MS Fowler - 3/18/2005 8:38 PM
I used to respect your point of view, but your hatred has made you appear mad.
You make a moral equivilency between war and murder. Was there no good done by the ousting of Sadam? Or do just ignore any possible good because it doesn't fit your hate-filled view of everyone who disagress with your self important world view?
Where do you draw the line, or is it only you who gets that privilege? Right now you claim that a brain scan will be the line. i remember when abortion was sold to people as a last resort. Now we routinely murder millions....millions! Who's to say that in 20 years the case for killing someone will be that they are simply not a productive citizen, or maybe not a member of the correct race, or group. Or maybe a member of the wrong group.
Your hatred combined with your arrogance makes any discussion of the issues impossible. You end up resembling those nazis you claim to hate.
The right to an abortion is an individual right, a right of choice and conscience. It is simply a right that the state has no business in attempting to exercise coercion to prohibit it. It is very different from the group actions you claim it will lead to - no groups possess these rights today, and to gain those rights they will have to go through the legislative process. I certainly doubt we will be legislating these kinds of things any time soon in this country.
This is not ranting - this is a philosophy with strong underpinnings - Jefferson, Rousseau, Gassendi, Locke - are the originators of an idea that has freed us all in this country - that certain rights exist before any government or legislature or king, is even given the power to govern - the natural rights of man, unalienable rights - a revolutionary idea at the time, when the prevailing view was that one's rights were what the church and the king told you they were.
The rights of governments, the rights of groups, corporations, all come after the fact - they are created as instruments by men exercising their unalienable rights, and all these groups possess "created" rights, not natural rights - and while created rights can be taken away, "certain natural rights" as Jefferson so eloquently says, "are inviolate". And we all know the three most important, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The US Constitution clearly says that these rights are possessed by people who are "naturally born, or naturalized citizens of the United States". That one sentence is the core basis of a women's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being superior to that of a fetus, who in its unborn state posesses no natural rights. It's a bitch, but that's the way it is.
It is a central point of American law. One of these natural rights is a right to be "secure in one's own person", in other words to be an autonomous individual with choices and an ultimate right to be left the hell alone. It is that right that forms for me anyway, the philosophical and moral reasoning behind recognizing a women's right to abortion. I just do not see Nazi mob action resulting from this.
I also don't see where the Shiavo case fits in. The Shiavo case is a legal case, not a political one, although the right wing has gone out of their way to turn it into one. Under Florida law, and in most states, if not all, once a person marries, the spouse's rights overrule parental rights. Mr. Shiavo simply has the right to make decisions for his wife if she is incapacitated - it is the law. The theory of law here is also well established - Mrs Shiavo is unable to exercise her rights, and the law allows her husband to act in her stead. He claims she wished to not live in a vegative state, and his claims have held up in court. In both these cases, the remedies are through the courts and the law. Absent constitutional amendments, this is simply the way the world is.
The is nothing, absolutely nothing new about this case - people face this issue and make these decision everyday, with infants and spouses that are beyond hope. Are we to now outlaw loved one's rights entirely? Are we to build mass factories to keep these hopeless cases alive with pumps regardless of the wishes of loved ones? Are those that can be helped now to be shunted aside so doctors and resources can be committed to keeping alive the brain dead? Are the hundreds of thousands of stroke victims, drug overdose victims (like Ms Shiavo), babies born with only brain stems, accident victims, are we to now keep all of these people alive heroically even tho none of them are even aware they are alive? This is a Frankenstein world you propose. If a person cannot breath or eat on there own and there is no sign of cognizant brain activity, they are dead. Let the dead bury the dead.