire abortion question, would it not?
I think this would be an excellent solution.
Meanwhile, I will continue to educate young women to own, respect, protect—and defend if necessary, their ownership of their bodies—and to live immaculate lives. I will also continue to teach young women to avoid any man who is not willing to protect them and their children, and to enter a contract to do so. Before God.
Blessings,
iloilo
AP,
The entire concept of self-ownership and ownership of one's body is so thoroughly violated by reserving the right to attack—and I suppose imprison—any woman who might decide to exercise her ownership of her body by controlling her fertility, that I can only think of one possible solution which protects all children from abortion, and provides all children with more enthusiastic parents.
This solution also removes the need to attack or imprison women in order to control their fertility against their wishes. It also demonstrates the highest level of humankind equality.
I propose as an alternative to abortions for all the Earth:
All young men must be sterilized within the first year of producing viable sperm. Failure to do so will result in imprisonment until such sterilization is performed. Each individual's sperm can be saved in a sperm bank. When the man is willing and able to accept the responsibilities of being a husband and father, he may then solicit for a woman willing to enter into both of those relationships as his partner, at least for the duration of the minority of any issue.
All of this is subject to strict contractual agreements under the common law. We might just see the return of the Ketubah. That would be quite nice.
That would make it all a lot easier to agree on the entire abortion question, would it not?
I think this would be an excellent solution.
Meanwhile, I will continue to educate young women to own, respect, protect—and defend if necessary, their ownership of their bodies—and to live immaculate lives. I will also continue to teach young women to avoid any man who is not willing to protect them and their children, and to enter a contract to do so. Before God.
Blessings,
iloilo
iloilo
I really don't know how to respond.
Forced sterilization, eh?
Uh, no.
That's all I have to say about that.
AP
iloilo-
Do you have any concept of what a family is all about?
Any at all?
If you did, you may understand why your "idea" is utterly repulsive to me and (I imagine) countless others.
AP
I was amused. AFTER, NOT BEFORE, I wrote a well-reasoned, well-analyzed comment, with useful knowledge, the website program informed me of a word limit that therefore disallowed my comment.
This website demonstrates the reasoning paucity of government.
I will post the comment elsewhere, ABOUT our fine Sub-arctic "patriot" friend.
Respectfully, DougBuchanan.com
My post (to AP) was written very tongue in cheek: I was hoping to point up that presuming ownership of the body of any woman is the same as presuming ownership of the body of any man. I have no desire to sterilize anyone, nor to seize control of anyone's body in any way at all.
But when people make appeals to "save the children"— which is a common political ploy—it is very unlikely that they will see reason in any attempt to present a solution based on the equality of "equal abuse" of the rights of men and women, especially if the proposed abuses can be foisted on women, rather than men. When I hear such talk, I wonder if those men recognize their responsibility to protect their women.
What is fascinating to me is that many men have no trouble attacking and even imprisoning women to force them to serve as brood mares, but shudder at the thought of forced sterility for men. If the goal is no abortions, why not be enthusiastic about this simple, far safer and less complex, and more efficient form of preventing abortions?
And does the woman have no rights, simply because she has been the one assigned by biology to manage gestation? It would be a laughable blind spot in many men and also many women, were it not so tragic.
Yet, my proposed solution prevents unwanted pregnancies, making the heartbreaking choice of abortion or not unnecessary.
Is that not the goal of this discussion: to end abortions?
I would suggest that we all need to look further afield, with more charity, and find better solutions than we have considered heretofore. I offer this possibility, brought to my attention by Bill St. Clair: http://www.newmalecontraception.org/risug.htm
As a wife, mother and grandmother, I would like to live in a world where no woman was ever in the situation of needing to consider such a tragic alternative for herself.
As a thinking individual, I object to the characterizations presented here—almost entirely by the men—as women being sluts, insensitive, and murderers, when there is ALWAYS a man involved as well, and I see no one here holding the male sperm providers at all accountable.
I was attempting to present two considerations:
1)when people claim to own and control the body of another person, they are initiating slavery, so why limit slavery to women, when the abortion issue could be resolved through taking control of the bodies of men instead?;
2)no woman is more at fault or more responsible for any pregnancy than the man who was involved as well.
Why do I not see any consideration given to that aspect on this discussion? (Other than mine.)
I sense a lot of underlying anger and hatred toward women here, and I'd like to balance that anger and hatred with the suggestion that men look at themselves and their role and responsibilities in pregnancies as well, which nothing in these dialogues seems to address, other than my own contributions.
Blessings,
Iloilo
Your solution (involuntary sterilization of males) punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty (both male and female).
It's creative...I'll give you that.
The problem is, infanticide is murder. It is wrong in and of itself.
No one objects to murder of adults and post-partum humans being a crime.
The reason no one objects to pre-birth humans being killed is because they have no voice.
Infanticide is murder.
Any government that attempted to sterilize me, my sons, or my countrymen against our will would find itself on the receiving end of a vigorous and physical resistance.
Few acts could represent tyranny more clearly than forced sterilization.
The only one I can think of that is more tyrannical would be state-endorsed (or funded) murder.
Like the current state of infanticide in America.
AP
AP,
Our job, as thinking, freedom-oriented people—leading by reason and peace—is to come up with solutions which do not violate ZAP.
I hate what is going on, perhaps more passionately—and for more personal reasons—than do you.
I want solutions which do not violate the rights of any of the people involved in such tragic situations: I want there to never, ever be the need for any abortions—not even one!—on the entire planet Earth.
This is one of the human-caused problems which we are here to solve, through thinking outside the paradigms which have misdirected us down some very self-destructive pathways.
I want us to manifest such a perfect and beautiful solution that no abortion will ever be needed, wanted, or performed.
That is what I want. Placing blame is not our job: manifesting a solution is our job.
Do you not see this?
Let us discuss how to make this our humankind reality.
I'm open to all your ideas, please.
Blessings,
iloilo
I feel that we are still not on the same wavelength.
Without agreeing on the premises, we cannot begin to hope to reach a resolution.
You said:
"I want solutions which do not violate the rights of any of the people involved in such tragic situations:"
Then you said:
"Our job, as thinking, freedom-oriented people—leading by reason and peace—is to come up with solutions which do not violate ZAP."
Earlier, you proposed this:
"All young men must be sterilized within the first year of producing viable sperm. Failure to do so will result in imprisonment until such sterilization is performed."
Then you bring up the Zero Aggression Principle, with a straight face? Really?
1.) How do involuntary sterilizations not violate people's "rights"? How do they not violate the ZAP?
2.) You are making the assumption that I do not and will never make, i.e. that we should restrict basic human rights of some people (in this case, young men) in order to (hopefully) prevent people from killing their babies. This violates the Z.A.P. as well. No innocent person should ever lose any right in order to prevent others' crime.
I thought that was self-evident.
This is the same twisted logic used by the TSA to strip search millions of Americans, is it not?
I cannot subscribe to the ZAP, because it is (in my opinion) unworkable and a rather utopian dream. Force and enforcement is (unfortunately) needed sometimes to protect the most innocent and helpless.
You said:"I hate what is going on, perhaps more passionately—and for more personal reasons—than do you."
This is a false assumption, based on zero knowledge of me or my background. This issue hits closer to home for me than you know. Please do not assume that since I am a man that this issue cannot have affected me dearly. Enough said on this.
I want us to manifest such a perfect and beautiful solution that no abortion will ever be needed, wanted, or performed.
We live in a nasty, imperfect world. Humans are humans, and they will kill when and if it suits them.
Sometimes you cannot prevent, only punish. Sometimes you cannot convince, only provide a deterrent.
A good start would be closing down all of the baby-killing facilities.
A good second step would be to impose penalties appropriate for murder on those who would kill babies.
You also said:
That is what I want. Placing blame is not our job: manifesting a solution is our job.
A point- "manifesting a solution" that would solve the problem necessarily implies that you would have to institute something via the state or some other institution capable of enforcing or at least carrying out your will. Since someone, somewhere, will disagree, in order to enforce whatever solution you come up with , you would have to violate the ZAP at some point, with someone.
And, BTW, of course I am placing blame.
Would you not place blame on a serial killer who kills 20 women? If infanticide is murder- and I am convinced forever that it is- then why would I not blame one who has killed hundreds of babies for profit?
People who kill their babies are murderers. People who kill others' babies are murderers. I have sympathy for those who realize their error, and would not retroactively punish them, however, I must speak the truth as I see it, no matter who it offends.
This subject hits closer to home to me than you know.
I have no capacity to compromise on this issue; this is by choice.
I am usually teachable and willing to listen to others. Sometimes I will compromise on issues.
I will not ever compromise on this issue. I will not ever allow myself to sympathize with the perpetrators or enablers of this genocide.
Doing so would be evil in my eyes.
AP
Dear AP.
You missed this:
"My post (to AP) was written very tongue in cheek: I was hoping to point up that presuming ownership of the body of any woman is the same as presuming ownership of the body of any man. I have no desire to sterilize anyone, nor to seize control of anyone's body in any way at all."
AP and others, if you missed that opening paragraph, I hope that provides you with some relief for any emotional reaction to a very emotionally-laden subject. I hope your reaction will give you some indication of what women may feel on some occasions as well when others seek to control their ownership of their bodies.
If we are here as teachers, you and I, and if we are following our spiritual path, then we are here to teach, to change the culture, to repair the fabric of society. Nothing you say is false. But I think you are focusing on the problem rather than those solutions which will be acceptable to our Creator as well. We are as yet children: do we learn and advance by casting stones, or by showing the path to a more spiritual life?
No state needs to be involved in changing minds, in restoring spirits. No coercive action can result in a good. This is not a perfect world, but we do not need to get caught in its evil web. I think you are missing some options that might be available if we stop calling each other names, and try another approach. Of course we live in an imperfect world: why do you think we are here?
Please, calm down: recognize that no one here has any intention of violating your rights, and re-read my recent post of which I wrote only the opening few lines above. Notice how you were affected by this subject of the violation of your rights. See how you still carry that anger and defensiveness, although I have stated my actual intentions.
I apologize most sincerely for causing you any pain by my comment about how closely this might or might not touch you: I simply did not sense any charity or love (in your statements) for the girls and women. I sensed only anger. I may be entirely mistaken, and will go read all your posts again tomorrow.
I humbly apologize for causing you any pain. I ask your forgiveness.
I have asked you if we are not here to teach. Whose Footsteps do you follow?
I will be away for several days, but will check back here soon.
Blessings,
Iloilojones.com
I will think on what you have wrote.
I doubt the truth in this statement: "No coercive action can result in a good."
If a person approaches my child with the intent to kill, I will use all available means, up to and including deadly violence, to stop that man, to end the threat.
That is a coercive action. It is in defense, but violence is, by nature, coercive.
Result?
My child lives.
That is an unmitigated good.
I realize my analogy has flaws, but I believe it illustrates my point.
However, as you asked, I will think on what you have said.
Know that I wholly believe coercion is completely justified to defend the innocent.
I ask you to think on this-
Is your adherence to the Z.A.P. worth allowing a child to die?
Is your desire to remain blameless, clean from the filth of the world, worth more than the life of a child?
That is my one problem with libertarianism/anarchism and similar worldviews.
Note that I am not calling names, but pointing out the flaws, as I see them, in your thinking in the starkest possible terms.
Any worldview that hurts my tribe is bad.
Many -if not all by virtue of their utter innocence- of those babies dying today and tomorrow while we philosophize and worry about their killers' "rights" are part of my tribe.
I do not care one whit for the "rights" of people who would murder babies.
We recoil in horror when a mother kills a two year old, yet I am supposed to remain calm and concerned for killers' "rights" when thousands of younger children are murdered.
I realize my language is harsh and seems emotional.
It is passion, and I will not apologize for it.
It is a manifestation of basic human emotions, and serves as both a repellant and an attractant.
Any movement needs both your softer approach and my harder one. My approach has turned off many for sure, but on the other hand, I have jolted some people out of their slumber, who would have otherwise remained asleep in the face of calm, gentle, soothing words and ideas.
Some respond to warm water and fuzzy slippers, others need to be hit with a bucket of ice water.
If I lose all of my friends and become a complete social outcast, it will be worth it for whatever few lives those peoples' change of heart have saved.
Babies are dying, everyday.
AP
As I run out the door...
AP, you wrote:
I doubt the truth in this statement: "No coercive action can result in a good."
Self defense and defense of family is not coercive action. Coercion is the initiation of force against another:
"Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.
Countless women are coerced every day into having sex—to protect their other children, to avoid being beaten, to avoid abandonment of them and their children, or as a brutal act. The coercive person is a man. Men need to step up and assist with solving this universal problem, which is a problem of humankind.
I repeat: no coercive action can result in good.
I am attempting to broaden your comprehension of coercion, which you found emotionally repugnant when it involved coerced sterilization of men. Do you comprehend the coercion of forced pregnancy against women? I want to point out that coercion against women is the same as forced sterlization against men, which you find horribly repugnant.
I do think we must open our minds and find better resolution to such problems as abortion.
Sterilization would work, but is not acceptable.
Coercive pregnancy would work, but is not acceptable.
Abortion is not acceptable.
Because you have a passionate stand against abortion, I ask that you begin to think about a solution which does not violate the rights of anyone. It may be your calling.
Blessings,
iloilojones.com
Do you comprehend the coercion of forced pregnancy against women?
I do, obviously, but that does not change my stance one bit.
Killing babies is murder, regardless of the justification for killing the baby.
It is infanticide.
I also see no need to create another victim by killing the baby, who is uterly innocent of any part its conception.
If a woman's rights were violated, that is indeed a tragedy.
Killing the baby is still murder.
Post a Comment