Post by TomLine on Jul 30, 2016 20:31:33 GMT -5
CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
The United States is a nation "conceived in liberty." When in the course of events a man and woman use that liberty to have physical relations and a child is conceived, that child is conceived in liberty. As such has all the rights of all others conceived in liberty.
By “unborn human being,” I mean a living human zygote, embryo, or fetus. I shall defend this somewhat controversial usage later in these remarks. By “direct abortion,” I mean an act whose object is to destroy an unborn human being. By “indirect abortion,” I mean an act whose object is something other than the destruction of an unborn human being, but whose foreseen side effects include causing the death of an unborn human being.
If, as I shall argue, the unborn are human beings possessing a worth and dignity equal to that of other human beings, then direct abortion is prohibited by the moral norm which excludes all forms of direct killing of innocent human beings. Indirect abortion is usually, though not always, morally prohibited. Like other forms of indirect killing, it is usually prohibited because it is usually unfair to the individual whose death is caused, albeit as an unintended side effect. Morally speaking, unborn human beings, like other innocent human beings, have a right not to be directly killed or even to be indirectly killed unfairly.
Should this moral right be protected by law? As human beings, the unborn are not only morally entitled not to be unjustly killed, they are also morally entitled to legal protection against unjust killing. Indeed, like human beings at every stage of development–infants, children, adolescents, and adults–the unborn are morally entitled to the equal protection of the laws. To deny them equal protection is unjust. Just law will, to the extent practicable, forbid unjust feticide just as it forbids other forms of unjust homicide. At the same time, just as the law permits the indirect killing of adult human beings where killing is deemed to be justified (as, for example, in certain cases of self-defense), the law may, and, I believe, should, permit indirect abortion in the rare cases in which it is not unfair.
www.aei.org/publication/liberty-equality-and-unborn-human-beings/
If, as I shall argue, the unborn are human beings possessing a worth and dignity equal to that of other human beings, then direct abortion is prohibited by the moral norm which excludes all forms of direct killing of innocent human beings. Indirect abortion is usually, though not always, morally prohibited. Like other forms of indirect killing, it is usually prohibited because it is usually unfair to the individual whose death is caused, albeit as an unintended side effect. Morally speaking, unborn human beings, like other innocent human beings, have a right not to be directly killed or even to be indirectly killed unfairly.
Should this moral right be protected by law? As human beings, the unborn are not only morally entitled not to be unjustly killed, they are also morally entitled to legal protection against unjust killing. Indeed, like human beings at every stage of development–infants, children, adolescents, and adults–the unborn are morally entitled to the equal protection of the laws. To deny them equal protection is unjust. Just law will, to the extent practicable, forbid unjust feticide just as it forbids other forms of unjust homicide. At the same time, just as the law permits the indirect killing of adult human beings where killing is deemed to be justified (as, for example, in certain cases of self-defense), the law may, and, I believe, should, permit indirect abortion in the rare cases in which it is not unfair.
www.aei.org/publication/liberty-equality-and-unborn-human-beings/
The only reason to end another persons life is self defense. That is true in all life. In all means of attack we have the right to defend ourselves. This includes a woman whose life is being attacked by an unborn child. That is the only time abortion can be legal. But that must be the woman's choice. No one may of right prevent another from defending their life.
Self defense has long been held as permissable, whether being mugged or raped, or if a nation attacks another nation. When there is an attack, it is normal and natural to fight back. We see this throughout nature. We see it in the animal kingdom. The road runner doesn't just sit around waiting for the coyote to capture it for that evenings road runner buffet. No, he uses the tools that God gave him to protect himself. If you have ever gone fishing you know the fish are never submissive. Self defense is as natural.
Sometimes the prey is outmatched by the predator there isn't much of a fight. The victim in this case would need help. Such is true for the unborn. That is why I am a defender of the unborn. When they are being preyed upon by so called doctors who took an oath to "first do no harm." They do much harm to to the unborn.
That's why when I am President, I will do all I can to fight this predatory behavior toward the unborn, even ordering drone strikes of abortion clinics if that's what it takes. I will veto any spending bill if just one penny goes to Planned Parenthood. I will ask Congress for laws that prohibit any doctor that performs abortion, to receive any money from insurance companies. I will ask Congress for a Personhood Act defining what a person is including the unborn. There is no need for an Amendment. The Constitution already uses the word "person" in the 5th and 14th Amendments. It is well within the authority of Congress to define the word.
LET US RESCUE THE UNBORN TOGETHER