“Right to life” vs. “License to kill”: A Libertarian Case for the Pro-Life Position
Those who perpetuate the "Pro Choice" argument and honestly believe it cannot in their heart of hearts consider a Fetus a human being. I say this because what kind of monster believes that murder is okay.
The "Pro Choice" supporters don't believe that a Fetus is a Human Being because it cannot live on its own outside of the Mother's body. But I have to ask this....If a Fetus is totally dependent on the mother, and therefore has no right at all. In other words it does not count! But if a pregnant mother is a victim of any violence or crime, which results in the death of both the mother and the fetus, the courts count the "value" of the fetus, and if the perpetrator is found guilty, he/she could be sentenced to, and meted out, "double" the punishment because of the two dead victims. So, why should the treatment and regard for the value of the fetus be different in the case of abortion?
In Beaglescouts article he states that Geneticists will tell that they believe life begins when "...the ovum is fertilized by the sperm. At that point the fertilized egg has the same genetic structure it will have for its entire life, and much of the course of its future life is set, unless interrupted by accident or violent attack."
I do realize the situation is not that simple and straightforward. But guided by our Christian sensibilities and sensitivities, by our education, and by our culture where the family is the basic structure of our foundation in society,
I am puzzled why there is even a debate on the matter at all.
By LJ "Beaglescout" Miller @RedState.com
The abortion issue involves vast deeps of confusion about the nature of rights, freedom and the lack thereof, choice, license, responsibilities, and obligations. In this essay I attempt to cut away all the confusion to get to the heart of things from a classical liberal approach.
The right to life is the most basic, foundational right without which other rights mean nothing. So how is it that one person’s so-called rights can allow her to take away the foundational rights of another? The answer is they can’t. There are no such rights. This would be license. But license is not endowed upon humans by their Creator. It is claimed by those who wish to oppress others while claiming victim hood for themselves. By misusing the language of rights the proponents of a so-called right to abortion have invented a license to kill for the mother while denying the child any rights at all. This is hardly an example of human beings created equal. It is a much better example of human beings created different and at war.
Read the rest of this article by LJ posted by "Beaglescout" Miller @RedState.com here
The "Pro Choice" supporters don't believe that a Fetus is a Human Being because it cannot live on its own outside of the Mother's body. But I have to ask this....If a Fetus is totally dependent on the mother, and therefore has no right at all. In other words it does not count! But if a pregnant mother is a victim of any violence or crime, which results in the death of both the mother and the fetus, the courts count the "value" of the fetus, and if the perpetrator is found guilty, he/she could be sentenced to, and meted out, "double" the punishment because of the two dead victims. So, why should the treatment and regard for the value of the fetus be different in the case of abortion?
In Beaglescouts article he states that Geneticists will tell that they believe life begins when "...the ovum is fertilized by the sperm. At that point the fertilized egg has the same genetic structure it will have for its entire life, and much of the course of its future life is set, unless interrupted by accident or violent attack."
I do realize the situation is not that simple and straightforward. But guided by our Christian sensibilities and sensitivities, by our education, and by our culture where the family is the basic structure of our foundation in society,
I am puzzled why there is even a debate on the matter at all.
By LJ "Beaglescout" Miller @RedState.com
The abortion issue involves vast deeps of confusion about the nature of rights, freedom and the lack thereof, choice, license, responsibilities, and obligations. In this essay I attempt to cut away all the confusion to get to the heart of things from a classical liberal approach.
Until it gets to the First Amendment, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter of Human Rights. This doesn’t mean they didn’t exist until then. Americans had Rights before the Bill of Rights passed. Our Rights descended from English common, statute, and chancery law, and before that from the ancient traditions of free Christian Englishmen (the 1689 Bill of Rights not least among these enumerations of rights). But those are peripheral sources of Rights for Americans. Most central to the American concept of Rights is The Declaration of Independence.The Declaration of Independence, in which our Rights as Americans and humans were so eloquently advanced, stated that all humans are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable (intrinsic, non-severable) Rights. It does not state that humans are born equal, but created so. For this reason it matters when human life is created. For the answer we turn to science."We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. "
The right to life is the most basic, foundational right without which other rights mean nothing. So how is it that one person’s so-called rights can allow her to take away the foundational rights of another? The answer is they can’t. There are no such rights. This would be license. But license is not endowed upon humans by their Creator. It is claimed by those who wish to oppress others while claiming victim hood for themselves. By misusing the language of rights the proponents of a so-called right to abortion have invented a license to kill for the mother while denying the child any rights at all. This is hardly an example of human beings created equal. It is a much better example of human beings created different and at war.
Read the rest of this article by LJ posted by "Beaglescout" Miller @RedState.com here
Comments