Contradictions are self-rebutting, hence the subject line quote.
"No, you can't do that."
"All right, can you give me some money then?"
Being not-broke is not a preeminent need; surival is. We must take Locke VERY literally to believe even POSSESSING—not just retaining—property a natural right; perhaps that was part of why Jefferson revised it to "pursuit [rather than attainment] of happiness." Otherwise we take Locke for a Marxist demanding wealth redistribution, which very few people would do.
"I'm starving; I'm thinking about stealing food."
"No, you can't do that."
"Alright, can you give me some food then?"
Most people agree the answer should be "yes," if only to prevent theft of food the moment our back is turned; that is why we have things like food stamps. There is no reasonable nor other doubt of a beings existence there, so societys active duty (and self interest) is clear.
My position is a simple one, I don't know how to define 'person' or determine when something is one. I give the benefit of the doubt to them. I am not sure a fetus is a person, not sure an infant is either, since there is decent reason to believe they may be I will act as though that is true unless presented overwhelming evidence they aren't.
When reasonable doubt exists we cannot, or should not, INTERVENE over the objections of those involved. Supposing a child is trapped in a well does not justify ignoring a "no trespassing" sign unless one proves the childs presence. Now, I agree we should err on the side of caution in uncertainty; that, absent serious maternal risk, abortions should be neither obtained nor performed unless/until we establish fetuses are nonbeings. I have always encouraged that view in everyone: The difference is I will not MAKE others live in accordance with what I BELIEVE but cannot PROVE. In fact, I CANNOT, only imprison them for refusing—if they survive the added dangers legally imposing my beliefs places on refusal.
My concern for and obligation to their immortal souls does not justify me preventing their observance of other religions (or none,) and my concern for and obligation to their unborn children does not justify me preventing their abortion. It is NOT. MY. CALL.
Most Libertarians view (ironically) taxpayers feeding people who would otherwise starve and/or turn to crime just that way, yet insist such life-saving intervention is obligatory prenatally. The state MUST forbid women kill possible beings within their own bodies, but must NOT take a dime from anyone to save those lives once unquestionably beings. That is contradictory: If life-saving society intervention despite individual objections is obligatory for possible pre-natal beings, it is no less so for definite post partum beings. If the latter is state tyranny, so is the former. We cannot demand a possible beings right to life, then stand idly letting it die when born.
It is a question of active vs. passive, with multiple reasonable answers. No contradictory ones are reasonable though.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
*NM*
- 19/08/2013 11:45:22 PM
1024 Views