Sunday, January 1, 2012
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Ok, Vinniemac, you're chasing rabbits again. What does that have to do with abortion and it not being a moral issue?
Well, if abortion was only an issue of morality, then our federal government should have no authority to make a law concerning the issue. But if it can be argued that abortion does in fact infringe upon the inalienable right of an individual, then not only can the government make a law to protect that right, but it also has the undeniable duty to make a law to protect that right. And the inalienable right that I am speaking of is, of course, life.
If the "fetus" in the mother's womb is a life, then our government must protect that individual's right to life. I don't think that anyone can argue with that. As equals, no one person's rights are weighed any more heavily than another's, right? Then neither the mother, nor any other individual, has the right to take the right to take the life from of unborn child.
Aha! Well, Mr. Rocket Scientist, there's where you lose your argument. No one can prove that the fetus is a life, because no one knows exactly when life begins.
Absolutely right. I don't know for a fact when life begins. I believe that life begins at conception, but I have no way to prove it to the "Doubting Thomas". But I don't have to prove that it is a life. All I have to prove is that it may be a life.
On what most important factor do we base our legal system? The principle that all are considered innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. AND in order for a suspect to be convicted of a crime, all reasonable doubt of his innocence must be absent. In essence, in order for an individual to be eligible for a life sentence or the death penalty, all of the burden rests upon the shoulders of the prosecutor.
This same principle must be applied to the question of whether or not a fetus is a life. If the possibility exists that it is a life, then all reasonable doubt must be proven false in order for it's termination to be allowed. If it is not proven false, and there is some reasonable doubt to the opinion that it is not a life, then our government has the obligation to protect that entity under the reasonable possibility that it is an innocent life. And let's be honest, if a fetus is a life, then it is, without a doubt, the most innocent form of human life.
The "right" of the mother no longer bears any credence in the decision if the fetus is a human life, and since it cannot be proven that it is not a human life, then it must be treated as one since the possibility exists that it is a human life.
If one understands this, then my core beliefs are not hypocritical, and in fact, the core beliefs of many libertarians would have to be hypocritical, though perhaps not knowingly. The reason being that since individual liberty is the core principle behind both my beliefs and the beliefs of the libertarian philosophy, then abortion bans do not infringe upon the liberty of the mother, but rather protect the liberty of a possible life.
I rest my case.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
A little disclaimer: Some of the captions have adult language, so you've been forewarned. The captions were pre-written on the pictures themselves, so don't get mad at me.
If the captions or the pictures are too small to make everything out, just click on the image and it will enlarge it.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
He was speaking of the Health Care bill that is being shoved into our faces. Now, I do not believe that this "Obama Care" is in any stretch of the imagination a good piece of legislation, but there is one aspect of universal health care that I haven't thought of before.
Government is not established to ensure that we have all that we need. Government is established to ensure that no one stops us from pursuing what we need. In other words, the government protects (or should protect) our rights from being infringed upon. So looking at this through the proverbial glasses of the health care field, and more specifically health insurance, the government is supposed to ensure that others do not infringe upon our rights to seek health care, if we want it.
Now, under Obama's plan, we will be required (and subject to a $2500 fine per year if we fail) to have some type of health insurance. Putting aside the argument that under this system all privately owned insurance companies will eventually see their own demise due to the inevitability that private companies will cease to offer health insurance to their employees when they can simply sign up for Obama Care, this type of system holds one other very frightening aspect.
You see, when people must sign up for a single payer system of health care, the government can decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't. We already see this happening in Europe and Canada. The elderly, especially, are often considered to be a lost cause by the bureacracy and are denied health care due simply to the fact that they are not worth the money.
Now, stay with me, beause this IS going somewhere.
We have a right to bear arms. If we choose, we can go out and by a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun. As a matter of fact, yesterday, I bought another pistol to add to my collection. That's right, I have a small collection of guns, and by God, I love them. But back to my point. Even though we have a right to buy firearms, that does not mean that the government is responsible for providing us with a means of self-defense, i.e. a firearm. But we do have the right to bear arms.
In the true definition of a "right," we do have a right to health care. If we so choose, we can purchase health insurance. If we do not choose to purchase health care, we still have the right to get care and just pay out of pocket.
But when we enter into a system that decides who gets what kind of health care, when they get it, and who they get it from, and they have the ability to deny pace-makers, cancer treatment, and organ transplants to those that they deem a "lost cause," we, in essence, lose our right to get health care. So those politicians who claim that health care is a right, are absolutely right. But they are the very ones who are pushing to take that right away.
We don't have a right to have health care provided for us for free, but we do have a right to health care in exactly the same way that we have a right to own guns. If these politicians believe that our "right" to health care means that it should be provided for us, why don't they push for the government to provide all of us AK47s. If this is about ensuring that our rights are not infringed, and providing those things that we have rights to is how they plan to protect our rights, then they would view the right to bear arms the same way.
Ah. But that's just it. Universal health care isn't about ensuring that our rights are not infringed upon. It's about power. The more facets of our life that they can get their hands into--health care, the automobile industry, energy--the more ways they can strong arm us into complying with their own agendas. This is exactly what they are trying to do.
And you can see this on both sides of the aisle. I used to consider myself a Republican. But too many Republicans are becoming Big-Government Republicans, and they too, are now trying to step into our lives and advance their own agendas, though not as blatantly and on as grand a scale as the Democrats. This is why I consider myself a Conservative now, and only a Conservative. But that's a post for a different time.
See, the difference between the gun analogy and health care isn't that guns can be dangerous and health care keeps people alive. No, that shouldn't matter. Under their premise, if both are rights, then both should be provided by the government. The difference is that guns in the hands of the people that they oppress scare them. That takes power away from them. Getting their grubby nasty hands into our health care system, however, gives them the ultimate power over us. They decide who lives and who dies.
I guess if they do shove this bull into our faces, I'll just start writing my congressmen and ask that they add to my gun collection on the taxpayer's dime. Because if this kind of health care is Constitutional, so is a government paid 1911 .45 cal. Colt.