Yes We Do Have The Right To Bear Arms
June 26th, 2008 . by glendeanFrom the AP Supreme Court Wire:
The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
Isn’t that awesome? The supreme court says… Never mind that the Constitution has already been saying it for 200 years.
UPDATE: Other’s Reactions
Rustmeister’s Alehouse- “Chalk up one for the good guys.”
View from the Porch- “Heller affirmed. 2A is an individual right.”
American Front Porch- “Victory.”
SayUncle- “Heller Yeah.”
John Norris Brown- “ The fact that four justices voted to uphold the ban shows how far our courts have drifted from the Constitution.”
Nathan Moore- “I feel like a kid at Christmas - I can’t wait to delve into the thing.”
The Munchkin Wrangler- “That leaves us pretty much back at the status quo ante, except for the folks in localities like Chicago and D.C., who all owe Mr. Heller a beer or two.”
Post Politics (AC)- “The individual right to keep and bear arms is affirmed.”
Sean Braisted- “So long as reasonable restrictions on the buying and selling of firearms, as well as who can carry and where, are still in place, I say lock and load.”
R. Neal- “Let the parsing begin.”
Phil Ayers- “Gun owners everywhere must be stoked right now.”
Occasional Muse- “Antonin Scalia has torpedoed what little intellectual integrity he had left.”
Brendan Loy- “Individual right to bear arms vindicated.”
Stacey Campfield- “This should make things quite interesting when Rep. Frank Nicley and I bring up our bills to allow legal permitted hand gun owners to carry in parks and on campuses this coming year.”
Blue Collar Republican- “Today was perhaps the closet we have come to seeing the complete disregard for the Bill of Rights by the Supreme Court. However, by one slim vote, it affirmed in D.C. v. Heller….”
Cows and Graveyards- “The interesting thing to me about Heller is that it seems to be a decision on principle which is entirely consistent with Boumediene, but the decisions share only one voter in common.”
What a few other prominent Americans said. Perhaps they were finally consulted.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975).
“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)
To all of you Conservatives who are thinking about making a protest vote for President.
Pay attention to the 5-4 ruling today. We are one heart attack away from having our basic rights diminished.
Man up, this is not the time to take your eye off the ball.
Vote for McCain even if you puke a little. It is too important to waive your protest vote this November.
This vote should have been 9-0. Wake up. Our basic liberty is at stake.
[...] Tennessee Free: Isn’t that awesome? The supreme court says… Never mind that the Constitution has already been saying it for 200 years. [...]
Exactly right. This is the only reason I voted for Bush two times in a row. Thankfully, Bush delivered on the court. If Kerry would have replaced O’Conner, this would be 5-4 the other way.
Hold thy nose!
This is a happy day! I agree #9 and glen. This is EXACTLY why we have to vote in conservatives and *yech* McCain in November. Had Bush not been in office to appoint Alito and Roberts, we all know what the decision today would have been… And honestly, I liked John McCain’s response to Obama regarding the First Amendment as well. Happy Day!!!!!
Lets hope no judges retire or die before Nov
Poor Will. It seems like only he sulks when people are granted any independence.
No, we do need to preserve our independence, like women’s reproductive rights for example.
right to kill?
It’s fun to pick and choose where freedom applies eh?
I think it’s great that all those law-abiding liberals in D.C. will be able to legally own a handgun. Is there any city that needs more armed liberals? I think not!
.
Yes Glen, Sanctity of life.
Heh, DC - there is no more liberal part of the USA than DC.
William, do you spank the ole monkey to George Carlin videos?
Glen, are you afraid? Do you feel safer, more in control or more manly with a gun? I guess it’s part of our heritage.
Glen, are you afraid? Do you feel safer, more in control or more manly with a gun?
I support responsible gun ownership.
I recognize that there is no magic wand that will make the hundreds of millions of existing firearms that presently exist in the public’s hands vanish, overnight.
These are very durable goods, people… I have functional weapons handed down to me by my great-grandfather! That means there’s no way to keep these weapons from ending up in the hands of those who have no respect for the law, so I see no downside to allowing (nay, encouraging!) law-abiding citizens to own firearms.
.
Whew, I guess we can be thankful that you agree with the Constitution then, JP.
William,
It’s human, it’s alive, it’s innocent, it’s an individual . . . don’t you think it should be protected from being killed?
Babies don’t earn a spot on the liberal radar until they grow up and kill somebody. Then their life must be protected at all costs.
it’s alive
If it can sustain its life apart from its mother, it’s alive. It doesn’t even have to follow a balloon with its eyes. Before that, it’s not a person. Sorry!
Until you’re ready to throw doctors and patients in prison for life on murder charges, you really ought to shut the fuck up about this, ned.
.
It’s human, it’s alive, it’s innocent, it’s an individual . . . don’t you think it should be protected from being killed?
Funny, what a illogical crusade it is to protect the “unborn”. Ned has centered his life around it. He thinks it’s against Gawd to “kill” the unborn, but somehow it’s ok and for the greater good to kill and torture Muslims. That’s how illogical and inconsistent these obsessions are. Perhaps it brings out an overwhelming protectionist instinct - that parents want to force others to be like them. I’d be willing to bet that 95% of all anti-choice people that comment here are christians, and more than likely, parents. That wreaks of an agenda because if you look at the pro choice side, the demographics are spread out and encompass people from a much broader demographic, much more representational of America.
So fuck off Ned. Give up your bogus crusade. It shows no respect for women. Can you imagine an America where abortion was legal in just a dozen states and only the wealthy could travel and pay for such options? We’d be completely backward among industrialized nations.
I’ll leave it Carlin, he delivers right on the money:
But I’ll bet Ned Williams won’t be sending his kids into the military to fight in the perpetual war on terror. Sanctity of life only applies to his own kids. It’s perfectly fine for anyone elses kids to die so long as it helps Bush save face.
what a illogical crusade it is to protect the “unborn”
I don’t believe that.
However, I say if this is one’s position on abortion (as opposed to eyebortion), be consistent, and demand that doctor and patient be tried for conspiracy to commit murder.
.
Here we see the crux of the argument, with one side working with science and the other side using a philosophical construct.
It’s indisputable that all humans start from the joining of the egg and sperm. All of us who walk and breathe today can trace our lives back to that seminal moment. As we know that the copulation of man and woman has not yielded dog, ape, palm tree, or other non-human, it is consistent to say that the copulation of male human and female human will generate a new human if conditions are favorable (and no new human if conditions are unfavorable). This is basic biology.
In addition, genetics has shown us that, at conception, the embryo is fundamentally different in genetic structure from its two parents. It is safe to say that, genetically, the embryo is an individual.
It is also safe to say, as presented by the evidence that all humans start at embryo and then take the next 20-25 years, on average, to complete the growth cycle, that the embryo is a human in the development process.
It’s also clear that the human embryo belongs to the same species and its parents. As such, the embryo can be considered homo sapiens sapiens, the same classification as the rest of the humans on the planet.
It cannot be argued in any way that the embryo is a non-human. To do such is to argue against science which has been universally accepted by the scientific community.
However, to continue the justification of embryo destruction and abortion, proponents have wrapped themselves in the guise of “choice” and have switched to defining an embryo/fetus as something other than a human– a person or being.
It is nearly impossible to define “person” or “being”. Some declare a person is the whole of their experiences, but they need a brain to retain experience. Some declare that the embryo has tremendous experience in the form of “race-memory”. Still others prescribe being to the metaphysical concept of Soul– when does the Soul enter the body.
All of these concepts are philosophical constructs, constructs that have to deal with nebulous concepts that are all driven by an emotional standpoint. As reason is discarded in this manner and unprovable hypotheses are then substituted, declaring anything a “being” or “person” is a subjective boondoggle that requires belief in the construct of a Soul, or belief that an untestable hypothesis of “experience absorption” is grounds for determining whether human embryos should live or die.
I present to you that the only logical and reasonable standpoint in this case is that all humans should be held to the same moral standard, and as such, all humans should be considered human regardless of age or status of development. Injecting the unprovable and untestable ideas of Soul-bearing and in-utero personality development is irrelevant to the discussion as these philosophical constructs are without reasonable basis.
Here we see the crux of the argument, with one side working with science and the other side using a philosophical construct.
Well, Dr. Brainstorm, perhaps you can explain the “philosophical concept” of viability.
And then, you can rally the troops to prosecute doctors and patients for conspiracy to commit murder, or shut the fuck up about it.
.
No doubt. If the pro-choice argument is truly based on nothing but “philosophical constructs” without “reasonable basis” he should have no trouble whatsoever proving his case before a grand jury.
You would think the anti-choice lobby would be beating down the door of this self-proclaimed genius to acquire his legal services since he has so succinctly and easily achieved what has eluded the rest of them for 35 years.
Captain Brainstorm:
All of us who walk and breathe today can trace our lives back to that seminal moment.
I don’t know if you intended that pun, but it’s hilarious anyway.
In addition, genetics has shown us that, at conception, the embryo is fundamentally different in genetic structure from its two parents. It is safe to say that, genetically, the embryo is an individual.
Um, if fundamental differences in genetic structure are the prerequisite for one being an individual, then you’ve just ruled out identical twins as being “individuals.” Hooray! Free-for-all killing the twins! More seriously, the problem is that your definition of “individual” (and of “human being”) isn’t terribly useful.
Here’s some more science for you: some 79% of human embryos (which, by your definition, are individual human beings) fail to implant in the uterus, and therefore die well before birth. If embryos are the same as people, that’s a holocaust of untold proportions, several orders of magnitude worse than abortion could ever hope to be. We should be doing everything in our power to prevent all of those human beings from being decimated by natural causes.
And as much as you want to avoid the legal and philosophical implications of your position, that doesn’t mean that we should do so. If abortion is murder, then as JP points out, we should be trying abortion doctors and patients for murder and/or conspiracy to commit murder. But further still, if abortion is murder, then miscarriages are manslaughter, and every miscarriage should therefore be investigated as such by the legal authorities. Any woman who miscarries and is found to have acted irresponsibly while pregnant should be charged with reckless endangerment at least, and possibly with manslaughter.
I present to you that the only logical and reasonable standpoint in this case is that all humans should be held to the same moral standard, and as such, all humans should be considered human regardless of age or status of development.
I respectfully disagree. I submit that the beginning of human life should be defined in the same way that we define the end of human life — through higher-order brain activity. Just as someone who is brain dead is said to be “dead” even if they continue to have stem activity, a pulse, etc., someone who has not yet developed higher brain function (or, for that matter, a brain, as in the case of embryos) cannot yet be said to be a living human being, and thus does not have moral interests or legal standing. Does that embryo/fetus have the potentential to develop into a living human being? Of course. But just because Ryan Leaf had the potential to be an NFL quarterback, that didn’t make him one.
Now, my position on abortion might change somewhat if there were a viable alternative. If fetal transplants were feasible (and there were enough willing recipients), you might have a different question. As it is, the number of children waiting for live adoption is about 1/8th the number of abortions in the US each year, so it’s not like there’s a surplus of loving homes that we could exploit, even if we wanted to.
My primary beef with the anti-abortion movement is that by and large, they treat the sex that leads to pregnancy as a bigger sin than the abortion itself — they even use language that implies that the pregnancy / fetus / “baby” is punishment for illicit sex (e.g., “you play, you pay”). If you’re really serious about reducing or eliminating abortion in this country (and in the world), then you’d be serious about the things that are proven to reduce unintended pregnancy: comprehensive sex education, encouraging contraceptive use, etc. But most anti-abortion people I encounter spurn such tactics, saying that this somehow would “legitimize” sex they view to be immoral, or that it gives people a “green light” to have “sinful” sex. (Guess what? They’re doing it anyway, with or without your approval…)
[/rant]
this explains the real reason xians hate abortion
Lucas,
Interesting link, especially this part;
Christian Fetus Fetish
And thankyou Captn for your Catholic rationalizations. Guess you never got beyond that.
Ummm, wrong, wrong, wrong, and finally wrong.
What theses puny arguments about charging abortionists with murder, or their easy accomplices, or attempting to tie miscarriages to it leaves out one legal standard that is fairly important - intent. That miscarriage comment is so retarded that you should have thrown yourself down a flight of stairs to abort posting it.
You all want to play this immorally relative game where the person who kills a baby out of convenience because it cramps their social calendar is no different than the woman who suffers a miscarriage through no fault of her own. I feel your pain. We all love skanky fucking whores but killing babies should not be a side effect of your skank loving.
A woman who had no choice in a sexual encounter by means of rape should have the option as quickly as possible. If her life is physically in danger as a result of the pregnancy then she should not have to choose to end her own life. And the incest rule as well.
However, yes. All abortionists who don’t conform to those standards should be executed. We should crack their fucking skulls open and suck them out with the vacuum cleaner from the Car Wash. Especially the Planned Parenthood ones who perform abortions on underage girls and help hide records for statutory rapists. Which they do.
This is much to do about nothing. Abortion isn’t in the Constitution. The Right to Bear Arms is the 2nd Amendment. They said, “You can say what you want and the government can’t stop you - but you may need to own a gun when everybody else comes to kill you after you do.”
You have the right to fuck all you want to but when you bring another person into it you don’t just get to decide to kill them because they get in the way of your 24-hour cock-a-thon.
William, I’m a little late here, but to reply to your question. I don’t own a gun and never have. I am also not a homosexual, not rich, nor do I smoke pot, but I support gay rights, the legalization of marijuana, and the right to keep one’s private property and most of what one earns.
I believe in liberty William. Big difference between you and me.
I can’t believe this thread was hijacked into a debate on abortion.
Tell me something libs. Rather than argue about something else. Justify the way the four idiots voted. Enlighten us into why they were right and the constitution is wrong.
Justify the way the four idiots voted.
Um… can’t do it. I think the majority ruled correctly on this one, and I plainly said why.
.
Late, as usual.
Did I miss anything?
Oh. William supports abortion. Not unusual. He does us all a favor every time he pays for a girl to flush his away.
JP believes in gun rights. Man, you just went up a few notches right there in my estimation (don’t tell your good buddies in Atrios’ hell-hole, or you’ll lose all your cred.)
Glen, if you want to own a gun, you have the right. For someone who hasn’t ever owned a gun, and you want to concern yourself with self-protection (which I recommend) I suggest a shotgun; because you probably can’t hit the broad side of a red barn inside with the door locked with a handgun. (Or buy the Witness with interchangeable .22 and .45ACP barrels and practice with the .22 until you can hit a soda can at 35 yards…)
But you can’t go wrong with a Mossberg, 5-shot pump in 12-Ga. That should serve you well. Not for hunting, but for protecting human life.
Serr8d, heh.
I actually qualified with the M16, the 45, and the 9 Millimeter in the Army, and I grew up in the country. Most of my friends hunted. I just never got into it. My hobbies were girls, girls, and more girls.
Also, I forgot. Even if I wanted a gun, I couldn’t own one, for the same reason that G. Gordon Liddy can’t.
Man, you just went up a few notches right there in my estimation (don’t tell your good buddies in Atrios’ hell-hole, or you’ll lose all your cred.)
Yeah, you really understand the liberal mind, Rusty.
.
Even if I wanted a gun, I couldn’t own one, for the same reason that G. Gordon Liddy can’t.
Yeah, but Mrs. Liddy has quite the collection, I understand.
.
JP asks about viability, but makes no argument considering viability, but tells me to shut the fuck up. Interesting argument, but without substance.
HBK makes flippant remarks and wanders down a legal path, offering no substantive rebuttal to my point.
William invokes my Catholic heritage, although I never mentioned God in my original post. In fact, I brought up the construct of the Soul only in the context to explain the pro-choice standpoint. An interesting juxtaposition, to say the least. And, as usual, he cannot rebut the argument. I’ll address his longer post there.
And gold star to tgirsch for actually attempting a debate, to which I’ll respond to his post here:
I was wondering if anyone would catch my little tongue-in-cheek.
Here is what I said, emphasis added:
Identical twins share genetic structure and due to splitting of the embryo become two identical embryos, both different from their parents, and therefore still individuals.
If the embryos are destroyed on purpose, then yes, it’s a holocaust. (I’d like to see the data behind that number, btw- I’d like to know how they experimentally determined the number of discarded embryos.) But the number simply shows the difficulty the embryo has in implanting (if that number is correct). The embryo is still human, and as it’s a natural process, it’s without fault. It doesn’t change what the embryo is.
Ugh. Current legal definitions are irrelevant here. I am discussing the nature of being and proving the nature of being. Once it is accepted that the embryo is human no other stipulations are placed on the fetus (such as “being” or “person”), then we can discuss criminal penalties.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
An embryo at its early stages of development will grow to be its size at that stage of development. It will develop “higher order brain function”, as well as everything else, if it goes on unmolested. If the brain dies in an adult, that brain has formed and has gone through all of what is necessary in life before expiring. The brain doesn’t recover and the patient is declared “brain dead”. Doctors only do this when there is no chance for recovery.
In the case of the embryo, we know it will develop a brain in a short course of time. The neural clusters show up rather soon in development, including a spine and other nerves. If a doctor knew a patient had a condition where they were in a coma but were going to make a full recovery in 3 weeks, would the doctor pull the plug? Of course not.
Similarly, if someone takes action to prevent that coma patient from coming to in 3 weeks by killing him, people would consider that murder, not euthanasia.
I don’t see pregnancy as any sort of punishment. I do see abortion as a rights violation, however, where one who has no voice has their right to life stripped away by another exercising their “right to choose”.
And we already have comprehensive sex education and free access to basic birth control. Kids are still having sex, and it’s not just kids who are having abortions. If there’s one topic our kids know better than anything when they get out of school, it’s sex. I don’t see any sex education, abstinence or otherwise, lessening the problem. But rationalizing human life away due to nebulous perceptions not grounded in science is not a way to improve it. In fact, it’s a contradiction that flies in the face of those we are educating.
I do see abortion as a rights violation
Well, quit being a goddamned chickenshit about it, and just say that women who have abortions and doctors who perform abortions are co-conspirators in murder, and you support their prosecution, you fucknozzle.
OR! Shut! The! Fuck! Up!
(lest you appear to be a completely inconsistent droolbucket)
.
So I’m a “fucknozzle” because you meandered off topic? Highly amusing.
So I’m a “fucknozzle” because
… you refuse to say abortion is murder?
Yes. Yes, you really are.
Buck up, or shut the fuck up.
.
JP…you shouldn’t even worry about abortions.
Assholes don’t need ‘em.
;D
Brian:
What theses puny arguments about charging abortionists with murder, or their easy accomplices, or attempting to tie miscarriages to it leaves out one legal standard that is fairly important - intent. That miscarriage comment is so retarded that you should have thrown yourself down a flight of stairs to abort posting it.
Umm, pop legal quiz: What’s the difference between murder and manslaughter? Hint: It’s the last word of your first sentence. Which means that my comment is not only not “retarded,” it’s accurate and on-point, and I’m not the one who should be throwing myself down a flight of stairs…
We all love skanky fucking whores but killing babies should not be a side effect of your skank loving.
Ever the classy one, I see.
Glen:
I don’t own a gun and never have.
Heh. And I do own one. Who would have pegged that?
Justify the way the four idiots voted. Enlighten us into why they were right and the constitution is wrong.
For starters, I agree with the result of Heller, if not the reasoning through which it was reached. But to answer your question, IANAL, but my understanding of the issue at stake in Heller wasn’t really whether the RKBA is an “individual” or “collective” right (which always seemed pretty obvious to me, if not to SCOTUS justices of yore), but the extent to which that right was tied to militia service. And from a historical perspective, that latter issue is a lot murkier than either side of the debate likes to admit. Having not read the rulings, I can’t really speculate much further than that.
As I wrote elsewhere, however, it does concern me that you can so accurately predict which justices are going to vote which way on most issues, without even hearing the legal arguments, and without knowing any details of the case, just based on the overarching issue in question (gun rights, speech rights, etc.). As Prof. Levinson puts it, one strongly suspects that the justices (on both sides) are ruling from personal preference, and then cherry-picking historical references as a sort of post-hoc justification.
Even if I wanted a gun, I couldn’t own one, for the same reason that G. Gordon Liddy can’t.
Don’t feel bad. It’s a common problem among Republicans.
I kid, I kid!
P.S. You were convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping?
Serr8d:
Man, you just went up a few notches right there in my estimation
I guess I just surprised you then, too. Of course, I don’t have my shotgun yet. Just an S&W .40 pistol. I still want the SigPro.
CaptainBrainstorm:
I’d like to see the data behind that number
I’ll have to do some more digging to find that. A quick google found a lot of references to numbers in the 75-79% range, although some sites had wider estimates. Still, even the bottom end showed something like 60%, which is still a lot, especially as compared to the number of abortions. There’s a good reference linked from here, although I normally recommend against Reason magazine as a valid source of anything…
The embryo is still human, and as it’s a natural process, it’s without fault. It doesn’t change what the embryo is.
You dismiss this, but it’s entirely the point. If an embryo is a human being, then its death is a real moral problem whether it’s intentional or not, and whether it’s natural or not. Infant deaths from cholera are natural, but that doesn’t mean we get to shrug and look the other way and do nothing to stop it, or parse about whether or not they were intentionally infected.
The reason I bring these issues up is because people, I think, instinctively know that an embryo, or even an early term fetus, is nowhere close to being the same thing as a human being. With rare exceptions, people don’t name, posthumously baptize, and have funerals for early-term miscarriages (and in many cases don’t even realize they were pregnant in the first place), they don’t feel anywhere near the level of grief they would had they lost a newborn baby, etc.
Bottom line: an embryo is “human” in only the most ultra-technical sense; in no way do people really believe a blastocyst is anything like a person where the rubber hits the road.
Once it is accepted that the embryo is human no other stipulations are placed on the fetus
But as I alluded to above, whether it’s “accepted” depends on what definition one uses for “human.” More on this in a minute.
It will develop “higher order brain function”, as well as everything else, if it goes on unmolested.
Yes, it will. But it doesn’t have these now, and therefore, it is not yet what we would call a “person.” That’s critically important. It has the potential (you could even argue the strong potential) to develop into a person, but it isn’t one yet.
And again, in the case of brain death, that person is still technically alive, and technically human, by the very same definitions you’ve used to get your embryo treated as human. And yet most of us recognize that this brain dead person is dead, by any meaningful definition. The car is running, but there’s nobody at the wheel.
If a doctor knew a patient had a condition where they were in a coma but were going to make a full recovery in 3 weeks, would the doctor pull the plug? Of course not.
Now you’re the one comparing apples and oranges. The person in the coma has a brain, has an established self-identity, and has self-awareness (even if not at right this moment). An embryo/early-term fetus has not established any of these, which makes it a completely different case. By aborting an early-term fetus, you’re doing no more harm than if you’d simply pulled out during the sex that led to that conception — you’re preventing a potential human person from becoming an actual human person.
I do see abortion as a rights violation, however, where one who has no voice has their right to life stripped away by another exercising their “right to choose”
I understand this POV in the abstract, but I don’t agree with it. Unless one argues that sexual intercourse is always a formal invitation for a pregnancy to take place, then the rights of the woman are every bit as important (and, I’d argue, substantially more important) than the rights of the embryo, if it’s assumed to have any.
But my “pro-choice” argument doesn’t stem from the “right to choose” at all. It stems from personal responsibility. I have long argued that if you don’t actively want a baby, and/or you are unwilling or unable to take care of a baby, and/or you are unwilling or unable to take care of yourself during pregnancy so as to ultimately deliver a healthy baby, then you should not have a baby. I don’t think that particular statement is even slightly controversial. It seems like common sense to me. Here’s where it gets interesting (and more controversial), however: I argue that becoming pregnant, whether intentionally or otherwise, does not change that moral calculus. As such, if you become pregnant and are unwilling or unable to do the right things during and after pregnancy, then getting an abortion as soon as possible is the morally correct thing to do.
That, I expect, will cause some controversy, but I believe it’s a logically sound position.
And we already have comprehensive sex education and free access to basic birth control.
Are you from the United States? Because if so, “we” most certainly do not have those things. For seven-plus years now, the President and the Congress have been aggressively pushing “abstinence-only” education, which is decidedly not comprehensive. And whether you have free access to birth control depends largely upon where within the US you live.
And, of course, it’s about a lot more than just access. In some groups (many religious groups in particular), contraception is vilified. So contraceptives must not only be made available, their use has to be actively encouraged.
JP:
While I strongly disagree with your application of the “fucknozzle” label to CaptainBrainstorm, I like the term, and plan on adding it to my repertoire.