Q: Some politicians say that they don't want to take away hunting weapons or self-defense weapons. Shouldn't we reduce gun violence by getting assault weapons off the streets?
A: A weapon is a device used to injure or kill something. A hunting weapon is a sniper rifle in another context. A cop-killer bullet is thief-killer bullet. A self-defense weapon is a hijacker's handgun. A buck skinning knife is evidence at a crime scene. An assault weapon is a peace-keeping weapon. A weapon is a weapon. Some politicians have come up with all kinds of creative adjectives to try to make certain types of weapons sound menacing, evil, or dangerous. Weapons are objects. People are menacing, evil, or dangerous.
We should reduce gun violence. We should reduce knife violence. We should reduce fist violence. We should reduce pencil stabbing violence. We should reduce baseball bat violence. We should reduce gang violence. We should reduce hockey violence. We should reduce football violence. We should reduce [insert adjective here] violence... The adjective here is not important. Violence is the problem. You can't get rid of violence by trying to enforce laws against all of the adjectives. The adjectives aren't the problem. We should reduce violence. Making laws against guns won't make people less violent.
Q: If all guns were completely outlawed, then amount of violent crime would go down, right?
A: Criminals don't obey the law. That is why they are called criminals. They commit crimes in violation of the law. As long as there are criminals out there, they will break the law and be violent. If guns are outlawed, then they will break the gun control laws and be violent. They will probably be more successful too because all of the law abiding citizens will be sitting ducks without any guns. Criminals love gun control legislation. It makes their job easy. It takes the risk out of it.
Q: Taking military weapons off the streets in downtown Cincinnati is hardly imposing on your second amendment right.
A: Sure it is. Click here to read it! The second amendment to the Constitution authorizes citizens to keep and bear arms for military purposes. Taking military weapons off the people on the streets of Cincinnati is as much a rights violation as taking weapons off the people anywhere else in the country.
Q: Weapons have no place in a civilized society.
A: Our civilized society is full of non-civil people. As long as this is the case, civil people have to keep them from doing very bad things (murderous thieving raping pillaging things).
As long as there are bad people there will be bad people out there with guns. As long as there are bad people out there with guns, good people must have guns to defend themselves.
Q: Why not let the government weed out the bad people? Limit the gun possession to the police and military. Let them be the good people with the guns.
A: When the police and military are the only people allowed to have weapons we call that a dictatorship. Those governments rule by fiat. They dictate and their subject obey or get shot. They are judge, jury, executioner, legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. Democracy can't function because the only voices that are heard are the voices of those that have guns.
If you think it's terrible that a few kids get shot now and then by their unruly peers then think how much worse it would be if the government marched into each school in the country, lined up the students that were of a particular race or religion and shot them down like dogs. The death toll would be higher and more targeted.
That is what happens in countries where only the government is allowed to have guns.
You're assuming that the government is full of good guys. No one at any government office that I have been to has done anything to convince me that that is the case.
Removing our final check and balance to tyranny is not in the interest of public safety. So far, the checks and balances of the three branches of government has kept the U.S. from becoming a totalitarian government, but that doesn't mean that we should remove our final and most effective means of protection from it.
Q: But kids are being killed at school! We have to do something, right?
A:This is somewhat of a new trend. Firearms have been around for some time now, including AK47, SKS, and other "assault" weapons. Kids have had access to guns for a long time, but school shootings weren't an issue for previous generations. Something has changed. If weapons have been around, but shootings haven't then it suggests that the upcoming generations consist of more cold blooded murderers. A cold blooded killer doesn't care if it is illegal to have a certain type of gun. Outlawing firearms for adults in public places like schools or government offices will not cure murderous kids of their impulses. They will still murder people. Armed adults at school could reduce their success rates though.
We do have to do something to address violence in schools. I suggest raising your kids better. Don't be immoral yourself. Don't get divorces or drive fathers out of homes. Teach kids good behavior at home. Let them know that there is a right and wrong to every question and help them come to learn how to know the difference. Teach them morality. Teach them religion. Teach them that violence isn't cool. Tell your kid to stop picking on the fat kid. Tell your crybaby to wean and grow up. Be a better example. Control your own temper. Show the kids how to be better. Discourage inappropriate media at home and elsewhere.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and Gun Control.
I like gardening. I'm not as expert at it as some people, so on occasion I look up information about gardening. There are several sources that I can go to. I look at gardening websites, books, or pamphlets. Sometimes I read the labels on gardening products or I talk to more experienced gardeners to learn about gardening. Usually I count on literature because great things have been done over time and many learned things have been documented regarding agriculture and gardening. If I want to know which gardening tool to use for a job, I can look it up in a gardening book and find out which tool to use. I look in a document about gardening to get answers about gardening.
My wife sews. She sometimes asks experienced people about techniques and tools. To help her learn how to sew she took a sewing class. She also bought books about sewing. She has a manual for her sewing machine that tells her how the machine works. When she needs to know which needles to use or which technique to use, she refers to documents about sewing.
As with almost any hobby or occupation, when questions arise regarding tools or techniques you consult a specialized source dedicated to the topic of the question. I would not look in my wife's sewing book to learn about gardening. She would not look in a gardening book to learn about sewing. Neither of us would look in the Constitution of the United States for answers to our gardening or sewing questions. That document was not written about gardening or sewing. It was written about government.
If I have a question about government or the legality or illegality of something in the U.S. then the Constitution is the place to look for guidance. It isn't good for anything else because it is a document that was written to define the framework of the U.S. government. The authors were not writing about gardening or sewing. They were writing about what the government would and would not do. They were writing about checks and balances. They were writing about government.
The three branches of government provide checks and balances to each other, such that no one branch can wield complete power over the people. I personally think that the reason they did not want any single branch to wield complete power over the people is because it would be too easy for a person or group of people to usurp and misuse that power. They wanted to prevent tyranny. The founding fathers knew that the checks and balances between the three branches of government would help prevent totalitarian tyranny. In addition to the checks and balances provided by the three branches of government, the founding fathers decided to put in one final failsafe against tyranny. It is explained in the second amendment to the Constitution. It reads in its entirety as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What is the final check and balance to the government? We are. If the checks and balances of the three branches of government fail to prevent tyranny, then the final check against it is us. In the unlikely event that all three branches come under the unchangeable control or influence of a single person or group they still don't have complete power over any given state or the masses in general. In that event the only thing to prevent absolute totalitarianism is us. In such a crisis the federal government only has as much power over the states or the masses as they can enforce. I argue that they could only enforce their rule if they had a substantial military advantage. The general population is so much larger than the federal military population that the only way of having a significant military advantage would be if the masses were not armed. Otherwise it would be impossible. The federal government would be too far outnumbered.
Is the Militia then just rag tag militant mobs? Some people think so, but I do not. Rag tag militants are not "well regulated" and mobs do not contribute "to the security of a free State".
Is the Militia mentioned in the second amendment referring to the armed forces of the federal government? No. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the president as commander in chief of the army and navy. An army is a group of armed persons, hence the name. So, Article II already gave the federal government the authority to have weapons. No amendment was needed to accomplish that. It was already in the Constitution.
Is the Militia mentioned in the second amendment referring to a federal militia? No. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explains the function of Congress and reads in part:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Militias are state military rather than federal military. Article I, Section 8 states that even when a part of a state militia is being employed on federal government tasks, those militias are still under their state chosen officers and training. Also note that Article I, Section 8 already gave Militias the right to arms. No amendment was needed to give authority to state Militias to be armed. They already had that authority because of this section in the Constitution.
It is clear that the Militia mentioned is not the federal armed forces and it is my opinion that it is referring to state militaries rather than rag-tag mobs. Both the federal government and state militaries had already been authorized by the Constitution to bear arms before the second amendment was passed. Prior to the passing of the second amendment, there was no Constitutional statement as to who would keep the arms of the Militia while not in use. Would it be the federal military or the state military that would keep the arms? The constitution did not address that question. Some people think that the second amendment answers that question by saying that the states or the state militias are supposed to keep the Militia's arms and that the federal government has no authority to disarm them. This is a reasonable and logical interpretation.
Some people interpret "the people" to mean state governments rather than the federal government. Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 refer to personal rights rather than state rights. Read them and see. Amendments 9 and 10 could reasonably be interpreted to refer to state rights rather than personal liberties. Suppose for the sake of discussion that Amendments 9 and 10 refer to state rights rather than personal liberties. If the second amendment were referring to a state right rather than a personal liberty, it should have been placed towards the end of the list with the other state rights rather than being sandwiched between two personal liberties at the beginning of a list of personal liberties. Furthermore, the state militias had already been authorized to bear arms, so they did not need to be authorized again. "the people" mentioned in the second amendment had not until that time been authorized by the Constitution to bear arms. The second amendment explicitly authorized the people to keep and bear the arms of the militia. That means you and I were authorized to keep and bear arms. The purpose of that authorization is for the safeguard of an arsenal in the event that we and our arms are needed for Militia use.
Was the second amendment written to protect hunting rights or rights of personal protection? No, the Constitution is a document about government. It doesn't authorize gardeners to use plows for gardening. It doesn't authorize my wife to use needles for sewing. It doesn't authorize me to use my eyelids for wetting my eyes. It doesn't authorize me to use firearms for hunting. It doesn't authorize me to use firearms for shooting intruders in my house. It authorizes me to keep and bear arms for military use in a well regulated militia for the purpose of maintaining the security of a free state.
Conclusion: The second amendment authorizes citizens to personally keep and bear military arms.
My wife sews. She sometimes asks experienced people about techniques and tools. To help her learn how to sew she took a sewing class. She also bought books about sewing. She has a manual for her sewing machine that tells her how the machine works. When she needs to know which needles to use or which technique to use, she refers to documents about sewing.
As with almost any hobby or occupation, when questions arise regarding tools or techniques you consult a specialized source dedicated to the topic of the question. I would not look in my wife's sewing book to learn about gardening. She would not look in a gardening book to learn about sewing. Neither of us would look in the Constitution of the United States for answers to our gardening or sewing questions. That document was not written about gardening or sewing. It was written about government.
If I have a question about government or the legality or illegality of something in the U.S. then the Constitution is the place to look for guidance. It isn't good for anything else because it is a document that was written to define the framework of the U.S. government. The authors were not writing about gardening or sewing. They were writing about what the government would and would not do. They were writing about checks and balances. They were writing about government.
The three branches of government provide checks and balances to each other, such that no one branch can wield complete power over the people. I personally think that the reason they did not want any single branch to wield complete power over the people is because it would be too easy for a person or group of people to usurp and misuse that power. They wanted to prevent tyranny. The founding fathers knew that the checks and balances between the three branches of government would help prevent totalitarian tyranny. In addition to the checks and balances provided by the three branches of government, the founding fathers decided to put in one final failsafe against tyranny. It is explained in the second amendment to the Constitution. It reads in its entirety as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What is the final check and balance to the government? We are. If the checks and balances of the three branches of government fail to prevent tyranny, then the final check against it is us. In the unlikely event that all three branches come under the unchangeable control or influence of a single person or group they still don't have complete power over any given state or the masses in general. In that event the only thing to prevent absolute totalitarianism is us. In such a crisis the federal government only has as much power over the states or the masses as they can enforce. I argue that they could only enforce their rule if they had a substantial military advantage. The general population is so much larger than the federal military population that the only way of having a significant military advantage would be if the masses were not armed. Otherwise it would be impossible. The federal government would be too far outnumbered.
Is the Militia then just rag tag militant mobs? Some people think so, but I do not. Rag tag militants are not "well regulated" and mobs do not contribute "to the security of a free State".
Is the Militia mentioned in the second amendment referring to the armed forces of the federal government? No. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the president as commander in chief of the army and navy. An army is a group of armed persons, hence the name. So, Article II already gave the federal government the authority to have weapons. No amendment was needed to accomplish that. It was already in the Constitution.
Is the Militia mentioned in the second amendment referring to a federal militia? No. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explains the function of Congress and reads in part:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Militias are state military rather than federal military. Article I, Section 8 states that even when a part of a state militia is being employed on federal government tasks, those militias are still under their state chosen officers and training. Also note that Article I, Section 8 already gave Militias the right to arms. No amendment was needed to give authority to state Militias to be armed. They already had that authority because of this section in the Constitution.
It is clear that the Militia mentioned is not the federal armed forces and it is my opinion that it is referring to state militaries rather than rag-tag mobs. Both the federal government and state militaries had already been authorized by the Constitution to bear arms before the second amendment was passed. Prior to the passing of the second amendment, there was no Constitutional statement as to who would keep the arms of the Militia while not in use. Would it be the federal military or the state military that would keep the arms? The constitution did not address that question. Some people think that the second amendment answers that question by saying that the states or the state militias are supposed to keep the Militia's arms and that the federal government has no authority to disarm them. This is a reasonable and logical interpretation.
Some people interpret "the people" to mean state governments rather than the federal government. Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 refer to personal rights rather than state rights. Read them and see. Amendments 9 and 10 could reasonably be interpreted to refer to state rights rather than personal liberties. Suppose for the sake of discussion that Amendments 9 and 10 refer to state rights rather than personal liberties. If the second amendment were referring to a state right rather than a personal liberty, it should have been placed towards the end of the list with the other state rights rather than being sandwiched between two personal liberties at the beginning of a list of personal liberties. Furthermore, the state militias had already been authorized to bear arms, so they did not need to be authorized again. "the people" mentioned in the second amendment had not until that time been authorized by the Constitution to bear arms. The second amendment explicitly authorized the people to keep and bear the arms of the militia. That means you and I were authorized to keep and bear arms. The purpose of that authorization is for the safeguard of an arsenal in the event that we and our arms are needed for Militia use.
Was the second amendment written to protect hunting rights or rights of personal protection? No, the Constitution is a document about government. It doesn't authorize gardeners to use plows for gardening. It doesn't authorize my wife to use needles for sewing. It doesn't authorize me to use my eyelids for wetting my eyes. It doesn't authorize me to use firearms for hunting. It doesn't authorize me to use firearms for shooting intruders in my house. It authorizes me to keep and bear arms for military use in a well regulated militia for the purpose of maintaining the security of a free state.
Conclusion: The second amendment authorizes citizens to personally keep and bear military arms.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Inexcusable Excuses and Reasons for Abortion.
Q: Is it justifiable to abort a pregnancy that came by rape?
A: The method of conception is irrelevant. It is not a reason for or against abortion. Consider the following sentence and how ridiculous it sounds: My abortion is justified because the child was conceived by consensual sex. Consider also this ridiculous sentence: My abortion is justified because the child was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. The reason those sentences are ridiculous is because it is obvious that the method of conception had absolutely no relation to whether or not the abortion was justified. Rape in and of itself is not a reason for abortion.
Q: But no child should be born because of rape. Aren't they better off not being born?
A: Only if you can say that family history and parentage determine the value or overall quality of a person's life. If that is the case then you can also justify killing a child, adult, or geriatric person that was conceived by rape. Your genealogy doesn't determine your worth. Your family history doesn't dictate your happiness.
Q: But isn't it better to have no legacy rather than have a bad legacy?
A: I don't think so, but adoption would erase the legacy that you are afraid of giving the child.
Q: But the continuation of the pregnancy could cause emotional harm to the victim who is already struggling to heal emotionally from the rape. Shouldn't her emotional healing be promoted by aborting the pregnancy?
A: That question has multiple questions nested in it that need answered individually.
The first question: Does continuation of a pregnancy cause emotional harm to a victim of rape?
The first answer: I don't know. I'm not a psychologist. I can't say whether or not a victim of rape will be caused emotional harm by continuing a pregnancy. If not, then the question doesn't make much sense. If continuation of a pregnancy does cause emotional harm to a rape victim, then the question is legitimate. I'll assume for the sake of discussion that it does cause emotional harm.
The second question: Is a rape victim's emotional healing promoted by aborting the pregnancy?
The second answer: I think that abortion has it's own negative effects on emotional health. I don't know that an abortion would promote healing for a rape victim. Ask a psychologist that question and you could probably get a medical answer to it. For the sake of discussion, I am willing to suppose for a moment that it is possible that an abortion could help some women recover faster emotionally from rape.
The third question: Should a rape victim's emotional healing be promoted?
The third answer: Yes, a rape victim's emotional healing should be promoted. Her family, friends, and religious associates should help her in any good way that she asks for (if she asks for it). Maybe therapy from a psychiatrist is in order.
The implied question: Is the rape victim's emotional health more important than the physical health and entire wellbeing of the unborn being?
The answer to the implied question: If so, I haven't heard anyone provide an explanation of why. I don't personally think that my emotional well being is more important than the life and entire wellbeing of someone else. If I were to believe that my personal emotional wellbeing is more important than someone else's life, then I would be completely justified in killing anyone that caused me emotional distress and I seriously doubt that murderers are very happy people.
The answer to the overall question: The victim's emotional health is not as important as the overall health of another human being, therefore; a rape victim should not abort a pregnancy even if it would promote their own emotional healing and recovery.
Q: Should babies conceived by incest or incestuous rape be aborted, after all they will likely be genetically disadvantaged?
A: Refer to the discussion about rape. I'll sum up the relevant conclusions...The means of conception is not justification for abortion; therefore, incestuous conception is irrelevant... Children are not better off dead than born with a questionable family history...The overall wellbeing of the unborn person is more important than the emotional health of the victim. If you believe that genetic heritage or makeup determines whether or not a person should be allowed to live, then I disagree with both you and Adolf Hitler regarding this matter. You shouldn't kill people because of genetic defects, whether they be born or unborn.
Q: Should underage girls get abortions? They are emotionally and physically immature. They aren't ready for pregnancy or parenthood.
A: If your underlying concern is about statutory rape, then refer to the section on rape. Most underage girls are emotionally immature and some are physically immature. If they are too immature physically, they will miscarry naturally. If they are too emotionally immature they will either mature quickly or be emotionally scarred. Their emotional wellbeing is not as important as the entire wellbeing of another person.
Q: There are physical risks associated with pregnancy. Why should a woman take on the risks of pregnancy, especially if she did not want the pregnancy?
A: The risk of a woman dying because of pregnancy or delivery complications is much less than 100%. The risk of an unborn person dying is nearly 100% if the pregnancy is aborted. So, the risk of someone dying is significantly greater if an abortion is performed whether or not the woman wanted the pregnancy.
Q: But she didn't want the risk or the pregnancy. Why should she bear the risk?
A: I don't know that the baby wanted the risk of death either and as far as I know the baby didn't cause the pregnancy. The answer to your question also answers the following question: The baby didn't want the risk or invite the pregnancy, so why should he/she bear the risk? The would-be mother has less risk of death and therefore should be the one who risks it.
Q: Who's life is more important, the woman or the baby?
A: This is an impertinent question, but I see no more value in the mother's life than the baby's. Many elderly people would argue that it is better for an older person to die than a younger person because the younger person still has their whole life before them. I think the same argument applies here.
Q: Having a baby is expensive and rearing a child is expensive. Why should a woman or family take on the additional financial burden if they can't afford it?
A: If it were your life on the line, you would find a way to afford it whether you had the money or not. Hospitals have to deliver your baby whether or not you can afford it. You can probably find a way to afford rearing the child. If not, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.
Q: Can abortion be an act of mercy for children who would otherwise be subject to abuse, poverty, or neglect?
A: The solution to abuse, poverty, and neglect does not involve killing those people who are most likely to be exposed to it. You don't treat common physical diseases by mass executions, and you don't treat common social diseases with mass executions of the unborn.
Q: Abortion is often used as a form of family planning. Is that okay?
A: No more so than killing a new-born, toddler, adolescent, adult, or geriatric person. Shaving off recently conceived family additions is no different than shaving of family additions that were conceived at any other time.
Q: What about over-population? Should abortion be used for population control?
A: No. First of all, I'm not worried about over-population. I'm more concerned about under-production of goods. The solution to insufficiency is increased production. If killing people were a solution then the most reasonable group to kill off would by the people that are in their child-bearing years because it would both reduce current populations and prevent population growth. Killing unborn babies is not a solution for insufficiency of goods.
Q: I can't be pregnant because I will go crazy. Kids drive me crazy. I'm not ready for kids. I can't stand kids.
A: If you are killing babies to keep from going crazy then I'm afraid you may already be there. Grow up or put the baby up for adoption and grow up.
Q: I am in control of my own body. No one can tell me what to do with it. Why should I let a parasitic baby take control of it, or the government decide what I can or can't do with it?
A: If you were really in control of your body, then you wouldn't have initiated an unwanted pregnancy. That is true whether or not you were raped. Stop fooling yourself. You want the ability to dictate the fate of the body of your unborn child, but you don't think it fair that anyone control someone else's body. If it is unfair to control someone else's body, then it is unfair for you to dictate the fate of the body of your unborn baby. The baby came by invitation and not as a parasite. He/she is a living being and the government has a responsibility to protect him/her from murder, even from you.
Q: So, I messed up. Why should I be punished for it?
A: The only people that aren't completely responsible for their actions are the mentally incompetent. If you are able to formulate the question or come across this blog, then you probably do not fit into that category. Expecting you to be responsible for your actions is not punishment. It is an indirect acknowledgment of your competence.
Some people think that if someone messes up, someone must be punished for justice's sake. Should the baby be punished for your mistake? Did the baby mess up? Giving the death penalty to someone who did nothing wrong would not be just. That would be a step in the wrong direction. If your mistake was sinful in nature, then either you or Jesus will have to pay for it. If it wasn't sinful then it wasn't so much a mistake as it was a deviation from your plans. Now that you are deviated from your plans, you should take responsibility for your actions and make the best of it.
Q: When is it okay to abort a pregnancy?
A: If the baby is dead, 100% guaranteed to be dead by birth, or with such serious deformity that life would not be possible. Let me clarify. Some women can't properly deliver a baby, and if the baby dies in their uterus they need to have a doctor perform the abortion to remove the remains and the placenta. Some babies are 100% guaranteed to be dead before the possibility of birth such as in the case of most ectopic pregnancies. Allowing such pregnancies to go on does not benefit the baby and can place the mother in mortal danger. Some babies have such serious deformities that life is not possible, such as being without a brain or multiple organs. In these cases it is acceptable to have an abortion. It can reduce the risk to the mother without imposing on the baby at all.
Q: When is an unborn person alive?
A: It doesn't matter. After conception, the processes of mortal life are begun and should not be forcefully terminated.
Q: But when should an unborn person be entitled to government protection?
A: At conception.
Q: But wouldn't that mean that the morning-after pill could be outlawed?
A: If it could be reasonably expected to cause a fertilized egg, or a zygote, or an embryo to be prematurely expelled, then yes.
Q: Doesn't Roe v. Wade mean that anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional?
A: It means that the supreme court judges who made that ruling said that it is unconstitutional. I don't see anything in the constitution that supports that claim. They were wrong. See Constitution. See Roe v. Wade.
A: The method of conception is irrelevant. It is not a reason for or against abortion. Consider the following sentence and how ridiculous it sounds: My abortion is justified because the child was conceived by consensual sex. Consider also this ridiculous sentence: My abortion is justified because the child was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. The reason those sentences are ridiculous is because it is obvious that the method of conception had absolutely no relation to whether or not the abortion was justified. Rape in and of itself is not a reason for abortion.
Q: But no child should be born because of rape. Aren't they better off not being born?
A: Only if you can say that family history and parentage determine the value or overall quality of a person's life. If that is the case then you can also justify killing a child, adult, or geriatric person that was conceived by rape. Your genealogy doesn't determine your worth. Your family history doesn't dictate your happiness.
Q: But isn't it better to have no legacy rather than have a bad legacy?
A: I don't think so, but adoption would erase the legacy that you are afraid of giving the child.
Q: But the continuation of the pregnancy could cause emotional harm to the victim who is already struggling to heal emotionally from the rape. Shouldn't her emotional healing be promoted by aborting the pregnancy?
A: That question has multiple questions nested in it that need answered individually.
The first question: Does continuation of a pregnancy cause emotional harm to a victim of rape?
The first answer: I don't know. I'm not a psychologist. I can't say whether or not a victim of rape will be caused emotional harm by continuing a pregnancy. If not, then the question doesn't make much sense. If continuation of a pregnancy does cause emotional harm to a rape victim, then the question is legitimate. I'll assume for the sake of discussion that it does cause emotional harm.
The second question: Is a rape victim's emotional healing promoted by aborting the pregnancy?
The second answer: I think that abortion has it's own negative effects on emotional health. I don't know that an abortion would promote healing for a rape victim. Ask a psychologist that question and you could probably get a medical answer to it. For the sake of discussion, I am willing to suppose for a moment that it is possible that an abortion could help some women recover faster emotionally from rape.
The third question: Should a rape victim's emotional healing be promoted?
The third answer: Yes, a rape victim's emotional healing should be promoted. Her family, friends, and religious associates should help her in any good way that she asks for (if she asks for it). Maybe therapy from a psychiatrist is in order.
The implied question: Is the rape victim's emotional health more important than the physical health and entire wellbeing of the unborn being?
The answer to the implied question: If so, I haven't heard anyone provide an explanation of why. I don't personally think that my emotional well being is more important than the life and entire wellbeing of someone else. If I were to believe that my personal emotional wellbeing is more important than someone else's life, then I would be completely justified in killing anyone that caused me emotional distress and I seriously doubt that murderers are very happy people.
The answer to the overall question: The victim's emotional health is not as important as the overall health of another human being, therefore; a rape victim should not abort a pregnancy even if it would promote their own emotional healing and recovery.
Q: Should babies conceived by incest or incestuous rape be aborted, after all they will likely be genetically disadvantaged?
A: Refer to the discussion about rape. I'll sum up the relevant conclusions...The means of conception is not justification for abortion; therefore, incestuous conception is irrelevant... Children are not better off dead than born with a questionable family history...The overall wellbeing of the unborn person is more important than the emotional health of the victim. If you believe that genetic heritage or makeup determines whether or not a person should be allowed to live, then I disagree with both you and Adolf Hitler regarding this matter. You shouldn't kill people because of genetic defects, whether they be born or unborn.
Q: Should underage girls get abortions? They are emotionally and physically immature. They aren't ready for pregnancy or parenthood.
A: If your underlying concern is about statutory rape, then refer to the section on rape. Most underage girls are emotionally immature and some are physically immature. If they are too immature physically, they will miscarry naturally. If they are too emotionally immature they will either mature quickly or be emotionally scarred. Their emotional wellbeing is not as important as the entire wellbeing of another person.
Q: There are physical risks associated with pregnancy. Why should a woman take on the risks of pregnancy, especially if she did not want the pregnancy?
A: The risk of a woman dying because of pregnancy or delivery complications is much less than 100%. The risk of an unborn person dying is nearly 100% if the pregnancy is aborted. So, the risk of someone dying is significantly greater if an abortion is performed whether or not the woman wanted the pregnancy.
Q: But she didn't want the risk or the pregnancy. Why should she bear the risk?
A: I don't know that the baby wanted the risk of death either and as far as I know the baby didn't cause the pregnancy. The answer to your question also answers the following question: The baby didn't want the risk or invite the pregnancy, so why should he/she bear the risk? The would-be mother has less risk of death and therefore should be the one who risks it.
Q: Who's life is more important, the woman or the baby?
A: This is an impertinent question, but I see no more value in the mother's life than the baby's. Many elderly people would argue that it is better for an older person to die than a younger person because the younger person still has their whole life before them. I think the same argument applies here.
Q: Having a baby is expensive and rearing a child is expensive. Why should a woman or family take on the additional financial burden if they can't afford it?
A: If it were your life on the line, you would find a way to afford it whether you had the money or not. Hospitals have to deliver your baby whether or not you can afford it. You can probably find a way to afford rearing the child. If not, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.
Q: Can abortion be an act of mercy for children who would otherwise be subject to abuse, poverty, or neglect?
A: The solution to abuse, poverty, and neglect does not involve killing those people who are most likely to be exposed to it. You don't treat common physical diseases by mass executions, and you don't treat common social diseases with mass executions of the unborn.
Q: Abortion is often used as a form of family planning. Is that okay?
A: No more so than killing a new-born, toddler, adolescent, adult, or geriatric person. Shaving off recently conceived family additions is no different than shaving of family additions that were conceived at any other time.
Q: What about over-population? Should abortion be used for population control?
A: No. First of all, I'm not worried about over-population. I'm more concerned about under-production of goods. The solution to insufficiency is increased production. If killing people were a solution then the most reasonable group to kill off would by the people that are in their child-bearing years because it would both reduce current populations and prevent population growth. Killing unborn babies is not a solution for insufficiency of goods.
Q: I can't be pregnant because I will go crazy. Kids drive me crazy. I'm not ready for kids. I can't stand kids.
A: If you are killing babies to keep from going crazy then I'm afraid you may already be there. Grow up or put the baby up for adoption and grow up.
Q: I am in control of my own body. No one can tell me what to do with it. Why should I let a parasitic baby take control of it, or the government decide what I can or can't do with it?
A: If you were really in control of your body, then you wouldn't have initiated an unwanted pregnancy. That is true whether or not you were raped. Stop fooling yourself. You want the ability to dictate the fate of the body of your unborn child, but you don't think it fair that anyone control someone else's body. If it is unfair to control someone else's body, then it is unfair for you to dictate the fate of the body of your unborn baby. The baby came by invitation and not as a parasite. He/she is a living being and the government has a responsibility to protect him/her from murder, even from you.
Q: So, I messed up. Why should I be punished for it?
A: The only people that aren't completely responsible for their actions are the mentally incompetent. If you are able to formulate the question or come across this blog, then you probably do not fit into that category. Expecting you to be responsible for your actions is not punishment. It is an indirect acknowledgment of your competence.
Some people think that if someone messes up, someone must be punished for justice's sake. Should the baby be punished for your mistake? Did the baby mess up? Giving the death penalty to someone who did nothing wrong would not be just. That would be a step in the wrong direction. If your mistake was sinful in nature, then either you or Jesus will have to pay for it. If it wasn't sinful then it wasn't so much a mistake as it was a deviation from your plans. Now that you are deviated from your plans, you should take responsibility for your actions and make the best of it.
Q: When is it okay to abort a pregnancy?
A: If the baby is dead, 100% guaranteed to be dead by birth, or with such serious deformity that life would not be possible. Let me clarify. Some women can't properly deliver a baby, and if the baby dies in their uterus they need to have a doctor perform the abortion to remove the remains and the placenta. Some babies are 100% guaranteed to be dead before the possibility of birth such as in the case of most ectopic pregnancies. Allowing such pregnancies to go on does not benefit the baby and can place the mother in mortal danger. Some babies have such serious deformities that life is not possible, such as being without a brain or multiple organs. In these cases it is acceptable to have an abortion. It can reduce the risk to the mother without imposing on the baby at all.
Q: When is an unborn person alive?
A: It doesn't matter. After conception, the processes of mortal life are begun and should not be forcefully terminated.
Q: But when should an unborn person be entitled to government protection?
A: At conception.
Q: But wouldn't that mean that the morning-after pill could be outlawed?
A: If it could be reasonably expected to cause a fertilized egg, or a zygote, or an embryo to be prematurely expelled, then yes.
Q: Doesn't Roe v. Wade mean that anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional?
A: It means that the supreme court judges who made that ruling said that it is unconstitutional. I don't see anything in the constitution that supports that claim. They were wrong. See Constitution. See Roe v. Wade.
Monday, September 15, 2008
J.K.J.-Independent For President
Come back to this blog regularly. I will be providing information to voters regarding civilization, government, economics, and morality as they apply to politics in the United States of America. I will explain my positions clearly and explain the issues in plain English (and occasionally also Spanish).
While you are waiting for information to post. I recommend reading the Constitution.
While you are waiting for information to post. I recommend reading the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)