While I agree with most of your basic tenets, I find the Part C of Principle #2: SOVEREIGNTY OF THE FAMILY negates the other basic principles. I'm referring to the fact a woman would not have the liberty to choose abortion if she saw fit to do so. I realize some world religions see this is a sin. The majority of religious people in this world, however, believe in reincarnation. I am a caucasion female, aged 63 and I was raised a Christian. My personal spiritual experiences, however, have led me to see karma (the law of cause and effect or "As you sow so shall you reap.")and reincarnation as truths. I don't expect everyone to accept my beliefs. I think we each should have the liberty to live our spiritual truths as long as they do not impinge on others. I definitely agree with two basic laws set out by Richard Maybury in "Whatever Happened to Justice" Maybury found all the world's major religions and spiritual beliefs accept that:
"1) Do all you have agreed to do; and
2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property."
I realize Joel that you believe human life starts at conception. I don't mind you having that belief but I would like you to agree that I don't have to adhere to your belief. I also know we are each Soul. As Soul we use a body to learn our lessons while on this planet. As Soul we enter the body when we come out of the birth canal. So my belief or experience, tells me abortion would be wrong once the fetus is well enough developed to breathe if born. That means Soul can take on the body and as a society we call this murder. With so many major religions having a belief in reincarnation, having a fetus aborted at an early enough stage does not mean a Soul is terminated or killed. It means it needs to find another opportunity to incarnate here.
One woman, again a former Christian, whose experience has taught her differently believes in reincarnation and karma. She kept having miscarriages. Her doctor told her not to get pregnant again but she kept having experiences with the Soul who wanted to come in as her son. Finally she gave birth to a healthy boy. At 2 years of age, he looked exactly like he had when he kept appearing to her in her dreams and in contemplation to ask her to keep trying.
Another woman was contemplating abortion. Her experiences with the Soul that wanted to enter this body changed her mind. The Soul let her know it would be alright to adopt her out after birth as she needed to experience with the people who would adopt her. If a woman chooses an abortion, the Soul will either wait until this woman is ready to carry a baby to term or it may choose other parents. The law of cause and effect means we have to take responsibility for everything we do. Abortion or any act comes with a responsibility and I don't think it is up to you or those who believe as you do to decide to limit her liberty. My point is simply that many of us (I hesitate to use the term majority) should be allowed the liberty to live as we believe as long as we obey the above two laws.
Sincerely,
Carole Punt
Carol,
You bring up a common objection from a fairly wide sector of society--though most are on the side of feminism or the left. A few are libertarians who use the same argument you do.
You yourself stated the crucial criteria which undermines your position: "I think we each should have the liberty to live our spiritual truths as long as they do not impinge on others." Abortion certain does impinge on the fetus in a very deadly way. Naturally, when you define the fetus as a non-person you evade this argument.
But there is another way of looking at the issue of right or wrongness of abortion without having to decide when the soul enters the body. In fact, I don't base my denial of a "right" to abortion on the timing issue of when the soul enters the body, but rather on the legal doctrine of 3rd party contractual effects.
Choices subsequent to exercising your agency are not as free as the initial actions--especially when those actions impact, adversely, innocent third parties without their consent. For example, if you exercise your choice to drive a car and damage someone's property, you are no long free to walk away from the consequences. You have engendered a third party contractual obligation to the other person by having done damage to his person or property.
When you engage in sexual relations voluntarily, you are not free to walk away from the consequences if those actions engender a child. Regardless of when the soul enters the body, you have begun the process of new life in another entity distinct from yourself (even though it is dependent upon you for growth). You have, therefore, engendered a third party contract with that entity and are not free to walk away or destroy it.
Lastly, if you believe in the soul and the God who controls that process, you should also be sensitive enough to the promptings of divine conscience to know that God disapproves of abortion in almost all cases. I can't prove that but I can feel it in my soul. True, you are free to not listen to conscience or to disregard those promptings, or even not to believe in God. But sexual actions do have third party consequences, regardless of your believes, and responsible people live up to those obligations.
The legal system I am suggesting defends first and foremost the fundament right to life. Liberty is not on equal ground with life when there is a conflict between the two, as people use their liberty to extinguish or threaten life--when there is no comparable threat to their own life. I understand that you don't consider the fetus a life. But that is where we differ.
Even in the pragmatic sense, you can't justify abortion easily. Look at it from the relative impact to each party--which is relevant to a case of rape (where no third party contract occurs since the act was involuntary). I still do not support abortion after rape because the impact on the woman is merely 9 months of inconvenience (assuming she places it up for adoption afterward). The impact on the fetus is death. The two choices are not in balance. Only in the case of certifiable threat to the life of the mother would I support an abortion.
Best, Joel Skousen
Interesting point Joel. However I really disagree, because you are trying to state that a fetus has rights that supersede a woman's rights. If a fetus can live outside of the woman's body, then I agree with your argument. But until the fetus can survive outside of the woman's body, it is a part of her body and she should be allowed the freedom or liberty over her body. In setting up any kind of governmental body, in order for it to accomplish the highest good, it needs to respect people's freedom even when you as an individual may not agree with their belief system. Otherwise, what is to stop someone else from making a decision that takes away your freedom? We all have to learn to give freedom before we can earn freedom...easy to say, but hard to do.
Lesley,
Could you explain a bit more about how you the unborn baby’s dependence on the mother conflicts with Joel’s comments? I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I am missing something… But it sounds like you are suggesting that the unborn baby has no rights because of his or her dependant relationship. Could you expand a bit on this?
I do find it interesting that both sides of this issue will say they are supporting the cause of freedom and fundamental rights…
Perhaps the conflict comes because of different definitions of “rights” and “freedom.” Society today seems to endorse a definition of freedom as “absence of consequence, natural or otherwise.” I think this issue is one example of that. There are many others.
I think Joel’s document at http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/principledapproachtolaw.html and in several other places under “Philosophy of Law & Government” does an excellent job of defining “fundamental rights.” I highly recommend this most informative section of Joel’s website.
Thanks for Listening,
Jeffery
Hi Jeffrey:
I believe you are right about both sides supporting freedoms. It is the definition of life that is up to question. Some believe life starts when the baby can live on its own, others believe it starts at conception.
My point is that if one group of individuals are given the right to decide their definition is right and have the ability to use force, then they are not practising what they preach...as they are taking away the freedom of those who believe differently.
Perhaps for those who believe the baby is a being with rights starting at conception - they should not expose themselves to abortion. However for those who believe the baby is not a being with rights until it can take a breath and live outside of the woman's body (approximately 6 months) then they should be given the freedom to abort based on their belief systems.
The conflict over when an individual's life begins (and when their fundamental rights kick in) will not be "solved". The best we can hope for (sans "divine intervention") is to come to an agreement as a group. Joel says at conception, and Lesley says maybe we can agree on viability outside of the womb as the demarcation line.
Without pure knowledge and agreement of when life truly begins, I believe it is better to err on the side of protecting more individuals' fundamental rights (rather than less). Else we may be destroying individuals lives and trampling on their fundamental rights.
I have to disagree with Brian. The best we can hope for is NOT agreement as a group--but the wisdom to allow those who don't agree (even on something as gut-level as abortion) to live as they see fit, and leave the rest up to God; living the laws He has set forth, and coercing no one as we try to do so.
Maybe the agreement is to not define in the constitution when a life begins. Also, maybe the principle of defining a family as one man and one woman is not the correct approach within the definition of the fundamental principles.
Perhaps a covenant community, or a smaller group of people (family, neighborhood, community, county, state...) could decide for themselves the definitions of these things... allowing for more diversity across the spectrum of society.
If San Francisco opts for one type of family, and some southern Utah communities opt for another (e.g., single sex, and polygamy, respectively, only as an example...), then it would be permissible.
I believe Joel's definition of the fundamental principles have a built-in bias in favor of the "natural" order of family, and a natural affiity and respect for life. I personally would prefer to "sign-up" as a citizen in that environment, but, hey, this is a discussion area.
Is the alternative approach (removing some "moral" judgements that may also be the natural order of things) ok, distasteful, or biased themselves?
It would seem to me that allowing individual “covenant societies” or communities to determine their own definition of family, is not a bad idea, because (though their definition may offend others) it does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others.
After all, suppose they are “wrong.” They may or may not one day have to answer to God… but if so, it is still between them and God – they have not infringed on anyone else’s rights.
However, I have a concern with allowing each community to choose their own definition of “life” because the right of life is a fundamental right. In this case, if one group is incorrect in their definition of life, then their incorrect conclusion would *severely* infringe upon the right of the person who’s right to life is terminated.
We had an example of the definition of family. That was a great example that cause me some reflection - and led me to another example. Suppose one group (or individual) defined “life” as limited to “any human that does not depend on forces outside of themselves for life support.” (This is similar to, though not exactly the same as the pro-abortion-rights definition, I believe.) By this definition, this particular community (or individual) could then legally justify the position that an adult person who is dependant on a lung or heart machine does not qualify as a “life” (by thier definition) and therefore, the community could terminate his life without his consent. This would obviously be against his right to life.
Of course it is not exactly the same thing. However, I believe it does demonstrate the danger in allowing communities or individuals to use their own definitions, when such definitions become the basis for limiting others fundamental rights. (Their definition of life would limit this fundamental right to those whom they feel "qualify.")
This is my problem with allowing communities or individuals to use their own definition of life in determining if a life can be terminated or not. If one's definition were wrong, it would allow them to usurp the rights of another.
If an individual makes decisions that I disagree with, or chooses a lifestyle that I do not approve, but that does not infringe upon another’s fundamental rights, then that is their choice. But when there is the potential that it may severely infringe upon another’s fundamental rights, I feel it is not a good idea to leave the definitions of the fundamental rights up to the individuals or community.
This has proven an interesting thread so far, though I am still unmoved on this issue (as I am sure both sides are and will remain! Not much hope in us resolving this issue once and for all today I suppose ;-)
That is my two bits. I appreciate the others who have expressed theirs. Though we may never agree on this issue, it has been nice to discuss it in a format where all are respectful of the others! I hope my words were all taken in the same view!
Many Thanks,
Jeffery Francom
It's interesting, Jeffery, how you take the paleolibertarian stance in conducting discussion, but still maintain coercive views on other topics. Agreeing to disagree in conversation is the best way to avoid conflict--just as it is in all other parts of life.
It all comes down to this: a right is something you enjoy without obligating anyone else. Period.
I am a mother. Everything that makes me who I am cries out against the slaughter of an unborn child. It's not moral, and it is the most grievous sin in the sight of God: the shedding of innocent blood. I will never do it, and I will do all in my power to persuade others not to choose that horrific and damaging carnage. But beyond that, I would agress against someone else. I can refuse to associate with abortionists and those who have had abortions; disbar them from my home or business; ostracize them as I see fit. However, the moment I forcefully prevent another woman from carrying out her will, I am the agressor, and in the wrong.
God has set up a untold number of consequences already--psychological, physical (such as highly increased likelihood of breast cancer), and spiritual--and I'll leave the judging up to Him. But not juding doesn't mean I won't do my best to show those women all the other options available, and prevent all the massacres I can.
This has been a thoughtful discussion and a hard one to call in my opinion. I am personally opposed to abortion especially after six weeks of pregnancy, but is it taking away a mother's right to choose to abolish abortion? I think we have left the father out of this discussion. Is it not also his right to choose? It is his flesh and blood, too.
Beyond that I think I still lean to the argument that the parents chose during the sex act and that is where their rights end and the babies begin. I have never understood the argument it is not a "real baby" or human until it can live outside the mother. It certainly isn't a gorilla or a dog.
I have never known a mother who has had an abortion who ever got over it. It doesn't matter if they still believe it was their right. It haunts them the rest of their life. They know it was a baby that was killed.
I think if couples realized that when they choose to have sex and a baby results they are responsible to nurture that child until birth, they may be more careful. If they don't want to raise it there are plenty who do.
Women are not under the same sort of subjagation that they were under 50 - 100 years ago. They know they can say NO and mean it, they know they can turn for help in abusive situations. Women's choices were much more limited when the abortion butcher shops abounded. Society has changed and we should be willing to take responsibility for our actions. That includes knowing that sex leads to pregnancy at times and then we are responsible for that child.
In the case of rape or incest I would think the morning after pill would be the method of choice in most cases.
Susan
I personally believe life is a fundamental right, and the fundamental right to life of the as-yet-unborn must be protected.
I also understand the pro-choice argument, but do not agree that a developing child is just a mass that is but a piece of the mother's flesh.
My question is: HOW CAN AN IDEAL STATE EVER BE IMPLEMENTED based on fundamental principles that include a definition of life?
Common Understanding? (I doubt that, as both beliefs are set. There can be change of individuals, but as groups, the polarization is rock-solid. I don't see changes of heart coming on either side of the issue.)
Compromise? (I doubt it. Here, compromise is equated with compromising one's principles.)
Coercive Power? (I see no other way than for one side to have full power to implement it's definition of life over the other side's viewpoint.)
Wow...enjoyed the discussion so far. Jeffrey and Patriot Mother I commend you both. I know how hard and what a spiritual test it is to believe very strongly in something and yet still be willing to allow others to believe differently.
To Brian, sorry but your attitude is a reflection of individuals currently forming government - they believe in what they believe and believe they have the right to force it on others. I'm not interested in creating another world like we already have.
I also believe that all moral issues have no business being decided by government or individuals. They are things between God and the individual and no one has the right to interfere. When they do they break spiritual law and will have to experience the consequences at some point.
Richard Maybury has some great books written for youth. "Conservative, Liberal or Confused" is the one I am currently thinking about. He explains how typically those left-leaning believe in moral/belief freedoms (abortion, gay rights) but they do not believe in economic freedom. Typically those on the right believe in economic freedoms but don't believe in moral/belief freedoms. Neither is better than the other as they both don't believe in freedom and they both do...Maybury suggests a new party, one that believes in moral/belief freedoms and one that believes in economic freedoms.
Just as a side on the abortion issue...You all know I believe in it. I thought it might be interesting to let you know I consider myself a very religious woman - loving God and learning to love as God loves is my primary goal this life. I have come to learn for myself (a former very opinionated person) that I can never judge a person's actions. Because sometimes them choosing to do what many would believe as "morally" wrong is actually the right spiritual decision for them and vice versa. We so want things to be right or wrong in this world - but I now realize there is no such thing. There is only lessons and experiences and God loves no matter which path we choose to go down - it is only people that don't.
Oops...I forgot to add one more thing. I find it interesting that those that are so vehemently opposed to harming a fetus have no problem killing animals which are also living creatures, who get murdered by the hundreds daily and treated very poorly while living.
I know certain religions conveniently state that animals are there for humans use...but sorry I can't buy that one.
Personally I don't have a problem with eating meat, however I feel responsible to ensure that the animals I do eat are treated well during their life. I buy from local farmers so I know how the animals are treated. I believe God created a cycle of life...we are all a part of it. Just as we eat animals, viruses, bacteria and parasites are eating us.
Actually, Lesley, I'm probably much more of a libertarian self-governor (economics and morals) than you give me credit for in your previous post.
My "devils advocate" point was: In an environment containing the mix of beliefs commonly held today, you could not include the complete statement on life (as that proposed by Joel in the core founding principles that launched this thread) and come to an agreement to IMPLEMENT a government founded on the complete set of core founding principles.
By taking "abortion" out of the equation (and allowing individuals to freely make choices), a stumbling block to IMPLEMENTATION of this government is removed. This is a necessary compromise considering the diversity of belief systems that exist today.
I'd have the freedom to define life in the broadest terms, and make personal choices that reflect those beliefs. (I could even consider life a fundamental right, personally, but not etched in the constitution.) I could freely teach others of my beliefs (and vice versa) in a non-coercive manner.
Doesn't sound narrow minded to me.
Joel's definition of life (which I personally like, but don't feel can be fully included if this IDEAL STATE were to be IMPLEMENTED today) would only work under a benevolent dictator, a theocracy, or where a vast majority accepted it as so.
PatriotsMother,
I share PatriotsMother’s abhorrence of the act of abortion. Yet I would like to point out that I do not base my belief that abortion should be prohibited on my personal abhorrence. There are many things that I strongly believe are wrong, yet that I do not feel law should prohibit.
PatriotsMother, you stated: "to forecfully prevent another woman from carrying out her will, I am the agressor, and in the wrong."
I could agree only so long as you were to add, “unless the woman’s will infringes upon the fundamental rights of another.”
Abortion aside for a moment, I believe we all agree that it is within the proper role of government to prevent any person from carrying out his or her will against the life of another. That does not constitute aggression in the law.
Also, as an aside, I do not believe that the “preservation fundamental rights” requires initial consent. It should apply equally to all. For example, if one man does not “consent to” the right to own property, that man can still rightfully be forcefully removed from another man’s private property.
Back to abortion. If the baby is a human life, then it is not improper force or aggression to protect that life in the law. Only if the unborn baby were merely an extension of the woman’s body then to prevent her from aborting it would be wrong.
My point in my previous post was that on this issue, the affects of being wrong are not balanced. If the pro-life view is correct, then allowing abortions would be denying the unborn child life. If the Pro-abortion-rights view is correct, then prohibiting abortion conflicts with a liberty or some other right. I agree with Joel’s comment: “Liberty is not on equal ground with life when there is a conflict between the two.” Both sides have good arguments, yet neither can be proven. Better to err on one side than the other…
Thanks for listening,
Jeffery
The "Ideal State" probably isn't for everyone, and individuals should not be forced to participate--it's value will be greatly increased by a population who truly wish to participate and commit to the values of the society.
The embattled Constitution we live under, lost most of its value when the "Federal question" was supposedly resolved after the Civil War. By forbidding a state or group of individuals from withdrawing from the United States when it began to deviate from it's founding principles, the federal government opened the door for the creeping socialism and moral decline we see institutionalized today.
Perhaps the "Ideal" society would allow individuals of differing moral opinions to associate with people of their own opinion, without a central power or force deciding whether they could set their own parameters for self-rule. Then, perhaps under these circumstances, divine judgement will rest with those societies embracing certain moral absolutes--allowing us to witness whether we were right or not about principles such as abortion.
A Rand-type study predicts a future Balkanization of North America. If a nation-state is geographically smaller and less divergent in mores and values, implementing this form of government has hope.
To Brian, thanks for clearing up your views. I agree with you...
To Jeffrey, I believe you can prove if a fetus is life or not. Remove the fetus from the woman's womb at every stage of development and see if it can survive or not...even with medical help. I believe it is around five or six months when pre-mature babies are known to be able to survive on their own with medical help. To me, that is proof that the fetus is a life at that point.
I really appreciate this discussion being so open especially with a topic that is such an emotional issue for many.
First, a disclaimer and reminder: I am talking within the framework of natural law; which thing is completely separate from moral law. You know from my previous post how I stand, morally, and how I choose to behave.
"Life" is not what needs to be determined. A fetus never is dead; it begins with two living cells, and grows from there. The correct question is: "When does the fetus have rights?" (Remembering that a right is something you enjoy without obligating anyone else to provide it for you. i.e. there is no right to health insurance, only the opportunity.) The other facet of claiming rights is the requirement that one must then be responsible for both the exercise of said right and consequences thereof.
Children provide an interesting quandry when it comes to rights, because they are most definitely not mauture enough to take responsibility for them--therefore they can claim no rights in and of themselves. This is where the concept of "homesteading" steps in. (The concept of establishing ownership through control of or care for something.) An adult can offer to take the responsibility for a child's exercise of rights, thereby enabling the exercise of those rights. Once a fetus can be homesteaded (or taken care of by another, thereby establishing ownership), then another adult could provide for the needs of that baby, and it could then be said that the fetus has a right to life through the grace of an adult other than its mother (provided the mother is amenable to such an arragement, in which case she may even be persuaded to carry the baby to term, with compensation for her participation, etc.).
It's interesting how adults are, in a way, saviors to childern . . .
P.S.) Re: Jefferey's off topic asides . . .
Jeffrey,
You said: "Abortion aside for a moment, I believe we all agree that it is within the proper role of government to prevent any person from carrying out his or her will against the life of another."
I'm afraid I don't agree. It is the responsibility of the individual to prevent others from carrying out their will against the life or property of another. Simply, and more concretely put, if I don't want others to agress against me, it's my responsibility to see that I am prepared, should one choose to do so, so I may thwart him or her in that endeavor. It is NOT the responsibility of the government. It is not practical for the government to do so. The government CAN'T protect every person in this country--or even in my rural, underpopulated county. Placing trust in the gov. to perform this basic responsibility is, if you will please excuse my bald wording, foolish and naieve.
You also said: "Also, as an aside, I do not believe that the “preservation fundamental rights” requires initial consent. It should apply equally to all. For example, if one man does not “consent to” the right to own property, that man can still rightfully be forcefully removed from another man’s private property."
Fundamental rights require no consent, initial or otherwise, for their existence or preservation. There is no power being granted by such consent, nor is there authority from others required to maintain one's rights. Please excuse the repeat: a right is something one enjoys without obligating another. No obligation = no consent required. Of course someone who didn't "consent" to another's right to property could be forcefully removed from another's property. Since the dissenter has no authority, there is no power in his dissention.
It is only the transfer of responsibility from a group of individuals to another entity that requires initial, and continuing, consent.
(If this part of the thread continues, someone should start another discussion . . .)
Patriots Mother,
My argument for prohibiting abortion is based on my belief that it is within the proper role of government to create and enforce laws against the unnecessary taking of human life in general. If we agree on that, then all that remains is to determine if there is a reason not to include the unborn fetus. There are certainly other exceptions to debate (in other threads) as well... capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.
However, if we do not agree that it is within the proper role of government to prohibit the unnecessary taking of human life in general, then it seems pointless to debate whether or not the fetus should qualify for that protection.
So for the sake of avoiding or clarifying misunderstanding, allow me to explain my position (hopefully more articulately), and then ask for some clarification on your opinion as well. Fair enough?
I agree 100% that people should not depend on the government for protection of life. It would indeed be naive to wait around for the police to come when someone is trying to kill you! We agree that one should use self-defense to protect themselves whenever possible.
That said, I also believe that it is appropriate for government to create and enforce laws that prohibit the taking of human life (again, *in general.* Debatable exceptions aside.)
Do you disagree with my belief that the government has the right to create and enforce laws protecting human life? Do you feel that is outside the proper limitations of government?
If so then I suppose agreeing to disagree is about the best we could hope for. Or perhaps another thread on “defining and limiting the proper role of government.” That no doubt would be equally interesting!
Again, Thanks for listening. At the end of this thread we will likely all be unmoved in our opinions... but perhaps we will understand both sides a bit more clearly. I know that my understanding of the pro-abortion-rights perspective has expanded, and I seriously appreciate that.
Many Thanks
Jeffery
Is it just me, or do others find it very difficult to keep their posts on this topic brief?! I apologize if I am too verbose! I really have tried to keep the length of my posts down, while also trying to explain my perspective etc.
I took great interest in Brian's comment that (summarizing) perhaps this issue would have to be left out of any 'ideal' constitution because it is so divisive. (I hope that summary is accurate) That intrigued me for several reasons. Mainly because I feel he may be right... This issue could certainly prevent such a constitution from being widely accepted anywhere. Yet at the same time, it worries me.
The Founding Fathers seemed to have a similar dilemma. In their day, the slavery issue could have prevented ratification. They left it out in order to get the Constitution through. Yet in the end it still split the nation.
Could the founders have resolved the issue in another way that would not have led to the Civil War (which solved the issue, but in a manner that cost much blood as well as loss of some states rights. Was there a way they could have resolved the issue during the constitutional conventions and prevented the war?
If abortion was not covered somehow in the constitution of an ideal, would this issue have the same affect as the slavery issue so long before? Is there a better way to address it?
Thoughts? Opinions? Is that a separate thread? If so, is anyone interested?
I began a new thread to explore some of these things: Divisive Issues and the "Ideal" State.
See you there!