Unfortunately you miss a fundamental source of fear: the fear that they will go to hell for eternity if they say no to the bishop. Because of this even if all persecution from the outside ceased immediately institutionalized abuse would still continue.

Also, just legalizing polygamy is unlikely to stop persecution by itself. The historical persecution of polygamists goes far deeper than just bigamy laws. Even non-polygamist mainstream Mormons have found significant anti-Mormon sentiments from others, and add in isolation and “funny clothes” and the like and some people just seem to think that’s some sort of invitation to bully, oppress and condemn.

I do think legalizing polygamy would seriously help by forcing law enforcement and helping the media differentiate between illegal (but not too harmful) polygamy that isn’t really that distinguishable from adultery, having lots of baby mamas or the various other more socially acceptable familial forms and illegal (and quite harmful) abuse of men, women and children.

Comment by V.S. — May 7, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

Mother Nature supports monogamy, not polygamy. Polygamy is anti-social. There are not even two women for every one man. Therefore, if polygamy were legalized, who would collect all the extra “wives”? (In reality, concubines.) Rich men would collect concubines for their harems, but poor men would have to do without a sexual partner with whom to raise a family. That would make for social unrest. And concubines and harems are part and parcel of backward Third-World countries where women are 2nd-class citizens. They do not belong in any First-World country that claims men and women are equal.

Comment by Jancis Andrews — May 8, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

Jancis, I give you an assignment;
write 100 times: “That which is not forbidden is not compulsory.”
If this is confusing, ask yourself whether adultery should be legal or illegal.

Oh and having one alpha males who mates with all the females in his band and prevents other males from mating with them shows up repeatedly in the great apes, including our species. From an evolutionary standpoint it is the natural, or primitive condition of human societies. That’s not to say I advocate for people to set up their families that way - most women do not want to live in a polygynous group. Nor do most men want to live in a polyandrous family. Thus the fraction of polygamous families would be quite small if it were legalized and not stigmatized.

Edited to fix numerous spelling errors :(

Comment by tarran — May 8, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

minor correction: “That which is not forbidden is not necessarily compulsory.”

Comment by Jeff Molby — May 8, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

One other thought: I find it interesting that when one is talking about polygamy, most people assume that one is really talking about polygyny: one man paired with multiple women.

We could just as easily be talking about polyandry which is one woman paired with many men, which is rare but not unheard of.

It is kind of strange how everyone makes a simmilar assumption about something that Jancis claims is not a part of human nature.

Comment by tarran — May 8, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Very interesting article. I especially liked the quote given from the woman who grew up in a polygamous family. If only more people would hear those kinds of stories instead of the ones where woman and children are being abused!

As for what Jancis said about men out numbering women, statistically women out number men world wide. Women are about 51% of the world’s population, men are 49%. In polygynous societies less than 5% of married men have multiple wives, and even then they usually only have two. Large harems are not very common.

As for being anti-social, what’s wrong with two or more women falling in love with a man who is able to provide for his family? Often that is the case with Christian polygyny (not what the FLDS practice). It is not to gain status or to become more holy. It’s about adults being in love.

Again, good article. I enjoyed reading it!

Comment by WSG — May 8, 2008 @ 11:44 pm

Jancis, “Mother Nature” overwhelmingly supports polygyny over monogamy. More than 90% of all human cultures have been polygamous throughout history, and of the 1200 or so documented in modern times, more than 80% are polygamous.

As for equality, is it EQUAL to tell adult women that they cannot have the one man they choose? What about their rights?

Anyway, the fact is that men and women aren’t equal–they’re different. Equal means the same. Physically and mentally, men and women are very different. Value-wise, men and women are equal, of course, but to say that polygamy makes them unequal when it is by CHOICE, is to ignore the fundamental differences between the genders in spite of science and Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Comment by John_for_Christ — May 8, 2008 @ 11:52 pm

I am glad that many of you can look so dispassionately upon polygamy, but something is missing in your legalistic arguments:

the suffering of the women and children

I am from a fifth generation mormon pioneer family. The first polygamist in my family joined the mormon church in 1835.

I heard as a child many personal stories from
grandparents of how they suffered and their
mothers suffered in polygamy.

I have read many pioneer journals and histories.
There is no way that polygamy or polygny or polyandry or plural marriage or multiple wives should be legalized or decriminalized.

It would be bad social and bad political policy.
SLAVERY and POLYGAMY (POLYGNY,POLYANDRY,ETC.) ARE FOREVER LINKED.

There is no equality in SLAVERY/POLYGAMY/BIGAMY.

Comment by ann mere — May 10, 2008 @ 11:29 am

ann - with respect, the problem is not with polygamy itself, but with a religious belief that in effect treats women as slaves of their fathers or husbands. By making women’s salvation dependent on their husband’s salvation and prohibiting divorce, the Mormon church effectively made women chattel of men.

Even if the Mormon church had been monogamous, you would still have the tales of misery.

If a person chooses to be in a relationship that isn’t monogamous, it is none of our business. I have no business stopping my neighbor from marrying anyone for any reason.

If a man tries to compel a woman to marry him by force, then it is a crime regardless of how many (or how few) wives he already has. Prosecute that crime, rather than outlawing all sorts of victimless behavior in hopes that somehow among all the innocent people who are harmed a few criminals will be thwarted.

Comment by tarran — May 10, 2008 @ 6:07 pm

I agree with what Tarran says. Polygamy is not the root of the problem of woman and children being abused. Woman and children have been, are being, and, unfortunately, will be abused with or without polygamy.

I am a woman who is not opposed to polygyny, but will not stand for abuse. I will not allow my husband to harm either myself or our children, but I wouldn’t mind if he had a second wife. The key here is that it’s not for gain on a religious level for us. It is simply a choice of a different life style than most others. He is not abusive, I am not forced to stay home, I don’t have to wear funny clothes or go to church everyday. It’s not about our religion (we’re not Mormon). When you turn that, or anything really, into a symbol of religious status, thats when you end up with problems.

Marriage should be between the people who are entering into that union and no one else. It should be for reasons of love, not force or gain.

Comment by WSG — May 11, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

As far as nature being supportive of monogamy but not polygyny, I offer the following:
There would be enough women to go around because there’s enough men who find men attractive it leaves a surplus of women. I suspect this will increase hugely as we reach the end times.
IF, and I say if for a reason, polygyny was legalized, women would be able to choose a good man who’s already married and avoid the ‘losers’ who just sit on their butts. The only thing women would find oppressive is they wouldn’t be able to rule the roost nearly as easily as in a monogamy only society. But if they love their man, are treated well as they should be, it’s not oppressive at all. Our government is way more oppressive than marriage…. Then again, considering the state of monogamy, maybe that is more oppressive….
Plenty of men stay single for whatever reason, if we can only have monogamy, that leaves many women with poor options. Statistically more women wish to marry than men, seems to be built into them. So actually this creates a situation that is anti-social because women fight amongst themselves for rights to the man they control. Ever see a cat-fight between women competing for a man? It’s just not pretty, and is certainly not an indication of an evolving society.

So, this makes me wonder which society is more progressive, one that allows multiple wives where a woman isn’t abandoned for another, or one that recognises a responsible man can love more than only one wife?

Comment by KGM — May 16, 2008 @ 3:11 am

KGM

What about the women who don’t want a man? This morning my wife was commenting that men tend to be slovenly pigs- that pigs were in fact preferable as they didn’t put on pretentious airs (Someone forgot to clean up after capping a marathon coding session with a late night snack). ;)

I also notice that you talked about legalizing polygyny but not polyandry… Out of curiosity, why?

Comment by tarran — May 16, 2008 @ 5:26 am

Maybe he’d draw more crowds if he didn’t look so darn scary

Comment by Doug Mataconis — September 6, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

He’d make a pleasant town councilman :)

Comment by Segal — September 6, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

It’s probably more that Brownback’s from a small media area (Kansas), he’s a political opportunist with a fondness for latching onto empty hot-button issues that play in the press (he’s the Republican equivalent of John Edwards), and he’s not even that popular in his own state (mainly because he’s missed more votes than any other Senator except the guy who had a stroke, because of his presidential bid). Sam Brownback is unpopular because Sam Brownback sucks, not because the Republican party is getting less religious.

Comment by UCrawford — September 6, 2007 @ 3:56 pm

And if he became my town councilman, I’d probably move. Or run for town council to get rid of him.

Comment by UCrawford — September 6, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

Kinda makes you want to chuckle doesn’t it? It’s sad when even your paid family members don’t want to show up and support you.

Comment by Aimee — September 6, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

Wait maybe that is his paid family members in the audience and he is directing his speech to the only person in the audience that isn’t from the campaign.

He along with Hunter and Tancredo will soon be out of the picture once the funding numbers come in at the end of September.

Comment by TerryP — September 7, 2007 @ 1:25 pm

[…] this post confirmed what I suspected for long time. While the issue of abortion in general, and late term […]

Pingback by It looks obvious » They are not life lover — May 1, 2007 @ 8:46 am

Abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances. In that context, it’s just the agreed upon definition of words. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there is a right to life for anybody, and certainly not one that can trump the basic concept of property rights, and I certainly would not support an incompetent regime to enforce whatever ‘rights’ they dream up.

The question then is can American ‘pro-choicers’ allow political liberty for the communities who reject the practice all-together. Can “pro-lifers” do the same? Or is it just a phony debate designed to go on forever?

I think the whole logic of “save the life of the mother” is from the same playbook that ushered in the era of pre-emptive war in this country.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 9:06 am

“Abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances. In that context, it’s just the agreed upon definition of words. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there is a right to life for anybody,”

How are these two statements compatible? They appear to be diametrically opposed.

Comment by David Z — May 1, 2007 @ 9:44 am

They appear to be diametrically opposed

How so? Murder, the calculated taking of another innocent human life, is a fact of earthly life, so it would appear, based on definitions of words, that there is no ‘right to life.’ If one lived in a community that recognized a tradition of life, it would be logical to find the practice outlawed, but that doesn’t mean that there is a universal “right to life.”

China and India seem to get by with a tradition of infanticide, so we should be able to be adults about it and no hide behind claims to ‘abstract rights.’

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 10:33 am

I disagree, abortion is homicide, not necessarily murder.

In some cases, homicide is justified. Murder however is not.

Sometimes, abortion can be justified. Even though abortion is always morally abhorrent, it can be done to prevent an equal or greater wrong, and therefore it is sometimes justified. Just as war is morally abhorrent, war can be justified, to prevent greater wrong.

Abortion as retroactive birth control is ALWAYS morally wrong, and there is never any justification for such. Abortion to save the life of the mother MAY be morally justified; though still abhorrent.

The real problem is, who gets to decide what is justified, and what is not; and how do they decide.

(I should note, I am catholic, but I felt this way even when I was not)

Comment by Chris — May 1, 2007 @ 2:37 pm

Oh and one more thing

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, are babies not created equally? Are mothers?

Comment by Chris — May 1, 2007 @ 2:57 pm

So Charles, are you suggesting that the government should force a woman to have a baby even if it would put her life at risk? Why can’t you answer my original question?

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 1, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

I don’t support governments doing anything; where do you get that from?

If you were to ask me whom would I admire more, the woman who gave up her life to bring a new one into this world, or the one who killed her baby so she could eek out a few more years, which one do you think I would choose? And you?

You asked a question in leftist dialect to others speaking in leftist dialects, so I merely spoke as a rightist. There is no ‘right to life.’ I fully respect our cultural tradition of property rights, but I also respect political liberty and small-scale rule, the old City-State model. If the City-State wants laissez-faire abortion services, so be it. If the City-State doesn’t want abortionists setting up shop, that is fine too.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

Abortion as retroactive birth control is ALWAYS morally wrong

Chris,

What would you say if the fetus was severely deformed or had extreme brain damage? What if the fetus could survive but with no chance of a ‘normal’ life? If this child was born, but could not be properly cared for by its parents, what should be come of it? Should the state be responsible for its care?

Comment by David T — May 1, 2007 @ 3:22 pm

Chris;

Point taken, though your example exists more as a theoretical example than practical. I am all for families getting the final say on the issue, which often comes down to the woman in our degraded states.

So long as I am not paying for it (i.e. subsidizing homicide) I don’t have enough time in the day to worry about it.

The culture in America, unlike say in the Netherlands, is still very much against killing post-utero undesirables, but that too could change in the years to come.

I do not support in anyway shape or form, opening the door for the State to come in as final arbiter, claiming some right they dreamed up. The State plays the role of vampire, just waiting to be invited in.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

“How so? Murder, the calculated taking of another innocent human life, is a fact of earthly life, so it would appear, based on definitions of words, that there is no ‘right to life.’”

I’m afraid I misunderstood. Or maybe I didn’t. Do you conclude that there is no such thing as a right to life? because if you argue that the woman is obligated to bear full-term, then you are affirming the foetal right to life, while simultaneously denying the mother’s.

Furthermore, your claim that etymology can somehow supersede the notion of rights is patently retarded. The concept of “murder” (i.e., the unjustified taking of another’s life) can only exist within a framework that affirms a “right” to life.

Comment by David Z — May 1, 2007 @ 3:39 pm

David T.;

What if you discover after the child is born, say 3 months old, that there are a host of expensive problems, and no chance of a normal life for the child, shouldn’t you have a right to kill the baby–in the most pleasant way possible of course?

The abortion apologist crowd is using arbitrary political maneuvering when they imply something magical happens right after birth when the Rights Fairies arrives, I suppose.

If nothing else, the Marquis de Sade, a big fan of abortion as a means of population control, was honest. It’s murder, but so what?

We too, shall be as the gods.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

David Z.;

The concept of “murder” (i.e., the unjustified taking of another’s life) can only exist within a framework that affirms a “right” to life.

Um, no, I am quite sure Cain and Able pre-date any “right to life” phraseology, and the Ten Commandments mention nothing about ‘rights’ only what folks can’t do. Try again?

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 3:45 pm

Post-partum is different, and we have treated it as such for years.

To answer your question, Charles, death of the infant after birth is indeed murder or at the very least, homicide.

It is not a maneuver to see pre- and post-delivery as distinct. If a mother give her child alcohol or drugs after birth, it is abuse. If she does it while she is pregnant, she’s irresponsible, but not charged with a crime. If a mother doesn’t eat and makes poor nutritional choices for the fetus, we do not insert an IV into her arm and force her to take the right vitamins. If she maintains this behavior with her child after birth, then she is guilty of neglect. We make a legal distinction if the fetus has been born and have for several hundred years.

I do not see it as murder if the fetus is aborted at 8 hours, 8 days, 8 weeks, or 8 months, although an abortion that late in the process is unsettling to me. However, I’m not about to contend that we should eliminate the practice and return to the days of the coathanger.

Comment by David T — May 1, 2007 @ 3:56 pm

David T;

Because you said so? Because the law say so? I don’t know if I buy that.

So basically, rights are arbitrary ‘philosopher stones” and as a word, have no real meaning, then indeed, that was my point. Hiding behind legalisms, and this collective ‘we’ is in the same league.

But your red herring refence to the bad old days of coathangers, the Reefer Madness device of the abortion crowd. What if all the person could afford was a back-alley coat hanger job?

By your logic, wouldn’t society have an obligation to pay for her decent abortion? Or would a hospital job be only open to the rich who could afford to fly to another country…? Lets put it to a vote?

Comment by C Bowen — May 1, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

As a mother, the thought of being TOLD I would have to give up my life for the life of an unborn baby, which would mean leaving my other 3 kids behind and my husband with now 4 kids is appauling. Imagine if it was your wife or your daughter or your sister that was going through a life threatening pregnancy. Would you just let her die so that you would be a single father since after all “it’s not the baby’s fault”, would that help you sleep at night? News Flash: in most cases it isn’t the mother’s fault either that their life is in jeopardy. This post isn’t even about whether or not abortion is murder or should be legal, it’s about people thinking it is more than okay to FORCE a mother to continue with a pregnancy that will kill her. How in the hell is that fair to her, and the rest of her family? Just imagine the guilt it would put on that poor kid, don’t you think there would be some resentment from the father/rest of the family? Yes, it would be very sad to lose a baby, but without the mother still around, there are no second tries (if they received the all clear), there is no adopting to complete their family. This is just absolutely disgusting, I can’t even get everything I want to say out because it is so infuriating that there are people out there with this kind of thinking.

Comment by Aimee — May 1, 2007 @ 6:06 pm

“Cain and Able (sic) pre-date any “right to life” phraseology, and the Ten Commandments mention nothing about ‘rights’ only what folks can’t do. Try again?”

The concept of murder cannot arise without a pre-existing notion that men own their respective lives. To posit anything to the contrary is complete unlogic, since you’d be attempting to define a term without a necessary component of the definition. You would argue that murder is the unjust taking of one’s life, yet concurrently state that there is no such thing as a right to life. Well, if there was no recognized right to life (however incomplete or imperfect) no judgment can be passed as to whether the life-taking action was justified.

Let’s see…

If Theft to be defined as the unjust taking of another’s property, viz., taking or otherwise disposing of, or exercising control over property that belongs to someone else. Since “theft” is defined in terms of property rights, we can conclude that theft cannot exist without a right to property.

Now, replace “theft” with “murder” and “property” with “life.”

Comment by David Z — May 1, 2007 @ 9:46 pm

Abortion as retroactive birth control is ALWAYS morally wrong, and there is never any justification for such.
Vasectomies are morally right and only should be undone for the purpose of reproduction.

Comment by VRB — May 1, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

Wow, a lot has been written since I last commented. I think I need to clarify a few points…

One of the philosophies all of us contributors at “The Liberty Papers” share is that every individual has three basic rights from which all other rights are derived: life, liberty, and property. These are natural rights that all humans have. Unfortunately, not every government recognizes these rights. The only way these rights can legitimately be taken away is if an individual violates these same rights of another person. For example: If person A takes person B’s life, liberty, or property, justice demands that person A’s life*, liberty, or property be taken away in a fashion which “fits” the crime.

The above philosophy has nothing to do with the 10 commandments, Cain & Able, or any other commonly believed myths. This philosophy is derived from Classical Liberal thought (for lack of a better term) by such philosophers as John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these basic rights of life, liberty, and property. Citizens of a government which violates these rights have a moral obligation to overthrow such a government.

Okay, now that everyone knows where I am coming from, let me get back into the discussion. This post wasn’t as much about abortion as it was about the idea that government should place one individual’s rights above another’s. For discussion purposes, let’s take the subject of abortion off the table for a moment (don’t worry, I’ll come back). In what other circumstance could the government force an individual to sacrifice his or her life to save the life of another? I cannot think of one.

Now back to the abortion issue. Most of the debate on the abortion issue is the question of when a person truly becomes a person complete with the three basic rights I have just described. On one extreme, we have those who believe that the second the sperm splashes the egg at conception, a life has been created and thus already has these rights. On the other extreme, there are those who believe a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy up until the due date. I am not going to get into where exactly I am on this spectrum (I will say I am not on either extreme); but regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the government still has no right to tell a woman that she must sacrifice her life for her baby.

On a less philosophical level, as a concerned father of a young girl I find Sen. Sam Brownback’s disregard for the rights of pregnant women appalling. I simply cannot support anyone whose personal believes could become policies which could effect her if she were ever raped or had a pregnancy with complications which would threaten her life.

The government simply cannot tell anyone to sacrifice his or her life to save the life of another.

*There is plenty of room for argument about whether or not the state or anyone else should take a person’s right to life away even if the person is guilty of taking someone else’s life. This is a question I continue to wrestle with because there are very good arguments on both sides of the issue of the death penalty.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 1, 2007 @ 11:46 pm

Hmmmmm, straw men, and false equivalence; ahh the salty taste of logical fallacies.

Comment by Chris — May 2, 2007 @ 12:00 am

Chris, whose straw men are you referring to? I know I have seen a few in these comments but did you identify any in my comments? I know I got a little off track but I think the readers need to know where I’m comming from.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 2, 2007 @ 12:33 am

David Z.;

The concept of murder cannot arise without a pre-existing notion that men own their respective lives.

Just plain silly. One can derive a theory on property rights based on a declaration that murder is wrong, but then “Property rights” would exist at best in the metaphysical realm. Property rights are something that must exist in order for a society to survive, that is observable. But even the Commies in the USSR had property rights; the Party hacks had them all of course, but they had them nonetheless.

Well, if there was no recognized right to life (however incomplete or imperfect) no judgment can be passed as to whether the life-taking action was justified.

You contradict yourself here (as I read it anyway), but that is close to my point and by all means it extends to the young baby as the Netherlands, complete in the thralls of “liberalism” have discovered. If Rights are Imperfect, the State will volunteer to be the arbiter, and as we know, the State has a vested interest in keeping us at each other’s throats to justify it’s existence.

Stephen is agnostic on when life begins and yet it would seem central to his (and others) philosophy who hold of the Holy Trinity of Rights as the basis of his philosophy.

It’s okay to be agnostic on such issues, it’s hiding from it that causes problems. I’m just speaking as an ancap, but it would seem the real issue with ‘abortion’ is that when its politicized in a State the size of the US of A, no truth can be derived, but we can accommodate one another best by not enforcing “rights” at the point of a gun, either way.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 6:17 am

Charles, “One can derive a theory on property rights based on a declaration that murder is wrong”

From whence comes this “declaration” if not based on some axiomatic first principle? You can’t define a term in itself - and you can’t merely “declare” things to be universals.

But I don’t want to get into an argument off-topic, it seems we’re very much in agreement, especially your last paragraph or so.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 8:44 am

In what other circumstance could the government force an individual to sacrifice his or her life to save the life of another? I cannot think of one.

The case of a suspected terrorist attack using aircraft as missiles would be one. It is rumored that the military could be ordered to shoot down a commercial airliner to avoid an attack on a fixed target (skyscraper, government building, etc.) This seems to be utilitarian: the greatest good/least harm for the greatest number of people.

It seems like “abort the child to save the life of the mother” is a false choice. I have a cousin who had a c-section before full term because of complications of the pregnancy that threatened the life of the mother and child. They both doing fine now. “Kill the unborn” is presented as the only alternative in this hypothetical. In the real world, aren’t there usually more possibilities?

A federal law that preempts state and community law on abortion (and many other subjects) is the worst: the federal government has more power than granted under the Constitution and the states are unable to respond to the needs/wishes of their citizens. Taking a family decision and making it a federal edict is not liberty.

Comment by Mark T — May 2, 2007 @ 8:53 am

I encourage whoever believes that fatal pregnancies cannot happen to read this, all of it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160007

This is in response to Bill O’Reilly’s claim in October of 2006:

On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly falsely claimed that it “is never the case” that a “mother’s life is in danger” during pregnancy because “you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things.”

That is about as ignorant as one can get, next to Sam Brownback that is.

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 9:16 am

David Z.

I was illustrating the historic basis for deriving natural rights. The more Right you go on the ideolgical spectrum, the fewer abstractions one will allow in reasoned debate. I am comfortable with a few abstractions (putting me to the Left of paleocons, but still safely in the Right on the libertarian scale), that I believe came from the combined historical experience of the English and Celtic peoples, their unique history and experience, and fully unleashed in the American civilization (which does predate the founding fathers whose agenda is not necesarily in line with ‘libertarian’ themes.)

I think the key here is delineating between “political langauge” and philosophical pursuits in the realm of linguistics and philosophy. My purpose was demonstrating that libertarians (or whomever who leads with ‘rights’) hold an apolitical philosophy, but when they try to turn it into a politic (or ideology) they often encourage the State, always looking for a way in.

As to Thomas Jefferson’s unfortunate phraseology, borrowed from a couple of Continental sources, in a secession document no less, our rulers interprate (and reinforce in public schools etc) as they please so we are, afterall ruled by men and we become subject to their rule. As the check on these men is alleged to be the ‘vote’, we have been witness to the failure of democracy which seems to push forward the worst sorts of characters, including Mr.Brownback (but excluding Dr. Paul and maybe a handful of others.)

Comment by C Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 9:30 am

“I was illustrating the historic basis for deriving natural rights”

Historically, we came up with a concept of “property” because “theft” pre-existed it? We came up with a concept known as the “right to life” because we were appalled by “murder?” No. We were appalled by murder because we recognized at some basal level, a right to life - whether it was made explicitly clear is beside the point. We didn’t simply wake up one day, declare that murder is wrong, and then go about creating a right to life in light of that arbitrary decree. Think about what you’re saying - unless I’m totally missing you here - is that you can develop propositions based on a conclusion, which is syllogistically backwards.

If this is in fact how things developed, i.e., backwards, then it is purely by accident that we arrived at a set of rights which are in any manner consistent with those derived from first principles. But still further, we’ve evolved past the point of using the incorrect logic of our predecessors - even if it leads to the same conclusion. We have much better arguments now than pointing to Hammurabi’s code, or Moses’ tablets.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 10:00 am

Who is this ‘we’ you speak of? I have contributed zero in original philosophy, a mere consumer am I.

Rights logic, promoted in the 18th Century, has led to these nation-states that commit acts of mass murder on levels that are hard to fathom.

My guess is that as the homo sapien started farming, he needed a place to store crops and a system of protecting the crops while not pissing off the proletariat who might slit his throat in his sleep. (The story of Cain and Able do a decent job of getting the point across, but that’s a story about murder.)

There was property before that, but the need for a system of law, natural law, seems obvious and in the natural interest of survival. These are things, traits, that are observed, not ‘discovered.’ Systems and custom around property would then develop, becoming ever more complex, perhaps with the introduction of trade. I am sure there are some primitive examples even today, bushmen tribes, that have no real property, but even that I doubt as hunting and gathering seems to require boundries.

It would be millenia before folks would start with real political philosophical works, like Aristotle, but his interest is not so much ‘property rights’ but defending the ‘republic’ from tyranny–which should be our chief concern.

Rights “logic”, while an often poetic expression of the Anglo-Celt world, can be used by folks like Brownback, or the leftist equivalent that wants laissez-faire infanticide, so it doesn’t appear that strong to me.

Virtue seems to be the key.

Comment by C Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 10:16 am

“My guess is that as the homo sapien started farming…

Systems and custom around property would then develop…”

So clearly, the concept of property even on a primitive level preceded the concept of theft - or at the very least is corequisite. Thank you, that wasn’t so hard.

Rights “logic”, while an often poetic expression of the Anglo-Celt world, can be used by folks like Brownback, or the leftist equivalent that wants laissez-faire infanticide, so it doesn’t appear that strong to me.

And if he’s wrong (and he probably is) you ought to be able to beat him at that game, because I don’t think you’re denying logic or reason - which are required to find the virtue you speak of. I have a terribly limited knowledge of the ancients, but from what I recall, reason was of paramount importance in identifying morally good actions, virtuous deeds, etc.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 11:32 am

Steven, I wasn’t referring to your comments; just the direction of some of the commenters.

Comment by Chris — May 2, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

That is the ‘trick’ of Leviathan. Logic dictates that if the definition of homicide is the taking of another innocent human life, A=A, then abortion is homicide (and granted there are degrees.)

We should all be dubious of folks and their ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ who cannot nail that one down.

This does not mean that there is a “right to life” that does not logically follow.

Once you start down the path of ‘rights’ its fairly hard to control and philosophers have been dreaming up rights ever since.

Abortion, as a culture war issue, is best dealt with via historic federalism (which means overturning at least in practice R v W), otherwise it will continue to divide already very thin ranks.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 1:08 pm

Logic dictates that if the definition of homicide is the taking of another innocent human life, A=A, then abortion is homicide (and granted there are degrees.)

How would you characterize miscarriages? Are they also homicide?

Comment by David T — May 2, 2007 @ 1:24 pm

David T.;

Please, are you joking? You have discredited your other posts. In the off chance, you are asking in good faith, miscarriages are obviously not homicide.

A better angle, if you want to test me, is: the Birth Control pill which can sometimes act as an abortifacient and cause the newly fertilized egg to be simply flushed down the water closet, is that murder?

I get squeamish myself, fallen creature am I, thinking about the consequences of what we do in this world. I could plead agnostic on the question, “I don’t know if it’s murder” and go against logic, or seek a legalism like “lack of malice aforethought “, but ignorance, while comforting in this world, might not be of much use in the next. All the more reason to leave such issues to the family not governments and their indoctrination centers.

Property rights seem the only logical way to satisfactorily deal with such issues.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

Aimee,
Amazing isn’t it? How easily womens lives can be toyed with by men as though we were mere bargaining chips! This is what comes from male centered religions, women are at the bottom of the food chain! Statements like this: “If you were to ask me whom would I admire more, the woman who gave up her life to bring a new one into this world, or the one who killed her baby so she could eek out a few more years, which one do you think I would choose?”
Eek out a few more years, this is how he respects a young woman who may have other children, her job is simply to produce and she should not want for more! With this type of male in the US why worry about the Taliban? Women today must pay very close attention all across the globe less they become lower than an animal by the male worshipping religious cults.

Comment by Madmimm — May 2, 2007 @ 2:26 pm

Not everything is a challenge or test, Charles.

I was honestly asking if you percieved miscarriage as homicide - because, after all, it is taking of an innocent life, however accidental or unintended. You are resolute - and absolute - in your points to the degree that an unintended death is not much different than a deliberate one.

All the more reason to leave such issues to the family not governments and their indoctrination centers
Yep, and that’s why it should be allowed for people to make choices for themselves, and not have it banned. That’s why I don’t buy into Brownback’s thinking either.

Comment by David T — May 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

David T;

If I have to explain the difference between homicide/murder, and accidental/natural death, then we are scarcely speaking the same language, apparently. I had, incorrectly, assumed I was speaking to someone familiar with the English language beyond mere utilitarian concerns.

You are resolute - and absolute - in your points to the degree that an unintended death is not much different than a deliberate one.

Absurd conclusion. Logic, try it, or don’t, no worries.

Comment by Charles Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 2:56 pm

You don’t have to explain any differences between between intentional or not, nor do you have to assume that someone is unfamiliar with the language.

What you were asked is thus: “Would you characterize miscarriages as homicide”? I had no idea it was inflammatory - I saw it as “no, i don’t. The End.” or “Yes, I do, the end.” Despite your perceptions, there really wasn’t more to it than that or else I would have elucidated my thoughts.

Comment by David T — May 2, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

Stephen, I’m not Charlie but I’ll answer your question:

So Charles, are you suggesting that the government should force a woman to have a baby even if it would put her life at risk?

I’m pro-life but I cannot support forcing a woman to have a baby if it will kill her. What is the purpose of forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a baby that will in all likely hood kill them both?

Comment by Kevin — May 2, 2007 @ 4:09 pm

Madmimm, THANKYOU for speaking up with me. Some of the men in here have lost sight of the whole point of the post and are going off on their own tangent. I think they are afraid to answer the questions I keep putting out there for them. Granted it wasn’t directed at any one person, I put it out there for any of them.

“Eek out a few more years”… I agree with you Madmimm, those 6 words were like nails down a chalkboard. I bet he would be singing a different tune if the tables were turned, how arrogant.

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

Kevin, you said, “What is the purpose of forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a baby that will in all likely hood kill them both”?

Exactly! It’s nice to see that even someone who is pro-life has a level head on them and can see that even this is extreme and wrong.

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

YOO HOO….Attention all males posting here!! Are you serious?? Not one of you will ever be in the position that you would need an abortion to save your life, you will never become pregnant due to rape or incest, so excuse me for asking but where do you get off even thinking your input matters? I am serious guys….I really want to know, lets talk!

Comment by Madmimm — May 2, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

Hey Charles, we need to be on the same page here, which is starting from the proposition that there is a right to self-ownership, you are still working backwards from the conclusion about murder.

Start with a negative right to life, such that no one is obligated morally to sustain the life of another. That is, if you are starving, I am not violating any moral principle in neglecting to give you my food. Your right to life doesn’t obligate anyone to either provide that life, or to sustain it. Because this implies that another’s rights are superior to yours, and conveniently violates any notion of universality of rights.

So, the fetus doesn’t have any right to live for 40 weeks as a parasite in the mother, if she chooses not to allow it.

This does not imply that the virtuous thing to do is to abort children, to be sure, in most circumstances it is virtuous to bear the child, and our race’s continued existence is evidence of this. But certainly we can conceive of instances where virtue and reason dictate otherwise.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm

Madmimm,

If you have to resort to sexist claims that someone’s opinion doesn’t matter simply because of their gender, then you’ve already lost the argument. This is a question that all humans have a vested interest in, not just the subset of humans most affected. If for no other reason, Male “input matters” because the child represents a fiduciary responsibility. A responsibility that cannot be opted out of under current law.

For the record, I support the right of a woman to abort a fetus up until viability as outlined in both Roe and Casey. As for exceptions, it seems to me that denying exception for the case of rape and incest is, at least, logically coherent with the pro-life argument. I cannot, however, come up with any argument for why one life should be state mandated to put itself at risk for another. An exception for health of the mother should always be made.

Comment by Bret — May 2, 2007 @ 5:19 pm

David Z.,

Let me stipulate despite the hysterics, I don’t support the government doing anything or making anyone do anything; I am an anarchist for goodness sake.

As far as rational argument goes, without the taint of ethics, there is a decent analogy of the tresspasser, and if the tresspasser threatens the life of the host, it can be met with proporotional force. Advances in medical science will make several points obsolete in that approach as proportional response will become early birth, rather than killing the unborn— if they haven’t already.

As to your version of right to life, that sounds like some interesting nuance, and I have consumed it before from Rothbard, and if not that compelling in an aesthetical realm, there is nothing for me to really argue, if that is what you mean by ‘right to life’ I, generally speaking agree. I don’t think that is what Sam Brownback means, which was closer to my point.

Perhaps I should state again, I am dubious of anyone who leads with ‘rights logic.’

It seems odd to make so many accomidations with pro-aborts, when republican virtue would seem the better tactical play leaving me to wonder what the real issue is, and I think it swings back to folks who can’t call A, A.

Comment by C Bowen — May 2, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

Madmimm,
I am surprised that you actually got a response.

I do feel that males shouldn’t control the argument too. It not as if they can’t have any input, but by and large the legal opinions are formed by men, who really do not have a stake in it. How could they even be the decision makers in such events? This last ruling was lame at best and hardly qualifies as legal argument. Before anyone post the opinion, I have read it, and I don’t need a history lesson.

Comment by VRB — May 2, 2007 @ 6:14 pm

VRB and Madmimm, I’m sure there are some women out there who do feel the same way as Brownback. I just don’t happen to be one of them, call me selfish, but I want to see the kids I do have grow up. The men posting in here are very much entitled to their opinions, I just wish they would stay on topic.
To everyone else: I have put a link out there stating that eptopic pregnancies are very real and very dangerous. Technology can only get us so far. There will always be some cases out there that medical science can’t help without some sort of controversial intervention.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160007

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 6:48 pm

VRB,

It not as if they can’t have any input, but by and large the legal opinions are formed by men, who really do not have a stake in it. How could they even be the decision makers in such events?

I have one question. Should women who are no longer young enough to have children take part in forming opinions? I would say that someone like former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are like the men you reference. Neither of these two women are even physically capable of needing an abortion. So, how exactly are they different from men? Do they have a stake simply because at one time they could have had an abortion? (I should add, one never knows if a male decision maker is paying child support for a child he didn’t want since men can still have children late in life. And, until a father is no longer financially responsible for an unwanted child, he will always have a stake.)

By the way, to be fair, I am that kind of pro-choice no one ever hears about, the choice about whether to have unportected sex or not. I also don’t excuse men who conceive unwanted children just as I don’t excuse women for it, even it may seem that way by my argument above. Personal responsibility knows no gender. And to imply that men need to be held responsible, but woman shouldn’t, is the exact kind of gender inequality feminists were supposed to be fighting against.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 6:50 pm

Aimee,

I am not arguing that there are situations where the woman’s life is in danger, but are the numbers in your link accurate? Does an ectopic pregnancy really happen “one in every 40 to 100 pregnancies” as it says? That seems really high. That implies that there is a 1-2% chance a pregnancy could kill a woman. While that may have been true in the past when medicine wasn’t as modern, but not today. Why would any woman decide for even a planned pregnancy with those odds?

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 6:57 pm

VRB,

Somehow I don’t you are the arbiter for what qualifies as legal argument. While I personally do not agree with the *outcome* of the ruling I can’t say that the latest ruling was legally or logically inconsistent. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The logic in your “male’s shouldn’t be decision makers” argument is deeply flawed. In fact, some might argue that males, having no stake in the outcome, are in a position to be better objective judges.

Comment by Bret — May 2, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

trumpetbob15,

Yes it is high, but so are so many other things that can go wrong, just like the chances of having a baby with downs syndrome the older the woman is. If women considered every little thing that can go wrong, our population would not be as big as it is. Those stats were from 2006, that isn’t that far in the past.

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 7:07 pm

Aimee,

I know a lot can go wrong, but even Down’s Syndrome is listed as 1 in 1000 (According to this source.) That is why I was so shocked that that one kind of issue during a pregnancy could occur that much more frequently and yet, I never see any non-abortion advocates talking about it. (By this I mean those who are neither advocating for nor against abortion, but simply to inform the public about a female health risk.)

I should also say, I don’t necessarily trust the Media Matters group. Looking at the site, I found one heading labeled “Help Stop Conservative Misinformation” but could not find a similar “Help Stop Liberal Misinformation” heading, leading me to think maybe there is a bias in the numbers. I did find another site that listed the rate at a little under 100 cases out of 100,000 in a study of women in Europe. I can’t get my HTML to work, so this probably won’t link correctly, but here is the address.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/9/2014

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

trumpetbob and bret,
I can think and express my opinions like the rest of you. I am sexist when it comes to some issues and for the record vasectomies can be tested and they are more full proof than female birth control. Zero sperm is measurable.

Comment by VRB — May 2, 2007 @ 8:10 pm

trumpetbob15,
The Media Matters group got that information from the Mayo Clinic though (which had links to it within the article), they didn’t just pull it out of the air. Like I said before, if women and men dwelled on all of the things that can go wrong in a pregnancy, we would talk ourselves out of ever getting pregnant and be paranoid. I wish I had an answer as to why ectopic pregnancies aren’t talked about. I had a miscarriage called spontanious abortion, it happens quite often, but it did not stop myself or my husband from wanting to try again. We did and now have a beautiful daughter that is almost 2. If people gave into their fears, nothing would get accomplished.

VRB, what does vasectomies have to do with this?

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 8:23 pm

VRB,

I hope I didn’t imply you couldn’t argue your opinion. However, I should also be allowed to argue mine. And your statement that you are “sexist when it comes to some issues,” how exactly does that help debate? I know I am not perfect in saying things, and in many cases, I don’t comment because of that, but arguing from a sexist position is just as bad as arguing from a racist position. Neither do their arguments justice. While I am pro-life as I stated, the way to influence my beliefs is not to belittle my gender. Abstinance is still 100% completely pregnancy free, without resorting to surgery. And for those who choose against abstinance, then there is a responsibility on both parts to avoid pregnancy, if that is the goal. And to state a ruling is lame opens the can of worms of belief equality that you may not intend. While you may believe that ruling was “lame,” I would argue the ruling in Roe v. Wade was not only “lame” as it went against the beliefs of people in a large number of states. Now, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, please correct me.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 8:33 pm

So, are you surprised I took the women’s side VRB? See, I’m not quite as much of the male chauvinist you think I am :)

trumpetbob, normally I am very skeptical of Media Matters as well. They do not hide the fact they are leftist ideologues. But on this issue, they did at least site their sources (I tend to think Mayo Clinic is fairly reliable).

Also, what Bill O’reilly said about this issue was completley absurd. Who knows how often such pregnancies occur but however rare they are, they do occur.

Sen. Brownback was asked directly if he thought abortion was justified to save the life of the mother. He said “no”. I find this to be a very extreme position even among pro-lifers.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 2, 2007 @ 9:03 pm

Aimee and Stephen,

I did look up the link on the Mayo Clinic website as well as more research on the source I found and I figured out the discrepency. An ectopic pregnancy does occur about 2% of the time with the source I found discussing how many times it leads to fatalities (about 0.1%). I still wonder, even though I know people don’t want to know, why this isn’t more widely known? And to put it into some context, how often does secondhand smoke lead to cancer? No need to actually answer that one.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

Bret & trumpetbob15,
First let me address you Bret, I have not lost the arguement at all….for NO ONE has a MORE vested interest in HER life than “SHE” comprende? The unequated arrogance of the male who thinks his butt is on the line or his “vested” interests out weighs that of the one bearing the physical circumstances is a fine example of male superiority complex. So Brett go ahead and call me sexist if that is what you label someone who knows she is perfectly capable of of handling issues pertaining to HER health and HER life, and that Brett is where I do not believe a males input matters one tiny bit. Further I believe men should be able to opt out with a legal contract that states they want nothing to do with the pregnancy and hereby wave any rights to the child, even if they find God or whatever later in life the contract holds and they stay out. And Brett if I seem harsh it’s because I am, nothing trips my trigger more than men treating women like mindless twits, poor little fainting flowers with heads bouncing in the breeze hasn’t the brains to determine what is best for her health or life HUH!PLEASE! I am sure you would be equally offended if the shoe were on the other foot.
Trumpbetbob…womens bodies health and life is the question, so thus women are the answer. I hope you understand that. Also if you believe whole heartedly in “protected sex” check prolife websites they are anti birth control, and now we have pharmacists who can deny you your perscriptions, isn’t that just wonderful?

Comment by Madmimm — May 2, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

Madmimm,

I have had difficulty knowing how to address your idea that “women are the answer,” while still trying to have a respectful debate. Ignoring men, and shunting them aside since they aren’t the ones “bearing the physical circumstances,” ignores the positive ideas men can suggest. And to suggest one must be involved in, or affected by, a situation before commenting is the worst kind of policy. Then again, maybe it might help young people get out of the Social Security mess since retirees would no longer be able to stop the discussion. Is that a slightly absurd counterexample? Yes. But if a policy is to be worthwhile, it must at least pass some sort of use in wide-ranging situations. Saying women are the answer ignores the many male researchers who have tried to save women’s lives during pregnancy, and ultimately disrespects those men and their contributions.

However, I will also say this. There are many restaurants that choose not to allow people to smoke, or restaurants that choose not to serve meat, or banks that choose not to offer a mortgage to a college student without a cosigner. I have no problem with any of them and I don’t have a problem with a pharmacist who won’t deal in contraceptives. Then again, there are more than enough posts on this site on freedom of where to shop so I will point you to some of those.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

Madmimm,

Your logic is flawed in regards to only women needing to have an opinion on the matter. Your argument is not only sexist, but also short-sighted, and limited in scope.

1. Not all women are pro-choice: This means that if the decision were put to a national vote of only women, whether of childbearing age or not, there may not be a clearcut victory for either side. Opinions range on both sides, both sexes, all ages. I know plenty of women who are pro-choice, and many who are pro-life.

2. This issue, at its core, affects both sexes: Why? Because the issue, at the core, is about an individuals rights over their own body, health, and life… and under which circumstances an individual may be forced to give that life for another.

The CORE issue is simple. Do you believe that all people have a right to decide their own health issues, or not? Is it ever OK to force someone to sacrifice their health, or their life, for another…even if it is a small chance?

Do people have the “right to die?” Do people have the right to refuse medication? Do people have the right to make choices about their own health, if it affects the health of another? Cojoined twins, abortions, or even family who are perfectly matched donors?

There was a recent article in the UK about a sister who refused to give a bone marrow transplant to her brother after previously agreeing to it. Some people said she should be forced to do so. After all, her procedure would merely be painful and have less than 1 percent chance of her dying… He would die without the transplant.

Such is one example of the issue.

So yes, I feel that a man has as much of right to an opinion on the subject as a woman. I admit, a man will not have a baby, but at it’s root, the issue is the same core issue.

It’s also good to remember that women were not drafted and forced to lay down their lives in the military. How many men died because of that?

In no case should one person be forced to lay down their life. One should never be forced into harms way…if one chooses to be in harms way, that is another matter.

Comment by Ted — May 2, 2007 @ 10:27 pm

Charles,

Let me stipulate despite the hysterics, I don’t support the government doing anything or making anyone do anything; I am an anarchist for goodness sake…if that is what you mean by ‘right to life’ I, generally speaking agree. I don’t think that is what Sam Brownback means, which was closer to my point.

We are on the same page here - I hoist my own black flag.

It seems odd to make so many accomidations with pro-aborts.

Most importantly, my position is decidedly not “pro-abort.” If anything, you could describe it as pro-choice - which merely means that insofar as the state is concerned, it shall make no laws prohibiting the practice. I do have serious misgivings ethically about the current state of abortion, which generally speaking is the result of a purposeful taking - if & when technology & medical science advance to a point that a living fetus may be extracted, I’d be alot more comfortable with the issue.

Additionally, if I’ve given any indication that I’m in favor of politicians telling people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, I apologize - it was most certainly not my intention.

Comment by David Z — May 2, 2007 @ 10:28 pm

Aimee,
Because the issue is really not about the saving of the mother. The issue is about murder, murder as birth control, and stating that murder has occurred when there is no clear consensus as to when life begins. I am not talking about a living fetus as the Supreme Court defines it. I am speaking of life, such as the end of life we define as death, even when the body continues to live. In this instance we let the decisions to be personal, within the family or the persons legal proxy to decide. No so with women in that unclear area of belief, we have drawn the lines, and many want to take that decision away. To force us by any means to bear a child under any circumstance for their absolution. They have defined how we must feel, how we would react to thorough knowledge of the procedures, how we cannot make informed decisions. They act like women are transformed into demons and become willingly lustful tramps when pregnant.

And I say, since we are so totally irresponsible as women, then men must be morally responsible for us and ensure there are never any unwanted pregnancies and make sure every baby brought into this world is provided for until they are an adult. Having vasectomies is the first step, the next would be to help men know when no means no, and thirdly to make sure his family who has life will continue.

Comment by VRB — May 2, 2007 @ 10:51 pm

trumpetbob,

I’ll put in my two cents about the pharmacist refusing to give birthcontrol/morning after pills. I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that one. The pharmacist is there to do a job which is fill prescriptions for the public. If it goes against their beliefs, then their options are, A. change professions, or B. they need to go and work in a Catholic hospital pharmacy where this would never be an issue. The individual should not have the option to withhold medication from someone who needs it/wants it. I know, someone is going to say, “But they can just go to another pharmacy.” Why should they have to? Plus if you are from a small town like my husband is, the hours for their pharmacy are very short and closed on the weekends. You have to drive 45+ miles to get to the nearest place that will be open on the weekend (we found this out after our son had an ATV accident and needed pain medication). If that is the case, then that pharmacy that backs up their pharmacist should have to cover gas for the person having to go to another facility just to get a prescription. Maybe the gas thing is a bit much, but it is a bit much to ask a paying customer to take their business elsewhere just because it goes against the beliefs of the pharmacist.
Sorry, my 2 cents turned into more like a quarter. Anyway, back to the original topic…

Comment by Aimee — May 2, 2007 @ 10:54 pm

Trumpetbob,
Are you suggesting that Brownbacks solution of “let the broad die, not the babies fault” is one of them male positive solutions? I am not refering to men who actually think women are their equals, I am refering to men who buy into the male phallic worship and believe that women are their gods little transportation system and nothing more. Think they don’t exist? Read the bible and read lots and lots of history. That is where women are key that they may actually value their lives, standing up for themselves and shunning mythological nonsense. For example right here in this discussion a statement was made that more respect would be given a woman who died in child birth than one who chose to eek out another few years of her apparently useless life, nice huh? There are men like this all over the planet and plenty of them, Brownback is one example.
Let me explain something I consider fairly simple for you, if I were laying in a hospital with MY life hanging in the balance it would not occur to me to consider the mere opinion nor observation of men less my physician be one when it pertains to my life or health, the rest matter not.
The idea of pharmicist being allowed to deny anyone a perscription based on their mythological beliefs is nothing more than religious sabatoge aimed directly at women at this point in time. Unless you can claim the people entering this profession were unaware that their job would require them to distribute contraceptives, unless you can verify that claim sabatoge is their aim and nothing more.
If you choose to believe that men like Brownback are displaying positive ideas and that he has a womans best best interest in mind than nothing I post will ever be of understanding to you. I stand by my conviction, those who are directly faced with the circumstances most especially in this scenario are the ones who should have the voice and I contend that those who are not directly affected can have sinister affects especially where mythological beliefs come into play, and I truely believe that the majority of the latter are male.

As for the draft issue I have never been in favor.

Comment by Madmimm — May 3, 2007 @ 9:33 am

Madmimm,
Yes, there are some people out there who are crazy. But then again, they can be found on both sides, the religious nuts who believe men are the best and the feminist nuts who believe women are the best. Now, maybe Brownbeck is looking at this issue too narrowly; fine, don’t vote for him just as I won’t vote for Hillary for the beliefs she holds in the direct opposite. But the mere fact that Brownbeck is male and Hillary is female does not enter the equation. Brownbeck is arguing about the child and protecting the child. Perhaps he is old fashioned to think of a woman giving her life for a child; he certainly never said “let the broad die, not the babies fault” and to put those words in his mouth is much worse than his actual answer for it obscures his actual position and reasoning.

Now, I will add this about pharmacists. Must they be religious to not want to fill certain prescriptions? Then again, shouldn’t their religious beliefs be respected? And to be fair, if someone didn’t want to fill a Viagra or some other male prescription, I wouldn’t have a problem with that either.

And Aimee,
I actually come from a village, not even big enough to be called a “town.” We had two pharmacies so it can be done. Just because a pharmacy doesn’t promote itself as “Catholic,” they still should have the option to not fill certain things, as I said above, as long as it is clearly stated, just like every other example I mentioned above. (I tried to keep my penny’s worth reply short.)

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am

trumpetbob,

Viagra, heart medication, insulin, penicillin, I don’t care what it is, they are there to do a job. What other reason than a religious one would stop them from filling birth control or viagra?

Yes, it can be done, but that doesn’t mean that it should. Why should the customer be FORCED to look elsewhere to get a prescription filled? When it comes to the morning after pill, you are limited to how much time you have to take the first one. If a pharmacist has a problem filling ANY prescription, then that is not the field for them to go into. And no, their religious beliefs should not be respected, IT IS THEIR JOB!!!

[…]”Brownback clearly stated that there should be absolu