Every time a Freeper or Lurker signs up to be a New Monthly Donor
A generous Freeper donates $10!!
Please sign up now!
Posted on 01/17/2012 4:35:00 PM PST by wagglebee
January 17, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - Tell me if this has ever happened to you.
It’s lunchtime. You are eating at your desk at work and decide to look at Facebook. It’s as exciting as ever. Your aunt had a burrito for lunch. A girl you haven’t seen since college got a new tattoo. Someone is super happy it’s almost Friday.
Then you see that a virtual stranger (there’s a double meaning in that) has commented on one of your posts. And she has said something so asinine that you put down your fried pickle (’cause you’re in Texas and you eat stuff like that) and respond.
It’s daunting, the task before you. Do you even want to undertake this? Can you really change someone’s mind about abortion in one Facebook comment?*
Well, you’re gonna try. So you launch into refuting whatever dumb thing the person just said. “There’s no scientific concensus that life begins at conception!” “If we make it illegal, they’re gonna do it anyway!” “If you’re against abortion, you should be against war, too!” It could be any of these things, or something else.
So you drop a couple knowledge bombs, go back to your life, and hours later you find the following response:
“Well, maybe you’re right, but we can’t legislate morality.”
You look around for a candid camera. Is this an elaborate joke? No. Someone actually said that. Again. You sigh. And you type this:
Really? We can’t legislate morality? What do you call it when we tell people they can’t murder? Rape? Steal?
Let’s do some Criminal Justice 101, shall we? There are two types of laws: malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning “wrong in itself.” Most of us feel that murder is wrong, therefore there is a law against it. Malum prohibitum means something is wrong because it is prohibited. For example: in the United States we have to drive on the right side of the road, not because driving on the left is inherently evil (I’m lookin’ at you, England!) but because good order meant we had to pick one side. Because we’ve picked right, if you drive on the left, you’re gonna get stopped. Try it, you’ll see.**
Malum in se laws are based on morality. Our laws here in the U.S. grew out of English Common Law, which in turn was based on Judeo-Christian morality. Now, old-timey English lawmakers did not sit around and go, “Hmmm, what should we base our laws on?” And then come up with the Bible because it had an attractive leather cover. Judeo-Christian morality was a part of the culture since the 7th century, and has in fact formed Western culture, culminating most recently in our humble little former colony, the United States.
Detractors will say English Common Law formed in the 5th century, before Christianity took hold in Britain. But the law as we know it didn’t stop forming then. Christian men such as Henry de Bracton in the 13th century in England and Sir William Blackstone in the 18th century in the United States have had a tremendous impact on creating the laws we know today.
Whether you like it or not, the culture that created you is a Judeo-Christian culture. All the things you think are right and wrong were formed by Judeo-Christian principles. Why do you think it’s wrong to have slaves? Western culture is just like most other civilizations in that it engaged in slavery, but unique in that it is solely responsible for ridding the world of it. What about having a harem of concubines? That was common in pre-Christian cultures, not so much in the West today. Sacrificing virgins? No big deal to the pagans, but frowned upon in our time.
The idea of loving people more than ourselves, sacrificing for the poor, turning the other cheek… these ideas were so revolutionary to the Roman world in which Christianity was born that they were scandalous. The tenets of Christianity made Christians so different they were almost universally hated. They were persecuted and killed all over the Roman Empire, until the Emperor Constantine had a vision. But I digress.
So those who cry that morals have no place in public policy are a little too late. Judeo-Christian morals created our public policy, created our culture, were the basis for our founding documents, guided the formation of our nation through the beliefs of our founders, and make up the fabric of our society.
Recently, a postmodern deconstructionist tendency to wipe American law clean of “traditional” morality has created not a sparkling tabula rasa, but a libertine morass. You don’t have to be a Jew or Christian to recognize there is such a thing as right and wrong. Lately, it seems like the only evil people will recognize is believing in evil.
Ironically, the abortion advocate who tells us to keep our morals off her body is herself expressing a moral belief, a belief in liberty. I also believe in liberty, but I believe that in the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” life comes first for a very good reason: you can’t have liberty without life. I believe a baby’s right to be alive trumps his mother’s right to kill him for any reason she sees fit. Because, as we all know, there are limits to liberty. My liberty ends where, for example, it infringes upon another person’s right to live. Hence, I am free, but not free to murder. I am free to drive, but not into someone’s restaurant. I am free to watch TV, but not “Jersey Shore” at Kristen’s house. And so on.
The next time someone tells you, “We can’t legislate morality,” tell them, “Sure we can! It’s fun and easy! Like Mad Libs!”
But seriously: this is another argument you can easily shoot down with just a little bit of knowledge. Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.***
*No. But one day I’m gonna set a world record and do it in three.
**Please do not try this.
***G.I. Joe
Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org
The killing of innocent unborn is not a tennant of libertarinaism since it removes the one absolute individual right. The right to life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
You are wrong. Way wrong.
Libertarians - like Ron Paul - see no problems with abortions being left up to individual states to decide. The “right to life”, you say?
Show me in the Constitution where that right is.
Then why does the Libertarian Party Platform say otherwise?:
1.4 AbortionRecognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
What is your position on these two questions:
1. Should abortion be allowed in cases of rape or incest?
2. Is abortion a "states' rights" issue (e.g. should it be left to the states)?
a. We are dealing with the ultimate right. Without life nothing else matters.
b. The constitution rightly recognizes that no one shall be deprived of life without due process of law. That is, they have committed some crime that brings them before the law in a capital case.
c. The baby is life, and the constitution recognizes in its purpose statement that these rights pertain to the unborn...the posterity.
d. Therefore, the in utero baby cannot be deprived of life without having committed a capital offense and not without due process of law.
That applies to any state. That applies to any baby however conceived.
I dislike mad libs...especially the Occupy kind.
I dislike mad libs...especially the Occupy kind.
I dislike mad libs...especially the Occupy kind.
“....is not a tennant of libertarinaism....”
WADR friend, I believe the word is TENNET.
A tennant is one who rents a property in which to live or conduct business.
....Woman do not have the right to brutaly murder their own children by hiring a knife welding assassin to go into the God designed 'safe womb' which He's provided for a child..... carving these babies up like a piece of meat in a meatmarket.
And yes it is worse than the heathen pagans who sacrificed their children to their pagan Gods and Goddesses......at least they let the child be born.
1. Should abortion be allowed in cases of rape or incest?
2. Is abortion a “states’ rights” issue (e.g. should it be left to the states)?
1. No....there are other options such as adoption.
2. No....safe guarding our children should have never come so far that we even have to consider who has the right to govern over the matter. It should have never been an issue to begin with. However when any other criminal commits murder...it’s murder in all states.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Oh man troll alert here.
There is a wide wide gulf between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.
Much like that between conservatism and the GOP.
I cannot and will not defend that statement (1.4 of the party platform).
Abortion should never be allowed, in any case, including rape and incest.
I stand corrected.
The Fifth Amendment?
..nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Also, the Fourteenth:... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The problem, obviously, is that "personhood" has yet to be defined. The Human Life Amendment is designed to do just that. Pretty sad that in the 21st. century we still haven't forced ourselves to acknowledge the humanity of an unborn child. The Bill of Rights is where the "right to life" is brought up and I'm pretty sure in the eighteenth century it didn't occur to society that such a given had to be spelled out. And we're progressing???
Actually, it's tenet.
There are many “libertarians” that oppose abortion simply on the fact that the person in the womb has the right to not be killed.
As far as the “can’t legislate morality” argument, indeed, that is silly. The stopsign at the corner is “legislating morality”.
Dittoes Bump to the The Human Life Amendment.
There are many reasons why libs are wrong about abortion being a States Rights issues. For one, you are correct about our amendments outlining due process. Second, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion. The Constitution requires states to adhere to that ruling. We need the Supremes to overule Roe v. Wade. Finally we need an amendment to the US Constitution granting personhood to the unborn.
There is a wide wide gulf between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.
A lie.
Small l or capital L; Libertarians are liberals. Social liberals. Their leader is Ron Paul who is anathema to everything that is Republican and even more so to conservatives.
(see tagline)
I’m not lying. The libertarian party is like any political party. A coallition. So, many ideas that are not pure philisophicaly are included.
If liberalism and libertarinism were the same, then why are they viewed in every political science class, text, and study as two different things?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.