S
ShortyLaRock_82
Guest
I recently spent a considerable amount of time to write the following blog concerning abortion. I would like some feedback by all of you about it.
Her Body, Her Choice?
By Christopher LaRock
One of the most important principal upon which our civil law system rests is the notion that one’s right to swing their fist ends at somebody else’s nose. This is to say that we have the freedom to do with our bodies whatever we choose, as long as that choice doesn’t directly violate the rights and civil liberties of others. It’s a basic principal I think that we can all agree on. Our rights and liberties are, and should, only limited when the rights and liberties of others are at risk of being violated.
The most important liberty we have as human beings is the right to exist, the right to live. This basic right is the foundation upon which all other liberties rests. To put it another way, if you don’t have even the basic human right to live, you can have no liberties at all.
Let’s apply this principal to the issue of abortion. Pro-choice advocates are fond of arguing that abortion should remain legal because of the woman’s right to choose when it comes to her own body. In principal, this seems like a reasonable argument. However, a woman choosing to have an abortion isn’t just making a decision concerning her own body. She is also making a decision that results in the death of another human being, who has just as much right to live as anybody.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. Women should have the right to do with their bodies as they choose. What I’m saying is that when another person’s right to live is directly threatened by what a woman does with her body, the right to choose must be limited to protect the right of that person to live.
It’s because of this basic truth that the #1 argument used by pro-choice advocates is proven flawed, and contradictory to the basic principals of our civil laws. Millions of innocent babies have been murdered because the U.S. Supreme Court failed to recognize that a person’s right to do whatever they want with their body should end once the life of an innocent unborn child is present.
So, can the rights of a woman over her own body and the rights of the unborn child to live be reconciled? YES! It is medically possible for a doctor to remove an unborn human life from one woman’s womb, and implant it into another woman’s womb. Under such circumstances, the woman is making a choice with her own body that doesn’t harm or kill anyone else. This is completely consistent with civil law. Also, there are many woman who want to have children and are unable to.
A woman who doesn’t want to keep her child could very easily allow someone who wants to have a child to have hers. In this scenario, everyone wins. The woman who doesn’t want a child can end her pregnancy, the baby gets to live, and the woman who is unable to conceive her own children can have a child of her own. This is the only acceptable solution to the issue of abortion, but why isn’t it done this way?
I would like to urge everyone who reads this to print this off and send it to your political representatives. The lives of innocent children are being ended unjustly every day and it must be stopped. The goal isn’t to deprive women of their rights, but to put an end to the senseless murder of children through abortion as it is carried out today.
Her Body, Her Choice?
By Christopher LaRock
One of the most important principal upon which our civil law system rests is the notion that one’s right to swing their fist ends at somebody else’s nose. This is to say that we have the freedom to do with our bodies whatever we choose, as long as that choice doesn’t directly violate the rights and civil liberties of others. It’s a basic principal I think that we can all agree on. Our rights and liberties are, and should, only limited when the rights and liberties of others are at risk of being violated.
The most important liberty we have as human beings is the right to exist, the right to live. This basic right is the foundation upon which all other liberties rests. To put it another way, if you don’t have even the basic human right to live, you can have no liberties at all.
Let’s apply this principal to the issue of abortion. Pro-choice advocates are fond of arguing that abortion should remain legal because of the woman’s right to choose when it comes to her own body. In principal, this seems like a reasonable argument. However, a woman choosing to have an abortion isn’t just making a decision concerning her own body. She is also making a decision that results in the death of another human being, who has just as much right to live as anybody.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. Women should have the right to do with their bodies as they choose. What I’m saying is that when another person’s right to live is directly threatened by what a woman does with her body, the right to choose must be limited to protect the right of that person to live.
It’s because of this basic truth that the #1 argument used by pro-choice advocates is proven flawed, and contradictory to the basic principals of our civil laws. Millions of innocent babies have been murdered because the U.S. Supreme Court failed to recognize that a person’s right to do whatever they want with their body should end once the life of an innocent unborn child is present.
So, can the rights of a woman over her own body and the rights of the unborn child to live be reconciled? YES! It is medically possible for a doctor to remove an unborn human life from one woman’s womb, and implant it into another woman’s womb. Under such circumstances, the woman is making a choice with her own body that doesn’t harm or kill anyone else. This is completely consistent with civil law. Also, there are many woman who want to have children and are unable to.
A woman who doesn’t want to keep her child could very easily allow someone who wants to have a child to have hers. In this scenario, everyone wins. The woman who doesn’t want a child can end her pregnancy, the baby gets to live, and the woman who is unable to conceive her own children can have a child of her own. This is the only acceptable solution to the issue of abortion, but why isn’t it done this way?
I would like to urge everyone who reads this to print this off and send it to your political representatives. The lives of innocent children are being ended unjustly every day and it must be stopped. The goal isn’t to deprive women of their rights, but to put an end to the senseless murder of children through abortion as it is carried out today.
Sorry about that.
Do you have references for this? It is quite intriguing (and scary, too). Thank you!