Real “Choice” Requires Truth
As is written in our Declaration of Independence, all human beings “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life…”? Abortion advocates reject this and other fundamental American values, including truth and justice.? Abortion is a degrading, painful procedure, and contrary to the “choice” rhetoric, many women pressured to abort truly want their babies to live.? Abortion facilities profit off the plight of desperate women and hide facts that may lead women and girls to choose life.? But abortionists would rather women suffer than their bottom line suffer.? Abortionists sell women a false solution, denying the real emotional pain following an abortion, thereby denying them a chance to heal.? The pro-life movement offers free help and real choices to women in need.? There are twice as many pro-life pregnancy help centers than there are abortion facilities.? They offer real care to women who want to continue school, who need housing, or who need support for their life-giving choice.? They offer hope, healing and compassion to women who have had abortions.? Abortion advocates do not want women to be aware of these life-affirming choices.? Abortion advocates attack pro-life pregnancy centers in court.? They sue to block laws that give women information about what abortion does, that let women see ultrasounds before abortion, and that allow parents to protect minors from secret abortions.? It is easy to tell the difference between a pro-life center and an abortionist.? Just look at their ads—if an ad insists on cash, Visa, or MasterCard, it is an abortion center.? Pro-life services are typically free.? The founders of the abortion movement believed in eugenics, the elimination of the poor, of non-whites, and of people with mental disabilities.? Naturally, abortion centers are most commonly found in poor neighborhoods.? African-Americans account for a vastly disproportionate number of aborted babies.? The abortion industry is profit-hungry predator that thrives on disinformation, targets the most vulnerable Americans and rejects true compassion for women and children.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Denying a man his right to provide life for his child is a hate crime . Men did not choose to be born with penises. They have the right to procreate without fearing that their beloved child will be taken from them. The discrimination against them concerning this issue is discrimination on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation.
I don't have a right to engage in sexual intercourse and then later insist that my rights were violated because the woman used protection. It's not a violation of my rights for a woman to refuse to have sex with me unless there's birth control involved. We do not have a right to procreate.
I believe that you may be correct in the case of a few dictators in human history; but, it would have to be a pretty overwhelming and controlling government which would take away its slaves' opportunity to procreate by law .
Here's a great example of the difference between a positive and a negative right.
Stating this right in a positive way would be saying:
I have the right to procreate.
or more specifically
I have a right, as a male, to decide what happens to any individual created using my sperm.
Which is a weird right, but okay. Let's go with that.
Firstly, is it a codified right? I can't think of anywhere that such a right is stated or implied, unless you count your genetic offspring as property.
Is it a natural right? Unlikely--people who give up their children for adoption and later want access to them, and have that refused, don't have their rights violated. Sperm or egg donors do not have their rights violated if they don't get to name\provide\have a say in their offspring's life.
So let's look at the negative right statement, ie.
No one should have the right to impede my procreation
OR MORE SPECIFICALLY
No one should have the right to disallow my choosing to decide what happens yadda yadda yadda
This right could be applied to the government, or to the general populace.
Now, I agree that the government cannot and should not mandate abortions, forced sterilizations, etc, like many governments have done (including the US). However, that's not what's happening. The government simply makes the option available, like any other medical procedure. It provides them some funding, since it's difficult to train doctors in such a procedure unless you're dedicated to it, and operating an abortion clinic as opposed to a plastic surgery clinic is about six times as expensive, to protect it from terrorism by extremists.
So at last we have the
"No one should have the right to disallow..."
This is almost an eerie return to biblical morality. Not the good kind, where there's love and feeding of the poor--the scary kind. Rapists are forced to marry their victims kind. Does a rapist have the right to impede the abortion of the woman he's raped? Does a man or a woman have the right to force his involvement on his child, if a court order prevented it?
As in the past, you present a thoughtful question. I will think more about this.
For now, I will just ask "What is Natural Law?" and have we rights, after all, which are "given us by our Creator, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"
Does that still have meaning, today? And, if not, then are we "in the soup" or not?
You have to look at the concept of natural law , and what would allow those rights to be violated. Do the laws of the state have the right to violate those natural rights?
I'd argue that yes, they do.
There may be natural law, but there isn't a natural law that states, for example, that, oh, you can't smoke marijuana . I think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who believes that is a natural law. However, the state can imprison you for doing so, thusly infringing on your Natural Right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There's no Natural Law that says you have to be loyal to your country, but the State has the right to kill you if you commit treason, violating your Natural Right to life.
But it's beyond the court of the land to enforce them.
If a woman chooses to have an abortion performed, that falls under liberty AND pursuit of happiness, wouldn't it?
Yes. Now. Because abortion is now considered a "right", it is beyond the court of the land to enforce it.
But don't you argue that the court (the State) can violate Natural Law? Shouldn't the court violate the right to elective abortion?
I more than that look upon the "little one's" right to life. If we haven't a right to life, then of what value or usefullness are other "rights" (the right to free expression becomes possibly the right to verbally object within the scopes of firing squads?
I've tracked down my old friend of a decade ago. Here's some info about him. It's dated, so I must phone him soon.
Stephen D. Schwarz
Department of Philosophy
170 Chafee Social Science Center
10 Chafee Road
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Phone: 401-783-8265
E-mail: Stephen Schwarz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Schwarz is Professor of Philosophy. He received his BA and MA in Philosophy from Fordham and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Harvard. He joined the department in 1963. His research and teaching interests are mainly in ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. He received an Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching in 1971. He is now in phased retirement (half the normal teaching load), and will retire officially in 2007, but hopes to continue teaching after that, one or two courses a year.
His major publications include:
The Moral Question of Abortion. Chicago: Loyola Press, 1990, 1992.
“Love of Truth as a Moral Virtue,” in Stephen Schwarz and Fritz Wenisch (eds.), Values and Human Experience: Essays in Honor of the Memory of Balduin Schwarz. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.
“The Right and the Good: Two Fundamental Dimensions of Morality,” in Aletheia, vol. V (1990), pp. 59-76.
“Faith, Doubt and Pascal’s Wager,” in The Center Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, Summer 1984, pp. 29-58.
“Does Prichard’s Essay Rest on a Mistake?” in Ethics, vol. 81, no. 2, January 1971, pp. 169-80.
Professor Schwarz regularly teaches PHL 212, Ethics and PHL 342, Knowledge, Belief and Truth.
Copyright © 2005
University of Rhode Island
Disclaimer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File last updated: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The University is an affirmative action /equal opportunity employer.
All rights reserved. URL: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/phl
Actually, in this instance, the right of property ownership, or bodily integrity if you prefer, actually trumps the right to life.
There is no RIGHT to abortion , in the natural sense, but there is a right to a) bodily integrity, and b) not be enslaved. And the life of a single-celled creature cannot stand in those rights. I'd argue that even a person can't, but we'll get to that.
According to popular opinion, animals technically have no rights. They have no right to life--If you think they do, you should be in a much unhappier state over that then you would be over abortion, because of the sheer numbers of it. Why do humans have rights, animals have none, and where do fetal cells fit in?
What a human being DOES have is the right to not be enslaved--that is, to not have their body or effort used to the benefit of another person, against their will, with no reward or possibility of refusal. This is the right that is violated when rape is committed, and when a bunch of other things are committed as well.
Now, weighing that right against another human being (I'm being generous here--I don't equate fetuses with human beings ethically, but for the purposes of this argument I'll just posit that) it might seem like the right to life of the other human being supercedes that, and all other rights, that you might have. I mean, the worst someone can do to you is deprive you of property\time\etc. and that's nothing compared to death, right?
Most laws would disagree with that. First of all, there are fates worse than death. Torture is one I can think of. Choosing a life of perpetual torture without the possibility of escape vs. choosing death--it isn't unreasonable to assume a person would choose death.
Secondly, certain rights are protected, TO THE DEATH OF ANOTHER, by law . For example, if a person is pursued, assaulted, and threatened, the person has the right to respond--even kill--if they feel genuinely threatened. People can and do shoot trespassers and burglars, rapists and batterers. If you were to be raped (but had no belief that such an act would end in your death) and used deadly force to prevent such an act, you'd be within your rights to do so.
You also have NO obligation to anyone to allow them to use your resources (body, organs, house, money , food , etc.) without your consent. We'll define obligation in this sense as a moral impoetus to allow someone else to violate your rights.
Have animals rights? In a sense, they do.
We lawmakers have given animals the right to humane treatment; and some may be imprisoned if they act in disregard of this (e. g., Michael Vick); but certainly our right to life is special.
Have slaves rights? Like in the case of elective abortion , history moves to and from a definite answer to that. We change every hundred or two hundred years. Right now, for example, it is declared by some "experts" that there are more domestic and sex slaves in the US, right now, since slavery is illegal, than there were slaves in the Confederacy when slaves were legal . It's almost like everything, including atrocities, disappear and reappear in our histories.
Somebody told me that they (the Moslims) are crucifying Christians in the Sudan. Millions of Christians, it is claimed, are killed each year for their faith (year in and year out). It's dangerous to be a missionary.
It's also claimed that the most dangerous place a human being can be, in these United States, is in his/her mother's womb.
Did you see the note about Steve's book about Abortion? It was published in 1990 and/or 1992 by Loyola Press; wasn't it?
your correspondent,
raymond
But the words I would express to the person that said "It's also claimed that the most dangerous place a human being can be, in these United States, is in his/her mother's womb."
Really? Statistically? Honestly?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16883/Slavery-is-not-finished-yet
There are not more slaves in the US than there were during slavery. Unless you count pregnant women, which is forced usage of an organ.
I cannot find that book.
For real, Cameron.
We "terminate" between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000 (and those are CDC stats). Remember, too, that the only stats are those given to the CDC by the abortionists, themselves (no exception --- even when the media discovers hundreds of aborting women deaths previously unreported).
The most dangerous place to be in the US (probably in the world) is in one mother's womb. El Queida doesn't kill that many Americans in War.
One third of your generation is absent. If you see a couple moving towards you, there is actually an invisible person who was living and is now dead. One third of your world (and mine) is absent.
Ever think about what that means to our (USA's) Social Security fund?
It doesn't take a lot of imagination. We're headed for an absolute collapse, a train wreck.
Shall we say "Every granny a wanted granny", then? Medicaid is also expected to completely collapse in our forseeable future.
What are we going to do?
This time (not as was the case with Elective Abortion) we really may face a crisis with expensive grannies we can't support.
Time will tell, Cameron; but don't bet on Love, this time either.
has the US topped 1,500,000 abortions in a year. It actually hasn't been over 900,000 in about 12 years now.
One third of my generation isn't absent. By definition, if they weren't born, they weren't part of my generation. If they weren't born, they aren't human beings, or individuals, or anything that has any bearing on me. Another person's abortion has absolutely no affect on me, whatsoever. Or you. Or anyone, other than them. There are no invisible floating people.
The debate about social security is a bit odd, but let me see if I can understand it. Abortion, to you, is bad, and one of the reason's it's bad is that it has deprived the elderly of a greater social security fund. Ideally, they would have been born, worked, put in money , and all of that. That's a bit worrying...fetuses are valued according to their labor potential? I'm all for abortion, but I'm against the monetizing and commodification of any sort of person.
Granny's are already born. Once born, they've got their own rights.
Lastly, remember the right to bodily integrity and usage of property.
Are proponents of elective abortion facing the moral complexity of this issue? A baby's life is at stake, here.
The news yesterday was that babies dance to music in utero (in the womb). Did you know that baby boys in the womb are often seen to grow erections, when the ultrasound video goes on (as if they somehow know that they are being observed; so something)?
Why not Domestic Violence and murder? After all, Rihanna is HIS (Chris Brown's) girlfriend; isn't THAT what spouses and boyfriends and girlfriends reason?
When are these bloody, black shadows going to leave our beloved land, and that high, bloody, black hand which makes those shadows, as well?
and mention Rihanna and Chris Brown. Is there something about your view of abortion as it relates to people of color that you want us to know about?
I have a little plant on the dashboard of my car. It dances when the music plays. It is not alive.
I have a little wooden statue that my brother gave me, where when you take the wooden barrel off of it, it pops an erection. My brother has no sense of humor. But that object is not alive.
Did I keep saying "black"?
Sorry, then, about the mis"conception" (sorry).
When I said black, I meant "onerous", deadly, foreboding.
Even the first, one cell, already has the entire, human chromosome contribution from both dad and mom and it's dividing to reach the first goal of birth. At eighteen days, there are brainwaves. There are heartbeats before the mother knows (Latin: "little one") that she's pregnant.
65% of Americans, even pro-choice Americans, believe that a human life is taken in abortion , Cameron. An abortionist I debated once on a radio program said: "Of COURSE I know that it's human. What do you think that I think it is, a TOMATO"!
Why dehumanize the "little one"? Didn't dehumanization happen to a people in the early Twentieth Century on Earth (where and when I spent most of my life, so far)?
and, when I used the word: "foreboding", earlier, I meant to.
Did you know that the medical profession had already murdered over 250,000 children with "defects" (some as slight as mis-shapen ears), while Hitler was still a Corporal, recovering from a war wound in the Veterans' Hospital?
Hitler didn't start the killing. He just took it over. In the end, he said: "Europe will stand up and thank me, for eliminating the defective from the gene pool". Like almost everybody in the world, Hitler believed in Darwin's ideas of some peoples being inferior to other. Hitler really meant what he said; and, explicitly.
Anyway, don't shrink from the moral complexity, Cameron. Even Obama (the most pro-choice of abortion President in American history, to-date) admitted that much (the outright humanity of the human fetus); and, if I'm not mistaken, he used a term I've used, "moral complexity"early during his first News Conference.
raymond
I find it very difficult to see how you describe your position as "real choice" when you do not want there to be a choice at all.