Monday, September 28, 2009

Regarding The Right to "Choose."

A libertarian acquaintance of mine and I share a number of views in common; we are both for smaller and less intrusive government, as well as the right to pursue happiness in ways of our own choosing.

Where my libertarian acquaintance and I part ways is the question of abortion, and a woman's so-called right to choose whether or not to maintain the developing life inside her womb. Although this acquaintance is personally pro-life, she appears to think that it is not necessarily the role of government to dictate whether a woman must carry a baby to term.

I wrote,
"I can get behind much of what you believe in.

Except for the abortion part.

You see, my right to do what I want with my fist ends with your face.

And the right of what a person can do with his or her body ends when that person's choice interferes with another innocent person's God-given right to live, no matter what station in life or life stage one finds oneself. (read it in the preamble to the Constitution)

The woman's so-called right to "choose" is not a question of freedom. It goes much deeper than that. It's a question of one's fundamental right to exist. When that is called into question, the right to "freedom" is moot."
Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one's choices, especially when that choice impinges on another's fundamental right of existence.


My correspondent wrote back:
I am personally a pro life person! That is why I say freedom of choice - instead of prochoice- the pro choice folks believe pro choice means their choice – I disagree- I believe pro choice means that I am freed to choose life and I DO! Listen to last weeks show and you will hear me say so!
To which I responded,
Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one's choices.
She went on...
I agree Leo- we just can not stop people from doing things they want to do- I wish I could but that is God’s job not mine! I answer to God and so will they!
To which I responded
No, we cannot stop people from doing things they want to do, but we CAN hold them accountable.

We have laws that codify against murder. We have laws that codify against robbery and crimes against person and against property.

Why should the unborn, developing human being be unprotected by the rule of law? Why should their status and the protections afforded them be any different than any other human being?

Are the unborn 3/5ths of a person? Are you comparing the unborn to slaves, with no rights, especially that of the most fundamental right of all, that being the right to exist?

You say you are pro life.

I don't believe you.

Either you believe that the developing fetus is a human being, and is entitled to unalienable rights, or you don't.

Let's be honest, here. be continued?


My correspondent wrote back:

I told where I stand if you are going to call me a liar- we have nothing else to discuss.

Have a good evening.
To which I responded,
Betty Jean, what I am saying is that you are being intellectually dishonest.

You say you are pro life, a position which, by definition, holds that the developing fetus is indeed human; yet you are unwilling to assign human rights to that which you ostensibly deem human.

Realize that saying, "I'm pro-life, and I wish everyone was, but I understand that others will make different decisions," is not in the same league as saying, "I like coconut on my donuts, and I really wish everyone liked coconut on their donuts, but I understand that others may not." The former carries with it real life and death implications, while the latter is merely a preference.

Realize that when one says one is pro-life, that means that one truly understands that it is indeed a separate and distinct life developing within the womb. Yes, a LIFE.

Of course, saying that you're pro-life but simultaneously recognize other women's right to "choose" may score you points by those on both sides of the issue who haven't taken the time to parse the illogicality of what you stated. But realize that by saying what you're saying, you have effectively negated your pro-life stance by its very definition. You have in effect made a non-statement.

Yes, Betty Jean, I am challenging your beliefs by identifying the inconsistencies inherent in that which you state you believe.

I understand that can be an uncomfortable feeling.

But if I can see the inconsistency in your stated beliefs, it is my contention that others in your audience can also see that inconsistency, which may lead them to question your credibility.

What I'm asking is that you take a step back, and take a good, long, hard look at your stated belief regarding abortion.

Don't rationalize it. I mean, take an honest look at it.

Again, if you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.

Consider this an exercise in constructive criticism.