Section 3 of Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act seems to regulate which cases the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. How does this relate to federalism? Does this just have to do with cases that argue that the unborn are not persons, i.e. is the act just saying the Court cannot overturn/overrule the Act?
It means that federalism as it "should be" will be restored in part by keeping the federal court system out of what "should be" handled by the states.
[channeling Juan]
Pandering to conservatives?
[/channeling Juan]
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Knight_of_BAAWA: It means that federalism as it "should be" will be restored in part by keeping the federal court system out of what "should be" handled by the states.
Did you click the link?
The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
They're saying that 'life' begins at conception and no pesky Supreme Court can overturn or challenge this definition of 'life'.
Apparently it gives an unborn child the legal right under federal law to homestead its mother's body.
I've been stuck on this topic in my head for a while because I look at it quiet differently.
Under normal circumstances the child had no say or choice in the matter of whos womb to be born into. The unborn child also does not have the option to change womb's in which to increase it's likelyhood of survival. The normal rules of private property seem somewhat alterd here.
A) The child had no say whether or not to be conveived in the first place. It had no say or choice to be brought into existence. Its existence is because of the original owners(mother) responsible, or ir-responsible actions. The child had no choice in the matter.
B) The child has no ability to choose to leave the womb for another.
C) Since the child has no other natural options and the child has naturally been conceived into existence, also since the child DOES live in the womb and considering the mother may have taken actions considering these factors. I think it's entirely legite for a child to homestead a mother's body.
Ultimately the child lives in the womb not by his/her own will but by the will of his mother as the child is a direct consequence of the mothers actions. The whole abortion thing seems to be one of those Eat your cake and have it to arguments. Typically libertarian's are wiser then to fall into those scheme's. People pay for the consequences of their actions. Such is the way of life.
Now this is different then the argument of whether or not the state should be involved making these decisions for us and then using tax payer dollars to enforce whatever moral decision they decide.
Statism is a religion.
Just on the name itself. What if you don't think that life is all that sanct in the first place?
existence is elsewhere
filc:Since the child has no other natural options and the child has naturally been conceived into existence, also since the child DOES live in the womb and considering the mother may have taken actions considering these factors. I think it's entirely legite for a child to homestead a mother's body.
The mother is a living, rational human. How is it alright to say she has to carry what is essentially a parasite in her body for 9 months?
I'm not completely sure about abortion myself because I recognize that the mother bears at least some responsibility for the fetus.
Anonymous Coward:Did you click the link?
Anonymous Coward:They're saying that 'life' begins at conception and no pesky Supreme Court can overturn or challenge this definition of 'life'.
Fluery:The mother is a living, rational human. How is it alright to say she has to carry what is essentially a parasite in her body for 9 months?
To me thats like saying why a homeowner should bare the responsiblity of bankrupcy.
Also, was it not by the free choice of the mother that created this 'parasite'. It was certainly not the free will of the 'parasite' in this case. If a man diliberately ingests a spoon fool of tapeworms is it not HIS fault when he gets sick?
A typical parasite is intrusive. By that I mean, the parasite entered a foreign body against the will, consentm or knowledge of the body owner. In the case of a fetus, the fetus made no prior decision to be put there in the first place. In only the case of raip is it NOT the mothers fault that the child was placed there.
To me abortion is like trying to pretend the natural process of procreation is alienable. It's like trying to pretend we arn't humans.
filc:To me abortion is like trying to pretend the natural process of procreation is alienable. It's like trying to pretend we arn't humans.
Most libertarians are gnostics, so it's actually not too big a leap for them.
Not surprisingly, they belong to a cohort whose birth rates are below replacement levels.
filc: Also, was it not by the free choice of the mother that created this 'parasite'. It was certainly not the free will of the 'parasite' in this case.
Also, was it not by the free choice of the mother that created this 'parasite'. It was certainly not the free will of the 'parasite' in this case.
I'm not sure I'd call having sex agreeing to provide your body as a vessel for a fetus for 9 months... but in most cases I guess you're right.
Is the mother really obligated to carry a fetus to term just because she willingly had sex? And further is a fetus even deserving of moral consideration? - It is, after all, irrational.
Meh. I'm really rather hazy on this. I do understand where you're coming from, it certainly isn't the babies fault that it is being born.
Fluery:I'm not sure I'd call having sex agreeing to provide your body as a vessel for a fetus for 9 months...
I'm not quiet sure what else you would call it. When gambling there are consequences. Johnny didn't think playing a poker game for money would actually mean he would have to PAY UP at the end.
Fluery:Is the mother really obligated to carry a fetus to term just because she willingly had sex? And further is a fetus even deserving of moral consideration? - It is, after all, irrational.
it's a good point, but all of them could be contended to a degree. Does a man agree to get burned when he puts his hand in fire? We cannot change nature, physics, life. Untll our DNA structure changes the primary function of sex is procreation. This is the same for all mammals on the face of the planet. It's very simple cause and effect.
Also, what constitutes irrational? I guess on an average person's level it could not be considerd rational. But on an animal instinct level is it any less rational then anyting else? A plant consumes light, water, and CO2 to grow. It does so rationally. A fetus consumes water, fats, and proteins to grow. It seems rational to me for a fetus to consume in order to, oh I don't know... live and grow?
Fluery:Meh. I'm really rather hazy on this. I do understand where you're coming from, it certainly isn't the babies fault that it is being born.
yea I'm with ya. It's a tough argument and it still spins around in my head. These are the questions that pop up in mine though when I think about it. I think my ultimate point is that if you voluntarily agree to have sex then you must have been prepared to bare the consequences. Abortion is like an individual bail-out package to someone who screwed up big!
Remember the gambler. If he voluntarily gives up his money to play a game, he must be prepared for the consequences if he looses.
filc:I'm not quiet sure what else you would call it. When gambling there are consequences. Johnny didn't think playing a poker game for money would actually mean he would have to PAY UP at the end.
Just something to think about.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And when you play football and get injured, you cannot seek medical attention. To do so is trying to avoid the consequences.
Well, you can't unload the cost of your football hobby on others, and in this case you are certainly doing that on the unborn child.
Increasingly, libertarianism strikes me as a philosophy of people who want to avoid the consequences of their actions. They want sex without consequence, rude behavior without consequence, unchecked freedom to agitate for their crackpot social engineering schemes without consequence, and on down the line. Thus, its adherents seem mostly to be juvenile males who aren't reproducing themselves.
Fluery:And further is a fetus even deserving of moral consideration? - It is, after all, irrational.
So are three year olds, the mentally retarded, and old people with dementia.
A) A broken arm from football is not the natural obective of football.
Aa) A broken arm will stifle productivity.
Ab) Is guaranteed to cause life long productivity losses.
Ac) A broken limb is not a natural coarse of life.
Ad) Typically requires a doctor to correct, or suffer death, or lifelong deformation
B) Procreation is the undisputeable natural obective of sex. To argue this is to be alien.
Ba)Bearing a child will for a time stifle productivity but can be viewed as an investment. The child may come to bear great fruit for you and your family depending on how he/she is raised and what he/she is genetically predisposed of.
Bb) Bearing a child is not guaranteed to cause a life long productivity loss. If a mother carries the child naturally, free from ailments, she will recover on her own, without the need of a doctor. Had this not been the case we'd never had made it out of the caveman days!
Bc) Having sex, then getting pregnant, is a natural coarse of life. If we stopped this activity it wouldn't be long before humans were extinct. Conception is the fundamental design and purpose of sex.
Ad) While most people tend to seek doctor care, human history shows that doctors are not a part of the birth process, as the whole process is a natural part of procreation for the human race.
If you saw a fetus as an injury I could see why you would present that point of view. Do I need to remind you that you were once an 'injury' to? Also, is it really an 'injury' to become pregnant? In football breaking your arm is a small risk that may happen. In sex becoming pregnant is specifically designed for what it was suppose to do in the first place. Lol, It's not broken, it's working as intended.
Knight, I've seen your posts on these forums. Your competence in most topics far exceeds mine. I expect more of an argument from you than a typical football comparisson. :)
filc:A) A broken arm from football is not the natural obective of football.
filc:B) Procreation is the undisputeable natural obective of sex. To argue this is to be alien.
I need something more than irrelevancies.
Byzantine:Well, you can't unload the cost of your football hobby on others, and in this case you are certainly doing that on the unborn child.
Byzantine:Increasingly, libertarianism strikes me as a philosophy of people who want to avoid the consequences of their actions.
See how I'm showing that you're using a pet definition of "avoiding the consequences"? Yeah--it's time for that pet definition to go away. It bears no resemblance to reality. I know, I know--you'll whine and cry about that. Gee, that's just tough. Learn to not smuggle in a definition which begs the very question you're seeking to support. If you can't, then I suggest you no longer post about this topic. Not my problem. It's called "debate without fallacies or don't debate at all".
How's this for relevancy:
Eventually, dysfunctional gnostics who can't reproduce themselves will be replaced by people who don't equivocate pregnancy with having a broken arm. There are a lot less pro-choice atheists, and a lot more Muslim Arabs, Evangelical and Roman Catholic Meso-Americans, and Orthodox Jews in your future.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap