|
Emotional
outburst aside, I think you miss the point. The LP and
by extension its platform are about the laws that govern us.? Those laws as of now deal with persons in terms
of a state of natalism.? It is simply a
legal status, no different than a child turning into an adult at 16, 18, 21, or
whatever the particular legal situation determines (a cluster that is an
entirely different discussion).? Before
being considered a full adult the child is a ward and responsibility of the
parent.? It does not matter in the legal
sense whether that child is born yet or not. I’m not
going to get into a discussion on the philosophical and medical arguments about
when a human life begins.? That isn’t the
point and it doesn’t accomplish anything.?
Opinions obviously vary (otherwise it wouldn’t be such a controversial
topic).? As far as the state is
concerned, the general (although admittedly not uniform) consensus is that
legal personhood begins at birth (for now). The point
is about pure choices and accepting the responsibility that comes with those
choices. To abort a
pregnancy or not is not a decision that belongs only with the individual who
can reasonably and carefully make that decision.? There is no doubt that a prenatal individual cannot make that
decision.? That leaves it in either the hands
of the individual or the state. To leave that
decision in the hands of the state is to exert yet more paternalistic and
patronizing attitude towards the people the state is charged to protect.? The state is not supposed to make decisions
for us that we can make ourselves.?
Further, for the state to dictate to individuals and families what is
most definitely a very personal emotional and medical decision is nothing more
than an unwarranted and unnecessary initiation of force by the state, a removal
of that decision form those people that are not only best qualified to make it,
but also those who have to live with the decision no matter which way they
choose.? It is their choice, and their
responsibility, and their conscience—not the state’s.? Part of the responsibility of
becoming and being a parent is making the original choice to do so, and the
state has absolutely no legitimate authority to remove that choice from the
individuals.? Banning
abortion would be just as extreme and just as wrong as mandating it after the
first child like they do in Communist China.?
Both cases take the decision out of the rightful hands of the parents. Also, for
the state to foster such a mandate on individuals in the name of some religious
belief that others may not share is also an initiation of force on those people
who do not share it.? Such religious
discrimination flies directly in the face of the Bill of Rights.? We do not have an absolute majority rule in
this nation.? The whole point of the
Bill of Rights was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the
majority.? Religious freedom is the very
first freedom exercised in that Bill of Rights, and part of that religious
freedom is most certainly tied into when a particular belief system feels human
life begins. Personal Note: We’re into the eighth
month of pregnancy here.? We lost our
first child at this point, for reasons unknown.? I know firsthand the personal hell of what that means, so I can appreciate
a pro-life argument on a purely emotional basis.? But that loss isn’t my point.?
My point is that that experience and that belief which came from it are
mine and no one else’s.? My wife shares
that hell, that loss, that grief, and I wouldn’t wish that on my worst
enemy.? The only way to understand it is
to go through it, and that is no way to find out.? But that personal experience gives
me no right to try to prevent others from going through it, either by accident,
which happened to us, or by deliberative choice.? We did not abort our son.? He died.?
I agree that choosing to end a life, human or not, prenatal or
postnatal, is a hard choice.? But I also
believe, having gone through having had that decision foisted upon us without our
say so, that the feeling of utter helplessness that comes with having the
choice taken from you, is much worse than the actual loss.? When you have no choice you wind up being
angry with whomever or whatever made that choice for you.? It makes you question God at a very base
level.? I’d much rather shoulder the
burden of that choice, whichever way it may go, than have that choice taken
from me.? Part of who we are as
individuals and as a people is based on the choices we make and how we live
with those choices.? For the state to
deny or to regulate that choice and that experience is unacceptable.? It is better to leave that choice and its
antecedent consequences to the family and/or individuals, because it is those
decisions and responsibilities that shape our character and individuality. The state
has no such individuality or character and it is devoid of morality, so it
doesn’t make any sense to delegate a moral responsibility to an immoral entity.? That leaves the choice to those that may
(not necessarily does, but the potential at least exists) have it, which is the
people.? That’s where it rightfully belongs. I
apologize for my own emotional outburst, but this is very damned personal to me
as well, even more so than people who haven’t lost a child that was loved,
wanted, and is greatly missed every day.?
That isn’t to say others reading haven’t lost like this, because I
simply don’t know, but it does put my view into hopefully some sort of
perspective. Looking
forward to our second child, Mike -----Original
Message-----
I've been trying real hard to stay out of the fray of state LP politics for a
number of reasons, but I am compelled by my creator to make just one personal
comment on this proposed platform. Round file it if you wish.
On the subject of health, I noted that you wish the Party to endorse abortion
as a right. Does anybody besides me see the blatant hypocrisy in such a
stand? Does not the preamble state the first of all rights is the right
to life? Is not the extinguishing of a life 'forcibly interfer(ing)
with the equal right of others to live'? You can deny it all you want but
there is life inside the womb. He/she moves, he/she takes
nourishment, he/she responds to music, voices, and other outside
stimuli, his/her heart beats, he/she has a soul, and most of
all he/she is endowed with the same inalienable rights that we all claim
for ourselves.
Why does a mother face punishment if she drinks her baby to death but gets
celebrated if she yanks it out of her womb? Oh you hypocrites. You
complain about murder by govt. and criminals and yet you scream rights
violation if anyone wants to stop murder by mothers and willing accomplice
doctors. You claim it's a health issue and a mother has a right to do
what she wants with her body. Well, what right does she have to do what
she wants to with the baby's body inside her womb? That's not her
body! She has just been blessed with the responsibility to give birth to
and raise that person.
I've got news for you, all of our bodies are on loan from the creator and the
rights that are endowed with them can and will be denied us if you
continue to have the audacity to deny them to others, especially those who
cannot defend themselves and their rights. I tell you now, the travesty
of abortion is the number one reason we are scrambling to retain the few rights
we have left in this country. And I tell you now, it will all be for
naught if you continue to endorse the denial of rights, to
those people who aren't even given the chance to taste more than
a few months of the first right, while haughtily demanding and
pretending to defend them. Such hypocrisy.
Soon, very soon, we will all get a taste of your medicine and our bodies
will be violently yanked from the womb of freedom if you don't stop the
hypocrisy now! We reap what we sow.
- Love, Mike |
- RE: Platform Mike Seebeck
- RE: Platform Mike Seebeck
- Re: Platform Gregg Miller
