Guns and the President

Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama?

Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama? We'll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess—including killing—in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.

We all know that the sheet anchor of our liberties is the Declaration of Independence. The president himself quoted Thomas Jefferson's most famous line in his inaugural address earlier this week. He recognized that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The president would no doubt like to modify the word "created" to read "shall be maintained," since his presidency seems dedicated to keeping us equal, not in terms of equality of rights and opportunity but of outcome. He has dedicated himself to using the coercive power of the federal government to take from those who have and give to those who don't. Under the Constitution, charity is a decision for individuals to make, not the government.

This forced egalitarianism was never the purpose of government in America. When the people in the original 13 states gave up some of their personal liberties to create their state governments so they could perform the services that governments in the West do, and when the states themselves gave up some of their liberties to create the federal government of limited powers to address the issues of nationhood, they never authorized government to impose taxes to transfer wealth to those who lack it or need it.

This may sound harsh, but there is simply no authority in the Constitution for the feds to tax Americans or to borrow money in their names to rebuild private homes in New Orleans or at the Jersey Shore. And there is no moral authority for that, either. If folks want to give money to those whose properties were damaged by natural disasters and lacked adequate insurance coverage, they are free to do so, but nowhere does government have the authority to compel us to do so.

This shows how far we have come from the Constitution the Founders gave us. They "constituted" a government of limited powers, and they did so because they wanted the government to protect our freedoms, since they understood that personal responsibility and freedom—not government handouts—are the soundest routes to prosperity. Hence, they limited the government because they knew the lessons of history. And those lessons informed them that often it is the government itself that is the greatest threat to personal freedom.

One hundred years ago, during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson turned the concept of limited government on its head. They argued that the Constitution could be disregarded because the federal government possesses unlimited powers to address the people's needs. Barack Obama is their ideological heir. As their heir, he is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, but he is also the head of one of the two dominant political parties.

That political party has dedicated itself to making certain killing legal. The Democrats have continually celebrated the abominable decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, issued 40 years ago this week. They have championed abortion for the past 40 years. They have assaulted the greatest and most fundamental of human rights: the right to live. In doing so, they have succeeded in causing the government to permit the killing of more than 50 million American babies in their mothers' wombs in the past 40 years—for the sake of convenience and sexual activity without consequence, in a manner that is antiseptic and lawful. And no one hears the babies' cries of pain or anguish.

The president himself has more directly killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones. These drones have been dispatched by him alone—not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war. At least two of these murdered children were Americans. But since the cameras were kept away, since all of this takes place 10,000 miles from America, and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children's cries of pain and anguish.

One of the reasons we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is to enable us to resist a drone sent to the path of our children by shooting it down, no matter who sent it. But you can't stop a drone with a BB gun. Hence the need for serious firepower in the hands of ordinary Americans—to give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don't pause. The president wants to use Lanza's horrific slaughter of 20 babies in a public school in Connecticut with a stolen gun as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of all law-abiding gun-owning Americans, any one of whom would have stopped Lanza in a heartbeat with a lawful gun, before the police could, had they been in that school.

Now back to our pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama? Does a president with blood on his hands have any moral standing to infringe upon the natural right to self-defense of those whose hands are clean? Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?

The answers are obvious.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mediterranean Death Cult||

    you can't stop a drone with a BB gun.

    But you might do it with a potato cannon.

  • Tim||

    Use packed tator tots to get a better spread.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The kind of people who vote for the other guys are the ones who own guns. It's pretty natural for someone with an us-versus-them mindset to want to dick with that. I don't know if it even enters his mind that the rednecks might one day use guns to resist the state.

  • Generic Stranger||

    A few of them WANT it to happen, because they think the state will grind the other guys into dust, and then they won't have to worry about any opposition.

    It doesn't occur to them that they may not prevail in such a fight, or that it might get really nasty before the end.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Hey, as long as children are being killed, I don't care who does it.

    Was it Mao that said "I don't care what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice?". Or did he execute the guy that said that? I always get it mixed up. In any case:

    Cats: Thumbs Up
    Killing Kids: Jury is still out

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Also, Obama killed those children to keep YOU safe, Judge.

    Lanza killed those children because he is a bitter clinger.

  • sasob||

    I thought Lanza killed those children because he was developmentally stunted little nutball.

  • some guy||

    Yeah, his Mom was the bitter clinger.

  • some guy||

    This article would benefit from the removal of the paragraph on abortion. Permitting abortion is not the same as drone-murdering little kids in Pakistan. Children don't have the same rights as adults and zygotes don't have the same rights as children. Also, abortion involves a woman exercising her right to control what happens to her body, which is the most basic right there is. The judge might have gotten away with limiting his argument to third-trimester abortions, but including all abortions weakens his argument and makes it easier for an Obamaphile to ignore the rest of the article. And this is an article that Obamaphiles need to seriously consider!

  • WTF||

    And this is an article that Obamaphiles need to seriously consider!

    Oh, that's rich! Like the Obamaphiles have the capability to seriously consider anything that contradicts their world view!

  • some guy||

    One can hope for change...

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "Children don't have the same rights as adults and zygotes don't have the same rights as children."

    I can understand the logic used toward a zygote but children require far more 'special' protection than adults which is a natural right derived from their natural vulnerability. Just because a child isn't accorded special privileges (to drive and procreate, for example) by the elitist state doesn't mean that children have less access to human rights.

    Matter of fact, the rationality that children are underlings and have few or zero rights often leads to parental/adult abuse. Hell, I was raised by parents subservient to a religious cult who considered children mere sterile functionaries with no rights existing only to be crude behavioral sculpturing projects for totalitarian parents.

    Probably the same mindset that drives the military, actually.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Totally agree. Guns are a different issue. Confounding the two weakens the argument.

  • LifeStrategies||

    The issue is actually your right to protect yourself however you see fit.

    Why change the focus to abortion or protecting children or a zygote? It simply confounds the two issues. Totally unnecessarily. Makes me wonder if there a problem with knowing how to think. See http://www.lifestrategies.net/.....y-to-think

  • Jordan||

    His argument is perfectly consistent if he believes life begins at conception. And science hasn't settled that question, nor does libertarianism provide any guidance on it. That being said, I don't believe life begins at conception, and I think it does weaken his argument just because it's impossible for someone to rail against abortion without sounding like a crank.

  • DJK||

    Hate to bring this up yet again, but the science is settled. Life unequivocally begins at conception. And exactly at conception. Prior to that, sperm and eggs lack one of the hallmarks of the scientific definition of life - they can't replicate. As soon as conception happens, there is an organism which is performing all of the characteristics necessary of life.

    Note, however, that I said an "organism which", not an "organism who". This is an important distinction. Who gives a shit if something is living? We attach very little importance to that, evidenced by our killing lower forms of life (insects, animals, etc) all the time.

    The real question is when a "which" becomes a "who". That is, when it has moral agency of a degree which allows us to say "that is a human imbued with certain rights". This is the tough issue; when does a living being have the rights we recognize as attaching to moral agents? And a compelling libertarian, natural rights case can be made for both the pro-life and pro-choice arguments.

  • DJK||

    I mean, I agree with what I think is the Judge's basic idea - that the President shouldn't be restricting weapons because the greater threat is from government rather than crazies. I'm only guessing that that was his thesis. The article was pretty tortuous and rambling.

    But even though I was in agreement with that premise, he managed to piss me off based on this abortion issue which he seems to believe is an open and closed issue. It's not. And if it made me, someone sympathetic to his claims, want to disregard every other word, why should it affect people who disagree wholeheartedly?

    Another article from the Judge which completely misses the mark. Why do conservatives idolize this moron?

  • Incredulous||

    Yes, the science IS settled. Life does begin at conception. In this instance, HUMAN life begins at conception. This is not a matter of debate. I think the question is what rights does this human life have and when? I believe this is what you're suggesting when you say "when a which becomes a who." In addition, when do these rights supercede any right of the mother to end the pregnancy, her right to control her body? There is plenty of gray here. For those who aren't religious, non-sentient life has no rights since it cannot form thought or feel pain. It might as well be a plant. But this only works until later in pregnancy when the living organism's nervous system develops. Even the non-religious view would seem to suggest that fetuses have rights later in pregnancy. Then the argument shifts to who's rights are more important, the fetus' right to life or the mother right to choose whether to be pregnant? Unfortunately, zealots on both sides don't see gray - they only see the mother's or the fetus' rights as absolute.

  • DJK||

    Yep. That was exactly what I meant. But I disagree with your statement that it's cut and dry for those who aren't religious. I am not religious and I have serious qualms with saying that a zygote/embryo/fetus "might as well be a plant". I also have qualms with saying that it has rights that supersede the mothers'. This is the gray area that you identify. It sometimes makes me question a rights-based approach to things.

    But most people don't take a rights-based approach to things at all. So there is no gray area for them.

  • ||

    If you concede that life begins at conception and say that the fetus has no rights, then you do not accept the natural rights philosophy. If it is a given that a fetus is a human life, than the mother has no "right" to end that life any more than I have a right to end another's life.
    http://www.l4l.org/library/dogmarat.html

  • DJK||

    I disagree wholeheartedly. A right to life does not come about simply because something is alive. See the example of a fly - living but has no right to life. It doesn't even come about as a result of being human. For instance, I have the right to respond with deadly force to a threat to my life. In this instance, I have no moral obligation not to end my attacker's life. In some sense, then, he has no right to life.

    So I don't see how the simplistic view that "human life" begins at conception has any bearing on the issue.

    This is a case that is very hard for natural rights philosophy to deal with. It arises as a result of conflict of rights, like most of the issues in the natural rights philosophy.

    But I very much subscribe to natural rights philosophy, even if I don't take the position you're urging.

  • DJK||

    Moreover, I find the article you've linked to very unconvincing. For instance, the article asks:

    'Even if the capacity of an individual (what he can do now) is different from his potential (what he can do later), how does "latent capacity" differ from "potential"?'

    There are plenty of resolutions. Perhaps "latent capacity" requires that one previously have used this capacity and is just presently incapable of doing so. In which case it definitely differs from "potential".

    The author claims that pro-choice libertarians haven't given adequate definitions or explained why we should believe their definitions. Then he goes and does the exact same thing he accuses his opponents of. Hardly convincing.

  • ||

    The arguments against Walter Block's and Rothbard's assertion that woman have a "right" to abortion on the grounds of property rights is more what I was getting at in posting the article. To me, capacity and potential are irrelevent.

  • DJK||

    Fair enough. I'll try reading the thing again. After the bullshit first paragraph, I basically dismissed the author immediately. But maybe he has interesting things to say about Rothbard and Block's assessment.

  • ||

    "For instance, I have the right to respond with deadly force to a threat to my life. In this instance, I have no moral obligation not to end my attacker's life. In some sense, then, he has no right to life."

    I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, and in instances where the fetus presents a deadly threat to the mother's life, then she has no moral obligation not to end the fetus's life. However, in most instances, this is not the proper analogy. The mother is the one who has put the child in a vulnerable position. If I take you aboard my airplane, unless you are physically assaulting me and threating my life, I don't have the right to push you off the plane on the grounds that you're on my property.

  • DJK||

    I merely invoked that analogy to show that "being alive and being human" is not a sufficient condition for having the whole slew of negative rights we generally regard people as having. I'm not sure it's a necessary condition for that matter either (animals probably have some negative rights).

  • DJK||

    Here's an example of a human with a right to life who doesn't have ALL of the rights we generally accord to people. A 7 year old child does not have the right to contract and thus, in some sense, does not have the right of self-determination. I know of very few people who believe in natural rights who would say he should have that right. It's patently absurd to believe that most children, who have not reached developmental maturity, could possibly act in their own interest in contract. So we deny them that particular right as a function of their development.

  • DJK||

    So we've seen two cases where natural rights don't follow the naive description you've given. One in which the right to life doesn't necessarily apply to all living humans. And one in which they develop over time. Is it so hard to believe that there might be a case in which both are true? That is, that the right to life grows in as a function of a fetus' development?

    I think that there is such a case and that it arises when you require that a human being have a certain extra something before it can be considered to have a right to life. And describing when this certain something arises is then the key point.

    I say "certain something" because it's clear to me that "being alive and human" won't do it but I don't have any perfect candidates.

  • Caleb||

    To your first example: Okay, but the natural right to life is a rule with a single exception. And that exception is that if you are trying to take away someone else's right to life, you are forfeiting your own. So a fetus who is alive, human, and is not trying to take away someone else's right to life should still have the natural right to life themselves.

    To your second: I agree, the child does not have the full right to self-determination until they are considered developed. But the natural right to life is the most basic of freedoms and should be considered a guarantee for anyone who is alive, human, and not trying to take someone else's right to life.

    And finally, I don't think we should be basing humanity and the right to life based off of some key development in the pregnancy process. For example if you consider it to be the ability to feel pain, that means you are excluding anyone who has congenital analgesia to be not human. Or if you consider it to be the ability to form rational thought, then infants and people with extreme mental retardation are not humans.

  • db||

    Judge Napolitano's major failure, in nearly every one of his articles, is his insistence on dragging religion and other unrelated topics into the discussion. He could get a lot more liberalish heads nodding if he stopped doing that. Why he insists on including these things I have no idea. If he really believes they are essential to his argument, he has lost already the minds who outright reject the religious premises. He could easily start with natural rights emanating from our humanity, not from our humanity because we are derived from God.

  • DJK||

    Because he's not a libertarian with a consistent worldview...he's a Fox New talking head who's far more conservative than anything.

  • Bob Straub||

    My view on rights is derived from Ayn Rand. Rights are freedoms that are necessary for our existence as rational, intelligent beings. Rather than a gift from a creator, they are innate. But they need to be discovered, which is the work of philosophers. In my opinion, all valid rights are negative: to be secured, they require no action from, nor should they be transgressed by, any other entity.
    Yes, the Judge should leave out the religious parts of his arguments. He should ask himself why anyone who doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian deity should be bound by any laws or moral precepts that trace back to that deity. There has to be a different, secular foundation.

  • DJK||

    I'm not sure that negative rights goes far enough. I agree with you that it works when rights are not being violated. But let's not kid ourselves - rights get violated all the time. I would argue that some positive rights arise as a result of the violation of negative rights.

    I talk about this example down the comments. Say that I had put a person in the position of needing something from me in order to survive. Maybe I'm the only doctor in town and I shot them in the chest. I would say that I'm morally obligated to give the person what they need to survive as a result of my actions. A positive right created out of a negative right.

    Of course, this raises some slippery slope issues. Still, I don't think someone who only believes in negative rights can ignore these types of thought experiments.

  • d_remington||

    " Say that I had put a person in the position of needing something from me in order to survive. Maybe I'm the only doctor in town and I shot them in the chest."

    Uh, I dare say the negative rights of the guy you shot in the chest got invoked far earlier than any positive right here...

  • DJK||

    Sure. You may say you that all you want. It's pretty clearly that, by my violation of a negative right, a positive right comes about. And from that acknowledgement, there's a slippery slope of possibilities that we libertarians may not want to acknowledge. It could be argued that the negative rights of African-Americans are frequently violated. They therefore have a positive right to redress. What should be incorporated into that redress? I could see compelling cases for current positive rights being turned into an argument based on redress for previous violations of negative rights. And that could lead to all kinds of slippery slope conclusions you may not wish to entertain.

    It's just an interesting thought.

  • DJK||

    I agree with your comment. The negative right violation happened prior to the positive right arising. That will always be the cases in a natural rights philosophy. One possible outcome is to say that, since positive rights only come about when negative rights are violated, no one has any positive rights.

    I think that's ridiculous. For me, ethics is normative. If it doesn't tell us how to react in the real world, it's useless. And in the real world, people have their (negative) rights violated. So we can't ignore positive rights.

    I could see a left libertarian framing favored positive rights in terms of negative rights violations, in a manner similar to the one I laid out above. It's a troubling conclusion for this philosophy.

  • Incredulous||

    I agree that it's best to leave abortion out of the article - it's an entirely different issue that drone-murdering little kids.

    But... I disagree with your statement "abortion involves a woman exercising her right to control what happens to her body, which is the most basic right there is." Abortion ALSO involves exercising control over what happens to SOMEONE ELSE's body, that of the fetus. In this instance, exercising control means DESTROYING/KILLING that other person's body, that other life. The right to life is even more basic than full control over one's body, although it may be a continuum. Failure to acknowledge this basic and undebatable reality drives extreme pro-abortion views and makes it impossible to have rational debate on the issue.

  • DJK||

    "Abortion ALSO involves exercising control over what happens to SOMEONE ELSE's body".

    So does killing a fly. That fly certainly has a body. Yet we don't have express moral outrage over exercising control over the fly's body. Clearly, having a body does not mean one has rights. There's some other quality that a being has to have in order to have certain rights. What quality is that? And when does it develop? Until you answer that question, there's no basic and unarguable reality that you speak of.

  • DJK||

    Note that I'm not arguing for the pro-choice position here. I'm simply say that the "it's alive!!!" argument doesn't hold any water.

    This is a very difficult issue for libertarian ethics and I'm always interested to hear what both sides have to say about the issue.

  • Caleb||

    "So does killing a fly. That fly certainly has a body. Yet we don't have express moral outrage over exercising control over the fly's body. Clearly, having a body does not mean one has rights."

    That quality would be being a human. I agree that the "It's alive!!" arguement doesn't hold weight, but "It's alive and it's human" does.

  • DJK||

    Not really. Under a natural rights philosophy, I have every right to defend myself with lethal force. By someone violating one of my rights, I now have the freedom to violate their right to life. In some sense, that's the same as saying they don't have a right to life. Yet they're still human. So even being human doesn't cut it.

    You need something far more precise than saying that something is alive and human. I would say that some level of moral agency is required. And this is exactly the point at which we get into nuance and shades of grey and you find people arguing about when right to life does and does not come into existence.

    It's not nearly as simple of an issue as you've made it out to be.

  • Caleb||

    Exactly, you only have the right to violate their right to life in the occasion of self defense. Unless you want to criminalize pregnancy on the part of the unborn baby, he/she has not violated the right of the mother to live. Unless of course the issue is life of the mother, which is the only time I find an abortion to be justified.

  • DJK||

    You're still assuming that the fetus has a right to life, which I don't necessarily believe it does. I deal with that issue earlier in the comments. If you want to try to convince me that a fetus has a right to life, go ahead. But simply saying "it does! it does!" is not going to cut it.

  • Pulseguy||

    I disagree. And, you use the same false argument always used. Not many people object too strongly to zygotes being terminated. But, zygotes are seldom terminated. More often fetus's are terminated. These are not clumps of undifferentiated cells. They are little humanoid creatures that feel pain, and are alive.

  • DJK||

    Who gives a shit if they feel pain and are alive? Every single animal feels pain and is alive, yet we don't worry too much about slaughtering a cow for dinner. Being alive and feeling pain is clearly not enough to guarantee a right to life. You need to invoke another property. People usually say "being human". I don't think that argument holds any water, for the reasons outlined earlier in the comments. But it's at least not prima facie ludicrous like "they feel pain".

  • An0nB0t||

    So when the crypto-fascists were running about at peak retard a couple of weeks ago, I found myself digging around in my parents' garage looking for the family gun collection. Among other things, I found my first rifle, a Marlin Model 60 that my parents bought new for about $100. It hadn't been touched in about fifteen years and hadn't been shot in at least that long, but I brought it home, rehabilitated it, slapped on a scope, and have been happily plinking away at a homemade bullet trap ever since. Even found about a dozen federal lightning bricks that must be 35 years old. So thank you, Barry Obama and Dianne Feinstein, for reintroducing me to what must be the finest nail driver ever made.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He'll save children but not the British children.

  • mr simple||

    This makes me prouder to be an American.

  • some guy||

    I heard... mother-fucker had like... 30 god-damned dicks.

  • waaminn||

    When wil lthey ever realize that silly laws and bans are for honest folk lol

    www.Anon-Dis.tk

  • Rich||

    But you can't stop a drone with a BB gun.

    Why does any civilian need a BB gun?

  • Loki||

    You'll put your eye out!

  • Agile Cyborg||

    It never ceases to amaze me how little attention is paid by the general media to law enforcement/military abuses of power through the gun YET somehow the average citizen who can never be as widely violent or tactically impressive has been relegated into a shoddy thoughtless cretan who shouldn't be allowed access to weaponry.

    The political commentary over the gun issue tends to swerve toward the easiest target: the vulnerable citizen who can usually be easily jack-booted in submission.

    Shows how spineless most in the media are- let's attack the little guy and rarely ever give a fuck about the most corrupt and violent entities of them all; armed government.

    Good article, in spite of the fact that I have to overlook your assertion that my natural rights are derived from a silly creator- the which doesn't exist for me. No biggie, it's the overall thought that counts.

  • $park¥||

    the most corrupt and violent entities of them all; armed government.

    The government exists solely for your protection. That's why they're the only ones who should have guns. They would certainly never use their station and their power to abuse your rights, and if you think they would you're obviously some brainwashed militia nutjob.

  • some guy||

    Good article, in spite of the fact that I have to overlook your assertion that my natural rights are derived from a silly creator- the which doesn't exist for me.

    It works if you just consider your "creator" to be the laws of physics.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand. Rights cannot simply exist. They must come from somewhere. Since the creator is a myth, and rights must be granted by a higher power, rights must originate from government.
    Forget the idea that life, liberty and property existed before government, and that government was instituted to protect those things.
    No. None of those things existed until government granted them.
    Government is god.

  • Sosalty||

    Set aside the secularists phoebia about 'Creator.' God is only comprehensible in the 'spiritual' realm. So lots of substitutions for secularists can fit nicely/logical. 'Creator' for our Declaration of Indep implies "before creation; ie, before rulers thought they might take credit establishing rights." Why put a wall around religion? It's a giant part of understanding our past, even into the 1700's.

    That said, some can't make that leap and discussion dies. Depends on the target audience and communitive goal.

  • db||

    But it does nothing for the people who don't want to consider that. I'm sure many people who have a chance of being convinced by Napolitano's logic stumble over the religious parts, roll their eyes, and think he's just another kook. It's his Achilles' Heel.

  • some guy||

    Agreed.

  • db||

    Physical laws of the universe have no moral standing. If one relies on the moral authority of a creator being to make an argument, the same cannot be done with mathematics. One could say the mathematics are the description of the ground truth of the universe, but I find it hard to discover morality in them. Morality comes from self awareness and realizing that otgers are also self aware, and hence deserving of the respect one would want to receive himself.

  • some guy||

    Physical laws of the universe have no moral standing.

    They simply gave rise to our awareness and equality, which should be the basis of our morality.

  • DJK||

    This troubles me. The laws of physics certainly don't require that our morality develop the way it has. That's more an accident of our evolution than anything else. Meaning it could have easily ended up another way.

    I find it much better to rely on laws not grounded in physics. Scarcity, supply and demand, self-ownership, etc. They seem to have a much better footing and universality than the accidents of evolution.

  • Sosalty||

    Concerns me too. But the term "Creator" is there. Contexually, I believe 'Natural Law' or 'before societal institutions' came up with rights. I think when you allow humanity to define 'rights,' you're headed for statist control.

  • DJK||

    The point is that the whole concept of "natural rights" is a human invention. It simply doesn't exist outside of the human experience. The only way it comes about is from people thinking about natural rights as an ethical system, exploring it, finding its strengths and weaknesses, and see whether it's consistent with other things we know about our world, such as scarcity, supply and demand, etc.

  • dbobway||

    A part of the abortion discussion isn't coming up here.
    By permitting a woman to choose, are we not altering the basic purpose of human life which is to pro-create. Allowing abortion has changed the gender numbers in societies like China and India. It's like we may be altering time to our liking. I guess changing the human life through decsion making instead of it taking its natural course ,to me may be poisining the pot. It may be a some inbred morality in me, but unintended circumstances are what makes the world go round. And may be what keeps us around.

    To have man able to have the pull strings available to alter human life is dangerous. We fuck that up all the time.

  • DJK||

    You're not going to find that argument carrying much weight around here. People here generally take the view that only individual rights matter. Utilitarian consequences on the collective make us shrug and say "who cares?".

  • sarcasmic||

    Most major media requires cooperation from the police if they're going to report on crime stories.

    Do you think a media outlet that is critical of the police will get their cooperation?

    Do you think cops will let a 'crime beat' reporter to continue to ride along with them if it results in stories of routine callousness and brutality?

    It is in the media's self interest to whitewash police misconduct.

  • SugarFree||

    The belief that you own yourself doesn't require a creator, but is also a natural or pre-existing state.

  • Loki||

    Shows how spineless most in the media are- let's attack the little guy and rarely ever give a fuck about the most corrupt and violent entities of them all; armed government.

    Deep down they're bullies, or at least wish they were. So of course they go after the "little guy". The "big guys" (in this case the corrupt and violent government) can actually hurt you. As for the powerless proles - what are they gonna do about it?

  • ||

    Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?

    I love The Judge.

  • IceTrey||

    This disgusting article perfectly summarizes the lefts view on big government.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/2.....ixed_size/

  • WittyName||

    I hate being reminded of how utterly clueless they are.

  • FucktheNannyState||

    How many more has he personally killed? None that we know of.. He sure does feel safe when there are 20 people wielding guns who have his back. See, his life is more important than yours'. It's completely illogical and unreasonable for you to want that same type of personal protection. To gun-control nuts, it is morally superior to simply allow yourself to be victimized instead of fighting back

  • Tejicano||

    I grew up around "liberals" and never knew one who understood that only a person with a capacity for violence can truly choose the peaceful path. A person who has no capacity for violence can chose no other path - which is no choice at all, merely weakness.

  • ColinL||

    When looking at the comparison of abortion to murder, I look at another situation which I find similar. When one person's survival requires something another person has, generally limited-government minded people are of the opinion that the other person is not obligated to provide what is needed to the person in need; this is the primary reasoning around being against wealth-redistribution.

    I don't think women are obligated to provide gestation to another, even if the other requires it for survival.

    I find the comparison of abortion to murder as incomplete.

  • DJK||

    Sure. There's a bit of a difference here though. In the case where one person's survival requires something that the other person needs, it's generally not the case that the person needs that thing as a result of an action taken by the other person. Pregnancy is different; it's the result of an action taken by the mother.

    Say that I had put a person in the position of needing something from me in order to survive. Maybe I'm the only doctor in town and I shot them in the chest. I would say that I'm morally obligated to give the person what they need to survive as a result of my actions.

    I know this is not an exactly analogous situation. But it's food for thought.

    Usual disclaimer - I'm not taking a pro-life stance here. I just don't think that you're considering all the issues.

  • ColinL||

    This is a well-reasoned response.

    I would argue the difference is that without "an action" the possibility of survival would have been an invalid question altogether.

  • DJK||

    But the mother has taken an action which directly led to the situation we're moralizing about here. She put the fetus in the precarious position of depending on her for support.

  • DJK||

    Just a note. I don't find the line of argument I'm embarking on here fully convincing. The mother's moral culpability is not exactly the same as the doctor's. She didn't violate any rights in making the fetus dependent on her for survival, unless we want to claim that "creating a being in a creature hostile to its survival) is a rights violation. And I'm not quite sure I'm willing to go that far. ;-)

  • Liberty||

    Here's a scenario for you:
    Mexican terrorists start shooting rockets into America, killing American children. The USA military could go into Mexico and stop it. It would kill many Mexican kids in the process. Would cosmos oppose such an action? Would they just let the terrorists come and use their pathetic assault rifles against tanks and planes? I oppose imperialism. But I'm not a crazy pacifist who thinks that "violence is never the answer."

  • Calidissident||

    Is it your opinion that your hypothetical scenario is comparable to what the US government is doing in Pakistan and elsewhere?

  • Minarchism Leads To Freed||

    Inalienable or unalienable?

  • Sevo||

    The latter is the way it is written.

  • Minarchism Leads To Freed||

    That's what I thought. Does the Judge think our natural rights are inalienable?

  • zacherieshavell||

    just before I looked at the paycheck four $6609, I have faith that...my... brother woz actually making money in there spare time at there computar.. there neighbour has been doing this less than 15 months and just now cleard the dept on their place and purchased a new Ford. this is where I went,....... http://BIT40.com

  • zacherieshavell||

    before I looked at the bank draft for $7734, I have faith that...my... best friend woz like realy making money parttime at there computar.. there dads buddy has been doing this for less than 6 months and recently cleard the loans on their house and got a top of the range Nissan GT-R:. I went here........ http://BIT40.com

  • Sevo||

    "I went here"
    Yeah, but you're an idiot.

  • Somebody else||

    I tried to verify the 176 children number. I found one that CNN had up in Sept. 2012 from an independent source they trusted enough to quote (though I have never heard of them), but that was for the years 2004-2012. The other things I saw were on the types of websites that (probably not purposefully) would give the wrong impression with that information and make you think it was all Obama. I have a feeling that the number here might be wrong. Just a heads up.

  • jbolle||

    The hypocrisy of the left sickens me... How quickly the headlines from the "Fast and Furious" operation have been swept out the media! I cannot see how the Obama Administration is able to escape criticism for hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent deaths that resulted from a program with the sole intention of placing AK47 ASSAULT RIFLES IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS! Then less than one year later turn around and attempt to justify taking the very same guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I guess the second amendment only applies to criminal enterprises.

  • ygsrf||

    NFL,NBA,2013 Fashion kickoff for u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement