Denninger, in this post, makes the
following statements, speaking of the “Personhood” statement.
“Who owns your person? We're not talking here about killing other people, but the right to decide you no longer wish to exist.”Then he shortly turns around and defends infanticide.
I mean, really? The right to decide that you no longer wish to exist?
What about the...
RIGHT TO DECIDE THAT YOU DO WISH TO EXIST???
Sorry, KD, but you are, in fact, talking about killing another person when you speak of ending the life of a human being from any second after the child is conceived. From second one to senior citizenship, a human is a human. A one second old baby in the womb is scientifically alive.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what “technological advancements” you use to justify killing a baby, or what “complications” you throw in.
Then there’s this pearl of wisdom:
“This is list is not exhaustive, but it ought to make people sit down and think. The founders put forward the declaration of where rights vest ("all persons born or naturalized") under The Constitution not because they were ignorant Neanderthals (they certainly understood that a "quickened" fetus was alive!) but because there were serious and, for them, irresolvable conflicts between the various interests involved.”So, the founders vested rights in “all persons born or naturalized”... Let’s think about that for just about five seconds or so…
Except for women who were born in America at the time. Oh yeah. And the small issue of natural-born slaves. Oops. Forgot about those folks.
Perhaps KD would have us return to those particular status quos as well? The founders were not infallible.
I’m not at all smarter than them, but come on.
Let’s quit worshipping them.
Expecting the Constitution or the founders to be infallible, or to have covered every possible contingency is ridiculous.
And then this, speaking of the “R” candidates who have signed on to the pledge…
“All four have effectively declared war on women, stating that they know better than both
themselves and their physicians, and that they are willing to impose a standard forbidding them from taking any action that might harm a potential embryo at any time during their fertile years.”
"War on women"?
Oh, shut up already.
War? Don't dishonor those who have lived through a real one. It's not a frickin' war, Karl.
What about, on the other hand, the real and deadly genocide perpetuated against the unborn? I suppose it is likewise “declaring war on women” to forbid a mother from putting a crack pipe in a month-old-baby’s mouth, or punishing her for doing so.
Karl Denninger is right on in many subjects. He's also wrong on some big ones. Like voting for Obama. On this as well, he’s dead wrong. He pushes the “Who owns your person?” meme fairly well, but denies the most defenseless and helpless members of our society the chance to determine the answer to that question for themselves.
That's bloody hypocrisy, people.
Karl poses a false choice in this post, similar to GW Bush’s “with us or with the terrorists” false choice. He insinuates that anyone disagreeing with his abortion logic around the “all persons born or naturalized” statement is claiming to be smarter than the founders.
That’s silly. Even geniuses can be wrong. It’s not a question of “smarter than”.
In this case, Karl, in spite of all of his good work and intelligence, is wrong.
I do agree with this statement in the piece:
“Abortion, life, and ownership of one's person is a serious and in fact "first principle" issue. Reducing it to an intentionally-dishonest "pledge", without disclosing and debating exactly what the implications of such a position are, is the worst sort of attempted violation of individual liberties.”One cannot, however, in my opinion, force the bloody square peg of infanticide to fit into a tidy, round “personal liberty” hole.
If I were king, and I’m not and will never be, endangering a baby or child... (IT’S NOT A FETUS, DAMMIT, STOP TRYING TO DEHUMANIZE THE BABY TO SOOTHE YOUR CONSCIENCE!!!) ...would result in harsh punishment at any point during its life. This applies to all situations equally. Defective mothers who would put a crack pipe or cigarette in a month-old baby’s mouth would be punished just as would ones who force their babies to drink alcohol while in the womb. Defective mothers who kill their babies for crying too much would be punished equally to mothers who kill them just for being alive. Is that enough disclosure, KD?
How about this? I would advocate harshly punishing any mother who drank, smoked, or took drugs that endangered the baby, just as I would advocate locking up a mother who physically forced these same things on a three year old. I would advocate treating any and all forms of killing the baby as murder or attempted murder.
Harsh? Unreasonable? Offensive to “personal liberty” advocates? Hmmm. I don’t really care. If your “personal liberty” includes the right and power of life or death over another person who has done nothing to you, you’re a damned hypocrite.
When it comes to babies, I'm pretty damned intolerant of the so-called "right" to kill them.
The right to life is first and foremost. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. All that stuff.
By denying that right to anyone, the whole “personal liberty” and “Who owns you?” bits are hollow, empty, and meaningless rhetoric. Hypocritical, even.
Who owns you Karl? Nah, let’s change it up a bit… “Who do you own?”
Who do you, as a man, woman, or doctor, have a "right" to kill?
WHO DO YOU OWN???!!!
If you can decide, morally, legally, and ethically, to kill an innocent human being, a child, in cold blood, then there is absolutely nothing preventing a government from legally, ethically, and morally (by the same standard) claiming the same right over you. Quit whining about you "liberty" then, because it is subject -according to your logic- to the whim of an unseen person/group of people who have decided to make the "choice" for you. Under these circumstances, you do not own you.
People, the founders included, are not infallible.
Making mistakes is a luxury we get though.
It’s a perk of making it out of the womb alive.
Don’t cry, wail, gnash your teeth, and rant about “personal liberty” while denying the most crucial liberty –the right to live- to millions, for no reason other than the fact that they were brought into existence.
That’s my opinion. It’s not a declaration of superior intelligence, but a declaration of conviction.
WHO DO YOU OWN?
If "liberty advocates" cannot recognize the first and most fundamental right, that is, the right to life, then I want nothing to do with them. If "liberty" involves the "freedom" to kill a baby in the womb, then stick it where the sun doesn't shine, because it's no better than the "freedom" brought by the Khmer Rouge and the Holodomor.
I am not in the least bit sorry for those who may be offended by this post.
I am sorry for the dismembered babies deposited in the trash like so many tumors and gangrenous limbs.
I didn't agree with his continual support of OWS either, though I know you took a less hardline view, I believe yours was in hope of possible kindred souls in the foreseen Second Late Unpleasantness.:)
ReplyDeleteTalk to a mother that "lived through" (sic) a miscarriage or stillbirth and tell me what you learn about life's beginning.
ReplyDeleteDenninger ... you are treading on thin ice. Best back off.
Without life, there are no issues. None. It's the only issue.
ReplyDeleteAP,
ReplyDeleteI was sickened by Denninger callous disregard for human life, why he makes sense at other times and then digresses to this drivel about babies and ows, I don't pretend to understand him and as far as I am concerned, he lost a lot of credibility
Cederq
Kevin Cederquist
A society that refuses to vigilantly guard the most vulnerable in its midst is doomed.
ReplyDeleteWell... Denninger just dropped several notches in my estimation of his character. Just goes to show that no one has a total lock on "truth". I will continue to read his disertations on economic issues, but his social commentary is pure horse sh*t in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, here is my opinion on abortion:
http://gunrights4usall.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-position-on-abortion.html
Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI'd only change one small thing to make the meaning even clearer:
The word, "kill" when referring to a baby in the womb should be "murder" in the context of the piece, especially because the baby truly is innocent.
And that's something I'm adamant about on this subject.
Abortion is murder, which is unjustified killing. End of story.
KD, as you say, is right on many, but wrong on a few subjects. As we all have the potential to be. On this issue, however, "the right to life", there can be no compromise.
Again, great post!
I think it's important to recognize the biases and presuppositions that inform our various contributions to the conversation, so we can take and use the profitable information and insight provided by each node in the network. We come from many points on the ideological landscape - libertarians of various persuasions, constitutional conservatives, minarchists, and so on. Some of us, like me, have been on a path between different points in that spectrum. There will always be disagreements about the exact nature of liberty and the proper role of government. These disagreements will be contentious, because assaults on liberty necessarily begin at the edges. Some will see necessary functions of government where others will see another step down "the road to serfdom".
ReplyDeleteI don't always agree with Karl, but the places where I don't agree with him don't invalidate his insights and expertise in other areas. I'm a geek with a business degree, so I value his experience with and insights into the worlds of technology and finance. His steady drum-beat regarding the Rule of Law (or the lack thereof) in this country and the need to pay for things (in business, and government, and private life) using what we've already earned rather than with what we hope to earn later is timely and proper, regardless of his views on OWS or the Tea Party.
Personally, I believe abortion should be illegal because I believe it to be murder. I can see the sense of making sure all such laws are local, rather than national, as was recently discussed over at DumpDC. I also believe that people own themselves and only themselves - having neither the right to compel others to behave a certain way nor the duty to submit to such compulsion - with the understanding that according to Scripture, (a) God owns all believers, body and soul (and indeed all creation) and (b) a husband and a wife have some kind of reciprocal ownership of each other. I guess that's one of the consequences of "And the two shall become one flesh." These, however, are theological, metaphysical questions, outside the scope of temporal law. Legally, I own me and only me. You own you and only you.
AP, my response was too long for your filter.
ReplyDeleteHere is my complete answer, if you're interested:
http://reading-liberty.blogspot.com/2012/01/life-and-self-ownership-or-boundaries.html
Great post, AP. And excellent comments. I really can add nothing but to say I am in agreement on the value of life, and the duty to protect it. Shy Wolf covered it, short and sweet: "Without life, there are no issues. None. It's the only issue."
ReplyDeleteHow do you plan on enforcing this, AP?
ReplyDeleteI mean, that's what it comes down to, right? Who is going to pay, and how much?
Isn't this like the war on some drugs?
Advocate-
ReplyDeleteLemme guess. Is this where you try to tell me that there is no legitimate role for government?
Protecting property and life are legitimate roles. Two of the very, very few.
Don't you even try to say that choosing to kill a baby is a "freedom", much like choosing to put chemicals in one's own body. One affects YOUR body, one affects a baby's.
Don't try to tell me its the same. That's just plain dishonest.
How would I enforce it, if I were king? Is this the part where you tell me arresting murderers is not a legitimate function of government?
I am not an anarchist. Sorry. There are legitimate functions of government. Arresting, convicting, and executing people who kill kids is one of them.
That is, unless the local community court / militia handles it first.
But......
...I'm not king, and infanticide is ingrained as a right in our sick, perverted nation. Were I a tribal warlord, local ...encouragement... would prevent or ruthlessly punish the root causes of infanticide in real time.
Infanticide is only the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of several deeper issue.
It is still, nevertheless, infanticide.
"One affects YOUR body, one affects a baby's."
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like we have a difference of opinion on when one becomes two.
I can see that you won't accept that and will get all in my face about that point - but understanding that point is good enough for me.
I can agree to disagree. I can also understand that from your POV that's unacceptable.
AP,
ReplyDeleteI am torn here. Denninger is a erudite economic commentator. Some of his social commentary (corruption on Wall St and in DC)are spot on, but this screed of his about abortion smacks of justification.
Let me clarify a few things. I am old school in many of my beliefs, some are based on my own morals and some on personal experience. I have a personal relationship with my savior, but don't cast pearls before swine. ( I don't preach).
Now having said that let me expound upon my views concerning taking a life. I support the Death Penalty (gasp) for certain heinous crimes. (Murder, rape, pedophilia, to name a few)I have no moral qualms about taking the life of anyone who would deprive me or my tribe of liberty or life.
Now, my dilemma...I have thought long and hard about this and even had some heated debates about it.
I can not say that I would FORCE a woman or girl who has been raped, or a victim of incest to carry that child for nine months and then give it up for adoption. (if she so chose) Some women would carry and keep the child regardless. (better humans than I).
But in these cases or where the mother has a high chance of death if carrying to term, my own morals would compel me to allow them a choice.
And so, while I hold life sacred, I can see and understand a woman's desire not to be forced to give birth to a child she considers the result of an abomination.
Great comments and debate on this one, and for the record I DO NOT condone ANY abortions as a means of Birth control.(ie: instead of condoms or implants etc)
This is one of the very few issues
where I just am not sure that absolutism is the answer. Ideas?
I see this:
ReplyDelete"And so, while I hold life sacred, I can see and understand a woman's desire not to be forced to give birth to a child she considers the result of an abomination."
as a valid concern, but I think it is approaching the issue from the wrong angle.
The focus here is on the woman, when the fact is that the baby now is, and I think that life must be, in all cases, held as superior to a person's feelings.
The baby is not at fault.
The woman's pain is a direct result of her violator's actions, not of the baby's life.
You say "not to be forced to give birth", but I think it should be seen from the baby's end, that is, from the viewpoint of a prospective murder victim.
Can you see yourself saying the following?:
"I can understand why a baby would want to be ripped to pieces inside of the sanctuary of the womb, for an act he or she had no part of."
Infanticide is not primarily a "woman's" issue, it is first and foremost a "baby" issue.
All questions should be looked at and answered from the baby's perspective.
I, for one, am completely pro-choice.
The child has every right to choose.
I believe that the baby, once he/she turns of the legal age of consent (18), should be provided with the means to defend his/her life.
At that point, the mother should be completely free to choose to try to kill the child.
The child should be free to choose to allow the mother to kill him/her, or to defend his/her self.
"This is one of the very few issues where I just am not sure that absolutism is the answer."
It is not absolutism to declare that a baby's life is more important than a mother/victim's emotions. That's what you're saying, in a nutshell.
If it is, then I'm an absolutist in this case.
What you are saying is that in order to spare a rape victim from potential emotional pain, the baby should/could be murdered.
This creates another victim, and at the same time robs the mother/adoptive parents of the joy that child could potentially bring.
Should mothers be allowed to kill two year-olds if they prove too much for them to handle mentally and emotionally?
Not killing the baby is not "forcing" a mother to carry him/her to term. Thinking so is backwards.
You are preventing her from murdering the baby.
It is not "forcing" a mugger to "allow" a potential victim to live.
That is preposterous logic, but somehow we think it reasonable to approach a baby's life in such a twisted manner.
AP
Excellent post and replies. I quite agree with you on the abortion issue. Your reasoning is very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteI also think you are spot on with your declaration that we need to realize our founding fathers were human and had many failings. The more I read about the constitution, the people who brought it about, and their lives, I marvel that our country ever came into being.
I have no problem with the so-called "morning after pill" but when you're dismembering something obiously human - something capable of feeling pain and recoiling in a fruitless, doomed attempt to escape - that is *MURDER*!
ReplyDeleteExplain THIS to me:
If SHE wants it dead, they'll dismember it and suck its remains into a sink.
If she wants it ALIVE, and someone else (drunk driver, abusive other, etc.) does something to cause its death, they are (in most states) guilty of MURDER!
So the difference between a non-event and life-in-prison is what a woman wants at the moment?!
INSANITY!
AP
ReplyDelete"Infanticide is not primarily a "woman's" issue, it is first and foremost a "baby" issue.
All questions should be looked at and answered from the baby's perspective."
Thank you, that helps.
"All questions should be looked at and answered from the baby's perspective."
ReplyDeleteI have no dog in this fight, but I am very interested in what people think and why.
You've argued several times lately that the Moral High Ground is obliterated by perspective, so why do you believe that it can be created by the perspective of a baby?
My personal answer to that particular question would be "undeniable innocence" or something like that. Is that yours? If so, then I'd ask why the undeniable innocence of an adult (aside from any abortion situation) doesn't likewise create the Moral High Ground.
Or do you have another reason? Just curious, that's all. As I've intimated, my dog in the fight is that there IS a Moral High Ground.
Jim-
ReplyDeleteIn a war, there is no clean choice. You kill, you destroy, you do bad things, whether you're judged "right" or "wrong" by the future.
That's my point as far as MHG goes. If you have to get soiled, end it quickly. Getting out of the mire alive, ASAP, is the only "moral" course to take.
Infanticide is different by far. There is a "clean" choice...
Don't kill the freaking baby.
Kill, or no kill. Murder, or don't murder. Clean, or dirty.
Jim- can you truly tell me that any one side, in any war, ever, has possessed undeniable innocence once fighting has begun?
In a war worth fighting, losing means slavery or death. You must win. As Lee was purported to once have said (paraphrased), "We are adrift in a sea of blood, and I want it to end."
In a war, Jim, no one is clean. No one involved has innocence, as war is all death, pain, and killing. No matter how "right" or "moral" one believes his actions to be.
AP
Thanks for that. I especially like the focus that war is necessarily about a "calculus of loss," figuring what is less worse. That's why I'm always focusing on creation rather than destruction. The math is simple: 1>0.
ReplyDeleteStill, there's little choice when the other guy has declared war, and that's clearly happened. There's no denying this reality any more. I guess I'll just keep pounding that there really is a Moral High Ground, and that it was each of us all along.
It's no secret here...once the goal is known, winning it becomes all there is.
I will not argue the morality of abortion or infanticide, nor do my feelings one way or the other really matter. What doen matter is that it is a question of morality.
ReplyDeleteAbortion, like alcohol consumption, drug use, promiscuity and suicide are moral issues, and the government must not get involved in moral issues. The government is responsible for the maintinance and enforcement of the ethical code (i.e. laws and constitution) not the moral code. Every attempt by governments to regulate morality has ended in disaster.
Ethics are the rules that allow us to live with each other. Morals are the rules that allow you to live with yourself.
KD is a POS. He is a petty tyrant when it comes to censoring people's opinions on his lame web site. I've known him for years, and he just keeps getting worse. He is no patriot, rest assured. He is a statist, Big Government Lapdog.
ReplyDelete"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
ReplyDelete--Thomas Jefferson
Should we then conclude that from this, man should be able to injure women without government interference? Or women injuring women?
It is the duty of such a government to restrain men (humans) from injuring one another.
It is the duty of a government to do what it can to prevent abortion.
It's not about "women's rights", it's about the baby, and the mortal injury that would be done to it by its own mother and her paid assassin. Nothing Else.